No Indictment in Eric Garner Case

[RKMBrown]

Having worked in a government law enforcement organization I offer some facts:
Say a police force, basically anywhere on the planet, but we'll say in the US has five hundred cops.
Now read this very carefully.
When a new recruit starts his first day on the job he already has been given extensive training. That's obvious. Part of the training is called 'Police Misconduct'.
The recruit is ordered to immediately inform his closest superior of any police misconduct he observes.
He will be fired if it's proven he knew about any misconduct, even stealing piece of fruit and didn't go to his superior.
Some of you may not believe this but nevertheless it's a fact.
As with any group of people in any walk of life certain people are drawn to each other for good and bad reasons.
Same with cops.
In a five hundred strong PF there are always those who are bad apples. Bad apples are those who are basically borderline criminals themselves. They are NOT the ones who go looking for trouble. The ones who are looking for trouble don't last. The internal review boards soon spot them and get rid of them. But why would they? ******* ECONOMICS! If you are a cop ruled responsible in the department having to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in settling a civil suit you ******* better not be involved again for a ******* decade.
Everyone knows the bad apples. If you don't want to partner with another cop you are not required to. What happens is those few bad apples always end up riding with each other.
These bad apples are the ones with attitude problems towards basically everyone they encounter.
Vey very few of these officers ever last more than a year or two.
The 'brass' know who the bad apples are.
All it takes is for a couple of rock solid excellent cops to drop the word that they don't what to ride with a certain cop and that certain cop is marked as 'undesirable' (he might as well have ebola) and will soon either jump or be pushed out. Most jump. Many to the military.
A cop with a file showing five police forces in eight years is at the end of the road.
Bottom line is cops have their own code of conduct. No good cop would ever risk his/her career tolerating a bad cops behavior. It just doesn't happen in real life.
Contrary to what LIB pyjama-boys think.
The myth of "corrupt" police departments are only in the movies.
Every Prosecutor knows everything about every cop in his precinct.
No Prosecutor goes after who he knows and everyone in the department knows is a straight cop.
In Wilson's case the Prosecutor and the cops knew Wilson was straight and there was zero chance Wilson would ever be convicted of something he didn't do.
99.99 % of the time straight Prosecutors and straight cops are doing excellent jobs.

What does any of that have to do with the reason these cops killed Garner?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Having worked in a government law enforcement organization I offer some facts:
Say a police force, basically anywhere on the planet, but we'll say in the US has five hundred cops.
Now read this very carefully.
When a new recruit starts his first day on the job he already has been given extensive training. That's obvious. Part of the training is called 'Police Misconduct'.
The recruit is ordered to immediately inform his closest superior of any police misconduct he observes.
He will be fired if it's proven he knew about any misconduct, even stealing piece of fruit and didn't go to his superior.
Some of you may not believe this but nevertheless it's a fact.
As with any group of people in any walk of life certain people are drawn to each other for good and bad reasons.
Same with cops.
In a five hundred strong PF there are always those who are bad apples. Bad apples are those who are basically borderline criminals themselves. They are NOT the ones who go looking for trouble. The ones who are looking for trouble don't last. The internal review boards soon spot them and get rid of them. But why would they? ******* ECONOMICS! If you are a cop ruled responsible in the department having to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in settling a civil suit you ******* better not be involved again for a ******* decade.
Everyone knows the bad apples. If you don't want to partner with another cop you are not required to. What happens is those few bad apples always end up riding with each other.
These bad apples are the ones with attitude problems towards basically everyone they encounter.
Vey very few of these officers ever last more than a year or two.
The 'brass' know who the bad apples are.
All it takes is for a couple of rock solid excellent cops to drop the word that they don't what to ride with a certain cop and that certain cop is marked as 'undesirable' (he might as well have ebola) and will soon either jump or be pushed out. Most jump. Many to the military.
A cop with a file showing five police forces in eight years is at the end of the road.
Bottom line is cops have their own code of conduct. No good cop would ever risk his/her career tolerating a bad cops behavior. It just doesn't happen in real life.
Contrary to what LIB pyjama-boys think.
The myth of "corrupt" police departments are only in the movies.
Every Prosecutor knows everything about every cop in his precinct.
No Prosecutor goes after who he knows and everyone in the department knows is a straight cop.
In Wilson's case the Prosecutor and the cops knew Wilson was straight and there was zero chance Wilson would ever be convicted of something he didn't do.
99.99 % of the time straight Prosecutors and straight cops are doing excellent jobs.

What does any of that have to do with the reason these cops killed Garner?

Mike,this is what happens when you, and others, make shit up trying to convict a Wilson, when a cop who truly does deserve to be punished comes along and you comment, people are like "meh"

 

[RKMBrown]

Having worked in a government law enforcement organization I offer some facts:
Say a police force, basically anywhere on the planet, but we'll say in the US has five hundred cops.
Now read this very carefully.
When a new recruit starts his first day on the job he already has been given extensive training. That's obvious. Part of the training is called 'Police Misconduct'.
The recruit is ordered to immediately inform his closest superior of any police misconduct he observes.
He will be fired if it's proven he knew about any misconduct, even stealing piece of fruit and didn't go to his superior.
Some of you may not believe this but nevertheless it's a fact.
As with any group of people in any walk of life certain people are drawn to each other for good and bad reasons.
Same with cops.
In a five hundred strong PF there are always those who are bad apples. Bad apples are those who are basically borderline criminals themselves. They are NOT the ones who go looking for trouble. The ones who are looking for trouble don't last. The internal review boards soon spot them and get rid of them. But why would they? ******* ECONOMICS! If you are a cop ruled responsible in the department having to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in settling a civil suit you ******* better not be involved again for a ******* decade.
Everyone knows the bad apples. If you don't want to partner with another cop you are not required to. What happens is those few bad apples always end up riding with each other.
These bad apples are the ones with attitude problems towards basically everyone they encounter.
Vey very few of these officers ever last more than a year or two.
The 'brass' know who the bad apples are.
All it takes is for a couple of rock solid excellent cops to drop the word that they don't what to ride with a certain cop and that certain cop is marked as 'undesirable' (he might as well have ebola) and will soon either jump or be pushed out. Most jump. Many to the military.
A cop with a file showing five police forces in eight years is at the end of the road.
Bottom line is cops have their own code of conduct. No good cop would ever risk his/her career tolerating a bad cops behavior. It just doesn't happen in real life.
Contrary to what LIB pyjama-boys think.
The myth of "corrupt" police departments are only in the movies.
Every Prosecutor knows everything about every cop in his precinct.
No Prosecutor goes after who he knows and everyone in the department knows is a straight cop.
In Wilson's case the Prosecutor and the cops knew Wilson was straight and there was zero chance Wilson would ever be convicted of something he didn't do.
99.99 % of the time straight Prosecutors and straight cops are doing excellent jobs.

What does any of that have to do with the reason these cops killed Garner?

Mike,this is what happens when you, and others, make shit up trying to convict a Wilson, when a cop who truly does deserve to be punished comes along and you comment, people are like "meh"

Huh? Where did "I" say these cops in either case need to be convicted of anything? Your reading comprehension is failing ya big guy.

 

[Roguewave]

The videos of this incident are disturbing. Was there a crime upon the part of the police officers taking part? Beyond that initial question, do we go to the next level and conclude whatever was done to Mr. Garner was done out of racial animus?

I suggest that the motivation for the arrest of Garner was done in furtherance of a desire to militantly effectuate the collection of oppressive taxes on cigarettes by New York City & State officials to the tune of $6 a pack, and which Eric Garner had a long history of being in the business of avoiding. This could not be allowed to continue by officials ravenous for revenue, which ultimately resulted in events leading to Garner's death. Whether the bevy of LEO's on the scene exhibited incompetence or over-zealousness contributing to that end is a question further along the line.

The first question is open as I see it, but the question of racial motivation has no decernable evidence to support it that I can find. Especially, since the on-scene supervisoring superior there was black as well.

 

[georgephillip]

The videos of this incident are disturbing. Was there a crime upon the part of the police officers taking part? Beyond that initial question, do we go to the next level and conclude whatever was done to Mr. Garner was done out of racial animus?

Shouldn't we first establish why the police were called to the scene before determining their motives for implementing an arrest? There are a pair of competing stories; the most common is the NYPD was responding to the sale of "loosies", and a contrasting narrative in which police were summoned to a fight which Garner had (allegedly) already broken up.

 

[Boss]

The videos of this incident are disturbing. Was there a crime upon the part of the police officers taking part? Beyond that initial question, do we go to the next level and conclude whatever was done to Mr. Garner was done out of racial animus?

Shouldn't we first establish why the police were called to the scene before determining their motives for implementing an arrest? There are a pair of competing stories; the most common is the NYPD was responding to the sale of "loosies", and a contrasting narrative in which police were summoned to a fight which Garner had (allegedly) already broken up.

I don't see where it makes any difference as to why the police were called. They do not have "motives for implementing arrest" other than upholding the law, that's what they do. You seem to think they are obliged to explain why they were there and they don't have to. It also doesn't matter if Garner was guilty of the crime they alleged, they had reason to believe he was guilty. Courts and judges decide guilt, not the police.

 

[Boss]

I suggest that the motivation for the arrest of Garner was done in furtherance of a desire to militantly effectuate the collection of oppressive taxes on cigarettes by New York City & State officials to the tune of $6 a pack, and which Eric Garner had a long history of being in the business of avoiding. This could not be allowed to continue by officials ravenous for revenue, which ultimately resulted in events leading to Garner's death.

I am as opposed to taxes as much as the next person, and the taxation on cigarettes is beyond ridiculous, but I have to disagree with your premise. I highly doubt the City of New York is so strapped for revenue that the unpaid ciggy tax of one Eric Garner was of grave concern. It seems much more plausible to conclude there is a law in NY and Garner was breaking it.

You see, we have these things called "laws" on the books. It's where all our representatives get together and determine what will be the rule everybody follows. The police are there to apprehend people who don't follow those rules. The police have no say in whether the rule is good or bad, whether they like it or disagree with it, whether they think it should be enforced or not... they only have the job of ensuring people comply with the rule. If someone is NOT complying with the rule, it is their duty to make an arrest. If that someone doesn't want to be arrested, it's their duty to use physical force to make the arrest. In that process, if their lives are threatened, they can use deadly force.

There was no intention to kill Eric Garner. He happened to die as a result of his poor health and the trauma of being physically restrained during a resisted arrest. This is not the fault of the police and not the fault of the law itself, it is the fault of Eric Garner for resisting arrest.

 

[RKMBrown]

The videos of this incident are disturbing. Was there a crime upon the part of the police officers taking part? Beyond that initial question, do we go to the next level and conclude whatever was done to Mr. Garner was done out of racial animus?

Shouldn't we first establish why the police were called to the scene before determining their motives for implementing an arrest? There are a pair of competing stories; the most common is the NYPD was responding to the sale of "loosies", and a contrasting narrative in which police were summoned to a fight which Garner had (allegedly) already broken up.

To the lib mind spending tens of thousands of dollars in a show of force to collect a couple pennies in taxes on a product for which taxes were already paid makes perfect sense.

 

[georgephillip]

I don't see where it makes any difference as to why the police were called. They do not have "motives for implementing arrest" other than upholding the law, that's what they do.

Do you see why police are required to demonstrate probable cause before arresting someone? In this particular instance we don't even know for sure what call the NYPD was responding to when they killed Eric Garner. Were the cops called regarding Garner's activities in selling "loosies" or for his involvement in a fight? We also don't know the contents of his pockets which would also be useful in determining whether or not he was engaged in illegal sales at the time of his homicide. I recognize police treat rich white parasites like those who crashed the global economy in 2007 differently from "criminals" like Eric Garner; however, I'm not deluded enough to believe the two responses are unrelated--are you?

 

[georgephillip]

o the lib mind spending tens of thousands of dollars in a show of force to collect a couple pennies in taxes on a product for which taxes were already paid makes perfect sense

There's a lot of truth in that^
However, I would still argue in this particular case we need to know exactly what call the NYPD responded to that culminated in Eric Garner's demise.

I think we also need to know the charge Garner's arrest was based on? Did he have "loosies" in his possession? Was he told to "move on" and refused?

And even if the answers to both those questions come back favorable to the NYPD, the manner in which Garner was treated after being taken into custody reveals the callous disregard for human life by the NYPD and other first responders.

 

[Boss]

I don't see where it makes any difference as to why the police were called. They do not have "motives for implementing arrest" other than upholding the law, that's what they do.

Do you see why police are required to demonstrate probable cause before arresting someone? In this particular instance we don't even know for sure what call the NYPD was responding to when they killed Eric Garner. Were the cops called regarding Garner's activities in selling "loosies" or for his involvement in a fight? We also don't know the contents of his pockets which would also be useful in determining whether or not he was engaged in illegal sales at the time of his homicide. I recognize police treat rich white parasites like those who crashed the global economy in 2007 differently from "criminals" like Eric Garner; however, I'm not deluded enough to believe the two responses are unrelated--are you?

Again, you are making emotive claims which you simply can't support with any evidence. You continue to imply the police treated Garner differently than they would have if Garner were white. There is no basis for this viewpoint, no evidence to suggest it could have been the case here.

The police are certainly NOT required to demonstrate probable cause before making an arrest. I don't know who told you that or where you think you learned it, but that is simply not a fact. Police arrest people every day on orders of arrest by the courts and judges whenever warrants are issued, there is no prerequisite for the officer to demonstrate anything other than Miranda rights. If the officer observes you breaking the law, they can make an arrest without a warrant. This has nothing to do with your guilt or innocence of a crime. They are not required to hold a hearing in the street and give you a chance to plead your case. You will have the opportunity to plead your case before a judge, where the officer will also be available to present his/her side of the story. You see, this is how our system works.

Now... I agree that the findings of the grand jury need to be released to the public. I also think the Garner family has a legitimately potential civil case against NYC and the PD. I'm not defending or attacking anyone here. But Eric Garner didn't die because he was black.

 

[RKMBrown]

I don't see where it makes any difference as to why the police were called. They do not have "motives for implementing arrest" other than upholding the law, that's what they do.

Do you see why police are required to demonstrate probable cause before arresting someone? In this particular instance we don't even know for sure what call the NYPD was responding to when they killed Eric Garner. Were the cops called regarding Garner's activities in selling "loosies" or for his involvement in a fight? We also don't know the contents of his pockets which would also be useful in determining whether or not he was engaged in illegal sales at the time of his homicide. I recognize police treat rich white parasites like those who crashed the global economy in 2007 differently from "criminals" like Eric Garner; however, I'm not deluded enough to believe the two responses are unrelated--are you?

Again, you are making emotive claims which you simply can't support with any evidence. You continue to imply the police treated Garner differently than they would have if Garner were white. There is no basis for this viewpoint, no evidence to suggest it could have been the case here.

The police are certainly NOT required to demonstrate probable cause before making an arrest. I don't know who told you that or where you think you learned it, but that is simply not a fact. Police arrest people every day on orders of arrest by the courts and judges whenever warrants are issued, there is no prerequisite for the officer to demonstrate anything other than Miranda rights. If the officer observes you breaking the law, they can make an arrest without a warrant. This has nothing to do with your guilt or innocence of a crime. They are not required to hold a hearing in the street and give you a chance to plead your case. You will have the opportunity to plead your case before a judge, where the officer will also be available to present his/her side of the story. You see, this is how our system works.

Now... I agree that the findings of the grand jury need to be released to the public. I also think the Garner family has a legitimately potential civil case against NYC and the PD. I'm not defending or attacking anyone here. But Eric Garner didn't die because he was black.

Oddly, you are the only one talking about skin color.

 

[Boss]

I don't see where it makes any difference as to why the police were called. They do not have "motives for implementing arrest" other than upholding the law, that's what they do.

Do you see why police are required to demonstrate probable cause before arresting someone? In this particular instance we don't even know for sure what call the NYPD was responding to when they killed Eric Garner. Were the cops called regarding Garner's activities in selling "loosies" or for his involvement in a fight? We also don't know the contents of his pockets which would also be useful in determining whether or not he was engaged in illegal sales at the time of his homicide. I recognize police treat rich white parasites like those who crashed the global economy in 2007 differently from "criminals" like Eric Garner; however, I'm not deluded enough to believe the two responses are unrelated--are you?

Again, you are making emotive claims which you simply can't support with any evidence. You continue to imply the police treated Garner differently than they would have if Garner were white. There is no basis for this viewpoint, no evidence to suggest it could have been the case here.

The police are certainly NOT required to demonstrate probable cause before making an arrest. I don't know who told you that or where you think you learned it, but that is simply not a fact. Police arrest people every day on orders of arrest by the courts and judges whenever warrants are issued, there is no prerequisite for the officer to demonstrate anything other than Miranda rights. If the officer observes you breaking the law, they can make an arrest without a warrant. This has nothing to do with your guilt or innocence of a crime. They are not required to hold a hearing in the street and give you a chance to plead your case. You will have the opportunity to plead your case before a judge, where the officer will also be available to present his/her side of the story. You see, this is how our system works.

Now... I agree that the findings of the grand jury need to be released to the public. I also think the Garner family has a legitimately potential civil case against NYC and the PD. I'm not defending or attacking anyone here. But Eric Garner didn't die because he was black.

Oddly, you are the only one talking about skin color.

"I recognize police treat rich white parasites like those who crashed the global economy in 2007 differently from "criminals" like Eric Garner;" -GEORGEPHILLIP

That wasn't MY quote, was it?

 

[georgephillip]

The police are certainly NOT required to demonstrate probable cause before making an arrest. I don't know who told you that or where you think you learned it, but that is simply not a fact. Police arrest people every day on orders of arrest by the courts and judges whenever warrants are issued, there is no prerequisite for the officer to demonstrate anything other than Miranda rights. If the officer observes you breaking the law, they can make an arrest without a warrant.

What probable cause did the NYPD have for arresting Eric Garner? Specifically, which court issued a warrant? What crime did the NYPD observe Garner commit on the day they killed him, jaywalking? If you honestly believe that blacks who find themselves in Staten Island don't regularly experience discrimination, your views are contrary to what I've been lead to believe from reading the opinions of long time residents of the Five Boroughs.

 

[Boss]

The police are certainly NOT required to demonstrate probable cause before making an arrest. I don't know who told you that or where you think you learned it, but that is simply not a fact. Police arrest people every day on orders of arrest by the courts and judges whenever warrants are issued, there is no prerequisite for the officer to demonstrate anything other than Miranda rights. If the officer observes you breaking the law, they can make an arrest without a warrant.

What probable cause did the NYPD have for arresting Eric Garner? Specifically, which court issued a warrant? What crime did the NYPD observe Garner commit on the day they killed him, jaywalking? If you honestly believe that blacks who find themselves in Staten Island don't regularly experience discrimination, your views are contrary to what I've been lead to believe from reading the opinions of long time residents of the Five Boroughs.

Again, there is no requirement for any officer or NYPD to demonstrate "probable cause" in arresting someone. They have to have probable cause to search you without a warrant. To arrest you, they need nothing but their own observing you break the law or the testament of witnesses who saw you break the law. If they didn't see you but believe you have broken the law, they can arrest you. Remember, an arrest does not mean you are found guilty of something.

What you are now trying to do is wax nostalgic about days gone by where racist white cops discriminated against blacks with impunity, and pretend that has to be the case here and now because that was the case way back when. If anything at all, that point demonstrates why you are a non-objective and biased opinion in the case.

You are dismissed.

 

[georgephillip]

Again, there is no requirement for any officer or NYPD to demonstrate "probable cause" in arresting someone.

You're confused (again)
"To establish probable cause, police officers must be able to point to objective circumstances leading them to believe that a suspect committed a crime.

"A police officer can’t establish probable cause by saying only something like, 'I just had a hunch that the defendant was a burglar.'”
Probable Cause When Police Can Make an Arrest Nolo.com

 

[RKMBrown]

I don't see where it makes any difference as to why the police were called. They do not have "motives for implementing arrest" other than upholding the law, that's what they do.

Do you see why police are required to demonstrate probable cause before arresting someone? In this particular instance we don't even know for sure what call the NYPD was responding to when they killed Eric Garner. Were the cops called regarding Garner's activities in selling "loosies" or for his involvement in a fight? We also don't know the contents of his pockets which would also be useful in determining whether or not he was engaged in illegal sales at the time of his homicide. I recognize police treat rich white parasites like those who crashed the global economy in 2007 differently from "criminals" like Eric Garner; however, I'm not deluded enough to believe the two responses are unrelated--are you?

Again, you are making emotive claims which you simply can't support with any evidence. You continue to imply the police treated Garner differently than they would have if Garner were white. There is no basis for this viewpoint, no evidence to suggest it could have been the case here.

The police are certainly NOT required to demonstrate probable cause before making an arrest. I don't know who told you that or where you think you learned it, but that is simply not a fact. Police arrest people every day on orders of arrest by the courts and judges whenever warrants are issued, there is no prerequisite for the officer to demonstrate anything other than Miranda rights. If the officer observes you breaking the law, they can make an arrest without a warrant. This has nothing to do with your guilt or innocence of a crime. They are not required to hold a hearing in the street and give you a chance to plead your case. You will have the opportunity to plead your case before a judge, where the officer will also be available to present his/her side of the story. You see, this is how our system works.

Now... I agree that the findings of the grand jury need to be released to the public. I also think the Garner family has a legitimately potential civil case against NYC and the PD. I'm not defending or attacking anyone here. But Eric Garner didn't die because he was black.

Oddly, you are the only one talking about skin color.

"I recognize police treat rich white parasites like those who crashed the global economy in 2007 differently from "criminals" like Eric Garner;" -GEORGEPHILLIP

That wasn't MY quote, was it?

Would you like me to quote you out of context?

 

[Boss]

Again, there is no requirement for any officer or NYPD to demonstrate "probable cause" in arresting someone.

You're confused (again)
"To establish probable cause, police officers must be able to point to objective circumstances leading them to believe that a suspect committed a crime.

"A police officer can’t establish probable cause by saying only something like, 'I just had a hunch that the defendant was a burglar.'”
Probable Cause When Police Can Make an Arrest Nolo.com

Sorry but even your own source link tells you that "probable cause" is so ambiguous it often can't be determined until after an arrest and has to be decided by a judge. You and the NoLo.com people are misusing the term and making a claim that is factually inaccurate. Police are not required to demonstrate probable cause before making an arrest.

 

[Boss]

I don't see where it makes any difference as to why the police were called. They do not have "motives for implementing arrest" other than upholding the law, that's what they do.

Do you see why police are required to demonstrate probable cause before arresting someone? In this particular instance we don't even know for sure what call the NYPD was responding to when they killed Eric Garner. Were the cops called regarding Garner's activities in selling "loosies" or for his involvement in a fight? We also don't know the contents of his pockets which would also be useful in determining whether or not he was engaged in illegal sales at the time of his homicide. I recognize police treat rich white parasites like those who crashed the global economy in 2007 differently from "criminals" like Eric Garner; however, I'm not deluded enough to believe the two responses are unrelated--are you?

Again, you are making emotive claims which you simply can't support with any evidence. You continue to imply the police treated Garner differently than they would have if Garner were white. There is no basis for this viewpoint, no evidence to suggest it could have been the case here.

The police are certainly NOT required to demonstrate probable cause before making an arrest. I don't know who told you that or where you think you learned it, but that is simply not a fact. Police arrest people every day on orders of arrest by the courts and judges whenever warrants are issued, there is no prerequisite for the officer to demonstrate anything other than Miranda rights. If the officer observes you breaking the law, they can make an arrest without a warrant. This has nothing to do with your guilt or innocence of a crime. They are not required to hold a hearing in the street and give you a chance to plead your case. You will have the opportunity to plead your case before a judge, where the officer will also be available to present his/her side of the story. You see, this is how our system works.

Now... I agree that the findings of the grand jury need to be released to the public. I also think the Garner family has a legitimately potential civil case against NYC and the PD. I'm not defending or attacking anyone here. But Eric Garner didn't die because he was black.

Oddly, you are the only one talking about skin color.

"I recognize police treat rich white parasites like those who crashed the global economy in 2007 differently from "criminals" like Eric Garner;" -GEORGEPHILLIP

That wasn't MY quote, was it?

Would you like me to quote you out of context?

You said I am the only one talking about skin color. I instantly proved you were a liar. If you now want to quote me out of context, I would say that is fitting and proper for any liar.

I actually ought to thank you for giving me my first true belly laugh this entire thread. So you really haven't seen anyone else talk about skin color? LMAO... Really???

 

[georgephillip]

You and the NoLo.com people are misusing the term and making a claim that is factually inaccurate. Police are not required to demonstrate probable cause before making an arrest.

"To establish probable cause, police officers must be able to point to objective circumstances leading them to believe that a suspect committed a crime. A police officer can’t establish probable cause by saying only something like, 'I just had a hunch that the defendant was a burglar.'”
Point out the "objective circumstances" that led the NYPD to kill Eric Garner, or is it more likely your heroes "just had a hunch" he was selling loosies?
Probable Cause When Police Can Make an Arrest Nolo.com