Nor did I say it was. Sheesh.
How many of the first aid steps listed here do you think the police did? Note that it doesn’t say “If the person can say any words that means you can just relax and watch him die”
There’s a kernel of truth to what he has said - if a person can speak that means they are getting air. As such, you shouldn’t perform rescue breathing for them - you’re going to be fighting them and they have the best chance of clearing an obstacle themselves.
However, that doesn’t mean you don’t perform first aid. All it means is that you don’t perform rescue breathing. You can perform first aid in many ways, such as removing external restrictions to breathing, getting them in a more comfortable position, calming them down, and removing obstacles that can hurt them while flailing about. When someone says “I can’t breathe” it’s not to be taken literally, but it’s a HUGE red flag that something is wrong and needs to be dealt with immediately.
If they stop breathing you start rescue breathing assuming you can establish an airway. But first aid goes well beyond that.
I assume that in your first aid class, you were discussing mouth to mouth resuscitation. It is correct that you do not resuscitate someone who is breathing.
Dyspnea is a symptom of several disorders or diseases, many of them very serious. You seem to be suggesting that someone who says “I cannot breathe” is not in any medical distress. This is fundamentally incorrect, so the answer would be that every single doctor in the world disagrees with you. (Despite what you apparently misunderstood in a first aid class one time.)
Right, because black cops never kill unarmed white men.
Oh, wait, it’s happened several times this year alone, and they weren’t indicted either.
Just out of curiosity, Smapti, can you cite any instance in the history of the world in which you believe a cop committed manslaughter or murder?
My point, in answer to the OP, is that Garner’s death is a result of the authoritarian state established by the left.
I think his death is an outrage, not because he’s black, but by most accounts I’ve heard he was minding his own business. However, he wasn’t paying homage to the state in the form of taxes. That’s where the police come in.
Stupid laws got enforced.
The problem with waiting for the “perfect” case before protesting is that by the time that once-in-a-lifetime perfect case occurs, too much damage has been inflicted. The justice system will be totally corrupted with bias. The victimized public will be too demoralized to fight back politically. And the non-victimized public will be too wedded to the idea that the status quo is perfect to even care.
This “they picked the one wrong to complain about” attitude is something that only a privileged person would say. It assumes that we’re talking about a couple incidents, not a persistent barrage of abusive episodes that mostly go unreported.
This is what I was taught.
Huh? Your paragraph is internally inconsistent.
If there is a “a persistent barrage of abusive episodes”, which appears to be the case, there is no need to " waiting for the “perfect” case" or to insist that it is a “once-in-a-lifetime” event - just choose an appropriate one out of the “barrage”.
Indeed, in this short period of time, there have been at least two other prominent cases, either of which would have been better, and each of which were not only “reported” but created considerable public awareness!
It doesn’t take a “privileged person” to realize this - just someone “privileged” enough to read the news (at that we both qualify as equally “privileged”).
The better point is that there is no real concious effort at “choosing” which case attracts attention - and that I will grant. However, if one could do so, one would out of preference choose either of these two other cases, were it possible.
Sherriff Lawrence A. Rainey and his accomplices were murderers.
Outside our own borders, Felipe Velasquez and his underlings are definitely murderers as well.
I’m sure there are others but they don’t come to mind at the moment.
Not what I said.
From your cite -
:shrugs:
Regards,
Shodan
Thanks. I’m glad that you can recognize that it is possible for cops to murder and my opinion of you is higher for it.
That’s so unrelated to the quote from me that you posted that I don’t know where you’re getting it from. Are you responding to someone else? Neither I nor Davidson called anyone a “racist” or any other names, and Davidson is a respected and award-winning writer and editor at the New Yorker whose observations and perspective are certainly worthy of at least some cursory attention. And I don’t seriously allege any “conspiracy theory”; I’m merely bemused by the predictability of some of the positions taken in defense of police actions despite all the evidence to the contrary. 
ETA: Forgot to add – this is the Davidson article:
Irrelevant.
(emphasis added)
No, your objection is irrelevant, since the grand jury has already made its decision.
Indeed. The behavior of the police in the video is such that a rational and prudent person would quite reasonably conclude that he was being attacked a gang of common criminals disguised in police uniforms (a tactic occasionally used in home invasions), perhaps because he had infringed on that gang’s illegal-cigarette-selling turf.
What do either of these cases have to do with a, how you put it “…gaggle of black officers responsible for the death of a white man resisting arrest”? The first involves a single police officer on campus that is confronted by a naked student on drugs that pounded on the police station window then rushed towards him. The second involves a single off-duty police officer involved in the shooting of an unarmed person in an auto parts store parking lot, who was subsequently indefinitely suspended from the force and is currently under investigation. Although neither one comes close to being “gaggle of black officers responsible for the death of a white man resisting arrest”, do you stand behind these black officers the same way you stand behind the white officers that killed Garner and Rice?
Your request in your own words:
The cite specifically states that it is a legal requirement to announce the reasons for an arrest ‘verbally’. Failure to do so means the arrest is not legal, thus a person resisting the purported “arrest” is not - and cannot be - guilty of “resisting arrest”.
Until these cops told this man of the purported reason for his arrest (which they may well have done), he could - quite legally - walk away, and if they attack him - defend himself. Now, it would not be wise to do so - but then, neither is it wise to talk back to Hell’s Angels bikers. Point being that unless the cops are operating within the law, they have no more rights to use force on someone than anyone else.
Yes, encountering physical resistance oblivates the need to announce the reason for arrest - if such resistance (or, indeed, other factors) makes announcing the reason for arrest “impractical”.
Are you contending that the acts of this person, as viewed on the tape, made the cops telling him the reason for his arrest “impractical”? 
Friendly amendment/correction: There was no such “resistance” at any time – clearly, the officer was never in a position where it would have been at all difficult to identify himself as a police officer and state the reason for arrest.
In any case, given that the deceased was so obese and asthmatic as to (in the opinion of those ignorant of the Eggshell Skull Rule) mitigate police responsibility, this procedure could have been easily accomplished before the late Mr. Garner could have waddled far enough away to elude the police.