Grand Jury will not indict officer for Eric Garner death

[Red Commissar]

The grand jury declined to indict the officer involved in killing Eric Garner on July 17th of this year, so he will not face trial over it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/nyregion/grand-jury-said-to-bring-no-charges-in-staten-island-chokehold-death-of-eric-garner.html


A Staten Island grand jury has voted not to bring criminal charges against the white New York City police officer at the center of the Eric Garner case, a person briefed on the matter said Wednesday.

The decision was reached on Wednesday after months of testimony including from the officer, Daniel Pantaleo, who used a chokehold to restrain Mr. Garner, an unarmed black man who died after a confrontation. It came less than two weeks after a grand jury in Ferguson, Mo., declined to bring charges against a white officer who fatally shot an unarmed black teenager, Michael Brown.


If you don't remember Eric Garner, he was the man the police killed in a chokehold, they later said they were trying to arrest him over selling cigarettes without paying a tax or something. The whole incident was captured on camera, the raw cut of which shows the police leaving Garner's body for several minutes before even attempting resuscitation.

The police union said that despite what the video shows, their officer did not do anything illegal and did not do a chokehold, and was the victim of a witchhunt or something stupid like that.

[consuming negativity]

The case exposed lapses in police tactics – chokeholds are banned by the Police Department’s own guidelines – and raised questions about the aggressive policing of minor offenses in a time of historically low crime. The officers, part of a plainclothes unit, suspected Mr. Garner of selling loose cigarettes on the street near the Staten Island Ferry Terminal, a complaint among local business owners.

it's nearly a laugh but it's really a cry :closedeyes:

[The Disillusionist]

I think the jury selection process needs to be examined, it seems to me like these juries are made up of idiots.

[Creative Destruction]

I think the jury selection process needs to be examined, it seems to me like these juries are made up of idiots.

it's the prosecutors more than the jurors themselves.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think the jury selection process needs to be examined, it seems to me like these juries are made up of idiots.

Juries are made of people who live in class society, and who mostly subscribe to one or the other form of bourgeois ideology (including the ridiculous notion that policemen are good guy everymen who want to protect the citizens but are hampered at every step by sinister politicians and oversensitive lawyers), and the people who are the most likely to show anger at incidents such as this - worker and impoverished blacks - are highly underrepresented in juries.


The police union said that despite what the video shows, their officer did not do anything illegal and did not do a chokehold, and was the victim of a witchhunt or something stupid like that.

Well, they were just looking out for one of their own. This just underlines how socialists need to be hostile to all police unions.

[hexaune]

it's the prosecutors more than the jurors themselves.

This. If the prosecutor doesn't want the person to be indicted they can subtly make sure that the jury will decline to indict.

[Sewer Socialist]

Juries are made of people who live in class society, and who mostly subscribe to one or the other form of bourgeois ideology (including the ridiculous notion that policemen are good guy everymen who want to protect the citizens but are hampered at every step by sinister politicians and oversensitive lawyers), and the people who are the most likely to show anger at incidents such as this - worker and impoverished blacks - are highly underrepresented in juries.

Well, they were just looking out for one of their own. This just underlines how socialists need to be hostile to all police unions.

With the cop-as-good-guy-held-back-by-red-tape being the cliche of every cop show on the airwaves, and there being at least one being broadcast at any point in time where I live, it's really not surprising.

[Bala Perdida]

I think the jury selection process needs to be examined, it seems to me like these juries are made up of idiots.
People not born into, or brought into, environments or mindsets hostile to police can be easily swayed. Like others said, they see police as good guy community reps. That being said, most of the people arguing against cops in these cases are drastically misrepresented. There is no utopian liberal jury, where each side is equally represented. Every argument brought against the cops is constantly attacked and debunked in the most confusing, and butchered manner possible. Basically, they make intellectually weak arguments, that average people find thought provoking. They sound informed, but they're just rearranging stories. It's just months of brainwashing, carried out by a team of police lawyers done against witnesses testimonies that are attacked once presented. They just gotta sway a majority, and the rest are forced to go along with it. It's like a 'youtube journalist' publishing their findings. Their viewers believe that bullshit like it's a fucking fact. When it's backed up by ideological morality, they argue for this shit with a strong passion.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The solution of adding wearable cameras to cops in order to address public trust is funny given that this entire incident was caught on camera and it had zero effect on the outcome anyhow

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

it's the prosecutors more than the jurors themselves.

That's what I don't understand. Who the hell selects the prosecution? Is it the State Attorney or something that the prosecution in all these cases are severely biased in favor of the accused defendant?

[Sewer Socialist]

That's what I don't understand. Who the hell selects the prosecution? Is it the State Attorney or something that the prosecution in all these cases are severely biased in favor of the accused defendant?

These prosecutors generally work to convict people who the police have arrested. In like 99% of cases, they are on the same side as the police, they work with the police to get their convictions, they rely on police testimony as infallible, etc.

They also disproportionately work to convict black people for the benefit of white people, they try to convict poor people for the benefit of rich people, they defend people's capital from those without, etc.

So when a poor black kid gets shot by a white cop, there is an unusual role reversal for the prosecutor. The prosecution does the bare minimum, trying to benefit the cop, which is called "throwing the case".

Prosecution and police work hand-in-glove.

What I don't understand, is why they don't at least convict a cop every once in a while, show that they go after the "bad apples," or whatever, and stave off all but the most militant people from causing a ruckus.

[consuming negativity]

These prosecutors generally work to convict people who the police have arrested. In like 99% of cases, they are on the same side as the police, they work with the police to get their convictions, they rely on police testimony as infallible, etc.

They also disproportionately work to convict black people for the benefit of white people, they try to convict poor people for the benefit of rich people, they defend people's capital from those without, etc.

So when a poor black kid gets shot by a white cop, there is an unusual role reversal for the prosecutor. The prosecution does the bare minimum, trying to benefit the cop, which is called "throwing the case".

Prosecution and police work hand-in-glove.

What I don't understand, is why they don't at least convict a cop every once in a while, show that they go after the "bad apples," or whatever, and stave off all but the most militant people from causing a ruckus.

because they actually believe that they're doing the right thing

well, that, or they think it's fucked up but they don't have a choice because they don't want the entire police department to want to target them when they not only live there but have to work with the same cops

[Slavic]

That's what I don't understand. Who the hell selects the prosecution? Is it the State Attorney or something that the prosecution in all these cases are severely biased in favor of the accused defendant?


In the United States, and in cases which involve the state, the Prosecutor is a locally elected potion which presisdes within their local county/city/state/district/etc.

ex.

District Attorney, County Prosecutor, City Attorney, State Attorney, all typically elected within their respective level of government; some are appointed though.

Federal Attorneys are appointed.

[Jimmie Higgins]

While part of it is the way juries are picked and part of it is the sort of careerist or beurocratic logic of prosecutors (yes, they need the support of cops to do their job and advance their careers more than they need to uphold "justice") even a "good jury" and a crusading prosecutor would have the legal cards stacked against them when putting a cop on trial.

Police and policing are highly protected in the u.s. And given carte Blanche. It is impossible to even bring up racial profiling or racism in a trial unless the cops says, "I'm arresting you for the sole reason that I hate black people". A cop can even say, "I hate black people, but that's not why I'm arresting you" and according to the Supreme Court, there would be no racial bias that could be presented in the trial.

The whole thing is tangled together as a system of popular (and specifically class and racial) control from the cop, to the jury pool, all the way to the prisons and the Supreme Court. It's a jim-crow like system that can't be untangled piecemeal. Not that reforms and challenges are unimportant, but it would take a black-power era level of struggle to even make inroads. And of course, this system doesn't exist in a vaccume, it is needed by the larger system of capitalism to discipline society for the interests of capital. So while a large movement can make inroads (in the 70s people like Angela Davis took it for granted that policing and prisons in the u.s. Would inevitably become less and less features of capitalism and we'd have something more like Scandinavian countries) the system will necessarily rebuild some new form of control and discipline unless it is overthrown.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What I don't understand, is why they don't at least convict a cop every once in a while, show that they go after the "bad apples," or whatever, and stave off all but the most militant people from causing a ruckus.

They may if what we are seeing now develops into a sustained movement. But I am also not surprised by how much our rulers are willing to risk their own legitimacy by defending cops.

There's some beurocratic logic at play (like you said with prosecutors being allies of cops for practical reasons) and that police departments are a big organization with it's own kind of internal culture and code and lawyers and "union" etc.

But also, to have neoliberalism, especially in austerity, a big police force and big prison system need to be maintained. They need to be more reliable than soldiers (because they are domestic and can't just be drafted) and so in order to maintain this loyalty and separation from the rest of the population they have to police, they are granted greater rights and entitlements than anyone else.

[Bala Perdida]

What I don't understand, is why they don't at least convict a cop every once in a while, show that they go after the "bad apples," or whatever, and stave off all but the most militant people from causing a ruckus.
Occasionally they give the killer 2 months. Either for manslaughter or an unrelated charge. I suspect this is for that reason, but they certainly still have privilege being left only with this.

[OzymandiasX]

What I don't understand, is why they don't at least convict a cop every once in a while, show that they go after the "bad apples," or whatever, and stave off all but the most militant people from causing a ruckus.

That might leave the impression that they're fallible. But as supposed defenders of the community and representatives of justice, they cannot spoil that image. They are good. The evil lurks within, and among us.

From where will the fear and obedience come when we learn to trust our neighbors and identify the threat as the blue and black cruiser driving down the street?

[Jimmie Higgins]

That might leave the impression that they're fallible. But as supposed defenders of the community and representatives of justice, they cannot spoil that image. They are good. The evil lurks within, and among us.

Right, and how many thousands a year in the u.s. are locked up essentially on a cop's say-so? If they are fallible and can lie in self-interested ways then... Oops, people might get the idea that those 100s of thousands of people caught up in the criminal justice system simply because a cop told a judge or jury that they are guilty maybe shouldn't be there.

[∞]

Honestly if anyone wants to see the inside perspective of the big PDs and their crimes I recommend Dorner's manifesto. Its understandable why hes looked at as hero by the working class here in LA.

But it goes without saying that cops are there to protect the status quo i.e. the status quo of class relations. Meaning they protect the interests of ruling class ad the police state. And then the infuriating cop-defenders on the internet saying "ohh he was resisting arrest and selling cigs". ffs you must've lost all sense of common human morality to justify something unquestionably despicable. I cant help but feel my blood boil.


Advise everybody to stay cautious of the police, especially if you have a darker complexion.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I think we are actually just seeing the police return to more explicit ways of showing their functions, i.e. to maintain the status quo and defend capital and its political defenders against any sort of democratic change. In America, the context definitely includes a strong racial element.

The thing to note here is that in the case of Eric Garner, there is no subtlety. He was murdered and it was caught on camera. Even apolitical friends of mine have expressed their shock at this (when normally they wouldn't, even in the case of say events in Ferguson).

This is worrying for 2 main reasons:

a) firstly, this shows that people of colour in the US are facing a constant battle for basic safety. They can be murdered, legally, just for being people of colour, and that has to be worrying for them and anybody concerned with this state of events;

b) this is an indication that the police as protectors of capital, and by extension capital itself, are preparing to move from a phase of legitimisation, where they are forced to defend their positions of power and control over society, to a phase of mass accumulation, where they feel so strong that they can carry out with impunity actions that consolidate and extend their power and control over society.

One only hopes that, in the face of continuing economic stagnation, and wider education about radicalised people abroad (against ISIS, for example), that class consciousness and solidarity amongst working people picks up again soon in the developed countries, otherwise I fear that, from 2015 in the UK and 2016 in the US, there will be a continued onslaught against working people which will probably be brutal.

[Ravn]

because they actually believe that they're doing the right thing


& the right thing as far as they're concerned is maintaining white supremacy. Because it is pretty stupid not to convict a cop who's caught virtually red-handed. The maintainers of the system are just betting on the unrest to blow over, & apathy & despair to kick in. But not only are they losing good will at home, they're losing it abroad as well.