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

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The more I read about this story, the more it seems to me that the biggest factor leading to Eric Garner's death were with how the police (and EMTs) handled things after he was handcuffed.

I've watched both videos of the aftermath that I can see and I can't see any indication of any officer - or anyone else - checking Garner's vital signs in the several minutes before the police arrived.

It's also worth pointing out that several of the EMTs who responded were suspended, and their actions have been criticized as well:

Israel Miranda, president of Local 27 of the Uniformed EMT and Paramedics, said that responding emergency personnel should have provided Garner with supplemental oxygen, even if he had a pulse. Miranda's union represents FDNY EMS personnel, but not RUMC EMTs.

Miranda made particular note of Garner's words to cops, captured on video, "I can't breathe! I can't breathe!"

Said Miranda, "Knowing that he's saying he's having trouble breathing, at this point, you're going to be giving him oxygen."

An EMT could also insert an airway tube into a patient's mouth that's attached to a bag to assist breathing.

One veteran EMS source questioned why the responding EMTs didn't bring any equipment when they arrived on the scene.

"She should have either put him on oxygen or put an airway in his mouth," the source said. "They were there for four and a half minutes and they did none of that."

The source also questioned the way the EMT looked for Garner's pulse, noting that a check near the carotid artery would be performed "to the left or the right of the trachea, not on the side of the neck."

Otherwise, the source said, "You're feeling your own pulse in your hand."

EMTs and paramedics who responded to Eric Garner have been suspended without pay by hospital | SILive.com

I agree with several other posters (and the NYPD and the medical examiner) that the choke hold was inappropriate, but I can't help but wonder if Eric Garner would still be alive if, say, they say him up after he was restrained or if the paramedics administered oxygen as soon as they arrived.

... or if the cops had just checked his pulse regularly while he was unconscious.

 

[Revoltingest]

Selling illegal cigarettes is a victimless crime. No victim no crime I say!
Too many infractions are "The State vs someone "
What kind of country lets just anyone walk across our border without ID and even let's them vote and receive assistance and then enforces bull **** laws about some tax stamp on ciggarettes?

I missed your curmudgeonly wisdom these last couple weeks!

 

[Thief]

Well let's speculate to the max.....why not.....look at this thread!

The cops go to trial.
Charges dismissed.

 

[Thief]

This guy sold illegal cigarettes, he should have been issued a citation not choked to death. I normally support law enforcement, but this time I cannot.

Exaggeration.
I saw release.
Heard the guy speak.
He was not choked to death.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I'm just saying, perhaps we should take a closer look at just who is employed in law enforcement. They hold the power of life and death. I watched a video of a man shot as he complied with an order to produce his registration.

The man said, "Why did you shoot me?"

I was raised to have respect for law enforcement. Back in the day they where worthy of that respect.

Now a days I see far too many scared to death quick on the trigger poor excuses for an LEO.

 

[Thief]

I'm just saying, perhaps we should take a closer look at just who is employed in law enforcement. They hold the power of life and death. I watched a video of a man shot as he complied with an order to produce his registration.

The man said, "Why did you shoot me?"

I was raised to have respect for law enforcement. Back in the day they where worthy of that respect.

Now a days I see far too many scared to death quick on the trigger poor excuses for an LEO.

Think I saw the same news broadcast.
The man was told to show id.
He turned away and reached into his car.

Not smart.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Thief, they never should have had to do anything to release? You act like everyone is 25 years old and in great shape. The man was in poor health selling cigarettes, he was no threat to anyone.

 

[Thief]

Thief, they never should have had to do anything to release? You act like everyone is 25 years old and in great shape. The man was in poor health selling cigarettes, he was no threat to anyone.

I heard he was told to leave the area...and refused.
Complaint was called in.
He continued to be resistant.

At the point of arrest....go quietly.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Think I saw the same news broadcast.
The man was told to show id.
He turned away and reached into his car.

Not smart.

People should not have to play "Simon Says" with police where one wrong move can get you shot.

Should not the LEO have asked if he can produce his registration safely?

No, he said to produce it as in right now. Not everyone is experienced to interact with police correctly. Do you think that LEO was correct being that fast on the trigger? He should have commanded him to STOP.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well let's speculate to the max.....why not.....look at this thread!

The cops go to trial.
Charges dismissed.

Cop, singular.

So... despite not knowing anything about what actually went on in that grand jury room (since the proceedings are secret), you take their failure to indict one police officer as an endorsement of the NYPD's actions in general during this incident?

When you "speculate to the max", you really do speculate to the max, don't you?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Damn Pangwan, we agree

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

People should not have to play "Simon Says" with police where one wrong move can get you shot.

Should not the LEO have asked if he can produce his registration safely?

No, he said to produce it as in right now. Not everyone is experienced to interact with police correctly. Do you think that LEO was correct being that fast on the trigger? He should have commanded him to STOP.

I'm not sure we should treat that decision as if it's a reasoned decision on the part of the police officer. In those sorts of split-second reactions, the response is automatic. If the officer was adequately trained, then that automatic response would be based on habits developed in training... and we should look at his training program for the cause. If the officer wasn't adequately trained, then we should look at his training program for the cause.

 

[Reverend Rick]

All I am saying is, someone stopped for a simple traffic infraction should not have to be put into a life or death game of "Simon Says".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have a suspicion about what's going on in a lot of incidents where someone dies at the hands of the police, and it goes back to training:

- most police have fairly extensive practical training in dealing with threats to their life: they do firearms training on an actual firing range, and they do training on dealing with an attacker on a mat with someone actually coming at them who they have to defend against.

- OTOH, my impression (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that in a lot of police forces, a lot of the training for "soft" skills we want to see in police (e.g. dealing with people with mental illness, non-violent crisis intervention) is done through classroom training.

Watching a PowerPoint presentation doesn't give you "muscle memory" that will guide your reflex actions in a critical incident... not even if there's a multiple-choice test at the end.

I think this might be part of the problem.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Those are good questions, Penguin. There's much to be said about LEO's training and its relevance in Garner's death.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I missed your curmudgeonly wisdom these last couple weeks!

Makes me want to sit on his lap. The crush is back full force.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

All I am saying is, someone stopped for a simple traffic infraction should not have to be put into a life or death game of "Simon Says".

I agree. This situation is not ideal. I have sympathy in one respect, though: if someone pulled over was reaching for a gun, how long would the officer have to react? The current situation doesn't give the officer any room for error: if he leaves his gun holstered and he's wrong, he's dead. If he shoots and he's wrong, he's a murderer. Human beings make mistakes, especially in highly-charged situations. In a perfect world, we set up systems that allow for error.

Of course, I'm not sure how we could make a situation like that more error-tolerant.

I do see a few issues that come into play here that I'm not sure many people are willing to address:

- the US has crazily high firearm (and more to the point in incidents like the traffic stop situation you describe, handgun) ownership rates. With millions upon millions of cheap handguns out there, the assumption that someone in a traffic stop might have a deadly weapon available is generally reasonable.

- Generally, when police shootings happen, it's a cost-benefit decision on the part of the shooter: they've decided that the risk involved in killing a police officer is better than whatever consequences they might face if they comply. The "whatever consequences" part of that balance is largely based on criminal sentencing that's been shaped by "tough on crime" laws and "three strikes" sentencing. If the guy in that car is worried that the cop is, say, going to find the bag of pot under his seat, he's going to be a lot less likely to think that killing a cop is worthwhile if he's only looking at a fine instead of 20 years in jail. Improperly high sentences put police officer's lives at risk.

 

[Revoltingest]

The mere reaching for something (eg, a cane, ID) shouldn't 'trigger' a deadly response. The cop could step back out of the zone where aiming from a car seat is practical, draw his gun, & order the occupant to freeze. Sure, there is greater risk to the cop compared to just executing the perceived threat, but it's a manageable risk, & a better approach.
We don't hire cops to protect themselves at all cost. We expect them to preserve our safety as much as is reasonable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The mere reaching for something (eg, a cane, ID) shouldn't 'trigger' a deadly response. The cop could step back out of the zone where aiming from a car seat is practical, draw his gun, & order the occupant to freeze. Sure, there is greater risk to the cop compared to just executing the perceived threat, but it's a manageable risk, & a better approach. We don't hire cops to protect themselves at all cost. We expect them to preserve our safety as much as is reasonable.

Good point.

The police officer has (or should have) a range of options available to him/her that allow the officer to manage their own level of risk.

If an officer shoots someone grabbing for something, then the implicit assumption is that they had good reason to believe the person they shot had a deadly weapon in easy reach. If that was the case, then why did the officer choose to place themselves in a position where they were at risk from such an individual?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What kind of country lets just anyone walk across our border without ID and even let's them vote and receive assistance and then enforces bull **** laws about some tax stamp on ciggarettes?

What do taxes have to do with it? The guy was selling smokes illegally. It has nothing to do with taxes, but the fact that a lot of people sell smokes to people who can't legally buy them themselves for whatever reason (usually because they are too young; sometimes because they forgot their ID) to make a huge profit. The taxes on those cigarettes were already paid (assuming they weren't stolen) and to say this is over tax laws is like saying a garage sell will ultimately have something to do with tax laws because taxes are not being paid twice on those things being resold.