At first I thought this was a clear cut case of abuse. I'm changing to neutral after some new info and watching the vid again. I've heard:
1. The Medical Examiner's report did not find asphyxiation to be the cause of death. Further, there was no damage to man's trachea/windpipe.
2. The officer did NOT use a choke hold as has been reported repeatedly. Grabbing someone around the head/neck area is not a choke hold. A choke hold, while being around the head/neck area, is a very specific maneuver and this isn't one. This grab around the neck is supposedly NOT against police policy.
3. I rewatched the vid and the so-called "choke hold" was applied for a very brief period of time. I don't have a clock with seconds displayed, but I'm guessing around 10 seconds. If you're being choked you can't say "I can't breath" 11 times. If you can't breath you can't say it 11 times either. Furthermore, it was only after the "choke hold" was released that the man started complaining of trouble breathing.
4. This type of police 'take down' of those resisting is policy and is done thousands of times a year in NY. People very rarely die or suffer serious injuries. This death of a suspect is a unique case.
5. While I never saw any reason to believe this arrest was racially motivated recent information suggests claims of racism to be baseless. The police responded to continued complaints by merchants in the area, many of whom are Black. The man was harassing customers and driving away business was the complaint (of course selling cigs without a license is illegal).
The police chief approved the use of police resources to respond to the complaints about this man. The police chief is Black.
The ranking officer on scene in charge was a Black police officer.
I haven't confirmed the above info as reported on cable is correct (I doubt some of it can be as GJ proceedings are sealed) but if accurate I believe the GJ was correct in not indicting.
It may just be that this guy died primarily because of his terrible health (heart problem, asthma, obesity etc) A review of M.E.'s report would be ideal, but since it was a G.J. proceeding we may never see it.
Fern