By Johanna Miller
Four years ago today (July 17), Eric Garner was killed on Staten Island by police. The 43-year-old father died after he was put in a chokehold by New York Police Department Officer Daniel Pantaleo. His last words, “I can’t breathe” — repeated 11 times while half a dozen officers did nothing to intervene — helped fuel a movement for police accountability that continues today.
Yesterday, the city announced that, after waiting more than three years for a federal investigation into Garner’s killing to conclude, it will move forward with its own inquiry into Garner’s death. In a letter to the Department of Justice, NYPD Deputy Commissioner Lawrence Byrne wrote that if the Justice Department does not publicly announce whether it will bring charges against Pantaleo by August 31, the city will serve Pantaleo with departmental charges and try him in an administrative trial in early 2019.
The announcement on the eve of the anniversary of Garner’s death was almost certainly designed to help Mayor Bill de Blasio avoid criticism from Garner’s family and other advocates, who have been pushing the city to take action. This decision by the city, while welcome, does not excuse the administration for taking so long to do anything and also proves that the excuses for not taking 
action were flimsy at best.
To fully understand why this delay has been so frustrating, we should look back at how we got here.
A month after Garner’s death on Staten Island, then Richmond County District Attorney Daniel Donovan failed to secure an indictment against Pantaleo. Since then, Garner’s supporters’ hopes for accountability have hinged on an ongoing federal investigation launched in 2014 by the Justice Department. The investigation began under Attorney General Eric Holder, continued under Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and is now proceeding under the current head of the Justice Department, Jeff Sessions.
In April, The New York Times reported that civil rights attorneys for the Justice Department recommended filing charges against Pantaleo, but top Justice Department officials expressed doubts about the case. Nearly three-and-a-half years after it opened a civil rights investigation into Garner’s death, there is no sign a decision from the Justice Department, one way or the other, is coming anytime soon.
As the federal investigation drags on, leaders in New York City refused, until yesterday, to take action. The Justice Department had asked the city to refrain from conducting its own investigation while the federal inquiry was ongoing. The city’s top lawyer, Zachary Carter, told The New York Times in February that, while New York is under no obligation to hold off on investigating, the city agreed to wait.
Last year, however, the Civilian Complaint Review Board, the independent agency charged with investigating NYPD officer misconduct, conducted its own investigation into the Garner killing. The board found that charges should be brought against Pantaleo and recommended that he should face the stiffest punishments possible: suspension or termination. This was the third finding of abuse against Pantaleo by the CCRB, including two cases that happened prior to his role in the killing of Eric Garner.
If the Justice Department doesn’t announce the results of its investigation by the end of August, CCRB prosecutors, according to Deputy Commissioner Byrne, will present an administrative case against Pantaleo next year. The board could then make a recommendation to NYPD Chief James O’Neill, who will have the ultimate say in what punishment, if any, Pantaleo receives. You read that correctly. Under New York state law, only police commissioners have the authority to discipline police officers, meaning O’Neill can completely disregard the CCRB’s recommendations.
There is no reason the city should not have taken these steps much sooner. Not doing so gives the appearance of complete impunity at the NYPD, which, given its size and influence, has a ripple effect on police departments across the country.
Since Garner’s unnecessary and avoidable death, his family has fought tirelessly, even as they experienced additional tragedy. In December 2017, Garner’s daughter Erica, who fiercely fought for justice for her father, died suddenly. On Dec. 30, Mayor de Blasio joined activists and family members in mourning her loss, tweeting, “I am praying for her family, who have already been through so much.”
De Blasio’s decision yesterday proves that the mayor can do much more than pray for Garner’s family. Meanwhile, Pantaleo remains on the NYPD payroll, and Eric Garner’s family continues to wait for justice.
Johanna Miller is the Advocacy Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union
Get Tickets To Vanguard’s Immigration Rights Event
Eric Gardner’s case is one of missed opportunity. It is a fantastic bit of idiocy that it skipped all the root causes and headed into anti-cop and racism territory to support a media and political agenda.
The REAL story should have been one of the dangers of a growing big government machine where taxes keep growing to fund the machine and enforcement of those tax payments more often rely on armed government officials. Eric Gardner was selling cigarettes without all the property licenses, certifications and tax assessments. For this he was killed by the authorities. And those authorities are supporting a particular political agenda and orthodoxy that ironically is the same that is attempting to milk the tragedy as a problem with law enforcement.
Big government killed Eric Gardner. And big government Mayor De Blasio should be ashamed of his behavior putting politics above the welfare of those he was elected to serve.
But the cops overreacted to a situation that did not call for any sort of use of force.
That’s the relevant part. People flout tax laws all the time and don’t end up dead for it.
Ok, let’s play.
“But the cops overreacted to a situation that did not call for any sort of use of force”
Cops are required in their jobs to restrain suspects that resist arrest? TRUE or FALSE
When cops are called on to enforce the laws implemented by politicians, increased risk of injury or death of a suspect if inevitable? TRUE or FALSE
“Cops are required in their jobs to restrain suspects that resist arrest? TRUE or FALSE”
This is where we start having differences.
A. Cops have discretion as to how to handle encounters
B. Cops should weigh the risk to public safety in how they handle encounters
C. The cops had other options than arrest in this case. Especially since it does not appear he was actually illegally selling cigarettes on this occasion.
D. The crime was not commensurate with a use of force.
E. There was a cumulative effect of repeated harassments by the police on Eric’s response.
A. Cops have discretion as to how to handle encounters
Not really unless you expect them to be sanctuary cops that disobey the laws and rules they are sworn to uphold.
B. Cops should weigh the risk to public safety in how they handle encounters
Sure, he was selling cigarettes and liberals are responsible for the laws and rules to stop people from smoking. What if he had been selling meth or sugary sodas to kids?
C. The cops had other options than arrest in this case. Especially since it does not appear he was actually illegally selling cigarettes on this occasion.
I don’t believe you are correct here.
D. The crime was not commensurate with a use of force.
Agree here that the choke hold was not required. Too bad the Sergeant on duty at time (a black female ) did not intervene.
E. There was a cumulative effect of repeated harassments by the police on Eric’s response.
I don’t understand this.
But in general you have deflected from the point that liberals like big government and lots of laws and rules to prevent people from making bad choices, and then it falls on the cops to enforce all those laws and rules. And whenever you involved cops to enforce more laws and rules it naturally increases the risk for something to go wrong… especially when suspects resist arrest.
“Not really unless you expect them to be sanctuary cops that disobey the laws and rules they are sworn to uphold.”
Actually a few weeks earlier, the cops let him off with a warning.
“Sure, he was selling cigarettes and liberals are responsible for the laws and rules to stop people from smoking. What if he had been selling meth or sugary sodas to kids?”
Again I think you have to weigh the cost of engaging versus the crime committed. They knew who he was, they could have given him the citation later.
“I don’t believe you are correct here.”
I suggest you do some more research then. Largely and you can read the NY Times article, they were trying to clear the area rather than attempting to arrest for committing a crime.
“Agree here that the choke hold was not required. Too bad the Sergeant on duty at time (a black female ) did not intervene.”
The one point we agree on.
“But in general you have deflected from the point”
THat’s your point not mine.
Jeff — So, let’s just repeal the entire penal code and we won’t need cops to enforce any laws and therefore there won’t be police brutality. Brilliant. I can’t wait to hear your solutions to world hunger and climate change. (Oh. Wait. Climate change is just a liberal fantasy.)