They did. There are rules against using the choke hold. Now what? Shall we issue a firm “tsk! tsk!”?
By the way, another poster has a patent on the “neener! neener!” rebuttal. You owe him a nickel.
Actually I’ve see the same thing.
That’s a good cite. Do you know what the results of the autopsy were? I Googled but couldn’t find anything online.
Regards,
Shodan
It wasn’t an “all-or-nothing proposition”. The police witnessed Garner violating the law. They detained him and told him that he was under arrest.
In an all-or-nothing scenario, the police could have shot him, but they didn’t need to. The police could have tasered Garner, but that might cause someone like Garner to suffer a heart attack. The police could have used batons until Garner admitted kidnapping the Lindbergh baby. That didn’t happen, either.
Or police could wait until Garner decided that he would voluntarily accept being handcuffed. The down side to this would be if Garner supporters, or the anti-police types, used that time to attack the officers in an attempt to free Garner.
Or they could have gang tackled Garner and placed him in handcuffs. Which is within police regulations.
The police had many choices but they chose the one that was both legal and had proven effective in the past.
Assuming you are addressing me, there are police dept “regulations” against using a chokehold. The police dept is not the legislature.
Da fuq?
We went back and forth on this. The police chief said it was only blood chokes that were against policy. I also saw a cite saying that it included air chokes. Now your cite says blood chokes only. I don’t know, at this point.
There are two ways of applying hadaka-jime, the rear naked strangle. One is to use the blade of the forearm, the radius, directly against the trachea. This hurts, a lot. When I used this choke in competition, I preferred this one, because it got a quicker submission.
The other variant is a sleeper hold, where the pressure is applied to the sides of the throat. The trachea, thru which air passes, is not attacked. The effect is to compress the carotid sinuses and vagus nerve. The brain interprets the emptying of the carotids as a signal to massively reduce blood pressure. Thus the subject (uke, in judo) faints. This is very quick and essentially painless.
There is a takedown in judo whose name I don’t know, but I brought it off in a contest once against an opponent who did not know what I was up to. You grip the collar with both hands, left palm up and fingers inside, and right palm down, thumb inside. Then duck under and cross your forearms, pull uke down until he passes out, then throw with morote-seoinage. But it is very quick - my opponent passeded out almost immediately.
Regards,
Shodan
Why would I cite something I’m not claiming?
Okay.
Which has what relevance to the Garner situation? He was in a choke hold, if it was even fully applied, for no more than 10 seconds.
When someone is a 400 lb asthmatic who was put into distress by being forced down onto the ground, it certainly will. Is it your assertion Garner was choked to death? He was still alive for minutes (and conscious) for minutes after Pantaleo had released the hold on him, a hold that at absolute maximum went on for 10 seconds (and likely was much less.)
Your desire to paint the reaction of the protesters and the things these protesters are going on about is so in contravention to the reality in which I live (and I haven’t watched news on TV in 10+ years) that any further discussion between us on the topic serves no purpose.
Are you really that determined to blame all black people for the sins of a small number?
Alright, we’re getting somewhere. We agree that force is a continuum, and that different tactics are justifiable at different times.
They needn’t passively stand around, de-escalation is a process, and a two-way one. Instead of surrounding and edging toward Garner like he was a dangerous animal, they could have treated him like a human being, albeit an angry one. Let him blow off steam, and save some face. If he still absolutely refuses to cooperate, then proceed from there. Going directly to the gang-tackle was an awful decision.
I don’t consider that to be a serious reason to delay on the gang-tackle for a few minutes.
Agreed, outside of the chokehold, what the police did was within regulations. It was also excessive and unwise.
They chose the quick, dangerous path, that allowed them the psychological benefit of punishing disobedience to their authority, and accorded with an us-vs-them mentality. It’s also the choice most alienating to the community at large.
I don’t know judo from a hole in the wall, but when I read " A chokehold shall include, but is not limited to, any pressure to the throat or windpipe, which may prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air", a policy switch that at the time was expressed as “Basically, stay the hell away from the neck”, it seems to me that the policy intended to forbid any maneuvers that placed an officer’s arm around a subject’s neck. I agree that it’s not perfectly clear, though.
A very precise martial arts maneuver, executed with micrometer tolerance. Not the kind of stuff you get at a strip-mall tae kwan do chopshop.
(post shortened)
I’m not sure you understand the criminal mind. It’s not like on a TV show. Of course police surrounded the suspect. Suspects have been know to attack cops and they’ve been known to run away. Go figure. Suspects have also been know to carry knives, needles, and guns. How long do you suggest that cops wait for the suspect to finish blowing off steam? Do you have a maximum in mind? Just until a crowd forms? Until the crowd/mob starts throwing rocks and bottles or starts firing warning shots into the officers? Is there any possibility that when other suspects realize that police can no longer arrest them as long as they “act” angry about their pending arrest, that they will “act” angry for an hour or more?
Street cops chose a quick and dangerous path when they took the job. The psychological benefit of punishing disobedience to their authority is just the cherry on top. Bwahahaha. just kidding. The cops that I’ve known over the years all had the public’s best interest at heart. But I wasn’t stealing, or robbing, selling contraband.
Man, once you get fired up, you go straight to rock 'n roll.
Ah…The “why don’t marginalized groups just step up and gain power despite their groups being marginalized” argument.
I kind of figured you as a patriotic man doorhinge. Old James Madison would be a bit disappointed with this debate tactic.
But if you are going to trash the core concepts behind Federalist No. 10 and disparage the founding fathers standing up to tyranny; I will ask. Exactly how to you expect a group that is targeted and harassed, because they have no political power, to gain enough political power to overcome the oppression of the majority?
Please share your secrets on how to obtain this goal.
I am not sure that that you realize the “lost the debate mind”
You have resorted to calling people names or labeling them outrageous labels because you have zero points on your side.
“Career Criminal” “Cop Haters” etc…
You most likely commit criminal acts every day, you just are not punished for them.
But sure, I bet you are an angel who always comes to a complete stop at every stop sign (3 percent BTW), never buys anything online without making sure to pay your local use tax or when you buy items in another state. I am sure you have never failed to pay your gift taxes when a relative give you something of value. I bet you have never played poker for money at home or sing Happy Birthday in public.
Yep…even your “I know some cops” claim is a logical fallacy. Well my dad can beat up your dad!!! And I am related to half a dozen and have a best friend of 35 years who is a detective…and that doesn’t matter one bit to this debate.
There’s no such thing.
So, stand at a reasonable distance. Out of knife range, for example.
10-30 minutes or so? Other countries’ police forces manage to effect arrests and maintain order without brutalizing their citizens, so a look at their approaches would be instructive here.
Cite that this is a thing that happens? Furthermore, if you’re worried about angry crowds, it sure seems like tackling and choking a man complaining of harassment is more likely to get people fired up that standing and talking to him would, no?
Sure. That gives you an opportunity to sort the people who are angry and defensive but can be calmed down with the right approach, from those who are dead-set against surrendering without a fight. I am entirely unconvinced that Eric Garner was in the latter category.
Again, as other nations demonstrate, quick and dangerous isn’t the only, or necessarily the best, approach. For one thing, it creates a cycle, wherein the community feels alienated from and oppressed by the police force, making them more likely to be noncompliant, which makes the police crack down with harsher measures, and so on.
I’m sure the officers involved believed that they were serving the public’s best interest, but they are wrong. It’s the culture that trains them in the mentality and tactics they displayed that’s the real problem, not any single officer.
Register to vote, vote, or run for office and change the laws. You know, the core concepts of a Democratic Republic.
(post shortened)
Garner is a career criminal. You don’t have to agree. Cop haters exist in the real world. You may chose to call them something else. Your choice.
You…wait, seriously? Honestly, and with no offense intended, are you just fucking with us now?