Eric Garner, Killed with Impunity
It's like the events in Ferguson are a contagion that's spreading. Barely a week after a grand jury in St. Louis declined to charge police officer Darren Wilson for killing unarmed Black man Michael Brown, a grand jury in New York City declined to charge officer Daniel Pantaleo for killing unarmed Black man Eric Garner. [NY Times news story: "New York Officer Facing No Charges in Chokehold Case"]
What Happened?
In case you're not already familiar with the situation from copious news coverage and discussion, here's a brief description.
Eric Garner died on July 17, 2014 on the streets of New York City. He was allegedly selling loose cigarettes without a license. A team of four police confronted him. Garner accused them of harassment and became verbally agitated. That's when the cops decided he needed to taken down and wrestled him to the ground. Officer Pantaleo applied a chokehold -- contrary to the policies of his own police department -- and within minutes Garner was dead on the streets. For allegedly selling a few bucks of cigarettes without a license.
An interesting aspect of this case is that the killing was caught on video camera. Multiple cameras. The New York Daily News obtained video from a bystander. I can't get their video to render in an iframe here, though you can see it by visiting the link provided.
Here's a similar story from CNN.com showing key excerpts from various videos:
The New York Medical Examiner ruled the death a homicide.
Why is this Wrong?
This situation is appalling. All by itself it is an outrage. But it especially appalling coming so close on the heels of the Ferguson decision.
While the two cases bear superficial similarities -- a white police officers kills an unarmed Black man allegedly in the line of duty, and prosecutors and grand juries find that there is insufficient evidence to press charges -- there are significant differences that make Garner's killing even more outrageous.
1. There is no evidence, no room to even argue, that Garner was being violent or aggressive. In Brown's killing, the police officer and some (but not all) witnesses argued that Brown was charging at the officer and acting like he might be drawing a concealed weapon.
2. In Garner's case, police officer Daniel Pantaleo used a chokehold. This is a violation of department rules, which outlaw the tactic specifically because it is deadly. Moreover, this tactic has been banned for 21 years. Why are members of this police department still using it? Especially members like Pantaleo, an officer for only 8 years. In Brown's killing there was no evidence that the officer, Darren Wilson, had violated any specific department rule.
3. In the Garner killing we have incontrovertible evidence-- multiple video recordings-- of what actually happened. Evidence in the Michael Brown killing is the "he said, she said" type; conflicting testimony from various witnesses. The videos of Garner show police escalating the situation. The videos show them wrestling him to the ground. The videos show them choking him to unconsciousness as he pleaded for his life, and then leaving him dying or dead on the ground for several long minutes. (Do I even need to say how fucking monstrous this is?!)
Each of these three items are crucial differences between the two cases. In the Ferguson killing each of these were given as reasons why the prosecutor and grand jury chose not to indict the killer. The victim was allegedly violent, the officer did nothing wrong, there's no hard evidence. Yet in New York we had the opposite of each. The victim was not violent, the officer broke department rules, and plenty of objective evidence exists. And still the prosecutor and grand jury declined to indict. Unbelievable.
What Happened?
In case you're not already familiar with the situation from copious news coverage and discussion, here's a brief description.
Eric Garner died on July 17, 2014 on the streets of New York City. He was allegedly selling loose cigarettes without a license. A team of four police confronted him. Garner accused them of harassment and became verbally agitated. That's when the cops decided he needed to taken down and wrestled him to the ground. Officer Pantaleo applied a chokehold -- contrary to the policies of his own police department -- and within minutes Garner was dead on the streets. For allegedly selling a few bucks of cigarettes without a license.
An interesting aspect of this case is that the killing was caught on video camera. Multiple cameras. The New York Daily News obtained video from a bystander. I can't get their video to render in an iframe here, though you can see it by visiting the link provided.
Here's a similar story from CNN.com showing key excerpts from various videos:
Click to viewThe New York Medical Examiner ruled the death a homicide.
Why is this Wrong?
This situation is appalling. All by itself it is an outrage. But it especially appalling coming so close on the heels of the Ferguson decision.
While the two cases bear superficial similarities -- a white police officers kills an unarmed Black man allegedly in the line of duty, and prosecutors and grand juries find that there is insufficient evidence to press charges -- there are significant differences that make Garner's killing even more outrageous.
1. There is no evidence, no room to even argue, that Garner was being violent or aggressive. In Brown's killing, the police officer and some (but not all) witnesses argued that Brown was charging at the officer and acting like he might be drawing a concealed weapon.
2. In Garner's case, police officer Daniel Pantaleo used a chokehold. This is a violation of department rules, which outlaw the tactic specifically because it is deadly. Moreover, this tactic has been banned for 21 years. Why are members of this police department still using it? Especially members like Pantaleo, an officer for only 8 years. In Brown's killing there was no evidence that the officer, Darren Wilson, had violated any specific department rule.
3. In the Garner killing we have incontrovertible evidence-- multiple video recordings-- of what actually happened. Evidence in the Michael Brown killing is the "he said, she said" type; conflicting testimony from various witnesses. The videos of Garner show police escalating the situation. The videos show them wrestling him to the ground. The videos show them choking him to unconsciousness as he pleaded for his life, and then leaving him dying or dead on the ground for several long minutes. (Do I even need to say how fucking monstrous this is?!)
Each of these three items are crucial differences between the two cases. In the Ferguson killing each of these were given as reasons why the prosecutor and grand jury chose not to indict the killer. The victim was allegedly violent, the officer did nothing wrong, there's no hard evidence. Yet in New York we had the opposite of each. The victim was not violent, the officer broke department rules, and plenty of objective evidence exists. And still the prosecutor and grand jury declined to indict. Unbelievable.