TexasCHLforum.com

cb1000rider wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:There are many ways of controlling a person resisting arrest without causing major or life threatening injuries. The police are not trained to use them. A petite female can easily control a large man and may not even get her uniform dirty.

What you're saying is true, but the reality is that it's not "easy" and requires an awful lot of training, retraining, and constant practice. And there is some value where you can have all the technique you want, but if you're 125 lbs and up against a 300lb fat guy, it's very dangerous. Some people are able to do it, after years, but not many...

I'm all for a better trained, better paid police force... But it's not reasonable to expect that LEOs will always be able to affect arrests against resisting persons without causing or receiving injury.

I don't know if it was a choke or not. I do know that it's relatively easy to get slightly out of position and start doing it wrong, especially if you're dealing with someone that's bigger and stronger. And the fact is that current case law makes almost any level of force "legal" to affect the arrest...

Not to mention those techniques just don't work near as well in the real world. In the gym people don't want to get hurt and will tap as soon as pain starts. In the real world anger, fear, drugs, all play into people really not wanting to stop. People will keep fighting thru broken bones and dislocations so the belief that some little pain will stop everyone is less than accurate.

Keith B wrote:

EEllis wrote: So saying that this guy violated policy when the NYPD tacitly approved of such things regularly is a bit much.

Well, the Commissioner apparently felt right off the bat that it was a 'chokehold' and they stripped the officer of his badge and gun while the investigaiton was being done http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /12936547/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In a news conference a day after Garner's death, NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton said Garner "appeared to have been in a chokehold." He said the investigations will "seek to make that final determination."

So, again, while the GJ decided the tactic didn't cause the death, the internal thoughts were that it 'sure looked like a chokehold'.

Call me cynical but I don't think the commissioners actions had anything to do with anything but politics. 10 to 1 the review board says otherwise and the officer actually keeps his job. That being said you never directly addressed my comments which were that even tho they may condemn the actions by this officer similar actions are routinely accepted by the NYPD. My comments were not on the bigger picture just that using the "illegal choke hold" as evidence of something greater really doesn't hold up. It sounds good but is really just noise being used to predispose the public towards guilt.

Keith B wrote:

EEllis wrote:
Again you are incorrect in your assertions. That is not a choke hold. Choke holds are designed to interfere with a persons breathing. The hold in the video is designed to restrict blood flow. Two different things. The NYPD policy as I understand it restricts from use and technique that interferes with someones breathing. That would not include the hold shown on the video.\

“Members of the NYPD will NOT use chokeholds,” the NYPD patrol guide clearly states. “A chokehold shall include, but is not limited to, any pressure to the throat or windpipe which may prevent or hinder breathing to reduce intakes of air.”

NYPD has never been trained on LVNR techniques and have banned 'choke holds' (their words) of any type. While the move may not have been against the law, the hold of any type on the neck is against department policy. The Grand Jury apparently determined the hold in itself was not enough evidence to indict the officer for the death of Mr. Garner. However, that doesn't mean the department will not fire the officer, and as the officer has apparently not been trained in LVNR, if he tried to use the technique without proper training there will definitely be civil suits filed to try and prove negligence and even civil rights violations.

I think you are right that the family will be getting a sizable payout. As to the 'choke hold' issue. I think part of the problem is that the definition depends on who you talk to. There was a report early this year with the civilian review board complaining about use of choke holds. One of the issues they wrote about was the difference in what different people in the system define as a choke hold. When they have police review boards sometimes it's anything near the neck, sometimes it's only if you directly interfere with a persons breathing. It doesn't seem to be a consistently held standard for what constitutes a choke hold. That being said, and contrary to what the civilian review board believes should be the standard, NYPD disciplinary actions sure seem to support that unless you actually interfere with someones breathing in a major way you will not be considered to have violated policy. So saying that this guy violated policy when the NYPD tacitly approved of such things regularly is a bit much.

buddyhotrod wrote:EELLIS wrote the following

"The video just doesn't show what you claim. First if it was a choke hold then the officer would of been using a restraint tactic that is banned by the NYPD which does not make it illegal. He would of violated a work regulation not any law. Second it wasn't a banned choke hold but a submission hold that works by limiting the blood flow. No choking involved."

ummmm Sir are we talking about the same video?

I am speaking of the topic and video which is titled the Eric Garner case.

Please reference the video we are speaking of and watch closely as the officer clearly puts his arm around Eric Garners neck.That is against NYPD policy.

Maybe not try the officer for murder but for sure breaking NYPD policy. The officer absolutely broke NYPD policy

ummmmm Hello

Again you are incorrect in your assertions. That is not a choke hold. Choke holds are designed to interfere with a persons breathing. The hold in the video is designed to restrict blood flow. Two different things. The NYPD policy as I understand it restricts from use and technique that interferes with someones breathing. That would not include the hold shown on the video.\

“Members of the NYPD will NOT use chokeholds,” the NYPD patrol guide clearly states. “A chokehold shall include, but is not limited to, any pressure to the throat or windpipe which may prevent or hinder breathing to reduce intakes of air.”

buddyhotrod wrote:NYC police has strict rules that tell their officers that they ARE NOT ALLOWED to choke anyone. This has been NYC Police law for nearly 20 years.

Eric may very well have been in poor health yes, Eric may have possibly been doing something that was illegal but since he did in fact die and was heard saying he could not breathe and since the Video Does in Fact show a Illegal police choke maneuver being used. I am sorry but the officer broke NYPD policy by choking someone and needs to face the Charges. I have no idea what the Grand Jury was told by the DA. I am for the police 100% but the video speaks volumes along with the fact that NYPD are not allowed to choke any person at all. The Officer clearly broke NYPD policy. beyond a shadow of a doubt.

It is all very unfortunate and the Grand Jury decision only makes the entire race issue look really bad for other races if you know what I mean.

The video just doesn't show what you claim. First if it was a choke hold then the officer would of been using a restraint tactic that is banned by the NYPD which does not make it illegal. He would of violated a work regulation not any law. Second it wasn't a banned choke hold but a submission hold that works by limiting the blood flow. No choking involved.