I know this is old, but I thought I post a article here on what actually happened with Eric Garner and the alleged "chokehold". 

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/eric-garner-chokehold-grand-jury-police/2014/12/04/id/611058/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/12/03/actual-facts-eric-garner/

 

"The chokehold that Patrolman Daniel Pantaleo put on Garner was reported to have contributed to his death. But Garner, who was 6-foot-3 and weighed 350 pounds, suffered from a number of health problems, including heart disease, severe asthma, diabetes, obesity, and sleep apnea. Pantaleo's attorney and police union officials argued that Garner's poor health was the main cause of his death."

"Garner did not die at the scene of the confrontation. He suffered cardiac arrest in the ambulance taking him to the hospital and was pronounced dead about an hour later."

So if you're fat and they choke you until the point that you have a heart attack and die, that's OK? Anyone here with health issues, be sure you behave. 

 

" At issue in this case is the so-called “chokehold” used by Pantaleo. Chokeholds have been banned by the NYPD entirely since 1993; chokeholds are typically defined as holds that prevent people from breathing. Thanks to the video showing Garner stating that he cannot breathe, many pundits have wrongly suggested that Pantaleo was “choking” Garner by depriving him of air from his windpipe. Bratton himself suggested that Pantaleo used a “chokehold,” which is defined by the NYPD as “any pressure to the throat or windpipe, which may prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air.”

That does not appear to have been the case. Garner did not die of asphyxiation, as the head of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association noted at the time. The preliminary autopsy showed no damage to Garner’s windpipe or neck bones."

 

So Pantaleo didn't use a chokehold because asphyxiation wasn't the cause of death? Not that I expect better journalism from Breitbart. Maybe Eric Garner pleading for air in his final moments is a better indication of whether or not the wrist pressed up against his throat was making it difficult to breathe.

Edited November 23, 201510 yr by Riley24

I feel like Garner would've died in any scenario of this that ended with an aggressive arrest. His body could not handle the stress of the situation.

3 hours ago, TheSandwichStealer said:

I know this is old, but I thought I post a article here on what actually happened with Eric Garner and the alleged "chokehold". 

Ah sh*t, not this again. This dead horse has been beaten so much already. Bringing this crap up is only going to cause arguments.

 

1 hour ago, Riley24 said:

So Pantaleo didn't use a chokehold because asphyxiation wasn't the cause of death? Not that I expect better journalism from Breitbart. Maybe Eric Garner pleading for air in his final moments is a better indication of whether or not the wrist pressed up against his throat was making it difficult to breathe.

There are two types of chokes used; a blood choke and an airway choke. The one most police and martial artists use is a blood choke. The point of the rear naked choke in particular is to slow down the flow of blood through the carotid arteries to the brain, causing unconsciousness in a few seconds, rendering the victim unable to flail around and fight. And airway choke takes significantly longer, would not cause rapid loss of consciousness and would require a lot of strength to put and hold enough pressure on the airway to make someone lose consciousness. The choke hold used in the video was an attempt at a blood choke, but it was not properly applied because Garner was much bigger than the cop trying to perform it, and he was actively resisting on an open sidewalk in the real world. Not in a martial arts studio with instructions not to move. If you truly could not breathe, you would not be able to constantly shout "I can't breathe", because you require air in order to speak loudly after several words are uttered expending what air you have left over in your lungs. The choke hold in this video was released within a matter of seconds, with Garner still talking after it was released. Garners final moments were also not caught in the video. His final moments were in the back of an ambulance where he suffered a heart attack.

Please watch this video before any replies:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fbR9NbuycY

Edited November 23, 201510 yr by unr3al

Honestly I wasn't expecting replies, all I want to do is post a news article and people can think for themselves, I wish not to have any arguments here.  

5 hours ago, unr3al said:

Ah sh*t, not this again. This dead horse has been beaten so much already. Bringing this crap up is only going to cause arguments

There are two types of chokes used; a blood choke and an airway choke. The one most police and martial artists use is a blood choke. The point of the rear naked choke in particular is to slow down the flow of blood through the carotid arteries to the brain, causing unconsciousness in a few seconds, rendering the victim unable to flail around and fight. And airway choke takes significantly longer, would not cause rapid loss of consciousness and would require a lot of strength to put and hold enough pressure on the airway to make someone lose consciousness. The choke hold used in the video was an attempt at a blood choke, but it was not properly applied because Garner was much bigger than the cop trying to perform it, and he was actively resisting on an open sidewalk in the real world. Not in a martial arts studio with instructions not to move. If you truly could not breathe, you would not be able to constantly shout "I can't breathe", because you require air in order to speak loudly after several words are uttered expending what air you have left over in your lungs. The choke hold in this video was released within a matter of seconds, with Garner still talking after it was released. Garners final moments were also not caught in the video. His final moments were in the back of an ambulance where he suffered a heart attack.

Please watch this video before any replies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fbR9NbuycY

Am I only supposed to reply if I agree with Breitbart? That's pretty counter-intuitive to the whole point of having an internet forum.

So we can clearly see in the video that he's using a choke hold. Even if he's trying to do a blood choke, he's failing, and endangering Eric Garner's life. We also can't tell how forcefully the officer pressed against his neck, but I'm guessing it wasn't a gentle squeeze. And you're saying that the officer was failing to do a blood choke, but yet also failing in a chokehold enough that Garner can still breathe? So it just happens that he dies of a heart attack in the ambulance after being tackled, choked, and smothered against the pavement? That's a load of crap, and it comes from a pretty dark place. Its the same "Whatever you do, don't believe a word they say" mentality that also lead to the death of Freddie Gray. Eric Garner's death was ruled a homicide, not a random heart attack. Breitbart would love nothing more than to dismiss it and say "Eh, he was fat. Fat people have heart attacks sometimes", without even considering the parameters of negligent homicide. I'm sure if the same thing happened to Chris Christie or Peter King while they were jaywalking or something, his website would be listing all the reasons why it was their fault for having a heart attack. Right...? No, I'm guessing there would be a slightly different tone to that story. At the core of police reform is asking for human decency. They showed none to Eric Garner.

Please explain to me how Eric Garner's death was not negligent homicide.

 

Edited November 24, 201510 yr by Riley24

17 hours ago, Riley24 said:

Am I only supposed to reply if I agree with Breitbart? That's pretty counter-intuitive to the whole point of having an internet forum.

So we can clearly see in the video that he's using a choke hold. Even if he's trying to do a blood choke, he's failing, and endangering Eric Garner's life. We also can't tell how forcefully the officer pressed against his neck, but I'm guessing it wasn't a gentle squeeze. And you're saying that the officer was failing to do a blood choke, but yet also failing in a chokehold enough that Garner can still breathe? So it just happens that he dies of a heart attack in the ambulance after being tackled, choked, and smothered against the pavement? That's a load of crap, and it comes from a pretty dark place. Its the same "Whatever you do, don't believe a word they say" mentality that also lead to the death of Freddie Gray. Eric Garner's death was ruled a homicide, not a random heart attack. Breitbart would love nothing more than to dismiss it and say "Eh, he was fat. Fat people have heart attacks sometimes", without even considering the parameters of negligent homicide. I'm sure if the same thing happened to Chris Christie or Peter King while they were jaywalking or something, his website would be listing all the reasons why it was their fault for having a heart attack. Right...? No, I'm guessing there would be a slightly different tone to that story. At the core of police reform is asking for human decency. They showed none to Eric Garner.

Please explain to me how Eric Garner's death was not negligent homicide.

 

Combat maneuvers of any kind are difficult to get 100% right in the real world. Whether an action you take as a police officer is a take-down, a choke, a hold or any kind of strikes; it's considered physical violence. You're well within your right to point out that the cop failed to get a secure choke, but I'd like to propose a question to you: Could you do any better? For that matter, could any of the other cops at the scene do any better? Chances are the answer to either one of those is "no". The reason Eric Garner died is because of his decision to resist arrest. Does that imply that he deserves to die for resisting? Absolutely not, but every time you pick a fight with a police officer that's a risk you run. The fact that a police officer has a gun strapped to the side of his hip should serve as a reminder to you and everyone else that any contact with a stranger could be a potentially lethal encounter for him. There's a reason police are taught tactics to try and end an altercation as soon as possible. The academy does not teach you to be a tournament martial arts fighter. It teaches you the least violent means for physically forcing someone to be in a position where you can put handcuffs on. Police are not supermen, and as I explained before, situations practiced in the martial arts studios or the academy do not happen the same way as they do on the street. Ask yourself these questions that Dominic Izzo pointed out in a different video: Are you indoors or outdoors? Whats the weather like? Is it snowing, is it cold, is it raining, is it hot? Are you on a flat surface, are you standing on a hill? Which side of the hill are you on? Is it dark out, is it light outside? Do you have a flashlight? If so, do you have a place to put that flashlight on your belt? Do you have the theoretical minimum distance of 10 feet to switch weapons in the event of having to escalate or de-escalate the scale of force you use? Are you within distance where someone can take away your weapon? Is the person you're facing bigger than you? Do they weigh more than you? Are you in front of them, are you in back? Are they determined not to go to jail?

All of these questions have to be answered in your head within a couple of seconds before you use a method to force someone to submit to arrest when they are determined not to go to jail. I challenge you or anyone else to make the best decision 100% of the time. On the scale of force, the police officers who dealt with Eric Garner used the least amount of force possible. You have hand-to-hand, pepper spray, baton, taser and gun. Pepper spray is meant to lessen the threat of a fight, not eliminate it. Batons should be something people like you should be even more against than a choke hold, as they'll have to wail on someone his size for quite some time, leaving welts all over his body, potentially fracturing bones and would look like a great police brutality clip on TV. Tasers may or may not work depending on if both probes hit, if they penetrate through his clothing and if he's not high. But if they did work, his head could very likely bounce off of the concrete resulting in a concussion or worse. A gun would result in severe injury or death, and nobody wants that.

Eric's decision to resist arrest killed him in the sense that a healthy, young individual who resisted arrest would not have had issues with that kind of stress being put on his body. Garner had heart disease, asthma, was morbidly obese and supposedly had just broken up a fight. His heart rate would likely have been up due to his apprehension at the thought of going to jail, his parasympathetic nervous system would have been dumping all kinds of chemicals into his body with his fight or flight reaction, and unfortunately if airway was indeed an issue; the temporary weight of the police combined with the pressure of his adipose tissue (fat) working against his own chest rise and fall could indeed make it hard to breathe. However, if you watch the video; he's only pinned for a short duration, and is left on his side in the recovery position without anybody on top of him; still breathing and complaining. Having a heart attack in the ambulance would make sense considering his medical conditions and the stresses he put himself through by resisting arrest. The death of an individual at the hands of another is called homicide, so his death is a homicide by definition but this is not the first degree murder accusation that people like to paint this incident with. This is an unfortunate case of resisting arrest gone horribly wrong, but blaming the police and only the police isn't fair. If he had put his hands behind his back and went to jail, bailed out and got a lawyer to drop the charge; he'd still be here today (provided he didn't have a heart attack doing something else physically stressful or having his next cheeseburger). In that sense, Eric Garner killed himself when he decided to resist arrest. It's a gamble you take.

In closing I'd like to ask you, though; why are you bringing Chris Christie or Peter King into this discussion? Are you trying to insinuate that anybody who sides with the police on this issue is a Republican? Are you trying to use the race card? I don't understand.

19 hours ago, TheSandwichStealer said:

Honestly I wasn't expecting replies

You've been on this forum long enough to know better. Police brutality accusations bring debates. That's true of any public forum, not just this one.

Edited November 24, 201510 yr by unr3al

I don't know how the hell Breitbart is and I've never heard of either of those too new sources but the both seem very biased in my opinion however, I agree with unr3al on this. Ultimately Eric Garner did this to himself, he would likely not be dead if he hadn't been resisting arrest. Should the officer have put him in a chokehold? According to NYPD policy, no; however breaking a department policy does not always equal being guilty of a crime. The officer should have some form of administrative action taken against him whether that be a suspension, being fired, etc. but I don't think he is guilty of murder. I think the only charge they might be able to pin on the officer would be some kind of involuntary manslaughter charge but I think they would have a hard time even making that stick.

On 11/24/2015, 4:25:29, unr3al said:

Combat maneuvers of any kind are difficult to get 100% right in the real world. Whether an action you take as a police officer is a take-down, a choke, a hold or any kind of strikes; it's considered physical violence. You're well within your right to point out that the cop failed to get a secure choke, but I'd like to propose a question to you: Could you do any better? For that matter, could any of the other cops at the scene do any better? Chances are the answer to either one of those is "no". The reason Eric Garner died is because of his decision to resist arrest. Does that imply that he deserves to die for resisting? Absolutely not, but every time you pick a fight with a police officer that's a risk you run. The fact that a police officer has a gun strapped to the side of his hip should serve as a reminder to you and everyone else that any contact with a stranger could be a potentially lethal encounter for him. There's a reason police are taught tactics to try and end an altercation as soon as possible. The academy does not teach you to be a tournament martial arts fighter. It teaches you the least violent means for physically forcing someone to be in a position where you can put handcuffs on. Police are not supermen, and as I explained before, situations practiced in the martial arts studios or the academy do not happen the same way as they do on the street. Ask yourself these questions that Dominic Izzo pointed out in a different video: Are you indoors or outdoors? Whats the weather like? Is it snowing, is it cold, is it raining, is it hot? Are you on a flat surface, are you standing on a hill? Which side of the hill are you on? Is it dark out, is it light outside? Do you have a flashlight? If so, do you have a place to put that flashlight on your belt? Do you have the theoretical minimum distance of 10 feet to switch weapons in the event of having to escalate or de-escalate the scale of force you use? Are you within distance where someone can take away your weapon? Is the person you're facing bigger than you? Do they weigh more than you? Are you in front of them, are you in back? Are they determined not to go to jail?

Could I do a better job of choking someone for no reason? I hope not. How in any way did Eric Garner pick a fight with the police? Garner just finished breaking up a fight in his own neighborhood when he was harassed by police for selling loose cigarettes (I live in NYC, I'm pretty sure jaywalking is a worse offense). As much as I respect your knowledge of martial arts, its completely irrelevant. Garner should never have been in that chokehold to begin with. Resisting arrest is not cause for brutality or wreckless endangerment. And what arrest was Garner resisting? What was he under arrest for? Here in America, if you talk back and don't follow orders, it may get you killed. That is the precedent you're setting by blaming the victim.

On 11/24/2015, 4:25:29, unr3al said:

All of these questions have to be answered in your head within a couple of seconds before you use a method to force someone to submit to arrest when they are determined not to go to jail. I challenge you or anyone else to make the best decision 100% of the time. On the scale of force, the police officers who dealt with Eric Garner used the least amount of force possible. You have hand-to-hand, pepper spray, baton, taser and gun. Pepper spray is meant to lessen the threat of a fight, not eliminate it. Batons should be something people like you should be even more against than a choke hold, as they'll have to wail on someone his size for quite some time, leaving welts all over his body, potentially fracturing bones and would look like a great police brutality clip on TV. Tasers may or may not work depending on if both probes hit, if they penetrate through his clothing and if he's not high. But if they did work, his head could very likely bounce off of the concrete resulting in a concussion or worse. A gun would result in severe injury or death, and nobody wants that.

Or you could skip all of that and stop harassing people. But that's the option that's never allowed, always use force if someone is pissed at you for being harassed.

 

On 11/24/2015, 4:25:29, unr3al said:

Eric's decision to resist arrest killed him in the sense that a healthy, young individual who resisted arrest would not have had issues with that kind of stress being put on his body. Garner had heart disease, asthma, was morbidly obese and supposedly had just broken up a fight. His heart rate would likely have been up due to his apprehension at the thought of going to jail, his parasympathetic nervous system would have been dumping all kinds of chemicals into his body with his fight or flight reaction, and unfortunately if airway was indeed an issue; the temporary weight of the police combined with the pressure of his adipose tissue (fat) working against his own chest rise and fall could indeed make it hard to breathe. However, if you watch the video; he's only pinned for a short duration, and is left on his side in the recovery position without anybody on top of him; still breathing and complaining. Having a heart attack in the ambulance would make sense considering his medical conditions and the stresses he put himself through by resisting arrest. The death of an individual at the hands of another is called homicide, so his death is a homicide by definition but this is not the first degree murder accusation that people like to paint this incident with. This is an unfortunate case of resisting arrest gone horribly wrong, but blaming the police and only the police isn't fair. If he had put his hands behind his back and went to jail, bailed out and got a lawyer to drop the charge; he'd still be here today (provided he didn't have a heart attack doing something else physically stressful or having his next cheeseburger). In that sense, Eric Garner killed himself when he decided to resist arrest. It's a gamble you take.

So its not the police's fault someone in their custody died of a heart attack in response to an altercation that was instigated by the police?

So on one hand "hey he was fat, what're you gonna do?", and "If only he'd taken the harassment with more class, he wouldn't have died" on the other. And oh I know, I'm sure I'm twisting your words. But that IS in essence what you're saying.

On 11/24/2015, 4:25:29, unr3al said:

In closing I'd like to ask you, though; why are you bringing Chris Christie or Peter King into this discussion? Are you trying to insinuate that anybody who sides with the police on this issue is a Republican? Are you trying to use the race card? I don't understand.

Actually, I'm playing the fat card. Lets say Chris Christie or Peter King have been harassed by police all their lives, and they finally get sick of it and decide to resist a false arrest in a fit of anger. They get choked and their head gets smothered into the pavement. They keep telling the police that they can't breathe. They die of a heart attack in the ambulance. Does any part of you think that Breitbart starts running stories saying "Well it was Chris Christie's fault, he was fat". Would you be sitting here telling me how Peter King killed himself because he resisted arrest?

There's plenty of people committing misdemeanors on Wall Street, and a lot of them are unhealthy. How many of them have been choked and arrested for it? If you can't see that the death of Eric Garner is more than a one-off random concurrence, then I'm sorry, but you're totally missing the whole point. This is basic sociology.

47 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

Could I do a better job of choking someone for no reason?

You're already ignoring everything I just said. Arrests by physical force don't just fall out of the sky, Riley. If you're going to play the "he didn't do anything" game, then this conversation isn't going to go anywhere.
 

47 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

As much as I respect your knowledge of martial arts, its completely irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant. The whole point was that it was not a secure choke, meaning that neither his airway nor his blood supply to the brain were compromised. The choke is a faux concern for people who don't know any better.
 

47 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

Garner should never have been in that chokehold to begin with. Resisting arrest is not cause for brutality or wreckless endangerment.

Then he probably shouldn't physically resist having handcuffs put on him. Resisting arrest is cause for doing what the police officer has to do to place someone in custody. What kind of an example would you set as a police officer?

"Put your hands behind your back, you're under arrest."
"No."
"Oh, shucks. Alright then, I'll be leaving now."

Get real, Riley. That's not the world we live in.
 

47 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

Or you could skip all of that and stop harassing people. But that's the option that's never allowed, always use force if someone is pissed at you for being harassed.

Your mindset is no different than Garner's or any other YouTube troll. The problem with you and most other people who like to be a keyboard linebacker about this incident is that you refuse to take the blinders off and look at it from a perspective other than the suspects. He's losing the fight, so surely he must be the underdog and deserve all of the sympathy. I'll repeat what I said earlier; arrests with physical force don't fall out of the sky on random people. You're in no position to say he was harassed since you weren't there. You can only make assumptions.
 

47 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

So its not the police's fault someone in their custody died of a heart attack in response to an altercation that was instigated by the police?

A death at the hands of another person is by definition a homicide. But the physical exertion Garner used that day triggered a heart condition and possibly his asthma. The police didn't give him those medical conditions. One he was born with, the other he obtained by living an unhealthy life style. The medical fact is that a fit person most likely would have been fine during such a scuffle. He died doing something he shouldn't have been doing knowing what poor health he had.
 

47 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

So on one hand "hey he was fat, what're you gonna do?", and "If only he'd taken the harassment with more class, he wouldn't have died" on the other. And oh I know, I'm sure I'm twisting your words. But that IS in essence what you're saying.

Obeying the law has nothing to do with class. It's your responsibility as a citizen of the United States to obey the law of the land. If you don't like it, leave the country or be prepared to deal with the consequences. If you wan't to paint me as a person with no sympathy for a dead person to make your argument look better, you go right ahead. It still won't validate your argument. A death of nearly any kind is regrettable, but this was not a senseless death. It was a death of cause and effect.
 

47 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

Actually, I'm playing the fat card. Lets say Chris Christie or Peter King have been harassed by police all their lives, and they finally get sick of it and decide to resist a false arrest in a fit of anger. They get choked and their head gets smothered into the pavement. They keep telling the police that they can't breathe. They die of a heart attack in the ambulance. Does any part of you think that Breitbart starts running stories saying "Well it was Chris Christie's fault, he was fat". Would you be sitting here telling me how Peter King killed himself because he resisted arrest?

Yes, yes I would. Looks like you're actually playing the race card, not the fat card. You're insinuating I'd give more of a sh*t if Garner was white. I wouldn't. Stupidity transcends skin colors.
 

47 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

There's plenty of people committing misdemeanors on Wall Street, and a lot of them are unhealthy. How many of them have been choked and arrested for it?

Police don't get the chance to patrol the hallways of office buildings in down town New York. If you want to pass the buck and say we need change in Wall Street; I agree. The challenge I present to you is to go do something about it. How many times have you e-mailed your senator about it? How many petitions have you signed? Did you attend any of the occupy protests? Did you vote Democrat in the last two elections? All you're doing is sidestepping the issue. Police don't get to monitor businesses. We have agencies that do that, and they do a very poor job. The only way to change that is to be active in politics that go beyond casual YouTube browsing. If you want change that badly, I suggest you stop debating this topic and go do something.
 

47 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

If you can't see that the death of Eric Garner is more than a one-off random concurrence, then I'm sorry, but you're totally missing the whole point. This is basic sociology.

I see your point, but your point is wrong. Your argument boils down to "He was picked on because he's black, the police are a bunch of thugs, we're all going to live in a police state like Nazi Germany soon, thanks Obama". It's the same sh*t I see on my Facebook feed every week that makes me question why I was friends with any of these people back when I was in high school. Basic sociology involves impartial thought and multiple viewpoints. That's multiculturalism. You're viewing it through the minority victim's point of view only. That's called monoculturalism.

Edited December 1, 201510 yr by unr3al

56 minutes ago, unr3al said:

You're already ignoring everything I just said. Arrests by physical force don't just fall out of the sky, Riley. If you're going to play the "he didn't do anything" game, then this conversation isn't going to go anywhere.

But what did he do? What was his crime? If you say resisting arrest, what arrest was he resisting? You're working off of the assumption that the police don't arbitrarily use force. Let me tell you, when it comes to the NYPD, that is not a fair assumption.

56 minutes ago, unr3al said:

It's not irrelevant. The whole point was that it was not a secure choke, meaning that neither his airway nor his blood supply to the brain were compromised. The choke is a faux concern for people who don't know any better.

So since the officer messed up the choke, its OK? And we should just pretend that it never happened? 

56 minutes ago, unr3al said:

Then he probably shouldn't physically resist having handcuffs put on him. Resisting arrest is cause for doing what the police officer has to do to place someone in custody. What kind of an example would you set as a police officer?

"Put your hands behind your back, you're under arrest."
"No."
"Oh, shucks. Alright then, I'll be leaving now."

Get real, Riley. That's not the world we live in.

Finish that first sentence. "Put your hands behind your back, you're under arrest for...." for what? If a cop can't answer why someone is under arrest, he shouldn't be arresting them. I think that's a pretty fair rule of thumb.

56 minutes ago, unr3al said:

Your mindset is no different than Garner's or any other YouTube troll. The problem with you and most other people who like to be a keyboard linebacker about this incident is that you refuse to take the blinders off and look at it from a perspective other than the suspects. He's losing the fight, so surely he must be the underdog and deserve all of the sympathy. I'll repeat what I said earlier; arrests with physical force don't fall out of the sky on random people. You're in no position to say he was harassed since you weren't there. You can only make assumptions.

Why does it annoy you that a dead father who has been harassed his whole life suddenly dies while being forcefully arrested for virtually no crime receives my sympathy? Or am I just another emotional lib that just isn't giving the police enough slack? This is a cultural problem. Not a martial arts one, not a medical one. 

56 minutes ago, unr3al said:

A death at the hands of another person is by definition a homicide. But the physical exertion Garner used that day triggered a heart condition and possibly his asthma. The police didn't give him those medical conditions. One he was born with, the other he obtained by living an unhealthy life style. The medical fact is that a fit person most likely would have been fine during such a scuffle. He died doing something he shouldn't have been doing knowing what poor health he had.

You're still making the same point and I still have the same problem with it, you're just phrasing it a different way. The police's actions are not justified because of the victim's personal health.

56 minutes ago, unr3al said:

Obeying the law has nothing to do with class. It's your responsibility as a citizen of the United States to obey the law of the land. If you don't like it, leave the country or be prepared to deal with the consequences. If you wan't to paint me as a person with no sympathy for a dead person to make your argument look better, you go right ahead. It still won't validate your argument. A death of nearly any kind is regrettable, but this was not a senseless death. It was a death of cause and effect.

So after thoroughly blaming the victim of (at the very least) police harassment and a heart attack for his own death, you're saying I'm painting you as someone with no sympathy? Alrighty.

56 minutes ago, unr3al said:

Yes, yes I would. Looks like you're actually playing the race card, not the fat card. You're insinuating I'd give more of a sh*t if Garner was white. I wouldn't. Stupidity transcends skin colors.
Police don't get the chance to patrol the hallways of office buildings in down town New York. If you want to pass the buck and say we need change in Wall Street; I agree. The challenge I present to you is to go do something about it. How many times have you e-mailed your senator about it? How many petitions have you signed? Did you attend any of the occupy protests? Did you vote Democrat in the last two elections? All you're doing is sidestepping the issue. Police don't get to monitor businesses. We have agencies that do that, and they do a very poor job. The only way to change that is to be active in politics that go beyond casual YouTube browsing. If you want change that badly, I suggest you stop debating this topic and go do something.

Actually, I never once mentioned race. You brought that into the discussion entirely on your own.

And I'm not talking about hallways, I'm talking about street corners. How many Wall Street executives do you think have been body slammed or choked for lets say, jaywalking? There's exceptions to every rule, but we all know that different kinds of people have different kinds of interactions with police. Blame it on race, gender, socio-economic status, whatever you want. If Eric Garner's life mattered more in the eyes of the police, and our society as a whole, this wouldn't have happened. But we let the police pick on people like Eric Garner, because they have no power.

 

57 minutes ago, unr3al said:

I see your point, but your point is wrong. Your argument boils down to "He was picked on because he's black, the police are a bunch of thugs, we're all going to live in a police state like Nazi Germany soon, thanks Obama". It's the same sh*t I see on my Facebook feed every week that makes me question why I was friends with any of these people back when I was in high school. Basic sociology involves impartial thought and multiple viewpoints. That's multiculturalism. You're viewing it through the minority victim's point of view only. That's called monoculturalism.

Again, I never once mentioned race in the context of this case. Weird that you keep pulling that out of nowhere. But I'm glad that you used the term police state, since that part is actually fairly true. A society in which plainclothes government law enforcement officials violently arrest people for minor crimes is as close to the practical definition of a police state as I ever want to get.  Its the same old "broken windows policing" theory.

 

And, um...that's not at all what mono and multiculturalism are. But if you would like to discuss the sociological aspects of police culture, that sounds great.

"What was his crime?" If I didn't know any better, I'd say you've never actually read anything about this case or watched the entire video, because a lot of the questions you pose or the assumptions you're making would be answered and validated/invalidated respectively if you did. Nobody here is saying the police can do no wrong and that there aren't bad guys on the force interspersed throughout the country. The problem is that people such as yourself are somehow able to get away with grouping all officers together as "the police" in such a way that when one man violates his oath or the law; all of them do it. That's a huge problem in this country and it's one that's increasingly putting the police and this countries citizens at odds. People who firmly believe that the police as a collective term are bad are either close minded nitwits who don't have a real grip on the world or people who've had a bad experience with the police themselves and want to pass blame onto the cops instead of themselves. I think first I'm going to have to clarify what is and isn't "okay" with you when we're talking about the Eric Garner take down, which might be difficult, since you seem to think that the police had no reason to contact him at all in the first place. If we are to break down this event's history in chronological order by reading the background story of both Eric Garner and this particular interaction with the police, we can start with the fact that Eric was a career criminal. He had been arrested 30 times from charges ranging from reselling items without tax (which is a crime in New York City whether you like it or not) all the way to, assault, resisting arrest and grand larceny. At the time of his last interaction with police, he was out on bail for possession of marijuana, selling un-taxed cigarettes (seems to be a pattern here), driving without a license and providing a false name to police. So lets start off with that. Eric was not a good guy, and this wasn't exactly his first rodeo. Fast forwarding to the interaction with police that led to his death, he was accused of once again selling un-taxed items to people on the street, which a plain clothed officer caught him doing. When a police officer approaches you, announces himself as one and states his intent to place you under arrest; that should be 'all she wrote'. I've said this before, and I'll say it again: You are not going to fight your court case out on the street. Arguing and resisting arrest is only going to pile on more charges. The smart thing to do would be to go along with the program, bail out, and sue the police later if they wrongfully arrested you. Judging by the pattern of Garner's criminal career, chances are that the accusations of the plain clothed officer were not unfounded. The officer did inform Eric what he was going to be placed under arrest for, but Eric simply protested by giving the typical "I didn't do nuthin', ya'll harrassin' me" line. After Eric continued to refuse to put his hands behind his back and submit to arrest, it became clear to the plain clothed officer that he's not going to be able to win a fight against somebody that much bigger than him. At that point, backup officers finally arrived on scene, at which time a forceful arrest had to be made. Eric had stated his intent to resist leading up to the attempt at a blood choke takedown that was caught on film, and indeed he did resist as the video shows. As was discussed days ago, a blood choke would be the perfect takedown in an ideal world where it's perfectly executed and the suspect doesn't expect it, because it eliminates physical resistance in a matter of seconds without having to beat somebody into submission or pierce their skin with a bullet or taser probes. Unfortunately; this not being an ideal world we live in, the chokehold was not secure and instead the takedown did not go smoothly due to Eric's size and determination to resist arrest no matter what. Despite this, the overwhelming presence of backup officers were able to get his hands behind his back, the chokehold was released after a total of about 5 seconds, and the scuffle was over. Eric was placed on his side in the recovery position after the officers handcuffed him. At this point he was still breathing and complaining as more units and EMS were called to the scene.

What I described above covers who, what, when where, why and how. I can articulate all of those things because I watched the video, and I read about Eric and the street cops who approached him. Most people who comment on this topic have not done most or sometimes even any of those things, and I have a suspicion you're among them. Despite that, you can now consider yourself educated as to why Eric did what he did and why the police did what they did. These scenarios of resisting arrest occur every day all across America, but this happened to be a situation where the guy resisting arrest had heart disease, asthma and was morbidly obese. He knew all of those things prior to resisting arrest, and the police did not. That being said, even if the police knew his medical history; it would be debatable as to whether an arrest using a taser would have been any better. Studies have shown that there is no direct link between electric shocks from a taser and heart attacks, but it is inconclusive as to whether it can irritate pre-existing heart conditions or anatomical oddities at birth that compromise the functionality of the heart. Among ignoring the evidence, my chief problem with you in this thread is that you're making excuses but you're not owning up to them. It's very obvious that you're trying to emphasize that the police were harassing him with no direct evidence of that, and that they picked on him because he wasn't wearing a suit like the stereotypical whiter capitalists you seem to hate. Do you know why they don't pick on guys on Wall Street in suits? Because they don't sell un-taxed items outside of a convenience store on the street corner. You know why they aren't arrested or ticketing for jay walking? Because they have a Mercedes they climb into at the end of their work day. Inequality in today's society and the disappearing middle class is a problem in America, but its a problem for another thread. It has no place here other than to serve as a last resort talking point for you when the fact is that there is no legal or moral justification for resisting arrest, making what Eric did that day wrong. The same goes for your crackpot theory about this being a police state. If you want to experience what a real police state is like, get on a plane, take a flight over to South Korea, and then cross the border to the north. You'll be begging to go back to the supposed hell you live in here.

Edited December 2, 201510 yr by unr3al

18 hours ago, unr3al said:

"What was his crime?" If I didn't know any better, I'd say you've never actually read anything about this case or watched the entire video, because a lot of the questions you pose or the assumptions you're making would be answered and validated/invalidated respectively if you did. Nobody here is saying the police can do no wrong and that there aren't bad guys on the force interspersed throughout the country. The problem is that people such as yourself are somehow able to get away with grouping all officers together as "the police" in such a way that when one man violates his oath or the law; all of them do it.

I know his crime, I wanted to see if you did. Selling loose cigarettes. That's barely even a crime, if you can't see the obvious case of broken windows policing, you're blind. They started grabbing his hand and he said "don't touch me" and BOY, did they not like that. Then they arrested him for resisting arrest. So they were going to arrest him for loose cigarettes, or did they just get pissed off that he wasn't being nice? Resisting arrest implies that you're under arrest for something.

18 hours ago, unr3al said:

That's a huge problem in this country and it's one that's increasingly putting the police and this countries citizens at odds. People who firmly believe that the police as a collective term are bad are either close minded nitwits who don't have a real grip on the world or people who've had a bad experience with the police themselves and want to pass blame onto the cops instead of themselves. I think first I'm going to have to clarify what is and isn't "okay" with you when we're talking about the Eric Garner take down, which might be difficult, since you seem to think that the police had no reason to contact him at all in the first place

So we're not allowed to talk about law enforcement as a government institution because "its only a few bad apples"? We can't talk about the negative effects of harsh policing on communities because not all cops are bad? We can't point to specific cops and say that the problem extends beyond them because we don't personally know all cops?  

18 hours ago, unr3al said:

 If we are to break down this event's history in chronological order by reading the background story of both Eric Garner and this particular interaction with the police, we can start with the fact that Eric was a career criminal. He had been arrested 30 times from charges ranging from reselling items without tax (which is a crime in New York City whether you like it or not) all the way to, assault, resisting arrest and grand larceny. At the time of his last interaction with police, he was out on bail for possession of marijuana, selling un-taxed cigarettes (seems to be a pattern here), driving without a license and providing a false name to police. So lets start off with that. Eric was not a good guy, and this wasn't exactly his first rodeo.

That's a character assassination, you're justifying his death. None of his past crimes are at all related to the case, you're trying to make yourself feel better about his death by reminding us that he wasn't "a good guy". 

18 hours ago, unr3al said:

Fast forwarding to the interaction with police that led to his death, he was accused of once again selling un-taxed items to people on the street, which a plain clothed officer caught him doing. When a police officer approaches you, announces himself as one and states his intent to place you under arrest; that should be 'all she wrote'. I've said this before, and I'll say it again: You are not going to fight your court case out on the street. Arguing and resisting arrest is only going to pile on more charges. The smart thing to do would be to go along with the program, bail out, and sue the police later if they wrongfully arrested you. 

Woah woah woah, hold on. Now we're talking about personal responsibility and doing the smart thing. Am I allowed to say the same things about the cops? Or would you just tell me how tough of a job it is and that I can't judge their behavior? So unless you've been a poor black man in Staten Island, you have no right to judge Garner's behavior.

And you're assuming he can afford court fees and bail. Which, if he's selling 75 cent cigarettes on the street, I'm guessing he can't. Try living like that 

18 hours ago, unr3al said:

Judging by the pattern of Garner's criminal career, chances are that the accusations of the plain clothed officer were not unfounded. 

See this is very telling. You didn't even factor in the possibility of harassment, arbitrary arrests, profiling, and trumped up charges. You have blind faith in the integrity of the New York City justice system. Why?

18 hours ago, unr3al said:

The officer did inform Eric what he was going to be placed under arrest for, but Eric simply protested by giving the typical "I didn't do nuthin', ya'll harrassin' me" line. After Eric continued to refuse to put his hands behind his back and submit to arrest, it became clear to the plain clothed officer that he's not going to be able to win a fight against somebody that much bigger than him.

Did you even watch the video? You sound like a police union rep giving a massively faulty account of what happened.

18 hours ago, unr3al said:

At that point, backup officers finally arrived on scene, at which time a forceful arrest had to be made. Eric had stated his intent to resist leading up to the attempt at a blood choke takedown that was caught on film, and indeed he did resist as the video shows. As was discussed days ago, a blood choke would be the perfect takedown in an ideal world where it's perfectly executed and the suspect doesn't expect it, because it eliminates physical resistance in a matter of seconds without having to beat somebody into submission or pierce their skin with a bullet or taser probes. Unfortunately; this not being an ideal world we live in, the chokehold was not secure and instead the takedown did not go smoothly due to Eric's size and determination to resist arrest no matter what. Despite this, the overwhelming presence of backup officers were able to get his hands behind his back, the chokehold was released after a total of about 5 seconds, and the scuffle was over. Eric was placed on his side in the recovery position after the officers handcuffed him. At this point he was still breathing and complaining as more units and EMS were called to the scene.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpGxagKOkv8 Please watch it again. Garner gave up immediately. 

18 hours ago, unr3al said:

What I described above covers who, what, when where, why and how. I can articulate all of those things because I watched the video, and I read about Eric and the street cops who approached him. Most people who comment on this topic have not done most or sometimes even any of those things, and I have a suspicion you're among them. Despite that, you can now consider yourself educated as to why Eric did what he did and why the police did what they did. These scenarios of resisting arrest occur every day all across America, but this happened to be a situation where the guy resisting arrest had heart disease, asthma and was morbidly obese.

We've been working under the assumption hat Breitbart is telling the truth, which is not exactly a fair one. The coroner ruled that his death was a homicide, because the chokehold and the actions of the police officers. Eric Garner did NOT die of a random heart attack because he was fact. And no offense, but I'm not here to be educated by you. This is not a student-teacher dynamic, we both have access to the information.

Its time we brought some sources into this:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/eric-garner-death-ruled-homicide-medical-examiner-article-1.1888808

http://time.com/3618279/eric-garner-chokehold-crime-staten-island-daniel-pantaleo/

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Eric-Garner-Chokehold-Police-Custody-Cause-of-Death-Staten-Island-Medical-Examiner-269396151.html

18 hours ago, unr3al said:

Among ignoring the evidence, my chief problem with you in this thread is that you're making excuses but you're not owning up to them. It's very obvious that you're trying to emphasize that the police were harassing him with no direct evidence of that, and that they picked on him because he wasn't wearing a suit like the stereotypical whiter capitalists you seem to hate. Do you know why they don't pick on guys on Wall Street in suits? Because they don't sell un-taxed items outside of a convenience store on the street corner. You know why they aren't arrested or ticketing for jay walking? Because they have a Mercedes they climb into at the end of their work day. Inequality in today's society and the disappearing middle class is a problem in America, but its a problem for another thread. It has no place here other than to serve as a last resort talking point for you when the fact is that there is no legal or moral justification for resisting arrest, making what Eric did that day wrong. The same goes for your crackpot theory about this being a police state. If you want to experience what a real police state is like, get on a plane, take a flight over to South Korea, and then cross the border to the north. You'll be begging to go back to the supposed hell you live in here.

So people like Eric Garner commit crimes, and good people don't. You seriously think Wall Street bankers don't commit misdemeanors? Come on, that's laughable. 

Almost as laughable as the "try going to north korea" point. Come on, that's childish. This case is a textbook example of what a police state looks like. Not to say that America as a whole is a police state, because I don't agree with that statement. But THIS case is what a police state looks like. When police officials crack down on low-level crime with violence, its a scary thing. The officer who caused the homicide of Eric Garner was not even indicted. It is INCREDIBLY easy for a prosecutor to get a indictment. Isn't that a wild coincidence? A cop is accused of killing someone and doesn't even get an indictment.

Oh, and you don't know shit about Eric Garner.

http://news.yahoo.com/friends-man-nyc-chokehold-case-gentle-giant-205839377.html

7 hours ago, Riley24 said:

I know his crime, I wanted to see if you did. Selling loose cigarettes. That's barely even a crime, if you can't see the obvious case of broken windows policing, you're blind. They started grabbing his hand and he said "don't touch me" and BOY, did they not like that. Then they arrested him for resisting arrest. So they were going to arrest him for loose cigarettes, or did they just get pissed off that he wasn't being nice? Resisting arrest implies that you're under arrest for something.

Jay-walking is barely even a crime, so is speeding, so is theft of penny candy, so is dodging child support, so it software piracy. Where do we draw the line? Don't feed me that bullsh*t. That's the mentality of someone who commits crimes of opportunity, weighing the risk/reward scale to be in their favor even if they get caught. The fact that you sympathize with and condone criminal activity compromises your judgement of this scenario. He was informed what his crime was and he was being taken into custody. That's not a new concept for somebody who's been arrested 30 times, it's not a misunderstanding, it's a refusal to go to jail.
 

7 hours ago, Riley24 said:

So we're not allowed to talk about law enforcement as a government institution because "its only a few bad apples"? We can't talk about the negative effects of harsh policing on communities because not all cops are bad? We can't point to specific cops and say that the problem extends beyond them because we don't personally know all cops?  

You're first problem is insinuating that it's not only a few bad apples for the same reason that I suggest that it is. The difference is I've met and know a lot of police officers, sheriffs deputies, state troopers and even U.S. Marshalls and a D.E.A. agents from multiple states. I've seen them do their job, I've been with them when they do their job, I've even been stopped on the side of the road by a few of them. Most of them are stand up people. I've only had one unjustified negative experience with a police officer. The second problem is that you're for some reason mixing up my disgust with people being too collective when discussing bad police work with me trying to close of a conversation about it. If I was trying to close off any kind of conversation or debate with you about the police, I would have stopped replying long ago.

 

7 hours ago, Riley24 said:

That's character assassination, you're justifying his death. None of his past crimes are at all related to the case, you're trying to make yourself feel better about his death by reminding us that he wasn't "a good guy". 

It's not character assassination. I'm not demonizing, I'm just reporting. The records show he was not a law abiding citizen. That's a fact, not an opinion. I'm showing you that there's a pattern to his behavior. Several of his past charges are selling un-taxed items on the street corner. Guess what the police stopped him for that day? You need to read.

 

7 hours ago, Riley24 said:

Woah woah woah, hold on. Now we're talking about personal responsibility and doing the smart thing. Am I allowed to say the same things about the cops? Or would you just tell me how tough of a job it is and that I can't judge their behavior? So unless you've been a poor black man in Staten Island, you have no right to judge Garner's behavior.

I have the right to judge Garner's behavior because I'm a fellow citizen. I thought it didn't matter if I'm black or not, right? You're bringing up race victimization again despite the fact that you're insisting that you aren't. What the police did wasn't irresponsible, because they have a duty to take a criminal into custody. I already discussed with you that they can't simply walk away when faced with the issue of physical force being necessary to facilitate an arrest. You can walk away from a fight at a bar with another guy, but you can't abandon your duties as a police officer.

 

7 hours ago, Riley24 said:

See this is very telling. You didn't even factor in the possibility of harassment, arbitrary arrests, profiling, and trumped up charges. You have blind faith in the integrity of the New York City justice system. Why?

Did you even watch the video? You sound like a police union rep giving a massively faulty account of what happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpGxagKOkv8 Please watch it again. Garner gave up immediately.

I discussed all of those things with you already. You're forcing this conversation to go around in circles. There's no proof of any harassment, profiling or trumped up chargers. You're simply speculating to give Garner a way out of this. And you're asking if I watched the video? After I explained all of the physical techniques used and the events leading up to the arrest itself? Did I watch the video? Gee, where have I heard that line before? Garner did give up immediately, just as the choke hold was released immediately, which is why the whole choke hold business is a non-issue other than looking like something violent for the cameras and an opportunity for people who dislike the police to brow beat or otherwise convince neutral parties to sympathize with the person being arrested in cases like these.

 

7 hours ago, Riley24 said:

We've been working under the assumption hat Breitbart is telling the truth, which is not exactly a fair one. The coroner ruled that his death was a homicide, because the chokehold and the actions of the police officers. Eric Garner did NOT die of a random heart attack because he was fact. And no offense, but I'm not here to be educated by you. This is not a student-teacher dynamic, we both have access to the information.

The coroner ruled that the death was a homicide as a result of the police officers actions because without the altercation that day, his heart attack may not have been triggered. But due to the fact that it was brought on by physical exertion, that means he could have had it running away from a rabid dog, or breaking up another fight, or having his next meal. That's all speculation. The fact that he had heart disease, asthma and was morbidly obese is not speculation. It's fact. If you're not here to be educated by me then you're essentially not here to listen to me which makes this entire thread a colossal waste of time. Having access to the same information only helps if you bother to make an attempt to read it and understand it.

 

7 hours ago, Riley24 said:

So people like Eric Garner commit crimes, and good people don't. You seriously think Wall Street bankers don't commit misdemeanors? Come on, that's laughable. 

Almost as laughable as the "try going to north korea" point. Come on, that's childish. This case is a textbook example of what a police state looks like. Not to say that America as a whole is a police state, because I don't agree with that statement. But THIS case is what a police state looks like. When police officials crack down on low-level crime with violence, its a scary thing. The officer who caused the homicide of Eric Garner was not even indicted. It is INCREDIBLY easy for a prosecutor to get a indictment. Isn't that a wild coincidence? A cop is accused of killing someone and doesn't even get an indictment.

Oh, and you don't know shit about Eric Garner.

You keep bringing this conversation away from Garner and trying to put focus on people of another social status and economic class. You want childish? Not staying on topic and not arguing the points is childish. It's a cop-out to complain that there are bigger and similar crimes being committed elsewhere. If you still wish to complain about Wall Street, I'll reiterate: it's not a high property or physical crime area, and street cops don't get to enforce banking and stock trading regulations. As I mentioned earlier, this conversation is going around in circles, veering off course at some point during each of your replies until I force you to get back to Garner. At least I can close out my reply to you with him being the focal point. There are reasons behind the laws to enforce sales tax on items in the state of New York. If you'd like to know them in depth, you can read some speeches Rudy Giuliani gave. The problem with cracking down on low crime in this instance is that it got elevated to a point of high crime unnecessarily. Instead of taking a trip to county, bonding or signing himself out of jail or waiting overnight to dispute the charge in court; he escalated the interaction with police to the point where it got violent. Garner made the decision he wasn't going to jail.

And don't try and feed me op-ed bullshit on Garner telling me he was a great guy just because his neighbors and family say so. You know who else was supposed to be a great person according to family and friends? Any number of murderers or other criminals who have to stand trial in this country every day. Take Philip Chism as an example. He was a great kid who enjoyed playing sports, was enthusiastic in class and lived in a loving family with a father who served in the military. Besides being all of those things, you know what else he was? He was a murderer and somebody who raped the corpse of a 24 year old teacher he killed with a box cutter, before dumping the body in a waste bin with a tree branch shoved up her vagina. Nearly every case where the family or friends of the accused are asked to comment on them, they generally say the same thing: "My baby was a great person, he'd never do anything to harm anybody, I didn't see this coming."

Nobody saw Garner's decision to fight coming other than the cops who were called for backup. They were ready as they could be for a fight against a fat guy determined not to go to jail. Garner was not ready for a fight with anyone, taking into consideration his state of health. The person responsible for the decision to fight that day was Garner, the person responsible for getting taken down the way he did was Garner and the person who worked himself into physical distress despite having a bunch of pre-existing medical conditions was Garner.

Edited December 3, 201510 yr by unr3al

20 hours ago, unr3al said:

Jay-walking is barely even a crime, so is speeding, so is theft of penny candy, so is dodging child support, so it software piracy. Where do we draw the line? Don't feed me that bullsh*t. That's the mentality of someone who commits crimes of opportunity, weighing the risk/reward scale to be in their favor even if they get caught. The fact that you sympathize with and condone criminal activity compromises your judgement of this scenario. He was informed what his crime was and he was being taken into custody. That's not a new concept for somebody who's been arrested 30 times, it's not a misunderstanding, it's a refusal to go to jail.

What I meant is that the reaction to a man (allegedly) selling a few cigarettes should not be for 10 cops to come take him down violently. Its not worth it.

20 hours ago, unr3al said:

You're first problem is insinuating that it's not only a few bad apples for the same reason that I suggest that it is. The difference is I've met and know a lot of police officers, sheriffs deputies, state troopers and even U.S. Marshalls and a D.E.A. agents from multiple states. I've seen them do their job, I've been with them when they do their job, I've even been stopped on the side of the road by a few of them. Most of them are stand up people. I've only had one unjustified negative experience with a police officer. The second problem is that you're for some reason mixing up my disgust with people being too collective when discussing bad police work with me trying to close of a conversation about it. If I was trying to close off any kind of conversation or debate with you about the police, I would have stopped replying long ago.

"That's a huge problem in this country and it's one that's increasingly putting the police and this countries citizens at odds. People who firmly believe that the police as a collective term are bad are either close minded nitwits who don't have a real grip on the world or people who've had a bad experience with the police themselves and want to pass blame onto the cops instead of themselves."

What you're essentially saying with that is not to generalize the police as an institution. You're saying that we shouldn't object to flaws in police culture or the institution of law enforcement because that's "believing the police as a collective term are bad". You're also suggesting that if someone has a bad experience with a police officer, its their fault. That's a very authoritarian way of thinking. But in your eyes, it's always their fault, isn't it? What's one case that's been in the news in the past three years where you didn't blame the citizen?

20 hours ago, unr3al said:

It's not character assassination. I'm not demonizing, I'm just reporting. The records show he was not a law abiding citizen. That's a fact, not an opinion. I'm showing you that there's a pattern to his behavior. Several of his past charges are selling un-taxed items on the street corner. Guess what the police stopped him for that day? You need to read.

That's actually the literal definition of a character assassination. Its like when the right wing media reported that Trayvon Martin had traces of pot in his system. Just because you're stating a fact doesn't mean that you don't have an angle, or you're trying to prove a point. You were trying to prove that Eric Garner was not a good person, which you literally said. How about you read? Here's somewhere to start: http://beta.merriam-webster.com/

20 hours ago, unr3al said:

I have the right to judge Garner's behavior because I'm a fellow citizen. I thought it didn't matter if I'm black or not, right? You're bringing up race victimization again despite the fact that you're insisting that you aren't. What the police did wasn't irresponsible, because they have a duty to take a criminal into custody. I already discussed with you that they can't simply walk away when faced with the issue of physical force being necessary to facilitate an arrest. You can walk away from a fight at a bar with another guy, but you can't abandon your duties as a police officer.

I'm being very careful about where I'm bringing up race, so far I've barely even mentioned it. And the few time's I've mentioned it, you've freaked out, as most police supporters tend to do. I mentioned it this time because as we know, its harder to be black in America than white. And no, they can absolutely walk away. He says he's not selling cigarettes, we say he pulled them out of his bag, he clearly doesn't have a bag. We say he sold them to someone in a green shirt, but there's no one with a green shirt around. Time to go do something else with taxpayer money. Simple as that.

20 hours ago, unr3al said:

I discussed all of those things with you already. You're forcing this conversation to go around in circles. There's no proof of any harassment, profiling or trumped up chargers. You're simply speculating to give Garner a way out of this. And you're asking if I watched the video? After I explained all of the physical techniques used and the events leading up to the arrest itself? Did I watch the video? Gee, where have I heard that line before? Garner did give up immediately, just as the choke hold was released immediately, which is why the whole choke hold business is a non-issue other than looking like something violent for the cameras and an opportunity for people who dislike the police to brow beat or otherwise convince neutral parties to sympathize with the person being arrested in cases like these.

LOL. Of course there's no proof of harassment or profiling. There almost never is. There's no "We harassed this guy" box to check on the paperwork. It often takes lengthy federal investigation to uncover these practices, just look at Ferguson. It took a national spectacle to get the DOJ to investigate. If Eric Garner filed complaints, guess what he would be met with? People like you that would tell him that whatever happened, it was his fault.

Things like broken windows policing and stop and frisk encourage harassment and profiling. New York City has a long history of these practices.To say that a poor African American in Staten Island's criminal history is a perfect characterization of his criminal past is near the point of absurdity. And please don't freak out that I pointed out that he's African American. 

So you DID know that Garner gave up immediately? So when you said that Garner was determined to resist arrest no matter what, you were lying?

20 hours ago, unr3al said:

The coroner ruled that the death was a homicide as a result of the police officers actions because without the altercation that day, his heart attack may not have been triggered. But due to the fact that it was brought on by physical exertion, that means he could have had it running away from a rabid dog, or breaking up another fight, or having his next meal. That's all speculation. The fact that he had heart disease, asthma and was morbidly obese is not speculation. It's fact. If you're not here to be educated by me then you're essentially not here to listen to me which makes this entire thread a colossal waste of time. Having access to the same information only helps if you bother to make an attempt to read it and understand it.

In what world am I here to be educated by you? What an arrogant mindset. And you don't even provide any sources. Give me a source that proves my sources wrong. But hey, if I'm being a colossal waste of time, you can always stop replying.

 

20 hours ago, unr3al said:

You keep bringing this conversation away from Garner and trying to put focus on people of another social status and economic class. You want childish? Not staying on topic and not arguing the points is childish. It's a cop-out to complain that there are bigger and similar crimes being committed elsewhere. If you still wish to complain about Wall Street, I'll reiterate: it's not a high property or physical crime area, and street cops don't get to enforce banking and stock trading regulations. As I mentioned earlier, this conversation is going around in circles, veering off course at some point during each of your replies until I force you to get back to Garner. At least I can close out my reply to you with him being the focal point. There are reasons behind the laws to enforce sales tax on items in the state of New York. If you'd like to know them in depth, you can read some speeches Rudy Giuliani gave. The problem with cracking down on low crime in this instance is that it got elevated to a point of high crime unnecessarily. Instead of taking a trip to county, bonding or signing himself out of jail or waiting overnight to dispute the charge in court; he escalated the interaction with police to the point where it got violent. Garner made the decision he wasn't going to jail.

You fundamentally misunderstand our social world. If you would like to be educated, I suggest listening to the lectures of Allan G. Johnson.

And no, Garner didn't make the decision not to go to jail. He said "don't touch me" and moved his hands. He was pissed, and he had every right to be.

20 hours ago, unr3al said:

And don't try and feed me op-ed bullshit on Garner telling me he was a great guy just because his neighbors and family say so. You know who else was supposed to be a great person according to family and friends? Any number of murderers or other criminals who have to stand trial in this country every day. Take Philip Chism as an example. He was a great kid who enjoyed playing sports, was enthusiastic in class and lived in a loving family with a father who served in the military. Besides being all of those things, you know what else he was? He was a murderer and somebody who raped the corpse of a 24 year old teacher he killed with a box cutter, before dumping the body in a waste bin with a tree branch shoved up her vagina. Nearly every case where the family or friends of the accused are asked to comment on them, they generally say the same thing: "My baby was a great person, he'd never do anything to harm anybody, I didn't see this coming."

I could care less about what relatives of murderers say. Eric Garner was not a murderer.

So we shouldn't trust reports that he was the "neighborhood peacemaker" when a few minutes before this incident, he was breaking up a fight in his neighborhood? See YOU think YOU have the right to judge him, because you're a "fellow citizen", and you've read his criminal history. But you dismiss an op ed from people who ACTUALLY knew him, because you don't trust their knowledge of him. Again, what incredible arrogance. You really seem to think you've got it all figured out, down to the very details of someone's personality. How about the cops? Am I allowed to start talking about their personalities?

20 hours ago, unr3al said:

Nobody saw Garner's decision to fight coming other than the cops who were called for backup. They were ready as they could be for a fight against a fat guy determined not to go to jail. Garner was not ready for a fight with anyone, taking into consideration his state of health. The person responsible for the decision to fight that day was Garner, the person responsible for getting taken down the way he did was Garner and the person who worked himself into physical distress despite having a bunch of pre-existing medical conditions was Garner.

Pin ALL the blame on the dead guy, classy. The cops that took him down violently and choked him for not accepting his bullshit arrest? Nah, none of the blame belongs to them (even though by the definition of homicide, their actions contributed to his death). If only Garner knew his role and just accepted the arrest, then all this wouldn't have happened. 

No, I don't accept that as an argument. Its not factually or ethically based.

Edited December 4, 201510 yr by Riley24

You can refuse to accept my argument all you want, that's your prerogative. I'm not going to waste my time anymore as I've made my points, repeatedly, and I'm obviously not going to convince you of anything. The bottom line is you're not listening to what I'm saying. I can only hope that other people reading this took the time to properly read and understand my points, rather than continually attributing Garners fate to police harassment and trying to victimize him despite the legitimate proof (video tape) of him resisting arrest and saying he's not going to jail.

4 hours ago, unr3al said:

You can refuse to accept my argument all you want, that's your prerogative. I'm not going to waste my time anymore as I've made my points, repeatedly, and I'm obviously not going to convince you of anything. The bottom line is you're not listening to what I'm saying. I can only hope that other people reading this took the time to properly read and understand my points, rather than continually attributing Garners fate to police harassment and trying to victimize him despite the legitimate proof (video tape) of him resisting arrest and saying he's not going to jail.

Don't blame me for not accepting your arguments, you contradicted yourself multiple times and wouldn't provide any sources.  I don't just accept what random people say on the internet as fact.

3 hours ago, Riley24 said:

Don't blame me for not accepting your arguments, you contradicted yourself multiple times and wouldn't provide any sources.  I don't just accept what random people say on the internet as fact.

I gave you a source: The link to the video. If you watch it in its entirety, and you know anything about police work, it stands on its own. The camera doesn't lie.

Edited December 8, 201510 yr by unr3al

14 hours ago, unr3al said:

I gave you a source: The link to the video. If you watch it in its entirety, and you know anything about police work, it stands on its own. The camera doesn't lie.

Right, and I watched that plenty of times. While cameras don't lie, they also don't tell the full story. Coroner reports and plenty of other important facts are not included in witness videos. You've provided no other sources even though you've referenced very specific things.

And if you're not willing to share them, then you should at least be honest about what we saw in the video. We saw Garner give up immediately after an illegal chokehold was used. And for minutes before that, Garner is questioning the police about what evidence of a crime they supposedly had, and they're unable to answer any of them. There's no bag or man in a green shirt. This points to the possibility of harassment and even false arrest. 

Edited December 8, 201510 yr by Riley24

5 hours ago, Riley24 said:

We saw Garner give up immediately after an illegal chokehold was used

It wasn't illegal. There is no statute in New York law that explicitly forbids what was done. Department policy is another story.

 

5 hours ago, Riley24 said:

And for minutes before that, Garner is questioning the police about what evidence of a crime they supposedly had, and they're unable to answer any of them. There's no bag or man in a green shirt. This points to the possibility of harassment and even false arrest. 

The police and Garner debate the arrest for minutes prior to physical contact, and it was explained the man who bought off of him walked away. Garner just denied it. This kind of comment from you is what has me convinced you either didn't watch the video, or you're only looking at what you want to see. I'm leaning towards the latter, now.

 

5 hours ago, Riley24 said:

Right, and I watched that plenty of times. While cameras don't lie, they also don't tell the full story. Coroner reports and plenty of other important facts are not included in witness videos. You've provided no other sources even though you've referenced very specific things.

Google is your friend, as they say. I'm not turning in a term paper to someone. I don't need to give you a works cited list. This stuff is very easy to find.

Edited December 9, 201510 yr by unr3al