ADVERTISEMENT

Chokehold death

Well, shucks...

I guess we just have to accept it as a fact of life. Sometimes cops don't apply prudence (or proper restraint) and people die. Just the way it is...just have to accept it, got it.

Until it's your kid, brother, father, uncle, etc. But wait, you're probably white like me (right?), so we're probably safe from these unexplainable, unstoppable natural disasters.
 
There's a basic cognitive problem here

Studies show that when white people are told that policies have a racially disparate impact they tend to double down on the racially disparate policies. Racism could account for this, but so could basic human perversity. Other studies show that when strong partisans are given information that contradicts their preconceptions they respond by doubling down on their preconceptions. The smarter they are the more adept they are at denying reality.

This explains a great deal, but it's a double-edged sword. Those of us who are right all the time (kidding) suffer from the same disability. All of us are at risk from confirmation bias -- we tend to see what we expect to see.

Ultimately the only guard against this is the scoreboard. Have we been right, or have we been wrong? Those who won't look at the scoreboard are the most seriously deluded, because there is no way to reach them. Sadly, I think, this accounts for most of us.
 
A Taser might have saved his life

If a fatal asthma attack or heart attack was triggered by the excitement and stress of the forceable arrest, a taser would have had a therapeutic effect.
 
Garner probably had as much experience with misdemeanor arrests

as the cops. Garner knew the drill. He had a long record of petty offenses including selling illegal cigarettes. In fact he was supposedly on probation for illegal selling at this time which likely explains why he didn't want to be arrested yet again.









This post was edited on 12/4 1:15 PM by CO. Hoosier
 
The sargent who was on the scene of this arrest

was female . . . . .an African American. That makes no difference as far as the indictment is concerned, but it should make a difference about the white cop/black suspect bullshit many choose to exploit.
 
There are thousands of answers to your question

But here are a couple. Clivan Bundy's offense was about, IIRC, land use regulation on BLM land which grew from EPA standards. Those kinds of laws are wildly unpopular.

I think your comment about speed limits is misplaced. I don't know about Indianapolis, but photo-radar is a very BIG deal an many parts of the country. That is all about hassling speeders.

Your comment about civil liability is very very important. There is no doubt in my mind that Ferguson and NYC, as well as the individuals involved, are looking at massive civil claims and as I have mentioned time and again, the plaintiffs will have the upper hand. Yet, despite the prospect of significant civil claims, the "hands up don't shoot" crowd, or the "justice for [name your victim]" crowd never focus on civil claims. Why is that? To answer my own rhetorical question, the reason is that the race hustlers and political exploiters have no traction in civil court. Eric Holder cannot whip up a crowd over a civil matter. He can only do that by making promises about DOJ involvement.

The real justice for Michel Brown and Eric Garner will come in civil court; and it will be significant justice. Too bad we have to go through he public pain of mostly pointless marches, stunts, looting, and arson because people are so easily manipulated.
 
"Garner knew the drill."


Unfortunately, the guy you tar as a habitual criminal didn't know that the sentence for selling loosies could be death. Obviously the fault here is on him for being dead.
 
Sometimes that 2x4 needs to be a 4x8. How safe is Darren

..Wilson feeling these days?

I used "lynch-mob" precisely as I knew it would lead to the response/leap you made. Aren't attorneys notorious, and rightly so, for making the claim that something in the past is unrelated to the facts at hand and thus cannot be considered in a case? Say a guy was imprisoned for theft and was released twenty years ago and is now on trial for an assault. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe what happened twenty years ago would be irrelevant and a defense attorney would do everything to prevent the past from interfering with the case at hand.

So, after that digression, now we come to this. Lynch mobs in the 19th and (first half or so of) the 20th centuries are one of the greatest blights/stains/disasters/tragedies/evils/what-have-you in our history. But it's still fair to use the allusion.

The Left (some, I suppose) would like nothing better than to "justify" the "scumbag reaction" as a long-term, natural outgrowth of our past history of slavery and racism. My contention is that the "appropriate response" of peaceful demonstrations can, and does, flow from this. BUT, the firebombings, theft and looting, as seen in Ferguson, is in no way related as what have seen is nothing more than a mass riot, taking advantage of the situation, to pillage and destroy. It was a crime of convenience, not of conscience.It's what contributes to the glacial pace of more understanding and improvement as the apologists blithely gloss over this.

I also believe you'd find it hard to deny that there is segment of the mass of protesters that would be happy if they could "vote" on Wilson's guilt and then punish/execute him immediately. Unfortunately for them, those little speed bumps - called grand juries and then a trial by a jury of your peers - tend to get in the way. Better that we all have chips implanted and we can all then "vote" on a particular case and let mob justice prevail. So much would be so much simpler then.
 
Unfortunately black people are stupid

For reasons beyond the conception of white people, they've somehow reached the conclusion that the bodies that have historically repressed them can't reliably be counted on to redress the grievances that those very bodies have imposed on them. Obviously these silly black people are misinformed about the realities of their daily lives. I blame Sharpton/Obama/Holder and other black race hucksters for inflaming their primitive intellects.
This post was edited on 12/4 1:56 PM by Rockfish1
 
So . . .

You used a grotesquely inappropriate reference because you were certain that you'd be called out for it. Sadly, I believe that this is the truth. You would rather piss people off than make an intelligible point. Noise and chaos is your purpose here. Well done, asshole.
 
The obvious answer is for police to leave black people

Alone under any and all circumstances.

It's fun taking everything to extremes.
 
Maybe because grand juries almost never indict cops

Unlike ham sandwiches, which are always indicted. But whatever the grand jurors may have thought doesn't support your lousy arguments.
This post was edited on 12/4 2:08 PM by Rockfish1
 
Yep, those are the only options

Either the police must kill them or leave them alone. It's inconceivable, apparently, that the police might just treat black people the same way they treat white people, who tend not to end up dead after routine interactions with the police.
 
As I said taking to extremes is fun

You seem to imply that all police interactions with blacks ends in abuse or death.
 
No, I don't imply that


Instead of responding to what I've actually said, you've responded to an absurd inference of your own choosing. Attacking a straw man is always a tell.
 
Sorry, supporting my argument wasn't the intent of my question.

Lousy or not.

I thought you may be able to provide some informative insight. My mistake.
 
You're dodging

But there's no escaping your lousy arguments, which stand or fall on their own, without regard to your invitation for me to read the minds of the grand jurors. No one who actually wanted to learn something would run so hard from the truth.
 
Not really I guess you could call it a crappy modified Rear naked choke

A real rear naked choke is a blood choke, you can breath and it is pretty painless you're just unconscious in about 5-6 seconds.
 
Whatever you call it, it was fatal

So maybe what you call it isn't the most important thing.
 
Sure when you say

"Blacks are stupid" "blacks are savages"

Not taking things to extremes at all, gotcha.
 
Just pointing out a fact

I'm not the one that brought it up so maybe you meant to respond to Fro.
 
LOL

Obviously I'm making fun of views that I think are stupid. Please feel free to defend those views or attack my critiques, but otherwise your lousy arguments are still lousy arguments, without regard to the titles of my posts.
 
Not dodging anything. I know you're an attorney and ...

you teach, or did teach, at Butler. I assumed (maybe incorrectly) that you might be able to provide some reasons (beyond race) as to why this jury didn't nail the cop here, given what we see on the video tape. There has to be other potential reasons than the jurors being racists too. So what could those reasons be?

But if you aren't interested in answering, then just continue being a jerk. I'm almost at the point of not caring anymore....
 
No, that isn't a fact

It's an irrelevant semantic distinction that has nothing to do with the reality that, employing whatever it's called, the cop unnecessarily killed a guy who posed no danger to anyone.
 
I'm a lawyer, not a mind reader

I don't know how you could have confused the two. But as a lawyer, who argues for a living, please believe me that your arguments suck.
 
What I described is a fact

Once again, maybe you missed it the first time, why are you replying to me when Fro stated what he thought the hold was?
 
Yeah, well, given the responses of these two grand juries...

my "arguments" may be more based in reality than yours.

So, setting aside a grand jury hearing these cases, would you have preferred formal charges and a jury trial for the officers? If so, why would you expect a different outcome?
 
No, your arguments remain stupid

They draw on nothing about the grand juries, but instead rest entirely on your own illogic. You're just flailing.
 
Selective attention and perception

Insofar as your argument is concerned, you've clung to an anvil, not a life preserver. Good luck with that.
 
Reading comprehension could be your friend

I wasn't arguing anything just pointing something out. You are the epitome of "A Man Hears What He Wants to Hear and Disregards the Rest"
 
So you were just pointing something out

"No, actually that's a sedimentary rock, and not an igneous rock." -- in response to "That guy hit the victim in the head with a rock", when in fact it was a composite rock. Thanks for introducing erroneous random noise.
 
The cops did show restraint here

Just cuz the subject of an arrest died during the arrest does not indicate lethal force was employed. No batons were used. No mace was used. No Tasers were used. No guns were pulled. The cops probably use the least amount of force that could be possibly be used to take an uncooperative 300+ lb individual into custody. Watching the film showed that the cops specifically avoided a situation known to cause positional asphyxia. They had the number of people to take the subject to the pavement to avoid broken limbs. The supervisor on the scene was a female African American.

But he died. He had acute asthma. He had a heart condition. We don't know if he was medicated or on street drugs. There are probably 100's of thousands arrests made in this manner every year in NYC. Death from this arrest was a very low risk proposition.

I suppose the cops could have walked away and told Garner to "have a nice day". That is a separate discussion.
 
My point is, am I incorrect in thinking that the process is more..

stacked against a (potential) defendant in a grand jury process than the traditional jury trial route is? Is that correct or incorrect? If correct, why would you (presumably, because you are the one dodging) expect a different outcome, if in fact you do? I guess all I've seen out of you in this thread is a bunch of kerfuffle (a word you have turned me on to, thanks!) with very little informative debate to back it up. You say you're not a mind reader, yet you seem to think think anyone who disagrees with you here, is seemingly racially motivated. (I assume. Again, mostly kerfuffle, ya know.)

So, in Rockworld, how would you have preferred to see the DA's handle this case?
This post was edited on 12/4 3:14 PM by I FAN U
 
A deliberate act by itself is insufficient

The deliberate act must be one known to present an unreasonable risk of death. Given that cops intended to take Garner in to custody, (the supervisor on the scene was female African American) there was probably no other way to do it given a 300 pound individual was not cooperative.
 
So this is ok with you

That particular hold is known as a "rear naked choke" Reply
You're either cutting off the breath (chokehold) or cutting off the blood flow to the brain (stranglehold), or both depending on how it is applied.

Gotcha, makes sense...when Fro brings it up it's ok with you, I put a little bit of correction

Every single one of your posts in this sub thread is noise you created for absolutely no reason, so good job with that.
 
Okay


If the prosecutor wanted to indict the cop, he would simply have done so, as prosecutors normally indict criminal suspects. But he didn't want to indict, nor did he want to take the political heat for failing to indict. So he took it to a grand jury, where he could get an indictment of a ham sandwich if he chose to. But he chose not to, so he didn't get the indictment that he didn't want. And everyone but the dead guy lived happily ever after. This is among the many absurdities that occur every day in what we call the criminal justice system.
 
A cop needlessly killed a guy who posed no threat to anyone

That matters to me, no matter what the hold is called. Arguments about how to name the gratuitous and fatal hold seem supremely stupid and pointless to me.
 
Thank you for that.

I appreciate your (mostly) serious response.

I have no doubt that both the NYC prosecutor and the Ferguson prosecutor wanted to avoid making the decision alone for political reasons. But I also believe that if there was a "there" there, one or both cops would have gotten a grand jury indictment with the bar being so ham sandwich low. The fact that there wasn't in either case tells me that what many people in this thread think or believe (you included), is a bar held to a much higher standard by a grand jury and that things aren't always as black & white (pun unintended) as we often wish to make them out to be.

With that, I will now cease what you probably believe is bloviating. (Another one of your words!
3dgrin.r191677.gif
)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

sglowrider

Two Coasts. One Virus.

Replies
2
Views
2K
The Water Cooler
sglowrider
sglowrider
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back