After reading the article in full: The only thing I noticed, was how whoever did this simply changed the wording around to suit their agenda, much
like whoever they originally edited wrote the article in a way that suits their own agenda, you Liberals try to be good at that.
It is true that after Garner was put in the chokehold, the four EMT's were suspended.
But it is also true that the four paramedics that responded to his respiratory distress were also suspended. Because Garner had respiratory distress,
this is a fact, the man was asthmatic.
You are trying to take the moral high ground by claiming the NYPD has a bias but are completely and conveniently ignoring your own anti-police
A neutral edit of that phrase would more go along with:
"The four EMT's who responded to the scene were later suspended without pay."
So until you can write that, you have not a leg to stand on when trying to claim some sort of neutral moral high ground.
In this article. The liberal point of view states he 'raised his arms in the air and was then put in a chokehold. They are trying to paint a picture
just like when they claimed Michael Brown was on his knees and raised his hands above his head and was shot in the face. No, sorry, watch the video.
While I do believe the cops in Staten Island Garner case should have been doing more important things than busting a guy selling loose cigarettes, he
was doing a whole hell of a lot more that 'raising his hands' there were several times after Police approached to detain him that he forcefully pulled
his hands away. Although I would say 'flailing' is a bit much.
As for the second edit:
The choke-hold maneuver is not illegal for use, Police Department policy bans it's use. There is a huge stretch from something police doing being
ILLEGAL, such as bringing someone into an interrogation room, not allowing them to leave and also denying them counsel (this is Illegal via the
constitution) and a Police Department telling Police Officers "hey, don't use a choke-hold in the arresting of suspects because of reasons xyz.
By claiming the use of the chokehold is illegal in this case, you are also saying that you taking and hour and a minute at work for lunch is also
illegal because company policy allows you only 60 minutes. What you did is not illegal, it is against company policy. The department ban on using the
chokehold is technically no different. So the Liberal point of view here is technically lying.
Liberals love trying to burden everyone else by semantics but hate abiding by semantics themselves.
edit on 15-3-2015 by chuck258 because: