From what I understand, the prosecution was tasked with trying to prove malicious intent. Meaning they were trying to prove that the officer intended to hurt/kill Eric Garner which obviously wasn't the case. It was an accident caused by blatant negligence. I've asked twice in this thread why they tried to charge him with that instead of involuntary manslaughter and no one has been able to provide insight.
In summary: Everybody knows shit fuck.
the only 'logical' reason is political, push that shit up to the DoJ.
thats about all i got...