it's a busy day on "the reid report." a grand jury in the eric garner chokehold result could come any moment. namely, should companies be required to make accommodations for workers who can't perform some of their duties because they're pregnant? plus, the first civil lawsuit in nearly ten years is filed against bill cosby amid multiple allegations of sexual assault. we're following developments in abu dhabi where the hunt is on for a killer after an american teacher is stabbed to death in a bathroom. the decision whether to diet the officer could come at any time. nearly five months after garner died while police attempted to arrest him on suspicion of illegally selling loose cigarettes outside a store in staten island. trymaine lee is outside the

courthouse. what are we expecting today? any read on where this grand jury is going? how long have they been meeting? what can you tell us about this process? >> reporter: the grand jury has been meeting since september. while the world has been captured by the goings on in ferguson, the family, business owners, residents here have been waiting for this day. now, we got word that a decision could come down as early as 2 p.m. today. we're at that point. but there still isn't any real information or decision coming out of the prosecutor's office. all expectations this decision will come this week. >> and has the family made any comments so far? >> reporter: in recent days they met with rev and al sharpton. the son of eric garner says he wants justice. they hope there's no violence if there is not an indictment. from all corners of this community, folks are not calling for violence but they are,

indeed, calling for protests if there is a nonindictment. and i think we should expect demonstrations one way or the other either way, whatever the grand jury decides. >> trymaine lee, live in staten island, thanks much. let's go to ferguson where authorities are considering whether to charge michael brown's stepfather with inciting a riot. the investigation stems from what louis head said on this video moments after the announcement of the grand jury's decision not to indict darren wilson. >> [ bleep ]! [ bleep ]! >> in a statement released through his attorney today, head said, i screamed out words that i shouldn't have screamed in the heat of the moment. it was wrong and i humbly apologize to all those who read my pain and anger for a true desire for what i want for our community. but to place the blame solely on me for the conditions of our community and country after the grand jury decision goes way too far and is wrong as a decision itself. a spokesperson for the st. louis

county police department says head is being looked at into ongoing activity around november 24th including riots, looting and arson by some on the night of the decision. let's go to capitol hill where lawmakers grilled executives of the takata corporation over failure of air bags that led to several deaths and company recall. at a hearing, honda executives, one of takata customers, said it would expand recall of driver's side air bags across the u.s. it had been limited to high humidity areas. takata's senior vice president offered an apology. >> we are deeply sorry about each case. takata's air bag has not performed and passenger suffered injury or death. >> kelly o'donnell joins me from capitol hill. what were the highlights of this hearing? >> reporter: what this boils

down to, you have this is manufacturing provider who makes these air bags who has now bucked a federal agency, the nhtsa has urged takata to do a nationwide recall and they say no. the reason is they believe the problem has to do with heat and humidity over time. in older vehicles that have the particular type of air bag, that if they live, the person who drives it lives in a high humidity, high heat area. florida and puerto rico have already been involved, that's where the risk exists. the federal overseers say, no, they think there's evidence to suggest it could be broader. there's real friction. so congress wanted to tap into that. there's some mistrust. not sure takata is being fully forthcoming with documents and information. takata says it's trying to work quickly. if it were to expand the recall nationwide, it would actually slow down repairs in the areas they believe are most at risk, being again those high heat areas. there's a real conflict here.

it might bump up to the point where congress says there could be criminal penalties if takata does not prove to be truthful and fully forthcoming. so what honda did is to try to get ahead of this a bit to say they will voluntarily expand this to any customers anywhere in the u.s. driving one of the effected vehicles. that's a step that the national highway transportation safety administration says is a good step. there was real mistrust from members of congress today saying, one question was, how many people need to die before you would go nationwide? takata again says they believe those air bags that are currently in vehicles, that have not been a part of the recall, are safe. that newer models are safe. they're trying to address the problem. you heard the apology. this is a problem that will not go away for takata. they don't know the root cause for sure. they just suspect this combination of heat and humidity. >> nbc's kelly o'donnell on capitol hill, thank you very much. and now to the supreme court where justices today heard arguments in a case that may

define what accommodations business must give pregnant workers in physically demanding jobs. just a short time ago the mother at the center of this case spoke from the plaza at the supreme court. >> i just want all the women out there to know that you have a voice and you need to use it. we want to start our families, we should be able to start our families and continue work at the same time. >> nbc's pete williams is live outside the supreme court. pete, explain the specifics of this case. >> reporter: right. well, this is a lawsuit against u.p.s. i should say at the outset, u.p.s. has changed its policy since it was filed. it wouldn't do what it did then. but here's the question, the women's group, say it's pregnancy discrimination basically for a company to say they're going to treat pregnant workers the same way someone who breaks their leg falling down the stairs at home in terms of their ability to do the job. but that -- much further than that they do say u.p.s. made some accommodations for those injured off the job site or got

medical conditions or some other impairment unrelated to the job. they still got accommodations, but peggy young, the plaintiff in this case, didn't get one solely because she was pregnant. they say that's pregnancy discrimination. i think the challenge for the court here is to say, if companies make exceptions and make accommodations for people who get injuries off the job site, how many of those accommodations, how wide a class do they have to give before not giving it to women who are pregnant amongst discrimination? is it one or two people, tiny little different specialized jobs or whole categories of people? obviously, the three women on the court seemed to support peggy young here, but the question for the court is, how far can they go before they are going too far and going beyond what the law requires? >> an interesting case. pete williams at the supreme court. thank you very much. >> peggy young will be a guest tomorrow on "andrea mitchell reports" at noon eastern right

here on msnbc. let's get to the ongoing controversy surrounding comedian bill cosby. after numerous allegations from women claiming cosby drugged and sexually assaulted them, the 77-year-old now faces a civil lawsuit from a woman who claims the comedian sexually abused her at the playboy mansion when she was just 15 years old. kate snow joins us for more. >> for weeks we've been talking about one allegation after the next, allegations that cosby's attorney has refuted again and again. the latest allegation is the first civil lawsuit to be filed against cosby since one was settled out of court back in 2006. this new suit accuses cosby of, quote, childhood sexual abuse. >> yes, i saw what you saw. and don't be worrying about -- >> reporter: it was 1974 and bill cosby was starring in movies. the woman filing suit says she was 15 with her 16-year-old friend when they saw a film set in a park near pasadena. they walked over to see what was going on and they were approached by cosby, who then invited them to sit in a

director's chair, court papers say. judy huff, now 55, cosby asked how old they were and invited them to his tennis club where he served them several drinks and then took them to the playboy mansion. cosby said, if anybody asked how old they were, they should say she was 19. they found cosby sitting on a bed. he then proceeded to sexually molest her. >> this isn't a criminal case. it's a civil case where it's all about money. she's seeking compensatory damages. >> reporter: cosby has never been charged with any crime and in the past his attorney has said other allegations against cosby were unsubstantiated, adding it makes no sense that not one of these new women who just came forward for the first time now ever asserted a legal claim back at the time they allege they had been sexually assaulted. huff says in the court filing

that the incident 40 years ago at such a tender age caused psychological damage and significant problems throughout her life. cosby, she says, abused his position of trust. as for why she's only now filing this lawsuit, the lawsuit suggests she did not recognize the connection between her injuries and the sexual abuse until very recently. joy? >> nbc's kate snow, thank you very much. and coming up, should the civil suit against bill cosby open the flood gates for more legal action? we'll bring you some expert legal analysis. but first, what's at stake in the eric garner case? we'll tell you about what kind of precedent an indictment could set when it comes to the use of deadly force by police. to help spread some holiday cheer. before earning 1% cash back everywhere, every time; and 2% back at the grocery store. thank you! even before they got 3% back on gas, all with no hoops to jump through, a couple was inspired to use

their bankamericard cash rewards credit card to throw the ultimate ugly sweater party of the season. that's the spirit of rewarding connections. apply online or at a bank of america near you. wow! [ narrator ] on a mission to get richard to his campbell's chunky soup. it's new chunky beer-n-cheese with beef and bacon soup. i love it. and mama loves you. ♪ and mama loves you.

you don't need to think that makes our lives possible. because we do. we're exxonmobil... and powering the world responsibly is our job. because boiling an egg... isn't as simple as just boiling an egg. life takes energy. energy lives here. i'm the prothreed of messy kids they get stains like you wouldn't believe. this tide ultra stain release and zap!cap helps me get out pretty much any stain can i help? aww try our newest ultra stain release helps remove 99% of everyday stains. it's sleep train'ser: interest free for 3 event!leep! get three years interest-free financing on beautyrest black, stearns & foster, serta icomfort, even tempur-pedic. plus, get free delivery, and sleep train's 100-day low price guarantee. you'll never find an interest rate lower

than sleep train's interest free for 3 event, on now! ...guaranteed! ♪ sleep train ♪ your ticket to a better night's sleep ♪

as we continue to await the grand jury decision in the apparent choke hold death of eric garner, we want to take a look at aspects used by police here in new york and nationwide raised by the case. the new york coroner ruled garner's death a homicide with chokehold ruled as the primary case. a report from new york civilian complaints review board in the wake of garner's death found a sharp uptick in the number of chokehold complaints with 219 between june 013 and june 2014. an attorney and msnbc legal analyst and the host of "judge faith". >> how are you? >> very well, thank you. let's talk about this situation of chokeholds. we've all now seen the video, the takedown of eric garner. according to the nypd itself. this is a definition i want to put up the a chokehold. any pressure to the throat or

windpipe which may prevent or hibder breathing or reduce intake of air. it was banned in 1993. how is -- is there still a question about whether or not this leads to an indictment? >> well, the training police officers receive, the nypd officers receiver, they're not spoefd to use this chokehold. it's a banned practice. however, this officer allegedly, apparently did. you watch the video for yourself. this is not one of those cases like ferguson where witnesses are in conflict. they're arguing about what happened. you see what happens on the video. going into grand jury, even though chokehold isn't an illegal practice in and of itself, it's a banned policy. going in, one of the questions for the officer who testified in front of the grand jury for over two hours, why did you choose to use this particular practice? that in and of itself shows he went beyond his scope of responsibilities as a police officer by implementing that chokehold. >> one of the questions that raises whether or not there was a culture that made it very

clear to officers they shouldn't do it. i want to go to one of the things the civilian complaint review board also said. this was about the failure to discipline officers who were using this tactic. they said the nypd's use of force policy precisely defines a stay away from the neck rule. not this prophylactic rule in the last ten years, judges in the nypd room emasculated the patrol guide and repeatedly refused to apply the rule as written. as a result, officers were not disciplined. could it be, perhaps, even though this is in the manual, the fact it wasn't being disciplined might have encouraged the officer? if so, what would that mean for his case? >> when you see the videotape, look at the number much police officers around this officer as he's implementing this chokehold and he has eric garner around his neck? his supervisor was there watching this entire ordeal take place. no one stepped in to stop him. no one said on camera, hey, stop, you're going too far. don't do that. what does that tell you? none of those officers tried to

intervene. had it not been for videotape by a civilian, we wouldn't even be talking about this. it would have been another situation where that officer used a choke hold -- i don't know if he's done it in the past but a situation where the officer used a chokehold and he wouldn't have got an way with it. implementing something like that, going forward f there's not video, you're not reprima reprimand reprimanded, your supervisor doesn't say anything to you, what's going to stop you from going forward? that that issue may not come up in the grand jury, any past disputes or civilian complaints may not come up in the grand jury but certainly something the police commissioner in new york is looking at. >> from a policy standpoint, absolutely, because it gets to a question of the culture. if his supervisor is there and doesn't say, hey, you can't do that, that's a big culture problem for the nypd. what you just said raises the question is, why is only one person being charged here -- or put in front of a grand jury. >> i don't know the theory behind -- i guess, theaterry, in

terms of going in front of the grand jury, how they're prosecuting this officer. here's the thing. his partner was given immunity. other officers were given immunity. his partner testified in the grand jury. so, for whatever reason, the stance this prosecutor was taking, it was important for him to focus on this one officer. the one clearly who put eric garner in a chokehold. eric garner's saying, i can't breathe, i can't breathe repeatedly. this officer still has him in a chokehold and then takes his hands and mashes his face against the ground. now, i know as we look at the tape, we're wondering, well, all those other officers are standing around. they're not doing anything. what's going on? then you have this one officer who clearly went over and beyond and the coroner's report said cause of death, chokehold and asphyxiation. >> you wonder what precedents are set by cases. could this in theory -- let's

say there's an indictment of this officer, let's say there's a conviction of this officer in theory kooshgs that set a precedent for use of forecast by police officers in new york city and beyond new york city? >> the police commissioner announced this morning the first 60 body cameras for police officers will be distributed starting this weekend. they're going to go into the precincts that have the highest rate of stop and frisk in new york. this video from this case is exhibit a as to how important that is, in terms of if this officer will be indicted. of course it's going to be important. look at the cases from around the country rice, mike brown, the young man in walmart who was shot and killed because there's this issue of how policing takes place in african-american communities and why african young american men keep dying, unarmed young african-american men keep dying as a result of the police tactics that are being used and this question of, is the use of force justified. >> faith jenkins, thank you so

much for being here. and now let's get you three things for you to know this wednesday. a funeral service has been held in cleveland hooshohio, this mo, rice, 12 years old, who was shot and killed by police who was holding a pellet gun. the case will be presented to a grand jury to see if charges will be filed against the officer. authorities in dubai, meanwhile, are searching for a brazen attacker who stabbed an american teacher to death inside a public rest room in a shopping mall in abu dhabi. it shows the suspect dressed in traditional garb. supreme court stopped the execution of scott panetti he confessed to murdering his estranged wife's parents in 1992. he also wore a cowboy costume and subpoenaed more than 200 witnesses, including the pope, jfk and jesus.

lawyers for the 56-year-old argued his mental state deteriorated since his last evaluation in 2007. texas prosecutors say he has exaggerated his symptoms. let me get this straight... yes? lactaid® is 100% real milk? right. real milk. but it won't cause me discomfort. exactly, no discomfort, because it's milk without the lactose. and it tastes? it's real milk! come on, would i lie about this? lactaid®. 100% real milk. no discomfort. and try lactaid® supplements with your first bite to dig in to all your dairy favorites. americans drink 48 billion that's enough plastic bottles to stretch around the earth 230 times. each brita filter can replace 300 of those. clean. clear. brita water. nothing is better.

i have a cold with terrible chest congestion. better take something.

theraflu severe cold doesn't treat chest congestion. really? new alka-seltzer plus day powder rushes relief to your worst cold symptoms plus chest congestion. oh, what a relief it is. here we go! today we offer you this lesson on how not to use instagram, courtesy of arizona cardinals defensive end darnell dockett. apparently while on jury duty, the nfl player reposted this image of malia obama which had originally been put up by another user. the original poster said about the president's daughter, when is her prom. dockett is 33 and malia is 16. after getting floged on social media, dockett said, chill, i never said one thing about the president's daughter. all i did was reposted a picture of his daughter.

someone said, no you reposted a post that objectified az 16-year-old. dockett is still saying, don't talk without a lawyer. number two, all cases can be beat. three, call dockett to help plan, et cetera. if instagram is not your thing, then twitter's new tool for bad internet trolls might be. you're thrilled about the upgrade that will allow you to block abusive users faster. they won't be able to see your timeline and you can specify if someone has sent you violent threats. the casting of the suicide squad movie is topping your trending list. it features super villains seeking redemption. will smith and jarrett lito lead the crew. you're loving tom hardy, cast as rick flag, marlo hardy.

supermodel carla will play enchantress. you wonder if will smith can pull it off? oprah is reportedly the first choice forecasting of amanda waller, the crack team organizer. one says, i will curb the texting and driving, i swear, your servant, ray, amen. i gets that's his name. you can follow the conversation with fellow reiders on twitter, instagram, msnbc.com. now this news, americans across the country step up to help rebuild damaged and burned out businesses in ferguson.

i want to turn the lemons that was given to me into lemonade. i want to do positive. i still want to have my dream.

we have breaking news right now. nbc news has learned there will be no indictment in the apparent chokehold death of staten island man eric garner. staten island district attorney is expected to make an announcement some time today. trymaine lee is outside the staten island courthouse. give us what you know. >> reporter: well, first of all, as you mentioned, sources tell nbc news that there will be no indictment in this case. now, in talking with advocates and dmon sdremonstrators, they hopefully optimistic that given all the evidence, given the video that shows eric garner in what essentially is a chokehold, gasping saying, i can't breathe, i can't breathe, all of those factors would lead to a grand jury finding a necessary to allow charges to go forward, but

apparently a grand jury has not decided that. i'm not sure -- i don't believe we'll be getting the kind of evidence dump we saw in ferguson by the district attorney there, but it will be interesting in the coming days to see if we can glean any information about how the grand jury came to this decision. right now, it's still kind of cold and rainy out. moments ago there weren't many people out there. there were more media than actual people or protesters or demonstrators. but in the coming days, protesters have said they will be out the day after this announcement is made. we'll also be interested to see if we have that kind of spontaneous reaction we saw in other events. right now i'm sure there are a lot of people holding their breath to see what happens next. >> stay with us. i want to reset for our viewers that nbc news has learned there will be no indictment of the officer who compressed the neck of eric garner in that july 7th -- july 17th incident many people saw on youtube video. the 43-year-old garner was a father of six. the medical examiner on august 6th ruled his death a homicide. faith jenkins, your initial reaction to this decision there

will be no indictment. >> i know how hard it is to prosecute police officers and indicting them is extremely rare because of the authority given them by the state to use deadly force when it's necessary. however, we have a case here on video, like rodney king. i know that rodney king was eventually auto quitted in that state trial but he was at least indicted. we at least got past the first step of probable cause. here we have video. what else does it take? police officers walk into situations all the time. they don't know what they're walking into, dangerous situations. it could be a car stop. you never know when someone is going to pull out a gun. responding to a simple call and things could take a turn in a second. with eric garner, they knew him. this is someone who had a long history in the neighborhood of selling loseies, loose cigarettes. he didn't have a violent past.

he was selling loosies. police officers have a duty to de-escalate situations. they approach him and i look at this officer and other officers that stood around, they didn't de-escalate. they escalated the situation. eric garner should not have died as a result of that police stop that day. that is the bottom line. >> and i think the thing that it will con found on people -- as you say, this was not somebody in the process of a commission of a felony. i don't know what the penalty is for selling loose cigarettes but i doubt it is -- >> it's a misdemeanor. >> right. you did have -- we talked about this previously but for those viewers who didn't hear that conversation, there is a rule in the nypd manual, and this is their definition. they say that a chokehold is any pressure to the throat or windpipe which may prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air. that practice was banned in 1993. according to the nypd manual there is no circumstance where a

chokehold is permissible. this death was ruled a homicide. and the cause of death, if we have that slide, the cause of death was compression of the neck, which is a chokehold, compression of the chest with contributing factors being asthma, heart disease or diabetes. can you make sense of the fact that compression of the neck is contributing factor to death, but that is not deemed a crime? >> that's the thing. here we have a police officer using a banned practice by nypd. and then you have a videotape of six or seven officers taking down this man allegedly selling loosies. they act like this is frank lucas selling heroine in harlem back in the '80s in the way they took eric garner down. you have those circumstances and you put that before a grand jury and no one is responsible, criminally responsible for his death. >> well, i want to bring in lisa bloom. and i feel like i come to you so

often in these cases where there's not an indictment or conviction in a case where people's gut feels one way and comes out a different way when it's processed through the legal system. i want to get your reaction, lisa, to this decision by a grand jury in staten island not to indict the police officer that did this maneuver, that at least the medical examiner said was a contributing factor at least in the death of eric garner. >> i feel like i've been kicked in the gut again. shamous. shame on us for having a criminal justice system that seems completely incapable of prosecuting a white police officer for the death of an african-american. we seem entirely unable to do that, even when we have a videotape. even when we have a man who posed no danger to anyone, according to anyone. even when we have a coroner who says the death was a homicide. even when the police on the videotape applied a chokehold to eric garner which is against

nypd rules. if we can't get an indictment in this case, we can't get an indictment in any case involving the death of an african-american at the hands of a white police officer. if ferguson was not a wake-up call, this case better be. >> at this point i think it would be appropriate to bring in eugene o'donnell, former nypd officer himself and somebody who just as importantly trains future police officers in his role now as an educator. eugene, your initial reaction to this decision by a staten island grand jury not to indict the police officer in the case of eric garner's death. >> that the police work in this case was terribly executed. that the policy of arresting somebody for a tax crime, making a physical arrest on the street is a terrible policy. that police officers post-new york, post ferguson have to be

cognizant of how well they do their job. it's a travesty this man died. the grand jury is not in any way endorsing the outcome here. i'm sure everybody feels horrified by the outcome. as a matter of law, police have broad leeway when they make an arrest -- >> i think the perception a lot of people have after case after case, is that there is almost an invincibility to the latitude police are afforded. do individual police officers have that sense when they're going into these situations, do they know how much discretion they have to use force? do they themselves have a sense that they're going to be backed up by the law almost no matter what? is that the sense of the average police officer? >> yes. post these incidents we have to elevate these cops and agencies who manage to almost invariably end these things without any violence. we have to put all our energy into figuring out what's the best practice in these situations, how to minimize

these encounters, but also the superstars in the police world have to be the people that manage to resolve these events n nonviolently -- >> specifically, do police officers have as part of their training an understanding that if you end up in a situation where you use deadly force, this is how you manage it, the likelihood is the law is going to be on your side. do police officers themselves get that message that essentially, listen, the law's on your side. this is what you need to do to get yourself right in these situations? >> i mean, that's an absolute concern, that you're saying to people, you have the right to do this and some officers probably are wearing out that right and wearing thin the broad power we give them. it's going to be hard to curtail the power. it has to rest on policy decisions, how you hire people, how you train them. again, make the people emulate it in an organization, those who are able to resolve a situation

nonviolently. the thing we're learning here, hands-on street policing skills are not great in this country at all. and we need to spend time looking at the way the police do their work face to face, give them more competent -- >> lisa, i feel like you want to get in. >> i want to correct something. police in america do not have the right to do anything they want to affect an arrest. >> i never -- i never -- >> hold on, eugene. >> police can -- >> hold on, eugene. lisa, then eugene. >> police can only apply deadly force, such as a gun or a chokehold if there's an imminent risk of great bodily injury to them or a bistay stander. what was clearly not present here, because it wasn't present in ferguson or the george zimmerman case are prosecutors who were going to argue in the grand jury room that a crime was

committed. i don't think the law is the problem. i think the law is fine and appropriate. the problem is when we have police officers who kill african-americans in this country, all of a sudden, prosecutors forget how to prosecute. they handle the cases very different, as bob mccullough in ferguson said, this case is very different from every other case. that's what he said on the record inside the grand jury. that's what happens over and over. >> as lisa is talking, i'm going to get everybody back in. we're looking at live pictures of the store outside of which eric garner died on july 17th, after an encounter with not just one police officer, but multiple police officers and as has been pointed out by faith jenkins on our panel, including the supervisor of the officer in question. these are people reacting spontaneously to the decision of a grand jury in staten island not to indict the officer in the death of eric garner. i want to go to trymaine lee. you said people had begun to gather near that courthouse. any reaction from the people

where you are? >> so far, not just yet as word is spreading, i can imagine it's unfurling throughout this community. we're at the courthouse. there hasn't been much of a gathering at all. but as expected, folks have promised they will come out. again, it's the planned protests and demonstration, and also that spontaneous eruption. having spent time you with in sanford, florida, after the george zimmerman trial and then going to ferguson, missouri, with michael brown, and here with eric garner in statin a lan, dmla -- staten island, demonstrators wonder, what will it take? eric garner's case was the first of a string of unarmed killings by police. after the nonindictment in the michael brown case, what will happen here? how will the movement pivot and grow? certainly, a lot of questions tomorrow. many of which will be on policy here in new york city. remember, eric garner was stopped for allegedly selling

loose, untaxed cigarettes. people will point directly to the broken windows policy. the mayor pivoted away from the stop and frisk. he condemned stop and frisk as a policy. but he still has embraced the architect of stop and frisk, an architect of broken windows, an extension of that. the focus here will be on black lives mattering, unarmed black men being killed and also the policy which may enable these activities. >> hopefully you can stay with us trymaine lee. i do have here on the panel with me faith jenkins, ari melber, co-host of "the cycle." go back to eugene o'donnell on the point lisa was just making. about the law versus the application. the civilian complaint review board did also issue statements about the difference between proper and excessive force in the manual. it says the current national

legal standard for differentiating between proper and excessive force is broadly defined whether the police officer reasonably believed such force was necessary to accomplish a legitimate police purpose and known as the objectively reasonable standard. however, there are no universally accepted definitions of reasonable and necessary. in terms of the way police are trained, eugene, are they trained to believe that they must do anything possible to effect an arrest even on something so minor as a loose cigarette violation? >> this is pause for reflection. in both of these cases, again, these are tragic outcomes and there has to be an assessment of -- it's not really narrowly whether the police can use force. it's whether police must use force. if there are any alternatives. it does deserve to be said in new york city, 35,000 cops, 45 shootings a year, almost all of those are armed adversaries. i know people are rightfully concerned, but people should not lose hope.

police policy can have an impact on this in reigning in abusive conduct. that's where a lot of attention needs to go to clarify and minimize the use of police power until it's absolutely required. new york city police department and firearms guidelines go far and above what the law would allow. they reign in this firearm usage much more and the results generally with some unfortunate exceptions, this department does 50 million calls in a decade and very rarely would you have a shooting that would be controversial in new york when you look at the volume of events. 35,000 cops, 45 shootings in a year. so, they -- the commissioner, the mayor, they have to recommit themselves at this point to creating a police force where using force is an absolute last resort. simultaneously, protecting the cops which, again, i believe that can be done. that's not a bridge too far.

>> hold on for a second for me, eugene. i want to bring in ari melber and faith jenkins. eugene just said the police department itself and the city leaders now must come together to create policy that would change and sort of improve the use of force. but i think what might be troubling for people is that the only constraint that a population has on the government, meaning the police's use of potentially deadly force against it, against members of the people, in theory, is the law. the law that fellow citizens sit on grand juries, sit on juries and apply the law and an objective standard and what seems like a reasonable standard in the minds of civilians. if the law does not actually constrain police because there is evidence now that the law does not constrain police, is it troubling the only constraint would be the police department itself and potentially the mayor? >> yes. i think that's very troubling. we are here looking at breaking news you're reporting this hour,

joy, that tells us that a grand jury, according to nbc sources, looked at a video of this homicide. that the new york medical examiner determined was a homicide and determined that was not sufficient evidence for probable cause to go to a trial. so, as we've said before, we're not talking about breaking news about whether or not this was a manslaughter or a murder. we're talking about a much earlier stage question. i don't know -- you know i speak very carefully about these issues. a lot of times when we cover cases we talk about differing accounts, differing testimony. it's very difficult to disentangle that, particularly if you're not in that secret grand jury room. this one's pretty different, joy. and so i think a lot of people are going to be concerned about the reaction. there's a video here. and the video shows an unarmed man being killed. and there's a medical examination report that also determines it was a killing, it was a homicide. that doesn't answer the ultimate question, if you ever got a

trial, about whether there was just cause, reasonable apprehension, the type of legal standards we talked about. but this is not a close call. this is pretty clear evidence of a homicide. it's a live, unedited video. so, i have to tell you from reporting on this and looking at this as a reporter and a lawyer, this is a pretty shocking outcome we're seeing today. now, you accept the grand jury results. we talk about that. that's meaningful. i mean it when i say that. i don't mean you look at this and say that because it doesn't add up, we don't accept it. you accept the results of a grand jury process. that's the system we have. that's the nation of laws. that's why so many have talked about peaceful protests. not a violent reaction. this does not add up. this is very difficult to say that the video of a homicide isn't probable cause. i don't think this is over. as you mentioned, in other cases, i think there has to be other investigations here. and i think the federal investigation is going to become paramount. >> also the family has filed a

$75 million civil lawsuit against the nypd. i have to get to reverend victor, pastor of mt. siani christian church. if you're there, your reaction and if you know of the family's reaction. >> i learned of the decision just a few moments ago. i have not had the opportunity to speak directly with the family as of yet. i have been in conference with some people about the possibility of this thing happening or the decision being rendered as it was. i just believe with the video, with the coroner's report, it seems to me it would be hard pressed to -- you know, it would be difficult to not come back with some kind of an indictment.

so, of course, the news today is very shocking. to say the very least. >> indeed. i'm sure you will obviously be talking with this family and, you know, i'm sure a lot of people are going to join you in feeling that kind of shock. in talking with just your congregati congregation, sir, did people have an expectation? i know in the case of michael brown, no one i talked to was very expectant of an indictment in that case. did people in your congregation think there would be an indictment? did they expect it? >> we've sort of been down this road before. there was no indictment in a similar case that happened over 20 years ago. however, there was a policy procedure that was adopted in the nypd where a chokehold would not be used to apprehend anyone. so, i would think just on that basis alone, and the fact that this officer, it's my understanding, to the best of my knowledge, was cited for having used this a couple of times in

the past. i believe there was a case -- a 2012 case settled by the city for $30,000 regarding the use of a chokehold by this police officer. so, clearly, there's been a history of it having been used by him. so, it's very alarming to me that given all of what we -- the nation has seen, the videotape, the coroner's report that says definitively that it was a homicide, it's very difficult to believe that the grand jury would come forth with a decision not to indict. >> thank you. we really appreciate you being here reverend victor brown, pastor brown. i'm sure you'll have some time alone to talk with their family. we hope we can talk to you again, sir. >> well, they've taken the high road throughout this whole time. and they are advocating there be

no violence. that's what we're going to do. we're going to remain vigilant where that's concerned. we don't want to -- violence is not going to bring eric back and certainly is not going to bring about justice. >> thank you, sir, pastor brown. appreciate it. >> faith, i want to come back to you. july 17th the new york city police officer who took eric garner down to the ground used a tactic banned in 1993 that there was compression of his neck was ruled homicide in the coroner's report. in terms of what the grand jury could have returned indictment, go everything from first-degree manslaughter go down to something called obstruction of breathing/intentional choking. even on that charge, that minimal charge, that which seems to actually describe what happened, what does it say the grand jury did not even indict on that charge? >> it says people do not want to second-guess the actions of

police officers. and this police officer went in the grand jury and testified for over two hours about this incident. and that's why when you look at the latitude -- this is what's so troubling about this to me. we've been talking about police officers now being assigned these body cameras as a way to have transparency and accountabili accountability. now we have a case where this incident is on camera. did it make a difference? >> yeah. >> i think we now have to go back and have a conversation about -- because we've all been talking about even the president this week came out and announced this new initiative to -- hundreds of millions of dollars towards getting police officers body cameras so we can hold them accountable, so we can have that transparency. i don't know if it matters. >> the new york legislature, to be clear on the law, this passed this anti-strangling law in 2010. this is a recent law designed to be clear that you cannot strangle someone.

whether or not that causes death. then have you your standard manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide which goes to the fact you caused a death and what was your mind state. again, the question today before the grand jury was not, should this officer go to jail, is he guilty? the question was, do you have the kind of evidence, usually it would be testimonial or forensic, usually you don't always have a video, do you have the kind of evidence to say there was probable cause that you may have strangled someone, you may have killed someone with violence? here the video would on its face, i'm speaking as a legal matter, legally the video would constitute probable cause in just about any normal proceeding. another word on the charges that's important here, joy. what the grand jury was asked to actually do, we don't know yet. at this point, as a matter of news, we don't know. but we do know these are the levels of homicide charges you would have. and several of them involved the determination over whether the person here who did the killing, whether the officer was negligent or reckless in their conduct. when you look at using a

practice that's been banned for so many years, it's not that that is abdominal automatically illegal, it goes to the question, were you negligent in your job if you weren't doing your yob job correctly? then you go to trial to explain why there may have been mitigating circumstances or fear of death, as we discussed in this segment. this one almost leaves you without words to explain how a video in this context isn't probable cause for at least the strangling charge. >> and i -- i, unfortunately, have to thank you, ari melber and allow you to go and do your other show. >> we'll be covering it at 3:00. >> absolutely. we'll watch for that coverage on "the cycle," which is on right after this hour. thank you very much, ari melber. we'll be watching. i want to go quickly to the phone. we have council woman debbie rose. ari talked about what the legislature did in 2010 in new york to pass an anti-strangulation laws. are the laws in new york in your judgment, councilwoman,

sufficient to hold police accountable ever in the case of the death of somebody in their charge? >> the laws that are in place right now indicate that a chokehold is -- is against the penal code and the police department policy. however, it doesn't go far enough in terms of accountability, making police officers accountable when they use this technique, which is not sanctioned or acceptable under the penal code. >> and do you believe then, council woman, the laws in new york need to be changed in any way in light of the fact that even with a videotape, and i think faith made an excellent point that we're looking to video as the solution to the panacea of peemsz concern about

police use of force, if a videotape is not sufficient to prove probable cause only in the charge of obstruction of breathing in a case where compression of the neck is a cause of death, do the laws need to be changed? >> absolutely the laws need to be changed. in the city council we have pending legislation that will address that very charge, that there needs to be more accountability. we are at the moment investigating this law and looking to pass it. >> all right. councilwoman debbie rose. thank you very much from staten island. we appreciate you being here. >> thank you. >> i want to come back to the table, faith. we end where we began. we talked earlier before we knew this decision about the elements that were before the grand jury, the videotape, the fact that the coroner did rule that this on

july 17th was a compression of the neck that contributed to or was the primary cause, in fact, of this man. as a legal matter, what are the implications for the country, for society at large, if it does not appear possible in a case like this just to get an indictment? >> what does it take, right? now we have this video. we know the circumstances. and we know about this police officer. he went in and testified. what does it take for a grand jury just to get passed the threshold step of probable cause to indict a police officer when there is wrongdoing. i can tell you two things that need to happen, joy, in the wake of ferguson, i don't believe police departments should be allowed to investigate themselves. when a police officer kills, i think a special prosecutor needs to be called in to handle those cases. you have prosecutors, you have

police. they work very closely together. that's something that needs to change. i don't know what happened. i don't know what kind of presentation they did in staten island. >> that's a very good point, because you do have prosecutors who rely on police to do their jobs. police are their star witnesses. police help them make these cases. is it possible or practical for a prosecutor to then turn around and prosecute a member of that police force and then potentially destabilize their position on that force? i think that's -- you raised that and lots of important issues. faith jenkins, thank you for being here. glad you were on hand as breaking news came down in the decision of a grand jury not to indict the police officer in the death of eric garner in staten island, new york. that wraps things up for "the reid report." "the cycle" will pick up news of the decision after this

♪ hi. i'm new ensure active clear protein drink. >>clear huh? i'm not juice or fancy water. i've got 8 grams of protein. new ensure active clear protein. 8 grams protein. zero fat. ensure. take life in.

this is the equivalent of the and this is one soda a day over an average adult lifetime. but there's a better choice. drink more brita water. clean, refreshing, brita. ♪ [ male announcer ] you're watching one of the biggest financial services companies in the country at work. hey. thanks for coming over. hey. [ male announcer ] how did it come to be? yours? ah. not anymore. it's a very short story. come on in. [ male announcer ] by meeting you more than halfway. it's how edward jones makes sense of investing. . we are bringing you breaking news in the 3:00 hour. msnbc first to report, there

will be no grand jury indictment in the eric garner chokehold homicide case. that was the incident here in new york that was caught on video which quickly spread nationwide. some people have begun to gather outside the staten island store where garner died. the district attorney is expected to speak at any time. we'll bring you that live as soon as it begins. msnbc's trymaine lee is at the d.a.'s office, outside. what can you tell us? >> reporter: so, the word is just starting to spread now there will not be an indictment in the case of eric garner -- chokehold case of eric garner. before the decision, many were gathering outside the courthouse and many said they were there to demand justice. not just the ruling elite, one man told me. talking with demonstrators and activists and organizers in the days leading up to this moment, they were hopefully optimistic there would be an indictment. that justice would prevail. many said that it seemed so clear to them. videotaped homicide