• 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

Can they? No. But that does not deserve to be killed.


Did they die like this while a cop was using a banned chokehold on them?


Did you see anything that shows the cop was purposely and with deliberate intent, trying to kill Garner?

No like I said most that resist don't die.....but many don't like their hands behind their backs.....and they will tell the cops they are having trouble breathing. That's without a cop even holding them or touching them. Just sitting there on a sidewalk or in the back of the squad.

Hard to believe.....huh?
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

I agree that the Gardner case makes no sense and needs to be explained better to us all.

But there's no need because Pelosi, Sharpton, etc, along with the media, have already told us it's all about racist police departments and court rooms.

But they're right.....the police are targeting the poor because they're the ones that can't afford to pay the luxury tax on cigarettes in NY...or the jay walking tax in Ferguson and end up becoming felons and dependent on the system.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

According to you. What force should have exactly been used to detain him. Be specific, and not negative (example: shouldn't have did this is negative). Asking what should have been used, not what should not have been used. And how likely is it to have worked in this specific instance?

None. There was no reason to detain the man in the first place.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

"Okay, what's going on here? We've had a complaint about such-and-such called in to 911." Guy answers. Cops tell him to keep moving and leave the guy alone. Or they place him under arrest. To place him under arrest, first they tell him he's under arrest. (Not done.) Then they tell him to put his hands behind his back and turn around. (Not done.) If he doesn't? They use one of their fancy tasers to bring him down. This was a ****-up from Jump Street.

And as others have said, a taser was just as likely to kill this guy, especially if he was asthmatic.

Plus we don't know what was said before the video.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Show the exact law and requirement. What has to be said, specifically. I could be wrong, but I've been seeing plenty of support for what I said, specifically in a situation like this. Does a law say it has to be before the cuffs come out? What are the exact requirements?

Read here:

An arrest can be complete when a police officer simply tells a crime suspect that he or she is "under arrest", and the suspect submits without the officer's use of any physical force. The key to an arrest is the exercise of police authority over a person, and that person's voluntary or involuntary submission.

- See more at: Arrest - FindLaw
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

None. There was no reason to detain the man in the first place.

You don't know that. You are assuming. Maybe there was and maybe there wasn't. But it is not able to be determined from that video.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Did you see anything that shows the cop was purposely and with deliberate intent, trying to kill Garner?

No like I said most that resist don't die.....but many don't like their hands behind their backs.....and they will tell the cops they are having trouble breathing. That's without a cop even holding them or touching them. Just sitting there on a sidewalk or in the back of the squad.

Hard to believe.....huh?

Which is irrelevant. I don't see anyone accusing the cops of deliberately killing the guy. But the excessive force directly led to his death.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

So... if they have not obligation to tell you that you're under arrest.... how is a person still guilty of resisting something they didn't know they were under? If police are not under obligation to tell a person they're under arrest, isn't a resistance to arrest just self defense? Genuine question.

Their actions (such as attempting to cuff you, when it is reasonable to believe they are real cops, which isn't hard to deduce here) are generally enough when it is a situation not involving a warrant, like this one.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

And as others have said, a taser was just as likely to kill this guy, especially if he was asthmatic.

Plus we don't know what was said before the video.

That statement is irrelevant. One is acceptable police procedure. One is not.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Did you know that some cops abuse their power?

Yeah I sure do. Did you know some people make more out of what really happened than what did?

Did you know the majority of cops don't abuse their power?

Do the majority of cops try to kill people breaking laws?
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Show the exact law and requirement. What has to be said, specifically. I could be wrong, but I've been seeing plenty of support for what I said, specifically in a situation like this. Does a law say it has to be before the cuffs come out? What are the exact requirements?

Eh... you said police don't have inform people of their arrests. Now, you're being asked to show the basis of your statement. I know the answer for NYC already, but I want you to look it up. I'll give you a clue as to the rules of the game: practicality. Now find the rest. ;)
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

You don't know that. You are assuming. Maybe there was and maybe there wasn't. But it is not able to be determined from that video.

I know that from the video I watched and the words they spoke. If you don't hear them talking and see their respective behaviors, then I doubt you watched the video at all.

What are you basing your assumptions on that the police has reason to detain him? Simply trying to grab him is enough reason to detain? OR do you have some additional information that no one else here has?
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Actions are enough.

Oh, please. Why even bother to post something? "Actions are enough." WTF does THAT mean? "You should have known when I touched your arm that I was placing you under arrest." For heaven's sake. At least be logical in your argument.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

You're missing the point.

Choking someone can be lethal as you stated. Just because he didn't have the five minutes to kill Garner doesn't mean the force he used can be considered lethal.

You are having a serious problem with your positive and negative tags. It's hard to gather what you are saying.

But no, a 13 second choke hold can't be considered lethal. As I said before, the only way a 13 second choke can be considered lethal is if it crushed the windpipe in the process making it impossible to breathe even when the neck isn't compressed. The coroner report showed no signs of damage to the windpipe or vertebrae of the neck so the choke hold was about as "lethal" as holding your breath for 13 seconds.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death


So say for example, an off duty cop who hasn't identified himself decides to place somebody under arrest without informing them of the fact. That person decides that they're being attacked, pulls out a gun and shoot the cop, is the person guilty of murder or self defense?

What you're essentially arguing is that person X in cop uniform could come and put handcuffs on you, and you'd allow it... because they don't have to inform you as to what is happening or the reason why you're being placed in handcuffs....

That's kinda.... I dunno... devoid of connection with the real world.
 
No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Yeah I sure do. Did you know some people make more out of what really happened than what did?

Did you know the majority of cops don't abuse their power?

Do the majority of cops try to kill people breaking laws?

Are you going to post anything even remotely germane to this specific incident?
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Is it supposed to be ironic that this all started when Garner broke up a fight? How is breaking up a fight grounds to start an investigation into untaxed cigarettes?

I'll have to remember that trouble I got into as a teenager might be a problem if I ever decide to break up a fight. If I do I might just find myself getting arrested for drugs.

I don't know about you, but this looks a lot like the cops were trying to start trouble.

Didn't the breaking up of a fight narrative come from his friend that filmed the video as part of his commentary on the video? There is no video showing a fight. Are you absolutely sure that it even happened? Like how accurate was "hands up" "don't shoot"? According to what I read, Garner had just got busted by an undercover cop, who may have had video/audio of Garner showing his guilt to warrant an arrest and called for uniform police officers to make the arrest for the same thing he was out on bail for awaiting trial, along with other multiple charges. After all he was a very big man. If that were the case, the Grand Jury would have been informed of it.

Look I am not going to condone the chokehold. The officer was wrong in not following NYPD protocol. But did it measure up to what he was being accused? The Grand Jury after weighing all the evidence said no.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death


Next time don't quote the New York Times for information about the legality or illegality of detention by a police officer:

Here's the New York State statute:

S 140.15 Arrest without a warrant; when and how made by police officer.

1. A police officer may arrest a person for an offense, pursuant to
section 140.10, at any hour of any day or night.

2. The arresting police officer must inform such person of his
authority and purpose and of the reason for such arrest unless he
encounters physical resistance, flight or other factors rendering such
procedure impractical.


3. In order to effect such an arrest, such police officer may use
such physical force as is justifiable pursuant to section 35.30 of the
penal law.

Article 140 Criminal Procedure Law - Arrest Without Warrant
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

That statement is irrelevant. One is acceptable police procedure. One is not.

Which is why the guy should lose his job. And it is relevant, since it would have made it no less protested if it had been a taser that triggered the heart attack or asthma attack. The question is only mainly whether that was had that not been used, but rather a similar level of force, would the guy likely still have faced the same outcome? In all likelihood, yes. The thing that could have made the difference here is likely the response after he is in distress, or lack of.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

You are having a serious problem with your positive and negative tags. It's hard to gather what you are saying.

But no, a 13 second choke hold can't be considered lethal. As I said before, the only way a 13 second choke can be considered lethal is if it crushed the windpipe in the process making it impossible to breathe even when the neck isn't compressed. The coroner report showed no signs of damage to the windpipe or vertebrae of the neck so the choke hold was about as "lethal" as holding your breath for 13 seconds.

Yes it can. If you perform 100% bloodflow restriction an average man could die in 2 seconds of choking if he goes into shock. Now add in the fact that this guy had much more mass and his circulatory system is naturally more taxed. Plus the stress from being ambushed in a unlawful arrest... That officer was really crankin on his neck hard too and digging into it. The officer wanted to dominate him and it cost the man his life.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

As I've stated before. This is the terrible solution advocated by all of the police brutality advocates:

- If you don't like the way police treat you, let yourself be harassed, then fight long battles in court, spend thousands of dollars you may not have on attorneys, and hope courts see things your way. If you win? You may just win enough to break even. If you don't win, then you're stuck with all the bills you incurred.

Please, never again tell us about how you're all for small government and constitutional rights? It's not only laughably false, it's just plain dishonest at this point. You're an apologist for police brutality. :)

"Police brutality advocates"? Really?

This is just mind boggling.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Next time don't quote the New York Times for information about the legality or illegality of detention by a police officer:

Here's the New York State statute:

Article 140 Criminal Procedure Law - Arrest Without Warrant

Note:

"Unless he encounters physical resistance, flight, or other factors rendering such procedure impractical". Can easily be said they got this before they were trying to actually arrest the guy.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

"Okay, what's going on here? We've had a complaint about such-and-such called in to 911." Guy answers. Cops tell him to keep moving and leave the guy alone. Or they place him under arrest. To place him under arrest, first they tell him he's under arrest. (Not done.) Then they tell him to put his hands behind his back and turn around. (Not done.) If he doesn't? They use one of their fancy tasers to bring him down. This was a ****-up from Jump Street.


Here are a couple legal issues that the ordeal begins with.

1.jpg


Confrontation
Police officers confront Mr. Garner on a sidewalk on Staten Island, where he had previously been arrested for selling loose cigarettes. Officers do not immediately use force, and Mr. Garner begins arguing.

Legal issues: His demeanor in these moments could have been a factor in determining if he was resisting arrest, thus justifying the use of force.

2.jpg



‘It Stops Today’
Mr. Garner proclaims his innocence and accuses the officers of harassing him. “It stops today,” he tells the officers, a statement that has become a Twitter hashtag and rallying cry.

Legal issues : The grand jury might have considered whether what Mr. Garner did here was evidence of resistance, which would have a bearing on whether the police acted reasonably, a key issue in whether his death was a crime.....snip~
 
Back
Top Bottom