And you should tone down your rhetoric, because it makes you sound like an idiot. He wasn't *murdered*. There was no malice aforethought. At worst, you could say it was involuntary manslaughter.
I'm glad we agree that there's
something that could have been prosecuted. If it helps, I agree that the cop probably didn't intend to kill Mr. Garner, because nobody would be so stupid as to think what he did was a capital offense.
Instead, I think the cop felt entitled to use excessive, reckless, negligent force to subdue a guy who at worst was committing a trivial offense, because the cops in NY were trained that people have to comply with their demands, even when the cops are breaking the law and the other citizen is innocent. That's what they were trained to do, and they did it to about four and a half million innocent people.
Anyway, if you're keeping score: Reckless endangerment, manslaughter, or criminally negligent homicide are each worse crimes than anything the victim did in his entire life. And it was on video.
Now, who really gets to determine if it was a crime? Well, a jury. But because of a secret backdoor proceeding, no judge or jury will see the evidence. And that's fucked up. And so is anyone who whines that it's unfair to ask a cop to defend why he killed a guy over a few alleged nickels, or blames a dude for being killed because he finally got fed up enough to speak his mind, and was born too big and black to be treated professionally by cops who understand when to escalate and when to pause.