Controversial Coppers: Shootings, the racist argument, and the effects

[feckyerlife]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/nyregion/grand-jury-said-to-bring-no-charges-in-staten-island-chokehold-death-of-eric-garner.html?_r=0&referrer=id

 

Have any of you read about the NYPD officer who just got off the hook for the murder of another unarmed black man? Apparently a group of officers stopped him because he was selling illegal cigarettes (whatever the hell those are) and eventually they put him in a chokehold and pressed his face into the pavement until he suffocated and died. It was revealed that two-thirds of the jury involved in the case were white.

 

But the most outrageous thing about this for me is that there is actual video evidence documenting the attack and you can hear his pleas to breathe. The guy didn't even throw a punch and they snagged him in a chokehold. This infuriates me on so many levels.

well, he was twice the size of any of the arresting officers and he did resist arrest. He shouldve complied. the attorney from my work has this saying "the man with the gun is always correct"

[RavingWithJesus]

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6264746?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013&ir=Politics

 

the justice system is completely f*cked.

[Creed Bratton]

well, he was twice the size of any of the arresting officers and he did resist arrest. He shouldve complied. the attorney from my work has this saying "the man with the gun is always correct"

Maybe because they wanted to arrest him for no reason. He wasn't selling the cigarettes that day so they had NOTHING on him. They killed an innocent man. And even if he was selling the cigarettes, killing the guy is still a bit of an overkill in my humble opinion.

[Dingdongs]

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6264746?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013&ir=Politics

 

the justice system is completely f*cked.

Not really, he was arrested for a weapons charge, entirely unrelated to the video. And anyone who says that they went after him for the tape and the charge is frivolous doesn't understand NYC gun laws. They are so strictly enforced that they routinely give sh*t to feds and NY state troopers who are carrying in NYPD territory when not on official duties, so if you think that they weren't going to go after this guy you are mistaken.

 

I must say, there is a lot of hyperbole flying around this thread without any backing/argument from most people. I'm not saying I'm the only one that is providing concrete basis to what I'm saying because people on the other side have given arguments in here, but the amount of fly by night posts in here that say "This is wrong" or "The legal system hates black people" without qualifying it or explaining why is perplexing.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Irviding

[feckyerlife]

 

well, he was twice the size of any of the arresting officers and he did resist arrest. He shouldve complied. the attorney from my work has this saying "the man with the gun is always correct"

Maybe because they wanted to arrest him for no reason. He wasn't selling the cigarettes that day so they had NOTHING on him. They killed an innocent man. And even if he was selling the cigarettes, killing the guy is still a bit of an overkill in my humble opinion.

 

actually the shop owners who were black and other minorities called the police to come arrest him for selling the loose cigarettes. he was also out on parole. i dont believe they had to kill him either. but he did resist arrest. when you resist arrest it only goes bad. ive seen happen to white people, asian people, black people, they all end up the same way.

[Dingdongs]

 

 

 

well, he was twice the size of any of the arresting officers and he did resist arrest. He shouldve complied. the attorney from my work has this saying "the man with the gun is always correct"

Maybe because they wanted to arrest him for no reason. He wasn't selling the cigarettes that day so they had NOTHING on him. They killed an innocent man. And even if he was selling the cigarettes, killing the guy is still a bit of an overkill in my humble opinion.

 

actually the shop owners who were black and other minorities called the police to come arrest him for selling the loose cigarettes. he was also out on parole. i dont believe they had to kill him either. but he did resist arrest. when you resist arrest it only goes bad. ive seen happen to white people, asian people, black people, they all end up the same way.

 

Not to mention he had been in lock up for the loose cig sh*t somewhere between 30 and 40 times, I think it was 39.

 

Again, does that mean he should've died? No. But acting as if he was doing nothing wrong and the police literally walked up on some peaceful fellow hanging outside handing out money to the needy and killed him is short-sighted and clouds the real issue.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Irviding

[make total destroy]

But acting as if he was doing nothing wrong and the police literally walked up on some peaceful fellow hanging outside handing out money to the needy and killed him is short-sighted and clouds the real issue.

 

It doesn't matter if he did do something wrong, the question is: did the situation require the use of lethal force? And the answer is no. Non-compliance is not punishable by death.

[Ninja_Gear]

Most of this crap is all thanks to people not cooperating with the police, resisting arrest and other stuff they cause themselfs. IMO the police handles it all pretty good. But sometimes things go wrong. If its with a white man, nobody in the world would give a damn. Now just because he's black, everybody is acting like a bunch of numbskulls. Af if they could have done a better job at this.

 

 

 

 

http://rt.com/usa/209207-florida-police-shooting-asthma/

 

Happened today.

 

Did you even read what happened before that all happend? If you wouldn't know better, chances are most people would react exactly the same. How the hell should the police officer have known what was really going on? Cops must become psychic super heros now? What if that same guy who was rushing, crushed one of your family members? Would you still have thought the same of this?

 

Seriously. People are on a witch hunt right now. Sad really.

 

Dennison was eventually arrested on misdemeanor charges of knowingly driving with a suspended license and driving with a suspended license. He is being held on nearly $2,000 bail at the Duval County Jail.

[feckyerlife]

 

But acting as if he was doing nothing wrong and the police literally walked up on some peaceful fellow hanging outside handing out money to the needy and killed him is short-sighted and clouds the real issue.

 

It doesn't matter if he did do something wrong, the question is: did the situation require the use of lethal force? And the answer is no. Non-compliance is not punishable by death.

 

so you are saying, we should be allowed to resist arrest and fight the cops from apprehending us?

[Dingdongs]

It didn't require the use of lethal force, nor was lethal force by definition used. A chokehold, while against NYPD policy and thus something that should cause Pantaleo to lose his shield, is not lethal force. It was lethal because Mr. Garner was 350 lbs obese, ashmatic, and had type 2 diabetes. I will bet you every cent I have to my name that if none of those health issues existed and somehow he still died, Pantaleo would be in lockup right now.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Irviding

[Raavi]

Not to mention he had been in lock up for the loose cig sh*t somewhere between 30 and 40 times, I think it was 39.

 

Wow. Kaczynski and Manson combined don't have sh*t on this public enemy level criminal mastermind.

 

Unlike the case of Michael Brown there are no ifs or buts, this man was murdered, it's right their on f*cking HD video. No inditement is a joke. The f*cker responsible should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

[k33g]

 

 

 

 

http://rt.com/usa/209207-florida-police-shooting-asthma/

 

Happened today.

 

Did you even read what happened before that all happend? If you wouldn't know better, chances are most people would react exactly the same. How the hell should the police officer have known what was really going on? Cops must become psychic super heros now? What if that same guy who was rushing, crushed one of your family members? Would you still have thought the same of this?

 

Seriously. People are on a witch hunt right now. Sad really.

 

Dennison was eventually arrested on misdemeanor charges of knowingly driving with a suspended license and driving with a suspended license. He is being held on nearly $2,000 bail at the Duval County Jail.

Yeah the guy was a dumb ass and clearly driving recklessly, his daughter's asthma attack shouldn't completely justify his actions. Still, cops should not be operating under some"shoot first, questions later" mentality. Was it some kind of warning shot? No he doesn't have to be physic, but he doesn't have to be so damn trigger happy either.

[Dingdongs]

 

 

Not to mention he had been in lock up for the loose cig sh*t somewhere between 30 and 40 times, I think it was 39.

Wow. Kaczynski and Manson combined don't have sh*t on this public enemy level criminal mastermind.

 

Unlike the case of Michael Brown there are no ifs or buts, this man was murdered, it's right their on f*cking HD video. The f*cker responsible should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This prosecutor is a joke.

Again, more nonsense hyperbole being dropped without qualification. What makes you more qualified than the grand jury members who deliberated for months on this case to say that the prosecutor is a joke and that the law was applied incorrectly? Demonstrate how based on prior US case law with police officers and excessive force just how this is worthy of being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law then we can have a lively discussion. Calling the cop a f*cker and then making emotionally charged statements isn't helping your argument and is frankly laughable.

[make total destroy]

It didn't require the use of lethal force, nor was lethal force by definition used. A chokehold, while against NYPD policy and thus something that should cause Pantaleo to lose his shield, is not lethal force.

mfw lethal force was not used

mfw Garner is dead

 

gg

 

 

It didn't require the use of lethal force, nor was lethal force by definition used. A chokehold, while against NYPD policy and thus something that should cause Pantaleo to lose his shield, is not lethal force. It was lethal because Mr. Garner was 350 lbs obese, ashmatic, and had type 2 diabetes. I will bet you every cent I have to my name that if none of those health issues existed and somehow he still died, Pantaleo would be in lockup right now.

Okay, so it's his fault he died. Got you.

so you are saying, we should be allowed to resist arrest and fight the cops from apprehending us?

 

 

I literally didn't say that at all.

Edited December 4, 2014 by make total destroy

[Dingdongs]

mfw lethal force was not used

mfw Garner is dead

 

gg

 

Re read the post. A chokehold does not constitute lethal force the same way 7 .40 rounds to the chest do. He would not have died from the chokehold had he not had those medical issues. Stop trying to play games and wreck people in debates with one liners and look at the issue substantively.

 

 

Okay, so it's his fault he died. Got you.

I would put both at fault. Garner resisted arrest and had numerous aggravating factors that made restricting his breathing fatal. Pantaleo restricted the breathing. Do you want to play games and try to attribute percentages of fault like a civil jury? Or are we done with the bullsh*t semantics? Pantaleo was wrong. He shouldn't have put Garner in a chokehold against NYPD policy, he shouldn't have approached the situation so confrontationally, and he shouldn't have acted that way when he had multiple guys backing him up. That makes him a sh*tty cop and somebody who should lose his shield and never serve the public again unless he's picking up trash. That said, you and those who agree with you failed to convince the grand jury that he was criminally responsible for causing Garner's death. They had access to not just the video, but 20+ witnesses, procedure books, autopsy reports, etc and they took the decision that he will not be criminally indicted.

 

 

As for the federal charges, I do think the Justice department can make a case that Pantaleo denied Garner of his civil rights. Certainly more so than charging him with murder or manslaughter. The threshold for that would be whether or not Pantaleo knowingly used excessive force, and I think given the fact that he was a cop for 8 years he knew policy pretty well.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Irviding

[make total destroy]

 

Re read the post. A chokehold does not constitute lethal force the same way 7 .40 rounds to the chest do. He would not have died from the chokehold had he not had those medical issues. Stop trying to play games and wreck people in debates with one liners and look at the issue substantively.

 

 

Hmm...I wonder why that chokehold is against NYPD policy. It couldn't possibly be that it's potentially lethal, can it?

 

 

.

I would put both at fault. Garner resisted arrest and had numerous aggravating factors that made restricting his breathing fatal. Pantaleo restricted the breathing. Do you want to play games and try to attribute percentages of fault like a civil jury? Or are we done with the bullsh*t semantics? Pantaleo was wrong. He shouldn't have put Garner in a chokehold against NYPD policy, he shouldn't have approached the situation so confrontationally, and he shouldn't have acted that way when he had multiple guys backing him up. That makes him a sh*tty cop and somebody who should lose his shield and never serve the public again unless he's picking up trash. That said, you and those who agree with you failed to convince the grand jury that he was criminally responsible for causing Garner's death. They had access to not just the video, but 20+ witnesses, procedure books, autopsy reports, etc and they took the decision that he will not be criminally indicted.

 

It makes him a 'sh*tty cop'? That's it? p sure that would make anyone else a 'murderer'. But you're right, the grand jury did not find him criminally responsible for causing Garner's death, and you can't possibly argue with that decision. I mean, it's not as if we have a legal system in place that protects killer cops, or anything.

[Raavi]

What makes you more qualified than the grand jury members who deliberated for months on this case to say that the prosecutor is a joke and that the law was applied incorrectly?

 

A little thing I like to call common sense. There is no ambiguity like there was in the Michael Brown case, we have HD video and audio, there are no conflicting witness statements, even the coroner ruled it a homicide, yet the outcome of these so called "Grand Jury deliberations" is exactly the same, no indictment. At it smallest bit of probable cause, there is an indictment. According to statistics, US attorneys prosecuted 162.000 federal cases in 2010. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in ONLY 11 of them. Yet now we have two consecutive no true bills within the span of a few weeks. If a prosecutor wants to indict, he can. So forgive me for calling bullsh*t.

Demonstrate how based on prior US case law with police officers and excessive force just how this is worthy of being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law then we can have a lively discussion.

 

Watch the damn video. Despite unarmed and non-violent Mr. Garner yelling out numerous times "I can't breathe, I can't breath" the plain clothed f*cker, yes he's nothing but a murdering f*cker, proceeds to hold him a chokehold, finally resulting in the death of Mr. Garner. If you don't see how this man being choked to death is worthy of being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, I honestly don't know what to say.

 

Calling the cop a f*cker and then making emotionally charged statements isn't helping your argument and is frankly laughable.

 

Oh, he is or rather was a cop. So he's above ridicule and above the law, understood

 

and is frankly laughable.

 

You know what I find laughable, no sad rather the fact that in the United States there are at least 461 but likely 1000+ "justifiable homicides" i.e police killings a year. Just to get a sense of how utterly ridiculous that is, in Canada there have been 12, Germany there have been 8 in two years and 0 (1 after these numbers were compiled) in the United Kingdom.

[Docfaustino]

I lost my quote but this is to Irviding.

 

You can't go around charging cops criminally, it sets a dangerous precedent and whether you like it or not that's really the jurisprudence here.

 

A damn good one, too. You are literally advocating that in some offenses, an officer be above the law when that's precisely what's the problem. You can't shy away from accountability because of what the future might hold. If all men are created equal, then across the board accountability is the ethical answer...not an accountability system that holds some accountable for a specific crimes while others in a different group, class, or occupation walk free.

 

Let me give you an example of this international accountability problem being seen on a local level. Why did the entire corporate structure of the bank HSBC walk from laundering millions for Mexican drug cartels, thus enabling their continued existence, while those who sold the drugs in question saw life in prison? And what are the ramifications of letting them walk free? Not only is it a failure of governance, but there is no deterrent against such behavior in the future and one party lives to pillage another day while another doesn't. In no circumstance can you call that justice.

 

So I say to you, the idea that locking up the officers who usurp their authority and commit a felony sets a dangerous precedent when an existing precedent of injustice is being laid down on we speak confuses me.

 

We could even use Occam's Razor. What is the more likely outcome, cops start being charged for murders they didn't committ, or cops ilke Pantalone continue using their badge as a shield as long as it allows them to and they need not fear being held to the same standard as anyone else committing a crime?

 

---

 

I also want you to know I thought the rest of your post was great.

Edited December 5, 2014 by Docfaustino

[Dingdongs]

 

Hmm...I wonder why that chokehold is against NYPD policy. It couldn't possibly be that it's potentially lethal, can it?

 

 

That would be speculation on your part. I don't believe that to be true. I would assume it has something to do with just being entirely morally inappropriate for cops to be putting people into chokeholds. There are plenty of other policing methods that are inherently more dangerous and potentially fatal and are permitted. For example, putting the suspect's face into the ground to ensure compliance is a commonly used procedure.

 

At the end of the day, if you are resisting arrest, the police are going to use a plethora of methods to ensure your compliance, and frankly many of them can result in your death. Cop does a basically throw move on you, you land with great force on your spine and boom, you're paralyzed/braindead. The examples are pretty great. To extrapolate for a moment, if I were a cop and I were alone in an alleyway without my weapon up against a guy twice my size, you better f*cking bet I'd use a chokehold to get my ass out of that situation. HOWEVER, Pantaleo was with 4-5 fellow cops and his life was not even remotely at risk. Thus, I don't believe his violation of NYPD policy was justifiable and further do consider it, given the situation, to be a knowing violation of excessive force and eligible to be looked at as a civil rights violation by the Justice Department.

 

 

 

 

It makes him a 'sh*tty cop'? That's it? p sure that would make anyone else a 'murderer'. But you're right, the grand jury did not find him criminally responsible for causing Garner's death, and you can't possibly argue with that decision. I mean, it's not as if we have a legal system in place that protects killer cops, or anything.

 

Yes, it would make anyone else a murderer. You said it yourself. Police have a different standard under the law inherently and this is accepted under common law for hundreds of years. Though the concept of organized police is really only dateable to the rise of the city in the 19th century, constabulary and sheriffs, etc. have existed for hundreds of years and have been held under that same standard we hold cops to today. You can't argue that. It's a fact that has long been established in the legal system. Cops have legal privileges to use force. It's that simple. You can come in here with laughing faces and say the system protects cops, but guess f*cking what, it does and that's the way it has to be in order for police to do their job. For the third time now I will reiterate that I think Pantaleo can and possibly will (60%ish, need to wait and see how the AG-nominee Loretta Lynch will want to handle it) be charged for violating Garner's civil rights. But does that meet a criminal standard for murder? Nope, just as the grand jury decided.

 

 

 

 

A little thing I like to call common sense. There is no ambiguity like there was in the Michael Brown case, we have HD video and audio, there are no conflicting witness statements, even the coroner ruled it a homicide, yet the outcome of these so called "Grand Jury deliberations" is exactly the same, no indictment. At it smallest bit of probable cause, there is an indictment. According to statistics, US attorneys prosecuted 162.000 federal cases in 2010. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in ONLY 11 of them. Yet now we have two consecutive no true bills within the span of a few weeks. If a prosecutor wants to indict, he can. So forgive me for calling bullsh*t.

 

 

 

 

Actually, the coroner ruled it a homicide with aggravating factors and pointed to the same health issues I pointed to. And you are looking at the wrong statistics there my friend. US Attorneys are FEDERAL prosecutors and prosecute FEDERAL crimes. It is very rare that a US Attorney is going to go near a case that will not secure a conviction let alone secure an indictment. I would implore you to review the cases of STATE crimes and STATE grand juries, as that is what this case fell under.

 

 

 

Watch the damn video. Despite unarmed and non-violent Mr. Garner yelling out numerous times "I can't breathe, I can't breath" the plain clothed f*cker, yes he's nothing but a murdering f*cker, proceeds to hold him a chokehold, finally resulting in the death of Mr. Garner. If you don't see how this man being choked to death is worthy of being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, I honestly don't know what to say.

 

 

 

 

Non-violent? He resisted arrest pretty clearly. Maybe it's you who should watch the "damn video" pal. And nope, I don't. It is not a) murder nor is it b) manslaughter. Civil rights violation? Absolutely, and the Justice Department is pursuing that.

 

 

 

 

 

You know what I find laughable, no sad rather the fact that in the United States there are at least 461 but likely 1000+ "justifiable homicides" i.e police killings a year. Just to get a sense of how utterly ridiculous that is, in Canada there have been 12, Germany there have been 8 in two years and 0 (1 after these numbers were compiled) in the United Kingdom.

 

 

 

 

Justifiable homicides are more than just police killings. That would refer to anyone who kills someone in what the law of a state (in the US) refers to as "justifiably". I would also question your statistics, given that many different US states have different standards of what is justifiable homicide, and furthemore not ever homicide is classified as such for statistics purposes unless there is a court process involved, I have reservations as to the veracity and relevance of your statistics. Especially given the fact that the US has significantly more violent, gun related crime than any of those countries combined. Even non-gun related the numbers in the US dwarf those places, even per capita and not just because the US has a larger population.

 

 

 

 

 

A damn good one, too. You are literally advocating that in some offenses, an officer be above the law when that's precisely what's the problem. You can't shy away from accountability because of what the future might hold. If all men are created equal, then across the board accountability is the ethical answer...not an accountability system that holds some accountable for a specific crimes while others in a different group, class, or occupation walk free.

 

Let me give you an example of this international accountability problem being seen on a local level. Why did the entire corporate structure of the bank HSBC walk from laundering millions for Mexican drug cartels, thus enabling their continued existence, while those who sold the drugs in question saw life in prison? And what are the ramifications of letting them walk free? Not only is it a failure of governance, but there is no deterrent against such behavior in the future and one party lives to pillage another day while another doesn't. In no circumstance can you call that justice.

 

So I say to you, the idea that locking up the officers who usurp their authority and commit a felony sets a dangerous precedent when an existing precedent of injustice is being laid down on we speak confuses me.

 

We could even use Occam's Razor. What is the more likely outcome, cops start being charged for murders they didn't committ, or cops ilke Pantalone continue using their badge as a shield as long as it allows them to and they need not fear being held to the same standard as anyone else committing a crime?

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with your sentiment, and again I would reiterate that I think there is a very good case to go after Pantaleo for violating the civil rights of Eric Garner. In this instance from what I've read that would require a standard of proving that Pantaleo knowingly violated established use of force protocols without any exigent circumstance, i.e. like I listed before, if a cop is alone in alleyway without his weapon, you can be damn sure he's going to use a chokehold if appropriate. In this case there are no exigent circumstances. I read Pantaleo's testimony and he stated that he was afraid the glass was going to shatter when he had Garner against it. Legitimate claim? Perhaps, but that doesn't show me that his life was at risk and that he had to use an explicitly unauthorized method to subdue garner. Thus, I again do think that Pantaleo should be hit with civil rights violations. There is your deterrent effect for the future, and you don't need to sh*t on years of established case law for police officers/use of force by charging him with manslaughter or murder.

A very good example of this would be the Rodney King incident. Even in that incident the grand jury DID NOT indict the officers for state criminal violations. That is just how high the standard is for indicting cops for criminal violations. However, all of those cops were terminated AND the ones who were determined by the federal jury to have met the standard for federal civil rights violations did 32 months in federal lockup. I think the Justice Department has a very good case to go after Pantaleo and at least get him convicted federally and have him do some time for that. Because legally speaking, he didn't murder Eric Garner. He did, however, violate his federal civil rights for the reasons I have already stated.

 

I also want you to know I thought the rest of your post was great.

 

Thanks, you too. You have been one of the few in this thread actually putting up an argument and not just saying variations of "f*ck the police".

 

Edited December 5, 2014 by Irviding

[Panz]

I would put both at fault. Garner resisted arrest and had numerous aggravating factors that made restricting his breathing fatal. Pantaleo restricted the breathing. Do you want to play games and try to attribute percentages of fault like a civil jury? Or are we done with the bullsh*t semantics? Pantaleo was wrong. He shouldn't have put Garner in a chokehold against NYPD policy, he shouldn't have approached the situation so confrontationally, and he shouldn't have acted that way when he had multiple guys backing him up. That makes him a sh*tty cop and somebody who should lose his shield and never serve the public again unless he's picking up trash. That said, you and those who agree with you failed to convince the grand jury that he was criminally responsible for causing Garner's death. They had access to not just the video, but 20+ witnesses, procedure books, autopsy reports, etc and they took the decision that he will not be criminally indicted.

Both at fault? Really? Because this man was verbally upset about the accusations, that required the officer to bring him down and hold him in a choke hold while he continued to clearly plead that he was having trouble breathing? Think for a second. Yes, I'm bringing race into this. If this was a skinny white boy, maybe a few inches shorter, making exactly the same body movements, do you think this would have gone down the same way? No need to answer it. Just think about it, and if there's any doubt or hesitation in your mind before you (I'm guessing likely) say "yes", then maybe you can understand what's going on here.

 

And please don't bring his "medical conditions" in as partial blame for his death. That's weak.

 

As for the federal charges, I do think the Justice department can make a case that Pantaleo denied Garner of his civil rights. Certainly more so than charging him with murder or manslaughter. The threshold for that would be whether or not Pantaleo knowingly used excessive force, and I think given the fact that he was a cop for 8 years he knew policy pretty well.

 

Just because he's been a cop for 8 years doesn't mean he's been a good one. He's been sued in at least one prior misconduct case. He humiliated suspects in a public strip search, touched and searched their genitals, and falsely arrested them. But the court simply settled for a few thousand without admitting any sort of wrongdoing. Is that proper policy? I'll answer that one. No, it's not. Strip searches are only permissible in areas not easily viewed by the public.

 

I think Pantaleo would notice that he was using excessive force after the multiple "I can't breathe" pleas and clear lack of a fight while the officers continued to restrain him.

 

It's absolutely clear who's in the wrong in this case, and it hurts my heart to see a lack of indictment. Major props to those protesting in NYC right now, though:

 

Edited December 5, 2014 by Panz

[GTA36362355]

Talking about chokehold, this case from 2011 has a pretty distressing video.

The cause of death was asphyxia caused by mechanical chest compression with blunt cranial-facial injuries sustained during physical altercation with law enforcement. Rackauckas said Thomas died because of the force of the officers on his chest, which made it impossible for him to breathe, causing Thomas to become unconscious. He then became comatose, and died when taken off life support five days later.

It all goes downhill from 15:21

 

Cops not letting people breathe is really sh*tty.

[Docfaustino]

Guys, somebody very, very skilled has organized these protesters. They crossed the entire Brooklyn Bridge. In its entirety, not just the walkways, as designated "runners" ran messages from the each unit's boss to the rest of their unit on how to avoid any arrests, and they did. The police were unable to do anything, and when they got to the other end of the bridge, they ended their march lying on the ground, playing dead. f*cking awesome.

[Ninja_Gear]

ended their march lying on the ground, playing dead. f*cking awesome.

Sounds like they watched this vid to often:

 

 

 

It all goes downhill from 15:21

 

 

 

Yet another fart who didn't cooperate. Seems like the real problem is the people acting like pricks.

Edited December 5, 2014 by Ninja_Gear

[REVENGE777]

 

 

ended their march lying on the ground, playing dead. f*cking awesome.

Sounds like they watched this vid to often:

 

 

 

It all goes downhill from 15:21

 

 

 

Yet another fart who didn't cooperate. Seems like the real problem is the people acting like pricks.

Right.... Because acting like a prick is an alright basis to lose your life...

I just don't understand how being unarmed, even if you are resisting arrest, should end up in the "suspect" dying...

People put too much faith in the police...

[Der_Don]

The death of Eric Garner wasn't murder imo. That idiot of a police officer did not intend to kill him. Still, a human being died because of this overreaction and I don't understand why the grand jury decided to not indict that f*cktard. After all, it's manslaughter.

[Dingdongs]

 

 

 

Both at fault? Really? Because this man was verbally upset about the accusations, that required the officer to bring him down and hold him in a choke hold while he continued to clearly plead that he was having trouble breathing? Think for a second. Yes, I'm bringing race into this. If this was a skinny white boy, maybe a few inches shorter, making exactly the same body movements, do you think this would have gone down the same way? No need to answer it. Just think about it, and if there's any doubt or hesitation in your mind before you (I'm guessing likely) say "yes", then maybe you can understand what's going on here.

 

And please don't bring his "medical conditions" in as partial blame for his death. That's weak.

I am not going to dignify your race-baiting with a response, but if it were a "skinny" boy of ANY color, it would not have gone that way. Taking down a 350 lb man whether he is black, white, yellow, green, peach, olive, or violet requires a different response than taking down a "skinny boy a few inches shorter". So yup, it would have gone down very differently. What also would've made it go down differently is if Garner was not committing a crime and resisting arrest and disobeying police instructions, but f*ck the police right?

 

Why? It's not me bringing them up. That would be the NYC Office of the Chief Medical Examiner who brought them up. Read about it if you want to learn more/speak on the veracity of the report. I know you study science and I honestly don't have a clue about it other than that this is what is listed in the autopsy report and stated by the experts. It is very hard for me to believe that he would've died if he didn't have those medical conditions. I put my friends in chokeholds all the time and throw them to the ground and have been put in many myself horsing around. I'm 6 2 and 190, one of my best friends is 5 9 and 260 and did a few years in the Marine Corps and he hasn't killed me when he takes me to the ground in a chokehold. If I had diabetes, was 350 lbs obese, and was asthmatic it may very well kill me though.

 

 

 

 

Just because he's been a cop for 8 years doesn't mean he's been a good one. He's been sued in at least one prior misconduct case. He humiliated suspects in a public strip search, touched and searched their genitals, and falsely arrested them. But the court simply settled for a few thousand without admitting any sort of wrongdoing. Is that proper policy? I'll answer that one. No, it's not. Strip searches are only permissible in areas not easily viewed by the public.

 

I think Pantaleo would notice that he was using excessive force after the multiple "I can't breathe" pleas and clear lack of a fight while the officers continued to restrain him.

 

 

You failed to read my post/understand the point I was making. I stated that the fact he was on the force for 8 years is indicative that he would know and understand NYPD use of force policy. If you had read my other posts as well you would see I alluded numerous times to those complaints in his jacket. Like I said, he was a sh*tty cop and he was wrong to use a choke-hold. I detailed why charging him with manslaughter would be in contrast to years of precedent and why I think the Justice Department is right, however, to go after him for civil rights violations. I don't think anyone is saying that Pantaleo is a great cop who was just doing his job and he should be back in uniform with his badge and gun on Monday, even the NYPD PBA isn't saying that. He will lose his badge rightfully so and I do believe he will be brought up on charges by the DOJ and likely do some time in federal lockup. If that isn't enough for you then sorry, but that is years of established legal precedent on police officers and use of force/criminal charges.

Edited December 5, 2014 by Irviding

[The Odyssey]

Yeah, the Eric Garner case was most likely a racial situation. Eve if it wasn't, it was certainly police brutality

 

My question is how this case is similar to the Michael Brown case. In fact, the Garner case should be getting more attention than the Brown case.

 

Let's just run through some things here:

 

Michael Brown:

-Was a thug and had a criminal record

-Was recorded robbing and abusing a storeowner prior to the shooting

-Tried to attack Darren Wilson and grab his gun

-Wilson shoots him out of self defense (although i admit the situation could of been handled better)

-Riots break out across Ferguson, outrage among the black community

 

Eric Garner:

 

-Was a family man, had a wife and children

-Supposedly broke up a fight, got involved with police

-Police put Garner in a chokehold, to the point where he tries claiming he can't breathe

-Dies, police seem to be emotionless to the situation

-No news of major protests or riots, isn't even that big in the news

 

Why is it that the Michael Brown death is the more talked about situation? We should focus on actual evidence of racism and police brutality.

[Docfaustino]

Because you're not looking at the big picture. De facto segregation of races due to mass income inequality and so little representation in government that king george would giggle. You can argue about individual details but when you leave out the existing tension between blacks and whites in a town that looks a lot like Selma Alabama you're cheating

 

I just woke up so ill clear up what I mean later today. Will tell you a few things

[Finn 7 five 11]

Cop strangled the man, deliberately, a chokehold doesn't constitute stopping someone's breathing unless you deliberately mean it to, this officer obviously did, and for far too long.

 

He murdered a man and should be in prison.

[Ducard]

I am not going to dignify your race-baiting with a response, but if it were a "skinny" boy of ANY color, it would not have gone that way. Taking down a 350 lb man whether he is black, white, yellow, green, peach, olive, or violet requires a different response than taking down a "skinny boy a few inches shorter". So yup, it would have gone down very differently. What also would've made it go down differently is if Garner was not committing a crime and resisting arrest and disobeying police instructions, but f*ck the police right?

 

Why? It's not me bringing them up. That would be the NYC Office of the Chief Medical Examiner who brought them up. Read about it if you want to learn more/speak on the veracity of the report. I know you study science and I honestly don't have a clue about it other than that this is what is listed in the autopsy report and stated by the experts. It is very hard for me to believe that he would've died if he didn't have those medical conditions. I put my friends in chokeholds all the time and throw them to the ground and have been put in many myself horsing around. I'm 6 2 and 190, one of my best friends is 5 9 and 260 and did a few years in the Marine Corps and he hasn't killed me when he takes me to the ground in a chokehold. If I had diabetes, was 350 lbs obese, and was asthmatic it may very well kill me though.

I'll keep it short as I am on my phone.

 

Everyone's aware of Garner's medical conditions and it certainly may have played a role in his death but the point is he repeatedly gasped 'I can't breathe'. The cop should have let go and then arrested him. Because the time in which Garner takes to catch his breath would be enough for the cop to arrest him and it isn't like Garner would have been a hard person to catch anyways as he was obese.

 

And no one is denying Garner committed a crime. It was a petty crime but it did not deserve death. He was not even armed. The officer deliberately overreacted and should have been charged for murder.

Edited December 5, 2014 by Ducard