[quote]mapwhap wrote:
And by the way Matty…roll your eyes all you want. You can’t answer my question and you know it, so you are trying to deflect. Oh, damn you logic and laws of nature!!![/quote]
Your logic sucks. His last breaths were in declaring that he was having difficulty breathing, and then he suffocated. Fuck off with your semantics.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
You’re right. Garner should have said “If you continue what you’re doing, I will have no oxygen and die.” You changed my mind on this.
(eye-roll)[/quote]
"Excuse me chap, I am having a considerable amount of respiratory difficulty – so much so, in fact, that I feel as though I cannot breathe, and, indeed, my first impulse was to inform you of such. I will for the moment resist that impulse, because, having stolen a private moment to reflect on the matter, I think it prudent to withhold judgment on the semantics of my troubles (I’m no doctor, after all). But it is certainly true that very recent events have altered my breathing – and not for the better. I’m afraid that, if something doesn’t change, I could be in serious danger – though, of course, the only way to know for sure is to maintain the status quo and see what happens.
Should I die, to take a morbid hypothetical, then I think it’ll be fairly obvious that my concerns, and therefore my implicit request for respite, were both urgent and legitimate (perhaps, even, a medical examiner would rule that I died by another human hand(s), this being the medical examiner’s definition of ‘homicide’). Given that nothing much is going on here, and that none of you fine folk are under any threat whatsoever, and that I’ve been on the ground and under your control for some time now, and that you’ve got four other grown men looming over and utterly subduing my prone and limply outstretched form…well, given all that, let’s all try to avoid such a gloomy eventuality as my death, shall we? Thank you kindly for your consideration. Yours Truly, Eric Garner."
Edited because I don’t feel like getting sucked into a great deal of further debate on this.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
You mean like how the medical examiner determined that his death was caused from the chokehold?
[/quote]
Only he didn’t determine that and I have already pointed out that fact several times. You seem to be unable or unwilling to accept certain facts that don’t accord with your “cop choked guy to death” narrative. You’re riled up for some reason over this and you’re thinking is clouded by emotion. I’ll try one more time here:
The ME list three causes of death and numerous contributing factors. For example, one of the causes listed was “compression” on Garner’s back. That was one of the other cops. How the heck can you charge Pantaleo with choking Garner to death when for all you know it was the guy on Garner’s back who may have been responsible? There is insufficient evidence, at least as far as the public record goes, to convict Pantaleo “beyond reasonable doubt” for any offence that is contingent upon a “reckless” mens rea element.
I’ve quoted the relevant section of the medical report and my opinion is based upon the fact that:
And
You are pretending 1. says he was choked to death. It doesn’t say that. If the medical report had found Garner’s neck was injured and that choking was [b]the/b cause of death then I would have a completely different opinion. My opinion is based upon the facts as opposed to an emotional response based upon an animosity towards LEOs(I can only presume).
[quote]
Take a look in the fucking mirror. Hypocrites. [/quote]
Be nice Matty.
[quote]
So this is what not being choked looks like. You guys are fucking incredible.[/quote]
Be nice.
No Matty…in this case, YOU go fuck off. Come back when you can learn how to read.
All this from a guy who posts a pic of himself jacking off in the mirror as his avatar…
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Obviously Garner had also been breaking the New York’s soda laws. What a serial offender! He was asking for it![/quote]
The police don’t have an option to just decide to let someone go. Sure, they have a certain level of discretion in relation to minor incidents but they can’t just say, let’s not enforce this law. The police were called out to this case to arrest Garner and had no option but to do their job and arrest him. You should be asking why the fuck did Garner resist arrest, swat the cop’s hands away and have an infantile Dindu Nuffin tantrum. Tell it to the court idiot. Once the cops say you’re under arrest that’s it. You can’t talk you way out of it and you certainly can’t fight them off.
[quote]mapwhap wrote:
I’m sorry Matty and USMC…it’s very unfortunate that it can’t be both ways, huh? You can’t say, “oh my God…those officers choked him to death” and then also say ," oh…well yeah, he was breathing, but he was still choked to death". He was choked, or he wasn’t. Unfortunately, your very own sacred video proves the man was breathing and getting oxygen. [/quote]
The coroner ruled the cause of death was asphyxiation due in large part to the choke. This isn’t some armchair quarterback diagnosis. It’s the coroners ruling.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
[quote]mapwhap wrote:
Fine, Matty…explain how you can talk without breathing. Go ahead. I’ll sit here and wait. Explain how a person whose airway is restricted to the point of no oxygen is FUCKING SPEAKING !!!
Go ahead…please…educate us all, you wizened sage! Better yet, prove to us it can be done. Have someone apply their arm across your throat until you have no ability to pass oxygen, and say, “I can’t breathe” eleven fucking times, at the same rate he did it. Go ahead. Video, or it didn’t happen…
I can’t believe people like YOU, who are apparently so driven with emotion that you can’t accept one single fact that might counter your emotionally based opinion! Like I said…don’t let something like a fact get in your way…
And I’ve got over 23 years now of listening to people who have been pinned down, pepper sprayed, handcuffed behind their backs, and yes…even “choked” tell me they can’t breathe. I’m no hypocrite, and I’m no armchair warrior. I back my talk up with real world experience. And that experience tells me you can’t talk if you can’t breathe. Period.
And the medical examiner listed THREE primary causes…one of those being positional asphyxia, which is a scientific way of saying you’re so fucking fat, you can’t breathe when you are on your stomach. They never said it was ONLY the “chokehold”.
What!!! An actual self induced medical reason for not being able to breathe!!! Uh-oh!! Watch out Matty! Another fact coming around…better figure out how it was the cops’ fault that this dude was obese too!!![/quote]
Who’s there?!
Reasonable Doubt, is that you?[/quote]
You guys are cracking me up. Have you even once had a guy on your back trying to choke you out? How about while 5 other guys were on top of you? It’s scary and anyone that says otherwise, even in a controlled setting, is full of shit.
Obviously he was getting some air, which is how he was able to say what he said. He also was obviously not getting enough. You guys seem to be overlooking a pretty obvious fact, HE DIED and I don’t think it was just “his time.” [/quote]
I don’t want to speak for Mapwhap, but neither of us are agreeing with the grand jury’s decision. I think he was raising points that the grand jury may have considered.
Playing Devil’s Advocate. Speculating.
I think a law was likely broken, given what I know and have seen. But I still leave my mind open until we have the full findings. I am not defending the cop at all. I just want to hear all sides.
[/quote]
Perhaps you weren’t. I was laughing more so at the idea that Garner wasn’t choked to death when the coroner said he was.
I’m gonna take the coroners word for it.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Obviously Garner had also been breaking the New York’s soda laws. What a serial offender! He was asking for it![/quote]
The police don’t have an option to just decide to let someone go. Sure, they have a certain level of discretion in relation to minor incidents but they can’t just say, let’s not enforce this law. The police were called out to this case to arrest Garner and had no option but to do their job and arrest him. You should be asking why the fuck did Garner resist arrest, swat the cop’s hands away and have an infantile Dindu Nuffin tantrum. Tell it to the court idiot. Once the cops say you’re under arrest that’s it. You can’t talk you way out of it and you certainly can’t fight them off.[/quote]
So they have discretion with minor incidents, but selling “loosies” is a serious offense that goes from dialogue to a chokehold and piling-on causing death. Ok SM. Go ahead and argue that it’s okay for police to choke people to death over next-to-nothing “crimes”. THIS IS WHAT YOU’RE BOTH DOING.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Obviously Garner had also been breaking the New York’s soda laws. What a serial offender! He was asking for it![/quote]
The police don’t have an option to just decide to let someone go. Sure, they have a certain level of discretion in relation to minor incidents but they can’t just say, let’s not enforce this law. The police were called out to this case to arrest Garner and had no option but to do their job and arrest him. You should be asking why the fuck did Garner resist arrest, swat the cop’s hands away and have an infantile Dindu Nuffin tantrum. Tell it to the court idiot. Once the cops say you’re under arrest that’s it. You can’t talk you way out of it and you certainly can’t fight them off.[/quote]
So they have discretion with minor incidents, but selling “loosies” is a serious offense that goes from dialogue to a chokehold and piling-on causing death. Ok SM. Go ahead and argue that it’s okay for police to choke people to death over next-to-nothing “crimes”. THIS IS WHAT YOU’RE BOTH DOING.[/quote]
Er…okay, yes that’s what I’m saying. It’s “okay for police to choke someone to death over nothing”. /sarcasm
You’re not a very good debater Matty. It’s one thing to disagree, quite another to just ignore my points, put words in my mouth etc.
I’ll try this again and maybe it will sink in this time:
I don’t agree with this law. In fact I don’t think the government should tax cigarettes at all or if they do it should be at the same rate as other goods and services as part of a GST/consumer tax.
My point about discretion for minor offences:
The cops can decide for example, it’s not in the public interest to criminally charge an elderly dementia patient with kleptomania with stealing a pack of chewing gum. However, they cannot just decide they’re not going to charge anyone ever for stealing small amounts of merchandise.
I’m not sure what you’re advocating here. That the cops should not enforce this law at all? Go on strike over it or something? Or are you saying they should’ve just not arrested Garner because he had a little tantrum? What are actually saying they should’ve done?
PS - And drop the emotional responses with the strawman and so on. Just try to talk about it rationally if you can please.
Edited
What happens when the cops turn a blind eye to these smaller crimes? What would the mayor and gov think? If they basically disregarded his orders? Would the cops get fired? What happens if they choose to only address the matter verbally. Like “hey pal, you can’t be selling those. You will get arrested.” And the gentle giant says “fuck you, you won’t do shit. Don’t you have something better to do like have a donut?”
Then what? Just asking, because if you can’t enforce the laws using force if needed, why bother to enforce them.
It’s one way or the other.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
What happens when the cops turn a blind eye to these smaller crimes? What would the mayor and gov think? If they basically disregarded his orders? Would the cops get fired? What happens if they choose to only address the matter verbally. Like “hey pal, you can’t be selling those. You will get arrested.” And the gentle giant says “fuck you, you won’t do shit. Don’t you have something better to do like have a donut?”
Then what? Just asking, because if you can’t enforce the laws using force if needed, why bother to enforce them.
It’s one way or the other. [/quote]
Agreed, however, people often complain about use of force (read baby whose face was destroyed by a flash bang grenade or collateral deaths during a drone strike), but then turn around and act as if choking a person to death over a misdemeanor is acceptable.
You can’t have it both ways.
Again, from my perspective, it is the use of a choke hold that is against policy that makes this death an issue. Had the officer not disregarded policy this man would more than likely still be alive.
If the cop used an approved neck restraint, and Garner died from a combination of his health maladies and the dogpile, would your opinion differ?
Meaning, what if we learn the hold was a restraint not a chokehold?
Again, just trying to present the other side.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
If the cop used an approved neck restraint, and Garner died from a combination of his health maladies and the dogpile, would your opinion differ?
Meaning, what if we learn the hold was a restraint not a chokehold?
Again, just trying to present the other side. [/quote]
Yes.
As was said earlier there is a reason this choke hold is banned from use and it’s application had a direct impact on Garner’s death. If Garner had a heart attack while resisting arrest and the police had followed policy/procedures I would not be calling for an indictment.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
If the cop used an approved neck restraint, and Garner died from a combination of his health maladies and the dogpile, would your opinion differ?
Meaning, what if we learn the hold was a restraint not a chokehold?
Again, just trying to present the other side. [/quote]
Yes.
As was said earlier there is a reason this choke hold is banned from use and it’s application had a direct impact on Garner’s death. If Garner had a heart attack while resisting arrest and the police had followed policy/procedures I would not be calling for an indictment. [/quote]
Agreed.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
If the cop used an approved neck restraint, and Garner died from a combination of his health maladies and the dogpile, would your opinion differ?
Meaning, what if we learn the hold was a restraint not a chokehold?
Again, just trying to present the other side. [/quote]
Yes.
As was said earlier there is a reason this choke hold is banned from use and it’s application had a direct impact on Garner’s death. If Garner had a heart attack while resisting arrest and the police had followed policy/procedures I would not be calling for an indictment. [/quote]
Agreed.[/quote]
Agreed agreed.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
If the cop used an approved neck restraint, and Garner died from a combination of his health maladies and the dogpile, would your opinion differ?
Meaning, what if we learn the hold was a restraint not a chokehold?
Again, just trying to present the other side. [/quote]
This could also be said about another method to achieve compliance.
What if the cop used a taser to subdue him, and he had a heart attack. Would the outrage be the same ?
The main goal with cops is compliance, with as much ease as they can use. If shit goes wrong, they can justify the more aggressive force with trying to achieving compliance.
Who knew Jesus was selling loosies on the corner ? That, and those smarties in Berkeley don’t know how to spell “breathe.”
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Whoever this Rob Hustle guy is, he’s told the world what happens when the government is asked to enforce a law, so it seems pretty silly to keep blaming police officers for “murdering,” “hurting,” or “violating the rights of” someone.
It is up to the individual contemplating calling the police to decide if the subject of his call deserves to die.
Police have a legitimate purpose, and that purpose is protecting the rights of those in their jurisdiction by any means necessary. There are no concrete rights. When the people of a place decide that they have a right to not have untaxed cigarettes sold in that place and allow a law saying so to be passed, then, whether they are intelligent or educated enough to know it or not, they are saying that they are justified in killing a person for selling untaxed cigarettes(and therefore, the police in their jurisdiction are justified in doing so).[/quote]
How much you wanna bet that no charges are brought against the officer doing the beating? Or how about the officer that violated the guy’s rights by illegally seizing his property?
Business as usual, right?
It doesn’t look like the guy was black enough, so no protests will be had…