Garner event: facts and info

dnewton3

Staff member
Messages
8,459
Location
Indianapolis, IN
It's been a few weeks and like many of you, I wanted to get real credible info from reliable sources. I FOREWARN EVERYONE THAT THIS IS NOT TO BE A POLITICAL CONVERSATION. I am posting this because factual basis is the proper frame of mind for making decisions and drawing conclusions. If you have something to add, or contradict, then feel free to do so, but this is to be about FACTS and not political banter, nor emotional bias. If you cannot abide by that, then don't post. As a matter of full disclosure, I am a sworn officer at my local Sheriff's Office; have been for 20 years. So I may be unintentionally biased, but I'm trying my best to avoid emotion and only present facts. First of all, we need to acknowledge the concept of "Use of Force Doctrine". This is covered in many places, and is taught at every Law Enforcement Academy. It is covered in many credible sources; google as many as you'd like but this one is fairly concise and direct: http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/Pages/continuum.aspx Also know that each law entity is typically going to have their own written version of the Use of Force (UoF) in their SOPs. They will "fine tune" the terms and procedures, but they all essentially follow the UoF doctrine conceptually. Law officers are allowed to meet the threat level, and exceed it by only one level, to gain control of a situation, relative to their perception of the event as determined "reasonable". This has been covered in case decisions at both State and Federal court levels all the way up to two decisions at the SCOTUS. This is, for all intents and purposes, the "law of the land" when it comes to use of force. That in mind, you now need to look up the two live videos of the Garner event. Yes, there are two; one is of the infamous event, and one is right afterward. You'll need to view both to understand the sequence and series of events. - In the first one, note that the public version running around the internet is actually edited. In there, you can clearly see a "frame cut" that likely excludes many of the missing clues that the Grand Jury likely was able to see. The public video cuts from the officers standing around, and then essentially "tackling" him in what is outwardly seen as a "choke hold". (More on that later). What is NOT seen is when the video cuts, it is very likely that there were verbal commands given to effect the arrest. What we do see is that the officers did transition to soft empty hand control techniques. Garner was both verbally and physically resistive; you can see and hear his resistance in the video. The officers were justified in UoF Continuum to go "hands on" and use control techniques. This isn't even debateable here; it's accepted across this nation as the proper actions for the threat level Garner exhibited. What many would decry is the "choke" hold. I'll get to that a bit later. In the second video, you can see Garner on his side and appears unconscious or semi-conscious. He is now hand-cuffed. Both an NYPD officer and a NYFD Medical responder check Garner for signs of life, and they take no immediate actions. What to conclude from this? At the time he was on his side, he must have had a pulse and was breathing. If he had no pulse, they would have had a medical reason and duty to start CPR. Now you can aruge that perhaps the cops didn't really care, but I find that dubious. And what bias would the medical personnel have as a motive to allow him to die there at the scene? There are a LOT of cops and some medical personnel on scene; if Garner had no pulse, there would be a duty to start CPR. No one did. The implication is that CPR was not started because it was not needed; while perhaps unconscious, he was breathing and hand a pulse at the scene. As for being on his side, that is also proper technique for placing someone who may be at risk for "positional asphyxia". That term describes a condition when obsese people lay flat on their belly, and the belly fat then presses into the chest cavity restricting the diaphram from being able to draw in air. This is widely known and taught as a cautionary concern in LEO training. As for the "choke hold", one must understand that the term is widely used improperly. First of all, "choking" is a cause of loss of air exchange from an internal obstruction (food, object, etc). Strangulation is the proper term for no air exchange from external sources (hands, ligature, etc). But that's just using proper terms; it's immportant for discussion later. Also know that while the NYPD has officially stated it does not teach "choke holds", they very quietly did acknowledge that they do teach neck restraint techniques after being repeatedly asked for clarification. When we think of a "choke hold" we automatically think of dastardly intent and malice. But in actuality, physical neck restraint is taught at many LEO academies and national LEO institutions. In fact, the NYPD teachs such, and the officers were trained in that technique. Here is a great reference to the UoF continuum, and pay special attiontion to page nine: http://cops.usdoj.gov/files/ric/Publications/hampton.pdf In that document, note that "Neck Restraint Immobilization Techniques" are a part of the UoF. Also note that this document is NOT done by some biased, political sub-group; that is linked via the DOJ/COPS program (Departent of Justice - Community Organized Police Services). http://www.cops.usdoj.gov Also note that the document was written by Ronald Hampton, Executive Director of the National Black Police Association. Now - there are "choke holds" and there are also "Neck Restraint Immobilization Techniques". They are different. To truly be a "choke hold" that would cause death, several things would have to occur; - the hold would have to directly compress the trachea (windpipe) of the victim to a point where no exchange of breath could occur - to compress the treachea with such force would leave significant medical evidence of the trauma - the compression would have to be of sufficient duration as to not only cause a loss of air exchange, but it must continue AFTER loss of consciousness because even after loss of consciousness, the auto-respiratory functions continue (to strangle someone to death you cannot "choke" someone only until they pass out; you have to continue to strangle them for 5-7 minutes until the heart and brain cease to function or else the auto-respiratory funtion would re-establish continued breathing) - to be "choked" (stangled), you cannot breath, nor speak; to be able to speak, you must be able to breathe. It is physically impossible to claim you're being "choked" to death, in multiple statements. If you can draw air in and force out words, then you are breathing. It is physically impossible and medically inaccurate to outwardly blurt sentences repeatedly indicating one cannot breath; the two are mutually exclusive. If you can't breathe, you cannot speak. If you can speak, you are breathing. In the infamous video, Garner is heard multiple times claiming "I can't breathe!" up to perhaps 10 or 11 times over and over. The fact that he can CLEARLY be heard during the application of the neck restraint is overwhelming evidence that he can, in fact, breathe. This proves that the neck restraint was NOT a "choke hold", but a physical restraint technique as taught by the NYPD, and acknowledged as useful in the Use of Force doctrine by the Department of Justice. If Garner was being strangled, then how is it he was able to communicate his words over and over during the application of the neck restraint? In fact, one cannot even sensibly argue that the restraint was mis-applied, because Garner was able to clearly articulate his objections repeatedly. I was curious as to the offical statements for cause of death. I directly contacted the NYC OCME (Office of Chief Medical Examiner). I spoke directly with the appointed representative, Julie Bolcer. I told her I wanted any/all publically available information regarding the Garner case, as shall be shared in compliance with FOIL (Freedom of Information Law in New York). She gave me a specific reading of the official statement, and she also sent me an email. Here is the contact info for that office: http://www.nyc.gov/html/ocme/html/contact/contact.shtml You must first email them and they will give you the contact info for the proper person. In this case, I was directed to Julie Bolcer. I was told this is the exact statement from the Death Certificate. The following is an EXACT display of the email sent to me at my SO email address: Cause of Death: Compression of neck (choke hold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police Contributing Conditions: Acute and chronic bronchial asthma; Obesity; Hypertensive cardiovascular disease Manner of Death: Homicide I was told by Bolcer that the information came directly from the official death certificate, because only that is open for public consumption. As this was ruled a "homicide" many details are withheld in case of criminal prosecution. Here is what the CDC says should be included in a Death Certificate, and generally how it should be completed. Note that it is understandable that governmental entites do have some descretion as to the use of formatting, etc, but the key to grasp is that the death certificate is to be specific, complete, medically descriptive, and professional. See this website: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/blue_form.pdf Now go back and read what I was emailed, and then read again the CDC instructions for death certificate completions. Do you see a glaring disparity between the official death certificate statement and the CDC instructions? Think about these things ... - death certificates should use proper medical terminology - the cause of death should be delineated in medical chronology - the death certificate does not need to, nor should it, identify suspects Ask yourself these things ... Why does the official NYC OCME statement say "choke hold"? The proper terms would be strangulation causing asphyxiation. Am I supposed to believe that the largest city in the US does not employ a Chief Medical Examiner that is capable of using proper medical terms? Why does the document list "compression of neck", but not describe any trauma to the trachea? Compression of neck and chest is NOT a cause of death; again improper terms and incomplete methodology. And since when does the OCME get to also be the prosecutor and identify the suspects of the homicide? They specifically name the "police" as part of the cause of death. Nowhere in the CDC instuctions is there any instuction as to naming suspects. Now, I'm not so stupid as to believe that the medical examiner who actually performed the autopsy was so sloppy as we're lead to believe, but that is what they (the OCME office) are putting out publically for us to consume. And I am not going to jump to any conclusion here; you are welcome to form your own opinion as to the motivations that might influence such a respected governmental entity into making such a hap-hazard and unprofessional document. For me to believe that the actions of police caused this death, I would expect to see something such as this formally stated: Cause of death: asphyxia Contributing methods: trauma to trachea; positonal restriction of lung capacity Why do I say it in that manner? Two reasons. One is that my statement includes professional medical terms and is descriptive in both cause and method. The other is that I contacted two other Coroner offices for their interpretation of how it might be properly stated. In fact, once I informed them of what I was supplied by the NYC OCME, they were in awe that such an unprofessional statement would be dissemminated in such sloppy manner, especially in such a high-profile event! So think about this in total review: - a suspect was identified as having committed a crime and was approached by police; this initiates the UoF - the public video clearly omits part of the interaction, conveniently when police likley gave Garner verbal commands for arrest; this would be proper UoF escalation - the video clearly shows the proper application of a neck restraint technique - the neck restraint technique is authorized by the NYPD and taught at their academy - the neck restraint technique is recognized as a viable control method in UoF doctrine by the DOJ - the video clearly shows Garner being able to speak repeatedly, discounting his claim of being unable to breathe - the video clearly shows Garner being on his side after being cuffed, to avoid positional asphyxia - the video clearly shows Garner being checked for pulse and breathing while on his side - the offical NYC OCME death certificate statment is very vague and lacks any professional terminology - the offical NYC OCME death certificate statment goes beyond typical protocol by naming suspects of a homicide Why did the Grand Jury not indict the officers? Likely because when they got to see ALL the evidence, with no bias from outside sources, it was clear this was an accident and not intentional nor malicious. There was no use of improper "choke hold". No one would deny that this was a horrible event, and culminated in a tradegy. But to blame the cops for Garners death is a HUGE stretch, and does not exist in concert with the evidence. I assure you that the facts I've presented are true in full faith by me. If you doubt me, then do your own research, contact the OCME, and learn about UoF doctrine. I don't mind being challenged, but if you do, don't wing it. Do your own research and challenge me with credible, reliable, affirmable facts. I offer this because I think it is important that a rational, clear analysis comes from this experience. We have an emotionally charged event that needs calm, cool heads to prevail. Feel free to concur or contradict these facts I've presented, but I ask that if you dissent, please be specific with credible sourcing to back up your position. And leave the politics and emotions off the posts.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,499
Location
Newark NJ
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
It's been a few weeks and like many of you, I wanted to get real credible info from reliable sources. I FOREWARN EVERYONE THAT THIS IS NOT TO BE A POLITICAL CONVERSATION. I am posting this because factual basis is the proper frame of mind for making decisions and drawing conclusions. If you have something to add, or contradict, then feel free to do so, but this is to be about FACTS and not political banter, nor emotional bias. If you cannot abide by that, then don't post. As a matter of full disclosure, I am a sworn officer at my local Sheriff's Office; have been for 20 years. So I may be unintentionally biased, but I'm trying my best to avoid emotion and only present facts. First of all, we need to acknowledge the concept of "Use of Force Doctrine". This is covered in many places, and is taught at every Law Enforcement Academy. It is covered in many credible sources; google as many as you'd like but this one is fairly concise and direct: http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/Pages/continuum.aspx Also know that each law entity is typically going to have their own written version of the Use of Force (UoF) in their SOPs. They will "fine tune" the terms and procedures, but they all essentially follow the UoF doctrine conceptually. Law officers are allowed to meet the threat level, and exceed it by only one level, to gain control of a situation, relative to their perception of the event as determined "reasonable". This has been covered in case decisions at both State and Federal court levels all the way up to two decisions at the SCOTUS. This is, for all intents and purposes, the "law of the land" when it comes to use of force. That in mind, you now need to look up the two live videos of the Garner event. Yes, there are two; one is of the infamous event, and one is right afterward. You'll need to view both to understand the sequence and series of events. - In the first one, note that the public version running around the internet is actually edited. In there, you can clearly see a "frame cut" that likely excludes many of the missing clues that the Grand Jury likely was able to see. The public video cuts from the officers standing around, and then essentially "tackling" him in what is outwardly seen as a "choke hold". (More on that later). What is NOT seen is when the video cuts, it is very likely that there were verbal commands given to effect the arrest. What we do see is that the officers did transition to soft empty hand control techniques. Garner was both verbally and physically resistive; you can see and hear his resistance in the video. The officers were justified in UoF Continuum to go "hands on" and use control techniques. This isn't even debateable here; it's accepted across this nation as the proper actions for the threat level Garner exhibited. What many would decry is the "choke" hold. I'll get to that a bit later. In the second video, you can see Garner on his side and appears unconscious or semi-conscious. He is now hand-cuffed. Both an NYPD officer and a NYFD Medical responder check Garner for signs of life, and they take no immediate actions. What to conclude from this? At the time he was on his side, he must have had a pulse and was breathing. If he had no pulse, they would have had a medical reason and duty to start CPR. Now you can aruge that perhaps the cops didn't really care, but I find that dubious. And what bias would the medical personnel have as a motive to allow him to die there at the scene? There are a LOT of cops and some medical personnel on scene; if Garner had no pulse, there would be a duty to start CPR. No one did. The implication is that CPR was not started because it was not needed; while perhaps unconscious, he was breathing and hand a pulse at the scene. As for being on his side, that is also proper technique for placing someone who may be at risk for "positional asphyxia". That term describes a condition when obsese people lay flat on their belly, and the belly fat then presses into the chest cavity restricting the diaphram from being able to draw in air. This is widely known and taught as a cautionary concern in LEO training. As for the "choke hold", one must understand that the term is widely used improperly. First of all, "choking" is a cause of loss of air exchange from an internal obstruction (food, object, etc). Strangulation is the proper term for no air exchange from external sources (hands, ligature, etc). But that's just using proper terms; it's immportant for discussion later. Also know that while the NYPD has officially stated it does not teach "choke holds", they very quietly did acknowledge that they do teach neck restraint techniques after being repeatedly asked for clarification. When we think of a "choke hold" we automatically think of dastardly intent and malice. But in actuality, physical neck restraint is taught at many LEO academies and national LEO institutions. In fact, the NYPD teachs such, and the officers were trained in that technique. Here is a great reference to the UoF continuum, and pay special attiontion to page nine: http://cops.usdoj.gov/files/ric/Publications/hampton.pdf In that document, note that "Neck Restraint Immobilization Techniques" are a part of the UoF. Also note that this document is NOT done by some biased, political sub-group; that is linked via the DOJ/COPS program (Departent of Justice - Community Organized Police Services). http://www.cops.usdoj.gov Also note that the document was written by Ronald Hampton, Executive Director of the National Black Police Association. Now - there are "choke holds" and there are also "Neck Restraint Immobilization Techniques". They are different. To truly be a "choke hold" that would cause death, several things would have to occur; - the hold would have to directly compress the trachea (windpipe) of the victim to a point where no exchange of breath could occur - to compress the treachea with such force would leave significant medical evidence of the trauma - the compression would have to be of sufficient duration as to not only cause a loss of air exchange, but it must continue AFTER loss of consciousness because even after loss of consciousness, the auto-respiratory functions continue (to strangle someone to death you cannot "choke" someone only until they pass out; you have to continue to strangle them for 5-7 minutes until the heart and brain cease to function or else the auto-respiratory funtion would re-establish continued breathing) - to be "choked" (stangled), you cannot breath, nor speak; to be able to speak, you must be able to breathe. It is physically impossible to claim you're being "choked" to death, in multiple statements. If you can draw air in and force out words, then you are breathing. It is physically impossible and medically inaccurate to outwardly blurt sentences repeatedly indicating one cannot breath; the two are mutually exclusive. If you can't breathe, you cannot speak. If you can speak, you are breathing. In the infamous video, Garner is heard multiple times claiming "I can't breathe!" up to perhaps 10 or 11 times over and over. The fact that he can CLEARLY be heard during the application of the neck restraint is overwhelming evidence that he can, in fact, breathe. This proves that the neck restraint was NOT a "choke hold", but a physical restraint technique as taught by the NYPD, and acknowledged as useful in the Use of Force doctrine by the Department of Justice. If Garner was being strangled, then how is it he was able to communicate his words over and over during the application of the neck restraint? In fact, one cannot even sensibly argue that the restraint was mis-applied, because Garner was able to clearly articulate his objections repeatedly. I was curious as to the offical statements for cause of death. I directly contacted the NYC OCME (Office of Chief Medical Examiner). I spoke directly with the appointed representative, Julie Bolcer. I told her I wanted any/all publically available information regarding the Garner case, as shall be shared in compliance with FOIL (Freedom of Information Law in New York). She gave me a specific reading of the official statement, and she also sent me an email. Here is the contact info for that office: http://www.nyc.gov/html/ocme/html/contact/contact.shtml You must first email them and they will give you the contact info for the proper person. In this case, I was directed to Julie Bolcer. I was told this is the exact statement from the Death Certificate. The following is an EXACT display of the email sent to me at my SO email address: Cause of Death: Compression of neck (choke hold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police Contributing Conditions: Acute and chronic bronchial asthma; Obesity; Hypertensive cardiovascular disease Manner of Death: Homicide I was told by Bolcer that the information came directly from the official death certificate, because only that is open for public consumption. As this was ruled a "homicide" many details are withheld in case of criminal prosecution. Here is what the CDC says should be included in a Death Certificate, and generally how it should be completed. Note that it is understandable that governmental entites do have some descretion as to the use of formatting, etc, but the key to grasp is that the death certificate is to be specific, complete, medically descriptive, and professional. See this website: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/blue_form.pdf Now go back and read what I was emailed, and then read again the CDC instructions for death certificate completions. Do you see a glaring disparity between the official death certificate statement and the CDC instructions? Think about these things ... - death certificates should use proper medical terminology - the cause of death should be delineated in medical chronology - the death certificate does not need to, nor should it, identify suspects Ask yourself these things ... Why does the official NYC OCME statement say "choke hold"? The proper terms would be strangulation causing asphyxiation. Am I supposed to believe that the largest city in the US does not employ a Chief Medical Examiner that is capable of using proper medical terms? Why does the document list "compression of neck", but not describe any trauma to the trachea? Compression of neck and chest is NOT a cause of death; again improper terms and incomplete methodology. And since when does the OCME get to also be the prosecutor and identify the suspects of the homicide? They specifically name the "police" as part of the cause of death. Nowhere in the CDC instuctions is there any instuction as to naming suspects. Now, I'm not so stupid as to believe that the medical examiner who actually performed the autopsy was so sloppy as we're lead to believe, but that is what they (the OCME office) are putting out publically for us to consume. And I am not going to jump to any conclusion here; you are welcome to form your own opinion as to the motivations that might influence such a respected governmental entity into making such a hap-hazard and unprofessional document. For me to believe that the actions of police caused this death, I would expect to see something such as this formally stated: Cause of death: asphyxia Contributing methods: trauma to trachea; positonal restriction of lung capacity Why do I say it in that manner? Two reasons. One is that my statement includes professional medical terms and is descriptive in both cause and method. The other is that I contacted two other Coroner offices for their interpretation of how it might be properly stated. In fact, once I informed them of what I was supplied by the NYC OCME, they were in awe that such an unprofessional statement would be dissemminated in such sloppy manner, especially in such a high-profile event! So think about this in total review: - a suspect was identified as having committed a crime and was approached by police; this initiates the UoF - the public video clearly omits part of the interaction, conveniently when police likley gave Garner verbal commands for arrest; this would be proper UoF escalation - the video clearly shows the proper application of a neck restraint technique - the neck restraint technique is authorized by the NYPD and taught at their academy - the neck restraint technique is recognized as a viable control method in UoF doctrine by the DOJ - the video clearly shows Garner being able to speak repeatedly, discounting his claim of being unable to breathe - the video clearly shows Garner being on his side after being cuffed, to avoid positional asphyxia - the video clearly shows Garner being checked for pulse and breathing while on his side - the offical NYC OCME death certificate statment is very vague and lacks any professional terminology - the offical NYC OCME death certificate statment goes beyond typical protocol by naming suspects of a homicide Why did the Grand Jury not indict the officers? Likely because when they got to see ALL the evidence, with no bias from outside sources, it was clear this was an accident and not intentional nor malicious. There was no use of improper "choke hold". No one would deny that this was a horrible event, and culminated in a tradegy. But to blame the cops for Garners death is a HUGE stretch, and does not exist in concert with the evidence. I assure you that the facts I've presented are true in full faith by me. If you doubt me, then do your own research, contact the OCME, and learn about UoF doctrine. I don't mind being challenged, but if you do, don't wing it. Do your own research and challenge me with credible, reliable, affirmable facts. I offer this because I think it is important that a rational, clear analysis comes from this experience. We have an emotionally charged event that needs calm, cool heads to prevail. Feel free to concur or contradict these facts I've presented, but I ask that if you dissent, please be specific with credible sourcing to back up your position. And leave the politics and emotions off the posts.
Just also to add: The tape shown in NYC markets had NO AUDIO. None. I wonder why that is. Was the officer cleared of the internal NYPD investigation? I hope we can keep this one OT. I believe we can do it. I have been openly critical of what happened. However, since I like to know all facts, and understand that things can be not as they seem, I will read and re-read this.. Let's do right by BITOG. Let's not degrade this one into a lock. So.. IBTL, now let's not let there be one. It is on US. And Indianapolis is Marion County, just north of and bordering Greenwood City. Naptown. Good place. thumbsup (*Irrelevant, but... facts.) smile
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Messages
677
Location
USA
Also, many people think that because the ME ruled Garner's death a "homicide", that the death was caused unjustified. Homicide is simply the killing of a human being by another, whether intentional or not. In this case, it seemed the tactic used by NYPD was in policy, justified.
 
Messages
2,775
Originally Posted By: MalfunctionProne
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
It's been a few weeks and like many of you, I wanted to get real credible info from reliable sources. I FOREWARN EVERYONE THAT THIS IS NOT TO BE A POLITICAL CONVERSATION. I am posting this because factual basis is the proper frame of mind for making decisions and drawing conclusions. If you have something to add, or contradict, then feel free to do so, but this is to be about FACTS and not political banter, nor emotional bias. If you cannot abide by that, then don't post. As a matter of full disclosure, I am a sworn officer at my local Sheriff's Office; have been for 20 years. So I may be unintentionally biased, but I'm trying my best to avoid emotion and only present facts. First of all, we need to acknowledge the concept of "Use of Force Doctrine". This is covered in many places, and is taught at every Law Enforcement Academy. It is covered in many credible sources; google as many as you'd like but this one is fairly concise and direct: http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/Pages/continuum.aspx Also know that each law entity is typically going to have their own written version of the Use of Force (UoF) in their SOPs. They will "fine tune" the terms and procedures, but they all essentially follow the UoF doctrine conceptually. Law officers are allowed to meet the threat level, and exceed it by only one level, to gain control of a situation, relative to their perception of the event as determined "reasonable". This has been covered in case decisions at both State and Federal court levels all the way up to two decisions at the SCOTUS. This is, for all intents and purposes, the "law of the land" when it comes to use of force. That in mind, you now need to look up the two live videos of the Garner event. Yes, there are two; one is of the infamous event, and one is right afterward. You'll need to view both to understand the sequence and series of events. - In the first one, note that the public version running around the internet is actually edited. In there, you can clearly see a "frame cut" that likely excludes many of the missing clues that the Grand Jury likely was able to see. The public video cuts from the officers standing around, and then essentially "tackling" him in what is outwardly seen as a "choke hold". (More on that later). What is NOT seen is when the video cuts, it is very likely that there were verbal commands given to effect the arrest. What we do see is that the officers did transition to soft empty hand control techniques. Garner was both verbally and physically resistive; you can see and hear his resistance in the video. The officers were justified in UoF Continuum to go "hands on" and use control techniques. This isn't even debateable here; it's accepted across this nation as the proper actions for the threat level Garner exhibited. What many would decry is the "choke" hold. I'll get to that a bit later. In the second video, you can see Garner on his side and appears unconscious or semi-conscious. He is now hand-cuffed. Both an NYPD officer and a NYFD Medical responder check Garner for signs of life, and they take no immediate actions. What to conclude from this? At the time he was on his side, he must have had a pulse and was breathing. If he had no pulse, they would have had a medical reason and duty to start CPR. Now you can aruge that perhaps the cops didn't really care, but I find that dubious. And what bias would the medical personnel have as a motive to allow him to die there at the scene? There are a LOT of cops and some medical personnel on scene; if Garner had no pulse, there would be a duty to start CPR. No one did. The implication is that CPR was not started because it was not needed; while perhaps unconscious, he was breathing and hand a pulse at the scene. As for being on his side, that is also proper technique for placing someone who may be at risk for "positional asphyxia". That term describes a condition when obsese people lay flat on their belly, and the belly fat then presses into the chest cavity restricting the diaphram from being able to draw in air. This is widely known and taught as a cautionary concern in LEO training. As for the "choke hold", one must understand that the term is widely used improperly. First of all, "choking" is a cause of loss of air exchange from an internal obstruction (food, object, etc). Strangulation is the proper term for no air exchange from external sources (hands, ligature, etc). But that's just using proper terms; it's immportant for discussion later. Also know that while the NYPD has officially stated it does not teach "choke holds", they very quietly did acknowledge that they do teach neck restraint techniques after being repeatedly asked for clarification. When we think of a "choke hold" we automatically think of dastardly intent and malice. But in actuality, physical neck restraint is taught at many LEO academies and national LEO institutions. In fact, the NYPD teachs such, and the officers were trained in that technique. Here is a great reference to the UoF continuum, and pay special attiontion to page nine: http://cops.usdoj.gov/files/ric/Publications/hampton.pdf In that document, note that "Neck Restraint Immobilization Techniques" are a part of the UoF. Also note that this document is NOT done by some biased, political sub-group; that is linked via the DOJ/COPS program (Departent of Justice - Community Organized Police Services). http://www.cops.usdoj.gov Also note that the document was written by Ronald Hampton, Executive Director of the National Black Police Association. Now - there are "choke holds" and there are also "Neck Restraint Immobilization Techniques". They are different. To truly be a "choke hold" that would cause death, several things would have to occur; - the hold would have to directly compress the trachea (windpipe) of the victim to a point where no exchange of breath could occur - to compress the treachea with such force would leave significant medical evidence of the trauma - the compression would have to be of sufficient duration as to not only cause a loss of air exchange, but it must continue AFTER loss of consciousness because even after loss of consciousness, the auto-respiratory functions continue (to strangle someone to death you cannot "choke" someone only until they pass out; you have to continue to strangle them for 5-7 minutes until the heart and brain cease to function or else the auto-respiratory funtion would re-establish continued breathing) - to be "choked" (stangled), you cannot breath, nor speak; to be able to speak, you must be able to breathe. It is physically impossible to claim you're being "choked" to death, in multiple statements. If you can draw air in and force out words, then you are breathing. It is physically impossible and medically inaccurate to outwardly blurt sentences repeatedly indicating one cannot breath; the two are mutually exclusive. If you can't breathe, you cannot speak. If you can speak, you are breathing. In the infamous video, Garner is heard multiple times claiming "I can't breathe!" up to perhaps 10 or 11 times over and over. The fact that he can CLEARLY be heard during the application of the neck restraint is overwhelming evidence that he can, in fact, breathe. This proves that the neck restraint was NOT a "choke hold", but a physical restraint technique as taught by the NYPD, and acknowledged as useful in the Use of Force doctrine by the Department of Justice. If Garner was being strangled, they how is it he was able to communicate his words over and over during the application of the neck restraint? In fact, one cannot even sensibly argue that the restraint was mis-applied, because Garner was able to clearly articulate his objections repeatedly. I was curious as to the offical statements for cause of death. I directly contacted the NYC OCME (Office of Chief Medical Examiner). I spoke directly with the appointed representative, Julie Bolcer. I told her I wanted any/all publically available information regarding the Garner case, as shall be shared in compliance with FOIL (Freedom of Information Law in New York). She gave me a specific reading of the official statement, and she also sent me an email. Here is the contact info for that office: http://www.nyc.gov/html/ocme/html/contact/contact.shtml You must first email them and they will give you the contact info for the proper person. In this case, I was directed to Julie Bolcer. The following is an EXACT dispaly of the email sent to me at my SO email address: Cause of Death: Compression of neck (choke hold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police Contributing Conditions: Acute and chronic bronchial asthma; Obesity; Hypertensive cardiovascular disease Manner of Death: Homicide I was told by Bolcer that the information came directly from the official death certificate, because only that is open for public consumption. As this was ruled a "homicide" many details are withheld in case of criminal prosecution. Here is what the CDC says should be included in a Death Certificate, and generally how it should be completed. Note that it is understandable that governmental entites do have some descretion as to the use of formatting, etc, but the key to grasp is that the death certificate is to be specific, complete, medically descriptive, and professional. See this website: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/blue_form.pdf Now go back and read what I was emailed, and then read again the CDC instructions for death certificate completions. Do you see a glaring disparity between the official death certificate statement and the CDC instructions? Think about these things ... - death certificates should use proper medical terminology - the cause of death should be delineated in medical chronology - the death certificate does not need, nor should, identify suspects Ask yourself these things ... Why does the official NYC OCME statement say "choke hold"? The proper terms would be strangulation causing asphyxiation. Am I supposed to believe that the largest city in the US does not employ a Chief Medical Examiner that is capable of using proper medical terms? Why does the document list "compression of neck", but not describe any trauma to the trachea? Compression of neck and chest is NOT a cause of death; again improper terms and incomplete methodology. And since when does the OCME get to also be the prosecutor and identify the suspects of the homicide? They specifically name the "police" as part of the cause of death. Nowhere in the CDC instuctions is there any instuction as to naming suspects. Now, I'm not so stupid as to believe that the medical examiner who actually performed the autopsy was so sloppy as we're lead to believe, but that is what they (the OCME office) are putting out publically for us to consume. And I am not going to jump to any conclusion here; you are welcome to form your own opinion as to the motivations that might influence such a respected governmental entity into making such a hap-hazard and unprofessional document. For me to believe that the actions of police caused this death, I would expect to see something such as this formally stated: Cause of death: asphyxia Contributing methods: trauma to trachea; positonal restriction of lung capacity Why do I say it in that manner? Two reasons. One is that my statement includes professional medical terms and is descriptive in both cause and method. The other is that I contacted two other Coroner offices for their interpretation of how it might be properly stated. In fact, once I informed them of what I was supplied by the NYC OCME, they were in awe that such an unprofessional statement would be dissemminated in such sloppy manner, especially in such a high-profile event! So think about this in total review: - a suspect was identified as having committed a crime and was approached by police; this initiates the UoF - the public video clearly omits part of the interaction, conveniently when police likley gave Garner verbal commands for arrest; this would be proper UoF escalation - the video clearly shows the proper application of a neck restraint technique - the neck restraint technique is authorized by the NYPD and taught at their academy - the neck restraint technique is recognized as a viable control method in UoF doctrine by the DOJ - the video clearly shows Garner being able to speak repeatedly, discounting his claim of being unable to breathe - the video clearly shows Garner being on his side after being cuffed, to avoid positional asphyxia - the video clearly shows Garner being checked for pulse and breathing while on his side - the offical NYC OCME death certificate statment is very vague and lacks any professional terminology - the offical NYC OCME death certificate statment goes beyond typical protocol by naming suspects of a homicide Why did the Grand Jury not indict the officers? Likely because when they got to see ALL the evidence, with no bias from outside sources, it was clear this was an accident and not intentional nor malicious. There was no use of improper "choke hold". No one would deny that this was a horrible event, and culminated in a tradegy. But to blame the cops for Garners death is a HUGE stretch, and does not exist in concer with the evidence. I assure you that the facts I've presented in full faith by me. If you doubt me, then do your own research, contact the OCME, and learn about UoF doctrine. I offer this because I think it is important that a rational, clear analysis comes from this experience. We have an emotionally charged event that needs calm, cool heads to prevail. Feel free to concur or contradict these facts I've presented, but I ask that if you dissent, please be specific with credible sourcing to back up your position. And leave the politics and emotions off the posts.
Just also to add: The tape shown in NYC markets had NO AUDIO. None. I wonder why that is. Was the officer cleared of the internal NYPD investigation? I hope we can keep this one OT. I believe we can do it. I have been openly critical of what happened. However, since I like to know all facts, and understand that things can be not as they seem, I will read and re-read this.. Let's do right by BITOG. Let's not degrade this one into a lock. So.. IBTL, now let's not let there be one. It is on US. And Indianapolis is Marion County, just north of and bordering Greenwood County. Naptown. Good place. thumbsup (*Irrelevant, but... facts.) smile
IMHO and it's just that, you are far from an objective person. You openly questioned if Diblasio had run a anti-police campaign even when open Diblasio supporting news papers and mews channels were touting that fact. You called me for specifics (thread locked before I could answer) and yet you never answered when I asked you why was it wrong for NYPD to turn their back in a silent protest that injured nobody but the intended target (Diblasio) yet was it ok for the anti-police protesters to block innocent business owners during the busiest time of their year or to burn down neighborhoods. BTW: if you want to come clean, why don't you post up what was printed in the papers today about good ol Sharpton. Not even getting to his 200k in personal tax debt, or the millions his companies owe in taxes......this article was how his "racist" claims were up for sale! Why it matters? Because this was fueled by failing policy.
 
Messages
10,999
Location
Phoenix
Too many people are dying at the hands of the police, they seem to have no interest in defusing a situation but instead escalating it.
 
Messages
1,499
Location
Newark NJ
And I just read the post. Well done! I would like to point out that, while much detail was given as to saying "I can't breathe" etc etc.. let me say, that: - To a movie-going generation, "I can't breathe" basically means "I am having a great difficulty breathing." I would agree about not being able to speak if being choked. Quite literal, however I took the "I can't breathe" to mean "I am having impairee breathing." - The video also appears to show a police officer that, while smaller, was kneeling on the back of a neck. - Did he intimidate police THAT much? - Why no taser? I'll bring up these observations and leave it.. though I find the information about the ME (Medical Examiner) VERY interesting! The Medical Examiner competence was also called into queation at the Newtown shootings. He *may* have been shaken up at having to do that to all those young kids. Maybe..
 
Messages
2,775
Originally Posted By: lawman1909
Also, many people think that because the ME ruled Garner's death a "homicide", that the death was caused unjustified. Homicide is simply the killing of a human being by another, whether intentional or not. In this case, it seemed the tactic used by NYPD was in policy, justified.
You are correct. If a man were to be 100% justified in killing another he/she has still committed the act of homicide. They are cleared by an affirmative defense of "justification" found in most states penal law or common law statues.
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Thread starter
Messages
8,459
Location
Indianapolis, IN
I would concur completely that impaired breathing is quite possible. Garner would have known that his asthma and othe physical conditions would lead to a very limited ability to breath. For him to claim "I can't breathe" is probably a very fair EMOTIONAL STATEMENT from him. I get that; I agree with that. I understand his intent in his statement. However, when it comes to forensic evidence, it clearly shows that Garner in fact was NOT being "choked" (strangled) by the officer. Garner quite forcefully stated many times words that indicate he was breathing. Garner is free to state anything he wants, but his statement is not factual in his claim. It only matters because people are saying the police cut off his air supply. Nothing could be further from the truth because his words contradict that claim. As for the Taser (lack of use thereof), I cannot comment. Most department have them, some do not. We have them; I believe they are great tools, but they also come with caveats as well. It's not like there's never been a lawsuit of use of a Taser resulting in death either .... Unfortunately, people do die occasionally from interaction with police. Whether it be physical restraint, Taser, bullets, etc. In this case, I see nothing to indicate that the cops violated policy, nor usurped the UoF doctrine. I also see that the OCME official statement is, in a word, lacking any professional detail. I was truly disappointed in that statement given to me.
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,775
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Too many people are dying at the hands of the police, they seem to have no interest in defusing a situation but instead escalating it.
How many is too many? You make it seem like it's ok for a few but not "too many?" I can only speak for my state, NY which is on the hot seat. Do some home work. Check out the numbers of overall homicides in NYC under Dinkens and then contrast with today. More important, why don't you look at the numbers of Dinkens controlled police officers who shot and killed civilians and compare that to today. Amazing when you see it. So put your time in.
 
Messages
1,499
Location
Newark NJ
Originally Posted By: BISCUT
Originally Posted By: MalfunctionProne
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
It's been a few weeks and like many of you, I wanted to get real credible info from reliable sources. I FOREWARN EVERYONE THAT THIS IS NOT TO BE A POLITICAL CONVERSATION. I am posting this because factual basis is the proper frame of mind for making decisions and drawing conclusions. If you have something to add, or contradict, then feel free to do so, but this is to be about FACTS and not political banter, nor emotional bias. If you cannot abide by that, then don't post. As a matter of full disclosure, I am a sworn officer at my local Sheriff's Office; have been for 20 years. So I may be unintentionally biased, but I'm trying my best to avoid emotion and only present facts. First of all, we need to acknowledge the concept of "Use of Force Doctrine". This is covered in many places, and is taught at every Law Enforcement Academy. It is covered in many credible sources; google as many as you'd like but this one is fairly concise and direct: http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/Pages/continuum.aspx Also know that each law entity is typically going to have their own written version of the Use of Force (UoF) in their SOPs. They will "fine tune" the terms and procedures, but they all essentially follow the UoF doctrine conceptually. Law officers are allowed to meet the threat level, and exceed it by only one level, to gain control of a situation, relative to their perception of the event as determined "reasonable". This has been covered in case decisions at both State and Federal court levels all the way up to two decisions at the SCOTUS. This is, for all intents and purposes, the "law of the land" when it comes to use of force. That in mind, you now need to look up the two live videos of the Garner event. Yes, there are two; one is of the infamous event, and one is right afterward. You'll need to view both to understand the sequence and series of events. - In the first one, note that the public version running around the internet is actually edited. In there, you can clearly see a "frame cut" that likely excludes many of the missing clues that the Grand Jury likely was able to see. The public video cuts from the officers standing around, and then essentially "tackling" him in what is outwardly seen as a "choke hold". (More on that later). What is NOT seen is when the video cuts, it is very likely that there were verbal commands given to effect the arrest. What we do see is that the officers did transition to soft empty hand control techniques. Garner was both verbally and physically resistive; you can see and hear his resistance in the video. The officers were justified in UoF Continuum to go "hands on" and use control techniques. This isn't even debateable here; it's accepted across this nation as the proper actions for the threat level Garner exhibited. What many would decry is the "choke" hold. I'll get to that a bit later. In the second video, you can see Garner on his side and appears unconscious or semi-conscious. He is now hand-cuffed. Both an NYPD officer and a NYFD Medical responder check Garner for signs of life, and they take no immediate actions. What to conclude from this? At the time he was on his side, he must have had a pulse and was breathing. If he had no pulse, they would have had a medical reason and duty to start CPR. Now you can aruge that perhaps the cops didn't really care, but I find that dubious. And what bias would the medical personnel have as a motive to allow him to die there at the scene? There are a LOT of cops and some medical personnel on scene; if Garner had no pulse, there would be a duty to start CPR. No one did. The implication is that CPR was not started because it was not needed; while perhaps unconscious, he was breathing and hand a pulse at the scene. As for being on his side, that is also proper technique for placing someone who may be at risk for "positional asphyxia". That term describes a condition when obsese people lay flat on their belly, and the belly fat then presses into the chest cavity restricting the diaphram from being able to draw in air. This is widely known and taught as a cautionary concern in LEO training. As for the "choke hold", one must understand that the term is widely used improperly. First of all, "choking" is a cause of loss of air exchange from an internal obstruction (food, object, etc). Strangulation is the proper term for no air exchange from external sources (hands, ligature, etc). But that's just using proper terms; it's immportant for discussion later. Also know that while the NYPD has officially stated it does not teach "choke holds", they very quietly did acknowledge that they do teach neck restraint techniques after being repeatedly asked for clarification. When we think of a "choke hold" we automatically think of dastardly intent and malice. But in actuality, physical neck restraint is taught at many LEO academies and national LEO institutions. In fact, the NYPD teachs such, and the officers were trained in that technique. Here is a great reference to the UoF continuum, and pay special attiontion to page nine: http://cops.usdoj.gov/files/ric/Publications/hampton.pdf In that document, note that "Neck Restraint Immobilization Techniques" are a part of the UoF. Also note that this document is NOT done by some biased, political sub-group; that is linked via the DOJ/COPS program (Departent of Justice - Community Organized Police Services). http://www.cops.usdoj.gov Also note that the document was written by Ronald Hampton, Executive Director of the National Black Police Association. Now - there are "choke holds" and there are also "Neck Restraint Immobilization Techniques". They are different. To truly be a "choke hold" that would cause death, several things would have to occur; - the hold would have to directly compress the trachea (windpipe) of the victim to a point where no exchange of breath could occur - to compress the treachea with such force would leave significant medical evidence of the trauma - the compression would have to be of sufficient duration as to not only cause a loss of air exchange, but it must continue AFTER loss of consciousness because even after loss of consciousness, the auto-respiratory functions continue (to strangle someone to death you cannot "choke" someone only until they pass out; you have to continue to strangle them for 5-7 minutes until the heart and brain cease to function or else the auto-respiratory funtion would re-establish continued breathing) - to be "choked" (stangled), you cannot breath, nor speak; to be able to speak, you must be able to breathe. It is physically impossible to claim you're being "choked" to death, in multiple statements. If you can draw air in and force out words, then you are breathing. It is physically impossible and medically inaccurate to outwardly blurt sentences repeatedly indicating one cannot breath; the two are mutually exclusive. If you can't breathe, you cannot speak. If you can speak, you are breathing. In the infamous video, Garner is heard multiple times claiming "I can't breathe!" up to perhaps 10 or 11 times over and over. The fact that he can CLEARLY be heard during the application of the neck restraint is overwhelming evidence that he can, in fact, breathe. This proves that the neck restraint was NOT a "choke hold", but a physical restraint technique as taught by the NYPD, and acknowledged as useful in the Use of Force doctrine by the Department of Justice. If Garner was being strangled, they how is it he was able to communicate his words over and over during the application of the neck restraint? In fact, one cannot even sensibly argue that the restraint was mis-applied, because Garner was able to clearly articulate his objections repeatedly. I was curious as to the offical statements for cause of death. I directly contacted the NYC OCME (Office of Chief Medical Examiner). I spoke directly with the appointed representative, Julie Bolcer. I told her I wanted any/all publically available information regarding the Garner case, as shall be shared in compliance with FOIL (Freedom of Information Law in New York). She gave me a specific reading of the official statement, and she also sent me an email. Here is the contact info for that office: http://www.nyc.gov/html/ocme/html/contact/contact.shtml You must first email them and they will give you the contact info for the proper person. In this case, I was directed to Julie Bolcer. The following is an EXACT dispaly of the email sent to me at my SO email address: Cause of Death: Compression of neck (choke hold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police Contributing Conditions: Acute and chronic bronchial asthma; Obesity; Hypertensive cardiovascular disease Manner of Death: Homicide I was told by Bolcer that the information came directly from the official death certificate, because only that is open for public consumption. As this was ruled a "homicide" many details are withheld in case of criminal prosecution. Here is what the CDC says should be included in a Death Certificate, and generally how it should be completed. Note that it is understandable that governmental entites do have some descretion as to the use of formatting, etc, but the key to grasp is that the death certificate is to be specific, complete, medically descriptive, and professional. See this website: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/blue_form.pdf Now go back and read what I was emailed, and then read again the CDC instructions for death certificate completions. Do you see a glaring disparity between the official death certificate statement and the CDC instructions? Think about these things ... - death certificates should use proper medical terminology - the cause of death should be delineated in medical chronology - the death certificate does not need, nor should, identify suspects Ask yourself these things ... Why does the official NYC OCME statement say "choke hold"? The proper terms would be strangulation causing asphyxiation. Am I supposed to believe that the largest city in the US does not employ a Chief Medical Examiner that is capable of using proper medical terms? Why does the document list "compression of neck", but not describe any trauma to the trachea? Compression of neck and chest is NOT a cause of death; again improper terms and incomplete methodology. And since when does the OCME get to also be the prosecutor and identify the suspects of the homicide? They specifically name the "police" as part of the cause of death. Nowhere in the CDC instuctions is there any instuction as to naming suspects. Now, I'm not so stupid as to believe that the medical examiner who actually performed the autopsy was so sloppy as we're lead to believe, but that is what they (the OCME office) are putting out publically for us to consume. And I am not going to jump to any conclusion here; you are welcome to form your own opinion as to the motivations that might influence such a respected governmental entity into making such a hap-hazard and unprofessional document. For me to believe that the actions of police caused this death, I would expect to see something such as this formally stated: Cause of death: asphyxia Contributing methods: trauma to trachea; positonal restriction of lung capacity Why do I say it in that manner? Two reasons. One is that my statement includes professional medical terms and is descriptive in both cause and method. The other is that I contacted two other Coroner offices for their interpretation of how it might be properly stated. In fact, once I informed them of what I was supplied by the NYC OCME, they were in awe that such an unprofessional statement would be dissemminated in such sloppy manner, especially in such a high-profile event! So think about this in total review: - a suspect was identified as having committed a crime and was approached by police; this initiates the UoF - the public video clearly omits part of the interaction, conveniently when police likley gave Garner verbal commands for arrest; this would be proper UoF escalation - the video clearly shows the proper application of a neck restraint technique - the neck restraint technique is authorized by the NYPD and taught at their academy - the neck restraint technique is recognized as a viable control method in UoF doctrine by the DOJ - the video clearly shows Garner being able to speak repeatedly, discounting his claim of being unable to breathe - the video clearly shows Garner being on his side after being cuffed, to avoid positional asphyxia - the video clearly shows Garner being checked for pulse and breathing while on his side - the offical NYC OCME death certificate statment is very vague and lacks any professional terminology - the offical NYC OCME death certificate statment goes beyond typical protocol by naming suspects of a homicide Why did the Grand Jury not indict the officers? Likely because when they got to see ALL the evidence, with no bias from outside sources, it was clear this was an accident and not intentional nor malicious. There was no use of improper "choke hold". No one would deny that this was a horrible event, and culminated in a tradegy. But to blame the cops for Garners death is a HUGE stretch, and does not exist in concer with the evidence. I assure you that the facts I've presented in full faith by me. If you doubt me, then do your own research, contact the OCME, and learn about UoF doctrine. I offer this because I think it is important that a rational, clear analysis comes from this experience. We have an emotionally charged event that needs calm, cool heads to prevail. Feel free to concur or contradict these facts I've presented, but I ask that if you dissent, please be specific with credible sourcing to back up your position. And leave the politics and emotions off the posts.
Just also to add: The tape shown in NYC markets had NO AUDIO. None. I wonder why that is. Was the officer cleared of the internal NYPD investigation? I hope we can keep this one OT. I believe we can do it. I have been openly critical of what happened. However, since I like to know all facts, and understand that things can be not as they seem, I will read and re-read this.. Let's do right by BITOG. Let's not degrade this one into a lock. So.. IBTL, now let's not let there be one. It is on US. And Indianapolis is Marion County, just north of and bordering Greenwood County. Naptown. Good place. thumbsup (*Irrelevant, but... facts.) smile
IMHO and it's just that, you are far from an objective person. You openly questioned if Diblasio had run a anti-police campaign even when open Diblasio supporting news papers and mews channels were touting that fact. You called me for specifics (thread locked before I could answer) and yet you never answered when I asked you why was it wrong for NYPD to turn their back in a silent protest that injured nobody but the intended target (Diblasio) yet was it ok for the anti-police protesters to block innocent business owners during the busiest time of their year or to burn down neighborhoods. BTW: if you want to come clean, why don't you post up what was printed in the papers today about good ol Sharpton. Not even getting to his 200k in personal tax debt, or the millions his companies owe in taxes......this article was how his "racist" claims were up for sale! Why it matters? Because this was fueled by failing policy.
BISCUT, your discussion with whether the mayor ran on an anti-police platform was with another poster. And my response about why it was wrong was that it was at a funeral. You neevr provided "where the family said that it was ok," as that seemed a bit.. odd. Yes, I recall the thread got locked up. But I was not trying to have a contest with you. All you would have done would be to cite some place where "the family said it was ok," you made your position very well known and let it be known how dug-in you are. I have seen this on other forums, and know just how useless trying to articulate what you think is against the type, as all thatvwill haopen is wordy re-wordings of the soecifics with which you dug yourself into your position. THAT IS NOT SAYING AS TO RIGHT OR WRONG. Simply observation, in my experience. I also do agree that many are dying at hands of police. After awhile, it would start to "seem" that police are untouchable, and can do no wrong. And that is unacceptable. (In my opinion.) No hard feelings, BISCUT. Olive branch? Are we good? And that is what makes this forum so great... we can speak our minds. Cheers1 And, it is correct that I am not the most pro-police/LEO poster. Though, if framed properly, I can respect pro-police statements and sentiments.
 
Messages
1,499
Location
Newark NJ
Originally Posted By: BISCUT
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Too many people are dying at the hands of the police, they seem to have no interest in defusing a situation but instead escalating it.
How many is too many? You make it seem like it's ok for a few but not "too many?" I can only speak for my state, NY which is on the hot seat. Do some home work. Check out the numbers of overall homicides in NYC under Dinkens and then contrast with today. More important, why don't you look at the numbers of Dinkens controlled police officers who shot and killed civilians and compare that to today. Amazing when you see it. So put your time in.
Even one is too many. It's human life here. Oh,they are QUICK to say "if even one life can be saved." Not you.. they.
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,775
Originally Posted By: MalfunctionProne
And I just read the post. Well done! I would like to point out that, while much detail was given as to saying "I can't breathe" etc etc.. let me say, that: - To a movie-going generation, "I can't breathe" basically means "I am having a great difficulty breathing." I would agree about not being able to speak if being choked. Quite literal, however I took the "I can't breathe" to mean "I am having impairee breathing." - The video also appears to show a police officer that, while smaller, was kneeling on the back of a neck. - Did he intimidate police THAT much? - Why no taser? I'll bring up these observations and leave it.. though I find the information about the ME (Medical Examiner) VERY interesting! The Medical Examiner competence was also called into queation at the Newtown shootings. He *may* have been shaken up at having to do that to all those young kids. Maybe..
I've given you a rash of SSSS and mean this with no sarcasm. When the public sees 4 cops on a guy they immediately say hes getting tuned up. Back in the day, the street cop would tell you something and if you said no, he was alone, and would basically kick youe [censored]. We do things different now. Now its multiple, when available, to control with "soft hands" to get the cuffs on and make an arrest. May not look it but often there are knees on necks, elbows thrown when instead it could be a full punch tot he face, etc... Experiment: Next time you are hanging out with your buddies, sober as heck, tell 2 of em to try and get you cuffed. If you don't want to be cuffed, you can't imagine how hard it can be to get a guy controlled and cuffed without kicking his [censored]. And the big guys, like Gardner, require linked cuffs to fit. He may have been a 3 cuff size. Food for thought.
 

MolaKule

Staff member
Messages
21,580
Location
Iowegia - USA
Quote:
- the offical NYC OCME death certificate statment is very vague and lacks any professional terminology - the offical NYC OCME death certificate statment goes beyond typical protocol by naming suspects of a homicide
Trying to stay apolitcal here, but as to the two points above, I can only assume there was interference or influence from either the mayor's office or the Federal DOJ, or both.
Quote:
Why did the Grand Jury not indict the officers? Likely because when they got to see ALL the evidence, with no bias from outside sources, it was clear this was an accident and not intentional nor malicious. There was no use of improper "choke hold". No one would deny that this was a horrible event, and culminated in a tradegy. But to blame the cops for Garners death is a HUGE stretch, and does not exist in concert with the evidence.
Exactly. The Grand Jury was able to see ALL of the Evidence and came to the correct conclusion. If there was sufficient evidence of wrongdoing, the Grand Jury would have ruled otherwise. I have been in similar situations as an RPO (Reserve Police Officer), where we have had to restrain suspects by various methods, and I know what the police are facing these days.
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,775
Originally Posted By: MalfunctionProne
Originally Posted By: BISCUT
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Too many people are dying at the hands of the police, they seem to have no interest in defusing a situation but instead escalating it.
How many is too many? You make it seem like it's ok for a few but not "too many?" I can only speak for my state, NY which is on the hot seat. Do some home work. Check out the numbers of overall homicides in NYC under Dinkens and then contrast with today. More important, why don't you look at the numbers of Dinkens controlled police officers who shot and killed civilians and compare that to today. Amazing when you see it. So put your time in.
Even one is too many. It's human life here. Oh,they are QUICK to say "if even one life can be saved." Not you.. they.
Olive branch accepted and another extended. I agree 1 is too many. But unfortunately certain people have consciously made decisions and set into motion actions that have caused a reaction, very often deemed justified by a grand jury, resulting in death. We are so quick to accept the concept of say, attractive nuisance where a person has a pool and bad things happen and someone dies. The owner may have done everything he was suppose to, gate, locked, etc... yet he is responsible for the simple action of having a pool. Now a guy commits a strong arm robbery (felony, US Supreme Court Tennessee V Garner; irreverent of what the item was; deadly psy force justified) and a cop in the course of his duties takes a life, is cleared, and we have a different take. Without facts or knowledge we blame the cops, heck, even Holder did! Love it. Don't see that prosecution coming that he promised in Fuergson now do we. Nope, because it is impossible to win a civil rights case after the facts came out.
 
Messages
1,499
Location
Newark NJ
Originally Posted By: BISCUT
Originally Posted By: MalfunctionProne
Originally Posted By: BISCUT
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Too many people are dying at the hands of the police, they seem to have no interest in defusing a situation but instead escalating it.
How many is too many? You make it seem like it's ok for a few but not "too many?" I can only speak for my state, NY which is on the hot seat. Do some home work. Check out the numbers of overall homicides in NYC under Dinkens and then contrast with today. More important, why don't you look at the numbers of Dinkens controlled police officers who shot and killed civilians and compare that to today. Amazing when you see it. So put your time in.
Even one is too many. It's human life here. Oh,they are QUICK to say "if even one life can be saved." Not you.. they.
Olive branch accepted and another extended. I agree 1 is too many. But unfortunately certain people have consciously made decisions and set into motion actions that have caused a reaction, very often deemed justified by a grand jury, resulting in death. We are so quick to accept the concept of say, attractive nuisance where a person has a pool and bad things happen and someone dies. The owner may have done everything he was suppose to, gate, locked, etc... yet he is responsible for the simple action of having a pool. Now a guy commits a strong arm robbery (felony, US Supreme Court Tennessee V Garner; irreverent of what the item was; deadly psy force justified) and a cop in the course of his duties takes a life, is cleared, and we have a different take. Without facts or knowledge we blame the cops, heck, even Holder did! Love it. Don't see that prosecution coming that he promised in Fuergson now do we. Nope, because it is impossible to win a civil rights case after the facts came out.
Cheers1
 
Messages
1,499
Location
Newark NJ
Originally Posted By: BISCUT
Originally Posted By: MalfunctionProne
Originally Posted By: BISCUT
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Too many people are dying at the hands of the police, they seem to have no interest in defusing a situation but instead escalating it.
How many is too many? You make it seem like it's ok for a few but not "too many?" I can only speak for my state, NY which is on the hot seat. Do some home work. Check out the numbers of overall homicides in NYC under Dinkens and then contrast with today. More important, why don't you look at the numbers of Dinkens controlled police officers who shot and killed civilians and compare that to today. Amazing when you see it. So put your time in.
Even one is too many. It's human life here. Oh,they are QUICK to say "if even one life can be saved." Not you.. they.
Olive branch accepted and another extended. I agree 1 is too many. But unfortunately certain people have consciously made decisions and set into motion actions that have caused a reaction, very often deemed justified by a grand jury, resulting in death. We are so quick to accept the concept of say, attractive nuisance where a person has a pool and bad things happen and someone dies. The owner may have done everything he was suppose to, gate, locked, etc... yet he is responsible for the simple action of having a pool. Now a guy commits a strong arm robbery (felony, US Supreme Court Tennessee V Garner; irreverent of what the item was; deadly psy force justified) and a cop in the course of his duties takes a life, is cleared, and we have a different take. Without facts or knowledge we blame the cops, heck, even Holder did! Love it. Don't see that prosecution coming that he promised in Fuergson now do we. Nope, because it is impossible to win a civil rights case after the facts came out.
Same with Zimmerman. No civil rights case, huh Prez? LOL! They don't talk bout that anymore. smile Is why Holder got fired. LOL!
 
Messages
2,775
I promise, my last!! I'm sure you are all sick of my tirades. I truly feel a lot of the disconnect we have betwen police and community is a direct result of the federal gov't subjugating it's responsibility to municipalities post 911. They have made local cops more militaristic and have put way to much "terrorist" responsibility on us instead of the fed govt/ Add a horrid economy and states and cities making cops a revenue machines have fueled the flames.
 
Messages
3,118
Location
San Antonio, TX
I just watched the video. It looks like a policeman killed Garner. This is not a court of law. I don't need a 5 page story.
 
Last edited:
Top