[Uber V8]

Originally Posted by KingOfJericho

What is the best way to arrest a giant man who does not want to be arrested?

I suppose death is the only answer right? For all giant men who resist arrest, you will be killed. That sounds about right.

I am not trained, have the knowledge or authority to arrest anyone (hold civil arrest) and from what I know neither do you.

We could debate all day about proper techniques about how to subdue Eric Garner.

I'm discussing facts, if the medical examiner ruled this a homicide, I would trust that he/she is doing their job properly in his/her investigation and based on those facts, that should at the very minimum go to trial.

Also, did we see the same video? Unless you have access to some special footage, I counted roughly 40 seconds until he was put into a choke hold, not several minutes. The video clip itself was under 4 mins.

I get it, you believe Eric Garner caused his own death since he "resisted" arrest, but can you at least agree that a homicide deserves a trial?

It's really not that hard to comprehend.

[Joekerr]

As other people have alluded to, other techniques also pose their own risk to a person's life...nothing is completely safe...would that not be reasonable?

And if we buy that premise, then what should be done about these people who do not want to be arrested? The problem is, no one answer will fit all scenarios (I believe) and so you can always point blame.

But what about the other side of the coin - why is there no focus on the actions and decisions of the other person who resists arrest? Why is there no blame assigned there?

It is difficult, because certainly it is a shame he died.

[F1Venom]

When he was saying he couldn't breath, the officers should have let up. Simple as that and they fked up and should pay for it.

[KingOfJericho]

Originally Posted by FwdFtl

I suppose death is the only answer right? For all giant men who resist arrest, you will be killed. That sounds about right.

I never said that. I simply posed the question regarding about how it would have been handled in everyone's perfect world. People mentioned tasering him. Are those same people aware that there have been several HUNDRED taser related deaths in the US in the last decade?

Garner put himself into a situation where action needed to be taken to apprehend him. He made it clear he was not going to allow himself to be taken in and I don't think it's reasonable to have a debate team meet on the sidewalk when you should already be cuffed and riding in the cruiser. That choke hold wouldn't have killed me. It wouldn't have killed you. A taser likely wouldn't either. I don't want to speak ill of the dead but this gentlman was not in the best of health so a taser, choke hold, or pepper spray could all have killed him. Those are the choices you face when you resist arrest. The fourth option is a gun, which has pretty predictable results.

Originally Posted by FwdFtl

I'm discussing facts, if the medical examiner ruled this a homicide, I would trust that he/she is doing their job properly in his/her investigation and based on those facts, that should at the very minimum go to trial.

Also, did we see the same video? Unless you have access to some special footage, I counted roughly 40 seconds until he was put into a choke hold, not several minutes. The video clip itself was under 4 mins.

I get it, you believe Eric Garner caused his own death since he "resisted" arrest, but can you at least agree that a homicide deserves a trial?

It's really not that hard to comprehend.

A grand jury is conveined to go over the evidence and see if a trial is in order. If they don't have enough evidence or a strong enough case to go to trial, then they won't. We, as normal citizens, don't get to make that determination.

[m3ray]

Originally Posted by F1Venom

That's a case where I hope the cops get locked up.

Just voted not to indict an hour ago. They are already laying down and protesting inside Grand Central Station. Ferguson Part 2, in NYC, here we go.

[Uber V8]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

As other people have alluded to, other techniques also pose their own risk to a person's life...nothing is completely safe...would that not be reasonable?

This statement is reasonable.

And if we buy that premise, then what should be done about these people who do not want to be arrested? The problem is, no one answer will fit all scenarios (I believe) and so you can always point blame.

What needs to be defined before answering this question is what constitutes as resisting arrest? Usually it's running/driving away from the police, fighting with them, and hiding from them. In this case, Mr. Garner stood still with his hands up saying "don't touch me". Yes, there was some resistance, but not in the light of what I mentioned earlier.

But what about the other side of the coin - why is there no focus on the actions and decisions of the other person who resists arrest? Why is there no blame assigned there?

Once again, define resist arrest. Then use it in this case.

It is difficult, because certainly it is a shame he died.

Originally Posted by F1Venom

When he was saying he couldn't breath, the officers should have let up. Simple as that and they fked up and should pay for it.

He should be indicted for either voluntary or involuntary manslaughter.

I do not believe it was the officers intent to kill that man, BUT his death was a byproduct of that officers questionable actions. Just like DUI's can lead to involuntary manslaughter.

[P1]

Originally Posted by m3ray

Just voted not to indict an hour ago. They are already laying down and protesting inside Grand Central Station. Ferguson Part 2, in NYC, here we go.

I don't get it. Don't these people have to be at work? Or are they taking PTO for this?

[m3ray]

Originally Posted by P1et

I don't get it. Don't these people have to be at work? Or are they taking PTO for this?

Well I am at work, can't speak for the rest of NYC. Its bound to fuck with my evening commute that's for sure.

On another note. Its so obvious this forum is full of right wing ultra conservatives who would absolve the police of any wrong-doing no matter what. You had a medical examiner who ruled it was a homicide and still no one is held responsible. Shit if I was black I would be pissed too.

What's even more stupid is that the prosecutor could have got the indictment just to quell the media frenzy and then chosen not to file later on. Let's face it, the DA could get a ham sandwich indicted if they wanted too.

[Uber V8]

Originally Posted by KingOfJericho

I never said that. I simply posed the question regarding about how it would have been handled in everyone's perfect world. People mentioned tasering him. Are those same people aware that there have been several HUNDRED taser related deaths in the US in the last decade?

Garner put himself into a situation where action needed to be taken to apprehend him. He made it clear he was not going to allow himself to be taken in and I don't think it's reasonable to have a debate team meet on the sidewalk when you should already be cuffed and riding in the cruiser. That choke hold wouldn't have killed me. It wouldn't have killed you. A taser likely wouldn't either. I don't want to speak ill of the dead but this gentlman was not in the best of health so a taser, choke hold, or pepper spray could all have killed him. Those are the choices you face when you resist arrest. The fourth option is a gun, which has pretty predictable results.


A grand jury is conveined to go over the evidence and see if a trial is in order. If they don't have enough evidence or a strong enough case to go to trial, then they won't. We, as normal citizens, don't get to make that determination.

One more time:

The New York Medical Examiner has ruled Garner's death a homicide. The cause of death was "compression of neck (chokehold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police."

Doesn't say poor health, cardiac arrest, asthma, etc... If you're going to say if a choke hold would not have killed me and you, then it's only fair I can say Mr. Garner would have survived this without being choked. See how that works?

It's best to stick to facts, hypothetical scenarios have no end.

[Billup]

Originally Posted by FwdFtl

One more time:

The New York Medical Examiner has ruled Garner's death a homicide. The cause of death was "compression of neck (chokehold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police."

Doesn't say poor health, cardiac arrest, asthma, etc... If you're going to say if a choke hold would not have killed me and you, then it's only fair I can say Mr. Garner would have survived this without being choked. See how that works?

It's best to stick to facts, hypothetical scenarios have no end.

I really do have to agree with you here. To say a choke hold wouldn't put us out, is kind of a ridiculous statement in itself. Everybody's threshold is completely different from one another. They could have apprehended him without choking the life out of the guy regardless of his size. Was it an accident? I believe so full heartedly. Could it have been avoided? Absolutely. Was it a homicide? Hardly.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by FwdFtl

One more time:

The New York Medical Examiner has ruled Garner's death a homicide. The cause of death was "compression of neck (chokehold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police."

Doesn't say poor health, cardiac arrest, asthma, etc... If you're going to say if a choke hold would not have killed me and you, then it's only fair I can say Mr. Garner would have survived this without being choked. See how that works?

It's best to stick to facts, hypothetical scenarios have no end.

Have you seen the actual autopsy report? What you're reading is an excerpt from a report that is allegedly from the NYC medical examiner's office.

Also, you keep using the word homicide. There is such thing as justifiable homicide. The fact that the definition you posted alludes to all homicides being unlawful, tells me that the term doesn't have any real bearing on whether or not the death was justified or not.

[Uber V8]

Originally Posted by m3ray

Well I am at work, can't speak for the rest of NYC. Its bound to fuck with my evening commute that's for sure.

On another note. Its so obvious this forum is full of right wing ultra conservatives who would absolve the police of any wrong-doing no matter what. You had a medical examiner who ruled it was a homicide and still no one is held responsible. Shit if I was black I would be pissed too.

What's even more stupid is that the prosecutor could have got the indictment just to quell the media frenzy and then chosen not to file later on. Let's face it, the DA could get a ham sandwich indicted if they wanted too.

Very obvious.

This is coming from a black man who's brother is in a classified position within the US capital police and a life long black friend who is S.W.A.T

Even when I state facts and cite my sources, it's still doesn't get through. I can tell when to it becomes a pointless discussion. There are a few members on here that seem to be somewhat open minded and not blinded by their myopic political agenda.

[KingOfJericho]

Originally Posted by FwdFtl

He should be indicted for either voluntary or involuntary manslaughter.

I do not believe it was the officers intent to kill that man, BUT his death was a byproduct of that officers questionable actions. Just like DUI's can lead to involuntary manslaughter.

I think you skipped a step. The officers actions are a direct result of the illegal actions of Garner in the exact same way that involuntary manslaughter is a direct result of the illegal action of driving under the influence.

Would Garner have ever been put in a hold or shot with a taser or pepper sprayed if he simply put his hands behind his back? The answer is clearly no.

[KingOfJericho]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

Also, you keep using the word homicide. There is such thing as justifiable homicide. The fact that the definition you posted alludes to all homicides being unlawful, tells me that the term doesn't have any real bearing on whether or not the death was justified or not.

Took the words right from my mouth.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by F1Venom

When he was saying he couldn't breath, the officers should have let up. Simple as that and they fked up and should pay for it.

Anyone who has ever had a candid conversation with any experienced LEO will tell you that cries of "I cant breathe", or "you're hurting me", or anything else along those lines are very commonly used, especially if the suspect believes that the interaction is being filmed, or there are at least some nearby civilian witnesses.

More often than not, those cries are designed to attract attention, rather than indicate genuine medical distress. Cops soon learn to take them with a grain of salt, and unfortunately that means that in those few cases where it is legit, there is a real risk of it being ignored. Once again, the lowest common denominators ruin things for everyone else.

Is that "unfair". Sure, but it is what it is. The harsh realities of policing an increasingly unpredictable and violent society means that cops who want to go home at night to see their wife and kids will increase the severity of their response to ensure they survive their shift.

The video is graphic proof of yet another reason to not resist. Even if you are clearly innocent, the unfortunate way others have lowered the bar means that the more a situation devolves into any sort of struggle, the less likely things will end well for you, regardless of how "fair" that is.

If you comply, and you are innocent, you'll be released without serious physical injury. You wont leave the scene in a body bag.

Maybe the more that video gets viewed, the more folks will see it, and perhaps it will sink into someone's thick skull.

To begin with, the suspect almost always has complete control over how physically confrontational the interaction will be. Why would you choose to throw that away ? Most cops do not typically respond to initial peaceful compliance with extreme violence. As they are armed, they know they are almost certainly going to win in the end, so they wont risk personal injury on the way to getting there if they dont need to.

Once you give them a reason to assume things will go bad, after that, almost nothing you say or do will cause them to relax their heightened state of alert. You have basically willfully tipped the scales against you. Why would you choose to do that?

[KingOfJericho]

Originally Posted by Billup

I really do have to agree with you here. To say a choke hold wouldn't put us out, is kind of a ridiculous statement in itself. Everybody's threshold is completely different from one another. They could have apprehended him without choking the life out of the guy regardless of his size. Was it an accident? I believe so full heartedly. Could it have been avoided? Absolutely. Was it a homicide? Hardly.

This is my sticking point. Some are saying it's on the officer to avoid this from happening but if you fail to comply and resist arrest, you are going to be forced into complying. That would happen to any of us, regardless of race. This man didn't want to comply and was not going to be arrested without a fight. The outcome was always going to be bad.

[Billup]

Originally Posted by KingOfJericho

This is my sticking point. Some are saying it's on the officer to avoid this from happening but if you fail to comply and resist arrest, you are going to be forced into complying. That would happen to any of us, regardless of race. This man didn't want to comply and was not going to be arrested without a fight. The outcome was always going to be bad.

I should have clarified that point that that's what I was trying to say so others don't get it mixed up. There is so much debate about the situation as a whole, but the reality of the matter is that it could have been avoided if the guy stood there, admitted he was wrong, and let the cop put him under arrest for HIS WRONG DOINGS. HELLO! SIMPLE AS PIE (whatever that means anyways).

It's one thing to bitch about being unlawfully detained, it's another thing to bitch about being on the sore end of a shaft that you instigated. Any race would get thrown to the ground for insubordination, this case just happened to be taken to the extreme on both ends. Watch an episode of Cops if you want to see a skinny white hill billy get tossed to the ground and detained in the same fashion.

[Uber V8]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

Have you seen the actual autopsy report? What you're reading is an excerpt from a report that is allegedly from the NYC medical examiner's office.

Also, you keep using the word homicide. There is such thing as justifiable homicide. The fact that the definition you posted alludes to all homicides being unlawful, tells me that the term doesn't have any real bearing on whether or not the death was justified or not.

I was waiting for this question...

Have you seen the actual autopsy report from the Mike Brown case? If so, please share, because I haven't seen it either.

My access to sources of information is the exact same as your sources of information. Until one of us, physically have the report that shows Mike Brown was shot from the front and not the back or Eric Garner was choked to death as opposed to another cause, we both can only draw conclusions on the numerous corroborated reports.

In regards to me posting the definition of homicide, I did post a question to make sure I was understanding the decision of no indictment. Is a man selling cigarettes illegally a justifiable case to be killed for "resisting" arrest?

I'm well aware that there are scenarios in which a homicide is justifiable, but in this case with Mr. Garner it is not.

[Billup]

Originally Posted by FwdFtl

In regards to me posting the definition of homicide, I did post a question to make sure I was understanding the decision of no indictment. Is a man selling cigarettes illegally a justifiable case to be killed for "resisting" arrest?

I don't think anybody is worried about what he was doing prior that was illegal, it was how he allowed the situation to unfold. You have to be honest here, if he turned around and willingly was put in cuffs, this wouldn't be a story on the news today.

You don't know what anyone is capable of, whether its selling illegal cigarettes or a jay walker for that matter. People are unpredictable.

[m3ray]

Originally Posted by Billup

I don't think anybody is worried about what he was doing prior that was illegal, it was how he allowed the situation to unfold. You have to be honest here, if he turned around and willingly was put in cuffs, this wouldn't be a story on the news today.

You don't know what anyone is capable of, whether its selling illegal cigarettes or a jay walker for that matter. People are unpredictable.

No one is debating this point. Most reasonable people would have just complied and been cuffed. What he's saying, is not complying enough of a reason for the cop to use deadly force? I say no and make no mistake a choke hold like this is deadly force.

[Uber V8]

We really have to clarify "resisting arrest" before we keep using it as the foundation of arguments.

Watch the video, one more time, and see that he did not: run, hide or fight with officers. I will agree that he was not 100% compliant, but he did stay in his spot, put his arms up and say "don't touch me".

Suspects that run from cops deserve to get slammed on the ground when they're caught, suspects that stay still and say don't touch me, do not deserve to be choked. IMO

If the punishment fits the crime...

[Uber V8]

Originally Posted by Billup

I don't think anybody is worried about what he was doing prior that was illegal, it was how he allowed the situation to unfold. You have to be honest here, if he turned around and willingly was put in cuffs, this wouldn't be a story on the news today.

You don't know what anyone is capable of, whether its selling illegal cigarettes or a jay walker for that matter. People are unpredictable.

Originally Posted by m3ray

No one is debating this point. Most reasonable people would have just complied and been cuffed. What he's saying, is not complying enough of a reason for the cop to use deadly force? I say no and make no mistake a choke hold like this is deadly force.

ding ding.