In my opinion, it is the accretion of cases that is raising awareness.
That is, one can explain one case away (and the Ferguson case can be so explained), but when you get another, and then another, and yet another - it becomes more difficult. People start to pay more attention.
Fact is, these other cases are a lot more difficult to explain away - see upthread, where even US Conservative talking heads are starting to say there is a real problem.
“I can’t breathe” can also mean “I am having difficulty breathing”. In fact, if you are having difficulty breathing, it’s a hell of a lot easier to just say “I can’t breathe”.
No I get that just fine. You’re simply assuming your own lack of sympathy reflects what everyone feels. It does not.
Without the Ferguson protests, substantially fewer people would even know who Brown was, let alone be sympathetic to him. The protests created international attention. Forget about our country. The world is paying more attention to our police than it probably ever has before. If you can’t see the power in that then I question your ability to see.
It is inarguable they have. Go visit the thread in IHMOthat Shakes started. Take a look at the stats. There are about as many posters in that thread that think Brown’s death was unjustified as there was that say it was.
Go read the million page thread in the Pit about Ferguson. Do you think those who believe Brown’s death was injust would feel that way if there hadn’t been protests? They wouldn’t even know who Brown was. And the extreme militarization of the Ferguson PD would be unknown. We’d all be thinking that part of Missouri is Mayberry.
Because you are not a resident of Ferguson, that makes you an outsider. A statement of fact constitutes an ad hom in your world?
Question: what meaning did the coroner’s determination of homicide as cause of death have, legally?
Sure. That may not eliminate liability for the death, but it’s not “deadly force,” as that term is used in law.
Do you have a cite for that? This article says:
The cause of death was given as this:
So the choke hold is only one of three things cited. I’m certainly no doctor, but from a layman’s perspective, it seems like it would be extremely difficult to directly link Garner’s death to the choke hold beyond a reasonable doubt. Garner was not “choked to death” as a lot of places are saying. He died 10-15 minutes after being placed in a choke hold for at most 10-15 seconds.
“Homicide” means the death was directly caused by another person. It does not mean the death was the result of a crime. It is a manner of death- the other options are suicide, accidental, natural causes and undetermined/unknown.
Disagree.
As astorian has already cited, plenty of conservatives see the cases as distinctly different. I caught a few minutes of Rush Limbaugh in the car today, and he seemed to agree.
Speaking for myself, in the Ferguson case, I think the cop acted poorly, but (AFAICT) nowhere near criminally, and the protests and riots made me think worse, not better of Brown and his community.
In the Garner case, I am shocked and appalled that the cops weren’t indicted, and pray to god the feds can get them.
Agreed.
I’m surprised as well. Of course, I didn’t hear all the evidence, but since probable cause is a low standard, it seems to me that a decision not to indict was based on other factors beyond simply the presence of probable cause.
Mr. Mace: “He died because he was resisting arrest.”
Er, this would be incorrect. He died because of a chokehold and another cop on his head that resulted in asphyxia. 
At any rate, I gather many people are entirely and possibly blissfully unaware of the legal truth that a person may lawfully resist an unlawful arrest. They are not required to “go limp” as you put it. One is not necessarily committing an unlawful act by resisting arrest.
“… the cops had a legitimate reason to arrest him…”
You seem to be making a legal or factual determination without pointing to any basis for it. Someone might argue that he was violating the law by engaging in “disorderly conduct” for arguing with the police about whether he was or was not unlawfully selling single cigarettes.
“You make it sound like it was a routine arrest…”
It was in no way routine. While there was a reason to issue him a civil citation; there was no discernible valid basis for arrest. (We may for the sake of the subargument ignore everything that occurred after that decision was made.)
Has this defense been used successfully with any frequency in court cases?
At common law, this was true. But today, the majority of states have abrogated that common law privilege, and in those states you cannot legally resist an unlawful arrest.
Atwater v. Lago Vista. An arrest for a offense that normally gains only a citation does not offend the Constitution.
And New York is one of the states that has statutorily abrogated the right to resist an illegal arrest.
Cites on request.
Got a cite for the contrary claim, Fallen?
I probably shouldn’t admit this 
but I have a sneaking suspicion this is happening because they don’t want to look like complete assholes after Mike Brown.
The sad (and underreported) story about Aiyana Stanley-Jones is also in the news this week. Not to mention 12-year-old Tamir Rice.
…
Personally, I suspect the focus on the hold is because of the autopsy report indicating that it was a factor in his death.
Who gives a shit? That’s how it should be!
Be sympathetic to Garner and any of the other clear cases of police overstepping on other African Americans but Brown was NOT one of them. He’s dead because he was a thug who tried to “keep it real” but it went bad.