Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 24KT on July 19, 2014, 02:46:53 AM
-
5 NYPD cops Choke unarmed man to death
Eric Garner said "It stops today", help us make these words during the last minutes of his life true,
sign this petition: http://bit.ly/ilbb-eric-garner ... #itstopstoday #crookedcops #ericgarner #fatherchokedtodeathinpub lic
Eric Garner, 43, died Thursday after a sidewalk takedown by five (some in plain clothes) NYPD officers making an arrest outside a Tompkinsville beauty parlor. Garner, a 400 pound asthmatic, was slammed to the ground and the video shows his head being slammed against the sidewalk.
He screamed, “I can’t breathe!” SIX times………….. Within moments Garner, a married father of six children with two grandchildren, stopped struggling and appeared to be unconscious as police called paramedics to the scene.
The Staten Island district attorney is investigating death.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/staten-island-man-dies-puts-choke-hold-article-1.1871486#ixzz37rGUWOhL
THANK YOU to @Ramsey Orta for having the sense to videotape this entire encounter. You KNOW what they'd say if there was no video, "he choked himself"
.
-
Two cops pulled off streets, Staten Island DA looking into death of dad of six after NYPD cop put him in illegal chokehold during sidewalk takedown
Officers Daniel Pantaleo and Justin Damico were both put on desk duty a day after the death of Eric Garner. Police Commissioner Bill Bratton and Mayor de Blasio, who has postponed his Italian vacation, promised a full investigation at a City Hall news conference.
BY ANNIE KARNI , ROCCO PARASCANDOLA , LARRY MCSHANE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Published: Friday, July 18, 2014, 12:02 PM Updated: Saturday, July 19, 2014, 1:54 AM
A crisis over an unarmed man who died on a Staten Island street after a city cop grabbed him in a prohibited chokehold forced Mayor de Blasio to delay his Italian vacation Friday.
Officers Daniel Pantaleo, with eight years on the force, and Justin Damico, a four-year veteran cop, were both put on desk duty a day after the death of Eric Garner, Police Commissioner Bill Bratton said.
Garner’s arrest and desperate pleas that he couldn’t breathe were captured on an exclusive Daily News video that de Blasio admitted left him “with a heavy heart.”
“It was very troubling,” he said at a City Hall news conference. “I watched it the same way a family member would watch it, and it was very sad to watch.”
View Exclusive Video, pictures & Eye Witness accounts at:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/staten-island-da-man-death-nypd-chokehold-article-1.1871946
-
Typical - now taxpayers gonna eat it again and 6 kids fatherless.
-
seriously...
Im not defending the cops b/c it defintely looks like it was excessive but just do what they fucking say and after its done take up the complaints.
to be fair to the story as well this man has been arrested 31 times for various crimes including selling untaxed cigerettes...I know jagson thats a racist comment to you.
-
seriously...
Im not defending the cops b/c it defintely looks like it was excessive but just do what they fucking say and after its done take up the complaints.
to be fair to the story as well this man has been arrested 31 times for various crimes including selling untaxed cigerettes...I know jagson thats a racist comment to you.
That's easy for you to say, ...but unless you've been repeatedly targeted & harassed, compliance with the constant humiliation & harassment is easier said than done. Patience with bad behaviour is easier to come by the first time it's encountered. Without recourse, it becomes intolerable. It's time to stop blaming the victims. He took a stand against the harassment, but it appears the agents of tyranny thought the $6 demanded by the State for an instrument of death was more important than his life.
-
That's easy for you to say, ...but unless you've been repeatedly targeted & harassed, compliance with the constant humiliation & harassment is easier said than done. Patience with bad behaviour is easier to come by the first time it's encountered. Without recourse, it becomes intolerable. It's time to stop blaming the victims. He took a stand against the harassment, but it appears the agents of tyranny thought the $6 demanded by the State for an instrument of death was more important than his life.
HE HAD BEEN ARRESTED 31 TIMES...Maybe he has been harrased...THAT HAPPENS WHEN YOURE CAUGHT BREAKING THE LAW 31 FUCKING TIMES!!!!
Your entire comment could be stated from the cops perspective too.
-
The guy was dealing in untaxed cigarettes.
That affects the salaries of the cops, the prosecutors, the judges.
Doesn't surprise me they off'd him. And I fully expect them to all cover for each other.
I think I'm getting just more and more cynical.
It's unreal that we as a society accept that these charges are so horrible, so heinous, so terrible that the cops are allowed to murder somebody just to get them into custody. Un-fucking-real.
-
The guy was dealing in untaxed cigarettes.
That affects the salaries of the cops, the prosecutors, the judges.
Doesn't surprise me they off'd him. And I fully expect them to all cover for each other.
I think I'm getting just more and more cynical.
It's unreal that we as a society accept that these charges are so horrible, so heinous, so terrible that the cops are allowed to murder somebody just to get them into custody. Un-fucking-real.
+1
-
The guy was dealing in untaxed cigarettes.
That affects the salaries of the cops, the prosecutors, the judges.
Doesn't surprise me they off'd him. And I fully expect them to all cover for each other.
I think I'm getting just more and more cynical.
It's unreal that we as a society accept that these charges are so horrible, so heinous, so terrible that the cops are allowed to murder somebody just to get them into custody. Un-fucking-real.
Bingo. 6-7 cops all making 100k , pension, health care, etc all sent to harass this guy for what?
Its about sending a signal to others - no one else. BTW - remember that post I made a few months ago about un taxed cigs in NY? The taxes in NYS are so fucking high that it drives the black market
-
HE HAD BEEN ARRESTED 31 TIMES...Maybe he has been harrased...THAT HAPPENS WHEN YOURE CAUGHT BREAKING THE LAW 31 FUCKING TIMES!!!!
Your entire comment could be stated from the cops perspective too.
I dont give a crap if he's been arrested 100 times.
They're trying this Jack Bauer '24' bullshit... I'll put this guy to sleep with a chokehold.... lol this isn't a spy show, it's police work. Take him down and cuff him. Taze if needed. No need to mess with spinal or airway operations when there are seriously 6 of you taking dude down lol.
-
thats what that Knigar deserved right. Dealing Cigs,,, you must die
-
thats what that Knigar deserved right. Dealing Cigs,,, you must die
Who said that? I find this disgusting. Did you see when that thug put his whole weight on the guys face? Total bullshit
-
If he was arrested 31 times....whatever he does...he must die.
-
If he was arrested 31 times....whatever he does...he must die.
::)
Who said that?
-
I dont give a crap if he's been arrested 100 times.
They're trying this Jack Bauer '24' bullshit... I'll put this guy to sleep with a chokehold.... lol this isn't a spy show, it's police work. Take him down and cuff him. Taze if needed. No need to mess with spinal or airway operations when there are seriously 6 of you taking dude down lol.
Where did say any different you ignorant fuck?
The information is relevant to the story especially in this thread seeing as jagson intentionally left it out, it doesn't justify their actions.
-
If he was arrested 31 times....whatever he does...he must die.
Yes malbert who said that?
The cops used excessive force does that mean this guys past and his actions of resisting and refusing to follow orders didn't play a role in this?
Let's all be intellectually honest here and admit the he played a role in his own death.
-
Yes malbert who said that?
The cops used excessive force does that mean this guys past and his actions of resisting and refusing to follow orders didn't play a role in this?
Let's all be intellectually honest here and admit the he played a role in his own death.
Meh...he didn't do himself any favors, but I don't think he contributed to his own death. You're argument is really only valid if he continued to escalate his resistance to a point where killing him via a choke hold was the only option...and we don't really see that ever happening.
What we see is cops viciously beating the shit outta somebody cause they keep their arms close, or don't move an arm behind their back, or don't drop to their knees immediately, and then our lapdog society buying the officer's bullshit about being in fear of their life.
I don't think Mal was referring to any of us, but I would agree that minorities are disproportionately affected by the abuse.
-
Meh...he didn't do himself any favors, but I don't think he contributed to his own death. You're argument is really only valid if he continued to escalate his resistance to a point where killing him via a choke hold was the only option...and we don't really see that ever happening.
What we see is cops viciously beating the shit outta somebody cause they keep their arms close, or don't move an arm behind their back, or don't drop to their knees immediately, and then our lapdog society buying the officer's bullshit about being in fear of their life.
I don't think Mal was referring to any of us, but I would agree that minorities are disproportionately affected by the abuse.
disagree, my argument is valid b/c without him resisting and without him refusing to go along with the police he too was responsible for the confrontation.
you cannot willfully get into the confrontation and then take no responsibility for the outcome of that confrontation.
Lol look if they were just talking and the guy got clobbered that would be one thing and I would be right there with you. This guy was given many orders and he refused to go along, he responded to negatively when they tried to take him into custody.
Look I am not defending the cops, they obviously over reacted and need to be dealt with but to say that this guy had no hand in the situation and by extension the outcome is dishonest.
Be polite, do what they ask and after that file a complaint. Dont sit there and get upset and refuse orders and then act suprised when they get physical with you.
Did you guys really expect them to just walk away after he got agitated?
-
you cannot willfully get into the confrontation and then take no responsibility for the outcome of that confrontation.
LOL
Somewhere, George Zimmerman is jerking off to a gun magazine and laughing at this.
-
disagree, my argument is valid b/c without him resisting and without him refusing to go along with the police he too was responsible for the confrontation.
you cannot willfully get into the confrontation and then take no responsibility for the outcome of that confrontation.
Lol look if they were just talking and the guy got clobbered that would be one thing and I would be right there with you. This guy was given many orders and he refused to go along, he responded to negatively when they tried to take him into custody.
Look I am not defending the cops, they obviously over reacted and need to be dealt with but to say that this guy had no hand in the situation and by extension the outcome is dishonest.
Be polite, do what they ask and after that file a complaint. Dont sit there and get upset and refuse orders and then act suprised when they get physical with you.
Did you guys really expect them to just walk away after he got agitated?
He told them not to touch him and tried to turn away. That's it! You're claiming that means he contributed to his own death. It's absurd.
Strict obedience to authority is not what we as a society should ever be required to display. He had every right to ask questions of them, and in most State's you have every right to resist an unlawful arrest. BTW...you have no idea if he was even guilty in this matter, they could have harassing him for his previous record.
Giving that they were willing to murder him over some untaxed smokes, it wouldn't surprise me if the arrest was unlawful to begin with. Like I said, his big crime was fucking with the salaries of cops, prosecutors, and judges.
-
The blue code of silence...
Internal NYPD report on incident with Staten Island dad Eric Garner does not mention chokehold, states he was not 'in great distress'
Supervising officers who were interviewed after Eric Garner's death failed to mention the chokehold and told investigators that 'the perpetrator's condition did not seem serious,' a preliminary report obtained by the Daily News shows. A recording captures officers violently taking down Garner on Thursday as he cries that he can't breathe.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/exclusive-internal-nypd-report-staten-island-dad-mention-chokehold-article-1.1875221
-
The blue code of silence...
Internal NYPD report on incident with Staten Island dad Eric Garner does not mention chokehold, states he was not 'in great distress'
Supervising officers who were interviewed after Eric Garner's death failed to mention the chokehold and told investigators that 'the perpetrator's condition did not seem serious,' a preliminary report obtained by the Daily News shows. A recording captures officers violently taking down Garner on Thursday as he cries that he can't breathe.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/exclusive-internal-nypd-report-staten-island-dad-mention-chokehold-article-1.1875221
Taxpayers gonna get killed on this one
-
Taxpayers gonna get killed on this one
There finally has to be personal accountability and the pigs go to jail and pay out of their pockets, this "deny everything and send the bill to the taxpayers" logic has to stop.
-
The youtube title says: "Multiple NYPD cops choke a peaceful man (Eric Garner) to death."
That was hardly a "peaceful man." He was irate. He resisted arrest. If he would have let them handcuff him without fighting he'd still be alive. I wouldn't expect one or even two cops to try and take that guy down. He was way too big and too animated.
That said, if a choke hold is not a proper use of force then the officer needs to be disciplined. Other than that, I didn't see a whole lot wrong with what the cops did, but it is only a two minute clip and I don't know the context.
-
LOL
Somewhere, George Zimmerman is jerking off to a gun magazine and laughing at this.
how did I know this mental midget would show up here with a zimmerman comment?
Nobody excused zimmermans actions
-
He told them not to touch him and tried to turn away. That's it! You're claiming that means he contributed to his own death. It's absurd.
Strict obedience to authority is not what we as a society should ever be required to display. He had every right to ask questions of them, and in most State's you have every right to resist an unlawful arrest. BTW...you have no idea if he was even guilty in this matter, they could have harassing him for his previous record.
Giving that they were willing to murder him over some untaxed smokes, it wouldn't surprise me if the arrest was unlawful to begin with. Like I said, his big crime was fucking with the salaries of cops, prosecutors, and judges.
Skip he resisted being taken into custody, if had been peaceful and cooperative do you think they would have put him in a chokehold?
if not, then yes his actions played a role in the escalation of the situation. There is no way to dispute that...
who said anything about being obedient? there is a time and a place for everything and when youre surrounded by 3 cops its not the time to resist being taken into custody!!!!
would it make it better if he was guilty skip?
-
how did I know this mental midget would show up here with a zimmerman comment?
Nobody excused zimmermans actions
actually a shitload of getbiggers called him a hero that did nothing wrong by hopping out of a truck with a 9mm and pursuing an unarmed minor who was running away.
He has some % of culpability/responsibility for that confrontation, but they said it was 100% trayvon because, well, zimmerman's "word" that the dead guy started the fight. No evidence of that, just his word, discounted on several other lies.
So yeah, anyway, these cops went overboard and shouldn't have the police powers anymore.
-
actually a shitload of getbiggers called him a hero that did nothing wrong by hopping out of a truck with a 9mm and pursuing an unarmed minor who was running away.
He has some % of culpability/responsibility for that confrontation, but they said it was 100% trayvon because, well, zimmerman's "word" that the dead guy started the fight. No evidence of that, just his word, discounted on several other lies.
So yeah, anyway, these cops went overboard and shouldn't have the police powers anymore.
the legality of his actions has no bearing on whether or not he bears responsibility for the outcome. If he had not followed trayvon the altercation would have never taken place so yes his actions absolutely played a role in trayvons death.
That doesnt make his actions illegal, sorry to burst your bubble there little buddy
-
Skip he resisted being taken into custody, if had been peaceful and cooperative do you think they would have put him in a chokehold?
if not, then yes his actions played a role in the escalation of the situation. There is no way to dispute that...
who said anything about being obedient? there is a time and a place for everything and when youre surrounded by 3 cops its not the time to resist being taken into custody!!!!
would it make it better if he was guilty skip?
Of course it's disputable and you're merely trying to argue that all resistance is the same.
Trying to argue that because he put up light - and we're talking VERY light resistance - means that it led to the cops using an excessive amount of force, thus he contributed to his own death, is absurd.
He's dead because the cops are abusive.
He's dead because the cops failed to control themselves.
They'll probably walk, because all too many people will take your view and think he brought it on himself because wasn't strictly obedient.
-
Of course it's disputable and you're merely trying to argue that all resistance is the same.
Trying to argue that because he put up light - and we're talking VERY light resistance - means that it led to the cops using an excessive amount of force, thus he contributed to his own death, is absurd.
He's dead because the cops are abusive.
He's dead because the cops failed to control themselves.
They'll probably walk, because all too many people will take your view and think he brought it on himself because wasn't strictly obedient.
I am not arguing that all resistance is the same but to say that his actions did not result in the escalation of the situation is dishonest...
he is dead b/c he refused the orders and resisted being taken into custody by abusive cops who failed to control themselves. The abusive cops with lack of control would not have been in the situation to be abusive and lose control enough to kill him if he had not helped escalate the situation. THAT DOES NOT EXCUSE THE COPS ACTIONS
I think youre to emotionally involved in this bro. I have not once defended the cops actions, they should be dealt with as the force used was excessive.
But that doesnt excuse the mans actions either, he had a hand in the escalation of the situation. There is absolutely no way to deny that!!!
-
I am not arguing that all resistance is the same but to say that his actions did not result in the escalation of the situation is dishonest...
he is dead b/c he refused the orders and resisted being taken into custody by abusive cops who failed to control themselves. The abusive cops with lack of control would not have been in the situation to be abusive and lose control enough to kill him if he had not helped escalate the situation. THAT DOES NOT EXCUSE THE COPS ACTIONS
I think youre to emotionally involved in this bro. I have not once defended the cops actions, they should be dealt with as the force used was excessive.
But that doesnt excuse the mans actions either, he had a hand in the escalation of the situation. There is absolutely no way to deny that!!!
Of course you're defending the cops. You're just trying to play it both ways.
This is the crux of your argument and says it all:
"The abusive cops with lack of control would not have been in the situation to be abusive and lose control enough to kill him if he had not helped escalate the situation"
They were NOT in a situation to be abusive and lose control. You want it to be that way because you want to claim he's partially at fault.
This is like a saying a battered woman contributed to her own beating because she did something to trigger the abusive husband....like I said, an absurd argument.
-
Of course you're defending the cops. You're just trying to play it both ways.
This is the crux of your argument and says it all:
"The abusive cops with lack of control would not have been in the situation to be abusive and lose control enough to kill him if he had not helped escalate the situation"
They were NOT in a situation to be abusive and lose control. You want it to be that way because you want to claim he's partially at fault.
This is like a saying a battered woman contributed to her own beating because she did something to trigger the abusive husband....like I said, an absurd argument.
LMFAO I am in no way defending the cops. I am being intellectually honest is all.
A man has no right to get physical with his woman. The cops DO!!!!
Now the amount of physical force was OBVIOUSLY excessive that doesnt excuse the man escalating the situation.
Everyone in the situation could have handled themselves better, do you agree?
-
LMFAO I am in no way defending the cops. I am being intellectually honest is all.
A man has no right to get physical with his woman. The cops DO!!!!
Now the amount of physical force was OBVIOUSLY excessive that doesnt excuse the man escalating the situation.
Everyone in the situation could have handled themselves better, do you agree?
:-\ Glad to see you've kept that logic bone razor sharp.
-
:-\ Glad to see you've kept that logic bone razor sharp.
Wow look who crawled out of their shit stained life to stalk me. You haven't posted in months and then suddenly return just after I did.
How are those public handouts working for you Albert?
-
Wow look who crawled out of their shit stained life to stalk me. You haven't posted in months and then suddenly return just after I did.
How are those public handouts working for you Albert?
Like most of the nonsense you post, I have no idea what you're talking about and neither do you. "Public handouts" aren't working for me at all. ::)
I'm glad to see you haven't posted for months. That means I haven't missed you accidentally posting a reasonable, logical argument. My technique of looking in the last post column, seeing your name and being 100% sure you've either just posted something stupid or are trying to backtrack out of something stupid you posted earlier remains infallible.
-
BTW, they're cops, dumbass. By nature of their job, at least half of the people they deal with on a daily basis could have "handled themselves better". The chokehold is banned precisely because death is a probable and avoidable outcome in many cases in which it might be used. The fact that the man being arrested could have "handled themselves better" doesn't lower the police's obligation to behave in a lawful manner.
-
BTW, they're cops, dumbass. By nature of their job, at least half of the people they deal with on a daily basis could have "handled themselves better". The chokehold is banned precisely because death is a probable and avoidable outcome in many cases in which it might be used. The fact that the man being arrested could have "handled themselves better" doesn't lower the police's obligation to behave in a lawful manner.
Lmfao good to see your comprehension skills haven't gotten any better there boss. No where have I defended the cops. No where did I justify their use of excessive force.
My point this entire time has been that the man himself is also partly responsible for the confrontation.
-
Lmfao good to see your comprehension skills haven't gotten any better there boss. No where have I defended the cops. No where did I justify their use of force.
My point this entire time has been that the man himself is also partly responsible for the confrontation.
No, the point you have been trying to make is that the man is responsible for his ending up in a chokehold and subsequently dying, which is a stupid and wrong point..
you;to say that this guy had no hand in the situation and by extension the outcome is dishonest.
you:Let's all be intellectually honest here and admit the he played a role in his own death.
Skip's domestic abuse comparison is exactly right. Do you understand that the chokehold is illegal for NYPD? Do you understand that the reason it is illegal is precisely because of a situation like this?
-
No, the point you have been trying to make is that the man is responsible for his ending up in a chokehold and subsequently dying, which is a stupid and wrong point..
you;to say that this guy had no hand in the situation and by extension the outcome is dishonest.
you:Let's all be intellectually honest here and admit the he played a role in his own death.
Skip's domestic abuse comparison is exactly right. Do you understand that the chokehold is illegal for NYPD? Do you understand that the reason it is illegal is precisely because of a situation like this?
Tony is right about this. If a chokehold is illegal in New York, and the chokehold was the cause of death, then the cop committed a crime.
Even if that's true, the cop used the chokehold because the man was irate, enormous, and resisted arrest. If the man was truly "peaceful," and had not resisted arrest, he'd still be alive. That doesn't justify the cop's conduct, but it does mean the man did play a role in his own death. Tony calling that "intellectually honest" is spot on. It's just not the PC thing to say.
-
Tony is right about this. If a chokehold is illegal in New York, and the chokehold was the cause of death, then the cop committed a crime.
Even if that's true, the cop used the chokehold because the man was irate, enormous, and resisted arrest. If the man was truly "peaceful," and had not resisted arrest, he'd still be alive. That doesn't justify the cop's conduct, but it does mean the man did play a role in his own death. Tony calling that "intellectually honest" is spot on. It's just not the PC thing to say.
The chokehold is illegal. It's illegal because it can lead to death unexpectedly. The man's being irate played no more a part in his death than him being an oxygen-consuming organism did. Saying the man played a role in his own death IS an intellectually dishonest attempt to justify the cop's actions. (I know intellectual dishonesty is your stock-in-trade, BB, but even for you this is weak.)
-
The chokehold is illegal. It's illegal because it can lead to death unexpectedly. The man's being irate played no more a part in his death than him being an oxygen-consuming organism did. Saying the man played a role in his own death IS an intellectually dishonest attempt to justify the cop's actions. (I know intellectual dishonesty is your stock-in-trade, BB, but even for you this is weak.)
Would the cops had gotten physical and put him in a choke hold if had obeyed orders and not resisted?
-
Would the cops had gotten physical and put him in a choke hold if had obeyed orders and not resisted?
Possibly. It has happened before-and recently:
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/Morning-Mix/Images/140428/UT-Disturbance.gif)
-
Would the cops had gotten physical and put him in a choke hold if had obeyed orders and not resisted?
By this logic, iif someone is caught speeding and then shot by the cops with a rocket launcher, that person plays a part in their own death. Not only would shooting the speeder with a rocketlauncher be an overreaction, but it would be an ILLEGAL overreaction. Cops have the right to get physical with resisters, but that particular hold is illegal because this particular outcome is completely foreseeable. Police officers, in theory at least, are supposed to be trained to handle difficult situation without resorting to illegal tactics. The outcome of this situation lies solely in the hands of the cop who performed the illegal chokehold.
-
Possibly. It has happened before-and recently:
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/Morning-Mix/Images/140428/UT-Disturbance.gif)
Good point. The cop who performed the chokehold was actually at the center of two recent lawsuits. One in which he presented false information in a police report and one in which he misrepresented a crime scene to perform an illegal strip search (in the middle of a public street.)
-
Is it just the Picture or are most American Cops overweight? ??? Nothing against the Cops over there and i am sure most are good men. Just most Videos Show a very high Ratio of burger bellies ;D
-
By this logic, iif someone is caught speeding and then shot by the cops with a rocket launcher, that person plays a part in their own death. Not only would shooting the speeder with a rocketlauncher be an overreaction, but it would be an ILLEGAL overreaction. Cops have the right to get physical with resisters, but that particular hold is illegal because this particular outcome is completely foreseeable. Police officers, in theory at least, are supposed to be trained to handle difficult situation without resorting to illegal tactics. The outcome of this situation lies solely in the hands of the cop who performed the illegal chokehold.
Again not a equivalent scenario...if a person is pulled over for speeding and then refuses orders and then resists arrest yes that person plays a role in the escalation of the situation and had responsibility for the outcome as well.
Again would the cops have gotten physical and put him in a chokehold if he had followed orders and not resisted?
-
My point this entire time has been that the man himself is also partly responsible for the confrontation.
cops have training, numbers, and weapons of various lethality at their disposal.
When there are five cops with all of these things - They are SUPPOSED to be able to put 1 man into custody without killing him. Especially when he clearly says "I cannot breathe".
Anyone who defends it - This could be YOU getting choked to death. You could have an unforseen stroke, seizure, etc, and when police arrive, you don't 'obey' and end up getting choked to death over it. These cops maybe don't deserve prison, but they should NOT be on the streets tomorrow, doing it again.
Didn't one of them have a pending charge issue for something else? Thought I saw that.
-
The over reaction and abuse of the cops doesn't justify the man refusing orders and resisting arrest!!!
The man did those thing before the choke hold was ever put on him.
-
cops have training, numbers, and weapons of various lethality at their disposal.
When there are five cops with all of these things - They are SUPPOSED to be able to put 1 man into custody without killing him. Especially when he clearly says "I cannot breathe".
Anyone who defends it - This could be YOU getting choked to death. You could have an unforseen stroke, seizure, etc, and when police arrive, you don't 'obey' and end up getting choked to death over it. These cops maybe don't deserve prison, but they should NOT be on the streets tomorrow, doing it again.
Didn't one of them have a pending charge issue for something else? Thought I saw that.
Who is defending it you piece of fucking shit?
-
Would the cops had gotten physical and put him in a choke hold if had obeyed orders and not resisted?
Maybe. After all, he was a large and scary Hebrew.
-
By this logic, iif someone is caught speeding and then shot by the cops with a rocket launcher, that person plays a part in their own death. Not only would shooting the speeder with a rocketlauncher be an overreaction, but it would be an ILLEGAL overreaction. Cops have the right to get physical with resisters, but that particular hold is illegal because this particular outcome is completely foreseeable. Police officers, in theory at least, are supposed to be trained to handle difficult situation without resorting to illegal tactics. The outcome of this situation lies solely in the hands of the cop who performed the illegal chokehold.
The victim's parents are also partially responsible. If the victim had never been born, then he'd never have been shot with the rocket.
-
The chokehold is illegal. It's illegal because it can lead to death unexpectedly. The man's being irate played no more a part in his death than him being an oxygen-consuming organism did. Saying the man played a role in his own death IS an intellectually dishonest attempt to justify the cop's actions. (I know intellectual dishonesty is your stock-in-trade, BB, but even for you this is weak.)
Your position is illogical. If you are saying he would have been put in a chokehold had he not been irate and resisted arrest, then you are being intellectually dishonest.
And if you actually read what I said, I specifically said the fact the man played a role in his own death does not justify illegal behavior by cops (assuming what they did was illegal).
Don't confuse an explanation with justification.
-
Maybe. After all, he was a large and scary Hebrew.
Lol indeed, yes he was
As it's a maybe though and we have no reason to believe they would especially with a camera in their face and tons of witness I think the answer is no they wouldnt have
-
Don't confuse an explanation with justification.
Too late for that, nobody seems to understand you can condemn both his actions and the cops actions.
-
Your position is illogical. If you are saying he would have been put in a chokehold had he not been irate and resisted arrest, then you are being intellectually dishonest.
Right....because you neverrrr hear about cops abusing their authority.::)
And if you actually read what I said, I specifically said the fact the man played a role in his own death does not justify illegal behavior by cops (assuming what they did was illegal).
Don't confuse an explanation with justification.
Google . Explanation-a reason or justification given for an action or belief.
-
The victim's parents are also partially responsible. If the victim had never been born, then he'd never have been shot with the rocket.
Again not a equivalent scenario...if a person is pulled over for speeding and then refuses orders and then resists arrest yes that person plays a role in the escalation of the situation and had responsibility for the outcome as well.
Again would the cops have gotten physical and put him in a chokehold if he had followed orders and not resisted?
-
Right....because you neverrrr hear about cops abusing their authority
Hahah so it's your assertion that the cops where going to put him in a choke hold regardless of whether or not he refused orders and resisted arrest.
Lol well I can see how your retarded ass comes to the conclusion that his actions didn't escalate the situation then.
Fucking wow!!!
-
Too late for that, nobody seems to understand you can condemn both his actions and the cops actions.
Correct.
-
Lol indeed, yes he was
As it's a maybe though and we have no reason to believe they would especially with a camera in their face and tons of witness I think the answer is no they wouldnt have
FWIW, Gracie brothers Rener and Ryron did a "Gracie breakdown" of the whole incident. Holy fuck Rener is too long-winded for me to have watched the whole thing but I gather that they conclude that the "choke" wasn't what killed the guy.
Instead it was the weight of all the officers on top of a seriously overweight dude with asthma.
BTW, they have done some Gracie breakdowns of other fairly well-known streetfight videos that are much more entertaining than this one.
-
That was the point of the comparison. logicmaster. It's a technique called "reduction to absurdity". There is no scenario in which a cop shooting a motorist with a rocket launcher is partially the motorist's fault.
-
FWIW, Gracie brothers Rener and Ryron did a "Gracie breakdown" of the whole incident. Holy fuck Rener is too long-winded for me to have watched the whole thing but I gather that they conclude that the "choke" wasn't what killed the guy.
Instead it was the weight of all the officers on top of a seriously overweight dude with asthma.
BTW, they have done some Gracie breakdowns of other fairly well-known streetfight videos that are much more entertaining than this one.
Hmmm pretty cool, didn't know they did things like this. I will probably kill a few hours with this.
-
That was the point of the comparison. logicmaster. It's a technique called "reduction to absurdity". There is no scenario in which a cop shooting a motorist with a rocket launcher is partially the motorist's fault.
Goodness you're a fucking idiot
Nobody is justifying the cops excessive use of force you FUCKING MORON!!!!
-
Right....because you neverrrr hear about cops abusing their authority.::)
Google . Explanation-a reason or justification given for an action or belief.
I never said cops don't abuse their authority.
You are confused. Explaining why something happened does not by itself justify conduct. Take someone who turns out to be a career criminal (like the guy who is the subject of this story). It's highly possible he came from a dysfunctional environment (absent father, drugs, poverty, etc.). That would help explain why he became a career criminal, because a person's upbringing is a predictor of success and failure. But it wouldn't justify any of his crimes.
-
Hmmm pretty cool, didn't know they did things like this. I will probably kill a few hours with this.
The MMA ones are sometimes very good.
One thing that might get on your nerves is that you can tell that Rener is the son of Rorion (who is/was a lawyer), lol.
-
Goodness you're a fucking idiot
Nobody is justifying the cops excessive use of force you FUCKING MORON!!!!
You have done that several times in this thread.
-
The MMA ones are sometimes very good.
One thing that might get on your nerves is that you can tell that Rener is the son of Rorion (who is/was a lawyer), lol.
I think id be more interested in the street fight ones
-
You have done that several times in this thread.
Like I said you're a fucking idiot. Have a nice day shit stain.
-
I never said cops don't abuse their authority.
You are confused. Explaining why something happened does not by itself justify conduct. Take someone who turns out to be a career criminal (like the guy who is the subject of this story). It's highly possible he came from a dysfunctional environment (absent father, drugs, poverty, etc.). That would help explain why he became a career criminal, because a person's upbringing is a predictor of success and failure. But it wouldn't justify any of his crimes.
Yes, but when you get to the point where you are saying that the victims of his crimes play a part in being his victims through interacting with him, then you are attempting to justify his crimes.
-
Yes, but when you get to the point where you are saying that the victims of his crimes play a part in being his victims through interacting with him, then you are attempting to justify his crimes.
Arguably. That's not my position and it doesn't sound like tony is taking that position either.
Do you think the man would have been put in a chokehold if he was not irate and didn't resist arrest?
-
I think id be more interested in the street fight ones
Check this one then. (Go to about 3:32 to skip the plug for their seminars):
-
Arguably. That's not my position and it doesn't sound like tony is taking that position either.
Do you think the man would have been put in a chokehold if he was not irate and didn't resist arrest?
Let me ask you this...
and I feel it's a direct comparison, but if you disagree, just tell me why.
If a child misbehaves and a parent or teacher beats that child until it dies, does the child play a part in its death.
My opinion: only in the most rudimentary sense in that the child may have been a catalyst for the parent's temper at that particular moment. The parent is in a position of authority. They don't get the benefit of behaving on the level of a child to deal with a child's behavior. If a cop overreacts to a situation using an illegal tactic, when that tactic results in death, it's that cops fault. It's not a split. You say you're not justifying the cop's actions, but when you say that the cop used the chokehold because of the victim's actions, that is what you are doing. He was supposedly a trained cop. The nature of the job is to deal with people who are difficult. He shouldn't have resorted to n illegal and deadly move.
-
Arguably. That's not my position and it doesn't sound like tony is taking that position either.
Do you think the man would have been put in a chokehold if he was not irate and didn't resist arrest?
He might have been. Cops being violent with folks who are complying is hardly unheard of. In this particular case, the guy was large and scary enough to be threatening to many cops even if he'd been reciting nursery rhymes.
Check out youtube if you want to see evidence of this kind of thing happening.
Probably what bugs some folks is that it seems like some folks would rather focus on the relatively minor mistakes made by the dead man instead of the major mistakes made by the cops. A lot of folks, I think, will do this because they have an agenda of some kind.
I don't really think Tony's doing this, btw. If I were to try to get into Tony's head, I'd say he's saying what he's saying because he's thinking to himself about how he'd try to avoid getting killed if he were in the same situation as the big black dead guy. And, clearly, total compliance is the best strategy if the goal is to come out of the situation alive.
Lastly, though, it's a sad state of affairs when one has to totally comply with some idiotic/dishonest cops over some illegal cigarette allegations simply to stay alive.
-
Let me ask you this...
and I feel it's a direct comparison, but if you disagree, just tell me why.
If a child misbehaves and a parent or teacher beats that child until it dies, does the child play a part in its death.
My opinion: only in the most rudimentary sense in that the child may have been a catalyst for the parent's temper at that particular moment. The parent is in a position of authority. They don't get the benefit of behaving on the level of a child to deal with a child's behavior. If a cop overreacts to a situation using an illegal tactic, when that tactic results in death, it's that cops fault. It's not a split. You say you're not justifying the cop's actions, but when you say that the cop used the chokehold because of the victim's actions, that is what you are doing. He was supposedly a trained cop. The nature of the job is to deal with people who are difficult. He shouldn't have resorted to n illegal and deadly move.
I don't believe comparing the actions of a child with those of a career criminal is a direct comparison. No, I don't think a child who misbehaves at school and then is beaten at home contributed to his or own death. I'm talking about this particular situation.
Also, you didn't answer my question: Do you think this particular man would have been put in a chokehold if he was not irate and didn't resist arrest?
-
He might have been. Cops being violent with folks who are complying is hardly unheard of. In this particular case, the guy was large and scary enough to be threatening to many cops even if he'd been reciting nursery rhymes.
Check out youtube if you want to see evidence of this kind of thing happening.
Probably what bugs some folks is that it seems like some folks would rather focus on the relatively minor mistakes made by the dead man instead of the major mistakes made by the cops. A lot of folks, I think, will do this because they have an agenda of some kind.
I don't really think Tony's doing this, btw. If I were to try to get into Tony's head, I'd say he's saying what he's saying because he's thinking to himself about how he'd try to avoid getting killed if he were in the same situation as the big black dead guy. And, clearly, total compliance is the best strategy if the goal is to come out of the situation alive.
Lastly, though, it's a sad state of affairs when one has to totally comply with some idiotic/dishonest cops over some illegal cigarette allegations simply to stay alive.
I'm sure cops have abused their authority in the past. This particular dude is clearly not one of those folks who was being cooperative.
One of the rules of society is you don't fight with cops. If they want to arrest you, and you believe you're innocent, the time to fight it is NOT when they're trying to put handcuffs on. That's plain stupid.
-
I'm sure cops have abused their authority in the past. This particular dude is clearly not one of those folks who was being cooperative.
One of the rules of society is you don't fight with cops. If they want to arrest you, and you believe you're innocent, the time to fight it is NOT when they're trying to put handcuffs on. That's plain stupid.
If "abusing their authority in the past" includes physical abuse that still goes on today, then I agree.
In fact, except for you introducing the the word "fighting" when talking about this guy dying, I agree with your whole post.
In the guy's defense, though, he'd been previously arrested 31 times*, all for non-violent offenses, so he was probably at the end of his rope, emotionally.
You can sympathize, can't you? I mean, as pissy as you get here on this board, BB, I'd bet you aren't beyond acting similarly. (You probably ARE smart enough to back off and shut up when you see that arresting you and not just hassling you is the intent of the cops, though.)
*31 times arrested probably means at least a couple of times that number hassled but not arrested. Not helped at all by the big dead guy's memorable appearance, I'm thinking; Like Naimond with his distinctive hair in The Wire, some guys are liable to draw more attention than others just because they look different/memorable.
-
If "abusing their authority in the past" includes physical abuse that still goes on today, then I agree.
In fact, except for you introducing the the word "fighting" when talking about this guy dying, I agree with your whole post.
In the guy's defense, though, he'd been previously arrested 31 times*, all for non-violent offenses, so he was probably at the end of his rope, emotionally.
You can sympathize, can't you? I mean, as pissy as you get here on this board, BB, I'd bet you aren't beyond acting similarly. (You probably ARE smart enough to back off and shut up when you see that arresting you and not just hassling you is the intent of the cops, though.)
*31 times arrested probably means at least a couple of times that number hassled but not arrested. Not helped at all by the big dead guy's memorable appearance, I'm thinking; Like Naimond with his distinctive hair in The Wire, some guys are liable to draw more attention than others just because they look different/memorable.
I never get "pissy" on the board. You're just hypersensitive. I don't think I've ever been literally upset over anything anyone has said on here.
I cannot sympathize with someone who has been arrested 31 times. How the heck does that even happen??
And no, I'm not saying he deserved to die.
-
I never get "pissy" on the board. You're just hypersensitive. I don't think I've ever been literally upset over anything anyone has said on here.
I cannot sympathize with someone who has been arrested 31 times. How the heck does that even happen??
And no, I'm not saying he deserved to die.
so you are a cop or ex cop ?
-
so you are a cop or ex cop ?
Nope. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night . . . .
-
LMFAO I am in no way defending the cops. I am being intellectually honest is all.
A man has no right to get physical with his woman. The cops DO!!!!
Now the amount of physical force was OBVIOUSLY excessive that doesnt excuse the man escalating the situation.
Everyone in the situation could have handled themselves better, do you agree?
Getting 'physical' with the guy is not the issue.
Excessive force is the issue and the cops DO NOT have a right to do so, anymore than the abusive husband has a right to get 'physical'.
Blaming the victim for the actions of the abuser is completely absurd.
-
Too late for that, nobody seems to understand you can condemn both his actions and the cops actions.
This has nothing to do with condemning his actions. I don't think he should have resisted - unless the arrest was unlawful.
But that's not the issue here.
The issue is your attempt to blame the victim for the actions of the abuser.
-
This has nothing to do with condemning his actions. I don't think he should have resisted - unless the arrest was unlawful.
But that's not the issue here.
The issue is your attempt to blame the victim for the actions of the abuser.
im not blaming him for their excessive actions, their actions where wrong no matter what. Fact of the matter is without his actions of refusing orders and resisting arrest none of that would have occured.
He helped create the enviroment where a physical altercation was needed. AGAIN THERE IS NO DENYING THIS
-
Getting 'physical' with the guy is not the issue.
Excessive force is the issue and the cops DO NOT have a right to do so, anymore than the abusive husband has a right to get 'physical'.
Blaming the victim for the actions of the abuser is completely absurd.
So you agree they cops had the right to get physical with him? not to the degree they did but to engage him physically?
-
Let me ask you this...
and I feel it's a direct comparison, but if you disagree, just tell me why.
If a child misbehaves and a parent or teacher beats that child until it dies, does the child play a part in its death.
My opinion: only in the most rudimentary sense in that the child may have been a catalyst for the parent's temper at that particular moment. The parent is in a position of authority. They don't get the benefit of behaving on the level of a child to deal with a child's behavior. If a cop overreacts to a situation using an illegal tactic, when that tactic results in death, it's that cops fault. It's not a split. You say you're not justifying the cop's actions, but when you say that the cop used the chokehold because of the victim's actions, that is what you are doing. He was supposedly a trained cop. The nature of the job is to deal with people who are difficult. He shouldn't have resorted to n illegal and deadly move.
LMFAO if a crack head goes and robs a drug dealer and gets shot and killed, are the crack heads actions partly to blame for his death?
-
Probably what bugs some folks is that it seems like some folks would rather focus on the relatively minor mistakes made by the dead man instead of the major mistakes made by the cops. A lot of folks, I think, will do this because they have an agenda of some kind.
the people focusing on it are the ones who have an issue seeing that without his resisting arrest and refusing orders that the physical confrontation would have never happend. I made one comment and BAM!!!
I don't really think Tony's doing this, btw. If I were to try to get into Tony's head, I'd say he's saying what he's saying because he's thinking to himself about how he'd try to avoid getting killed if he were in the same situation as the big black dead guy. And, clearly, total compliance is the best strategy if the goal is to come out of the situation alive.
Total compliance, where did this guy comply at all???
Its not about not getting killed, its about not making a shitty situation worse. Ive dealt with some dick cops in my time and you know they can give you a harder time if you act up.
Lastly, though, it's a sad state of affairs when one has to totally comply with some idiotic/dishonest cops over some illegal cigarette allegations simply to stay alive.
Again where did this guy comply at all???
-
im not blaming him for their excessive actions, their actions where wrong no matter what. Fact of the matter is without his actions of refusing orders and resisting arrest none of that would have occured.
He helped create the enviroment where a physical altercation was needed. AGAIN THERE IS NO DENYING THIS
First, that's not a fact, that's your assumption.
You can never know what might have happened. I thought you were pushing for us to be 'intellectually honest'.
Second, necessitating an escalation in force is not contributing to his own death. In fact, it happens all the time, every day, throughout the world....and these people are not attempting to get themselves killed, lol.
We're just running in circles now, so have at the last word.
-
In the guy's defense, though, he'd been previously arrested 31 times*, all for non-violent offenses, so he was probably at the end of his rope, emotionally.
You can sympathize, can't you? I mean, as pissy as you get here on this board, BB, I'd bet you aren't beyond acting similarly. (You probably ARE smart enough to back off and shut up when you see that arresting you and not just hassling you is the intent of the cops, though.)
*31 times arrested probably means at least a couple of times that number hassled but not arrested. Not helped at all by the big dead guy's memorable appearance, I'm thinking; Like Naimond with his distinctive hair in The Wire, some guys are liable to draw more attention than others just because they look different/memorable.
I can sympathize with the guy. He has a wife and what 6 kids? trying to provide a living for them. That doesnt justify breakind the law 31 times and it doesnt justify resisting arrrest either.
-
First, that's not a fact, that's your assumption.
You can never know what might have happened. I thought you were pushing for us to be 'intellectually honest'.
Second, necessitating an escalation in force is not contributing to his own death. In fact, it happens all the time, every day, throughout the world....and these people are not attempting to get themselves killed, lol.
We're just running in circles now, so have at the last word.
Ok, its more than likely that a physical altercation would not have taken place if he was compliant with the cops...
If the escalation in force was a result of him creating a confrontation then yes he is partially to blame. He helped create the physical confrontation that lead to his death...that is a fact!!!
I never said he was trying to get himself killed, most people get in fights without the intent to get killed.
-
If they want to arrest you, and you believe you're innocent, the time to fight it is NOT when they're trying to put handcuffs on. That's plain stupid.
^^^^^^^^
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
On a related note, what IS an INDISPUTABLE FACT, is that come October 20, the Steelers will bring excessive force and pain down on the Texans.
-
On a related note, what IS an INDISPUTABLE FACT, is that come October 20, the Steelers will bring excessive force and pain down on the Texans.
hahah I feel like the steelers are overrated and the Texans are severly underrated going into this season. You lost sanders and got who? heyward bey? lance moore?
nah man the Texans defense will be much improved from last season (they pretty much have to be) and if andre plays the offense should be pretty formidable given hopkins 2nd year and foster in the back field.
Trust me my friend the Texans are gonna be as nice to rapelisburger as he is to a woman who follows him into the bathroom.
Didnt we break his ankle last time we played? or wait was that when duane brown broke james harrisons face?
-
Nope. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night . . . .
This was funny and I chuckled out loud. Obviously you're not feeling pissy now.
-
...
Again where did this guy comply at all???
You don't think he complied some by not fighting? If you disagree I'll watch it again but all I saw was that he started to turn away; He didn't flail his arms or even try to run off like the world's biggest fullback (which would have made for a great vid). The only danger he really posed to any of those cops was that he might fall on them.
BTW, I read that a couple of EMT's on the scene have been disciplined (suspended?) for not giving him aid on the street. It's been alleged (haha, that's the weak way I have to put it because I'm too lazy to look for the link now) that the cops had the EMT's not try to resuscitate him on the street so as to try to avoid some responsibility for his death by being able to say that he was first pronounced dead in the ambulance on the way to the hospital.
Also, I've read that the NYPD chief was "irate" when he saw the video. A sergeant who was on the scene might be getting in trouble for something like (fuck, I need to find the link tomorrow, I guess) "Not taking control of the situation" or some such shit.
BTW, s a guy who reads reddit's Bad_Cop_No_Donut forum pretty regularly (and has seen a lot of what look like police abuse videos), I'm surprised at all the attention this is getting but I'm happy about it.
Hopefully folks will start getting riled up about all the dogs that are being shot for very little reason by cops these days next.
-
You don't think he complied some by not fighting? If you disagree I'll watch it again but all I saw was that he started to turn away; He didn't flail his arms or even try to run off like the world's biggest fullback (which would have made for a great vid). The only danger he really posed to any of those cops was that he might fall on them.
Also, I've read that the NYPD chief was "irate" when he saw the video. A sergeant who was on the scene might be getting in trouble for something like (fuck, I need to find the link tomorrow, I guess) "Not taking control of the situation" or some such
Are you kidding me???
That remind of the Chris rock bit where he says black guys are always proud about not going to jail. "I've got my GED, I work part time and I have never been to jail" the he points out the obvious "YOURE NOT SUPPOSED TO GO TO JAIL MOTHER FUCKER!!!!"
YOURE NOT SUPPOSED TO FIGHT OR RUN AWAY FROM THE COPS!!!
not doing so does not automatically mean you are complying with them.
Of course the chief was upset I would be as well. Those dumb asses totally mishandled the situation and resulted in the death of a civilian by their hands. I would be super fucking pissed if I was him.
-
Remember the" ALAMO" come September !
;D
-
LMFAO if a crack head goes and robs a drug dealer and gets shot and killed, are the crack heads actions partly to blame for his death?
Yes... that's because the drug dealer is a criminal! When dealing with a drug dealer who presumably has a history of illegal violence, there is not an expectation of resolving issues through legal measures. When dealing with OFFICERS OF THE LAW, there is a very clear, very firm expectation of those officers behaving in a legal manner. so even if someone has a hand in escalating a situation, if the officer's reaction reaches the point where he overreacts using illegal stactics, the resulting death is entirely on that officer. Not partially the fault of his victim.
-
I never get "pissy" on the board. You're just hypersensitive. I don't think I've ever been literally upset over anything anyone has said on here.
I cannot sympathize with someone who has been arrested 31 times. How the heck does that even happen??
And no, I'm not saying he deserved to die.
Part of the issue of this case is that witnesses claim that police only attempted to arrest the guy because they were familiar with him, not because he had broken any law that day. The officer who made the choke hold has a history of tampering with evidence and police reports. The NYPD has had to pay out on at least one lawsuit involving him.
-
This was funny and I chuckled out loud. Obviously you're not feeling pissy now.
You laughed? Good. You must be off the rag?
-
Part of the issue of this case is that witnesses claim that police only attempted to arrest the guy because they were familiar with him, not because he had broken any law that day. The officer who made the choke hold has a history of tampering with evidence and police reports. The NYPD has had to pay out on at least one lawsuit involving him.
They shouldn't have been arresting him unless he was committing or had committed a crime.
That said, someone who has been arrested 31 times probably shouldn't be on the street. Speaking in general terms, someone like that is a menace to society.
Why does that cop still have a job if he was caught tampering with evidence?
-
Yes... that's because the drug dealer is a criminal! When dealing with a drug dealer who presumably has a history of illegal violence, there is not an expectation of resolving issues through legal measures. When dealing with OFFICERS OF THE LAW, there is a very clear, very firm expectation of those officers behaving in a legal manner. so even if someone has a hand in escalating a situation, if the officer's reaction reaches the point where he overreacts using illegal stactics, the resulting death is entirely on that officer. Not partially the fault of his victim.
Wait first you say it's possible that he would have been put in a choke hold even if he was compliant....now you're saying that when dealing with cops you should believe they are going to act within the law? If you think the cops might have choked him out even if he cooperated then that needs to play into your expectations on how they will respond if you act up!!!
If they had used legal means like a taser and this guy died would he be partially to blame?
-
They shouldn't have been arresting him unless he was committing or had committed a crime.
That said, someone who has been arrested 31 times probably shouldn't be on the street. Speaking in general terms, someone like that is a menace to society.
If he served his time, he has the right to be on the street. We know that at least 9 of those arrests were related to selling untaxed cigarettes-a truly victimless crime. It is not unreasonable to assume that the majority of his rap sheet involves similar offenses.
Why does that cop still have a job if he was caught tampering with evidence?
Because he is a cop for the NYPD.
-
Wait first you say it's possible that he would have been put in a choke hold even if he was compliant....now you're saying that when dealing with cops you should believe they are going to act within the law? If you think the cops might have choked him out even if he cooperated then that needs to play into your expectations on how they will respond if you act up!!!
Retardo, that wasn't even a difficult post to understand. I said that there is an EXPECTATION that cops should behave within the law. Just as there is an expectation that bus drivers be able to drive well and not show up for work drunk or that housepainters are skilled at their job and careful when you hire them. However, there are practitioners in each of these professions that often don't live up to their expectations. Believing there is a possibility a housepainter won't do a good job is not the same as expecting him to get as much paint as possible on your floors and failing to create crisp cut ins.
If they had used legal means like a taser and this guy died would he be partially to blame?
YES! That is the crux of the issue, dum-dum.Tragedies and mistakes happen. That's inevitable. But when a mistake of this magnitude happens because someone willfully behaves in an illegal manner- such as using a prohibited hold during an arrest- then the blame is on them. The move was prohibited for a reason.
-
You laughed? Good. You must be off the rag?
Misogynistic post reported. lol
-
Retardo, that wasn't even a difficult post to understand. I said that there is an EXPECTATION that cops should behave within the law. Just as there is an expectation that bus drivers be able to drive well and not show up for work drunk or that housepainters are skilled at their job and careful when you hire them. However, there are practitioners in each of these professions that often don't live up to their expectations. Believing there is a possibility a housepainter won't do a good job is not the same as expecting him to get as much paint as possible on your floors and failing to create crisp cut ins.
YES! That is the crux of the issue, dum-dum.Tragedies and mistakes happen. That's inevitable. But when a mistake of this magnitude happens because someone willfully behaves in an illegal manner- such as using a prohibited hold during an arrest- then the blame is on them. The move was prohibited for a reason.
If you think that cops might abuse their authority even if you comply then ONLY A FUCKING IDIOT would think its reasonable to assume that if you dont comply they will act within the law...
what part of that do you not underfuckingstand moron?
So basically you feel this guy thought he could act up and resist arrest and only get physically reprimanded to a certain point which he felt was acceptable.
::) like I said earlier, youre a fucking idiot and so was he if thats we he believed
-
If you think that cops might abuse their authority even if you comply then ONLY A FUCKING IDIOT would think its reasonable to assume that if you dont comply they will act within the law...
what part of that do you not underfuckingstand moron?
Retardo, this doesn't even make sense! There are cops who abuse their authority and there are cops that act lawfully. That isn't even debatable.
Just because there is a possibility of one cop or one group of cops behaving inappropriately does not mean that all cops will. And it certainly doesn't mean that they should be expected to! What point did you even think you were making?
So basically you feel this guy thought he could act up and resist arrest and only get physically reprimanded to a certain point which he felt was acceptable.
::) like I said earlier, youre a fucking idiot and so was he if thats we he believed
Again, idiocy. Do you think this is the only difficult arrest that has ever taken place in New York? Do you think that anytime someone is arrested and they are not completely agreeable, that they wind up dead?
-
You have a much greater chance of becoming dead if you tell a cop to fuck himself than you do if you say "yes sir"
-
Retardo, this doesn't even make sense! There are cops who abuse their authority and there are cops that act lawfully. That isn't even debatable.
Just because there is a possibility of one cop or one group of cops behaving inappropriately does not mean that all cops will. And it certainly doesn't mean that they should be expected to! What point did you even think you were making?
If you think that a cop may be abusive even if you comply, then what do you think a cop would do if you resist arrest.
only a grade A FUCKING MORON, would say that its possible I could get put in a chokehold even if I comply 100% but I should believe they will not if I resist arrest.
::)
-
If you think that a cop may be abusive even if you comply, then what do you think a cop would do if you resist arrest.
only a grade A FUCKING MORON, would say that its possible I could get put in a chokehold even if I comply 100% but I should believe they will not if I resist arrest.
::)
So, what you're saying is that you don't believe there has ever been a case where police have abused a cooperative suspect?
-
So, what you're saying is that you don't believe there has ever been a case where police have abused a cooperative suspect?
ABSOLUTELY THEY HAVE WHICH IS WHY ITS ASSININE TO THINK THAT IF YOU ACT UP THEY WONT BE ABUSIVE!!!!
-
ABSOLUTELY THEY HAVE WHICH IS WHY ITS ASSININE TO THINK THAT IF YOU ACT UP THEY WONT BE ABUSIVE!!!!
So, then you're saying that there aren't any cops that follow the law? They're ALL dirty ? ???
-
So, then you're saying that there aren't any cops that follow the law? They're ALL dirty ? ???
of course there albert, to paraphrase flipper you have a much greater chance of being put in a choke hold if you resist arrest than if you do if you say yes sir.
You have already admitted that its possible that a person could be abused by the police even if they comply 100%. You seem to believe that b/c the police are there to uphold the law you should assume they wont abuse you. If you agree that even if you comply you can be abused, what in that delusional mind of yours thinks that if you resist arrest you should expect their reactions to be law abiding?
-
what in that delusional mind of yours thinks that if you resist arrest you should expect their reactions to be law abiding?
You don't think officers should abide by the law? ???
-
ABSOLUTELY THEY HAVE WHICH IS WHY ITS ASSININE TO THINK THAT IF YOU ACT UP THEY WONT BE ABUSIVE!!!!
Then why did you say this?
Skip he resisted being taken into custody, if had been peaceful and cooperative do you think they would have put him in a chokehold?
if not, then yes his actions played a role in the escalation of the situation. There is no way to dispute that...
If you admit that they are so abusive that he likely would have been choked out either way, then his actions didn't play a role in his death, did they?
-
Then why did you say this?
If you admit that they are so abusive that he likely would have been choked out either way, then his actions didn't play a role in his death, did they?
I didnt say its likely he would have either way you fucking retard.
You have a much greater chance of becoming dead if you tell a cop to fuck himself than you do if you say "yes sir"
Understand the above statement
Like I said earlier, youre a fucking idiot
-
I didnt say its likely he would have either way you fucking retard.
Understand the above statement
Like I said earlier, youre a fucking idiot
I know that, dummy. I was taking something you didn't say and pretending I didn't understand what it meant ::) Like you've been pretending not to understand the very simple concept of LEOs being authority figures and being expected to follow the law while performing their jobs. Acknowledging that an officer is capable of breaking the law is not the same as EXPECTING them to break the law. Just because I acknowledged that an officer used an illegal chokehold doesn't mean I EXPECT all officers to do so from now on. Or that I think he shouldn't be punished. ::)
-
I know that, dummy. I was taking something you didn't say and pretending I didn't understand what it meant ::) Like you've been pretending not to understand the very simple concept of LEOs being authority figures and being expected to follow the law while performing their jobs. Acknowledging that an officer is capable of breaking the law is not the same as EXPECTING them to break the law. Just because I acknowledged that an officer used an illegal chokehold doesn't mean I EXPECT all officers to do so from now on. Or that I think he shouldn't be punished. ::)
who said that ALL officers would use a chokehold?
The idiocy in your argument is you agree that cops can and have abused people even when they comply 100% but a person who resists arrest should expect them to act within the law.
I understand why you might think that in theory b/c they are supposed to uphold the law BUT IN REALITY you know that expecting them to follow the law ESPECIALLY when you are being uncooperative is just plain fucking stupid
-
who said that ALL officers would use a chokehold?
The idiocy in your argument is you agree that cops can and have abused people even when they comply 100% but a person who resists arrest should expect them to act within the law.
I understand why you might think that in theory b/c they are supposed to uphold the law BUT IN REALITY you know that expecting them to follow the law ESPECIALLY when you are being uncooperative isnt just plain fucking stupid
Wow, I guess I was giving you too much credit. You really are that stupid.
Expectation as in "obligation" or "legal requirement", not as in "I believe that this will be the case every time".
-
Wow, I guess I was giving you too much credit. You really are that stupid.
Expectation as in "obligation" or "legal requirement", not as in "I believe that this will be the case every time".
of course they have the legal requirement, CITIZENS HAVE THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT NOT TO RESIST ARREST!!!!!
for fucks sake you just keep getting more and more idiotic.
Look dude lets just agree to disagree I honestly cant take another day of your stupidity its fucking life draining
-
of course they have the legal requirement, CITIZENS HAVE THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT NOT TO RESIST ARREST!!!!!
for fucks sake you just keep getting more and more idiotic.
Look dude lets just agree to disagree I honestly cant take another day of your stupidity its fucking life draining
Fine, dummy, I'll just have the last word here...
The point is that as LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, when they break the law and it results in them causing someone's death, it's their fault. It's not a split. Their literal job is to ENFORCE THE LAW, so when they break while enforcing the law, anything that goes wrong is their fault.
Also, you are stupid. The stupidest. Your feeling of "life draining" is actually you being too stupid to comprehend a logical argument.
-
You have a much greater chance of becoming dead if you tell a cop to fuck himself than you do if you say "yes sir"
Which is not to say that the danger is the same everywhere.
Ladies and gentleman, I present Daniel Saulmon aka Tom Zebra:
(LOL at "You're mistaken, bacon" at about 1:35)
-
hahahahaha youre mistaken bacon....thats freaking awesome
-
hahahahaha youre mistaken bacon....thats freaking awesome
Where is O-FAG to say that the cops acted stupidly?
-
hahahahaha youre mistaken bacon....thats freaking awesome
Apparently Youtube took down this guy's channel pretty recently. He used to have literally dozens of videos like this one.
I think he's going to host all his videos on his own website pretty soon, though.
-
Uh oh . . . .
HOMICIDE: Medical examiner says NYPD chokehold killed Staten Island dad Eric Garner
The 43-year-old dad died July 17 after cops on Staten Island attempted to arrest him for selling untaxed cigarettes. 'Thank God the truth is finally out,' the man's widow said Friday after the report was unveiled.
BY BARRY PADDOCK , CORKY SIEMASZKO
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Published: Friday, August 1, 2014,
Eric Garner’s death by chokehold was a homicide.
The Staten Island man who collapsed after being placed in the banned restraint by a police officer died from compression of the neck and chest, the New York City Medical Examiner ruled Friday.
The 43-year-old victim’s asthma, obesity and high blood pressure were also contributing factors in his death, the autopsy determined.
It was the latest development in a case that sparked national outrage after The Daily News obtained video showing Officer Daniel Pantaleo putting Garner in the chokehold.
Garner’s widow said she was relieved that the ME confirmed what had been suspected for weeks.
“Thank God the truth is finally out,” Esaw Garner told The Daily News. “Thank God for that.”
Garner was black. Pantaleo is white. And the incident has roiled relations between the police and minority residents on Staten Island.
Mayor de Blasio, who was elected on a promise to make the NYPD more responsive to minority communities, said he was “absolutely committed to ensuring that the proper reforms are enacted to ensure that this won't happen again.”
"We all have a responsibility to work together to heal the wounds from decades of mistrust and create a culture where the police department and the communities they protect respect each other,” he said in a statement.
The Rev. Al Sharpton, who a day earlier pointedly told the mayor his biracial son could be “a candidate for a chokehold,” held his fire at the ME’s announcement.
“We're reviewing it and we'll be announcing tomorrow what course of action we'll be taking after we meet tonight,” he told The News.
Eric Garner died July 17 after being placed in a chokehold. His death was ruled a homicide Friday.Eric Garner died July 17 after being placed in a chokehold. His death was ruled a homicide Friday.PreviousNextEric Garner died on July 17 after being placed in a chokehold. His death was ruled a homicide Friday. Police officers used a choke on Eric Garner that resulted in his death. Daniel Pantaleo, the cop involved in fatal encuonter with Eric Garner.
In a terse statement, the Staten Island District Attorney’s office said it had been in touch with the ME.
“We await the issuance of the official death certificate and the autopsy report,” it said. “The investigation into Mr. Garner's death continues."
Police Commissioner Bill Bratton said the NYPD would continue cooperating with Staten Island prosecutors, who are “the lead investigative entity in this case.”
Meanwhile, the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association expressed condolences — but said Garner was partly to blame for his demise.
“We believe, however, that if he had not resisted the lawful order of the police officers placing him under arrest, this tragedy would not have occurred,” the PBA said in a statement.
Pantaleo and another officer were pulled from their anti-crime unit and placed on desk duty after Garner’s death. He could not be reached for comment.
Garner met his end July 17 while being busted for allegedly selling untaxed cigarettes.
“I can’t breathe,” the 350-pound tobacco peddler said repeatedly as he was taken down by the cops.
The NYPD banned chokeholds in 1994 after a Bronx man named Anthony Baez was killed by an officer who placed him in one.
In the wake of Garner’s death, Bratton ordered that the NYPD’s 35,000 officers be retrained in the proper use of force when subduing a suspect.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/eric-garner-death-ruled-homicide-medical-examiner-article-1.1888808#ixzz39BCtW59g
-
he used a banned move. fire/prosecute. it's that simple.
-
he used a banned move. fire/prosecute. it's that simple.
I agree wholeheartedly. There needs to be some police officers put in handcuffs or at least fired over this one.
In that particular situation what is the right move in your opinion?
Just continue to wrestle him to the ground without the chokehold?
Is a simple tazing the more humane or professional way to go about it?
That was a BIG man so obviously it was going to be difficult to take him down.
-
When you have FIVE cops, you don't need to use a forbidden move.
if it was ONE cop, in a "it was me or him" free for all in an alley at 4am, and dude was coked out of his head and had an upper hand, then yes, I can see how it could happen.
But with FIVE cops, and the guy on the ground, and the guy publicly declaring he cannot breathe over and over... Well, you gotta use your head in this case, and you just gotta tase, hold him down, cuff his hands and legs, and get him in the car. No need to break his airway when there's 5 of you.
They were pissed he wasn't cooperating, and the chokehold was a punitive action. That's my belief. And I believe they did it to him a few times, as he said "I cannot breathe" in between turns. They wanted to sleep him, as they do on television. There's a reason the move is banned... because this can happen.
-
When you have FIVE cops, you don't need to use a forbidden move.
if it was ONE cop, in a "it was me or him" free for all in an alley at 4am, and dude was coked out of his head and had an upper hand, then yes, I can see how it could happen.
But with FIVE cops, and the guy on the ground, and the guy publicly declaring he cannot breathe over and over... Well, you gotta use your head in this case, and you just gotta tase, hold him down, cuff his hands and legs, and get him in the car. No need to break his airway when there's 5 of you.
They were pissed he wasn't cooperating, and the chokehold was a punitive action. That's my belief. And I believe they did it to him a few times, as he said "I cannot breathe" in between turns. They wanted to sleep him, as they do on television. There's a reason the move is banned... because this can happen.
They didn't even mention the chokehold initially:
Supervising officers who were interviewed after Eric Garner's death failed to mention the chokehold and told investigators that 'the perpetrator's condition did not seem serious,'.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/exclusive-internal-nypd-report-staten-island-dad-mention-chokehold-article-1.1875221
-
They didn't even mention the chokehold initially:
Supervising officers who were interviewed after Eric Garner's death failed to mention the chokehold and told investigators that 'the perpetrator's condition did not seem serious,'.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/exclusiv-internal-nypd-report-staten-island-dad-mention-chokehold-article-1.1875221
that kind of forgetfulness... that 'misreporting'... should be grounds for immediate dismissal from the force. They're given power of life and death over citizens... their word has to be IMPECCABLE. There can be no room for "oh yeah, I forgot to mention that whole chokehold thing" 5 minutes after dude dies from, well, being choked. At that point, covering up cause of death should be worse than the "accident" itself.
-
6'1 400 lbs, and with 31 prior arrests. Forget about skin color. Once this "unarmed man" tells the cops he's not coming quietly, all bets are off.
And FYI what's the alternative? Should the police just apologize for the intrusion and walk away? Fuck it. Why have laws at all?
It is mind boggling to witness the black "community" get riled up for such a fat, disgusting criminal. Meanwhile, innocent men, women and children are killed in the "community" on a daily basis and nobody bats an eyebrow. Reminds me of Trayvon!
-
6'1 400 lbs, and with 31 prior arrests. Forget about skin color. Once this "unarmed man" tells the cops he's not coming quietly, all bets are off.
And FYI what's the alternative? Should the police just apologize for the intrusion and walk away? Fuck it. Why have laws at all?
It is mind boggling to witness the black "community" get riled up for such a fat, disgusting criminal. Meanwhile, innocent men, women and children are killed in the "community" on a daily basis and nobody bats an eyebrow. Reminds me of Trayvon!
6'1" 400 lbs guy in his 40's seemed like a dangerous fighter to you? LOL. You could hear that Garner was out of breath before they laid a finger on him. A guy like that against ONE halfway athletic policeman in an open area is only likely to get Zulu'd or die of a heart attack, seems to me.
As for being some kind of dangerous criminal, all 31 prior arrests were for non-violent offenses and at least some of the cops on scene were familiar with the guy's history. (Sheesh, how could they not be familiar with the guy if he'd been arrested over 30 times and probably hassled but not arrested even more?)
They should have just talked to the guy. According to witnesses the cops were called to the scene because two other men had been in some kind of fight (broken up by Garner) but had both left before the cops got there. Once there, though, they saw the distinctive-looking Garner and started fucking with him (because of his past history). Garner made some mistakes in dealing with the cops but not ones he should have been killed for.
Whorewell, I think you're just a troll these days but if not you should probably open your eyes and realize that it's not just the black community getting riled up over clear police abuses. Now, maybe it's only because video recording devices are so common these days, but there is real evidence that police are overstepping their legal bounds by unnecessarily physically abusing black & white citizens (not to mention killing dogs) way too often.
-
Zulu getting "Zulu'd":
Tim Sylvia getting "Zulu'd":
(http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll299/wordydurden/funnygif.gif)
-
6'1 400 lbs, and with 31 prior arrests. Forget about skin color. Once this "unarmed man" tells the cops he's not coming quietly, all bets are off.
And FYI what's the alternative? Should the police just apologize for the intrusion and walk away? Fuck it. Why have laws at all?
It is mind boggling to witness the black "community" get riled up for such a fat, disgusting criminal. Meanwhile, innocent men, women and children are killed in the "community" on a daily basis and nobody bats an eyebrow. Reminds me of Trayvon!
Yeah, the cops should be able to go from light force to murder immediately. A reasonable progression of force? Well, that's completely unreasonable. ::)
I agree though, reminds me of the people who were claiming the size difference between Trayvon and George was immaterial because Zimmerman was such a marshmallow. Now we're dealing with an even bigger marshmallow and suddenly he's some huge threat that must be contended with. And we know these cops will claim they were in fear of their lives.
BTW...what did you think of the cop waving happily to the camera at the very end? Well AFTER he knew the guy was dead.
-
Here's all we know about NYPD officer Daniel Pantaleo & his use of excessive force:
Pantaleo is an 8-year NYPD veteran.
He has been sued twice within the past two years for alleged civil rights violations.
In the first suit, two men claim Pantaleo and other officers stopped and strip-searched them in broad daylight while they were driving. The officers handcuffed Darren Collins and Tommy Rice and “Pantaleo and/or Conca pulled down the plaintiffs’ pants and underwear, and touched and searched their genital areas, or stood by while this was done in their presence,” the lawsuit alleged. Eventually the men were criminally charged — according to Collins and Rice’s lawyer, Pantaleo had falsely claimed that he saw crack and heroin in plain view, on the vehicle’s back seat, allowing the officers to arrest everyone in the car. The two men each received $15,000 settlements from the city.
In the second suit, Rylawn Walker accused Pantaleo of arresting him on Feb. 16, 2012 even though he was “committing no crime at that time and was not acting in a suspicious manner.” That case is still pending.
All three men were men of color.
According to Collins and Rice’s attorney, Jason Leventhal, who regularly handles civil rights cases lodged against the NYPD, Pantaleo ignored a “life-or-death rule of the NYPD patrol guide” prohibiting chokeholds, and ignored the department’s use-of-force continuum.
The tactic, which can be fatal, is prohibited by departmental policy.
According to Section 203-11 of the NYPD Patrol Guide: “Members of the New York City Police Department will not use choke holds. A choke hold shall include, but is not limited to, any pressure to the throat or windpipe, which may prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air.”
Chokeholds were banned 20 years ago after the death of a young man, Anthony Baez, who was killed in a confrontation with police after a football he was tossing with friends hit a police car. The officer who choked Baez to death was ultimately sentenced to seven years in prison.
http://globalgrind.com/2014/07/23/about-daniel-pantaleo-nypd-officer-eric-garners-chokehold-death-video/
Wow. What a great cop. ::)
-
6'1 400 lbs, and with 31 prior arrests. Forget about skin color. Once this "unarmed man" tells the cops he's not coming quietly, all bets are off.
And FYI what's the alternative? Should the police just apologize for the intrusion and walk away? Fuck it. Why have laws at all?
It is mind boggling to witness the black "community" get riled up for such a fat, disgusting criminal. Meanwhile, innocent men, women and children are killed in the "community" on a daily basis and nobody bats an eyebrow. Reminds me of Trayvon!
I agree. It is very easy to lose control of a situation when someone is resisting arrest. I don't have a problem with multiple officers taking down a guy that size.
-
This guy met his end the same way as Radio Raheem from "Do the Right Thing"
Therefore, the police used excessive force because of the violent influence of Hollywood. Case closed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G7TTDEHl5o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G7TTDEHl5o)
-
This guy met his end the same way as Radio Raheem from "Do the Right Thing"
Therefore, the police used excessive force because of the violent influence of Hollywood. Case closed.
LOL. We agree, then.
I think you'll also agree that assigning a small but definite portion of the responsibility for Garner's death to Spike Lee and, maybe, the New York Knicks, would be "doing the right thing" here. ;D
(BTW, chop the "s" off of "https" to embed those youtube vids.)
-
Looked more like a head lock rather than a true blood or air choke. That fat fuck died due to his self inflected obesity.
-
Looked more like a head lock rather than a true blood or air choke. That fat fuck died due to his self inflected obesity.
Even if that's true, the cops should still be legally responsible due to the "Eggshell Skull Rule" (which I heard some cops talking about on a cop forum):
This rule holds one liable for all consequences resulting from his or her tortious (usually negligent) activities leading to an injury to another person, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage (e.g. due to a pre-existing vulnerability or medical condition). The term implies that if a person had a skull as delicate as that of the shell of an egg, and a tortfeasor who was unaware of the condition injured that person's head, causing the skull unexpectedly to break, the defendant would be held liable for all damages resulting from the wrongful contact, even if the tortfeasor did not intend to cause such a severe injury.
In criminal law, the general maxim is that the defendant must "take their victims as they find them", a quotation from the judgment of Lord Justice Lawton in R v. Blaue (1975), in which the defendant was held responsible for killing his victim, despite his contention that her refusal of a blood transfusion constituted novus actus interveniens.
The doctrine is applied in all areas of torts - intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability cases - as well as in criminal law. There is no requirement of physical contact with the victim - if a trespasser's wrongful presence on the victim's property so terrifies the victim that he has a fatal heart attack, the trespasser will be liable for the damages stemming from his original tort. The foundation for this rule is based primarily on policy grounds. The courts do not want the defendant or accused to rely on the victim's own vulnerability to avoid liability.
More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull)
-
I never get "pissy" on the board. You're just hypersensitive. I don't think I've ever been literally upset over anything anyone has said on here.
I cannot sympathize with someone who has been arrested 31 times. How the heck does that even happen??
And no, I'm not saying he deserved to die.
How does it happen? Surely you're not that naive? If police have decided to target & harass you, ...they will.
Here is an innocent man who was arrested 62 times at his own job. Can you sympathize with him?
It got to the point where his employer ended up filing suit against the Police, armed with the surveillance footage from 15 cameras documenting ongoing harassment, and police violations of law.
-
Are you kidding me???
That remind of the Chris rock bit where he says black guys are always proud about not going to jail. "I've got my GED, I work part time and I have never been to jail" the he points out the obvious "YOURE NOT SUPPOSED TO GO TO JAIL MOTHER FUCKER!!!!"
YOURE NOT SUPPOSED TO FIGHT OR RUN AWAY FROM THE COPS!!!
not doing so does not automatically mean you are complying with them.
Of course the chief was upset I would be as well. Those dumb asses totally mishandled the situation and resulted in the death of a civilian by their hands. I would be super fucking pissed if I was him.
There's a Mom in Columbus Ohio who regrets teaching her Straight A honor role teenaged son this very thing.
He believed it, ...so when the cops came for him for doing absolutely nothing but trying to get to a highschool basketball game, he didn't run, ...and he ended up with a roadside vasectomy.
-
This grandfather has a definite opinion about the NYPD and the murder of Eric Garner
if you find "un-churchlike" language offensive, you might not want to hear this.
-
How does it happen? Surely you're not that naive? If police have decided to target & harass you, ...they will.
Here is an innocent man who was arrested 62 times at his own job. Can you sympathize with him?
It got to the point where his employer ended up filing suit against the Police, armed with the surveillance footage from 15 cameras documenting ongoing harassment, and police violations of law.
Against my better judgment, I listened to a portion of the clip. If what they say is true, then that us obviously harassment, violation of the guy's civil rights, etc. This is not the norm.
What your clip doesn't establish is that the guy who is the subject of this thread was improperly arrested 31 times.
-
There's a Mom in Columbus Ohio who regrets teaching her Straight A honor role teenaged son this very thing.
He believed it, ...so when the cops came for him for doing absolutely nothing but trying to get to a highschool basketball game, he didn't run, ...and he ended up with a roadside vasectomy.
and that sucks for him doesnt change the fact you shrew...In the vast majority of cases youre better or cooperating with police than running from them or trying to fight them....
you can find exceptions to any rule that doesnt mean the rule isnt valid you dumb ass
-
What your clip doesn't establish is that the guy who is the subject of this thread was improperly arrested 31 times.
of course it doesnt what jagson is used to doing is using one off examples to try and prove that the established rule is untrue.
-
Against my better judgment, I listened to a portion of the clip. If what they say is true, then that us obviously harassment, violation of the guy's civil rights, etc. This is not the norm.
What your clip doesn't establish is that the guy who is the subject of this thread was improperly arrested 31 times.
The point of her post was that the number of arrests is not the entire story. You said that you could not sympathize with someone who had been arrested 31 times an d asked how that even happens. She gave you an example of a guy who had been arrested twice as many times and an explanation of how that happened: police harassment.
-
The point of her post was that the number of arrests is not the entire story. You said that you could not sympathize with someone who had been arrested 31 times an d asked how that even happens. She gave you an example of a guy who had been arrested twice as many times and an explanation of how that happened: police harassment.
To be fair to BB, as someone who lives in Hawaii, he's likely not aware of the kind of crap that's all too common in NYC.
To me, it's understandable if someone who doesn't live in New York chalks up all the videos you can see on the internet these days that seem to indicate police abuses of authority there as being statistically insignificant given the population but, holy shit, is there any other place in the USA where "stop and frisk" is OFFICIAL policy? Pretty easy to see how that kind of policy lends itself to police abuse.
Personally, I think all cops should wear working body cams all the time. If that's too much pressure for 'em, tough shit.
-
The point of her post was that the number of arrests is not the entire story. You said that you could not sympathize with someone who had been arrested 31 times an d asked how that even happens. She gave you an example of a guy who had been arrested twice as many times and an explanation of how that happened: police harassment.
I understood her point, although it is difficult to try and prove a point by using an extreme, out-of-the-ordinary example. Yes, someone getting improperly arrested 60 times is an abuse of police power. You would think someone involved in the process (prosecutor's office?) would put a stop to it if the guy is arrested and never charged, repeatedly.
But does this prove the guy who is the subject of this story was falsely arrested 31 times? Absolutely not. You have any evidence he was wrongfully arrested 31 times? How do you know he wasn't a career criminal?
I don't believe law-abiding citizens get wrongfully arrested dozens of times on a regular basis.
-
I understood her point, although it is difficult to try and prove a point by using an extreme, out-of-the-ordinary example. Yes, someone getting improperly arrested 60 times is an abuse of police power. You would think someone involved in the process (prosecutor's office?) would put a stop to it if the guy is arrested and never charged, repeatedly.
But does this prove the guy who is the subject of this story was falsely arrested 31 times? Absolutely not. You have any evidence he was wrongfully arrested 31 times? How do you know he wasn't a career criminal?
I don't believe law-abiding citizens get wrongfully arrested dozens of times on a regular basis.
So I guess you can only sympathize with people that you judge to be "law-abiding"? LOL.
How does that work in your mind? Where between being arrested 31 times for non-violent offenses and, say, jaywalking do you draw the line?
-
So I guess you can only sympathize with people that you judge to be "law-abiding"? LOL.
How does that work in your mind? Where between being arrested 31 times for non-violent offenses and, say, jaywalking do you draw the line?
I don't sympathize with career criminals. I don't have a line between violent and non-violent offenses when it comes to "sympathy."
I subscribe to the Jim Carey theory:
-
I don't sympathize with career criminals. I don't have a line between violent and non-violent offenses when it comes to "sympathy."
I subscribe to the Jim Carey theory:
You don't sympathize with career criminals even when they're extrajudicially killed on the street?
Then you flat out aren't a good and moral person.
-
You don't sympathize with career criminals even when they're extrajudicially killed on the street?
Then you flat out aren't a good and moral person.
Really? ::) I am trying to restrain my rhetoric here. I did not say that, but you have a proven habit of just making stuff up. But I get it. You're not sophisticated enough to read and comprehend statements, so you restate and contort them so they fit within your own twisted outlook. It's ok. Nobody is perfect.
-
Really? ::) I am trying to restrain my rhetoric here. I did not say that, but you have a proven habit of just making stuff up. But I get it. You're not sophisticated enough to read and comprehend statements, so you restate and contort them so they fit within your own twisted outlook. It's ok. Nobody is perfect.
Whoa, Nelly! Who's having reading comprehension probs here again?
Surely you noticed my post began with a question, right? And please notice that my statement about you being a bad person was conditional. --- In other words, if it's not true that you don't/can't sympathize with a career criminal when he gets killed extrajudicially then you are NOT a bad person.
I'm not up for an hours-long war with ya today; I'm in too good of a mood -- My wife and I just finished making all our hotel reservations for a month-long vacation in Thailand in November. -- Pretty good for you, too, right? --- You'll likely get a long break from my posts then, lol.
-
Whoa, Nelly! Who's having reading comprehension probs here again?
Surely you noticed my post began with a question, right? And please notice that my statement about you being a bad person was conditional. --- In other words, if it's not true that you don't/can't sympathize with a career criminal when he gets killed extrajudicially then you are NOT a bad person.
I'm not up for an hours-long war with ya today; I'm in too good of a mood -- My wife and I just finished making all our hotel reservations for a month-long vacation in Thailand in November. -- Pretty good for you, too, right? --- You'll likely get a long break from my posts then, lol.
I didn't say a word about condoning "extrajudicial" killing of someone on the street. Of course I don't condone that. How the heck did you attribute that kind of nonsense to me??
It's good that you are in a good mood today. Welcome to my world. I feel outstanding every single day. :) Good for you and your wife. Hope you have a great time. I live on island, so that whole vacation thing is a little overrated. :)
-
Whoa, Nelly! Who's having reading comprehension probs here again?
Surely you noticed my post began with a question, right? And please notice that my statement about you being a bad person was conditional. --- In other words, if it's not true that you don't/can't sympathize with a career criminal when he gets killed extrajudicially then you are NOT a bad person.
I'm not up for an hours-long war with ya today; I'm in too good of a mood -- My wife and I just finished making all our hotel reservations for a month-long vacation in Thailand in November. -- Pretty good for you, too, right? --- You'll likely get a long break from my posts then, lol.
Have a blast in Thailand!!! Enjoy some Tai Dop voy for me. I'm salivating just thinking about it. :P
Infact, ...I'm gonna go make myself a late lunch... fettuccine noodles lightly tossed in a peanut & ginger thai sauce with a hint of buttermilk peppercorn ranch, freshly chopped parsley & scallions. Sawasdee Ka! :)
-
No indictment for NYPD cop in chokehold death of unarmed man, source says
Published December 03, 2014
FoxNews.com
DEVELOPING: A Staten Island grand jury Wednesday has declined to indict the New York City police officer in connection with the July chokehold death of an unarmed man, a source tells Fox News.
Eric Garner was stopped on suspicion of selling loose cigarettes in July. The black Staten Island man is shown on video telling officers to leave him alone before Officer Daniel Pantaleo used what appeared to be a banned chokehold.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/03/no-indictment-for-nypd-cop-in-chokehold-death-unarmed-man-source-says/
-
I'm sure Al Sharpton will be all over this one.
NYPD officer in Eric Garner chokehold death not indicted by Staten Island grand jury
‘Oh my God, are you serious?’ Garner’s widow, Esaw Garner, told The Daily News about the grand jury’s decision not to charge Officer Daniel Pantaleo. ‘You can see in the video that he (the cop) was dead wrong!’ There had been warnings earlier that a decision not to indict the white policeman with a crime for killing a black man would fan tensions.
BY TINA MOORE , THOMAS TRACY , ROCCO PARASCANDOLA , CORKY SIEMASZKO
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Published: Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Eric Garner’s widow reacted with dismay Wednesday after a Staten Island grand jury chose not to indict the NYPD officer who killed her husband with a chokehold.
“Oh my God, are you serious?” Esaw Garner, her voice rising in shock and anger, told The Daily News. “I’m very disappointed. You can see in the video that he (the cop) was dead wrong!”
Garner was referring to the shocking cellphone video first published on NYDailyNews.com that showed Officer Daniel Pantaleo placing Garner in a chokehold — a move banned by the NYPD — and wrestling him to the ground.
“The grand jury kept interviewing witnesses but you didn't need witnesses,” the anguished widow said. “You can be a witness for yourself. Oh my God, this s--- is crazy.”
Esaw Garner said she is now placing her hopes for justice with the U.S. Department of Justice.
“Well, I guess I have to go with the next step,” she said.
Then Esaw Garner left for the offices of the National Action Network in Manhattan, where she was expected to make a further statement alongside the Rev. Al Sharpton.
Meanwhile, Staten Island was bracing for Ferguson-like trouble. There had been warnings earlier that a decision not to charge Pantaleo, who is white, with a crime for killing a black man, would fan tensions.
And as word of the panel’s decision seeped into the Staten Island neighborhoods where anti-police sentiment is strongest, cops were on high alert and prepared for the worst.
“How can anyone in the community have faith in the system now?” asked Vincent Warren, head of the Center for Constitutional Rights. “First Ferguson, now Staten Island.”
Garner, a 43-year-old father of six, was killed July 17 when Pantaleo subdued him on a Tompkinsville street with a banned chokehold.
Police said they approached Garner because he was selling unlicensed cigarettes —better known as loosies —and that he resisted arrest.
They noted that Garner’s rap sheet listed 31 arrests, beginning when he was 16.
But Garner’s death sparked national outrage after the video of his deadly encounter with police was obtained by The Daily News.
It later drew comparisons to Ferguson, Mo., where another black man — unarmed 18-year-old Michael Brown — was killed in August by another white cop. And there was mayhem in that Missouri town last week when a local grand jury declined to indict Officer Darren Wilson.
Pantaleo, who had been accused of false arrest and violating police procedures in two previous lawsuits, was yanked off the street.
The Staten Island district attorney and the Civilian Complaint Review Board launched probes. And the medical examiner’s office ruled Garner’s death a homicide.
But after several months of reviewing the evidence, a majority on the panel, which sources said consisted of 15 white and 8 black or Hispanic jurors, concluded there was not enough there to charge Pantaleo with manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide.
Pantaleo, 29, an eight-year veteran of the force, could still be hit with departmental charges that could end his career as a New York City police officer.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nypd-eric-garner-chokehold-death-not-indicted-article-1.2031841
-
Here we go - Andre getting XMas come early tonight!
-
Here we go - Andre getting XMas come early tonight!
Even an incredible idiot like you can admit the cops killed the guy for no reason
-
Even an incredible idiot like you can admit the cops killed the guy for no reason
They had a reason - just that you didn't like it. ;)
-
They had a reason - just that you didn't like it. ;)
yes because he was black...the same you reason why you liked that he was killed
-
yes because he was black...the same you reason why you liked that he was killed
This particular case I find troubling.
Ferguson was and is clear as day.
-
This particular case I find troubling.
Ferguson was and is clear as day.
well at least you find it troubling...but thats because there was video tape of the incident.......when theres no tape then the officer's word is king
-
They had a reason - just that you didn't like it. ;)
they used an illegal move because they considered him to be an a-hole.
not because of his skin color. and not because they were following procedure (they weren't) and because they were being good cops (not the case either).
Nobody deserves to be killed for squirming. MAYBE he can use that illegal move if it's self-defense, life/death and cop about to lose it (just like the shoot inside the car was legal for wilson). But this NYC dude was unarmed against FIVE and the cop chose to use an illegal move. No indictment, I get it, but he shouldnt be back on the street tomorrow. Move him to an office permanently... IMO, once you kill a dude against procedure, you should hold down a desk from that point fwd.
-
This particular case I find troubling.
Ferguson was and is clear as day.
Agree completely....what the fuck was this. A goddam misdemeanor at best. I'd have to have a cop explain while a take down was necessary. No issue with a choke hold but to use force at all. Brown deserved all a5 rounds...this guy should have gotten a 150 buck fine
-
I watched the video a couple times. I'm certain the Grand Jury, made up of citizens from that area probably saw it a 100 times as well as interviewed witnesses. They probably had guidelines and criteria that had to be met in order to indict the officer. Apparently they felt the threshold wasn't met. They weren't ruling on whether the officer used an "illegal" choke hold. (Choke holds aren't illegal, they are unauthrorized by the department if I am not mistaken)
They probably had to answer a question like "Was that officers actions so far out of the box of reasonableness that a person would have known that it would likely cause death?" Then they would likely have to deal with the issue of did it actually cause the death. Having the subject speaking well after the choke hold was released probably made that a bit difficult to prove in a court of law.
We can argue all day about if we thought the use of force was excessive, appropriate, or even if the cops should have been in the area that day.. but the Grand Jury probably had specific questions guided by law that had to be answered before they could indict.
-
I watched the video a couple times. I'm certain the Grand Jury, made up of citizens from that area probably saw it a 100 times as well as interviewed witnesses. They probably had guidelines and criteria that had to be met in order to indict the officer. Apparently they felt the threshold wasn't met. They weren't ruling on whether the officer used an "illegal" choke hold. (Choke holds aren't illegal, they are unauthrorized by the department if I am not mistaken)
They probably had to answer a question like "Was that officers actions so far out of the box of reasonableness that a person would have known that it would likely cause death?" Then they would likely have to deal with the issue of did it actually cause the death. Having the subject speaking well after the choke hold was released probably made that a bit difficult to prove in a court of law.
We can argue all day about if we thought the use of force was excessive, appropriate, or even if the cops should have been in the area that day.. but the Grand Jury probably had specific questions guided by law that had to be answered before they could indict.
Thanks for this info. I haven't really followed this at all, so wasn't sure what I thought about the result. Still don't, but this helps.
-
Thanks for this info. I haven't really followed this at all, so wasn't sure what I thought about the result. Still don't, but this helps.
LOL
-
LOL
???
-
???
Sorry, was thinking of a conversation I had with a friend a couple days ago where he basically said he was waiting for O'Reilly to talk about the issue before he formed his opinion. You're comment was close to that but with a different and better meaning. I was half expecting you to say ... "I didn't know what to think about it but now I do".. The fact you said "still don't" was refreshing and funny to me
-
Sorry, was thinking of a conversation I had with a friend a couple days ago where he basically said he was waiting for O'Reilly to talk about the issue before he formed his opinion. You're comment was close to that but with a different and better meaning. I was half expecting you to say ... "I didn't know what to think about it but now I do".. The fact you said "still don't" was refreshing and funny to me
Understood. I usually wait till I hear the facts before forming an opinion. I haven't heard all of them, but was interesting to hear you say a choke hold is not authorized, but not illegal. Hadn't looked at it that way.
-
Understood. I usually wait till I hear the facts before forming an opinion. I haven't heard all of them, but was interesting to hear you say a choke hold is not authorized, but not illegal. Hadn't looked at it that way.
In the course of my career I've done very similar takedowns, similar as in wrapping my arm around the neck and pulling the subject to the ground. Where the head goes, the body follows is an old adage we were taught. I've even held my arm around the neck area in what might appear to be a choke hold but was in fact just me holding his head while my partner(s) handcuffed. No air or blood was being blocked off. Choke holds haven't been authorized since I started and I've never choked anyone out. From what I could see, the officers hold could have been construed as a true choke hold and in that case, the department could and should administratively discipline him if that is the case. Choke holds were banned due to the fear of causing serious brain damage if the blood is cut off too long. Typically that is holding it in place after the person passes out due to adrenaline of the person applying it. In this case, I saw that if it were a true choke hold, it was released prior to the person passing out. It would likely be a mitigating factor. If the officer says that he initially grabbed the guy around the neck to bring him down, which is very common, then realized he had him in a choke hold and released it as soon as he realized it, it could have an impact on the amount of discipline if any.
-
In the course of my career I've done very similar takedowns, similar as in wrapping my arm around the neck and pulling the subject to the ground. Where the head goes, the body follows is an old adage we were taught. I've even held my arm around the neck area in what might appear to be a choke hold but was in fact just me holding his head while my partner(s) handcuffed. No air or blood was being blocked off. Choke holds haven't been authorized since I started and I've never choked anyone out. From what I could see, the officers hold could have been construed as a true choke hold and in that case, the department could and should administratively discipline him if that is the case. Choke holds were banned due to the fear of causing serious brain damage if the blood is cut off too long. Typically that is holding it in place after the person passes out due to adrenaline of the person applying it. In this case, I saw that if it were a true choke hold, it was released prior to the person passing out. It would likely be a mitigating factor. If the officer says that he initially grabbed the guy around the neck to bring him down, which is very common, then realized he had him in a choke hold and released it as soon as he realized it, it could have an impact on the amount of discipline if any.
I didn't realize they guy was talking after the choke hold was released.
-
I didn't realize they guy was talking after the choke hold was released.
he had asthma....once his airway is closed its hard to open it up again without an airpump
-
sounds like this cop is the kind of prick that will use very heavy-handed force, when not absolutely necessary.
With 5 cops against this fat slob, they had many options. This cop was a total jerk. Maybe we can justify it, but it's a real stretch. NONE of us would want to receive a chokehold for the same thing.
didnt the cop lie, until the video showed it? Lock him up for that. Should be a HUGE felony to lie on a police document
-
No one should end up dead over selling cigs like this. Cops here are acting as tax collectors not peace officers
-
(Choke holds aren't illegal, they are unauthrorized by the department if I am not mistaken)
What distinction are you making between "illegal" and "unauthorized"? The chokehold is a banned move for NYPD and in a subsequent post you describe it as such. "Banned" is a synonym for "illegal". The chokehold is explicitly banned by the NYPD. What is the distinction you are making?
-
What distinction are you making between "illegal" and "unauthorized"? The chokehold is a banned move for NYPD and in a subsequent post you describe it as such. "Banned" is a synonym for "illegal". The chokehold is explicitly banned by the NYPD. What is the distinction you are making?
Illegal is against a law. There are legal penalties for it. Shoplifting is illegal. Unauthorized is against a policy, not punishible by criminal statute. It is not illegal to smoke a cigarette. It is unauthrozed to smoke a cigarette in a police vehicle.
-
No one should end up dead over selling cigs like this. Cops here are acting as tax collectors not peace officers
I don't think he ended up dead for selling cigarettes. Cops here were enforcing a law put on the books by your representatives.
-
11 Facts About the Eric Garner Case the Media Won't Tell You
Thursday, 04 Dec 2014
By Jim Meyers
Sources in the mainstream media expressed outrage after a grand jury declined to indict a New York City policeman in the death of Eric Garner, but there are 11 significant facts that many of them have chosen to overlook:
Special: Al Gore Attacks Scientist for Exposing Global Warming Lie
1. There is no doubt that Garner was resisting an arrest for illegally selling untaxed cigarettes. Former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik put it succinctly: "You cannot resist arrest. If Eric Garner did not resist arrest, the outcome of this case would have been very different," he told Newsmax. "He wouldn't be dead today.
"Regardless of what the arrest was for, the officers don't have the ability to say, 'Well, this is a minor arrest, so we're just going to ignore you.'"
2. The video of the July 17 incident clearly shows Garner, an African-American, swatting away the arms of a white officer seeking to take him into custody, telling him: "Don't touch me!"
3. Garner, 43, had history of more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980, on charges including assault and grand larceny.
4. At the time of his death, Garner was out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession and false impersonation.
5. The chokehold that Patrolman Daniel Pantaleo put on Garner was reported to have contributed to his death. But Garner, who was 6-foot-3 and weighed 350 pounds, suffered from a number of health problems, including heart disease, severe asthma, diabetes, obesity, and sleep apnea. Pantaleo's attorney and police union officials argued that Garner's poor health was the main cause of his death.
Urgent: Save $1,000 on Medicare Before Open Enrollment Is Over
6. Garner did not die at the scene of the confrontation. He suffered cardiac arrest in the ambulance taking him to the hospital and was pronounced dead about an hour later.
7. Much has been made of the fact that the use of chokeholds by police is prohibited in New York City. But officers reportedly still use them. Between 2009 and mid-2014, the Civilian Complaint Review Board received 1,128 chokehold allegations.
Patrick Lynch, president of the New York City Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, said: "It was clear that the officer's intention was to do nothing more than take Mr. Garner into custody as instructed, and that he used the takedown technique that he learned in the academy when Mr. Garner refused."
8. The grand jury began hearing the case on Sept. 29 and did not reach a decision until Wednesday, so there is much testimony that was presented that has not been made public.
9. The 23-member grand jury included nine non-white jurors.
10. In order to find Officer Pantaleo criminally negligent, the grand jury would have had to determine that he knew there was a "substantial risk" that Garner would have died due to the takedown.
11. Less than a month after Garner's death, Ramsey Orta, who shot the much-viewed videotape of the encounter, was indicted on weapons charges. Police alleged that Orta had slipped a .25-caliber handgun into a teenage accomplice's waistband outside a New York hotel.
http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/eric-garner-chokehold-grand-jury-police/2014/12/04/id/611058/#ixzz3KxNEtwh9
-
11 Facts About the Eric Garner Case the Media Won't Tell You
Thursday, 04 Dec 2014
By Jim Meyers
Sources in the mainstream media expressed outrage after a grand jury declined to indict a New York City policeman in the death of Eric Garner, but there are 11 significant facts that many of them have chosen to overlook:
Special: Al Gore Attacks Scientist for Exposing Global Warming Lie
1. There is no doubt that Garner was resisting an arrest for illegally selling untaxed cigarettes. Former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik put it succinctly: "You cannot resist arrest. If Eric Garner did not resist arrest, the outcome of this case would have been very different," he told Newsmax. "He wouldn't be dead today.
"Regardless of what the arrest was for, the officers don't have the ability to say, 'Well, this is a minor arrest, so we're just going to ignore you.'"
2. The video of the July 17 incident clearly shows Garner, an African-American, swatting away the arms of a white officer seeking to take him into custody, telling him: "Don't touch me!"
3. Garner, 43, had history of more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980, on charges including assault and grand larceny.
4. At the time of his death, Garner was out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession and false impersonation.
5. The chokehold that Patrolman Daniel Pantaleo put on Garner was reported to have contributed to his death. But Garner, who was 6-foot-3 and weighed 350 pounds, suffered from a number of health problems, including heart disease, severe asthma, diabetes, obesity, and sleep apnea. Pantaleo's attorney and police union officials argued that Garner's poor health was the main cause of his death.
Urgent: Save $1,000 on Medicare Before Open Enrollment Is Over
6. Garner did not die at the scene of the confrontation. He suffered cardiac arrest in the ambulance taking him to the hospital and was pronounced dead about an hour later.
7. Much has been made of the fact that the use of chokeholds by police is prohibited in New York City. But officers reportedly still use them. Between 2009 and mid-2014, the Civilian Complaint Review Board received 1,128 chokehold allegations.
Patrick Lynch, president of the New York City Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, said: "It was clear that the officer's intention was to do nothing more than take Mr. Garner into custody as instructed, and that he used the takedown technique that he learned in the academy when Mr. Garner refused."
8. The grand jury began hearing the case on Sept. 29 and did not reach a decision until Wednesday, so there is much testimony that was presented that has not been made public.
9. The 23-member grand jury included nine non-white jurors.
10. In order to find Officer Pantaleo criminally negligent, the grand jury would have had to determine that he knew there was a "substantial risk" that Garner would have died due to the takedown.
11. Less than a month after Garner's death, Ramsey Orta, who shot the much-viewed videotape of the encounter, was indicted on weapons charges. Police alleged that Orta had slipped a .25-caliber handgun into a teenage accomplice's waistband outside a New York hotel.
http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/eric-garner-chokehold-grand-jury-police/2014/12/04/id/611058/#ixzz3KxNEtwh9
Good stuff. I would say that his past record is irrelevant for the most part. The biggest scumbag in the world should expect to be treated in a fair and reasonable manner by the police. I think in this case, the Grand Jury got it right
-
Good stuff. I would say that his past record is irrelevant for the most part. The biggest scumbag in the world should expect to be treated in a fair and reasonable manner by the police. I think in this case, the Grand Jury got it right
I think a person's criminal background is relevant to the overall story. Maybe not a "legal" issue, but there is always a narrative pushed by one side or the other about the alleged victims and perpetrators. To me, it's important to know this guy has an extensive criminal history, just like I'd like to know if the cop has a history of using excessive force or any other misconduct.
-
11 Facts About the Eric Garner Case the Media Won't Tell You
Thursday, 04 Dec 2014
By Jim Meyers
Sources in the mainstream media expressed outrage after a grand jury declined to indict a New York City policeman in the death of Eric Garner, but there are 11 significant facts that many of them have chosen to overlook:
Special: Al Gore Attacks Scientist for Exposing Global Warming Lie
1. There is no doubt that Garner was resisting an arrest for illegally selling untaxed cigarettes. Former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik put it succinctly: "You cannot resist arrest. If Eric Garner did not resist arrest, the outcome of this case would have been very different," he told Newsmax. "He wouldn't be dead today.
"Regardless of what the arrest was for, the officers don't have the ability to say, 'Well, this is a minor arrest, so we're just going to ignore you.'"
2. The video of the July 17 incident clearly shows Garner, an African-American, swatting away the arms of a white officer seeking to take him into custody, telling him: "Don't touch me!"
3. Garner, 43, had history of more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980, on charges including assault and grand larceny.
4. At the time of his death, Garner was out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession and false impersonation.
5. The chokehold that Patrolman Daniel Pantaleo put on Garner was reported to have contributed to his death. But Garner, who was 6-foot-3 and weighed 350 pounds, suffered from a number of health problems, including heart disease, severe asthma, diabetes, obesity, and sleep apnea. Pantaleo's attorney and police union officials argued that Garner's poor health was the main cause of his death.
Urgent: Save $1,000 on Medicare Before Open Enrollment Is Over
6. Garner did not die at the scene of the confrontation. He suffered cardiac arrest in the ambulance taking him to the hospital and was pronounced dead about an hour later.
7. Much has been made of the fact that the use of chokeholds by police is prohibited in New York City. But officers reportedly still use them. Between 2009 and mid-2014, the Civilian Complaint Review Board received 1,128 chokehold allegations.
Patrick Lynch, president of the New York City Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, said: "It was clear that the officer's intention was to do nothing more than take Mr. Garner into custody as instructed, and that he used the takedown technique that he learned in the academy when Mr. Garner refused."
8. The grand jury began hearing the case on Sept. 29 and did not reach a decision until Wednesday, so there is much testimony that was presented that has not been made public.
9. The 23-member grand jury included nine non-white jurors.
10. In order to find Officer Pantaleo criminally negligent, the grand jury would have had to determine that he knew there was a "substantial risk" that Garner would have died due to the takedown.
11. Less than a month after Garner's death, Ramsey Orta, who shot the much-viewed videotape of the encounter, was indicted on weapons charges. Police alleged that Orta had slipped a .25-caliber handgun into a teenage accomplice's waistband outside a New York hotel.
http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/eric-garner-chokehold-grand-jury-police/2014/12/04/id/611058/#ixzz3KxNEtwh9
What impact does no. 11 have on the case? Does it make the video any less legit? This is just usual cop/union/thug tactics.
Similarly for no. 3, if they include such details for Garner to try and portray him as a career criminal and discredit his case, they should include them for the cops too: how many investigations or complaints against them, have they been disciplined, how many shootings they were involved in etc.
No. 4 is an important point as the police would probably have no option but to arrest him and most likely he knew he would go to jail.
-
http://gothamist.com/2014/07/22/chokehold_what_chokehold.php
Cop initially failed to include any kind of chokehold, submission hold in the initial report?
and there was a 7 minute window before anyone tried CPR? LOL unreal. Paramedics were suspended.
-
the issue is there is a criminal justice system that this cigarette peddler want afforded.
hes a criminal. He goes through the legal system and that should be how it goes.
Grand Jury was wrong in this case
-
the issue is there is a criminal justice system that this cigarette peddler want afforded.
hes a criminal. He goes through the legal system and that should be how it goes.
Grand Jury was wrong in this case
did anyone ever find out if he ACTUALLY had cigarettes on him? Didn't I also read somewhere that it was Garner who contacted the police due to a fight going on?
-
He needs to stop talking about this.
Obama applauds LeBron's 'I Can't Breathe' shirt
By Alexandra Jaffe, CNN
Fri December 19, 2014
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/141219110852-lebron-james-i-cant-breathe-tshirt-story-top.jpg)
LeBron James the Cleveland Cavaliers wears an "I Can't Breathe" shirt during warmups before his game against the Brooklyn Nets on December 8 in New York City.
(CNN) -- President Barack Obama praised basketball star LeBron James for wearing an "I Can't Breathe" protest shirt during his pre-game warmup last week.
"You know, I think LeBron did the right thing," Obama told People magazine in their issue out Friday. "We forget the role that Muhammad Ali, Arthur Ashe and Bill Russell played in raising consciousness."
The Cleveland Cavaliers player wore the shirt, which shows support for Eric Garner, the unarmed African American man who died after a white police officer put him in a chokehold, before the Cavaliers played the Brooklyn Nets on Dec. 8.
Other athletes in both major league and college sports have worn the shirts, and others protesting the recent deaths of African Americans at the hands of white police officers, during warmups in recent weeks, prompting controversy and some criticism from police.
But Obama encouraged other athletes to speak out on issues important to them.
"We went through a long stretch there where [with] well-paid athletes the notion was: just be quiet and get your endorsements and don't make waves," Obama said. "LeBron is an example of a young man who has, in his own way and in a respectful way, tried to say, 'I'm part of this society, too' and focus attention.
"I'd like to see more athletes do that," he added. "Not just around this issue, but around a range of issues."
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/19/politics/obama-lebron-shirt/index.html?hpt=po_c2
-
He needs to stop talking about this.
Obama applauds LeBron's 'I Can't Breathe' shirt
Agreed. Obama should take the time to thank republicans in the House for neutering the new Repub-led Senate by giving away their booty with the 1.1 trillion spending bill. Very rude of obama not to publicly praise boehnner for making cruz ineffective.
-
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRJl9lBMLfHOKwvIsosr9XeVk0vJiIYmp5HY4l0tU0k_k0Dw3bz)
-
the issue is there is a criminal justice system that this cigarette peddler want afforded.
hes a criminal. He goes through the legal system and that should be how it goes.
Grand Jury was wrong in this case
actually he was very much afforded the legal system. He decided to resist arrest, REMEMBER!!!
you act like the cops just walked up and started beating this guy...
the time to take up your issues with the police is not when they are trying to arrest you!
-
did anyone ever find out if he ACTUALLY had cigarettes on him?
once again this is irrelevant...
-
actually he was very much afforded the legal system. He decided to resist arrest, REMEMBER!!!
you act like the cops just walked up and started beating this guy...
the time to take up your issues with the police is not when they are trying to arrest you!
That's right. Otherwise all bets are off and you will get choked to death.
-
That's right. Otherwise all bets are off and you will get choked to death.
do you expect that the cops will get physical when you resist arrest?
you guys act like this guy was an upstanding member of the community just minding his business when the polic ran up on him and killed him.
If he hadnt have used a choke hold and the guy still died would that make it ok?
If you watch the video he was still talking after the choke hold was released so its more reasonable to believe the reason he couldnt breath was a result of the weight from the officers on top of him.
-
do you expect that the cops will get physical when you resist arrest?
you guys act like this guy was an upstanding member of the community just minding his business when the polic ran up on him and killed him.
Yeah, that's what we're acting like. You're right. He deserved to die.
If he hadnt have used a choke hold and the guy still died would that make it ok?
That is a big part of the problem!
-
Yeah, that's what we're acting like. You're right. He deserved to die.
That is a big part of the problem!
yea b/c you saying...
That's right. Otherwise all bets are off and you will get choked to death.
isnt the same fucking thing you moron, where did I say all bets are off and you will get choked to death?
now answer the questions you fucktard
-
I heard it wasn't a chokehold? There is apparently a distinct difference between a chokehold and what was done to this guy. If it was a chokehold, he wouldn't have been able to talk, because his wind pipe would have been constricted? Or at least that's what I heard.
-
I heard it wasn't a chokehold? There is apparently a distinct difference between a chokehold and what was done to this guy. If it was a chokehold, he wouldn't have been able to talk, because his wind pipe would have been constricted? Or at least that's what I heard.
he was defintely in a chokehold but he wasnt choking as he could talk. If you are able to talk then you are able to breath.
There are different types of chokeholds too, some restrict your airway and some your blood flow.
-
yea b/c you saying...
isnt the same fucking thing you moron, where did I say all bets are off and you will get choked to death?
now answer the questions you fucktard
Fuck you, Retardo. You've been saying that for this entire thread. This is from page 5:
If you think that cops might abuse their authority even if you comply then ONLY A FUCKING IDIOT would think its reasonable to assume that if you dont comply they will act within the law...
what part of that do you not underfuckingstand moron?
So basically you feel this guy thought he could act up and resist arrest and only get physically reprimanded to a certain point which he felt was acceptable.
::) like I said earlier, youre a fucking idiot and so was he if thats we he believed
You went on for pages in at least 2 different threads saying the same bullshit.
-
Fuck you, Retardo. You've been saying that for this entire thread. This is from page 5:
You went on for pages in at least 2 different threads saying the same bullshit.
LMFAO thats not the same as saying he deserved to die you fucknut, or that if you resist arrest you deserve to die.
do you expect the cops to get physical if you resist arrest?
its obvious you wont answer b/c it destroys your idiotic argument
-
and if im not mistaken, agnostic has informed us that a chokehold is not against the law...
-
LMFAO thats not the same as saying he deserved to die you fucknut, or that if you resist arrest you deserve to die.
do you expect the cops to get physical if you resist arrest?
its obvious you wont answer b/c it destroys your idiotic argument
Your question was "Where did I say all bets are off and you will get choked to death?"
You've said that almost word for word multiple times.
And I've already said several times that even if they do "get physical" they should behave lawfully.
-
Your question was "Where did I say all bets are off and you will get choked to death?"
You've said that almost word for word multiple times.
And I've already said several times that even if they do "get physical" they should behave lawfully.
actually I have never said you deserve to die anywhere, please post where I said that.
As agnostic has already said, a chokehold is not ILLEGAL!!!
-
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/04/us/eric-garner-chokehold-debate/
New York Police Commissioner William Bratton said that no local laws criminalize chokeholds, though they are prohibited by his department. In fact, the NYPD could discipline Pantaleo or his fellow officers if an ongoing internal review finds their actions did not align with police department procedures.
The New York City medical examiner's office also offered pertinent facts when it classified Garner's death as a homicide this summer. He died because of a "compression of neck (chokehold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police,"[/glow] the office found, while also calling Garner's "acute and chronic bronchial asthma, obesity and hypertensive cardiovascular disease" contributing factors.
-
so we now know:
1. I never said he deserved to die
2. The cop acted lawfully as the chokehold was not illegal
3. The chokehold alone was not the sole cause of his death
-
actually I have never said you deserve to die anywhere, please post where I said that.
As agnostic has already said, a chokehold is not ILLEGAL!!!
This was your post:
isnt the same fucking thing you moron, where did I say all bets are off and you will get choked to death?
You asked me to show you where you said all bets are off and you will get choked to death. Now you are c hanging it to show me where I said you deserve to die. I was clearly being sarcastic there, based on the previous stupidity you actually did spout, idiot.
-
New York Police Commissioner William Bratton said that no local laws criminalize chokeholds, though they are prohibited by his department.
-
so we now know:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/04/us/eric-garner-chokehold-debate/
New York Police Commissioner William Bratton said that no local laws criminalize chokeholds, though they are prohibited by his department. In fact, the NYPD could discipline Pantaleo or his fellow officers if an ongoing internal review finds their actions did not align with police department procedures.
The New York City medical examiner's office also offered pertinent facts when it classified Garner's death as a homicide this summer. He died because of a "compression of neck (chokehold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police,"[/glow] the office found, while also calling Garner's "acute and chronic bronchial asthma, obesity and hypertensive cardiovascular disease" contributing factors.
nothing stupid in this post moron,
or this one
1. I never said he deserved to die
2. The cop acted lawfully as the chokehold was not illegal
3. The chokehold alone was not the sole cause of his death
-
New York Police Commissioner William Bratton said that no local laws criminalize chokeholds, though they are prohibited by his department.
yes albert, that means he broke no laws only that he may have broke the SOP.
HE BROKE NO LAWS!!! you fucktard!!!!
-
yes albert, that means he broke no laws only that he may have broke the SOP.
HE BROKE NO LAWS!!! you fucktard!!!!
Why do you think it's prohibited, dummy? cuz it looks gay? or maybe another reason?
-
Why do you think it's prohibited, dummy? cuz it looks gay? or maybe another reason?
did he break the law or not dummy?
-
did he break the law or not dummy?
Why is the chokehold prohibited?
-
Why is the chokehold prohibited?
it was prohibited by the department but legal to use.
If you want him charged in a court of LAW....what law did he break?
-
it was prohibited by the department but legal to use.
If you want him charged in a court of LAW....what law did he break?
Murder or manslaughter
-
Murder.
LMFAO so in trying to detain a suspect who was PHYSICALLY RESISTING arrest the officer used a legal manuver to detain the suspect and to you thats murder?
hahah like I told andre, its no wonder blacks have such problems with law enforcement. The general understanding of the law and how it works is woefully bad.
-
LMFAO so in trying to detain a suspect who was PHYSICALLY RESISTING arrest the officer used a legal manuver to detain the suspect and to you thats murder?
Why is the chokehold prohibited, retardo?
-
Why is the chokehold prohibited, retardo?
hahah again just woefully ignorant misunderstanding of how the law works.
why its prohibited is IRRELEVANT!!!
IS IT ILLEGAL?
DID HE BREAK THE LAW BY USING IT?
WAS HE WITHIN HIS LEGAL RIGHT TO USE IT IN DETAINING THE SUSPECT?
-
Why is the chokehold prohibited, retardo?
look if youre building a case for a civil lawsuit you probably have a open and shut case but youre arguing for criminal charges where no law was broken...
-
You know the answer ::)
-
You know the answer ::)
I do know the answer and it is...why its prohibited is irrelevant, it is legal for them to use it and thus they break no law when they do
no matter how a person who doesnt understand how the law works FEELS about it
-
its obvious you wont answer b/c it destroys your idiotic argument
-
it was true when I said it and even more so now....
he broke no law by using a chokehold, sorry albert simple feelings (and I emphasize SIMPLE) doesnt make an argument
-
it was true when I said it and even more so now....
he broke no law by using a chokehold, sorry albert simple feelings (and I emphasize SIMPLE) doesnt make an argument
He broke the law by killing the guy :(
-
it was true when I said it and even more so now....
Except I had already answered that question several times in this thread.
Why is the chokehold prohibited?
-
Except I had already answered that question several times in this thread.
Why is the chokehold prohibited?
chokehold prohibited due to a rash of deaths of perps by cops in the 1980's attributed to its use
-
they did that nice trick from "american gangster". Russell crowe's partner kills a guy.. but they pretend he's alive to pacify a crowd of people. In this case, it's only a few people with cell phones watching... but the dude is fading, unconscious, pulse either fading fast or gone, compeltely nonresponsive - and they keep him in cuffs on the ground instead of putting him in
that shit about "he died in the hospital" actually means "he wasn't pronounced dead until he got to the hospital".
It looks a lot like he's checking out on the ground - procedure is to take the handcuffs of a non-reponsive/unconscious/fading person and use CPR or other means, get him to the ER. TWO PARAMEDICS were suspended for their behavior that day, correct? So before anyone just creates "they did nothing wrong...", let's look at those suspensions.
-
they did that nice trick from "american gangster". Russell crowe's partner kills a guy.. but they pretend he's alive to pacify a crowd of people. In this case, it's only a few people with cell phones watching... but the dude is fading, unconscious, pulse either fading fast or gone, compeltely nonresponsive - and they keep him in cuffs on the ground instead of putting him in
that shit about "he died in the hospital" actually means "he wasn't pronounced dead until he got to the hospital".
It looks a lot like he's checking out on the ground - procedure is to take the handcuffs of a non-reponsive/unconscious/fading person and use CPR or other means, get him to the ER. TWO PARAMEDICS were suspended for their behavior that day, correct? So before anyone just creates "they did nothing wrong...", let's look at those suspensions.
Good point..people just aren't familiar with all the tricks the cops use to keep themselves out of trouble..they lie just like everyone else does when they are in trouble..this attitude that the cops are so holy is mystifying to me
-
Except I had already answered that question several times in this thread.
Why is the chokehold prohibited?
chokehold prohibited due to a rash of deaths of perps by cops in the 1980's attributed to its use
is it illegal?
-
they did that nice trick from "american gangster". Russell crowe's partner kills a guy.. but they pretend he's alive to pacify a crowd of people. In this case, it's only a few people with cell phones watching... but the dude is fading, unconscious, pulse either fading fast or gone, compeltely nonresponsive - and they keep him in cuffs on the ground instead of putting him in
that shit about "he died in the hospital" actually means "he wasn't pronounced dead until he got to the hospital".
It looks a lot like he's checking out on the ground - procedure is to take the handcuffs of a non-reponsive/unconscious/fading person and use CPR or other means, get him to the ER. TWO PARAMEDICS were suspended for their behavior that day, correct? So before anyone just creates "they did nothing wrong...", let's look at those suspensions.
doing something against procedural protocol doesnt mean the broke the law.
Before anyone goes around calling for them to be charged, what law did they break?
-
Good point..people just aren't familiar with all the tricks the cops use to keep themselves out of trouble..they lie just like everyone else does when they are in trouble..this attitude that the cops are so holy is mystifying to me
if he resisted, yes, take him down. I would have preferred taser, i mean there is so much to go wrong with weights and angles when a badass cop decides to put hand on throat. Taser is much more exact and scientific.
BUT my beef is the video of dude on ground, breathing barely or expiring, and EMTs just chilling. get his fat ass to the ER, then book him for his crimes. Any cop letting a man die on the ground is a piece of shit, even if dude did resist arrest from a cop with repeated public sack check charges, for a misdearmoner "selling smokes" charge lol.
-
doing something against procedural protocol doesnt mean the broke the law.
Before anyone goes around calling for them to be charged, what law did they break?
Wait - we are debating if a cop has to uncuff a man losing breathing or consciouosness and needing medical attention?
lol i dont think either of us wants to have that debate, it's not something worth debating.
-
if he resisted, yes, take him down. I would have preferred taser, i mean there is so much to go wrong with weights and angles when a badass cop decides to put hand on throat. Taser is much more exact and scientific.
I can agree with that, they didnt break any laws but there were better ways to handle the situation.
-
I can agree with that, they didnt break any laws but there were better ways to handle the situation.
your semantics are amazing
-
your semantics are amazing
there is no semantics in whether or not they broke the law.
They either broke it or they didnt....in this case they did not....
-
there is no semantics in whether or not they broke the law.
They either broke it or they didnt....in this case they did not....
No, it isn't that simple dumbass. Whether or not a cop uses excessive force- as determined by a court of law- rarely comes down to something as cut and dried as whether or not they used a "prohibited" chokehold. I know you have such an advanced understanding of the law, but 99% of the time that won't be the case. The reason so many people harp on the chokehold is that in this case the excessive force is blatant. That move is banned because it often leads to death unnecessarily. Whether or not it is illegal by NY state law is irrelevant. It is blatantly excessive.
-
No, it isn't that simple dumbass. Whether or not a cop uses excessive force- as determined by a court of law- rarely comes down to something as cut and dried as whether or not they used a "prohibited" chokehold. I know you have such an advanced understanding of the law, but 99% of the time that won't be the case. The reason so many people harp on the chokehold is that in this case the excessive force is blatant. That move is banned because it often leads to death unnecessarily. Whether or not it is illegal by NY state law is irrelevant. It is blatantly excessive.
ahhh no, simply using a chokehold isnt excessive force.
there were many factors that lead to his death, the chokehold only being one of the many. So again if the man had been taken down and died without a chokehold, would you still think the force was excessive?
-
2 cops got executed n nyc today
-
ahhh no, simply using a chokehold isnt excessive force.
Derr... yeah, it is when it's a prohibited hold.
-
2 cops got executed n nyc today
i saw the headline but didn't see the story yet, was on the road alll night. insane. They should do TWO things.
1) Find, arrest, convict, jail then execute the prick that did this.
2) Cops need to end that blue wall bullshit.
The MOMENT cops are tougher on bad cops than everyone else - crap like this stops/slows very much. People hate cops at the moment. They get away with things they shouldn't do. I mean yes, this guy was selling smokes earlier in week and tried to walk away when "arrested" for it. He wasn't outrunning a Big Wheel at that size. And when nut grabber arrived, yes, he squirmed. But they took him down hard, they left him life ending in cuffs without medical attention..
you do enough of that shit, and you justify it with enough "he shouldn't have ran" and "there's no law that says we cannot let you die in cuffs" and "come on, that's only 98% of a chokehold" - You try enough of that technicality shit, and you might feel okay, but PEOPLE see it as COPS BEING A-HOLES and protecting other a-holes.
The MOMENT cops start testifying against their peers, this slows. I mean, imagine if you're at work at a bank and the teller next to you steals $10,000... you're right there... it'd be fully expected for you to testify against her. But cops? There were plenty of cops there, and they all saw nothing, said nothing. Lying on reports, that's insane.
So this is a tragedy, you lock up & execute the shithead that did it. But then you end that blue wall bullshit.
-
Key Stone Cops. :-\
-
Derr... yeah, it is when it's a prohibited hold.
you do understand the difference between prohibited and illegal right brainchild?
-
you do enough of that shit, and you justify it with enough "he shouldn't have ran" and "there's no law that says we cannot let you die in cuffs" and "come on, that's only 98% of a chokehold" - You try enough of that technicality shit, and you might feel okay, but PEOPLE see it as COPS BEING A-HOLES and protecting other a-holes.
The MOMENT cops start testifying against their peers, this slows. I mean, imagine if you're at work at a bank and the teller next to you steals $10,000... you're right there... it'd be fully expected for you to testify against her. But cops? There were plenty of cops there, and they all saw nothing, said nothing. Lying on reports, that's insane.
So this is a tragedy, you lock up & execute the shithead that did it. But then you end that blue wall bullshit.
Exactly, this hyper-technicality shit doesn't win any friends when criminals abuse it, and it's equally immature non-sense when cops do it.
Every stupid little thing they claim endangers their lives so they have to use maximum force. ::)
And it's actually possible to be against police abuse AND against murdering cops in retaliation.
Already the 4 year-old arguments are abound that if you don't stand by the cops, you're supporting the crooks. ::)
-
it was true when I said it and even more so now....
he broke no law by using a chokehold, sorry albert simple feelings (and I emphasize SIMPLE) doesnt make an argument
Agreed, no law broken. But shouldn't we (society) require at least a reasonable progression of force?
Hell, when I used to bounce part time we could remove people this big and smaller but a lot more muscled without killing them...EVER. There were 5 or 6 cops and they had to use a hold that would increase the chances of a persons death?
-
Exactly, this hyper-technicality shit doesn't win any friends when criminals abuse it, and it's equally immature non-sense when cops do it.
Every stupid little thing they claim endangers their lives so they have to use maximum force. ::)
And it's actually possible to be against police abuse AND against murdering cops in retaliation.
Already the 4 year-old arguments are abound that if you don't stand by the cops, you're supporting the crooks. ::)
or that if you support the cops actions then youre supporting killing citizens ::)
-
Agreed, no law broken. But shouldn't we (society) require at least a reasonable progression of force?
Hell, when I used to bounce part time we could remove people this big and smaller but a lot more muscled without killing them...EVER. There were 5 or 6 cops and they had to use a hold that would increase the chances of a persons death?
I can agree that they were aggressive, I have said so in this thread already.
I dont think the amount of force was excessive though. The guy was not only verbally refusing orders but PHYSICALLY RESISTING arrest. Sorry bro, when you they are trying to place you under arrest and you get physical they are going to get physical.
I defintely think it could have been handled better and that the police probably could have talked the guy down eventually.
simple minded people want to focus on the perfectly legal chokehold. The fact is though that even if they hadnt have used a chokehold and the guy had died b/c of having pressure on him when he was laying down (which was a reason he died) they would still be bitching and moaning.
-
The fact is though that even if they hadnt have used a chokehold and the guy had died b/c of having pressure on him when he was laying down (which was a reason he died) they would still be bitching and moaning.
That's not a fact, that's speculation and I don't think it would...or it would have been significantly reduced. We're right back the original discussion - the cops went from 0-60 in .2 seconds, when they could've performed a reasonable increase in the force used. It was a pack of freaking smokes for gods sake.
If they want to be 'professionals', then they can take into account the severity of the charges, the health of the individual, etc. Mindlessly arguing that he was resisting so anything is fair game is absurd.
-
That's not a fact, that's speculation and I don't think it would...or it would have been significantly reduced. We're right back the original discussion - the cops went from 0-60 in .2 seconds, when they could've performed a reasonable increase in the force used. It was a pack of freaking smokes for gods sake.
ok sure its speculation, do you think its accurate speculation?
Fact is it wasnt just a pack of smokes, he RESISTED ARREST both verbally and PHYSICALLY!!!
They started out talking to this man, HE was the one who became irrate, He was the one who refused verbal requests and HE was the one who PHYSICALLY RESISTED.
-
If they want to be 'professionals', then they can take into account the severity of the charges, the health of the individual, etc. Mindlessly arguing that he was resisting so anything is fair game is absurd.
Seriously dude you just posted about the other side doing this and now youre doing it to me?
For fucks sake, where did I say that if you resist anything is fair game?
Again simply b/c you support the cops actions doesnt mean you support everything they could or would do in a situation like this.
Thats a bullshit argument and does nothing but make your stance look like shit b/c you cant argue without the hyperbole.
-
Seriously dude you just posted about the other side doing this and now youre doing it to me?
For fucks sake, where did I say that if you resist anything is fair game?
Again simply b/c you support the cops actions doesnt mean you support everything they could or would do in a situation like this.
Thats a bullshit argument and does nothing but make your stance look like shit b/c you cant argue without the hyperbole.
No, that's exactly what you're doing. I keep asking you about a reasonable progression of force, and you just keep saying he was resisting and capitalizing it for some reason.
-
No, that's exactly what you're doing. I keep asking you about a reasonable progression of force, and you just keep saying he was resisting and capitalizing it for some reason.
thats b/c I dont believe the progression of force was necissarily excessive in this situation.
If they have pulled out guns and started pistol whipping or shooting him then I would agree with you.
Here they got physical with a guy who was verbally and PHYSICALLY resisting arrest.
-
thats b/c I dont believe the progression of force was necissarily excessive in this situation.
If they have pulled out guns and started pistol whipping or shooting him then I would agree with you.
Here they got physical with a guy who was verbally and PHYSICALLY resisting arrest.
Well then, I think a lot of people disagree. And this maybe one of those issues where a split will always exist.
-
Well then, I think a lot of people disagree. And this maybe one of those issues where a split will always exist.
but you didnt answer my question on the chokehold.
do you think its accurate to say that even if they hadnt have used a chokehold and the guy had died b/c of having pressure on him when he was laying down (which was a reason he died) they would still be bitching and moaning?
-
but you didnt answer my question on the chokehold.
do you think its accurate to say that even if they hadnt have used a chokehold and the guy had died b/c of having pressure on him when he was laying down (which was a reason he died) they would still be bitching and moaning?
Of course I answered it.
That's not a fact, that's speculation and I don't think it would...or it would have been significantly reduced.
I'm talking about as a whole. Both sides will have die-hard blowhards (ex: cops are always right vs. cops are always wrong).
BTW...how you doing in picks this year? I'm actually looking pretty good. Steelers not doing great but still decent!
-
Of course I answered it.
I'm talking about as a whole. Both sides will have die-hard blowhards (ex: cops are always right vs. cops are always wrong).
sorry I missed it, thats part of my point for a lot of people are concentrating on the chokehold even though its legal for them to use. Those same people though would still be just as angry if they chokehold hadnt been used.
BTW...how you doing in picks this year? I'm actually looking pretty good. Steelers not doing great but still decent!
hahah not good but im in the finals of one of my fantasy leagues this weekend so silver lining I guess.
At least the steelers are in the running, the Texans are back to where we were years ago with no QB. I am starting to feel like a browns fan here.
-
you do understand the difference between prohibited and illegal right brainchild?
Why is it prohibited, Retardo?
-
Why is it prohibited, Retardo?
I already answered that...
did he break a law by using it?
-
I already answered that...
did he break a law by using it?
You never answered.
-
I already answered that...
did he break a law by using it?
Whether or not it was illegal or prohibited is not the standard for whether or not he used excessive force.
-
Whether or not it was illegal or prohibited is not the standard for whether or not he used excessive force.
then why is it even a point of contention in your dumb ass argument?
so you would be just as pissed if they hadnt have used the chokehold and he had still died (which could have happend)?
-
then why is it even a point of contention in your dumb ass argument?
You know why. Answer the question- why is the hold prohibited
-
You know why. Answer the question- why is the hold prohibited
I already answered it slick....
it doesnt make it illegal and it doesnt make its use in this instance illegal....
-
I already answered it slick....
it doesnt make it illegal and it doesnt make its use in this instance illegal....
THIS is why people hate cops.
In a world where the defense of their using a choke hold, then letting a man with fading pulse lay unconcsious on pavement in cuffs for ten minutes.... and the only defense is "you can't cite a law saying we can't do this..."
it shows they don't care if the people they're sworn to protect/serve, live or die. tony, despite your cawkslobbery kneepadding for the police here, they would let you bleed out and die on the pavement in cuffs, if you possibly committed a misdeameanor then tried to walk away. So defend it. One day, you might try to walk away from a situation and you might get choked and left to die, and I doubt your last thought would be "well, at least they're not breaking any laws I can list..."
come on dude. Police need to stop playing the "we let you die, but did we really do anything wrong..>" lol
-
THIS is why people hate cops.
In a world where the defense of their using a choke hold, then letting a man with fading pulse lay unconcsious on pavement in cuffs for ten minutes.... and the only defense is "you can't cite a law saying we can't do this..."
it shows they don't care if the people they're sworn to protect/serve, live or die. tony, despite your cawkslobbery kneepadding for the police here, they would let you bleed out and die on the pavement in cuffs, if you possibly committed a misdeameanor then tried to walk away. So defend it. One day, you might try to walk away from a situation and you might get choked and left to die, and I doubt your last thought would be "well, at least they're not breaking any laws I can list..."
come on dude. Police need to stop playing the "we let you die, but did we really do anything wrong..>" lol
Great post 8)
-
THIS is why people hate cops.
In a world where the defense of their using a choke hold, then letting a man with fading pulse lay unconcsious on pavement in cuffs for ten minutes.... and the only defense is "you can't cite a law saying we can't do this..."
it shows they don't care if the people they're sworn to protect/serve, live or die. tony, despite your cawkslobbery kneepadding for the police here, they would let you bleed out and die on the pavement in cuffs, if you possibly committed a misdeameanor then tried to walk away. So defend it. One day, you might try to walk away from a situation and you might get choked and left to die, and I doubt your last thought would be "well, at least they're not breaking any laws I can list..."
come on dude. Police need to stop playing the "we let you die, but did we really do anything wrong..>" lol
LMFAO first off they wouldnt let me bleed out b/c guess what you fucknut. I WOULDNT RESIST ARREST!!!!
again you fucking bleeding hearts act like this guy was an upstanding member of the community just minding his own business when they cops jumped him.
Does the FACT he was PHYSICALLY RESISTING arrest even play into your idiotic view of the events?
-
LMFAO first off they wouldnt let me bleed out b/c guess what you fucknut. I WOULDNT RESIST ARREST!!!!
again you fucking bleeding hearts act like this guy was an upstanding member of the community just minding his own business when they cops jumped him.
Does the FACT he was PHYSICALLY RESISTING arrest even play into your idiotic view of the events?
Look, when Obama sends the police to beat down any americans protesting the Dems stealing the white house in 2016, yes, you will be classified as "resisting arrest" just for being on the street.
So let's just assume you ARE classified as resisting arrest.
Do you suddenly deserve to be injured, cuffed, and left to bleed out on the street? Dude, please remove the authority dick from your ass and think like a fcking american. You have RIGHTS. you have the right not to be forced to bleed out because you made the choice to walk away from a bullshit misdemeanor charge. Yes, you'll have jail time for that choice, but a death sentence?
please... it gets old seeing libs and their "oh, I don't think obama is a kenyan" and their "oh, police should be allowed to de facto execute anyone that tries to resist them". Fucking sheep.
come on man, if obama had the police cracking skulls, you woudln't beg for a quick death, you'd be pissed too. But since it's a punk fatass in NYC, hey, he shouldnt have resisted...
-
LMFAO first off they wouldnt let me bleed out b/c guess what you fucknut. I WOULDNT RESIST ARREST!!!!
again you fucking bleeding hearts act like this guy was an upstanding member of the community just minding his own business when they cops jumped him.
Does the FACT he was PHYSICALLY RESISTING arrest even play into your idiotic view of the events?
His entire physical resistance consisted of lifting up his arm and saying don't touch me.
For that little, tiny bit of resistance you comfortable with them taking his life.
A lot of us are not comfortable with that and find it deplorable.
As I noted, this will probably not be something people can come to an agreement on.
-
I already answered it slick....
No, you didn't answer. Quote the post in which you answered.
-
His entire physical resistance consisted of lifting up his arm and saying don't touch me.
For that little, tiny bit of resistance you comfortable with them taking his life.
A lot of us are not comfortable with that and find it deplorable.
As I noted, this will probably not be something people can come to an agreement on.
Plus he slapped their hands away when they tried to arrest him. I don't think that is a "tiny bit" of resistance, particularly for a man that size.
-
Plus he slapped their hands away when they tried to arrest him. I don't think that is a "tiny bit" of resistance, particularly for a man that size.
At no time did he slap their hands. You can't point to a single moment in the video where that occurred.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=eric+garner+video&FORM=VIRE8#view=detail&mid=0B1FB2EF6AC1DADBD58F0B1FB2EF6AC1DADBD58F
-
At no time did he slap their hands. You can't point to a single moment in the video where that occurred.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=eric+garner+video&FORM=VIRE8#view=detail&mid=0B1FB2EF6AC1DADBD58F0B1FB2EF6AC1DADBD58F
did he or did he not resist arrest,resisting arrest is not broken down into little, tiny bit of resistance or resisting arrest lol he would be alive today if he just put his hands out together
-
At no time did he slap their hands. You can't point to a single moment in the video where that occurred.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=eric+garner+video&FORM=VIRE8#view=detail&mid=0B1FB2EF6AC1DADBD58F0B1FB2EF6AC1DADBD58F
True. Doesn't look like a "slap" at 36 seconds. He's just refusing to allow them to grab his hands or arms. Not much of a difference IMO. He's still resisting arrest and he's still ginormous.
-
did he or did he not resist arrest,resisting arrest is not broken down into little, tiny bit of resistance or resisting arrest lol he would be alive today if he just put his hands out together
Yes, he resisted. His activities were illegal and he should've owned up.
But no, not all resistance is the same. As an aside, the cops do it when it benefits them. I still remember the Rodney King beating where they argued that even King's slightest movements justified the beating.
In this case, there are no tiny bits being broken down. The guy offered light resistance. For that, they took his life.
Sorry, but I'm not comfortable with that.
Add in the fact that not one cop took any action to help this guy after he told them he couldn't breath and the cop that crushed his neck happily waved to the camera, it's nothing more than disgusting.
-
Plus he slapped their hands away when they tried to arrest him. I don't think that is a "tiny bit" of resistance, particularly for a man that size.
for a man "his size" he could have been A LOT more aggressive and wasn't...he was protesting and was mouthing off but cops get that all the time.....and still it has not been established that he was selling cigs on that day.... not saying he's an angel and not saying he wasn't a prolific seller, but was he selling them on that day at that time..that still has not been established in my mind...
what I'm saying is that an offense of that nature SHOULD NOT escalate to where a cop had to take the guy's life....
same as with the Brown case.....the officer told him to stop walking in the street...how does that escalate into the officer having to kill the guy???..people here in NY city walk in the middle of the street all the time.....all the cop had to do was tell him, give him a warning and then go about his patrol...why stop and confront the guy over something so STUPID???..yes Brown was an asshole but he didn't deserve to die
-
for a man "his size" he could have been A LOT more aggressive and wasn't...he was protesting and was mouthing off but cops get that all the time.....and still it has not been established that he was selling cigs on that day.... not saying he's an angel and not saying he wasn't a prolific seller, but was he selling them on that day at that time..that still has not been established in my mind...
what I'm saying is that an offense of that nature SHOULD NOT escalate to where a cop had to take the guy's life....
same as with the Brown case.....the officer told him to stop walking in the street...how does that escalate into the officer having to kill the guy???..people here in NY city walk in the middle of the street all the time.....all the cop had to do was tell him, give him a warning and then go about his patrol...why stop and confront the guy over something so STUPID???..yes Brown was an asshole but he didn't deserve to die
Of brother - Brown ASSAULTED Wilson and went for his gun and went after jhim a second time
-
Of brother - Brown ASSAULTED Wilson and went for his gun and went after jhim a second time
again...shouldn't have gotten to that point.......if the guy wants to walk in the middle of the street, let him...who cares???...the REAL problem is that cops try to enforce the laws more harshly on minorities than they do on others.....this is what leads to needless confrontations like this
-
again...shouldn't have gotten to that point.......if the guy wants to walk in the middle of the street, let him...who cares???...the REAL problem is that cops try to enforce the laws more harshly on minorities than they do on others.....this is what leads to needless confrontations like this
lol let the people do what they want,just look the other way,toooo much
-
His entire physical resistance consisted of lifting up his arm and saying don't touch me.
For that little, tiny bit of resistance you comfortable with them taking his life.
A lot of us are not comfortable with that and find it deplorable.
As I noted, this will probably not be something people can come to an agreement on.
come on dude cut the fucking shit...
where did I say I was ok with him taking his life?
I am perfectly ok with them physically taking down a guy who is physically resisting arrest. That is what they did here skip, they didnt set out with intent to kill this man.
-
for a man "his size" he could have been A LOT more aggressive and wasn't...he was protesting and was mouthing off but cops get that all the time.....and still it has not been established that he was selling cigs on that day.... not saying he's an angel and not saying he wasn't a prolific seller, but was he selling them on that day at that time..that still has not been established in my mind...
what I'm saying is that an offense of that nature SHOULD NOT escalate to where a cop had to take the guy's life....
same as with the Brown case.....the officer told him to stop walking in the street...how does that escalate into the officer having to kill the guy???..people here in NY city walk in the middle of the street all the time.....all the cop had to do was tell him, give him a warning and then go about his patrol...why stop and confront the guy over something so STUPID???..yes Brown was an asshole but he didn't deserve to die
I think they have to approach a bigger man differently than a little guy. That might be why they had so many officers on the scene. Plus this guy had a violent history.
I also don't think it's accurate to say they took his life. It's not like they tried to kill the guy.
The Brown case is completely different. If you get high, rob a store, assault a cop and try and take his gun, then charge the cop, you're going to get shot. Deservedly so.
-
I think they have to approach a bigger man differently than a little guy. That might be why they had so many officers on the scene. Plus this guy had a violent history.
I also don't think it's accurate to say they took his life. It's not like they tried to kill the guy.
The Brown case is completely different. If you get high, rob a store, assault a cop and try and take his gun, then charge the cop, you're going to get shot. Deservedly so.
no,no,no you just turn the cheek and pick him up another day say like when he's baking cookies with his mommy
-
no,no,no you just turn the cheek and pick him up another day say like when he's baking cookies with his mommy
Or ask him nicely.
Wait. Am I agreeing with you again?? :o
-
come on dude cut the fucking shit...
where did I say I was ok with him taking his life?
I am perfectly ok with them physically taking down a guy who is physically resisting arrest. That is what they did here skip, they didnt set out with intent to kill this man.
This cop knew exactly what the dangers are in wrapping around somebody's neck.
You're a judo expert and you know them as well...and that's dealing with athletes.
Add in this guy's significant obesity and even a child knows it's a recipe for disaster.
And again, they did NOTHING to help this guy. They didn't give a flying fuck that he was dying. The cop stood there and happily waved to a women who was filming it. Not one took any action to save this man.
They showed only a callous disregard for this guys life.
So yeah, they took his life for a goddamn pack of smokes and some light resistance.
How brave these cops are! ::)
-
I think they have to approach a bigger man differently than a little guy. That might be why they had so many officers on the scene. Plus this guy had a violent history.
I also don't think it's accurate to say they took his life. It's not like they tried to kill the guy.
The Brown case is completely different. If you get high, rob a store, assault a cop and try and take his gun, then charge the cop, you're going to get shot. Deservedly so.
That's something we can agree on. Ferguson is different and I think Andre's wrong. He's seems to be taking that Stephanapolous question to the extreme when he asked if cops should have a duty to retreat.
We can't have cops backing down to crooks or allowing people to hoard the road from drivers.
-
That's something we can agree on. Ferguson is different and I think Andre's wrong. He's seems to be taking that Stephanapolous question to the extreme when he asked if cops should have a duty to retreat.
We can't have cops backing down to crooks or allowing people to hoard the road from drivers.
Yeah. I agree. I've posted a couple times on here about how much ground someone can cover in a really short period of time. The cop has about 1.5 seconds to make a decision on whether to use deadly force if someone is charging them.
-
That's something we can agree on. Ferguson is different and I think Andre's wrong. He's seems to be taking that Stephanapolous question to the extreme when he asked if cops should have a duty to retreat.
We can't have cops backing down to crooks or allowing people to hoard the road from drivers.
Ferguson is the same thing because again how does JAYWALKING escalate to a physical confrontation and death of a teenager>???????JAYWALKING????????????...which occurs 80,000 times a day in NY city?
-
Ferguson is the same thing because again how does JAYWALKING escalate to a physical confrontation and death of a teenager>???????JAYWALKING????????????...which occurs 80,000 times a day in NY city?
why don't you ask that criminal thug,oh yeah he dead good fucking riddance
-
This cop knew exactly what the dangers are in wrapping around somebody's neck.
You're a judo expert and you know them as well...and that's dealing with athletes.
Add in this guy's significant obesity and even a child knows it's a recipe for disaster.
And again, they did NOTHING to help this guy. They didn't give a flying fuck that he was dying. The cop stood there and happily waved to a women who was filming it. Not one took any action to save this man.
They showed only a callous disregard for this guys life.
So yeah, they took his life for a goddamn pack of smokes and some light resistance.
How brave these cops are! ::)
again all he had to do was put his hands out, he chose not to
-
Ferguson is the same thing because again how does JAYWALKING escalate to a physical confrontation and death of a teenager>???????JAYWALKING????????????...which occurs 80,000 times a day in NY city?
He just robbed a store remember ?
-
This cop knew exactly what the dangers are in wrapping around somebody's neck.
You're a judo expert and you know them as well...and that's dealing with athletes.
Add in this guy's significant obesity and even a child knows it's a recipe for disaster.
And again, they did NOTHING to help this guy. They didn't give a flying fuck that he was dying. The cop stood there and happily waved to a women who was filming it. Not one took any action to save this man.
They showed only a callous disregard for this guys life.
So yeah, they took his life for a goddamn pack of smokes and some light resistance.
How brave these cops are! ::)
If you want to get on them for not helping after the fact thats fine I can agree with it. The fact they used a LEGAL chokehold to subdue a person of his size who was physically resisting arrest is perfectly ok with me. As I have stated many times, if you have an issue with the cops the time and place to take it up isnt when they are trying to take you into custody.
I am somewhat of an expert and its something I have talked about in regards to this specifically b/c some will say im bragging or making shit up and try to discredit me instead of the argument. Fact is that a chokehold designed to cut of air to the victim takes a long time to actually take effect, we are talking potentially minutes not 10-15 seconds. The chokehold that he was placed in looked like it would have been very ineffective in cutting off the air supply as the pressure was toward side of the neck (carotid artery area) which is how you cut off the blood flow. Cutting off blood flow will put you out in a matter of seconds. All of this is a moot point though as he was within his legal right to use it regardless of whether he was trying to cut off air or blood.
The fact that I have to say that I am not condoning killing innocent civilians is a sign of how irrational and emotional the argument your pushing is. I am not here saying that b/c youre against the cops actions youre for people resisting arrest and getting physical with the cops. ::)
-
Ferguson is the same thing because again how does JAYWALKING escalate to a physical confrontation and death of a teenager>???????JAYWALKING????????????...which occurs 80,000 times a day in NY city?
From what I've read on what's come out, they were walking down the middle of the road, not simply jaywalking. So the cop was telling them to get off the road.
I don't know what it's like in NY (only been a couple times to party), but I'm in the Baltimore/DC area and I can tell you that it's not normal for people to just walk down the middle of the street.
-
He just robbed a store remember ?
hey,hey he didn't rob the store he was just taking them bad for your health cigars away so nobody would get sick,the gentle giant was just misunderstood
-
If you want to get on them for not helping after the fact thats fine I can agree with it. The fact they used a LEGAL chokehold to subdue a person of his size who was physically resisting arrest is perfectly ok with me. As I have stated many times, if you have an issue with the cops the time and place to take it up isnt when they are trying to take you into custody.
I am somewhat of an expert and its something I have talked about in regards to this specifically b/c some will say im bragging or making shit up and try to discredit me instead of the argument. Fact is that a chokehold designed to cut of air to the victim takes a long time to actually take effect, we are talking potentially minutes not 10-15 seconds. The chokehold that he was placed in looked like it would have been very ineffective in cutting off the air supply as the pressure was toward side of the neck (carotid artery area) which is how you cut off the blood flow. Cutting off blood flow will put you out in a matter of seconds. All of this is a moot point though as he was within his legal right to use it regardless of whether he was trying to cut off air or blood.
The fact that I have to say that I am not condoning killing innocent civilians is a sign of how irrational and emotional the argument your pushing is. I am not here saying that b/c youre against the cops actions youre for people resisting arrest and getting physical with the cops. ::)
No, that's probably just the way my argument is coming off. I agree that the appropriate method of fighting cops is in a courtroom well after the incident. Cooperate, get an attorney, then go after the cops.
But, the degree of force used in this case, to my mind, is just unacceptable.
:(
-
No, that's probably just the way my argument is coming off. I agree that the appropriate method of fighting cops is in a courtroom well after the incident. Cooperate, get an attorney, then go after the cops.
But, the degree of force used in this case, to my mind, is just unacceptable.
:(
it was aggressive I can agree with that, unacceptable? no.
if they hadnt have used a chokehold and taken him down and he had died, which is a strong possibility. The outrage would still be there for whatever reason.
If he had thrown a punch and they had used a chokehold and he died, there would still be outrage.
-
This cop knew exactly what the dangers are in wrapping around somebody's neck.
You're a judo expert and you know them as well...and that's dealing with athletes.
Add in this guy's significant obesity and even a child knows it's a recipe for disaster.
It sounds almost as if the NYPD might have reasons to prohibit the use of the chokehold.
-
It sounds almost as if the NYPD might have reasons to prohibit the use of the chokehold.
but not enough to make it illegal i guess
-
it was aggressive I can agree with that, unacceptable? no.
if they hadnt have used a chokehold and taken him down and he had died, which is a strong possibility. The outrage would still be there for whatever reason.
If he had thrown a punch and they had used a chokehold and he died, there would still be outrage.
If he would have punched the officer in the face, tried to take his gun, then charged the officer there would be outrage.
-
If he would have punched the officer in the face, tried to take his gun, then charged the officer there would be outrage.
hahah bazinga!!!
-
but not enough to make it illegal i guess
But enough to make it wreckless and excessive.
-
He just robbed a store remember ?
He shoplifted....still wrong but hardly a ROBBERY..you're overexaggerating
-
He shoplifted....still wrong but hardly a ROBBERY..you're overexaggerating
He assaulted the store owner remember
-
He shoplifted....still wrong but hardly a ROBBERY..you're overexaggerating
actually what he did is considered a strong arm robbery
-
No, that's probably just the way my argument is coming off. I agree that the appropriate method of fighting cops is in a courtroom well after the incident. Cooperate, get an attorney, then go after the cops.
But, the degree of force used in this case, to my mind, is just unacceptable.
:(
yes but you see, this is where the injustice gets worse....the average black guy can't afford his own lawyer so he gets a public defender who then tries to convince him to take a plea and not pursue the case.....if he does decide to pursue the case he often has to sit in jail until trial because he can't make bail......here in NY the vast majority of prisoners in jail are in there because THEY CANT MAKE BAIL....not because they're guilty...so its easy to say to battle the cop later in court when you don't have to sit in jail for 6months to a year waiting for trial...at which point you will be found guilty anyway most likely..the police know this and the people arrested know this
-
But enough to make it wreckless and excessive.
but not wreckless or excessive enough to make it illegal ;)
-
He assaulted the store owner remember
the gentle giant can do no wrong,just a misunderstood lad
-
yes but you see, this is where the injustice gets worse....the average black guy can't afford his own lawyer so he gets a public defender who then tries to convince him to take a plea and not pursue the case.....if he does decide to pursue the case he often has to sit in jail until trial because he can't make bail......here in NY the vast majority of prisoners in jail are in there because THEY CANT MAKE BAIL....not because they're guilty...so its easy to say to battle the cop later in court when you don't have to sit in jail for 6months to a year waiting for trial...at which point you will be found guilty anyway most likely..the police know this and the people arrested know this
here's an idea if you can't afford a good laywer don't do the crime
-
yes but you see, this is where the injustice gets worse....the average black guy can't afford his own lawyer so he gets a public defender who then tries to convince him to take a plea and not pursue the case.....if he does decide to pursue the case he often has to sit in jail until trial because he can't make bail......here in NY the vast majority of prisoners in jail are in there because THEY CANT MAKE BAIL....not because they're guilty...so its easy to say to battle the cop later in court when you don't have to sit in jail for 6months to a year waiting for trial...at which point you will be found guilty anyway most likely..the police know this and the people arrested know this
sounds like the average black guy needs to get off his ass and start working at getting his shit together to get ahead in life.
Also stop breaking the law, to me that goes in the column of getting his shit together but I know you have a horrible understanding of the law so I figured id single that one out.
-
but not wreckless or excessive enough to make it illegal ;)
Then why is it prohibited? ;)
It's been three pages. Feel free to answer any time.
-
here's an idea if you can't afford a good laywer don't do the crime
if it WAS a crime
-
if it WAS a crime
well we know in both of these cases they were not innocent
-
Then why is it prohibited? ;)
It's been three pages. Feel free to answer any time.
go back there brainiac I answered.
You also said it prohibition/legality doesnt matter, then why are you focusing so much on it?
-
go back there brainiac I answered.
You also said it prohibition/legality doesnt matter, then why are you focusing so much on it?
I told you, I went back. You never answered. You did post some gobbledegook about why you wouldn't answer.
I said that prohibition/legality isn't the standard for whether or not it's excessive. The fact that it IS prohibited means that it is wreckless and excessive! That's why you won't answer!
-
well we know in both of these cases they were not innocent
We don't know this to be the case with Eric Garner, and his answers were specifically about what people say Garner should have done.
-
yes but you see, this is where the injustice gets worse....the average black guy can't afford his own lawyer so he gets a public defender who then tries to convince him to take a plea and not pursue the case.....if he does decide to pursue the case he often has to sit in jail until trial because he can't make bail......here in NY the vast majority of prisoners in jail are in there because THEY CANT MAKE BAIL....not because they're guilty...so its easy to say to battle the cop later in court when you don't have to sit in jail for 6months to a year waiting for trial...at which point you will be found guilty anyway most likely..the police know this and the people arrested know this
Well, I'm trying to talk as a whole, especially given that probable cause doesn't require a lot. I think that if an arrest is unjust, people should have a right to fight. Most of the time though, the arrest will be held as valid given the low standard needed.
As for the systemic injustice, I agree, but that needs to come from changing the government. Someone posted an article - I think here - about how as long as the court causes a delay, the clock stops. So, there were people spending years in jail who had not even been given a trial and it didn't count against their right to a speedy trial cause the delay was on the part of the court.
That's injustice and it probably disproportionately affects minorities.
So, I can agree with what you're saying, I'm just concerned that the low standard for arrest would result in problems when confronting the cops in courts.
-
I told you, I went back. You never answered. You did post some gobbledegook about why you wouldn't answer.
I said that prohibition/legality isn't the standard for whether or not it's excessive. The fact that it IS prohibited means that it is wreckless and excessive! That's why you won't answer!
LOL if being prohibited isnt the standard for whether or not its excessive then how can it be a fact that it is excessive b/c its prohibited?
Are you fuking serious kid?
-
The fact that it IS prohibited means that it is wreckless and excessive!
I said that prohibition/legality isn't the standard for whether or not it's excessive.
-
We don't know this to be the case with Eric Garner, and his answers were specifically about what people say Garner should have done.
if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck Garner had been arrested by the NYPD thirty times since 1980 on charges such as assault, resisting arrest, and grand larceny. An official said the arrests include multiple incidents in which he was arrested for allegedly selling unlicensed cigarettes.[38
-
LOL if being prohibited isnt the standard for whether or not its excessive then how can it be a fact that it is excessive b/c its prohibited?
Are you fuking serious kid?
Seriously, retardo? It's not rocket science.
If you are a surgeon and your hospital bans the use of a certain type of medication in surgeries because it has a high risk of death for certain patient, yet you use that medication anyway, then your patient dies and the medication was a contributing factor... you were a wreckless surgeon.
Now, if you are a surgeon and one of your patients dies after you operate on them, yet you followed all of the rules of the hospital, you may still be at fault. Maybe you didn't read their chart carefully or weigh the appropriate risk factors. It's more of a gray area.
The way most people, cops or otherwise, fuck up at their job is in gray areas. When you downright violate the rules of your job and it results in death, you're not in a gray area. Whether or not the medication was banned by the hospital or by the fda doesn't make it less wreckless.
-
if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck Garner had been arrested by the NYPD thirty times since 1980 on charges such as assault, resisting arrest, and grand larceny. An official said the arrests include multiple incidents in which he was arrested for allegedly selling unlicensed cigarettes.[38
The crux of the case is that Garner felt he was being targeted by the cops. With the sheer number of charges in the amount of time they were doled out, obviously most of that shit had to be penny ante and likely didn't serve any time for some of those arrests.
-
reread your post your dip shit
The fact that it IS prohibited means that it is wreckless and excessive!
I said that prohibition/legality isn't the standard for whether or not it's excessive.
you do realize you just contradicted yourself dont you?
-
The crux of the case is that Garner felt he was being targeted by the cops. With the sheer number of charges in the amount of time they were doled out, obviously most of that shit had to be penny ante and likely didn't serve any time for some of those arrests.
lol I like you to meet mr duck. At the time of his death, Garner was out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession and false impersonation.
-
reread your post your dip shit
you do realize you just contradicted yourself dont you?
That's not a contradiction.
Something can be wreckless without being explicitly prohibited or illegal.
But if it is illegal or prohibited then it is by definition wreckless.
-
lol I like you to meet mr duck. At the time of his death, Garner was out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession and false impersonation.
all look to be penny ante (with the possible exception of the last one - depending on the details) but fuck it, still more than enough justification to be choked to death on a street corner
-
all look to be penny ante (with the possible exception of the last one - depending on the details) but fuck it, still more than enough justification to be choked to death on a street corner
again who's fault is that,do you think if he was at a job working this would have happened,or if he just had put his hands out and didn't resist
-
again who's fault is that,do you think if he was a a job working this would have happened,or if he just had put his hands out and didn't resist
more than enough justification to be choked to death on a street corner
-
it's this simple don't break the fucking law.why do people want to cover for these low lifes
-
again who's fault is that,do you think if he was a a job working this would have happened,or if he just had put his hands out and didn't resist
I think the 5 or so cops that were there could have found a way to arrest him without choking him to death
-
I think the 5 or so cops that were there could have found a way to arrest him without choking him to death
the first thing they weren't trying to kill him, just take him down.and all he had to do is put his hands out and he would still be here today breaking laws
-
the first thing they weren't trying to kill him, just take him down.and all he had to do is put his hands out and he would still be here today breaking laws
I'm sure (at least I hope) they weren't trying to kill him but the medical examiner ruled his death a homicide so they definitely did kill him
-
Cop failed to include this use of force in his report. Does anyone here defend that omission?
-
Cop failed to include this use of force in his report. Does anyone here defend that omission?
Here is a previous response;
"In the course of my career I've done very similar takedowns, similar as in wrapping my arm around the neck and pulling the subject to the ground. Where the head goes, the body follows is an old adage we were taught. I've even held my arm around the neck area in what might appear to be a choke hold but was in fact just me holding his head while my partner(s) handcuffed. No air or blood was being blocked off. Choke holds haven't been authorized since I started and I've never choked anyone out. From what I could see, the officers hold could have been construed as a true choke hold and in that case, the department could and should administratively discipline him if that is the case. Choke holds were banned due to the fear of causing serious brain damage if the blood is cut off too long. Typically that is holding it in place after the person passes out due to adrenaline of the person applying it. In this case, I saw that if it were a true choke hold, it was released prior to the person passing out. It would likely be a mitigating factor. If the officer says that he initially grabbed the guy around the neck to bring him down, which is very common, then realized he had him in a choke hold and released it as soon as he realized it, it could have an impact on the amount of discipline if any. "
I've searched for a copy of the police report to read the report in context for myself before I conclude on the question because if we are saying the officer failed to mention he applied a choke hold is the criteria that he omitted the use of force then I couldn't agree with that if he used other wording that painted a picture of what happened. If you have a link to a copy of the police report he wrote, I would like to read it.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/22/internal-police-report-on_n_5609238.html
See no evil, hear no evil.
Cops heard Eric Garner cry that he couldn’t breathe, a recording captured officers violently taking him to the ground and even Mayor de Blasio said he believes the asthmatic father of six was put in a chokehold.
But an NYPD internal report prepared right after his death on Staten Island last Thursday plays down the incident, with supervising officers failing to note the chokehold and insisting Garner was not in “great distress.”
Read the whole story at New York Daily News
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/exclusive-internal-nypd-report-staten-island-dad-not-mention-chokehold-article-1.1875221
Supervising officers who were interviewed after Eric Garner's death failed to mention the chokehold and told investigators that 'the perpetrator's condition did not seem serious,' a preliminary report obtained by the Daily News shows. A recording captures officers violently taking down Garner on Thursday as he cries that he can't breathe.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/22/internal-police-report-on_n_5609238.html
See no evil, hear no evil.
Cops heard Eric Garner cry that he couldn’t breathe, a recording captured officers violently taking him to the ground and even Mayor de Blasio said he believes the asthmatic father of six was put in a chokehold.
But an NYPD internal report prepared right after his death on Staten Island last Thursday plays down the incident, with supervising officers failing to note the chokehold and insisting Garner was not in “great distress.”
Read the whole story at New York Daily News
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/exclusive-internal-nypd-report-staten-island-dad-not-mention-chokehold-article-1.1875221
Supervising officers who were interviewed after Eric Garner's death failed to mention the chokehold and told investigators that 'the perpetrator's condition did not seem serious,' a preliminary report obtained by the Daily News shows. A recording captures officers violently taking down Garner on Thursday as he cries that he can't breathe.
thats supervising officers, not the officer involved....
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/22/internal-police-report-on_n_5609238.html
See no evil, hear no evil.
Cops heard Eric Garner cry that he couldn’t breathe, a recording captured officers violently taking him to the ground and even Mayor de Blasio said he believes the asthmatic father of six was put in a chokehold.
But an NYPD internal report prepared right after his death on Staten Island last Thursday plays down the incident, with supervising officers failing to note the chokehold and insisting Garner was not in “great distress.”
Read the whole story at New York Daily News
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/exclusive-internal-nypd-report-staten-island-dad-not-mention-chokehold-article-1.1875221
Supervising officers who were interviewed after Eric Garner's death failed to mention the chokehold and told investigators that 'the perpetrator's condition did not seem serious,' a preliminary report obtained by the Daily News shows. A recording captures officers violently taking down Garner on Thursday as he cries that he can't breathe.
guy was quite a roll model for his children :o
-
thats supervising officers, not the officer involved....
True, they keep pointing that out. Kinda curious if the officer's involved even have to write a report or if it's just done by the supervisors.
-
thats supervising officers, not the officer involved....
so was the supervisor indicted/suspended for leaving out such a HUGE detail?
Or was the cop himself reprimanded/fired for failing to tell his supervisor about using that move?
You can't insert one layer of bureaucracy and suddenly it's see no evil, hear no evil lol.
-
so was the supervisor indicted/suspended for leaving out such a HUGE detail?
Or was the cop himself reprimanded/fired for failing to tell his supervisor about using that move?
You can't insert one layer of bureaucracy and suddenly it's see no evil, hear no evil lol.
that hold has been used for years and wil keep being used,you take the head to the ground and the body will follow,works great.you don't want to be put in it don't resist
-
But the cop left it out of the report. Huge deal
-
But the cop left it out of the report. Huge deal
did the cop leave it out?
proof please...you are a known liar
-
But the cop left it out of the report. Huge deal
no it's not a huge deal,how did the case turn out.only a big deal to the people who want to make it a big deal.if it wasn't that they find something esle
-
did the cop leave it out?
proof please...you are a known liar
His supervisor left it out? In that case, has the supervisor been suspended?
Seriously, there is zero accountability with cops when they fudge reports
-
His supervisor left it out? In that case, has the supervisor been suspended?
Seriously, there is zero accountability with cops when they fudge reports
what did the supervisor say 240?
-
it's only a big deal to the kooks,how did the case turn out :D
-
what did the supervisor say 240?
WTF are you talking about? Give us the answer if you're prepared to ask it.
This is blue wall bullshit. Some people would be sodomized by police and thanking their stars the men in blue were sweet enough to spit on it first. unreal.
1) respect law abiding cops 100%
2) fire that shady cops that fudge paperwork to cover their asses.
-
WTF are you talking about? Give us the answer if you're prepared to ask it.
This is blue wall bullshit. Some people would be sodomized by police and thanking their stars the men in blue were sweet enough to spit on it first. unreal.
1) respect law abiding cops 100%
2) fire that shady cops that fudge paperwork to cover their asses.
lol you said the supervisor left it out you numb nut fuck, so what did he say?
-
WTF are you talking about? Give us the answer if you're prepared to ask it.
This is blue wall bullshit. Some people would be sodomized by police and thanking their stars the men in blue were sweet enough to spit on it first. unreal.
1) respect law abiding cops 100%
2) fire that shady cops that fudge paperwork to cover their asses.
the problem is you don.t have your facts half the time. you just repeat shit you see on the nutjob sites
-
why wasn't the fact this man was choked in the initial report?
I see a whole lotta excuses why this info didn't come out. WTF
-
why wasn't the fact this man was choked in the initial report?
I see a whole lotta excuses why this info didn't come out. WTF
what did the initial report say 240?
-
what did the initial report say 240?
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/exclusive-internal-nypd-report-staten-island-dad-not-mention-chokehold-article-1.1875221
But an NYPD internal report prepared right after his death on Staten Island last Thursday plays down the incident, with supervising officers failing to note the chokehold and insisting Garner was not in “great distress.”
Sgt. Dhanan Saminath told interviewers that the 43-year-old cigarette peddler was in cuffs with cops “maintaining control of him” and that he “did not appear to be in great distress,” the preliminary report obtained by the Daily News shows.
No choke hold mentioned. Sorry, it's inexcusable, and if you defend the kind of country where police can "leave out" details such as using a banned move, then I don't think I have anything to say to you.
-
Does anyone know why an accepted/approved move wasn't chosen, instead of this one?
-
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/exclusive-internal-nypd-report-staten-island-dad-not-mention-chokehold-article-1.1875221
But an NYPD internal report prepared right after his death on Staten Island last Thursday plays down the incident, with supervising officers failing to note the chokehold and insisting Garner was not in “great distress.”
Sgt. Dhanan Saminath told interviewers that the 43-year-old cigarette peddler was in cuffs with cops “maintaining control of him” and that he “did not appear to be in great distress,” the preliminary report obtained by the Daily News shows.
No choke hold mentioned. Sorry, it's inexcusable, and if you defend the kind of country where police can "leave out" details such as using a banned move, then I don't think I have anything to say to you.
yes but it doesnt show the actual report....
-
yes but it doesnt show the actual report....
as we see with ferguson, they hold the report for quite a while when they want to.
however, I *highly* doubt the NYPD would go ahead and release this report of their internal investigation and make themselves look like shit, if they didn't realize it's going to come out eventually.
Are you insinuating the NYPD would "make up" some story about the cops not reporting the choke hold move? Just to shit on the officers? And the officer would stay quiet about it and go along? And they'd have all sorts of riots intentinoally?
Dude, that's quite a conspiracy theory. If the NYPD internal investigation showed cops didn't report the move - which is what happened - I believe it.
-
as we see with ferguson, they hold the report for quite a while when they want to.
however, I *highly* doubt the NYPD would go ahead and release this report of their internal investigation and make themselves look like shit, if they didn't realize it's going to come out eventually.
Are you insinuating the NYPD would "make up" some story about the cops not reporting the choke hold move? Just to shit on the officers? And the officer would stay quiet about it and go along? And they'd have all sorts of riots intentinoally?
Dude, that's quite a conspiracy theory. If the NYPD internal investigation showed cops didn't report the move - which is what happened - I believe it.
as we see in ferguson the media stirs up idiots with no basis for their reports.
If they have it why havent the released it?
-
as we see in ferguson the media stirs up idiots with no basis for their reports.
If they have it why havent the released it?
the media DID talk about the chokehold being left out of the initial report. I posted links from Huffpo and NY daily news, and it was on cnn and msnbc.
and just like ferguson, they hold off on the reports for months, because that's what they like to do. People rioted over ferguson, they rioted/marched over the "i cant breathe" shoot. They hold it, they always do.
NYPD already told us the choke wasn't in the report. You can't argue it.
-
the media DID talk about the chokehold being left out of the initial report. I posted links from Huffpo and NY daily news, and it was on cnn and msnbc.
and just like ferguson, they hold off on the reports for months, because that's what they like to do. People rioted over ferguson, they rioted/marched over the "i cant breathe" shoot. They hold it, they always do.
NYPD already told us the choke wasn't in the report. You can't argue it.
the huffpo article just states excerpts
you want to indict people without having ever seen what the report says?
typical libtard emotional response.
-
the huffpo article just states excerpt
you want to indict people without having ever seen what the report says?
typical libtard emotional response.
typical right-wing, police-lapdog response to not be a little angry that - for any reason - a chokehold is left out of a report when a man was dead right afterwards.
I don't care where your politics lie - the man was dead due to what happened on the ground, and whoever "left it out" of the report, it's a big fcking deal.
hey man, you still believe obama was actually born in hawaii lol, so I shouldn't be surprised.
-
typical right-wing, police-lapdog response to not be a little angry that - for any reason - a chokehold is left out of a report when a man was dead right afterwards.
I don't care where your politics lie - the man was dead due to what happened on the ground, and whoever "left it out" of the report, it's a big fcking deal.
hey man, you still believe obama was actually born in hawaii lol, so I shouldn't be surprised.
so again without actually hearing or reading the report you are ready to indict someone based on a news article?
-
so again without actually hearing or reading the report you are ready to indict someone based on a news article?
Yes, I do believe the NYPD internal investigation team has a pretty good understanding of the situation.
I don't think they'd just make up some shit to make themselves look bad and rile people up.
I'm not basing it on some news article, I'm basing it on the words of the NYPD team that investigated the NYPD.
-
Yes, I do believe the NYPD internal investigation team has a pretty good understanding of the situation.
I don't think they'd just make up some shit to make themselves look bad and rile people up.
I'm not basing it on some news article, I'm basing it on the words of the NYPD team that investigated the NYPD.
you havent read the report, what youre basing it on is a article that cites excerpts but doesnt give the actual report.
You are ready to bring charges against someone without even hearing or reading what they said.
LMFAO just admit it 240
-
you havent read the report, what youre basing it on is a article that cites excerpts but doesnt give the actual report.
You are ready to bring charges against someone without even hearing or reading what they said.
LMFAO just admit it 240
you're defending the police when even the police admitted wrongdoing.
no point in arguing.
have a merry christmas, bro!
-
you're defending the police when even the police admitted wrongdoing.
no point in arguing.
have a merry christmas, bro!
I would at the very least hold my opinion until I have seen the report.
You are calling for arrests and punishment based on a news article from huffpo, LMFAO seriously guy you have mental issues
-
Well, I'm trying to talk as a whole, especially given that probable cause doesn't require a lot. I think that if an arrest is unjust, people should have a right to fight. Most of the time though, the arrest will be held as valid given the low standard needed.
As for the systemic injustice, I agree, but that needs to come from changing the government. Someone posted an article - I think here - about how as long as the court causes a delay, the clock stops. So, there were people spending years in jail who had not even been given a trial and it didn't count against their right to a speedy trial cause the delay was on the part of the court.
That's injustice and it probably disproportionately affects minorities.
So, I can agree with what you're saying, I'm just concerned that the low standard for arrest would result in problems when confronting the cops in courts.
I think, you haven't thought that through. Who determines if the arrest is unjust. I guarantee you almost 99% of the people arrested tonight will feel it is unjust. No, the law is clear, because you believe the arrest is unjust gives you no right to resist. Your suggestion is really just asking for trouble.
-
True, they keep pointing that out. Kinda curious if the officer's involved even have to write a report or if it's just done by the supervisors.
Everyone involved when there is a death would write a report. Anyone using force would write a "report". One officer actually writes the main report, the other officers add their supplements to the main report.
-
His supervisor left it out? In that case, has the supervisor been suspended?
Seriously, there is zero accountability with cops when they fudge reports
So I take it you haven't seen the report..
-
I think, you haven't thought that through. Who determines if the arrest is unjust. I guarantee you almost 99% of the people arrested tonight will feel it is unjust. No, the law is clear, because you believe the arrest is unjust gives you no right to resist. Your suggestion is really just asking for trouble.
No, it varies by jurisdiction and there are plenty where resisting unlawful arrest is allowed.
Here's Indiana as an example:
http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/5326619-Can-the-right-to-resist-become-a-license-to-kill/
Here's VA:
"It has long been held in Virginia that where an officer
attempts an unlawful arrest, the officer is an aggressor which
gives the arrestee the right to use self-defense to resist so
long as the force used is reasonable."
http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavtx/2917963.txt
You're might know Bad Elk...article points to 14 states where resisting unlawful arrest is still legal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Elk_v._United_States#cite_note-37
Your comments are just downright creepy. People should just shut up, allow you to take away their liberty, even when it's clearly unlawful for you to do so?
Sorry, that's just disgusting. The states which support it are disgusting. And it's the very foundation of an argument for the Police State.
That mentality, IMO, has brought us to the very point we are at now with cops under the microscope. You want obedience even when you're wrong. That's just absurd, IMO.
-
No, it varies by jurisdiction and there are plenty where resisting unlawful arrest is allowed.
Here's Indiana as an example:
http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/5326619-Can-the-right-to-resist-become-a-license-to-kill/
Here's VA:
"It has long been held in Virginia that where an officer
attempts an unlawful arrest, the officer is an aggressor which
gives the arrestee the right to use self-defense to resist so
long as the force used is reasonable."
http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavtx/2917963.txt
You're might know Bad Elk...article points to 14 states where resisting unlawful arrest is still legal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Elk_v._United_States#cite_note-37
Your comments are just downright creepy. People should just shut up, allow you to take away their liberty, even when it's clearly unlawful for you to do so?
Sorry, that's just disgusting. The states which support it are disgusting. And it's the very foundation of an argument for the Police State.
That mentality, IMO, has brought us to the very point we are at now with cops under the microscope. You want obedience even when you're wrong. That's just absurd, IMO.
You apparently google a piece of info and post it as your supporting evidence. but when I read the articles in their entirety they end up supporting my position. Which leads me to believe you are trying a shotgun approach and not really all that interested in the facts.
your continued antogonistic attitude in what could easily be a civil discussion is quite tiring. When you feel you're ready to have a conversation on an adult level, you know where to find me.
Ag
-
No, it varies by jurisdiction and there are plenty where resisting unlawful arrest is allowed.
Here's Indiana as an example:
http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/5326619-Can-the-right-to-resist-become-a-license-to-kill/
Here's VA:
"It has long been held in Virginia that where an officer
attempts an unlawful arrest, the officer is an aggressor which
gives the arrestee the right to use self-defense to resist so
long as the force used is reasonable."
http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavtx/2917963.txt
You're might know Bad Elk...article points to 14 states where resisting unlawful arrest is still legal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Elk_v._United_States#cite_note-37
Your comments are just downright creepy. People should just shut up, allow you to take away their liberty, even when it's clearly unlawful for you to do so?
Sorry, that's just disgusting. The states which support it are disgusting. And it's the very foundation of an argument for the Police State.
That mentality, IMO, has brought us to the very point we are at now with cops under the microscope. You want obedience even when you're wrong. That's just absurd, IMO.
You're saying if a person believes their arrest is unlawful, that person should resist arrest?
-
You apparently google a piece of info and post it as your supporting evidence. but when I read the articles in their entirety they end up supporting my position. Which leads me to believe you are trying a shotgun approach and not really all that interested in the facts.
your continued antogonistic attitude in what could easily be a civil discussion is quite tiring. When you feel you're ready to have a conversation on an adult level, you know where to find me.
Ag
Oh brother. A few things,
1. People frequently post links, just as I did with the Philly case transporting trauma victims. Usually, a blanket statement results in a post like, 'Link Please'.
2. Nothing I posted supported you and it supported exactly what I said.
3. Sorry if the words I use to describe my feeling are not approved by you - I don't give a fuck. Here's you using the word 'disgusting' to describe people who don't know their rights.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=482458.0
Hypocrite much? Grow the fuck up dude.
4. Not only did you know that there are states where resistance is legal, you commented that Indiana's Right to Resist Law was a 'GOOD LAW'.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=329944.msg6035060#msg6035060
5. You don't engage in discussion. Normally you say something stupid or flat out dishonest, and I clear the record with logic, facts, reasoning, and an occassional dash of analytical brilliance, after which time you slink away.
Now, as I've noted from the posted LINK above, you not only knew about people having a right to resist, you also called it a 'GOOD LAW'.
Please follow your standard MO, slink away, stop the hypocrisy, stop the crying, stop the trolling and grow up.
Sk
-
You're saying if a person believes their arrest is unlawful, that person should resist arrest?
If an arrest is illegal, I think people should have every right to resist.
The problem is, which I noted above, is that the justification for an arrest isn't much. Hence, 9/10 times the cop is going to be in the right and the person resisting will be in even deeper shit.
So basically, my answer is yes, BUT the person better be damn sure they are in the right....so generally, it's not a wise course of action.
-
If an arrest is illegal, I think people should have every right to resist.
The problem is, which I noted above, is that the justification for an arrest isn't much. Hence, 9/10 times the cop is going to be in the right and the person resisting will be in even deeper shit.
So basically, my answer is yes, BUT the person better be damn sure they are in the right....so generally, it's not a wise course of action.
thats the issue you have skip, the majority of people dont know the law. Shit andreisadipshit on here thought if cops put you in handcuffs that you were under arrest and they had to take you "downtown".
Like you said 9/10 times the cops are right in their justification for arrest. So if youre being arrested guess what? 9/10 times you have no right to bitch and moan.
and the 10th time isnt the time to resist and act an ass, b/c the cops will beat the shit out of you even if they were wrong. The time to bring it up is afterward when you have a lawyer.
-
thats the issue you have skip, the majority of people dont know the law. Shit andreisadipshit on here thought if cops put you in handcuffs that you were under arrest and they had to take you "downtown".
Like you said 9/10 times the cops are right in their justification for arrest. So if youre being arrested guess what? 9/10 times you have no right to bitch and moan.
and the 10th time isnt the time to resist and act an ass, b/c the cops will beat the shit out of you even if they were wrong. The time to bring it up is afterward when you have a lawyer.
It's the exceptions we're dealing with here though. Even where it's legal to resist, it's not like cops are getting punched, slapped, and beaten whenever they try to arrest someone.
And, maybe I could be swayed as you're correct, fellow cops will show up and kick your ass even when you're in the right. Then a mostly white grand jury or a mostly white jury will 'conveniently' side with cops...assuming the judge hasn't already tried to cover for the cops.
Aye...government just seems to get more and more over-bearing.
-
It's the exceptions we're dealing with here though. Even where it's legal to resist, it's not like cops are getting punched, slapped, and beaten whenever they try to arrest someone.
And, maybe I could be swayed as you're correct, fellow cops will show up and kick your ass even when you're in the right. Then a mostly white grand jury or a mostly white jury will 'conveniently' side with cops...assuming the judge hasn't already tried to cover for the cops.
Aye...government just seems to get more and more over-bearing.
of those exceptions what % do you think you the people being arrested had a justifiable reason to physically resist arrest?
seriously its like shooting someone, even when completely justified its better not to if its anyway avoidable. The headache and timesink that will result from it is just to much to go through if you can avoid it.
-
If an arrest is illegal, I think people should have every right to resist.
The problem is, which I noted above, is that the justification for an arrest isn't much. Hence, 9/10 times the cop is going to be in the right and the person resisting will be in even deeper shit.
So basically, my answer is yes, BUT the person better be damn sure they are in the right....so generally, it's not a wise course of action.
Sounds like a recipe for lawlessness and chaos.
-
It's very difficult for me to value someone's opinion when they are at a place where they advocate if a person THINKS the arrest/charge is unlawful, they should have the right to resist. For me, their thinking is so far from rational that it becomes easy to discount anything else they have to say on the subject. But I'm trying to work past that..
-
:o
New York City Paying $5.9 Million to Family of Eric Garner
Monday, 13 Jul 2015
The family of a black man who died after being placed in a white police officer's chokehold reached a $5.9 million settlement with the city on Monday, days before the anniversary of his death.
Eric Garner's family in October filed a notice of claim, the first step in filing a lawsuit against the city, asking for $75 million.
Garner, who was 43, was stopped last July 17 outside a Staten Island convenience store because police officers believed he was selling loose, untaxed cigarettes. A video shot by an onlooker shows Garner telling the officers to leave him alone and refusing to be handcuffed.
Officer Daniel Pantaleo placed his arm around Garner's neck to take him down. Garner, who had asthma, is heard gasping "I can't breathe!" 11 times before losing consciousness. He was pronounced dead later at a hospital.
The city medical examiner found the police chokehold contributed to Garner's death. But a grand jury declined to indict the officer in the death. A federal probe is ongoing.
Chokeholds are banned by New York Police Department policy. Pantaleo says he used a legal takedown maneuver known as a seatbelt, not a chokehold.
Garner's death sparked demonstrations and became a flashpoint in a national debate about relations between police and minority communities.
While the city has a legal department that fields lawsuits, the comptroller's office also can settle claims. Comptroller Scott Stringer has made a point of doing that in civil rights cases, saying that resolving them quickly saves the city money on legal fees.
"Following a judicious review of the claim and facts of this case, my office was able to reach a settlement with the estate of Eric Garner that is in the best interests of all parties," Stringer said.
The city did not admit any liability.
Mayor Bill de Blasio said that hopefully Garner's family "can find some peace and finality" from the settlement.
"By reaching a resolution, family and other loved ones can move forward even though we know they will never forget this tragic incident," said de Blasio, who was scheduled to speak Tuesday at a church memorial service in Garner's honor.
Longtime civil rights attorney Jonathan Moore, the family's lawyer, said there also was a settlement with the Richmond University Medical Center, which responded to the scene. That settlement is confidential, and there was no one available at the hospital to comment. Moore said there would be a press conference Tuesday with the Rev. Al Sharpton and the family.
Sharpton said the settlement to the family was deserved but didn't resolve the larger questions around policing and minorities. He said a rally planned for Saturday calling for an expedited federal investigation into Garner's death would go on as planned.
"We did not march and build a movement just to get money," he said.
The city has reached settlements in other high-profile cases involving deaths of black men at the hands police officers. In 2004, the city agreed to pay $3 million to settle a lawsuit brought by the family of Amadou Diallo, who was shot by four police officers in 1999.
In 2010, the city agreed to pay $3.25 million to the estate of Sean Bell, who was killed in 2006 outside a strip club while leaving his bachelor party. Police had targeted the club for an undercover operation.
In January, the city settled with the family of teenager Ramarley Graham, who was shot by a police officer in 2012, for $3.9 million.
Last month, the comptroller's office agreed to pay $6.25 million to a man who spent nearly 25 years in prison before being exonerated in a killing that happened while he was more than 1,000 miles away vacationing at Disney World. A $6.4 million settlement was reached with a man exonerated in the 1990 killing of a rabbi.
Stringer also agreed to a $2.25 million payout to the family of a mentally ill inmate who died in a Rikers Island jail cell that sweltered to 101 degrees because of a malfunctioning heating system, and he helped put together a $17 million settlement in the case of three half-brothers who spent a combined 60 years in prison before their convictions were thrown out.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/garner-nypd-chokehold-settlement/2015/07/13/id/654792/#ixzz3ftlViCvS
-
"We did not march and build a movement just to get money," he said.
Not according to Eric Garners family
-
:o
New York City Paying $5.9 Million to Family of Eric Garner
Monday, 13 Jul 2015
The family of a black man who died after being placed in a white police officer's chokehold reached a $5.9 million settlement with the city on Monday, days before the anniversary of his death.
Eric Garner's family in October filed a notice of claim, the first step in filing a lawsuit against the city, asking for $75 million.
Garner, who was 43, was stopped last July 17 outside a Staten Island convenience store because police officers believed he was selling loose, untaxed cigarettes. A video shot by an onlooker shows Garner telling the officers to leave him alone and refusing to be handcuffed.
Officer Daniel Pantaleo placed his arm around Garner's neck to take him down. Garner, who had asthma, is heard gasping "I can't breathe!" 11 times before losing consciousness. He was pronounced dead later at a hospital.
The city medical examiner found the police chokehold contributed to Garner's death. But a grand jury declined to indict the officer in the death. A federal probe is ongoing.
Chokeholds are banned by New York Police Department policy. Pantaleo says he used a legal takedown maneuver known as a seatbelt, not a chokehold.
Garner's death sparked demonstrations and became a flashpoint in a national debate about relations between police and minority communities.
While the city has a legal department that fields lawsuits, the comptroller's office also can settle claims. Comptroller Scott Stringer has made a point of doing that in civil rights cases, saying that resolving them quickly saves the city money on legal fees.
"Following a judicious review of the claim and facts of this case, my office was able to reach a settlement with the estate of Eric Garner that is in the best interests of all parties," Stringer said.
The city did not admit any liability.
Mayor Bill de Blasio said that hopefully Garner's family "can find some peace and finality" from the settlement.
"By reaching a resolution, family and other loved ones can move forward even though we know they will never forget this tragic incident," said de Blasio, who was scheduled to speak Tuesday at a church memorial service in Garner's honor.
Longtime civil rights attorney Jonathan Moore, the family's lawyer, said there also was a settlement with the Richmond University Medical Center, which responded to the scene. That settlement is confidential, and there was no one available at the hospital to comment. Moore said there would be a press conference Tuesday with the Rev. Al Sharpton and the family.
Sharpton said the settlement to the family was deserved but didn't resolve the larger questions around policing and minorities. He said a rally planned for Saturday calling for an expedited federal investigation into Garner's death would go on as planned.
"We did not march and build a movement just to get money," he said.
The city has reached settlements in other high-profile cases involving deaths of black men at the hands police officers. In 2004, the city agreed to pay $3 million to settle a lawsuit brought by the family of Amadou Diallo, who was shot by four police officers in 1999.
In 2010, the city agreed to pay $3.25 million to the estate of Sean Bell, who was killed in 2006 outside a strip club while leaving his bachelor party. Police had targeted the club for an undercover operation.
In January, the city settled with the family of teenager Ramarley Graham, who was shot by a police officer in 2012, for $3.9 million.
Last month, the comptroller's office agreed to pay $6.25 million to a man who spent nearly 25 years in prison before being exonerated in a killing that happened while he was more than 1,000 miles away vacationing at Disney World. A $6.4 million settlement was reached with a man exonerated in the 1990 killing of a rabbi.
Stringer also agreed to a $2.25 million payout to the family of a mentally ill inmate who died in a Rikers Island jail cell that sweltered to 101 degrees because of a malfunctioning heating system, and he helped put together a $17 million settlement in the case of three half-brothers who spent a combined 60 years in prison before their convictions were thrown out.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/garner-nypd-chokehold-settlement/2015/07/13/id/654792/#ixzz3ftlViCvS
Good. Only cops can kill a guy over a goddamn pack of smokes, smile and wave to camera after killing him (only to turn around the next day and pretend to be aghast at the fact that he took a life ::) ), and walk away with no consequences.
5.9 million seems a little on the low side.
-
Good. Only cops can kill a guy over a goddamn pack of smokes, smile and wave to camera after killing him (only to turn around the next day and pretend to be aghast at the fact that he took a life ::) ), and walk away with no consequences.
5.9 million seems a little on the low side.
those cops are heroes, according to getbiggers who cannot type right now because they've giving HJs to LEOs as we speak.
-
Typical; cops don't pay out of their pockets, just send the bill to the taxpayer.
-
Typical; cops don't pay out of their pockets, just send the bill to the taxpayer.
From what the article says, it was the city government and the family that decided to settle out of court. Cops probably wanted to see it through. Can't blame them for the pay out. you can argue that what they did was wrong, but that doesn't mean you're right. I would have liked to see it go to court where all the facts would come out.
-
From what the article says, it was the city government and the family that decided to settle out of court. Cops probably wanted to see it through. Can't blame them for the pay out. you can argue that what they did was wrong, but that doesn't mean you're right. I would have liked to see it go to court where all the facts would come out.
of course the cops want to see it through because the individual cop and the police union doesn't pay out jack.....but the city stands to lose millions more if they don't settle
-
of course the cops want to see it through because the individual cop and the police union doesn't pay out jack.....but the city stands to lose millions more if they don't settle
You could be right.. but it could also be the city has done a cost analysis on what it would take to go to court and successfully argue their case and decided it would be more cost effective in the long run to settle, regardless of their chances of winning. That happens quite a bit as well. Of course, anything can happen with a jury is always in the back of their minds
-
From what the article says, it was the city government and the family that decided to settle out of court. Cops probably wanted to see it through. Can't blame them for the pay out. you can argue that what they did was wrong, but that doesn't mean you're right. I would have liked to see it go to court where all the facts would come out.
If at court it turned out the cops were at fault, do you think each cop involved would pay out of his/her pockets?
It's typical extortion tactic imo, "take this bunch of cash, shut up and we're innocent".
-
You could be right.. but it could also be the city has done a cost analysis on what it would take to go to court and successfully argue their case and decided it would be more cost effective in the long run to settle, regardless of their chances of winning. That happens quite a bit as well. Of course, anything can happen with a jury is always in the back of their minds
Agreed..we are actually saying the same thing
-
some people here would actually visit their local bakery, and order cupcakes flavored and shaped like police sex organs if they could.
the dudes didn't include the choke in the report, and he died while being taken down. Not sure why anyone here would want police on duty in their town who may have contributed to killing a man in a takedown using illegal methods... and forgot to mention it ;)
-
some people here would actually visit their local bakery, and order cupcakes flavored and shaped like police sex organs if they could.
the dudes didn't include the choke in the report, and he died while being taken down. Not sure why anyone here would want police on duty in their town who may have contributed to killing a man in a takedown using illegal methods... and forgot to mention it ;)
The cop stated he didn't use a "chokehold"...he described it as a "seatbelt". :D
-
some people here would actually visit their local bakery, and order cupcakes flavored and shaped like police sex organs if they could.
the dudes didn't include the choke in the report, and he died while being taken down. Not sure why anyone here would want police on duty in their town who may have contributed to killing a man in a takedown using illegal methods... and forgot to mention it ;)
as I have explained to you probably 12 times and you seem to ignore it...
1. You haven't seen the report
2. It's reported he described the force he used
3. Your hang-up is the lack of the use of the word "chokehold" when it's irrelevant if he described the use of force in detail.
This is why I don't advocate giving citizens more power than the police chief when reviewing use of force cases..
Why is it that if someone doesn't agree with your point of view they kneepad the police? That's a juvenile argument.
-
Here is a previous response;
"In the course of my career I've done very similar takedowns, similar as in wrapping my arm around the neck and pulling the subject to the ground. Where the head goes, the body follows is an old adage we were taught. I've even held my arm around the neck area in what might appear to be a choke hold but was in fact just me holding his head while my partner(s) handcuffed. No air or blood was being blocked off. Choke holds haven't been authorized since I started and I've never choked anyone out. From what I could see, the officers hold could have been construed as a true choke hold and in that case, the department could and should administratively discipline him if that is the case. Choke holds were banned due to the fear of causing serious brain damage if the blood is cut off too long. Typically that is holding it in place after the person passes out due to adrenaline of the person applying it. In this case, I saw that if it were a true choke hold, it was released prior to the person passing out. It would likely be a mitigating factor. If the officer says that he initially grabbed the guy around the neck to bring him down, which is very common, then realized he had him in a choke hold and released it as soon as he realized it, it could have an impact on the amount of discipline if any. "
I've searched for a copy of the police report to read the report in context for myself before I conclude on the question because if we are saying the officer failed to mention he applied a choke hold is the criteria that he omitted the use of force then I couldn't agree with that if he used other wording that painted a picture of what happened. If you have a link to a copy of the police report he wrote, I would like to read it.
-
‘I can’t breathe': Man runs into jail lobby seeking help but dies after deputies pile on him instead
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/08/i-cant-breathe-man-runs-into-jail-lobby-seeking-help-but-dies-after-deputies-pile-on-him-instead/
A man who ran into a Dallas County jail screaming for help ended up dying when Sheriff’s deputies piled on top of him and handcuffed him Saturday, WFAA reports.
The 47-year-old man, who has not been identified yet, apparently parked his car at the county jail and ran in screaming that his wife was out to kill him. But instead of helping him, witnesses told WFAA that deputies took him to the ground and handcuffed him. One had his knee on the man’s neck.
“They had him in handcuffs, he wasn’t fighting back, he wasn’t, not letting them restrain him, he was saying, ‘I can’t breathe, I can’t breath,'” witness April Berryhill told the station. “One of the officers had him down on the ground with his knee on his neck.”
Dallas County deputies said they were “simply trying to calm him down,” reports WFAA’s Sebastian Robertson.
-
He Filmed the Death of Eric Garner. Now He's Getting to Spend 4 Years in Prison
Christopher Mathias
National Reporter, The Huffington Post
09/01/2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ramsey-orta-eric-garner_us_57a9edbde4b0aae2a5a15142?section=&
-
Won't see this on national TV news..
http://qpolitical.com/state-trooper-saw-car-driving-wrong-way-bravest-thing-possible/
https://www.facebook.com/paul.montoya.148/posts/653989008090898
-
DOJ Won’t Charge New York City Police Officer In Eric Garner’s Death
By Ryan J. Reilly
POLITICS 07/16/2019
WASHINGTON ― The Justice Department will not pursue federal civil rights charges against Daniel Pantaleo, the New York City police officer who placed Eric Garner in a chokehold before his death, a person familiar with the case said Tuesday.
The decision came just before the five-year statute of limitations on the case expired. Garner’s cries of “I can’t breathe” as he choked to death prompted a national outcry over the use of force against him.
The incident shouldn’t have ended in Garner’s death but the DOJ was charged with determining whether Pantaleo’s actions purposefully violated federal civil rights law, said a senior Justice Department official speaking on background who had been involved in the case since the beginning.
DOJ officials did not feel convinced that there was evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the officer acted willfully, the official said. It’s hard to thoughtfully apply specific techniques during physical confrontations with resisting parties, the official said. The most challenging part of the case, according to the official, was proving Pantaleo’s state of mind when he put his arm around Garner’s neck and restricted his airflow.
The official said the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division and prosecutors in the Eastern District of New York had differing views on the case. EDNY prosecutors consistently believed the evidence was not enough, while Civil Rights Division officials thought there could be a case. Attorney General William Barr was the ultimate decision-maker on the case, and he adopted the EDNY’s position.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/eric-garner-police-officer-daniel-pantaleo-charge_n_5d2dd26ee4b085eda5a207c1