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

Well, now, you’re talking about a career criminal, a thug and a gangster, selling a deadly product on the street and savagely, brutally resisting arrest! He’s dead, the system works!

Your definition says nothing about arrests, so this belief doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the definition.

Just for the sake of argument, or to kill time, assume that a prosecutor, in court, before a judge, while the jury was present, referred to a defendant as a “career criminal”. Would the defense have a legitimate/legal (not sure what would be the correct term?) objection to the prosecutor’s use of the term?

Also assume (in your spare time) that the defendant was facing a charge where the penalty increased with the number of times the defendant had been previously found guilty. (1st offense = 90 day, 2nd conviction for the same offense = 180 days, 3rd conviction for the same offense = life.)

When a criminal becomes a career criminal does (s)he lose amateur status for purposes of Olympic eligibility?

Need answer fast.

I believe they are banned from competing but are automatically qualified as officials.

I can’t seem to find anything covering this situation in the “internet book of allowable terms”. I can’t even find such a book. Maybe you could write one? In the mean time, I believe Eric Garner deserves to be referred to as a career criminal. You, of course, should feel free to refer to him as anything you wish.

You’ve shifted from trying to factually assert that Garner is a “career criminal” as if this was obvious to all to saying it’s just your opinion while offering zero evidence in support. As a hint – arrests wouldn’t tell us anything about whether someone is a career criminal, or even a criminal of any kind… because an arrest doesn’t mean someone did anything wrong necessarily. Probable cause doesn’t equal guilty.

So fine, you think he’s a career criminal because he’s been arrested a bunch. I don’t see how those go together at all, but feel free to link unrelated facts in order to demean a dead man.

An absolutely legitimate objection. Language like that has no place at trial, and an objection to its use would certainly be sustained.

Even if the accused had dozens of prior convictions, prior bad acts are generally inadmissible at a trial. (Details and nuances available on request).

In this case, of course, we seem to be talking about arrests and not convictions, which even further enervates the already sparse rationale.

Typically in such cases, the jury is first asked to find the facts proving guilt for the current offense, and then, only if they do, are they given evidence about prior convictions.

And when such evidence is given, it’s always “Mr. Green was convicted in August 2004 of larceny in the second degree,” and never “Mr. Green is a career criminal.”

It’s a shame that Garner died. I don’t believe Garner had to die that day but Garner could have made better choices.

Garner has been arrested some 32 times. Garner’s actual arrest record hasn’t been made public (but I understand it’s available for a cost). Garner has made some bad choices in his life. Garner made an especially bad choice when he ignored his medical history and chose to resist arrest.

Garner’s arrest record makes him a habitual offender. Garner’s decision to resist arrest makes him stupid and now he’s dead.

Thanks for the info. The term is not permissible in court.

Could the police officers involved have made better choices, too?

Better for themselves, sure. I suspect that Garner would have died even if they had not used the choke. Then, perhaps, the cries for indictment might have been marginally more subdued. Perhaps.


According to the ME, the chokehold contributed to his death. In addition, he might have lived had they not cuffed him face down while putting weight on his back.

You first - Did Garner make the best choice?

Yes, and I explained why.

I don’t want them saying that x specific officer needs to go to jail. That is dangerous to the entire justice system and democracy itself. It’s the abject mob rule that the founders and even the ancient Greeks feared.

I didn’t leave it vague as to why I did, it was explained in detail.

Is it okay to bash Republicans (i.e. “Stupid Republican idea of the day” threads) because of a vocal minority of Republicans that say stupid, objectionable shit? I actually think it is, and I’m a Republican. We need to own the Axis of Stupidity that dominates the public perception of our party, and I accept that. There is no loud voice for my restrained brand of Republican politics and because of that we are (properly) heavily portrayed as being all Tea Party types. That’s reality.

To answer, yes, if a community allows itself to be portrayed in an entirely stupid way in the media they deserve communal condemnation. I mean no one has a problem with bashing “white America” or even American in general for its ills, myself included.

That’s like people that are against gay marriage saying they’re against it because it deprives them of the right to be free from living in a society that allows gay marriage. When these people advocate for systemic changes, great, more power to them. I have no real care about that. But when their talk is dominated by calls for specific prosecutions then they’re subverting the entire criminal justice system and acting with the same mentality as a lynch mob. This thread is actually about a specific cop, and why he must be sent to prison because of BLACK FREEDOM!!! zomg.


Agreed, but you would probably not go on to say that “this means one thing we must do to rectify it is prosecute cops whom prosecutors know they cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt committed a crime”, or to say that “regardless of all that bullshit legalese, these cops need to be in prison.”

MMA refs stop a fight when one side cannot defend themselves, which is a judgment call but will often be relatively shortly into a choke. Blood chokes often do not require more than few moments to render someone unconscious, Judo guys can put someone under in less than 4 seconds (I’ve seen people choked in mid air during a throw land unconscious from the choke, but that’s utilizing part of the uniform itself and not a naked choke.)

Garner didn’t die from being choked out to death, he was put in physical distress by that (i.e. heavy breathing, elevated heart rate etc) and then was finished by positional asphyxia. Unless you crush the trachea or something it’s all but impossible to kill anyone with a 7-8 second blood choke (the maximum duration the officer’s choke could have been applied.)

The best I’ve seen is the officer’s lawyer said that the autopsy showed no structural damage to the neck area.

Below forensic scientist Lawrence Koblinsky is commenting on the findings of the autopsy report. He and other experts have mentioned that the petechiae present was specifically caused by the choke hold.