11 Facts About the Eric Garner Case the Media Won't Tell You

[jc456]

hen why did you make the statement to use his inhaler?

Asthmatics aren't in the habit of forgetting their inhalers.

so, what does that have to do with your statement. You don't know that he had one yet you said use it. Making up stories as we go along. what about the CPR, you didn't answer my question!!!

 

[georgephillip]

Do you administer it to a breathing person?

Depends.
If the victim has a pulse but is not breathing properly you should perform rescue breathing without any chest compressions. Did you notice NYPD perform any rescue breathing attempts?

 

[georgephillip]

so, what does that have to do with your statement. You don't know that he had one yet you said use it. Making up stories as we go along. what about the CPR, you didn't answer my question!!!

I'm not making up anything.
Asthmatics are not in the habit of forgetting their inhalers.
Whether or not Garner had his on the day of his homicide only the NYPD knows for sure, and they were too lazy (or racist) to perform CPR on their victim.

 

[georgephillip]

first off, get the facts. Second read them. Third understand what CPR is.

What facts do you know about this case I don't?

 

[Clementine]

hen why did you make the statement to use his inhaler?

Asthmatics aren't in the habit of forgetting their inhalers.

Then why didn't he or his wife tell police that he needed to use it?

 

[georgephillip]

Then why didn't he or his wife tell police that he needed to use it?

How do you know for sure his wife was there?

 

[ChrisL]

Then why didn't he or his wife tell police that he needed to use it?

How do you know for sure his wife was there?

What I would like to know is, why do you want to think the absolute worst about people? Instead of giving the man the benefit of the doubt (you know, INNOCENT until proven guilty?), you are here condemning him and pretty much the entire police force based on a video that may or may not have been edited.

It's almost as if some of you WANT your paranoid delusions to be reality.

 

[JFK_USA]

Police have guns. So the last thing they want happening is a guy who's resisting arrest gain control of their gun and end up shooting them. This has happened many times in the past. So when someone resists arrest, things are going to get rough and very physical. He will be thrown to the down, and they will pile on him until he's totally subdued and handcuffed.

The cops were following police procedure. It's heartbreaking to see what happened to Garner, but it is Garner that instigated the whole situation.

Except a chokehold is not police procedure so fail!

 

[JFK_USA]

And, in fifty years, what has the left helped with that has made it better?

"President Lyndon Johnson signs the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law, abolishing racial segregation in the United States."
July 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So again, for the stupid on here, what has changed since this? Are there not still inner city violence as there has always been. Is crime down? Are there still unnecessary deaths? And yet you all come on here and scream bloody BS about two criminals. doesn't matter their color, two criminals who died because they didn't follow the authority of the cops. I don't know, but to stay alive, I see one direction to take. AGain, the stupid on here is overwhelming.

Are you kidding me? He was just standing there. You conservatives talk about the government taking away your guns and that if they were to come (which they won't) you will not submit to them and you will fight them.

However, when it comes to a black person, they must submit to authority for whatever bullshit reason they come up with and they should just take it and if they die by the hands of a police officer using an illegal procedure, that's okay because they deserved it.

Don't you see the hypocrisy? You won't take any bullshit from the government for whatever made up reason you come up with to justify you feeling "oppressed" but when it comes to actual oppression and injustice by government agents, you don't give a shit because it's not you who gets that kind of treatment, it's African-Americans. As long as it's them and not "your team", you don't care how the government oppresses them.

 

[georgephillip]

What I would like to know is, why do you want to think the absolute worst about people? Instead of giving the man the benefit of the doubt (you know, INNOCENT until proven guilty?),

The GJ decision in this case slammed the door shut on proving guilt when it ruled no criminal trial was required, and it's not as if the offending officer in Garner's death hasn't been charged with similar offenses in the past.

 

[Clementine]

Then why didn't he or his wife tell police that he needed to use it?

How do you know for sure his wife was there?

The way she and many others make accusations as if they know more than the Grand Jury, I thought everyone was there watching. Unless people are just making assumptions.

You think the GJ unfairly stopped a trial. Fact is that they listened to all of the evidence and there was no evidence of wrong doing and, therefore, prosecutors have no case. They need proof before accusing someone of a serious crime.

 

[georgephillip]

You think the GJ unfairly stopped a trial. Fact is that they listened to all of the evidence and there was no evidence of wrong doing and, therefore, prosecutors have no case. They need proof before accusing someone of a serious crime.

The listened to all the evidence the DA provided, which in a case involving possible police misconduct doesn't mean the GJ saw all relevant evidence,

 

[Clementine]

You think the GJ unfairly stopped a trial. Fact is that they listened to all of the evidence and there was no evidence of wrong doing and, therefore, prosecutors have no case. They need proof before accusing someone of a serious crime.

The listened to all the evidence the DA provided, which in a case involving possible police misconduct doesn't mean the GJ saw all relevant evidence,

So you assume that a DA has no desire to make a name for themselves by prosecuting? I've never known a DA to back down and, if anything, tend to exaggerate the evidence to get a conviction. A lot of innocent people get put away due to crappy circumstantial evidence. The DA had to know that the case would be under close scrutiny and that meant no playing games. When the public is watching this closely, they go by the book.

 

[ChrisL]

And, in fifty years, what has the left helped with that has made it better?

"President Lyndon Johnson signs the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law, abolishing racial segregation in the United States."
July 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So again, for the stupid on here, what has changed since this? Are there not still inner city violence as there has always been. Is crime down? Are there still unnecessary deaths? And yet you all come on here and scream bloody BS about two criminals. doesn't matter their color, two criminals who died because they didn't follow the authority of the cops. I don't know, but to stay alive, I see one direction to take. AGain, the stupid on here is overwhelming.

Are you kidding me? He was just standing there. You conservatives talk about the government taking away your guns and that if they were to come (which they won't) you will not submit to them and you will fight them.

However, when it comes to a black person, they must submit to authority for whatever bullshit reason they come up with and they should just take it and if they die by the hands of a police officer using an illegal procedure, that's okay because they deserved it.

Don't you see the hypocrisy? You won't take any bullshit from the government for whatever made up reason you come up with to justify you feeling "oppressed" but when it comes to actual oppression and injustice by government agents, you don't give a shit because it's not you who gets that kind of treatment, it's African-Americans. As long as it's them and not "your team", you don't care how the government oppresses them.

The second amendment is a right! Selling "loosies" is not a right. There is no hypocrisy since practicing your second amendment right is not breaking the law.

 

[georgephillip]

So you assume that a DA has no desire to make a name for themselves by prosecuting? I've never known a DA to back down and, if anything, tend to exaggerate the evidence to get a conviction

DAs don't advance their careers by prosecuting cops, regardless of whether the cop is innocent or guilty. Hence, prosecutors make sure GJs see evidence that works against a conviction whenever it involves police officers. Since the evidence is often kept sealed, the public has no way of knowing what's been done in their name.

 

[Clementine]

So you assume that a DA has no desire to make a name for themselves by prosecuting? I've never known a DA to back down and, if anything, tend to exaggerate the evidence to get a conviction

DAs don't advance their careers by prosecuting cops, regardless of whether the cop is innocent or guilty. Hence, prosecutors make sure GJs see evidence that works against a conviction whenever it involves police officers. Since the evidence is often kept sealed, the public has no way of knowing what's been done in their name.

You are making assumptions and have no way of knowing what went on or what was presented. Cops have been taken down before. A corrupt cop is a liability that most precincts are happy to be rid of.

This case has been in the national, maybe international, news and they simply cannot afford to play dirty. Hiding evidence is not allowed under any circumstances. This isn't some routine case that nobody cares about. The country is watching and they would not get away with any cheating. Members of juries are allowed to go public and eventually we will hear about the evidence they were presented. The DA would be insane to protect a cop knowing that the public will know sooner or later.

 

[georgephillip]

The DA would be insane to protect a cop knowing that the public will know sooner or later.

How will the public learn what evidence the DA chose to present in the Eric Garner case?

 

[Clementine]

How will the public learn what evidence the DA chose to present in the Eric Garner case?

Jury members can talk about it.

Of course, right now they might be afraid because so many people have lost their minds over this and they'd likely receive death threats if the thugs knew who they were.

You seem to be assuming that all the people involved were conspiring to cover things up and protect a cop. They knew riots would ensue if the cop wasn't charged, but I am glad they followed procedure and didn't push this forward despite a lack of evidence.

There wasn't evidence that the cop intended to harm Garner. If he was using a method that was not allowed, his boss was right there at the scene and could have ordered him to stop. She did nothing. So, should the fault lie with the black cop in charge of the scene or would Sharpton excuse it?

 

[AntiParty]

1. There is no doubt that Garner was resisting an arrest for illegally selling untaxed cigarettes. Former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik put it succinctly: "You cannot resist arrest. If Eric Garner did not resist arrest, the outcome of this case would have been very different," he told Newsmax. "He wouldn't be dead today.

"Regardless of what the arrest was for, the officers don't have the ability to say, 'Well, this is a minor arrest, so we're just going to ignore you.'"

2. The video of the July 17 incident clearly shows Garner, an African-American, swatting away the arms of a white officer seeking to take him into custody, telling him: "Don't touch me!"

3. Garner, 43, had history of more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980, on charges including assault and grand larceny.

4. At the time of his death, Garner was out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession and false impersonation.

5. The chokehold that Patrolman Daniel Pantaleo put on Garner was reported to have contributed to his death. But Garner, who was 6-foot-3 and weighed 350 pounds, suffered from a number of health problems, including heart disease, severe asthma, diabetes, obesity, and sleep apnea. Pantaleo's attorney and police union officials argued that Garner's poor health was the main cause of his death.

6. Garner did not die at the scene of the confrontation. He suffered cardiac arrest in the ambulance taking him to the hospital and was pronounced dead about an hour later.

7. Much has been made of the fact that the use of chokeholds by police is prohibited in New York City. But officers reportedly still use them. Between 2009 and mid-2014, the Civilian Complaint Review Board received 1,128 chokehold allegations.

Patrick Lynch, president of the New York City Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, said: "It was clear that the officer's intention was to do nothing more than take Mr. Garner into custody as instructed, and that he used the takedown technique that he learned in the academy when Mr. Garner refused."

8. The grand jury began hearing the case on Sept. 29 and did not reach a decision until Wednesday, so there is much testimony that was presented that has not been made public.

9. The 23-member grand jury included nine non-white jurors.

10. In order to find Officer Pantaleo criminally negligent, the grand jury would have had to determine that he knew there was a "substantial risk" that Garner would have died due to the takedown.

11. Less than a month after Garner's death, Ramsey Orta, who shot the much-viewed videotape of the encounter, was indicted on weapons charges. Police alleged that Orta had slipped a .25-caliber handgun into a teenage accomplice's waistband outside a New York hotel.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/eric-garner-chokehold-grand-jury-police/2014/12/04/id/611058/#ixzz3KzEJ8JTk

\

Thanks for the information media won't tell us while posting a media link............pro..

I'm sure you meant MSM. I know, these small media organizations seem to have all the facts like David Koresh. The small amount of followers were the only smart ones

 

[georgephillip]

You seem to be assuming that all the people involved were conspiring to cover things up and protect a cop. They knew riots would ensue if the cop wasn't charged, but I am glad they followed procedure and didn't push this forward despite a lack of evidence.

If the video of Eric Garner's homicide isn't enough evidence for an indictment, what is? Such an indictment wouldn't presuppose a guilty verdict after the case went to trial, but it would allow defense and prosecution to present all evidence in a public courtroom.