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

[Robert.Evans]

And if he hadn't been standing at that corner. If he hadn't had 5 officers surrounding him. If he hadn't put his hands up. If he hadn't said, "Don't touch me."

Yadda yadda yadda blah blah blah.

We spend way too much time exonerating those who batter or kill while pontificating how the dead deserved it. It's telling in regards to who and what we prefer to protect. And it's telling in terms of who we regard as fully human.

It could have been handled differently that is for sure, certiainly if there were 5 officers there. But he was walking away, and they must have said something to him. If that is the case, and he is not responding as he should, they have to deal with it. That is why we have the law. Don't commit crime and do what the police say. I am not saying the police were right, but if that guy had been healthy, he would still be alive. People feel control too much I think, hence the reason they have problems with the police.... and I would be one of the first to complain about them.... but they still have a job to do.

I saw one of UK TV in America. They asked a big old white man to get out of his car. The guy turned to undo his seatbelt (why wouldn't he?) and the officer took this to mean he might be going for a gun. Now, talk about OVER REACTION. They all dragged this old guy out, forced him onto the ground (he was resisting... normal reaction) and he bust his cheek bone open on the floor. I though it pretty horific. I don't know what the old man could have done differently. If the police had positioned themselves better, then it would not have happened. Better training is needed without doubt.

I will tell you of one in the UK. A man who ''was'' schizophrenic, was worrying his mother, waving a samurai sword about. She locked him in his bedroom and called the police. So far so good right? What did they do? Well they had to deal with the situation, so they opened the door. They obviously had no plan of what to do, as he ended up out on the street. Guess what happened? They shot him. Dead! Why? Because he was a danger to the public. His mother was completely distraught, as one might expect.

 

[freethinker44]

Well, I can agree with most of that, except the ending. Coppers act off attitude a lot of time, the individuals attitude that is. Now don't get me wrong, I am not likely to send any of them a Christmas card anytime soon, but it is evident that if you do what they tell you, you would not get problems. I have worked with the general public. If the police say jump, jump. If everyone did not commit crimes and were polite with the police, we would not hear all this. Everytime I see something on tv where something like this happens, there is always things that lead up to it. We cannot have anarchy. If they say do something, you have to be seen to do it, otherwise people would do what they want.

Be careful out there!

I'm sorry, that's just not true. Police harass, arrest, and kill people who haven't committed nor were about to commit a crime. Happens all the time. There are tons of posts in the police state thread on here showing this.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I will tell you another. It was Christmas time. A man went to pick up a table leg he had had mended. He wrapped it in a cloth. On the way back, he went to the pub for a drink. Someone thought he might have a rifle, so they called the police (armed police responded). They were behind him. They called out, he turned to see what they wanted, which swung the leg round, and they shot him dead. This is in the UK. Why could they not have had plain clothes officers simply walk by him and then grab him? I suppose it is fear of losing their own lives. It seems training is needed not just for the police, but also for the general public, so we know how to act when we hear such things. Bare in mind, in the UK , we don't see that many officers with guns!

 

[JM2C]

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

Again, struggling from resisting arrest is different from struggling to breathe or difficulty breathing. Garner was struggling or resisting arrest from the cops and because of the “chokehold” he gave up as in complies with their demands because of difficulty breathing.

Now, from the struggling/resisting arrest mode he instinctively without thinking switch to struggling to breathe also known as “dyspnea” a constriction of oxygen in the circulating blood in the carotid area cause by a “chokehold”. Did you know that “pepper spray” can cause “dyspnea” that can cause death also and can be certified as homicide like “chokehold”? Still confused?

I can struggle rather well with 5-6 guys on top of me.

Especially if I cannot breathe.

Yeah, struggling to breathe, that’s what Eric Garner did after he gave up the struggling/resisting arrest.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I'm sorry, that's just not true. Police harass, arrest, and kill people who haven't committed nor were about to commit a crime. Happens all the time. There are tons of posts in the police state thread on here showing this.

Well I shall not argue that. You are in US I guess and you have more guns there. They are bound to be jumpy. Perhaps you should campaign to get rid of them

 

[MysticSang'ha]

It could have been handled differently that is for sure, certiainly if there were 5 officers there. But he was walking away, and they must have said something to him. If that is the case, and he is not responding as he should, they have to deal with it. That is why we have the law. Don't commit crime and do what the police say. I am not saying the police were right, but if that guy had been healthy, he would still be alive. People feel control too much I think, hence the reason they have problems with the police.... and I would be one of the first to complain about them.... but they still have a job to do.

I saw one of UK TV in America. They asked a big old white man to get out of his car. The guy turned to undo his seatbelt (why wouldn't he?) and the officer took this to mean he might be going for a gun. Now, talk about OVER REACTION. They all dragged this old guy out, forced him onto the ground (he was resisting... normal reaction) and he bust his cheek bone open on the floor. I though it pretty horific. I don't know what the old man could have done differently. If the police had positioned themselves better, then it would not have happened. Better training is needed without doubt.

What happened to the officer(s) as a result? Were they indicted or terminated or suspended in any way? The old man was abused, so was there any accountability?

 

[Robert.Evans]

What happened to the officer(s) as a result? Were they indicted or terminated or suspended in any way? The old man was abused, so was there any accountability?

Don't know. It was on UK TV. I could only whince and think I was glad it was no one I knew. Wrong positioning of the officers, wrong instructions.
One officer was walking round the front when really he should have been the other side already. Then he could have seen what he was doing. It was a total over reaction off what I saw. Of course, I can't tell you what might have happened before that.... only what was on the program.
Our coppers can be bad, yours are bad on a whole new level. But you have more guns. I guess partly it is fear of being shot, and partly egos.

 

[freethinker44]

Well I shall not argue that. You are in US I guess and you have more guns there. They are bound to be jumpy. Perhaps you should campaign to get rid of them

Getting rid of guns is another debate altogether. And the statistics don't back up the need for police to feel "jumpy" in the US. They don't even make the top ten list of dangerous jobs, and the jobs that do make the list are almost every other job category in America. They may have reason to be cautious, certainly, but it hardly justifies killing over 1000 Americans per year.

People act like we should treat police like they're wild animals waiting to tear our throats out at the first sign of a threat. I don't know how other people handle wild animals threatening their lives, but around here we usually just hunt them down and kill them.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Don't know. It was on UK TV. I could only whince and think I was glad it was no one I knew. Wrong positioning of the officers, wrong instructions.
One officer was walking round the front when really he should have been the other side already. Then he could have seen what he was doing. It was a total over reaction off what I saw. Of course, I can't tell you what might have happened before that.... only what was on the program.

That sounds horrible.

Our coppers can be bad, yours are bad on a whole new level. But you have more guns. I guess partly it is fear of being shot, and partly egos.

I think there are many complex underlying factors. My main concern is the opportunistic state interests in profiting from a prison-military-industrial complex. Not from some secret conspiratorial cabal of people sitting around a table meeting on an island somewhere. But from a corrupt system that dehumanizes people in varying degrees for profit.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Getting rid of guns is another debate altogether. And the statistics don't back up the need for police to feel "jumpy" in the US. They don't even make the top ten list of dangerous jobs, and the jobs that do make the list are almost every other job category in America. They may have reason to be cautious, certainly, but it hardly justifies killing over 1000 Americans per year.

People act like we should treat police like they're wild animals waiting to tear our throats out at the first sign of a threat. I don't know how other people handle wild animals threatening their lives, but around here we usually just hunt them down and kill them.

What this mindset of treating them as wild animals also does is perpetuates the myth that police are incapable of responsible enforcement that at the same time honors a citizens inalienable civil rights.

 

[freethinker44]

What this mindset of treating them as wild animals also does is perpetuates the myth that police are incapable of responsible enforcement that at the same time honors a citizens inalienable civil rights.

Right, and if we get upset that we are letting wolves police sheep the solution is to just be extra scared around them. Because for some reason not having a police force full of dangerous predators is not an option.

 

[Skwim]

”the choke hold may not have been a relevant factor at all.” You are creating a myth here my friend.

And it's apparent you have no idea of what a myth is.

I followed this link and it says the same thing, “chokehold” was the cause of Garner’s death.
“The cause of Garner's death was "compression of neck (choke hold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police," said Julie Bolcer, a spokeswoman for the medical examiner's office. The death was ruled a homicide.” -CNN

We should be calling you The Cherry Picker.

“Chokehold” was the main cause according to the ME.

And a remedial reading class wouldn't hurt either.

All of which means it isn't worth my time to engage you in conversation

Have a good day.

 

[Skwim]

So you don't think it's assault to perform a choke hold on people? So if you go out an put a choke hold on someone you don't think you will go to jail for assault?

No more an assault than a policeman wrestling you to the ground because you resist arrest. Context dear fellow. CONTEXT. Neither does it make it an assault because the hold is prohibited by the police department.

 

[McBell]

Seriously, you're arguing a choke hold isn't illegal

Really?
Where did I make that claim?
Please tell us what post number.

Please stop trying to put words in my mouth.
You suck it as well.

 

[McBell]

When I notice somebody who is unarmed and unnecessarily killed by those sworn to protect and serve, and there are folks who focus much more on what the unarmed dead could have done differently to avoid being killed in such a manner, there is a nudge in the direction of de-humanizing the subject.

You may see appeal to emotion. I see a lack of humanity.

So you are just jumping to conclusions?
Or are you trying to dictate your "de-humanizing" claim to people?

 

[JM2C]

And it's apparent you have no idea of what a myth is.


We should be calling you The Cherry Picker.

And a remedial reading class wouldn't hurt either.

All of which means it isn't worth my time to engage you in conversation

Have a good day.

Opinions are different from facts. ME's report are facts.

 

[McBell]

You're asking for a source that a choke hold is assault.

I asked for your source that a choke hold is illegal.
Have I giving you to much credit thinking you know the difference?

This implies you are skeptical that performing a choke hold is assaulting someone.

This is nothing more than a strawman.
You claimed that choke holds are illegal

Feel free to clarify because that's not at all a flawed interpretation of your logic.

The hell it isn't.
You went from me asking you to source your claim that choke holds are illegal to claiming I think choke holds are not a form of assualt.
So perhaps you would like to stop whooping on your strawman and get back to the original request?

Seriously, you're arguing a choke hold isn't illegal, where in NY is a choke hold not illegal?

No I am not.
When it is applied in self defense.
showing your claim is not the black and white you want it to be.

 

[Skwim]

Opinions are different from facts. ME's report are facts.

Then let's see this report from the ME you've obviously read.

We await .................................................................................................................




.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

So you are just jumping to conclusions?

I, like others, are going by the facts. Medical examiner ruled the chokehold, not asthma, was what killed Garner. There is video evidence to show the validity of the report.

Or are you trying to dictate your "de-humanizing" claim to people?

With video evidence, with a coronors report, and with knowledge of a banned tactic that resulted in the death of a citizen, I call the focus on what the dead could have done differently as de-humanizing, given that accountability is not being focused on where it should.

I call it de-humanizing because while his human rights were violated, the violations are deemed as a simple matter of consequence, and not a violation against a human being.

 

[McBell]

I, like others, are going by the facts. Medical examiner ruled the chokehold, not asthma, was what killed Garner. There is video evidence to show the validity of the report.



With video evidence, with a coronors report, and with knowledge of a banned tactic that resulted in the death of a citizen, I call the focus on what the dead could have done differently as de-humanizing, given that accountability is not being focused on where it should.

I call it de-humanizing because while his human rights were violated, the violations are deemed as a simple matter of consequence, and not a violation against a human being.

So you are jumping to the conclusion that those in a discussion about how the victim could have done things differently are somehow automatically dehumanizing the victim?

I wonder what the results would be if you were to take a poll of those in this thread to see if anyone believes that garner was less than human.
I wonder if even one person fits into your dehumanizing label.