Garner Incident-if you can say "I can't breathe," guess what you can breathe

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You know, that is exactly what I thought. If you can say it, you can breathe,so it was not the headlock, it was asthma. Good idea, me thinks, not to get into fights when you have asthma..... that is all.

So you think that it's unreasonable to expect a police officer to know that a fair number of people have asthma?

Aside from situations where deadly force is actually warranted, if an officer uses a technique that can kill someone with asthma, then, IMO, he's engaging in reckless endangerment unless he confirms that the person he's using it on doesn't have asthma.

 

[ChristineES]

b

I was being rhetorical....for your sake.
But since you seem to want pursuit.......

The dead man got dead for his own misbehavior.

When you hear the words ...you're under arrest.....
DON"T wave your hands at the cops.
DON'T say....don't touch me.

Go quietly to jail.

I think your comparison of control point is poor.
A large man with intent of resistance can be a problem.
He will not be allowed to walk away.

Any black belts among your autistics?
Any criminals among them?
People WITH control will be controlled....by people with greater ability.

Confused?

And I'll explain again. Garner was breaking the law, no one is denying that. He resisted arrest, there's no denying that, either. The police, however, used too much force to restrain him. The man was NOT dangerous, the police officer's lives were not in danger. The coroner said he was choked to death. They could have restrained him without choking him.

 

[Robert.Evans]

So you think that it's unreasonable to expect a police officer to know that a fair number of people have asthma?

Aside from situations where deadly force is actually warranted, if an officer uses a technique that can kill someone with asthma, then, IMO, he's engaging in reckless endangerment unless he confirms that the person he's using it on doesn't have asthma.

I don't know what led up to it firstly, but sure, it would seem to be unnecessary. There quite a few officers there after all. But, and there's always a but, the law is the law, and if you look for trouble you will probably find it, because in those situations, USA or UK, the police will never back down, otherwise you will have no respect for the law at all. Do what they say, and don't commit crime, and I think you would find that all these incidents would vanish.

 

[Skwim]

The city medical examiner has ruled the death of Eric Garner, the 43-year-old father whose death in police custody sparked national outrage, a homicide, saying a chokehold killed him.

The medical examiner said compression of the neck and chest, along with Garner's positioning on the ground while being restrained by police during the July 17 stop on Staten Island, caused his death.

See post 217

 

[Skwim]

Again, it does not have to be proven as being decisive in order for charges to be brought up. For example, a true case that took place decades ago in California:

A man took his young son, bashed the son's head against the wall of his garage, put the child on a hot barbeque grill, and then buried him afterword. It could not be determined exactly which of these three actions actually was the final thing that killed the child. Now, are you saying that this father should be not charged?

Obviously you're failing to comprehend so please have someone explain my post to you.

 

[metis]

Obviously you're failing to comprehend so please have someone explain my post to you.

Did you ever stop and think that maybe it's not a comprehension problem? It seems you're not familiar with criminal law, thus preferring to make up your own "law".

 

[Skwim]

Did you ever stop and think that maybe it's not a comprehension problem? It seems you're not familiar with criminal law, thus preferring to make up your own "law".

​

As I said, please have someone explain my post to you.

 

[CMike]

The action performed led to his death, so intent does not have to be there for any and all charges that could have possibly been put forth, such as with "negligent homicide".

The reason the action was taken was because he resisted arrested.

That said I don't see what the big crime is selling illegal cigarettes.

At least with Brown he was robber.

An arguement can be made if the police were too rough or not, however, he was not chocked to death.

 

[CMike]

You know, that is exactly what I thought. If you can say it, you can breathe,so it was not the headlock, it was asthma. Good idea, me thinks, not to get into fights when you have asthma..... that is all.

That's my main point.

If you don't have health problems don't get into a physical scruffle with the police. You won't be treated gently.

 

[CMike]

Is that an important distinction? Departmental policy gives cops directions & prohibitions in the use of deadly force. Since the intent of this has consequences comparable to laws, the distinction looks small to me. If a cop violates a departmental directive or a law, the consequences are usually the same....automatic exculpation. The consequences to citizens are also deadly. So the policies function much like laws.

There is a big difference.

There can be a department police that you can't arrest someone unless you are wearing your police cap.

If you arrest someone while not wearing your police cap you may be violating departmental policy, but you are not actually violating a legal statute.

There can be a departmental policy not to use a taser on someone over 60. If you do, you are violating the departmental policy not an actual law. The police department can discipline you as your employer, but you can't face criminal charges as a result, unless there is an actual law against it.

 

[McBell]

The choker went to the neck where the air pass through the lungs to breathe.

Struggling as resisting arrest is different from struggling to breathe. When he was uttering the “I can’t breathe” he passed that resisting/struggle already and automatically switch to that human instinct, and that is, struggling for life.

If you can’t breathe and with 5-6 guys on top you, pinning you down, then your chance of survival by breathing alone is very slim until you pass out.

You seem to be confused.
Did he or did he not stop struggling because he could not breathe?

I can struggle rather well with 5-6 guys on top of me.
Especially if I cannot breathe.

 

[metis]

The reason the action was taken was because he resisted arrested.

That said I don't see what the big crime is selling illegal cigarettes.

At least with Brown he was robber.

An arguement can be made if the police were too rough or not, however, he was not chocked to death.

The choking was involved whereas it helped lead towards his death according to the coroner's report. Just because there were other factors does not abdicate that which the officer did, which also against NYPD regulations, and that guideline was put there for a reason.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is a big difference.
There can be a department police that you can't arrest someone unless you are wearing your police cap.
If you arrest someone while not wearing your police cap you may be violating departmental policy, but you are not actually violating a legal statute.

There can be a departmental policy not to use a taser on someone over 60. If you do, you are violating the departmental policy not an actual law. The police department can discipline you as your employer, but you can't face criminal charges as a result, unless there is an actual law against it.

I can agree that violating a hat policy is minor, but not comparable to a chokehold, which has deadly consequences.

 

[Thief]

You should see the record of the cop who put him in a choke hold.
Using a technique banned by your own police department in entirely unnecessary circumstances resulting in the death of someone should be punishable, not rewarded with paid vacation pending investigation.

And maybe...as the video displays....a take down from behind is not as easy as YOU say it should be.

I will always contend.....large people resisting.....are a problem.
The immediate solution is takedown.
Or perhaps you would suggest foregoing the hands on stuff.....and just shoot the guy?

 

[Thief]

Racism is not two spheres of white people vs black people. It's one sphere of systemic dehumanization against people of color. It's why blacks can be racist toward each other. And it's why white people can be victimized if they fit the partial description of the profile of a common criminal.

I do need to dig up a good source, but I've read that unarmed black men are 21 times more likely to be killed by law enforcement than white men with both suspects committing the same crimes. So I'll introduce that point for refutation or as a plea to find the corroborating source.

Race is a big part if the problem of the disparate justice. It isn't the only part, since I think socio-economic classes, gender, and age plays some factors as well in regards to who fits the description of the common criminal.

yeah please and see if you can how many blacks are shot by blacks.

and maybe white guys are smart enough to not wave their hands and say...don't touch me.

I really prefer not to consider color.
I have lived in a half-way house with black mom and dad.
MOM insisted on being called mom.
Kinda silly I thought.

and you say there are NOT two spheres then continue in speech as if there is.

But I digress....as you do.....
and still I see no way around it.....
DON'T WAVE YOUR HANDS AT THE COPS AND SAY....DON'T TOUCH ME!

 

[Thief]

I can agree that violating a hat policy is minor, but not comparable to a chokehold, which has deadly consequences.

Having asthma and confronting the police is a deadly situation.

 

[Revoltingest]

Having asthma and confrontinng the police is a deadly situation.

Yes, this is true.

 

[freethinker44]

There is a big difference.

There can be a department police that you can't arrest someone unless you are wearing your police cap.

If you arrest someone while not wearing your police cap you may be violating departmental policy, but you are not actually violating a legal statute.

Actually it is illegal to put a choke hold on someone, it's assault. So if it's already illegal then if a police force bans the use of it, it means it is illegal even for police.

 

[McBell]

Actually it is illegal to put a choke hold on someone, it's assault.

Such blanket statements are seldom as black and white as you imply.
What is your source?

 

[Skwim]

Actually it is illegal to put a choke hold on someone, it's assault. So if it's already illegal then if a police force bans the use of it, it means it is illegal even for police.

Under what statute is it illegal? And if it's assault please show us where this is stipulated. Truth of the matter, I think you pulled both of these claims out of **** ***, . . . . . well, out of thin air.