TexasCHLforum.com

ScooterSissy wrote:

VMI77 wrote:Here's another test....what would happen if, say, Mr. Garner pushed you, and you took him down in the exact same manner, and he died just like he did in this incident? What are your chances of walking away without a trial? My bet is zero unless you've got blue privilege. The police aren't supposed to be above the law. If you or I would stand trial for the same action they should too. In fact, the police, since they're trained, have backup, and get the latitude granted by the public trust, should be held to a HIGHER standard than the rest of us....if not under the law itself, then by the departments they work for.

There's a difference though. As a citizen, I am not charged with affecting the arrest of a person for pushing someone. A policeman is.

So?

I consider myself an average person. I am from NYC. My wife and I are in complete agreement on this one. Those cops killed this guy for a nothing crime and when he was down and out they never rendered aid to him. This was not like Ferguson. I agreed with the Ferguson verdict. Not this verdict. This is not a racial issue, just excessive force to arrest a guy for a nothing crime. Let's say that he was trim and healthy and had run away, would that have been reason to shoot him? These cops were too agressive. A man is dead for selling cigarettes. I didn't see much of a protest on the video. There was apparently a second video though which shows that the cops rendered no aid to a dying man. Was reported on Fox news.

Keith B wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:
The duties, and goals, of a paramedic are different than those of a policeman.

I know this. My point was that it is not a humane way to force an individual into compliance by intentionally interrupting basic physiological processes that if not applied in a very strict manner can cause death. Training (and the term here is used loosely) cadets to use this technique and assuming that it will be applied consistently and strictly is a farce. Do LEO certify on a regular basis to allow them to use these techniques? Are they applied under strict supervision?

I highly doubt it. I fully suspect that if these techniques were reviewed for correctness and consistency the results would show that there is a vast difference in skill level. If these techniques are not dangerous then why are many forbidden?

Here's another test....what would happen if, say, Mr. Garner pushed you, and you took him down in the exact same manner, and he died just like he did in this incident? What are your chances of walking away without a trial? My bet is zero unless you've got blue privilege. The police aren't supposed to be above the law. If you or I would stand trial for the same action they should too. In fact, the police, since they're trained, have backup, and get the latitude granted by the public trust, should be held to a HIGHER standard than the rest of us....if not under the law itself, then by the departments they work for.

There is a difference. You cannot issue a lawful order on a misdemeanor offense like a police officer can. If the person was given a lawful order and refuses, then the officer has the right to arrest them. if they refuse to cooperate, then they are resisting arrest. if the person pushes the officer, then it is assault on a police officer.

Now, as a non-LEO, you can use force to stop a crime that is listed in TPC 9.31 and issue a citizens arrest, or 9.32 and use deadly force if it is justified. . However, in this case of a misdemeanor offense, you do not have the authority to engage the person like a LEO does.

I am not saying the officers were right in the use of excessive force in this case, however, when the individual refused to cooperate, they were justified in restraining and arresting Mr. Garner, where a non-LEO would not have been.

And I'm not saying they didn't have a right to arrest him under the law. First I'm saying arresting someone for a violation like this is ridiculous. But, once they did affect an arrest, they had no right to kill him. The officers were not defending themselves so there is so self-defense killing here. What it should be considered is a negligent homicide. There should be a trial, and if convicted, the officer should get the same punishment as anyone else convicted of negligent homicide.

I also think there should be lesser charges against all the officers on the scene since none of them attempted to render aid. I'm not going to support this kind of treatment for poor people selling cigarettes until I see the real criminals in this country like John Corizine get the same treatment.

cb1000rider wrote: I'd be more understanding if he was smuggling cigarettes in from Indian reservations (or neighboring states) and selling bulk - but we've got legislation that prevents the sale of single cigarettes? And we enforce it? Seriously?

This is what we pay our government officials to spend their time doing... And create a situation where our PDs are looking at this level of stuff in a city as large as this one?

While he was not selling bulk, he gets a better profit margin by selling single cigarettes that have been smuggled.

A very long time ago my friend's father would drive to Canada on a regular basis. He was a supervisor for a trucking company that had a terminal near Montreal and his trips were regular and with reason, so he got very little hassle from the border people. The company's trucks coming out of Montreal south were always checked for contraband cigarettes and fireworks, but my friend's father, in his little sedan, was only asked the perfunctory questions about anything to declare.

One trip he took my friend along for the ride, and as they crossed back into the US the customs guy asked him if he had anything to declare, if he had bought cigarettes or fireworks and so on, and when Paul's father said no, Paul, being ever the helpful child, said: "But Daddy, what about the ones in the trunk?"

He got in a little trouble and paid a fine, as I remember, but never smuggled cigarettes again. All the kids in the neighborhood mourned the loss of our fireworks.

VMI77 wrote:

Keith B wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:
The duties, and goals, of a paramedic are different than those of a policeman.

I also think there should be lesser charges against all the officers on the scene since none of them attempted to render aid. I'm not going to support this kind of treatment for poor people selling cigarettes until I see the real criminals in this country like John Corizine get the same treatment.

I posted that second video a pge back. Here it is again. They offered no aid at all
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=g-xHqf1BVE4[/youtube]

We need to keep in mind, while he did die, the technique used against him is not considered lethal force. It's not as if they pulled their guns and shot him. Therefore, I don't think they killed him because he was selling cigs. He died because as a result of the stress put on his unhealthy body.

Therefore, I don't think they murdered him. I do think they used excessive force and they did not render aid. I'm thinking the cops should have been indicted for manslaughter, negligent homicide or something along those lines.

Am I off base here?

jayinsat wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:There are some questions about the "choke hold". Seems NYC doesn't allow officers to use "choke holds", but the questions involve the definition on of "choke hold". I've heard that they have a specific definition, and that the hold the officer used did not meet that definition. If that is true, then the hold the officer used was not forbidden.

Also, he may have been in distress, but if he's saying "I can't breathe" over and over, he IS breathing. You can't talk unless you can inhale and exhale air. For what it's worth, I also heard a (claimed) cop explain that the first thing an arrestee says when cuffed is "I can't breathe".

I am NOT trying to defend what the officers did, but wanted to express some or the "exculpatory" explanations I heard today.

This is actually false. I work in the healthcare field and I have a mom with COPD and a child with asthma. I have seen many patients whose thoracic cavity was filled with fluid, constricting the expansion and contraction of the lungs, repeatedly crying out "I can't breathe!" If you are restraining someone and putting force on their chest (whether directly or with them on their face and you on their back), you are restricting their ability to completely inhale and exhale. This is the same situation. That person would be able to utter a short "I can't breathe" inbetween gasps for air. To me, that's like saying a person can't be drowning if they can scream for help! A cry of "I can't breathe" doesn't mean you can't inspire or expire. It means you can't get sufficient air to alleviate that suffocation sensation.

I pretty much agree with all previous points made

Yeah, when I read that I think those people would only be happy if he said, "I'm in respiratory distress. Please relieve the pressure on my chest." I can't breathe apparently isn't sufficiently informative. Yes, I realize some criminals say that just to get a chance to get away, but please - Garner was an obese 43-year-old man. Is it too much of a leap of logic to think he might have actually meant it when he said he couldn't breathe?

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

I read somewhere that it was the new NYC mayor that told the PD to crack down on illegal cigarette sales.

I'd bet good tax dollars you're right.

I saw on the web that cigarettes are $5.00 a pack in PA and $13.50 in NYC ($10.50 statewide.) With that kind of disparity, is it any wonder the black market flourishes?

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Teamless wrote: If you resist, you will be dealt with.

If you resist you will die?
Avoiding so many Godwin references right now.

What if you quit resisting (as occurred). Do you still have to die?

Nope, you shouldnt die if you resist, but if you resist, you should expect consequences of your actions

if in the consequences, you die, fall and break an ankle or get a black eye, how is one to know?


Sorry, as law abiding people, we all know we should follow the law and will never win a road side victory as a court of law.

if we do not like the laws, CHANGE THEM. Resisting arrest wont change them --- at least at that time and place

I'm sure physical stature played a big role in the grand jury's decision. The officer should be disciplined within his department for violating policy. I can't see convicting him of manslaughter though. It was a freak accident and I see big changes coming to law enforcement. I see officers going for their taser before going hands on since tasers are deemed safe. People will still die but it will be written off as technical error.

Teamless wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Teamless wrote: If you resist, you will be dealt with.

If you resist you will die?
Avoiding so many Godwin references right now.

What if you quit resisting (as occurred). Do you still have to die?

Nope, you shouldnt die if you resist, but if you resist, you should expect consequences of your actions

if in the consequences, you die, fall and break an ankle or get a black eye, how is one to know?


Sorry, as law abiding people, we all know we should follow the law and will never win a road side victory as a court of law.

if we do not like the laws, CHANGE THEM. Resisting arrest wont change them --- at least at that time and place

He didn't break an ankle. He died to paraphrase a great movie they took everything he had and everything he was going to be.

Over a bleeping cigarette.

nightmare69 wrote:I'm sure physical stature played a big role in the grand jury's decision. The officer should be disciplined within his department for violating policy. I can't see convicting him of manslaughter though. It was a freak accident and I see big changes coming to law enforcement. I see officers going for their taser before going hands on since tasers are deemed safe. People will still die but it will be written off as technical error.

Here comes the Godwin. I certain group of guys in awesomely terrifying uniforms were just following policy. We bombed them, invaded them, killed them and hung a few of them for it.

Following policy or not should not protect you from what you do.

NYC police has strict rules that tell their officers that they ARE NOT ALLOWED to choke anyone. This has been NYC Police law for nearly 20 years.

Eric may very well have been in poor health yes, Eric may have possibly been doing something that was illegal but since he did in fact die and was heard saying he could not breathe and since the Video Does in Fact show a Illegal police choke maneuver being used. I am sorry but the officer broke NYPD policy by choking someone and needs to face the Charges. I have no idea what the Grand Jury was told by the DA. I am for the police 100% but the video speaks volumes along with the fact that NYPD are not allowed to choke any person at all. The Officer clearly broke NYPD policy. beyond a shadow of a doubt.

It is all very unfortunate and the Grand Jury decision only makes the entire race issue look really bad for other races if you know what I mean.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:I'm sure physical stature played a big role in the grand jury's decision. The officer should be disciplined within his department for violating policy. I can't see convicting him of manslaughter though. It was a freak accident and I see big changes coming to law enforcement. I see officers going for their taser before going hands on since tasers are deemed safe. People will still die but it will be written off as technical error.

Here comes the Godwin. I certain group of guys in awesomely terrifying uniforms were just following policy. We bombed them, invaded them, killed them and hung a few of them for it.

Following policy or not should not protect you from what you do.

Are you honestly comparing American Law Enforcement to Nazis? Really?

That comparison is a special kind of stupid and inflammatory. Godwin indeed.

buddyhotrod wrote:NYC police has strict rules that tell their officers that they ARE NOT ALLOWED to choke anyone. This has been NYC Police law for nearly 20 years.

Eric may very well have been in poor health yes, Eric may have possibly been doing something that was illegal but since he did in fact die and was heard saying he could not breathe and since the Video Does in Fact show a Illegal police choke maneuver being used. I am sorry but the officer broke NYPD policy by choking someone and needs to face the Charges. I have no idea what the Grand Jury was told by the DA. I am for the police 100% but the video speaks volumes along with the fact that NYPD are not allowed to choke any person at all. The Officer clearly broke NYPD policy. beyond a shadow of a doubt.

It is all very unfortunate and the Grand Jury decision only makes the entire race issue look really bad for other races if you know what I mean.

The video just doesn't show what you claim. First if it was a choke hold then the officer would of been using a restraint tactic that is banned by the NYPD which does not make it illegal. He would of violated a work regulation not any law. Second it wasn't a banned choke hold but a submission hold that works by limiting the blood flow. No choking involved.