Another officer not indicted

[Axulus]

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

The controversial part is when Eric Garner throws the officers hands off of him and shouts "don't touch me". The police are firm that this was resistance. In any event, it's a bad idea to be belligerent to police. Best to cooperate at the time and then sue their asses if they are doing something improper. And excessive force laws need to be strengthened and penalties increased.

 

[Derec]

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

And when did you put any stock into what that blithering idiot had to say before?
Strange bedfellows and all that ...

 

[Sarpedon]

So you think police should be allowed to harrass people until they get agitated, and then accuse them of 'resisting'. I won't say resisting arrest because he didn't say he was under arrest. It was obvious that the officer was harassing him.

 

[Horatio Parker]

So you think police should be allowed to harrass people until they get agitated, and then accuse them of 'resisting'. I won't say resisting arrest because he didn't say he was under arrest. It was obvious that the officer was harassing him.

Excessive arrests on resisting arrest is a flag for bad apple cops. It's a catchall charge.

 

[laughing dog]

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

And when did you put any stock into what that blithering idiot had to say before?
Strange bedfellows and all that ...

When even a blithering fuckwit of a demogogic idiot can tell Garner was not resisting arrest, perhaps it is an indication that the claim he was arresting arrest is obviously bogus.

 

[RavenSky]

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

And when did you put any stock into what that blithering idiot had to say before?
Strange bedfellows and all that ...

I don't. But when even he thinks there is something wrong - as does GW Bush - then I am having a hard time understanding how you don't.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Is the selling of individual cigarettes on the street an arrestible offense? Wouldn't you just get a ticket...

oh wait he was Black.

 

[RavenSky]

Is the selling of individual cigarettes on the street an arrestible offense? Wouldn't you just get a ticket...

oh wait he was Black.

The "crime" is not paying the state tax on the cigarettes being sold. Clearly a death penalty offense.

 

[Toni]

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

And when did you put any stock into what that blithering idiot had to say before?
Strange bedfellows and all that ...

Have you read George Bush's thoughts on this incident? I'm referring to the shrub not Sr.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Is the selling of individual cigarettes on the street an arrestible offense? Wouldn't you just get a ticket...

oh wait he was Black.

More like, oh, wait, he's out on bail.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

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

The controversial part is when Eric Garner throws the officers hands off of him and shouts "don't touch me"

That somewhat depends on whether or not the officers had actually begun the process of arresting him on some sort of concrete charge, rather than simply attempting to search him for loose cigarettes in a pat-down search. I and many others have seen police officers bark orders to people and then arrest them for "failure to comply" or "failure to obey". There are documented cases of individuals being charged with "resisting arrest" without any clear indicator of what they were originally being arrested FOR; this usually happens when the police decide they don't like someone's attitude and settle on "I'm gonna take you in and fabricate some bullshit later" at which point his suspect, fully aware he's being railroaded, puts up a fight.

The police are firm that this was resistance.

And doing so proves that THESE police are a bunch of assholes.

 

[Derec]

The "crime" is not paying the state tax on the cigarettes being sold. Clearly a death penalty offense.

You are yet another one who is equating an accidental, unintentional heart-attack death of an ill person with a "death penalty".

As to not paying the tax - don't fuck with the taxman.

 

[Derec]

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

Once you start arresting somebody changing your mind because they are resisting would undermine police authority.

How was he driving without a license when he was standing on the sidewalk?

Can't you read? He was out on bail for those offenses, which means that happened before.

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.

If they arrested him illegally, why isn't anybody formally alleging that. As to the warrant, that would still have given him an opportunity to resist.

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.

They could not have predicted that it would kill him.

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.

It's not like they shot him.

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.

If they get handsy and yell "don't touch me" I am sure they would.

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.

Nobody knows that. Perhaps he would have collapsed and died that day anyway.
But police were called about a crime. They investigated the crime. They found the suspect combative and took him down. Unfortunately he died as a result.

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.

Or Garner could have just cooperated.

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

First of all, there is some dispute as to whether this was a chokehold as defined by NYPD policy. Secondly, was there more than one death alleged to have been contributed by the chokehold (that Baez guy)? 1 death 20 years ago is not exactly "known to be deadly".

 

[RavenSky]

The "crime" is not paying the state tax on the cigarettes being sold. Clearly a death penalty offense.

You are yet another one who is equating an accidental, unintentional heart-attack death of an ill person with a "death penalty".

It's not an "accidental, unintentional heart-attack death" when the police officer knows that chokeholds can cause death, and knows that this is exactly why chokeholds are forbidden.

 

[RavenSky]

Once you start arresting somebody changing your mind because they are resisting would undermine police authority.

you keep repeating your opinion, but this is not a fact nor an NYPD policy. Do you know what IS an NYPD policy? NO CHOKEHOLDS!

How was he driving without a license when he was standing on the sidewalk?

Can't you read? He was out on bail for those offenses, which means that happened before.

I see perfectly fine. I see you throwing this stuff out as if it is justification for the police harrassing him in the street.

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.

If they arrested him illegally, why isn't anybody formally alleging that. As to the warrant, that would still have given him an opportunity to resist.

No one is objecting to a false arrest because the police KILLED HIM before arresting him. My point is that they had no apparent probable cause to be harassing him in the first place. The alleged fact that he was out on bail means absolutely nothing unless someone can produce evidence that Eric Garner was breaking a law or violating his probation AT THAT MOMENT.

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.

They could not have predicted that it would kill him.

Actually, yes, they could have. Chokeholds are KNOWN to cause death - that is why they are forbidden. Regardless, you ignored my actual point - IF, as you claim, Eric Garner was doing something to violate his bail, their alternative was to have his bail revoked. They did not HAVE to put him in a chokehold.

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.

It's not like they shot him.

Are you suggesting that the only way to use lethal force is with a gun? Or are you just trying to pull my ponytail at this point?

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.

If they get handsy and yell "don't touch me" I am sure they would.

I'm sure they wouldn't.

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.

Nobody knows that. Perhaps he would have collapsed and died that day anyway.
But police were called about a crime. They investigated the crime. They found the suspect combative and took him down. Unfortunately he died as a result.

First of all, claiming that *perhaps* Garner would have died at some future point as justification for police to kill him now is really beyond ridiculous. Everyone will die at some point. As such, according to you, police should feel free to kill us all?

Second, provide evidence for your claims that "police were called about a crime" and/or that "they investigated a crime". To the best of my knowledge, there was no such call (or investigation) about Eric Garner. I want to see a reputable source with links supporting your claim.

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.

Or Garner could have just cooperated.

You are blaming the victim again... not that I ever expect different from you.

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

First of all, there is some dispute as to whether this was a chokehold as defined by NYPD policy. Secondly, was there more than one death alleged to have been contributed by the chokehold (that Baez guy)? 1 death 20 years ago is not exactly "known to be deadly".

"First of all" no there isn't any dispute as to whether this was a chokehold. It was. There is no reputable source anywhere claiming otherwise. "Secondly", there have been MANY cases of chokeholds causing deaths - that is why they are banned.

 

[RavenSky]

From 1975 to 1983 when this USSC ruling was issued:

Although the city instructs its officers that use of a chokehold does not constitute deadly force, since 1975 no less than 16 persons have died following the use of a chokehold by an LAPD police officer. Twelve have been Negro males […]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/12/supreme-court-police-chokehold-garner

So, just one city's police - in less than a 10-year period - killed 16 people... but it's not known to be deadly

BTW, the guy that case was about - Adolph Lyons - got pulled over for driving with a burned-out taillight. He didn't "resist arrest" or anything else whatsoever to *require* a chokehold. Police didn't even arrest him after choking him unconscious. Just issued him a ticket for the tail light and left:

"The officers greeted him with drawn revolvers as he exited from his car. Lyons was told to face his car and spread his legs. He did so." After an officer slammed his hands against his head, Lyons complained that the keys in his hand were hurting him.

What happened next nearly killed him:

Within 5 to 10 seconds, the officer began to choke Lyons by applying a forearm against his throat. As Lyons struggled for air, the officer handcuffed him, but continued to apply the chokehold until he blacked out. When Lyons regained consciousness, he was lying face down on the ground, choking, gasping for air, and spitting up blood and dirt. He had urinated and defecated. He was issued a traffic citation and released.

I can't even imagine how much you would be complaining (and rightly so) if you got pulled over for something as minimal as a tail light, and then you got choked until you pissed and shit your self. You always assume that the black man did something to deserve it. Are you going to try to claim the same here?

 

[RavenSky]

This guy is fortunate he wasn't killed... or detained until he died:

A Highway Patrol trooper enters the scene first, gun drawn, and kicks the driver's window of Greene's four-door sedan. After several moments, the trooper opens the door.

The trooper, his gun still raised, then gives Greene conflicting commands. He first tells him not to move, then tells him to come forward.

A second trooper quickly cuffs Greene's wrist and pulls him from the car, which rolls forward until an officer stops it.

Greene flops to the ground, clearly dazed as five officers rush him. A sixth officer, with Henderson police, enters the frame late and delivers five well-placed kicks to Greene's face.

"Stop resisting mother (expletive)!" one officer yells.

Greene doesn't scream until a second Henderson officer knees him in the midsection -- and then does it three more times. Greene was later treated for fractured ribs.

Police suspected Greene was intoxicated as he weaved among lanes about 4 a.m. on Oct. 29, 2010, and finally stopped his car near Lake Mead Parkway and Boulder Highway in Henderson.

But that wasn't the case, which they soon discovered after they searched Greene.

"Call in medical," one officer says in the video. "We found some insulin in his pocket. ... He's semiconscious."

"Let's get medical out here. He's a diabetic, he's probably in shock," the officer later tells dispatch.

Greene's lawsuit said officers then forced him to stand by a patrol car in handcuffs and blow into a Breathalyzer, despite being injured. Paramedics later arrived and treated him for low blood sugar.

Greene was released without a citation, and officers apologized to him for "beating him up," the lawsuit said.

He immediately went to a hospital, where he was treated for the broken ribs and the bruises to his hands, neck, face and scalp, the lawsuit said.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/crime-courts/video-shows-officers-beating-motorist-diabetic-shock

Not a choke hold case, but a case of multiple police officers piling on and beating the crap out of a man, breaking his ribs, all because he was suspected of driving while drunk. Note how one of the police yells the magic words "stop resisting" even though the video clearly shows the man is NOT resisting, may not even be conscious.

As Adam Greene said, "I ended up with two broken ribs. I had some cuts and a black eye on my face," Greene told KTNV. "I was confused, but I wasn't resisting, and I would think this would be incorrect and inappropriate behavior whether I was drunk ... or not drunk."

So I will ask you the same question here Derec - how would you like to be treated like this - NOT because you did anything wrong or broke any laws nor even got mouthy with police - but because you had an emergency medical condition that police did not even bother to try to assess before assaulting you?