Justice for Eric Garner

Should Pantaleo face criminal charges?

  • Yes, he should face criminal charges for Eric Garner's death.

    Votes: 14 66.7%
  • No, losing his job is punishment enough.

    Votes: 2 9.5%
  • Unsure.

    Votes: 5 23.8%

  • Total voters
    21

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
76,793
46,030
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
#72
Sooo, the police should never be allowed to utilize lethal force when needed?
Sure, but you have to define "when needed." The officer is not the first or last word on that, and in this situation it was clearly not needed. The officer's subjective determination must also be objectively reasonable - and it was not.
 
Jul 2013
57,023
62,528
Nashville, TN
#73
Sure, but you have to define "when needed." The officer is not the first or last word on that, and in this situation it was clearly not needed. The officer's subjective determination must also be objectively reasonable - and it was not.
And the entire BLM movement was based on case after case of black suspects being killed when lesser force was all that was needed, proved in video after video.
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
76,793
46,030
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
#74
"A petty offense".

Nice to see that you finally, FINALLY admit that Mr Garner did something wrong.
I never denied it. I have said - and I continue to maintain - that it is irrelevant as a matter of law.
Nothing "justifies" what happened to Mr Garner.
Good. We are agreed, then.
If Mr Garner had followed the law that day, he would not have died that day...
We cannot be sure of that, of course. For all we know, the officer could have suspected or accused him of something he could not have been found guilty of beyond a reasonable doubt (and he never was, anyway), and could still have killed him. Garner has no responsibility here, because if nothing he did justified the officer's actions, then his own actions are irrelevant.
 
Likes: OldGaffer
Jul 2014
38,755
10,315
midwest
#75
I never denied it. I have said - and I continue to maintain - that it is irrelevant as a matter of law.

Good. We are agreed, then.

We cannot be sure of that, of course. For all we know, the officer could have suspected or accused him of something he could not have been found guilty of beyond a reasonable doubt (and he never was, anyway), and could still have killed him. Garner has no responsibility here, because if nothing he did justified the officer's actions, then his own actions are irrelevant.
OK, I'll rephrase it.

Mr Garner would have had a better chance of surviving that day had he obeyed the law.

His choice to violate the laws of New York City are what started it all, ya know...
 
Nov 2014
31,643
6,099
North Carolina
#76
The police officer, Daniel Pantaleo, who placed Eric Garner in a choke hold that resulted in his death, (July 2014) is being suspended from the NYPD. The police commissioner has to make the final decision of wheter he will be fired or not. While I am gratified to see him hopefully lose his job, I am also somewhat disappointed that he isn't going to face any criminal charges. He knew that the choke hold was illegal. He heard Eric Garner saying, "I can't breathe".
What do you folks think? Is losing his job punishment enough?
Not even close. Simply losing your job over something like this is not "justice". It's a mockery of it.

Manslaughter chargers are more than appropriate here. Garner was literally choked to death while pleading he couldn't breath. If this isn't recklessly causing the death of another human being than I don't know what the hell is.
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
76,793
46,030
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
#77
His choice to violate the laws of New York City are what started it all, ya know...
It does not matter. You could point to anything that "started it all." The officer's choice to choke Garner until he died was 100% unjustified by anything Garner did. Garner's "causative acts," as you would say, were superseded by the officer's use of deadly force. Nothing Garner did is proximate cause of anything. The only relevant actus reus was the officer's choking Garner to death, and the only relevant mens rea was the officer's choice to use deadly force when he was not the recipient of deadly force or its imminent use. Those things, not anything Garner did, caused Garner's death; the officer's acts, not Garner's, proximately caused Garner to die, and you cannot spin that by blaming Garner for setting into motion.
 
Jul 2014
38,755
10,315
midwest
#79
It does not matter. You could point to anything that "started it all." The officer's choice to choke Garner until he died was 100% unjustified by anything Garner did. Garner's "causative acts," as you would say, were superseded by the officer's use of deadly force. Nothing Garner did is proximate cause of anything. The only relevant actus reus was the officer's choking Garner to death, and the only relevant mens rea was the officer's choice to use deadly force when he was not the recipient of deadly force or its imminent use. Those things, not anything Garner did, caused Garner's death; the officer's acts, not Garner's, proximately caused Garner to die, and you cannot spin that by blaming Garner for setting into motion.
No reason to point to anything other than Mr Garners choice to break the law that day.

That's what "started it all".

Had he obeyed the law, he almost surely would have survived the day.

He made a bad decision and it started the events that ended up costing his life...
 

Similar Discussions