ADVERTISEMENT

Chokehold death

Thyrsis

Thyrsis

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Aug 28, 2001
18,925
5,762
113
Indianapolis
Isn't this NY case much clearer and non-murky?

The cops were hassling him over next to nothing.

The suspect was relatively calm, was unarmed, and simply expressed his wish not to be hassled.

The officer uses a chokehold against regulation.

The suspect repeatedly states that he can't breathe.

The suspect dies.

ALL of it is caught on videotape.

How can you NOT get an indictment?




This post was edited on 12/3 7:10 PM by Thyrsis
 
CNN just had a police officer on defending the action

He made a few shocking arguments:

1. The guy resisted arrest. It's his fault. His basic argument was, once he resisted, 'shit happens'.

2. It wasn't really a chokehold. A chokehold is worse than that. He had enough air to say "I can't breathe". Basically, he didn't really choke him. The coroner report seems to be a problematic counter-point to that argument.

3. When asked why they didn't dis-engage when the guy kept saying he couldn't breathe, the officer commented, what are they going to do, give him a chance to get away?
 
Did the Grand Jury issue a statement?

Behind the reasoning for its decision?
 
How you could not get an indictment is a good question.

But nobody can answer the question without seeing all what the grand jury saw. They certainly saw the video (which is admittedly disturbing) but they also heard from all of the officers. All the officers except the target were given immunity, so I would think the GJ got a straight story. I know from experience that the hold was not a choke hold because the victim was talking. I'd be interested in the tox screen. I also know from experience that even though the immediate cause of death was listed as homicide, that really doesn't mean criminal conduct. (I also had to deal with an autopsy that said "homicide" was the COD in a TASER case.) Law enforcement is just now learning about positioning obese individuals for purposes of cuffing them. There have been more than a few deaths similar to this that result not from "choke" holds but from positioning. The 10th circuit only recently ruled that placing a subject on their stomach and sitting on them to handcuff hands behind is unreasonable force. So the law and the medical knowledge isn't yet well developed about position asphyxia. Likely, the same hold given to most people would not result in death. Anatomic anomalies could be present.

BTW, the cops weren't there to hassle him. They were called there because the merchants who were selling cigarettes in compliance with the law complained.
 
Another point about positional asphyxia

The officers kept the subject on his side throughout this incident. Not placing him face down suggests to me that they had training about positional asphyxia. But the subject died anyway. This could be a reason why the GJ didn't find the necessary criminal state of mind.
 
Here's what bothers me...

First off, I didn't watch the video, and don't really feel the need to, but you say below that the cops claim he "resisted." My question is: does the video bear that out? Because here's what I have a problem with. If someone is choking you, officer or not, you're going to resist. Resisting arrest is one thing; resisting strangulation is another thing entirely.

As far as the indictment goes, I obviously don't know enough about this case to have an opinion, but I will offer this tidbit that I've offered before: without knowing the numbers, I've read from several sources that grand juries are statistically much less likely to return an indictment if the suspect is a police officer. Take that for what it's worth.

goat
 
Question...

...even without the mens rea, wouldn't negligent homicide have been on the table? As I said to Thyrsis, I don't know enough about this case to even begin to form an opinion, but it seems to me that if a cop violates protocol and that results in a death, that alone should get you most of the way to reasonable cause for negligent homicide.

goat
 
By resisting, I mean ...

He said he was tired of being harassed and it had to stop today. When they approached, he said get your hands off me and pulled his hands back as they tried to arrest him.

Before they moved in, he was exasperated. Said he didn't do anything wrong and they always harass him. Why can't you just leave me alone? He was frustrated and pleading his case they should just let him be.

His crime was selling individual cigarettes.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
I assume it was on the table

but criminal negligence is substantially different from the "reasonable man" standard in civil cases. There still must be a deliberate act that results in death; not merely carelessness. Shaken babies is a good example of negligent homicide.

There is substantial doubt there whether the cop even violated protocol. Choke holds are prohibited, but because the victim was talking, that tells me there was no choke hold. Moreover, what if the target cop states he relaxed his grip once the victim complained about breathing. That is a reasonable possibility. Given the video, and the shape of the victim, I think the most likely explanation for the death is positional asphyxia. And since the officers kept the victim on his side, they even tried to minimize that factor.
 
Well, I don't think there's any doubt that there was a deliberate act

I suspect you are on target re: questions about whether or not it really was a choke or whether or not he loosened the hold when the man complained, etc. That's something we can't know not being in the GJ room, but it makes sense.
 
The thing that puzzles me

is why some method of less than lethal force, namely a taser or pepper spray, was not employed. I would bet my last nickel that every officer involved in that incident had access to one or both of those options. This type of altercation is precisely why police are issued those tools- to disable a resistor without endangering his life.
 
You can't coach without film.


Four Cops take a guy bigger than all of them down. He resists the entire time and the little guy takes him down with a choke hold. For selling contraband?
 
My problem is

that I think there's are "John Wayne" type cops out there. They love the power they have and don't know how to use it correctly. How many cops do you see driving down the road breaking the speed limits that they are suppose to enforce? Don't get me wrong...there are a lot of good police officers but there are quite a few that shouldn't be on any police force.
 
Maybe these grand juries are taking a more "big picture" approach..

with these verdicts. Maybe they are simply saying that if you are breaking the law, no matter how minor the offense, and you immediately fail to heed the instructions of the police when they show up, then by doing so YOU are solely responsible for the chain of events that may unfold as a result. Even if it costs you your life. Maybe people are tired of crime? Maybe it's a personal accountability thing? Maybe it's a respect for authority thing? Maybe it's a "folks, let's cut to the chase.." kind of thing? Who knows? Maybe it is just that simple....
 
It looks bad, but it wasn't actually a chokehold.

It was a submission hold. I know because after 9/11 I was in charge of a training organization that taught a non-lethal weapons course which included a number of unarmed non-lethal offensive and defensive techniques. Submission holds were one of the things that we taught Sailors. I watched my instructors train many Sailors in that and many other holds, defenses, etc. What he applied was a submission hold. It's further confirmed by the fact that the guy was talking several times during the incident after the hold was applied and he could not do that if he was actually in a chokehold.It's actually irresponsible of the media to continue to use the term "chokehold" because it's not accurate. However, I suspect they're using it out of ignorance and not due to any particular agenda. I read in one report that the victim had acute asthma, was apparently obese and had heart disease. The submission hold, the other officers pushing him to the ground and his health condition all combined to result in his death. It is tragic. I agree no one should end up dead because he's selling black market cigarettes. I understand the city had decidied to make it a priority to crack down on the sell of black market cigarettes just before this happened. All of this was an extremely unfortunate result of many factors. It will of course, rightly or wrongly, lead to even more distrust between law enforcement and black folks.
 
A taser might have killed him too.

I read this morning that the guy had chronic bronchial asthma and heart disease and he was clearly obese. A taser might have combined with his health issues to kill him too, couldn't it?

This post was edited on 12/4 10:08 AM by Aloha Hoosier
 
Probably...

Because selling "loosies" in a civilized, lawful society should result in takedowns causing death. I mean it is against the law. You break laws in America then it's on you if you die. I'm sure that's what they were thinking. It's for the betterment of the community and to enforce respect for authority.

We should start executing people who don't wear seat belts or college kids that drink underage. I'm tired of those criminals.
 
Edit: You can't coach without film.

Four Cops again harass a guy who happens to be obese including take him down and causing his death for possibly selling loose cigarettes. He protests peacefully this continued harrassment by police and he is taken down aggressively via arm wrapped around neck (not a chokehold per self appointed experts). For allegedly selling loose cigarettes.
 
On some of these

things it's hard for me to know what is the correct thing to do. For example, if you're doing 70 mph and the speed limit is 60 mph and a cop turns his lights on to get you to pull over and you don't should he give chase just for that little infraction? After all thousands of people do the same thing every day. If the cop chases then then he is endangering other people so in one sense it's better not to chase but if people know they won't chase then everyone would run.

Police have to use some common sense. Yeah, the guy was breaking the law but to me it's was a minor violation and they should have told him to just move on. I haven't read very much about the case so I don't know if the guy selling was a recurring problem or not. If so then I could see where they (the police) would have a different attitude about the situation.

I've watched enough of the show COPS to know that police go overboard a lot of times. I've seen them tell people standing on their porch to stop filming what they are doing. I don't think they have a right or the power to do that if the person is not interfering with what they are doing. If they told me to do that I would probably get arrested because I wouldn't stop.
 
Agreed, NPT.

Shocked to type those words, ha. I've also seen police go overboard numerous times in re: to treatment of severely mentally ill. And I've seen many instances of the "John Wayne" cop you mentioned previously. Those attitudes and behaviors are incredibly dangerous when you are given the authority of a police officer and these most recent now public situations involving police officers killing people (notably black people) under very questionable and inappropriate circumstances are only giving them more power and authority to do such things unchecked. Couple that with the militarization of police forces across the country and...yikes. Yet, some people prefer to rationalize by debating definitions of chokeholds and throw out the "well, they committed a (petty) crime, they caused it all". I wonder what they would say if this was their child or their family member?

We (every single American regardless of race) should be very concerned about this. The irony is police are making their own jobs much harder by engaging in this behavior and condoning it. It's hurting the entire country AND the police as a whole. The trust of the community is eroding if not eroded completely.

*And in case it wasn't painfully obvious, my previous post was sarcasm.
 
Well, as I stated above, it's more than just breaking the law.

That's only the first part of it. In my mind, the more important point is to obey what the cops instruct you to do when they show up. Granted, this particular case may be an outlier when compared to some others in the news recently, but even then, if the guy had heeded instructions I believe he'd still be very much alive.

And quite possibly, that might also be an important point to these juries.



This post was edited on 12/4 10:28 AM by I FAN U
 
That particular hold is known as a "rear naked choke"

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.

Rear naked choke
 
Obey or die

Of course people should obey instructions from the police. It's what I have always done, out of prudence. But the penalty for doing otherwise shouldn't be death.
 
Yeah, especially

over such a minor thing when there's all sorts of real crime going on.
 
I would think they were negligent at the very least

If the police aren't in any reasonable danger I would hope they provide first aid to someone they have in custody (particularly when they triggered that situation) instead of waiting 7 minutes while someone is unconscious/unresponsive/motionless.
 
Speaking of selling loosies...

I haven't thought this through, but thinking out loud wonder if conservatives might have particular sympathy for Garner. It sounds like some folks can't easily afford cigarettes and sometimes can muster up the change for only a couple. It also sounds like you can't buy just a couple from most retail outlets. So the Garners of the world are providing a service otherwise unavailable. The government tax man can't allow that, though. So big government stomps on little guy just trying to ply a trade. It's not cattle ranching on government land, I suppose. Or offering uber rides. Or selling songs on napster.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
Driving 5 miles over the speed limit is against the law too

And yet I've never been afraid for my life when pulled over.
 
It's not like that at all. Do you really believe that cop was out to

kill the guy? Not for a minute. Same with the cop in Ferguson. A sense of prudence in either case and both deaths would have been avoided. If there is no act of prudence, then one thing can lead to another thing leading to another thing with a very bad end result.
 
I try to act prudently


But the penalty for imprudence shouldn't be death.
 
So, excessive governmental regulation and reaction is the

..ultimate cause of his death?

We can all agree on that.
 
Nor for a lynch-mob mentality and reaction

..with the resulting wanton destruction of property and theft.
 
Blacks are savages

It's impossible to imagine any other explanation for their "wanton destruction of property".

Bonus racial points for deploying "lynch mob" against the historic victims of lynching.

t1larg.lynch.gi.jpg
 
You said it...

A sense of prudence in either case and both deaths would have been avoided. You mean like a police officer NOT jumping up and putting someone in a reverse-choke-strangle-take-down-whatever you want to call it for not wanting to be harassed by 4 cops because someone alleged he was selling loose cigarettes? Or a cop not shooting an unarmed teenager in the head from a considerable distance after a petty crime and questionable resistance to questionably inappropriate police tactics?

Was the cop out for peace and justice when he jumped up and hooked his arm around the man's neck, slamming him in the ground? Did his smug wave to the camera after the man was gasping and screaming he couldn't breathe suggest an indication of his concern for the public and it's citizens?

When you are a public servant (and the tax dollars of the public is paying you) and your job is to keep people safe and you are given a gun/weaponry to help do so you are (should be) held to a much higher standard in which you use prudence to handle an interaction with the public. There is an implicit power differential in these interaction and it is the responsibility of the police officer to avoid taking advantage of that power differential and using excessive/lethal force or there should be consequences. Unfortunately lately, there haven't been formal/legal consequences. This should be concerning to you as a tax paying citizen.



This post was edited on 12/4 11:32 AM by Gergs
 
It sometimes is because . . .

Sometimes cops needlessly kill people who are disproportionately likely to be black. This isn't something that just happens, like the weather. It's something that we do, and could choose not to do. But we don't.
 
Because it's obvious that . . .

If there's a law against selling loosies the penalty ought to be death.

I'm guessing that you're "just kidding". But this isn't funny.
 
Ha, yes. Another irony here is...

the hypocritical conservative tenant of concern/opposition to centralized power, increasing power of the state/government over the individual, fears of government targeting citizens/amassing ammo and guns to impose it's will on the public, etc...like I dunno, police killing unarmed citizens followed by lack of legal consequence and legal decisions that increase the level of power/authority in police forces over citizens, the militarization of police forces...

I mean isn't this why so many "conservatives" are stock-piling guns/ammo?

No, no, my mistake that is only over concern of the Federal government and our (black) President. Not primarily (white) local police forces that target and use excessive/lethal force against (primarily black) citizens. Got it.
 
You do know...

my post was sarcasm, no? I'm sure you do, but just making sure since you responded to mine. And, oh I hear you...
 
"Lynch-mob"...

ironic term to use given the discussion. Well done.
 
It's hard to find the right prism to reveal the problem to all

Parsing 'chokehold' or focusing on the 'rightful' arrest tend to cloud things.

Cliven Bundy was a hero to many for resisting the government. Garner's just a lowlife.

Folks driving mph over the speed limit aren't hassled. Garner was routinely hassled.

And so on. Why is that?

I'd think the civil suits in these cases could prove costly for the cities. Especially when everybody is named as a defendant and it's harder to play a shell game of deflecting responsibility.
 
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