NEW YORK (Reuters) - A New York City grand jury on Wednesday returned no indictment against a white police officer who used a choke hold on Eric Garner, an unarmed black man, while arresting him for illegally selling cigarettes, local media reported.
They said the Staten Island panel decided against criminal charges for Police Officer Daniel Pantaleo.
For those that didn't catch the video first time around....
Now I'm not calling this something racially charged, but I will say this one isn't cool.
At least in this case you can CLEARLY see an improper choke hold. Nearly every LE agency in the nation bars the use of choke holds. Where they are used, cops are trained SPECIFICALLY not to do a choke hold in the manner in which he was doing it, with the forearm across the trachea. Why? Because it compresses the trachea, and 4-5 hours later it swells, cuts off his air supply, and he dies. Something tells me that�s exactly what happened here.
So here�s an incident where there were multiple cops, one used a non-approved hold, (it was clearly against department policy) the coroner has even ruled it a homicide. And no charges.
Sorry, but on this one I have to cry foul. Now I�m not calling RACIST foul, I�m just saying that what happened isn�t cool and the grand jury either made a bad call or were misled.
If there exist any cops in the nation that still don�t understand a-how to do a correct choke hold, and b-the risk of an improper choke hold, I�d be shocked.
But if he had underlying medical conditions, the heart attack can be brought on by lack of oxygen. And it�s not how long you hold the arm across the trachea, but how hard. It can be just a second, but if it�s hard swelling can start. I�m betting there�s a reason the ME ruled it a homicide. I think that cop screwed the pooch.
Again, I�m not saying there was anything racial about it. I�m just saying this doesn�t pass the smell test.
If you or I did something to make someone have a heart attack, you and I both know we�d be staring down a manslaughter charge�why is it different for this cop?
Of course it's the cops fault that a morbidly obese dude with potential medical problems decided to tussle. They should've had him fill out a questionnaire first.
Nobody's responsible for themselves as long as there's a cop nearby to blame.
Blood chokes are great for incapacitating individuals but do it wrong and it can be fatal, hence the reason they "watered" it down from the V "choke hold" to the vascular neck restraint which goes up under the armpit.
Hard to get a charge against the police officer other than negligence for applying a tactic that was against policy ect. Other factors come into play, size disparity, what the suspect said, resisting arrest, amount of police officers vs. suspect ect. All taken into account. Also the officer who applied the choke hold, what was his reason/thinking for using the hold?
Good thing he was just selling cigs. In NY if it were big gulps the cops would have been justified in shooting.
Selling cigarettes shouldn't be illegal in the first place. Taxing them at the rate of 4.85 per pack should be. Geezus I hate this phuggin NYS govt't ! Buncha worthless lowlife thieves.
They're throwing up the NYC-RC Christmas Tree soon. Officials interviewed on FOX were saying violent protests are to be expected. BUT like someone else stated NYC will not likely tolerate what happened in Ferguson.
The NYPD is going after officer Pantaleo on it's own. Just as in Ferguson, the politicians are not content with a no bill result. They are going to have an internal investigation, and fire the guy. Maybe that will cool down the insurgents. Of course, there will be the automatic involvement of the DOJ in a Civil Rights infestigation, as in any negro death. link to story
Quote
A grand jury voted not to indict NYPD officer Daniel Pantaleo in the chokehold death of Eric Garner � but the eight-year veteran isn�t off the hook just yet. Pantaleo � who was placed on modified duty after Garner�s death on July 17 � is still being investigated by the Internal Affairs Bureau, which is looking into his possible use of excessive force and may decide to charge him departmentally. �If so, there will be a departmental trial,� a source said. At the end of that trial, the Department Advocate�s office will make recommendations to Police Commissioner Bill Bratton as to whether Pantaleo should be fired, disciplined or go unpunished. Ultimately, Bratton has the final say in his future on the force. A police source said it�s likely the Department Advocate will recommend that Pantaleo be disciplined, as chokeholds have been banned by the NYPD. �The chokehold, however not criminal, does violate the patrol guide procedure in section 203 �use of force,� but the Department Advocate will merely make a suggestion of discipline to Bratton,� the law enforcement source said. Police union leaders have claimed that Pantaleo did not actually use a chokehold to arrest Garner, 43, who was selling loose cigarettes on the sidewalk. But a cellphone video of the July 17 arrest shows Pantaleo, who is white, wrestling his black suspect to the ground with his arms around his neck. Bratton also described Pantaleo�s arrest tactic as an �apparent chokehold� in the wake of the incident. The Garner family has urged federal authorities to launch a separate civil rights investigation into his death.
Of course it's the cops fault that a morbidly obese dude with potential medical problems decided to tussle. They should've had him fill out a questionnaire first.
Nobody's responsible for themselves as long as there's a cop nearby to blame.
That's not what I'm saying and you know it.
The cops are responsible for THEIR actions. One man acted outside policy and it resulted in a death; that's serious. That should at least call for an accounting.
They're throwing up the NYC-RC Christmas Tree soon. Officials interviewed on FOX were saying violent protests are to be expected. BUT like someone else stated NYC will not likely tolerate what happened in Ferguson.
Whole different PD in that town.
I think people have a right to be outraged in this case. This one really looks like a grand jury/prossecutor cover the cops. Ferguson didn't appear that way to me at all because the cop in question acted in an appropriate manner.
This cop didn't act in an appropriate manner, and it resulted in a death. That's not cool and I don't care what color the person is.
Choke holds are famous for killing people, that's precisely why they're barred. They're legally indefensible, and the city is going to loose their arse in the civil suit.
They're throwing up the NYC-RC Christmas Tree soon. Officials interviewed on FOX were saying violent protests are to be expected. BUT like someone else stated NYC will not likely tolerate what happened in Ferguson.
Whole different PD in that town.
I think people have a right to be outraged in this case. This one really looks like a grand jury/prossecutor cover the cops. Ferguson didn't appear that way to me at all because the cop in question acted in an appropriate manner.
This cop didn't act in an appropriate manner, and it resulted in a death. That's not cool and I don't care what color the person is.
Choke holds are famous for killing people, that's precisely why they're barred. They're legally indefensible, and the city is going to loose their arse in the civil suit.
I see a 350 pound man refusing to comply. With 31 arrests to his credit It wouldn't be a surprise to find out that the officers involved had some knowledge of his potential to be a threat to their safety.
It also looks line the officer attempted to get Garner's arm in that headlock
But lets face it unless you're stretch armstrong that was a tough task.
His heart attack could have been triggered by anything just the stress of the altercation could have caused it. They could have tased him and that could have caused it. And while the move was against dept policy, I in't believe it's "illegal" under law in N Y
Kevin where is your criticism for the paramedics who stood by and wouldn't perform CPR?
This is why people get pissed at cops. No reason to kill that man. Without reading the responses, you can almost be assured every cop on this board is saying how it's ok the guy died at the hands of cops.
This is why people get pissed at cops. No reason to kill that man. Without reading the responses, you can almost be assured every cop on this board is saying how it's ok the guy died at the hands of cops.
Morbidly obese man has a heart attack during a struggle and it's the cops fault. If not today then tomorrow, that fat f uck was a ticking time bomb.
31 prior arrests, too bad he didn't die sooner.
I'm no cop but I can tell you IDGAF about that fat bastard dieing. By cop, or thug, or excessive food intake. Don't make one bit of difference to me, he is dead, good and dead.
But if he had underlying medical conditions, the heart attack can be brought on by lack of oxygen. And it�s not how long you hold the arm across the trachea, but how hard. It can be just a second, but if it�s hard swelling can start. I�m betting there�s a reason the ME ruled it a homicide. I think that cop screwed the pooch.
Again, I�m not saying there was anything racial about it. I�m just saying this doesn�t pass the smell test.
If you or I did something to make someone have a heart attack, you and I both know we�d be staring down a manslaughter charge�why is it different for this cop?
Or isn't it more likely it was brought on by all the excitement of him getting his ass kicked by the cops for resisting arrest?
But if he had underlying medical conditions, the heart attack can be brought on by lack of oxygen. And it�s not how long you hold the arm across the trachea, but how hard. It can be just a second, but if it�s hard swelling can start. I�m betting there�s a reason the ME ruled it a homicide. I think that cop screwed the pooch.
Again, I�m not saying there was anything racial about it. I�m just saying this doesn�t pass the smell test.
If you or I did something to make someone have a heart attack, you and I both know we�d be staring down a manslaughter charge�why is it different for this cop?
Well, it's different, for one thing because the dead dude was aggressively non-compliant and resisting an otherwise lawful arrest and the cop was acting in accordance with his duty. If fat-azz didn't want to risk an ass-kicking and/or heart attack, complying with the arrest (he'd been through 31 prior, he knew the drill) would have been a good start. Resist, and you are going to risk some injury.
I'm no cop but I can tell you IDGAF about that fat bastard dieing. By cop, or thug, or excessive food intake. Don't make one bit of difference to me, he is dead, good and dead.
So,...I take it you DIDN'T participate in the "Die In" held today in Grand Central Station..?
Coulda sworn that was you, "I can't breathe,..I can't breathe.!"
In NYC, that's a FAR greater offense than almost any other. Not only did Der Mayor decree them "evil", but the City taxes them about $5/pack, and you're cutting into their take of the business.
I started at this forum about a decade ago when I was working as a gun writer. Then there was a push for the gun writers to use their names, so I changed. After I hadn't been a gun writer for several years, I didn't feel it was necessary to post under Kevin Gibson anymore and went back to being the GunGeek.
I started at this forum about a decade ago when I was working as a gun writer. Then there was a push for the gun writers to use their names, so I changed. After I hadn't been a gun writer for several years, I didn't feel it was necessary to post under Kevin Gibson anymore and went back to being the GunGeek.
But if he had underlying medical conditions, the heart attack can be brought on by lack of oxygen. And it�s not how long you hold the arm across the trachea, but how hard. It can be just a second, but if it�s hard swelling can start. I�m betting there�s a reason the ME ruled it a homicide. I think that cop screwed the pooch.
Again, I�m not saying there was anything racial about it. I�m just saying this doesn�t pass the smell test.
If you or I did something to make someone have a heart attack, you and I both know we�d be staring down a manslaughter charge�why is it different for this cop?
Or isn't it more likely it was brought on by all the excitement of him getting his ass kicked by the cops for resisting arrest?
Not according to the ME who ruled it a homicide. He has the full picture, you and I are just speculating.
Of course it's the cops fault that a morbidly obese dude with potential medical problems decided to tussle. They should've had him fill out a questionnaire first.
Nobody's responsible for themselves as long as there's a cop nearby to blame.
That's not what I'm saying and you know it.
The cops are responsible for THEIR actions. One man acted outside policy and it resulted in a death; that's serious. That should at least call for an accounting.
1-There's no way you can know the cop's actions caused the death. That'd take someone with more information.....like a Grand Jury.
2-New York is fixna blow up, just like Ferguson. The AG is getting involved. That NY prosecutor had NO vested interest in covering up a black guy getting murdered. The (elected) prosecutor would've been a hero to indict the cop.
I've never heard a career crook accept responsibility for his behavior that got him into deep trouble - even a morbidly obese career criminal in poor health. It's always someone else's fault. Is there a pattern?
The procedural fault i can see is, as soon as he became aggressively non compliant, someone should have been yelling TASER, TASER, TASER!!
Chances are he would have still had the MI, but procedurally all involved would be on stronger legs
Just him thinking about a taser would of given him a heart attack.
It may have, and that would be in accordance with common accepted procedure...and I would be on the other side of this discussion. But he went against procedure and a man is dead.
I've never heard a career crook accept responsibility for his behavior that got him into deep trouble - even a morbidly obese career criminal in poor health. It's always someone else's fault. Is there a pattern?
Well, it's different, for one thing because the dead dude was aggressively non-compliant and resisting an otherwise lawful arrest and the cop was acting in accordance with his duty. If fat-azz didn't want to risk an ass-kicking and/or heart attack, complying with the arrest (he'd been through 31 prior, he knew the drill) would have been a good start. Resist, and you are going to risk some injury.
That's one, for starters.
I�m with you there, the guy was a POS. But we have a cop clearly acting OUTSIDE of his rules of engagement and a man lost his life; doesn�t that concern you?
If they sprayed him with pepper spray, or hit him with a night stick, I really wouldn�t have an issue. But an improper choke hold is just incredibly dumb, and EVERY cop knows better.
Hell I�ve had to transport people to the hospital in cuffs on the off chance that one of the officers may have grabbed him around the neck during a takedown. This isn�t some strange happening, it�s well established that choke holds kill people, that cop knew better.
The guy who died, he's no great loss to society, and I don't give a rats if he's black white or whatever; he was a POS. What I'm concerned about is a prosecutor and grand jury cover the arse of a copy who was clearly out of line...it's called a cover up. You and I do something like that, we're going to prison.
So, the only "autopsy report" that i find that lays fault onhis death as specifically being the choke hold is the one compiled by the ME who was retained by the family....the same ME who was retained by Mike Brown's family to perform that Autopsy
Kevin, why on God's green earth wouldn't a GJ and prosecutor want to indict the cop? They'd be national heroes. But instead they've got riots and the GJ's names can get released.
There's nothing in a cover up to benefit the DA or GJ.
1-There's no way you can know the cop's actions caused the death. That'd take someone with more information.....like a Grand Jury.
Well yeah I can, a qualified medical examiner (you know, that's what they do is determine cause of death) determined the man was the victim of a homocide. In other words, had that incident not happened, he wouldn't have died.
Now maybe the choke hold did it and maybe it didn't. I really don't care. It's dumb luck for the cop who did something he clearly shouldn't have done. Again, if it were you or I, we wouldn't get the same sort of "aw shucks, chit happens"
Originally Posted by Bluedreaux
2-New York is fixna blow up, just like Ferguson. The AG is getting involved. That NY prosecutor had NO vested interest in covering up a black guy getting murdered. The (elected) prosecutor would've been a hero to indict the cop.
Yep, the race baiters are all sporting 6 foot woodies right now. I really wish the victim were a white guy and the town wasn't about to be ripped apart, but it is what it is.
Like I said before, I don't give a ratz-azz about the racial part of this.
So, the only "autopsy report" that i find that lays fault onhis death as specifically being the choke hold is the one compiled by the ME who was retained by the family....the same ME who was retained by Mike Brown's family to perform that Autopsy
Link? I'd love to have the name of Kevin's expert witness.
Kevin, why on God's green earth wouldn't a GJ and prosecutor want to indict the cop? They'd be national heroes.
Ordinarily it seems as if a Grand Jury anywhere will indict a Ham Sandwich if it shows up. The fact Ferguson didn't indict Wilson speaks volumes for the squeaky cleaness of the shoot....
1-There's no way you can know the cop's actions caused the death. That'd take someone with more information.....like a Grand Jury.
Well yeah I can, a qualified medical examiner (you know, that's what they do is determine cause of death) determined the man was the victim of a homocide. In other words, had that incident not happened, he wouldn't have died.
Now maybe the choke hold did it and maybe it didn't. I really don't care. It's dumb luck for the cop who did something he clearly shouldn't have done. Again, if it were you or I, we wouldn't get the same sort of "aw shucks, chit happens"
Originally Posted by Bluedreaux
2-New York is fixna blow up, just like Ferguson. The AG is getting involved. That NY prosecutor had NO vested interest in covering up a black guy getting murdered. The (elected) prosecutor would've been a hero to indict the cop.
Yep, the race baiters are all sporting 6 foot woodies right now. I really wish the victim were a white guy and the town wasn't about to be ripped apart, but it is what it is.
Like I said before, I don't give a ratz-azz about the racial part of this.
If NYC gets ripped apart, we'll all be MUCH further ahead afterward.
Kevin, why on God's green earth wouldn't a GJ and prosecutor want to indict the cop? They'd be national heroes. But instead they've got riots and the GJ's names can get released.
There's nothing in a cover up to benefit the DA or GJ.
I don't know their motivation. A grand jury just decides if there's grounds to bring someone up on charges, they don't determine guilt.
Seriously can you not see with your own eyes that a cop acted in a manner that is known to kill people, against department policies and national standards, and a death resulted. Can you not see that with your own eyes? That's grounds to bring someone up on charges. It's not enough to convict, and this isn't about a conviction, it's about charges. But you HAVE to put it to the court when it's so blatant.
Was the LE response to the offense commensurate with the crime - No Did he act in a manner consistent with his training - NO Did he act in a manner consistent with national standards of his profession - No Did he act in a manner consistent with the policies of his own department - No
How do you ignore that?
In Ferguson it was abundantly clear to everyone that the cop acted in a manner consistent with national standards, his training, and his department's policy; open and shut. I don't even see a need for a grand jury in that case. But this one, GOOD LORD.
The dead guy was being arrested; he resisted, violently. The cop restrained.
The guy had a HEART ATTACK, not a choking or strangulation incident.
Contributory negligence and shared liability, at the very least.
They don't HAVE to put it to the court at all, when the only ME that certified anything relating to the arrest as the cause of death was the ME hired by the same ambulance chasing lawyer from the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown cases.
What I see is that by watching 30 seconds of cell phone video, Kevin Gibson is more qualified to return a true or no bill verdict than a Grand Jury who ws presented with more evidence, had more time to contemplate it and HAD A VESTED INTEREST IN INDICTING THE OFFICER (but they didn't).
You should run for President, Obama can do that too Kevin.
Could you please tell us, specifically, what evidence you are aware of that was withheld from the grand jury that would support a finding that the deceased's heart attack was caused by the actions of any officer?
Could you please tell us, specifically, what evidence you have that, but for the actions of the officer/officers, the deceased would still be alive?
Could you please tell us, specifically, how you would go about arresting a morbidly obese, resisting suspect that would guarantee no adverse medical reaction to the suspect?
I was not a party to the grand jury proceedings in this case. As a result, I have no personal knowledge of all of the evidence that was presented and considered by the jury. I am going to go out on a limb and assume that the jury was provided with all known evidence. I am going to further assume that since no charges were brought, the evidence did not cause the jury to believe that probable cause exists to charge anyone with a crime in this death.
The American system of criminal justice works best when separated from politics and political correctness.
1-There's no way you can know the cop's actions caused the death. That'd take someone with more information.....like a Grand Jury.
Well yeah I can, a qualified medical examiner (you know, that's what they do is determine cause of death) determined the man was the victim of a homocide. In other words, had that incident not happened, he wouldn't have died.
Now maybe the choke hold did it and maybe it didn't. I really don't care. It's dumb luck for the cop who did something he clearly shouldn't have done. Again, if it were you or I, we wouldn't get the same sort of "aw shucks, chit happens"
Originally Posted by Bluedreaux
2-New York is fixna blow up, just like Ferguson. The AG is getting involved. That NY prosecutor had NO vested interest in covering up a black guy getting murdered. The (elected) prosecutor would've been a hero to indict the cop.
Yep, the race baiters are all sporting 6 foot woodies right now. I really wish the victim were a white guy and the town wasn't about to be ripped apart, but it is what it is.
Like I said before, I don't give a ratz-azz about the racial part of this.
If NYC gets ripped apart, we'll all be MUCH further ahead afterward.
Agreed, for me race isn't in question, but I feel I'm the only one. Tearing apart NY isn't going to solve anything. But this still stinks.
I think the only thing that stinks is the kowtowing to a criminal element and allowing 13% of the population to get away with rioting whenever they feel like it AND STILL PAY THEM via all the .gov subsidy programs.
Screw 'm. Cut off all the gimme programs, start shooting looters and drug dealers and such on sight, and have those that want to actually do something DO something.
There's a hefty amount of the 13% that want a race war, and a government that's fomenting the same.
Could you please tell us, specifically, what evidence you are aware of that was withheld from the grand jury that would support a finding that the deceased's heart attack was caused by the actions of any officer?
Could you please tell us, specifically, what evidence you have that, but for the actions of the officer/officers, the deceased would still be alive?
Could you please tell us, specifically, how you would go about arresting a morbidly obese, resisting suspect that would guarantee no adverse medical reaction to the suspect?
I was not a party to the grand jury proceedings in this case. As a result, I have no personal knowledge of all of the evidence that was presented and considered by the jury. I am going to go out on a limb and assume that the jury was provided with all known evidence. I am going to further assume that since no charges were brought, the evidence did not cause the jury to believe that probable cause exists to charge anyone with a crime in this death.
The American system of criminal justice works best when separated from politics and political correctness.
It all comes back to this:
Was the LE response to the offense commensurate with the crime - No Did he act in a manner consistent with his training - NO Did he act in a manner consistent with national standards of his profession - No Did he act in a manner consistent with the policies of his own department - No
Was it in response to a violently aggressive known felon resisting arrest? Yes. Was it a physical struggle brought on by the known felon and could it have been avoided had he not resisted? Yes. Did the LEGITIMATE ME certify that the restraint caused no problems and the heart attack was due to morbid obesity and the strain of resisting arrest? Yes.
Does the GJ have FAR more info than you, me, or anyone else? Yes.
This is about having the system work and not kowtowing to irrational, race-baited mob mentality.
Kevin, please tell us how he should have gone about arresting a suspect, that outweighed him by close to 200 pounds and had about a foot of height on him
Should he have just said f**k it and left when the guy said he wasn't going nowhere with him? Once Garner activley began resisting, it was game on. Disparity of force definitely played a part.
Was it in response to a violently aggressive known felon resisting arrest? Yes. Was it a physical struggle brought on by the known felon and could it have been avoided had he not resisted? Yes. Did the LEGITIMATE ME certify that the restraint caused no problems and the heart attack was due to morbid obesity and the strain of resisting arrest? Yes.
Does the GJ have FAR more info than you, me, or anyone else? Yes.
This is about having the system work and not kowtowing to irrational, race-baited mob mentality.
BTW - "indictment".
Okay I'm getting pissed dude, I've said a dozen times that I DONT PUCKING CARE ABOUT THE COLOR OF THE MAN!!! I'm not a frickin race baiter!
Never said you were race baited. The mobs in Ferguson and NYC damned sure are, though, and the ONLY reason this is an issue and getting any attention at all is because the .gov at all levels is placating 13% of the population due to RACE and nothing else.
Facts don't matter, only the perception to that RACE, and THAT is RACIST and race-baiting.
I think the main thing people should be focused on is a career criminal with 31 prior arrests is dead.
Let us rejoice.
JFC, this is a far better outcome than the fat SOB being arrested then released, then re-arrested over and over. All the while collecting state funds, and ultimately having a heart attack anyways. What more do people want?
Was it in response to a violently aggressive known felon resisting arrest? Yes. Was it a physical struggle brought on by the known felon and could it have been avoided had he not resisted? Yes. Did the LEGITIMATE ME certify that the restraint caused no problems and the heart attack was due to morbid obesity and the strain of resisting arrest? Yes.
Does the GJ have FAR more info than you, me, or anyone else? Yes.
This is about having the system work and not kowtowing to irrational, race-baited mob mentality.
BTW - "indictment".
Okay I'm getting pissed xxxxxx, I've said a dozen times that I DONT PUCKING CARE ABOUT THE COLOR OF THE MAN!!! I'm not a frickin race baiter!
Literacy is a gift.
He did not call you a race baiter... He said the GJ did not kowtow to the mob calling for a racially tainted indictment.
Kevin, please tell us how he should have gone about arresting a suspect, that outweighed him by close to 200 pounds and had about a foot of height on him
Should he have just said f**k it and left when the guy said he wasn't going nowhere with him? Once Garner activley began resisting, it was game on. Disparity of force definitely played a part.
Pepper spray, tazer. His own department said they should have used a tazer and said they will conduct more tazer training.
If he died of a heart attack from that, I'd be on the other side of this issue.
So do we let a cop off when he goes against standardized policies?
Of course it's the cops fault that a morbidly obese dude with potential medical problems decided to tussle. They should've had him fill out a questionnaire first.
Nobody's responsible for themselves as long as there's a cop nearby to blame.
That's not what I'm saying and you know it.
The cops are responsible for THEIR actions. One man acted outside policy and it resulted in a death; that's serious. That should at least call for an accounting.
I've killed several people because they swallowed crack that I didn't know they had. Have any advice?
Never said you were race baited. The mobs in Ferguson and NYC damned sure are, though, and the ONLY reason this is an issue and getting any attention at all is because the .gov at all levels is placating 13% of the population due to RACE and nothing else.
Facts don't matter, only the perception to that RACE, and THAT is RACIST and race-baiting.
Clear enough?
Clear.
Now let me be clear, I'm not interested in even discussing the racial aspect of this case because to me that's not what is in question. The race issues, riots, or anything else going on are completely secondary to what happened and whether what happened was right or wrong, or consistent with our expectations of law-enforcement practices. That's the only thing I really care about. First we determine whether or not someone acted in a manner consistent with policies and training. Then if they didn't there may be a crime. If there was a crime then there's the question of whether the crime may or may not have been racially motivated. So as far as I'm concerned the racial issue is way the hell down the list, but most everybody else has elevated it to question number one.
Perhaps he knew fat ass had a heart problem and was intentionally trying to NOT taze him? Hmmm... that'd be a twist, wouldn't it?
After 31 arrests, you have to figure he was probably fairly well known to the NYPD.
De Blasio is a race-baiting, admitted communist.
To me it wouldn't be a twist. The Tayser is approved practice and policy a chokehold is not it's just as simple as that. That policy exists so the cop does not have the leisure of making that decision in the field. Because choke holds have killed so many people.
So had he tazed the guy and the guy had a heart attack and died I would have no issue with that at all and I'd be on the complete other side of this issue
Never said you were race baited. The mobs in Ferguson and NYC damned sure are, though, and the ONLY reason this is an issue and getting any attention at all is because the .gov at all levels is placating 13% of the population due to RACE and nothing else.
Facts don't matter, only the perception to that RACE, and THAT is RACIST and race-baiting.
Clear enough?
Clear.
Now let me be clear, I'm not interested in even discussing the racial aspect of this case because to me that's not what is in question. The race issues, riots, or anything else going on are completely secondary to what happened and whether what happened was right or wrong, or consistent with our expectations of law-enforcement practices. That's the only thing I really care about. First we determine whether or not someone acted in a manner consistent with policies and training. Then if they didn't there may be a crime. If there was a crime then there's the question of whether the crime may or may not have been racially motivated. So as far as I'm concerned the racial issue is way the hell down the list, but most everybody else has elevated it to question number one.
The ONLY reason this is even news or being discussed is because the convicted felon, he of 31 prior arrests, he of 200+ pounds and 4-6" on the cop, he of violently resisting arrest was BLACK!
Had he been white, brown, yellow, green, striped, or polka-dotted, this would never had received one second of attention.
This thread is eerily like the opinion of America. About half believe the guy who is responsible for everything has no culpability.
You guys are missing the point! Its not about culpability! CLEARLY the guy had culpability, clearly the guy was out of line, that isn't even in question. The question is whether or not the cop acted in a manner consistent with standards and training.
First we determine whether or not someone acted in a manner consistent with policies and training. Then if they didn't there may be a crime.
The GJ determines whether there is PC to believe that a crime has been committed.
Policy and training are civil issues, not criminal.
Bingo!
Of course, Holder and the inJustice Department have already opened an inquiry. When is the last time they opened a civil rights inquiry on any case where the dead/defendant was NOT black?
This thread is eerily like the opinion of America. About half believe the guy who is responsible for everything has no culpability.
You guys are missing the point! Its not about culpability! CLEARLY the guy had culpability, clearly the guy was out of line, that isn't even in question. The question is whether or not the cop acted in a manner consistent with standards and training.
No it's about pussy white guys crying about some pogue that they wouldn't give two [bleep] about if he was white like them. Black lives matter, right Kevin?
You're not a race-baiter but if the perp had been a fat white guy you'd have no interest in commentary.
First off [bleep]-you!!! From the very bottom of my heart [bleep]-you!
The hell I wouldn't care!!! I'm constantly concerned about what cops do! If you were paying attention you'd know that.
I've had enough of this conversation. I'm not a godddaam race baiter, neither am I a racist. And I don't give a rats arse about the race issues here, just what the cop did; that's it!
You're not a race-baiter but if the perp had been a fat white guy you'd have no interest in commentary.
First off [bleep]-you!!! From the very bottom of my heart [bleep]-you!
The hell I wouldn't care!!! I'm constantly concerned about what cops do! If you were paying attention you'd know that.
I've had enough of this conversation. I'm not a godddaam race baiter, neither am I a racist. And I don't give a rats arse about the race issues here, just what the cop did; that's it!
Kevin, are you even going to acknowledge the conflicting medical reports?
In your omniscient examination of therry seconds of video, which report is correct?
I will just as soon as I see them, I haven't read anything about conflicting medical reports...that does cast suspicion if true. I've asked for someone to provide me a link but no one has yet.
Still even if it's not ruled a homicide the cop did not act in a manner consistent with training and standards. But I'll admit that could change it from a homicide indictment to at least an indictment for battery.
This one won't turn out well. It is, on many counts, justifiably controversial.
It'll turn out fine for the cops, but not the citizens. Every time one of these things come up it results in less work for us. Remember "Family Violence"? We don't get 1/10th of the calls that we used to in regards to family disturbances. You know why? The woman loses her meal ticket. The get beat more than ever. I don't know where this will go, but I'd bet a paycheck that it will result in us doing less for the people who really need us.
First we determine whether or not someone acted in a manner consistent with policies and training. Then if they didn't there may be a crime.
The GJ determines whether there is PC to believe that a crime has been committed.
Policy and training are civil issues, not criminal.
And as posted earlier. The chokehold, while not "approved in policy" is not illegal atleast in NY
That same dept policy may not have allowed them to use the taser Kevin.
I just watched the video and i didn't see a "choke hold" persay to me it looked like he was attempting to get him on the ground. He didn't start saying he couldn't breathe until he was bent at the waist while on his side. At that point the cop didn't even have his arm around his neck
The actual Autopsy report states the cause of death as compressions to his chest, and prone positioning while being restrained.
The guy had Hypertensive heart disease. He was a walking dead man
This thread is eerily like the opinion of America. About half believe the guy who is responsible for everything has no culpability.
Sadly many expect cops to be only use just enough force for every altercation, never to hassle anyone, and to show up immediately whenever they need help.
Conversely colored thugs seem to get a complete pass, no matter how many past convictions, no matter if they resist arrest, no matter if they are trying to bash in a cops skull, they've just had such a poor sad life that their actions are 100% excuseable by those caring liberals and apologists.
Guess what liberals and independents, you've created this mess with your misguided policies and education system. Why don't you like it?
First we determine whether or not someone acted in a manner consistent with policies and training. Then if they didn't there may be a crime.
The GJ determines whether there is PC to believe that a crime has been committed.
Policy and training are civil issues, not criminal.
And as posted earlier. The chokehold, while not "approved in policy" is not illegal atleast in NY
That same dept policy may not have allowed them to use the taser Kevin.
I just watched the video and i didn't see a "choke hold" persay to me it looked like he was attempting to get him on the ground. He didn't start saying he couldn't breathe until he was bent at the waist while on his side. At that point the cop didn't even have his arm around his neck
The actual Autopsy report states the cause of death as compressions to his chest, and prone positioning while being restrained.
The guy had Hypertensive heart disease. He was a walking dead man
The cops HAD to subdue him and they certainly didn't know of his asthma.
This thread is eerily like the opinion of America. About half believe the guy who is responsible for everything has no culpability.
Sadly many expect cops to be only use just enough force for every altercation, never to hassle anyone, and to show up immediately whenever they need help.
Conversely colored thugs seem to get a complete pass, no matter how many past convictions, no matter if they resist arrest, no matter if they are trying to bash in a cops skull, they've just had such a poor sad life that their actions are 100% excuseable by those caring liberals and apologists.
Guess what liberals and independents, you've created this mess with your misguided policies and education system. Why don't you like it?
The irony of this is that those same people are the ones who request 95% of police services.
This thread is eerily like the opinion of America. About half believe the guy who is responsible for everything has no culpability.
Sadly many expect cops to be only use just enough force for every altercation, never to hassle anyone, and to show up immediately whenever they need help.
Conversely colored thugs seem to get a complete pass, no matter how many past convictions, no matter if they resist arrest, no matter if they are trying to bash in a cops skull, they've just had such a poor sad life that their actions are 100% excuseable by those caring liberals and apologists.
Guess what liberals and independents, you've created this mess with your misguided policies and education system. Why don't you like it?
The irony of this is that those same people are the ones who request 95% of police services.
Well the grand jury has spoken. Apparently, the DA did not present sufficient evidence to indict.
Seeing the video for the first time, it doesn't look like he was in a choke hold for more than a few seconds, and then complained of not being able to breath after he was out of the choke hold. Did they autopsy him...heart attack?
As take downs go, that didn't look that bad, why they were arresting him? I have no idea. Is that video the extent of the prosecutions case?
Well the grand jury has spoken. Apparently, the DA did not present sufficient evidence to indict.
Seeing the video for the first time, it doesn't look like he was in a choke hold for more than a few seconds, and then complained of not being able to breath after he was out of the choke hold. Did they autopsy him...heart attack?
As take downs go, that didn't look that bad, why they were arresting him? I have no idea. Is that video the extent of the prosecutions case?
Yes. He died of a heart attack.
The Autopsy states cause of death as being compressions to the chest, and his body position while being restrained.
Kevin chooses to follow the "expert ME" hired by the family who states it was a choke hold that caused the heart attack
I've had enough of this conversation. I'm not a godddaam race baiter, neither am I a racist. And I don't give a rats arse about the race issues here, just what the cop did; that's it!
You claimed he had his forearm over the trachea, but that's not what I see.
If what you said were true, there would be no way he could have SAID "I can't breath", which is clearly spoken several times
I was kind of wondering, How many people on here have tried to take down someone and cuff them? How many people on here have tried to take down someone and cuff them that didn't want to be cuffed? How many people on here have tried to take down a 350lb. someone and cuff them that didn't want to be cuffed? Thought so.
This thread is eerily like the opinion of America. About half believe the guy who is responsible for everything has no culpability.
Sadly many expect cops to be only use just enough force for every altercation, never to hassle anyone, and to show up immediately whenever they need help.
Conversely colored thugs seem to get a complete pass, no matter how many past convictions, no matter if they resist arrest, no matter if they are trying to bash in a cops skull, they've just had such a poor sad life that their actions are 100% excuseable by those caring liberals and apologists.
Guess what liberals and independents, you've created this mess with your misguided policies and education system. Why don't you like it?
The irony of this is that those same people are the ones who request 95% of police services.
No offense, but I honestly can't see why anyone would want to be a cop in this day and age. The majority of the people you interact with are the dregs of society (not which are worse, the perps, the lawyers, the politicians or the social activists), none of them appreciate the risks you take, everyone second guesses your every move, you are expected to be perfect at all times, in all things, and worst of all the politicians parade you out every budget cut cycle as the martyrs should the city coffers be found lacking.
I truly appreciate those who take up the calling of serving and protecting, what a thankless job!
No offense, but I honestly can't see why anyone would want to be a cop in this day and age. The majority of the people you interact with are the dregs of society (not which are worse, the perps, the lawyers, the politicians or the social activists), none of them appreciate the risks you take, everyone second guesses your every move, you are expected to be perfect at all times, in all things, and worst of all the politicians parade you out every budget cut cycle as the martyrs should the city coffers be found lacking.
I truly appreciate those who take up the calling of serving and protecting, what a thankless job!
No offense, but I honestly can't see why anyone would want to be a cop in this day and age. The majority of the people you interact with are the dregs of society (not which are worse, the perps, the lawyers, the politicians or the social activists), none of them appreciate the risks you take, everyone second guesses your every move, you are expected to be perfect at all times, in all things, and worst of all the politicians parade you out every budget cut cycle as the martyrs should the city coffers be found lacking.
I truly appreciate those who take up the calling of serving and protecting, what a thankless job!
None taken...I don't really want to be one, but I don't know anything else and I'm really good at it. I started when Ronald Reagan was a rookie...but thank you!
Of course it's the cops fault that a morbidly obese dude with potential medical problems decided to tussle. They should've had him fill out a questionnaire first.
Nobody's responsible for themselves as long as there's a cop nearby to blame.
That's not what I'm saying and you know it.
The cops are responsible for THEIR actions. One man acted outside policy and it resulted in a death; that's serious. That should at least call for an accounting.
Bullcrap he did the officer did not choke the guy out. if he did he wouldn't have been able to talk like he did...have you turned libtard Kevin?
Here's a guy that's never rolled. Why wouldn't he be able to talk?
It might be poor body position and generally show poor form, but its a choke, and he's braced it up with the right hand. Poor as it might be, if a guy didn't know to turn into the elbow he could get choked.
I don't give a [bleep] who or what color you are. We are a Nation of laws and if a cop says STOP, DROP, get down, hands up or whatever during a time that you're doing something wrong--and you know when that is--- then you do so and you stay there until you see your lawyer. PERIOD.
Otherwise, face the consequences of being an azzhole/dumbass.
Should this have gone to trial? Maybe.
Should the perp have done what he was told during his wrong and with no resist? Oh hell yeah!
Of course it's the cops fault that a morbidly obese dude with potential medical problems decided to tussle. They should've had him fill out a questionnaire first.
Nobody's responsible for themselves as long as there's a cop nearby to blame.
That's not what I'm saying and you know it.
The cops are responsible for THEIR actions. One man acted outside policy and it resulted in a death; that's serious. That should at least call for an accounting.
Bullcrap he did the officer did not choke the guy out. if he did he wouldn't have been able to talk like he did...have you turned libtard Kevin?
Thank you. When somebody calls the cops because an unwanted subject (Whether it be a panhandler, prostitute, or in this case an illegal cigarette dealer.) is on their property and wants them gone, the police can't just turn around and leave when the guy says "I ain't goin'". If they want to make it hard, the cops have no choice but to oblige them.
This one won't turn out well. It is, on many counts, justifiably controversial.
It'll turn out fine for the cops, but not the citizens. Every time one of these things come up it results in less work for us. Remember "Family Violence"? We don't get 1/10th of the calls that we used to in regards to family disturbances. You know why? The woman loses her meal ticket. The get beat more than ever. I don't know where this will go, but I'd bet a paycheck that it will result in us doing less for the people who really need us.
Go beyond the charges against the Officer and think about the civil suit ... which will be filed.
Thank you. When somebody calls the cops because an unwanted subject (Whether it be a panhandler, prostitute, or in this case an illegal cigarette dealer.) is on their property and wants them gone, the police can't just turn around and leave when the guy says "I ain't goin'". If they want to make it hard, the cops have no choice but to oblige them.
So they just told the guy to leave and he wouldn't go? He was on private property and refused to leave? They weren't even taking him to the pound? Unfuckingbelievable. The arrogance of some of these folks is astounding. If this is the case...sorry, but your average white guy would have run from the popo before they even got there.
I stand corrected. I did a little research and the City of New York states it's much cheaper for them to pay liability claims than it is for them to buy insurance. That really surprises me, as even the smallest departments around here have at least $1,000,000 policies on every officer.
No offense, but I honestly can't see why anyone would want to be a cop in this day and age. The majority of the people you interact with are the dregs of society (not which are worse, the perps, the lawyers, the politicians or the social activists), none of them appreciate the risks you take, everyone second guesses your every move, you are expected to be perfect at all times, in all things, and worst of all the politicians parade you out every budget cut cycle as the martyrs should the city coffers be found lacking.
I truly appreciate those who take up the calling of serving and protecting, what a thankless job!
As do I.
I'm a far cry from being old and bitter, but I pray my kids won't be cops.
Now I'm not calling this something racially charged, but I will say this one isn't cool.
At least in this case you can CLEARLY see an improper choke hold. Nearly every LE agency in the nation bars the use of choke holds. Where they are used, cops are trained SPECIFICALLY not to do a choke hold in the manner in which he was doing it, with the forearm across the trachea. Why? Because it compresses the trachea, and 4-5 hours later it swells, cuts off his air supply, and he dies. Something tells me that�s exactly what happened here.
So here�s an incident where there were multiple cops, one used a non-approved hold, (it was clearly against department policy) the coroner has even ruled it a homicide. And no charges.
Sorry, but on this one I have to cry foul. Now I�m not calling RACIST foul, I�m just saying that what happened isn�t cool and the grand jury either made a bad call or were misled.
The video claims it was a heart attack that killed him. The officer that choked him was off of his back after a few seconds.
Shoot someone and what kills him is one of his vital organs stops working. That doesn't clear the guy who pulled the trigger. Neither does it clear the guy who choked off his air.
there was an interesting segment on hannity tonight with a civil rights lawyer at one time working for the justice department, who has written a book about it. He left on not good terms with holder. His comment was holder opening civil rights violation cases whereever he can and intentionally trying to delegitimize police across the country. You have to remember holder was one of a group similar to the black panthers that ocuppied a navy reserve bldg on a campus, and was rumored to be armed at the time. This guy was saying that furgurson and NYC etc were just small acts in a much bigger picture taking place.
This is why people get pissed at cops. No reason to kill that man. Without reading the responses, you can almost be assured every cop on this board is saying how it's ok the guy died at the hands of cops.
The dude had a heart attack.
And if you had a "heart attack" because I choked you out, that would be OK?
In NYC, that's a FAR greater offense than almost any other. Not only did Der Mayor decree them "evil", but the City taxes them about $5/pack, and you're cutting into their take of the business.
I think it's $7.00 a pack, and that's just the tax.
Three 'bar security' (bouncers) in a nearby town were indicted earlier this year on wanton murder and complicity to murder charges for causing the death of a customer they had all piled on attempting to restrain.
They reportedly had responded in defense of the female bartender when the customer allegedly had a bit of a verbal flare up with her over a drink he was not very satisfied with.
Autopsy revealed the man's death was caused by the choke-hold applied by one of the bouncers. The last I heard they all three were due to stand trial early next year.
Three 'bar security' (bouncers) in a nearby town were recently indicted on wanton murder and complicity to murder charges for causing the death of a customer they had all piled on attempting to restrain.
They reportedly had responded in defense of the female bartender when the customer allegedly had a bit of a verbal flare up with her over a drink he was not very satisfied with.
Autopsy revealed the man's death was caused by the choke-hold applied by one of the bouncers. The last I heard they all three were due to stand trial early next year.
No offense, but I honestly can't see why anyone would want to be a cop in this day and age. The majority of the people you interact with are the dregs of society (not which are worse, the perps, the lawyers, the politicians or the social activists), none of them appreciate the risks you take, everyone second guesses your every move, you are expected to be perfect at all times, in all things, and worst of all the politicians parade you out every budget cut cycle as the martyrs should the city coffers be found lacking.
I truly appreciate those who take up the calling of serving and protecting, what a thankless job!
As do I.
I'm a far cry from being old and bitter, but I pray my kids won't be cops.
I can understand that. Once a long time ago, maybe before you were born I was a cop. It did not take me long to learn it was not my calling. I have a lot of respect for most who do the job.
for a little, at some point you're out of breath and can't talk.
That guy was morbidly obese. I'd bet he'd be out of breath just walking down the street. You'd think he'd take that into consideration before he decided to instigate a tussle.
Three 'bar security' (bouncers) in a nearby town were recently indicted on wanton murder and complicity to murder charges for causing the death of a customer they had all piled on attempting to restrain.
They reportedly had responded in defense of the female bartender when the customer allegedly had a bit of a verbal flare up with her over a drink he was not very satisfied with.
Autopsy revealed the man's death was caused by the choke-hold applied by one of the bouncers. The last I heard they all three were due to stand trial early next year.
Three 'bar security' (bouncers) in a nearby town were recently indicted on wanton murder and complicity to murder charges for causing the death of a customer they had all piled on attempting to restrain.
They reportedly had responded in defense of the female bartender when the customer allegedly had a bit of a verbal flare up with her over a drink he was not very satisfied with.
Autopsy revealed the man's death was caused by the choke-hold applied by one of the bouncers. The last I heard they all three were due to stand trial early next year.
Seems comparable.
Without more facts, not comparable at all.
Facts, you know, like the ones Grand Juries get.
Yea, because as we all know the court room is where you always get the complete factual story.
Three 'bar security' (bouncers) in a nearby town were recently indicted on wanton murder and complicity to murder charges for causing the death of a customer they had all piled on attempting to restrain.
They reportedly had responded in defense of the female bartender when the customer allegedly had a bit of a verbal flare up with her over a drink he was not very satisfied with.
Autopsy revealed the man's death was caused by the choke-hold applied by one of the bouncers. The last I heard they all three were due to stand trial early next year.
Seems comparable.
Without more facts, not comparable at all.
Facts, you know, like the ones Grand Juries get.
Yea, because as we all know the court room is where you always get the complete factual story.
I said MORE facts, akin to what the Grand Jury gets. That's a helluva lot more facts than a short video and a schitload of conjecture.
If you have a better system, feel free to have it instituted as a means of determining guilt and innocence. In a few centuries, none have bested the system we currently have, and guessing from a video and media reports sure as Hell ain't going to top it.
Carries a death sentence in NY, it seems, and no trial necessary. Cops can take care of it on the spot.
I see with still frame pics and pithy comments you have got it all figured out mister "naught but the facts"
Current Teacher's License?
I think you need to reread mathman's brief statement on postural-respiratory issues.
Surely with your Pa being an internist, and all the pasta eaters on the island, this type of situation is not all that uncommon.
Coincidence he became hypoxic and suffered an arrest - no, I think it had something to do with the cops rolling his ass. Which in turn had something to do with him resisting arrest.
Was it for a bullshit charge? Debatable IMO. So why did he resist?
There are several things that really stand out as constants here. In the Garner case, as well as the Trayvon Martin case and the Michael Brown case, each of the individuals was a seasoned criminal, and was engaged in criminal acts at the time of their demise. In all three cases, the individual was aggressive, and was combative. Most important to me, is that in all three cases, there was a seminal event, that was seized upon by the media, and that morphed into a meme. With Trayvon Martin, that was 'stand your ground', even though that was not even part of Zimmerman's defense. With Michael Brown, it was 'hands up, don't shoot', and with Garner, it was 'illegal choke hold'. In all three cases, the meme was constructed out of whole cloth, and not based in fact. The media has made all three of these cases, symbolic of police excess. Those white folks eaten up with white guilt, and the entire black community have embraced these eponymous events as symptomatic of something wrong with the interface between police and public, instead of showing that something is wrong with the behavior of black youths.
There are several things that really stand out as constants here. In the Garner case, as well as the Trayvon Martin case and the Michael Brown case, each of the individuals was a seasoned criminal, and was engaged in criminal acts at the time of their demise. In all three cases, the individual was aggressive, and was combative. Most important to me, is that in all three cases, there was a seminal event, that was seized upon by the media, and that morphed into a meme. With Trayvon Martin, that was 'stand your ground', even though that was not even part of Zimmerman's defense. With Michael Brown, it was 'hands up, don't shoot', and with Garner, it was 'illegal choke hold'. In all three cases, the meme was constructed out of whole cloth, and not based in fact. The media has made all three of these cases, symbolic of police excess. Those white folks eaten up with white guilt, and the entire black community have embraced these eponymous events as symptomatic of something wrong with the interface between police and public, instead of showing that something is wrong with the behavior of black youths.
the main thing all this tells the observer, is that someone, or some entity, is coordinating, orchestrating and promoting these 'responses'. There is just way too much similarity and consistency of behavior and rhetoric, for these protests to be random. These events are being used to galvanize blacks, and to herd them into 'useful' behavior.
the main thing all this tells the observer, is that someone, or some entity, is coordinating, orchestrating and promoting these 'responses'. There is just way too much similarity and consistency of behavior and rhetoric, for these protests to be random. These events are being used to galvanize blacks, and to herd them into 'useful' behavior.
There is a contingent that wants a race war, and possibly with the blacks siding with the muslims and socialists. This is part of how the empire falls, from within.
the main thing all this tells the observer, is that someone, or some entity, is coordinating, orchestrating and promoting these 'responses'. There is just way too much similarity and consistency of behavior and rhetoric, for these protests to be random. These events are being used to galvanize blacks, and to herd them into 'useful' behavior.
I've noticed now that Ferguson 1.0 is passing its cycle, our local "news" station has stopped calling Michael Brown the "unarmed black youth".
There is something surreal going on. As you say, each story cycles past, rivets the attention of the Country, and then we are presented with yet another heart rending story of police abuse, and another poor, spiritual, honest, 'good guy' black that goes down. Damn, we don't have time to pay attention to what is REALLY happening, do we?
There is something surreal going on. As you say, each story cycles past, rivets the attention of the Country, and then we are presented with yet another heart rending story of police abuse, and another poor, spiritual, honest, 'good guy' black that goes down. Damn, we don't have time to pay attention to what is REALLY happening, do we?
Of course a prosecutor is more trust worthy than my lying eyes. Everyone knows lawyers are to be unquestionably trusted, and a prosecutor would present only a correct narrative with complete facts for Grand Juries consideration. Got it.
I�m also quite glad to have your permission for instituting a better system. Do I just tell them you approved and it�s good to go, or is this possibly you adding more nonsense to your gibberish?
Folks can search out whatever enrages them, unvetted, post it and really dress it up to the hilt in order to get the fires started, then sit back and watch or fan it some more.
Like a video of some wannabe clinic bombing homicidal MF'er being foisted on us as some sort of beacon of oppression.
the main thing all this tells the observer, is that someone, or some entity, is coordinating, orchestrating and promoting these 'responses'. There is just way too much similarity and consistency of behavior and rhetoric, for these protests to be random. These events are being used to galvanize blacks, and to herd them into 'useful' behavior.
And how easy the police force makes it for them. It's not like one could foster that sentiment over night.
There are several things that really stand out as constants here. In the Garner case, as well as the Trayvon Martin case and the Michael Brown case, each of the individuals was a seasoned criminal, and was engaged in criminal acts at the time of their demise. In all three cases, the individual was aggressive, and was combative. Most important to me, is that in all three cases, there was a seminal event, that was seized upon by the media, and that morphed into a meme. With Trayvon Martin, that was 'stand your ground', even though that was not even part of Zimmerman's defense. With Michael Brown, it was 'hands up, don't shoot', and with Garner, it was 'illegal choke hold'. In all three cases, the meme was constructed out of whole cloth, and not based in fact. The media has made all three of these cases, symbolic of police excess. Those white folks eaten up with white guilt, and the entire black community have embraced these eponymous events as symptomatic of something wrong with the interface between police and public, instead of showing that something is wrong with the behavior of black youths.
Very good post. It's obvious Mr. Gardner was breaking the law and had he complied, we wouldn't be discussing this.
That said, the choke hold, while not illegal was (is) against NYPD standing orders and the Black Female sergeant and senior ranking officer present at the scene, failed to control her officers by ordering the officer to immediately cease. In my opinion, given what *I* saw in the video, and of course taking into account recent events, were I the prosecutor, I would have sent this to trial, even if I KNEW I was going to lose, for the simple reason the coroner ruled the death a homicide. BTW, Mr. Gardner died of a myocardial infarction with the choke hold as the catalyst, hence the homicide label.
there is some disagreement about what actually constitutes a 'choke hold'. I have done some training with holds, and what I see is not really what I would call a 'choke'. I am not convinced that the hold was the catalyst for his demise. Of course, I am not privy to all the reams of Grand Jury testimony either. Like in the Ferguson case, a Grand Jury went over a lot of info. In both cases, it should have been a slam dunk to get an indictment. Based on evidence, not just a video, both Grand Juries declined to indict. That should carry some weight. Going to trial just to satisfy a mob is not a good idea.
there is some disagreement about what actually constitutes a 'choke hold'. I have done some training with holds, and what I see is not really what I would call a 'choke'. I am not convinced that the hold was the catalyst for his demise. Of course, I am not privy to all the reams of Grand Jury testimony either. Like in the Ferguson case, a Grand Jury went over a lot of info. In both cases, it should have been a slam dunk to get an indictment. Based on evidence, not just a video, both Grand Juries declined to indict. That should carry some weight. Going to trial just to satisfy a mob is not a good idea.
the main thing all this tells the observer, is that someone, or some entity, is coordinating, orchestrating and promoting these 'responses'. There is just way too much similarity and consistency of behavior and rhetoric, for these protests to be random. These events are being used to galvanize blacks, and to herd them into 'useful' behavior.
There is a contingent that wants a race war, and possibly with the blacks siding with the muslims and socialists. This is part of how the empire falls, from within.
There is also a political party that knows they can't run a black candidate in 2016 and need the black vote to put a white aristocrat in office.
the main thing all this tells the observer, is that someone, or some entity, is coordinating, orchestrating and promoting these 'responses'. There is just way too much similarity and consistency of behavior and rhetoric, for these protests to be random. These events are being used to galvanize blacks, and to herd them into 'useful' behavior.
And how easy the police force makes it for them. It's not like one could foster that sentiment over night.
Hang on. Wasn't the case presented to the grand jury by a prosecutor? You know, the "ham sandwich" guy?
the main thing all this tells the observer, is that someone, or some entity, is coordinating, orchestrating and promoting these 'responses'. There is just way too much similarity and consistency of behavior and rhetoric, for these protests to be random. These events are being used to galvanize blacks, and to herd them into 'useful' behavior.
And how easy the police force makes it for them. It's not like one could foster that sentiment over night.
Hang on. Wasn't the case presented to the grand jury by a prosecutor? You know, the "ham sandwich" guy?
You have half a dozen guys saying to look at the big picture, and how folks are being manipulated, and DickAustin comes up with that statement.
I facepalmed so friggin hard, I'm surprised you didn't feel it.
There are several things that really stand out as constants here. In the Garner case, as well as the Trayvon Martin case and the Michael Brown case, each of the individuals was a seasoned criminal, and was engaged in criminal acts at the time of their demise. In all three cases, the individual was aggressive, and was combative. Most important to me, is that in all three cases, there was a seminal event, that was seized upon by the media, and that morphed into a meme. With Trayvon Martin, that was 'stand your ground', even though that was not even part of Zimmerman's defense. With Michael Brown, it was 'hands up, don't shoot', and with Garner, it was 'illegal choke hold'. In all three cases, the meme was constructed out of whole cloth, and not based in fact. The media has made all three of these cases, symbolic of police excess. Those white folks eaten up with white guilt, and the entire black community have embraced these eponymous events as symptomatic of something wrong with the interface between police and public, instead of showing that something is wrong with the behavior of black youths.
Very good post. It's obvious Mr. Gardner was breaking the law and had he complied, we wouldn't be discussing this.
That said, the choke hold, while not illegal was (is) against NYPD standing orders and the Black Female sergeant and senior ranking officer present at the scene, failed to control her officers by ordering the officer to immediately cease. In my opinion, given what *I* saw in the video, and of course taking into account recent events, were I the prosecutor, I would have sent this to trial, even if I KNEW I was going to lose, for the simple reason the coroner ruled the death a homicide. BTW, Mr. Gardner died of a myocardial infarction with the choke hold as the catalyst, hence the homicide label.
There are plenty of police excesses and abuses to go nuts over, but unless the person is black, nobody says much. "Black lives matter." This is because white ones don't. Diabetics being tazed and beaten because they are too out of it to follow orders. Kids being shot on no-knock dope raids...Mentally handicapped adult children being beaten to death calling for their fathers...Did we whites riot over these incidents? Where are all the middle-eastern looking dudes and angry white chicks with megaphones yelling all the catchy slogans? Where is the effing government? Where is Zero encouraging "protests"?
The contrast and double standards here are stark and the hypocrisy blatant. The MSM didn't GAF about the other incidents which were much more egregious. Instead we are presented with three incidents where people were engaged in criminal activities.
The catch phrase shouldn't be "Black lives matter," but rather "Criminal lives matter,".
The grand jury didn't have to just sit there and listen to the Prosecutor. They were able to question the witnesses. They were able to request the production of witnesses and physical evidence; and the Prosecutor was required to produce it if it was admissible under the rules of evidence.
Maybe, just maybe, the group of people who made up the grand jury asked a lot of questions of various witnesses. Maybe they requested the testimony of real experts in law enforcement training methods and techniques. Maybe they heard from more than one pathologist. Maybe they asked for testimony from an expert in the field of cardiology. I don't know, and neither do you.
What I do know is that a reasonably large group of people were sworn as a grand jury. They reviewed all physical evidence that the Prosecutor wanted to show them, plus any other admissible evidence that they asked for. They heard from any witnesses the Prosecutor called, plus any other witnesses, requested by them, whose testimony would be relevant and admissible. After reviewing all of the evidence, that group of citizens collectively determined that there was not reasonable cause to charge anyone with a crime in this death. In other words, it would be unreasonable to charge someone.
Do you guys really want a criminal justice system, in this country, that would expose you, or a fellow citizen, to loss of life or freedom, even though a grand jury of your peers made a finding that it would be unreasonable for the government to put you on trial?
The grand jury didn't have to just sit there and listen to the Prosecutor. They were able to question the witnesses. They were able to request the production of witnesses and physical evidence; and the Prosecutor was required to produce it if it was admissible under the rules of evidence.
Maybe, just maybe, the group of people who made up the grand jury asked a lot of questions of various witnesses. Maybe they requested the testimony of real experts in law enforcement training methods and techniques. Maybe they heard from more than one pathologist. Maybe they asked for testimony from an expert in the field of cardiology. I don't know, and neither do you.
What I do know is that a reasonably large group of people were sworn as a grand jury. They reviewed all physical evidence that the Prosecutor wanted to show them, plus any other admissible evidence that they asked for. They heard from any witnesses the Prosecutor called, plus any other witnesses, requested by them, whose testimony would be relevant and admissible. After reviewing all of the evidence, that group of citizens collectively determined that there was not reasonable cause to charge anyone with a crime in this death. In other words, it would be unreasonable to charge someone.
Do you guys really want a criminal justice system, in this country, that would expose you, or a fellow citizen, to loss of life or freedom, even though a grand jury of your peers made a finding that it would be unreasonable for the government to put you on trial?
WELL SAID!
Figure, too, that the GJ was 24 people. To indict, only 12 had to agree that it should go to trial. Not even 1/2 of the GJ thought the charges merited a trial.
fellows, just think back a short while in time, when there was a plethora of threads bemoaning 'police abuse', and excessive force. Remember all those 'cop bashing' threads? All those thousands of lines, back and forth, where we trashed cops, each other, the various miscreants used as examples? The college girls abused by arresting officers, the grannies tazed...........
I don't think we can EVER be accused of being 'soft on police abuse', but, and this is important here, these particular cases, Trayvon, Michael, and Garner, are being bandied about SOLELY becuse of the RACE of the individuals. As others have pointed out so succinctly, that is the reason these three cases have reached the level of notoriety that they have. The sole reason, the ONLY reason. It's not by accident.
the main thing all this tells the observer, is that someone, or some entity, is coordinating, orchestrating and promoting these 'responses'. There is just way too much similarity and consistency of behavior and rhetoric, for these protests to be random. These events are being used to galvanize blacks, and to herd them into 'useful' behavior.
fellows, just think back a short while in time, when there was a plethora of threads bemoaning 'police abuse', and excessive force. Remember all those 'cop bashing' threads? All those thousands of lines, back and forth, where we trashed cops, each other, the various miscreants used as examples? The college girls abused by arresting officers, the grannies tazed...........
I don't think we can EVER be accused of being 'soft on police abuse', but, and this is important here, these particular cases, Trayvon, Michael, and Garner, are being bandied about SOLELY becuse of the RACE of the individuals. As others have pointed out so succinctly, that is the reason these three cases have reached the level of notoriety that they have. The sole reason, the ONLY reason. It's not by accident.
if you have time, read this column by NY Post's Bob McManus. I think he lays it all out there, clearly, and succinctly.
Quote
Eric Garner and Michael Brown had much in common, not the least of which was this: On the last day of their lives, they made bad decisions. Epically bad decisions. Each broke the law � petty offenses, to be sure, but sufficient to attract the attention of the police. And then � tragically, stupidly, fatally, inexplicably � each fought the law. The law won, of course, as it almost always does. This was underscored yet again Wednesday when a Staten Island grand jury chose not to indict any of the arresting officers in the death in police custody of Garner last July. Just as a grand jury last week declined to indict the police officer who shot a violently resisting Michael Brown to death in Ferguson, Mo., in August. Demagoguery rises to an art form in such cases � because, again, the police generally win. (Though not always, as a moment�s reflection before the Police Memorial in lower Manhattan will underscore.) And because those who advocate for cop-fighters are so often such accomplished beguilers. They cast these tragedies as, if not outright murder, then invincible evidence of an enduringly racist society. No such thing, as a matter of fact. Virtually always, these cases represent sad, low-impact collisions of cops and criminals � routine in every respect except for an outlier conclusion. The Garner case is textbook. Eric Garner was a career petty criminal who�d experienced dozens of arrests, but had learned nothing from them. He was on the street July 17, selling untaxed cigarettes one at a time � which, as inconsequential as it seems, happens to be a crime. Yet another arrest was under way when, suddenly, Garner balked. �This ends here,� he shouted � as it turned out, tragically prophetic words � as he began struggling with the arresting officer. Again, this was a bad decision. Garner suffered from a range of medical ailments � advanced diabetes, plus heart disease and asthma so severe that either malady might have killed him, it was said at the time. Still, he fought � and at one point during the struggle, a cop wrapped his arm around Garner�s neck. That image was captured on bystander video and later presented as irrefutable evidence of an �illegal� chokehold and, therefore, grounds for a criminal indictment against the cop. That charge fails, and here�s why. First, while �chokeholds� are banned by NYPD regulation, they�re not illegal under state law when used by a cop during a lawful arrest. So much for criminal charges, given that nobody seriously disputes the legitimacy of the arrest. Second, and this speaks to the ubiquitous allegation that cops are treated �differently� than ordinary citizens in deadly-force cases: Indeed they are � and it is the law itself that confers the privilege. The law gives cops the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the good-faith performance of their duties � and who would really have it any other way? Cops who need to worry about whether the slightest mishap � a minor misunderstanding that escalates to violence of any sort � might result in criminal charges and a prison term are not cops who are going to put the public�s interests first. Finally, there is this: There were 228,000 misdemeanor arrests in New York City in 2013, the last year for which there are audited figures, and every one of them had at least the potential to turn into an Eric Garner-like case. None did. So much for the �out of control� cop trope. So much for the notion that everyday citizens � or even criminals with the presence of mind to keep their hands to themselves � have something to fear from the NYPD. Keep this in mind as the rhetoric fogs the facts in the hours and days ahead. For there are many New Yorkers � politicians, activists, trial lawyers, all the usual suspects � who will now seek to profit from a tragedy that wouldn�t have happened had Eric Garner made a different decision. He was a victim of himself. It�s just that simple.
Again, very good post, but we al need to realize the great unwashed need OPTICS and as such, all the evidence presented to the Grand Jury, both here and it Fergusson, didn't count forshit. Hence, remanding over for trial, even though he would have been cleared, could have been a wiser move. Also, noted is the fact police have also "abused" (sic) whites as well, but as Ethan says, that doesn't make the news. Sad state we are in and it will NEVER get better.
Hence, remanding over for trial, even though he would have been cleared, could have been a wiser move.
Can you do that in New York? Obviously you can in Florida, but not in Texas. A grand jury must indict every felony here, for it to be tried. Also, every homocide goes before a grand jury, no matter how justified.
It would take an enormous, sloppy, stanky vagina of a person to send somebody to trial for something they didn't do, just because it'd be more convenient.
Again, very good post, but we al need to realize the great unwashed need OPTICS and as such, all the evidence presented to the Grand Jury, both here and it Fergusson, didn't count forshit. Hence, remanding over for trial, even though he would have been cleared, could have been a wiser move. Also, noted is the fact police have also "abused" (sic) whites as well, but as Ethan says, that doesn't make the news. Sad state we are in and it will NEVER get better.
Would you want to be remanded over for a trial after a grand jury of your peers made a finding that it would be unreasonable for the government to put you on trial for anything? Even if it was politically expedient? I sure wouldnt.
It would take an enormous, sloppy, stanky vagina of a person to send somebody to trial for something they didn't do, just because it'd be more convenient.
Besides possibly impoverishing them, every step takes the person closer to a wrongful conviction.
Jorge, if your whole neighborhood wanted you arrested for doing nothing wrong (say, flying an American flag that offended them), would it be cool if the cops arrested you out of convenience and just trusted the court to throw the case out?
It would take an enormous, sloppy, stanky vagina of a person to send somebody to trial for something they didn't do, just because it'd be more convenient.
Besides possibly impoverishing them, every step takes the person closer to a wrongful conviction.
Yep. If the GJ and prosecutor took the easy way out, what's to say the real jury and judge won't too?
I am trying to sift through all of this. God knows I am not an attorney, not a cop, not a government worker. I am also not black, nor a member of any minority (as designated by the Goobermint). I can see where Jorge is coming from. Where I disagree with him, is that side stepping the Grand Jury, to placate a vocal minority, that is agenda driven and unwilling to listen to ANY information that is contrary to their pre stated believes, is wrong. Hell, even when these things GO to trial, and, as in the Zimmerman case, charges are dismissed, those with opposing views STILL don't buy into the results the legal system, flawed as it is, delivered.
Was thinking about this thread this morning over my McSausage n McGravy, and it bugs me that a guy died over something so trivial as selling loose cigs.
However, as someone said earlier, Eric Garner made a bad choice 31 arrests ago, and subsequently made 30 more bad choices.
When Garner refused to be taken into custody peacefully, he made bad choice(fatal) # 32 and called the Cop's bluff.
Even though the wrassling around by the Cops probably caused his heart attack, I'm throwing the full blame at Mr. Garner.
He had many many chances....
Unfortunately, we will Never convince the Black horde it was Mr. Garner's fault.
Blacks been brain washed to the same level of police/white hate that Muslims have for Jews.
what bothers me isn't the choke hold, its the man telling them he can't breathe - like 9 times?
at what point do, you know, actually care that the guy might be in distress and its more important that he live than it is to keep your knee on his neck?
if there was video of me - not as a cop but as a man, lets say Garner was threatening me - not life threatening but general mouthing off and I made the decision to take him down, I had him subdued - and he told me 9 times he couldn't breathe - my ass would be in jail.
and throw in on top of it, there is a police policy against a choke hold or attempting to use a choke hold.
I think this cop needs to go to trial. I didn't think that about Wilson or George Zimmerman
also, I don't claim to be an expert on grand jury's but I can tell you that if you don't have a strong willed foreman on the jury or a group of people willing to confront authority, then they are mostly a rubber stamp for whatever the D.A. is pitching - innocent or guilty.
what bothers me isn't the choke hold, its the man telling them he can't breathe - like 9 times?
at what point do, you know, actually care that the guy might be in distress and its more important that he live than it is to keep your knee on his neck?
if there was video of me - not as a cop but as a man, lets say Garner was threatening me - not life threatening but general mouthing off and I made the decision to take him down, I had him subdued - and he told me 9 times he couldn't breathe - my ass would be in jail.
and throw in on top of it, there is a police policy against a choke hold or attempting to use a choke hold.
I think this cop needs to go to trial. I didn't think that about Wilson or George Zimmerman
also, I don't claim to be an expert on grand jury's but I can tell you that if you don't have a strong willed foreman on the jury or a group of people willing to confront authority, then they are mostly a rubber stamp for whatever the D.A. is pitching - innocent or guilty.
what bothers me isn't the choke hold, its the man telling them he can't breathe - like 9 times?
at what point do, you know, actually care that the guy might be in distress and its more important that he live than it is to keep your knee on his neck?
if there was video of me - not as a cop but as a man, lets say Garner was threatening me - not life threatening but general mouthing off and I made the decision to take him down, I had him subdued - and he told me 9 times he couldn't breathe - my ass would be in jail.
and throw in on top of it, there is a police policy against a choke hold or attempting to use a choke hold.
I think this cop needs to go to trial. I didn't think that about Wilson or George Zimmerman
also, I don't claim to be an expert on grand jury's but I can tell you that if you don't have a strong willed foreman on the jury or a group of people willing to confront authority, then they are mostly a rubber stamp for whatever the D.A. is pitching - innocent or guilty.
JFC.
I guess I have to plead ignorance to what that stands for although I guess I have a good idea what the "F" is.
I'm not familiar with this case, but from scanning this thread I think Im upo to speed..
A nog with 31 prior arrests decides to fight a cop over something trivial, and doesn't do well. Ends up going to nog heaven,where melons grow wild, and chickens arrive already fried.
"The community" is all upset cause 'he didn't do nuffin...' and a Grand Jury failed to indict a cop that was doing his duty trying to protect that very same community.
So its time for more 'protests' and hopefully rioting and looting so those in the community can get more free stuff.
Sound about right?
I'm going to go in the back room and feel guilty about being white,and wanting a justice system that works....
There's very little question these guys would be cleared in a criminal trail. Think of the money they would be out to satisfy the race hustlers. The grand jury prevented this as it was designed to do.
In the near past crooks new what was going to happen if they resisted arrest. The do gooders have the cops hands tied where they have to try to talk them into going peacefully. Hasbeen
what bothers me isn't the choke hold, its the man telling them he can't breathe - like 9 times?
at what point do, you know, actually care that the guy might be in distress and its more important that he live than it is to keep your knee on his neck?
if there was video of me - not as a cop but as a man, lets say Garner was threatening me - not life threatening but general mouthing off and I made the decision to take him down, I had him subdued - and he told me 9 times he couldn't breathe - my ass would be in jail.
and throw in on top of it, there is a police policy against a choke hold or attempting to use a choke hold.
I think this cop needs to go to trial. I didn't think that about Wilson or George Zimmerman
also, I don't claim to be an expert on grand jury's but I can tell you that if you don't have a strong willed foreman on the jury or a group of people willing to confront authority, then they are mostly a rubber stamp for whatever the D.A. is pitching - innocent or guilty.
JFC.
I guess I have to plead ignorance to what that stands for although I guess I have a good idea what the "F" is.
Yep, you'd have to do that.
There's a LOT more evidence than the video, including the ME report. Of course, not even 12 of the 24 on the GJ voted to indict, even with all the evidence, all the questioning they can and did do to the witnesses, and everything else.
I'd wager they got it more right than anyone watching a small clip of a video and having that as the only thing they have as evidence.
Then again, I don't buy into mob lynching as easily as some seem to do.
what bothers me isn't the choke hold, its the man telling them he can't breathe - like 9 times?
at what point do, you know, actually care that the guy might be in distress and its more important that he live than it is to keep your knee on his neck?
if there was video of me - not as a cop but as a man, lets say Garner was threatening me - not life threatening but general mouthing off and I made the decision to take him down, I had him subdued - and he told me 9 times he couldn't breathe - my ass would be in jail.
and throw in on top of it, there is a police policy against a choke hold or attempting to use a choke hold.
I think this cop needs to go to trial. I didn't think that about Wilson or George Zimmerman
also, I don't claim to be an expert on grand jury's but I can tell you that if you don't have a strong willed foreman on the jury or a group of people willing to confront authority, then they are mostly a rubber stamp for whatever the D.A. is pitching - innocent or guilty.
We had a young officer once. Worked for us for about 6 months. Responded to a domestic, started fighting with the aggressor because he failed to comply with orders. Jake took him to the ground, and a few seconds later we heard please I can't breathe, I need help. Jake got up off of him and seconds later a shot rang out. That gunshot came from a 2 inch 357 that the suspect had stuffed in the front of his jeans. That shot entered under Jake's vest and severed his spinal chord...he schits and pisses in a bag, and lives in a wheelchair now.
A junkie showed up at a guys house - the guy was home, minding his own business and the junkie, who didn't have the ability to drive downtown to get his heroin fix, convinced the guy to take him downtown and get him heroin from his supplier (the guy sold heroin but didn't have any)
So he gets him his heroin, the guy and junkie go back to his house, and the guy, the junkie and his wife all shoot up. The next morning the guy and his wife wake up to find the junkie dead on their floor.
And our job on the grand jury was to indict this junkie for murder.
Well we objected almost unanimously to indicting this guy because we felt the junkie was responsible for his own death, so we voted no.
We brought the D.A back into the room and told him and he talked some more to us about how the dealer supplied the heroin and took it upon himself to get heroin for the junkie , to think it over again...so we met again, talked about how were were comfortable with the guy getting indicting for selling heroin but still balked at the murder charge (maybe it was manslaughter, I really can't remember now).
So we bring the D.A. back in and tell him and he just unloads on us, tells us we don't understand the law and we can just indict on intent to sell because that would also mean he was culpable in the junkies death and we were ignoring the law as it was explained to us. I wouldn't call it angry, but clearly he was exercising his power in the room.
So eventually he wore us down and we indicted the guy for all the counts they wanted.
After that, we have maybe 5 or 6 more cases that we didn't really think the charges reflected the actions, but none of us wanted to go thru the browbeating by the D.A. again.
That's why I say unless you have a strong willed foreman or people willing to confront authority, they are a rubber stamp for what the D.A is pitching.
A junkie showed up at a guys house - the guy was home, minding his own business and the junkie, who didn't have the ability to drive downtown to get his heroin fix, convinced the guy to take him downtown and get him heroin from his supplier (the guy sold heroin but didn't have any)
So he gets him his heroin, the guy and junkie go back to his house, and the guy, the junkie and his wife all shoot up. The next morning the guy and his wife wake up to find the junkie dead on their floor.
And our job on the grand jury was to indict this junkie for murder.
Well we objected almost unanimously to indicting this guy because we felt the junkie was responsible for his own death, so we voted no.
We brought the D.A back into the room and told him and he talked some more to us about how the dealer supplied the heroin and took it upon himself to get heroin for the junkie , to think it over again...so we met again, talked about how were were comfortable with the guy getting indicting for selling heroin but still balked at the murder charge (maybe it was manslaughter, I really can't remember now).
So we bring the D.A. back in and tell him and he just unloads on us, tells us we don't understand the law and we can just indict on intent to sell because that would also mean he was culpable in the junkies death and we were ignoring the law as it was explained to us. I wouldn't call it angry, but clearly he was exercising his power in the room.
So eventually he wore us down and we indicted the guy for all the counts they wanted.
After that, we have maybe 5 or 6 more cases that we didn't really think the charges reflected the actions, but none of us wanted to go thru the browbeating by the D.A. again.
That's why I say unless you have a strong willed foreman or people willing to confront authority, they are a rubber stamp for what the D.A is pitching.
So, basically, you have no backbone and didn't have the guts to tell the DA that the GJ had reached a decision, therefore you committed a miscarriage of justice...several times over.
And, now the entire system is broken because you're too damned weak to uphold your civic duty?
Quite telling, actually.
I'm sure you sleep very well at night, considering how many people's lives you may have ruined because you're a coward.
what bothers me isn't the choke hold, its the man telling them he can't breathe - like 9 times?
at what point do, you know, actually care that the guy might be in distress and its more important that he live than it is to keep your knee on his neck?
if there was video of me - not as a cop but as a man, lets say Garner was threatening me - not life threatening but general mouthing off and I made the decision to take him down, I had him subdued - and he told me 9 times he couldn't breathe - my ass would be in jail.
and throw in on top of it, there is a police policy against a choke hold or attempting to use a choke hold.
I think this cop needs to go to trial. I didn't think that about Wilson or George Zimmerman
also, I don't claim to be an expert on grand jury's but I can tell you that if you don't have a strong willed foreman on the jury or a group of people willing to confront authority, then they are mostly a rubber stamp for whatever the D.A. is pitching - innocent or guilty.
We had a young officer once. Worked for us for about 6 months. Responded to a domestic, started fighting with the aggressor because he failed to comply with orders. Jake took him to the ground, and a few seconds later we heard please I can't breathe, I need help. Jake got up off of him and seconds later a shot rang out. That gunshot came from a 2 inch 357 that the suspect had stuffed in the front of his jeans. That shot entered under Jake's vest and severed his spinal chord...he schits and pisses in a bag, and lives in a wheelchair now.
That's exactly the type of "crying wolf" scenario that came to mind for me.
A junkie showed up at a guys house - the guy was home, minding his own business and the junkie, who didn't have the ability to drive downtown to get his heroin fix, convinced the guy to take him downtown and get him heroin from his supplier (the guy sold heroin but didn't have any)
So he gets him his heroin, the guy and junkie go back to his house, and the guy, the junkie and his wife all shoot up. The next morning the guy and his wife wake up to find the junkie dead on their floor.
And our job on the grand jury was to indict this junkie for murder.
Well we objected almost unanimously to indicting this guy because we felt the junkie was responsible for his own death, so we voted no.
We brought the D.A back into the room and told him and he talked some more to us about how the dealer supplied the heroin and took it upon himself to get heroin for the junkie , to think it over again...so we met again, talked about how were were comfortable with the guy getting indicting for selling heroin but still balked at the murder charge (maybe it was manslaughter, I really can't remember now).
So we bring the D.A. back in and tell him and he just unloads on us, tells us we don't understand the law and we can just indict on intent to sell because that would also mean he was culpable in the junkies death and we were ignoring the law as it was explained to us. I wouldn't call it angry, but clearly he was exercising his power in the room.
So eventually he wore us down and we indicted the guy for all the counts they wanted.
After that, we have maybe 5 or 6 more cases that we didn't really think the charges reflected the actions, but none of us wanted to go thru the browbeating by the D.A. again.
That's why I say unless you have a strong willed foreman or people willing to confront authority, they are a rubber stamp for what the D.A is pitching.
So, basically, you have no backbone and didn't have the guts to tell the DA that the GJ had reached a decision, therefore you committed a miscarriage of justice...several times over.
And, now the entire system is broken because you're too damned weak to uphold your civic duty?
Quite telling, actually.
I'm sure you sleep very well at night, considering how many people's lives you may have ruined because you're a coward.
interesting -
I'm sure somewhere you feel a sense of pride for showing how big a dick you can be on the internet.
I did my civic duty by being on the grand jury in the first place and voted my conscience - which was following the law as it was written - probably the same approach that this grand jury followed.
perhaps you'd have more respect for us had we voted what we initially wanted in spite of the law?
what bothers me isn't the choke hold, its the man telling them he can't breathe - like 9 times?
at what point do, you know, actually care that the guy might be in distress and its more important that he live than it is to keep your knee on his neck?
if there was video of me - not as a cop but as a man, lets say Garner was threatening me - not life threatening but general mouthing off and I made the decision to take him down, I had him subdued - and he told me 9 times he couldn't breathe - my ass would be in jail.
and throw in on top of it, there is a police policy against a choke hold or attempting to use a choke hold.
I think this cop needs to go to trial. I didn't think that about Wilson or George Zimmerman
also, I don't claim to be an expert on grand jury's but I can tell you that if you don't have a strong willed foreman on the jury or a group of people willing to confront authority, then they are mostly a rubber stamp for whatever the D.A. is pitching - innocent or guilty.
We had a young officer once. Worked for us for about 6 months. Responded to a domestic, started fighting with the aggressor because he failed to comply with orders. Jake took him to the ground, and a few seconds later we heard please I can't breathe, I need help. Jake got up off of him and seconds later a shot rang out. That gunshot came from a 2 inch 357 that the suspect had stuffed in the front of his jeans. That shot entered under Jake's vest and severed his spinal chord...he schits and pisses in a bag, and lives in a wheelchair now.
That's exactly the type of "crying wolf" scenario that came to mind for me.
A junkie showed up at a guys house - the guy was home, minding his own business and the junkie, who didn't have the ability to drive downtown to get his heroin fix, convinced the guy to take him downtown and get him heroin from his supplier (the guy sold heroin but didn't have any)
So he gets him his heroin, the guy and junkie go back to his house, and the guy, the junkie and his wife all shoot up. The next morning the guy and his wife wake up to find the junkie dead on their floor.
And our job on the grand jury was to indict this junkie for murder.
Well we objected almost unanimously to indicting this guy because we felt the junkie was responsible for his own death, so we voted no.
We brought the D.A back into the room and told him and he talked some more to us about how the dealer supplied the heroin and took it upon himself to get heroin for the junkie , to think it over again...so we met again, talked about how were were comfortable with the guy getting indicting for selling heroin but still balked at the murder charge (maybe it was manslaughter, I really can't remember now).
So we bring the D.A. back in and tell him and he just unloads on us, tells us we don't understand the law and we can just indict on intent to sell because that would also mean he was culpable in the junkies death and we were ignoring the law as it was explained to us. I wouldn't call it angry, but clearly he was exercising his power in the room.
So eventually he wore us down and we indicted the guy for all the counts they wanted.
After that, we have maybe 5 or 6 more cases that we didn't really think the charges reflected the actions, but none of us wanted to go thru the browbeating by the D.A. again.
That's why I say unless you have a strong willed foreman or people willing to confront authority, they are a rubber stamp for what the D.A is pitching.
So, basically, you have no backbone and didn't have the guts to tell the DA that the GJ had reached a decision, therefore you committed a miscarriage of justice...several times over.
And, now the entire system is broken because you're too damned weak to uphold your civic duty?
Quite telling, actually.
I'm sure you sleep very well at night, considering how many people's lives you may have ruined because you're a coward.
interesting -
I'm sure somewhere you feel a sense of pride for showing how big a dick you can be on the internet.
I did my civic duty by being on the grand jury in the first place and voted my conscience - which was following the law as it was written - probably the same approach that this grand jury followed.
I'm not being a dick. I'm pointing out that though you voted your conscience, you caved and became a coward. When you did that, you committed a miscarriage of justice (several times over, by your own admission). That may well have ruined the lives of many people; you don't know or care, obviously.
Because you didn't have the backbone to do what was right, you think the GJ in this case, and the system in general, lacks the intestinal fortitude to uphold the Constitution as you did.
Personally, I think more highly of the GJ system and our system of justice than you do, and think that the 24 GJ members on that GJ in NYC did as they should have done when weighing all the evidence.
You, didn't. Just because you didn't, doesn't mean the system is broken. The problem then wasn't the system; it was the GJ (yours).
A junkie showed up at a guys house - the guy was home, minding his own business and the junkie, who didn't have the ability to drive downtown to get his heroin fix, convinced the guy to take him downtown and get him heroin from his supplier (the guy sold heroin but didn't have any)
So he gets him his heroin, the guy and junkie go back to his house, and the guy, the junkie and his wife all shoot up. The next morning the guy and his wife wake up to find the junkie dead on their floor.
And our job on the grand jury was to indict this junkie for murder.
Well we objected almost unanimously to indicting this guy because we felt the junkie was responsible for his own death, so we voted no.
We brought the D.A back into the room and told him and he talked some more to us about how the dealer supplied the heroin and took it upon himself to get heroin for the junkie , to think it over again...so we met again, talked about how were were comfortable with the guy getting indicting for selling heroin but still balked at the murder charge (maybe it was manslaughter, I really can't remember now).
So we bring the D.A. back in and tell him and he just unloads on us, tells us we don't understand the law and we can just indict on intent to sell because that would also mean he was culpable in the junkies death and we were ignoring the law as it was explained to us. I wouldn't call it angry, but clearly he was exercising his power in the room.
So eventually he wore us down and we indicted the guy for all the counts they wanted.
After that, we have maybe 5 or 6 more cases that we didn't really think the charges reflected the actions, but none of us wanted to go thru the browbeating by the D.A. again.
That's why I say unless you have a strong willed foreman or people willing to confront authority, they are a rubber stamp for what the D.A is pitching.
Holy Christ, what a spinless POS. You have no idea what it means to be a man, obviously.
what bothers me isn't the choke hold, its the man telling them he can't breathe - like 9 times?
at what point do, you know, actually care that the guy might be in distress and its more important that he live than it is to keep your knee on his neck?
if there was video of me - not as a cop but as a man, lets say Garner was threatening me - not life threatening but general mouthing off and I made the decision to take him down, I had him subdued - and he told me 9 times he couldn't breathe - my ass would be in jail.
and throw in on top of it, there is a police policy against a choke hold or attempting to use a choke hold.
I think this cop needs to go to trial. I didn't think that about Wilson or George Zimmerman
also, I don't claim to be an expert on grand jury's but I can tell you that if you don't have a strong willed foreman on the jury or a group of people willing to confront authority, then they are mostly a rubber stamp for whatever the D.A. is pitching - innocent or guilty.
We had a young officer once. Worked for us for about 6 months. Responded to a domestic, started fighting with the aggressor because he failed to comply with orders. Jake took him to the ground, and a few seconds later we heard please I can't breathe, I need help. Jake got up off of him and seconds later a shot rang out. That gunshot came from a 2 inch 357 that the suspect had stuffed in the front of his jeans. That shot entered under Jake's vest and severed his spinal chord...he schits and pisses in a bag, and lives in a wheelchair now.
That's exactly the type of "crying wolf" scenario that came to mind for me.
was he crying wolf?
Are you really to dense to understand the point?
Had Mr Garner just stopped resisting and been taken into custody he very likely would be here. But his continued aggressive resistance placed him in the situation that caused his death. We're taught to not give up until the suspect is in custody and under control.
Apparently all you did was look at the still photo too. Did you read the report from the ME, the real on not Kevin's expert. That attributed Garner's death to compressions of his chest. If you watch the video he never starts saying he can't breathe until well after the officer's hands are away from his neck.
You couldn't handle a lawyer "browbeating" you, but you know all about how cops should be handling this giant black convict.
Awesome.
what I know is a man died and was pleading to breath.
I'm not too concerned what the cop contingency on here thinks about what is justified beyond that.
By your own admissions, you're either a coward or an idiot (couldn't understand the law).
What you know, doesn't amount for a cup of warm piss at this point, because you don't know one tiny iota of the actual evidence involved. Even in instances when you did, as you freely admitted, you lacked either the intelligence to know what to do with it, or the courage and conviction to do the right things when you knew and understood.
A junkie showed up at a guys house - the guy was home, minding his own business and the junkie, who didn't have the ability to drive downtown to get his heroin fix, convinced the guy to take him downtown and get him heroin from his supplier (the guy sold heroin but didn't have any)
So he gets him his heroin, the guy and junkie go back to his house, and the guy, the junkie and his wife all shoot up. The next morning the guy and his wife wake up to find the junkie dead on their floor.
And our job on the grand jury was to indict this junkie for murder.
Well we objected almost unanimously to indicting this guy because we felt the junkie was responsible for his own death, so we voted no.
We brought the D.A back into the room and told him and he talked some more to us about how the dealer supplied the heroin and took it upon himself to get heroin for the junkie , to think it over again...so we met again, talked about how were were comfortable with the guy getting indicting for selling heroin but still balked at the murder charge (maybe it was manslaughter, I really can't remember now).
So we bring the D.A. back in and tell him and he just unloads on us, tells us we don't understand the law and we can just indict on intent to sell because that would also mean he was culpable in the junkies death and we were ignoring the law as it was explained to us. I wouldn't call it angry, but clearly he was exercising his power in the room.
So eventually he wore us down and we indicted the guy for all the counts they wanted.
After that, we have maybe 5 or 6 more cases that we didn't really think the charges reflected the actions, but none of us wanted to go thru the browbeating by the D.A. again.
That's why I say unless you have a strong willed foreman or people willing to confront authority, they are a rubber stamp for what the D.A is pitching.
So, basically, you have no backbone and didn't have the guts to tell the DA that the GJ had reached a decision, therefore you committed a miscarriage of justice...several times over.
And, now the entire system is broken because you're too damned weak to uphold your civic duty?
Quite telling, actually.
I'm sure you sleep very well at night, considering how many people's lives you may have ruined because you're a coward.
interesting -
I'm sure somewhere you feel a sense of pride for showing how big a dick you can be on the internet.
I did my civic duty by being on the grand jury in the first place and voted my conscience - which was following the law as it was written - probably the same approach that this grand jury followed.
I'm not being a dick. I'm pointing out that though you voted your conscience, you caved and became a coward. When you did that, you committed a miscarriage of justice (several times over, by your own admission). That may well have ruined the lives of many people; you don't know or care, obviously.
Because you didn't have the backbone to do what was right, you think the GJ in this case, and the system in general, lacks the intestinal fortitude to uphold the Constitution as you did.
Personally, I think more highly of the GJ system and our system of justice than you do, and think that the 24 GJ members on that GJ in NYC did as they should have done when weighing all the evidence.
You, didn't. Just because you didn't, doesn't mean the system is broken. The problem then wasn't the system; it was the GJ (yours).
let me clarify - voting my heart said let the guy go, voting my conscience said follow the law as it was written and took some convincing from the D.A. to do so.
so tell me - as a member on the grand jury - do I follow the law or what I think the law should be?
You couldn't handle a lawyer "browbeating" you, but you know all about how cops should be handling this giant black convict.
Awesome.
what I know is a man died and was pleading to breath.
I'm not too concerned what the cop contingency on here thinks about what is justified beyond that.
By your own admissions, you're either a coward or an idiot (couldn't understand the law).
What you know, doesn't amount for a cup of warm piss at this point, because you don't know one tiny iota of the actual evidence involved. Even in instances when you did, as you freely admitted, you lacked either the intelligence to know what to do with it, or the courage and conviction to do the right things when you knew and understood.
oh horseshit - all this is just crap your spewing.
answer a simple question - as a grand jury member - do you want me to follow the law or what I think the law should be?
let me clarify - voting my heart said let the guy go, voting my conscience said follow the law as it was written and took some convincing from the D.A. to do so.
so tell me - as a member on the grand jury - do I follow the law or what I think the law should be?
As I said, either you were too stupid to understand the law until "browbeaten" by the DA, or too cowardly to stand on your convictions and do what you believed right.
What should have happened is that you ought never have been on the GJ at all, as either way you are a miscarriage of justice waiting to happen.
You can attempt to change your story at this point all you want. It won't change what happened and what you know you did. I wonder how many lives you ruined by being either too stupid or too cowardly (or both) to do what was right. I bet you don't wonder, though... do you?
Had Mr Garner just stopped resisting and been taken into custody he very likely would be here. But his continued aggressive resistance placed him in the situation that caused his death. We're taught to not give up until the suspect is in custody and under control.
Apparently all you did was look at the still photo too. Did you read the report from the ME, the real on not Kevin's expert. That attributed Garner's death to compressions of his chest. If you watch the video he never starts saying he can't breathe until well after the officer's hands are away from his neck.
again - why does it take 2 paragraphs to answer a yes or no question?
Kind of interesting as they meaning holder will spin this. Turns out the supervising officer at the scene was a BLACK FEMALE SARGENT. I wonder how his civil rights were violated?
let me clarify - voting my heart said let the guy go, voting my conscience said follow the law as it was written and took some convincing from the D.A. to do so.
so tell me - as a member on the grand jury - do I follow the law or what I think the law should be?
As I said, either you were too stupid to understand the law until "browbeaten" by the DA, or too cowardly to stand on your convictions and do what you believed right.
What should have happened is that you ought never have been on the GJ at all, as either way you are a miscarriage of justice waiting to happen.
You can attempt to change your story at this point all you want. It won't change what happened and what you know you did. I wonder how many lives you ruined by being either too stupid or too cowardly (or both) to do what was right. I bet you don't wonder, though... do you?
so in other words, you're going to go a long way around not answering the question.
Had Mr Garner just stopped resisting and been taken into custody he very likely would be here. But his continued aggressive resistance placed him in the situation that caused his death. We're taught to not give up until the suspect is in custody and under control.
Apparently all you did was look at the still photo too. Did you read the report from the ME, the real on not Kevin's expert. That attributed Garner's death to compressions of his chest. If you watch the video he never starts saying he can't breathe until well after the officer's hands are away from his neck.
again - why does it take 2 paragraphs to answer a yes or no question?
was he crying wolf?
How were the officers to know whether he was or wasn't
Had Mr Garner just stopped resisting and been taken into custody he very likely would be here. But his continued aggressive resistance placed him in the situation that caused his death. We're taught to not give up until the suspect is in custody and under control.
Apparently all you did was look at the still photo too. Did you read the report from the ME, the real on not Kevin's expert. That attributed Garner's death to compressions of his chest. If you watch the video he never starts saying he can't breathe until well after the officer's hands are away from his neck.
again - why does it take 2 paragraphs to answer a yes or no question?
was he crying wolf?
Was he resisting arrest?
Was he complaining about not being able to breathe LONG after the arm was removed from anywhere near his throat?
Oh, wait... that's right, you've already admitted to being too stupid or too cowardly to know/do what is right. Far be it from you to actually read the ME report or look at the evidence. You just need to do what you "feel" is best... until some mean DA tells you do to do something else, then it's their fault that you're a coward and a fool.
let me clarify - voting my heart said let the guy go, voting my conscience said follow the law as it was written and took some convincing from the D.A. to do so.
so tell me - as a member on the grand jury - do I follow the law or what I think the law should be?
As I said, either you were too stupid to understand the law until "browbeaten" by the DA, or too cowardly to stand on your convictions and do what you believed right.
What should have happened is that you ought never have been on the GJ at all, as either way you are a miscarriage of justice waiting to happen.
You can attempt to change your story at this point all you want. It won't change what happened and what you know you did. I wonder how many lives you ruined by being either too stupid or too cowardly (or both) to do what was right. I bet you don't wonder, though... do you?
so in other words, you're going to go a long way around not answering the question.
talk about cowards
I answered the question, you chickenschit moron.
You stated that the GJ voted. If the GJ voted, then they voted and it's over. That's the end of it.
Then, you all chickened out when the DA came back not ONCE but TWICE calling you all fools. He may have been right, but you had already voted. So, you revoted - TWICE, because you were chickenschit.
After that, by your own admission, you simply did what the DA told you, because you're a f'kin' coward.
That's exactly what you stated.
What you SHOULD have done, you limpdick sorry azz excuse for a human, was stand by your original vote. That's the GJ's job. You'd done it, and it was over. Instead, you chickened out.
If the GJ didn't get the law, then the DA had screwed up, or you were all truly that friggin' stupid. Either is likely, though right now, the stupid is more probable in your case. Regardless, you'd had the evidence and you voted. THAT's what you should have done.
Going back over it and caving in, then being a rubber stamp, is a cowardly, chickenschit cop out.
Try reading, you coward. The answer is right there. You don't, or won't, get it, though.
Originally Posted by 4ager
Originally Posted by KFWA
Originally Posted by 4ager
Originally Posted by KFWA
let me clarify - voting my heart said let the guy go, voting my conscience said follow the law as it was written and took some convincing from the D.A. to do so.
so tell me - as a member on the grand jury - do I follow the law or what I think the law should be?
As I said, either you were too stupid to understand the law until "browbeaten" by the DA, or too cowardly to stand on your convictions and do what you believed right.
What should have happened is that you ought never have been on the GJ at all, as either way you are a miscarriage of justice waiting to happen.
You can attempt to change your story at this point all you want. It won't change what happened and what you know you did. I wonder how many lives you ruined by being either too stupid or too cowardly (or both) to do what was right. I bet you don't wonder, though... do you?
so in other words, you're going to go a long way around not answering the question.
talk about cowards
I answered the question, you chickenschit moron.
You stated that the GJ voted. If the GJ voted, then they voted and it's over. That's the end of it.
Then, you all chickened out when the DA came back not ONCE but TWICE calling you all fools. He may have been right, but you had already voted. So, you revoted - TWICE, because you were chickenschit.
After that, by your own admission, you simply did what the DA told you, because you're a f'kin' coward.
That's exactly what you stated.
What you SHOULD have done, you limpdick sorry azz excuse for a human, was stand by your original vote. That's the GJ's job. You'd done it, and it was over. Instead, you chickened out.
If the GJ didn't get the law, then the DA had screwed up, or you were all truly that friggin' stupid. Either is likely, though right now, the stupid is more probable in your case. Regardless, you'd had the evidence and you voted. THAT's what you should have done.
Going back over it and caving in, then being a rubber stamp, is a cowardly, chickenschit cop out.
A junkie showed up at a guys house - the guy was home, minding his own business and the junkie, who didn't have the ability to drive downtown to get his heroin fix, convinced the guy to take him downtown and get him heroin from his supplier (the guy sold heroin but didn't have any)
So he gets him his heroin, the guy and junkie go back to his house, and the guy, the junkie and his wife all shoot up. The next morning the guy and his wife wake up to find the junkie dead on their floor.
And our job on the grand jury was to indict this junkie for murder.
Well we objected almost unanimously to indicting this guy because we felt the junkie was responsible for his own death, so we voted no.
We brought the D.A back into the room and told him and he talked some more to us about how the dealer supplied the heroin and took it upon himself to get heroin for the junkie , to think it over again...so we met again, talked about how were were comfortable with the guy getting indicting for selling heroin but still balked at the murder charge (maybe it was manslaughter, I really can't remember now).
So we bring the D.A. back in and tell him and he just unloads on us, tells us we don't understand the law and we can just indict on intent to sell because that would also mean he was culpable in the junkies death and we were ignoring the law as it was explained to us. I wouldn't call it angry, but clearly he was exercising his power in the room.
So eventually he wore us down and we indicted the guy for all the counts they wanted.
After that, we have maybe 5 or 6 more cases that we didn't really think the charges reflected the actions, but none of us wanted to go thru the browbeating by the D.A. again.
That's why I say unless you have a strong willed foreman or people willing to confront authority, they are a rubber stamp for what the D.A is pitching.
so two long winded responses and neither one of them are capable of answering the question.
the insults are impressive
whats more impressive is just being able to answer the question honestly.
I'll answer the GD question: No, he wasn't.
But the glaring point is 20-20 hindsight doesn't count. Did the officers fail to use their department issued crystal balls or truth meters to ascertain whether a 30+ count petty criminal was telling the truth this time?
The question was answered, you coward. When you voted the first time, as you said you did, then your job on the GJ was over - whether you think you voted right/wrong/otherwise afterward is immaterial.
That you went back - TWICE - shows cowardice and a miscarriage of justice.
That's pretty damned clear to everyone except you, because you can't admit to yourself that you are a coward and committed a miscarriage of justice due to your cowardice.
Originally Posted by KFWA
Originally Posted by 4ager
When you voted, the first time, your job on the GJ was over.
Get that part yet, coward?
Originally Posted by KFWA
I'll make it simple for you
try a yes or no - not some long winded bullshit full of insults.
as a member of the grand jury, should I have voted what the law said or what I thought the law should have been.
are you capable of answering that with a yes or no?
after yes or no, you can call me every name in the book
so two long winded responses and neither one of them are capable of answering the question.
the insults are impressive
whats more impressive is just being able to answer the question honestly.
I'll answer the GD question: No, he wasn't.
But the glaring point is 20-20 hindsight doesn't count. Did the officers fail to use their department issued crystal balls or truth meters to ascertain whether a 30+ count petty criminal was telling the truth this time?
thank you
I'm not sure why 31 prior arrests as a petty criminal makes him any more of a threat to the police (had they even known how many times he'd been arrested) as you or I.
each situation is different. With that many cops and that particular situation, I think some effort to provide him relief when he was saying he couldn't breath was possible.
Am I a cop? nope - just a person who is disturbed by the video and the lack of empathy/sympathy shown by LEO's and supporters on here for a man who died.
what bothers me isn't the choke hold, its the man telling them he can't breathe - like 9 times?
at what point do, you know, actually care that the guy might be in distress and its more important that he live than it is to keep your knee on his neck?
if there was video of me - not as a cop but as a man, lets say Garner was threatening me - not life threatening but general mouthing off and I made the decision to take him down, I had him subdued - and he told me 9 times he couldn't breathe - my ass would be in jail.
and throw in on top of it, there is a police policy against a choke hold or attempting to use a choke hold.
I think this cop needs to go to trial. I didn't think that about Wilson or George Zimmerman
also, I don't claim to be an expert on grand jury's but I can tell you that if you don't have a strong willed foreman on the jury or a group of people willing to confront authority, then they are mostly a rubber stamp for whatever the D.A. is pitching - innocent or guilty.
I agree with this. Not in whole but in general.
When the man uttered "I can't breathe" nine times (I heard 11 times on the Kelly File last night) that's where I have a problem.
When LE decides to arrest, subdue, and restrain a person they take away all rights to self defense. When you take that right away you then take responsibility for the person's welfare.
There is and should be the obligation of an arresting officer(s) to insure that no harm comes to someone once they are subdued and restrained. They should have cuffed him and then sat him up so he could breathe.
If the cops would have made an effort to render aid, help the man breath, and he still died ... I wouldn't have a problem with it.
A junkie showed up at a guys house - the guy was home, minding his own business and the junkie, who didn't have the ability to drive downtown to get his heroin fix, convinced the guy to take him downtown and get him heroin from his supplier (the guy sold heroin but didn't have any)
So he gets him his heroin, the guy and junkie go back to his house, and the guy, the junkie and his wife all shoot up. The next morning the guy and his wife wake up to find the junkie dead on their floor.
And our job on the grand jury was to indict this junkie for murder.
Well we objected almost unanimously to indicting this guy because we felt the junkie was responsible for his own death, so we voted no.
We brought the D.A back into the room and told him and he talked some more to us about how the dealer supplied the heroin and took it upon himself to get heroin for the junkie , to think it over again...so we met again, talked about how were were comfortable with the guy getting indicting for selling heroin but still balked at the murder charge (maybe it was manslaughter, I really can't remember now).
So we bring the D.A. back in and tell him and he just unloads on us, tells us we don't understand the law and we can just indict on intent to sell because that would also mean he was culpable in the junkies death and we were ignoring the law as it was explained to us. I wouldn't call it angry, but clearly he was exercising his power in the room.
So eventually he wore us down and we indicted the guy for all the counts they wanted.
After that, we have maybe 5 or 6 more cases that we didn't really think the charges reflected the actions, but none of us wanted to go thru the browbeating by the D.A. again.
That's why I say unless you have a strong willed foreman or people willing to confront authority, they are a rubber stamp for what the D.A is pitching.
The question was answered, you coward. When you voted the first time, as you said you did, then your job on the GJ was over - whether you think you voted right/wrong/otherwise afterward is immaterial.
That you went back - TWICE - shows cowardice and a miscarriage of justice.
That's pretty damned clear to everyone except you, because you can't admit to yourself that you are a coward and committed a miscarriage of justice due to your cowardice.
Originally Posted by KFWA
Originally Posted by 4ager
When you voted, the first time, your job on the GJ was over.
Get that part yet, coward?
Originally Posted by KFWA
I'll make it simple for you
try a yes or no - not some long winded bullshit full of insults.
as a member of the grand jury, should I have voted what the law said or what I thought the law should have been.
are you capable of answering that with a yes or no?
after yes or no, you can call me every name in the book
I have a feeling that if you're sympathetic toward very many 350 pound arrest resistors you're going to get hurt sooner than later.
I know I can't be a policeman. If I have to tangle with someone I can't have my rules of engagement dictated by considerations other than prevailing in the altercation.
When the man uttered "I can't breathe" nine times (I heard 11 times on the Kelly File last night) that's where I have a problem.
When LE decides to arrest, subdue, and restrain a person they take away all rights to self defense. When you take that right away you then take responsibility for the person's welfare.
There is and should be the obligation of an arresting officer(s) to insure that no harm comes to someone once they are subdued and restrained. They should have cuffed him and then sat him up so he could breathe.
If the cops would have made an effort to render aid, help the man breath, and he still died ... I wouldn't have a problem with it.
There were a lot of things that were done wrong from a policy/administrative point of view. And that video is never going to be used as a demonstration for using a level of force that is consummate to the threat.
But that is not what the Grand Jury is there to determine. They are there to determine if a criminal prosecution should be sought.
It is very clear that the case was not prosecutable in the state of NY.
You voted, the first time. That's what you should have done and you should have stuck with it. Either you were an idiot with your vote, then, or not. You were, and remain, a coward in every action after that.
I have a feeling that if you're sympathetic toward very many 350 pound arrest resistors you're going to get hurt sooner than later.
I know I can't be a policeman. If I have to tangle with someone I can't have my rules of engagement dictated by considerations other than prevailing in the altercation.
no I understand. as cops say, I'm going home to my family tonight.
I think that should replace the "protect and serve" motto on the car doors. It would probably alter the behavior of more criminals.
A man with 31 prior arrests is dead, let us all rejoice.
Too many people have feelings instead of a brain.
yep, thank god we ridded the streets of those black market cigarette sellers. The world is a better place
So you pit no fault on the suspect for resisting? It was solely the cop's fault for arresting him that he died?
no, I think he should have been more compliant, but the guy wasn't taking swings at cops, he was just basically in a keep your hands off me, he wasn't armed, he wasn't telling them he was going to kick their ass - he just wanted to be left the "f" alone - and there were what? 4 cops there?
As I said, where I take exception to this is when he was saying he can't breath. At that point, I believe you had to address that situation.
We can talk about safety concerns of the police but what is your job? Isn't protection extending to the person in custody from their own demise?
A man with 31 prior arrests is dead, let us all rejoice.
Too many people have feelings instead of a brain.
yep, thank god we ridded the streets of those black market cigarette sellers. The world is a better place
So you pit no fault on the suspect for resisting? It was solely the cop's fault for arresting him that he died?
no, I think he should have been more compliant, but the guy wasn't taking swings at cops, he was just basically in a keep your hands off me, he wasn't armed, he wasn't telling them he was going to kick their ass - he just wanted to be left the "f" alone - and there were what? 4 cops there?
As I said, where I take exception to this is when he was saying he can't breath. At that point, I believe you had to address that situation.
We can talk about safety concerns of the police but what is your job? Isn't protection extending to the person in custody from their own demise?
Yes it is, and the police did call EMS. Maybe you should inquire why the paramedics on that case were suspended without pay
You voted, the first time. That's what you should have done and you should have stuck with it. Either you were an idiot with your vote, then, or not. You were, and remain, a coward in every action after that.
There's your "yes/no".
too funny
for someone so big on declaration you can't even answer the question - I won't ask any more. Its more important to you to throw out insults - I get it.
Yeah, and they didn't shoot him, or choke him to death on the spot, the fat fugg had a heart attack, most likely caused by the struggle and stress.
Criminals say all kinds of schit when they are being arrested, listening to them will get the LEO in a whole lot of trouble. They are trained to not fall for that schit for a reason.
Feelings are not thoughts, wish people would realize that.
You voted, the first time. That's what you should have done and you should have stuck with it. Either you were an idiot with your vote, then, or not. You were, and remain, a coward in every action after that.
There's your "yes/no".
too funny
for someone so big on declaration you can't even answer the question - I won't ask any more. Its more important to you to throw out insults - I get it.
I answered the question. You voted the first time; you were done.
When the man uttered "I can't breathe" nine times (I heard 11 times on the Kelly File last night) that's where I have a problem.
When LE decides to arrest, subdue, and restrain a person they take away all rights to self defense. When you take that right away you then take responsibility for the person's welfare.
There is and should be the obligation of an arresting officer(s) to insure that no harm comes to someone once they are subdued and restrained. They should have cuffed him and then sat him up so he could breathe.
If the cops would have made an effort to render aid, help the man breath, and he still died ... I wouldn't have a problem with it.
There were a lot of things that were done wrong from a policy/administrative point of view. And that video is never going to be used as a demonstration for using a level of force that is consummate to the threat.
But that is not what the Grand Jury is there to determine. They are there to determine if a criminal prosecution should be sought.
It is very clear that the case was not prosecutable in the state of NY.
Travis
In those words you've brought up the issue I have.
Was there an excessive use of force?
I don't know if this was something that the GJ considered in reaching their conclusion to not indict.
In my mind I'm not clear that there wasn't an excessive use of force and I have questions regarding the obligation to ensure the welfare of a man in restraints.
Jorge, if your whole neighborhood wanted you arrested for doing nothing wrong (say, flying an American flag that offended them), would it be cool if the cops arrested you out of convenience and just trusted the court to throw the case out?
Close analogy but no ceegar, but maybe my ignorance of the law is showing, but it is my understanding that a DA can remand a case to trial WITHOUT a Grand Jury process and if they can't then my point has no merit. As far as the Grand Jury is concerned, just the "I cant breathe" supplication and the officer still kept the choke hold, plus the fact his death was ruled a homicide, let's just say, I'm glad I wasn't part of that GJ.
When the man uttered "I can't breathe" nine times (I heard 11 times on the Kelly File last night) that's where I have a problem.
When LE decides to arrest, subdue, and restrain a person they take away all rights to self defense. When you take that right away you then take responsibility for the person's welfare.
There is and should be the obligation of an arresting officer(s) to insure that no harm comes to someone once they are subdued and restrained. They should have cuffed him and then sat him up so he could breathe.
If the cops would have made an effort to render aid, help the man breath, and he still died ... I wouldn't have a problem with it.
There were a lot of things that were done wrong from a policy/administrative point of view. And that video is never going to be used as a demonstration for using a level of force that is consummate to the threat.
But that is not what the Grand Jury is there to determine. They are there to determine if a criminal prosecution should be sought.
It is very clear that the case was not prosecutable in the state of NY.
Travis
In those words you've brought up the issue I have.
Was there an excessive use of force?
I don't know if this was something that the GJ considered in reaching their conclusion to not indict.
In my mind I'm not clear that there wasn't an excessive use of force and I have questions regarding the obligation to ensure the welfare of a man in restraints.
IDK what ageny policy is but they called EMS, At best these guys are CFR trained, i dunno what else they could have done. He said "I can't breeve" not "I think i'm having a heart attack
Jorge, if your whole neighborhood wanted you arrested for doing nothing wrong (say, flying an American flag that offended them), would it be cool if the cops arrested you out of convenience and just trusted the court to throw the case out?
Close analogy but no ceegar, but maybe my ignorance of the law is showing, but it is my understanding that a DA can remand a case to trial WITHOUT a Grand Jury process and if they can't then my point has no merit. As far as the Grand Jury is concerned, just the "I cant breathe" supplication and the officer still kept the choke hold, plus the fact his death was ruled a homicide, let's just say, I'm glad I wasn't part of that GJ.
"I can't breeve" was well after any "choke hold" had been removed. Just FYI.
Jorge, if your whole neighborhood wanted you arrested for doing nothing wrong (say, flying an American flag that offended them), would it be cool if the cops arrested you out of convenience and just trusted the court to throw the case out?
Close analogy but no ceegar, but maybe my ignorance of the law is showing, but it is my understanding that a DA can remand a case to trial WITHOUT a Grand Jury process and if they can't then my point has no merit. As far as the Grand Jury is concerned, just the "I cant breathe" supplication and the officer still kept the choke hold, plus the fact his death was ruled a homicide, let's just say, I'm glad I wasn't part of that GJ.
Did I see a different video? I didn't see a real choke, and whatever "choke" there was I didn't see kept.
A DA has the obligation to bring criminals to justice but they also have equal ethical obligation to not put an innocent person on trial ... just to satisfy a vigilante mob.
I forget how many times a heart attack has presented as shortness of breath as well - with absolutely NO cause from an airway/choking/asphyxiation issue.
What I am saying is that the heart attack may have caused symptoms that the deceased attributed to an inability to breathe.
Happened A LOT in my presence, but that's just 15 years on the streets talking, not a few minutes in front of a video.
Wonder if the autopsy showed any airway damage? Probably not.
I forget how many times a heart attack has presented as shortness of breath as well - with absolutely NO cause from an airway/choking/asphyxiation issue.
What I am saying is that the heart attack may have caused symptoms that the deceased attributed to a respiratory issue, when there wasn't one.
Happened A LOT in my presence, but that's just 15 years on the streets talking, not a few minutes in front of a video.
Wonder if the autopsy showed any airway damage? Probably not.
Nope, it didn't, or at least that's what has been released thus far.
It would seem, to many, death is a suitable penalty for selling cigarettes illegally. This killing is similar in some respects to the Robert Djicanski (SP?) killing by the RCMP at the Vancouver airport several years ago. They got a pass too. GD
I forget how many times a heart attack has presented as shortness of breath as well - with absolutely NO cause from an airway/choking/asphyxiation issue.
What I am saying is that the heart attack may have caused symptoms that the deceased attributed to a respiratory issue, when there wasn't one.
Happened A LOT in my presence, but that's just 15 years on the streets talking, not a few minutes in front of a video.
Wonder if the autopsy showed any airway damage? Probably not.
No it didn't.
I think we're tracking together. My point is "besides sitting the suspect upright and calling EMS. What else were they supposed to do?
Lots of opinions not backed w/ facts on this subject. I was 1st trained in use of the "choke hold" in 1966, in the LE world it was commonly referred to as the carotid caress.
The goal was to contain the neck from the rear w/ the carotids compressed by your bicep on one side and the radius bone on the other. Blood supply to the brain was reduced and the subject usually became flaccid in 10 seconds or less and pressure was relaxed.
Those who haven't tried to restrain a resisting person should understand that you will be injured if you do not control: The hands, fists claws weapons The feet and legs, they will kick or knee you The head, yes Nancy, scumbags will bite you, many carry disease.
Fact: where the head goes the body follows.
Shamu had the right to comply w/ a lawful order he chose to resist and the cops aren't allowed to let you go.
When you choose to fight w/ the cops you are expected to lose.
It would seem, to many, death is a suitable penalty for selling cigarettes illegally. This killing is similar in some respects to the Robert Djicanski (SP?) killing by the RCMP at the Vancouver airport several years ago. They got a pass too. GD
JFC, that is not what anyone has said. Fugging thick headed [bleep] like yourself are always quick to break it down to its simplest form, and it is never a mystery why.
In those words you've brought up the issue I have.
Was there an excessive use of force?
I don't know if this was something that the GJ considered in reaching their conclusion to not indict.
In my mind I'm not clear that there wasn't an excessive use of force and I have questions regarding the obligation to ensure the welfare of a man in restraints.
There's no question there was an excessive use of force because the department guidelines clearly stated the technique used was not authorized.
But for purposes of the GJ, they were only there to determine if it was a lawful arrest (basically) because in the state of NY, a sworn officer is allowed to use the "choke hold" technique during the execution of a lawful arrest.
Close analogy but no ceegar, but maybe my ignorance of the law is showing, but it is my understanding that a DA can remand a case to trial WITHOUT a Grand Jury process and if they can't then my point has no merit. As far as the Grand Jury is concerned, just the "I cant breathe" supplication and the officer still kept the choke hold, plus the fact his death was ruled a homicide, let's just say, I'm glad I wasn't part of that GJ.
What a subject says has nothing to do with criminal prosecution.
The choke hold is a legal technique in the state of NY. Same as OC. If a subject says "I can't breathe" after being sprayed (they will) that doesn't mean anything. It only means he is experiencing the affect of OC.
As an aside, (and yes this would be presented by an expert witness) you can't repeatedly say "I can't breathe" if you can't breathe.
Close analogy but no ceegar, but maybe my ignorance of the law is showing, but it is my understanding that a DA can remand a case to trial WITHOUT a Grand Jury process and if they can't then my point has no merit. As far as the Grand Jury is concerned, just the "I cant breathe" supplication and the officer still kept the choke hold, plus the fact his death was ruled a homicide, let's just say, I'm glad I wasn't part of that GJ.
What a subject says has nothing to do with criminal prosecution.
The choke hold is a legal technique in the state of NY. Same as OC. If a subject says "I can't breathe" after being sprayed (they will) that doesn't mean anything. It only means he is experiencing the affect of OC.
As an aside, (and yes this would be presented by an expert witness) you can't repeatedly say "I can't breathe" if you can't breathe.
Travis
Kevin Gibson disagrees with you. For what it's worth
Of course it's the cops fault that a morbidly obese dude with potential medical problems decided to tussle. They should've had him fill out a questionnaire first.
Nobody's responsible for themselves as long as there's a cop nearby to blame.
yea ....a guy needs to be in shape to be taken down by .gov ....its 100% his fault, that a pile of dudes was monkey piling him...
Close analogy but no ceegar, but maybe my ignorance of the law is showing, but it is my understanding that a DA can remand a case to trial WITHOUT a Grand Jury process and if they can't then my point has no merit. As far as the Grand Jury is concerned, just the "I cant breathe" supplication and the officer still kept the choke hold, plus the fact his death was ruled a homicide, let's just say, I'm glad I wasn't part of that GJ.
What a subject says has nothing to do with criminal prosecution.
The choke hold is a legal technique in the state of NY. Same as OC. If a subject says "I can't breathe" after being sprayed (they will) that doesn't mean anything. It only means he is experiencing the affect of OC.
As an aside, (and yes this would be presented by an expert witness) you can't repeatedly say "I can't breathe" if you can't breathe.
Travis
do you think it would make a difference had he said "I am having a heart attack" or "I'm choking" or "my pacemaker battery is disconnected?" (admittedly that last one was odd but I'm trying to show a sense of urgency here).
I guess my point is - once he was once the ground in that position, is there anything he could have said that made the cops immediately stop following thru with their subduing him to alleviate the stress he was under?
It's obvious the chokehold didn't kill him. It lasted 15 seconds by my count. I think the big boy got so worked up that his heart simply gave out. I can't see how anyone could be indicted in this case. The GJ got it right.
No, because the cops are trained to not listen to those pleas as it will get them hurt or worse more often than not. They will stop once they have him restrained, which is what they are trained to do and what they did in the case.
do you think it would make a difference had he said "I am having a heart attack" or "I'm choking" or "my pacemaker battery is disconnected?" (admittedly that last one was odd but I'm trying to show a sense of urgency here).
I guess my point is - once he was once the ground in that position, is there anything he could have said that made the cops immediately stop following thru with their subduing him to alleviate the stress he was under?
I cannot answer what would or would not cause a person I don't know to stop doing what they're doing.
Close analogy but no ceegar, but maybe my ignorance of the law is showing, but it is my understanding that a DA can remand a case to trial WITHOUT a Grand Jury process and if they can't then my point has no merit. As far as the Grand Jury is concerned, just the "I cant breathe" supplication and the officer still kept the choke hold, plus the fact his death was ruled a homicide, let's just say, I'm glad I wasn't part of that GJ.
What a subject says has nothing to do with criminal prosecution.
The choke hold is a legal technique in the state of NY. Same as OC. If a subject says "I can't breathe" after being sprayed (they will) that doesn't mean anything. It only means he is experiencing the affect of OC.
As an aside, (and yes this would be presented by an expert witness) you can't repeatedly say "I can't breathe" if you can't breathe.
Travis
do you think it would make a difference had he said "I am having a heart attack" or "I'm choking" or "my pacemaker battery is disconnected?" (admittedly that last one was odd but I'm trying to show a sense of urgency here).
I guess my point is - once he was once the ground in that position, is there anything he could have said that made the cops immediately stop following thru with their subduing him to alleviate the stress he was under?
Moron,
The "I can't breeve" was AFTER the arm was removed, and the cops had him subdued. They sat him up and called EMS.
Once the arrest was commenced, and fat ass resisted, there wasn't any stopping until he was subdued. That's the way that cookie crumbles. He was under arrest; he resisted. The rest played out because of those facts.
Then again, you're probably not smart enough to figure that much out this time, either.
Sorry Clark, Dick Austin and TRH disagree with us.
They can disagree all they want but the fact remains that a subject matter expert (SME) would testify that it is a physical impossibility to continue to speak when you cannot breathe.
No, because the cops are trained to not listen to those pleas as it will get them hurt or worse more often than not. They will stop once they have him restrained, which is what they are trained to do and what they did in the case.
ok, so lets take it a step further - would it be true to say that anything that happens during subduing the suspect that is life threatening to the suspect will be ignored until the process of subduing the suspect is complete?
Close analogy but no ceegar, but maybe my ignorance of the law is showing, but it is my understanding that a DA can remand a case to trial WITHOUT a Grand Jury process and if they can't then my point has no merit. As far as the Grand Jury is concerned, just the "I cant breathe" supplication and the officer still kept the choke hold, plus the fact his death was ruled a homicide, let's just say, I'm glad I wasn't part of that GJ.
What a subject says has nothing to do with criminal prosecution.
The choke hold is a legal technique in the state of NY. Same as OC. If a subject says "I can't breathe" after being sprayed (they will) that doesn't mean anything. It only means he is experiencing the affect of OC.
As an aside, (and yes this would be presented by an expert witness) you can't repeatedly say "I can't breathe" if you can't breathe.
Travis
do you think it would make a difference had he said "I am having a heart attack" or "I'm choking" or "my pacemaker battery is disconnected?" (admittedly that last one was odd but I'm trying to show a sense of urgency here).
I guess my point is - once he was once the ground in that position, is there anything he could have said that made the cops immediately stop following thru with their subduing him to alleviate the stress he was under?
Moron,
The "I can't breeve" was AFTER the arm was removed, and the cops had him subdued. They sat him up and called EMS.
Once the arrest was commenced, and fat ass resisted, there wasn't any stopping until he was subdued. That's the way that cookie crumbles. He was under arrest; he resisted. The rest played out because of those facts.
Then again, you're probably not smart enough to figure that much out this time, either.
you have some serious issues with me at this point don't you?
are you capable of having a discussion without being a jerk?
No, because the cops are trained to not listen to those pleas as it will get them hurt or worse more often than not. They will stop once they have him restrained, which is what they are trained to do and what they did in the case.
ok, so lets take it a step further - would it be true to say that anything that happens during subduing the suspect that is life threatening to the suspect will be ignored until the process of subduing the suspect is complete?
If you resist, you bring that schit on yourself. The answer is yes. To answer otherwise would mean that no potentially deadly force would be allowed regardless of the level of resistance, and that's just stupid.
Then again, I consider the source of the question and understand why the question and situation is stupid.
It's obvious the chokehold didn't kill him. It lasted 15 seconds by my count. I think the big boy got so worked up that his heart simply gave out. I can't see how anyone could be indicted in this case. The GJ got it right.
Although given your past rationalizations and illogical arguments on myriad subjects is suspect (at least in my opinion which is all that matters), I agree with your assessment. But that was not my point. What is being FED to the unwashed and stupid (Gruber was right) is the video and when I man on the ground says "I can't breave (sic)", he dies AND, AND the Coroner rules it a homicide, what else can we expect. Hell, even our resident "so called" moderates and kooks are hanging the cop. Which BTW, just for violating Dept Policy and all the issues he's caused, I'd fire his ass.
No, because the cops are trained to not listen to those pleas as it will get them hurt or worse more often than not. They will stop once they have him restrained, which is what they are trained to do and what they did in the case.
ok, so lets take it a step further - would it be true to say that anything that happens during subduing the suspect that is life threatening to the suspect will be ignored until the process of subduing the suspect is complete?
Yes, safe to say that, and that is per their training as well.
I'm sure you could find an extreme circumstance that would contradict that but in general that is a true statement.
My blood pressure is fine, thank you. I can breathe easily, my heart rate is low, my weight and cholesterol are well within bounds, and I don't put myself in positions where I'm going to be arrested and taken down for resisting arrest.
I also don't back off of doing the right thing when called upon to do it.
I have faith in our criminal justice system, because I believe most people - unlike you - aren't that stupid as to not understand jury instructions and most people - unlike you - are not so cowardly as to be "browbeaten" into a miscarriage of justice by a DA "being mean" to them.
You're asking stupid questions, setting up ridiculous situations, and not going by the actual facts presented to the Grand Jury.
No damned wonder OH went for Hussein twice. Hell, you're probably union, too.
What's even more obvious, is that if choke holds killed people, they wouldn't be a legal means of less lethal force in the state of NY.
Travis
I just can't see anything in that vid that would cause the guys death except a catastrophic heart issue of some sort. Asthma attacks don't kill that quickly, do they?
No, because the cops are trained to not listen to those pleas as it will get them hurt or worse more often than not. They will stop once they have him restrained, which is what they are trained to do and what they did in the case.
ok, so lets take it a step further - would it be true to say that anything that happens during subduing the suspect that is life threatening to the suspect will be ignored until the process of subduing the suspect is complete?
Yes, safe to say that, and that is per their training as well.
that's interesting to me. I'm not sure I'd agree with that as a policy but if the answer was no, then it would be subject to interpretation which would open up a whole can of worms.
ok, so lets take it a step further - would it be true to say that anything that happens during subduing the suspect that is life threatening to the suspect will be ignored until the process of subduing the suspect is complete?
Your question is a hypothetical that cannot be answered.
When analyzing the legal amounts of force used, you have to exam the totality of the circumstances surrounding the event in which they were used. This is why cases go before a GJ and ultimately trial.
My blood pressure is fine, thank you. I can breathe easily, my heart rate is low, my weight and cholesterol are well within bounds, and I don't put myself in positions where I'm going to be arrested and taken down for resisting arrest.
I also don't back off of doing the right thing when called upon to do it.
I have faith in our criminal justice system, because I believe most people - unlike you - aren't that stupid as to not understand jury instructions and most people - unlike you - are not so cowardly as to be "browbeaten" into a miscarriage of justice by a DA "being mean" to them.
You're asking stupid questions, setting up ridiculous situations, and not going by the actual facts presented to the Grand Jury.
No damned wonder OH went for Hussein twice. Hell, you're probably union, too.
At the end of the day I can converse with someone without going on a insult filled rant.
So if you ran a department you would make the policy that if, during a lawful arrest, there would be certain things that the suspect could say or do, and the arresting officer would have to let them up and make sure they are okay?
Because that is literally what you are saying here.
ok, so lets take it a step further - would it be true to say that anything that happens during subduing the suspect that is life threatening to the suspect will be ignored until the process of subduing the suspect is complete?
Your question is a hypothetical that cannot be answered.
When analyzing the legal amounts of force used, you have to exam the totality of the circumstances surrounding the event in which they were used. This is why cases go before a GJ and ultimately trial.
Travis
well I guess my focus isn't on the choke hold - although I do believe it contributed to the heart attack. I was just wondering if from the time the cops decide to take the guy down to where they have the cuffs on him is there anything he can say or do that is going to have them say "whoa - hold on a minute".
ok, so lets take it a step further - would it be true to say that anything that happens during subduing the suspect that is life threatening to the suspect will be ignored until the process of subduing the suspect is complete?
Your question is a hypothetical that cannot be answered.
When analyzing the legal amounts of force used, you have to exam the totality of the circumstances surrounding the event in which they were used. This is why cases go before a GJ and ultimately trial.
Travis
well I guess my focus isn't on the choke hold - although I do believe it contributed to the heart attack. I was just wondering if from the time the cops decide to take the guy down to where they have the cuffs on him is there anything he can say or do that is going to have them say "whoa - hold on a minute".
No. If you think - or get someone to do it for you - you'd understand why.
well I guess my focus isn't on the choke hold - although I do believe it contributed to the heart attack. I was just wondering if from the time the cops decide to take the guy down to where they have the cuffs on him is there anything he can say or do that is going to have them say "whoa - hold on a minute".
You're asking a hypothetical that cannot be answered.
I was just wondering if from the time the cops decide to take the guy down to where they have the cuffs on him is there anything he can say or do that is going to have them say "whoa - hold on a minute".
Usually, "I think I just schit myself." would cause me to back off a little.
So if you ran a department you would make the policy that if, during a lawful arrest, there would be certain things that the suspect could say or do, and the arresting officer would have to let them up and make sure they are okay?
Because that is literally what you are saying here.
honestly I don't know. it wouldn't even matter lawful or unlawful - its about the process of subduing the suspect.
clearly no one intended to put that man in a position where he had a heart attack, but homicide isn't defined by intent, but actions or lack of actions
So do you have a policy that says once we are in the process of subduing you and until you are subdued, whatever is happening to you is irrelevant?
We had a young officer once. Worked for us for about 6 months. Responded to a domestic, started fighting with the aggressor because he failed to comply with orders. Jake took him to the ground, and a few seconds later we heard please I can't breathe, I need help. Jake got up off of him and seconds later a shot rang out. That gunshot came from a 2 inch 357 that the suspect had stuffed in the front of his jeans. That shot entered under Jake's vest and severed his spinal chord...he schits and pisses in a bag, and lives in a wheelchair now.
ok, so lets take it a step further - would it be true to say that anything that happens during subduing the suspect that is life threatening to the suspect will be ignored until the process of subduing the suspect is complete?
Your question is a hypothetical that cannot be answered.
When analyzing the legal amounts of force used, you have to exam the totality of the circumstances surrounding the event in which they were used. This is why cases go before a GJ and ultimately trial.
Travis
well I guess my focus isn't on the choke hold - although I do believe it contributed to the heart attack. I was just wondering if from the time the cops decide to take the guy down to where they have the cuffs on him is there anything he can say or do that is going to have them say "whoa - hold on a minute".
No. If you think - or get someone to do it for you - you'd understand why.
keep trying, you're almost to the point where adults talk to each other.
So do you have a policy that says once we are in the process of subduing you and until you are subdued, whatever is happening to you is irrelevant your fault for not complying with instructions?
We had a young officer once. Worked for us for about 6 months. Responded to a domestic, started fighting with the aggressor because he failed to comply with orders. Jake took him to the ground, and a few seconds later we heard please I can't breathe, I need help. Jake got up off of him and seconds later a shot rang out. That gunshot came from a 2 inch 357 that the suspect had stuffed in the front of his jeans. That shot entered under Jake's vest and severed his spinal chord...he schits and pisses in a bag, and lives in a wheelchair now.
yes, I read that before and its a cautionary tale for the subduing of suspects.
honestly I don't know. it wouldn't even matter lawful or unlawful - its about the process of subduing the suspect.
clearly no one intended to put that man in a position where he had a heart attack, but homicide isn't defined by intent, but actions or lack of actions
So do you have a policy that says once we are in the process of subduing you and until you are subdued, whatever is happening to you is irrelevant?
its a tough call in my mind.
A jury, lawyers, and judges only want to hear facts. Not conclusions. Only facts.
They use those facts to determine if an officer acted reasonably.
And yes it can be a tough call. That's why after those calls are made, a jury of your peers analyze them to determine if you conducted yourself in accordance of the law and acted reasonably.
Hypotheticals and pre-drawn conclusions have no place in a courtroom. That's why it's a beautiful, wonderful, warm, loving place of wonderfulness.
So if you ran a department you would make the policy that if, during a lawful arrest, there would be certain things that the suspect could say or do, and the arresting officer would have to let them up and make sure they are okay?
Because that is literally what you are saying here.
honestly I don't know. it wouldn't even matter lawful or unlawful - its about the process of subduing the suspect.
clearly no one intended to put that man in a position where he had a heart attack, but homicide isn't defined by intent, but actions or lack of actions
So do you have a policy that says once we are in the process of subduing you and until you are subdued, whatever is happening to you is irrelevant?
its a tough call in my mind.
I didn't say that what happens to them is irrelevant, I am saying what they say is irrelevant. Obviously each situation is different, and the arresting officer is the one that makes the call in the moment. So in some instances the officer may let them up or change his tactics, however I think in general that would be a bad choice. see above
So do you have a policy that says once we are in the process of subduing you and until you are subdued, whatever is happening to you is irrelevant your fault for not complying with instructions?
fixed
He's not very smart.
Hmmmm....
If a criminal is being arrested and is resisting, why is that? Well, because they don't want to be arrested (that's the purpose of the resistance). So, what do they want the arresting officer to do? Well, 1) stop arresting them; or 2) back off enough so that the criminal can get away; or 3) back off enough so that the criminal can beat the cop; or 4) back off enough so the criminal can kill the cop.
So, explain to me why the cop who is conducting a lawful arrest on a person who is violently, physically resisting said arrest is going to back off that arrest until the criminal is subdued and the arrest is complete.
So do you have a policy that says once we are in the process of subduing you and until you are subdued, whatever is happening to you is irrelevant your fault for not complying with instructions?
fixed
that's a pretty steep price to pay for not wanting to be arrested, even for the 32nd time.
It's obvious the chokehold didn't kill him. It lasted 15 seconds by my count. I think the big boy got so worked up that his heart simply gave out. I can't see how anyone could be indicted in this case. The GJ got it right.
Although given your past rationalizations and illogical arguments on myriad subjects is suspect (at least in my opinion which is all that matters), I agree with your assessment. But that was not my point. What is being FED to the unwashed and stupid (Gruber was right) is the video and when I man on the ground says "I can't breave (sic)", he dies AND, AND the Coroner rules it a homicide, what else can we expect. Hell, even our resident "so called" moderates and kooks are hanging the cop. Which BTW, just for violating Dept Policy and all the issues he's caused, I'd fire his ass.
Jorge I think you are getting hung up on the use of the word Homicide. In the Mike Brown case there was a clear homicide... but it was not criminal. In this case there was a homicide because they attributed the actions of the police during a legal arrest as contributory to the heart attack.
The ME does not decide what constitutes a non-criminal homicide, just what caused the death. The GJ determined the homicide was non-criminal. art
I've got a basic question. I only watched the vid once, so bear with me if I'm off base relative to the incident.
If an officer tells me that I'm under arrest and to put my hands behind my back and I don't immediately comply (I'm mean within a second) am I resisting arrest?
Garner certainly wasn't getting violent and was merely acting incredulous. The guy grabbing him from behind didn't seem to give him much time to comply.
As to the fact that he said he couldn't breath, pretty clear that he was in considerable distress and felt as though he couldn't due to the fact that he died moments later.
IMHO the cops over reacted. And FWIW, I generally support cops.
honestly I don't know. it wouldn't even matter lawful or unlawful - its about the process of subduing the suspect.
clearly no one intended to put that man in a position where he had a heart attack, but homicide isn't defined by intent, but actions or lack of actions
So do you have a policy that says once we are in the process of subduing you and until you are subdued, whatever is happening to you is irrelevant?
its a tough call in my mind.
A jury, lawyers, and judges only want to hear facts. Not conclusions. Only facts.
They use those facts to determine if an officer acted reasonably.
And yes it can be a tough call. That's why after those calls are made, a jury of your peers analyze them to determine if you conducted yourself in accordance of the law and acted reasonably.
Hypotheticals and pre-drawn conclusions have no place in a courtroom. That's why it's a beautiful, wonderful, warm, loving place of wonderfulness.
Travis
Travis,
Remember, she was on a Grand Jury once and they voted. Then, the mean old prosecutor made them rethink their vote, twice. Instead of being done with their civic duty and having the balls to stand by their vote, she and the others caved in, committed a miscarriage of justice, and then just gave the DA whatever they asked for.
Cowards don't care about facts or evidence; they just want to be left alone.
So do you have a policy that says once we are in the process of subduing you and until you are subdued, whatever is happening to you is irrelevant your fault for not complying with instructions?
fixed
that's a pretty steep price to pay for not wanting to be arrested, even for the 32nd time.
but homicide isn't defined by intent, but actions or lack of actions
Soooooo....why exactly do we have First Degree Homicide, Second Degree Homicide, Manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter etc etc....?
as I understand it
Homicide is the generic term to describe when one person kills another person, regardless if it was intentional, unintentional, pre-meditated or not-pre-meditated. Murder, however, deals with the malicious intent to commit a killing.
When in high school i was boxing/wrestling with a good friend. Joe out weighted me by at least 150 pounds. I got in a lucky hit on his breast bone and he fell,started saying he couldn't breathe.
Being concerned i got off him and helped him up. what happened next was he hit me and i think i lost breath for quite a while. And he clobbered me real good.
I don't blame him for tricking me,i learned a lesson. Could the same thing have happened with the cops in NY?
Remember, she was on a Grand Jury once and they voted. Then, the mean old prosecutor made them rethink their vote, twice. Instead of being done with their civic duty and having the balls to stand by their vote, she and the others caved in, committed a miscarriage of justice, and then just gave the DA whatever they asked for.
Cowards don't care about facts or evidence; they just want to be left alone.
That may be. I was only trying to add to the discussion for those who may be confused about why there was no indictment in this case.
but homicide isn't defined by intent, but actions or lack of actions
Soooooo....why exactly do we have First Degree Homicide, Second Degree Homicide, Manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter etc etc....?
as I understand it
Homicide is the generic term to describe when one person kills another person, regardless if it was intentional, unintentional, pre-meditated or not-pre-meditated. Murder, however, deals with the malicious intent to commit a killing.
I've got a basic question. I only watched the vid once, so bear with me if I'm off base relative to the incident.
If an officer tells me that I'm under arrest and to put my hands behind my back and I don't immediately (I'm mean within a second) am I resisting arrest?
Garner certainly wasn't getting violent and was merely acting incredulous. The guy grabbing him from behind didn't seem to give him much time to comply.
As to the fact that he said he couldn't breath, pretty clear that he was in considerable distress and felt as though he couldn't due to the fact that he died moments later.
IMHO the cops over reacted. And FWIW, I generally support cops.
Correct he was not violent but he was pulling away and resisting none the less. Had the officers continued to try to make the arrest without using force he could have easily turned violent. They made a decision based on their experience as police officers, I can't condemn them for that.
All homicides mean a killing. All murders are homicides,not all homicides are murders. People die every day of sudden exertions. High School football players do. Undiagnosed condition of some sort. If one has ever had to take down a full grown man esprcially one the size of Garner, they would know just how difficult it is to do if they ain't cooperating. Someone somewhere is going to die from that encounter and nobody can make the call as to which one. It all comes down to legality.
KWFA, Since we are not the GJ, I will offer my conjecture.
You are blaming the cops, when the medics are the ones that were "let go".
So, let go of your hate, and resort to the duck theory.
There you may find the reason for the death......
And for the record, I was a medic as well.
its not hate - if that was the case, I'd have a problem with Wilson in Ferguson - and I don't think Wilson should have even gone to the Grand Jury.
I'm not arguing the arrest or the cops taking him down - I just have a problem with the I can't breathe part, even understanding that cops see this frequently from people complaining about cuffs to tight or whatever.
If an officer tells me that I'm under arrest and to put my hands behind my back and I don't immediately comply (I'm mean within a second) am I resisting arrest?
There is no time limit.
Again. The totality of the circumstances would all be weighed to determine whether the officer's actions were reasonable, or if they were unreasonable.
The video does not tell the whole story by any means but most Use of Force Instructors would raise an eyebrow at how that arrest was handled. Not saying it was wrong, as I don't know all the evidence of the case. But it is certainly questionable.
but homicide isn't defined by intent, but actions or lack of actions
Soooooo....why exactly do we have First Degree Homicide, Second Degree Homicide, Manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter etc etc....?
as I understand it
Homicide is the generic term to describe when one person kills another person, regardless if it was intentional, unintentional, pre-meditated or not-pre-meditated. Murder, however, deals with the malicious intent to commit a killing.
As hard as you may find it to believe, besides assault, theft, and all other forms of malfeasance, sometimes these people lie ...even under duress.
Hell, my daughters at two years old would say that had to go to the bathroom every time they got in trouble because they didn't want to sit in timeout or in there room ect...
As hard as you may find it to believe, besides assault, theft, and all other forms of malfeasance, sometimes these people lie ...even under duress.
I understand what you are saying.
No, I have no desire to spend some time on the street.
However, for those that do, I believe there is an expectation that they prioritize the safety and well being of the public at large, even those they are subduing, especially in the context of a petty crime being committed and a non-violent resist to arrest.
Had this guy had a gun or knife and was waving it around like a lunatic, OK, the knee to neck stays and he could be speaking in tongues for all I care - the expectation is he is going down and likely hard - a petty criminal selling cigarettes on the street in a non violent arrest? I dunno.
I guess it boils down to - is everyone you encounter as a cop a threat? Did Garner die because he was perceived as a threat? Did his actions merit his pleas to be ignored?
Oh, I get it art, but "homicide" as a stand alone is fodder for the masses, hence it goes to the locus of my opinion. I ain't losing sleep over this guy...
Fact is they didn't know if he had a gun or a knife, no way to know that. So you have to treat it like he does, in that case the safest thing is to subdue the suspect as quickly as possible and sort things out after that.
If he did have a gun or a knife, which they couldn't have known, his resisting 'non-violently' could have been a way to gain access to said weapon.
As to the question is every one a cop encounters a threat the answer is no. However every suspect, traffic stop, and interaction is a potential threat, and when someone starts resisting at that point it escalates to a threat.
I guess it boils down to - is everyone you encounter as a cop a threat? Did Garner die because he was perceived as a threat?
To be succinct. Yes. And Garner, having 31 priors, would be known to most cops in the area, and you could pretty well guess things aren't gonna go smooth for #32 Oh, and for his actions to negate his pleas...another Yes.
When I do a ride-along with one of our K9 guys, what absolutely scares the schitt out of me the most is a basic traffic stop.
If you did have a desire to spend time on the street, you'd understand why.
When someone resists arrest, you need to use what is necessary and reasonable to subdue them. Garner had been arrested many times. HE chose to resist arrest. Nobody could make the call what would happen once he chose that course. You end it as quickly as possible.
As hard as you may find it to believe, besides assault, theft, and all other forms of malfeasance, sometimes these people lie ...even under duress.
I understand what you are saying.
No, I have no desire to spend some time on the street.
However, for those that do, I believe there is an expectation that they prioritize the safety and well being of the public at large, even those they are subduing, especially in the context of a petty crime being committed and a non-violent resist to arrest.
Had this guy had a gun or knife and was waving it around like a lunatic, OK, the knee to neck stays and he could be speaking in tongues for all I care - the expectation is he is going down and likely hard - a petty criminal selling cigarettes on the street in a non violent arrest? I dunno.
I guess it boils down to - is everyone you encounter as a cop a threat? Did Garner die because he was perceived as a threat? Did his actions merit his pleas to be ignored?
Garner died:
1) because he was morbidly obese with compounding health issues; 2) he resisted arrest, which resulted in severe physical exertion and some degree of restraint.
Neither, alone, would have been enough at that time. Together, they led to a fatal encounter.
Now, he could have lost weight and taken care of himself, or he could have not resisted arrest. Either would have negated the fatal outcome.
what bothers me isn't the choke hold, its the man telling them he can't breathe - like 9 times?
Exactly. That's the main thing here. Someone you're on top of says he can't breathe, the first thing a reasonable person does (who doesn't have malevolent intentions) is get off and see if he's for real, and if so, get him medical attention. You don't stay on top of him. Big deal if it turns out he was faking. If he was faking, and starts to try to fight again, you get back on him and get the cuffs on. You can't just assume that an arrestee is faking if he's saying he can't breathe, no matter how many times you think you've been faked out that way in the past.
what bothers me isn't the choke hold, its the man telling them he can't breathe - like 9 times?
at what point do, you know, actually care that the guy might be in distress and its more important that he live than it is to keep your knee on his neck?
if there was video of me - not as a cop but as a man, lets say Garner was threatening me - not life threatening but general mouthing off and I made the decision to take him down, I had him subdued - and he told me 9 times he couldn't breathe - my ass would be in jail.
and throw in on top of it, there is a police policy against a choke hold or attempting to use a choke hold.
I think this cop needs to go to trial. I didn't think that about Wilson or George Zimmerman
also, I don't claim to be an expert on grand jury's but I can tell you that if you don't have a strong willed foreman on the jury or a group of people willing to confront authority, then they are mostly a rubber stamp for whatever the D.A. is pitching - innocent or guilty.
What do you suppose was going over his vocal chords to create the sound of Garner saying he couldn't breathe? Unicorn farts?
what bothers me isn't the choke hold, its the man telling them he can't breathe - like 9 times?
at what point do, you know, actually care that the guy might be in distress and its more important that he live than it is to keep your knee on his neck?
if there was video of me - not as a cop but as a man, lets say Garner was threatening me - not life threatening but general mouthing off and I made the decision to take him down, I had him subdued - and he told me 9 times he couldn't breathe - my ass would be in jail.
and throw in on top of it, there is a police policy against a choke hold or attempting to use a choke hold.
I think this cop needs to go to trial. I didn't think that about Wilson or George Zimmerman
also, I don't claim to be an expert on grand jury's but I can tell you that if you don't have a strong willed foreman on the jury or a group of people willing to confront authority, then they are mostly a rubber stamp for whatever the D.A. is pitching - innocent or guilty.
What do you suppose was going over his vocal chords to create the sound of Garner saying he couldn't breathe? Unicorn farts?
I would think you don't have to take it literally . I could understand that he was having trouble breathing, not the complete lack of oxygen entering his lungs.
but homicide isn't defined by intent, but actions or lack of actions
Soooooo....why exactly do we have First Degree Homicide, Second Degree Homicide, Manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter etc etc....?
as I understand it
Homicide is the generic term to describe when one person kills another person, regardless if it was intentional, unintentional, pre-meditated or not-pre-meditated. Murder, however, deals with the malicious intent to commit a killing.
The "can't breeve" fat guy, "gentle giant", and Trayvon Martin all have one theme that binds them. And no, it's NOT their skin color... The simple fact is that none of these guys would have died if they had chosen to NOT let the attitude of thug culture rule them.
When confronted, we have a choice and have control over our response and actions.
If you really believe LEO is doing you wrong, one has the option of complaining later to the correct authority. However, choosing to resist and/or fight with LEO's will NEVER end well.
It's rare that someone ends up dead through resisting arrest, but extra charges are a certainty......who needs that?
I've never dealt with a cop over anything more than a traffic violation, but being pulled over is definitely an annoyance. My gut reaction is probably familiar to anyone who has ever been pulled over, "GFY! I don't need this sheit! Shouldn't you be spending time on real crimes instead of hassling folks going a couple miles over the posted speed limit???"
Ultimately I know if I want it over quickly, easily and as painlessly as possible, a smile and attitude adjustment 180 degrees from my "gut response" is my best path to being back on my way.
Angry, bad attitude, and belligerence certainly makes for "tough guy" imagery as depicted in movies and rap music... but real life isn't scripted that way! In real life, you take this attitude with a LEO in the performance of his/her job and you're going to lose! ALWAYS!
Of course it's the cops fault that a morbidly obese dude with potential medical problems decided to tussle. They should've had him fill out a questionnaire first.
Nobody's responsible for themselves as long as there's a cop nearby to blame.
yea ....a guy needs to be in shape to be taken down by .gov ....its 100% his fault, that a pile of dudes was monkey piling him...
Even though Garner didn't have a gun or a knife, anytime an officer is dealing with someone who is resisting arrest, they need to make doubly damn sure their weapon isn't wrested from them. And the only way to make sure if that is to keep the suspect firmly in control until they are cuffed and stuffed.
It ain't romper room, some guy resists arrest and things start going South in a hurry. Sometimes cops get killed in those situations, sometimes perps get killed in those situations, sometimes innocent bystanders get killed in those situations.
It was unfortunate that Mr. Garner died, however he was the one that could have prevented the outcome of the situation, and ultimately he was the one that caused the outcome of the situation.
Sometimes being a dumbazz or a smartazz has serious consequences. In this case there are a whole lot of people that are going to suffer due to Mr. Garner's actions.
No, because the cops are trained to not listen to those pleas as it will get them hurt or worse more often than not.
No one forces you to take a job you think is too dangerous to do without killing folks needlessly in the street.
So in your world ANY suspect who the police are attempting to detain, can make all officers stop trying to detain them by yelling I can't breeve, or ouch my arm hurts, etc... and those officers need to let him up to see if he is okay before proceeding to subdue that person?
And if the cops can't deal with that then there shouldn't be any cops.
Maybe you should stop showering if you so fugging scared you need a vacuum sealed gun in there with you.
what bothers me isn't the choke hold, its the man telling them he can't breathe - like 9 times?
Exactly. That's the main thing here. Someone you're on top of says he can't breathe, the first thing a reasonable person does (who doesn't have malevolent intentions) is get off and see if he's for real, and if so, get him medical attention. You don't stay on top of him. Big deal if it turns out he was faking. If he was faking, and starts to try to fight again, you get back on him and get the cuffs on. You can't just assume that an arrestee is faking if he's saying he can't breathe, no matter how many times you think you've been faked out that way in the past.
Please cite your experience with police training techniques
And no, it's NOT their skin color... The simple fact is that none of these guys would have died if they had chosen to NOT let the attitude of thug culture rule them.
When confronted, we have a choice and have control over our response and actions.
If you want to take this a step further, both of these "brave souls" had problems with authority. Obey the law and live, screw with the law and what do you expect??
So do you have a policy that says once we are in the process of subduing you and until you are subdued, whatever is happening to you is irrelevant your fault for not complying with instructions?
fixed
that's a pretty steep price to pay for not wanting to be arrested, even for the 32nd time.
It's not like he was sentenced to death. Nobody said the price he should pay is death. But how do you assess somebody who doesn't understand, can't figure out or just doesn't care that he will not get out of being arrested. All he can do is choose to make it harder on himself, yet that is the choice he decides on.
I guess it boils down to - is everyone you encounter as a cop a threat? Did Garner die because he was perceived as a threat?
To be succinct. Yes. And Garner, having 31 priors, would be known to most cops in the area, and you could pretty well guess things aren't gonna go smooth for #32 Oh, and for his actions to negate his pleas...another Yes.
When I do a ride-along with one of our K9 guys, what absolutely scares the schitt out of me the most is a basic traffic stop.
If you did have a desire to spend time on the street, you'd understand why.
and that, is a very true statement, you just don't know what is in that car. I remember this little ol man, and he was that, that was about 2/3rds crazy, particularly when drinking. It took two or three guys to get him cuffed. Course in those days you didn't have the second guessing you do today. Must of looked funny watching it, but he was a serious threat. a 350 pound man is a serious threat.
And no, it's NOT their skin color... The simple fact is that none of these guys would have died if they had chosen to NOT let the attitude of thug culture rule them.
When confronted, we have a choice and have control over our response and actions.
If you want to take this a step further, both of these "brave souls" had problems with authority. Obey the law and live, screw with the law and what do you expect??
Those drawing an equivalency between the two cases are entirely off base, IMO. In Ferguson you had a guy who was being aggressive in the extreme and the cop was alone. Here the guy just basically went down and complained he couldn't breathe, with lots of fellow cops there to assist. Night and day.
And no, it's NOT their skin color... The simple fact is that none of these guys would have died if they had chosen to NOT let the attitude of thug culture rule them.
When confronted, we have a choice and have control over our response and actions.
If you want to take this a step further, both of these "brave souls" had problems with authority. Obey the law and live, screw with the law and what do you expect??
Those drawing an equivalency between the two cases are entirely off base, IMO. In Ferguson you had a guy who was being aggressive in the extreme and the cop was alone. Here the guy just basically went down and complained he couldn't breathe, with lots of fellow cops there to assist. Night and day.
He still thought he was above being arrested and DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE POLICE ORDER TO SUBMIT.
He still thought he was above being arrested and DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE POLICE ORDER TO SUBMIT.
Granted. The cops couldn't just leave. They had a duty to arrest. The main problem I have is what they did (and failed to do) after he was complaining about not being able to breath. At least get off and check the guy. Cops, it seems, just assume that every time someone complains of medical issues during an arrest, the arrestee is faking it. You can't assume that. It might increase danger to cops to check, but that's not avoidable.
And no, it's NOT their skin color... The simple fact is that none of these guys would have died if they had chosen to NOT let the attitude of thug culture rule them.
When confronted, we have a choice and have control over our response and actions.
If you want to take this a step further, both of these "brave souls" had problems with authority. Obey the law and live, screw with the law and what do you expect??
Those drawing an equivalency between the two cases are entirely off base, IMO. In Ferguson you had a guy who was being aggressive in the extreme and the cop was alone. Here the guy just basically went down and complained he couldn't breathe, with lots of fellow cops there to assist. Night and day.
He didn't just "went down". He was forcefully taken down bcause he was resisting arrest.
I'll ask again. Please cite the experience you have in police training that grants you expert status....
I don't see the need for policy changes. There's enough brouhaha as it is. I wouldn't want to see LEOs become apprehensive about doing their job when confronting a criminal.
I just wonder if all this national attention is going to result in policy change?
Police policy is a state and local issue but a national outcry across the nation might lead to some federal guidelines tied to funding.
Travis
What policy do you want changed?
I'm not sure I want anything changed - but I don't represent the people that are demonstrating and rioting every time one of them dies at the hands of a policeman
I just wonder if all this national attention is going to result in policy change?
Police policy is a state and local issue but a national outcry across the nation might lead to some federal guidelines tied to funding.
Travis
What policy do you want changed?
I'm not sure I want anything changed - but I don't represent the people that are demonstrating and rioting every time one of them dies at the hands of a policeman
I suspect that if me and Brown got in a scuffle and I did exactly what the cop did,I'd be indicted when Brown died. In fact, any cop on this forum would have arrested me and testified against me.
I suspect that if me and Brown got in a scuffle and I did exactly what the cop did,I'd be indicted when Brown died. In fact, any cop on this forum would have arrested me and testified against me.
It's just the way things work.
Hint 1: no "Brown" was involved. Hint 2: you weren't executing a lawful arrest. Hint 3: you didn't call paramedics after completing that lawful arrest.
I'll ask again. Please cite the experience you have in police training that grants you expert status....
Gitem: he didn't make it into the Academy...which is why he has such a case of the ass towards cops.
Then he certainly wasn't trying hard enough. I'm sure all he would have had to do is make more applications elsewhere. Unless they really do want bottom of the barrel gayem-one-two types.
Isn't it ironic when a cop is accused we need the whole story but when a civilian is accused they're guilty right there. Supposedly there is a 9 minute youtube video where bystanders are asking to have cpr for the guy.
Isn't it ironic when a cop is accused we need the whole story but when a civilian is accused they're guilty right there. Supposedly there is a 9 minute youtube video where bystanders are asking to have cpr for the guy.
I'll ask again. Please cite the experience you have in police training that grants you expert status....
Gitem: he didn't make it into the Academy...which is why he has such a case of the ass towards cops.
IRRC, Hawkeye did a stint as a white-coated thug in a hospital psych ward, so he probably knows a thing or two about getting compliance from the medicated and the helpless.
Isn't it ironic when a cop is accused we need the whole story but when a civilian is accused they're guilty right there. Supposedly there is a 9 minute youtube video where bystanders are asking to have cpr for the guy.
Probably why the EMT's got schitcanned.
Right, and the list of idiots that have joined the mob against police brutality in this case ignore this as much as the Brown Protesters ignored other evidence.
No better in intellect.
Certainly no better in responsibility.
But just as useful from a pawn standpoint as the critical thinkers in the streets.
I'm beginning to liken their actions to a "forum mob"
And they are burning down their own neighborhood with stupidity.
and that may be overkill if we just got to the point where every LEO had a body camera.
I would guess that given the video and all the peripheral information, that Garner's wife is going to get a fat settlement from the City for his death
and as body cameras show more examples of excessive police force (whether you think this was an example of it or not) having it documented is going to ultimately lead to more civil lawsuits that the police pay out (or settle out of court) - which will result in wholesale policy change within a department.
So even if a policeman is justified within the law, if his actions end up costing the city $2m, that will motivate change more than any outcry from the public.
and that may be overkill if we just got to the point where every LEO had a body camera.
I would guess that given the video and all the peripheral information, that Garner's wife is going to get a fat settlement from the City for his death
and as body cameras show more examples of excessive police force (whether you think this was an example of it or not) having it documented is going to ultimately lead to more civil lawsuits that the police pay out (or settle out of court) - which will result in wholesale policy change within a department.
So even if a policeman is justified within the law, if his actions end up costing the city $2m, that will motivate change more than any outcry from the public.
I don't want to sound rude, but you have a lot to learn about the law enforcement business.
I suspect that if me and Garner got in a scuffle and I did exactly what the cop did, I'd be indicted when Garner died.
You can bet on it. And...they would've handcuffed you at the scene and taken your a$$ to jail too.
Well of course they would have. curdog isn't a sworn officer executing a lawful arrest.
Executing a 'lawful' arrest doesn't mean it's OK for the guy to be killed by the arresting officer, especially over the selling of illegal cigarettes. Were those Georgia officers executing a 'lawful' "no-knock" warrant when they threw a flash-bang grenade into the baby's playpen and burned his face off...?
The arresting officer didn't kill him. He died as a result of a myocardial infarction, because he was overweight and he overtaxed his system, and like just about ever member of the Negroid race, I'm sure had high BP, heart disease, diabetes, etc.
and that may be overkill if we just got to the point where every LEO had a body camera.
I would guess that given the video and all the peripheral information, that Garner's wife is going to get a fat settlement from the City for his death
and as body cameras show more examples of excessive police force (whether you think this was an example of it or not) having it documented is going to ultimately lead to more civil lawsuits that the police pay out (or settle out of court) - which will result in wholesale policy change within a department.
So even if a policeman is justified within the law, if his actions end up costing the city $2m, that will motivate change more than any outcry from the public.
I don't want to sound rude, but you have a lot to learn about the law enforcement business.
Travis
rude doesn't bother me but at least take the time to educate me
The arresting officer didn't kill him. He died as a result of a myocardial infarction, because he was overweight and he overtaxed his system, and like just about ever member of the Negroid race, I'm sure had high BP, heart disease, diabetes, etc.
He likely had all of the chronic health problems that you mentioned...but how do you know that his MI wasn't brought on by a diminished amount of oxygen as a result of laryngeal/tracheal swelling resulting from blunt force trauma to that area...?
and that may be overkill if we just got to the point where every LEO had a body camera.
I would guess that given the video and all the peripheral information, that Garner's wife is going to get a fat settlement from the City for his death
and as body cameras show more examples of excessive police force (whether you think this was an example of it or not) having it documented is going to ultimately lead to more civil lawsuits that the police pay out (or settle out of court) - which will result in wholesale policy change within a department.
So even if a policeman is justified within the law, if his actions end up costing the city $2m, that will motivate change more than any outcry from the public.
I don't want to sound rude, but you have a lot to learn about the law enforcement business.
Travis
rude doesn't bother me but at least take the time to educate me
Allow me...my own taxes are maxed out. I don't want to pay for a bunch of damned cameras. Any technology can be gamed and bypassed. This whole thing was already videoed. How in the world do you think there would have been any benefit to having a camera there?
Personally, I HATE cameras. They're already everywhere. If Obama is for them, then there is some twist to it. Hell, if the REPUBLICAN PARTY is for them, there is some twist to it. There almost always is with politicians. Look at Zero Care. Supposed to help poor folks and it ends up costing them more for inferior medical. That's what this would do...somehow.
He likely had all of the chronic health problems that you mentioned...but how do you know that his MI wasn't brought on by a diminished amount of oxygen as a result of laryngeal/tracheal swelling resulting from blunt force trauma to that area...?
How would that alter the findings of the Grand Jury?
and that may be overkill if we just got to the point where every LEO had a body camera.
I would guess that given the video and all the peripheral information, that Garner's wife is going to get a fat settlement from the City for his death
and as body cameras show more examples of excessive police force (whether you think this was an example of it or not) having it documented is going to ultimately lead to more civil lawsuits that the police pay out (or settle out of court) - which will result in wholesale policy change within a department.
So even if a policeman is justified within the law, if his actions end up costing the city $2m, that will motivate change more than any outcry from the public.
I don't want to sound rude, but you have a lot to learn about the law enforcement business.
Travis
rude doesn't bother me but at least take the time to educate me
Allow me...my own taxes are maxed out. I don't want to pay for a bunch of damned cameras. Any technology can be gamed and bypassed. This whole thing was already videoed. How in the world do you think there would have been any benefit to having a camera there?
Personally, I HATE cameras. They're already everywhere. If Obama is for them, then there is some twist to it. Hell, if the REPUBLICAN PARTY is for them, there is some twist to it. There almost always is with politicians. Look at Zero Care. Supposed to help poor folks and it ends up costing them more for inferior medical. That's what this would do...somehow.
Reign the government in and the cops will follow.
well this thing being video taped is kinda the whole point. There is no shortage of people that have responded to this video. On the one hand you have a faction that says you can't tell anything from the short video and on the other hand you have people that are saying this video is all you need to see to know that some change in approach is needed.
As a result of this being video taped, I am pretty certain that this man's wife is going to receive a pretty hefty settlement from the city.
So as a result is stands to reason that if cops wear body cameras (see the case in Rialto, CA) that behavior is modified to reduce complaints against the police and the city at large, and in turn , a reduction in legals fees and civil court findings.
You could even argue its a net savings in the long run.
The second issue is that if cops don't have body camera, you better believe the public at large will have one - and that isn't going to go away in the near future. Of course a camera that doesn't show the whole story is going to have a negative effect on the public at large.
If Darren Wilson had a body camera, you think Ferguson would have burned to the ground and rioting/protests erupted across the United States?
He likely had all of the chronic health problems that you mentioned...but how do you know that his MI wasn't brought on by a diminished amount of oxygen as a result of laryngeal/tracheal swelling resulting from blunt force trauma to that area...?
How would that alter the findings of the Grand Jury? Travis
My guess is, since the autopsy showed no tracheal trauma, the point is moot.
If we want hypothetical, lets also assume one of the cops gave Huey a shocker. How would that affect their decision?
well this thing being video taped is kinda the whole point. There is no shortage of people that have responded to this video. On the one hand you have a faction that says you can't tell anything from the short video and on the other hand you have people that are saying this video is all you need to see to know that some change in approach is needed.
As a result of this being video taped, I am pretty certain that this man's wife is going to receive a pretty hefty settlement from the city.
So as a result is stands to reason that if cops wear body cameras (see the case in Rialto, CA) that behavior is modified to reduce complaints against the police and the city at large, and in turn , a reduction in legals fees and civil court findings.
You could even argue its a net savings in the long run.
The second issue is that if cops don't have body camera, you better believe the public at large will have one - and that isn't going to go away in the near future. Of course a camera that doesn't show the whole story is going to have a negative effect on the public at large.
If Darren Wilson had a body camera, you think Ferguson would burned to the ground right now?
It will not save one penny. It will only consume more tax money.
You could, but you'd be wrong. Did you even read my post?
We don't need more gadgets. Gadgets would not have prevented this. If you had all cops required to be the size of Shaq with the martial arts abilities of Chuck Norris, then you'd have prevented it. I used to work at a place where we had to take folks down with some regularity. Taking somebody down and subduing them, when they are substantially bigger than you, is not easy regardless of your level of training and skills.
The second issue is that if cops don't have body camera, you better believe the public at large will have one - and that isn't going to go away in the near future. Of course a camera that doesn't show the whole story is going to have a negative effect on the public at large.
If Darren Wilson had a body camera, you think Ferguson would have burned to the ground and rioting/protests erupted across the United States?
I think you edited your response after I'd already responded in turn.
Let the public video anything they please. I advocate it. I don't want the government videoing me without my authorization. I don't want to give my tacit authorization by being for these cameras. Most people hate traffic cams, especially if they get ticketed by one. This is more of same.
Ferguson didn't burn to the ground. It's a town of 20,000 people and a dozen businesses burned. That's significant but a far cry from burning to the ground. Secondly, yes I believe that the folks who rioted were looking for an excuse to do so and would have done so regardless of a police-cam video. I am convinced that elements of the government did more than instigate the whole thing anyway.
He likely had all of the chronic health problems that you mentioned...but how do you know that his MI wasn't brought on by a diminished amount of oxygen as a result of laryngeal/tracheal swelling resulting from blunt force trauma to that area...?
How would that alter the findings of the Grand Jury?
It wouldn't. The truth often doesn't matter regarding the findings of a grand jury when police officers kill or maim civilians.
The obama army saw the video of MBrown rough up the store owner and steal the cigars. Yet they deny it happened. How do you deal with people that deny your video?
I don't argue that the people wanted to riot..its a simmering pot waiting to boil in alot of urban areas.
but video tape evidence showing Michael Brown attacking Wilson would have squelched it, it would have prevented Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton from making their march to Ferguson and would have dampened hours of liberal media building up an antagonistic public. For that matter it would have prevented Wilson from even being investigated by a grand jury with led to the build up and justification for the rioting.
and you are already being video taped by cops with dashboard cams, and a good portion of your day in any urban area is being video taped by a number of police accessible cameras - ATM, Security, webcams, etc.,
but the issue is - in the case of Michael Brown, -the actual event wasn't recorded, what was recorded was video of "witnesses" lying about what they saw, police responding in riot gear to "protestors" without any context
That is the danger of just reyling on the public at large.
I spoke to a friend about this 'choke hold' thing. He has decades of experience teaching, and learning about grappling, holds and the like. This is his take.
Quote
Fat black guy in NY?
I've only seen a short video of it.
Looks like one of the poo poo's got a rear naked choke or close variation on the guy, then "rode" him with it while the guy tossed the other cop's around.
A decently applied RNC should bring about nappey time in 5-10 seconds. Variables include size of dude's neck- He seemed to be a BIG boy-, hold well the RNC is applied, etc.
Could be like the Rodney King video- all we saw was the last part of the beatdown, no one videoed nice ole' Rodney on dope beating the hell out of the cops FIRST... So since we did not see the entire thing, it's kinda speculation.
Some notes-
*Yes you continue to hold a choke like that a good while after "dude" goes limp, he can die. It's a choke after all...
*A rear naked choke is a BLOOD choke, it works by compressing the carotid arteries, essentially blocking blood from blood. You first feel slight pressure in your head, eyes tend to narrow (depending on subject), then blackness comes. If the choke is good it can come on relatively quickly. I would guess from just the quick clip I saw, that the choke was not locked up well.
That sort of BLOOD choke can give you the sensation of "I can't breathe" but technically it isn't attacking your airway, but the blood to your brain.
Yet another variable is that with a big ole' head, or a fat guy without much of a neck, or if you are losing the first hold (choking arm), you can often simply transition slightly to an air choke, via using the blade of the forearm to pull into the front of the neck/trachea area.
Like any AIR choke, this causes IMMEDIATE pain and immediate reaction. Like I said at the campout when we taught and demonstrated this- people tend to "fight" more with an air choke. If you want to put them down easy, the blood choke is better IMO.
So...... further complicating things is the fact that "dude" seemed to be about four fifty. Big guys you can't restrain well, arm locks, shoulder locks are usually a waste of time, taking him to ground MAY have been a good choice provided one or more of the officers were truly used to ground work, in other words NOT just the short bit they get in police training. Guys that big usually DON'T move well on the ground unless they train ground fighting- at first glance I'd say very very small chance "dude" was a ground fighter. "The ground is an ocean, We are sharks and most people can't swim" doesn't apply to "dude" I'm afraid.
I have fought with guys damn near that size, at 180'ish. I ALWAYS hunt chokes first on anyone that size and while I'll "play" a little bit with most people I try not to with super huge people. I've had huge guys that could bench press cars with an arm outstretched having them dead to rights with a tight arm bar, or caught in a technically perfect kimura (shoulder lock) that have literally shook me off like a rag doll due to their size/strength. You choke people like that. Why? CAUSE EVERYONE HAS TO BREATHE AND EVERYONE HAS TO HAVE BLOOD TO THEIR BRAIN. Size matters not where oxygen and blood is concerned....
So the cops probably did correct.
If I had to guess, other than seeing another 30 seconds or minute of video where the po po's were maybe holding the RNC AFTER "dude" went out- I would have to guess that due to his gross obesity, dude probably had a heart attack.
There was a story going around at a seminar one time about how "back in the day" some grappler that was 70'ish was practicing blood chokes with another guy. Older guy evidently doesn't tap and takes a quick nap. Partner wakes him up, he's fine. Later that day or next, he dies. Evidently some "plague" in the blood is broken loose during the choke out and supposedly made it to his heart and caused a heart attack. 2nd hand info, take it for what it's worth, seems possible though.
but video tape evidence showing Michael Brown attacking Wilson would have squelched it, it would have prevented Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton from making their march to Ferguson and would have dampened hours of liberal media building up an antagonistic public.
and you are already being video taped by cops with dashboard cams, and a good portion of your day in any urban area is being video taped by a number of police accessible cameras - ATM, Security, webcams, etc.,
but the issue is - in the case of Michael Brown, -the actual event wasn't recorded, what was recorded was video of "witnesses" lying about what they saw, police responding in riot gear to "protestors" without any context
That is the danger of just reyling on the public at large.
Once upon a time there was video of a group of police officers using less lethal force on a subject. The case went to trial.
The jury found all the officers were conducting themselves within the confines of the law and were determined to be not-guilty.
I don't recall the video "squelching" any riots.
Like I stated previously. You have a lot to learn about law enforcement.
If you think video of Michael Browns shooting would have squelched things, you might want to dust the turnip truck dirt off the seat of your pants.
Three investigations, including Holders DOJ could find nothing but a righteous shoot there ( old school terminology) and that didn't squelch things in the least.
Bottom line, they don't care about right or wrong and will seize any excuse, no matter on what thin ice it rests to riot, loot etc.
I think you are naive, and you no doubt think Im cynical-and not without reason. I have spent time on the street, and by your own admission, you have no desire to do so.
but video tape evidence showing Michael Brown attacking Wilson would have squelched it, it would have prevented Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton from making their march to Ferguson and would have dampened hours of liberal media building up an antagonistic public.
and you are already being video taped by cops with dashboard cams, and a good portion of your day in any urban area is being video taped by a number of police accessible cameras - ATM, Security, webcams, etc.,
but the issue is - in the case of Michael Brown, -the actual event wasn't recorded, what was recorded was video of "witnesses" lying about what they saw, police responding in riot gear to "protestors" without any context
That is the danger of just reyling on the public at large.
Once upon a time there was video of a group of police officers using less lethal force on a subject. The case went to trial.
The jury found all the officers were conducting themselves within the confines of the law and were determined to be not-guilty.
I don't recall the video "squelching" any riots.
Like I stated previously. You have a lot to learn about law enforcement.
Travis
umm...was that a police video or was that a public at large video that just showed one segment of the Rodney King arrest?
see Manlichers post above
"Could be like the Rodney King video- all we saw was the last part of the beatdown, no one videoed nice ole' Rodney on dope beating the hell out of the cops FIRST... So since we did not see the entire thing, it's kinda speculation. "
which is why I advocate a cop wearing a body camera - yes, it will alter behavior on some police but it will also protect police and ultimately the citizens and large from outrage against speculation on police brutality
which is why I advocate a cop wearing a body camera - yes, it will alter behavior on some police but it will also protect police and ultimately the citizens and large from outrage against speculation on police brutality
No it won't.
The public will release their video snippet long before the cops get done with their evidence issues, and by then, the rage will be on.
This will be a brief of the most damaging part in edited form. Wholly out of context.
Take for instance the video that TRH posted about the guy getting his rights violated for just videotaping on the street.
Who cares that the guy had a restraining order, and was previously convicted of attempted bombing and murder at the abortion clinic he was taping.
People knee jerk and don't give a schit. No one waits for all the evidence to show.
I spoke to a friend about this 'choke hold' thing. He has decades of experience teaching, and learning about grappling, holds and the like. This is his take.
Quote
Fat black guy in NY?
I've only seen a short video of it.
Looks like one of the poo poo's got a rear naked choke or close variation on the guy, then "rode" him with it while the guy tossed the other cop's around.
A decently applied RNC should bring about nappey time in 5-10 seconds. Variables include size of dude's neck- He seemed to be a BIG boy-, hold well the RNC is applied, etc.
Could be like the Rodney King video- all we saw was the last part of the beatdown, no one videoed nice ole' Rodney on dope beating the hell out of the cops FIRST... So since we did not see the entire thing, it's kinda speculation.
Some notes-
*Yes you continue to hold a choke like that a good while after "dude" goes limp, he can die. It's a choke after all...
*A rear naked choke is a BLOOD choke, it works by compressing the carotid arteries, essentially blocking blood from blood. You first feel slight pressure in your head, eyes tend to narrow (depending on subject), then blackness comes. If the choke is good it can come on relatively quickly. I would guess from just the quick clip I saw, that the choke was not locked up well.
That sort of BLOOD choke can give you the sensation of "I can't breathe" but technically it isn't attacking your airway, but the blood to your brain.
Yet another variable is that with a big ole' head, or a fat guy without much of a neck, or if you are losing the first hold (choking arm), you can often simply transition slightly to an air choke, via using the blade of the forearm to pull into the front of the neck/trachea area.
Like any AIR choke, this causes IMMEDIATE pain and immediate reaction. Like I said at the campout when we taught and demonstrated this- people tend to "fight" more with an air choke. If you want to put them down easy, the blood choke is better IMO.
So...... further complicating things is the fact that "dude" seemed to be about four fifty. Big guys you can't restrain well, arm locks, shoulder locks are usually a waste of time, taking him to ground MAY have been a good choice provided one or more of the officers were truly used to ground work, in other words NOT just the short bit they get in police training. Guys that big usually DON'T move well on the ground unless they train ground fighting- at first glance I'd say very very small chance "dude" was a ground fighter. "The ground is an ocean, We are sharks and most people can't swim" doesn't apply to "dude" I'm afraid.
I have fought with guys damn near that size, at 180'ish. I ALWAYS hunt chokes first on anyone that size and while I'll "play" a little bit with most people I try not to with super huge people. I've had huge guys that could bench press cars with an arm outstretched having them dead to rights with a tight arm bar, or caught in a technically perfect kimura (shoulder lock) that have literally shook me off like a rag doll due to their size/strength. You choke people like that. Why? CAUSE EVERYONE HAS TO BREATHE AND EVERYONE HAS TO HAVE BLOOD TO THEIR BRAIN. Size matters not where oxygen and blood is concerned....
So the cops probably did correct.
If I had to guess, other than seeing another 30 seconds or minute of video where the po po's were maybe holding the RNC AFTER "dude" went out- I would have to guess that due to his gross obesity, dude probably had a heart attack.
There was a story going around at a seminar one time about how "back in the day" some grappler that was 70'ish was practicing blood chokes with another guy. Older guy evidently doesn't tap and takes a quick nap. Partner wakes him up, he's fine. Later that day or next, he dies. Evidently some "plague" in the blood is broken loose during the choke out and supposedly made it to his heart and caused a heart attack. 2nd hand info, take it for what it's worth, seems possible though.
The facts surrounding choke holds are all common knowledge to anybody in law enforcement that has a brain.
Which is about 8% of law enforcement.
But American society and facts do not mesh very well.
If you think video of Michael Browns shooting would have squelched things, you might want to dust the turnip truck dirt off the seat of your pants.
Three investigations, including Holders DOJ could find nothing but a righteous shoot there ( old school terminology) and that didn't squelch things in the least.
Bottom line, they don't care about right or wrong and will seize any excuse, no matter on what thin ice it rests to riot, loot etc.
I think you are naive, and you no doubt think Im cynical-and not without reason. I have spent time on the street, and by your own admission, you have no desire to do so.
but what incited the people? eye "witness" testimony.
What would have instantly refuted eye witness testimony?
which is why I advocate a cop wearing a body camera - yes, it will alter behavior on some police but it will also protect police and ultimately the citizens and large from outrage against speculation on police brutality
The president (who incidentally, has also never arrested anybody in his life) agrees with you.
I believe video of baby huey in Ferguson was released shortly after the incident, which showed him beating the [bleep] out of store owner.
Sure stopped a lot of supposedly level headed folks from coming out to be civilly disobedient...
I just don't see how that is relevant though. Yes, it confirms he was a bad guy but it doesn't show that he'd resist arrest when a gun is pointed at him.
but what incited the people? eye "witness" testimony.
What would have instantly refuted eye witness testimony?
Video tape of the event.
Again...you are not dealing with normal, rational people here. You are dealing with folks that don't care a whit about the facts...even if shown them graphically. You are dealing with people who will seize any excuse to grind their axe. You give them wayyyy too much credit.
I believe video of baby huey in Ferguson was released shortly after the incident, which showed him beating the [bleep] out of store owner.
Sure stopped a lot of supposedly level headed folks from coming out to be civilly disobedient...
I just don't see how that is relevant though. Yes, it confirms he was a bad guy but it doesn't show that he'd resist arrest when a gun is pointed at him.
Video of the event is what is needed.
It's relevant that it casts doubt on the narrative that he was simply a peaceful gentle giant that was minding his own business, AKA, the narrative that "started it all".
If you think video of Michael Browns shooting would have squelched things, you might want to dust the turnip truck dirt off the seat of your pants.
Three investigations, including Holders DOJ could find nothing but a righteous shoot there ( old school terminology) and that didn't squelch things in the least.
Bottom line, they don't care about right or wrong and will seize any excuse, no matter on what thin ice it rests to riot, loot etc.
I think you are naive, and you no doubt think Im cynical-and not without reason. I have spent time on the street, and by your own admission, you have no desire to do so.
but what incited the people? eye "witness" testimony.
What would have instantly refuted eye witness testimony?
Video tape of the event.
What eye witness testimony? That of the people that said Brown charged the cop and the cop shot him?
I've been in many situations where objective evidence was either ignored or twisted around to make it fit whomever is arguing for whatever. Cameras, tape recorders, etc. won't make a significant difference.
I'm long past caring who shares or doesn't share my opinion.
I form my own opinions.
This is by now painfully obvious. We all do. Some of us just base them on facts and reality, instead of what we wished the world would be.
so you're opinion on whether video tape of an event would have changed anything is a fact but my opinion isn't?
is that how it works?
You are getting warm. Considering none of the other irrefutable facts presented to the mob changed their minds about rioting...Im making an educated, and calculated guess. Call me whimsical.
I believe video of baby huey in Ferguson was released shortly after the incident, which showed him beating the [bleep] out of store owner.
Sure stopped a lot of supposedly level headed folks from coming out to be civilly disobedient...
I just don't see how that is relevant though. Yes, it confirms he was a bad guy but it doesn't show that he'd resist arrest when a gun is pointed at him.
Video of the event is what is needed.
It's relevant that it casts doubt on the narrative that he was simply a peaceful gentle giant that was minding his own business, AKA, the narrative that "started it all".
I don't think that was the narrative that started it all. The narrative that started is all was an eye witnes who started "don't shoot ,hands up" which was a lie and would have been refuted by video tape of the event.
The gentle giant was a persona started by the media.
I'm long past caring who shares or doesn't share my opinion.
I form my own opinions.
This is by now painfully obvious. We all do. Some of us just base them on facts and reality, instead of what we wished the world would be.
so you're opinion on whether video tape of an event would have changed anything is a fact but my opinion isn't?
is that how it works?
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Nowadays...and maybe it's always been this way, it seems as if much of the time people form their own opinions and then use facts, fictions, whatever to defend them, rather than gathering information and basing their opinion on that. The subjective wins out much of the time.
Allow me...my own taxes are maxed out. I don't want to pay for a bunch of damned cameras. Any technology can be gamed and bypassed. This whole thing was already videoed. How in the world do you think there would have been any benefit to having a camera there?
Personally, I HATE cameras. They're already everywhere. If Obama is for them, then there is some twist to it. Hell, if the REPUBLICAN PARTY is for them, there is some twist to it. There almost always is with politicians. Look at Zero Care. Supposed to help poor folks and it ends up costing them more for inferior medical. That's what this would do...somehow.
I'm long past caring who shares or doesn't share my opinion.
I form my own opinions.
This is by now painfully obvious. We all do. Some of us just base them on facts and reality, instead of what we wished the world would be.
so you're opinion on whether video tape of an event would have changed anything is a fact but my opinion isn't?
is that how it works?
You are getting warm. Considering none of the other irrefutable facts presented to the mob changed their minds about rioting...Im making an educated, and calculated guess. Call me whimsical.
but you're missing the key motivator- they aren't going to give a damn about about autopsy finding if there are witnesses saying a cop shot him in cold blood.
and that was a blatant lie. That lie could have easily been refuted and diffused.
I'm long past caring who shares or doesn't share my opinion.
I form my own opinions.
This is by now painfully obvious. We all do. Some of us just base them on facts and reality, instead of what we wished the world would be.
so you're opinion on whether video tape of an event would have changed anything is a fact but my opinion isn't?
is that how it works?
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Nowadays...and maybe it's always been this way, it seems as if much of the time people form their own opinions and then use facts, fictions, whatever to defend them, rather than gathering information and basing their opinion on that. The subjective wins out much of the time.
I didn't have an opinion on body cameras until I read the study about their use in Rialto, CA.
I just read this morning that 1 in 6 departments in America now have body cameras of some kind in use.
And in the case du jour, given that it wasn't police brutality moreover EMS non-feasance that was the major issue with Garner's death, how exactly did the comprehensive videotaping by John Q help?
The cop's lapel video wouldn't have shown much different.
The guy had a preexisting health issue and shouldn't have resisted arrest.
And in the case du jour, given that it wasn't police brutality moreover EMS non-feasance that was the major issue with Garner's death, how exactly did the comprehensive videotaping by John Q help?
The cop's lapel video wouldn't have shown much different.
The guy had a preexisting health issue and shouldn't have resisted arrest.
you're absolutely right - in the case of Garner, no crime was committed but what we have is video showing that the cop violated police policy (we can argue about whether it was a choke hold or not) by using something that looked like a choke hold.
Now if he was aware of that policy and had a body camera, I would ask - would he have used it anyways in subduing the suspect.
But it would have also shown they called EMS, and attempted to get the guy to respond while waiting on EMS to arrive.
but you're missing the key motivator- they aren't going to give a damn about about autopsy finding if there are witnesses saying a cop shot him cold blood.
and that was a blatant lie. That lie could have easily been refuted and diffused.
In theory, I would agree with this. In reality, you hit the nail on the head when you said "blatant lie". You have to look at the nature of the beast you are dealing with. Lies, thievery, and violence are a way of life for many of them. Doesn't matter how much truth you put in front of them.
And in the case du jour, given that it wasn't police brutality moreover EMS non-feasance that was the major issue with Garner's death, how exactly did the comprehensive videotaping by John Q help?
The cop's lapel video wouldn't have shown much different.
The guy had a preexisting health issue and shouldn't have resisted arrest.
you're absolutely right - in the case of Garner, no crime was committed but what we have is video showing that the cop violated police policy (we can argue about whether it was a choke hold or not) by using something that looked like a choke hold.
Now if he was aware of that policy and had a body camera, I would ask - would he have used it anyways in subduing the suspect.
But it would have also shown they called EMS, and attempted to get the guy to respond while waiting on EMS to arrive.
Seems all citizens should have to wear a body camera too, if you are really concerned about people protecting themselves.
And in the case du jour, given that it wasn't police brutality moreover EMS non-feasance that was the major issue with Garner's death, how exactly did the comprehensive videotaping by John Q help?
The cop's lapel video wouldn't have shown much different.
The guy had a preexisting health issue and shouldn't have resisted arrest.
you're absolutely right - in the case of Garner, no crime was committed but what we have is video showing that the cop violated police policy (we can argue about whether it was a choke hold or not) by using something that looked like a choke hold.
Now if he was aware of that policy and had a body camera, I would ask - would he have used it anyways in subduing the suspect.
But it would have also shown they called EMS, and attempted to get the guy to respond while waiting on EMS to arrive.
Seems all citizens should have to wear a body camera too, if you are really concerned about people protecting themselves.
Lets make it a law!
you're not that far off.
almost everyone has a camera on them at all times now. As I've said multiple times - the danger is them recorded a partial event and presenting it out of context. That is going to continually happen.
and that was a blatant lie. That lie could have easily been refuted and diffused.
Uh, people have been rioting and looting over blatant lies. A Hollywood production video shot from fifty angles and scenes with 3D audio isn't going to satisfy the criminals.
You do realize your dealing with professional excuse makers?
And in the case du jour, given that it wasn't police brutality moreover EMS non-feasance that was the major issue with Garner's death, how exactly did the comprehensive videotaping by John Q help?
The cop's lapel video wouldn't have shown much different.
The guy had a preexisting health issue and shouldn't have resisted arrest.
you're absolutely right - in the case of Garner, no crime was committed but what we have is video showing that the cop violated police policy (we can argue about whether it was a choke hold or not) by using something that looked like a choke hold.
Now if he was aware of that policy and had a body camera, I would ask - would he have used it anyways in subduing the suspect.
But it would have also shown they called EMS, and attempted to get the guy to respond while waiting on EMS to arrive.
Seems all citizens should have to wear a body camera too, if you are really concerned about people protecting themselves.
Lets make it a law!
I can get behind this. It will prevent a lot of crime. Let's say somebody has to take a piss real late at night with nobody around and they stop in the middle of nowhere and are gonna just piss right there. There are no witnesses to the crime with the camera, it will record it so that person can be prostituted and become the convicted sex offender that they are. After awhile people will just piss in their pants and not do that bad [bleep] because they know they're watched. After awhile you can outlaw cursing because that is bad too and then we can move on to outlawing any criticism of the government because they are the camera keepers and have only the best of intentions and motivations.
And in the case du jour, given that it wasn't police brutality moreover EMS non-feasance that was the major issue with Garner's death, how exactly did the comprehensive videotaping by John Q help?
The cop's lapel video wouldn't have shown much different.
The guy had a preexisting health issue and shouldn't have resisted arrest.
you're absolutely right - in the case of Garner, no crime was committed but what we have is video showing that the cop violated police policy (we can argue about whether it was a choke hold or not) by using something that looked like a choke hold.
Now if he was aware of that policy and had a body camera, I would ask - would he have used it anyways in subduing the suspect.
But it would have also shown they called EMS, and attempted to get the guy to respond while waiting on EMS to arrive.
Seems all citizens should have to wear a body camera too, if you are really concerned about people protecting themselves.
Lets make it a law!
you're not that far off.
almost everyone has a camera on them at all times now. As I've said multiple times - the danger is them recorded a partial event and presenting it out of context. That is going to continually happen.
I can get behind this. It will prevent a lot of crime. Let's say somebody has to take a piss real late at night with nobody around and they stop in the middle of nowhere and are gonna just piss right there. There are no witnesses to the crime with the camera, it will record it so that person can be prostituted and become the convicted sex offender that they are. After awhile people will just piss in their pants and not do that bad [bleep] because they know they're watched. After awhile you can outlaw cursing because that is bad too and then we can move on to outlawing any criticism of the government because they are the camera keepers and have only the best of intentions and motivations.
I think the only thing that stinks is the kowtowing to a criminal element and allowing 13% of the population to get away with rioting whenever they feel like it AND STILL PAY THEM via all the .gov subsidy programs.
Screw 'm. Cut off all the gimme programs, start shooting looters and drug dealers and such on sight, and have those that want to actually do something DO something.
There's a hefty amount of the 13% that want a race war, and a government that's fomenting the same.
This is what I was thinking. Why do us working civilized folks have to put up with all the insolent lawless rape murder assault and insult and then pay the bill too to subsidize it all?
Quite honestly the reality is that there is a Marxist revolutionary undercurrent to all of this and it ought to be suppressed not coddled.
Cameras are lazy policing and basically eliminate facing your accuser. I totally understand why Obama and most commie run cities love them....
It would protect cowards from Grand Jury duty, too, where they might have to stand on their duty or even be "browbeaten" by mean DAs, too.
Good point.
Its funny how all the cop haters just want to give a police state more control with cameras and evidence.
you really think that a body camera is going to give police more control?
It already does. If you run a stop light in the middle of the night with no one around, you are getting a ticket. It's essentially a victimless crime that nobody gave a [bleep] about before the advent of cameras on every corner. Now it is a revenue tool. The big boys are gonna do what they do regardless of what's on camera. It's only going to work against YOU.
It already does. If you run a stop light in the middle of the night with no one around, you are getting a ticket. It's essentially a victimless crime that nobody gave a [bleep] about before the advent of cameras on every corner. Now it is a revenue tool. The big boys are gonna do what they do regardless of what's on camera. It's only going to work against YOU.
I'm not arguing for traffic cameras
I'm talking about a camera that documents the policeman's actions - taking out the your word against his aspect of police enforcement.
now if you give me an example that overrides the value of documenting a policemans actions on a minute by minute basis that works against the public, I'll listen
I understand the libertarian aspect of this in the idea they don't want the government video taping their every move, but I don't see it as your moves getting video taped, I see it as it video taping every policeman's move, which I would think would appeal to libertarians in a controlling government stance.
Unless you replace both eyes in every cop with cameras, you'll not see everything he's seeing. If you're not seeing everything he's seeing, you'll be back to square on, only worse.
I can get behind this. It will prevent a lot of crime. Let's say somebody has to take a piss real late at night with nobody around and they stop in the middle of nowhere and are gonna just piss right there. There are no witnesses to the crime with the camera, it will record it so that person can be prostituted and become the convicted sex offender that they are. After awhile people will just piss in their pants and not do that bad [bleep] because they know they're watched. After awhile you can outlaw cursing because that is bad too and then we can move on to outlawing any criticism of the government because they are the camera keepers and have only the best of intentions and motivations.
I believe video of baby huey in Ferguson was released shortly after the incident, which showed him beating the [bleep] out of store owner.
Sure stopped a lot of supposedly level headed folks from coming out to be civilly disobedient...
I just don't see how that is relevant though. Yes, it confirms he was a bad guy but it doesn't show that he'd resist arrest when a gun is pointed at him.
Video of the event is what is needed.
It's relevant that it casts doubt on the narrative that he was simply a peaceful gentle giant that was minding his own business, AKA, the narrative that "started it all".
I don't think that was the narrative that started it all. The narrative that started is all was an eye witnes who started "don't shoot ,hands up" which was a lie and would have been refuted by video tape of the event.
The gentle giant was a persona started by the media.
It WAS refuted by physical evidence, namely the post mortem exam. Did that evidence change their minds?
Their minds where made up as to what happened as soon as his homey said "he dun had his hanses up and dey shot hiz azz neway. Just fo speddin Da wurd of Jaezuss"
No amount of evidence, teatimony or vidoe would have changed that
Cameras on every cop is TFF, it would be akin to the quality and even more shaky than a bigfoot or UFO video.
The cop that subdued Eric Garner, his video, would have showed what exactly. The back of a fat black guys sweaty shirt.
It might, and I mean might capture what happens the suspect in plain view 2% of the time, the rest of the time you'd be looking at a foot, the ground or whatever. JFC what a stupid idea.
I watched the Garner video at least five times this morning.
The choke hold didn't kill him (directly) or cut off his air supply. It's a false narrative.
When the cop threw his arm around Garner's neck to take him down (not a choke hold) it took about seven seconds to get him on the ground. That's when the cop was able to get on top and wrap his arm around Garner's neck in a choke hold fashion. This only lasted for about ten seconds and then the cop got up and put his knee on Garner's head. That's when Garner first started uttering "I can't breeve". It's worth noting that Garner did not become unconsciousness at this point. He wasn't choked out or lost the supply of blood to his brains.
The entire time Garner was saying "I can't breeve" he wasn't in a choke hold, he was breathing, and consciousness. There was a cop that had his knee in Garner's chest that could have made breathing difficult but ...
What I think happened is Garner suffered a heart attack during the take down. One of the first symptoms of a heart attack is shortness of breath or difficulty breathing.
Yeah, but go back and look at guys like TRH's posts in here, he states his case as if Garner was yelling I can't breeve as the cop was choking him and just continued to do so.
Of course it is a false narrative, that is all feeble minds need to make a conclusion.
I got to say I still have issues with this one and I'm not alone.
Judge Napolitano, Krauthammer, and Goldstein on FOX last night all felt the GJ should have returned an indictment and have this settled by going to trial.
The way I see it this was series or combination of mishaps, decisions, and possibly improprieties that led to Garner's death. I'm not saying the cops are guilty but I don't have enough facts to come to a conclusive decision either way.
FWIW, I don't participate in cop bashing threads and I give LE the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.
Haven't read the whole thing, but why was he being arrested? If it was seriously for selling "singles", that's fugged up. Did he have a warrant out?
I'd entertain the notion of powers of arrest being trimmed way back for police. Maybe only when a suspect presents a clear and present danger to others. Otherwise, let'em hand out tickets, accept a FU, and go on their way.
Regardless- Once they initiated the arrest, it was all on the dumb fat fugg. He squirmed his way right into a body bag.
Haven't read the whole thing, but why was he being arrested? If it was seriously for selling "singles", that's fugged up. Did he have a warrant out?
I'd entertain the notion of powers of arrest being trimmed way back for police. Maybe only when a suspect presents a clear and present danger to others. Otherwise, let'em hand out tickets, accept a FU, and go on their way.
Regardless- Once they initiated the arrest, it was all on the dumb fat fugg. He squirmed his way right into a body bag.
That would be about right for the chickenshit offense of selling untaxed "loosie" cigarettes which I've heard precipitated the whole mess.
Haven't read the whole thing, but why was he being arrested? If it was seriously for selling "singles", that's fugged up. Did he have a warrant out?
I'd entertain the notion of powers of arrest being trimmed way back for police. Maybe only when a suspect presents a clear and present danger to others. Otherwise, let'em hand out tickets, accept a FU, and go on their way.
Regardless- Once they initiated the arrest, it was all on the dumb fat fugg. He squirmed his way right into a body bag.
That would be about right for the chickenshit offense of selling untaxed "loosie" cigarettes which I've heard precipitated the whole mess.
Welcome to the utopia of Der Mayor Bloomberg and the hard lined fascist socialists.
Coming to a state near (or surrounding) you, soon.
I got to say I still have issues with this one and I'm not alone.
Judge Napolitano, Krauthammer, and Goldstein on FOX last night all felt the GJ should have returned an indictment and have this settled by going to trial.
The way I see it this was series or combination of mishaps, decisions, and possibly improprieties that led to Garner's death. I'm not saying the cops are guilty but I don't have enough facts to come to a conclusive decision either way.
FWIW, I don't participate in cop bashing threads and I give LE the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.
I'm in agreement with you. [except your last paragraph doesn't apply to me ]
Haven't read the whole thing, but why was he being arrested? If it was seriously for selling "singles", that's fugged up. Did he have a warrant out?
The call was initiated by a business owner complaining about Garner selling untaxed loosies in front of his store. The business felt cheated by someone not paying the taxes that he has to with a legal business.
I watched the Garner video at least five times this morning.
The choke hold didn't kill him (directly)
No, not directly, since he was still alive when released from it. So what? If I knocked you over the head with a bust of William Shakespeare, and it took you several minutes to die from a brain hemorrhage, does that clear me? Could I just argue that you were particularly prone to brain hemorrhage?
I got to say I still have issues with this one and I'm not alone.
Judge Napolitano, Krauthammer, and Goldstein on FOX last night all felt the GJ should have returned an indictment and have this settled by going to trial.
I got to say I still have issues with this one and I'm not alone.
Judge Napolitano, Krauthammer, and Goldstein on FOX last night all felt the GJ should have returned an indictment and have this settled by going to trial.
All who would promote "cop cams" are free to strap a Go Pro to their forehead. They could then be assured that their crime and subsequent abuse by the police would be well documented and justice would prevail.
Ordinary citizens could do the same and uplink it to NSA and make us all safer. You would look cool and provide a good supply source to the local thugs who would rob you.
Oh, I forgot that the camera would be a deterrant to anti-social behavior.
Lots of critical thinkers and potential victims here.
If cops can only arrest people for being dangerous....
What about the perv exposing himself in a park? Or taking under-stall pics in a bathroom? Or hobos taking a dump on the front porch of your business? Or stealing your car? None of those are dangerous in and of themselves. So tickets would be best?
If cops can only arrest people for being dangerous....
What about the perv exposing himself in a park? Or taking under-stall pics in a bathroom? Or hobos taking a dump on the front porch of your business? Or stealing your car? None of those are dangerous in and of themselves. So tickets would be best?
You regular cops don't need guns, just cameras. Take a picture of the B.G. and upload it to roving SWAT Teams who are patrolling in their tanks and let them deal with it.
Y'all can all go home at the end of your shift. that way.
If cops can only arrest people for being dangerous....
What about the perv exposing himself in a park? Or taking under-stall pics in a bathroom? Or hobos taking a dump on the front porch of your business? Or stealing your car? None of those are dangerous in and of themselves. So tickets would be best?
I think what he was suggesting was that, in those case, get an arrest warrant first.
No, he said to write them a ticket. What about when they don't show up for ticket court? Do the cops put hands on them then?
Or what about when you scratch out a ticket and the fool keeps acting foolish anyway, never even stops long enough to sign the ticket?
What do I do with the guy until the warrant is written and signed? Follow the guy around for a few hours and just let him keep on acting the fool? Can I out hands on him to at least make him stop taking the naughty pics? Can I physically stop him from erasing the pics and thus destroying the evidence against him?
Point being, that sooner or later in a nation of laws the popo is gonna have to put hands on a fool.
No, he said to write them a ticket. What about when they don't show up for ticket court? Do the cops put hands on them then?
Or what about when you scratch out a ticket and the fool keeps acting foolish anyway, never even stops long enough to sign the ticket?
What do I do with the guy until the warrant is written and signed? Follow the guy around for a few hours and just let him keep on acting the fool? Can I out hands on him to at least make him stop taking the naughty pics? Can I physically stop him from erasing the pics and thus destroying the evidence against him?
Point being, that sooner or later in a nation of laws the popo is gonna have to put hands on a fool.
Sure, but if he doesn't show up to court or pay the fine, you'll have an arrest warrant. Most would pay the fine or show up to court, thus avoiding the police confrontation phase in most cases.
No, he said to write them a ticket. What about when they don't show up for ticket court? Do the cops put hands on them then?
Or what about when you scratch out a ticket and the fool keeps acting foolish anyway, never even stops long enough to sign the ticket?
What do I do with the guy until the warrant is written and signed? Follow the guy around for a few hours and just let him keep on acting the fool? Can I out hands on him to at least make him stop taking the naughty pics? Can I physically stop him from erasing the pics and thus destroying the evidence against him?
Point being, that sooner or later in a nation of laws the popo is gonna have to put hands on a fool.
Sure, but if he doesn't show up to court or pay the fine, you'll have an arrest warrant. Most would show up to court, thus avoiding the confrontation phase in most cases.
Ummm no they wouldn't. You have absolutely no idea how many bench warrants hang on our wall for petty crap that they just don't appear at court for
The underlying problem, of course, is that there are too many ways to violate the law, i.e., not nearly enough liberty. It should be pretty fundamental that if two people wish to exchange money for a cigarette, for example, there's no need to have a third party involved in the deal, namely the government.
Point being, that sooner or later in a nation of laws the popo is gonna have to put hands on a fool.
But which of those laws being violated do you feel warrant you putting your hands on a citizen...? There have been many shootings, of both police officers and the public, over seatbelt violations...! Just doesn't seem worth it... Seems like discretion ought to be an ingredient, especially on the part of the officer, for 'crimes' such as seatbelt violations, minor traffic violations, expired auto plates, etc. You guys can more than likely tell the difference between some guy on his way to work not wearing a seatbelt, or going 5-10 mph over the speed limit...as opposed to someone who is committing a crime against another person or their property.
No they wouldn't. Roughly a third of tickets go unpaid. That's just for traffic fines. You think a guy is gonna just show up for his naughty picture trial out of the goodness of his heart? No, that's why judges require people to post bond.
Answer the questions. Short of an arrest warrant, is there a non-violent scenario that when a cop can put hands on a suspect?
The underlying problem, of course, is that there are too many ways to violate the law, i.e., not nearly enough liberty. It should be pretty fundamental that if two people wish to exchange money for a cigarette, for example, there's no need to have a third party involved in the deal, namely the government.
Point being, that sooner or later in a nation of laws the popo is gonna have to put hands on a fool.
But which of those laws being violated do you feel warrant you putting your hands on a citizen...? There have been many shootings, of both police officers and the public, over seatbelt violations...! Just doesn't seem worth it... Seems like discretion ought to be an ingredient, especially on the part of the officer, for 'crimes' such as seatbelt violations, minor traffic violations, expired auto plates, etc. You guys can more than likely tell the difference between some guy on his way to work not wearing a seatbelt, or going 5-10 mph over the speed limit...as opposed to someone who is committing a crime against another person or their property.
Sure, I can. But good luck hiring a department full of cops as good as me. Especially as cheaply as some of them are paid.
You have absolutely no idea how many bench warrants hang on our wall for petty crap that they just don't appear at court for
Then why bother with it at all, if it's "petty"...? Surely there are wose crimes for the police to be involved with than those that police officers themselves describe as "petty"...?
You have absolutely no idea how many bench warrants hang on our wall for petty crap that they just don't appear at court for
Then why bother with it at all, if it's "petty"...? Surely there are wose crimes for the police to be involved with than those that police officers themselves describe as "petty"...?
Because when we ignore stupid stuff, the stupid people we work for (your stupid neighbors) pitch a hissy fit.
The cops can only ignore what the taxpayers (who insisted in the stupid laws to begin with) will let them ignore.
No they wouldn't. Roughly a third of tickets go unpaid. That's just for traffic fines. You think a guy is gonna just show up for his naughty picture trial out of the goodness of his heart? No, that's why judges require people to post bond.
Clandestinely snapping pictures of ladies' lady parts straddles the borderline of victimless, IMO. Seems there's a victim in that case. We're talking about the likes of selling individual cigarettes. No victim there but the tax man, and most wouldn't consider that a legitimate victimization anyway. Seems to me that if you can give a cigarette away, you should also be able to sell one.
That said we don't have time to actively search those warrants out. If we run across the individual we arrest them
But petty was the wrong word. I was trying to use a gernetalized term most would understand
I should have said "summary offenses" things like traffic offenses, dis-con, public drunkenness and such. But hell we have just as many felony warrants hanging too
The cops can only ignore what the taxpayers (who insisted in the stupid laws to begin with) will let them ignore.
I don't think the taxpayers insisted on "stupid laws" like seat belt requirements or yearly car registrations/car tag requirements and fees. Those are just a couple of examples where 'discretion' should seemingly be used more often by the officer.
If cops can only arrest people for being dangerous....
What about the perv exposing himself in a park? Or taking under-stall pics in a bathroom? Or hobos taking a dump on the front porch of your business? Or stealing your car? None of those are dangerous in and of themselves. So tickets would be best?
Is the guy beating off or taking a piss in a bush? That'd be yes and no. Taking understall pics is a no brainer. That is dangerous and posing a threat. Someone that's taking a dump on a porch should probably be taken in for a mental eval.
Theft, larceny, robbery, all should be arrested.
Jay walking....not so much. And yes, people have been arrested for it. Smoking a doobie, no.
No easy answers Blue, but going hands on with a fella for selling a cigarette is stupid to the extreme and a waste of resources. Almost as stupid as resisting.
Of course many won't show. Many won't show or pay after you arrest them either.
The cameras will happen. I'd say the writing is on the wall with that one.
Clandestinely snapping pictures of ladies' lady parts straddles the borderline of victimless, IMO. Seems there's a victim in that case. We're talking about the likes of selling individual cigarettes. No victim there but the tax man, and most wouldn't consider that a legitimate victimization anyway. Seems to me that if you can give a cigarette away, you should also be able to sell one.
The cops can only ignore what the taxpayers (who insisted in the stupid laws to begin with) will let them ignore.
I don't think the taxpayers insisted on "stupid laws" like seat belt requirements or yearly car registrations/car tag requirements and fees. Those are just a couple of examples where 'discretion' should seemingly be used more often by the officer.
They insist on them being enforced. I've heard people complain about a lack of enforcement on all those things. I ignore them anyway, but people still complain about me ignoring them.
Clandestinely snapping pictures of ladies' lady parts straddles the borderline of victimless, IMO. Seems there's a victim in that case. We're talking about the likes of selling individual cigarettes. No victim there but the tax man, and most wouldn't consider that a legitimate victimization anyway. Seems to me that if you can give a cigarette away, you should also be able to sell one.
The cops can only ignore what the taxpayers (who insisted in the stupid laws to begin with) will let them ignore.
I don't think the taxpayers insisted on "stupid laws" like seat belt requirements or yearly car registrations/car tag requirements and fees. Those are just a couple of examples where 'discretion' should seemingly be used more often by the officer.
They insist on them being enforced. I've heard people complain about a lack of enforcement on all those things. I ignore them anyway, but people still complain about me ignoring them.
Wait. If we go with curdogs idea and take away our guns...how am I gonna shoot dogs?
Well, as is so often the case, when people talk about the British police not carrying guns, they forget the other half of the story.
A friend of mine used to live in the British Virgin Islands. According to him, on one occasion the British Bobbies showed up at a compound and asked the inhabitants to surrender. When they failed to, the Bobbies called the British Army who showed up with a full Battalion of armed troops. Don't let the nice guy with the little stick fool you. He knows how to call the guys with the real firepower when needed.
I'm sure that infantry battalion can shot the shlit out of the dogs.
So you've gotten another call to bring a SWAT team to clear someone's house because they have coons in the attic?
Or was it the neighbors dog this time?
Most recently I spent a half hour digging a rabid raccoon out from under a lady's car, chasing it across the road and stepping on it until my partner brought a box to put it in, so the lady could bring it to a wildlife rescue place.
That got a letter written for me. In eleven years and countless lives saved, THAT is what got an attaboy letter for me.
Most recently I spent a half hour digging a rabid raccoon out from under a lady's car, chasing it across the road and stepping on it until my partner brought a box to put it in, so the lady could bring it to a wildlife rescue place.
That got a letter written for me. In eleven years and countless lives saved, THAT is what got an attaboy letter for me.
So you've gotten another call to bring a SWAT team to clear someone's house because they have coons in the attic?
Or was it the neighbors dog this time?
Most recently I spent a half hour digging a rabid raccoon out from under a lady's car, chasing it across the road and stepping on it until my partner brought a box to put it in, so the lady could bring it to a wildlife rescue place.
That got a letter written for me. In eleven years and countless lives saved, THAT is what got an attaboy letter for me.
The underlying problem, of course, is that there are too many ways to violate the law, i.e., not nearly enough liberty. It should be pretty fundamental that if two people wish to exchange money for a cigarette, for example, there's no need to have a third party involved in the deal, namely the government.
Word.
it's all about revenue. Worst offense you can commit is to stand between .gov and it's revenue. How do you think they finally nailed Al Capon? Tax evasion. Now if concerned Citizens don't like this, then work to change the law. It is tiresome, all this bitching about cops enforcing the law. Not the cop's fault that most of the laws are fugged up, and not needed.
![[Linked Image]](http://s3.postimg.org/r76fadfz7/keep_calm_or_get_a_wood_shampoo_2.png)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/racist1.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://ww3.hdnux.com/photos/33/43/64/7224594/3/920x920.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RbdCXgUG7u0/T8VxF-kQPFI/AAAAAAAAAK8/zDwpVRidhOI/s1600/crying-indian1.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.digitaljournal.com/img/9/9/5/4/2/4/i/2/1/6/o/Eric_Garner_choke_hold.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w188/TheRealHawkeye/eric-garner-police-brutality-ramsey-orta_zps2bcda076.jpg)
...even under duress.
![[Linked Image]](http://miyagi.sg/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/rubber-chicken.jpg)