This is what I mean by not understanding.... lets take your points one by one.

A... perhaps not, there was also no evidence he was not a thread. he was resisting arrest, which upgrades his arrest to a felony arrest. should they wait until he takes someone out before acting? of course not... they should do their job and restrain him to complete the arrest. as they did. if resisting arrest means you won't get arrested, why wouldn't everyone just resist?

B... you keep saying that... but it's not what happened. again, if it was a choke hold (as are banned by NYPD) he would have been choked. as in restricted airways. as in unable to speak. which he did. there is zero evidence, even in the ME report, that his airway was at anytime restricted. the submission method which closes off the arteries however is NOT banned. which is what many submission experts agree was employed.

C... very true. had he not wanted this kind of force he could have not resisted arrest when it was 1 cop simply trying to put handcuffs on him. he initiated the fight.

D... it was not unprovoked. he provoked it the moment he jerked his hand away from the arresting officer.

E... it was ruled a homicide by the ME. medical examiners do not rule on guilt, only on cause of death. a "homicide" in medical examiners terms is not the same as the legal "homicide" employed in criminal cases. this VERY much illustrates my point on you not understanding the information you're finding... or not looking past your confirmation bias, whichever you prefer to view it as. it's an objective fact, not really up for debate.

F... correct. because at the end of the day they did their job correctly. as the article i posted, which you choose to not bother to read apparently, states... there has to be some gross misconduct or negligence. there was none. the initial arrest he decided to resist was a lawful one. the hold/takedown was used at an appropriate time (on someone resisting arrest) and in an appropriate manner (no restriction of the airway), medical services were called to the scene and declared him not in need of CPR as he was still breathing and an ambulance was called to take him away.

OrangeDragon wrote:This is what I mean by not understanding.... lets take your points one by one.

A... perhaps not, there was also no evidence he was not a thread. he was resisting arrest, which upgrades his arrest to a felony arrest. should they wait until he takes someone out before acting? of course not... they should do their job and restrain him to complete the arrest. as they did. if resisting arrest means you won't get arrested, why wouldn't everyone just resist?

B... you keep saying that... but it's not what happened. again, if it was a choke hold (as are banned by NYPD) he would have been choked. as in restricted airways. as in unable to speak. which he did. there is zero evidence, even in the ME report, that his airway was at anytime restricted. the submission method which closes off the arteries however is NOT banned. which is what many submission experts agree was employed.

C... very true. had he not wanted this kind of force he could have not resisted arrest when it was 1 cop simply trying to put handcuffs on him. he initiated the fight.

D... it was not unprovoked. he provoked it the moment he jerked his hand away from the arresting officer.

E... it was ruled a homicide by the ME. medical examiners do not rule on guilt, only on cause of death. a "homicide" in medical examiners terms is not the same as the legal "homicide" employed in criminal cases. this VERY much illustrates my point on you not understanding the information you're finding... or not looking past your confirmation bias, whichever you prefer to view it as. it's an objective fact, not really up for debate.

F... correct. because at the end of the day they did their job correctly. as the article i posted, which you choose to not bother to read apparently, states... there has to be some gross misconduct or negligence. there was none. the initial arrest he decided to resist was a lawful one. the hold/takedown was used at an appropriate time (on someone resisting arrest) and in an appropriate manner (no restriction of the airway), medical services were called to the scene and declared him not in need of CPR as he was still breathing and an ambulance was called to take him away.

As to your attempted deflections ...

A) Seriously? ---- "No evidence he was NOT a threat"? THAT is your burden of proof now? Prove you are NOT a threat or get choked out and piled on by 4 attack dogs that happen to have badges? Also your definition of "Felony resisting arrest" is comical -- please provide your evidence that pulling your arm away and saying "please stop harassing me" is automatically a felony (much less an excuse to kill someone).

B) The coroners office itself referred to it as a "Choke Hold". These holds can work in different ways depending on how applied -- compression of arteries restricting blood flow to brain (extremely dangerous) as well as cutting off ability to breathe. Yes the fact he was "gasping" for breath shows he still has some tiny access to oxygen (much like a drowning man going down for the last time). This does not detract from the fact he was being choked out -- any more than a drowning man gasping his last breath is not being drowned.

C&D) Nonsense --- pulling you arm away and saying "Please stop harassing" me is NOT an excuse for putting someone in a banned choke-hold that winds up killing him. Nor is it an excuse for four cops piling on to an obese, unarmed, grandfather.

E) Nonsense again. I have never stated the ME office ruled on guilt. This is just another straw-man argument of yours to deflect from the basic facts of the case. The ME ruled the case a "Homicide". This is not a legal definition it is a medical definition. Eric Garner died due to the actions of some pit bulls with badges (choke-hold, piling on) with pre-existing factors likely contributing. The fact that the case was "White-washed" (applicable description in this case) and the cop was not charged with homicide (in the legal sense) or at least manslaughter or minimally excessive force is what is truly embarrassing for NYC and Americans in general. We all know rogue cops who enjoy fucking people up just for the fun of it exist. What is truly scandalous is that the system protected him in this case.

F) How can I read the article you are referring too when you won't even publish a link to it? Anyway I think most reasonable people would agree that choking out and killing an unarmed Grandfather who is menacing nobody and who is only "allegedly" selling "Loosies" is NOT an "appropriate" use of force.

Cheers,

RD

Lol, anyone presenting actual information instead of hyperbole is deflecting. Nice deflection.

A] I stand corrected on one fact though, it varies state to state and apparently in NY it's a Class A misdemeanor. Borders on a felony, but not a felony itself.
"A person is guilty of resisting arrest when he intentionally prevents or attempts to prevent a police officer or peace officer from effecting an authorized arrest of himself or another person. Resisting arrest is a class A misdemeanor."
Since he WAS breaking the law... would you not say his action of pulling his arm away from a police officer placing him under arrest qualifies? Also... "harassing him"? He was repeatedly violating the same law! In the same spot! It's not harassment... he was a repeat offender. If someone shoplifts once a week, are they being harassed if they're caught each time?

B] "the coroners office itself" had not reviewed the video footage, and are not experts on submission. have you been able to find an actual copy of the ME report? I've looked and not found one. So paraphrasing media outlets who hype it up for publication is a dangerous game and it may not be at ALL what the ME report says. Again, professionals in submission holds, which I take it you are not, all agree this hold was not constricting air flow.

C&D] RESITING ARREST... why can you not comprehend this? What part of your mind is so locked into the goose step of your preferred narrative that you can't comprehend that pulling away from police arresting you is ITSELF a crime? And again, it wasn't a banned choke hold... so lets dispatch with that hyperbole. And 4 officers on top of you... given his size, not at all unusual... hell it took 3 to get him down really. You keep loving on that "he was just a grandpa" thing as though it's any qualification. He wasn't geriatric... spitting kids out, then having them spit some out doesn't make one feeble.

E] Hahaha, straw man. Better go look up the definition of that word too. I clarified since you kept acting as though it was a homicide (legal) and had been ruled as such by MEs. Pretty sure anyone still reading your posts will agree with me on this. Just like your hyperbole of calling them "pit bulls" when really they were doing their job and addressing a guy who was pretty much flaunting the law by violating it over and over again in the same place, then resisting arrest.

F] Page 7 of this thread...

OrangeDragon wrote:Perhaps you should give this article a read... includes some information the ones sourced by wiki, thus wiki, leaves out:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... ic-garner/

Particularly this bit...

The autopsy from the medical examiner attributed his death to homicide – meaning death at the hands of another party, not murder, in medical parlance – and stated that he died thanks to “Compression of neck (choke hold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police.” But the autopsy further noted that Garner died thanks to acute and chronic bronchial asthma, obesity, and heart disease.

And this one...

Thanks to the video showing Garner stating that he cannot breathe, many pundits have wrongly suggested that Pantaleo was “choking” Garner by depriving him of air from his windpipe. Bratton himself suggested that Pantaleo used a “chokehold,” which is defined by the NYPD as “any pressure to the throat or windpipe, which may prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air.”

That does not appear to have been the case. Garner did not die of asphyxiation, as the head of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association noted at the time. The preliminary autopsy showed no damage to Garner’s windpipe or neck bones.

So what was Pantaleo doing? He was applying a submission hold, which is not barred by the NYPD, and is designed to deprive the brain of oxygen by stopping blood flow through the arteries. So say the experts on submission holds.

It appears that the so-called chokehold was instrumental in triggering Garner’s pre-existing health problems and causing his death, but Garner was not choked to death, as the media [and you] seems to maintain.

here's a nice objective excerpt as to what a grand jury has to decide:

So, in deciding whether a grand jury should have indicted Garner, we should assess the following questions:

1. Was there any intent by the officers to kill Garner? That would certainly be an uphill case to make, as the grand jury likely found.
2. Did the “chokehold” kill Garner, or did his pre-existing health conditions kill him? If Garner had otherwise been healthy, would he have died from use of the “chokehold”?
If not, would use of the “chokehold” have been reckless?
3. Was the use of the “chokehold” reasonable use of force rather than excessive use of force? Was the “chokehold” necessary to subdue him?

OrangeDragon wrote:Lol, anyone presenting actual information instead of hyperbole is deflecting. Nice deflection.

A] I stand corrected on one fact though, it varies state to state and apparently in NY it's a Class A misdemeanor. Borders on a felony, but not a felony itself.
"A person is guilty of resisting arrest when he intentionally prevents or attempts to prevent a police officer or peace officer from effecting an authorized arrest of himself or another person. Resisting arrest is a class A misdemeanor."
Since he WAS breaking the law... would you not say his action of pulling his arm away from a police officer placing him under arrest qualifies? Also... "harassing him"? He was repeatedly violating the same law! In the same spot! It's not harassment... he was a repeat offender. If someone shoplifts once a week, are they being harassed if they're caught each time?

B] "the coroners office itself" had not reviewed the video footage, and are not experts on submission. have you been able to find an actual copy of the ME report? I've looked and not found one. So paraphrasing media outlets who hype it up for publication is a dangerous game and it may not be at ALL what the ME report says. Again, professionals in submission holds, which I take it you are not, all agree this hold was not constricting air flow.

C&D] RESITING ARREST... why can you not comprehend this? What part of your mind is so locked into the goose step of your preferred narrative that you can't comprehend that pulling away from police arresting you is ITSELF a crime? And again, it wasn't a banned choke hold... so lets dispatch with that hyperbole. And 4 officers on top of you... given his size, not at all unusual... hell it took 3 to get him down really. You keep loving on that "he was just a grandpa" thing as though it's any qualification. He wasn't geriatric... spitting kids out, then having them spit some out doesn't make one feeble.

E] Hahaha, straw man. Better go look up the definition of that word too. I clarified since you kept acting as though it was a homicide (legal) and had been ruled as such by MEs. Pretty sure anyone still reading your posts will agree with me on this. Just like your hyperbole of calling them "pit bulls" when really they were doing their job and addressing a guy who was pretty much flaunting the law by violating it over and over again in the same place, then resisting arrest.

F] Page 7 of this thread...

OrangeDragon wrote:Perhaps you should give this article a read... includes some information the ones sourced by wiki, thus wiki, leaves out:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... ic-garner/

Particularly this bit...

The autopsy from the medical examiner attributed his death to homicide – meaning death at the hands of another party, not murder, in medical parlance – and stated that he died thanks to “Compression of neck (choke hold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police.” But the autopsy further noted that Garner died thanks to acute and chronic bronchial asthma, obesity, and heart disease.

And this one...

Thanks to the video showing Garner stating that he cannot breathe, many pundits have wrongly suggested that Pantaleo was “choking” Garner by depriving him of air from his windpipe. Bratton himself suggested that Pantaleo used a “chokehold,” which is defined by the NYPD as “any pressure to the throat or windpipe, which may prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air.”

That does not appear to have been the case. Garner did not die of asphyxiation, as the head of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association noted at the time. The preliminary autopsy showed no damage to Garner’s windpipe or neck bones.

So what was Pantaleo doing? He was applying a submission hold, which is not barred by the NYPD, and is designed to deprive the brain of oxygen by stopping blood flow through the arteries. So say the experts on submission holds.

It appears that the so-called chokehold was instrumental in triggering Garner’s pre-existing health problems and causing his death, but Garner was not choked to death, as the media [and you] seems to maintain.

Ok I read the article from - Breitbart.com. Laughable source. Laughable article. Breitbart, seriously? .... have not debated anyone quoting right wing, nut job racist sources in a long time. An extremely unreliable and politicized site as evidenced by their mis-identification of Loretta Lynch in that "controversey". At least you are not quoting Sean Hanritty though.

The article is SO dishonest:

The video shows Garner resisting arrest, although not violently so – he shouts at officers, “Every time you see me you want to arrest me, I’m tired of this, this stops today…I didn’t do nothing…I’m minding my business, officer…” while waving his arms animatedly — before Pantaleo comes up behind him and places his left arm around Garner’s neck, bringing his right arm up below Garner’s right arm. Garner raises his hands, falling backwards, at which point three other officers physically grab Garner. He falls to the ground, Pantaleo hanging onto his back with his arm still around Garner’s neck. The officers tell Garner to put his hands behind his head, and Garner complains that he cannot breathe. Pantaleo forces Garner’s head to the cement. It is clear that witnesses do not believe Garner has been put in mortal danger.

Garner died a few minutes later

So ZERO mention of the fact he told police ELEVEN TIMES he could not breathe -- before they ultimately killed him?

At issue in this case is the so-called “chokehold” used by Pantaleo. Chokeholds have been banned by the NYPD entirely since 1993; chokeholds are typically defined as holds that prevent people from breathing. Thanks to the video showing Garner stating that he cannot breathe, many pundits have wrongly suggested that Pantaleo was “choking” Garner by depriving him of air from his windpipe. Bratton himself suggested that Pantaleo used a “chokehold,” which is defined by the NYPD as “any pressure to the throat or windpipe, which may prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air.”

That does not appear to have been the case. Garner did not die of asphyxiation, as the head of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association noted at the time. The preliminary autopsy showed no damage to Garner’s windpipe or neck bones.

Nonsense, the Coroner AND the NYPD BOTH said it was a choke-hold --- banned by NYPD police department I might add. But Breitbart (and you by extension) is trying to argue that it was NOT a chokehold Also you do not need to have a broken neck or crushed windpipe to die from being choked. Severely reducing the intake of oxygen (as they did) can have all sorts of immediate and deadly effects, including cardiac arrest.

There is no clear and concise guideline available on excessive force. According to Mark Henriquez, project manager for the National Police Use of Force Database Project at the International Association of Chiefs of Police, only .44 percent of all force complaints were considered excessive from 1994-1998.

I think that killing an unarmed, not-threatening grandfather is "Excessive" force. And why are they obfuscating by quoting data that is 25-30 years old? Classic Breitbart



"Was there any intent by the officers to kill Garner? That would certainly be an uphill case to make, as the grand jury likely found."

FFS -- intent might be needed to prove pre-meditated murder but not usually for culpable homicide and certainly not for manslaughter or use of excessive force or reckless endangerment. What a strawman

Did the “chokehold” kill Garner, or did his pre-existing health conditions kill him? If Garner had otherwise been healthy, would he have died from use of the “chokehold”?

FFS again ... the obvious existence of pre-existing conditions should have served as a deterrent for using excessive force ... not to rationalize it. Your/their logic is the same as saying if a cop walks up and using full voltage, tasers a 90 year old lady with a heart condition --- it would be HER fault for dieing because of the conditions .

Breitbart

You have such a hard on for cops being bad guys you don't even see your own contradictions... one moment his being able to speak was the last gasp of a man who could not breathe... the next he said it 11 times.

11 times is a lot of breath. hold your breath and, only exhaling, say "i can't breathe" loud enough for it to be clear in say a cell phone video 6 feet away. let me know how many you get.

You just don't get how much people cry wolf about shit like that. As it seems Gardner was doing as well based on the fact he could breathe to speak, was still breathing later, etc. His lack of breath, if there even was any, was likely do to his cardiac arrest, not choking.

And again attacking any source if it happens to present objective facts in the face of your hyperbole. Clearly this "discussion" isn't one... it's a soapbox for you to present your misinformation then clearly wrong if it doesn't agree with it. Instead of listening and discussion you're preaching harder than stroppychopps, he should take a lesson and convince everyone christ was crucified because he was black.

OrangeDragon wrote:You have such a hard on for cops being bad guys you don't even see your own contradictions... one moment his being able to speak was the last gasp of a man who could not breathe... the next he said it 11 times.

11 times is a lot of breath. hold your breath and, only exhaling, say "i can't breathe" loud enough for it to be clear in say a cell phone video 6 feet away. let me know how many you get.

You just don't get how much people cry wolf about shit like that. As it seems Gardner was doing as well based on the fact he could breathe to speak, was still breathing later, etc. His lack of breath, if there even was any, was likely do to his cardiac arrest, not choking.

And again attacking any source if it happens to present objective facts in the face of your hyperbole. Clearly this "discussion" isn't one... it's a soapbox for you to present your misinformation then clearly wrong if it doesn't agree with it. Instead of listening and discussion you're preaching harder than stroppychopps, he should take a lesson and convince everyone christ was crucified because he was black.

First I did not ONLY attack your source --- I went through point by point and showed how their argument was complete bullshit. That said, I think most reasonable people could just see the name "Breitbart" attached to it and know it would be bullshit already.

As to your "Black Jesus" reference, I have never said that it was clear that race played a role in their killing him. Maybe it did or maybe not. Black people see yet another black man being killed by white cops and nobody could blame them for having doubts. To me the issue is primarily of an increased trend of cops acting like miltarized attack dogs rather than cops. It is a case of abuse of power, excessive force, and getting away with it. Nice try at a strawman again.

Also,I don't have a "hard on" for cops --- I have had cops in my own family.

The issue is, I actually understand the difference on what makes good policing vs what it takes to be a good (for example) Marine. Marines, kick ass and may or may not bother to take names. Good cops restore and maintain order, Deescalate when possible and kick ass and take names only as a last resort. Even then they are expected to use only "reasonable" force as the situation merits.

No "Reasonable" person would make the case that an obese grandfather, allegedly selling loosies, should be slammed to the ground, have a banned ckoke-hold applied to him, piled on by 4 more cops, and be killed as a direct result of those actions.

It is fully unreasonable; which is why you only find such nutter arguments on far right-wing sites like Breitbart.

I doubt the cop intended to kill Garner -- the fact is he did kill Garner. This happened because the cop did not react with a proper "Police Psychology" but instead reacted with an "Attack Dog" psychology.

Proper Policing approach:

Garrner: "You need to stop harassing me ... this needs to stop now"
Cop: "We are going to take you in"
Garner pulls his arm away "Please stop harassing me"
Cop: "We are taking you in on charges of "blahblahblah" if you continue to resist, you will face additional charges of resisting arrest."
Garner: "But I am not resisting arrest, I just want you to stop harassing me"
2nd Cop: Tries to deescalate "Look buddy we are trying to be patient but you need to go with us now or things are going to get a lot worse for you. Please turn around and face the wall.

At this point Garner either complies -- or SOME use of force is justified. However NOT a violent attack or chokehold (unless Garner first reacts violently). Four cops on the scene could easily have pushed him against a wall frisked him and handcuffed him.

What appears to have actually happened:


Garrner: "You need to stop harassing me ... this needs to stop now"
Cop: Lunges at arm to handcuff him
Garner pulls his arm away "Please stop harassing me"
Killer Cop: Circles behind Garner, attacks him from behind by putting him in a banned choke-hold and slamming him to the pavement. Continues to apply the choke-hold for 15 seconds as Garner does nothing. 4 Cops pile on. Garner Gasps "I can't breathe" eleven times before going unconscious. Cops roll him over on his side. He dies.

I think Reasonable people can tell the differences between the two approaches above. Can you?

There is a reason the USA has historically (dating back to the founding fathers)had a firm dividing line between police and military. They serve two different functions and require different psychologies and approaches.

Unfortunately, over the last 20 years, the lines between police and military have become increasingly blurred. It is a very dangerous step in becoming a "Police State".

"Protect and Serve" are words that should have meaning. When cops look at civilians as "the enemy" or as targets of aggression, or feel justified in using any level of force regardless the situation, nothing good can come of it.

Also it is worth mentioning why were 4 attack dogs after a guy selling "Loosies"???

Terrorizing on behalf of a tax authority?

Garner was (allegedly) selling single untaxed cigarettes --- it is not like he was selling meth to school children FFS

Cheers,
RD

For me, the problems start with crappy recruitment.

I guarantee you that if you research the areas with the biggest race relationship problems/police abuse problems, you will find a crappy recruitment process, or corruption in the form of friends/unqualified people being recruited.

The US, it seems to me, needs to sit down and decide what it is exactly they want cops to do.

To protect and serve is the sales pitch, but why has it become so opposite to that, and so weighted against minorities?

I thing Obama should start a compulsory new human rights/race relations course for every single police office, a psychological evaluation, and an independent selection process for officers.

RD, agree completely, Soros will get a deal to get out of a $7Bn scam, but a guy selling loosies gets assaulted. Nice values, guys.

Rain Dog wrote: Garner was (allegedly) selling single untaxed cigarettes --- it is not like he was selling meth to school children FFS

You really can't let your bias down to see that the crime he got hurt over wasn't this one can you?

The crime he got hurt over was a separate charge of resisting arrest... which is a much more serious crime than selling smokes. I know I know... that breaks your narrative. Sorry.

Baltimore has been a shithole for decades. Violent crime, neglect, abuse-Baltimore has it all. While the recent ugliness has been trumpeted by the 'press', generations of trouble have gone largely unnoticed. Unfortunately, the spotlight of scrutiny will soon swing over another city in shambles and nothing will have changed for Baltimore. There are many deeper issues that must be addressed before the situation will improve.