I guess it’s all in the wording, the semantics. Or, is the standard different depending on who
it’s applied to? Either way, it’s a WTF moment for America that’s setting the world of logic-and the US-on its head.
Consider that a New York grand jury refused to indict the police officer who killed Eric Garner after putting him in a choke hold, unnecessarily. The jury found that there was “no intent to harm” in the officer’s actions and thus a tragic mistake had once again occurred.
Of course, those that are intent on finding blame with the victim will say that he was obviously doing something wrong or illegal for the police to approach and apprehend in the manner that they did; a fact we can now dispute.
However, there is a fact that you can’t dispute; that the police obviously thought Eric had “some intent to harm” someone which is why they felt it necessary to use the level of force that they did. And their decision-making is the crust of the issue. Continue reading