Choke Hold Death in NYC and the Nanny State

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Tomoito? Certainly not! That’s the dialect of the chattering classes. Most educated Australians have a kind of generic, colonial English accent. Some Canadians do too. It’s kind of the lingua franca of the British Empire. When I’m in the UK people don’t pick up from my accent that I’m not from the UK. So, it’s “tom-ah-to” for sure. As opposed to the “tom-ay-to” of the American pidgin dialects.[/quote]

Shit, all these years I read your posts in a Crocodile Dundee accent.[/quote]

182

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
So there are degrees of resistance? Either someone has resisted or they have not. To honestly assess this incident one should not blur the facts by talking of degrees of resistance and then using emotive language to make a point. Yes, we do disagree but it’s difficult to actually see the form the disagreement takes - by which I mean, I make specific points and you try to invalidate those points with emotive descriptions of the incident. So, I’ll just sum up my points and leave it at that:

  1. Did Garner physically resist arrest? Yes. Go to 2.

  2. Did the police use “excessive force?” Maybe. However, the circumstances and facts need to be taken into account: specifically, his size, violent record etc.

  3. Was the chokehold an ideal response? Almost certainly not. However, facts and circumstances: this cop was probably trained to use this technique at the academy and there is no evidence that its use was malevolent.

  4. Was the chokehold applied too long? Did the cop ignore Garner’s statements that he “c[ould]n’t breath” and continue to apply pressure deliberately depriving Garner of oxygen unnecessarily? This is the important question. Again, facts and circumstances - Garner did not go into cardiac arrest until an hour after the incident. There is no evidence that the cop deliberately and with malice, restricted Garner’s breathing unnecessarily.

So yes, we disagree but the specifics of our disagreement must remain unclear; obscured behind emotive language and descriptions from your standpoint. Notice the lack of emotive language on my part. My posts deal with facts and where things are unclear I state that they’re unclear and don’t take a position based upon guesses or hunches.[/quote]

The chokehold is illegal use of force in all instances and while you are right that there is no evidence for an indictment for murder, there is enough for crimanlly negligent homicide and possibly for manslaughter.

If the prosecutor chose to leave this open to the grand jury like they did in the brown case, then the officer would have been indicted on homicide.

The fact that the prosecutor chose murder instead means he was either incompetent or deliberately making an effort to avoid an indictment on homicide.
considering the hundreds of indictments on homicide he has proceeded over in NYC, the later is almost certainly the truth.

183

This was excessive force, without question, ending in wrongful death or negligent homicide. Activist groups want the most egregious charges possible, which may not happen due to the high burden of proof. Cops want vindication for their actions, but find little support when there is audio/video evidence showing a group of officers surrounding the suspect as he is wrestled to the ground.

And finally, big gubment wants their money, because that is what this whole thing was really about. A bullshit tax in the name of public safety and wellness, in reality is another money grab on an infallible idea. Who could be against deterring people from smoking, I mean smoking kills people ! Akin to being “for the children,” some people were dumb enough to take the bait.

184

[quote] Toohuman wrote:

The chokehold is illegal use of force in all instances

[/quote]

This has already been covered at length in this thread. And no, it’s not “illegal” - it doesn’t constitute a breach of the law. Rather, it’s a technique that is “banned” under NYPD procedure.

You’re not in any position to make such a call. For one thing, the grand jury was privy to evidence that wasn’t made public.

The prosecutor asked the jury to consider “manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide.” The jury, which included nine African Americans, decided there was not enough evidence to proceed. I’m inclined to accept their decision given the circumstances and not the opinions of members of the public who would’ve charged him with this or that.

[quote]

…considering the hundreds of indictments on homicide he has proceeded over in NYC, the later is almost certainly the truth.[/quote]

You can entertain notions of a conspiracy in the prosecutor’s office if you like but I’m not going to take them seriously. Let’s see what Eric Holder and the Justice Department make of it. If there’s any evidence at all to sustain a civil rights violation Eric’s antifa dream team will dig it up I’m sure.

Edited

185

Did you see the officer who was recently disarmed by an “unarmed gentle giant” and killed?

Of course you didn’t.

186

http://www.localsyr.com/story/d/story/officer-shot-and-killed-near-binghamton-area-hospi/21718/364J-3q63EqZs8BkWb6lSw

Surprised the cops on here didn’t post this.

187

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Did you see the officer who was recently disarmed by an “unarmed gentle giant” and killed?

Of course you didn’t. [/quote]

Yes, this is why Wilson had no regrets about Mike Brown and rightfully so.

What does this have to do with Garner’s case?

188

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Did you see the officer who was recently disarmed by an “unarmed gentle giant” and killed?

Of course you didn’t. [/quote]

Yes, this is why Wilson had no regrets about Mike Brown and rightfully so.

What does this have to do with Garner’s case?[/quote]

Literally nothing.

189

I have skipped around a lot in this thread, and I’m sure I’m going to regret jumping in, but I would like to point something out…

Whether or not it was a chokehold, whether it was restricted by NYPD, etc, there is a factor I have yet to see brought up.

If you are able to say the phrase, “I can’t breathe.”, eleven times, even with people on top of you, then guess what?

YOU ARE BREATHING!!!

Was Eric Garner uncomfortable? Yup.
Was he probably in some pain? Yup.
Was he probably starting to panic becuase he felt his neck being constricted? Absolutely.

But I have news for some of you armchair experts on use of force…if a person is talking that much, their airway isn’t being restricted enough to stop the flow of oxygen. He WAS breathing, or he wouldn’t have been able to say that phrase 11 FREAKING TIMES!!!

But please…don’t let facts like that (or the laws of physics) get in the way of impassioned arguments.

Beyond that, I realize jumping in on internet threads isn’t going to change any minds. A grand jury reviewed the evidence, and decided to no-bill the officer. People can disagree all they want, but that’s how it is.

Will he likely be fired by NYPD? I imagine so. From what I saw, he’s certainly violating policy. I imagine he’ll lose any civil trial for wrongful death. But for those hoping and waiting for more criminal actions against him? Ain’t gonna happen. The feds can claim they are gonna investigate further, and they will, but there was no “civil rights violation”.

Anyway…my two cents. Your mileage may vary.

190

[quote] mapwhap wrote:

If you are able to say the phrase, “I can’t breathe.”, eleven times, even with people on top of you, then guess what?

YOU ARE BREATHING!!!

[/quote]

Bingo. I thought the same thing which is part if the reason I think this guy died as a result of a totality of circumstances; stress, asthma, his heart etc.

191

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote] mapwhap wrote:

If you are able to say the phrase, “I can’t breathe.”, eleven times, even with people on top of you, then guess what?

YOU ARE BREATHING!!!

[/quote]

Bingo. I thought the same thing which is part if the reason I think this guy died as a result of a totality of circumstances; stress, asthma, his heart etc.[/quote]

You guys are talking about the “armchair experts” when the report from the medical examiner says otherwise. Take a look in the fucking mirror. Hypocrites.

192

[quote]mapwhap wrote:
I have skipped around a lot in this thread, and I’m sure I’m going to regret jumping in, but I would like to point something out…

Whether or not it was a chokehold, whether it was restricted by NYPD, etc, there is a factor I have yet to see brought up.

If you are able to say the phrase, “I can’t breathe.”, eleven times, even with people on top of you, then guess what?

YOU ARE BREATHING!!!

Was Eric Garner uncomfortable? Yup.
Was he probably in some pain? Yup.
Was he probably starting to panic becuase he felt his neck being constricted? Absolutely.

But I have news for some of you armchair experts on use of force…if a person is talking that much, their airway isn’t being restricted enough to stop the flow of oxygen. He WAS breathing, or he wouldn’t have been able to say that phrase 11 FREAKING TIMES!!!

But please…don’t let facts like that (or the laws of physics) get in the way of impassioned arguments.

Beyond that, I realize jumping in on internet threads isn’t going to change any minds. A grand jury reviewed the evidence, and decided to no-bill the officer. People can disagree all they want, but that’s how it is.

Will he likely be fired by NYPD? I imagine so. From what I saw, he’s certainly violating policy. I imagine he’ll lose any civil trial for wrongful death. But for those hoping and waiting for more criminal actions against him? Ain’t gonna happen. The feds can claim they are gonna investigate further, and they will, but there was no “civil rights violation”.

Anyway…my two cents. Your mileage may vary.

[/quote]

Nice post. Just because you say “I can’t breathe” does it mean it’s true? I mean, criminals have a bad habit of lying when it suits their needs.

Him being a fat ass contributed to his death, remember?

I’m still on the fence here, but the above makes some good points.

193

And no “civil rights violation” when the arrest was supervised by a black female sergeant.

194

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
And no “civil rights violation” when the arrest was supervised by a black female sergeant. [/quote]

A “civil rights violation” occurs when your bill-of-rights con-law rights are violated, regardless of whether race motivated the violation. The suspect’s rights under the 4th and 8th amendments are implicated here. The 4th covers excessive force during a lawful seizure and the 8th prohibits any pre-conviction “punishment,” which actually collapses back into the 4th because of the lack of conviction.

195

^^

All true. I just frankly don’t feel that there is enough there to convict for a violation. As I said…the Feds will do their investigation, but it isn’t going to go anywhere. Same thing with the Ferguson, MO case. The Feds have been involved in that one practically since Day 1. Eric Holder is just posturing. He knows they don’t have a case. He’s just waiting for it to die down enough that he can walk away from it quietly.

196

[quote]mapwhap wrote:
I have skipped around a lot in this thread, and I’m sure I’m going to regret jumping in, but I would like to point something out…

Whether or not it was a chokehold, whether it was restricted by NYPD, etc, there is a factor I have yet to see brought up.

If you are able to say the phrase, “I can’t breathe.”, eleven times, even with people on top of you, then guess what?

YOU ARE BREATHING!!!

Was Eric Garner uncomfortable? Yup.
Was he probably in some pain? Yup.
Was he probably starting to panic becuase he felt his neck being constricted? Absolutely.

But I have news for some of you armchair experts on use of force…if a person is talking that much, their airway isn’t being restricted enough to stop the flow of oxygen. He WAS breathing, or he wouldn’t have been able to say that phrase 11 FREAKING TIMES!!!

But please…don’t let facts like that (or the laws of physics) get in the way of impassioned arguments.

Beyond that, I realize jumping in on internet threads isn’t going to change any minds. A grand jury reviewed the evidence, and decided to no-bill the officer. People can disagree all they want, but that’s how it is.

[/quote]

Yup. In training I have been strangled to the point where I could not breathe. This is a very unpleasant experience. You cannot speak to save your life (literally). If you’re talking you are, by definition, breathing.

I’m really amazed at how people overlook this basic, common sense fact. Anybody who has ever taken basic first aid knows this to be true.

That said, it is extremely unfortunate that Mr. Garner lost his life in this incident.

197

[quote]mapwhap wrote:
I have skipped around a lot in this thread, and I’m sure I’m going to regret jumping in, but I would like to point something out…

Whether or not it was a chokehold, whether it was restricted by NYPD, etc, there is a factor I have yet to see brought up.

If you are able to say the phrase, “I can’t breathe.”, eleven times, even with people on top of you, then guess what?

YOU ARE BREATHING!!!

Was Eric Garner uncomfortable? Yup.
Was he probably in some pain? Yup.
Was he probably starting to panic becuase he felt his neck being constricted? Absolutely.

But I have news for some of you armchair experts on use of force…if a person is talking that much, their airway isn’t being restricted enough to stop the flow of oxygen. He WAS breathing, or he wouldn’t have been able to say that phrase 11 FREAKING TIMES!!!

But please…don’t let facts like that (or the laws of physics) get in the way of impassioned arguments.

Beyond that, I realize jumping in on internet threads isn’t going to change any minds. A grand jury reviewed the evidence, and decided to no-bill the officer. People can disagree all they want, but that’s how it is.

Will he likely be fired by NYPD? I imagine so. From what I saw, he’s certainly violating policy. I imagine he’ll lose any civil trial for wrongful death. But for those hoping and waiting for more criminal actions against him? Ain’t gonna happen. The feds can claim they are gonna investigate further, and they will, but there was no “civil rights violation”.

Anyway…my two cents. Your mileage may vary.

[/quote]

So, what evidence did the Grand Jury hear? I wasn’t there and have been told its a secret. Frankly, the grand jury proceeding is merely a probably cause hearing and that should have been almost automatic, at least as to negligent homicide. The prosecutor is not required to introduce defense witnesses; it isn’t adversarial and there is no defense cross examination. I am still trying to figure out how any competent prosecutor could lose a probable cause hearing in this case if he actually tried his best for an indictment.

I would have: introduced the use force policy through a use of force expert; played the video; asked the expert whether any reasonable officer could have concluded that the use of force was authorized when it was banned by policy; put on the M.E. and asked whether the banned use of force caused the death. This might take an hour and the evidence shows probable cause that a negligent homicide was committed (I don’t have to win outright at the probable cause hearing, just show that I have some evidence for a trial). Again, nobody gets to cross examine my experts and witnesses and I get to choose who testifies. I am still trying to figure out how the fuck you could lose a probable cause hearing with this evidence.

At least one report I’ve read says they let the defendant cop testify and put on 50 fucking witnesses. I would never, ever have put the cop on and let him claim he “did his best” at a fucking probable cause hearing, at least not if my goal was actually winning the hearing and proceeding to a public trial.

198

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
And no “civil rights violation” when the arrest was supervised by a black female sergeant. [/quote]

A “civil rights violation” occurs when your bill-of-rights con-law rights are violated, regardless of whether race motivated the violation. The suspect’s rights under the 4th and 8th amendments are implicated here. The 4th covers excessive force during a lawful seizure and the 8th prohibits any pre-conviction “punishment,” which actually collapses back into the 4th because of the lack of conviction. [/quote]

Ok gotcha. It’s unfortunate these things got is all thinking in black and white.

199

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
And no “civil rights violation” when the arrest was supervised by a black female sergeant. [/quote]

A “civil rights violation” occurs when your bill-of-rights con-law rights are violated, regardless of whether race motivated the violation. The suspect’s rights under the 4th and 8th amendments are implicated here. The 4th covers excessive force during a lawful seizure and the 8th prohibits any pre-conviction “punishment,” which actually collapses back into the 4th because of the lack of conviction. [/quote]

Ok gotcha. It’s unfortunate these things got is all thinking in black and white. [/quote]

I see this case a lot like a drunk driving case. Driving drunk is banned because it increases risks; when you drive drunk and kill someone, you don’t get to claim you didn’t realize the risk and didn’t mean any harm to escape a criminal negligence/reckless homicide charge. This guy used a hold they told him was banned because it had an unacceptable risk of death; he used the hold and a death resulted. Even if he didn’t have a bad motive, there is enough evidence of a negligent homicide to at least have a public trial.

200

jjackkrash…I’m not sure if you are asking me a question, or if you are just making you’re own point. I have no idea what evidence the grand jury heard, whether the prosecutor “tried his hardest”, what the instructions to the grand jury were regarding alternate charges…I wasn’t there, and I haven’t read or heard anything about it.

All I know is that they decided not to indict. Perhaps they received information others have not. Pretty much the only items of evidence the public is drawing from are the video and the coroner’s report, and people can’t even agree on what those two items show. What you see may not be what I see. We have different viewpoints going into this. I, for example, saw nothing excessive about the arrest. It certainly wouldn’t have been considered excessive in my agency.

Frankly, had he not died, I doubt it would have been considered excessive by most agencies. The issue got confused when he died, and the coroner’s report did not decisively state the cause of death.

For example, had the report said the cause of death was a crushed larynx, and given no other contributing factors, that makes it pretty clear cut. But, that ISN’T what the report said…so things got very gray.

People are getting all worked up over the fact that it’s a prohibited tactic for NYPD. That’s an administrative issue. Just because something is banned by NYPD, doesn’t make it ILLEGAL. A “chokehold” or neck manipulation, or whatever you want to call it isn’t banned by New York state law or city ordinance…it’s not ILLEGAL…it’s just against policy. There is a big difference, and you are smart enough, clearly, to understand that.

Will he get spanked administratively? I’m sure. Fired? Probably. But the fact that he did something outside of NYPD policy doesn’t make his action an element of a crime.

In any case, it’s impossible to predict juries. They zig when they should zag, and they never do what you expect them to. I can’t account for their decision, cos I wasn’t in there. Maybe one day we will all find out.