Nonsense. A police officer has no more right than Joe Blow on the street to lay hands on someone, except insofar as the citizenry delegates police authority to that officer. When the police department says “X is not allowed”, then X is not included within the scope of that delegation. Thus, a police officer who does X is no different than a some guy jumping out of an alley and doing X. In this case, X (a choke hold) is a clear criminal assault when done by the guy jumping out of the alley, and thus is the same thing done by the cop. Q.E.D.
Yes, that was the point I was making though.
The “moment of the (purported) arrest” being, for the purposes of discussion (and assuming, purely for the purposes of discussion, that the cops had never told him he was under arrest and why) the moment at which the cops physically laid hands on him to restrain him.
He never offered any resistance until that moment. There was, as you say, nothing to prevent the police from informing him of the reasons for, and the fact of, his arrest prior to that moment; and that being the case, the procedure of informing him was mandatory, to affect a legal arrest.
Who are you supposed to be directing this Ivory Tower BS to? The people who have to put up with the barrage day end and day out? People who don’t, as a rule, have any power or clout, and are often ignored when they do complain about it? It’s laughable that you even use the phrase “appropriate one”. What makes you or anyone else the arbiter of appropriateness?
I really don’t get this attitude. The people of Ferguson protested because they have good reason to believe the police unfairly killed one of their own…AGAIN. Unlike many of you, the protestors don’t believe one word from the cop who killed Brown. Consider the possibility, if you can, that they have good reason to disbelieve the cop. Enough is enough for them, and so they chose to protest this time rather than lie down and take another round of lies without fighting back.
Maybe outsiders like you don’t think Brown wasn’t clear-cut enough to warrant a protest. But unless you’re more experienced than they are with the brand of police brutality that they’ve been living with, why should your opinion matter more than theirs?
We live in authoritarian state? Cite?
That authoritarian state is a creation of “the left.” Cite?
Cheating the state out of money is a “high crime” for which this man’s death is a fitting punishment as perceived by “the left.” Cite?
Again, you dropped a nice turd into this thread that was not on topic and nothing more than unsubstantiated, disingenuous rhetoric.
Unless you have superhuman hearing and are able to make out every single word uttered by the officers in the video (which for some strange reason that I’m sure is a coincidence is muffled and muted in comparison to Garner’s voice, and which is also missing a large chunk of the pre-chokehold events) then I don’t think you can say that he wasn’t verbally informed he was under arrest.
“Must… defend… police… defending… police… means… agreeing… with… a… (shudder) union… Norman, co-ordinate!..”
With Trayvon and Ferguson, I think the courts made the right call, but with this one, I find it highly questionable that it didn’t go to indictment.
There is absolutely no law prohibiting a police officer in the state of New York, nor the city of New York, from using a chokehold to subdue a subject resisting arrest. As cited above,
The rule against chokeholds is an administrative policy of the New York Police Department. Violating an administrative policy does not constitute “criminal assault”, and the grand jury would appear to agree.
Correct.
Incorrect.
Incorrect, since one of your premises was incorrect.
Because I am. I appointed myself. Just like you appointed yourself to make the opposite point.
That’s what we do in a forum entitled “great debates”. What a shock! :eek:
I am not discussing the reactions of the good folks of Ferguson. I am talking about the reactions of the rest of us - what made this case a national, indeed international, issue, raising concerns about such things as race and appropriate policing generally.
Local stuff is for locals. This reaction to this case has gone beyond the local - or do you deny it?
For this purpose, one of the other two cases would have been better as a cause célèbre.
I am, however, glad to see your reactions - if my arguments are attacked irrationally from the left as well as the right in the very same thread, I must be doing something right. 
Well, now that you have stipulated that a cop has no special privilege to use a chokehold that is not equally available to John Q. Nobody, there’s nothing more to discuss – you’ve conceded the entire argument.
’
Hence in the part you yourself quoted I say as follows:
Correct, but incomplete.
You’re right to point out that the police cannot, by administrative fiat, create a crime by regulation.
But it’s certainly possible – not QED, as Steve MB tried, but simply possible – that an officer violating an administrative regulation is acting with unreasonable force, and thus transforms his privileged use of force into an assault.
Nonsense. The police officer has no special privileges except those which are granted as an employee of the police department (which in turn obtains them by delegation from the public). The police department has in this case specifically precluded this particular privilege.
There never was a possibility that the use of force was “privileged”, since the particular use of force in question was clearly and specifically precluded by the source (the police department) from which such “privilege” might have been obtained.
(Oh, and don’t bother suggesting that the “privilege” might have appeared from some other source via emanations from a penumbra or some such. If a police officer might somehow obtain force-using “privileges” not available to the common citizen from some mysterious source other than delegation via the police department, then any and all use-of-force guidelines issued by police departments are meaningless. Relying on an interpretation that requires you to insist that a well-established body of laws and regulations is in fact meaningless isn’t a hill you want to die on.)
On the contrary.
There is nothing about a chokehold that is per se illegal. John Q has no privilege to assault you, period. The officer has a general privilege to act Ina way that would otherwise be assault. The chokehold, standing alone, does not AS A MATTER OF LAW constitute per se criminality, even if prohibited by regulation.
That’s not to say that it’s per se privileged, either.
The privilege does not arise from department regulation.
Let me say it a different way. How about they don’t pick the worst case possible? The one where the dead guy just robbed a convenience store, attacked the officer in his car and returned to continue the attack even after getting shot in said car?
How about one of the cases where the dead guy wasn’t a threat to the officer, was complying and was shot and killed any way? These cases exist, and have for many many years but for some reason everyone decided to “burn this bitch down!” over a lawbreaking thug?
There’s no bar on bringing a case before a grand jury a second time; sufficient public outrage could induce such a thing.
That doesn’t make it criminal.
The common law and statutory law grant the privilege to police of using force to make an arrest. That is the difference between police and the public.
The law does not preclude a chokehold. The fact that police regulation does cannot alone create a crime.
That is the law.