Another officer not indicted

[laughing dog]

No, that would have been your post that liberals walk in lock-step.

As for Garner not resisting arrest, you need only watch the video for objective evidence that ken is correct. No one had even attempted to place Garner under arrest at the point that one of the police jumped on his back and applied the choke hold.

I am curious, though... do you genuinely believe some of the stuff you say, or are you pulling our collective legs?

He has to be pulling our legs. No one can think this stuff.

Nah. Garner was a scary (i.e. big and blac) man, so he must have been resisting arrest.

As an interesting aside, a grand jury indicted the man who shot the video of Garner's arrest.

 

[Playball40]

I wouldn't even say probably. The cause of death appears to be the pile of officers subduing him. I don't see that the chokehold had anything to do with it.

The medical examiner declared it a contributory factor. As Sabine pointed out, the lack of oxygen to his vital organs could very well have triggered the heart attack. The lack of oxygen came from two sources: the officers on top of him (you can't move your diaphragm) and the choke hold (can't get adequate air through the trachea). The question for a criminal proceeding, however, is whether or not everything else, in the absence of the choke-hold, was itself sufficient to have possibly caused his death.

I've seen no one here provide anything convincing that the pile of officers on him _definitely_ would not have triggered his heart attack. I mean, how often does a choke hold trigger a heart attack anyway? No reasonable person would expect a choke hold to trigger a heart attack. If he was choking him so severely that he died from asphyxiation, that's one thing, but a heart attack is something else all together.

He didn't have a heart attack, he went into cardiac arrest. Simply put it means 'the heart stops beating' for some reason.

 

[ksen]

Garner didn't resist arrest.

Progressive reality inversion field is fully deployed.

why don't you give me the timestamp on the video where he resisted arrest.

 

[RavenSky]

As for Garner not resisting arrest, you need only watch the video for objective evidence that ken is correct. No one had even attempted to place Garner under arrest at the point that one of the police jumped on his back and applied the choke hold.

I did watch the video. He was resisting before he was placed in the headlock.

Nope

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zOzkh2cKuM

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I wouldn't even say probably. The cause of death appears to be the pile of officers subduing him. I don't see that the chokehold had anything to do with it.

Of course you don't. But I am rather shocked that you admit that the "cause of death appears to be the pile of officers subduing him". So you think all 5 officers should be disciplined or brought up on charges... or are you still going to blame the victim?

If it takes a pile to subdue you and you die from being in that pile, too bad.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm still wondering how we could hear him if he couldn't breath. Although he probably had to breathe harder because of his size and officers on top of him don't help. .

I think the "I can't breathe" bit was an indication of heart problems. As such his airway was unrestricted at the time.

 

[Axulus]

Of course you don't. But I am rather shocked that you admit that the "cause of death appears to be the pile of officers subduing him". So you think all 5 officers should be disciplined or brought up on charges... or are you still going to blame the victim?

If it takes a pile to subdue you and you die from being in that pile, too bad.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm still wondering how we could hear him if he couldn't breath. Although he probably had to breathe harder because of his size and officers on top of him don't help. .

I think the "I can't breathe" bit was an indication of heart problems. As such his airway was unrestricted at the time.

Definitely _not_ unrestricted. Just not fully constricted. The medical examiner found clear evidence of compression on his trachea.

 

[RavenSky]

Of course you don't. But I am rather shocked that you admit that the "cause of death appears to be the pile of officers subduing him". So you think all 5 officers should be disciplined or brought up on charges... or are you still going to blame the victim?

If it takes a pile to subdue you and you die from being in that pile, too bad.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm still wondering how we could hear him if he couldn't breath. Although he probably had to breathe harder because of his size and officers on top of him don't help. .

I think the "I can't breathe" bit was an indication of heart problems. As such his airway was unrestricted at the time.

He didn't require subduing in the first place

 

[laughing dog]

I think the "I can't breathe" bit was an indication of heart problems. As such his airway was unrestricted at the time.

There is no way for you to know that is true.

 

[ksen]

Of course you don't. But I am rather shocked that you admit that the "cause of death appears to be the pile of officers subduing him". So you think all 5 officers should be disciplined or brought up on charges... or are you still going to blame the victim?

If it takes a pile to subdue you and you die from being in that pile, too bad.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm still wondering how we could hear him if he couldn't breath. Although he probably had to breathe harder because of his size and officers on top of him don't help. .

I think the "I can't breathe" bit was an indication of heart problems. As such his airway was unrestricted at the time.

The M.E. disagrees.

 

[ksen]

I think the "I can't breathe" bit was an indication of heart problems. As such his airway was unrestricted at the time.

There is no way for you to know that is true.

I agree there is no way to know if he actually thinks or not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If it takes a pile to subdue you and you die from being in that pile, too bad.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm still wondering how we could hear him if he couldn't breath. Although he probably had to breathe harder because of his size and officers on top of him don't help. .

I think the "I can't breathe" bit was an indication of heart problems. As such his airway was unrestricted at the time.

He didn't require subduing in the first place

So the cops should simply not do anything when someone resists?

 

[laughing dog]

If it takes a pile to subdue you and you die from being in that pile, too bad.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm still wondering how we could hear him if he couldn't breath. Although he probably had to breathe harder because of his size and officers on top of him don't help. .

I think the "I can't breathe" bit was an indication of heart problems. As such his airway was unrestricted at the time.

He didn't require subduing in the first place

So the cops should simply not do anything when someone resists?

Seriously, you think the alternative to "not act in a way that kills someone" is "do nothing"?

 

[RavenSky]

If it takes a pile to subdue you and you die from being in that pile, too bad.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm still wondering how we could hear him if he couldn't breath. Although he probably had to breathe harder because of his size and officers on top of him don't help. .

I think the "I can't breathe" bit was an indication of heart problems. As such his airway was unrestricted at the time.

He didn't require subduing in the first place

So the cops should simply not do anything when someone resists?

For allegedly selling "loosies"? No.

Frankly, I think such a ridiculously minor offense should not be an arrestable offense in the first place, and should be handled with a ticket which could have been issued without ever touching him.

But if an arrest was absolutely required for this massive tax fraud case, why couldn't the police issue a "citation in lieu of arrest". Most states give police this option in non-violent situations like this.

Or perhaps instead of surrounding him and poking at him, the police could have chosen to diffuse the situation, maybe even let him walk away, and then gotten a warrant to arrest him later. I don't think they could do that because I don't think they even had probable cause that he was selling "loosies" at that time, but IF they had evidence of a crime there was no urgency to arrest him immediately. He wasn't being a danger to anyone and he wasn't going anywhere.

Instead, they killed a man on the mere suspicion of selling cigarettes without paying the state taxes on those cigarettes. Does this really seem to you to be a valid situation for deadly force? Seriously, you claim to lean Libertarian. Do you really think the non-violent, and in this case extremely petty, crime of tax evasion requires a deadly force response from police?

 

[Derec]

For allegedly selling "loosies"? No.

Once the arrest procedure has been initiated it has to be followed through, no matter what the offense was. Reacting to resisting with "oh well we don't have to arrest him after all" would be a bad decision, especially since the resisting itself gives you yet another offense.

Frankly, I think such a ridiculously minor offense should not be an arrestable offense in the first place, and should be handled with a ticket which could have been issued without ever touching him.

And if it was just the "loosies" they probably would have done just that. But he was out on bail not only for selling "loosies" but also driving without license, false personation and marijuana possession. As such they had to arrest him for violating bail.

But if an arrest was absolutely required for this massive tax fraud case, why couldn't the police issue a "citation in lieu of arrest". Most states give police this option in non-violent situations like this.

Again, bail violation.

Or perhaps instead of surrounding him and poking at him, the police could have chosen to diffuse the situation, maybe even let him walk away, and then gotten a warrant to arrest him later.

Oh, was the time and place not convenient for him. Is NYPD in business catering to such requests normally?

I don't think they could do that because I don't think they even had probable cause that he was selling "loosies" at that time, but IF they had evidence of a crime there was no urgency to arrest him immediately. He wasn't being a danger to anyone and he wasn't going anywhere.

If they suspected he had evidence on his person then he could have destroyed it if allowed to walk away.

Instead, they killed a man on the mere suspicion of selling cigarettes without paying the state taxes on those cigarettes. Does this really seem to you to be a valid situation for deadly force? Seriously, you claim to lean Libertarian. Do you really think the non-violent, and in this case extremely petty, crime of tax evasion requires a deadly force response from police?

But it wasn't deadly force, not ordinarily. They had no reason to suspect the arrest would turn deadly. But sometimes shit happens.

 

[Toni]

Once the arrest procedure has been initiated it has to be followed through, no matter what the offense was. Reacting to resisting with "oh well we don't have to arrest him after all" would be a bad decision, especially since the resisting itself gives you yet another offense.

Frankly, I think such a ridiculously minor offense should not be an arrestable offense in the first place, and should be handled with a ticket which could have been issued without ever touching him.

And if it was just the "loosies" they probably would have done just that. But he was out on bail not only for selling "loosies" but also driving without license, false personation and marijuana possession. As such they had to arrest him for violating bail.

But if an arrest was absolutely required for this massive tax fraud case, why couldn't the police issue a "citation in lieu of arrest". Most states give police this option in non-violent situations like this.

Again, bail violation.

Or perhaps instead of surrounding him and poking at him, the police could have chosen to diffuse the situation, maybe even let him walk away, and then gotten a warrant to arrest him later.

Oh, was the time and place not convenient for him. Is NYPD in business catering to such requests normally?

I don't think they could do that because I don't think they even had probable cause that he was selling "loosies" at that time, but IF they had evidence of a crime there was no urgency to arrest him immediately. He wasn't being a danger to anyone and he wasn't going anywhere.

If they suspected he had evidence on his person then he could have destroyed it if allowed to walk away.

Instead, they killed a man on the mere suspicion of selling cigarettes without paying the state taxes on those cigarettes. Does this really seem to you to be a valid situation for deadly force? Seriously, you claim to lean Libertarian. Do you really think the non-violent, and in this case extremely petty, crime of tax evasion requires a deadly force response from police?

But it wasn't deadly force, not ordinarily. They had no reason to suspect the arrest would turn deadly. But sometimes shit happens.

If the tactic used does not ordinarily result in death or other bad results, why did the police force ban the use of choke holds? Why do similar holds require extensive training and certification to avoid bad outcomes? If his health was so obviously bad that he was at risk of a heart attack, why did the officers not employ other tactics?

 

[Derec]

Progressive reality inversion field is fully deployed.

why don't you give me the timestamp on the video where he resisted arrest.

if you look at the video RavenSky posted, he is already resisting when that cut occurred. How convenient. Is there a full video, without editing, available?

In any case, even many people who wanted the indictment acknowledge he was resisting.
From Guardian, a left-wing newspaper: Eric Garner: grand jury declines to indict NYPD officer over chokehold death

A video shot by a bystander shows Garner resisting arrest as a plainclothes officer attempts to to handcuff him. Backing away from the officer, Garner tells him: “This stops today,” which has become a rallying cry for protesters in New York.

And HuffPo: Still No Charges 3 Months After Eric Garner's Chokehold Death

Chokeholds are dangerous and prohibited by the New York City Police Department. Yet on July 17, Officer Daniel Pantaleo wrapped his arm around the neck of Eric Garner, who had resisted arrest for selling untaxed cigarettes on Staten Island. In a viral video of the encounter, Garner can be heard repeatedly screaming, “I can’t breathe!” before his body goes still.

 

[RavenSky]

Once the arrest procedure has been initiated it has to be followed through, no matter what the offense was. Reacting to resisting with "oh well we don't have to arrest him after all" would be a bad decision, especially since the resisting itself gives you yet another offense.

1. You are wrong that the "arrest procedure" "has to be followed through, no matter what the offense was" once initiated. As I already stated, they could have chosen to issue a citation in lieu of arrest

Frankly, I think such a ridiculously minor offense should not be an arrestable offense in the first place, and should be handled with a ticket which could have been issued without ever touching him.

And if it was just the "loosies" they probably would have done just that. But he was out on bail not only for selling "loosies" but also driving without license, false personation and marijuana possession. As such they had to arrest him for violating bail.

How was he driving without a license when he was standing on the sidewalk? It doesn't appear they had any probable cause to arrest him in the first place, but if they did they could have gone to get a warrant instead of escalating a warrantless arrest and killing a man. And if, as you claim, he was violating his bail, they could have gotten a court order revoking his bail instead of putting him in a chokehold and killing him.

But if an arrest was absolutely required for this massive tax fraud case, why couldn't the police issue a "citation in lieu of arrest". Most states give police this option in non-violent situations like this.

Again, bail violation.

so you claim, but again, IF police had evidence of a bail violation, they would have gotten a warrant for arrest and an order to revoke his bail. There was nothing so dangerous that the police had to act immediately with lethal force.

Or perhaps instead of surrounding him and poking at him, the police could have chosen to diffuse the situation, maybe even let him walk away, and then gotten a warrant to arrest him later.

Oh, was the time and place not convenient for him. Is NYPD in business catering to such requests normally?

Actually, yes... all the time... If you are wealthy. Bernie Maddoff is a good example of someone who was allowed to surrender to police for arrest at a time and place of his own choosing. When your wealthy, lawyers and police work out polite arrangements all the time. What police don't do to wealthy tax evaders is leap on their backs and place them in chokeholds and kill them.

I don't think they could do that because I don't think they even had probable cause that he was selling "loosies" at that time, but IF they had evidence of a crime there was no urgency to arrest him immediately. He wasn't being a danger to anyone and he wasn't going anywhere.

If they suspected he had evidence on his person then he could have destroyed it if allowed to walk away.

So your fear is that if police let Eric Garner get away with the extremely horrible crime of tax evasion on a few cigarettes, Garner would never ever again sell a "loosie" thereby getting away with this one suspected instance.

Seriously Derec, was it so fucking important to stop this man from selling an un-taxed cigarette that it was worth killing him? If it was so fucking important to stop this man from selling an un-taxed cigarette, police could have set up surveillance and/or a sting, then obtained a warrant for his arrest and/or revoked his bail.

Instead, they killed a man on the mere suspicion of selling cigarettes without paying the state taxes on those cigarettes. Does this really seem to you to be a valid situation for deadly force? Seriously, you claim to lean Libertarian. Do you really think the non-violent, and in this case extremely petty, crime of tax evasion requires a deadly force response from police?

But it wasn't deadly force, not ordinarily. They had no reason to suspect the arrest would turn deadly. But sometimes shit happens.

chokeholds are KNOWN to be deadly. That is why they are forbidden.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So the cops should simply not do anything when someone resists?

For allegedly selling "loosies"? No.

Frankly, I think such a ridiculously minor offense should not be an arrestable offense in the first place, and should be handled with a ticket which could have been issued without ever touching him.

And they'll resist next time. You're giving them total immunity from the effects of minor offenses.

And you're forgetting that resisting arrest is a far more serious offense than selling the loosies that started the incident.

Instead, they killed a man on the mere suspicion of selling cigarettes without paying the state taxes on those cigarettes. Does this really seem to you to be a valid situation for deadly force? Seriously, you claim to lean Libertarian. Do you really think the non-violent, and in this case extremely petty, crime of tax evasion requires a deadly force response from police?

I see no intent to use deadly force in the first place.

 

[RavenSky]

For allegedly selling "loosies"? No.

Frankly, I think such a ridiculously minor offense should not be an arrestable offense in the first place, and should be handled with a ticket which could have been issued without ever touching him.

And they'll resist next time. You're giving them total immunity from the effects of minor offenses.

bullshit

And you're forgetting that resisting arrest is a far more serious offense than selling the loosies that started the incident.

"Resisting arrest" is the bullshit charge that gets tacked on even when police have no cause to arrest in the first place.

For instance, brothers tossing a football in front of their own home are arrested for "disorderly conduct" and "resisting arrest". One is killed by police with a chokehold. There was no original crime in the first place, only police causing a confrontation and then claiming "disorderly conduct" and "resisting arrest". This is exactly what has to change.

Likewise for Eric Garner. You are all beating your chests about "resisting arrest" as if that is some sort of justification for killing the man. I maintain there was no cause to arrest him in the first place. IF there was, police should have gone to get a warrant and/or revoke the man's bail.

Instead, they killed a man on the mere suspicion of selling cigarettes without paying the state taxes on those cigarettes. Does this really seem to you to be a valid situation for deadly force? Seriously, you claim to lean Libertarian. Do you really think the non-violent, and in this case extremely petty, crime of tax evasion requires a deadly force response from police?

I see no intent to use deadly force in the first place.

a chokehold is deadly force, and known to be deadly force which is why it is banned. By using a chokehold, at least one police officer intended to use deadly force.

In any case, great side-stepping of my actual question. Do you, as someone who claims to be so libertarian, think that it is appropriate for police to be violently arresting a man for the mere suspicion of selling a cigarette without paying the taxes on it?

 

[RavenSky]

Even Glenn Beck says Eric Garner was not "resisting arrest"