Here is what New Yorkers are reading this morning after yesterday’s grand jury decision not to indict NYPD Officer Daniel Pantaleo in the death of Eric Garner:

There is some confusion, however, on the meaning of the Post’s cover. Is it a statement of outrage at the grand jury’s decision or a statement that they agree with the grand jury or just a statement of fact with pics designed to sell papers?

The Post’s editorial this morning titled “No Indictment” suggests the third interpretation might be the correct one. An excerpt:

After reviewing all the evidence, the 23 men and women on a Staten Island grand jury cleared Police Officer Daniel Pantaleo in the July 17 choking death of Eric Garner.

Our view here is similar to our take last week on a Missouri grand jury’s decision not to indict the police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown.

Only the grand jurors have seen all the evidence, and, after they did, they apparently concluded Officer Pantaleo’s actions showed no malice or intent to harm.

Instead, they saw an unnecessary death that stemmed from Eric Garner’s decision to resist cops trying to arrest him for selling illegal cigarettes.

Had the 350-pound Garner not physically resisted, requiring Pantaleo and his fellow cops to take him to the ground, he would likely be alive today.

Some, however, are clearly angry at the Post and think the cover means the NY Post agrees with the grand jury decision whereas the editorial today makes no such claim:

So, what do you think?

***

Related:

Twitchy coverage of Eric Garner.