[BartSimpson]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

From the look of it the problem comes about, because of the size of the guy. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred you could use that without a problem, but when you're applying it to a guy that size it takes a lot of pressure to take him down.

The take-away from this is that certain police departments are prone to using lethal force in trivial matters.

Therefore they should not be surprised when their populace responds to trivial policing with lethal force of their own.

[xerxes]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

OK so here's the talk radio excuse. Not making it, just relaying it, so you know.

What this is really about, they say, is nanny state, busybodying, making sure people don't get away without paying relatively new, excessive taxes.

Apparently NY has placed nanny state taxes on cigarettes. People have been buying them in other states and selling them on the street in NYC. New York doesn't want to be gypped of their special taxes. These cops were sicced on cigarette tax offenders by the mayor. It wasn't their choice to go after Gardner.

They could not be charged because they were obeying the specific instructions of their employer. I'm thinking the court, or whoever, decided that wasn't a choke hold, because apparently choke holds are not be used by police in NYC.

Apparently New York will also pursue those who do not pay parking fines to the ends of the earth and step on them with heavy boots.

Maybe. But it seems a peripheral issue. There will always be people selling Loosies no matter the tax rate. This is about the use of lethal force in what should have been a trivial matter.

[OnTheIce]

xerxes xerxes:

Exactly. The cop killed a guy, using an illegal choke-hold, for a very minor thing.

And people act surprised when there's protests and riots....I'm not saying they're always justified. But when the main avenue of achieving redress for a crime of this nature shows itself incapable and even unwilling to do anything, why are we surprised when there's a backlash?

Chokeholds are NOT illegal. Your statement is incorrect.

[N_Fiddledog]

http://amsterdamnews.com/news/2014/nov/ ... ld-illega/

[xerxes]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

xerxes xerxes:

Exactly. The cop killed a guy, using an illegal choke-hold, for a very minor thing.

And people act surprised when there's protests and riots....I'm not saying they're always justified. But when the main avenue of achieving redress for a crime of this nature shows itself incapable and even unwilling to do anything, why are we surprised when there's a backlash?

Chokeholds are NOT illegal. Your statement is incorrect.

Every article I've read relating to this case has said that the NYPD used an illegal chokehold. So I will beg to differ.

[DanSC]

I don't know if choke holds are strictly illegal, but they are certainly against NYPD policy.

You'd think that between the SIX of them they could find a way to calm the guy down, but this is the NYPD we're talking about.

[Xort]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Chokeholds are NOT illegal. Your statement is incorrect.

Correct, it's just against NYPD policy, so it's not an action covered by the protection given to police to use force.

Making the action battery, and because it's NY being armed upgrades the crime to a top level felony.

The officer that used the choke hold had twice been declined for his use of force including a settlement for over $130,000.

That aside, they stood around and watched him after he became unresponsive. They waited over 7 min just watching him before rendering aid.

You can ignore the choke hold if you want. Them standing around doing nothing to aid him while he was in their custody is a crime.

Also when the officers first grabbed him they didn't state he was under arrested they just started grabbing him. That's also battery and gets upgraded because they were armed with pistols.

They are looking 3 different crimes. But for some reason the Grand Jury system that only rejected 11 cases in 2010 thought that no crime was even possible to have happened so their is no trail. Grand Juries that have records near to 99.999% on indictment. Funny how the US had 2 in less than a week for police officers.

[OnTheIce]

xerxes xerxes:

Every article I've read relating to this case has said that the NYPD used an illegal chokehold. So I will beg to differ.

Cite one article that notes the hold as illegal.

You've probably read that it's a banned practice for the NYPD which started in 1993. However, it's not illegal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/nyreg ... .html?_r=0

[OnTheIce]

Xort Xort:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Chokeholds are NOT illegal. Your statement is incorrect.

Correct, it's just against NYPD policy, so it's not an action covered by the protection given to police to use force.

Making the action battery, and because it's NY being armed upgrades the crime to a top level felony.

But it's not against the law. You can't make up charges when no law exists.

What would you have done?

I'd love to hear your alternate solutions.

Do you taze him? What if his heart stops due to his health problems? Are we having this same conversation that they should have tried another way?

[Brenda]

They could have shot the guy in self defense because he was 'charging at them'. No problem then. Not against policy either. [/sarcasm]

Btw, I have seen no rioting as of yet. Just peaceful protest of a handful New Yorkers. VERY low turn out for an 8 million people city. Guess it is not that big of a deal for people other than on social media.

[Jabberwalker]

Perhaps, they are so used to this sort of thing.

[Xort]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

But it's not against the law. You can't make up charges when no law exists.

Battery is a crime, police can use force on you but only approved force. The choke wasn't approved so the contact was not protected by his status as an officer. So it's battery.

$1:

What would you have done?
...
Do you taze him? What if his heart stops due to his health problems? Are we having this same conversation that they should have tried another way?

Wrote him a ticket. No need to arrest someone to write a ticket. He was no threat to anyone so it doesn't require him to be taken into custody.

If I had to arrest him, which isn't the case. I would explain that I was going to arrest him, ask for his cooperation, explain that if he doesn't comply that another more serious crime of resisting arrest would be added. If he refuses I would have had a number of officers close to support while I used a non lethal (non neck) take down, or join lock. I've personally been trained to do a wrist lock that will take down just about everyone using a single hand. Given that he wasn't fighting back their is no need for more aggressive action.

Once on the ground and cuffed if he had complained about difficulty breathing that's a sign as anyone with even basic first aid knows of trouble. I'd monitor his condition, once he became unresponsive I'd start with first aid. So assess the situation, call for an ambulance and apply proper first aid.

What I wouldn't do is ignore him for 7 min, or use a lethal (neck area) banned rear naked choke hold on him just because he was a larger person. I also wouldn't jump right to physical force on a non violent person.

[N_Fiddledog]

The police had orders from above to crack down on loosies sales.

$1:

In January 2014, tough new penalties for selling untaxed cigarettes took effect in New York City. In July, emboldened by the new law, the city’s highest-ranking uniformed cop, Philip Banks, issued an order to crack down on loosie sales days before Garner died.

These events confirm that police are ultimately the enforcers of the tax code, and every vote for higher taxes gives police increased authority to exert more force on citizens in more situations. Higher excise taxes inevitably lead to more violent clashes between police and smugglers.

New York City Police Commissioner William Bratton wants the public to think that officer retraining on arrest procedures will fix the problem. However, Commissioner Bratton and other city officials choose to ignore the true cause: Current laws create too many situations that put police in conflict with citizens over consensual, nonviolent activities.

Eliminating punitive cigarette taxes would shrink the underground market and help redirect police resources to combating real crimes of force and violence, rather than empowering police to employ violence in the name of tax collection.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ers-death/

Eric Garner should never have been stopped. This never had to happen.

[Yogi]

xerxes xerxes:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

xerxes xerxes:

Exactly. The cop killed a guy, using an illegal choke-hold, for a very minor thing.

And people act surprised when there's protests and riots....I'm not saying they're always justified. But when the main avenue of achieving redress for a crime of this nature shows itself incapable and even unwilling to do anything, why are we surprised when there's a backlash?

Chokeholds are NOT illegal. Your statement is incorrect.

Every article I've read relating to this case has said that the NYPD used an illegal chokehold. So I will beg to differ.

Although most reports by media do in fact refer to 'illegal choke hold', Ice is right. The choke hold has been banned but not an illegal.....yet!


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/3 ... 34186.html

[xerxes]

True. But we're arguing semantics though. The NYPD has banned its use by its police officers, but it's not illegal per se.