No Indictment in Chokehold Death [W:1903,2680]

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

clownboy said:

Funny how you can read something and not understand it. Perhaps it would help you if it were quoted as it was written in the linked material... I bolded the sentence you snipped in your mind, all you saw was "volitional act" you didn't stick around for the qualifiers. You also seemed to skip over an important "or".

Click to expand...

Mmmm. So I skipped the important part (despite actually reading all of the definitions in the handbook). You, in contrast, seem to have missed that the ME declared Garner's death a homicide.

Yeesh.

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Visbek said:

My statement is accurate. Again, from the ME's handbook http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/hb_me.pdf

Natural—‘‘due solely or nearly totally to disease and/or the aging process.’’

Accident—‘‘there is little or no evidence that the injury or poisoning occurred with intent to harm or cause death. In essence, the fatal outcome
was unintentional.’’

Suicide—‘‘results from an injury or poisoning as a result of an intentional,self-inflicted act committed to do self-harm or cause the death of one’s
self.’’

Homicide—‘‘occurs when death results from...’’ an injury or poisoning or from ‘‘...a volitional act committed by another person to cause fear, harm, or death. Intent to cause death is a common element but is not required for classification as homicide.’’

Could not be determined—‘‘used when the information pointing to one manner of death is no more compelling than one or more other competing manners of death when all available information is considered.’’

Pending investigation—used when determination of manner depends on further information.


The ME did not declared Garner's death a homicide, not an accident. And yet again, I am not saying any of the officers actually wanted to kill Garner. It's that they made a deliberate choice to restrain Garner, and that action caused his death.

Do you really not understand this yet?

Click to expand...

You just posted that you know it doesn't have to be deliberate or intentional to be classified as being a homicide. A "deliberate choice to restrain" doesn't imply a "deliberate or intentional action to result in a homicide". For the love of God, stop.

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Hatuey said:

Okay, fine, they're not. I never claimed they were. I'm asking you whether a person hired by the medical examiner's office to relate the medical examiner's findings should be trusted.



Your comparisons are pretty weak. A medical examiner does not need to put a spin on his findings because his job is not dependent on public opinion. Actually, correction, it is dependent on public opinion to the extent that if he's caught relating false information through a spokesperson, they're never going to be hired again. Do you realize why your comparisons don't work?

A press secretary for the WH is hired because of its partisan nature is hired to put a positive spin on events. A PR person working for a company does the same thing. A PR person working for a medical examiner's office has no such reason. They're there to present findings and nothing else. Presenting something other than the findings would literally mean medical examiners would lose credibility. I actually WORK with marketing and PR persons and I can't believe you'd make such an oddly ridiculous comparison.

Do you realize that not all PR people are the same and some are hired to shield the people they represent? That's what the PR person for a medical examiner does. They're hired to present the findings and ensure that people don't decide to go after the medical examiners who actually proved their guilt.

Click to expand...

I work with PR people too. If you do as well, you would know that a PR person summing up a 27 page report isn't an official legal statement, correct? Maybe you don't.

Let's see the autopsy. And by the way, the ME's Office in NYC has been a mess for years...I'd like to see the autopsy itself. You all are repeating the words of a PR person.

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Visbek said:

Mmmm. So I skipped the important part (despite actually reading all of the definitions in the handbook). You, in contrast, seem to have missed that the ME declared Garner's death a homicide.

Yeesh.

Click to expand...

The naysayers are all in denial. All they have to do is watch the video to clearly see who killed whom.

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Gaius46 said:

Autopsy reports aren't publicly available so the chances of us ever seeing it are slim.

Click to expand...

His next of kin have it. They should release it.

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Visbek said:

So a wholly unattributed quote is authoritative... lol



It's not publicly released... and it's not like Joko has it either. Meanwhile, the version I quoted has been consistently cited by a wide variety of sources, whereas you have... nothing.

I mean, really. Are you genuinely going to dispute that the ME declared it a homicide?

Click to expand...

Well, considering Joko has been arguing your case the entire thread I thought you might see that we were going on his quote. To be fair I've seen his quote in other reporting. So, if you want to laugh, laugh at Joko.

The version you quote with authority is not used by any but one of the sources you've posted here, and again, not by the ME or anyone who has even claimed to see the autopsy report. Hint, the PA folks generally don't get to see the unreleased autopsy reports either. They are just told what info they have to provide and make it lay person understandable.

And no, I've not anywhere in this thread or others doubted that the ME declared it a homicide. What I have doubted are your characterization of what homicide means in this context and your insertion of bias and incorrect wording.

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

tres borrachos said:

Which is exactly what I told you when I corrected you. You said homicide was "intentional actions".

Click to expand...

...yes... intentional meaning "volitional..." as I've been trying to explain to you.

I also EXPLICITLY typed (numerous times and right from the start) that I did NOT accuse the officers of intending to kill Garner. It is that they chose a course of actions that led to his death. He wasn't run over by a truck whose brakes failed; he did not have a cardiac arrest by sheer coincidence when an officer was nearby; he didn't kill himself; the ME didn't punt. The ME declared it a homicide.

nobody denies that the officers were involved in the actions that resulted in his death.

Click to expand...

apdst did, which is why we went down this particular rabbit hole to begin with. http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...kehold-death-w-1903-a-207.html#post1064059490

Thanks for jumping in, though. It's been a fruitful discussion. :roll:

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Μολὼν λαβέ;1064060351 said:

The naysayers are all in denial. All they have to do is watch the video to clearly see who killed whom.

Click to expand...

I don't think there was ever any doubt as to who the players were, was there?

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Visbek said:

...yes... intentional meaning "volitional..." as I've been trying to explain to you.

I also EXPLICITLY typed (numerous times and right from the start) that I did NOT accuse the officers of intending to kill Garner. It is that they chose a course of actions that led to his death. He wasn't run over by a truck whose brakes failed; he did not have a cardiac arrest by sheer coincidence when an officer was nearby; he didn't kill himself; the ME didn't punt. The ME declared it a homicide.



Clownboy did, which is why we went down this particular rabbit hole to begin with. http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...kehold-death-w-1903-a-207.html#post1064059490

Thanks for jumping in, though. It's been a fruitful discussion. :roll:

Click to expand...

And one more time, because you keep ignoring your own words in your links.

Homicide does not always mean "intentional", as you claimed. The ME declaring it a homicide does not mean it was an intentional death. You have to prove intent here - did the officer intend for him to die, yes or no?

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

tres borrachos said:

His next of kin have it. They should release it.

Click to expand...

I agree that they probably do and if they don't they can get it. Not sure what would motivate them to do so. Maybe during the civil trial though we'll probably be talking about something else and have forgotten this case by then.

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

tres borrachos said:

I work with PR people too. If you do as well, you would know that a PR person summing up a 27 page report isn't an official legal statement, correct? Maybe you don't.

Click to expand...

Do you? I'm surprised you'd make such a ridiculous comparison then. What firm do you work with? Edelman? W2O? It would seem you have the crazy idea that all PR people have the same types of jobs. However, getting back to the issue that's not what she did at all. She stated what the death was ruled a homicide. You can spin that 10 ways from Sunday but stating that the death was ruled a homicide means it was caused by someone else's actions. That you're trying to sit here and make every excuse possible to bring doubt to what she said - WHEN SHE HAS NO REASON TO MAKE IT UP - is just... mindblogging. I really thought you'd be far more reasonable than this.

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Visbek said:

...yes... intentional meaning "volitional..." as I've been trying to explain to you.

I also EXPLICITLY typed (numerous times and right from the start) that I did NOT accuse the officers of intending to kill Garner. It is that they chose a course of actions that led to his death. He wasn't run over by a truck whose brakes failed; he did not have a cardiac arrest by sheer coincidence when an officer was nearby; he didn't kill himself; the ME didn't punt. The ME declared it a homicide.



apdst did, which is why we went down this particular rabbit hole to begin with. http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...kehold-death-w-1903-a-207.html#post1064059490

Thanks for jumping in, though. It's been a fruitful discussion. :roll:

Click to expand...

tres borrachos said:

And one more time, because you keep ignoring your own words in your links.

Homicide does not always mean "intentional", as you claimed. The ME declaring it a homicide does not mean it was an intentional death. You have to prove intent here - did the officer intend for him to die, yes or no?

Click to expand...

Couldn't this be negligent homicide?

USlegal.com said:

Negligent homicide is the killing of another person through gross negligence or without malice. It often includes death that is the result of the negligent operation of a motor vehicle, which includes the operation of a boat or snowmobile. It is characterized as a death caused by death by conduct that grossly deviated from ordinary care. Negligent homicide may be charged as a lesser-included offense of manslaughter. It is also sometimes referred to as "involuntary manslaughter". State laws vary, so local law should be consulted for specific requirements.

...
(2) A person who violates subdivision (a) (1) of this section is guilty of a Class C felony.

(b) (1) A person who commits negligent homicide if he or she negligently causes the death of another person. A person who violates subdivision (b) (1) of this section is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

Click to expand...

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Visbek said:

My statement is accurate. Again, from the ME's handbook http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/hb_me.pdf

Natural—‘‘due solely or nearly totally to disease and/or the aging process.’’

Accident—‘‘there is little or no evidence that the injury or poisoning occurred with intent to harm or cause death. In essence, the fatal outcome
was unintentional.’’

Suicide—‘‘results from an injury or poisoning as a result of an intentional,self-inflicted act committed to do self-harm or cause the death of one’s
self.’’

Homicide—‘‘occurs when death results from...’’ an injury or poisoning or from ‘‘...a volitional act committed by another person to cause fear, harm, or death. Intent to cause death is a common element but is not required for classification as homicide.’’

Could not be determined—‘‘used when the information pointing to one manner of death is no more compelling than one or more other competing manners of death when all available information is considered.’’

Pending investigation—used when determination of manner depends on further information.


The ME did not declared Garner's death a homicide, not an accident. And yet again, I am not saying any of the officers actually wanted to kill Garner. It's that they made a deliberate choice to restrain Garner, and that action caused his death.

Do you really not understand this yet?

Click to expand...

You still aren't reading that correctly, have skipped over the word "or" and have somehow manufactured "deliberate" into the mix now.

Btw, had they just cuffed the guy standing and he died from stress induced heart attack on the spot, the autopsy may not have read "Natural", but still have read "Homicide". MEs do this sometimes to trigger a greater investigation into the events.

Here's that "or" you keep thinking is an "and":

Homicide—‘‘occurs when death results from...’’ an injury or poisoning or from ‘‘...a volitional act committed by another person to cause fear, harm, or death. Intent to cause death is a common element but is not required for classification as homicide.’’

Click to expand...

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Visbek said:

Mmmm. So I skipped the important part (despite actually reading all of the definitions in the handbook). You, in contrast, seem to have missed that the ME declared Garner's death a homicide.

Yeesh.

Click to expand...

And quote where I ever posted he didn't rule it as a homicide. That wasn't the discussion. I believe you did read all the material, once again I don't believe you put aside your bias long enough to understand what it says.

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Μολὼν λαβέ;1064060351 said:

The naysayers are all in denial. All they have to do is watch the video to clearly see who killed whom.

Click to expand...

:lamo

After 222 pages and someone is still without a clue. No, in fact, he doesn't die in the video, no one is killed in the video. The actions in the video are a few of the things that contributed to his death.

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Μολὼν λαβέ;1064060244 said:

Take off the blinders. The police officer killed Eric Garner. Deal with it.

Instigated a rush to justice? He was killed about four months ago.

Your bias is showing. Ever think there may be a special place in Hell for those who those who wish Hell on others?

Click to expand...

I'm not wearing blinders. No sir. But I have no doubt there will come a day that you will discover you are blind in one eye and can't see out of the other.

It doesn't matter that he was killed 4 months ago, the Grand Jury has been debating the case for over 9 weeks. And with their decision coming off the heels of Ferguson it was prime to milk this verdict for all it was worth for special interests, after all it was a white cop that subdued a black criminal that resulted in his death.
Today after Al Sharpton made a personal appearance with the widow of Garner, milking it for all he could get using her emotion to fuel it, he jotted off to another part of the country to do the eulogy at a funeral for another black man that was killed during an altercation with police with media coverage of course. Yeah, folks like Sharpton who like to be called Reverend, who use churches as a backdrop to promote hatred and discord among races, must have a special place in Hell with his name on it. I've attended the funerals of several officers who gave their life in law enforcement taken by some piece of slime who has no respect for life or the rule of law. I've heard the bagpipes played too many times over the years for these men. I have a niece in law enforcement. I know what she faces everyday on the job putting herself on the line to protect the innocent. I wonder how long it will be before she will be put into a position to be made a racist just for doing her job. Yeah there has to be a special place in Hell for people who provoke such divisiveness.

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Visbek said:

...yes... intentional meaning "volitional..." as I've been trying to explain to you.

I also EXPLICITLY typed (numerous times and right from the start) that I did NOT accuse the officers of intending to kill Garner. It is that they chose a course of actions that led to his death. He wasn't run over by a truck whose brakes failed; he did not have a cardiac arrest by sheer coincidence when an officer was nearby; he didn't kill himself; the ME didn't punt. The ME declared it a homicide.



apdst did, which is why we went down this particular rabbit hole to begin with. http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...kehold-death-w-1903-a-207.html#post1064059490

Thanks for jumping in, though. It's been a fruitful discussion. :roll:

Click to expand...

You are still refusing to read that fateful "or" in the definition. And there's a reason the manual uses the word "volitional" and not "intentional". They are not synonymous here.

Not only that, but it's NOT just a volitional act, but a "volitional act committed by another person to cause fear, harm, or death".

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

The crazy thing about all this, to me, is that the grand jury's job isn't to determine culpability, it is simply to determine if something happened that needs determination as to whether the guy involved was to blame. This particular case seems absolutely open and shut regarding that. It is simply baffling to me that a grand jury looked at the tape and said "nah, this doesn't have to go to trial." Utterly mind-boggling.

One thing that happened in both this case and the Ferguson case that is a major deviation from protocol is allowing the focus of the grand jury hearing -- the police officers involved -- to make statements to the grand jury. The cop in the Garner case talked for two hours to the grand jury about how he didn't mean to hurt Garner. Prosecutors simply don't treat cop defendants like regular defendants.

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Ockham said:

Couldn't this be negligent homicide?

Click to expand...

I would think so. I dont think the cop was purposely trying to kill Garner. But I do think he was "accidentally using lethal force" while not accidentally using overzealous force. He knew he was being too rough. He just didnt know it would cause death.

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Kobie said:

The crazy thing about all this, to me, is that the grand jury's job isn't to determine culpability, it is simply to determine if something happened that needs determination as to whether the guy involved was to blame. This particular case seems absolutely open and shut regarding that. It is simply baffling to me that a grand jury looked at the tape and said "nah, this doesn't have to go to trial." Utterly mind-boggling.

One thing that happened in both this case and the Ferguson case that is a major deviation from protocol is allowing the focus of the grand jury hearing -- the police officers involved -- to make statements to the grand jury. The cop in the Garner case talked for two hours to the grand jury about how he didn't mean to hurt Garner. Prosecutors simply don't treat cop defendants like regular defendants.

Click to expand...

First, that's not the grand jury's duty.

The grand jury's accusatory function is to determine whether or not there is probable cause to believe that one or more persons committed a certain offense

Click to expand...

It basically looks over the prosecutor's evidence and decides if it's sufficient for an indictment.

Second, we don't know for sure, but I think it's a given that the video wasn't the only piece of evidence they examined. There is quite a lot about the event that those videos do not cover. And yes, videos, as in more than the one we see everywhere.

That last paragraph is not true. And again, grand jurors are allowed to ask questions of the witnesses directly, there is no time constraint.

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

dirtpoorchris said:

I would think so. I dont think the cop was purposely trying to kill Garner. But I do think he was "accidentally using lethal force" while not accidentally using overzealous force. He knew he was being too rough. He just didnt know it would cause death.

Click to expand...

You think this because you have not seen the evidence. Perhaps you would still think that if you had, but it's doubtful as the GJ is 23 strong, racially diverse and their decision to not indict was unanimous.

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Gaius46 said:

I agree that they probably do and if they don't they can get it. Not sure what would motivate them to do so. Maybe during the civil trial though we'll probably be talking about something else and have forgotten this case by then.

Click to expand...

Well it seems I'm wrong. CNN says the family released the autopsy report to them. They've recited from the summary but nothing else.

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Gaius46 said:

Well it seems I'm wrong. CNN says the family released the autopsy report to them. They've recited from the summary but nothing else.

Click to expand...

Did they mention when they would release the entire thing?

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Kobie said:

The crazy thing about all this, to me, is that the grand jury's job isn't to determine culpability, it is simply to determine if something happened that needs determination as to whether the guy involved was to blame. This particular case seems absolutely open and shut regarding that. It is simply baffling to me that a grand jury looked at the tape and said "nah, this doesn't have to go to trial." Utterly mind-boggling.

One thing that happened in both this case and the Ferguson case that is a major deviation from protocol is allowing the focus of the grand jury hearing -- the police officers involved -- to make statements to the grand jury. The cop in the Garner case talked for two hours to the grand jury about how he didn't mean to hurt Garner. Prosecutors simply don't treat cop defendants like regular defendants.

Click to expand...

Yes "the tape" we have all seen recorded by his friend. Yet there are two other tapes recorded by two other by-standers that we haven't seen that the Grand Jury were privy to. The tape that was void of the altercation between the cop and Garner pushing him into a glass window of a business is not recorded on the tape made by his friend we have all seen. The officer trying to talk to Garner to co-operate with his arrest which grand jury testimony was confirmed by witnesses is not on the tape that Garner's friend created. But all of it may very well be on that videoed by two other by-standers along with the owner of the shop who witnessed it where the allocation took place. But when you got political groups, public officials in high positions, special interest groups, sending messages out that Grand Juries are racists, that prosecutors are racists, that cops are racists and can't be trusted, fueled by the media the distrust is overwhelming and unjustified/unfounded at this time.

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

vesper said:

Yes "the tape" we have all seen recorded by his friend. Yet there are two other tapes recorded by two other by-standers that we haven't seen that the Grand Jury were privy to. The tape that was void of the altercation between the cop and Garner pushing him into a glass window of a business is not recorded on the tape made by his friend we have all seen. The officer trying to talk to Garner to co-operate with his arrest which grand jury testimony was confirmed by witnesses is not on the tape that Garner's friend created. But all of it may very well be on that videoed by two other by-standers along with the owner of the shop who witnessed it where the allocation took place. But when you got political groups, public officials in high positions, special interest groups, sending messages out that Grand Juries are racists, that prosecutors are racists, that cops are racists and can't be trusted, fueled by the media the distrust is overwhelming and unjustified/unfounded at this time.

Click to expand...

Hundreds of times now armchair warriors have falsely claimed Mr. Garner was being arrested - and that he resisted that arrest. Then on that known false claim justify Mr. Garner's death with endless personal attacks against him for his weight. Blame the victim theory.

Who says that is a lie? The officer they claim jumped on him for their known false claim he was being arrested. The officer who did the chokehold himself stated his actions were to "detain" Garner to held for questioning. At no time was Mr. Garner told he was under arrest nor that he being arrested, and in fact he was not being arrested and was not arrested.

Nor has anything been shown Mr. Garner was told he was being detained.

But never mind the truth, they know what they are posting is always false every time they post it. Instead, they deliberately continue to incessant keep posting FALSELY that he was "resisting arrest" and then rant and lecture about the known false declaration.

I can not recall as much deliberate and incessant dishonesty, covert expressions of racism and ideological motivated ignorance posted upstairs as in this thread.