This message was self-deleted by its author

[TorchTheWitch]

27. and my response...

Of course the grand jury decision is in dispute - because no one knows how or why they came to the decision that they did. This is part of the very problem with grand juries and why half the states have long since stopped using them in favor of the adversarial preliminary hearing that is public, presided over by a judge, where all the evidence is made available to both sides and where none of the constitutional rights of the accused are pitched into the toilet. Prosecutors are given ENTIRE control of a grand jury, and they're mostly used in order to lay charges on someone that the government dislikes, like protesters, minorities, labor organizers, whistleblowers, etc.

The very fact that they're secret is even worse than just having a prosecutor decide on their own whether or not any charges should be filed in a case and which ones and why since at least that happens somewhat in public where a prosecutor may have to explain to the public their reasoning in pursuing or not pursuing a case. And it's prosecutors who make these decisions on their own FAR more than a grand jury is used. There ARE many cases where prosecutors decided there "wasn't enough evidence" to pursue a case or that they did pursue a case when there wasn't that come down to political personal reasons of the prosecutor... every prosecuter wants a case that's a "slam dunk".

Had Garner's case not gone to a grand jury but happened in a state that used adversarial preliminary hearings instead then we'd all know the how and why of the decision, all the evidence, the laws relied on, etc. Like I said, I'm personally not at all comfortable with Garner's death and how it occurred and wish I knew what the reasoning was that the jury decided not to charge anyone with anything. I don't know, maybe there's some law or some evidence or some combination thereof that they came to the decision they did. It bothers me A LOT that his breathing was restricted even when he was still on the ground. It further bothers me even more that he did say he couldn't breath, and that's not something I believe personally should ever be ignored.

However, it is a fact that had he not resisted arrest he never would have been in the position to be forcibly arrested, and that IS on him. It doesn't MATTER that he believed he shouldn't be arrested or whether or not his arrest was legal, the remedy for that is ALWAYS through the legal system. Once the cuffs come out whether you believe you have good reason or no reason to be arrested the only thing to do is to accept the fact you're being arrested and not make it harder on yourself in any degree. Resisting arrest isn't lawful. The ONLY remedy is through the legal system. Of course it sucks to be arrested when for whatever reason you don't believe you should be, but the solution is to NOT resist and pursue any recourse the only way anyone is legally afforded to. It's inevitable that police will sometimes arrest the wrong people though they have no way of knowing it at the time. If anyone gets arrested unlawfully then they have recourse to sue for wrongful arrest, and be out of jail once the police understand they have the wrong person. It happens every day, and the police are never infallible.

In any case, this isn't about Garner's death which YOU brought up in your OP not wanting any politicization of the murder of the two NYPD officers. Yet bringing up his death and calling him "also" a victim not only brought up the manner of his death, but assigned fault, and lumped him in with these two officers killed in cold blood for no reason when his death was entirely accidental and brought on by his own resistance attempting to equalize all three deaths... you didn't need to explicitly make the claim, your calling the murders of the officers victims and also calling Garner's death as being a victim did it for you.

If you think that doesn't further politicize the murders of these officers I don't know what planet you're on. Take a look at the responses to your OP. Other than mine they all have to do with Garner's death and how they believe it was murder. YOU brought that on with this OP. YOU opened the door for exactly that to happen. What difference does it make that what you or I or anyone says is not in the news? It most certainly politicized it here and making an OP to request no one here politicize the officers' murders what else where you doing than talking about politicizing their deaths HERE rather than whatever the news is saying? Either you were talking about politicizing it here or there was no reason for the post, period.

You want me to explain why Garner's arrest was unlawful... tell me again how your post supposedly wasn't about Garner's death. You opened the door for it. I already said it doesn't MATTER if it was lawful or not. He still didn't have the right to resist arrest as his remedy is solely through the legal system. Having such a long history of arrests and court proceedings he also would have known that.

Here's the link you wanted...

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/20/us/new-york-police-officers-shot/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
<snip>
Police were investigating posts Brinsley allegedly made on social media. Bratton said that the suspect had earlier shot and seriously wounded a woman believed to be his ex-girlfriend in Baltimore.

Baltimore police received information that Brinsley had made threatening comments about police, and sent a warning to police in New York, Bratton said.

That message came almost the same time the ambush happened.
</snip>

A number of other reports have said much the same or even more about the murder's comments on the internet.