http://nypost.com/2017/08/02/city-approves-4m-payment-to-eric-garners-family/
$4 milion to the family of Eric Garner.
$4 milion to the family of Eric Garner.
-
Features
Good
- Thread starter ksen
- Start date
Derec
Contributor
Bad decision. It's not like NYC is swimming in money.
And we have a case of an unhealthy man dying after resisting arrest and being restrained in a matter that, while not accoridng to the patrol book, is nevertheless not illegal under NY law.
So how can the $4M payment be justiied?
City governments are way too cavalier in spending other people's money.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,251
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Act first, pay later.
don't care
laughing dog
Contributor
The NYC police basically caused this man to die. For someone who wants BLM protesters to pay damages for inconviencing travelers, your whines seem a bit hypocritical.
Sorry. He fought the cops and it turned out very bad for him. Too bad, he doesn't deserve a penny.
laughing dog
Contributor
Mr. Garner is dead. As ksen pointed out, he is not getting a penny.
Derec
Contributor
Not really. They tried to subdue him while he resisted arrest using a method that is not normally deadly. Given his health, he might have died from getting tased too.
There were many contributing factors - him resisting arrest, police using a choke hold, his ill health.
But even if we pretend that the police is solely responsible for his death, torts should be based on actual damages, not pulled out of some city official's ass.
Normally wrongful death cases are based on things like lost earnings. But Garner, being a loosie seller, did not make much.
Not the same thing.
#BLMers deliberately caused shutdowns of major highways, trapping thousands and causing them real, quantifiable, damages.
The cop who used the choke hold could not reasonably predict that Garner would die of suffer any injuries from it. The #BLMers blocking highways know that their actions will cause thousands to be trapped, and significant actual economic damages.
laughing dog
Contributor
HIs resisting arrest did not cause his death. The police over-reaction did.
His family lost him as a person which is not the value of his lost earnings.
Being dead is more inconvenient than being stuck in traffic. '
Of course they could. That is one of the reasons the chokehold was dropped as proper police procedure.
zorq
Veteran Member
I see that the usual suspects still think it is still Eric Garner's fault that the police chose to deprive his brain of oxygen to subdue him and then refused to help restore oxygen flow to his brain guaranteeing his imminent death.
And the excuse they give for this deadly force? Eric Garner moved his arms away from the hands of Officers trying to Grab him.
Yep. That is it.
If you ever instinctively move your arms or any other body part away from an impending assault on your body that you weren't expecting, and the person assaulting you is a police officer, we all must expect and encourage the ensuing deadly force the Police subject you to.
Disgusting.
And the excuse they give for this deadly force? Eric Garner moved his arms away from the hands of Officers trying to Grab him.
Yep. That is it.
If you ever instinctively move your arms or any other body part away from an impending assault on your body that you weren't expecting, and the person assaulting you is a police officer, we all must expect and encourage the ensuing deadly force the Police subject you to.
Disgusting.
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
Anti Vietnam protesters blocked freeways near CSULA and UCLA after Kent State too. Point was proved at the time that pedestrians can't block such if people with large vehicles don't want them to do so.
Here it comes as far as damages are concerned. Stick out right thumb. Raise index finger above thumb and play. Appropriate action, Just desserts.
Why do you think unjustified killings by authorities should be cause for protesters to be held responsible for small bits of coin lost by uninterested parties?
Give me an "R". Give me an "A" .......
lpetrich
Contributor
Boo hoo hoo hoo hoo.
Right-wingers are fond of objecting that this or that is too expensive -- but they never make that argument against anything that they like. Never.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,251
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Poor Derec
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Derec
Contributor
1. I am not a right-winger.
2. There are things government should spend money on. Paying unnecessarily nigh settlements is not one of them.
But it's impossible to have a reasonable conversation with some people on here any more. Instead of making an argument as to why the $4M payment is a good thing, you get nonsense like this.
Derec
Contributor
So you are saying it's ok to drive over protesters?
What "just desserts"? How are people trying to get home from work responsible for whatever it is these protesters are outraged this time?
1. Why do you assume these killings are unjustified. #BLMers have shut down highways over Michael Brown, Jamar Clark etc. These shooting were justified.
2. Even if a shooting is unjustfied, the motorists unjustly detained are not the parties responsible.
3. People prevented to go about their business suffer real, quantifiable damages. The #BLMers who deliberately and with malice caused these damages should be responsible for them.
Derec
Contributor
It is his fault he resisted arrest. It is the fault of police officer that he used an unapproved (but not illegal) technique to end the resistance. It is partly Eric Garner's fault and partly nobody's fault (if you don't believe in god of course) that he suffered from such ill health that this technique caused his death.
So I do not think police are completely blameless, but their share of blame is relatively minor. That is why none of the police officers was charged with a crime. The truth is that the hold used was not used to kill Garner. The reason he died was not because the hold used was inherently lethal but because of his ill health.
Sigh. It was not "deadly force", i.e. it was not "likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death". Note "likely". Something is not considered deadly force just because it might lead to death in some circumstances.
Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 19,857
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
If you bothered to think about it a little bit, you would realize that no city official pulled any sum out of his or her ass. The settlement reached was done after a great deal of consultation with professionals who calculated the value of Mr. Garner's life to his family and weighed it against what they would probably lose in court if it went to jury trial.
The police choked a man they had to have been aware was not in good health--not just a little bit, but long and hard enough to subdue him. For what? Selling loose cigarettes?
It would be totally different if he had a loaded firearm and was threatening to shoot people. But he wasn't doing that. Now, I hate cigarettes and tobacco products as much as anyone on earth, but what he was doing was causing no harm and no imminent danger to anyone. The police acted with deadly force, and did not render aid.
Garner's family deserved financial relief and the police department deserved to be punished.
laughing dog
Contributor
I agree. Instead of people making a cogent argument as to why the $4m payout is a bad thing, you get nonsense like "pulled out of some city official's ass. " or denying that a chokehold is deadly force.
Derec
Contributor
The burden of proof is on the side that starts threads calling this payout "good". And besides, I have provided rational reasons why the amount is unjustified.