The fact that police can get away with killing an individual who presented no threat to anyone with the whole incident caught on camera is quite disturbing. A grand jury decided not to indict an NYPD officer who used a choke-hold banned by his own department which resulted in the death of Eric Garner. Unlike the incident in Ferguson, which contained conflicting testimony and forensics that support Darren Wilson’s version of the event, this event in New York was caught on video from at least two different camera angles (and is available on YouTube for the whole world to see).
This seems pretty cut-and-dry, at least for an indictment. So how is it that almost any accused individual brought before a grand jury is indicted unless the accused individual happens to wear a government issued costume? Are grand juries really that biased toward the police? After reading a few dozen comments on threads responding to the grand jury decision, I’m afraid the answer is yes (if you want to lose all hope for humanity, read the comment section to any article of consequence). I reach this conclusion because these are the sort of people who serve on juries and decide that it’s perfectly okay for the police to kill someone if the suspect had any criminal record of any kind, resisted in any way, or even “disrespected” the police on the scene.