The Eric Garner case

[Teamless]

Seriously? The what if game?

YES, Seriously!

if they feel they have "probable cause" then you WILL NOT WIN THE FIGHT on the side of the road. PERIOD.
No matter how much you want to complain about it, or how strongly you feel you were not wrong.

That is what the COURTS are for.

If you want to take the stance of "I did not do anything wrong" and fight with the officer, then you might as well be Michael Brown, or protest with the groups all over the country who are protesting.

I have a fun time watching COPS and have for 20 + years.
And the one common theme (ok 2 themes) is that
1 - "Officer I did not do it, I only ran because I was scared" (and the cops then find exactly what they were looking for with their probable cause - normally drugs/guns
and 2 the "I Swear to GOD" defense. Every time I heard that, see # 1 above.

[baldeagle]

I think some of you are missing the point. Imagine if the government passed a bill that made it illegal for you to own a business. (Stay with me.) So you, being a business owner and otherwise law-abiding citizen decide, the heck with you, I'm going to keep running my business. So one day the gendarmes show up in force, because, after all, you ARE breaking the law. You, being highly offended by such a stupid law, start arguing with them that the law is unconstitutional. They, being the duly constituted officers tasked with enforcing the law, jump you and take you to the ground and cuff you.

Are you happy with that? Gonna meekly comply and take the ride? Not going to be outraged at the theft of your rights?

A journey begins with the first step. The more we accept the use of force to effect arrest, the more it becomes likely that the force will one day show up at our doorstep. And then what will you do?

I support the police. I understand they have a difficult job to do. But I'm concerned that force is being used more and more frequently and for flimsier and flimsier reasons. If we don't speak out now, where will we end up? This is America. You used to be able to drive a car without a license. You used to be able to buy a toilet or a washing machine or a simple light bulb without first having to get government approval. Now all those options are gone. In New York City, they actually wanted to control how much soda pop you could drink! How much more freedom do we give up before we say, Enough is enough. This is OUR country. We are SOVEREIGN citizens. YOU are our servants. Stop abusing your power.

You may not believe it, but this slippery slope leads directly to gun confiscation. Learn history.

Eric Garner was a petty thief. He was never convicted of any violent crime (that I'm aware of.) Was the force used to arrest him NECESSARY? That's all I'm asking. IMO force should be met with equal force, not overwhelming force. He resisted arrest. Fine. Surround him. Tell him, this only ends one way - with you in cuffs. But assault him and then ignore his pleas for help? Is that REALLY what you think the police should do?

[Cedar Park Dad]

Policies on LVNR differ from department to department. I've had it done to me a bunch in training and honestly you are never aware that you went to sleep for a few seconds. It only takes a few seconds to put someone to sleep if used correctly.

And if they leave it on a little while longer you get a nice headache when you wake up. We were taught that back in the 80s

[Cedar Park Dad]

By the way, I understand that a single pack of cigarettes in NYC, with the city, state and federal taxes runs about $14.00. That would make a carton cost around $140.00. That's what has spurred the sale of single cigarettes, smuggled from neighboring states. I can remember buying a pack of cigarettes as a teenager for a quarter. Some of this problem can be placed on outrageous tax laws. The cops don't get to pick and choose the laws they must enforce (well, unless they're Holder or Obama).

Actually they do. Always have and always will, since like every other organization on the planet, the resources available to them put constraints on their activities. But hey, since they've solved all the violent crime, thefts, and rapes, I guess they got plenty of resources to arrest and kill people for selling cigarettes. On, and btw, according to witnesses, the officer who killed this guy flipped off the crowd after he did it. What does that say about attitude?

To restate in a more "neutral" language-as an organization limited by manpower and budgetary constraints, the department has the capacity to allocate resources where it believes it most efficacious. For whatever reason ***COUGH TAX MONEY COUGH*** the department felt it important to deploy multiple personnel to this pressing issue, vs. murders, felonies, watching out for terrorists, etc.

[sjfcontrol]

By the way, I understand that a single pack of cigarettes in NYC, with the city, state and federal taxes runs about $14.00. That would make a carton cost around $140.00. That's what has spurred the sale of single cigarettes, smuggled from neighboring states. I can remember buying a pack of cigarettes as a teenager for a quarter. Some of this problem can be placed on outrageous tax laws. The cops don't get to pick and choose the laws they must enforce (well, unless they're Holder or Obama).

Actually they do. Always have and always will, since like every other organization on the planet, the resources available to them put constraints on their activities. But hey, since they've solved all the violent crime, thefts, and rapes, I guess they got plenty of resources to arrest and kill people for selling cigarettes. On, and btw, according to witnesses, the officer who killed this guy flipped off the crowd after he did it. What does that say about attitude?

To restate in a more "neutral" language-as an organization limited by manpower and budgetary constraints, the department has the capacity to allocate resources where it believes it most efficacious. For whatever reason ***COUGH TAX MONEY COUGH*** the department felt it important to deploy multiple personnel to this pressing issue, vs. murders, felonies, watching out for terrorists, etc.

I read somewhere that it was the new NYC mayor that told the PD to crack down on illegal cigarette sales.

[jayinsat]

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

[VMI77]

Deleted

[VMI77]

I think some of you are missing the point.

Some definitely are missing the point. Some of those commenting sound like school administrators espousing "zero tolerance." Mentally they've already given up their rights as sovereign citizens to the government. And that is exactly the state of mind of those who register their guns and will meekly surrender them during a confiscation.

I find the "leave it to the courts" nostrum pretty revolting. In the first place, the courts cost you money even in an uncorrupted system. Why should I have to pay to defend myself from improper policing? Furthermore, at this point in the game the courts are just about as likely to further the injustice as they are to correct it. It's not long from the point where this kind of police conduct is accepted to when it becomes embedded in the culture, and then to when the courts no longer offer ANY expectation of justice.

But assault him and then ignore his pleas for help? Is that REALLY what you think the police should do?

Some clearly do think so. One comment was along the lines that criminals have used ruses with the police, expressing phony distress, so apparently, given the possibility that the person expressing distress may be exploiting a ruse, all suspects should be treated as criminals exploiting a ruse. The logical conclusion is that if a few die in the process, so be it, as long as every LEO goes home without a scratch. The same logic suggests that since there may be a CHL or two that would shoot a LEO, all CHLs should be considered dangerous criminals on the verge of shooting a LEO. And hey, "what if?" What if a motorist has a stolen Russian nuclear device in his vehicle? What if that soccer mom has hidden explosive vests under her children's coats in a plot to murder school children? The old "what if" is a handy justification for anything and everything.

[Cedar Park Dad]

If you resist, you will be dealt with.

If you resist you will die?
Avoiding so many Godwin references right now.

What if you quit resisting (as occurred). Do you still have to die?

[VMI77]

If you resist, you will be dealt with.

If you resist you will die?
Avoiding so many Godwin references right now.

What if you quit resisting (as occurred). Do you still have to die?

I too worked hard to avoid a Godwin reference.

[sjfcontrol]

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.

[Cedar Park Dad]

I read somewhere that it was the new NYC mayor that told the PD to crack down on illegal cigarette sales.

I'd bet good tax dollars you're right.

[jayinsat]

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.

[android]

Bottom line, while I believe overall the Ferguson grand jury made the right call, this decision appears to be a total miscarriage of justice.

I am in complete agreement.

There ARE two justice systems, but not black vs. white, it's blue vs. the rest of us.

[rwg3]

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.