• 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

Having learned about jumping to conclusions, after seeing the chokehold and learning of the man's later death by heart failure, I believed that the grand jury had more evidence than I and a better grasp of the potential charges which may have applied to this situation, unfortunate as it was. After watching the poor man lay on the sidewalk, apparently dead, I think charges should have been brought against all the cops involved.

They could have given the man a ticket for selling cigarettes if it's really that big a deal.

The only problem I have with this is... that police officers are not medical experts. Are they suppose to ask a criminal if they have any medical issues before they take them down? How many do you think would tell the truth anyway?
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

There is no historic basis for that. Both the left and the right can break out in armed rebellion.

The government in the USA is far, far too powerful for there to ever be any wide scale rebellion no matter what the reason. No government on earth has more prepared itself to squash a rebellion of any size for any reason than the USA.

The only example of conservative rebellion I can think of is the Spanish civil war. Do you know of another?
 
Re: NYPD officer in Eric Garner chokehold death not indicted by Staten Island grand j

Nanny state creates black markets.


diblasio charges police to protect tobacco revenue.

garner dies for failig to pay said revenue.

Ah.
Thanks for clearing that up.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Clogged arteries have killed more.

Auto accidents kill more than 10 times as many people a year as died on 9-11. Really, 9-11 wasn't even newsworthy. :roll:
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

The only example of conservative rebellion I can think of is the Spanish civil war. Do you know of another?

It's probably not worth mentioning for how trivial it was. Civil War?

Actually, most rebellions were by people I would define as conservative. Even the revolutionary war in terms of resistance actually began by hyper backwoods people further South than the NE who decided they'd just shot redcoat tax collectors out in their woods. The idea was an interesting one then to the powerful colonialists in the NE, deciding they could mobilize people I would define as conservative to fight for their having their own country.

I was thinking of the death of Mr. Garner over tobacco taxes on the most petty level in relation to the American revolutionary war. It would be fairly accurate that the values now are diametrically opposite of them.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

The only problem I have with this is... that police officers are not medical experts. Are they suppose to ask a criminal if they have any medical issues before they take them down? How many do you think would tell the truth anyway?

Well, virtually every member on this thread claiming that his death was caused by his obvious size declare they are medical experts who can tell just by looking at him.
 
Re: NYPD officer in Eric Garner chokehold death not indicted by Staten Island grand j

Why do you suffer from such a limited view?

I have already posted why once. I might post it again if necessary.

I don't suffer anything, including flippant retorts. Which 'why' have you already posted? And was the death of what's-his-name fated after some liberal policy became law so the cop who choked him was no more than a word in a phrase expression of kismet?

-in re the bolded- I don't have time to read whole threads so I simply reply to posts.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death [W:1903]

While a chockhold, like any other act of violence, is not illegal of itself, it was known to that officer that it is prohibited by police policy.

Accordingly, anytime anyone posts that officer was doing his job as a police officer that message is a lie. He exactly was NOT acting as a police officer. He was acting personally as a renegade against the police department on his own.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

You will be involved but I can count on you being on the wrong side.

Yes, you can. When liberals have fought for the rights of individuals and limits on the powers of government, it has always been conservatives they've fought against.
Nothing personal. You can't help being a minion of the evil beast.


(grin!)
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Well, virtually every member on this thread claiming that his death was caused by his obvious size declare they are medical experts who can tell just by looking at him.

Well...that and the fact that we can actually read and don't seize on emotion based words because the fit the cause. Sure...the police officer took him down in what has been called a choke hold. He also was breathing during the incident, after the incident, and up to an hour later when he died of cardiac arrest. That happens when a man that is 200+ pounds decides he doesn't want to cooperate with law enforcement.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

ferguson and this story: two episodes of large men disobeying police orders(after breaking the law) and ending up dead. I'm sorry, but the average american isn't going to get upset at that no matter WHAT COLOR THEY ARE because the average american DOESN'T disobey police orders OR break the law. That is the honest truth. So you can waste your breathe trying to rationalize that away until the cows come home, it still won't be a major issue in this country except to a small minority.

Tomorrow, if a black man who works at an accountant's office with no criminal record is pulled over for speeding and ends up dead on the street, THEN COME AND TALK TO ME. I will share your outrage. till then you are just trying to build something that won't stand up no matter how hard you try.


Yeah, I got what you really said. To you it's about black men - and since both were black the story is the same - those criminal black men in your view.

The Ferguson and NYC incidents have no relationship to each other - other than to such as your message - people who judge everyone in racial terms.

In Ferguson, Brown initiated the violence. In NYC a police officer initiated the violence.
In Ferguson, Brown had just committed an act of violence against the officer. In NYC Garner had not done or threatened any violence.
In Ferguson, Brown had tried to flee. In NYC Garner was claiming he had a right to stand on the public sidewalk where he was.
In Ferguson, the police officer had saw Brown commit felony assault against him. In NYC, not one officer had seen Garner break any law whatsoever.

Yet none of that matters to you. They are the same to you for one simple reason, two black men.

To this, of course, then you add the lie told hundreds of times on this thread. Mr. Garner had not refused anything. He was not told he was under arrest. He was not under arrest. He wasn't told any command at all. Nor has any evidence ever been offered that he was breaking any law - now has there been anyone stating they saw him breaking any law.

But, well, he's black man. Therefore, to you, he's a criminal. That's enough reason, huh?

Hopefully, your view about black men doesn't represent the majority of Americans anymore.

Keep posting just how black they were in your view, as that is the core of your messages.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

It's probably not worth mentioning for how trivial it was. Civil War?

Seriously? The Spanish civil war trivial?
Sorry, I just realized I'm barking up the wrong tree. As you were.

Actually, most rebellions were by people I would define as conservative. Even the revolutionary war in terms of resistance ...

blahblahblah- you've not a clue what you're talking about. Done witcha.
 
Last edited:
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death [W:1903]

While a chockhold, like any other act of violence, is not illegal of itself, it was known to that officer that it is prohibited by police policy.

Accordingly, anytime anyone posts that officer was doing his job as a police officer that message is a lie. He exactly was NOT acting as a police officer. He was acting personally as a renegade against the police department on his own.

I just don't know about this one... The water is murky... If he was able to talk and say he cant breathe, then he could breathe. I think this was a matter of a medical condition combined with use of force that contributed to his death. I don't think you could contribute either or to the total cause of his death because both had a role.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Yes, you can. When liberals have fought for the rights of individuals and limits on the powers of government, it has always been conservatives they've fought against.
Nothing personal. You can't help being a minion of the evil beast.

(grin!)

As untrue as it gets.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

So far my response to this has been "it seems like there's some sort of significant issue here, but I don't know what the **** it is exactly."
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Its almost as if goerge lopez is some sort of satirical prophet for this event with his characterizations.

 
Last edited:
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

The only problem I have with this is... that police officers are not medical experts. Are they suppose to ask a criminal if they have any medical issues before they take them down? How many do you think would tell the truth anyway?

If a subject dies while being choked, the person doing the choking killed him. It appears, by watching the video of the guy lying motionless on the sidewalk, that may have been the case.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Finally saw the video...

It...it made no sense to me. It only makes sense if the one I watched was some how out of sync with the video and audio.

I see cop in a shirt with "99" on it get the guy in a choke hold and bring him to the ground.

On the ground I hear Garner saying "I can't breath" (which is an indication he CAN breath, but definitely sounds like his breathing intake is significantly impaired)

I see number 99 now STANDING UP, with both hands on the guys head, as the guy is saying the above statement.

I haven't been following this really closely, but I was under the impression from everything I heard people say that the guy was dropped unconscious and eventually died from a choke hold, but he was clearly still conscious and breathing after the choke had been released.

Was the issue actually that the trachea was significantly damaged, impairing his ability to significantly intake breath and that compounded with his asthma led to eventual unconsciousness and death? Did the autopsy show damage to the trachea or some other portion of the body relevant to the intake of breath? Because right now I"m exceedingly confused.

Damage to the trachea is about the only thing that would make sense. That + four people putting significant pressure on the guy on the ground + asthma + being out of shape would explain the eventual unconsciousness and death. But I just kept getting the impression he actually went unconscious and died while IN the choke. But I may just have misunderstood having not followed this closely.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

The only problem I have with this is... that police officers are not medical experts. Are they suppose to ask a criminal if they have any medical issues before they take them down? How many do you think would tell the truth anyway?

Here would be my general take on that...

1) Are there requirements in terms of how/when an officer can apply a hold such as that onto a person?

2) Were those requirements met when he did the hold?

3) Would an officer who used a taser on an individual in a situation where regulation did not allow for it to be used, and it resulted in the individuals death due to health issues that the individual was afflicted with, would that officer be potentially liable for manslaughter?

If the answer is "yes" to the first and third, and "no" to the second, then I don't see any reason to treat a choke hold any differently.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Finally saw the video...

It...it made no sense to me. It only makes sense if the one I watched was some how out of sync with the video and audio.

I see cop in a shirt with "99" on it get the guy in a choke hold and bring him to the ground.

On the ground I hear Garner saying "I can't breath" (which is an indication he CAN breath, but definitely sounds like his breathing intake is significantly impaired)

I see number 99 now STANDING UP, with both hands on the guys head, as the guy is saying the above statement.

I haven't been following this really closely, but I was under the impression from everything I heard people say that the guy was dropped unconscious and eventually died from a choke hold, but he was clearly still conscious and breathing after the choke had been released.

Was the issue actually that the trachea was significantly damaged, impairing his ability to significantly intake breath and that compounded with his asthma led to eventual unconsciousness and death? Did the autopsy show damage to the trachea or some other portion of the body relevant to the intake of breath? Because right now I"m exceedingly confused.

Damage to the trachea is about the only thing that would make sense. That + four people putting significant pressure on the guy on the ground + asthma + being out of shape would explain the eventual unconsciousness and death. But I just kept getting the impression he actually went unconscious and died while IN the choke. But I may just have misunderstood having not followed this closely.

How a chokehold works has been posted a number of times. Here's a short version.

A chockhold does NOT cut off breathing to the lungs. It significantly reduces blood flow to the brain (but not entirely). The brain for its size uses more oxygen (by far) than any other organ - and is most quickly damaged (permanently) without oxygen.

It is within our DNA/design that if blood flow (meaning oxygen flow) to the brain is reduced the brain will immediately start shutting down other organs and the rest of the body. It will turn down muscles (which use a lot of oxygen) - which is why the person goes limp. But the lungs and heart also are muscles. So the heart rate is dramatically cut as is breathing.

Adding he was on his stomach - so his own weight making breathing difficult - and someone on his back too - the result would be his "I can't breathe, I can't breathe." NOT because he couldn't get air to his lungs, but because his brain was turning off his lungs and heart, plus the weight strain. With his breathing cut as much as 75% and heart pumping 1/4th as much blood (oxygen), he literally was coming to be unable to breath.

Breathing was becoming difficult to impossible because his brain was saving it self. Muscles can go a quarter hour or more with zero oxygen. The heart can go quite a while too and still be revived, but the brain can't.

Now here is what killed him - exactly. When the officer released his hold and blood flow restored? His brain then would tell the heart and lungs to go into hyper-drive to get that oxygen. His blood pressure and heart rate would have gone off the charts - and that's why he had a heart attack. The effect of the release would have been similar to sticking a taser in the center of his heart. An comparison is sometimes and old shopkeeper will chase after a shoplifter and drop dead of a heart attack as his heart is just too weak.

It is unfortunate EMS didn't try to do CPR because in that situation it likely would have saved him. As an analogy, his heart had a "charley horse" and froze up. If it had manually been pumped (CPS) it likely would have relaxed and started going again.

Anyway, when people say he couldn't be unable to breathe because he could speak that simply isn't how it works. The chocking was of blood to his brain, not air to his lungs, and for this his brain was shutting down his heart and lungs to save the brain. The chockhold in this way also has the brain shut down the person's muscles (why the person quickly can't struggle - why police used to like it much - until it known it was killing people), but that also is why it is so dangerous - particularly to children, older folks, overweight people and people in poor physical condition.

That also is why it has been banned to law enforcement for quite some time. It will kill people with health weakness or issues - regardless of intentions. It also will if held too long and until advances in autopsies was a way to murder someone making it look like heart attack. For his weight, age and overall size, plus on his chest with someone on his back, his death if put into a chockhold all but a certainty.

(I guess this wasn't so short, but his able to speak therefore was not being "chocked" is misinformation about this - though out of lack of knowledge).
 
Last edited:
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death [W:1903]

What so frustrated me about these discussions is that everyone is so hung up on love-or-hate police, race and "was it murder" - that no other topics and issues are even discussable.

For example, I don't see race having ANYTHING to do with it. And for potential criminal charges they would be lesser such as "reckless endangerment," "official oppression" and "assault," not just manslaughter/murder or nothing.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Here would be my general take on that...

1) Are there requirements in terms of how/when an officer can apply a hold such as that onto a person?

2) Were those requirements met when he did the hold?

3) Would an officer who used a taser on an individual in a situation where regulation did not allow for it to be used, and it resulted in the individuals death due to health issues that the individual was afflicted with, would that officer be potentially liable for manslaughter?

If the answer is "yes" to the first and third, and "no" to the second, then I don't see any reason to treat a choke hold any differently.

The NYPD banned chockholds by their officers in 1993.
Kelly Bans Choke Holds By Officers - NYTimes.com


At a police promotion ceremony at One Police Plaza, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly characterized the ban not as a new policy but as clarification of a 1985 order. That order said that "choke holds, which are potentially lethal and unnecessary, will not be routinely used." An exception was when an officer's life was in danger and the choke hold was the "least dangerous alternative method of restraint." The new policy allows no exceptions.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

How a chokehold works has been posted a number of times. Here's a short version.

I know how a chokehold works (actually, chokeHOLDS, there's two distinct types), and was one of those that posted such)

A chockhold does NOT cut off breathing to the lungs.

Actually, some forms of choke holds (air chokes) absolutely CAN cut off breathing to the lungs, via constricting and/or damaging essential air pathways like the trachea, leading to asphyxia. These type of chokes do not directly inhibit blood flow to the brain.

It significantly reduces blood flow to the brain (but not entirely).

A specific category of chokes (not the one applied in this case), blood chokes, succeed via this manner of essentially strangulation.

Breathing was becoming difficult to impossible because his brain was saving it self.

If it as "starving itself" because of damage to his trachea or other air pathway that was unable to pull in the necessary oxygen, due to the affects of the choke hold...this makes sense. Which is why I as asking if that's what the autopsy showed.

Now here is what killed him - exactly. When the officer released his hold and blood flow restored? His brain then would tell the heart and lungs to go into hyper-drive to get that oxygen. His blood pressure and heart rate would have gone off the charts - and that's why he had a heart attack.

So wait, that autopsy revealed a HEART ATTACK is what killed him? That's literally the first time I've heard that in this entire thing.
 
Last edited:
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Good afternoon Rocket,

A more fulsome new headline would be "New Yorkers elect liberal/socialist as Mayor and one of his first orders is for Union Bureaucrats to crack down on Underground Economy - Mayor Claims Amnesia when instruction leads to death of supporter"

Headlines have to be much simpler
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

It significantly reduces blood flow to the brain (but not entirely).

Yeah, no offense but given your statements just going against everything I've ever known I decided since I had a bit of time I'd start looking into a few things myself.

First thing I just saw (still looking) confirmed my belief that based on the style of choke being used there was no chance that this guys carotid was actually being compressed to happen.

However, what surprised me is a doctor on CNN going over the report saying it suggested that the jugular vein was compressed, which I really didn't expect given the look of that choke. This keeps the deoxygenated blood from leaving the brain, not stopping the brain from getting blood.

The CNN report also seemed to go along with my thought process that the significant amount of individuals on his back, combined with him being stuck against the ground, and his head placed as it was, likely caused significant issues with regards to the intake of air which contributed to the death. Which again, makes more sense than what I was originally hearing from people which gave the impression that he went unconscious and died while in the choke hold.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom