You're missing the point: you want to intentionally take multiple lives away as retribution for a death that was unintentional. Doesn't seem fair to me to punish an unintentional act as though it were intentional. In courts of law, they are treated differently: if you accidentally kill someone, courts will not treat it as though it were intentional. That's how it is in many things in life: when I was a kid, if I accidentally hurt someone on a playground, I was given a warning and made to apologize to the unintended victim. If I intentionally hurt someone because I was being a brat, I would get the belt or detention, whatever the case may be. That's how I was raised as a matter of fact.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzySgv6tx4g

Clip starts at around 2:02. The chokehold lasts about 20 seconds (2:40-3:00 being generous) which, even if it completely cut off breathing for a whole 20 seconds, the hold was not maintained for long enough to kill. Hell, everyone here should be able to hold their breath for 20 seconds and beyond.

I agree but my worry is that some may believe the chokehold itself was responsible for the death but it was in fact a multitude of factors including Garner's health problems which were unintentionally aggravated by the confrontation. Notice I don't place blame solely on Garner's health nor on the confrontation. You needed both for Garner's passing to occur.

Some things to think about:

1)You don't need to die from asphyxation to be choked go death. A lack of oxygen in the blood stream during a highly stressful situation can cause you to get a heart attack which would lead to cardiac arrest, especially when you're burning thru it during stressful situations... Which is what looks like what happened here.

2) He wasn't exactly given time to "hold his breath" and as soon as they got him down they dogpiled on him, possibly smothering his breath (longer than the 20 seconda you're going on about) enough to prevent him from getting sufficient oxygen as til he passed out. The fact that he was laying there unresponsive for over 7 minutes while no one was assisting him after he passed out trying to make it known that he couldn't breath puts the blame squarely on the officers.

3) Contributory factors are NOT Causal factors. He was vulnerable to their particular assault (the chokehold) but the very reason the chokehold was banned by the NYPD is because it is KNOWN to cause death in people. He rolled the dice using a banned move known to cause death. And Garner paid the price with his life.

They didn't "aggravate his condition". You need to get that BS out of your head. You're making it sound like Garner was already suffering from a heart/asthmat attack and the chokehold+dogpile just made it worse. Yes, His condition made him particularly vulnerable to their attack. But he wasn't suffering from a heart or asthma attack until the cop decided to choke him.

4) Like someone already stated. Murder is any bodily harm that results in death. A banned move known to cause death being used on a person causing that person to die sure sounds like that to me. 

No damage to the windpipe does not mean that he wasn't choked, it only means that there is no direct evidence via the autopsy that confirms it from that angle. Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. The coroner believes that the choke caused the death and we have videos on the choke as well as the testimony of the victim who couldn't breath at the time.

You seem to be mixing up your definitions here. FYI, a chokehold is still considered a submission hold by definition. A headlcok requires the head be locked, meaning thst the arm be positioned over the chin not under it, the position of his forearm placed firmly on Garner's throat seems to disagree to that (see photos). And, no, a headlock (a move used to control the movement of the head) DOES NOT restrict blood flow to the brain, you're talking about a vascular choke/lock. Which requires that the crook of the elbow be positioned in line with the chin to avoid it turning into an air choke. Look at the photos/videos. This is NOT the case.

omg, it wasn't an accident. it was MURDER. anyone can understand that a bunch of people on top of someone else can kill the person, especially when there's already a piece of sh#t choking him. they attacked and killed someone.

It does not matter if it was "unintentional"

The point is that they used excessive force rather than equal.

By the way, the choke-hold cop was sued in prior misconduct cases three times.

I think you meant it the other way around: you don't need to be choked to death to die from asphyxiation.

Let us not affirm the consequent.

Being agitated and stressed out can also cause a heart attack. Garner was agitated and stressed out as evidenced by the video, even more so when they wrestled him down. There are a multitude of things that can cause a heart attack beyond the one you mentioned (http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/guide/heart-attack-causes-treatments). So which triggered Garner's heart attack?

There's also the possibility that Garner was suffering an asthma attack at that moment hence why he yelled that he couldn't breathe. I cannot tell how much pressure was being applied during the confrontation solely from the video. I don't think it's possible to tell from the video or how much pressure would have to be applied to deny Garner oxygen.

I agree with you that response time was terribly slow. In that regard, who takes responsibility among the officers at the scene? I for one don't know, I'm not well acquainted enough with NY law or with the department.

It can cause death IF held long enough. You have to deny oxygen to the brain longer than 20 seconds to cause death. It can also cause damage to the windpipe but according to the autopsy, there was no damage found in Garner's throat. http://nypost.com/2014/07/19/man-in-chokehold-death-had-no-throat-damage-autopsy/

Would you rather I say Garner had a vulnerability?

If you accidentally cause someone else their death, that's not murder. It's not as simple as the way you put it: manslaughter is the term for when you accidentally cause someone else's death, when there existed no intent. What was Pantaleo's intent when he engaged a choke hold? Was it to end Garner's life or was it to subdue and arrest? A choke hold when done right will render a person unconscious, when done wrong will apply pressure on the neck as opposed to the neck veins it's supposed to block. How do we decipher intent? The best way would be to read Pantaleo's mind but we can't.

Garner wasn't choked: http://nypost.com/2014/07/19/man-in-chokehold-death-had-no-throat-damage-autopsy/

No, you don't need throat damage.. The transport of oxygen to the brain is blocked and without oxygen for as little as four minutes brain damage and death can occur. This is the effect of Choking/Suffocation.

With choke-hold + dogpiling + asthma combo it will just intensify the suffocation.

1. No, getting choked can cause complications that lead to death besides hypoxia/asphyxation.

2. What caused his heart attack? Coroner seems to think it was due to being choked. How do you keep glossing over that fact? Edit. Technically, a combination of getting choked then smothered if you wanna be specific about it.

3. That in itself should have been grounds for an indictment for criminal negligence leading to death.

4. It wasn't just the chokehold. It was the fact that as soon as he was choked down, they smotherered him by dogpiling on top of him. And it took much more than 20 seconds once you add in the smothering, they were on top of him until he lost consciousness. The combination of the choke and getting smothered and the lack of medical aid as he lay unconscious lead to him slowly deteriorating until he died of cardiac arrest on the way to the hospital.

5. Yes, it would be far better to say that the obese (which are about 55-60% of adult american black males btw) are more vulnerable to heart disease (when put under stress). Just as saying old people are more vulnerable to having their bones broken. I guess once we see a cop wrestling an 80 year old to the ground and breaking his neck, we'd blame old guy for being old, too. Can't you see the absurdity of your logic?

6. Yes, murder (unlike manslaughter) requires malice. However, malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others. Kinda like using a banned choke hold (due to the risks associated to it) and smothering someone who was already indicating that he was in a life threating situation.

But I will agree, the best case to be made here would have been involuntary manslaughter due to criminal negligence (from point of choke hold to just watching him die slowly on the sidewalk). This should have been at the very least one of the charges brought to the grand jury and should have easily made trial. However, were it anyone else but a cop, Murder 2 would have been easily brought up. FYW, accidentally killing someong by punching them in the face is Murder 2.

So did the denial of oxygen last as long as four minutes? The video I have seen did not show the denial of oxygen lasting four minutes, not even close.

In combination with asthma and high blood pressure. Please don't omit those details.

Why do you keep omitting the fact that the coroner didn't just believe it was the choke hold but the choke hold IN ADDITION TO Garner's health problems? You needed all of these things according to the coroner to end Garner's life.

Indictment of Pantaleo? Not sure if responsibility of getting Garner medical attention would fall on him.

In addition to Garner's health problems. Don't forget they played a role too.

I never placed blame on anyone, neither Garner nor the police: Garner's death was an accident. Police officers may not have been aware of Garner's health problems hence why they did not exercise enough restraint. The force they used might not have killed a healthy man but it was enough to kill Garner who was not in best of health. I'm pretty sure they can tell when someone is very old but they can't tell that Garner has asthma and heart problems by just looking at him.

Listen, what I want more than anything is for the police to not be automatically accused of choking Garner which is something I've seen floating around, Materia-Blade's post being one example. Garner was put in a choke hold but this is not the same as choking. Choke hold CAN mean choking but choke hold =/= choking.

I'm no law student but I do believe punching someone in the face and killing them in the process would mean manslaughter but then you'd have to look at the context.