Deadly force? It was a headlock (notice that initially his hold didn't place any pressure on the windpipe), but as Garner went to the ground the officer's position changed - quite understandably, there was a lot of movement, and then he quite promptly released his grip. If the intention was to kill Garner, the officer would not have used a headlock, a common nonlethal takedown technique. The point is - not if he was doing as told, and as trained. IF an officer is just doing what he is trained and what he is told and an accident happens as a direct result of what he was trained and order to do, not of his failure to do such, then the fault lies not on the officer but on 'the law'. Intent means everything when people categorize this as a racial murder. Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human, and generally this premeditated state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter).[1][2] Yes, murder does require intent. No, the officers were doing something they were trained to do. It was a headlock.
Well, when somebody tells you that they can't breathe, and you continue to restrict their breathing, that seems malicious. But that's not the most worrisome issue in this case. More worrisome is that the burden of malicious intent was for a murder indictment. As with the Trayvon Martin case, the burden was set too high. It's clear that negligent manslaughter may be involved (which is caused by recklessness, not malice), yet prosecutors went for a much higher burden. This is fishy.
What's the point in defending a violent cop? They live out of our taxes how could a smart mind possibly defend those who apply unnecessary force, leading to death... there isn't only garner suffering from asma in the world, many people with no apparent diseases can die from a chokehold but even healthy people can have cardiac attacks under intense phisical and psychological stress like having 3 cops over you pushing you down. This OP sounds quite dumb...
Given that no one was shot what does a CCW permit have to do with anything.There is a difference between a LEO performing his assigned duty and an average citizen playing at being a cop.
IMHO, the grand jury should have indicted him for involuntary manslaughter--no intent, but the action was reckless.
I'm not trying to argue, but murder doesn't actually require intent. First degree murder does, but there are a couple of kinds of murder that don't require intent. One is felony murder. This is where a death occurs during a dangerous felony. The criminal can be charged with murder, even though they didn't intend for anyone to die. For instance, if someone dies of a heart attack during a robbery or kidnapping, the death is considered murder and the people involved in the crime will be charged with murder. Some states have other rules that will make unintentional deaths murders, such as if the person is killed by an explosive device, the death is automatically a murder in California. If a person is brutally beaten, and eventually dies from the injuries, it can be a murder in some states even if the person just intended to hurt, not kill the victim. Anyway, usually murder does require intent, but there are a few, specialized murder statutes that allow for murder without intent.
Sure. I mean there are cases where an act is technically murder in some places, but that's neither the general understanding nor meaning of "murder". So when I say, "my father was murdered", I neither mean "my father and his friend got into a disagreement, had a fight, and his friend accidentally killed him (manslaughter)", nor do I mean, "well my dad coincidentally had a heart attack and died when someone broke in and, technically, in the state of New Jersey, that's murder."
Premeditation is the key. Here is a clearer example: a man decides to burn down a building. He gets an accelerant, goes to the building at night and sets it on fire. He doesn't realize anyone is still inside and ends up killing someone. Since someone's death is a reasonably likely outcome of arson, the death is considered murder, even though the killer never actually intended to kill anyone. As for how people consider it, most people don't know the difference between murder and manslaughter anyway. When the average person says, "my father was murdered. " they are usually saying that their father was the victim of a homicide, regardless of the premeditation or intent. Just look at how many people call the Zimmerman, Wilson and Garner cases "murder" even though they lack premeditation. Or look at how many people call drunk drivers "murderers" even though they lack both intent and premeditation. In common usage murder really just means homicide. If we are distinguishing between types of homicide, what matters is the legal definition, since common usage fails to make any distinction.
Recklessness would be very difficult to prove in this case. Negligence would be easier, but apparently even the necessary level of proof for a grand jury for that was lacking. Negligence simply requires that a reasonable person with similar skills and training would know that this action was unsafe. To prove recklessness, you have to show that the person knew that his actions were very unsafe and very likely to harm others, yet intentionally continues the action. Not using the safety on you gun and having it go off, accidentally killing someone is negligence. Spraying bullets wildly into a crowd to try to stop a fleeing suspect is recklessness. But even proving negligence in this case is difficult. If the defense can show that the person acted in a manner supported by their training, it will lend sufficient doubt to the behavior being negligent to guarantee acquittal. If the defense can find an expert who would recommend actions like the ones used, it will also lend such sufficient doubt. No, unfortunately this case really was a lost cause from the start. If it couldn't pass a grand jury with its relatively low burden of proof, it never could make it through trial where the burden of proof is much higher.
Okay, I think we just have different views as to what is the common perception. I really do think that most people separate killing from murdering by intent. I think most people could separate most examples, if you gave one of each, into their appropriate categories. If I got into a car accident and a passenger died, I don't think most people would call me a murderer. I think its odd that you use the drunk drivers example, because in my experience most people don't even call drunk drivers murderers, except for activists who seem to understand they're engaging in hyperbole to push an agenda. So I think we just have different perceptions of common usage and everyday people. I really didn't expect that anyone would have such a different perception. I suppose it's still relevant, since my point was that intent is what matters, but I was mainly speaking to everyday people calling events "murder" when there is no sign of intent to kill.
[video=youtube;pvATEjsf41g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvATEjsf41g[/video] The officers arm is around his neck for approx 15 SECONDS then removed. It's why the grand jury refused to indict him.
Don't even try and pretend that they teach something in training that violates their own regulations! - - - Updated - - - Precisely how can they do that when chokeholds violate NYPD regulations?