• 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

MMC said:
Heya CB. :2wave: Oh, and here they do say he swatted their arms away, huh? I'll bet the 23 Jurors saw that as resisting.

Because everytime you see me, you want to harass me. You want to stop me [garbled] Selling cigarettes. I'm minding my business, officer, I'm minding my business. Please just leave me alone. I told you the last time, please just leave me alone."[25] Garner swatted their arms away, saying, "Don't touch me, please."
He was then put in a chokehold or headlock from behind by officer Daniel Pantaleo, in order to be subdued....
Click to expand...
.
Click to expand...



And now he's dead. I don't smoke but I don't believe that I have the right to tell others not to smoke.

Or sell cigarettes.

I don't believe that Eric Garner should be dead. From what I've read the man died because he was selling loose cigarettes. I wonder how many more people in New York will suffer the same fate.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Hatuey said:
Do... you ... realize... that "if he was like this" is not a defense for using excessive force on another human being? Like if a woman and a man get into a fight... and the man ends up beating her to within an inch of life... the defends himself saying: "If she had been a man of the same physical condition, she'd have put a better fight" will not get him out of prison time.... right?
Click to expand...

Ummm... chances are the man could tell she was a woman before beating them. Sorry, but it is a simple truth that when subduing people you use an entirely different level of force for a 6'3" 360LB man than you do a 5'0" 120LB woman... or a 6' 200LB man, for that matter.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

VanceMack said:
Thats that "I know the answer is gonna suck so I'm not going to answer it" answer.

The cops didnt 'kill him'. He resisted arrest, they arrested him, and because he resisted arrest, his morbidly obese body gave out on him.
Click to expand...

The cops did kill him, had they not intervened in the manner they did, he would still be alive. That doesn't mean police cannot intervene, as your hyperbole of "let them be killed or all criminals get to go free" argument you tried to give to hide the actual dynamics behind a false bimodal distribution.

government force is limited. But no where else in the world do we see death by cops as prevalent as we do in America. It points to a systematic problem of overreaction and excessive force. That needs to be curtailed.

Cops do not get to be judge and executioner, they must do their best to bring suspects in alive. Sorry if that so offends you.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

MMC said:
Officer Pantaleo: The officer said he was attempting to use a maneuver that employs leverage to force a larger man to the ground. He said he did not intend to use a chokehold and that he learned the maneuver at the Police Academy.....snip~
Click to expand...

What is he saying here... that he learned the chokehold in the police academy? OR that he learned the other maneuver he wasn't so good at using at the police academy? In either case, I hope this family sues the living **** out of this cop for wrongful death.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

roguenuke said:
Which is dealt with after the person is taken into custody. Right or wrong, if the police came to my door claiming I had killed someone and they put me under arrest for it, I shouldn't resist even if I know they are wrong. Especially if they have some evidence that could have been used against me that shows probable cause that is later found to be wrong. The reason is because police are given the benefit of the doubt. The trial is where the accused gets the benefit of the doubt, not during the arrest.
Click to expand...
Everything you say is true, except the part highlighted in red. Truth be told, the accused doesn't even get the benefit of the doubt in court. On paper... in theory... but not in reality. It is, however, their best shot. Relatively speaking.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

VanceMack said:
Seems you and Joko are like minded. Maybe you two together can come up with the actual cause of death. He also is going with homicide but offered the countering position of dying of 'resisting arrest'. So...you know...two heads....maybe you can come up with an actual answer.

What did he die of?
Click to expand...

It appears he died of a heart attack caused by being violently assaulted, chocked and his breathing restricted further by weight on body.

Your logic is nonsensical. If a person is beaten to death, that the person died of "internal bleeding" would not then be a defense claiming it wasn't the impacts that caused the death - but that is your logic. It also is your logic that the defense could argue that if the person beaten to death had been in better health the person wouldn't had died.

All that is ridiculous logic. IF the assault brought on the heart attack, the assault is what caused the death.

"Your honor, it wasn't raping the 91 year old that killed her. She did not die from being violently assaulted. She died of internal bleeding. She had been a fully healthy young woman she would not have died. Therefore, there was no murder." This is YOUR absurd find-anything logic.

If someone dies of a heart attack while being illegally violently assaulted it is murder or manslaughter. You say otherwise.

The question in this instance was whether the assault was criminally illegal. Was it legal for that officer to jump on his back putting him into a chock hold? THAT is the legal question.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

shrubnose said:
And now he's dead. I don't smoke but I don't believe that I have the right to tell others not to smoke.

Or sell cigarettes.

I don't believe that Eric Garner should be dead. From what I've read the man died because he was selling loose cigarettes. I wonder how many more people in New York will suffer the same fate.
Click to expand...



Heya SN. :2wave: Here is why the Cop will lose his job and with the coverage. It is a set of tragic events, that is no doubt.



5.jpg



‘I Can’t Breathe’

By this time, numerous officers are on the scene holding Mr. Garner down. Officer Pantaleo releases his neck hold, and presses Mr. Garner’s head onto the sidewalk as Mr. Garner repeats “I can’t breathe, I can’t breathe.”

Officer Pantaleo: Officer Pantaleo said he heard Mr. Garner say he couldn't breathe, and removed his arm from the neck hold as quickly as he could. The video shows Mr. Garner saying, "I can't breathe" at least once before the officer released the hold.....snip~


He didn't need to use both his hands to mash Garners head into the sidewalk.....but that wasn't what caused this guys death.


Do you think the GJ noted that he removed the choke hold after the guy said he couldn't breathe, once?
 
Last edited:
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

jmotivator said:
Ummm... chances are the man could tell she was a woman before beating them.
Click to expand...

That's irrelevant to the defense being used. Again, your argument is saying that "what if" is a reasonable defense for acting violently. It isn't.

Sorry, but it is a simple truth that when subduing people you use an entirely different level of force for a 6'3" 360LB man than you do a 5'0" 120LB woman... or a 6' 200LB man, for that matter.
Click to expand...

Subduing him for what? Responding rudely to the police? What was it that he did that made cops so scared of him? He didn't want to talk to them? He wasn't under any obligation to.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Lutherf said:
Howdy P!

Yes, there appears to be a new wave of "victimization" in this country. In the 60's we were trying to overcome adversity. Sure, people advocated for the rights of women and the rights of blacks but there was a general presumption that blacks and women would also strive to overcome those things that were holding them back. It was a two sided effort.

However, at that same time there arose an academic cadre that discovered that there was a lot of power and money to be had in "victim assistance". If you were a good "victim's advocate" or "community organizer" you could get a whole lot of say in how much money the government should provide to assist the cause of equality. You could also have a lot of say in how and to whom that money got distributed.

It wasn't too long after that realization that it became apparent to some that all these people that were being helped made up one heck of a bloc of voters and how better to secure votes than by the old carrot and stick routine? You could hand out "assistance" with one hand but there would always be the understanding that disagreement with the system would mean that assistance would be at risk.

The last revelation in the chain was that if this voting bloc could be expanded quite a bit if only more people were victims of "inequality" and needed assistance. That's where we are now. There is a MASSIVE effort to get people to believe that they are victims of something. Blacks are supposed to be victims of whites. Gays are supposed to be victims of straights. Atheists are supposed to be victims of theists. Blondes are victims of brunettes. Everyone is a victim of corporations and government is a victim of the people.

Welcome to the 21st Century!!!

It's not what I pictured but it seems to be what I have to deal with.
Click to expand...



Two sets of 'victims' that get no attention are the elderly and the mentally ill. They aren't 'sexy' causes.

It's like scientific research. In order to be a P3, professional poverty pimp [social worker/community organizer] you need a cause, and the cause has to be more severe and wide swathed than the other causes. Therefore the cause has to be built up in the public's eye. Here, the big NGO's have dozens of staff but deliver far from real comfort while the mental illness workers are largely volunteer barely making do.

And, as always, the more dramatic the pictures, the more the need is perceived to be urgent and what better show than a war story with fires and military hardware. Who wants to hear about some guy thinking he's Satan and goes about the collecting of souls with an assault rifle? It just isn't in the same league
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

joko104 said:
Another absurd message.

IF Gardener had been a 360 pound world champion MMA fighter or WWF champion... then yes, at least for a little while - he could have protected himself from being assaulted and killed by multiple police officers assaulting him to prevent him having an opportunity to resist arrest - for which they tactically decided NOT to inform him he was arrested and instead to surprise take him down before he could resist arrest if told he was under arrest.

New police procedure - pre-emptively beat a person down and into submissive prior to effecting or notifying of an arrest to prevent possible resistance arrest. Beat the person down violently into physical submission first - then inform the person he is under arrest. However, if the person resists being beaten, then it is after-the-fact-resisting arrest, which he is informed of being arrested after his resistance to it.

It seems there is a contest by police groupies of who can post the most absurd reasoning. :roll:
Click to expand...

You video evidence picks up after the confrontation already started so you have no clue what was and wasn't said to Gardener, also it cuts away between Garner's rant and the actual attempted arrest. So you really have no idea what you are talking about.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

jmotivator said:
Ummm... chances are the man could tell she was a woman before beating them. Sorry, but it is a simple truth that when subduing people you use an entirely different level of force for a 6'3" 360LB man than you do a 5'0" 120LB woman... or a 6' 200LB man, for that matter.
Click to expand...

Chocking someone from behind while others take him to the ground and weight placed on the person's back or chest will "subdue" someone. The MOST effectively subdued people are dead people for sure.

Did they tell him he was arrested after he was unconscious or dead? Or never?

At least, then, it should be on his tombstone "You are under arrest."
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Tettsuo said:
How the holy-hell is ANY of this relevant to the fact that the officer's chokehold and subsequent police dogpile led to Garner's death?
I don't care if he's standing with one foot in the grave, their actions pushed him over the edge and killed him.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



I'll bet that at the lawsuit the cops story will be that Garner stepped up to the edge and they shouldn't be held responsible because he fell.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

beefheart said:
Give him a ticket.

And, not kill him.

Seems simple.
Click to expand...

Even for traffic offenses they arrest you when they catch you doing the same offence the 32cd time.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Hatuey said:
That's irrelevant to the defense being used. Again, your argument is saying that "what if" is a reasonable defense for acting violently. It isn't.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not stating a "what if". I am making clear statements of fact as to the level of health of Mr. Garner and to the difficulty of subdoing a 6'3" 360LB man.

Subduing him for what? Responding rudely to the police? What was it that he did that made cops so scared of him? He didn't want to talk to them? He wasn't under any obligation to.
Click to expand...

Given that you don't have video of what led up to Garner's yelling at the cops, and it cuts away between his yelling and the arrest, you really don't have a clue what happened.

Watch the full video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1ka4oKu1jo

What happens in the video between second 33 and second 34. What happened between those two takes?
 
Last edited:
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

VanceMack said:
WHo would tell you he died of 'resisting arrest'? Thats just silly. He had to have died of some form or cardio or respiratory failure. What did he die of?
Click to expand...

A heart attack.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Fearandloathing said:
Two sets of 'victims' that get no attention are the elderly and the mentally ill. They aren't 'sexy' causes.

It's like scientific research. In order to be a P3, professional poverty pimp [social worker/community organizer] you need a cause, and the cause has to be more severe and wide swathed than the other causes. Therefore the cause has to be built up in the public's eye. Here, the big NGO's have dozens of staff but deliver far from real comfort while the mental illness workers are largely volunteer barely making do.

And, as always, the more dramatic the pictures, the more the need is perceived to be urgent and what better show than a war story with fires and military hardware. Who wants to hear about some guy thinking he's Satan and goes about the collecting of souls with an assault rifle? It just isn't in the same league
Click to expand...

That's a GREAT point!

With all this focus on popular causes the people who really need help aren't getting it.

At some point there's going to be a reckoning and lots of folks are going to be forced to do a whole lot of rather uncomfortable soul searching.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

VanceMack said:
WHo would tell you he died of 'resisting arrest'? Thats just silly. He had to have died of some form or cardio or respiratory failure. What did he die of?
Click to expand...

He was murdered. The Coroner ruled his death a homicide. The question is whether or not this homicide was justified or not. I say it was not justified and at the least, the policeman should have been charged with manslaughter.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Hatuey said:
Do... you ... realize... that "if he was like this" is not a defense for using excessive force on another human being? Like if a woman and a man get into a fight... and the man ends up beating her to within an inch of life... the defends himself saying: "If she had been a man of the same physical condition, she'd have put a better fight" will not get him out of prison time.... right?
Click to expand...

Yeah, but there were no women in this case and you making up scenarios isn't convincing anyone you know what you're talking about.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

MMC said:
Heya SN. :2wave:
Here is why the Cop will lose his job and with the coverage. It is a set of tragic events, that is no doubt.
Click to expand...



5.jpg



‘I Can’t Breathe’

By this time, numerous officers are on the scene holding Mr. Garner down. Officer Pantaleo releases his neck hold, and presses Mr. Garner’s head onto the sidewalk as Mr. Garner repeats “I can’t breathe, I can’t breathe.”

Officer Pantaleo: Officer Pantaleo said he heard Mr. Garner say he couldn't breathe, and removed his arm from the neck hold as quickly as he could. The video shows Mr. Garner saying, "I can't breathe" at least once before the officer released the hold.....snip~


He didn't need to use both his hands to mash Garners head into the sidewalk.....but that wasn't caused this guys death.
Click to expand...





I don't believe that the cop wanted the man to die, but we can't ignore the results.

I'm going to try this link one more time: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/12/04/some-thoughts-on-eric-garner/

Lots of good reading at that link about some laws and police practices in the USA that need to be changed.
 
Last edited:
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

MMC said:
Heya SN. :2wave: Here is why the Cop will lose his job and with the coverage. It is a set of tragic events, that is no doubt.

‘I Can’t Breathe’

By this time, numerous officers are on the scene holding Mr. Garner down. Officer Pantaleo releases his neck hold, and presses Mr. Garner’s head onto the sidewalk as Mr. Garner repeats “I can’t breathe, I can’t breathe.”

Officer Pantaleo: Officer Pantaleo said he heard Mr. Garner say he couldn't breathe, and removed his arm from the neck hold as quickly as he could. The video shows Mr. Garner saying, "I can't breathe" at least once before the officer released the hold.....snip~


He didn't need to use both his hands to mash Garners head into the sidewalk.....but that wasn't caused this guys death.
Click to expand...


The stupid, stupid claim that the ONLY potential criminal charge was murder is VERY annoying and was a CHEESY tactic of the DA.

What about "assault?" "Official oppression?" "Abuse?" "Violation of Civil Rights?"

Oh no, no - only debate and deal in absolutes - either it was or wasn't "manslaughter/murder." Let's not even discuss assault, abuse, oppression, civil rights...

Nor even think about any employment sanctions, reprimands either. ONLY the question of it was or wasn't murder. EVERY POSSIBLY WAY to eliminate liability for the man's death.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

shrubnose said:
And now he's dead. I don't smoke but I don't believe that I have the right to tell others not to smoke.

Or sell cigarettes.

I don't believe that Eric Garner should be dead. From what I've read the man died because he was selling loose cigarettes. I wonder how many more people in New York will suffer the same fate.
Click to expand...

Whether cig sales should be taxed by the city or not just does not matter in this case. Whether it should be a criminal act to sell cigs without the required tax is also without application here. The man died because he refused to be cuffed and he had compromised his health to the point where he couldn't handle the struggle he caused. From the looks of the event that we have access to I'm sure the officers would have preferred to cuff him standing up. He decided that wasn't going to happen.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

jmotivator said:
No, I'm not stating a "what if". I am making clear statements of fact as to the level of health of Mr. Garner and to the difficulty of subdoing a 6'3" 360LB man.
Click to expand...

Ummm you are stating what if. Your argument is basically: What if he had been health!? Then he would have been dangerous! That's why they needed to act like they did. Ummm - you don't know what he would have been like if he'd been healthy. He could have reacted in the same way as he did and police action would still be seen as excessive.

Given that you don't have video of what led up to Garner's yelling at the cops, and it cuts away between his yelling and the arrest, you really don't have a clue what happened.
Click to expand...

I saw the video 3 months ago. Move along with that ****.

What what happens in teh video between second 33 and second 34. What happened between those two takes?
Click to expand...

Maybe he used the f-word and that's the smoking gun evidence that putting him in a chokehold was required. :shrug:
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

shrubnose said:
I don't believe that the cop wanted the man to die, but we can't ignore the results.
Click to expand...

The question is did any of the officers illegally assault him? THAT is the legal issue. Whether that then is official oppression, civil rights violation, assault, aggravated assault, manslaughter or murder is then the second question.

Someone is beating you up. You break away and flee, getting hit by a car and die. Yes, it was criminal assault. No, it likely found that person had not murdered you.

The REASON the prosecutor and all the police junkies ONLY will bring up whether or not it was murder is to DELIBERATELY avoid the core, fundamental question of was any of the violent actions against him illegal? They do NOT want THAT question asked.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

clownboy said:
Yeah, but there were no women in this case and you making up scenarios isn't convincing anyone you know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Ummm - I'm exposing the stupidity in the what if things had been different arguments. What if he'd been white? What if he'd been shorter? What if he'd been skinny? None of these factors make a difference in what is in question here which is the legality of what the police did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom