Why wasn't the police officer who killed Eric Garner indicted?

[Steophan]

@astorian

Just for a moment, forget about indictment. Let’s all assume, for a moment, to assume that Officer Pantaleo does’t deserve to go to prison.

Can even Panatleo’s supporters at least agree that Pantaleo screwed up royally and ought to be booted from the police force? That, intentioally or not, Pantaleo took dangerous actions that led to the death of a petty criminal who wasn’t doing anything NEARLY bad enough to deserve death?

I really want to know whether Pantaleo’s defenders just want to keep him out of jail or seriously believe he was justified in his actions.

I asked essentially the same question following the trial of the LA cops who beat Rodney King. Even if those cops didn’t belong in prison, couldn’t/shouldn’t the LAPD have taken acion to kick those guys off the force?

If the chokehold he used was legal under the circumstances, but forbidden by police policy, then it would be reasonable to expect disciplinary action by the police force, including being sacked. That’s assuming that the choke was used to effect an arrest, not in self defence - something I mainly mention with respect to other cases where self defence is a serious possibility. In a case where it’s justified self defence, then disciplinary action would be inappropriate.

In any case, like the Grand Jury, internal disciplinary action would be based on evidence that we have not necessarily seen.

[rat_avatar]

@Steophan

If the chokehold he used was legal under the circumstances, but forbidden by police policy, then it would be reasonable to expect disciplinary action by the police force, including being sacked. That’s assuming that the choke was used to effect an arrest, not in self defence - something I mainly mention with respect to other cases where self defence is a serious possibility. In a case where it’s justified self defence, then disciplinary action would be inappropriate.

In any case, like the Grand Jury, internal disciplinary action would be based on evidence that we have not necessarily seen.

Here is a bit of history for you…historically police chiefs used their power to fire police in very bad ways, firing police for any reason like even padding a time card with no recourse or review and this often ended that individuals entire career. Due to this historical abuse the police unions gained power in the disciplinary process over time. The unions have a vested interest in ensuring that single “mistakes” do not cost a member their career, even in cases like this that result in death. So while there may be a long disciplinary process it will not result in termination.

[UltraVires]

@Bricker

Huh?

If Officer Kripke arrests you for carrying a loaded weapon, handcuffs you pursuant to the arrest, and then learns that he was mistaken about the recently-changed requirements of state law, which now forbid only a loaded weapon with more than ten rounds (and you were carrying a loaded six-shot revolver) are you endorsing the claim that this is an assault or a battery in the criminal context?

It’s absolutely not. His reasonable mistake of fact negates his criminal intent – even though his knowingly and willingly touched you against your will.

I agree with Malthus here for the reasons he stated. I contend that it is unreasonable for an officer to arrest you for carrying a six-shooter when the law clearly and unambiguously states that the cut off is 10 rounds. That is a clear mistake of law and not a defense to battery.

[Smapti]

@astorian

Can even Panatleo’s supporters at least agree that Pantaleo screwed up royally and ought to be booted from the police force?

No, we can’t, because as far as I can tell he did nothing wrong aside from maybe temporarily applying a submission hold that is administratively prohibited.

That, intentioally or not, Pantaleo took dangerous actions that led to the death of a petty criminal who wasn’t doing anything NEARLY bad enough to deserve death?

Pantaleo didn’t kill Eric Garner. Eric Garner killed Eric Garner.

[rat_avatar]

@Smapti

No, we can’t, because as far as I can tell he did nothing wrong aside from maybe temporarily applying a submission hold that is administratively prohibited.

Pantaleo didn’t kill Eric Garner. Eric Garner killed Eric Garner.

No, a policy to use force to arrest small time tax cheats killed Eric Garner. He made a similar mistake as the officer did but unfortunately it cost him his life.

The question is why are we using force to arrest people for a tiny tax evasion crime?

[Smapti]

@rat_avatar

No, a policy to use force to arrest small time tax cheats killed Eric Garner.

No such policy exists.

The question is why are we using force to arrest people for a tiny tax evasion crime?

We aren’t unless they try to shove the cops away from them and refuse to be handcuffed.

[Czarcasm]

@Smapti

Pantaleo didn’t kill Eric Garner. Eric Garner killed Eric Garner.

Sticking with the Oliver Hardy Defense?

[Smapti]

@Czarcasm

Sticking with the Oliver Hardy Defense?

If Garner didn’t want to die, he should have complied with the officers instead of trying to fight. The cops didn’t know about his multiple medical problems - he did. He committed suicide by cop.

[Steophan]

@rat_avatar

Here is a bit of history for you…historically police chiefs used their power to fire police in very bad ways, firing police for any reason like even padding a time card with no recourse or review and this often ended that individuals entire career. Due to this historical abuse the police unions gained power in the disciplinary process over time. The unions have a vested interest in ensuring that single “mistakes” do not cost a member their career, even in cases like this that result in death. So while there may be a long disciplinary process it will not result in termination.

That’s not really relevant to what I think should happen, which was the question asked.

ETA The irony of lefties complaining about unions doing what they are designed to do is not lost on me.

[iiandyiiii]

@Smapti

No, we can’t, because as far as I can tell he did nothing wrong aside from maybe temporarily applying a submission hold that is administratively prohibited.

Are you saying that police standing around a dying man doing nothing to help him are doing nothing wrong?

[iiandyiiii]

@Smapti

If Garner didn’t want to die, he should have complied with the officers instead of trying to fight. The cops didn’t know about his multiple medical problems - he did. He committed suicide by cop.

The cops did know that he was in distress afterwards, and failed to try and save his life.

[Smapti]

@iiandyiiii

The cops did know that he was in distress afterwards, and failed to try and save his life.

Are NYPD cops legally obligated, or even equipped, to provide medical aid to a man in Garner’s condition?

[rat_avatar]

@Smapti

No such policy exists.
We aren’t unless they try to shove the cops away from them and refuse to be handcuffed.

Ah yes…because the responding officers did such an awesome job of de-escalation and minimizing use of force. They should teach their 5 on one aggressive posture and silent look of distain in crisis intervention training! :smack:

[Smapti]

@rat_avatar

Ah yes…because the responding officers did such an awesome job of de-escalation and minimizing use of force. They should teach their 5 on one aggressive posture and silent look of distain in crisis intervention training! :smack:

They neutralized the threat, which is their job.

[Czarcasm]

@Smapti

Are NYPD cops legally obligated, or even equipped, to provide medical aid to a man in Garner’s condition?

I remember you trying this same line in the thread about the Cleveland cops that stood around for four minutes after they shot that 12 year old child. The answer, of course is yes.

[Czarcasm]

@Smapti

If Garner didn’t want to die, he should have complied with the officers instead of trying to fight. The cops didn’t know about his multiple medical problems - he did. He committed suicide by cop.

Yep-That’s the Oliver Hardy Defense in a nutshell: “Now look what you made me do!”

[Bricker]

@jtgain

I agree with Malthus here for the reasons he stated. I contend that it is unreasonable for an officer to arrest you for carrying a six-shooter when the law clearly and unambiguously states that the cut off is 10 rounds. That is a clear mistake of law and not a defense to battery.

Can you point to any case in which a criminal conviction for such a thing has been sustained?

[rat_avatar]

@Smapti

They neutralized the threat, which is their job.

Under a police force that is militarized due to drug war/war on terror and institutionalized racism.

Heck one officer is even even wearing jackboots!!!

Are you seriously saying this is the only way to deal with tax evasion? Do they send five aggressive officers to applebee’s to take down a waiter who under-reports his tips?

Or how about the person who buys an item off craigslist but doesn’t pay sales tax? Do they get cornered and tackled?

Or are these people only a “threats” that need to be “neutralized” when the tax scofflaw is poor, mentally ill, or a person of color?

[Smapti]

@Czarcasm

I remember you trying this same line in the thread about the Cleveland cops that stood around for four minutes after they shot that 12 year old child. The answer, of course is yes.

Cite?

[Bricker]

@jtgain

I agree with Malthus here for the reasons he stated. I contend that it is unreasonable for an officer to arrest you for carrying a six-shooter when the law clearly and unambiguously states that the cut off is 10 rounds. That is a clear mistake of law and not a defense to battery.

It’s not simply the unambiguous law – I specified that the law had recently changed. So the question was, in my hypo, whether it was reasonable for the officer to be mistaken about a just-changed law.

So let’s take another hypothetical, one which isn’t a hypothetical at all, but actual facts from an actual case.

Jerry’s car gets into an accident – his car is wedged into another one. The police are called, and the officer summons a tow truck to detach them. Jerry refuses to pay the tow truck driver’s charge. The officer, attempting to mediate, advises Jerry he has to pay, and if he continues to refuse the officer will arrest him for defrauding a garage keeper. Jerry refuses, and the officer arrests him. Jerry is tried on the charge and acquitted; the officer mistakenly believed that the “defrauding a garage keeper” statute included the word “services” and made a crime of a motorist’s refusal to pay a garageman’s towing fee. It did not. As a matter of law, then, the conduct the officer witnessed did not constitute a crime.

Jerry then sues the officer, claiming both false imprisonment and an assault and battery as a result of the arrest.

I certainly can’t imagine you will claim that that the officer has civil immunity because of a good-faith mistake of law, but somehow is criminally liable. Right?