Choke Hold Death in NYC and the Nanny State

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
^ meaning nobody knows about his prior encounters with police. They may have determined how they responded/used force with him.

My point is that is a factor. [/quote]

Sure it would have. But not to such an extent that the prevailing interpretation in this thread would fundamentally change. Unless maybe he killed and ate all their parents, or was some kind of Jedi who can vanquish foes with such ease as to justify the continued pressure on his neck and upper body while he was on the ground, subdued, restrained by five grown men, and pleading eleven times for air. All of this is not to obscure the fact that what we’re talking about an “if” to begin with – maybe he never resisted arrest before. And even if he did, we know that “resistance of arrest” is a fuzzy deal.

Anyway, I’m caught up in watching Rolling Stone and the Left-feminist evidence-doesn’t-matter crowd implode over the UVa thing right now, so I’ll let this one lie.

142

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

SM, I don’t know if you’ve been in many confrontations, but this passage here implies otherwise.
[/quote]

I’ve never choked someone out if that’s what you mean.

I haven’t seen any evidence that he was choked unconscious. The autopsy said it wasn’t the chokehold that killed him.

As I said, I haven’t seen any evidence that he was choked unconscious.

[quote]

THIS GUY ISN’T IN ANY BALLPARK NEAR THERE. He isn’t in the same league, isn’t even in the same sport. He’s fat and out of shape. The crowd is not hostile. If a big muscular violent guy gets dazed and confused long enough to be physically moved out of a bar after being choked, a fat and out of shape asthmatic lying on the ground is a cake walk. HE DOES NOT POSE A THREAT. No matter how “huge” he is.

Bottom line, I had to apply force and de-escalate things for years without the benefit of the police ‘immunity’ from prosecution. We dealt with people more drunk and violent and aggressive, and as big. We never had to do what the cops did (compress him while he was lying on the ground and choked/pile on top/whatever you want to call this). This is absolutely not appropriate behavior for the police. [/quote]

Okay.

143

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

This is ludicrously nonspecific and shoddy.

[/quote]

Oh?

That’s standard practice whenever a group of cops take down a suspect. If there’s two cops they both do it. If there’s three they all do it. When you get to about five or six there’s no room left to hold on to the suspect however they always apprehend a suspect with as many officers as possible.

The officer who had him in the chokehold was the primary restrainer - his method of restraint was what was restraining the guy. I’m not saying a chokehold was appropriate. However, that’s what this cop choose to do and he was the one actually doing the restraint. The others just piled on top - as cops always do - to prevent the guy thrashing around.

I didn’t suggest it was “kill or be killed.” It was a fucking huge guy - I’m guessing somewhere in the 330 lbs+ range at least - refusing to be cuffed, telling the cops not to touch him etc. What then followed was clearly an attempt to bring him down, cuff him and hold him down. This guy looked like he needed a lot of strong men holding him down. In a chokehold? Probably not. But let’s not pretend that it would’ve been sensible to allow this resisting giant freedom of movement. Obviously, numerous men holding him down is what was required - indeed, it was required because this giant resisted arrest.

We can’t know how “utterly subdued” he was because we couldn’t feel how much force he was leveraging against the cops who were holding him. Furthermore, it seems perfectly reasonable to suspect that if the cops got off him he would again present a danger. Especially, if one or two cops let go and the others are then vulnerable.

Pretending? I’m giving an honest assessment of the video I saw. I have no dog in this fight; no reason to support one side or the other. As I said, it seems to me a chokehold was a bad choice. But it’s also clear that the sensible and safe course of action would’ve been to hold this guy down with as many cops as possible - but without a chokehold of course.

I would say that I am passionate about it and that that passion has its foundation in reason. It has nothing to do with cops. I assessed the Ferguson case as you did, because that was the rational assessment. I am certain that mine is the rational assessment here too. I don’t get passionate about things I don’t think through first.

As for your details, they are wishy washy. We know Garner was not applying much force because he was prone and subdued by five men with one hand restrained and the other limply outstretched in nobody’s particular direction. The Rock couldn’t threaten five men in that position. More important, the officer didn’t have to stand up and close his eyes and raise his arms. He didn’t have to lie down and sing showtunes. He had to stop choking the guy to death. He didn’t. And I suspect he’ll pay dearly, and rightly, for it.

I would further suggest that it is actually your emotion, rightly aroused from Ferguson, that is clouding your judgment. This is, of course, a guess.[/quote]

Not a good one. I saw this video back in July when it was first released, long before Ferguson.

144

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Anyway, I’m caught up in watching Rolling Stone and the Left-feminist evidence-doesn’t-matter crowd implode over the UVa thing right now, so I’ll let this one lie.[/quote]

You’re a journalist, aren’t you?

Would you weigh in on how the press should balance the rights of the accusers and the accused in rape cases? There’s currently a thread in GAL where it would be appropriate.

145

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Anyway, I’m caught up in watching Rolling Stone and the Left-feminist evidence-doesn’t-matter crowd implode over the UVa thing right now, so I’ll let this one lie.[/quote]

You’re a journalist, aren’t you?

Would you weigh in on how the press should balance the rights of the accusers and the accused in rape cases? There’s currently a thread in GAL where it would be appropriate.
[/quote]

Was / kind-of still am. But sure! Will find it.

146

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Anyway, I’m caught up in watching Rolling Stone and the Left-feminist evidence-doesn’t-matter crowd implode over the UVa thing right now, so I’ll let this one lie.[/quote]

You’re a journalist, aren’t you?

Would you weigh in on how the press should balance the rights of the accusers and the accused in rape cases? There’s currently a thread in GAL where it would be appropriate.
[/quote]

Was / kind-of still am. But sure! Will find it.[/quote]

147

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It’s a dangerous sentence because “what is desired” by taxpayers is not always what is beneficial to the country. There are a lot of bleeding heart liberals that are also wealthy in this country. Read up on Warren Buffet’s stance on taxes for example. [/quote]
-No, people don’t always make the best decisions. I imagine that McDonald’s, Apple, and Wal-Mart have all made decisions that, in hindsight, were not so great. Problems in a business are certainly easier to fix than problems in the state. Warren Buffett would have one vote, but he would not have legions of slaves dependent upon the state to vote with him.

[quote]
The Patriot Act was ultimate not beneficial to the country, right? Yet taxpayers very clearly desired it at the time. Taxpayers wanted the war in Iraq, for a while, now they don’t a couple trillion dollars later.[/quote]
-Yes, people make mistakes. No, I don’t believe that removing non-taxpayers from the pool of voters would create the Utopian States of America, but I do believe that it would be a significant improvement.

[quote]
Taxpayers will be treated like employee because that’s how this world works.[/quote]
-Really? Businesses seem to be pretty responsive to their customers.

[quote]How do you see things changing? I see it like this:

Non-voting citizens = minimum wage workers. Expendable.
Voting citizens = management. Still expendable.
Government = Board of director/executives. Voted in and out in this case by management. [/quote]
-Government is created by the voters, but rules the voters? That would be a relatively easy problem to deal with if non-taxpayers were dropped from the voter pool. As it is, non-taxpaying voters are the lifeblood of big government.

[quote]
You could argue, and I might agree, that in your scenario the voting citizens = shareholders, ie ownership, but it’s a mute point because we are never going to remove voting rights from non-land owners, which means the “board of directors” will never be held accountable for their actions while the “workers” will continue to suffer the consequences of leadership choices. [/quote]
-Correct me if I’m wrong, but you are a voter, right? You have just said that the government will NEVER be held accountable for its actions, and the taxpayers will continue to suffer. I am no longer a voter, and I am still not that pessimistic. Serious question: If you believe that things will never get better, why do you vote?

148

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It’s a dangerous sentence because “what is desired” by taxpayers is not always what is beneficial to the country. There are a lot of bleeding heart liberals that are also wealthy in this country. Read up on Warren Buffet’s stance on taxes for example. [/quote]
-No, people don’t always make the best decisions. I imagine that McDonald’s, Apple, and Wal-Mart have all made decisions that, in hindsight, were not so great. Problems in a business are certainly easier to fix than problems in the state. Warren Buffett would have one vote, but he would not have legions of slaves dependent upon the state to vote with him.

[quote]
The Patriot Act was ultimate not beneficial to the country, right? Yet taxpayers very clearly desired it at the time. Taxpayers wanted the war in Iraq, for a while, now they don’t a couple trillion dollars later.[/quote]
-Yes, people make mistakes. No, I don’t believe that removing non-taxpayers from the pool of voters would create the Utopian States of America, but I do believe that it would be a significant improvement.

[quote]
Taxpayers will be treated like employee because that’s how this world works.[/quote]
-Really? Businesses seem to be pretty responsive to their customers.

[quote]How do you see things changing? I see it like this:

Non-voting citizens = minimum wage workers. Expendable.
Voting citizens = management. Still expendable.
Government = Board of director/executives. Voted in and out in this case by management. [/quote]
-Government is created by the voters, but rules the voters? That would be a relatively easy problem to deal with if non-taxpayers were dropped from the voter pool. As it is, non-taxpaying voters are the lifeblood of big government.

[quote]
You could argue, and I might agree, that in your scenario the voting citizens = shareholders, ie ownership, but it’s a mute point because we are never going to remove voting rights from non-land owners, which means the “board of directors” will never be held accountable for their actions while the “workers” will continue to suffer the consequences of leadership choices. [/quote]
-Correct me if I’m wrong, but you are a voter, right? You have just said that the government will NEVER be held accountable for its actions, and the taxpayers will continue to suffer. I am no longer a voter, and I am still not that pessimistic. Serious question: If you believe that things will never get better, why do you vote?[/quote]

I’ll respond more fully on Monday. Couple of quick comments during an unusual bout of insomnia.

I don’t believe, in our scenario, taxpayers would equal customers, but employees.

I meant government would never change in the context of our scenario. Not like never ever.

Have you ever worked for even a medium size company? The are a lot of significant hurdles to change and red tape to cut through that isn’t much different than government. The large the company the less flexible the company becomes and a company the encapsulated the entire United States would be rather large to put it mildly.

149

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Sure it would have. But not to such an extent that the prevailing interpretation in this thread would fundamentally change. Unless maybe he killed and ate all their parents, or was some kind of Jedi who can vanquish foes with such ease…

[/quote]

Silliness. The gentle giant had a rap sheet going back over 30 years; more than 30 criminal convictions including grand larceny and assault. Indeed, the 350 pound gentle giant was on bail at the time of his death for charges including possession of drugs, impersonation and for selling cigarettes illegally.

None of us can know the level of pressure applied and if/when it was released and so on. What we do know, and what has been conveniently obscured is that the gentle giant didn’t die until an hour after the arrest from cardiac arrest. The autopsy revealed that the chokehold was not the cause of death. When an obese 350 pound asthmatic with heart problems, diabetes and sleep apnia goes through a physical ordeal(self initiated), it’s hardly surprising that he has a heart attack.

Is it? It certainly wasn’t in this case so I don’t see the relevance. When commanded to place his hands behind his back he repeatedly said “no” and swatted away the policeman’s hands. That constitutes physical resistance; physical resistance from a 350 pound felon with a three decade rap sheet of criminal convictions including assault.

And regarding the “illegal” chokehold; although no longer used(ostensibly), it seems it is a method that was taught at the Police Academy:

[quote] NewsMax said:

"Much has been made of the fact that the use of chokeholds by police is prohibited in New York City. But officers reportedly still use them. Between 2009 and mid-2014, the Civilian Complaint Review Board received 1,128 chokehold allegations.

Patrick Lynch, president of the New York City Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, said: “It was clear that the officer’s intention was to do nothing more than take Mr. Garner into custody as instructed, and that he used the takedown technique that he learned in the academy when Mr. Garner refused.”

[/quote]

I’ve heard “experts” on fisticuffery give all sorts of conflicting statements on the altercation. However, the fact is US state police officers don’t really get any training to speak of in martial arts; a few classes at the academy is about it from what I’ve heard. Unlike say Japan, where police are required to have done at least twelve months of martial arts training, US police are really amateurs. I’m sure the experts can describe a hundred and one ways to take down a 350 lbs felon resisting arrest but the cops are not experts. They’re not MMA fighters; they’re not jujitsu masters. They’re regular folk who’ve done a few classes in basic techniques adapted for law enforcement, and the sleeper hold is a technique that was widely taught to LEOs and likely taught to this cop when he was at the academy.

As I said, just as the race hustlers want to turn this into a racial incident so to do the anti-cop types want to make this about police brutality. Strip away the ideology and you’ve got a tragic accident brought about by the perp.

150

[quote]smh wrote:
“resistance of arrest” is a fuzzy deal.[/quote]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Is it? It certainly wasn’t in this case so I don’t see the relevance. When commanded to place his hands behind his back he repeatedly said “no” and swatted away the policeman’s hands. That constitutes physical resistance; physical resistance from a 350 pound felon with a three decade rap sheet of criminal convictions including assault.
[/quote]

(I’m taking this as emblematic; there are similar problems with everything you’re writing here.)

If you cannot distinguish between what you saw in the video – called “mild” by National Review – from the kind of resistance of arrest that might have justified the prolonged compression of a man’s upper body after he was subdued and while he was pleading for air one shy of a dozen times, I’m not wasting any more time arguing this with you. You are clouding your own mind at every turn. So we disagree – it’s happened before, and it’ll have to do this time around.

Edited.

151

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.

152

[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]

Yes there is.

Our Use of Force policy follows the +1 rule. We can legally use one level of force above what the suspect is using/displaying to effect the arrest.

For instance there are verbal non-compliance, passive resistance, active resistance, active aggression… etc.

Garner was displaying “active resistance”. With our policy, takedown would be approved, along with approved strikes.

Active aggression is if he was trying to fight the officer. Then we would use non-lethal options such as chemical spray, taser or impact weapon.

In OUR department, deadly force would then be asserted here as is escalates including chokeholds. Never applied in the active resistance scenario.

So to answer your question, this is crucial.

** Examples apply to my department only.

153

^^ The +1 rule huh? I’d never heard about that. As you describe it, it seems to be a formalisation of the legal concept of “reasonable force.”

154

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^ The +1 rule huh? I’d never heard about that. As you describe it, it seems to be a formalisation of the legal concept of “reasonable force.”[/quote]

Here is an example: If I tell you that you are under arrest, and you take a swing at me, I am not legally obligated to engage you in a fist fight. We should not be able to “fight fair” for lack of a better term. I can legally back away and tase you for instance. That is an example of going one level above. And if you have a weapon OR it can be articulated that you can cause serious bodily injury to me (ie put me in a position to be disarmed) I can use deadly force.

If we had to match the level of force with the suspect’s, we wouldn’t have a chance.

155

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^ The +1 rule huh? I’d never heard about that. As you describe it, it seems to be a formalisation of the legal concept of “reasonable force.”[/quote]

Here is an example: If I tell you that you are under arrest, and you take a swing at me, I am not legally obligated to engage you in a fist fight. We should not be able to “fight fair” for lack of a better term. I can legally back away and tase you for instance. That is an example of going one level above. And if you have a weapon OR it can be articulated that you can cause serious bodily injury to me (ie put me in a position to be disarmed) I can use deadly force.

If we had to match the level of force with the suspect’s, we wouldn’t have a chance.
[/quote]

Absolutely. A lot of people don’t understand this and talk about incidents as if the cops are required to make a “fair fight” of it. Outside of sport or gentlemen’s fisticuffs, there is no such thing as a “fair fight”. A sucker punch can kill someone. Someone falling to the pavement can hit their head and die. When someone is threatening you with violence you do whatever you have to do to ensure you don’t end up in the morgue.

156

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
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.
[/quote]

The chokehold shouldn’t have been applied at all, but anyway, yes, this is the relevant question. And your answer is…what? You say you’re being rational: Quite the opposite. Nothing you wrote after the question mark had anything to do with what forewent the question mark.

– You’re trying to imply something about the medical questions. Unless you

  1. Are a medical examiner

and

  1. Examined Garner’s body

you should give this line up, because you cannot refute the ME’s report, which was that Garner died of neck (chokehold)/chest compression by the officer’s hand. Complicating factors do not alter the medical definition of “homicide” here, and I’m not interested in the speculation of a non-expert who didn’t examine the body.

– You talk about “malice.” Criminally negligent homicide requires none.

So, again – what is your answer to {4}?

157

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

The chokehold shouldn’t have been applied at all, but anyway, yes, this is the relevant question.
[/quote]

Well, some commentators purporting to be experts have stated it was not in fact a chokehold but rather a submission hold. I’m not going to weigh in on that but here’s a 40 minute video discussing it in depth if you’re interested:

Again, I’m not weighing in on it. I’m not appealing to authority nor taking a position. I’m merely pointing out that the “chokehold” aspect is in dispute.

Depends in the question. Some things are in doubt and don’t necessarily have an “answer.”

I’ve not “impl[ied]” anything.

Not this again. All I did was mention the findings of the autopsy.

I’m not disputing the medical evidence. I’m disputing your interpretation. The initial autopsy showed no signs of damage to the windpipe or neck bones. Further, although the autopsy listed the cause of death as a result of:

“Compression of neck (choke hold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police.”

It also listed “acute bronchial asthma, obesity and heart disease” as part of the cause of death.

If you read the report the wording makes it clear that they’re not taking a position on any single aspect of the takedown as the cause but rather the totality of the takedown; the chokehold being only one part; “prone positioning” also mentioned along with Garner’s preexisting health conditions.

Please drop the strawman. I’m not “speculating;”. I’m giving my interpretation of the report. Note that “prone positioning” was amongst the causes listed. Yet you are giving full causal weight to the “chokehold.”

Exactly. I’m not ruling out negligence. I’m ruling out criminal intent.

4 is not a question smh. I could go on an emotive rant with flowery language but I’d prefer to leave the facts speak for themselves and not speculate about what isn’t known.

158

Chokehold aspect is not in dispute SM.

159

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

4 is not a question smh. I could go on an emotive rant with flowery language but I’d prefer to leave the facts speak for themselves and not speculate about what isn’t known. [/quote]

(4) was absolutely a question:

Whats happening here? How was that not a question? You supplied the interrogative.

Also, two guys who teach Jiu-Jitsu are not “experts” in NYPD policy, and, if you read the said policy, you’ll see that it defines a chokehold as “any pressure to the throat or windpipe, which may prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air.” Good luck showing that that didn’t happen.

Furthermore, Garner’s breathing was still being constricted, by Pantaleo, after the chokehold’s application. From the 2004 NYPDPG [these don’t seem to have changed, but I don’t have the current guidelines before me, so if you want to challenge this, I’ll have to get them]:

[quote]
Whenever possible, members should make every effort to avoid tactics, such as sitting or standing on a subject’s chest, which may result in chest compression, thereby reducing the subject’s ability to breathe.[/quote]

“Whenever possible” and “if appropriate.” There is no question that it was possible – they guy was down, overwhelmed, and utterly under the control of his five restrainers – and there is certainly no question that it was appropriate, given that Garner died as a result of – whatever you’re trying to say about the ME report – his having been deprived of air by another’s hand.

160

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
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.
[/quote]

The reports I have seen (I have not seen the actual policies) claim that both a chokehold and LVNR were on the banned-hold list and classified as a use-of-deadly force. Therefore he was (or should have been) trained that using the technique was the same as shooting him. Your argument needs to be based on the premise that shooting would also have been proper as a “submission” move as both are on the same place on the use-of-force chart.

(And, “surprise surprise”, he used a hold classified as a use of deadly force and the guy died.)