Coley,

I'm curious about whether the chokehold fits the definition of reasonable force. I think the reason NYPD invoked a policy prohibiting it is because too often it resulted in death, when simply subduing a perp for arrest was the desired result. If there isn't one yet, I think it's possible there could be a finding that the chokehold is not reasonable force due to unintended fatalities from its use.

I've read both at this point that Garner's death was due to the chokehold (direct cause of death) and that he had cardiac arrest, that was either due to or exacerbated by stress from the chokehold (making it the indirect cause of death). I'm splitting this hair because if the chokehold is seen as indirect, the analogy could follow, for example, that it "wasn't the gunshot that caused the victim's death; it was the destruction of tissue and loss of blood that caused the death."

It appears that death by police chokehold isn't rare, although it is uncommon. I think a case might be made that a chokehold should not be used if lethal force isn't being considered. And if lethal force is being considered, then shooting the perp is much more efficient.

Oh, and the officer's knee on Garger's neck doesn't look very professional for a takedown considering the seriousness of the crime. But that officer and 3 others were somehow granted immunity, according to what I read.

All in all I'm still puzzled at the lack of indictment. Probable cause of a crime in GJ proceedings is a pretty low legal bar. There is testimony with no cross examination. Only the PA questions witnesses. The outcome is as much up to the PA as it is to the GJ.

Sg