The Grand Jury doesn't consider agency policy when making their probable cause determination. The fact that NYPD's company rules forbid that technique has no bearing on what the courts consider reasonable vs. unreasonable.

Again unarmed isn't necessarily relevant either, the questions to ask are outlined in Graham vs. Connor. I spoke to severity of the crime. He was actively resisting. As such law says that some level of force is reasonable. The question then becomes was the level of force used reasonable.

No facts of the case would seem to support deadly force, and as defined deadly force wasn't applied.

I agree wholeheartedly that those on scene were negligent in not rendering medical assistance immediately, but the video I saw doesn't give enough detail as to the state of Garner while he was on the ground and whether he seemed to be in crisis or not. From a first responder standpoint, there isn't much that can be done for someone suffering an asthma and/or heart attack anyhow. CPR is only administered to those not capable of breathing on their own who lack a heartbeat, neither of which applied in this case. He was breathing and had a beating heart even after he was on the ambulance. At most he could have been given oxygen and a dose from an inhaler if those things were available. Neither of which would be likely to resolve cardiac arrest.

The video and the whole situation evoke an emotional response and it doesn't feel good. These events have to be broken down into facts and be weighed against laws and standards. That is the only way the system will continue to work.

None of the facts in this case, bad as it may feel, support the point of view that the officer(s) acted unreasonably or committed a crime which is the conclusion the jury came to as well.

What about the other officer with his knee on Garner's neck after the choke hold was released? Why isn't he being criticized?