TexasCHLforum.com

Moderators, if this is the wrong forum, or you don't want this discussion to happen at all, go ahead and move or delete it.

Unless you live under a rock, you're at least familiar with what's been going on in Ferguson, MO. Now, a New York Grand Jury has returned a No Bill decision in the death of Eric Garner.

I’m as conservative as they come. I don’t think race enters into this case at all. (Nor did it in Michael Brown's case.) But I am struggling mightily with what happened to Eric Garner.

Here’s my problem. I’m a law abiding citizen of the US. I have a concealed weapon license and I carry daily. So I’ve had to learn the basics of use of force law, because, while I will certainly defend myself and others in the right circumstances, I don’t want to go to jail and I don’t want the crushing expense of a trial.

As a citizen, I have a right to detain someone, if they are committing a crime, until the police arrive. If I were to do what the officer did to Eric Garner, I can guarantee you I would be facing a trial. I might not be convicted, but I would definitely have my day in court to defend my actions and face adversarial questioning from the prosecutor.

How is this cop different? I ask as sincerely as I possible can. How is this cop different? His actions resulted in the death of a man. The moment he put that choke hold on Garner, he was no longer resisting. He was on the ground, swarmed by officers and gasping, I can’t breathe. I can’t breathe.

When I look at use of force situations, I put myself in the cop’s shoes. In the case of Michael Brown, Officer Wilson was clearly justified in using deadly force. I would have done EXACTLY what he did under the same circumstances.

When I look at this situation, I see serious problems. I would NOT do what the officer did. The moment he said I can’t breathe, I would have released the hold. And please don’t insult me with his asthma and heart is what killed him. The proximate cause of his death was the force used to subdue him. Even the ME found the death to be a homicide and the health issues to be contributing factors.

How is there not even probable cause to go to trial on involuntary manslaughter? I really need to understand this.

Five words: New York City Grand Jury

Grand Juries can be swayed, and the New York City government overall is about as blatantly without morals as they come IMO. They are willing to let a cop who performed an prohibited choke hold on a guy who was committing a misdemeanor of selling loose cigarettes to others who couldn't afford a whole pack.

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

99% of the time, I'll jump to the LEO's defense. This is one of those other 1% where I'm struggling to see how this case wasn't a slam dunk conviction, nevermind an indictment.

NYC politics at its finest.

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.

Whole heartedly agree with both prior posts. I am having great difficulty understanding why force was required to begin with. I understand that he was resisting but should there have been an arrest to begin? Seems like issuing a citation with an order to appear in court would have been more appropriate than making an arrest for the "crime" he was commiting.

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.

Even if the hold the LEO was using was not forbidden it still resulted in the death of a human being being arrested for a misdemeanor.

Justice has been ignored.

The incestuous relationship between law enforcement and the DA has been validated once again.

anygunanywhere 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.

Even if the hold the LEO was using was not forbidden it still resulted in the death of a human being being arrested for a misdemeanor.

Justice has been ignored.

The incestuous relationship between law enforcement and the DA has been validated once again.

And yet in the meme of "hands up, don't shoot", the outcry is about the use of an "illegal" choke hold. (I've heard both that it was illegal, and that it was only not allowed by the department.). But it is NYC, so I can't refute your claims.

This pretty much sums up where I'm sitting...

http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/12/wh ... r-tonight/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Regardless of the grand jury's decision, burning down neighborhoods and rioting is not the answer.

Say what you want, but the street is not the appellate court. Just do what you are told. Right or wrong and then come back for justice in the court. Your told to turn around and be cuffed. Turn around and be cuffed.

I would also like to add the Officer forgot "when resistance ends brutality begins."

sjfcontrol wrote:

anygunanywhere 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.

Even if the hold the LEO was using was not forbidden it still resulted in the death of a human being being arrested for a misdemeanor.

Justice has been ignored.

The incestuous relationship between law enforcement and the DA has been validated once again.

And yet in the meme of "hands up, don't shoot", the outcry is about the use of an "illegal" choke hold. (I've heard both that it was illegal, and that it was only not allowed by the department.). But it is NYC, so I can't refute your claims.

I tend to lean toward the side of: If he said "I can't breathe" once and then ceased, it's different from saying it over and over, while obviously breathing. I have participated in the arrest of someone who did the "I can't breathe" thing while a huge shore patrol member sat in his chest, and as soon as Tiny got off him, he got up and started to run again. I have seen numerous cases, and participated in a couple, where the guy being subdued was moaning and screaming about his arm was being broken, etc, and it turned out not to be so. In the excitement of the moment, judging whether that BG you are wrestling with is really in distress or just trying to put one over on you is hard to do, so most just default to the BG is just trying to put one over.

Having said that, I would like to know more. Were they really doing that subdue due to his selling cigarettes, or were they taking him down because he resisted the original arrest and things escalated. Sure looked to me as if he was doing a creditable job of standing off three or four officers when the choke hold got applied, and that would mean, to me, that it was not due to the cigarettes, but to the resistance.

It seems he'd been arrested multiple times for selling "Loosies".

An interesting analysis...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... ric-Garner" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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).

I just re-watched the video specifically trying to identify what happened. It surprised me. Here's what I found. The hold lasted for 14 seconds. Garner didn't complain about breathing problems until AFTER the hold was released. The officer who placed the hold on him released the hold and then moved to hold his head down. It appears that what caused the breathing difficulty was the other officers, who were pressing on his body holding him down. Watch it for yourself. " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For those who think the NYPD cop is guilty or at least have some qualms about what he did, answer this:

How do you propose the police affect a lawful arrest on a 400-pound man who is actively (though not yet violently) resisting said arrest? Please spare us the arguments about "it was just cigarettes" and understand that cops don't make the law (Bloomberg made the law, if you want to point fingers), they merely enforce it.

When Garner began actively resisting, should the cops have just let him go because arresting him was too difficult?

Should they have used a different tactic? Guns are a no go. Tasers? Pepper spray? What would those weapons have done to a man in Garner's physical condition? Baton strikes to the legs?

Serious question looking for serious answers.