NYPD Officer Who Fatally Choked Eric Garner Wasn't Indicted, Man Who Filmed the Incident Was

a reply to: Xcathdra

and

neither

should

the

cops...

originally posted by: Komodo
a reply to: Xcathdra

and

neither

should

the

cops...

They

didn't

break

the

law...

originally posted by: antar
a reply to: Komodo

WEll this goes beyond race and socioeconomic classes, this also touches on brain washing Police and creating separatism and survival level mentality for the police against all civilians, that is scary. .

yes...

true to the point !!!! Someone behind the curtain is pushing this agenda ....

a reply to: Xcathdra

that's interesting..

I never said they did .. all I said was, neither should the cops.. but i'm not going to argue with you, and will not be baited ..thanks for responding.

originally posted by: Komodo
a reply to: Xcathdra

that's interesting..

I never said they did .. all I said was, neither should the cops.. but i'm not going to argue with you, and will not be baited ..thanks for responding.

You just got done lecturing people, myself included, about the topic of this thread. I followed what you wanted and posted info regarding the gun arrest.

You are the one who made the comment about police and since you want to remain on topic my response was on topic - referring to the NYPD.

Don't bitch at people to remain on topic if your going to go off topic.

The police in this instance did not break the law. The guy with the medical conditions should not have resisted arrest. Chances are he would still be alive.

I am not baiting you so please don't hide behind that excuse.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Komodo

He was not choked to death. Autopsy revealed cardiac arrest.

Right, I'm sure all autopsies are credible when a possible police indictment is on the line. Also, how do you suppose one dies from asphyxiation?

Lack of oxygenated blood to the heart will lead to cardiac arrest, if not treated (CPR), this will lead to death of the cardiac muscle tissue. I highly doubt that Mr. Garner just randomly went into cardiac arrest, with nothing from the event playing into it. At the very least, being put into a choke hold would elevate stress on the body, especially face down with a decent sized individual on top of you, clearly restricting the airway and restricting inhalation/ exhalation with a compressed chest cavity (cops body weight). I encourage you to experiment with a friend - I guarantee you say uncle (if you have enough air) within a minute.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Komodo
a reply to: Xcathdra

that's interesting..

I never said they did .. all I said was, neither should the cops.. but i'm not going to argue with you, and will not be baited ..thanks for responding.

You just got done lecturing people, myself included, about the topic of this thread. I followed what you wanted and posted info regarding the gun arrest.

You are the one who made the comment about police and since you want to remain on topic my response was on topic - referring to the NYPD.

Don't bitch at people to remain on topic if your going to go off topic.

The police in this instance did not break the law. The guy with the medical conditions should not have resisted arrest. Chances are he would still be alive.

I am not baiting you so please don't hide behind that excuse.

You are baiting... That's all you do on here. You're making it out to be Garners fault he died because he didn't submit "properly". I assume you'll say the same if it was your own mother in Garners shoes.

a reply to: Xcathdra

So you do not see a link between the application of the "LVNR" hold and the other police action on the day, like kneeling on Mr Garners SKULL, and pressing him into the ground, not to mention restricting the normal flow of blood around his body, and the cardiac arrest?

Because judging from the way the coroner called this death a homicide, it rather follows that the cause of that cardiac arrest was deemed to be the actions of the officer or officers involved in the action against Mr Garner. The fact is that the coroner would not have ruled this death a homicide, unless the death was caused by an individual or group thereof, as opposed to being an event which would have occurred whether the incident we are discussing, had occurred or not.

If police action lead to the death of Mr Garner, then the specific cause of death is not strictly relevant when discussing the culpability of the police officers involved, or the police force itself with regard to the death. What is clear is that a homicide was committed. What is a matter for discussion, and is in some doubt, is the treatment that Mr Garner received at the hands of the police officers. Was it warranted, proportional, and justified bearing in mind the circumstances prevailing?

I think it could be argued that the answer to that is an emphatic NO. Police officers should not be using techniques which restrict blood flow to the brain, on people who are clearly in poor physical condition unless the circumstances require that the individual upon whom they are used is incapacitated immediately to prevent certain death coming to a member of the public, or an officer. One certainly should not pin an unarmed, and clearly obese man to the floor, prevent him breathing and getting adequate oxygen, kneeling on his skull, his back, compressing his entire body against the ground, with not just his own vast bulk, but that of several police officers as well. The results of such a thing are clearly not going to be positive.

This is not rocket science, just common bloody sense!

a reply to: TrueBrit

* - An LVNR hold was not used so the comment about restricted blood flows does not apply.

* - When you have a person fighting with the police, to the point of involving multiple officers who are still having issues gaining control, you do what you can to gain control. That includes holding a head down. Where the head goes the body follows. Secondly officers are trained that when a technique is not working / person is not responding to it, you "change the channel". It forces the person to concentrate on something else, allowing for control.

* - In the United States any time a person is killed by someone else the cause of death is in fact homicide. You then have subcategories.

- Justified homicide
- Non justified homicide.

A civilian, a cop, and a prison that executes / kills a person are all listed as homicides. A persons medical history is not known (unless the officers present have dealt with him in the past AND knew about his medical conditions) to the officers. Inline with Supreme Court rulings hindsight 20/20 cannot be used to review a persons use of force.

In this case the officers approached this guy and the guy refused to comply and then fought with the police.

Was it warranted, proportional, and justified bearing in mind the circumstances prevailing?

One has to consider what the laws say as opposed to using a personal opinion with no basis in fact.

* - Was physical contact warranted? - Yes because he resisted arrest.
* - Was the response proportional? = Yes because it was not the goal of the officers present to end his life.
* - Are the officers actions justified? Base on local / state and federal law, in addition to NYPD policy - Yes.

One certainly should not pin an unarmed, and clearly obese man to the floor, prevent him breathing and getting adequate oxygen, kneeling on his skull, his back, compressing his entire body against the ground, with not just his own vast bulk, but that of several police officers as well. The results of such a thing are clearly not going to be positive.

He resisted arrest and was fighting multiple officers. You gain control of the individual first.


Finally the guy resisted arrest and fought with the police. The entire situation could have been resolved with no issues had the guy not decided to fight and complied.

a reply to: Komodo

The corrupt side of many a Police force in man a city is being revealed...(we the people) are waking up...and there is proof of the corruption now.

How some of TPTB really operate is being shown to the world. People are not going to be deceived; like they used to be.

There is going to be more major civil unrest; it will continue.

Sometimes I wonder if TPTB are allowing all of this to play out...so that eventually they will have a reason to put the entire U.S. under (Martial Law).

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: TrueBrit

* - An LVNR hold was not used so the comment about restricted blood flows does not apply.

* - When you have a person fighting with the police, to the point of involving multiple officers who are still having issues gaining control, you do what you can to gain control. That includes holding a head down. Where the head goes the body follows. Secondly officers are trained that when a technique is not working / person is not responding to it, you "change the channel". It forces the person to concentrate on something else, allowing for control.

* - In the United States any time a person is killed by someone else the cause of death is in fact homicide. You then have subcategories.

- Justified homicide
- Non justified homicide.

A civilian, a cop, and a prison that executes / kills a person are all listed as homicides. A persons medical history is not known (unless the officers present have dealt with him in the past AND knew about his medical conditions) to the officers. Inline with Supreme Court rulings hindsight 20/20 cannot be used to review a persons use of force.

In this case the officers approached this guy and the guy refused to comply and then fought with the police.

Was it warranted, proportional, and justified bearing in mind the circumstances prevailing?

One has to consider what the laws say as opposed to using a personal opinion with no basis in fact.

* - Was physical contact warranted? - Yes because he resisted arrest.
* - Was the response proportional? = Yes because it was not the goal of the officers present to end his life.
* - Are the officers actions justified? Base on local / state and federal law, in addition to NYPD policy - Yes.

One certainly should not pin an unarmed, and clearly obese man to the floor, prevent him breathing and getting adequate oxygen, kneeling on his skull, his back, compressing his entire body against the ground, with not just his own vast bulk, but that of several police officers as well. The results of such a thing are clearly not going to be positive.

He resisted arrest and was fighting multiple officers. You gain control of the individual first.


Finally the guy resisted arrest and fought with the police. The entire situation could have been resolved with no issues had the guy not decided to fight and complied.

Policy seems to inhibit life saving decision making. How many times did they need to check for a pulse to determine that he didn't have one? Are the NYPD not trained in CPR? And why were the medics who responded suspended? Did they follow orders as well?

I'm not defending the actions of Garner. He made his choice to not cooperate for whatever reason. I can understand his frustration, but I would never get into a heated argument with a man with a gun, badge and backup.

However...

Clearly those cops on scene have half a brain/heart. The bystanders were quite aware something was wrong without even checking for a pulse. If anything they, all the police involved, should be fired for derelect of duty to protect life (It is "To Serve and Protect"...not "Obey and Survive"). As their lives were no longer under threat from a man with no pulse, they should have immediately began life saving procedures with CPR. They clearly did not. As they kept him in hand cuffs and focused on pushing bystanders back.

They were more than ready to jump into action to "protect" themselves from a man who was obviously not threatening them. Yet they stood still when his life was in danger.

Garner was wrong (technically, in the eyes of the INFALLIBLE law-but not in the reality of being a normal human).

The cops were also wrong (in the reality of being normal humans-but not as policy/legal robots).

So what did we all learn from this?

Do as you are told. You have no right to question authority. Submit, lay down and roll over. If not, you will most likely die.

Has it occurred to anyone that 95% of all the laws on the books are in fact quite useless? Was the law the police were enforcing worth this man dying?

HELL NO. They were enforcing a TAX!

Selling cigarettes individually is worth violently subduing a man? Are there not bigger fish to fry? This is equal to stealing candy from a store in my books. Certainly nothing to be proud of, but certainly not deserving of violent arrest.

Death of Eric Garner - Wikipedia

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Komodo
Even if the cops had cameras it would not have changed the fact the guy died of cardiac arrest and not a LVNR.

He died as a result of a closed windpipe from an "air choke" instead of "blood choke". Neither is allowed under New York policy. And yet they get reports of it all the time.

I'm pretty sure you know the difference between the two.

Death from cardiac arrest was the final result. You die of that when you drown, too.

"Air choking" is across the wind pipe

a reply to: Xcathdra

They

didn't

break

the

law…

yes they did.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Komodo

He was not choked to death. Autopsy revealed cardiac arrest.

Autopsy concluded it was homicide, right?

a reply to: Komodo

redacted… sorry, mistaken post

a reply to: caladonea

Sometimes I wonder if TPTB are allowing all of this to play out…so that eventually they will have a reason to put the entire U.S. under (Martial Law).

Nah, they'll let it 'run out of steam' as usual. If they do overreact, main stream America will be disrupted and that could result in chaos. They don't want that. They want people to forget about it and move on.

"Hot spots" will be dealt with like in Occupy Wall Street but otherwise they'll allow it and sit back. The state can wait.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Komodo

He was not choked to death. Autopsy revealed cardiac arrest.

due to being choked.

originally posted by: caladonea
a reply to: Komodo

The corrupt side of many a Police force in man a city is being revealed...(we the people) are waking up...and there is proof of the corruption now.

How some of TPTB really operate is being shown to the world. People are not going to be deceived; like they used to be.

There is going to be more major civil unrest; it will continue.

Sometimes I wonder if TPTB are allowing all of this to play out...so that eventually they will have a reason to put the entire U.S. under (Martial Law).

yes...

it seems to be a wide spread epidemic of sorts .. or is being reported now or allowed to be reported....

ok ... let me call out the elephant that sitting in the living room .. which is not how Garner got choked out, it's about a US citizen that was arrested on charges for illegal gun possession, who just so happened to be the very man who video taped the cop that performed the chokehold ....

-this has huge implications, and some are already have been put in play since 9/11, people being arrested for taking photos/videos at our national historic sites such as the Lincoln Memorial to prevent terrorist agendas; however, being jailed for video tapping LEO's should NOT be a crime

originally posted by: Sparkymedic


Policy seems to inhibit life saving decision making. How many times did they need to check for a pulse to determine that he didn't have one? Are the NYPD not trained in CPR? And why were the medics who responded suspended? Did they follow orders as well?

Law Enforcement is not required, just like civilians, to administer first aid. As for the suspension I have no idea what you are referencing.

originally posted by: Sparkymedic
I'm not defending the actions of Garner. He made his choice to not cooperate for whatever reason. I can understand his frustration, but I would never get into a heated argument with a man with a gun, badge and backup.

How do you think the encounter would have went had the guy not resisted arrest and actively fought wit the police and why do people completely ignore those facts?

originally posted by: Sparkymedic

However...

Clearly those cops on scene have half a brain/heart. The bystanders were quite aware something was wrong without even checking for a pulse.

And Law Enforcement officers experience, every day, a person who tries to make false medical claims in order to go to the hospital instead of jail.

The bystanders, just like the police, were not aware of any medical conditions.

originally posted by: Sparkymedic
If anything they, all the police involved, should be fired for derelect of duty to protect life (It is "To Serve and Protect"...not "Obey and Survive").

incorrect. The purpose of law enforcement is to protect society as a whole and NOT the individual. The individual is required to be responsible for his or her own actions.

originally posted by: Sparkymedic
As their lives were no longer under threat from a man with no pulse, they should have immediately began life saving procedures with CPR. They clearly did not. As they kept him in hand cuffs and focused on pushing bystanders back.

They are not required to. In incidents where a police officer shoots someone, you don't see the cop rushing up to administer first aid. The scene is secured to EMS can respond and do their job.

Law enforcement is prohibited by law from giving legal advice to people they arrest and are prohibited by law from diagnosing a medical condition of a person they are dealing with.

originally posted by: Sparkymedic
They were more than ready to jump into action to "protect" themselves from a man who was obviously not threatening them. Yet they stood still when his life was in danger.

Not threatening? Did you see the guys size and how many officers it took to bring the guy down to the ground and control him there?


While I completely respect, and expect, people to get more involved with what law enforcement does, they need to understand the laws that are in place first. A person does not have to have a gun or knife to be considered a deadly threat. If we are dealing with a person who tells us they are special forces and a black belt in karate, that is how the person will be treated, regardless if he is telling the truth or not.

originally posted by: Sparkymedic
Garner was wrong (technically, in the eyes of the INFALLIBLE law-but not in the reality of being a normal human).

No not technically. He was wrong and violated numerous laws, including resisting arrest.

No officers on scene, nor I, have ever claimed police are infallible. Making that comment without understand the laws in question only reinforces my point that people need to learn the law and rulings governing law enforcement before making a claim / accusation that they can support.

originally posted by: Sparkymedic
The cops were also wrong (in the reality of being normal humans-but not as policy/legal robots).

We will agree to disagree on this part.

originally posted by: Sparkymedic
So what did we all learn from this?

Don't resist arrest and fight with the police over loose cigarette sales.

originally posted by: Sparkymedic
Do as you are told. You have no right to question authority. Submit, lay down and roll over. If not, you will most likely die.

Wrong - people have a right to question authority in a proper setting. In this case law enforcement is not the judge nor jury but one half of an equation. The proper setting to argue about police actions is the courtroom.

originally posted by: Sparkymedic
Has it occurred to anyone that 95% of all the laws on the books are in fact quite useless? Was the law the police were enforcing worth this man dying?

Was the law the man broke worth him resisting arrest and fighting?

originally posted by: Sparkymedic
HELL NO. They were enforcing a TAX!

No they were enforcing a law.

originally posted by: Sparkymedic
Selling cigarettes individually is worth violently subduing a man?

Selling cigarettes individually is worth resisting arrest and fighting with the police over?

originally posted by: Sparkymedic
Are there not bigger fish to fry? This is equal to stealing candy from a store in my books. Certainly nothing to be proud of, but certainly not deserving of violent arrest.

So some crimes are ok to commit and others are not?

The arrest was not violent. It turned violent when the man resisted and fought.