Garner's Argument For Killing Michael Brown

822 Words4 Pages

Justice
In December 2014, students from The University of Berkeley California began to protest about how the police officers who killed Michael Brown and Eric Garner got away with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. The protesters marched through Berkeley with other protesters to San Francisco. Protests were held in Oakland as well about the cause. Were the juries of the trial correct in choosing the police officers to be not guilty? No, I believe that they should be indicted for killing the unarmed men, Michael Brown and Eric Garner. They deserve justice and no one else should have to go through this.
On August 9, 2014, Michael Brown was gunned down by officer Darren Wilson, a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Wilson heard that Brown …show more content…

Pantaleo had Garner in a chokehold and knocked him out, while unconscious other police officers got on top of him during the restraint, compressing his chest even more. Officers came to Garner with suspicion of Garner selling cigarettes, though Garner expressed that he was doing no such thing. When the officer moved in to arrest him, Garner swiped his hand away. At that time, Pantaleo put his arm around Garner’s neck and pulled him down to the ground. After choking him for several seconds, other police officers went to restrain Garner. During the restraint Garner said that he couldn’t breathe. When they rolled him over, he was unconscious. When the paramedics arrived, they did not apply CPR to Garner because he was still breathing at the time and it would be pointless. He was pronounced dead as soon as they were at the hospital about one hour later. Examiners confirmed that his death was because of a chokehold and compression to the chest. When the case was brought to court, the grand jury found Pantaleo ad Damico not guilty for Garner’s death. This cause protests as well as lawsuits for police brutality. Garner was unarmed and showed no violence towards the …show more content…

Both suspects were unarmed and harmless so ending their lives was an action that shouldn’t have happened. Michael Brown was facing the police officer to basically surrender when he was shot 12 times. Brown’s friend that was present when his death happened told MSNBC, “The officer came up to us and told us to “get the **** on the sidewalk” and then threatened us by saying “I’m going to shoot you.” (Johnson, NBC News). This is a prime example of police brutality and excessive use of violence. When Garner kept begging for air, why didn’t the officer let go? In an Al Baker’s article that I read, Obama stated “When anybody in this country is not being treated equally under the law, that is a problem,” Mr. Obama also said, “and it’s my job as president to help solve it.” (Baker). In both cases the suspects were unarmed and showed no real threat to officers, yet the officer took lethal action. Aren’t officers suppose to look out for the greater good of the civilians, not endanger

Open Document