Another officer not indicted

[GenesisNemesis]

Speaking requires movement of air through the larynx. So no humor. Try saying something while being choked.

To choke someone to death it is not necessary to prevent all air from entering the lungs, it is sufficient that not enough air enter the lungs. In fact, preventing enough air from getting into the lungs is pretty much the only mechanism through which holding someone's neck like that helps you subdue them. If he was getting enough air, he wouldn't have been on the ground.

Plus, he died. He said, "I can't breathe", and then he died because he couldn't breathe. I can't think of a more decisive way of winning an argument.

All cops r gud, stoopid libruls

 

[Axulus]

How is this not felony murder? If it's illegal for police to do a chokehold and this guy died as a result of the officer committing an illegal act, that seems to meet the criteria. The fact that he had zero intention to kill the guy shouldn't be relevant to the case.

That's the key point under contention: did the act cause the death? How would you prove that given the mans poor health, the stress of the situation, and the other officers on top of him compressing his chest, and given that choke-holds almost never cause heart attacks (the usual form of death from choking someone is asphyxiation, which was not the cause of death but rather complications from a heart attack) ? You would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he would've lived without the choke-hold.

 

[Derec]

The proper expansion of his thorax was prevented as his torso was in direct contact with the ground with full weight being pushed down and quite forcefully by several officers. It caused what is commonly known as compressive asphyxia. "I cannot breathe" is fully consistent with compressive asphyxia. He was held down with heavy pressure on his torso long enough to lose consciousness and of course generalized hypoxia followed.

Which is a different explanation than a choke hold. Pushing a suspect to the ground in order to subdue them is SOP for police and I doubt it is against regulations or policy within NYPD. So if it was him being pushed to the ground rather then the headlock that triggered the heart attack there is even less to blame the police for.

I have another idea (any MDs in the house?)
Garner complained that he couldn't breathe. Would a beginning heart attack cause someone to think they couldn't breathe even though they were able to ventilate? In that case, his breathing difficulties would have nothing to do with his neck being held or him being pinned to the ground.

Has the official autopsy been released anyway?

 

[Cobalt]

How is this not felony murder? If it's illegal for police to do a chokehold and this guy died as a result of the officer committing an illegal act, that seems to meet the criteria. The fact that he had zero intention to kill the guy shouldn't be relevant to the case.

That's the key point under contention: did the act cause the death? How would you prove that given the mans poor health, the stress of the situation, and the other officers on top of him compressing his chest, and given that choke-holds almost never cause heart attacks (the usual form of death from choking someone is asphyxiation, which was not the cause of death but rather complications from a heart attack) ? You would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he would've lived without the choke-hold.

Proximate causes are "close enough" for felony murder. As Tom said, this fits the criteria.

 

[Toni]

How is this not felony murder? If it's illegal for police to do a chokehold and this guy died as a result of the officer committing an illegal act, that seems to meet the criteria. The fact that he had zero intention to kill the guy shouldn't be relevant to the case.

That's the key point under contention: did the act cause the death? How would you prove that given the mans poor health, the stress of the situation, and the other officers on top of him compressing his chest, and given that choke-holds almost never cause heart attacks (the usual form of death from choking someone is asphyxiation, which was not the cause of death but rather complications from a heart attack) ? You would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he would've lived without the choke-hold.

You realize that you've just pointed out another way that police officers contributed to this man's death, to the point of being the cause of his death, right? By compressing his chest.

Almost never is a long way from never.

Do you know why people die of asthma attacks? Lack of oxygen. You know what else causes lack of oxygen? Being strangled or having your chest compressed.

Aside from that your logic fails:

If you shoot someone with severe diabetes, someone who is about to enter a diabetic coma, and they die as a result of the gunshot wound, you still killed that person, however unlikely their recovery from diabetic coma (or cancer or insert chronic and often fatal illness here).

If someone jumps out of a 10th story window and you fire a bullet into his brain on his way down and the bullet kills him, you still killed him, even if he intended to kill himself.

And so on.

The officer's treatment of this man resulted in the man's death.

 

[Axulus]

That's the key point under contention: did the act cause the death? How would you prove that given the mans poor health, the stress of the situation, and the other officers on top of him compressing his chest, and given that choke-holds almost never cause heart attacks (the usual form of death from choking someone is asphyxiation, which was not the cause of death but rather complications from a heart attack) ? You would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he would've lived without the choke-hold.

Proximate causes are "close enough" for felony murder. As Tom said, this fits the criteria.

As Loren pointed out, his action wasn't a felony.

 

[Axulus]

That's the key point under contention: did the act cause the death? How would you prove that given the mans poor health, the stress of the situation, and the other officers on top of him compressing his chest, and given that choke-holds almost never cause heart attacks (the usual form of death from choking someone is asphyxiation, which was not the cause of death but rather complications from a heart attack) ? You would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he would've lived without the choke-hold.

You realize that you've just pointed out another way that police officers contributed to this man's death, to the point of being the cause of his death, right? By compressing his chest.

Almost never is a long way from never.

Do you know why people die of asthma attacks? Lack of oxygen. You know what else causes lack of oxygen? Being strangled or having your chest compressed.

Aside from that your logic fails:

If you shoot someone with severe diabetes, someone who is about to enter a diabetic coma, and they die as a result of the gunshot wound, you still killed that person, however unlikely their recovery from diabetic coma (or cancer or insert chronic and often fatal illness here).

If someone jumps out of a 10th story window and you fire a bullet into his brain on his way down and the bullet kills him, you still killed him, even if he intended to kill himself.

And so on.

The officer's treatment of this man resulted in the man's death.

How do you know for sure he wouldn't of had the heart attack in the absence of the choke-hold? I didn't see you demonstrate that. What we are talking about is he would've been alive, beyond reasonable doubt, in the absence of the action. We are talking about the action causing the thing that killed him: the heart attack. In your gunshot example, the cause of death was the gunshot. Without the gunshot, there is no gunshot death (or bleeding death, internal organ damage, etc., the thing that caused the death). Without the choke-hold, there may still have been a heart attack death.

 

[Derec]

To choke someone to death it is not necessary to prevent all air from entering the lungs, it is sufficient that not enough air enter the lungs.

And would that insufficient volume be enough to speak?

In fact, preventing enough air from getting into the lungs is pretty much the only mechanism through which holding someone's neck like that helps you subdue them.

Cutting off blood to the brain is quicker than cutting off air.

If he was getting enough air, he wouldn't have been on the ground.

They pinned him to the ground as part of the arrest process.

Plus, he died. He said, "I can't breathe", and then he died because he couldn't breathe. I can't think of a more decisive way of winning an argument.

Yeah, "winning".

Kind of like a hypochondriac putting "I told you I was ill" on his gravestone ...

Tragically, sometimes people die while being arrested. Often because of underlying health problems, often due to drug abuse. But a tragedy does not automatically a murder make. Or even a manslaughter - although involuntary manslaughter was about the highest charge this grand jury was ever likely to return.

 

[Derec]

Proximate causes are "close enough" for felony murder. As Tom said, this fits the criteria.

But non-felonies aren't.
It's called "felony murder", not "policy violation murder". Not even a misdemeanor is enough, much less a policy violation.

- - - Updated - - -

You realize that you've just pointed out another way that police officers contributed to this man's death, to the point of being the cause of his death, right? By compressing his chest.

But if pinning him to the ground was necessary to subdue him (watch the video, he is much bigger than the police and he was combative) and pinning a suspect to the ground was not against department policy then there is nothing to blame police for.

 

[Trausti]

You realize that you've just pointed out another way that police officers contributed to this man's death, to the point of being the cause of his death, right? By compressing his chest.

Then the grand jury here came to the correct conclusion. The "chokehold" officer - I understand that the grand jury was convened solely for him - was not one of the cops who got on Garner's chest.

 

[Sabine Grant]

You are wrong. Considering how many times the cause of death has been confirmed : compression of both trachea and chest. His death was caused by an actual choke-hold which placed constant pressure on his trachea and weight pressure on his thorax as he was brought down to the ground on his chest and MAINTAINED forcefully in that position. To be noted that even as he was maintained on the ground, his thorax in full contact with the ground and full weight (his own as well as police officers pushing down on him, increasing the pressure on his torso), Officer Panteleo was still choke holding him.Inevitably, respiration was interrupted due to the compression of the trachea and aggravated by the weight pressure on his thorax or compressive asphyxia.

As the result of his prolonged asphyxia, generalized hypoxia affecting all of his organs. Generalized meaning that a vital organ such as the heart will be affected. He went in cardiac arrest.

Do you have a link confirming these claims?

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...d-homicide-medical-examiner-article-1.1888808

The autopsy also found that compressions to the chest and “prone positioning during physical restraint by police” killed Garner. The manner of death, according to the medical examiner, was homicide.

The statement above and attributed to the medical examiner has been consistently quoted in several articles. I am surprised it escaped your attention.

Now, do you need links regarding the use of the terms "thorax" "torso" versus "chest"? Do you need links regarding the term "compression" and how " compressions to the chest" relates to compressive asphyxia? Do you need links relating compressive asphyxia to hypoxia and subsequent generalized hypoxia? Do you need links detailing the symptoms of hypoxia step by step ? Such as loss of consciousness ( caused by insufficient O2 saturation of the brain) followed by a rapid deterioration of all tissues and organs to include vital organs such as the heart. Do you need links relating how hypoxia affects the heart?

Do you need links relating how an air choke hold (versus blood choke hold) will interrupt the air flow via the trachea? Maybe a link confirming that the word "trachea" is an anatomically correct term (medically too) for the lay term "windpipe"?

Be specific as to which of my "claims" you need links for.

Eric Garner still had a pulse when the EMTs arrived on the scene. That is why they did not initiate CPR. He died of a cardiac arrest during transport to the hospital. Too much damage to the heart tissues caused by hypoxia. And his state of hypoxia having been the direct result of the combined air flow block with the initial compression on his trachea (like it or not I will use anatomically correct terms) or known as air choke hold (versus blood choke hold) followed by :

compressions to the chest and “prone positioning during physical restraint by police”

 

[Axulus]

One of the bigger outrages that no one seems to be talking about: why is selling untaxed cigarettes an arrestable offence? Give him a ticket and send him on his way. Do the police have so much resources that they can crack down on such petty crime like that? Furthermore, choke-holds initiated in a non-self defense/non lifetreatening situation should be considered excessive force and the penalty similar to physically assaulting someone. Why is it not?

Furthermore, doesn't this constitute filing a fraudulent report?

The NYPD’s internal report prepared right after Garner died didn’t mention a chokehold and insisted he had not been in “great distress.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...d-homicide-medical-examiner-article-1.1888808

This was before they knew a video of the situation had been taken.

 

[Axulus]

Do you have a link confirming these claims?

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...d-homicide-medical-examiner-article-1.1888808

The autopsy also found that compressions to the chest and “prone positioning during physical restraint by police” killed Garner. The manner of death, according to the medical examiner, was homicide.

The statement above and attributed to the medical examiner has been consistently quoted in several articles. I am surprised it escaped your attention.

Now, do you need links regarding the use of the terms "thorax" "torso" versus "chest"? Do you need links regarding the term "compression" and how " compressions to the chest" relates to compressive asphyxia? Do you need links relating compressive asphyxia to hypoxia and subsequent generalized hypoxia? Do you need links detailing the symptoms of hypoxia step by step ? Such as loss of consciousness ( caused by insufficient O2 saturation of the brain) followed by a rapid deterioration of all tissues and organs to include vital organs such as the heart. Do you need links relating how hypoxia affects the heart?

Do you need links relating how an air choke hold (versus blood choke hold) will interrupt the air flow via the trachea? Maybe a link confirming that the word "trachea" is an anatomically correct term (medically too) for the lay term "windpipe"?

Be specific as to which of my "claims" you need links for.

Eric Garner still had a pulse when the EMTs arrived on the scene. That is why they did not initiate CPR. He died of a cardiac arrest during transport to the hospital. Too much damage to the heart tissues caused by hypoxia. And his state of hypoxia having been the direct result of the combined air flow block with the initial compression on his trachea (like it or not I will use anatomically correct terms) or known as air choke hold (versus blood choke hold) followed by :

compressions to the chest and “prone positioning during physical restraint by police”

According to this, the report listed several causes:

Marvyn Kornberg, a Queens lawyer, has represented several police officers accused of crimes, and said it was likely the autopsy report that played a role in the grand jury’s decision. The report listed several contributing factors in his death, including his obesity, weak heart and asthma.

“There were so many causes of death in the autopsy report,” he said. “You have to prove this guy caused his death.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/n...and-jury-he-meant-no-harm-to-eric-garner.html

 

[Sabine Grant]

The proper expansion of his thorax was prevented as his torso was in direct contact with the ground with full weight being pushed down and quite forcefully by several officers. It caused what is commonly known as compressive asphyxia. "I cannot breathe" is fully consistent with compressive asphyxia. He was held down with heavy pressure on his torso long enough to lose consciousness and of course generalized hypoxia followed.

Which is a different explanation than a choke hold. Pushing a suspect to the ground in order to subdue them is SOP for police and I doubt it is against regulations or policy within NYPD. So if it was him being pushed to the ground rather then the headlock that triggered the heart attack there is even less to blame the police for.

I will arm myself with patience in going over it one more time but for the last time :

It was a combination of two factors, both impairing the vital function known as respiration. The initial factor being an air choke hold interrupting the inflow of air as it placed pressure on the trachea also known as "windpipe". Followed by factor number 2 aggravating the initial obstruction of the air flow input by inducing compressive asphyxia caused by the "compressions on the chest". The combination of both factors having subsequently depressed his respiration to the point of hypoxia. He lost consciousness ( O2 deprivation of the brain), still had a pulse when the EMTs arrived ( he was not pronounced dead on the scene but died during transport).

I have another idea (any MDs in the house?)
Garner complained that he couldn't breathe. Would a beginning heart attack cause someone to think they couldn't breathe even though they were able to ventilate? In that case, his breathing difficulties would have nothing to do with his neck being held or him being pinned to the ground.

Again, he was not pronounced dead on the scene. He did not go into cardiac arrest on the scene. He was unconscious but still had vital signs. That is why the EMTs did not initiate CPR.

"being pinned to the ground"??? Is that what you have retained from my deployed efforts to detail what "compressions to the chest" signifies and how it relates to compressive asphyxia?

"his neck being held"???. Is that what you have retained from my deployed efforts to detail what "compression of the trachea" signifies and how it relates to an air choke hold?

The undeniable reality is that Eric Garner, prior to being physically assaulted by several police officers, was standing on a sidewalk, showing no signs of any cardiac symptoms, was breathing without any difficulties, no signs of pain in his left shoulder, left arm or jaw (yes, pain in the left jaw may be a predictor of a heart attack), no signs of pain in his chest or back, no indication of such symptoms by observing his range of motion and overall demeanor on the video. Further reality being that he was subjected to TWO uses of physical force which both contributed to his death.

Has the official autopsy been released anyway?

Do you ever do your own research?

 

[Sabine Grant]

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...d-homicide-medical-examiner-article-1.1888808

The autopsy also found that compressions to the chest and “prone positioning during physical restraint by police” killed Garner. The manner of death, according to the medical examiner, was homicide.

The statement above and attributed to the medical examiner has been consistently quoted in several articles. I am surprised it escaped your attention.

Now, do you need links regarding the use of the terms "thorax" "torso" versus "chest"? Do you need links regarding the term "compression" and how " compressions to the chest" relates to compressive asphyxia? Do you need links relating compressive asphyxia to hypoxia and subsequent generalized hypoxia? Do you need links detailing the symptoms of hypoxia step by step ? Such as loss of consciousness ( caused by insufficient O2 saturation of the brain) followed by a rapid deterioration of all tissues and organs to include vital organs such as the heart. Do you need links relating how hypoxia affects the heart?

Do you need links relating how an air choke hold (versus blood choke hold) will interrupt the air flow via the trachea? Maybe a link confirming that the word "trachea" is an anatomically correct term (medically too) for the lay term "windpipe"?

Be specific as to which of my "claims" you need links for.

Eric Garner still had a pulse when the EMTs arrived on the scene. That is why they did not initiate CPR. He died of a cardiac arrest during transport to the hospital. Too much damage to the heart tissues caused by hypoxia. And his state of hypoxia having been the direct result of the combined air flow block with the initial compression on his trachea (like it or not I will use anatomically correct terms) or known as air choke hold (versus blood choke hold) followed by :

compressions to the chest and “prone positioning during physical restraint by police”

According to this, the report listed several causes:

Marvyn Kornberg, a Queens lawyer, has represented several police officers accused of crimes, and said it was likely the autopsy report that played a role in the grand jury’s decision. The report listed several contributing factors in his death, including his obesity, weak heart and asthma.

“There were so many causes of death in the autopsy report,” he said. “You have to prove this guy caused his death.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/n...and-jury-he-meant-no-harm-to-eric-garner.html

And again the reality being:

By me :The undeniable reality is that Eric Garner, prior to being physically assaulted by several police officers, was standing on a sidewalk, showing no signs of any cardiac symptoms, was breathing without any difficulties, no signs of pain in his left shoulder, left arm or jaw (yes, pain in the left jaw may be a predictor of a heart attack), no signs of pain in his chest or back, no indication of such symptoms by observing his range of motion and overall demeanor on the video. Further reality being that he was subjected to TWO uses of physical force which both contributed to his death.

Surely, you are not trying to build a case that Eric Garner would have suffered of compressive asphyxia (compressions to the chest) by just standing on a sidewalk which is where he was at the time he was approached by the police officers. Surely, not trying to build a case that he was suffering of an interruption of his air flow due to compression of his trachea by just standing on a sidewalk which is where he was at the time he was approached by the police officers.

Is it really that difficult to comprehend that his death was the result of the manner he was physically handled by several police officers? It is that simple, really.

 

[Axulus]

Surely, you are not trying to build a case that Eric Garner would have suffered of compressive asphyxia (compressions to the chest) by just standing on a sidewalk which is where he was at the time he was approached by the police officers. Surely, not trying to build a case that he was suffering of an interruption of his air flow due to compression of his trachea by just standing on a sidewalk which is where he was at the time he was approached by the police officers.

Is it really that difficult to comprehend that his death was the result of the manner he was physically handled by several police officers? It is that simple, really.

No, we are talking about what would've happened if everything else still occurred _except_ the chokehold. It increases his chance of survival, for sure, but does it guarantee his survival? "There's a good chance your action caused his death" does not turn into a conviction due to our justice system being such that we would rather a guilty person go free than an innocent person be wrongly convicted.

 

[Sabine Grant]

One of the bigger outrages that no one seems to be talking about: why is selling untaxed cigarettes an arrestable offence? Give him a ticket and send him on his way.

From what I could gather from the video footage, he was approached on mere suspicion that he was selling untaxed cigarettes, "black market" type. It appears one police officer attempted to obtain evidence from him. At that point, Garner exclaimed "don't touch me". What deeply troubles me here (aside from the very valid points you made) is that LEOs can start a search on a person based on suspicion of. There is not much privacy afforded to citizens, is there?

Do the police have so much resources that they can crack down on such petty crime like that?

They actually do not have so much resources. That entire tragedy could have been avoided if the involved LEOs had approached him differently. It was a totally unnecessary show of force over smuggled untaxed cigarettes.

Furthermore, choke-holds initiated in a non-self defense/non lifetreatening situation should be considered excessive force and the penalty similar to physically assaulting someone. Why is it not?

Furthermore, doesn't this constitute filing a fraudulent report?

The NYPD’s internal report prepared right after Garner died didn’t mention a chokehold and insisted he had not been in “great distress.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...d-homicide-medical-examiner-article-1.1888808

This was before they knew a video of the situation had been taken.

Interesting. At the end of the video, we can see one of the police officers attempting to interfere with the filming. hmmmmm.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Surely, you are not trying to build a case that Eric Garner would have suffered of compressive asphyxia (compressions to the chest) by just standing on a sidewalk which is where he was at the time he was approached by the police officers. Surely, not trying to build a case that he was suffering of an interruption of his air flow due to compression of his trachea by just standing on a sidewalk which is where he was at the time he was approached by the police officers.

Is it really that difficult to comprehend that his death was the result of the manner he was physically handled by several police officers? It is that simple, really.

No, we are talking about what would've happened if everything else still occurred _except_ the chokehold. It increases his chance of survival, for sure, but does it guarantee his survival? "There's a good chance your action caused his death" does not turn into a conviction due to our justice system being such that we would rather a guilty person go free than an innocent person be wrongly convicted.

IMO, the choke hold bit has been the focus because the word came out that it was illegal for the N.Y police force to use it.

And by the way, nowhere did I advocate a conviction. Since that was a Grand Jury deliberation with a return of non indictment, we are not even remotely close to speaking of convictions. A charge? Sure.Involuntary manslaughter. However even if such charge had occurred there is no guarantee there would be a guilty verdict via a trial.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

How is this not felony murder? If it's illegal for police to do a chokehold and this guy died as a result of the officer committing an illegal act, that seems to meet the criteria. The fact that he had zero intention to kill the guy shouldn't be relevant to the case.

1) Felony murder only applies to deaths from a felony, not merely any illegal action.

2) Choke holds are not illegal. They're just against department policy.

3) The illegal action has to be the trigger for the death.


In this case the cause of death was a stress-induced heart attack. Was the hold the cause of that stress? Or the scuffle in general? To get a felony murder conviction you need to show beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the hold that caused the heart attack. Since that's an impossible burden...

Fair enough. It's still the cause of death, though. If you do something that you shouldn't be doing and that action directly leads to somebody's death, that does make you some category of murderer, even if felony murder isn't the correct category.

Maybe it would be better termed involuntary manslaughter. Whatever the correct category is, the officer seems to be clearly guilty of it.

 

[Axulus]

1) Felony murder only applies to deaths from a felony, not merely any illegal action.

2) Choke holds are not illegal. They're just against department policy.

3) The illegal action has to be the trigger for the death.


In this case the cause of death was a stress-induced heart attack. Was the hold the cause of that stress? Or the scuffle in general? To get a felony murder conviction you need to show beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the hold that caused the heart attack. Since that's an impossible burden...

Fair enough. It's still the cause of death, though. If you do something that you shouldn't be doing and that action directly leads to somebody's death, that does make you some category of murderer, even if felony murder isn't the correct category.

Maybe it would be better termed involuntary manslaughter. Whatever the correct category is, the officer seems to be clearly guilty of it.

It's not clear though. What would need to be demonstrated is that he would still be alive in the absence of the chokehold. His poor health, bad heart, stress of the situation, and the other officers on top of him compressing his chest may still have been enough to kill him. To get a manslaughter conviction, you have to demonstrate that the choke-hold (apparently not illegal for police to do per NY state law) was the key action that lead to the death that, in its absence, the man would still be alive.

No argument that it would increase his odds for survival, but does it guarantee it?