• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Racial Profiling and Police Brutality

Taking this where it belongs:

extremely late to the party



you're right. instead he was literally referred to as a demon, which i'm sure reflects better on him somehow

(from the same kind of person who would probably claim that tamir rice was capable of killing cleveland police with a single blow, if evidence came out that rice could dunk a basketball)

I am not addressing anything about Rice because I haven't kept up with that case, but it is positively not true that Brown "was literally referred to as a demon," as the exact comment (which can be found on page 255 of this official document) was a simile, and referred only to his face and how angry it looked. The fact that Brown's friend Dorian Johnson describes both of them (on page 51 of this official document) as having angry faces and says both of them are cussing at each other at that point is highly relevant. It shows that Wilson's comment, even if an exaggeration, was never intended generally.

It also shows that your comment describing Wilson as a certain "kind of person" is misplaced.


But thanks for proving some people on the left are capable of employing stereotypes just like some of the people they call out for employing stereotypes!





There was some question about the radio the officer wears on his shoulder being set to the wrong channel. Something that happened during the fight.

Okay, then I should definitely acknowledge a limitation on my point, as I had forgotten all about radios that police wear. Aside from the possibility you mention, my point mostly gets in the way of your point that one can't be certain exactly when backup will arrive even if they give an estimate.
 

bobjr

You ask too many questions
Staff member
Moderator
Yeah, sad that a guy gets to retire a millionaire for killing a kid. One less dumb fuck patrolling the streets for all I care.
 

LDSman

Well-Known Member
Yeah, sad that a guy gets to retire a millionaire for killing a kid. One less dumb fuck patrolling the streets for all I care.

About half of that may end up being returned. It was donated for the express purpose of legal defense and since he isn't being charged, won't need it.

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/da...pages_mysteriously_shut_down_this_weekend.php

After raising more than $400,000 for Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, supporters halted donations on a GoFundMe page Saturday to strategize how to use that money without violating tax rules for non-profits.

Representative Jeff Roorda tells Daily RFT he's trying to determine whether Shield of Hope, the organization managing the donations, is legally allowed to spend the funds on Wilson's legal defense since it is a registered 501c3 nonprofit. Most donors expected their money to pay for lawyers, legal fees and other expenses related to Wilson's prosecution, Roorda says.

"If we find money was donated to the Shield of Hope's GoFundMe and it can't be used for the express purpose it was intended for, we will return it," says Roorda, one of the officials listed on the nonprofit's state records, along with Ferguson police officer Timothy Zoll and Florissant councilman Joseph Eagan.

I don't know about the other fundraisers and their refund criteria or even if Wilson was going to accept the money. The KKK money should either be sent back or donated to a charity that aids minorities.

Wilson and his family will get to spend years handling death threats and obsessive media stalking. I'm sure money will compensate for that (sarcasm).

The "dumb f***" in this story was Brown for attacking a police officer and then instead of continuing to run away turned and tried to attack the officer again while the officer was pointing a gun at him!
 
Last edited:
Maybe this will get TFP to shutup and stop throwing a temper tantrum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsTEJiR4FSc

Short and to the point, highlights the major problems with not getting an indictment in this case. The big part being that the grand jury didn't even have any business listening to Darren Wilson's testimony. That's not how grand jury's actually work, and this case is completely unprecedented.

Or the fact that the grand jury was instructed to make their decision based on a law ruled unconstitutional in 1985.

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/11/how-robert-mcculloch-hoodwinked-ferguson

That's just skimming the surface though, really.

I think it's hilarious you're busy getting your panties in a twist about bias and what not when information like this is widely available and circulated. If you were in the least bit interested in getting to the truth of the matter, in actually understanding why people are so outraged about this, you wouldn't need someone else on a pokemon forum to do a ten second google search for you. You'll have to forgive us if we don't feel like engaging in a point for point style debate with someone who isn't even privy to the facts. Facts are stubborn things.
 
Last edited:

LDSman

Well-Known Member
Maybe this will get TFP to shutup and stop throwing a temper tantrum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsTEJiR4FSc

Short and to the point, highlights the major problems with not getting an indictment in this case. The big part being that the grand jury didn't even have any business listening to Darren Wilson's testimony. That's not how grand jury's actually work, and this case is completely unprecedented.
Just like the Thinkprogress article, this is wrong. A prosecutor is not REQUIRED to share exculpatory evidence. They are not PROHIBITED from doing so.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/1...ferguson-grand-jury-to-consider-self-defense/

One of the most recent of the seemingly never-ending succession of Progressive complaints about the Ferguson Grand Jury is that the Grand Jury’s decision not to indict is inherently flawed because they were permitted to consider self-defense.

Those professing this argument rely for support on one of their favorite variations of the classic “straw man argument”: they quote an authoritative Conservative figure in purported support of their position.

In this case, they are calling upon none other than Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, as in the Think Progress post: Justice Scalia Explains What Was Wrong With The Ferguson Grand Jury.

In particular, the Think Progress post states the following:

Justice Antonin Scalia, in the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, explained what the role of a grand jury has been for hundreds of years.

It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.

This passage was first highlighted by attorney Ian Samuel, a former clerk to Justice Scalia.

What Does Williams Actually Say?

But is it true that Williams holds it is inappropriate for the prosecution to share evidence of self-defense with a Grand Jury, as was done in Ferguson? Let’s have a look.

Williams involved a case in which the defendant (Williams, naturally) had his indictment dismissed by a Federal District Court because the prosecution failed to present “substantial exculpatory evidence” favorable to the defense. The District Court cited a local rule which mandated that the prosecution do so. The Appellate Court affirmed this dismissal of the indictment, and the matter ended up before the Supreme Court.

Drawing here from the Court’s syllabus of Williams, for purposes of conciseness, the decision holds in in relevant part:

[R]equiring the prosecutor to present exculpatory as well as inculpatory evidence would alter the grand jury’s historical role, transforming it from an accusatory body that sits to assess whether there is adequate basis for bringing a criminal charge into an adjudicatory body that sits to determine guilt or innocence. Because it has always been thought sufficient for the grand jury to hear only the prosecutor’s side, and, consequently that the suspect has no right to present, and the grand jury no obligation to consider, exculpatory evidence, it would be incompatible with the traditional system to impose upon the prosecutor a legal obligation to present such evidence.

(emphasis added)
Williams Says Prosecution May Not Be Required To Present Exculpatory Evidence To Grand Jury

It requires no more than modest intelligence to note the particular contextual language used by Scalia in Williams.

“Requiring the prosecutor to present exculpatory as well as inculpatory evidence . . . “

uspect has no right to present, and the grand jury no obligation to consider, exculpatory evidence . . . “

t would be incompatible with the traditional system to impose upon the prosecutor a legal obligation to present [exculpatory] evidence . . . “

Clearly there is nothing–not one single word–of Williams that so much as suggests that the prosecutor may not or should not upon its own discretion and initiative present whatever exculpatory evidence it feels might advance the purposes of justice, nor is there a word of prohibition on the matter of presenting exculpatory evidence.

Williams merely says that the prosecution can not be required or obligated to present exculpatory evidence, nor have the legal obligation to present exculpatory evidence imposed upon them.
So It’s Good That No One Did Require Prosecution to Present Exculpatory Evidence to Grand Jury in Ferguson

No one, not even Think Progress, is suggesting that any authority over the prosecution required or obligated the prosecution to present exculpatory evidence, nor that they had legal obligation to present exculpatory evidence imposed upon them with respect to the Ferguson Grand Jury.

Thus, Williams is irrelevant to the Ferguson Grand Jury proceedings as a simple matter of law.
Was Presenting Evidence of Self-Defense to Grand Jury Inappropriate Even Absent Williams?

Now that we’ve discarded Williams as relevant to the Ferguson Grand Jury, it behooves us to consider the broader issue of whether there is something aberrant or contrary to justice in presenting evidence of self-defense to a Grand Jury. After all, it is correctly noted that Grand Juries are rarely presented with a defendant’s legal defense of, say, alibi or misidentification.

Surely then, the prosecution must have have been acting aberrantly when they presented the Ferguson Grand Jury with evidence of Wilson’s having acted in self-defense?

The answer is, simply put, is no.
Self-Defense: Not Your Usual Legal Defense

Why? Because self-defense is a fundamentally different defense than alibi or misidentification or any other non-justification defense.

When a defendant argues an alibi defense, he is not contesting that a crime has been committed. Indeed, whether a crime has been committed or not is irrelevant to his defense, because his defense is that regardless of whether the underlying crime occurred, he was not there. Whoever committed the claimed criminal acts, they were committed by someone else.

But a crime was committed. Indeed, if the prosecution cannot establish that fact, for example if they cannot present probable cause on any element of the criminal charge, the Grand Jury is required to not indict.

Similarly with a misidentification defense. Again, the defendant is not contesting that a crime has been committed, but rather is arguing that whoever committed the crime, it was some person similar in appearance to him, but not him.

But again a crime was committed. Indeed, if the prosecution cannot establish that fact, for example if they cannot present probable cause on any element of the criminal charge, the Grand Jury is required to not indict.

A justification defense such as self-defense is a different animal of legal defense entirely.

Self-defense does not contest that the defendant committed the underlying acts. It does not claim that he was somewhere else, as in an alibi defense, or that some similar appearing person other than him committed the acts, as in a misidentification defense.

Self-defense effectively requires the defendant to concede to having committed the charged acts. One cannot simultaneously refuse to have committed the charged acts and simultaneously claim self-defense–to do so is an outright logical inconsistency.

Self-defense is an inherently deliberate act–you perceived a threat, and acted against it.

More importantly, an act of self-defense eliminates completely any criminality associated with the underlying actions that would otherwise be criminal.
Self-Defense Eliminates the Criminality of What Would Otherwise be a Criminal Act

In other words, self-defense acts to eliminate the criminality of the underlying acts, and thus effectively becomes a negative element of the criminal charge. It is for this reason that 49 of 50 states require that at trial it is the burden of the prosecution to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt–just as the prosecution must prove each and every element of the criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

More simply, if an otherwise criminal act was committed in self-defense, no crime has been committed at all.

It is the duty of the Grand Jury to determine whether there exists probable cause that a crime has been committed, and that the defendant is the person who committed the underlying acts.

In a self-defense case, of course, the second question is not contested–the defendant concedes up front that he committed the underlying acts, else he would not be entitled to claim self-defense at all.

The first question, however–there’s the rub.

In order for the Grand Jury to determine whether there exists probable cause that has been committed in a self-defense case, they must do more than merely determine whether there exists probable cause as to each and every element of the criminal charge. This they must do, surely, because if they do not the Grand Jury will be instructed to not indict.

But in a case involving self-defense, probable cause on each and every element of the criminal charge is necessary but not sufficient for an indictment.

Why? Because probable cause could exist on each and every element of the criminal charge and yet probable cause of a crime necessary to support an indictment still be lacking.

Why? Because self-defense eliminates the criminality of the otherwise criminal underlying acts.
If Evidence of Self-Defense Is Adequate To Eliminate Probable Cause of a Crime, There Can Be No Indictment

A shooting done in self-defense, then, is simply not a crime at all, and if there is no crime there can be no indictment.

If either the evidence on the elements of the criminal charge is inadequate to support probable cause that a crime has occurred, or the evidence on self-defense is sufficient to eliminate probable case that a crime has occurred, the outcome from the Grand Jury’s perspective must necessarily be the same: no-true-bill.

Thus, just as it is perfectly appropriate for the Grand Jury to consider all relevant evidence on each and every element of the criminal charge, it is equally appropriate for the Grand Jury to consider all relevant evidence on the matter of self-defense.
To Deny That the Grand Jury Should Consider Self-Defense is to Embrace an Absurdity

Indeed, to deny that the Grand Jury should consider self-defense is to embrace a legal and logical absurdity.

As noted, in cases of self-defense,the defendant necessarily concedes the underlying criminal acts, but defends them on the grounds that he was legally justified to commit the acts as a matter of lawful self-defense.

Were the Grand Jury be permitted to consider only the concession of the use of force, but not the claimed justification, then each and every act of self-defense would necessarily result in an indictment and be brought to trial, no matter how strongly the evidence in its totality supported the justification of that use of force.

A Secret Service Agent cuts down an assassin moments before the killer can take the President’s life, all caught on cameras by news agencies worldwide as the President delivers a major policy speech? Sorry, Agent, here’s your indictment, we’ll see you at the trial. After all, he concedes he committed the killing, and merely claims legal justification for doing so–but the Grand Jury is not permitted to hear the justifcation.

A maniac gunning down children in a school is shot and killed by the school resource officer assigned to that duty, all events testified to by scores of surviving teachers and students? Sorry, officer, here’s your indictment, we’ll see you at trial. Again, the Grand Jury is permitted to hear the concession of the use of force, but not the justification.

A murderously abusive husband invades his wife’s place of work, killing her colleagues with shotgun blasts as he seeks her out, until a security officer takes him out with a well-placed gun shot to the head, all events caught on the company’s CCTV system? Sorry, sir, here’s your indictment, we’ll see you at trial. You get the idea.

I suggest that no reasonable or moral person could possibly argue for such legal outcomes.

Or the fact that the grand jury was instructed to make their decision based on a law ruled unconstitutional in 1985.

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/11/how-robert-mcculloch-hoodwinked-ferguson

That's just skimming the surface though, really.
An issue that was corrected BEFORE they went to deliberations.

I think it's hilarious you're busy getting your panties in a twist about bias and what not when information like this is widely available and circulated. If you were in the least bit interested in getting to the truth of the matter, in actually understanding why people are so outraged about this, you wouldn't need someone else on a pokemon forum to do a ten second google search for you. You'll have to forgive us if we don't feel like engaging in a point for point style debate with someone who isn't even privy to the facts.

I think it's hilarious that people won't admit that the facts don't support the claim that Wilson murdered Brown. People feel outraged over this because they've been lead to accept the notion that all police interactions are based on racism. Any evidence or testimony that supports Wilson's story is dismissed as part of a cover-up. You grasp at things that have been dismissed as not relevant and claim that it proves the grand jury was a sham.
 

SILVER XD

Momentai, bro.
Is anyone actually surprised that there are riots? That they really need to be pointed out to like at the idea of peacefulness protests about this event? No matter how good a cause is or how peaceful a movement's forerunners urge their peers to be there will always be those who will use violence to express their anger or try to further their beliefs, idiots like Brown's step-father will always exist. This in no way reflects upon the core of the protests.

Wilson was doing his job by confronting Brown however I do not accept the view that shooting and killing Brown was the only available course of action or that it was justified, nor do I believe that Brown was at all justified. And not do I believe that race was a defining factor of this event as it being made out to be. No I do not believe that lethal force should be used when no lethal force has already been put forward and no I do not believe bare fists to be lethal force against a trained law officer. I have no problem with Wilson firing on Brown, but I take issue in that it ended his life and hold that Wilson should have had some form of legal punishment put upon him.
 
Last edited:

Silver Soul

Well-Known Member
It doesn't help that incidents like this happen all over America. Eric Garner's case is going to the Grand Jury and because of the low indictment rate among cop killings, expect THAT cop who killed him with an illegal chokehold get away. If anyone learns from Rodney King that if the GJ can acquit officers despite video evidence, then it won't end well at all.

Also, the St. Louis Rams players protested the Ferguson decision by coming out with a "Hands Up Don't Shoot" gesture. Of course, Jeff Roorda did not take that well. He's the one who donated money to Wilson by the way and head of the SLPOA. Not to mention fired as an officer for giving out false information.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/30/st-louis-police-rams-hands-up_n_6245792.html
 

LDSman

Well-Known Member
Is anyone actually surprised that there are riots? That they really need to be pointed out to like at the idea of peacefulness protests about this event? No matter how good a cause is or how peaceful a movement's forerunners urge their peers to be there will always be those who will use violence to express their anger or try to further their beliefs, idiots like Brown's step-father will always exist. This in no way reflects upon the core of the protests.
Maybe if the non-violent protestors would do more to stop the violence or to convince them that they are not welcome.

Wilson was doing his job by confronting Brown however I do not accept the view that shooting and killing Brown was the only available course of action or that it was justified, nor do I believe that Brown was at all justified. And not do I believe that race was a defining factor of this event as it being made out to be. No I do not believe that lethal force should be used when no lethal force has already been put forward and no I do not believe bare fists to be lethal force against a trained law officer. I have no problem with Wilson firing on Brown, but I take issue in that it ended his life and hold that Wilson should have had some form of legal punishment put upon him.

Cops can't be beaten to death?

http://www.elpasotimes.com/tablehome/ci_21708260/el-paso-police-officer-dies-from-sept-25

The legal system does not punish people for self defense.
\
It doesn't help that incidents like this happen all over America. Eric Garner's case is going to the Grand Jury and because of the low indictment rate among cop killings, expect THAT cop who killed him with an illegal chokehold get away. If anyone learns from Rodney King that if the GJ can acquit officers despite video evidence, then it won't end well at all.

Garner was an accident. He had health issues and shouldn't have tried to fight the police. The reason that the GJ did not indict the officers in the Rodney King incident was due to the section that showed King charging an officer. That was a section the media left out.

Also, the St. Louis Rams players protested the Ferguson decision by coming out with a "Hands Up Don't Shoot" gesture. Of course, Jeff Roorda did not take that well. He's the one who donated money to Wilson by the way and head of the SLPOA. Not to mention fired as an officer for giving out false information.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/30/st-louis-police-rams-hands-up_n_6245792.html

People got mad because its spreading a lie.
 

bobjr

You ask too many questions
Staff member
Moderator
Funny enough the cop most mad at the Rams for doing that has a history of corruption.
 

Sheepy Lamby

Well-Known Member
White Panthers? You mean the KKK? The guys who were threatening "lethal force" against protesters?

No, because if I say "Black" then some people will call me racist. Take a look at this.
http://nypost.com/2014/11/22/fbi-makes-explosive-ferguson-bust/

Yeah, sad that a guy gets to retire a millionaire for killing a kid. One less dumb fuck patrolling the streets for all I care.
Same feelings here, Brown will no longer patrol the streets intimidating store clerks.
I talked about aggressive language from Brown supporters for a reason...
 

Silver Soul

Well-Known Member
Not to mention that Jeff Roorda doesn't want ANY cameras on police officers. There's a reason he lost the State Senate in Missouri this year.

No, because if I say "Black" then some people will call me racist. Take a look at this.
http://nypost.com/2014/11/22/fbi-makes-explosive-ferguson-bust/

You know who else was there? Oathkeepers which a certain cop who enjoys being a killer was a part of it.

Same feelings here, Brown will no longer patrol the streets intimidating store clerks.
I talked about aggressive language from Brown supporters for a reason...

Dude, are you really proud of what you just said? THAT warrants a death penalty? Gosh... Only one actually took a life you know?

Oh and another thing, the President meet with protest leaders. Not to mentions plans on money for body cameras on police officers through out the nation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...th-president-obama-at-the-white-house-monday/
 

Sheepy Lamby

Well-Known Member
Not to mention that Jeff Roorda doesn't want ANY cameras on police officers. There's a reason he lost the State Senate in Missouri this year.

That is wrong. Cameras should be mandatory. No objections.

You know who else was there? Oathkeepers which a certain cop who enjoys being a killer was a part of it.
Please cite a source.
Dude, are you really proud of what you just said? THAT warrants a death penalty? Gosh... Only one actually took a life you know?
I am just replying what other person said here. It's not about being proud of your words or not. What would have happened if Brown punched and killed the clerk?
Oh and another thing, the President meet with protest leaders. Not to mentions plans on money for body cameras on police officers through out the nation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...th-president-obama-at-the-white-house-monday/
Let me cite one part of the article:
“Where has [President Obama] been all of these months?" said one Ferguson activist Monday. "And now he wants to have a meeting? Please.”
Obama is being cautious after his comments on Trayvon martin's death and race.
 

LDSman

Well-Known Member
Dude, are you really proud of what you just said? THAT warrants a death penalty? Gosh... Only one actually took a life you know?
An action that was made necessary by Brown who attempted to take a police officer's gun. What do you think Brown was going to do with the gun after he got it?
 

Sheepy Lamby

Well-Known Member
An action that was made necessary by Brown who attempted to take a police officer's gun. What do you think Brown was going to do with the gun after he got it?

Thanks for understanding my point LDSman
No one should be proud of killing another person. Wilson was just doing his job.
I guess many people here does not know what carrying a gun is (which is fine) but they don't understand than carrying it is a great responsibility. I don't pull out my gun just to intimidate people.
A gun is a self-defense weapon used as a last resource to stop an aggressor.

Benjamin Watson's comment is interesting and a good source to reflect on what is going on in the US.
 

Silver Soul

Well-Known Member
Oh about the Oath Keepers. Here you go.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/oath-keep...ets-rooftops-drawing-police/story?id=27303096

You know for all the whole thing when it comes to looting, people these days are trying to make looting exclusive to African-Americans. I mean look, white people FIND food while black people LOOT food. This was during the damage of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. There has been racial bias when it comes to media reporting since then.

http://stopbeingfamous.com/2013/11/14/the-return-of-looting-vs-finding/_3308199.html

But hey, we don't really know what actually happened because there are no cameras that showed everything with except one video that showed two white workers seeing actually seeing his arms up but let's ignore that along with other majority of witnesses. I remember the Cleveland police officers who shot Tamir Rice said they told him to raise his arms 3 times and the video showed that 2 seconds is a lot different. Just saying that without transparency, our police enforcement can't be trusted on this. And one of Wilson's backers is against cameras in the first place.
 

bobjr

You ask too many questions
Staff member
Moderator
Cop Unions have voiced complaints against cameras on them, because hey, why remove doubt when they know they have the backing by default.
 

LDSman

Well-Known Member

Nothing in there about a "certain cop who enjoys being a killer" as part of the group?

You know for all the whole thing when it comes to looting, people these days are trying to make looting exclusive to African-Americans. I mean look, white people FIND food while black people LOOT food. This was during the damage of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. There has been racial bias when it comes to media reporting since then.

http://stopbeingfamous.com/2013/11/14/the-return-of-looting-vs-finding/_3308199.html
Your link references articles from the Philippines about people stealing (AKA looting) rice after an earthquake. Regardless of the legitimate need, it was still looting. And as far as the Katrina pictures referenced? Two different photographers, two different situations.

http://www.snopes.com/katrina/photos/looters.asp

But hey, we don't really know what actually happened because there are no cameras that showed everything with except one video that showed two white workers seeing actually seeing his arms up but let's ignore that along with other majority of witnesses. I remember the Cleveland police officers who shot Tamir Rice said they told him to raise his arms 3 times and the video showed that 2 seconds is a lot different. Just saying that without transparency, our police enforcement can't be trusted on this. And one of Wilson's backers is against cameras in the first place.

A link was provided earlier for a video in which someone else is heard describing seeing Brown charging the officer. And the forensic evidence didn't support the hands up myth.
 

Silver Soul

Well-Known Member
So basically, an NYPD cop broke his own rules by illegally choking Eric Garner to death all over allegedly selling individual cigarettes despite shouting that he can't breathe. It was all caught on video and it was ruled by the medical examiner as a homicide. And how does the Grand Jury responds? NO INDICTMENT! Oh Staten Island, may God have mercy on your souls.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/n...land-chokehold-death-of-eric-garner.html?_r=0
 
Top