A frame-by-frame look at James O’Neill’s explanation of Pantaleo firing
Published Aug. 19, 2019, 10:00 p.m. ET
1 of 4
1. “Eric Garner refused to cooperate with the arrest and to comply with lawful orders. The video also makes clear that Officer [Daniel] Pantaleo’s original efforts to take Mr. Garner into custody were appropriate — in that he initially attempted two maneuvers sanctioned by the Police Department. Officer Pantaleo first grabbed Mr. Garner’s right wrist and attempted an arm-bar technique in preparation for handcuffs to be used. Mr. Garner immediately twisted, and pulled and raised both of his hands while repeatedly telling the officers to not touch him.”
2 of 4
2. “Officer Pantaleo then wrapped his arms around Mr. Garner’s upper body. Up to that point in the tense and rapidly evolving situation, there was nothing to suggest that Officer Pantaleo attempted to place Mr. Garner in a chokehold.”
3 of 4
3. “The two men stumbled backward toward the large plate-glass window of the storefront behind them, and Officer Pantaleo’s back made contact with the glass, causing the window to visibly buckle and warp . . . It is at that point in the video, that Officer Pantaleo is seen with his hands clasped together, and his left forearm pressed against Mr. Garner’s neck in what does constitute a chokehold. The NYPD court ruled that while certainly not preferable, that hold was acceptable during that brief moment in time because the risk of falling through the window was so high.”
4 of 4
4. ” But that exigent circumstance no longer existed, the court found, when Officer Pantaleo and Mr. Garner moved to the ground. As Mr. Garner balanced himself on the sidewalk on his hands and knees, Deputy Commissioner of Trials Rosemarie Maldonado found that Officer Pantaleo ‘consciously disregarded the substantial and unjustifiable risks of a maneuver explicitly prohibited by the department.’
“She found that during the struggle, Officer Pantaleo ‘had the opportunity to readjust his grip from a prohibited chokehold to a less-lethal alternative,’ but did not make use of that opportunity.”