TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77 wrote:

Keith B wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:
The duties, and goals, of a paramedic are different than those of a policeman.

I also think there should be lesser charges against all the officers on the scene since none of them attempted to render aid. I'm not going to support this kind of treatment for poor people selling cigarettes until I see the real criminals in this country like John Corizine get the same treatment.

rwg3 wrote:I try not to get caught up posting in this forum, but occasionally a topic is too tempting to pass up, so forgive me.

There is some merit to the argument of not resisting arrest. He was a huge guy and while he was not violent he was clearly, at the point where the video clip shows, not ready to meekly offer his wrists to the cuffs. Now here is what really bothers me about this situation. The video that I have seen only shows a very brief span of time and does not show the entire interaction. If it did I would very concerned about a swarm of five officers including a plain clothes officer swooping down and gang tackling a guy who was alleged to be committing a (by most reasonable standards) a minor crime.

I watch this clip and I wonder how did this situation so rapidly go from relative calm to a pretty brutal take down. It makes one wonder if there is a productivity driven time limit imposed on encounters like this which trigger to rush to physical confrontation. I find it unusual that there would be so many officers just coincidently on the scene, and IIRC from the initial news reports, that local store owners had complained about Mr. Garner's activities previously. It seems like this was an organized foray to arrest him. He had been reported to have been arrested before, one wonders whether that experience was a violent one also? Not that it predicts the actions of the next time. In either event it does not seem to be a very well thought out encounter. I wonder why more time was not spent in communicating with him? Being surrounded by 5 officers he wasn't going anywhere. Again it is hard to judge without more information but the opinion I am developing is that somebody screwed up and the whole thing was swept under the rug.

I try very hard to support our law enforcement people. They have a hard enough job doing what they can to deal with a mind bending array of issues. Here is the but and it is a loud one. There is and has been a growing attitude change in some officers if you are not with us, then you deserve anything that happens when you are against us. I might even agree with this in certain situations but not in all. I am not sure that everyone who becomes an officer has the same boundary lines that I would, nor even has the temperament or capacity to be able to discern the difference in situations. When one of these things happen I always wonder if there wasn't a bit of this attitude leaking out.

We have militarized our domestic police forces, we have supported the argument that cops need to be able to match force with drug czars and gangs. The average cop I see today is in much better physical shape and spends much more time in the gym and weight room than the cops did when I was growing up. Having the ability to use great force comes with the responsibility of knowing when to use it. I think this time a mistake was made.

sjfcontrol wrote:

jayinsat wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:There are some questions about the "choke hold". Seems NYC doesn't allow officers to use "choke holds", but the questions involve the definition on of "choke hold". I've heard that they have a specific definition, and that the hold the officer used did not meet that definition. If that is true, then the hold the officer used was not forbidden.

Also, he may have been in distress, but if he's saying "I can't breathe" over and over, he IS breathing. You can't talk unless you can inhale and exhale air. For what it's worth, I also heard a (claimed) cop explain that the first thing an arrestee says when cuffed is "I can't breathe".

I am NOT trying to defend what the officers did, but wanted to express some or the "exculpatory" explanations I heard today.

This is actually false. I work in the healthcare field and I have a mom with COPD and a child with asthma. I have seen many patients whose thoracic cavity was filled with fluid, constricting the expansion and contraction of the lungs, repeatedly crying out "I can't breathe!" If you are restraining someone and putting force on their chest (whether directly or with them on their face and you on their back), you are restricting their ability to completely inhale and exhale. This is the same situation. That person would be able to utter a short "I can't breathe" inbetween gasps for air. To me, that's like saying a person can't be drowning if they can scream for help! A cry of "I can't breathe" doesn't mean you can't inspire or expire. It means you can't get sufficient air to alleviate that suffocation sensation.

I pretty much agree with all previous points made

That is precisely what I meant by "in distress". He is breathing in enough air to speak (or wheeze), but not enough to sustain his life over a period of time.

sjfcontrol wrote:There are some questions about the "choke hold". Seems NYC doesn't allow officers to use "choke holds", but the questions involve the definition on of "choke hold". I've heard that they have a specific definition, and that the hold the officer used did not meet that definition. If that is true, then the hold the officer used was not forbidden.

Also, he may have been in distress, but if he's saying "I can't breathe" over and over, he IS breathing. You can't talk unless you can inhale and exhale air. For what it's worth, I also heard a (claimed) cop explain that the first thing an arrestee says when cuffed is "I can't breathe".

I am NOT trying to defend what the officers did, but wanted to express some or the "exculpatory" explanations I heard today.