Good

[Derec]

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.

I doubt that very much. Certainly no rationale for that figure has ever been offered by deBlasio or any other NYC official. It's as "pulled out of ass" as Justin Trudeau deciding to pay an Islamist terrorist and traitor $10.5M Canadian.

For what? Selling loose cigarettes?

For resisting arrest.

It would be totally different if he had a loaded firearm and was threatening to shoot people.

Yes it would be. In that case, he would have been shot. Trying to manually subdue somebody like that would have been foolhardy.

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.

It's not a serious crime, but he was a repeat offender and he escalated by resisting.

The police acted with deadly force, and did not render aid.

No, they did not act with deadly force. Something is not deadly force just because it leads to death in a particular case, but is based on what likely causes death or serious injury. Shooting somebody is deadly force even if the perp survives. Placing him in a choke hold Radio Raheem style is not deadly force even if there is a small possibility of death.

Garner's family deserved financial relief and the police department deserved to be punished.

Again, Garner contributed to his death by resisting. And, again, why do you think they deserve to become millionaires over this?

 

[laughing dog]

Instead of people making a cogent argument as to why the $4m payout is a bad thing,

The burden of proof is on the side that starts threads calling this payout "good".

People do not have to prove their opinion.

[
And besides, I have provided rational reasons why the amount is unjustified.

No, you have not. You even try to spin the idea that a chokehold is not deadly force. Did you know that

The LAPD still allows officers to use a carotid restraint, Smith said, but restricts it to situations requiring deadly force.

(source:http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-chokehold-20141210-story.html)?

 

[fromderinside]

So you are saying it's ok to drive over protesters?

Here it comes as far as damages are concerned. Stick out right thumb. Raise index finger above thumb and play. Appropriate action, Just desserts.

What "just desserts"? How are people trying to get home from work responsible for whatever it is these protesters are outraged this time?

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?

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.

There you go Derec. Your rationalizations don't wash. They don't fit the situation at all.

I give you a handle you fly off same. I compared what I believe to be unjust killings in one era to a another set in my era. Blocking freeways don't work unless drivers are complaint. I imagine if a few drivers, usually truckers, were upset they'd get out and show a few protesters a thing or two about obstructing hard working folk. Didn't happen after Kent State, didn't happen after protests related to related to BLM.

Any sane person with no axes needing grinding would conclude other than drivers were complaint because the were sympathetic to the issue being protested.

Not Derec. No sir. Money was being lost. All freeway drivers agree with killer under cover of authority and really despise protesters.

Consequently my characterization of Derec trying to hit new handle flyoff records.

 

[zorq]

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.

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.

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.

Playing Russian Roulette isn't "likely" to hurt you. Why don't you go play a round or 6 and then tell me how safe and fun it is.

Seriously, Derec. Have you ever flinched? Like when someone was about to grab you or punch you? That is essentially what Eric Garner did and that is the "resisting arrest" that they accused him of. You are advocating the use of deadly force against citizens who flinch when officers assault them during the course of an arrest.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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?

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.

These are two different issues where a court would decide on the individual circumstances of each case.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

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.

Courts generally would evaluate whether excess force was used in relation to the actual or perceived threat. I say perceived, is because if there was no actual threat (gun was not loaded) a reaction to a perceived threat would be a more valid defence.

However someone getting killed for resisting arrest and I understand not armed would seem an absurd use of excessive force. This is without looking at the case details).

 

[ksen]

Instead of people making a cogent argument as to why the $4m payout is a bad thing,

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.

This payout saved the city at least $1.9 million.

 

[untermensche]

In a case of a black man intentionally killed by the police you will find some who never side with the black man.

Even when their great crime is selling cigarettes.

To them black men are not humans deserving the same rights as white humans.

In the US this kind of ignorance is not a rare or new phenomena.

 

[Toni]

I doubt that very much. Certainly no rationale for that figure has ever been offered by deBlasio or any other NYC official. It's as "pulled out of ass" as Justin Trudeau deciding to pay an Islamist terrorist and traitor $10.5M Canadian.

You truly don't understand much about how things work, do you? Trust me: There was a LOT of discussion about what figure would satisfy the family and the public that the amount both adequately compensated in the economic sense the family of Garner and that it was sufficiently punitive.

For what? Selling loose cigarettes?

For resisting arrest.

For selling loose cigarettes. But point taken: could have been jaywalking.

It would be totally different if he had a loaded firearm and was threatening to shoot people.

Yes it would be. In that case, he would have been shot. Trying to manually subdue somebody like that would have been foolhardy.

Force and even deadly force would have been prudent in the case of someone armed and threatening to shoot people. In this case, it was not.

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.

It's not a serious crime, but he was a repeat offender and he escalated by resisting.

OMG Derec.

The police acted with deadly force, and did not render aid.

No, they did not act with deadly force. Something is not deadly force just because it leads to death in a particular case, but is based on what likely causes death or serious injury. Shooting somebody is deadly force even if the perp survives. Placing him in a choke hold Radio Raheem style is not deadly force even if there is a small possibility of death.

Putting someone in a choke hold is using deadly force. See: choking as a means of causing death.

Garner's family deserved financial relief and the police department deserved to be punished.

Again, Garner contributed to his death by resisting. And, again, why do you think they deserve to become millionaires over this?

Garner also contributed to his death by waking up in the morning. The police officer who choked him contributed to his death by not having any sense of scale and by choking him.

I think Garner's family deserves to have Garner alive and well. Period. Some money isn't going to change that.

 

[Derec]

In a case of a black man intentionally killed by the police you will find some who never side with the black man.

Garner was not intentionally killed.

Even when their great crime is selling cigarettes.

Nobody said that it was a "great crime". But it was a crime.

To them black men are not humans deserving the same rights as white humans.

Newsflash: "white humans" do not have the right to sell loosies and resist arrest either.

In the US this kind of ignorance is not a rare or new phenomena.

Your kind of ignorance is pretty well established too.

 

[Derec]

You truly don't understand much about how things work, do you?

I do.

Trust me: There was a LOT of discussion about what figure would satisfy the family and the public that the amount both adequately compensated in the economic sense the family of Garner and that it was sufficiently punitive.

That's how they negotiate in the bizarro world. City government should be concerned with saving money for their citizens, not see to it that the Garner family is satisfied with the riches they receive or that the city is sufficiently punished.

For selling loose cigarettes. But point taken: could have been jaywalking.

Again, it was resisting arrest that led to the physical altercation.

Force and even deadly force would have been prudent in the case of someone armed and threatening to shoot people. In this case, it was not.

Some force was justified because Garner was resisting arrest.

Putting someone in a choke hold is using deadly force. See: choking as a means of causing death.

No, it is not. A choke hold is not "choking as means of causing death". It's a short term application of pressure used to get the subject to give up resisting.
Now, you could argue that police should not be using these holds, but you can't really argue that it is the same as "choking as means of causing death".

Garner also contributed to his death by waking up in the morning. The police officer who choked him contributed to his death by not having any sense of scale and by choking him.

So you think Garner did absolutely nothing wrong, not a thing?

I think Garner's family deserves to have Garner alive and well. Period. Some money isn't going to change that.

So why pay them millions?

- - - Updated - - -

This payout saved the city at least $1.9 million.

How do you figure?

 

[Derec]

Playing Russian Roulette isn't "likely" to hurt you. Why don't you go play a round or 6 and then tell me how safe and fun it is.

Playing six rounds of Russian Roulette is very likely to hurt you (about 67% likely). And even a single round poses a significant risk (17%).
Compare that to police use of choke holds, where the chance of dying is one in several thousand.

Seriously, Derec. Have you ever flinched? Like when someone was about to grab you or punch you? That is essentially what Eric Garner did and that is the "resisting arrest" that they accused him of. You are advocating the use of deadly force against citizens who flinch when officers assault them during the course of an arrest.

He wasn't "flinching". First he argued with police for several minutes, getting more and more agitated, and when police went to arrest him he started swatting one of the officer's arms away.

 

[Derec]

There you go Derec. Your rationalizations don't wash. They don't fit the situation at all.

Oh I think they do.

I give you a handle you fly off same. I compared what I believe to be unjust killings in one era to a another set in my era.

Era? Did you mean to write "area"?

Blocking freeways don't work unless drivers are complaint. I imagine if a few drivers, usually truckers, were upset they'd get out and show a few protesters a thing or two about obstructing hard working folk. Didn't happen after Kent State, didn't happen after protests related to related to BLM.

There are laws against intentionally running people over. And most people don't want to hurt other human beings. That does not change the fact that the tactic of blocking highways is stupid or that the protesters intentionally cause actual damages to the motorists they block.

Any sane person with no axes needing grinding would conclude other than drivers were complaint because the were sympathetic to the issue being protested.

Huh?

Not Derec. No sir. Money was being lost. All freeway drivers agree with killer under cover of authority and really despise protesters.

Stunts like blocking highways does lead people to despise protesters, no matter how they feel about the issue being protested.

 

[Derec]

People do not have to prove their opinion.

They certainly should defend it if they start a thread about it.

No, you have not.

I have shown that Garner significantly contributed to his own death and that the payout is excessive given Garner's estimated lost earnings.

You even try to spin the idea that a chokehold is not deadly force.

That sentence you quoted does not mean that choke holds are deadly force. Quite the contrary. If they were classified as deadly force, there would be no need for LAPD to explicitly restrict their use to situations where deadly force can be used.

 

[ksen]

I do.

Trust me: There was a LOT of discussion about what figure would satisfy the family and the public that the amount both adequately compensated in the economic sense the family of Garner and that it was sufficiently punitive.

That's how they negotiate in the bizarro world. City government should be concerned with saving money for their citizens, not see to it that the Garner family is satisfied with the riches they receive or that the city is sufficiently punished.

For selling loose cigarettes. But point taken: could have been jaywalking.

Again, it was resisting arrest that led to the physical altercation.

Force and even deadly force would have been prudent in the case of someone armed and threatening to shoot people. In this case, it was not.

Some force was justified because Garner was resisting arrest.

Putting someone in a choke hold is using deadly force. See: choking as a means of causing death.

No, it is not. A choke hold is not "choking as means of causing death". It's a short term application of pressure used to get the subject to give up resisting.
Now, you could argue that police should not be using these holds, but you can't really argue that it is the same as "choking as means of causing death".

Garner also contributed to his death by waking up in the morning. The police officer who choked him contributed to his death by not having any sense of scale and by choking him.

So you think Garner did absolutely nothing wrong, not a thing?

I think Garner's family deserves to have Garner alive and well. Period. Some money isn't going to change that.

This payout saved the city at least $1.9 million.

How do you figure?

Because the family was seeking $5.9 million. Do you even read these stories before blaming the black guy?

 

[ZiprHead]

It is his fault he resisted arrest got an unethical doctor. It is the fault of police officer doctor that he used an unapproved (but not illegal) technique to end the resistance relieve the ailment. 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.

How does it work like this?

 

[ZiprHead]

The police acted with deadly force, and did not render aid.

No, they did not act with deadly force. Something is not deadly force just because it leads to death in a particular case, but is based on what likely causes death or serious injury.

WTF is wrong with you? The choke hold was banned because it posed serious risk of death on those it is applied on.

 

[KeepTalking]

Oh I think they do.

I give you a handle you fly off same. I compared what I believe to be unjust killings in one era to a another set in my era.

Era? Did you mean to write "area"?

No. He meant "era", given that the Kent State Massacre happened in the Vietnam War Era.

 

[Mumbles]

Playing six rounds of Russian Roulette is very likely to hurt you (about 67% likely). And even a single round poses a significant risk (17%).
Compare that to police use of choke holds, where the chance of dying is one in several thousand.

Seriously, Derec. Have you ever flinched? Like when someone was about to grab you or punch you? That is essentially what Eric Garner did and that is the "resisting arrest" that they accused him of. You are advocating the use of deadly force against citizens who flinch when officers assault them during the course of an arrest.

He wasn't "flinching". First he argued with police for several minutes, getting more and more agitated, and when police went to arrest him he started swatting one of the officer's arms away.

And, regardless, even if the police had seen him selling a loose cigarette (which they did not - and note that many people were openly stating that he did nothing of the sort), this is not an arrestable offense, much less an arrest requiring force. This was, therefore, deadly force, used in an illegal arrest. I'd say that whoever insures the NYPD pretty much had no choice but to settle, given all of this.

From the looks of things, Garner was simply tired of being incessantly harassed by police without due cause - which I must note he openly states in the video. It's pretty natural that, if you go around annoying people day in and day out, you'll eventually find that the people you harass are completely pissed off at you, so it's perfectly understandable that Garner was angry with the police here. choking him to the ground was, again, entirely out of line, particularly for an nonviolent suspect who they have little or no reason to so much as touch in the first place.

 

[laughing dog]

They certainly should defend it if they start a thread about it.

Should? Nah. It would be helpful, but was probably the case that the author thought it would be obvious to any decent human being.

I have shown that Garner significantly contributed to his own death and that the payout is excessive given Garner's estimated lost earnings.

No, you have not shown Garner significantly contributed to his own death nor have you shown why that is even relevant. And your analysis about the payout ignores the compensation for pain and suffering from the loss of a loved one.

That sentence you quoted does not mean that choke holds are deadly force.

It most certainly does - it is what the statement says.

Quite the contrary. If they were classified as deadly force, there would be no need for LAPD to explicitly restrict their use to situations where deadly force can be used.

It would if they were reminding their officers of a change in policy. Duh.