Garner event: facts and info

dnewton3

Staff member
Thread starter
Messages
8,459
Location
Indianapolis, IN
OK jorton - I can accept that you don't believe it. But I'd like to ask why not? You say you don't want to read "5 pages" of info, but my post only takes about 5 minutes to read. If your carreer or life hung in the balance, would you not want a person to put full effort into the research before making a decision? I think it's important for you to read and fully understand Use of Force Doctrine, and understand the lack of detail in the ME statement. I posted many links so my research would have full credibility. In a way, if you are my toughest critic, then please be specific as to what I've presented that seems unpallatable to you. If you have evidence or research that would contradict mine, can you provide it so I can understand your side of the topic? I am not saying you are wrong. I am asking for you to show me why you think I'm wrong, please. It's not a taunt, but a request to better have a realization of the viewpoints of all. I had hoped that my thread would have convinced critics, but if not, then please help me understand why not?
 
Messages
1,280
Location
Missouri
If you've ever done any grappling you will realize in a true choke hold there is no talking. I have been caught in a rear naked choke several times and was not even able to whimper. You tap out and they let go because it's not a real fight. I had a guy locked in a very sloppy arm triangle from the guard position and he picked me up. I was about 10 inches off the ground before he passed out. Even with my poor technique I was able to render him unconscious. That tells me that the officer was attempting to subdue not choke him.
 
Messages
2,400
Location
In The Region Between
The minute he said that he could not breathe, but was clearly breathing, was when they screwed up. That was a sign that his heart was not getting oxygen despite lung respiration. But they did not administer immediate first aid. Any of us here on this forum who ever had a cardiac event knows what it feels like. What was done therefore qualified as manslaughter or murder. He was under their control and they had custody of him.
 
Messages
3,118
Location
San Antonio, TX
Originally Posted By: jorton
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.
The eye witness is the narrator.
 
Messages
884
Location
San Francisco, CA
Originally Posted By: Cristobal
The minute he said that he could not breathe, but was clearly breathing, was when they screwed up. That was a sign that his heart was not getting oxygen despite lung respiration. But they did not administer immediate first aid.
As someone who works in the medical field, I agree with this assessment. People who are having asthma attacks will say "I can't breathe" even if at that moment they still get marginal amounts of air. You will have to excuse a person in panic from being emotional about his state rather than being detached and factual. After all, they know what's coming and that an asthma attack may end fatally. By the way, laying somone down, even if on his side, who can't breathe is a bad idea in the case of asthma, unless the goal is to kill him. Someone with asthma needs to sit and lean forward in an effort to ease breathing. With cardiac events, too, a person may experience the feeling of suffocating, even though the airways are open. There are other conditions, for example, acute pulmonary edema, which can cause the symptoms of suffocation. hotwheels
 
Messages
2,795
Location
High Tax Illinois
If a person does not want to be handcuffed, its very hard to do. I know, I work in a prison. Make a game of it, have one of your buddies lay on the floor face down with his hands locked together on his chest. Now you try to handcuff him. Good Luck.
 
Last edited:
Messages
593
Location
Al
Anyone with any serious martial arts or military H2H training knows that the most effective choke-hold is created with application of one forearm behind the neck and the other forearm of other arm in front of the neck. A forearm triangle choke hold provides for easy compression of the subject's trachea and produces loss of consciousness and then death if left in place. It can also be used to break the neck vertebrae with using a snap-twist technique. The video does not show a triangle choke hold applied, instead it shows a relatively weak head lock hold applied without any head press in place, meaning one arm placed around the neck with pressure being applied by one forearm, and bicep of the same arm and upper ribcage. This type of headlock controls the subject's head to some extent but without a head press being applied with other hand it allows for a large "hole" for the neck making it more difficult if not impossible to fully close the subject's airway or break the neck. If you want to choke someone placing them in a headlock (mostly used by 6th grade boys in wrestling contests) is the hardest and least efficient way to do it.
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,115
Location
new york
The train has left the station re, people changing their opinion now. We are given the illusion we have choices. Paper or plastic aisle or window. WHEN we demonstrate at funerals we align ourselves with the bat dung insane wingnuts like Westboro Baptist Church which uses funerals. Nobody has real choices. NYC mayor was elected because there was no opposition. He as all of them are picked, you do not get to pick which one they choose. When things get tight for some reason courts decide which one. We do not belong to this club who picks. The Garner family may push back when they have multi millions but for now it really does not matter what we think. Instead of thinking writing your opinion will change anything you would be far better off getting a shot for Shingles. IT IS NONE OF OUR BUSINEES! GETTING SHINGLES IS> IMHO
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Thread starter
Messages
8,459
Location
Indianapolis, IN
LT4 Vette - why no Taser? As I said before, we don't know why. Perhaps there was none on scene? Perhaps it did not fit info their UoF protocol in that response? I cannot answer for that. I can only speculate that either it was not present or was not authorized. When it comes to Tasers, it is my opinion that they are great tools. However let us not pretend like Tasers do not come without legal challenges as well. Many complaints and lawsuits exist because people have died right after being Taser'd. I find it somewhat (darkly) amusing that people are pointing to the Taser as a possible solution to this problem, when it is not unheard of for people to demonstrably blame the Taser when it's used and results in death. Folks often what to have their cake and eat it too! Which really brings part of the disucssion to this concept ... Garner was very possibly on the feathery edge of death by just standing there. It is likely, given his medical history and physical state that ANY PHYSICAL CONTACT OR INTERVENTION would elicit a near-death experiece. I do agree that his asthma may likely have been a contributing factor, and the fact that he stated "I can't breathe!" multiple times could be a clue. I have two thoughts on that: 1) lying and denial are not unheard of when it comes to apprehending a suspect. I have had folks practically screaming "I'm not resisting!" as I have to wrestle them to get cuffs on. Just because they state something does not make it true. Suspects are known to work a system for their advantage and use law officer training to their benefit by scheming the system. I am not saying Garner was lying here; that is not my intent. But don't for one second believe that it does not happen. And therefore, cops are trained to follow protocol and not deviate. So what to take from this? Cops are taught to get control as quicly as possible, restrain as safely as possible, and then assess the siutation. People often want to "arm chair quaterback" the event, but we are taught that expedient action results in the least harm. The longer a struggle goes on, the greater the potential of risk to everyone at the scene. Hence, it's pounce and cuff. That allows a quick followup assessment. And that is EXACTLY what happend in the two videos. Watch them and you'll be able to put the rationale to the test. 2) asthma is not immediately life threatening in terms of seconds. When you watch the video, it took perhaps 30 seconds to subdue and cuff Garner. Death cannot occur that quickly in terms of not being able to breath. While possible that he may have lost consciousness quickly, he didn't asphyxiate to death in 30 seconds. It takes anywhere from three to seven minutes for the brain to die from a lack of oxygen; this is dependent upon many criteria. But not for one second do I think the "choke hold" killed this man as a direct result of asyphxia. There was no exclusion of breathing as a direct result of the neck restraint technique. What is likely is that the stress of the event triggered an asthmatic reaction and possibly even a central-nervous shutdown related to ED (more on that later). And when I asked for the OCME info, I wanted to see the specific causation of death. That kind of info would have been very telling. But the absence of that info is also very telling. Given the LACK OF INFO from the OCME, we can only speculate. This in turn drives me to consider the existence of other possibilities. Had the OCME been able to directly attribute the death to a definite medical cause, I suspect it would have been listed. I suspect that the stated nature of the death certificate is, at best, specious in it's listing. It is quite possible that the stress of the event simply culminated in multiple causes combined with a very weak auto-defensive central nervous response. While his mind was saying "I can't breathe", his body was simply giving up. As for having Garner lay on his side, that is EXACTLY the training that cops are taught. Positional Asphyxia is avoided by putting someone on their side. If asthma calls for a different approach, then it needs to be taught to the officers. But at this point, from my 20 years of continued in-service LEO training, sitting someone up and forward is not the trained response. So do NOT blame officers for following their training protocol of having him lay on his side. I am not a doctor, but I do have rudimentary medical training (first responder certified and yet-to-be-completed EMT). Additionally, as a cop, I'm trained in being aware of certain conditions that may be exhibited during confrontation. There is a topic called ED (excited delirium) in which the body is so hyped up on it's own adreneline and/or drugs that it can cause death by not being able to calm itself. ED (leave the puns out, please, and stay on topic) has unclear causation and still is elusive in terms of diagnosis, but is acknowledged as worthy of consideration in some in-custody deaths. ED is a topic that is in it's infancy of understanding, but it is taught in many LEO training academies. ED is real and is a risk, and it is difficult to diagnose after the fact, and even more hard to deal with in real-time. http://www.emsworld.com/article/10320570/excited-delirium http://www.officer.com/article/10250061/in-custody-deaths-excited-delirium I am not saying ED was to blame for sure, but certainly the lack of detail in the OCME statement leave this possibility up for consideration. Go back to the NYC OCME death statement; it was very vague and nearly unprofessional. If there were a susccinct, articuable cause of death, it would be probably publically disseminated quickly. But the lack of info is as telling as anything else here. ED is very hard to distinguish in an autopsy and leaves few if any clues. Could it be a contributing factor? Most certainly possible. Additionally, how many of you know that four medical responders in this event were suspended, but then ultimately cleared and reinstated? What does that tell us? I can only fathom a wide range of possibilities, but we'll not know because so far I've been unable to secure any facts past these outward statements. http://www.ems1.com/ems-news/2009956-FDNY-Suspended-medics-being-reinstated It is often SOP for personnel to be suspended after "questionable" events, as a matter of precautionary tone. But the two paramedics were cleared quickly, and the two EMTs were cleared subsequently. The only inference I can take from this is that Garner must have been alive at the time at the scene; why else clear them if he died under their care? Probably because he was alive while on the pavement. Unfortunately the data is sealed away; I've not been able to see direct evidence. But I am comfortable in my (admittedly limited) conclusion to this point. Understand, I am not blaming the medics, but why no outcry over the FDNY sponsored medical team?????? Ask yourself why are the cops blamed, but no one even knows the FDNY medical team was investigated too? The cops did their job according to their training protocol, and there is at least some outward indication that the medical team took appropriate actions, otherwise the four medics would not have been cleared. This is my assessment of what really happened: Garner was a walking, ticking death-imminent timb-bomb, and any stress whatsoever was likely to set off his demise. Garner was allegedly involved in a crime, and the NYPD took action in line with the protocol of their department training and UoF doctrine. Garner was able to speak (breathe) while being cuffed but was at the onset of death from the stress of physical exertion and complications from the event. Garner was breathing and had a pulse after being cuffed, but was probably on his way out. Garner was assessed by the FDNY sponsored medical team; they took limited actions, were investigated and cleared. Garner likely expired at some point between laying on the street and the hospital. Garner has some amount of personal culpability in this; he chose to resist and he had direct knowledge of his risky medical conditions, whereas the cops did not. Garner possibly may have died had a Taser been used; while it cannot be proven either way, there are some coincidental similarities in other Taser related deaths. Garner probably died from some combination of asthma, ED and central nervous shutdown. Yes - I agree that the event unfolded into a tradegy. But that tragedy is not the fault of the NYPD. And the Grand Jury saw it for what it was, and ruled accordingly. So again, I ask that if folks have other good quality info that can be substantiated, and they disagree with my presentation of the facts and assessments, then by all means, please bring forth the info. Please do so in a controlled, deliberate, articuable manner. .
 
Last edited:

Win

Messages
4,705
Location
Arkansas
A nice forensic analysis, I guess, but perception is everything. A lot of people perceive the guy was needlessly killed over some cigarettes. I don't think that's an unreasonable perception. It seems they knew who he was before this trainwreck went down. He was a repeat customer - out on bond for other offenses. How hard is it to throw a ticket at him and deal with him next time he's in Court? Shake him down for some more money. Or get a warrant for the crimes they apparently had probable cause to arrest him on, and serve it on him next time he's in Court? Do you really need to face plant a guy over some cigs? I don't understand the need to use force when you don't need to use force.
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Thread starter
Messages
8,459
Location
Indianapolis, IN
More of the story needs to be understood here. What Garner was doing was selling "loosies" (singular cigs untaxed). New York City has an ordinance against this; it's apparently not unheard of and apparently a nuisance. So much so that the preceding mayoral administration set up a task force, as I understand it, to deal with this issue. The NYPD was tasked to stop this violation from happening. It was not just Garner they were after; it was a city side sweep that was occurring over months and hundreds of people throughout 2014. So when you state it should be a postponed, that really is disengenuous to the obligations the NYPD was tasked with, and the efforts they had to put forth. Do you really want the already over-burdened system to deal with hundreds of "warrants" for selling untaxed single cigs? And if those warrants were issued, there is still some group of cops that has to hunt him down and serve the warrant(s), which would still likely lead to an escalation of force such as what was seen. Your solution does not solve the problem; it only delays the issue and further adds paper into the legal system. I understand your position, but it seems limited in it's viewpoint. This is not an isolated incident. This is a chronic problem the city is dealing with. Why was Garner so upset about being hassled? Because he already had many multiple arrests for this and other offenses. He clearly was perturbed by the inconvenience of being arrested yet again. But what are the alternatives? Let him continue? What makes you think he would ever show up in court again if he was not physically hauled into court in the first place? Your position, while it may seem rationale on the first blush, completely ignores the reality that career criminals don't care what inconveniences they create to other law-abiding citizens, what mass of burgeoning paperwork they incite into a legal system, etc. Garner was being arrested because he had broken the law, he had repeated offenses, and the NYPD was directed by the Mayor's office to sweep these problems off the street. They had to use force because Garner both verbally and physically resisted arrest for a crime that he had continually committed. If you want to suggest that it should not be a crime to sell "loosies", I might agree with that. But apparently enough people thought it unacceptable that they elected a person to office that in turn responded to their complaints and worked with the city council to set an ordinance against such issues. And so cops are tasked with dealing with this type violation. Yes - it seems absurd and obscene that a man died because he sold an untaxed cigarette. But the problem manifested into death because: 1) he was in incredibly poor health 2) he broke the law 3) the cops were purposely tasked with dealing with the city-wide problem 4) he resisted arrest and the cops responded according to their training Consider this scenario, because it is real and did actually happen .... The man in question lived in a neighborhood that was controlled by a city noise ordinance. The neighbors continually complained about the loud parties at the residence from the man's backyard. The cops showed up repeatedly and warned the homeowners over several weeks. The cops were directed to deal with the issue when the neighbors called the mayor and demanded action. The cops showed up the next time the complaints came in. The homeowner was uncooperative and refused to turn the music down; he claimed he had a "right" to do what he wanted in his own home. The cops issued a written citation; they left. The party continued. More complaints came in. The citation was processed into city court. The citation went unanswered; the homeowner never showed up to court. The police were issued a warrant by the judge for a command to appear for failure to respond to a summons. The next party weekend came along and the complaints came in. The cops showed up. The police attempted to arrest him based upon the warrant. The man fled into the house; the police gave chase inside the home (which is legal because of the arrest warrant). The man grabbed a knife to "defend" himself. The police shot and killed him in defense of their own lives. Some would say that the cops killed a man over a loud stereo. But the issue is much deeper and broader when the full facts are known. Had they not gone in, the man would have lived. But also the neighbors would hear the continued unadulterated blasting of music. If the cops never serve the warrant, then the music never stops. It's not hard to understand, is it? It's easy to flame the cops when you're not the one suffering the onslaught of civil violation. Who gets hurt when Garner sells "loosies"? Well - there is a loss of tax revenue. There is a loss of sales for legitimate shop owners. There is a risk of underage kids getting unrestricted access to tobacco. And so an ordinance is set to deal with the issue. And the cops are tasked to deal with it. Certainly the NYPD could have just let Garner go. Except that the system was being tasked to deal with Garner, and those like him. The cops were doing what the public directed them to do, via the civic chain of command. Seemingly small issues manifest into big problems when people do not cooperate with the established system. All Garner had to do was submit quietly to the arrest. If the arrest was unjust, it would have been flushed out in court. Instead Garner chose a fight that day. And he lost his life because of it. I hope that explains why Garner was not released at the scene.
 
Last edited:
Messages
593
Location
Al
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
More of the story needs to be understood here. What Garner was doing was selling "loosies" (singular cigs untaxed). New York City has an ordinance against this; it's apparently not unheard of and apparently a nuisance. So much so that the preceding mayoral administration set up a task force, as I understand it, to deal with this issue. The NYPD was tasked to stop this violation from happening. It was not just Garner they were after; it was a city side sweep that was occurring over months and hundreds of people throughout 2014. So when you state it should be a postponed, that really is disengenuous to the obligations the NYPD was tasked with, and the efforts they had to put forth. Do you really want the already over-burdened system to deal with hundreds of "warrants" for selling untaxed single cigs? And if those warrants were issued, there is still some group of cops that has to hunt him down and serve the warrant(s), which would still likely lead to an escalation of force such as what was seen. Your solution does not solve the problem; it only delays the issue and further adds paper into the legal system. I understand your position, but it seems limited in it's viewpoint. This is not an isolated incident. This is a chronic problem the city is dealing with. Why was Garner so upset about being hassled? Because he already had many multiple arrests for this and other offenses. He clearly was perturbed by the inconvenience of being arrested yet again. But what are the alternatives? Let him continue? What makes you think he would ever show up in court again if he was not physically hauled into court in the first place? Your position, while it may seem rationale on the first blush, completely ignores the reality that career criminals don't care what inconveniences they create to other law-abiding citizens, what mass of burgeoning paperwork they incite into a legal system, etc. Garner was being arrested because he had broken the law, he had repeated offenses, and the NYPD was directed by the Mayor's office to sweep these problems off the street. They had to use force because Garner both verbally and physically resisted arrest for a crime that he had continually committed. If you want to suggest that it should not be a crime to sell "loosies", I might agree with that. But apparently enough people thought it unacceptable that they elected a person to office that in turn responded to their complaints and worked with the city council to set an ordinance against such issues. And so cops are tasked with dealing with this type violation. Yes - it seems absurd and obscene that a man died because he sold an untaxed cigarette. But the problem manifested into death because: 1) he was in incredibly poor health 2) he broke the law 3) the cops were purposely tasked with dealing with the city-wide problem 4) he resisted arrest and the cops responded according to their training Consider this scenario, because it is real and did actually happen .... The man in question lived in a neighborhood that was controlled by a city noise ordinance. The neighbors continually complained about the loud parties at the residence from the man's backyard. The cops showed up repeatedly and warned the homeowners over several weeks. The cops were directed to deal with the issue when the neighbors called the mayor and demanded action. The cops showed up the next time the complaints came in. The homeowner was uncooperative and refused to turn the music down; he claimed he had a "right" to do what he wanted in his own home. The cops issued a written citation; they left. The party continued. More complaints came in. The citation was processed into city court. The citation went unanswered; the homeowner never showed up to court. The police were issued a warrant by the judge for a command to appear for failure to respond to a summons. The next party weekend came along and the complaints came in. The cops showed up. The police attempted to arrest him based upon the warrant. The man fled into the house; the police gave chase inside the home (which is legal because of the arrest warrant). The man grabbed a knife to "defend" himself. The police shot and killed him in defense of their own lives. Some would say that the cops killed a man over a loud stereo. But the issue is much deeper and broader when the full facts are known. Had they not gone in, the man would have lived. But also the neighbors would hear the continued unadulterated blasting of music. If the cops never serve the warrant, then the music never stops. It's not hard to understand, is it? It's easy to flame the cops when you're not the one suffering the onslaught of civil violation. Who gets hurt when Garner sells "loosies"? Well - there is a loss of tax revenue. There is a loss of sales for legitimate shop owners. There is a risk of underage kids getting unrestricted access to tobacco. And so an ordinance is set to deal with the issue. And the cops are tasked to deal with it. Certainly the NYPD could have just let Garner go. Except that the system was being tasked to deal with Garner, and those like him. The cops were doing what the public directed them to do, via the civic chain of command. Seemingly small issues manifest into big problems when people do not cooperate with the established system. All Garner had to do was submit quietly to the arrest. If the arrest was unjust, it would have been flushed out in court. Instead Garner chose a fight that day. And he lost his life because of it. I hope that explains why Garner was not released at the scene.
An excellent and very well reasoned post. Thanks
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Win

Messages
4,705
Location
Arkansas
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
So when you state it should be a postponed, that really is disengenuous to the obligations the NYPD was tasked with, and the efforts they had to put forth. Do you really want the already over-burdened system to deal with hundreds of "warrants" for selling untaxed single cigs? And if those warrants were issued, there is still some group of cops that has to hunt him down and serve the warrant(s), which would still likely lead to an escalation of force such as what was seen. Your solution does not solve the problem; it only delays the issue and further adds paper into the legal system.
Sure, why not? When you arrest someone, eventually they get a day in court. Even if they successfully arrested him, he'd probably be out later that day and back to selling cigs on the street again. So this delay thing is unpersuasive to me. They knew who he was ( please corrrect me if I'm wrong on that fact ), he was a repeat offender. He was out on bond, so obviously he shows up for court, or you don't get bonds to show up in court. Six or more cops tackling a fat guy and mashing him into the ground for some smokes is a poor use of police resources, imo, and then having it mushroom into ambulances, EMT's, grand juries, revenge murders, etc., is also a bit of a paperwork problem, to state the obvious. All they want is money out of these "crimes". The return on this bust was spectacular, but not in a good way.
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Thread starter
Messages
8,459
Location
Indianapolis, IN
I think we would all agree it ended badly for everyone, most of all Garner. But what I am trying to set straight are the facts surrounding the event. If people want to be upset, fine. Be upset at the system, and strive to make changes. But don't blame cops for doing the job they were specifically directed to do. They were sent out to enforce this ordinance, they did so as directed by upper management, they used their training to properly react to a resistant subject; they employed the UoF doctrine which is well recognized and accepted nationally. "All they want is money ..." You state "they" as if the government is soley the driver here. As I said before, the ordinance really exists because the public complains about something. "They" are us! Don't like the result? Campaign to get rid of the crime statute.
 
Last edited:
Messages
19,685
Location
Sunny Florida
There are published statistics for police interactions with folks arrested. They simply do not support the narrative currently expounded by the "news" people and many others with obvious agendas. The facts are the poor cops do a great job and are overwhelmingly successful in arresting people without incident. And the cops in the Garner case were being supervised by a Black Female officer! As is typical these days it is blown massively out of proportion to further some other cause, even if the narrative is completely false. I am sure our resident PhD will be here soon to explain it to us in ridiculous terms. I am encouraged that it seems many here are not biting, the bait is just a' danglin' right out there...
 
Last edited:

Win

Messages
4,705
Location
Arkansas
Let me ask something that I am unclear on: were these smokes from packs that had been brought into the city without the tax ever having been paid, or were these taxed packs, broke open to sell the loosies at a markup, but without collecting a new tax on the sale?
 
Messages
2,815
Location
Michigan
Dave, As always you analysis is in-depth and kudos to you for taking the time to do the research. As a civilian I am surprised that NYC police elects to spend their limited resource to go after street peddlers, it makes one wonder if that is the only criminal activity going on in their city. As a taxpayer is little worried that we the taxpayers have to foot the bill for the aftermath. In recent times some cities have written policies/laws to forbid police from conducting car chases within city limits etc. Why? cus it is easy to escalate a situation. Now the question of having the duty of enforcing the law, well, hmm, what happened to adultery? Any special squad of NYC finest out there taking down hot soccer mums sleeping with the ups dude?
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,499
Location
Newark NJ
Originally Posted By: Win
Let me ask something that I am unclear on: were these smokes from packs that had been brought into the city without the tax ever having been paid, or were these taxed packs, broke open to sell the loosies at a markup, but without collecting a new tax on the sale?
I think the second scenario you describe. Though the pack could have been bought from somewhere else. (*which is also illegal, IIRC.)
 
Top