I stand corrected, as per George and Ricky... (A good case could be made that there was a high risk of death in use of the chokehold on that particular person, given the previous history of deaths from chokeholds and most importantly given continued application of the hold when he was continually saying he could not breathe)

geojanes wrote:On Fate's comments, he's being absurd, just like he was in the thread "Bush didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." Why don't you take your credibility and throw it out the window a little farther? The cop choked him, which caused his death. Saying, "well, it technically wasn't a chokehold" is complete and utter bull, and attempts to obfuscate that a homicide occurred that apparently no one will be held accountable for.

Thank you for your sheer ignorance.

"Homicide" is not necessarily criminal. If you are beating me with a tire iron and I shoot you, resulting in your death, you died of a "homicide," but the only crime was yours. So, HINT, I'm not disputing that a "homicide" took place. I readily acknowledge it.

And Freeman, the cop grabbed a guy around the neck and choked him to death.

Not correct. He did not asphyxiate.

He said 11 times that he couldn't breath. People need to breath to live.

Good night. You must have gone to medical school for that insight.

Let me ask you something: if I had you in a choke hold so that you could not breathe (sic), could you say "I can't breathe" eleven times?

The correct answer is "NO." I promise you that. You might get it out once or twice, but not eleven times.

Therefore, he knew what he was doing would likely lead to the death of the individual he was choking to death. What's not clear?

We don't know. Ask the Grand Jury. Or, burn your city down. It's all the same to me. You don't like the system? Burn it down.

To posit that what is seen in that video is not criminal behavior is to accept that we live in a police state, which is not an unreasonable argument, but it is not an argument that I accept.

Because a video tells us everything. You'd make some kind of attorney.

rickyp wrote:fate

If that law was violated, we should expect to see an indictment and a conviction. I'm waiting

I think this is the complaint of persons of color in American cities, and anyone who witnessed the Garner video without prejudice. Where's the indictment?

I'm pretty tired of the race argument with regard to Garner. Show me race was an issue. Two facts:

1. The on-scene supervisor was Black Her responsibility was to take action if she saw anything unsafe or unauthorized. That's her job.

2. NYPD ain't Ferguson:

The study, based on Census data and 2007 federal figures for police diversity, shows that:

Whites make up 33 percent of New York City’s population and 54 percent of the NYPD.
Blacks represent 23 percent of the city’s population and 16 percent of the NYPD.
Hispanics make up 28 percent of the city’s population and 24 percent of the NYPD.
Asians represent 13 percent of the population and 4 percent of the NYPD.

The NYPD’s own most-recent numbers show that, as of June 2014, the department has become even more diverse since 2007.

Whites make up 51 percent of the department, Hispanics 26 percent and Asians 6 percent, with the percentage of blacks about the same, according to the newer figures.

“In the uniformed ranks, it’s virtually 50-50 [white vs. non-white],” NYPD spokesman Stephen Davis told The Post. “When you look at our ranks of 35,000 officers, we have a pretty representative force.”

So, shut up about race or PUT UP about race: show that this incident was racially-motivated.

LAPD has nothing to do with NYPD, so the reference is immaterial.

I thought this was interesting...http://thefederalist.com/2014/12/05/wha ... ic-garner/

While the chokehold might have been risky (but if that were that dangerous why are neck holds allowed in MMA?), it still has to be proven that it caused Eric Garner's death. The autopsy said that he died as a result of the hold, compression of the chest, and being positioned on the ground as well as his underlying medical conditions.http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Er ... 96151.html
Well, that's a complicated mix of things contributing to his death.

Also, there appears to be some conflict of opinion as to whether the hold itself was barred. I am not sure I have ever cited Breitbart before...but the following article seems reasonable enough.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... ric-Garner

For all that, I still think tackling a man and using a chokehold/submission hold/arm around the neck hold for some verbal resistance seems utterly ridiculous and no amount of legal analysis is going to change that.

freeman

While the chokehold might have been risky (but if that were that dangerous why are neck holds allowed in MMA?)

Eric Garner didn't have the option of tapping out.

freeman

Well, that's a complicated mix of things contributing to his death

.

Without the choke hold, he wouldn't be dead.

freeman3 wrote:For all that, I still think tackling a man and using a chokehold/submission hold/arm around the neck hold for some verbal resistance seems utterly ridiculous and no amount of legal analysis is going to change that.

I wish they would release all the testimony the GJ heard. I find this part hard to justify--as someone who has written thousands of reports. Now, they could not just walk away. He was a "criminal" as defined by NYC and they had decided to arrest him in response to a call from local businesses. However, the tactics . . . I would not have wanted to defend them.

Yes it would be interesting to see what the GJ were told and shown, and what sort of things they usually get from prosecutors.

Remember that it is not usually a forum for putting forward a defence at all.

danivon wrote:Yes it would be interesting to see what the GJ were told and shown, and what sort of things they usually get from prosecutors.

Remember that it is not usually a forum for putting forward a defence at all.

Agreed, but presuming the officers testified, they would be explaining why they did what they did, whether it's considered a "defense" or not.

The following might be the the best thing written in the forum:

Doctor Fate wrote:Now, should the officers have done what they did? I don't think so.

I've been in similar situations. THIS approach works 95% of the time:

"Hey man, I'm just doing my job. Think I care about these cigarettes? Nope. And, I 100% understand why you're out here--you've got a family to feed and I respect that. I don't want to disrespect you at all. But, I do have a problem: these stores called, they're complaining, and so I've got to take you in.

"I don't want to disrespect you at all. I want you to get you in, get you processed and get you out so you can get back to taking care of business, but I'm going to need you to show me the same respect I'm showing you--can you do that for me, please? Man to man--I'm asking for a favor."

I also agree with the Dr. that race was probably not a role: I believe if Garner was white, acting as he did, he would have also been killed. Comply, survive, and keep your mouth shut whenever you deal with the police, regardless of your race or age.

But then, after saying this wise thing, we have the Dr. being an apologist for killers, which I find astounding. He saying it's OK if this killer goes free, unpunished. We do not live in a police state where the police act with impunity. We, including Eric Garner, have given our consent to be governed. The police took his life, there must be consequences.

Comply, survive and keep your mouth shut. Hmmm, sounds like what I said on page one.

geojanes wrote:But then, after saying this wise thing, we have the Dr. being an apologist for killers, which I find astounding. He saying it's OK if this killer goes free, unpunished. We do not live in a police state where the police act with impunity. We, including Eric Garner, have given our consent to be governed. The police took his life, there must be consequences.

How wrong can you possibly be? Is there anything more than 100%?

I am not an "apologist" for the killers. Firstly, I've not tried to excuse what they did. I said I would not have done what they did. However, it does not appear that what they did was illegal. That's absolutely central. The hold used was not a "choke hold" in the sense of putting force on the "adam's apple." The cause of death was not asphyxiation--as we would expect if he had been "choked to death." Secondly, to call the police "killers" is to imply guilt. You can't establish that, so I'd say you've committed, or come very close to committing, libel.

I've never said anything akin to what you've claimed I said. In fact, I wrote:

I wish they would release all the testimony the GJ heard. I find this part hard to justify--as someone who has written thousands of reports. Now, they could not just walk away. He was a "criminal" as defined by NYC and they had decided to arrest him in response to a call from local businesses. However, the tactics . . . I would not have wanted to defend them.

Why did I say that? Because I want to understand why they did what they did AND why the GJ saw no reason to indict any of the officers.

However, you, without access to medical testimony, police use of force experts' testimony, and without listening to what any of the officers said, you have convicted them of "killing" Mr. Garner.

Good to know we don't need a justice system--just your opinion, ill-informed though it is.

For me, I'd prefer to know the facts before getting a lynch mob together. But, you don't need any stinking facts.

Your writing in that paragraph is pure emotion--absent any rational thought.

"The police act with impunity?" Really? So, the Grand Jury was kabuki theater? You know more than the GJ does?

The police took his life, there must be consequences.

So, "the system be damned. I know the truth. Let's hang them!"

You've gone over to the Dark Side.

geojanes

I also agree with the Dr. that race was probably not a role:

In terms of race and police interaction, Garner isn't an isolated incident. Its part of a terrible trend.
And its just not the incident, its the lack of an indictment. For anything.
And its also how incidents of police interaction are "investigated" and how events like this go through the system. (example in Ferguson, the way the filing of an incident report was handled, or rather not really handled..)

Picking at the details of any particular incident and looking for excuses ignores the over whelming feeling by people of color that their dealing with police are inevitably different then a white persons. Hell, trying to hail a cab is a different experience..

There have been 14 or 15 black teens shot dead since the Michael Brown incident... Its the totality of the experience that makes people of color look at the Garner incident and the lack of an indictment and say, "no justice for black men..."
Would Garner have been treated differently if he were white? The problem is, that right now, blacks will overwhelmingly say "hell yes... ". And mostly from their own personal experience.

I don't know if its true in this case. If Garner was a white man dead from the excessive use of force by arresting officers, i have no idea if an officer would have been indicted... But in the context of the trend and the life experiences of blacks, they are justified in their attitude generally. And maybe in this case particularly too.
There seems to have been a tipping point reached.

rickyp wrote:geojanes

I also agree with the Dr. that race was probably not a role:

In terms of race and police interaction, Garner isn't an isolated incident. Its part of a terrible trend.
And its just not the incident, its the lack of an indictment. For anything.

Here's a trend: you know nothing about what the GJ heard and yet you pretend to know they should have done something other than what they did.

And its also how incidents of police interaction are "investigated" and how events like this go through the system. (example in Ferguson, the way the filing of an incident report was handled, or rather not really handled..)

If you want to claim NYPD is racist, please say so.

Picking at the details of any particular incident and looking for excuses ignores the over whelming feeling by people of color that their dealing with police are inevitably different then a white persons. Hell, trying to hail a cab is a different experience..

I hate that comparison. You know why? Because it's dumb.

Think, strain your brain, for a moment: who drives taxis in NYC? Whites? From what I can find on the 'net, it looks like it's mostly immigrants who drive taxis. So . . .

There have been 14 or 15 black teens shot dead since the Michael Brown incident... Its the totality of the experience that makes people of color look at the Garner incident and the lack of an indictment and say, "no justice for black men..."

Again, that's crap. How many have been killed by other young black men in Chicago alone since the "Michael Brown incident."

*As an aside, if you want to know what a wonderful child Michael Brown was, watch this video (no, it's not in the convenience store. And, no, I'm not saying he "deserved" to die. I am saying he was not this angelic being some make him out to be. He was a bully and a brute--and likely involved in gangs.)*

Would Garner have been treated differently if he were white? The problem is, that right now, blacks will overwhelmingly say "hell yes... ". And mostly from their own personal experience.

Personal experience does not equal objective truth.

I don't know if its true in this case. If Garner was a white man dead from the excessive use of force by arresting officers, i have no idea if an officer would have been indicted... But in the context of the trend and the life experiences of blacks, they are justified in their attitude generally. And maybe in this case particularly too.
There seems to have been a tipping point reached.

It's mostly being seized by anarchists and communists. They are flying about organizing the protests.

Believe whatever you want, but there is no "trend." A "trend" would reflect a national consensus that black lives are not valuable. If you want to believe that liberal areas of the country are filled with KKK-minded folks who get onto grand juries, then you're welcome to that theory. It's wrong, but no amount of rebuttal will convince you of the truth.

bbauska wrote:Comply, survive and keep your mouth shut. Hmmm, sounds like what I said on page one.

Sounds like a police state.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Comply, survive and keep your mouth shut. Hmmm, sounds like what I said on page one.

Sounds like a police state.

Sad post. You should expect more from yourself than that.

Context: a man is in violation of the law. He is confronted by police and told he is being arrested.

So, if he complies with that, is that "a police state?"

Let's see: "A state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people, especially by means of a secret police force."

Okay, no, Danivon is just being foolish. Oh, that's strange.