TexasCHLforum.com

As people with heart conditions can attest, when your heart isn't functioning and blood isn't adequately getting pumped throughout your body, one gets the feeling of being unable to breath even though they can. That may explain why he was able to say he couldn't breath.

I have mixed opinions on this one and my comment above is not intended to argue one way or the other regarding the case.

A-R wrote: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.

Taser.

anygunanywhere wrote:

A-R wrote: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.

Taser.

With heart trouble the taser would have probably killed him, then what?

carlson1 wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

A-R wrote: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.

Taser.

With heart trouble the taser would have probably killed him, then what?

The officers did not know about heart trouble. Tasers are compliance tools. If by using a different method properly and Mr Garner still died this would not look so bad. I guess it is more fun and a bigger adrenaline rush for a bunch of cops to gang wrestle a man down and choke him.

anygunanywhere wrote:

carlson1 wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

A-R wrote: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.

Taser.

With heart trouble the taser would have probably killed him, then what?

The officers did not know about heart trouble. Tasers are compliance tools. If by using a different method properly and Mr Garner still died this would not look so bad. I guess it is more fun and a bigger adrenaline rush for a bunch of cops to gang wrestle a man down and choke him.

Yea I am sure they were thinking "fun."

The suspect was probably thinking "fun" while he was resisting arrest.

Here's my thinking. When a person dies in the custody of the police, instead of throwing up the defense walls and manning battle stations, how about seriously analyzing the situation and asking yourself, was there anything I could have done differently? As I pointed out, the officer released the hold BEFORE Garner started complaining about not being able to breathe. So, it wasn't the hold that caused his death, it was the swarm of officers pressing down on him, especially the one on his back compressing his chest. This is obviously something police are trained to do. Should it be done differently? A man died. That at least demands a review of procedures. One officer was pressing his head to the ground. Another was trying to cuff him. Two more where on his legs to prevent from moving. Is the one on the back really necessary? If it is, is there a way to do it so that the suspect can still breathe?

A-R wrote:Should they have used a different tactic?

Apparently so, since the one they did use killed the man.

I'm not a trained tactical guy, so I have no idea what the force options are, but ISTM they escalated to the highest option almost immediately. Is that really good policing?

Would it have killed a healthy man?
Is a courtroom the appropriate venue to consider alternative procedures?
How would the cops know he wasn't bluffing when he said he couldn't breath?
Is overwhelming force the proper level to utilize?
Was the officer supposed to back off and move on when the big boy resisted?
What level of responsibility does the man have for his own death? No resistance, no death.
Did the cops know he was a regular criminal with many prior arrests?
Should there be civil instead of criminal liability. Professional liability?
What about taser? That could have killed him also considering his health conditions.
Did the cops intend to injure or just subdue him?
Why have such laws against selling single cigarettes in the first place? More laws equal more crime.

mojo84 wrote: Why have such laws against selling single cigarettes in the first place? More laws equal more crime.

It's my understanding the "loosies" are smuggled in from a neighboring state with lower state/local tobacco taxes.
So it's a tax/money issue to NYC.

Choke holds are no longer taught in the academy. We now use lateral vascular neck restraint. It is NOT a choke hold but it does put the person to sleep by cutting off blood flow to the brain.

Just a few weeks ago all that was on the news was Ebola, now it's racial police killing innocent African Americans. I wonder what next year big story will be.

Both cases are sad and my opinion really doesn't matter. What I don't understand is why it's acceptable to Riot, Loot, Burn and harm others if you don't agree with a court proceeding? What's even worst our president & AG backs their actions.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/nypd ... ident-was/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

carlson1 said:

"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."

One of the most stated proclamations we read on this forum is: "You may beat the rap, but not the ride."

carlson1's statement above is similar.

In effect, we HAVE to comply with going for the ride, like it or not. It's not optional.

Resistance really is futile and if you resist there's no telling how bad it can sometimes go...

nightmare69 wrote:Choke holds are no longer taught in the academy. We now use lateral vascular neck restraint. It is NOT a choke hold but it does put the person to sleep by cutting off blood flow to the brain.
Just a few weeks ago all that was on the news was Ebola, now it's racial police killing innocent African Americans. I wonder what next year big story will be.

Do policies on use of neck restraint differ between departments? I understand being taught how to do it in the academy, but being able to do it effectively against a variety of arrestees in a variety of conditions, I can see how results may vary.

I'd like to see the full evidence released on this issue.... It's hard to second guess the grand jury unless you were told the full story. I agree that it appears to be a gross misuse of force... The again, I've heard "criminals are criminals" on this forum more than once...

cb1000rider wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:Choke holds are no longer taught in the academy. We now use lateral vascular neck restraint. It is NOT a choke hold but it does put the person to sleep by cutting off blood flow to the brain.
Just a few weeks ago all that was on the news was Ebola, now it's racial police killing innocent African Americans. I wonder what next year big story will be.

Do policies on use of neck restraint differ between departments? I understand being taught how to do it in the academy, but being able to do it effectively against a variety of arrestees in a variety of conditions, I can see how results may vary.

nightmare69 wrote:Choke holds are no longer taught in the academy. We now use lateral vascular neck restraint. It is NOT a choke hold but it does put the person to sleep by cutting off blood flow to the brain.

Great. This makes me feel all safe and warm.