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

[Chad4000]

This one is a tough one.
If I was on the Grand Jury, I'd indict; on a jury trial for murder/manslaughter, i'd acquit. On a civil trial, i'd pay out the family.
From my limited time as LEO, I know you can't go around the neck. After the initial resist, I would have gone to taser--which in the end probably would have killed him due to the health issues. The dude played a stupid game and won a stupid prize. In the end, I think Rand Paul is right...it's the politicians who screwed this guy over with excessive sin taxes.

ETA: Is that a wishy-washy enough answer?

I think I'm with you here...

[Chad4000]

This one is a tough one.
If I was on the Grand Jury, I'd indict; on a jury trial for murder/manslaughter, i'd acquit. On a civil trial, i'd pay out the family.
From my limited time as LEO, I know you can't go around the neck. After the initial resist, I would have gone to taser--which in the end probably would have killed him due to the health issues. The dude played a stupid game and won a stupid prize. In the end, I think Rand Paul is right...it's the politicians who screwed this guy over with excessive sin taxes.

ETA: Is that a wishy-washy enough answer?

I will also say that I would have used the taser too. im not an LEO, but you dont have to be (uh oh lol). if he dies while being tazed, that was a justifiable amount of force and tough break for the guy. breaking policy and using force that wasn't warranted is obviously where the issue is. dudes family will get rich, and it'll go away.

[Sawin]

This one is a tough one.
If I was on the Grand Jury, I'd indict; on a jury trial for murder/manslaughter, i'd acquit. On a civil trial, i'd pay out the family.
From my limited time as LEO, I know you can't go around the neck. After the initial resist, I would have gone to taser--which in the end probably would have killed him due to the health issues. The dude played a stupid game and won a stupid prize. In the end, I think Rand Paul is right...it's the politicians who screwed this guy over with excessive sin taxes.

ETA: Is that a wishy-washy enough answer?

Agreed.

[Dave_L]

All I know is that by not breaking the law, I stand a 99% chance of not being shot, killed, choked, tackled by a cop. I like those odds and intend to keep it that way.

[davsel]

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.

[HoneyBadger]

All I know is that by not breaking the law, I stand a 99% chance of not being shot, killed, choked, tackled by a cop. I like those odds and intend to keep it that way.

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!

[RblDiver]

Can't the Grand Jury only give a bill or no bill on the charges presented to them ?

My understanding is they were presented with murder charges against the cop .

so If I'm correct on both counts you have to ask "Was this MURDER?"

I have to reply No.

Someone called in to the Mandy Connell Show today and suggested this was likely the case. He claimed that in NYC, apparently the general procedure would be to have the grand jury rule on the murder charge, but a lesser manslaughter/negligent homicide would be at the prosecutor's discretion. So, charges could still arise from the incident.

Haven't watched the video myself, so I don't want to judge, but it sounds like something awry is up. I think the lack of transparency from the prosecutor (versus the total openness of Ferguson) is really hurting things. Hopefully they'll give more details here within a few days to help calm things down.

[Dave_L]

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!

I'm going to leave that alone. I know where my spine is. Thank you.

[rbeau30]

All I know is that by not breaking the law, I stand a 99% chance of not being shot, killed, choked, tackled by a cop. I like those odds and intend to keep it that way.

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

[Hound]

I like cops just fine. This world would be in chaos without them. It's just the Barney's out there that I have an issue with.
You keep trying to make all disagreements into a cop bashing thing to deflect the real discussion when I have said time and again most cops are not the issue.

I get it, Hound. You don't like cops and you don't like the way our legal system works. Yes, you're entitled to your opinion...even when it's a result of very little knowledge about an issue.

Still having problems reading are ya? You just HAVE to keep making my point. Here it is again:

Bailey/Kazoo..... Don't care what you have to say on this anymore than you will actually read what I have to say. You are always right in your own mind(s) and are the poster child of the wall I described.