3 hours ago, unr3al said:

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

Illegal as in against department policy. Although a case could be made that when you use a chokehold that's been banned, you're guilty of wreckless endangerment, but that's a whole other case that unfortunately will never been made since the DA failed to even get an indictment. Funny how that worked out.

3 hours ago, unr3al said:

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.

No, listen back again. The police tell him they saw him reach into his bag, and Garner shouts "WHAT BAG?", and the police don't have an answer. Garner clearly doesn't have a bag. Where is the guy in the green shirt? Oh, the police say he walked away. See but you're trusting that the police are telling the truth without even considering the fact that they might not be telling the truth. As far as the video is concerned (which you say is good evidence), there is no man in the green shirt. Why do you have so much faith in a few plainclothes NYPD cops?

3 hours ago, unr3al said:

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.

See, but I DID look it up. And I found multiple articles referencing how the officer's actions lead to his death, particularity because of the chokehold. I shared those articles with you. What I couldn't find was a single article about how the cause of death was not the fault of the officers. I've asked you for those sources and you still have refused to share them. The facts are not on your side, I suggest you go do some reading.

Edited December 9, 201510 yr by Riley24

1 hour ago, Riley24 said:

Illegal as in against department policy.

That's not what illegal means, so I'd refrain from using that word.
 

1 hour ago, Riley24 said:

No, listen back again. The police tell him they saw him reach into his bag, and Garner shouts "WHAT BAG?", and the police don't have an answer. Garner clearly doesn't have a bag. Where is the guy in the green shirt? Oh, the police say he walked away. See but you're trusting that the police are telling the truth without even considering the fact that they might not be telling the truth. As far as the video is concerned (which you say is good evidence), there is no man in the green shirt. Why do you have so much faith in a few plainclothes NYPD cops?

You can speculate on whether the events happened as they did according to Garner or the police officers all you want. The fact is the events Garner was accused of happened off camera. But I'm more inclined to believe the police officers based on Garners prior convictions. As far as trusting the police; Let me put it this way: Would you trust a cop to give you a ride home as an example, vs. someone who offers you a ride after informing you they're a convicted felon who's been arrested more than 30 times but that they haven't done anything wrong lately? Of course I've considered the fact that they aren't being truthful, but I'd tend to believe them first for good reason. Furthermore, this assumption of harassment is (and always has been during our discussion) a moot point considering that regardless of whether the charge was legitimate or not, all he had to do was go take a ride to the precinct, and then sign himself out of jail or wait out the night to see a judge. He didn't need to fight.
 

1 hour ago, Riley24 said:

See, but I DID look it up.

Good.
 

1 hour ago, Riley24 said:

And I found multiple articles referencing how the officer's actions lead to his death, particularity because of the chokehold.

You can go dig up the coroners report if you want that notes he had a crushed trachea. The problem with the word crushed is explained by officer Dominic Izzo in a video he did about the choke hold that I also linked: Think of the word 'crush' in the form of a soda can. Crushed can mean dented, and crushed can also mean completely destroyed. Therefore the words 'crushed trachea' is why people leap to conclusions that the choke hold was the cause for his death. It wasn't. The cause of death would be listed as asphyxiation if it was, not a myocardial infarction (heart attack) that he had in the back of the ambulance far after he was handcuffed, still complaining. He maintained an airway all the way to his death.

 

1 hour ago, Riley24 said:

I've asked you for those sources and you still have refused to share them. The facts are not on your side, I suggest you go do some reading.

I'm not wasting my time anymore, since it's obvious I'm not going to convince you of anything. The facts are on my side because the video tells you everything you need to know about the altercation, which is the debate topic, provided you know anything about the human anatomy and police work. I explained the physiology of the two kinds of choke holds to you, I've explained what medical conditions Garner had, and I've explained to you the key events of the arrest and why it went down the way it did. I can't assist you any further with understanding those things unless you'd like to take a college level anatomy course, practice martial arts for a year or two and successfully go through a 10 week police academy course. I don't have time to teach you all of those things. You can go off on a tangent about what kind of a person he was, or how some cops in America have become corrupt or how white or rich people get treated better all you want. You're just wasting everyone's time since none of that actually has anything to do with the take down of Eric Garner in the video.

Edited December 9, 201510 yr by unr3al

19 hours ago, unr3al said:

That's not what illegal means, so I'd refrain from using that word.

Sure, completely ignore the rest of my sentence. And apparently the sports world should also stop saying "illegal", since its not what illegal means. Wow, you really nailed me on that usage of a word didn't you. Nice work.

 

19 hours ago, unr3al said:

You can speculate on whether the events happened as they did according to Garner or the police officers all you want. The fact is the events Garner was accused of happened off camera. But I'm more inclined to believe the police officers based on Garners prior convictions. As far as trusting the police; Let me put it this way: Would you trust a cop to give you a ride home as an example, vs. someone who offers you a ride after informing you they're a convicted felon who's been arrested more than 30 times but that they haven't done anything wrong lately? Of course I've considered the fact that they aren't being truthful, but I'd tend to believe them first for good reason. Furthermore, this assumption of harassment is (and always has been during our discussion) a moot point considering that regardless of whether the charge was legitimate or not, all he had to do was go take a ride to the precinct, and then sign himself out of jail or wait out the night to see a judge. He didn't need to fight.

Who would I trust to give me a ride home has nothing to do with whether or not a few cops in Staten Island are busting someone's balls for something they did or didn't do. The difference between you and I is that you trust the police based off of nothing, and I don't. You don't know these cops but you trust their bullshit accusation that even they can't defend against simple questioning from Garner. All of that is in the video, and I'm sure at this point I'm sure you've seen it. 

Edited December 10, 201510 yr by Riley24

19 hours ago, unr3al said:

You can go dig up the coroners report if you want that notes he had a crushed trachea. The problem with the word crushed is explained by officer Dominic Izzo in a video he did about the choke hold that I also linked: Think of the word 'crush' in the form of a soda can. Crushed can mean dented, and crushed can also mean completely destroyed. Therefore the words 'crushed trachea' is why people leap to conclusions that the choke hold was the cause for his death. It wasn't. The cause of death would be listed as asphyxiation if it was, not a myocardial infarction (heart attack) that he had in the back of the ambulance far after he was handcuffed, still complaining. He maintained an airway all the way to his death.

"Look it up"

"I did, but it proves your point wrong. Where did you get your information?"

"Look it up"

 

Hilarious that you still refuse to send me a link that proves your overall point that the police were not responsible for his death. I honestly think you don't have any, and telling me to "read" was all projection. If you had them, you would've shared them by now. Please stop writing essays about anatomy, they're irrelevant unless you're secretly the Staten Island coroner. I'll trust his word over yours, and so far you haven't provided a source for any of your posts about it.

 

19 hours ago, unr3al said:

I'm not wasting my time anymore, since it's obvious I'm not going to convince you of anything. The facts are on my side because the video tells you everything you need to know about the altercation, which is the debate topic, provided you know anything about the human anatomy and police work.

Wait so Garner's criminal history isn't relevant because it wasn't included in the video, right? Wait a second...

 

19 hours ago, unr3al said:

 I explained the physiology of the two kinds of choke holds to you, I've explained what medical conditions Garner had, and I've explained to you the key events of the arrest and why it went down the way it did. I can't assist you any further with understanding those things unless you'd like to take a college level anatomy course, practice martial arts for a year or two and successfully go through a 10 week police academy course. I don't have time to teach you all of those things. You can go off on a tangent about what kind of a person he was, or how some cops in America have become corrupt or how white or rich people get treated better all you want. You're just wasting everyone's time since none of that actually has anything to do with the take down of Eric Garner in the video.

All the while never managing to include a source. Well done. Wait a second, YOU went on a tangent about the kind of person he was. You wrote very beefy paragraph about how bad of a guy he was. Please stop replying if I'm wasting your time, you've said that multiple times and you haven't stopped replying.

Here are the facts as proven by the video and the coroner report (both of which I've already provided sources for):

-The police claimed he was selling cigarettes

-Garner lightly resisted

-The police used a banned chokehold on him

-The police wrestled him to the ground

-Garner gave up immediately

-Garner says he can't breathe

-Garner dies

-The coroner rules it a homicide, and that the police's actions lead to his death

Those are the facts based on my research. If you are going to challenge ANY of them, provide a counter-source, otherwise you're wasting MY time.

In fact, I'm even pulling punches. I can absolutely give you sources that show that not only did the police's actions lead to his death, but that they killed him. But ooh, that's a scary thing to say about the police. 

 

Edited December 10, 201510 yr by Riley24

9 hours ago, Riley24 said:

Please stop replying if I'm wasting your time

Consider it done.  Continuing on with the same arguments isn't doing you or I any favors.