Grand Jury Decides Not To Indict Cop In Eric Garner Chokehold Case

[Hound]

Bailey, you commented a lot on the Martain/Zimmerman and Wilson/Brown cases as well. A lot of which could've construed as speculation on your part. I guess my point in all of this worthless babble is that. "On it's face" something stinks here. I'm also tired of seeing this awesome country ripped apart over stuff as stupid as ethnicity and race ( You're either a citizen or your not....end of story). Even though we've had our polite differences, I alone should be your reference that not everyone thinks as part of a heard mentality. Yet it continues to be the catalyst for many of these conversations.

This ^^^^

[Chad4000]

Well I know that if you are in your front yard and are confronted by someone and have an arguement and you DO NOT retreat to your house you can be hemmed up for menacing, if that person who confronted you is "Scared" that you might do something to them.

I also know that if a female decides they want to accuse you of doing anything inappropriately to them (looking at them the wrong way) it is a he-said she-said and the he WILL loose. just FYI

yup.. totally agree..

[Limited GM]

The taser may have killed him, but I believe the odds are in the officers favor of them complying when given the choice of hands behind or be tased. IMO, a video of being lit up looks far less damning than a dogpile of choking cops. *flair added.

[speedysst]

So we should only obey laws we agree with? That's a pretty dangerous stance.

That's a pretty dangerous stance. I hope it was sarcastic/satirical. There is a mile-long list of ridiculous, unconstitutional, or otherwise bullshit laws. What if all semi-auto rifles are federally banned from ownership because they look scary? Then you'll just gladly comply because you don't want to risk an encounter with the police? Stand up and find your spine, man!

[HoneyBadger]

So we should only obey laws we agree with? That's a pretty dangerous stance.

Within reason, yes. Just as you have the duty to disobey an unlawful order.

[Great-Kazoo]

Within reason, yes. Just as you have the duty to disobey an unlawful order.

Define Within Reason ? That's a subject for another thread, probably run 3 - 6 pgs itself.

[Chad4000]

So we should only obey laws we agree with? That's a pretty dangerous stance.

constitutional laws are a good start.

(not referencing this case, referencing what HB probably meant.)

[speedysst]

Hence the term UNLAWFUL order.

Within reason, yes. Just as you have the duty to disobey an unlawful order.

[Irving]

So we should only obey laws we agree with? That's a pretty dangerous stance.

We all only obey laws we agree with. I NEVER stop at the red lights on highway on ramps. NEVER. But when they day comes that I get pulled over for it, I'm not going to fist fight the cop over it. It doesn't matter what laws you obey or not, only how you handle being confronted about it.

[GilpinGuy]

I don't know man. Looks kinda bad for the cops here, based on the video I saw. But not in a racial way. If there's more to see/know I'd like to see it.

Video starts after man is down.

At the 4:40 mark, after EMS checks him out, an officer asks EMS, "He's breathing? He's got a pulse?" EMS states, "Yea yea yea."
At the 6:40 mark, after he's loaded on a stretcher, a bystander asks, "Why nobody doing CPR." Officer says, "Because he's breathing."

He's still breathing a full seven minutes after the cops cuffed him.
No Indictment.

So there IS more to the story. If the guy was breathing 7 minutes after he was taken down, he wasn't "choked to death" by the cop. Even if the choke hold may have aggravated the man's asthma, heart problems, etc., I don't see how he can be charged here. Discipline for the unallowed procedure? Yes.

Unless, of course, there is even more to the story.

Those that have dug their heels in might still refuse to see anything differently just like the Furguson d-bags. Once again, the left is successful at dividing us.