[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
^Government is not a business and I shutter to think what would happen if it was run like one. [/quote]
Why?[/quote]
Because business will always be about the bottom line and I don’t think a government should be managed in the same manner. [/quote]
Should government not be trimmed down to what is necessary or desired by the taxpayers?
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
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.
Edited.[/quote]
How was he able to say “I can’t breathe” 11 times if he was in fact unable to breathe?
[/quote]
When did you become a medical examiner, and when did you have a chance to examine Garner’s body?
He could speak (during which time he clearly informed the police of the trouble he was in), until he couldn’t any more. And then he died. And then the experts say he died from neck and chest compression. None of this is difficult to understand.
[quote]
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.[/quote]
Odd words, since I never said anything about how I’d have taken him down. Which is why you’ve thoroughly earned the following fuck yourself: Fuck yourself.
More importantly, this isn’t about the the takedown, it’s about the 11 excruciating repetitions of “I can’t breathe” once he was down, and theirs, and helpless, and literally dying. So, again: Fuck yourself, and think better from now on.
[quote]
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[/quote]
Here is where I again, and calmly, tell you to fuck yourself, and that you have no idea what I have and haven’t done.
Except that a guy lying face down on the floor isn’t a threat, and a guy limply saying “don’t touch me” is not a serious threat, and he certainly isn’t a serious threat after he’s on the ground and limply and pathetically pleading for help…and if, in that situation, you’d have felt threatened to the point that you’d have felt like you had to hold on to his neck for dear life, you’re a pussy and there isn’t any more to say.
Admittedly without knowing the specific facts, this is my educated guess:
The department told him the LVNR hold was a use of deadly force.
The LEO didn’t believe it when the department said it was a use of deadly force.
Because it was banned, he didn’t get training on what to do to keep a perp alive after the use of the hold.
He also didn’t get trained to be very careful using it on fat people.
Because he disregarded policy there’s a guy dead.
My guess is no intent to kill, but disregarding training and disregarding deadly force policy is, in my book, at least a negligent homicide.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Admittedly without knowing the specific facts, this is my educated guess:
The department told him the LVNR hold was a use of deadly force.
The LEO didn’t believe it when the department said it was a use of deadly force.
Because it was banned, he didn’t get training on what to do to keep a perp alive after the use of the hold.
He also didn’t get trained to be very careful using it on fat people.
Because he disregarded policy there’s a guy dead.
My guess is no intent to kill, but disregarding training and disregarding deadly force policy is, in my book, at least a negligent homicide. [/quote]
Which he probably was not charged with, so he will not face ANY consequences.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
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.
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]
Really dude?
What you wrote in this post makes you come across as an ignorant piece of shit. Just saying’…
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
^Government is not a business and I shutter to think what would happen if it was run like one. [/quote]
Why?[/quote]
Because business will always be about the bottom line and I don’t think a government should be managed in the same manner. [/quote]
Should government not be trimmed down to what is necessary or desired by the taxpayers?[/quote]
The issue is that the taxPAYERS are outnumbered by the taxPAYEES! And those incompetent fuckers want their government cheese and they want it ON TIME, EVERY MONTH!
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
The real question here is what were the charges the officer was indicted for? That hasn’t been released. Commissioner Kelly is trying to get that, along with all requisite documents, released to the public.
If the charges were 2nd degree homicide for instance, intent on the officers part would have been very difficult to approve. [/quote]
Here is where my ignorance of court procedure shines through: Can’t a GJ choose to indict on either Murder 3 or Murder 2, either by simply making that choice, or because a prosecutor gives them the option, or something? I could be very wrong.[/quote]
No sir. The GJ can only consider what the person is charged with. And the charges are brought by the State/ District Attorney. In many cases, the DA will bring a variety of charges, and the GJ and bring a True Bill or No True Bill on one, some, all or none of the crimes. And herein lies the allegation of “prosecutor bias”. That’s why in many times a Special Prosecutor will be brought on that does not have any ties to the police/community and possible offer a more objective presentation of the charges.
[/quote]
O Really? You are totally sure about this? What about on the Federal level?
I don’t get the whole special prosecutor/special investor thing. It seems like it’s rarely used unless it’s Bill Clinton. Is this common? Seems strange…
It’s not difficult to understand. He resisted arrest. He was taken down and subdued until handcuffs were put on. The officers have no duty to stop effecting an arrest just because a suspect claims a medical issue. Medical was then called for him when it was apparent it was needed. He died from a combination of existing detrimental health factors and physical damage that occurred during the struggle. There was no intent to kill him. If the officer violated NYPD policy he could be found civilly liable for his death.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
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.
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]
Really dude?
What you wrote in this post makes you come across as an ignorant piece of shit. Just saying’…[/quote]
Please elaborate.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
The issue is that the taxPAYERS are outnumbered by the taxPAYEES! And those incompetent fuckers want their government cheese and they want it ON TIME, EVERY MONTH!
[/quote]
I agree, and I said basically this, in either this thread or the other.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
It’s not difficult to understand. He resisted arrest. He was taken down and subdued until handcuffs were put on. The officers have no duty to stop effecting an arrest just because a suspect claims a medical issue.[/quote]
The officer had an unambiguous duty to stop constricting Garner’s airway once Garner was completely restrained, completely nonthreatening, and pleading eleven times that he couldn’t breathe…while dying. You disagree? That’s your problem. And it’s a fucking huge one. But you’re punishing yourself enough already, so I’ll leave it at that.
[quote]
He died from a combination of existing detrimental health factors and physical damage that occurred during the struggle.[/quote]
Nice try, listing “detrimental health factors” first and putting them on equal, if not more emphasized, footing with “damage that occurred during the struggle.”
Someone who is intellectually honest would say that Garner died of “compression of neck (choke hold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police,” with asthma, obesity and hypertensive cardiovascular disease listed as contributing conditions – because that’s what the medical examiner’s office said. It’s the little things, the details – that’s where all the weaseling gets done.
[quote]
There was no intent to kill him.[/quote]
Criminal negligence requires proof of no such thing and that’s just what multiple people in this thread are suggesting.
And that’s all the time I’m wasting arguing against twaddle tonight.
Morbidly obese and with severe asthma he decides to physically resist arrest when surrounded by armed police officers. What a dumbarse. In fact, there’s got to be a screw loose there somewhere. What did he have to gain in the best possible scenario? A resisting arrest charge on top of the original charges. To do something so irrational that offers no hope of anything other than more trouble is surely the sign of an unsound mind? No thank you, I don’t want to be [b]just arrested and charged with A. I’d prefer option 2: physically roughed up and then charged with A and B. Why do so many people resist arrest when they have no hope of actually succeeding?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
However, the enforcer must enforce the law. However, it’s important to remember that I voted for GOOD IDEAS, NOT ENFORCEMENT OF THOSE GOOD IDEAS.
What’s that you say? I should have known that laws require enforcement? Well, what can I say? Don’t blame me for the problems; I thought that good ideas should be codified into law, so I’m obviously an idiot.
[/quote]
Why bother then?
Besides, I doubt he was put in a choke hold for not paying taxes, most likely he retaliated in some manner.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
^Government is not a business and I shutter to think what would happen if it was run like one. [/quote]
Why?[/quote]
Because business will always be about the bottom line and I don’t think a government should be managed in the same manner. [/quote]
Should government not be trimmed down to what is necessary or desired by the taxpayers?[/quote]
That’s a dangerous sentence. A lot of taxpayers desire Obamacare and gun control. A lot of taxpayers think social security is necessary.
I think our perspective is different here. I believe, correct me if I’m wrong, you see taxpayers as business owners in this scenario. I see then as employees. Expendable ones.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
The officer had an unambiguous duty to stop constricting Garner’s airway once Garner was completely restrained, completely nonthreatening, and pleading eleven times that he couldn’t breathe…while dying.
[/quote]
The guy was fucking huge. Even cuffed there was the possibility of him posing a threat if not held down. The cops have a duty to each other not to let a suspect go if he might harm one of their fellow officers. And saying, “I can’t breath” - I’m sure resisting criminals say all kinds of stuff when they’re being restrained and arrested.
Does using a chokehold constitute “reckless abandon?” I don’t know. I’m not an expert on such things. However, I’ve seen the video and it’s far from the clean cut case that some are making it out to be. Frankly, it’s all totally surreal to me. With everything that’s going on in the world everyone is fixated on these whites killing blacks stories. And even those who don’t fall for the lies are still enraptured by the whole thing and treating it as something important, with merit and worthy of scrutiny. If people are concerned about police behaviour then why haven’t they been discussing it before? Why turn this subversive narrative of the mob into an opportunity to scrutinise police behaviour? As I said before, I think everyone is caught up in the excitement of it all(I wasn’t suggesting you supported the rioting BTW - just that you seemed to be caught up in the excitement of the whole thing).
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I agree that there are a lot of problems linked specifically to what you mention. However, I don’t believe this case is one of them. [/quote]
It most certainly does apply to this case. When you make something illegal by passing a law, you are giving the state the ability to use force to ensure that law is followed. Whether it be burglary, rape, speeding, or in this case selling a loose cigarette, you are granting the government authority to use force if these laws are broken.
Once the law has been broken the police then have no choice but to follow the law accordingly. They had to arrest Mr. Gardner for a dumb law and he resisted. Once you resist arrest, even for a stupid law, the police officer has pretty much free reign to get you under control and make an arrest.
Government is force. If you don’t believe me, stop paying your taxes. It won’t matter if your peaceful or not because they will take you by force and throw you in jail.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The guy was fucking huge. Even cuffed there was the possibility of him posing a threat if not held down.
[/quote]
This is ludicrously nonspecific and shoddy.
There were, what, five people holding him down? One guy getting go of his neck and head is not five guys letting go all together. Don’t pretend that this was kill or be killed…it wasn’t. Even the most cautious and fearful and nuerotic cowards I know would admit as much. This is especially so in light of Garner’s being utterly subdued and in their control, from the very first “I can’t breathe.” Then came ten more, then he died. Pretending that five guys on top a prone, obese man, helpless to the point that he literally could not keep himself from dying, were under such threat (despite the suspect’s being prone and limp and pleading that he couldn’t breathe) that one of them couldn’t pull out of his PROHIBITED hold around the said suspect’s neck…is just that: pretending.
You probably disagree. If so, we won’t see eye to eye here, ever. Which is alright, if a little surprising to me in this particular case.
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I agree that there are a lot of problems linked specifically to what you mention. However, I don’t believe this case is one of them. [/quote]
It most certainly does apply to this case. When you make something illegal by passing a law, you are giving the state the ability to use force to ensure that law is followed. Whether it be burglary, rape, speeding, or in this case selling a loose cigarette, you are granting the government authority to use force if these laws are broken.
Once the law has been broken the police then have no choice but to follow the law accordingly. They had to arrest Mr. Gardner for a dumb law and he resisted. Once you resist arrest, even for a stupid law, the police officer has pretty much free reign to get you under control and make an arrest.
Government is force. If you don’t believe me, stop paying your taxes. It won’t matter if your peaceful or not because they will take you by force and throw you in jail.
[/quote]
Lol…Okay. You got me. A law gives the government authority to enforce said law with force. Thanks for point that out.
Now in the context of JBs comment, I don’t believe this man being choked to death is a direct result on the war on drugs or anything else along those line. This was the direct result of a poor choice by an overzealous UFC, I mean, police officer who ignored organizational policy by choice. This is a problem that has always existed and probably always will. Whether we war against drugs or not.
Where are the consequences for the officers actions?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The guy was fucking huge. Even cuffed there was the possibility of him posing a threat if not held down.
[/quote]
This is ludicrously nonspecific and shoddy.
There were, what, five people holding him down? One guy getting go of his neck and head is not five guys letting go all together. Don’t pretend that this was kill or be killed…it wasn’t. Even the most cautious and fearful and nuerotic cowards I know would admit as much. This is especially so in light of Garner’s being utterly subdued and in their control, from the very first “I can’t breathe.” Then came ten more, then he died. Pretending that five guys on top a prone, obese man, helpless to the point that he literally could not keep himself from dying, were under such threat (despite the suspect’s being prone and limp and pleading that he couldn’t breathe) that one of them couldn’t pull out of his PROHIBITED hold around the said suspect’s neck…is just that: pretending.
[/quote]
100% agree.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The guy was fucking huge.
[/quote]
Not to piss on this man’s grave, but he was very fat and out of shape. Not “huge” in the sense you’re saying.