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

[MysticSang'ha]

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 dunno. We could ask if Garner's rights were violated, and that a grand jury was correct in not seeing any probable cause for even a manslaughter charge against the officer.

Folks are pontificating that Garner should have acted differently to prevent his own rights being violated. You're saying you're not seeing that?

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.

Be my guest. Let's start with you.

Do you think Garner's human rights were violated?

 

[McBell]

I dunno. We could ask if Garner's rights were violated, and that a grand jury was correct in not seeing any probable cause for even a manslaughter charge against the officer.

Folks are pontificating that Garner should have acted differently to prevent his own rights being violated. You're saying you're not seeing that?



Be my guest. Let's start with you.

Do you think Garner's human rights were violated?

Nice try.
But your strawman is not going to work with me.

If this is the best you got....

And no, i do not believe anyone in this, or the other, thread are dehumanizing garner.
So until such time as you can show that they are, you have nothing more than a bold empty claim on your hands.

balls in your court now.
What you gonna do with it?

 

[freethinker44]

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

Come on now, it's not so strange to think someone doesn't believe a claim if they are asking for a source for it. I mean, this isn't study group, this is a debate. Usually when one asks for a source during a debate it is because they are questioning the validity of the claim. Therefore, you asking for a source that choke holds are illegal makes me think you believe they are.

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

Do you believe they are not?

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?

What good reason could you possibly have for asking for a source that a choke hold is illegal other than you believe they are not illegal? I know it's kind of your mode of operation to ask for a source when you have no other valid argument, but when you do it for stuff that's self-evident it doesn't reflect well on you.

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.

Are you now going to argue that the cop was defending himself? If not then it's irrelevant.

 

[freethinker44]

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.

Alright, so far we have:
1. Choke holds are assault
2. Choke holds are banned by the police department
3. ? <something magical happens> ?
4. Police can use choke holds legally

Help me out with number three. What sorcery do we use to make an assault banned by the police department not an assault if used by a cop?

 

[McBell]

Come on now, it's not so strange to think someone doesn't believe a claim if they are asking for a source for it. I mean, this isn't study group, this is a debate. Usually when one asks for a source during a debate it is because they are questioning the validity of the claim. Therefore, you asking for a source that choke holds are illegal makes me think you believe they are.

Perhaps if you were to stop making assumptions...

Do you believe they are not?

irrelevant.

What good reason could you possibly have for asking for a source that a choke hold is illegal other than you believe they are not illegal?

I happen to know that the use of a choke hold is not the black and white you claim it to be.

I know it's kind of your mode of operation to ask for a source when you have no other valid argument

Now you are merely grasping at straws.
I stepped in asking for a source.
So it is not as you say "I have no other valid argument".

Perhaps you should pay better attention to who is posting what?

, but when you do it for stuff that's self-evident it doesn't reflect well on you.

If "self evident" is all you have, you do not have much.

Are you now going to argue that the cop was defending himself? If not then it's irrelevant.

I merely demonstrated that your choke hold claim is not the black and white you think it is.

 

[Skwim]

Alright, so far we have:
1. Choke holds are assault
2. Choke holds are banned by the police department
3. ? <something magical happens> ?
4. Police can use choke holds legally

Help me out with number three. What sorcery do we use to make an assault banned by the police department not an assault if used by a cop?

Nope, because you evidently don't understand number one as I explained it. Sorry. but you can't have it your way and expect me to follow along. Moreover, your logic here is pretty dreadful, and I'm not inclined to go into logic 101. So, what it comes down to is that your post isn't worth dealing with. Sorry.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Nice try.
But your strawman is not going to work with me.

If this is the best you got....

And no, i do not believe anyone in this, or the other, thread are dehumanizing garner.
So until such time as you can show that they are, you have nothing more than a bold empty claim on your hands.

balls in your court now.
What you gonna do with it?

Dude, I took you up on your dare to take a poll.

Not my fault you weaseled out of it when I asked you for your thoughts about Garners human rights.

 

[freethinker44]

Now you are merely grasping at straws.
I stepped in asking for a source.
So it is not as you say "I have no other valid argument".

Sure this one instance, but I'm not talking about this one instance, this is more of a pattern I've noticed from you where if you disagree with something but have nothing intelligent for a counter-argument you just ask for sources, and usually for something undisputed or something obvious that no reasonable person dispute.

I mean, just look at our current conversation. You won't even answer whether or not you believe a choke hold is legal. Because you can't. If you answer yes it makes you look like an idiot for thinking that choke holds are not considered assault, and if you answer no then it makes your insistence on a source for their legality an idiotic question.

And for the record, I have no intentions of providing a source, I'm perfectly happy with you stuck between looking like an idiot and asking idiotic questions.

I merely demonstrated that your choke hold claim is not the black and white you think it is.

The choke hold in question wasn't in self defense, so you've demonstrated something irrelevant to the topic, which essentially means you've demonstrated nothing.

 

[freethinker44]

Nope, because you evidently don't understand number one as I explained it. Sorry. but you can't have it your way and expect me to follow along. Moreover, your logic here is pretty dreadful, and I'm not inclined to bother going into logic 101. So, what it comes down to is that your post isn't worth dealing with. Sorry.

So you got nothing then?

 

[Skwim]

So you got nothing then?

I've got plenty, but nothing I believe you would understand. So, I'm not wasting my breath. Plain as that.

 

[freethinker44]

I've got plenty, but nothing I believe you would understand. So, I'm not wasting my breath. Plain as that.

It's really not that hard, just explain how something is both an assault that's banned by the police and something that is an acceptable use of force by the police.

It's not unreasonable for someone to think that a use of force that's banned by the police negates it being an acceptable use of force by police. How is it that you reconcile both being true at the same time?

 

[JM2C]

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


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

You are not paying attention my friend. Read post #5. Do you want me spell it out to you again. Here we go again and please pay attention this time ‘cause I’m not going repeat this again.

After watching the video I have to disagree.

It's not evident at all that the choke hold was the decisive factor in Gerard's death.

In fact, because of all the other factors that may have played a part in his demise, the choke holdmay nothave been a relevant factor at all.

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

See post 217

I followed this link and it says the same thing, “chokehold” was the cause of Garner’s death.

"Main cause"? Not according to the medical examiner's spokeswoman.

“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

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

THE Contributing factors cause by the main cause were the ff:

“Acute and chronic bronchial asthma, obesity and hypertensive cardiovascular disease were listed as contributing conditions in a controversial death that sparked anti-police demonstrations and calls for a federal investigation.” -CNN

If it wasn’t for the “chokehold” he probably still be alive today and the chance of dying from the “contributing factors” is very slim, and those are, “Acute and chronic bronchial asthma, obesity and hypertensive cardiovascular disease”, and that is without the “chokehold”. IOW, the “contributing factors” would not be a factor at all if it wasn’t for the “chokehold”.

 

[CMike]

It still has to be shown that it was a chokehold.

 

[freethinker44]

It still has to be shown that it was a chokehold.

The compartmentalization is strong in this one.

 

[Skwim]

You are not paying attention my friend. Read post #5. Do you want me spell it out to you again. Here we go again and please pay attention this time ‘cause I’m not going repeat this again.

Good grief!!!

I see no ME medical report, only a linked CNN article that has a brief statement by Julie Bolcer, a spokeswoman for the medical examiner's office. Assuming you're unaware, let me apprise you that a brief statement by Julie Bolcer, a spokeswoman for the medical examiner's office does not, and I repeat, DOES NOT, constitute a ME report. And believe it or not, but CNN's headlines for their stories---in this case, "Choke hold by cop killed NY man, medical examiner says"---do not always reflect the truth. no matter how convenient it may be.

All of which brings us back to the starting gate. You obviously didn't read any ME medical report as you intimated, and, in fact, probably don't even know what an ME medical report is. FYI, here is the summation page of one such report.

Does this look like anything you read? I didn't think so.

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

Sorry, but this doesn't make your point any stronger. It only makes you look desperate.

I followed this link and it says the same thing, “chokehold” was the cause of Garner’s death.

Really! Because I read that there were three primary factors;

"The cause of Garner's death was (1) "compression of neck (choke hold), (2) compression of chest and (3) prone positioning during physical restraint by police,"​

and three contributing factors

"(1) Acute and chronic bronchial asthma, (2) obesity and (3)hypertensive cardiovascular disease were listed as contributing conditions . . . ."
​

Not a thing about the choke hold being the sole cause of Garner's death, which is what you imply by conveniently leaving out the other two primary factors. .

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

Just can't bring yourself to acknowledge the other two can you.

If it wasn’t for the “chokehold” he probably still be alive today and the chance of dying from the “contributing factors” is very slim, and those are, “Acute and chronic bronchial asthma, obesity and hypertensive cardiovascular disease”, and that is without the “chokehold”. IOW, the “contributing factors” would not be a factor at all if it wasn’t for the “chokehold”.

Just can't bring yourself to acknowledge the other two can you.

But never mind, your tap dancing here is nothing new.

 

[dust1n]

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

I didn't say anything about the ease of anything.

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?

There's lots of hands-on stuff I'm sure the NYPD are fully allotted to do, but using a choke hold isn't one of them.

 

[McBell]

Dude, I took you up on your dare to take a poll.

Not my fault you weaseled out of it when I asked you for your thoughts about Garners human rights.

No, you strawmaned with your poll.
Thus the "Nice Try"

 

[MysticSang'ha]

No, you strawmaned with your poll.
Thus the "Nice Try"

Ha. Remind me never to follow whatever rules you decide again. I mentioned dehumanization, you mentioned that if I were to do a poll that nobody would fit the description of dehumanizing, I said fair enough let's do a poll, you call me strawmanning with a poll.

Shall we dance?

.

.

.

Let's face it, Mes. You and I see very different things and put priority in different things. You say there's an appeal to emotion, I say there's a lack of humanity.

 

[McBell]

Ha. Remind me never to follow whatever rules you decide again. I mentioned dehumanization, you mentioned that if I were to do a poll that nobody would fit the description of dehumanizing, I said fair enough let's do a poll, you call me strawmanning with a poll.

Shall we dance?

You are attempting to avoid a poll you know you will lose (do members think they are dehumanizing garner) and attempting to replace it with a poll you think you can win (was garners human rights violated).
That is a strawman no matter how you slice it.

.

Let's face it, Mes. You and I see very different things and put priority in different things. You say there's an appeal to emotion, I say there's a lack of humanity.

i say you are trying to use your dehumanization as an appeal to emotion and instead of addressing that you are trying to divert to your human rights violation scheme.

The fact you seem to think the two are the same thing is rather interesting though.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

You are attempting to avoid a poll you know you will lose (do members think they are dehumanizing garner) and attempting to replace it with a poll you think you can win (was garners human rights violated).
That is a strawman no matter how you slice it.

No dancing, eh? Ah well. Worth a shot...

I wouldn't dream of asking people if they think they're dehumanizing Garner (people never think they're bigots, they overestimate their ethics all the time). But I make it a point to ask if people think Garner's rights were violated to show where they place their priorities in an act such as this.

This isn't about winning or losing, so there.

i say you are trying to use your dehumanization as an appeal to emotion and instead of addressing that you are trying to divert to your human rights violation scheme.

The fact you seem to think the two are the same thing is rather interesting though.

I have, you might say, clarity in what I find to be important. I'm more concerned with human rights and civil liberties and protections than I am of state order. Not saying order means nothing to me, but civil rights trumps it every time.