• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No Indictment in Chokehold Death [W:1903,2680]

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

No, they followed orders to crackdown on untaxed cigarettes, This led to overenforcement and someone ending up dead over loose cigarettes.


NYPD No. 3's order over loose smokes led to Garner chokehold death - NY Daily News

No - someone ended up dead for resisting arrest. Had Eric Garner complied with the lawful detention the police attempted to enforce, he'd be alive today, likely out on bail again, likely breaking some other laws, and likely enjoying a nice lunch, it being lunch time in NYC now.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

And the autopsy report?

Did it show he died of a heart attack?
I havent seen the autopsy. If you believe Wikipedia, then yes, the official cause of death was cardiac arrest. The ME released a statement indication all of those weight related conditions contributed. Now me...I'd love to see the full uncensored coroners report.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

To a fat man, tying his shoes is a risky proposition. Probably not wise to resist arrest...especially not for a man with 30 prior arrests.
In the videos i posted last page back i wonder why a cop can take the time to flush out the eyes of a kung fu guy charging at them and make sure hes ok. But the cops cant attempt to resuscitate the fat guy after using greater force than in the kung fu situation? Do people really hate fat people that much? Its because some of these ****in cops walk around thinking that these people are scum. And they dont care.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

No - someone ended up dead for resisting arrest.


Oh bull****, the cops jumped on him so quickly he didn't have time to resist.

Had Eric Garner complied with the lawful detention the police attempted to enforce, he'd be alive today, likely out on bail again, likely breaking some other laws, and likely enjoying a nice lunch, it being lunch time in NYC now.

lawful detention. Can you articulate the reasonable suspicion for his detainment?
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

You DO understand the exertion shown in ANY of those videos is just as likely if not more so have caused Garner a heart attack then being grabbed by the neck and put to the ground...right?

Ya right. Squeezing the neck is definately the most taxing on a heart. Its literally like pinching off a hose and accutely increasing the pressure. Back pressure that is supposed to be flowing OUT of the heart at a defined rate. He probably would have lived if not for the neck choke.


Or had a much higher chance of living. Significantly higher. Just like if he got medical attention. But like i said these cops thought he was scum.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Emphasis on the word contributing. The coroner called the primary causes neck and chest compression. That makes your statement factually incorrect.
"neck and chest compression" is NOT a cause of death, any more so than the oft repeated foolishness about 'homicide' being the cause of death.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

That's fine, One can't really state then something is against the law then and not be able to state the actual law being broken with authority. There is nothing in what you linked that addressed the fine for unlicences individuals selling untaxed loose cigarettes.

That was my point.

It also brings us back to it's about tax, he was arrested for suspicion of having and selling cigarettes that weren't paid the tax on./

I also brought up the possibility of a state law that is mentioned. but the actual law this man broke is still elusive.

Well, to be fair, virtually every bylaw in a city, particularly one the size of NYC, is based in some form or another on taxes and penalties. It's how cities keep from going bankrupt. And the vast majority of city residents would prefer that those who break bylaws pay than have their property and business taxes rise higher.
 
Last edited:
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Well, to be fair, virtually every bylaw in a city, particularly one the size of NYC, is based in some form or another on taxes and penalties. It's how cities keep from going bankrupt. And the vast majority of city residence would prefer that those who break bylaws pay than have their property and business taxes rise higher.


Your earlier point, unless I am confusing you with another is that this wasn't due to a tax issue of selling untaxed cigarettes.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Well, to be fair, virtually every bylaw in a city, particularly one the size of NYC, is based in some form or another on taxes and penalties. It's how cities keep from going bankrupt. And the vast majority of city residence would prefer that those who break bylaws pay than have their property and business taxes rise higher.

They have effectively killed the spirit of capatilism and free market with how they have it set up. If they have mandated minimum pricing that you have to sell the cigerettes for... That totally kills the possibility of someone starting a local indoor, super effecient, cost effect hydroponic tabacco farm business and selling packs for 1.50$ a pack. Once again forcing corporations to catch up with the times instead of having control while being obsolete.

At least with flat tax, no price setting the city could still make money off the massive business going to the more effecient setup with a perfectly balanced price for the times.

This is the age of renovation and revolution through effeciency. Dont a handfull of words written down somewhere stop that.....
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Oh bull****, the cops jumped on him so quickly he didn't have time to resist.



lawful detention. Can you articulate the reasonable suspicion for his detainment?

It's not BS at all. If a police officer tries to pull over a car for speeding and the driver takes off, smashing into a tree and killing himself, was the driver killed for speeding?

As for the lawful detention - that's for the police officer or the police department to defend, not me. As far as I'm concerned, if a police officer, carrying out his/her duties, says you've committed a crime and I'm taking you in, that's a lawful detention until such time as a judge or court rules otherwise. Citizens on the street don't get to determine what's legal or not in our society. If they did, we wouldn't have a society, we'd have chaos.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

All I can say is that if all you got from this incident is that the cigarette tax is bs, then you really need to reevaluate things.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

But one also has to weigh the amount of pressure that was applied. Garner did not die of asphyxiation, and the preliminary autopsy showed no damage to Garner’s windpipe or neck bones. However, a man in such poor health with acute asthma, heart disease, diabetes, and obesity it wouldn't take a whole lot of pressure to cut the man's wind off.

That's a fair statement and surely why the ME listed his health issues as contributory. Still to say his overeating killed him is incorrect.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

It's not BS at all. If a police officer tries to pull over a car for speeding and the driver takes off, smashing into a tree and killing himself, was the driver killed for speeding?


not comparable. the little cop with the "D.D." on his shirt backs off a claim he saw garner sell a loosie, then the video shows garner putting his hands up and saying "nuh uh" os somesuch, immediatly officer choke hold puts him into a choke hold and takes him down.


Why the rush to violence?




As for the lawful detention - that's for the police officer or the police department to defend, not me. As far as I'm concerned, if a police officer, carrying out his/her duties, says you've committed a crime and I'm taking you in, that's a lawful detention until such time as a judge or court rules otherwise. Citizens on the street don't get to determine what's legal or not in our society. If they did, we wouldn't have a society, we'd have chaos.


Well let me let you in on something.




"Objective 4

a. An investigative detention is a limited seizure, is temporary.

b. Reasonable suspicion is the minimum justification for a detention: suspect that criminal activity may be afoot and that the person stopped is involved.

c. Example: Match description of a person wanted, police officer’s experience, looks as if he might be committing a crime, furtive movements. The sources of facts to build reasonable suspicion are basically unlimited as long as they are credible. The officer’s own knowledge and senses are an obvious source, but reasonable suspicion need not be limited to those. The officer may also use other sources of information. These include sources, which can be revealed, such as verbal communications with other officers, information from identified reliable sources in the community, radio dispatches, police bulletins, hot sheets, anonymous tips where the facts have been corroborated, or criminal informants who have been reliable in the past (Their identities can be protected.).
In a recent case, Illinois v. Wardlow, 120 S.Ct. 673 (2000), the Supreme Court asserted that while unexplained flight from police by itself will not produce reasonable suspicion for a detention, the flight is a pertinent factor in developing that reasonable suspicion. In Wardlow, the fact that the defendant fled police as they arrived in a high crime area was sufficient to justify the stop. There were previous decisions asserting flight as an exercise of the right to freedom of movement that, as a right, could not be used to build reasonable suspicion. Those cases have been superseded.
In another case, Florida v. J.L., 120 S.Ct. 1375 (2000), the Supreme Court upheld the basic requirements for investigative detentions and frisks as articulated in Terry v. Ohio. The Court held that a frisk cannot be based entirely on an uncorroborated, non-predictive anonymous tip, even if it turns out the tip was accurate. The Court did leave open the possibility that anonymous tips regarding serious situations such as a bomb threat, or an armed person at an airport, or about a weapon in a school would be sufficient.

d. For detention, time should be a reasonable length of time during which reasonable suspicion is maintained or strengthened. It must stop is reasonable suspicion disappears. A rule of thumb is 20 to 30 minutes. Force should only be a reasonable amount. Deadly force should never be used. Detained person should not be moved, except for safety of officer or suspect or with suspect’s consent.

e. Need to articulate a reason for using the cuffs, i.e., suspect was belligerent. State v. Pfleiderer, 8 S.W.3d 249 (1999), held that use of handcuffs in a detention situation where the officer cannot or does not articulate a reasonable justification for the handcuffing makes the detention a de facto arrest. It is presumed that the use of handcuffs is associated with arrests. Officers will need to overcome that presumption by explaining why the cuffs were necessary.


f. A frisk is authorized if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe the person is armed and dangerous.

g. Miranda is probably required if asking guilt-seeking questions.

h. The officer can really do nothing if the suspect refuses to talk, cannot be compelled to give evidence against oneself. Some communities have "required identification" ordinances. These are of questionable Constitutionality."


CONTACT, DETENTION AND ARREST


There is case law on this.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

In the videos i posted last page back i wonder why a cop can take the time to flush out the eyes of a kung fu guy charging at them and make sure hes ok. But the cops cant attempt to resuscitate the fat guy after using greater force than in the kung fu situation? Do people really hate fat people that much? Its because some of these ****in cops walk around thinking that these people are scum. And they dont care.

Cops don't have the gear to do that safely, paramedics do.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Your earlier point, unless I am confusing you with another is that this wasn't due to a tax issue of selling untaxed cigarettes.

You're slightly confused. I said Eric Garner didn't die because he was selling cigarettes, taxed or otherwise. He resisted arrest and in the process of enforcing that arrest, he expired. The underlying crime is not relevant to the consequences except to the extent that we can all agree that's a pretty stupid thing to die over. He could have been prostituting himself, breaking into parking meters, any number of other petty crimes and died while resisting arrest.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

They have effectively killed the spirit of capatilism and free market with how they have it set up. If they have mandated minimum pricing that you have to sell the cigerettes for... That totally kills the possibility of someone starting a local indoor, super effecient, cost effect hydroponic tabacco farm business and selling packs for 1.50$ a pack. Once again forcing corporations to catch up with the times instead of having control while being obsolete.

At least with flat tax, no price setting the city could still make money off the massive business going to the more effecient setup with a perfectly balanced price for the times.

This is the age of renovation and revolution through effeciency. Dont a handfull of words written down somewhere stop that.....

I don't disagree. I should clarify, however, that I believe the bylaw states a minimum at which the cigarettes can be sold, not a fixed price. Someone can sell them for more, I suppose, if they have a willing market.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

not comparable. the little cop with the "D.D." on his shirt backs off a claim he saw garner sell a loosie, then the video shows garner putting his hands up and saying "nuh uh" os somesuch, immediatly officer choke hold puts him into a choke hold and takes him down.


Why the rush to violence?







Well let me let you in on something.




"Objective 4

a. An investigative detention is a limited seizure, is temporary.

b. Reasonable suspicion is the minimum justification for a detention: suspect that criminal activity may be afoot and that the person stopped is involved.

c. Example: Match description of a person wanted, police officer’s experience, looks as if he might be committing a crime, furtive movements. The sources of facts to build reasonable suspicion are basically unlimited as long as they are credible. The officer’s own knowledge and senses are an obvious source, but reasonable suspicion need not be limited to those. The officer may also use other sources of information. These include sources, which can be revealed, such as verbal communications with other officers, information from identified reliable sources in the community, radio dispatches, police bulletins, hot sheets, anonymous tips where the facts have been corroborated, or criminal informants who have been reliable in the past (Their identities can be protected.).
In a recent case, Illinois v. Wardlow, 120 S.Ct. 673 (2000), the Supreme Court asserted that while unexplained flight from police by itself will not produce reasonable suspicion for a detention, the flight is a pertinent factor in developing that reasonable suspicion. In Wardlow, the fact that the defendant fled police as they arrived in a high crime area was sufficient to justify the stop. There were previous decisions asserting flight as an exercise of the right to freedom of movement that, as a right, could not be used to build reasonable suspicion. Those cases have been superseded.
In another case, Florida v. J.L., 120 S.Ct. 1375 (2000), the Supreme Court upheld the basic requirements for investigative detentions and frisks as articulated in Terry v. Ohio. The Court held that a frisk cannot be based entirely on an uncorroborated, non-predictive anonymous tip, even if it turns out the tip was accurate. The Court did leave open the possibility that anonymous tips regarding serious situations such as a bomb threat, or an armed person at an airport, or about a weapon in a school would be sufficient.

d. For detention, time should be a reasonable length of time during which reasonable suspicion is maintained or strengthened. It must stop is reasonable suspicion disappears. A rule of thumb is 20 to 30 minutes. Force should only be a reasonable amount. Deadly force should never be used. Detained person should not be moved, except for safety of officer or suspect or with suspect’s consent.

e. Need to articulate a reason for using the cuffs, i.e., suspect was belligerent. State v. Pfleiderer, 8 S.W.3d 249 (1999), held that use of handcuffs in a detention situation where the officer cannot or does not articulate a reasonable justification for the handcuffing makes the detention a de facto arrest. It is presumed that the use of handcuffs is associated with arrests. Officers will need to overcome that presumption by explaining why the cuffs were necessary.


f. A frisk is authorized if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe the person is armed and dangerous.

g. Miranda is probably required if asking guilt-seeking questions.

h. The officer can really do nothing if the suspect refuses to talk, cannot be compelled to give evidence against oneself. Some communities have "required identification" ordinances. These are of questionable Constitutionality."


CONTACT, DETENTION AND ARREST


There is case law on this.

Which neither counters nor discounts anything I've said.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

While I'm sure there are several videos about this very obvious display of police brutality, I think people should watch this version of what transpired between the NYPD & Eric Garner. But first. ...

Per eyewitness account, the man wasn't selling cigarettes. He had just broke up a fight before police arrived on the scene and was subsequently harassed under the suspension of selling single cigarettes, a crime in NYC.

The indie DJ makes some very valid points at the end of the video. Watch. ... No arrest pronouncement. No warning. Just straight up assault on a private citizen who did a good thing but ends up dead due to the actions of over zealous cops.

Watch. ...

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Njrs5ns8nbI


.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

I believe police officers should be held accountable as well. IN fact these police officers WERE held accountable. What pisses everyone off was that after 9 weeks of careful deliberation it was found that their was no law broken. Everyone has been stirred into a demand for justice on an incomplete video they believe shows things it demonstrably doesn't.

While I agree with your approach in theory I can't help but come to the conclusion that a lot of people, in an effort to fight back against police vigilantism have become vigilantes themselves.

Again, the response of other people is totally irrelevant. And that's not what was was decided. This was not a trial, it was a grand jury.

What is your standard for an indictment? If the police officer pistol whipped the guy, would that have been okay too? Or if they shot him point blank? Would that be okay? Do you really think that that officer should be free to patrol the streets again?
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Ya right. Squeezing the neck is definately the most taxing on a heart. Its literally like pinching off a hose and accutely increasing the pressure. Back pressure that is supposed to be flowing OUT of the heart at a defined rate. He probably would have lived if not for the neck choke.


Or had a much higher chance of living. Significantly higher. Just like if he got medical attention. But like i said these cops thought he was scum.
Exerting ANY pressure causes the same concern. But as the video you posted indicates..I get that you think they should have beat his ass with collapsible batons and that you also believe that would not have contributed to a cardiac arrest. Now for the money question...

What was the ONE behavior that would have GUARANTEED he not be choked, beaten or anything else?
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Thanks for the interesting discussion - time to take the dog for a walk and get some fresh air - I'll check back in later to see all those with changed minds and views.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

While I'm sure there are several videos about this very obvious display of police brutality, I think people should watch this version of what transpired between the NYPD & Eric Garner. But first. ...

Per eyewitness account, the man wasn't selling cigarettes. He had just broke up a fight before police arrived on the scene and was subsequently harassed under the suspension of selling single cigarettes, a crime in NYC.

The indie DJ makes some very valid points at the end of the video. Watch. ... No arrest pronouncement. No warning. Just straight up assault on a private citizen who did a good thing but ends up dead due to the actions of over zealous cops.

Watch. ...

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Njrs5ns8nbI


.

It's just the same video we've all seen with a new commentator. None of his info has been vetted. Brings nothing new to the table.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Exerting ANY pressure causes the same concern. But as the video you posted indicates..I get that you think they should have beat his ass with collapsible batons and that you also believe that would not have contributed to a cardiac arrest. Now for the money question...

What was the ONE behavior that would have GUARANTEED he not be choked, beaten or anything else?



I.E. Submit to authorities at all times, even if unjustified.


How did that fare for the jews in germany? (yeah I godwinned this ****!)
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

In the videos i posted last page back i wonder why a cop can take the time to flush out the eyes of a kung fu guy charging at them and make sure hes ok. But the cops cant attempt to resuscitate the fat guy after using greater force than in the kung fu situation? Do people really hate fat people that much? Its because some of these ****in cops walk around thinking that these people are scum. And they dont care.
Ah..so its the resuscitation point. OK...I can see that. I dont know paramedics were not given better access to and care of the individual EXCEPT that if he is still breathing and his heart is still beating, there isnt MUCH they could have done.
 
Back
Top Bottom