The law states that in a case such as this, the Prosecutor determines, through his choice of one of several processes, whether to indict. He chose the Grand Jury, probably the most open and clear of the available procedures. The Jury decided that there was no case to answer. Therefore the law has been adhered to. You admit to not knowing the legal status of the chokehold. Now, if the chokehold was illegal, he would have been charged. So we see that the status of the chokehold is contested, and the Prosecutors decision is probably the best authority to go on, and the Jury’s verdict is doubtless better informed that mine or yours’. The law has certainly been followed, as such adhered to.
You said earlier that the law is wrong, and that is why you must protest. Now, protesters usually push for reform, but you appear unclear as to the process, and freely say that you have no idea how the law can be improved. Basically, you see what you determine to be injustice, but don’t actually seem to know why, as it’s ‘not your job’. Well, how about we come up with a system for choosing people whose job it is to sort out these processes and implement them, maybe, I don’t know, getting together every few years to pick a guy to represent your interests in a wider forum, and call it, let’s think of something random, Congress? And then, the next time a contested situation such as this comes up, we can determine it using the processes thought up by those whose job it is to do so. Wait a second, that sounds familiar…
Furthermore, the Jury almost certainly had evidence not freely available, such as witness testimony, participant testimony, the ability to question those involved as to the justification for their actions, the relevant laws as presented by impartial experts, the relevant police policy presented by impartial experts, the medical reports from unbiased experts, and probably the extended videotape not available online, as well as character assessments and profiles on those involved. That enough for ya’?
And I will always support the right to protest, even if I believe there is nothing to protest about or that those protesting aren’t sure as to the aims of their protest (see above). As the quote often wrongly attributed to Voltaire goes, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. And I don;t think anybody here has as of yet disagreed with that explicitly (The first post does not count, it is obviously not literal).
And being stupid isn’t a crime, unlawfully killing someone is. And in this case, when looked at by a jury, it was not deemed to be unlawful. Therefore, it must be that the tactics used were deemed permitted for an officer arresting a non-compliant suspect to carry out. When I said they were stupid, I meant that common sense should have told them that this tactic, whilst not illegal, was probably unnecessary in that scenario.
And the officers had no way of knowing he had asthma, so to say they are more culpable because of this is going too far. They don’t have to consider possible ailments every time they arrest someone. It either makes them less culpable or doesn’t make a difference, but certainly not more.
And I am not clued in fully as to the events of the OJ trial, mainly because I’m not American. But the system then was not the system of today, and so saying that that case is evidence of a possible incorrect jury ruling is both conjecture and inaccurate.