Good. We agree that lethal force should not have been applied.
Lethal force was applied and the cop applying it should be punished.
NYPD chokehold case
- Thread starter Smallcock
- Start date
Lethal force was applied and the cop applying it should be punished.
Yes it's unfortunate that he died, and I'm not justifying his death either but if you're committing a crime expect to be arrested or detained. If you're innocent you'll go free. But this guy has been arrested 30 previous times. He knew what to expect and could have just chose not to resist and made it to arrest #31.
You're saying that anyone who's arrested or detained is going to die.
I'm saying that your chance of dying is less when you don't resist, and greater if you are going to resist.
Between the 2, I'm going with the less chance of dying option each time.
If I'm actually guilty of a crime I'm going to make bail or do my time as Eric did the previous 30 times he was arrested.
I'm saying that when you resist arrest shit happens and the chance of shit happening is exponential greater when you resist then when you don't, but that exponential gets multiplied when you have a medical condition.
Don't commit the crime if you can do the time.
No, when lethal force is used there is a higher likelihood of death. With that fact out of the way, we come to the issue of whether or not lethal force was justified. Since you agree that it wasn't justified, the cop in question committed a crime.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, unless you have a badge of course. In which case, do the crime and get a paid vacation.
So a police officer used a BANNED technique to detain someone who WAS NOT INFORMED HE WAS UNDER ARREST... the coroner OFFICIALLY ruled the cause of death as HOMICIDE... and all you can say is 'shit happens'? You are a pathetic slug.
I'm saying that when you resist arrest shit happens and the chance of shit happening is exponential greater when you resist then when you don't, but that exponential gets multiplied when you have a medical condition.
I'm saying that career criminal is a poor choice of careers.
Don't commit the crime if you can do the time.
STOP TYPING IN CAPS
I'm saying that career criminal is a poor choice of careers.
Don't commit the crime if you can do the time.
STOP TYPING IN CAPS
STOP REPEATING YOURSELF.
Are you too stupid to realize that the police officer is the one who committed the crime? Eric was NOT convicted of or even charged with a crime. Hell, he wasn't even officially 'arrested'.
You police state apologists are pathetic.
Pray tell, officer CWipes, what crime did he commit and when was he made aware that he was being arrested?
Once again: police don't have the right to detain and place someone in handcuffs under suspicion or presumption.
Arrest with charges clearly stated - such as witnessing criminal act or with a warrant - is the ONLY way a cop is allowed to do so.
Therefore everything after that was both bad policing and illegal - except in the eyes of the grand jury, apparently.
Unlike the Micheal Brown case, a sharp prosecutor would have a field day with this one. Eric Garner was a physical time bomb, the deadly force used was over the top.
Normally I have respect for the police - but not for pigs. The officer applying the choke hold didn't pay attention to his Judo lessons. You apply a choke hold to make someone submit not perforate his Adam's Apple. Eric Garner died of asphyxiation from a botched choke hold, the pig is guilty of murder.
Normally I have respect for the police - but not for pigs. The officer applying the choke hold didn't pay attention to his Judo lessons. You apply a choke hold to make someone submit not perforate his Adam's Apple. Eric Garner died of asphyxiation from a botched choke hold, the pig is guilty of murder.
Ummm... what I've seen says different. It says Garner died of a heart attack, brought on by physical stress.
Yes, the choke hold was part of that physical stress. So was fighting against, what, three officers and still resisting arrest?
There's a line in there. We all know that. A subject resisting arrest doesn't give the cops carte blanche to do whatever they want. But the cops still get a LOT of leeway when a subject resists. Because that's the common factor, the common trigger in all of these cases: a subject resists arrest.
Defining exactly where the line is that the cops can't cross while detaining a subject is the tricky part. We all know that. The general rule of thumb is the minimum force necessary to detain a subject.
Ok. Look at the video again. Before the cop put on the chokehold (which is against departmental policy but not against the law, per se. It's against departmental policy for NYPD officers to post selfies in uniform: ain't nobody gettin' put in jail for that), Garner was resisting. After the cop put on the chokehold, Garner wasn't resisting. Ok, the chokehold was against departmental policy, which the black, female sergeant who was supervising the incident didn't stop. But it worked to bring down Garner.
Now what were the alternatives of less force to bring down Garner? What are your alternatives, IV? Anybody? Does anybody have an alternative to the chokehold, of less force, that would have been effective in detaining Garner, not put the police themselves in danger, and not result in Garner's death as the chokehold did?
Taser? The man died of a heart attack. Jolting him with an electrical device would likely have killed Garner.
Pepper spray? The man died of a heart attack, complaining about not being able to breathe. Pepper spray likely would have killed him.
A baton to the shin? POLICE BRUTALITY!!! POLICE BRUTALITY!!!! And as badly out of shape as Garner was, THAT could have killed him.
Let's get this straight: a baton to the shin (unless you have a better alternative) would have been the LEAST use of force in bringing down Garner? Or maybe 10 seconds of a chokehold?
I'm not saying it was right, but that's the train of logic I've got on this right now. I'd honestly like to hear your alternatives to the chokehold.
I'd like to reiterate what Oagre pointed out in another thread, that although far from uncommon, these cases are really prosecutors who have to stand for reelection pushing prosecutorial discretion decisions onto a Grand Jury to provide them political cover.
Further that in states like Canada, the U.S.A., Australia, the U.K. and New Zealand, if you feel the police have no cause to arrest you - you are polite, you don't resist arrest, you exercise your right to a lawyer, and you file a lawsuit which presumably results in your receiving a large award if in fact the arrest wasn't justified. You don't assault an officer for ordering you out of the street no matter what language he used, you don't resist when told that you are under arrest for selling loose cigarettes (a policy the de Blasio Administration had pushed prior to two days ago).
Further that in states like Canada, the U.S.A., Australia, the U.K. and New Zealand, if you feel the police have no cause to arrest you - you are polite, you don't resist arrest, you exercise your right to a lawyer, and you file a lawsuit which presumably results in your receiving a large award if in fact the arrest wasn't justified. You don't assault an officer for ordering you out of the street no matter what language he used, you don't resist when told that you are under arrest for selling loose cigarettes (a policy the de Blasio Administration had pushed prior to two days ago).
We've been over this a dozen times already. If they were placing him under arrest, it would have been a good idea for them to tell him, don't you think?
Are some of you watching a different video than the one posted?
- straight armbar takedown
- strike to the common peroneal nerve
- strike to the radial nerve
- hypoglossal pressure point
- clavicle notch pressure point
- infraorbital nerve pressure point
- mandibular angle pressure point
- supra scapular stun
- front wristlock
- kimura
- americana
Shall I continue? All of the aforementioned techniques are taught and approved by virtually every law enforcement use of force curricula for active resistance. Any sort of chokehold that's actually approved by any law enforcement agency is deemed lethal force and can only be utilized if there is an immediate threat of grievous bodily harm or death to the officer or a member of the public.
Whatever happened to that female NYPD officer who posed nude (no, she wasn't wearing her uniform)?
Resisting arrest or not, this is a crystal clear example of excessive use of force.
I've also seen my share of resisting arrest videos, and there is a wide range of what consistutes resisting. Everything from fist fights with cops to use of weapons against cops. Eric's flailing of his arms may be considered resisting arrest, legally, but let's not pretend it calls for a lethal military tactic response.
I've also seen my share of resisting arrest videos, and there is a wide range of what consistutes resisting. Everything from fist fights with cops to use of weapons against cops. Eric's flailing of his arms may be considered resisting arrest, legally, but let's not pretend it calls for a lethal military tactic response.
Selling loose cigarettes. Does anybody know what that means?
It means he was selling individual cigarettes. Not packs, not cases. Individual cigarettes. He was going to get rich!
Cops like those who strong-armed Eric are a waste of tax dollars and fresh air.
It means he was selling individual cigarettes. Not packs, not cases. Individual cigarettes. He was going to get rich!
Cops like those who strong-armed Eric are a waste of tax dollars and fresh air.
Yeah, selling "loosies" does seem like nothing more than a minor annoyance (no worse than begging for money so you can eat). I think the NYPD is applying the "broken window" principle. Stop minor crimes and you stop major crimes like paying for sex.
He types in caps because you're not getting it.
There was NO CRIME committed here by Eric.
Absolutely agree. The cops can't find the real criminals of society and go after slim pickings.
