Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 27, 2024 13:00:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2014 21:20:31 GMT
I can't understand there being no charges when it's illegal to use a choke hold. There is a lot of gray in the Ferguson case, but NYC seems pretty obvious to me that charges should be filed. I heard it explained on the news. It's banned in the department but not illegal.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Dec 4, 2014 21:21:00 GMT
Oh that makes sense... blame the victim. Sometimes the victim actually is to blame for what happened. I'm sorry, but I hate hearing people blindly spout "don't blame the victim." We don't convict or even charge people based on statistics. Deciding you know what happened in this particular case based on what statistics say tends to happen is just as bad as crossing the street when you see a black man approaching because you're afraid he's going to rob you.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Dec 4, 2014 21:24:46 GMT
I can't understand there being no charges when it's illegal to use a choke hold. There is a lot of gray in the Ferguson case, but NYC seems pretty obvious to me that charges should be filed. I'm guessing it's not "illegal" it's against NYPD policy, which would mean punishment for it's use is within the police department. I found numerous articles saying he'd been stripped of his gun and badge - but am not sure if that was a temporary move during the investigation, or that he had actually been fired and most likely the use of the choke hold would be a factor in the department's decision. I am still interested in the full autopsy - I can find lots and lots of articles mentioning bits and pieces, but perhaps the full report has yet to be released. I did find the interview with the mayor and police commissioner interesting. They stated that Mr. Garner went into cardiac arrest in the ambulance, and died an hour later in the hospital. www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/360-14/transcript-mayor-de-blasio-holds-media-availability-police-commissioner-bratton-the-death
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Dec 4, 2014 21:25:18 GMT
This has been talked about all day, and I have heard so many perspectives and sides that I hardly even know what to think any more.
I have seen the video(s). I have heard the commentary by all manner of people, those on every side of the issue.
At the end of the day though, the only thing that I can safely say is this...I watched a man die today. Over and over and over again-every time they showed the video. He was someone's son, father, husband, grandfather and I saw him as he took his last breaths. It was so ... voyeuristic.
Maybe I am just getting old. I don't know. But I am not particularly good with how I feel about me right now.
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Dec 4, 2014 21:26:44 GMT
I can't understand there being no charges when it's illegal to use a choke hold. There is a lot of gray in the Ferguson case, but NYC seems pretty obvious to me that charges should be filed. I heard it explained on the news. It's banned in the department but not illegal. With that being the case, i can see then why the GJ decided not to indict. There was no crime committed. I've read that the officer was fired, and that would be appropriate for use if it was in fact a choke hold that was used. Apparently the EMTs are also being called into question as to why they did not use any of the equipment available to them in assisting Mr Garner with his breathing. I also read he was diabetic as well. He had a lot of health issues that were working against him. Its possible the GJ recognized that he was resisting arrest, understood that force was used, but said force was not criminal, and that his health played a substantial role in his death.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Dec 4, 2014 21:29:07 GMT
This has been talked about all day, and I have heard so many perspectives and sides that I hardly even know what to think any more. I have seen the video(s). I have heard the commentary by all manner of people, those on every side of the issue. At the end of the day though, the only thing that I can safely say is this...I watched a man die today. Over and over and over again-every time they showed the video. He was someone's son, father, husband, grandfather and I saw him as he took his last breaths. It was so ... voyeuristic. Maybe I am just getting old. I don't know. But I am not particularly good with how I feel about me right now. You did not watch a man die. He was breathing and had a pulse when the paramedics arrived 4 minutes later. He had a heart attack in the ambulance and died an hour later in the hospital.
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Dec 4, 2014 21:29:41 GMT
But you didn't. I understand that it has had an emotional impact on you, but you didn't watch him breathe his last. Mr. Garner had a heart attack on the way to the hospital. He didn't die on the scene.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Dec 4, 2014 21:30:18 GMT
I don't like when people try and oversimplify situations. Your statement is really no more relevant than someone stating the officer didn't intend to kill him, therefore there was no crime. The reality is the officer's actions weren't an attempt to enact "punishment" at all. Any and all suspects are presumed innocent and the officer is not authorized to enact any punishment for any actual or suspected crime. An officer only has the ability to use force to protect him or herself and the public. Unfortunately officers are at times in dangerous situations and need to use appropriate lethal force. In none of those circumstances is whether the crime is punishable by death relevant to the use of misuse of lethal force. ETA - I should state, as I didn't above. I don't think there's any question the use of the choke hold was an inappropriate use of force. It really is that simple though. He is dead as a result of selling cigarettes and "resisting" arrest. And the officers actions were *in fact* an attempt to punish him....not for the cigarettes, but most certainly for the resisting. It really is NOT that simple. He may have died as a result of how police chose to subdue him, but it was an unusual physical response and it was an accidental death, not a punishment. If the police officer wanted to kill him, he would have shot him. Lesser forms of violence carry less risk, even if a few people do unfortunately die that way (which is how the chokehold got banned in the first place). But a boatload fewer people are going to die from a chokehold than from being shot.
|
|
conchita
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,141
Jul 1, 2014 11:25:58 GMT
|
Post by conchita on Dec 4, 2014 21:33:33 GMT
It really is that simple though. He is dead as a result of selling cigarettes and "resisting" arrest. And the officers actions were *in fact* an attempt to punish him....not for the cigarettes, but most certainly for the resisting. It really is NOT that simple. He may have died as a result of how police chose to subdue him, but it was an unusual physical response and it was an accidental death, not a punishment. If the police officer wanted to kill him, he would have shot him. Lesser forms of violence carry less risk, even if a few people do unfortunately die that way (which is now the chokehold got banned in the first place). But a boatload fewer people are going to die from a chokehold than from being shot. Off topic, but Lucy I always appreciate reading your level-headed responses. Even when my hot tempered opinion disagrees! I can actually agree with what you've stated here.
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Dec 4, 2014 21:34:06 GMT
This has been talked about all day, and I have heard so many perspectives and sides that I hardly even know what to think any more. I have seen the video(s). I have heard the commentary by all manner of people, those on every side of the issue. At the end of the day though, the only thing that I can safely say is this...I watched a man die today. Over and over and over again-every time they showed the video. He was someone's son, father, husband, grandfather and I saw him as he took his last breaths. It was so ... voyeuristic. Maybe I am just getting old. I don't know. But I am not particularly good with how I feel about me right now. You did not watch a man die. He was breathing and had a pulse when the paramedics arrived 4 minutes later. He had a heart attack in the ambulance and died an hour later in the hospital. You are right. Technically, I didn't...but it feels that way. At least to me, today. Am I glad that the video exists? Yes. Having those videos (there are several others that were not released) speaks louder than any words a witness may have. That does not mean that I feel particularly good about watching those videos over and over today. I probably am sounding way more dramatic than I mean to. I had a crappy week, and perhaps that is tainting my overall mood.
|
|
|
Post by redayh on Dec 4, 2014 22:02:20 GMT
It really is that simple though. He is dead as a result of selling cigarettes and "resisting" arrest. And the officers actions were *in fact* an attempt to punish him....not for the cigarettes, but most certainly for the resisting. It really is NOT that simple. He may have died as a result of how police chose to subdue him, but it was an unusual physical response and it was an accidental death, not a punishment. If the police officer wanted to kill him, he would have shot him. Lesser forms of violence carry less risk, even if a few people do unfortunately die that way (which is now the chokehold got banned in the first place). But a boatload fewer people are going to die from a chokehold than from being shot. You seem to be focused on the intent of the officer on some level and the foreseeability of the death. Although plenty of people have been convicted that did not intend to kill anyone and who could not forsee that their actions would result in death, that's actually not what I mean by "it's simple." I mean that it's simple because, but for the chokehold, he would not be dead. That, to me, is a very simple concept and I'm looking at it more from an emotional rather than academic perspective: i.e. if he were my husband, etc. The chokehold killed him---(weren't those the coroner's or ME's findings?). There really can't be much argument against that.
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Dec 4, 2014 22:09:12 GMT
This is very conflicting from the Medical Examiner, as it cannot be known which definitively caused the heart attack that killed Garner. We don't know for sure without seeing the ME report. But the media is going to continue to beat the choke hold issue, without having full details and forgetting to include the contributing factors. The choke hold without those factors quite possibly would not have killed him. Would he have still had the heart attack without the choke hold? That's an important question.
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Dec 4, 2014 22:10:50 GMT
Oh that makes sense... blame the victim. Sometimes the victim actually is to blame for what happened. I'm sorry, but I hate hearing people blindly spout "don't blame the victim." We don't convict or even charge people based on statistics. Deciding you know what happened in this particular case based on what statistics say tends to happen is just as bad as crossing the street when you see a black man approaching because you're afraid he's going to rob you. Talk me through your reasoning... I don't understand it....
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Dec 4, 2014 22:14:52 GMT
Sometimes the victim actually is to blame for what happened. I'm sorry, but I hate hearing people blindly spout "don't blame the victim." We don't convict or even charge people based on statistics. Deciding you know what happened in this particular case based on what statistics say tends to happen is just as bad as crossing the street when you see a black man approaching because you're afraid he's going to rob you. Talk me through your reasoning... I don't understand it.... Which statement are you referring to, or is it both of them? I'm on the road but will check back when I get home.
|
|
|
Post by maryland on Dec 4, 2014 22:36:42 GMT
Busypea, never heard this before. That is awful!
|
|
|
Post by annabella on Dec 4, 2014 22:50:50 GMT
What I'm confused about is that on the video they show the EMS pushing him away on a stretcher and he looks dead. Was his eyes open, was he breathing? Because he wasn't moving. Yes he was belligerent which made him look guilty but his widow asserts that plenty of people resist arrest and still come out of it alive. I assume his attitude is based on previous dealings with the police, I notice no mention of a previous record has been released, I wonder if Al Sharpton has found a way to keep that hidden? I also can't help but think how poor this father of 6 was if his job is selling illegal cigarettes. What exactly is the market for that? How does that all work? I was at the grocery store today and the man in front of me bought a pack of newports and I was shocked that it was $11. I've never bought cigarettes but I don't know I would have guessed they cost $4 a pack, were they that price 15 years ago? I do see people bumming cigarettes off of strangers on the street and they always pay $1 for it, now I understand that's the cost of one cigarette really. Video: D.C. Police Officer Confronts Man Filming Arrest On Public SidewalkThis event happened in Sept and the police chief immediately released a statement to the press saying it is legal to film police and she will remind all of her officers about that fact. Personally I don't think body mounted cameras will be the answer, the police will say the camera malfunctioned but at the same time a lot of Mike Brown cases won't result in outraged families saying they are being targeted just because they are black, instead they will see how their son really acted. I don't understand why an adult who robbed a store and strong armed the store owner all on camera, then attacked a police officer, is all of a sudden hero that people are protesting for. Protest for the 12 year old boy that was shot in 12 seconds because he was holding a toy gun in a park.
|
|
|
Post by annabella on Dec 4, 2014 23:19:52 GMT
I answered my own question, wikipedia says this:
from the WashPost @gajenny
I hope this case makes the choke-hold illegal, but I'm willing to bet the actual cause of his death was caused from factors related to his obesity and that's why the officer got off.
Also interesting to note is that the officer who killed him was a dirty cop as evident by his history (below) and the fact that his buddies found a way to punish the friend of Garner who video taped the incident.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Dec 4, 2014 23:43:06 GMT
It really is NOT that simple. He may have died as a result of how police chose to subdue him, but it was an unusual physical response and it was an accidental death, not a punishment. If the police officer wanted to kill him, he would have shot him. Lesser forms of violence carry less risk, even if a few people do unfortunately die that way (which is now the chokehold got banned in the first place). But a boatload fewer people are going to die from a chokehold than from being shot. You seem to be focused on the intent of the officer on some level and the foreseeability of the death. Although plenty of people have been convicted that did not intend to kill anyone and who could not forsee that their actions would result in death, that's actually not what I mean by "it's simple." I mean that it's simple because, but for the chokehold, he would not be dead. That, to me, is a very simple concept and I'm looking at it more from an emotional rather than academic perspective: i.e. if he were my husband, etc. The chokehold killed him---(weren't those the coroner's or ME's findings?). There really can't be much argument against that. When you made the statement that the punishment for selling cigarettes and resisting arrest isn't death, I did take it to mean that you thought the officer deliberately killed Mr. Garner and it was as punishment for his actions. But if that's not what you were saying, then okay. We're all entitled to our emotional responses.
|
|
|
Post by redayh on Dec 5, 2014 0:21:35 GMT
No, I don't think he was actually trying to kill him deliberately.
|
|
|
Post by LavenderLayoutLady on Dec 5, 2014 1:16:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Dec 5, 2014 1:20:20 GMT
Talk me through your reasoning... I don't understand it.... Which statement are you referring to, or is it both of them? I'm on the road but will check back when I get home. Deciding you know what happened in this particular case based on what statistics say tends to happen is just as bad as crossing the street when you see a black man approaching because you're afraid he's going to rob you.
This is what I don't understand...^^
|
|
|
Post by LavenderLayoutLady on Dec 5, 2014 1:28:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Dec 5, 2014 1:48:39 GMT
What I am honestly, honestly starting to believe is that some peas can never view certain people as victims, no matter what the circumstances. Can you please elucidate? Later in the thread you said you had not mentioned race, but I originally interpreted this comment as a reference about race.
|
|
|
Post by mnmloveli on Dec 5, 2014 1:51:05 GMT
A few thoughts. First we really need to wait for the grand jury evidence to be released to understand why the officer was not indicted.
Mr Garner was arrested 30+ times for illegally selling cigarettes; I guess he never learned. Frequently criminals will use the "I can't breathe" scenario to gain the upper-hand over the officer in an arrest. Police can't take that chance and believe that when they hear it. On the tape, which they stopped airing on the coverage soon after it happened, you could hear Mr Garner say you won't take me; this ends today. I think Mr Garner made a poor decision.
A chokehold is illegal in NYC but a "seatbelt" hold is not illegal and that is what the officer used.
If criminals continue to steal and break the law, disobey directions from officers and resist arrest, more deaths will occur.
I would like to understand why there were no charges against the EMTs. In the video, they made no attempt to resuscitate Mr Garner; no pulse taking, no CPR, no chest compressions, no paddles. WHY ? All they said was we r going to get you some help. Isn't that why the EMTs were there ? If there was any misconduct it was with the EMTs, not the police.
|
|
|
Post by mnmloveli on Dec 5, 2014 1:53:49 GMT
I'm focusing more on the fact of the chokehold the officer used to apprehend Mr. Garner. Wrong. Period. Should they have used force to apprehend him? Was Garner resisting arrest? Yes, he was defensive and argumentative. Was he committing a crime? Yes. But my first point was the officer used a chokehold on the man making all the rest of it irrelevant to me. The man died because of it. Murder, manslaughter, whatever the legal term, the cop is responsible for this man's death. There's a reason why officers are trained and are not allowed to use that kind of force. The cop was wrong. End of story for me. Yes choke holds are illegal. Seatbelt holds are not and that is what was used.
|
|
|
Post by redayh on Dec 5, 2014 2:02:50 GMT
What I am honestly, honestly starting to believe is that some peas can never view certain people as victims, no matter what the circumstances. Can you please elucidate? Later in the thread you said you had not mentioned race, but I originally interpreted this comment as a reference about race. As I said, I never stated and do not claim to know whether or not what went on between the officer and Mr. Garner was racially motivated. I do however believe that some peas view some people stereotypically based on their comments. This has zero to do with whether this incident was based on racial profiling. Edited to add: I could see how you took it that I meant exclusively race with respect to the comment
|
|
|
Post by Skypea on Dec 5, 2014 2:43:13 GMT
We have the case of Eric Garner. For those not familiar with this case, here you go: Jon Stewart will catch you up. Basically though, this really big guy was suspected of selling loose cigarettes on the street, is confronted by plain clothes and uniformed officiers, didn't put up a fight, was put in a choke hold (illegal in NY) and pinned down to the point of lethal suffocation. I supported the Grand Jury's decision in Ferguson, but I wholeheartedly REJECT what happened in NY. I mean, there is video evidence...you can see he was put in a choke hold, he's saying on camera "I can't breathe, I can't breathe" in strangled gasps, he didn't rush the cops, he had his hands up!...how can they NOT indict? Jon Stewart - the funny guy? really?
didn't put up a fight? really? he didn't comply with them... with his size alone equals half a fight... it took numerous officers to bring him down!
we don't know that we've seen the WHOLE video. we don't know what else was seen by / told to the grand jury. This guy had numerous medical problems that should have told HIM not to struggle with anyone let alone officers. The officers had no way of knowing about his medical conditions.
I have no idea about everything involved in this (and neither do you). Because of that, I can't say the officer is guilty of anything but doing his job. I also can't say that the GJ was incorrect in their finding.
Using this to start these race protests is ridiculous - BUT with the help of Sharpton, Holder and others BO is well on his way to justifying marshal law. He's been pushing this race crap for over 6 yrs now. oh, and pushing fed control over LE across the country.
stats show that 91% of blacks are killed by blacks and only 7% of them are killed by white people.
the media (and protests) are silent on Chicago killings.
|
|
|
Post by annabella on Dec 5, 2014 3:04:16 GMT
I just watched Katie Couric's interview with his kids and she said they have 5 kids at home, but I knew I read 6 somewhere so I googled and he had a newborn with another woman. This puts an interesting twist to his widow being his spokesperson next to Al Sharpton when they weren't together.
|
|
|
Post by gonewalkabout on Dec 5, 2014 3:10:40 GMT
Oh my gosh! that is just bloody horrible.
|
|
|
Post by M~ on Dec 5, 2014 3:24:46 GMT
1) No, we do not expect the police to know every person's medical condition. However, police should not use excessive force, and, in this instance, they should not have used a chokehold that was banned/forbidden/prohibited by the very own police department which employs the police officer.
2) What crime are you talking about? Selling cigarettes? You aren't deemed to have committed a crime until you've been convicted of having done so. Until such time, it's a "charge." He hadn't "committed a crime."
The problem with your statement is that it presumes that "things that will cause you to be arrested," are the same across all races. The fundamental problem here is that "things that will cause" a black man to be arrested are quite often NOT the same as "things that will cause" a white man to be arrested. Quite frankly, I think that blacks, especially black men, are arrested and convicted for things that white people/men would not be. That's why race matters. That's why these cases get so much publicity and that's why it's so important to scrutinize them as much as possible.
|
|