Well, get the dude to explain what he meant by those words.
Passage of the Nineteenth Amendment.
And career criminals lie. Garner lied when he said he hadn’t done anything (illegal).
It’s been reported that Garner died of a heart attack in the ambulance. It has not been reported that Garner died from strangulation. The police were not aware of Garner’s poor health. Garner was. Garner chose to resist a lawful arrest. That was a very stupid decision, IMHO, of course.
Right after you get the dude to explain why he chose to resist a lawful arrest.
Yup, that was clearly proven at his tria . . . oh wait.
CMC fnord!
There was no trial, so this can’t be asserted factually.
Did Garner want a trial? Garner didn’t even want to be arrested.
Why, oh, why do the police insist on arresting lawbreakers? :rolleyes: I think I should loot some random store to show my solidarity with career criminals who are tired of being arrested for criminal activity. :rolleyes: Or maybe I’ll sell some professional sports figure a t-shirt to promote my cause. :rolleyes:
Yes women were so effective with their voting to get the 19th amendment passed :smack:
Reminder that doorhinge was saying that the minority group should do so, not a sympathetic majority.
Hahahaha. I’m saying that EVERYONE should vote and that elected representatives should be held responsible for their actions.
There was no plea deal either. But Garner would be more familiar with the criminal justice system, given his history of interaction with it.
Police officers are elected? Or are the exempt because they are not elected?
The illegal stop-and-frisk program, which is currently under reform due to the Federal Courts legal ruling is fixed through voting how?
You said Garner lied, and this can’t be factually asserted. This was about that very foolish “I can’t breathe” point, anyway.
When someone says “I can’t breathe”, and then dies soon after, and the medical examiner says that the chokehold and chest pressure may have had something to do with the death, then it’s pretty reasonable to assume that they’re not lying about having trouble breathing.
What? He did what? “Pulled away”? I had no idea of the savagery of this career-criminal thug, that changes everything! The sheer violence of this man!
Oh, about that saying “I can’t breathe” means he could. If you check it out, you will realize that forcing air out is a lot easier than drawing it in. And it takes longer. You can gulp some air in a split second if the pressure is eased, speaking, you have to articulate.
Experiment with a bit of rope to check that, and you will agree. Not on yourself, of course, that could have unfortunate consequences. Try it out on a career criminal thug, you know where to find them.
I have no idea if police officers in your sanctuary are elected.
Elected Representative are elected.
Elected representatives make, or reform, the laws. Have you ever attended a civics class?
This post is worthless without pics. 
Nah, forget it, afraid if you try it we might end up having a thread with people trying to think of something nice to say about you.
“May” have had something to do with the death? What does the official report say was the cause of death?
You can assume anything after the event but hindsight isn’t available before, or during, the actual arrest. Garner said he hadn’t done anything wrong. Police witnessed Garner violating the law. Sounds to me like Garner was lying but the issue could have been settled later. In either a plea deal or a trial. Except Garner decided that he wasn’t going to be arrested.
It seems pretty clear to me that a blood choke is not prohibited - it does not fall in the category of moves that prevents or hinders breathing.
Pretty much everything I know about this case I’ve learned in this thread, but even still a conclusion is gelling in my head.
The police handled the situation very poorly. They escalated to a much too high a level of force, way too early. The police need to be better at using an appropriate level of force, because the communities that they should be trying to help already feel like this is typical behavior by the police, and the police are seen as enemies due to this.
Part of the police’s overreaction included the use of a blood choke hold, which technically would not be against the police regulations (not being an air choke). They also cuffed the guy while he was on his chest, and cops were piled on his back. It was the prone position with people on his back, along with leaving him lying down, that eventually killed him, not the choke hold.
In looking for justice, people concentrated on the choke hold because it seemed to be something that was objectively prohibited, and not a gray-area problem like escalating the situation way too quickly. But I can’t see how the choke hold could have caused his death, and from reading the regulation it’s technically allowable. The quick escalation and overreaction is what killed him, but that’s harder to prosecute.
The black community there was right to be angered by the police’s actions in this case, but the choke was a red herring.
Have you read anything at all about this case?
Cite? Why do you keep making things up?