And a shame. How can those Islamist bastards use the latest taping equipment while Americans are limited to handheld phones? I mean who are the “backward” ones here? The ones that allow it and/or make it happen or the ones that try to negate anything out of the ordinary’s happened?
Public executions* aren’t privy to Islamic states. And “oops!” is not an excuse.
*Not saying that it was Pantaleo’s intent to execute him, but he damn well knew he had Garner in a deadly hold – not a Sensei myself by any means – all forms of fighting can be lethal by their own nature – but got into plenty of scraps in HS and college and I well knew that a quick leg trip and a chokehold would win (Tap Out, if you would. Never thought it was about killing but victory or surrender. Bruised egos mostly) most of my scraps. Hard to swallow that a veteran PC officer, wouldn’t. Perhaps if we would have had a trial it’d been easier to gauge his intentions? A mistake? Mayhaps. But all the adrenalin in he world doesn’t excuse a professional that simply can’t do his job.
Means diddly squat if they weren’t doing anything about it. And they weren’t
No. They. Were. Not.
CPR? Heard of it? A first response on a myriad of occasions when someone might dying – heck I took a course, you’d think one officer on scene might have also.
It’s still in the same place. The video showed the officer turning and pointing in the direction of the buyer when career criminal Garner asked who he had sold cigarettes to.
Who reported that police were only responding to a citizen’s complaint and hadn’t actually seen the illegal sale? Other than Saint Cad, that is.
The conversation is not clear at all, and it’s not clear why the officer is pointing, and who he is pointing at. Unless you have a video with very clear audio.
He wasn’t pointing at the career criminal, but maybe there was another career criminal close to hand, maybe next to the liar who was recording stuff. The career criminal client, the guy who just bought all of the career criminals covert ciggies?
That is one account, sure. It’s disputed by others who were there. In any case, it doesn’t line up with the scenario you’re describing as being so dangerous to police attempting to talk to suspects instead of just dogpiling them straight away.
Resist, yes. Fight, no.
Which I responded to in my subsequent post.
This isn’t disputed; I’m not alleging that they were intending to kill Garner. Obviously, they were trying to arrest him.
Again, I reject this black-and-white categorization of human beings. A person who sells pot for a living, for instance, doesn’t automatically believe that laws against murder don’t apply to them. For example, note all the non-murdering, non-stealing, non-raping criminals that exist.
It looks like about a minute and ten seconds, depending on how much time elapsed before the filming started. One officer does most of the talking, while the others surround and edge toward him. The dialogue includes non-constructive bits like one officer warning Garner that it’d be “the easy way or the hard way”. That’s rather the opposite of de-escalation, there.
The police didn’t “dogpile” Garner right away. There was a verbal interaction. Several more officers plus a supervisor arrived at the scene before the decision was made to gang tackle Garner. So yes, it does depend on how much time elapsed before the filming started. The minute and ten seconds time frame does not reflect the overall time between when officers witnessed Garner’s crime and the arrest was made.
There doesn’t seem to be any 1st person report that police could not have witnessed Garner’s illegal sale of illegal cigarettes. I’ll accept the police version until someone can actually prove otherwise.
The term “fight” certainly applies to Garner’s action.
fight
› to argue with or use force against another person or a group of people, or to oppose something:
You asked me if the police made the right choice. I believe we agree that Garner made the wrong choice. Given the choices available to the police, at the time the decision was made to gang tackle Garner, I have to say that the police made the correct choice. Of course, the police could have chosen the Eric “Don’t arrest the NPPP for issuing death threats and demands for kidnapping” Holder, who would expect police to just ignore crimes they have witnessed.
Illegal pot sellers don’t believe that pot laws apply to them. Murderer’s don’t believe that murder laws apply to them. Rapists don’t believe that rape laws apply to them.
hehehe. Why, yes, yes I am. It’s a little known group. Outside of the people who don’t visit their optometrist’s office often enough, it’s almost unheard of. Sorry for the confusion. I meant the NBPP.
No cigarettes or packs were found on the corpse. Explain how if the police witnessed the sales there is no evidence of it.
OR
Even point out any police report that they were an eye witness to the crime.
Yes maybe resisting arrest is a wrong choice but certainly did not deserve the overreaction by the police.
Gang tackle? The issue is the chokehold which was against policy AND you need to be trained in to use as a restraint. Are you saying it was a correct choice to use an unauthorized restraint?
Again you have no evidence that the police witnessed any crime and in fact the evidence indicates that this “career criminal” was in fact NOT selling untaxed cigarettes at the time. All you seem to say is since we cannot absolutely 100% prove the cops DIDN’T witness it, we must accept your teapot that they did witness it. Well where is YOUR evidence?
Thousands of dollars are squandered due to such “mild” protests. When people can’t get to work because of jackoffs lying down in the street to protest something that happened 3,000 miles away which nobody present had any part in, they end up unemployed, broke, and homeless. Lives are ruined by this nonsense.
She died for a cause which was unjust and wrong, and she died because she lied down in front of an armored vehicle where the driver could not possibly even see her. She was a fool and she died like a fool.
Except that the chokehold wasn’t against policy. The policy prohibits air chokes, not blood chokes, which the autopsy demonstrates is what was applied.
