I did not say a law is okay because a state made it vs. the Fed. That would be preposterously absurd. Do you really think I would make that claim? Especially being a MD resident…[/quote]
No, I’m just making a snarky comment in response to yours.
I don’t think we differ too much in our opinion here, other than, now that the damage is done, I’d like to see the conversation be about the Nanny State and how we fix that, than this be turned into “racism” and “which holds should be used to arrest people for selling cigarettes.”
The hold he used is irrelevant in my mind. It’s the fact this dude could be arrested for selling loosie in the first place. [/quote]
Gotcha, ya that’s fine. [/quote]
THE NANNY STATE AND HOW WE FIX THAT…
I would LOVE to have that discussion.
Do you guys want to have that here? Or do you think it is worthy of it’s own thread (I don’t want to hijack something just a few pages in).
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
Not sure if it’s been covered already, but can anyone tell me what the procedure is when someone “resists”?
I personally don’t feel like this guy was resisting in a manner that warranted a rear naked choke hold.
[/quote]
I was charged with resisting arrest when I was handcuffed and the cop pushed me so hard that I stumbled. I had to accelerate just a bit so that I wouldn’t fall flat on my face. At that point I was tackled and beaten for at least three minutes until I lost consciousness. I WAS ALREADY HANDCUFFED…
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
There are two reasons this tragedy occurred: 1. Garner’s decision to resist arrest for committing a crime and 2. The state’s decision to make it illegal for one adult to sell another adult a legal product. [/quote]
An officer decided to ignore departmental policy. [/quote]
Easy to say in hindsight. Policy is not the first thing on anyone’s mind when trying to physically subdue someone especially when that someone is the size of Garner.
[/quote]
A use-of-force policy isn’t like a vacation-or-family-leave policy or a don’t-spit-on-the-floor office policy; it is or should be trained to be the first and primary thing in an officer’s his mind when he gets into use-of-force situations. The officer used what was defined by policy to be deadly force here; the question is whether a reasonable officer in his shoes would reasonably think he was authorized to use deadly force to “subdue.”
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
There are two reasons this tragedy occurred: 1. Garner’s decision to resist arrest for committing a crime and 2. The state’s decision to make it illegal for one adult to sell another adult a legal product. [/quote]
An officer decided to ignore departmental policy. [/quote]
Easy to say in hindsight. Policy is not the first thing on anyone’s mind when trying to physically subdue someone especially when that someone is the size of Garner. Yes, it would have been optimal[/quote]
“Optimal.” Just thought I’d highlight that word. Its uses are many: “I only put good oil in my car, because I don’t want anything less than optimal performance;” “it would have been optimal if that cop hadn’t strangled that guy.”
I bet it’s easier than getting choked to death.
I bet it’s easier than simultaneously being a human being and listening to a guy say “I can’t breathe” eleven times and deciding that, no, even though he’s completely subdued and on the ground with one hand behind his back and another limply reaching out to no one, I’m gonna keep on doing what I’m doing.
[quote]
Do you know the details of Garner’s previous arrests and resistance?[/quote]
You get his arrest record and I’ll get the video and we’ll see who’s got the more pertinent evidence.
Smh-23, if you are doing any kind of professional story on this you need to get the threat-escallation/use of force policies and start there. You have to know those and the training on those to properly evaluate intent/mental state.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Smh-23, if you are doing any kind of professional story on this you need to get the threat-escallation/use of force policies and start there. You have to know those and the training on those to properly evaluate intent/mental state. [/quote]
Thanks man. You would make a good journalist if you ever feel like making a lot less money and doing almost as much work as you do now. And feeling empty inside. That;s exactly what you do first – read handbooks and guidelines and procedures and yadda yadda. Not just in law, but in everything. I can’t tell you how many science writers I know who get their science from other news reports and abstracts rather than from reading actual studies.
But, fortunately, I’m not doing anything about this. Was just curious about the GJ thing. I don’t write about the law at all unless I’m literally forced to, which I have been once or twice. (Not because it isn’t interesting, but because I wouldn’t do it without a JD.)
More generally, I’m not doing journalism anymore outside of maybe big long stuff done at my leisure (meaning done well) that pays well.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Regardless of this incident what’s the punishment for not following a policy like this? [/quote]
Knowing the NYPD? Probably desk duty for two weeks and having to buy coffee and doughnuts for the squad for a month. /sarcasm[/quote]
Well, that’s the union way. Unions are protected by Democrats who pass nanny state laws to create criminals and extort money from whatever industry failed to pay protection money (er, I mean “lobbying” money).
And, ironically, the Democrats (whose cops and stupid laws these are) will use this unfortunate event to rile up the victims of Democrat cops and laws to vote Democrat.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Regardless of this incident what’s the punishment for not following a policy like this? [/quote]
Knowing the NYPD? Probably desk duty for two weeks and having to buy coffee and doughnuts for the squad for a month. /sarcasm[/quote]
Well, that’s the union way. Unions are protected by Democrats who pass nanny state laws to create criminals and extort money from whatever industry failed to pay protection money (er, I mean “lobbying” money).
And, ironically, the Democrats (whose cops and stupid laws these are) will use this unfortunate event to rile up the victims of Democrat cops and laws to vote Democrat.[/quote]
So they can pass more laws to arrest poor and minorities under increasing the chances of this happening again… So that the cycle just repeats itself.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Easy to say in hindsight. Policy is not the first thing on anyone’s mind when trying to physically subdue someone especially when that someone is the size of Garner.[/quote]
Dude, please stop. There were at least 5 if not more officers present. Some of them pretty damn large themselves.
More importantly these men are trained to operate a specific way under duress. I refuse to excuse the actions of an trained officer, whose job it is to both uphold and follow the law, because he’s in a stressful situation. Let’s be honest, this guy was unarmed and in obvious poor physical shape. It’s not like the officers were trying to subdue Björnsson.
I did not say a law is okay because a state made it vs. the Fed. That would be preposterously absurd. Do you really think I would make that claim? Especially being a MD resident…[/quote]
No, I’m just making a snarky comment in response to yours.
I don’t think we differ too much in our opinion here, other than, now that the damage is done, I’d like to see the conversation be about the Nanny State and how we fix that, than this be turned into “racism” and “which holds should be used to arrest people for selling cigarettes.”
The hold he used is irrelevant in my mind. It’s the fact this dude could be arrested for selling loosie in the first place. [/quote]
Gotcha, ya that’s fine. [/quote]
THE NANNY STATE AND HOW WE FIX THAT…
I would LOVE to have that discussion.
Do you guys want to have that here? Or do you think it is worthy of it’s own thread (I don’t want to hijack something just a few pages in).
Thoughts?[/quote]
This threads going no where I really want to go. I’d start a new thread.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Regardless of this incident what’s the punishment for not following a policy like this? [/quote]
Knowing the NYPD? Probably desk duty for two weeks and having to buy coffee and doughnuts for the squad for a month. /sarcasm[/quote]
Well, that’s the union way. Unions are protected by Democrats who pass nanny state laws to create criminals and extort money from whatever industry failed to pay protection money (er, I mean “lobbying” money).
And, ironically, the Democrats (whose cops and stupid laws these are) will use this unfortunate event to rile up the victims of Democrat cops and laws to vote Democrat.[/quote]
So they can pass more laws to arrest poor and minorities under increasing the chances of this happening again… So that the cycle just repeats itself.
aaaahahhhhhhhhh[/quote]
So the conversation about “the Nanny State and how we fix that” actually needs to be about, “how to defeat the Liberal Democrats at their own game”…
Seriously, as long as they are buying votes with entitlements, I don’t see SHIT getting any better.
NYPD policy regarding excessive force (which a chokehold falls under according to the same document)
“Depending upon the circumstances, both federal and state laws provide for criminal sanctions and civil liability against uniformed members of the service, when force is deemed excessive, wrongful or improperly applied.”
“Members of the New York City Police Department will NOT use chokeholds. A chokehold shall include, but is not limited to, any pressure to the throat or windpipe, which may prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air.”
“After an individual has been controlled and placed under custodial restraint using handcuffs and other authorized methods, the person should be positioned so as to promote free breathing. The subject should not be maintained or transported in a face down position.”
“If a person appears to be having difficulty breathing or is otherwise demonstrating life-threatening symptoms, medical assistance will be requested immediately. The patrol supervisor will direct that alternate means to maintain custody be utilized, if appropriate.”
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Seriously, as long as they are buying votes with entitlements, I don’t see SHIT getting any better.[/quote]
This, a million times this. The only way to fix anything is for a majority of society to reject the idea that the total head count in support of an idea should be any thing more than a suggestion. A head count of non-shareholders may be used to help decide whether or not to implement A, but only the shareholders should be making the actual decision.
McDonald’s might take a survey of random people to get an idea of the support behind the Quadruple-Mega Kindameat Burger, but only those with some ownership will be allowed to actually decide to make it a menu item.
Taking the privilege of voting away from those who are paid by the government would probably go a long way towards fixing many problems.
^Government is not a business and I shutter to think what would happen if it was run like one. I also don’t think having a voting class and a non-voting class is going to improve anything.
I bet it’s easier than simultaneously being a human being and listening to a guy say “I can’t breathe” eleven times and deciding that, no, even though he’s completely subdued and on the ground with one hand behind his back and another limply reaching out to no one, I’m gonna keep on doing what I’m doing.
Edited.[/quote]
How was he able to say “I can’t breathe” 11 times if he was in fact unable to breathe? Resisting arrest requires exertion. Exertion requires breathing as does talking. Perhaps you should watch the video and see that two officers initially tried to effect the arrest. The others came over afterwards when they saw the struggle. I’m sure that with your superior internet combat skills you could have handcuffed him alone without much exertion but mere mortals were unable to do so without difficulty hence the rear takedown which is effective. In hindsight, the officer should have let go when the other officers jumped in but since you’ve seemingly never been in a physical altercation I will tell you it is difficult to not do what is instinctive to do until the threat is no longer. Policy notwithstanding.
I bet it’s easier than simultaneously being a human being and listening to a guy say “I can’t breathe” eleven times and deciding that, no, even though he’s completely subdued and on the ground with one hand behind his back and another limply reaching out to no one, I’m gonna keep on doing what I’m doing.
Edited.[/quote]
How was he able to say “I can’t breathe” 11 times if he was in fact unable to breathe? Resisting arrest requires exertion. Exertion requires breathing as does talking. Perhaps you should watch the video and see that two officers initially tried to effect the arrest. The others came over afterwards when they saw the struggle. I’m sure that with your superior internet combat skills you could have handcuffed him alone without much exertion but mere mortals were unable to do so without difficulty hence the rear takedown which is effective. In hindsight, the officer should have let go when the other officers jumped in but since you’ve seemingly never been in a physical altercation I will tell you it is difficult to not do what is instinctive to do until the threat is no longer. Policy notwithstanding.
[/quote]
The autopsy found that he died because of “Compression of neck (choke hold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police,” which is consistent with dying because “I can’t breathe.”
I’d add also that the hold alone probably didn’t kill him, its the hold + post hold restraints + prone position + chest compression plus the fact that he was fat. One of the big reasons departments don’t let officers use an LVNR to subdue is that, by definition, they usually want to cuff the individual afterword and leave them prone lying on the ground or packed into the back of a squad car. This combination is known to kill fat people which is a big reason they ban it.
Edit: Also, the hold doesn’t cut off air, it cuts off blood to the brain and de-oxygenates the blood that way, so breathing and talking is actually completely consistent with saying “I can’t breathe” because that is what it feels like, unlike, for example, they way a person would drown, who can’t talk with a mouth and set of lungs full of water.