ADVERTISEMENT

Chokehold death

Close...

Psychiatrist. We're rather sensitive about the distinction (given we are MDs and psychologists are PhDs...completely different training), :)

I deal with police all the time. They have a tough job, no doubt. I don't envy there position much of the time. But so do I....so do all professionals that have lives in their hands. They are given a great deal of authority (as are psychiatrists/doctors) and with that comes a great deal of responsibility. From my perspective, they've come a long way in even the years since I have been in training/practice in terms of training for conflict resolution, dealing with difficult or mentally ill citizens...often with training that became mandated only because of an incident or repeated incidents of inappropriate force. And I've seen many instances of restraint and good/appropriate engagement by police with what I'd consider professional and understanding attitudes toward people. However, I've also seen many instances of excessive force, poor attitudes and treatment of citizens (in my experiences, primarily severely mentally ill), the "John Wayne" power-tripping authority types and complete disregard for the people they are entrusted to protect. All too often. And the internal code of protection they get from superiors, etc, even when their offenses are egregious is concerning. There is too much protection for them in my opinion to engage in inappropriate, excessive force/abuse of their authority...with little consequence. Typically a slap on the wrist or a paid suspension at worst.

Again, completely erasing the race issues (which absolutely exists and are a factor)...that completely aside, the (growing) power and authority of police, coupled with the increasing militarization of police should be a major concern for citizens. All citizens. Then the fact that there is clear and overwhelming evidence that specific groups/classes are targeted disproportionately should also concern us all. They're tasked to serve and protect us...not intimidate and harm us by putting themselves in inappropriate situations and resorting to lethal violence. They serve us, not the other way around.





This post was edited on 12/4 7:24 PM by Gergs
 
Good questions.

Of course, I don't have those answers. Are those facts out there? I don't know. It's certainly not to the degree of the military in terms of maintaining chain of command. Individual officers (from my limited experience) have much more discretion and obviously a battlfield/war situation is completely different than a city street here...especially when we are specifically talking about a guy suspected of selling individual cigarettes. Orders/chain of command is no excuse to put someone's life at risk inappropriately.

In the context of a larger discussion about what is right and just and what is not, I'm not sure it matters a lot. Aside from widening the net of who's actions where inappropriate/unjust that day.
 
The information is available.

Google is thy friend. Educate yourself.

"The autopsy also found that compressions to the chest and "prone positioning during physical restraint by police" killed Garner. The manner of death, according to the medical examiner, was homicide."

If asthma killed him, it wouldn't have been ruled a homicide.
 
That's not what I was saying

If he had an asthma attack and the officers were doing nothing he might be fine. If he's got an extra 800 lbs on him that's going to restrict his breathing much more.

What did the compressions on his chest hurt, his breathing? Would it be worse for someone overweight with four men forcing him to the ground? All I said was he wasn't chocked to death and it seems from your quote is what the report said.
 
Yes...

the weight of 800pounds/whatever 4 police officers weigh and his positioning (despite what the self appointed positioning expert, CO Hoosier will tell us) by the officers ("prone", ie face down) caused his death.

Bronchial asthma, heart disease, obesity, and hypertensive cardiovascular disease were listed as contributing factors...though not cause of death. If that's what you were saying, you were correct. There's no need to guess as the info is available is what I was saying.
 
A few things . . . . .

I don't think the money angle plays any role at all for the cop on the street. The significant action as far as the cops are concerned is the civil case, not the criminal one. They are personally involved in the civil proceedings to an extent not ever seen in a criminal case. For cops, civil cases are a much larger pain in the ass than a criminal one. And since federal civil cases are fee shifting cases, plaintiffs against cops have no trouble finding excellent and competent attorneys to take their cases.

I think your emphasis on cops being disrespected is overstated. I think you see the results of people being stirred up for extrinsic purposes. The target audiences of the race-baiters and hustlers are the young people who take to the streets with their demonstrations and worse. While I don't have much knowledge or experience in African American communities, I do have some knowledge and experience about the Hispanic areas. By in large, the people who live there, and want to raise a family, also want to mind their own business. People in these places want more aggressive policing, not less. They don't like the gangs, noise, meth labs, and generally unruly kids. They are trapped in these communities due to economics. When cops respond to noise complaints or drug parties, and receive complaints about abuse of authority, the complaints do not come from the residents who want to live in peace and quiet like the rest of us.

Cops are trained to not confront an unruly subject whether they know martial arts or not. They call for back up and use overwhelming force. This has shown to be the safest for the officers and the subject.






This post was edited on 12/4 8:22 PM by CO. Hoosier
 
I mostly agree with this

which is why I have stated that I think NYC has a huge civil liability exposure. Cops need to constantly on the lookout for positional asphyxia. I think they were well aware of the problem because they deliberately kept Garner on his side and not face down. Since they were aware of PA, they should have paid closer attention. However, deviations from a standard of care is not a crime.
 
21 times more likely to be killed

Can you link the source?

While I don't know for sure, I bet they have taken gross numbers with no attempt to analyze cases with similar circumstances. The comparison needs to focus only on those arrests which involve force, and whether the death rate is higher for AA's.
 
since when did resisting arrest become okay?

the officers suspected him of selling illegal cigarettes...
because they witnessed him doing so as stated in the video...
they chose to handcuff him prior to searching him for evidence...
thus the resisting arrest situation... leading to his inadvertent death...
if he had simply listened to the police officers... he would still be alive....
and probably out on bail or at least walked away with a citation...

when an officer decides he's going to handcuff a suspect....
I doubt if the officer is ever going to change his mind....
regardless of what the suspect says to the officer...
(but he may remove them as long as he doesn't find any other violations or evidence...)
resisting only makes the officer more suspicious and determined to handcuff/arrest a suspect...
and more charges to add on top of what he already suspects ....
 
I disagree. Edit: link fixed.

The officer(s)'s actions were reckless and his/their recklessness and inappropriate use of force lead to the death of Mr. Garner. Per the definition of involuntary manslaughter in NY that I've linked, I think there was enough to warrant charges and a trial. Grand jury felt otherwise, but we know how that can work. As usual, police are exempted...

It is interesting to me that you feel there was so clearly actions that warrant significant civil liabilities, but yet not reckless enough to be deemed criminal. I'm sure you have more nuanced legal reasoning here (and I'm admittedly not well versed in the finer points)...can you detail them? I'm curious.

But again, my take and stance on this is looking beyond the legality of it. I'm concerned that the law is being interpreted to give police entirely too much discretion to use, yes, lethal/deadly force.

This post was edited on 12/4 10:24 PM by Gergs

Involuntary Manslaughter defined, NY
 
Really? So you're for more police control

Should the guy in this video been taken down?

Link
 
From The Google. Edit: linked fixed.

Here you are.

The disturbing part is apparently it is not mandatory for police killings stats to be kept and data is based on self report. Why would that be?

This post was edited on 12/4 10:25 PM by Gergs

Pro Publica Analysis
 
He'd be alive...

if his chest wasn't compressed to the point of asphyxiation by police. Police initiated this violent encounter (one sided violent encounter I'll add) and police inappropriately managed it leading to a death. Period.

Does Jesus/God think killing someone is ok if they "resist" police? What say you, PastorMan?
 
do we have other examples?

The best I could come up with OJ, and I believe it is obvious he was given preferential treatment in the slow speed chase. Are there other very wealthy people we can compare to see if OJ was an anomoly.

Civil rights trials may serve as you suspect, but I still imagine a jury looking at a gangbanger reporting a problem differently than someone who is very wealthy. The testimony of a poor 21 year old isn't going to carry the weight of a 55 year old CEO.

The problem with people wanting more aggressive policing is that these same people do not necessarily want to be involved. Just like the TSA, I want you to be pulled out for extra screening and not me. So in theory gas store owner Smith wants more aggressive policing but when that involves him being pulled over for laughing too loud, he may not be so thrilled. I use that since in high school during a D&D night we went out fot Mt Dews and were stopped because the officer said he heard laughter. And yes, we were in a poorer area of town. I seriously doubt that same officer would have pulled over a Beamer in the wealthy side of town.

Right now I guess there is a twitter tag going around about crimes while white. Now some of these can be fake, there is no proof possible. But there are people commenting about being drunk driving and an officer giving them a ride home, or shoplifting and just having the cop take them home and telling their parents. I suspect in America this does happen at least on occasion. Is it your belief that someone wealthy has a 0% increase in this sort of advantage.

Heck, let me add Ray Rice and Jameis Winston to people getting advantages. After seeing the Rice video I am amazed the DA didn't attempt to pursue a bit more. Do we think unemployed Rice or Winston would have received the exact same treatment. I would even add Ray Lewis to the list. Athletes seem to allow us to compare the system reacting to a wealthy person and violent crime. CEOs seem not to engage in violent crime enough to get a handle. Or it is not reported.
 
I must admit, your posts below are quite a hoot....

....I only can assume that you started teaching law, because you never won at law in the courtroom.

Anyway, your jerkdom may have reached an all time high today, and that is really saying something.
 
You are talking about a different advantage

If Ray Rice or Jameis Winston were found on the street drunk or stoned after a traffic accident, and if he resisted arrest he would be treated the same.

My point is that for a cop on the street, who is confronted with a belligerent subject he/she is attempting to take into custody, how much money the suspect has is not part of the equation.
 
I'll respond with a true story

I know of a law enforcement officer who was practicing drawing her weapon in her apartment. Nothing wrong so far, they are encouraged to practice doing that. But she didn't take precautions, the weapon discharged accidentally and a round went through her wall and into the next apartment. No harm. But had there been, I think a case for negligent homicide could have been made. She was reckless. A federal civil rights civil damage claim would have been very difficult here because there cannot be a claim for negligent violation of rights.

The first problem with Garner is that we don't know what the grand jury knows. Nothing has been released. But I don't think the officer was reckless. They took the subject down in accordance with standard training as far as I know. The deviations don't suggest a criminal or reckless intent. As I said elsewhere, they did things to protect the subject too. Forceable arrests cannot be easily predicted. It is also not unusual for a subject to say the "cuffs are too tight" or "I can't breathe" or "I am in diabetic shock". The list is a long one. So claims of not breathing is not all the significant by themselves. But as I said, this is all speculation.

The civil case is different. All the plaintiff needs is a police expert to testify that the officer deviated from training or procedure in different respects. This need not reach the standard of the cop being reckless. The failure to render aid after the cuffs were on is significant in a civil case, but not criminal. The obvious difference between criminal and civil liability is burden of proof. But the more subtle difference is what needs to be proven.
 
was Garner drunk or stoned?

The report I saw showed nothing in his body. I guess we will have to agree to disagree that this exact same procedure would have happened to Donald Trump if the Donald refused to get handcuffed and led away but made no threatening actions. And OJ's slow speed chase remains my exhibit A that there is no way LAPD lets a poor person wanted for murder drive down the streets like that.
 
Sorry

That wasn't meant as an insult.
smile.r191677.gif
 
If you have something to say, then say it

Otherwise piss off, you ankle-biting pissant.
 
As an agnostic . . .

I'm not concerned about redemption. But as a human being, I'm concerned that self-appointed Christians preach such hateful and un-Christian messages. Do you disagree? If so, stand up for your uncharitable views. If not, then you're just breaking wind. Either way, your post stinks.
 
I'll try to avoid using big words in the future

You obviously don't understand the meaning of the word redeeming.
 
Here is my question Rock.

I don't know all the facts on this, but the ones I do know, seems to me that Cop(s) were way out of line and should be charged.

But here is the question/problem... The Grand Jury, who had all the facts, says otherwise. Now as an officer of the courts, and one that has helped make the legal system the shit sandwich that it is, what say you?

Do we over throw the whole legal system in this country?

I remember a few years ago, Buzz was SHOCKED that some of us questioned the courts as the major problem in this country. Seems to me, we were right again.

But you are closer to the situation that most....what do we do?

Do we call all the people on the GJ liars? Do we let the media and facebook become judge and jury?
 
Two things

Trump would have had an army of lawyers who would have marched him into the DA's office to face charges and fight them where the fight is supposed to happen, in court, not on the street.

OJ's low speed chase is a poor analogy. Because of risk and danger to the public, vehicle pursuit and arrests have a whole different set of rules. If O.J. would have pulled over to the shoulder. and the cops wanted to take him into custody, the same thing would have happened if he resisted or became belligerent.
 
Do you have a point?

Why do we have over worked NY police officers chasing down a small time tax evader? Isn't that the job of the IRS and NY state?

Doesn't our police have more important things to do then be put in these no win situations to start with?
 
And should he even be considered a tax evader?

That's one thing that stands out to me about this. Where have we gotten to as a society if tragic incidents like this are happening....because of a guy selling cigarettes on the street?

But, beyond that, it's amazing to me that a bunch of cops (including the one applying the chokehold) can listen to a helpless civilian plead "I can't breathe!" over and over again and do absolutely nothing. Nobody thought to tell the overzealous officer that perhaps he should loosen his grip?

And, besides, it's not like they were in a threatening situation -- he was clearly secured, unarmed, and outmanned. I just can't help but escape the notion that this officer did what he did because (a) he could, and (b) he enjoyed it.
 
I'm for people listening to authority figures.... are you an anarchist?

...just checking....
 
Yeah, that's the problem

You're too smart for me. I didn't know what "saving or being saved from sin, error, or evil" meant. Your big words are just too much for me.
 
Enjoyed it?

I hope not. :(

I want to belief it was a mistake based on, as you say, by an overzealous police office.

He ruined his own life also....so if he enjoyed it, hope it was worth it. :(
 
Some junior high English for you

Redeeming is clearly an adjective in that sentence. So, yeah, that apparently is the problem.

redeeming
 
An adjective? Really? Who knew?

I stand helpless to the vast intellectual power of your sentence diagrams.
 
Haha....

....you are so full of yourself. There is nobody here that violates more forum rules than you, and it is not even close. Why don't you take your dipshit self, and all of you condescending pig waste, an go find somebody else to yell at. You have become nothing more than a characture of yourself.
 
I know you are but what am I?

NYAAH, NYYAAH, NYAAH!

What a tiny little person you are. Please let us know when you graduate to the big leagues, where people actually have something to say. When you get there, you might learn to spell caricature. Meanwhile, no matter how much you may lust after the big boy pants, they aren't yours.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT