doorhinge lives under a bridge

[doorhinge]

@Saint_Cad

And yes that is a troll reference…blah, blah, blah…

(post shortened and blah, blah, blah added)

Hahahaha. That is one of the most confusing and bizarre indications of frustration that I have ever read. Keep up the good work.

[doorhinge]

@Saint_Cad

This was probably the one that started it off.

(post shortened out of boredom)

“Probably”? Don’t you know? It’s your therapy session. Is it the one or isn’t it?

[doorhinge]

@Saint_Cad

I admit my cite sucks ass…

(post shortened)

Well that’s certainly something “we” can agree on.

[iiandyiiii]

@doorhinge

that a video exists that shows an officer responding to Garner’s question of to whom he had sold cigarettes, by pointing in the direction the buyer had traveled?

I’ve seen video of a garbled conversation and a cop pointing somewhere, but I haven’t seen this video you described. Care to provide a link with clear conversation?

[doorhinge]

@Saint_Cad

doorhinge’s scenario is that the cops have definitive proof that Garner committed a crime i.e. they witnessed it. Based on that they move to arrest him. He resisted arrest …

(post shortened)

The official police reports plus the coroners report hold the definitive answers but based on what I’ve read so far, including your long winded whining, it appears to me that it’s very possible that police did witness Garner committing a crime. If new evidence, even evidence that does not meet with your approval, is uncovered, I’ll reserve the right to change my position. I have no idea what, or if, you intend to do anything other than add more spittle to your computer screen. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

[elucidator]

“…(post shortened)…”
For the love of the Blessed Baby Og, stop it! Just fucking stop it!

[doorhinge]

@elucidator

“…(post shortened)…”
For the love of the Blessed Baby Og, stop it! Just fucking stop it!

Help! Help! I’m being repressed.

HELP ! I'm being repressed !

[Donald_Rump]

@elucidator

“…(post shortened)…”
For the love of the Blessed Baby Og, stop it! Just fucking stop it!

“Regards” was already taken, so he had to find some other shorthand for “I’m a sophomoric prick.”

[Procrustus]

@doorhinge

(post shortened)

• that some people just hate cops?

or just the cops who bother people with no good reason, and then kill them.

[doorhinge]

@Donald_Rump

“Regards” was already taken, so he had to find some other shorthand for “I’m a sophomoric prick.”

Thanks, I wasn’t sure what elucidator was trying to say.

[Miller]

@doorhinge

(post shortened and blah, blah, blah added)

Hahahaha. That is one of the most confusing and bizarre indications of frustration that I have ever read. Keep up the good work.

[Moderating]
While it is allowed to shorten a post inside of quote tags for the sake of brevity, adding content, such as “blah blah blah,” is against board rules. Please do not do this again.

No warning issued.
[/Moderating]

[BigT]

@doorhinge

(post shortened)

You’re being petty. I prefer to find out what actually happened that day.

That thread is so full of red herrings that it could open it’s own Red-Herrings-R-Us franchise. If you haven’t read the thread, you might be interested in the following.

Did you know:

• the Garner arrest took 1 minute and 10 seconds (or possibly longer?) based on the length of an edited video of the take down? The official police reports would show the actual time of this incident but those haven’t been released to the public. The Grand Jury would have had access to them before they made their decision not to indict.
• that some people expect Garner to still have illegal cigarettes on his person in spite of the possibility that Garner had sold the illegal cigarettes to a passerby, who had then walked away?
• that some people prefer to accept 3rd person accounts of incidents that the 3rd person could not possibly have witnessed?
• that some people believe that CPR should be preformed on people who are still breathing and have a pulse?
• that people who actually can not breathe, can’t talk?
• that Garner did not die from strangulation?
• that Garner died from cardiac arrest? The coroner indicates that Garner had several, serious, health issues and there were several police actions that could have contributed to Garner’s untimely death.
• that there was no damage to Garner’s windpipe or neck bones?

Do you also know:

• that a video exists that shows an officer responding to Garner’s question of to whom he had sold cigarettes, by pointing in the direction the buyer had traveled?
• that Garner resisted arrest?
• that a career criminal earns income from committing crimes?
• that some people don’t know the difference between an air choke and a blood choke? The initial hold used to subdue Garner was not a chokehold since Garner was able to speak. Instead it was one which produces pressure on the carotid sinus and vagus nerve, it was not asphyxia.
• that criminals don’t believe that societies laws apply to them?
• that police made a decision to gang tackle Garner instead of tazing, shooting, or clubbing him?
• that some people just hate cops?

All of the stuff you said that was factual, I do indeed know. Do you know what was factual and what is just your conjecture and/or own personal dehumanization of criminals?

I know how long the video took. I know that it would be stupid to think someone would sell all their loosies at once. The point of loosies is that you buy a small amount. I know that what other people argue has nothing to do with the strength of your own argument. I know that “I can’t breathe” means “I am having trouble breathing.” I know that Gardner’s death was ruled a homicide, meaning that the actions of others caused his death. I know that asphyxiation causes heart attacks in people prone to them.

I also know that you made up the idea of what was going on in the video. I know that the claim is that Gardner resisted arrest, but that this claim is up in the air, as it appears on video that he was just defending himself from an assault. I know you think the cops were pointing to the other person. I know that what a criminal earns or your own personal dehumanization of criminals is irrelevant, and that any choke hold is about depriving the victim of oxygen and is insane to use in response to a crime of selling loosies and a guy pushing you away. I know there were many more choices in how to deal with the situation, and I know that people who adore cops assume that people who have problems with them just hate cops rather than deal with the real issues. I strongly suspect they also make up a bunch of shit because that’s better to them than the cops being wrong.

Finally, I also know you didn’t actually address any of the complaints in this thread. You did not say “Okay, maybe they didn’t see him sell cigarettes.” Rather than do that, you want to deflect the blame.

[BigT]

@Shodan

No it doesn’t. As mentioned, whether the cops detained him because they witnessed Garner selling, or because some store owner reported him selling, makes no difference and does not affect the argument at all.

Yes, it does. I specifically worded it in a way that it’s inherently true. They must believe he committed a crime in order to attempt to detain him, and they must be trying to detain him for resisting arrest to be an issue.

Your statement is a red herring, as you are making an argument that doorhinge hadn’t made in order to defend his poor arguments. His “proof” that the detainment is lawful is that the cops actually caught him in the act.

I also note you didn’t argue with any of the rest of what I said. Do you concede that, in this sort of situation, calling out bad arguments is not petty? Do you understand that all arguments that are crafted to defend the police’s use of what appears to be unreasonable force need to be on a solid foundation? Do you concede that someone who refuses to acknowledge the flaws in their arguments and correct them, repeatedly stating them over and over, deserves to be pitted?

And do you concede that, if this is petty, then you have been far more petty in your own arguments, and thus have no room to talk?

[Shodan]

@BigT

Yes, it does. I specifically worded it in a way that it’s inherently true. They must believe he committed a crime in order to attempt to detain him, and they must be trying to detain him for resisting arrest to be an issue.

No it doesn’t, you stubbornly stupid snot. Whether they believed him to have committed a crime because they saw him, or because someone reported it to them, makes no difference. They believed him to have committed a crime, therefore they detained him and he resisted.

Regards,
Shodan

[Saint_Cad]

@Dolukhanova

I don’t wish to get involved in parsing doorhinge’s posts, but I feel compelled to clarify that, in New York, the police can make an arrest for a misdemeanor that they did not themselves witness. Compare New York Criminal Procedure Law 140.25(1)(a) and (1)(b). Thus, the police could have had a legal basis for the arrest based on a report from a shop keeper or some other witness.

EXCEPT that the probable cause for arrest seems to be

1. Shopkeeper reports Garner selling cigarettes
2. Garner is a career criminal (doorhinge’s definition of probable cause)

So it makes a huge difference if police did witness something because this seems really shady that they would arrest him just on this.

Oh and if purchasing loosies is illegal and the police witnessed it why wasn’t the purchaser arrested? Why weren’t those smokes seized as evidence?

[VinylTurnip]

@Saint_Cad

EXCEPT that the probable cause for arrest seems to be

1. Shopkeeper reports Garner selling cigarettes
2. Garner is a career criminal (doorhinge’s definition of probable cause)

So it makes a huge difference if police did witness something because this seems really shady that they would arrest him just on this.

Oh and if purchasing loosies is illegal and the police witnessed it why wasn’t the purchaser arrested? Why weren’t those smokes seized as evidence?

Given the insatiable public demand for loose cigarettes and the high profit margin, they likely would’ve disappeared from the evidence room and made their way onto the streets anyway.

[kayaker]

@Saint_Cad

Oh and if purchasing loosies is illegal and the police witnessed it why wasn’t the purchaser arrested?

Indeed, if purchasing single cigs is illegal, surely the act of “bumming” a cigarette must be as well. I’ve been in shady bars where I’ve personally witnessed this behavior!

[elucidator]

Not quite comfortable in shady bars, still prefer a hive of scum and villainy. Just so long as there is no danger of being served a glass of Coors.

[Shodan]

@Saint_Cad

EXCEPT that the probable cause for arrest seems to be

1. Shopkeeper reports Garner selling cigarettes
2. Garner is a career criminal (doorhinge’s definition of probable cause)

There’s no “except”. Number 1 is enough to give reasonable suspicion to detain. Number 2, although true, is irrelevant.

Regards,
Shodan

[doorhinge]

@Saint_Cad

EXCEPT that the probable cause for arrest seems to be

1. Shopkeeper reports Garner selling cigarettes
2. Garner is a career criminal (doorhinge’s definition of probable cause)

So it makes a huge difference if police did witness something because this seems really shady that they would arrest him just on this.

Oh and if purchasing loosies is illegal and the police witnessed it why wasn’t the purchaser arrested? Why weren’t those smokes seized as evidence?

1. Which shopkeeper reported Garner for illegally selling illegal cigarettes?

2. Garner is a career criminal but that is not why police were attempting to arrest him.

Keeping grasping. You should almost have enough straw to build to a summer home.

“So it makes a huge difference if police did witness something because this seems really shady that they would arrest him just on this.”

EXCEPT that YOUR 2 red herrings for probable arrest do not appear to be the reason for Garner’s arrest. The grand jury would have had access to the actual police reports, including recordings of who called the police, and when. You should demand that those records be released.

It appears that the purchaser walked away while Garner was keeping the cops busy by his extremely poor choice of resisting arrest.