Garner event: facts and info

dnewton3

Staff member
Thread starter
Messages
8,459
Location
Indianapolis, IN
As for the cigs: I am unclear, but I suspect it could be either. Which version Garner was involved in I cannot comment on. I've not read any info ensuing such a finite detail. As for the police detail: it is a mixed bag. Large departments have plenty of money, but it's never endless. But big pockets allow for a multi-pronged approach to reduction of crime. it is reasonable to consider that NYPD has a multitude of sub-departmental groups such as robbery/homicide, narco, prostitution/human traffic, ordinances, gambling, parking, special events, etc, etc. Each division has their own budget for money and man-hours. When the Mayor's office pushed this agenda (which started under Bloomberg by the way) it is likely the funds were committed for the entire year of 2014, and at least reviewed quaterly. For folks to infer that those cops should have been doing other things, really smacks of a lack of understand of large entities. It is no different at large private companies, is it not? Same goes for military spending, etc, etc, etc ... These cops were on the job they were being paid to do. To suggest they could have been doing something else is silly. Most large departments actually have sub-management teams that micro-manage the daily ops. No one expects the vice guys to cover robbery for a day. No one expects the beat cop to cover contractor fraud, etc. There are something like 35,000 cops in the NYPD, most of which whom work in a paticular division. Most certainly they are capable of being cross-trained to do many things, but their daily responsibilities are targeted per the budge of money and hours. It is my understanding that this started with a group that was doing ordinance enforcement specific to tobacco/alcohol. If I am wrong, someone please correct me. Part of the COPS agenda (the DOJ program I referred to in my orginal post) is all about community policing at the source. Rather than letting crimes fester and encourage debasement of the system, they go to the root and deal with smaller things. It is not a one-tier program; it is multi-tier, from the bottom to the top. Sort of like the butterfly effect, as it were. While I am not suggesting Garner would turn to selling drugs, it is a message sent to those who would. They (NYC) has been on a no tolerance policy at every level for many years now, and it has paid off big time; their crime rates in most every discipline are down. It does not happen overnight; it takes time. As silly as it may seem, there is tangible evidence that pursing the small-time violators does affect larger crime. Likely because tolerance of small crime infers large crime is OK, and vice versa. The best thing to do is read all the links I've previously put out, and spend a lot of time reading the DOJ/COPS website. One of our deputies from our SO went to visit NYC this past summer for vacation. He said it was one of the safest cities he's ever been in. He indicated there were cops on every block as it seemed. And those are just the ones in uniform he could see. It is reasonable to believe that NYC has the money and man-hours to be able to pursue a multitude of crime at every level concurrently and not have to pull one resource for another in daily ops. Certainly large special events are going to draw extra resources, but I suspect most of that is covered by OT and not pulling regular duty cops off their directed jobs.
 
Last edited:
Messages
719
Location
Connecticut
Originally Posted By: stockrex
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?
StockRex, it sounds like you havn't spent much time in NYC. I just retired after 30 years of making sales calls and visiting clients in NYC. In the pre Giuliani years walking, taking the subway, catching the train in GCT was at best a hassle. Some days it felt like everyone was in your face trying to sell you something. There was plenty of dealing in the streets. During and after Giuliani things got much much better. If the NYPD stopped enforcing the petty stuff again it would be mayhem.
 
Messages
2,115
Location
new york
The nyc police are in a slow down mode and not enforcing the very petty law Garner died from. Only The NFL Is As absurd!! Are there any adults??
 
Messages
796
Location
Michigan
Originally Posted By: ottotheclown
The nyc police are in a slow down mode and not enforcing the very petty law Garner died from. Only The NFL Is As absurd!! Are there any adults??
From the very start who told the police to go after people for the petty law ? who told them to slow down ? who made the dam petty law ? Oh Where is the NFL main office located ?
 
Messages
1,797
Location
Texas
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
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.
That's fine, and that's expected. But there's also an expectation that the police will respond to violations with an appropriate level of force. Wrapping your arms around the neck of a non violent perp who isn't threatening violence, when he's surrounded by a half a ton worth of police officers is just too much. It was a horrible judgement call. Remove the racial narrative and at best it's terrible, unprofessional, sloppy police work. At worst it's manslaughter. That the officer received no actual punishment is a slap in the face.
 
Messages
10,331
Location
Jupiter, Florida
I behave myself, and don't get in trouble. I also have Afib and other heart rhythm related issues due to defects and a heart virus. Knowing this, I avoid all forms of confrontation. At no point would it ever enter my mind to fight with the police, or to be anything other than completely compliant. In fact, one would have to be 5 shades of stupid to escalate a fight with anyone, when one has serious health issues. One might not survive even the most minor of blows, falls, choke holds, not to mention more severe tactics, stab wounds or gun shot wounds.
 
Messages
1,797
Location
Texas
The most aggressive thing Garner did was pull his hands away when they tried to grab his wrists. He wasn't trying to escalate a fight, he was throwing a temper tantrum. Much like a three year old he certainly would have worn himself out and needed a nap and/or a sandwich.
 
Messages
2,096
Location
Easton, PA
Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
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.
That's fine, and that's expected. But there's also an expectation that the police will respond to violations with an appropriate level of force. Wrapping your arms around the neck of a non violent perp who isn't threatening violence, when he's surrounded by a half a ton worth of police officers is just too much. It was a horrible judgement call. Remove the racial narrative and at best it's terrible, unprofessional, sloppy police work. At worst it's manslaughter. That the officer received no actual punishment is a slap in the face.
Explain the non-violent part? If he is actively resisting arrest that is the definition of violent. He was a convicted criminal...he was treated as such. It is not the police's fault he was in poor health. It is the unfortunate circumstance they were the ones to push his health over the edge. You stop enforcing one law even petty and it is a slippery slope IMO.
 
Messages
2,096
Location
Easton, PA
Originally Posted By: Mykl
The most aggressive thing Garner did was pull his hands away when they tried to grab his wrists. He wasn't trying to escalate a fight, he was throwing a temper tantrum. Much like a three year old he certainly would have worn himself out and needed a nap and/or a sandwich.
Now you are just being ridiculous. Trolling maybe? HE WAS RESISTING ARREST! That is an undisputed fact.
 
Messages
1,797
Location
Texas
Originally Posted By: Thermo1223
Explain the non-violent part? If he is actively resisting arrest that is the definition of violent. He was a convicted criminal...he was treated as such. It is not the police's fault he was in poor health. It is the unfortunate circumstance they were the ones to push his health over the edge. You stop enforcing one law even petty and it is a slippery slope IMO.
I think you need to look up the definition of the word "violent." Because you don't seem to know what it actually means. Have you ever been given a warning instead of a traffic ticket? Did you *demand* that the officer write you a ticket on the grounds that if you didn't receive a ticket you were going to later escalate your speeding to drunk driving? Did you ride the slippery slope all the way to that? I'm not even saying that the guy shouldn't have been dealt with. If he was breaking the law that was that, the police should have been involved. But wrapping your arms around the guy's neck because he pulled his hand away from you? Are you so blindly authoritarian that you support the use of deadly force for something so petty?
Originally Posted By: Thermo1223
Now you are just being ridiculous. Trolling maybe? HE WAS RESISTING ARREST! That is an undisputed fact.
You need to tone it down, because if the moderator who created this thread considers this to be polite and non emotional as he dictated at the beginning of the thread I'm going to get a little more pointed in future responses. If reflexively pulling your arms away is resisting arrest in such a way that begs for the response he received, then I think we need to redefine what resisting arrest means.
 
Messages
593
Location
Al
Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: Thermo1223
Explain the non-violent part? If he is actively resisting arrest that is the definition of violent. He was a convicted criminal...he was treated as such. It is not the police's fault he was in poor health. It is the unfortunate circumstance they were the ones to push his health over the edge. You stop enforcing one law even petty and it is a slippery slope IMO.
I think you need to look up the definition of the word "violent." Because you don't seem to know what it actually means. Have you ever been given a warning instead of a traffic ticket? Did you *demand* that the officer write you a ticket on the grounds that if you didn't receive a ticket you were going to later escalate your speeding to drunk driving? Did you ride the slippery slope all the way to that? I'm not even saying that the guy shouldn't have been dealt with. If he was breaking the law that was that, the police should have been involved. But wrapping your arms around the guy's neck because he pulled his hand away from you? Are you so blindly authoritarian that you support the use of deadly force for something so petty?
Originally Posted By: Thermo1223
Now you are just being ridiculous. Trolling maybe? HE WAS RESISTING ARREST! That is an undisputed fact.
You need to tone it down, because if the moderator who created this thread considers this to be polite and non emotional as he dictated at the beginning of the thread I'm going to get a little more pointed in future responses. If reflexively pulling your arms away is resisting arrest in such a way that begs for the response he received, then I think we need to redefine what resisting arrest means.
Pure unadulterated horse poop - plain and simple Garner was resisting arrest. Civilization requires that perps don't get to chose if and when they will submit to arrest by police. That absolutely cannot be how things work. I am old enough to remember the NYC of per-Gulianni days having done business there on a regular basis over 3 decades. NYC was a cesspool overrun with crime - streets filled with petty as well as violent criminals on every other corner. Absolutely no part of the city was safe, the predators would jump the turnstile and ride the subway up to the nice neighborhoods to prey on people. I grew up in a rough Chicago neighborhood and I am a trained martial artist but I never felt comfortable walking NYC streets especially at night. Giuliani came in and busted heads, he initiated cops paying attention and arresting people for the small stuff..hopping subways, vandalism, car window wash con artists, aggressive violent pan handling, snatch and grap purse snatchers, etc...basically got the parasites and predators off the streets. In post Giuliani years NYC still feels completely different - the city is alive and safe and pretty much crime free. The deBlasio years will almost certainly mark the return to general lawlessness in NYC and the return of predators walking the streets looking for victims. At this point I feel sorry for NYC and its citizens - they seem to have forgotten what it took to make the city safe and great again. I especially feel bad for the NYC cops - most of them with very rare exceptions are basically heroes putting their lives on the line and doing an extremely tough job.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,797
Location
Texas
Originally Posted By: cashmoney
Pure unadulterated horse poop - plain and simple Garner was resisting arrest. Civilization requires that perps don't get to chose if and when they will submit to arrest by police. That absolutely cannot be how things work.
Yes, and the reasonable response any time someone gives an officer a hard time is to wrap your arms around their neck and apply pressure. We certainly shouldn't expect our police to analyze the situation and tailor their response according to the danger presented to them and others around them. Just roll in full force at the slightest sign of disobedience.
 
Messages
593
Location
Al
That's absolutely right Mykl - you resist arrest you are subject to getting your butt kicked by the cops. And hopefully kicked hard. Then maybe next time the lowlife decides it is a better plan to not resist arrest, and not to give the cops who are just trying to do their jobs, a hard time. You want to second guess cops actions and decisions made in high pressure situations doing what may be the toughest most dangerous job in the US? Sit in your safe comfortable chair and second guess all you want. Most second guessers would not last a week attempting to do a cop's thankless job in a high crime urban neighborhood.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,797
Location
Texas
Originally Posted By: cashmoney
That's absolutely right Mykl - you resist arrest you are subject to getting your butt kicked by the cops. And hopefully kicked hard. Then maybe next time the lowlife decides it is a better plan to not resist arrest, and not to give the cops who are just trying to do their jobs, a hard time. You want to second guess cops actions and decisions made in high pressure situations doing what may be the toughest most dangerous job in the US? Sit in your safe comfortable chair and second guess all you want. Most second guessers would not last a week attempting to do a cop's thankless job in a high crime urban neighborhood.
If that's the way it is then I 100% support all the people protesting against it. Because that's not the way it should be.
 
Messages
19,685
Location
Sunny Florida
Originally Posted By: Mykl
Are you so blindly authoritarian that you support the use of deadly force for something so petty?
This quote epitomizes the misunderstanding. Absolutely no normally "deadly" force was used, only a standard controlling hold to get the cuffs on. It was Garner's physical condition that led to his death, that hold does not kill people...
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Thread starter
Messages
8,459
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Guys - I think you've lost track of the fundementals in this last page or so. Let's keep it civil and on course. Let's recap. First, go back and re-read the Use of Force Doctrine. Then, you must understand that all LEO training defines resistance as non-compliance to whatever commands or indications that are given. Resistance can be non-verbal, verbal, and physical. - Non-verbal resistance can simply be ignoring commands. Or it can be not answering questions when there is reasonable suspicion that the individual may have been involved in an unlawful or medical event. - Verbal resistance can be as simple as saying "No - I don't want to ..." all the way up to "Go (blank) your mother, I hate you guys, you're all pigs and I want you all to (blanking) die. I'm not coming over there and you can't make me ... I will kick your (blank) if you try and make me." (A statement I heard not long ago while on duty ....) - Physical resistance can be either non-combative or combative, and can be offered all the way up to deadly force threats. (Not all resistance is interpreted as DF, but the definition allows it to be a progressive concept from simple inert behavior all the way up to DF). * Non-combative resistance can be broken into two sub-categories; non-compliant inaction (laying on the roadway in protest and making cops have to carry you off the scene) up to non-compliant action such as walking away when told to stand still or show your hands, etc. * Combative resistance can be as simple as pulling your hand away when I go to gain control with wrist control, all the way up to the subject's truly being in "fight mode". When Garner resisted both verbally and physically, he placed the police in a position that they could use soft empty-hand control techniques. Hence, the grabbing of him, the neck restraint, etc. Technically, because of the fact that Garner did swat at the officer's hand they could have transitioned to hard empty-hand control (use of strikes, kicks, etc). You have to keep in mind that UoF doctrine allows the officers to go one level ABOVE the level of resistance. When Garner swatted the cop's hand, he offered physically combative resistance. It is imperative that you read and understand the UoF continuum. This isn't something that has popped up over-night; this is taught at every LEO academy for the last several decades, from small town deparments all the way up to all federal agencies. Whether you like it or not, whether you understand it or not, does not change the fact that this is the accpeted LEO reaction to a presentation of resistance. It has been tested in both state and federal courts time and time again and prevails as the accepted law of the land. For those of you who state the response to Garner was excessive or unwarranted, you clearly are ignoring or don't understand the UoF concept. For any level of threat presented to LEOs, they are allowed to meet that level, and exceed by one level, to gain control of the situation. Go back and read the UoF doctrine and rationale, then watch the videos again. When you watch the videos, pay special close attention to the fact that there is a time frame cut right before he was jumped upon. Also, note that at first there were only two cops, but then there were several. What do you think happened in that time frame cut-out? I'll hazard a sensible guess that the cops tried to talk with him, and made verbal commands to direct him, and he simply didn't comply. So they probably called for back-up and a supervisor (identified as the blake female in uniform). Then the scene immediately jumps to him being grabbed and tackled. It looks very sensationalized because it seems like they gave him no warning at all. But open your mind and THINK your way through the situation, and it becomes apparent what happened. And I HIGHLY suspect that the Grand Jury got to see the ENTIRE, UNEDITED video. When Garner pulled away from the wrist grab, and then swatted at the hand of the officer, he was physically combative by definition. They were authorized by doctrine and training to go "hands-on" and take him with any force up to hard empty-hand techniques, although I didn't see any hard control, but only what is defined as soft control (holds and grabs, but no kicking or punching ...). Garner allegedly commited a crime. Police were present (first level of UoF). Garner verbally was uncooperative. (resistance) Police gave verbal commands (second level of UoF; very likely happened in the time-frame video cut) Garner became aggitated and exhibited uncooperative behavior, verbally resisting and physically not complying. (escalated resistance) Police grabbed for his wrist (third level of UoF). Garner swatted at the hand of the police officer. (escalated resistance) Police then took multiple approaches simultaneously to control him including wrist grabs and a neck restraint immobilization technique (fourth level of UoF). Nowhere can I find that the cops violated any UoF protocol; nowhere did they use any improper techniques. I will add this, too. Police are not required to start at the bottom and work their way up. They are allowed to meet/exceed the threat level upon initial contact. If a suspect is already dancing about, wildly swinging fists and shouting death threats, officers are not required to start at the beginning. They are authorized to enter into the Force Continuum at the level appropriate to gain control of the event. If he's attempting to hit people with force (hard hand resistance) they are allowed to enter at that level, or escalate their response one level to hard weapon control (battons, Tasers, etc). I am not inferring this was the issue with Garner, but I'm trying to help all understand the concept of UoF protocol and how it's employed on the job. Some of this will depend on each deparment's written Use of Force Policy, and how they structure their training. But overall, this is sound and has been tested and passed many court battles. So it is important to embrace conceptually. Now, what I would be willing to discuss and debate is if someone has documented proof from any official agency page that the UoF was usurped, or if you have true video evidence from another angle that would put the current info into question. Like I have always said, if you want to prove me wrong, then you have to bring solid, reliable evidence and not rhetoric and conjecture. I have posted PLENTY of direct, specific information as to the UoF topic, as well as broken down the sequence of actions in the videos. The reason I posted this thread is because the other threads went total-emotional and policitcal immediately and were quickly quarantined; no one can act surprised there. But this thread is supposed to be about the FACTS and ANALYSIS, not your own personal gut feeling about why you think it does or does not suck. We all agree that it is a tradegy; his death was very unfortunate. But it was a collateral accident of his own choice of actions and not a result of improper protocol or illegal action. If you disagree with my information, bring your own to the table for analysis and review. All I ask is that you be clear, definitive, stay on-topic and have credible sources with solid logic.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,797
Location
Texas
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Guys - I think you've lost track of the fundementals in this last page or so. Let's keep it civil and on course. Let's recap. First, go back and re-read the Use of Force Doctrine.
I appreciate how knowledgeable you are of the subject and your analytical approach to it, but people aren't upset only because someone died. People die every day in encounters with the police, that's not news. One of the big issues people are having, among others, is that doctrine/policy/law/whatever is drawn up in a way that is leading to these needless deaths. You saw exactly that, at first, with the Ferguson case. The Ferguson PD created a situation via the lack of information (not filing their after action report, as they were supposed to), and misinformation (the police chief initially stating that officer Wilson was not aware of the robbery), that led to the popular belief that Brown was shot in a mishandled confrontation over a jaywalking stop by an officer who had been a part of a department that was cleaned out by its community over racial issues. Yeah, in the end it became reasonable to believe that the Ferguson shoot was a good one, because the evidence the investigation turned up supports that view. But the fact that, for a while, the perception that a guy got shot over a jaywalking stop was as valid as any other, is the level of outrage over Garner's death any surprise?
 
Messages
2,096
Location
Easton, PA
The only way people needlessly die at the hands of police is threw their own actions unless it was outright proven the police executed the suspect. They put themselves in the position to be a suspect and then they refuse to cooperate. The police are not the justice system, you air your grievances in front of the judge. File a wrongful arrest suit if you must. The simple fact is Garner stated "I did nothing wrong" which is completely false and he knew it. He then gave them an ultimatum that it stops today. What would be next in the cops mind? He pulls a .25 from his waist and starts shooting?
 

MolaKule

Staff member
Messages
21,591
Location
Iowegia - USA
Quote:
But the fact that, for a while, the perception that a guy got shot over a jaywalking stop was as valid as any other, is the level of outrage over Garner's death any surprise?
The perception was generated by the News Media and the likes of Sharpton, the Black Panthers, et. al. Perceptions don't keep you alive when you are on the beat protecting the public.
 
Top