No police protection for a week

Neutiquam

” if what they were doing is what the law permits, then it cannot go to trial” Circular reasoning, whether the law permits it should be determined at trial

At any rate: “Of course, protests should always be allowed,” As I said we agree!!

(It was forseeable as YW fan helfully provided: “He wheezed when he talked and could not walk a block without resting,” It was certainly forceeable when he began saying “I cant breathe” and they stood around not helping. If EMs was called then and he was treated, I MAY have had less of a case, but when you squeeze the life out of a obese man who “wheezed when he talked” and then stand around doing nothing, you don’t need a Medical degree to guess what will happen)

4. Garner had been arrested 31 times and eight of those had been for selling loosies. His rap sheet goes back decades and includes arrests for assault and grand larceny”

ubiquitin -“in the wild west theri was free reign to kill whomever you didnt like, we do not live in the wild west, that is why the police should be held to a standard and answer for their actions.”

That’s what the libs do -they deny the truth! At least in the Wild, Wild West you could carry a gun, these days only the perps carry! Then libs pervert the justice!

“you must have a different list of 7 mitzvos, mine doesnt include selling loose cigarettes. What on Earth are you talking about,.

Please don’t insult the Torah by dragging it in to defend your krum bloodthirsty shitos. Everybody from Reform going full circle to Neturei karta also claims they have the Torah on their side. If you have a source indicating that selling loose cigarettes or resisting arrest is punishable by the death penalty fine otherwise stop claiming to speak for Hashem.”

Sad that you claim that you’re right, by peverting the truth. Obviously you don’t think “assault and grand larceny” is part of the 7 mitzvos. Kol Haposel B’momo Poisel on your whole post!

I don’t get what everyone’s arguing about. Eric Garner resisted arrest, therefore the cops tried to arrest him. It took 5 cops to take him, the guy was huge. It’s unfortunate he died after the whole ordeal, however it didn’t have to be that way, had he not resisted arrest.

Health,

I’m not sure if you are serious, Garner wasn’t being arrested/killed for grand larceny. What does that have to do with anything? Are you aying becasue of his stealing in the past it allows for him to be killed?

If so, it would follow based on your “logic” that any body who stole ever can just be killed.

If it tuns out that Officers Ramos and Liu have ever stolen anything in their lives (even a shava perutah or less), ever been mevarech Hashem, gilui Arayos etc, then it is “very good” that they got shot!?

And you have the nerve to attribute this gross krumkeit to Hashem?

They had the right to arrest him. They did not set out to kill him, and at no point was there any action that would ordinarily kill, so, whilst you may believe there is a case to answer, please stop referring to ‘capital crimes’ or ‘death penalty’. It’s blatant straw manning, to borrow a phrase. So, even from a purely impartial standpoint (which I am not, but go with it), there is no question of this being murder, in any way deliberate. So if you wish, call them violent, or perhaps guilty of manslaughter (not that I believe they are).

Furthermore, while I’m at it, leave halacha out of this. It isn’t relevant as far as this argument is concerned. Everybody seems to be forgetting that the people involved aren’t jewish, and as such are mechuyav to have a legal system, and that’s it. So simply talk about this in terms of Din, that is, the Law of the United States of America, and avoid making ill-advised, often misinformed comments about Beis Din and the like.

Neutiquam

You have many comments in your last post worthy of rsponses, I will go in order:

– I am not using “murder” in the legal sense. They used waht you agree is “excesive force” which directly led to death. Legally it is probably negligent homicide.

– I agree regarding Halacha.

– It is not the exact same as in court, it doesnt need to be unanimous, odds are it was a heavily biased Jury in a borough were many are related to police officers. (I am of course making assumptions but hey so are you in your last paragraph.)

– “That is democracy, that is law. ” If the law is wrong then there is a moral duty to protest in some way *This is the point YW fan originally disagreed with*

– Whats amazing about this case is it is clear, it is on tape. What I find so frustrating about this story is thta after Fergusen which was largely a he said he said (or he said she said he said she said… if you count all the eyewitness accounts) I gave the benefit of the doubt to the grand jury. I thought, as Obama and other suggested that equipping police officers with cameras would solve these issues as events would be plain for all to see. Yet here we have tape of an unarmed nonthreatening person, literally with his hands up! jumped on and choked to death. The video is widely available and the perpetrators still got off scot free!

YW Fan,

almost definitely not.

YW fan glad to help (though we have covered this)

If he didnt have asthma they would be LESS culpable in murder. I gave an example of pushing on a person’s head. with a tiny bit of force. If by some freak accident a person died as a result of that, it wouldnt be murder, (maybe manslaughter). However if the persn was an infant with a open fontanelle (“soft spot”) you wouldnt say (I hope) well the baby’s physical condition led to its death.

Or (more direct nalagy) if I find a chronic COPD’R who is oxygen dependent and I clamp down on his oxygen supply watch him die as he gasps “I cant breathe” Would you say, well if he wasnt so sick clamping on oxygen wouldnt kill him so his medical issues are what casued death not my choking off his oxygen supply.

Netiquaim

– “You agree the law has been adhered to,”

I dont agree, Ive heard different reports regarding the “chokehold” ranging between “illegal” and “discouraged” I’ve avoided that line of argument simply because I’m not clear on the facts The the most leniant take i ahve heard is that it is “discouraged” do you know if anyone says it is a routine (encouraged?) use of force such as mace?

-“Can you please come up with a fairer system of choosing when to indict. “

No, that is not my job (thankfully).

– “despite them having far more access to the facts of the case than you have,”

I’m not sure what more evidence they can have than a videotape.

-“So feel free to protest.”

Again so you dont agree with YW fan (read the op) as I have been saying all along.

-“single episode involving a stupid man (I don’t wish to speak ill of the dead, but he shouldn’t have resisted)”

Agreed.

-“being stupid is not a crime”

It absolutely is if it leads to death! I’m not sure if driving with my eyes closed is illegal, though it certainly is stupid, If somebody dies as a result of that of course I committed a crime!

Question for You. (Depending on your age I guess) What did you think of say the OJ Simpson verdict?

YW fan

knowledge isnt always a factor. If I don’t know red means stop,I still get a ticket for driving through it.

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.

It absolutely is if it leads to death! I’m not sure if driving with my eyes closed is illegal, though it certainly is stupid, If somebody dies as a result of that of course I committed a crime!

It’s illegal. It’s called dangerous driving. And if it wasn’t illegal, and if there was no law against driving with ones eyes closed, and there was no law against causing death through negligence (that’s illegal too, it’s called culpable homicide or manslaughter), and if there was no law at all that you could be proven to have broken, then you would not be a criminal. You would be an idiot and an inconsiderate, dangerous, individual, but not a criminal. One is only a criminal if they have broken the law. For whatever reason, the officer in this case didn’t. Therefore, whilst I may believe he is stupid, he is still not a criminal.

Nequeim,

BTw in my comment regarding juries I use jury and grand jury interchangeably. This isnt accurate. The case of garner involved a grand jury. Grand juries dont get screened for bias and such. In a borough like Staten Island which is heavily populated by police officers and their families, it is not improbable tha the jury was biased. Even if they said hey I used to be a cop and I think cops shouldnt be indited they still can serve on a grand jury. Please keep that in mind as you evaluate whether a grand jury decision should be “doubtless”

Neutiquam

-“The facts were that a legal process determined by years of democracy was carried out”

Years of democracy doesnt make it right. ITs not like it is a sytem that is reevluated and fixed, it hasnt chnaged in quite some time, is arguably antiquitated and most of the Western world has dropped it.

-“it would have been even less likely he would be found guilty of a crime.”

I have no problem with that

-“You believe the Jury was wrong. It’s possible, I’ll grant you that”

Hence the protest, Now I think we agree more than we disagree. The discussion began over wether those who protest deserve police protection, You from the start agreed protest was accepable and now concede tha the Jury may have even been wrong! (Which arguably would demand for protest)

-“you have gone from calling it murder to manslaughter over the last few posts”

My view hasnt chanegd I just shifted from using a coloquial expression to legal as per your request. (I dont think i said manslaughter, it isnt manslaughter , I’d call it negligent homicide)

-“We have both got our colouring of the case from the media.”

I dont care for the media they have 24 hours of news o fill and their almost necer is 24 hours of news so they make stuff up to fill most of the time. I got my view on this case from watching the incident myself.

– you keep asking for a better system. I dont think that is my responsobility, but at your insistence sure! here is an idea lets screen out potential biased grand jurors. A reform that has been called for for years and now is being spoken of again thanks to this very case, and the PROTESTS that followed.

Neutiquam,

before your break i’d like ot thnak you for your time, it has been fun. You provided well written and thought out responses (unlike some other posters here, including myself as far as well-written goes). I think we agree more than we disagree as I’ve said in my last response (at this moment it is still in moderation)

Brings me back to late night yeshiva hock sessions which I miss.

All the best hope to see you back some time.

I hope you werent offended when I called you naive, I got caught up in the moment.

Thanks, it was a good debate. I wish I’d be able to answer your last post, but I’m calling it a day now.

But…

Whilst I think a jury could be wrong, I don’t think it was. I was just saying that that is what can and occasionally will happen in a free and fair system, hence OJ. But I explained why I believe the margin for error here is very small, as it was not a judgement call but a matter of law, and bias couldn’t practically make that much of a difference, unless they were set out from the beginning to find white men innocent. I also do not think this is a race issue.

I think it’s a bit much to pin the entire problem here on the juries. I think it is a bit too much to insinuate the juries are all biased, as those in charge of arranging them have processes, and even if they aren’t as extensive as in an actual trial, they do ward off bias.

And furthermore, if the officer was in clear contravention of the law, do you honestly believe it still would not go to trial? I trust a man whose profession is the law to guard his own integrity and follow the law, especially in a modern state like NY.

Manslaughter is culpable/negligible homicide, you just don’t call it that there in the USA.

And lastly, the video does not show the entire story. It doesn’t tell you what method of arresting someone is legal or not, it does not tell you what the law is when faced with this situation, and it does not say what happens when a police officer accidentally kills someone whilst arresting them. Those details, plus more, were considered in the court of law, and he was not found to have even possibly committed a crime, as it didn’t even go to trial. And had it, it would almost definitely have been not deemed a crime.

The system isn’t the problem. Neither are the police. What happened was a freak accident, a combination of many different factors including stupidity and medical issues, and that led to the death. He could not have resisted arrest. The police could have used a different tactic. He could not have had those medical issues. They could have realised the problem sooner. All mistakes, not brutality or racism. It’s not institutional, just unfortunate.

Anyway, that’s all from me. I’ll assume you disagree, have a good one!

popa may have written it

Lol, yes, we in the CR are all kind of skeptical about anything on Wikipedia.

Another very important factor here is that the grand jury saw the video with the officer’s explanation of what he was thinking as everything was occurring.

Yes, Sam and ubiquitin, I saw the video. It is far from conclusive to me.

Is that a chokehold or a headlock? The officer let go almost immediately after Garner first said “I can’t breathe”, and he kept on saying “I can’t breathe”. The coroner’s report said there was no throat damage. There was compression of the chest, but I, as a layman, don’t see lethal force to the chest. If his health issues were a contributing factor, was the officer supposed to think he might be killing him? If not (and it’s not at all apparent that he’s trying to kill him), is he legally responsible? I assume the grand jury had more of this information than you or I do.

Was the grand jury correct or incorrect? I’m not sure either way, but neither can I understand how any of you are sure.

Sam2 -“Health: You’re being ridiculous here. He does not have the Din of a Treifa unless he had a Psak Din L’misa.”

He does; even though there is no Psak. The US doesn’t keep the 7 Mitzvahs B’nai Noach so it doesn’t mean he goes scot free.

“Frankly, you’re sounding like you’ll disagree with anything just because a liberal says it. If a liberal says the sky is blue that doesn’t make it green. Just because you disagree with someone usually doesn’t make them always wrong. (And no one in this thread is claiming racism, just a case of police violence.)”

There is no cop brutality & the Jury said so! Laws aren’t based on the PC of the generation, but on morals, basically.

Health: Wrong. If you want someone to have a Din Treifa, there needs to be a P’sak Din L’misa. Would you call every Ba’al T’shuvah a Treifa? Heck, you just made the whole world Treifos, now it should be Muttar (Al Pi the Minchas Chinuch) to kill anyone to save your own life. Yasher Koach! You removed Mai Chazis.

DY: The goal might have been to get him on the ground. The outcome was that he was killed.

He was resisting arrest, for which force is necessary, and there wasn’t especially brutal force in that context (although honestly, as someone who doesn’t often watch violent scenes, the whole thing was disturbing to me). So I don’t see any imperative to indict.

Politically, these things usually get classified as a ham sandwich, but legally, I don’t know enough to think there was any kind of mistake. I don’t think you do either, unless maybe you’re a criminal lawyer (is that redundant?) and not telling us.

Gamanit

thanks i read that story but somehow skipped that line.

ubiquitin -“Health You have still not answered here is my question again:

“”If it tuns out that Officers Ramos and Liu have ever stolen anything in their lives (even a shava perutah or less), ever been mevarech Hashem, gilui Arayos etc, then it is “very good” that they got shot!?””

I’ll answer your question, even though it’s irrelevant! Yes, if they were Oiver the 7 Mitzvahs of B’nai Noach. I’ll repeat what I said before, “Why do libs always have to make the good people (cops) bad & the bad people good?”

Now I want to ask you a question – Did you agree with Sharpton when he said “Kill the Jews”?

The mob then did kill S/O! If not, what’s the difference between mobs?

Ok So when you can say “very good” when cops get killed, well you are right we dont belong to the same religion. Nobody I know from Open orthodoxy coming full circle to neturei karta agrees with you.

does healthism (or does your religion have a more creative name?) have many adherents? I would imagine the life expectancy in your religion isnt very high

As to your question:”Did you agree with Sharpton when he said “Kill the Jews”?”

Obviously not (did he actually say that? I have never heard that claim before, but no matter I’m not sure I agree with al sharpton ever, he is an evil person, though not as evil as people who call the murder of any inocen person let alone police officers “very good”)

“The mob then did kill S/O! If not, what’s the difference between mobs?”

I’m sorry I dont follow. which mob? in 91? Do you mean Charles Price? He was jailed for incitement.

Are you talking about something else?

ubiquitin -“Ok So when you can say “very good” when cops get killed, well you are right we dont belong to the same religion.”

You’re right, we don’t! You lie, just to make a point. I never said or claimed that. I wrote anybody who doesn’t keep the 7 Mitzvahs of B’nai Noach deserves death! I’m sorry that you have a problem with the Torah.

Self defense is different.

And I find it disturbing that you think it’s okay for anyone to kill evil people.

By the way, to what religion do you belong?