• 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


Where is the autopsy report in any of those links?
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Obama likes it when Mayors like de Blasio imply his police force is racist and untrustworthy in a nationally covered speech. Obama later called and praised de Blasio for his words.

Obama is granting his attention to Al Sharpton and calling him in to the WH for meetings. Obama's actions have been repulsive.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Obama likes it when Mayors like de Blasio imply his police force is racist and untrustworthy in a nationally covered speech. Obama later called and praised de Blasio for his words.

Imply that by saying? You know, you're really bad at this. I'll ask you one last time: Can you show us Obama claiming cops are out to harass black men?

I'll wait. :)
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Where is the autopsy report in any of those links?

Don't waste your time. I gave those links a look and none of them quote the autopsy, most don't even quoted directly the ME.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Obama is granting his attention to Al Sharpton and calling him in to the WH for meetings. Obama's actions have been repulsive.

To be honest, there's not much Obama can do but call Sharpton. New York really is his town when it comes to support from the black population. As much as white people hate to admit it, he's a community leader there who has run soup kitchens, clothing runs and fund raisers for causes important to New Yorkers. Who else is Obama going to ask for help in making sure these demonstrations don't get out of hand? The chief of police? New York City is not Ferguson, Missouri. New Yorkers regardless of their race wouldn't take well to having armored vehicles and people shooting smoke grenades into them.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Incorrect definition. You inserted a word in there that isn't always the case - "intentional".
No, you just didn't read what I wrote.

I explicitly said that the ME's ruling did not mean or prove that the officers intended to kill him. It means that the deliberate actions of the officers resulted in Garner's death.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

It's a fool that listens to the sensationalism through media, who wasn't there, and has very limited privy to the evidence/testimony the Grand Jury was given.

But there are a great number of you that feel that way. How someone can come to such a conclusion without all the facts is beyond me, but there are a lot of folks like you. Many of them are laying on the ground over bridges, stopping traffic, and not allowing EMT workers to answer calls for help. Same with the police. Not to mention the disruption they are placing on the lives of many people. These "organized" protests by special interest groups are keeping cops off their beat just to maintain order. So many other folks are put at risk of the really bad people out there.

Today I heard of a protest going on in Denver over this case, where a police officer on a bicycle was there to aid in students protests to insure order, only to have a car rev up his engine and run him down dragging him for several feet. He is in critical condition after going through several surgeries. And the group mostly black he was assisting, cheered and shouted, "run over him again"!

I only hope there is a special place in Hell for those who have instigated this rush to justice, over race baiters and a media out of control.


Take off the blinders. The police officer killed Eric Garner. Deal with it.

Instigated a rush to justice? He was killed about four months ago.

Your bias is showing. Ever think there may be a special place in Hell for those who those who wish Hell on others?
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

No, you just didn't read what I wrote.

I explicitly said that the ME's ruling did not mean or prove that the officers intended to kill him. It means that the deliberate actions of the officers resulted in Garner's death.

I read what you wrote. I quoted what you wrote, too. You said it was by definition "intentional actions", and I corrected you. "Intentional" is not in the official definition of the word "homicide".
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Where is the autopsy report in any of those links?
Read some of them. They're quoting the ME's report. If you have a better source, feel free to provide the AP with a copy.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Don't waste your time. I gave those links a look and none of them quote the autopsy, most don't even quoted directly the ME.

None of those links quote the Medical Examiner.

"the compression of his chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police," said medical examiner spokeswoman Julie Bolcer.

Julie Bolcer is ‎Director of Public Affairs at NYC Office of Chief Medical Examiner. She is NOT the Medical Examiner.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Oh, right. DP is the authoritative site for the ME's quote. :roll:

See Joko's post #2041


Yes you are. Most of those links don't quote the autopsy of the ME. The one that purports to doesn't quote the ME directly. To prove me wrong, you're going to need at least a direct quote from the ME or the autopsy. Something you have not thus far managed.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Read some of them. They're quoting the ME's report. If you have a better source, feel free to provide the AP with a copy.

Link the autopsy report please.

I read all the links. I'm asking you what the autopsy report says on it.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

None of those links quote the Medical Examiner.

"the compression of his chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police," said medical examiner spokeswoman Julie Bolcer.

Julie Bolcer is ‎Director of Public Affairs at NYC Office of Chief Medical Examiner. She is NOT the Medical Examiner.

So the person hired to relate the medical examiner's findings... is not to be trusted as an accurate source of information?
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

No, you just didn't read what I wrote.

I explicitly said that the ME's ruling did not mean or prove that the officers intended to kill him. It means that the deliberate actions of the officers resulted in Garner's death.

You'd be accurate with that statement if you removed the "deliberate", but you apparently just can't help yourself.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Read some of them. They're quoting the ME's report. If you have a better source, feel free to provide the AP with a copy.

No, again, that's your problem. NONE of those links directly quote the autopsy or the ME.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

So the person hired to relate the medical examiner's findings... is not to be trusted as an accurate source of information?

The quote is not from the Medical Examiner, much as people are repeating that lie.

Link the autopsy so we can see where the ME used those words.

And no, a PR person can't always be trusted as an "accurate source of information", although that isn't the topic here. Did you fully trust all of George W. Bush's press secretaries? How about the PR Departments for the Wall Street firms that caused the financial meltdown?

Until I see the autopsy report itself, there's nothing to see. Julie Bolcer is a PR person and is not a medical expert.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Obama is granting his attention to Al Sharpton and calling him in to the WH for meetings. Obama's actions have been repulsive.
That's been reported for some time and proved by WH visitor records. And most recently Al Sharpton was a member of those invited to the pow wow on Monday of this week with Obama Eric Holder and others where it resulted in what police officers need to change but nothing to do address the reasons for the level of criminals that live in black communities that require so many cops in the area.

Today Al Sharpton was front stage with the widow of Garner playing the f-ing race card for all he could get! Add that to de Blasio's comments yesterday implying his force is racist and untrustworthy. And wallah! you have Mayhem in the streets. ( by design).

We also heard from Jesse Jackson today claiming the Grand Jurists in Ferguson and Staten Island are racists. There's a video out there going viral of his comments.

You got a President that calls and personally thanks de Blasio for trashing his police department in the name of racism.

You got an Atty Gen. not happy with the Grand Jury in Ferguson or Staten Island and has used his power to put a cloud over their findings so people will not trust the system.

This has more to do with an agenda than anything else. You know, Obama, Holder, Sharpton all agree that cops need to wear cameras. I think every f-ing politician, and loud mouth racebaiter should.

The idea that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson use the name Reverend makes me want to puke.
Rant Off. :)
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

So the person hired to relate the medical examiner's findings... is not to be trusted as an accurate source of information?

No, not for the granularity of this discussion. The autopsy has not yet been released to the public. In our discussion, the actual wording is key.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

I read what you wrote. I quoted what you wrote, too. You said it was by definition "intentional actions", and I corrected you. "Intentional" is not in the official definition of the word "homicide".

Homicide—‘‘occurs when death results from...’’ an injury or poisoning or from ‘‘...a volitional act committed by another person to cause fear, harm, or death. Intent to cause death is a common element but is not required for classification as homicide.’’ (emphasis added)

Straight out of the Medical Examiner's Guide, published by the CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/hb_me.pdf

And for the 2nd time: I explicitly stated that the ME's judgment does not mean or prove that the officers intended to kill Garner. It means they chose a course of action that killed Garner.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

The quote is not from the Medical Examiner, much as people are repeating that lie.

Link the autopsy so we can see where the ME used those words.

And no, a PR person can't always be trusted as an "accurate source of information", although that isn't the topic here. Did you fully trust all of George W. Bush's press secretaries? How about the PR Departments for the Wall Street firms that caused the financial meltdown?

Until I see the autopsy report itself, there's nothing to see. Julie Bolcer is a PR person and is not a medical expert.

Autopsy reports aren't publicly available so the chances of us ever seeing it are slim.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

See Joko's post #2041
So a wholly unattributed quote is authoritative... lol


Yes you are. Most of those links don't quote the autopsy of the ME. The one that purports to doesn't quote the ME directly. To prove me wrong, you're going to need at least a direct quote from the ME or the autopsy. Something you have not thus far managed.
It's not publicly released... and it's not like Joko has it either. Meanwhile, the version I quoted has been consistently cited by a wide variety of sources, whereas you have... nothing.

I mean, really. Are you genuinely going to dispute that the ME declared it a homicide?
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Homicide—‘‘occurs when death results from...’’ an injury or poisoning or from ‘‘...a volitional act committed by another person to cause fear, harm, or death. Intent to cause death is a common element but is not required for classification as homicide.’’ (emphasis added)

Straight out of the Medical Examiner's Guide, published by the CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/hb_me.pdf

And for the 2nd time: I explicitly stated that the ME's judgment does not mean or prove that the officers intended to kill Garner. It means they chose a course of action that killed Garner.

Funny how you can read something and not understand it. Perhaps it would help you if it were quoted as it was written in the linked material:

Homicide—‘‘occurs when death results from...’’ an injury or poisoning or from ‘‘...a volitional act committed by another person to cause fear, harm, or death. Intent to cause death is a common element but is not required for classification as homicide.’’

I bolded the sentence you snipped in your mind, all you saw was "volitional act" you didn't stick around for the qualifiers. You also seemed to skip over an important "or".
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

The quote is not from the Medical Examiner, much as people are repeating that lie.

Okay, fine, they're not. I never claimed they were. I'm asking you whether a person hired by the medical examiner's office to relate the medical examiner's findings should be trusted.

Link the autopsy so we can see where the ME used those words.

And no, a PR person can't always be trusted as an "accurate source of information", although that isn't the topic here. Did you fully trust all of George W. Bush's press secretaries? How about the PR Departments for the Wall Street firms that caused the financial meltdown?

Until I see the autopsy report itself, there's nothing to see. Julie Bolcer is a PR person and is not a medical expert.

Your comparisons are pretty weak. A medical examiner does not need to put a spin on his findings because his job is not dependent on public opinion. Actually, correction, it is dependent on public opinion to the extent that if he's caught relating false information through a spokesperson, they're never going to be hired again. Do you realize why your comparisons don't work?

A press secretary for the WH is hired because of its partisan nature is hired to put a positive spin on events. A PR person working for a company does the same thing. A PR person working for a medical examiner's office has no such reason. They're there to present findings and nothing else. Presenting something other than the findings would literally mean medical examiners would lose credibility. I actually WORK with marketing and PR persons and I can't believe you'd make such an oddly ridiculous comparison.

Do you realize that not all PR people are the same and some are hired to shield the people they represent? That's what the PR person for a medical examiner does. They're hired to present the findings and ensure that people don't decide to go after the medical examiners who actually proved their guilt.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

You'd be accurate with that statement if you removed the "deliberate", but you apparently just can't help yourself.
My statement is accurate. Again, from the ME's handbook http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/hb_me.pdf

Natural—‘‘due solely or nearly totally to disease and/or the aging process.’’

Accident—‘‘there is little or no evidence that the injury or poisoning occurred with intent to harm or cause death. In essence, the fatal outcome
was unintentional.’’

Suicide—‘‘results from an injury or poisoning as a result of an intentional,self-inflicted act committed to do self-harm or cause the death of one’s
self.’’

Homicide—‘‘occurs when death results from...’’ an injury or poisoning or from ‘‘...a volitional act committed by another person to cause fear, harm, or death. Intent to cause death is a common element but is not required for classification as homicide.’’

Could not be determined—‘‘used when the information pointing to one manner of death is no more compelling than one or more other competing manners of death when all available information is considered.’’

Pending investigation—used when determination of manner depends on further information.



The ME did not declared Garner's death a homicide, not an accident. And yet again, I am not saying any of the officers actually wanted to kill Garner. It's that they made a deliberate choice to restrain Garner, and that action caused his death.

Do you really not understand this yet?
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Homicide—‘‘occurs when death results from...’’ an injury or poisoning or from ‘‘...a volitional act committed by another person to cause fear, harm, or death. Intent to cause death is a common element but is not required for classification as homicide.’’ (emphasis added)

Straight out of the Medical Examiner's Guide, published by the CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/hb_me.pdf

And for the 2nd time: I explicitly stated that the ME's judgment does not mean or prove that the officers intended to kill Garner. It means they chose a course of action that killed Garner.

Intent to cause death is a common element but is not required for classification as homicide.’’ (emphasis added)


Which is exactly what I told you when I corrected you. You said homicide was "intentional actions". I corrected you, and now you're posting a definition that agrees with what I said.

Are you being intentionally obtuse for some reason?

And nobody denies that the officers were involved in the actions that resulted in his death. They were right there. I wasn't involved in this man's death because I was 5 states away. Are you trying to prove some sort of point by stating the obvious?
 
Back
Top Bottom