Good Lord, man, he savagely and brutally pulled his arm away! What more do you need?
Wikipedia? Wikipedia says what? Is Wiki now the official outlet of the NYC Medical Examiner’s Office?
You’ll have to view one of the longer, unedited, videos of Garner’s arrest. I saw it on the news several days ago. I’ll see if I can find what you can’t.
After some 30+ arrests, you would think that Garner could remember the procedure? Garner wasn’t being arrested for savagely and brutally pulling his arm away. Resisting arrest would have been in addition to the original charge.
I’m sorry, I assumed you had followed this story at all in any way. Here are some different sources.
Couldn’t find it. What are you referring to?
Does Dr. Samenow argue that all criminals have the same “basic thinking patterns”? If so, how is this established and studied?
Sure, 21-30 feet. Far enough so that the individual doesn’t feel cornered and trapped, close enough to prevent flight.
Why wouldn’t they? You just told me that all criminals share common thought patterns and outlook on life.
Police claim that their conduct was justified, other accounts differ. Shocking. In any case, the above incident didn’t spring from a mob attacking police officers making an arrest.
He didn’t strike anyone or threaten anyone. What’s the basis for your claim here?
He and he alone? You never answered that one.
First off, you don’t know that Garner committed a crime. Second, no, protestors aren’t angry that criminals are being arrested. That’s either a massive strawman, or you are completely out of touch with the other side in this matter.
That culture doesn’t exist, or at least not in any meaningful way. I refer to a police culture that regards civilians as enemies, that employs force in the face of any non-compliance, that is willing to hurt and kill members of the public on flimsy pretexts.
If the NYPD intended to ban blood and air chokes, how would that phrase in the patrol guide be any different? Any act of placing an arm around a neck consists of putting pressure on the throat, and can hinder breathing. Again, the chief of police at the time characterized the policy shift as “Basically, stay the hell away from the throat”. Allowing one kind of dangerous arm-around-the-throat move and not another doesn’t square with that.
This I agree with. The choke hold is part of the problem, but not the whole thing.
The medical examiner was of the opinion that the chokehold contributed, and I see no reason to dispute that, unless you have some evidence.
You might understand Doorhinge’s question better if I translate the dog whistle: "Are other countries’ police forces facing as many niggers that U.S. police are facing?
To be ruthlessly just, he has not truly given clear evidence of bigotry. While that is typical of the tighty-righty mindset, it is not universal. So, no fair.
If you want to" translate" another poster’s remarks, do it in The BBQ Pit. Pretending that another poster was “really” saying something nasty is not honest and not appropriate in this forum.
[ /Moderating ]
I have only read the first 5-6 pages so far, but Oklahoma does (in a way) allow resisting arrest without being charged with such if the arrest is shown to be ‘unlawful’. One link here
A few years back, a patrol car failed to yield to an ambulance on emergency run (IIRC) and cop and ambulance driver got near-physical over it. I am pretty sure cop tried to arrest amb driver and received stiff resistance. Forget most details, but amb driver’s charge of resist arrest were refused since elements of alleged crime were not met.
I’d look deeper, but had an emergency/permanent pacemaker installed three days ago and am with only one useful-arm atm. Just food for thought on resisting arrest charges, for the lawyers, of course…
Keep that ticker ticking! And so say all of us…
Clearly when anyone says “I can’t breathe.” they always meam “It is impossible for me to expand my lungs at all and take in air.” Certainly no one has EVER said “I can’t breathe” simply to mean that they are having trouble breathing.
Luckily the police will be put on trial so that they can explain away why there were no cigarettes found on the body, why they violated department regulations regarding the chokehold, present certification showing they were trained on how to subdue a perp with a chokehold, why they held his face down on the pavement with BOTH hands, …
Wait what?
Or just surround him, with his hands up, at just beyond arm’s length, for, like, five minutes, tell him his rights, etc. Make him aware how bad it could get given that he’s already surrounded by a dozen cops.
If the police were targetting him because he’s a “career criminal” then they’d already know his criminality is pretty minor and does not involve carrying a gun. The police were all wearing armour so any attack on the officers would be pretty futile. An attack seems pretty unlikely, anyway, with one friend there filming and no-one else (if there were anyone else the film or the police reports would have noted it).
Attack him if he makes a move towards his clothing where you think a weapon might be (in his trackpants and t-shirt). IF. There’s no way he could get a weapon out from hands up quicker than you could jump on him.
The eggshell doctrine should apply, certainly. Does it apply only to actual heads? I’m not American, but logic would say that it doesn’t actually only apply to heads any more than it does to eggs.
Asthma is an extremely common condition and should always be taken into account when dealing with a suspect. If you can sit the suspect upright, for example, when they’re already handcuffed, why not? There’s no extra risk to you and the suspect is more likely to survive. Why leave them face down if not to prolong their pain?
Hell, once he’s face up you can even ask if he’s asthmatic and he might be able to nod. Given Garner’s clothing I doubt he had an inhaler with him and maybe regulations would prevent a passer-by or a fellow cop passing on their own inhaler or you, as a cop, from checking him for one, but that information would make a difference to the emergency services.
FWIW, I’m asthmatic and yes in the early stages you can say something like “I can’t breathe” or “I need help.” Sometimes an attack comes on really suddenly and you can’t say anything, but sometimes you can even stagger to another room for help before you collapse and turn blue.
Due to long-term asthma, my lungs are already inflated to at least 40% of the average person’s (this was at a hospital about a year and a half ago; sometimes it goes to as much as 60%. I take a lot of asthma medication and this was not during an asthma attack, just during an x-ray for something else). That means that a chokehold would have a hell of a lot more of an effect on me than someone without asthma of my severity because I just don’t have that much breath.
And I’m not all that unusual. And this bloke wasn’t dangerous. They should have let him breathe.
Not a dozen but there were five officers, including a supervisor/sergeant. Basic police armor protects the torso. Heads, necks, arms, legs, eyes, arteries, and wedding tackle remain unprotected.
Police didn’t arrest Garner for being a career criminal. He was being arrested for selling untaxed cigarettes. He was taken down because he resisted that arrest. Having been arrested some 30+ times, I would expect Garner was well aware of the usual police procedure. I assume Garner would also have been aware of the usual police procedures for someone who resisted arrest. Garner made a very bad choice.
Found it.
At 0:34, Garner asks X. An officer turns around and points at, or in the direction of, the person Garner is inquiring about.
FYI - In spite of the ongoing conversation about illegally selling illegal cigarettes, the person taking the video repeatedly claims this is about breaking up a fight. Maybe the videographer is deaf???
I didn’t see Garner given a lot of options. It was the police who made the bad choice. The one that made the chokehold in particular. He should be in jail awaiting trial.
How does this answer the question? You said officers witnessed him breaking the law. What is the lawbreaking at 0:34?
They should have taken the chance. Given their numerical advantage, they should be less likely to resort to chokeholds. Hell, just have each of them grab a limb.
There is no lawbreaking at 0:34. There was a discussion under way. Garner asked the officer, “who did I sell a cigarette to?” The officer then turned and pointed in the direction of the person in question.
The liar taking the video didn’t video the crime that the police witnessed.
Contact the Chief of Police and tell him how to do his job.
The conversation is not at all this clear. The cop might have been pointing at someone who may have reported something, or it may have been for something totally different.
Further, you asserted as a factual statement that officers observed lawbreaking. A video showing a cop pointing at someone is not even close to proof that officers observed any lawbreaking.
You’re just making things up.