Welcome to Gaia! ::


Rebeldoomer
The officer should at least go to court then see if he is innocent or guilty.
That would be fair.

not necessarily fair but fair enough I guess
I'm for it though, I just know what I saw
Suicidesoldier#1


Kind of disgusting. They throw in "by a chokehold" right before it, or put it in parenthesis, but obviously that's not what the actual medical report said, nor the spokespeople. I'm having trouble finding the actual document itself, but there may only be grand jury proceedings of it.

You're full of s**t too. What we have, released as fact, is the cause of death. Let me go look that up.

"After the incident, city medical examiners concluded that Garner was killed by neck compression, along with 'the compression of his chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police'."

There we are. Let me zoom that in a little bit.

"... Garner was killed by ... police."

Alien Dog

17,850 Points
  • Citizen 200
  • Voter 100
  • Mark Twain 100
Riviera de la Mancha
Keltoi Samurai
Riviera de la Mancha
Henrika
So, eyewitness reports are unreliable.


This is profoundly true with regards to reactions to the video of Eric Garners arrest. Millions of people are screaming murder & that the police choked him to death in a "public execution".

This is a prime example of witnesses not understanding what they are seeing, and then filling in the gaps of their understanding with what they THINK they MAY have seen, and then act like its fact.

The TRUTH is that Eric Garner was NOT choked to death. The TRUTH is that he was placed in a neck-hold due to his immense size vs. the arresting police officer and it was the safest way to minimize risk to the officer when taking down someone that large.

Now before you scream semantics at me - the difference between a neck hold vs a chokehold, is what part of the neck you are putting pressure on. In a neck hold, which by the way is NOT banned by police regulation, pressure is placed on the carotid artery but not the windpipe. This allows the person placed in the neck hold to breathe, as well as still allowing blood to pass to the brain.

However, when the carotid artery is shut off via external pressure (neck hold) blood cannot LEAVE the head and builds up causing pressure. We have PROOF from the autopsy that the carotid artery was under pressure, and that the trachea was fully intact.

Next, Garner was placed in the recovery position to await the paramedics (albeit a variation while in handcuffs). Now, we all know how gravity works, and this meant that Eric Garner's heart had to pump extra hard to redistribute blood. It would have been better to have him sit up rather than lie down, so that the blood could flow back into his body & begin to regulate. Unfortunately at no point the police or paramedics had him sit up.

Third in the chain of events - the paramedics had Garner laying down flat in a stretcher - likely because they had no awareness of his pre-existing sleep apnea. Sleep apnea is a result of being so obese that your fat presses on your internal organs & most importantly your lungs causing you to stop breathing. This is why patients diagnosed with this must wear a breathing machine/mask when they sleep at night to prevent themselves from suffocating to death.

In addition to all of this, Garner was an asthma sufferer. So now take the combination of the pressure building in his head, sleep apnea & asthma attack, high blood pressure and that is what led to Garner's fatal heart attack.




But Henrika! Even if Garner ultimately died from pre-existing conditions - wasn't the neck hold still excessive force? After all - he was only selling loosies! What right did they have to arrest him?

So let's talk about the actual arrest then - the police were called in by store managers in the area after they spotted Garner. Perhaps Garner wasn't actually selling looses that day, but he definitely has in the past! Eric Garner had over 30 arrests and was currently on parole at the time of the arrest. So, three things to point out here - Garner had a criminal record, the police cannot ignore calls from anyone requesting their help (shop owners reporting Garner), and most importantly, because Garner was on parole all they needed was probable cause to arrest him. A probable cause hearing would have then determined Garner's fate.

That's... well I mean... that's a pretty convincing story! But... the medical examiner declared the death a homicide! Doesn't that mean its a crime?"

A medical examiner has a few different "rulings" to choose from: homicide, suicide, accident, natural, and undetermined. All that "homicide" means is that one person's DELIBERATE actions led to another person's death. In Garner's case, the DELIBERATE neck hold used when Garner resisted arrest and the DELIBERATE placement in the recovery position, essentially was the catalyst for Garner's heart attack, therefore, making the death a homicide but not necessarily a crime.

Well... the police were right in arresting him them... and I get why the medical examiner ruled it a homicide, but the officer still used excessive force! Should that turn the homicide into a crime

Actually... no Pantaleo didn't use excessive force. And this is predominantly what the indictment was actually addressing - whether or not excessive force was used. Garner had more than 100 pounds on Pantaleo - and Pantaleo had no prior knowledge of Garner's illnesses so was forced to assume that Garner could do serious damage if he resisted arrest - which he did.

In this situation, rather than tasering Garner (which almost definitely would have killed him on the spot due to his blood pressure & heart problems) he used a neck hold as part of a police-sanctioned takedown manoeuvre specifically using Garner's weight against him to bring him down with minimal risk to Pantaleo. The idea was to get Garner down as quickly as possible, cuff him, and that should have been the end of it. In a healthy adult without the same heart, breathing, and blood pressure problems your blood flow would have been able to recirculate easily once the neck hold had been withdrawn.

Police officers DO have the right to preform their job in reasonably SAFE conditions - this means using force to negate damage to themselves on the job when criminals resist arrest. And THIS is why the grand jury ruled that officer Pantaleo should not be indicted, because they ruled that he chose a quick, effective way that would not normally result in death in order to make an arrest on a much larger opponent who was resisting arrest.

"Yeah but.... I'm still angry because... the media says I should be angry! And black rights or something! And because you sound way to logical for me to tolerate... where are your sources!?"


I have wasted so much time repeating this information to people on Gaia, that I cannot be bothered to dredge up every fact or source - I will say this though - all the information posted can be verified through GOOGLE searches - because the Grand Jury released a statement, and the autopsy has been released, as well as MANY MANY MANY other news sources repeating the information. (Seriously, where the ******** do you think I got my info from? Have you guys not been LISTENING when I've told you to ******** look at the grand jury & autopsy reports!?)


If you TRULY GIVE A s**t about truth in reporting & what happening to Eric Garner, you'll be able to do some digging via Googles help and reach the same conclusion that the police did NOT set out to kill Eric Garner because they are not *shocker* racist pricks who randomly attack black people.




Lastly, I do want to say that I wish the outcome had been different, even if Garner was a petty criminal he had a family who loved him and depended on him - what happened to him was tragic, but in order to prevent more incidents like this from happening.... each individual citizen should take a long hard look at themselves and really consider if crime is worth it. Society should do more to help poorer communities to develop in positive ways, and most of all - we should not be teaching people to disrespect authority in the many, many ways that we do.

The simple and undeniable truth is the following:

--- Eric Garner was placed in a choke hold, according to the NYPD's definition of a choke hold, which is defined as any pressure applied to the throat or windpipe. Preventing or hindering breathing or air intake is not required.

--- The state and a private coroner ruled it was a homicide and that his death was the product of three factors: compression of his windpipe by the choke hold, compression of his chest by the officers, and being placed in a prone position. Of the three, the coroners both agreed that the primary cause was the choke hold. Had none of these aforementioned factors not been present, it is EXTREMELY unlikely that his health conditions would have spontaneously caused him to have a heart attack.

--- The choke hold ban is an absolute ban. It provides for no exceptions allowing the choke hold ever.

While I don't think the officers, or even the officer at issue, are racist, I do think that the NYPD is a department which plays fast and loose with regulations and rules, whether they are self-imposed or imposed by the state or federal constitution. I don't profess to know why, but their history I think makes a strong case that the NYPD needs to be seriously evaluated and supervised for some time.

I agree that communities should not needlessly propagate fear. At the same time though, we all need to take these tragedies as an opportunity to seriously consider the authority we give officers to effectuate law enforcement and the trend in the courts supporting it. However, make no mistake, Mr. Garner's death was the product of the banned choke hold maneuver. What a grand jury is supposed to do with that is up for debate, but not much else.


To be fair, the choke hold ban is a little less than absolute, considering the officer used one, admits to using it, was captured on video doing so, killed a man in the process, and was allowed to skip off on his merry way.

I mean, sure, technically, on paper, the choke hold occupies the same place on the NYC police continuum of force as oversized double-ended adult novelties and the M-29 Davy Crockett Weapon System ( in that it doesn't have a place on there, and it's expected that they never resort to such a measure under any circumstance ) , but in practice, they seem to be more'n a little forgiving of violations of this "absolute" ban.

Its not less than absolute. Its absolute. Whether or not the NYPD treats it as such is a different question. Its treatment however doesn't change the meaning of the ban.

To argue that treatment of a law changes its official meaning when done by a government official is an untenable position in Western law.

This is why I said that these deaths as well as other events (like NYPD's use of stop-and-frisks) should serve as an opportunity for all of us to step back and seriously review the authority cops have to effectuate law enforcement duties and whether we all want to it to continue as is.


My comment was to say: How absolute can a ban truly be if no one enforces it?

You can't argue that they are enforcing it, since it's been shown that they are not.
Keltoi Samurai
Riviera de la Mancha
Keltoi Samurai
Riviera de la Mancha
Henrika
So, eyewitness reports are unreliable.


This is profoundly true with regards to reactions to the video of Eric Garners arrest. Millions of people are screaming murder & that the police choked him to death in a "public execution".

This is a prime example of witnesses not understanding what they are seeing, and then filling in the gaps of their understanding with what they THINK they MAY have seen, and then act like its fact.

The TRUTH is that Eric Garner was NOT choked to death. The TRUTH is that he was placed in a neck-hold due to his immense size vs. the arresting police officer and it was the safest way to minimize risk to the officer when taking down someone that large.

Now before you scream semantics at me - the difference between a neck hold vs a chokehold, is what part of the neck you are putting pressure on. In a neck hold, which by the way is NOT banned by police regulation, pressure is placed on the carotid artery but not the windpipe. This allows the person placed in the neck hold to breathe, as well as still allowing blood to pass to the brain.

However, when the carotid artery is shut off via external pressure (neck hold) blood cannot LEAVE the head and builds up causing pressure. We have PROOF from the autopsy that the carotid artery was under pressure, and that the trachea was fully intact.

Next, Garner was placed in the recovery position to await the paramedics (albeit a variation while in handcuffs). Now, we all know how gravity works, and this meant that Eric Garner's heart had to pump extra hard to redistribute blood. It would have been better to have him sit up rather than lie down, so that the blood could flow back into his body & begin to regulate. Unfortunately at no point the police or paramedics had him sit up.

Third in the chain of events - the paramedics had Garner laying down flat in a stretcher - likely because they had no awareness of his pre-existing sleep apnea. Sleep apnea is a result of being so obese that your fat presses on your internal organs & most importantly your lungs causing you to stop breathing. This is why patients diagnosed with this must wear a breathing machine/mask when they sleep at night to prevent themselves from suffocating to death.

In addition to all of this, Garner was an asthma sufferer. So now take the combination of the pressure building in his head, sleep apnea & asthma attack, high blood pressure and that is what led to Garner's fatal heart attack.




But Henrika! Even if Garner ultimately died from pre-existing conditions - wasn't the neck hold still excessive force? After all - he was only selling loosies! What right did they have to arrest him?

So let's talk about the actual arrest then - the police were called in by store managers in the area after they spotted Garner. Perhaps Garner wasn't actually selling looses that day, but he definitely has in the past! Eric Garner had over 30 arrests and was currently on parole at the time of the arrest. So, three things to point out here - Garner had a criminal record, the police cannot ignore calls from anyone requesting their help (shop owners reporting Garner), and most importantly, because Garner was on parole all they needed was probable cause to arrest him. A probable cause hearing would have then determined Garner's fate.

That's... well I mean... that's a pretty convincing story! But... the medical examiner declared the death a homicide! Doesn't that mean its a crime?"

A medical examiner has a few different "rulings" to choose from: homicide, suicide, accident, natural, and undetermined. All that "homicide" means is that one person's DELIBERATE actions led to another person's death. In Garner's case, the DELIBERATE neck hold used when Garner resisted arrest and the DELIBERATE placement in the recovery position, essentially was the catalyst for Garner's heart attack, therefore, making the death a homicide but not necessarily a crime.

Well... the police were right in arresting him them... and I get why the medical examiner ruled it a homicide, but the officer still used excessive force! Should that turn the homicide into a crime

Actually... no Pantaleo didn't use excessive force. And this is predominantly what the indictment was actually addressing - whether or not excessive force was used. Garner had more than 100 pounds on Pantaleo - and Pantaleo had no prior knowledge of Garner's illnesses so was forced to assume that Garner could do serious damage if he resisted arrest - which he did.

In this situation, rather than tasering Garner (which almost definitely would have killed him on the spot due to his blood pressure & heart problems) he used a neck hold as part of a police-sanctioned takedown manoeuvre specifically using Garner's weight against him to bring him down with minimal risk to Pantaleo. The idea was to get Garner down as quickly as possible, cuff him, and that should have been the end of it. In a healthy adult without the same heart, breathing, and blood pressure problems your blood flow would have been able to recirculate easily once the neck hold had been withdrawn.

Police officers DO have the right to preform their job in reasonably SAFE conditions - this means using force to negate damage to themselves on the job when criminals resist arrest. And THIS is why the grand jury ruled that officer Pantaleo should not be indicted, because they ruled that he chose a quick, effective way that would not normally result in death in order to make an arrest on a much larger opponent who was resisting arrest.

"Yeah but.... I'm still angry because... the media says I should be angry! And black rights or something! And because you sound way to logical for me to tolerate... where are your sources!?"


I have wasted so much time repeating this information to people on Gaia, that I cannot be bothered to dredge up every fact or source - I will say this though - all the information posted can be verified through GOOGLE searches - because the Grand Jury released a statement, and the autopsy has been released, as well as MANY MANY MANY other news sources repeating the information. (Seriously, where the ******** do you think I got my info from? Have you guys not been LISTENING when I've told you to ******** look at the grand jury & autopsy reports!?)


If you TRULY GIVE A s**t about truth in reporting & what happening to Eric Garner, you'll be able to do some digging via Googles help and reach the same conclusion that the police did NOT set out to kill Eric Garner because they are not *shocker* racist pricks who randomly attack black people.




Lastly, I do want to say that I wish the outcome had been different, even if Garner was a petty criminal he had a family who loved him and depended on him - what happened to him was tragic, but in order to prevent more incidents like this from happening.... each individual citizen should take a long hard look at themselves and really consider if crime is worth it. Society should do more to help poorer communities to develop in positive ways, and most of all - we should not be teaching people to disrespect authority in the many, many ways that we do.

The simple and undeniable truth is the following:

--- Eric Garner was placed in a choke hold, according to the NYPD's definition of a choke hold, which is defined as any pressure applied to the throat or windpipe. Preventing or hindering breathing or air intake is not required.

--- The state and a private coroner ruled it was a homicide and that his death was the product of three factors: compression of his windpipe by the choke hold, compression of his chest by the officers, and being placed in a prone position. Of the three, the coroners both agreed that the primary cause was the choke hold. Had none of these aforementioned factors not been present, it is EXTREMELY unlikely that his health conditions would have spontaneously caused him to have a heart attack.

--- The choke hold ban is an absolute ban. It provides for no exceptions allowing the choke hold ever.

While I don't think the officers, or even the officer at issue, are racist, I do think that the NYPD is a department which plays fast and loose with regulations and rules, whether they are self-imposed or imposed by the state or federal constitution. I don't profess to know why, but their history I think makes a strong case that the NYPD needs to be seriously evaluated and supervised for some time.

I agree that communities should not needlessly propagate fear. At the same time though, we all need to take these tragedies as an opportunity to seriously consider the authority we give officers to effectuate law enforcement and the trend in the courts supporting it. However, make no mistake, Mr. Garner's death was the product of the banned choke hold maneuver. What a grand jury is supposed to do with that is up for debate, but not much else.


To be fair, the choke hold ban is a little less than absolute, considering the officer used one, admits to using it, was captured on video doing so, killed a man in the process, and was allowed to skip off on his merry way.

I mean, sure, technically, on paper, the choke hold occupies the same place on the NYC police continuum of force as oversized double-ended adult novelties and the M-29 Davy Crockett Weapon System ( in that it doesn't have a place on there, and it's expected that they never resort to such a measure under any circumstance ) , but in practice, they seem to be more'n a little forgiving of violations of this "absolute" ban.

Its not less than absolute. Its absolute. Whether or not the NYPD treats it as such is a different question. Its treatment however doesn't change the meaning of the ban.

To argue that treatment of a law changes its official meaning when done by a government official is an untenable position in Western law.

This is why I said that these deaths as well as other events (like NYPD's use of stop-and-frisks) should serve as an opportunity for all of us to step back and seriously review the authority cops have to effectuate law enforcement duties and whether we all want to it to continue as is.


My comment was to say: How absolute can a ban truly be if no one enforces it?

You can't argue that they are enforcing it, since it's been shown that they are not.

What matters is the letter of the law here. If there must be absolute enforcement for something to be an absolute ban, then no such ban is ever absolute. Where we say there is an absolute ban on non-consensual sexual intercourse (rape), there is no such ban in your mind because despite this, people are still raped.

Fanatical Zealot

PureCocainePureCocaine
Suicidesoldier#1


Kind of disgusting. They throw in "by a chokehold" right before it, or put it in parenthesis, but obviously that's not what the actual medical report said, nor the spokespeople. I'm having trouble finding the actual document itself, but there may only be grand jury proceedings of it.

You're full of s**t too. What we have, released as fact, is the cause of death. Let me go look that up.

"After the incident, city medical examiners concluded that Garner was killed by neck compression, along with 'the compression of his chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police'."

There we are. Let me zoom that in a little bit.

"... Garner was killed by ... police."


If you read the rest of my post, I said, if you look closely, they leave the whole neck part out of the quote.

Meaning, they say that, and then right afterwords they actually quote the official statement.
Suicidesoldier#1
PureCocainePureCocaine
Suicidesoldier#1


Kind of disgusting. They throw in "by a chokehold" right before it, or put it in parenthesis, but obviously that's not what the actual medical report said, nor the spokespeople. I'm having trouble finding the actual document itself, but there may only be grand jury proceedings of it.

You're full of s**t too. What we have, released as fact, is the cause of death. Let me go look that up.

"After the incident, city medical examiners concluded that Garner was killed by neck compression, along with 'the compression of his chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police'."

There we are. Let me zoom that in a little bit.

"... Garner was killed by ... police."


If you read the rest of my post, I said, if you look closely, they leave the whole neck part out of the quote.

Meaning, they say that, and then right afterwords they actually quote the official statement.

So what are you saying, it's a conspiracy?

Fanatical Zealot

PureCocainePureCocaine
Suicidesoldier#1
PureCocainePureCocaine
Suicidesoldier#1


Kind of disgusting. They throw in "by a chokehold" right before it, or put it in parenthesis, but obviously that's not what the actual medical report said, nor the spokespeople. I'm having trouble finding the actual document itself, but there may only be grand jury proceedings of it.

You're full of s**t too. What we have, released as fact, is the cause of death. Let me go look that up.

"After the incident, city medical examiners concluded that Garner was killed by neck compression, along with 'the compression of his chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police'."

There we are. Let me zoom that in a little bit.

"... Garner was killed by ... police."


If you read the rest of my post, I said, if you look closely, they leave the whole neck part out of the quote.

Meaning, they say that, and then right afterwords they actually quote the official statement.

So what are you saying, it's a conspiracy?

Well, yeah. xp

Just not a very important one.

Alien Dog

17,850 Points
  • Citizen 200
  • Voter 100
  • Mark Twain 100
Riviera de la Mancha
Keltoi Samurai
Riviera de la Mancha
Keltoi Samurai
Riviera de la Mancha
Henrika
So, eyewitness reports are unreliable.


This is profoundly true with regards to reactions to the video of Eric Garners arrest. Millions of people are screaming murder & that the police choked him to death in a "public execution".

This is a prime example of witnesses not understanding what they are seeing, and then filling in the gaps of their understanding with what they THINK they MAY have seen, and then act like its fact.

The TRUTH is that Eric Garner was NOT choked to death. The TRUTH is that he was placed in a neck-hold due to his immense size vs. the arresting police officer and it was the safest way to minimize risk to the officer when taking down someone that large.

Now before you scream semantics at me - the difference between a neck hold vs a chokehold, is what part of the neck you are putting pressure on. In a neck hold, which by the way is NOT banned by police regulation, pressure is placed on the carotid artery but not the windpipe. This allows the person placed in the neck hold to breathe, as well as still allowing blood to pass to the brain.

However, when the carotid artery is shut off via external pressure (neck hold) blood cannot LEAVE the head and builds up causing pressure. We have PROOF from the autopsy that the carotid artery was under pressure, and that the trachea was fully intact.

Next, Garner was placed in the recovery position to await the paramedics (albeit a variation while in handcuffs). Now, we all know how gravity works, and this meant that Eric Garner's heart had to pump extra hard to redistribute blood. It would have been better to have him sit up rather than lie down, so that the blood could flow back into his body & begin to regulate. Unfortunately at no point the police or paramedics had him sit up.

Third in the chain of events - the paramedics had Garner laying down flat in a stretcher - likely because they had no awareness of his pre-existing sleep apnea. Sleep apnea is a result of being so obese that your fat presses on your internal organs & most importantly your lungs causing you to stop breathing. This is why patients diagnosed with this must wear a breathing machine/mask when they sleep at night to prevent themselves from suffocating to death.

In addition to all of this, Garner was an asthma sufferer. So now take the combination of the pressure building in his head, sleep apnea & asthma attack, high blood pressure and that is what led to Garner's fatal heart attack.




But Henrika! Even if Garner ultimately died from pre-existing conditions - wasn't the neck hold still excessive force? After all - he was only selling loosies! What right did they have to arrest him?

So let's talk about the actual arrest then - the police were called in by store managers in the area after they spotted Garner. Perhaps Garner wasn't actually selling looses that day, but he definitely has in the past! Eric Garner had over 30 arrests and was currently on parole at the time of the arrest. So, three things to point out here - Garner had a criminal record, the police cannot ignore calls from anyone requesting their help (shop owners reporting Garner), and most importantly, because Garner was on parole all they needed was probable cause to arrest him. A probable cause hearing would have then determined Garner's fate.

That's... well I mean... that's a pretty convincing story! But... the medical examiner declared the death a homicide! Doesn't that mean its a crime?"

A medical examiner has a few different "rulings" to choose from: homicide, suicide, accident, natural, and undetermined. All that "homicide" means is that one person's DELIBERATE actions led to another person's death. In Garner's case, the DELIBERATE neck hold used when Garner resisted arrest and the DELIBERATE placement in the recovery position, essentially was the catalyst for Garner's heart attack, therefore, making the death a homicide but not necessarily a crime.

Well... the police were right in arresting him them... and I get why the medical examiner ruled it a homicide, but the officer still used excessive force! Should that turn the homicide into a crime

Actually... no Pantaleo didn't use excessive force. And this is predominantly what the indictment was actually addressing - whether or not excessive force was used. Garner had more than 100 pounds on Pantaleo - and Pantaleo had no prior knowledge of Garner's illnesses so was forced to assume that Garner could do serious damage if he resisted arrest - which he did.

In this situation, rather than tasering Garner (which almost definitely would have killed him on the spot due to his blood pressure & heart problems) he used a neck hold as part of a police-sanctioned takedown manoeuvre specifically using Garner's weight against him to bring him down with minimal risk to Pantaleo. The idea was to get Garner down as quickly as possible, cuff him, and that should have been the end of it. In a healthy adult without the same heart, breathing, and blood pressure problems your blood flow would have been able to recirculate easily once the neck hold had been withdrawn.

Police officers DO have the right to preform their job in reasonably SAFE conditions - this means using force to negate damage to themselves on the job when criminals resist arrest. And THIS is why the grand jury ruled that officer Pantaleo should not be indicted, because they ruled that he chose a quick, effective way that would not normally result in death in order to make an arrest on a much larger opponent who was resisting arrest.

"Yeah but.... I'm still angry because... the media says I should be angry! And black rights or something! And because you sound way to logical for me to tolerate... where are your sources!?"


I have wasted so much time repeating this information to people on Gaia, that I cannot be bothered to dredge up every fact or source - I will say this though - all the information posted can be verified through GOOGLE searches - because the Grand Jury released a statement, and the autopsy has been released, as well as MANY MANY MANY other news sources repeating the information. (Seriously, where the ******** do you think I got my info from? Have you guys not been LISTENING when I've told you to ******** look at the grand jury & autopsy reports!?)


If you TRULY GIVE A s**t about truth in reporting & what happening to Eric Garner, you'll be able to do some digging via Googles help and reach the same conclusion that the police did NOT set out to kill Eric Garner because they are not *shocker* racist pricks who randomly attack black people.




Lastly, I do want to say that I wish the outcome had been different, even if Garner was a petty criminal he had a family who loved him and depended on him - what happened to him was tragic, but in order to prevent more incidents like this from happening.... each individual citizen should take a long hard look at themselves and really consider if crime is worth it. Society should do more to help poorer communities to develop in positive ways, and most of all - we should not be teaching people to disrespect authority in the many, many ways that we do.

The simple and undeniable truth is the following:

--- Eric Garner was placed in a choke hold, according to the NYPD's definition of a choke hold, which is defined as any pressure applied to the throat or windpipe. Preventing or hindering breathing or air intake is not required.

--- The state and a private coroner ruled it was a homicide and that his death was the product of three factors: compression of his windpipe by the choke hold, compression of his chest by the officers, and being placed in a prone position. Of the three, the coroners both agreed that the primary cause was the choke hold. Had none of these aforementioned factors not been present, it is EXTREMELY unlikely that his health conditions would have spontaneously caused him to have a heart attack.

--- The choke hold ban is an absolute ban. It provides for no exceptions allowing the choke hold ever.

While I don't think the officers, or even the officer at issue, are racist, I do think that the NYPD is a department which plays fast and loose with regulations and rules, whether they are self-imposed or imposed by the state or federal constitution. I don't profess to know why, but their history I think makes a strong case that the NYPD needs to be seriously evaluated and supervised for some time.

I agree that communities should not needlessly propagate fear. At the same time though, we all need to take these tragedies as an opportunity to seriously consider the authority we give officers to effectuate law enforcement and the trend in the courts supporting it. However, make no mistake, Mr. Garner's death was the product of the banned choke hold maneuver. What a grand jury is supposed to do with that is up for debate, but not much else.


To be fair, the choke hold ban is a little less than absolute, considering the officer used one, admits to using it, was captured on video doing so, killed a man in the process, and was allowed to skip off on his merry way.

I mean, sure, technically, on paper, the choke hold occupies the same place on the NYC police continuum of force as oversized double-ended adult novelties and the M-29 Davy Crockett Weapon System ( in that it doesn't have a place on there, and it's expected that they never resort to such a measure under any circumstance ) , but in practice, they seem to be more'n a little forgiving of violations of this "absolute" ban.

Its not less than absolute. Its absolute. Whether or not the NYPD treats it as such is a different question. Its treatment however doesn't change the meaning of the ban.

To argue that treatment of a law changes its official meaning when done by a government official is an untenable position in Western law.

This is why I said that these deaths as well as other events (like NYPD's use of stop-and-frisks) should serve as an opportunity for all of us to step back and seriously review the authority cops have to effectuate law enforcement duties and whether we all want to it to continue as is.


My comment was to say: How absolute can a ban truly be if no one enforces it?

You can't argue that they are enforcing it, since it's been shown that they are not.

What matters is the letter of the law here. If there must be absolute enforcement for something to be an absolute ban, then no such ban is ever absolute. Where we say there is an absolute ban on non-consensual sexual intercourse (rape), there is no such ban in your mind because despite this, people are still raped.


This situation is a little bit different than a case slipping through the cracks, though.

To continue your rape analogy, this is less saying that the existence of rape disproves that rape is illegal, and more like saying that a rape that occurs in front of multiple witnesses, with a video recording made of the rape that leads to the rapist being allowed to walk free because a judge shrugs and says "well, what are ya gonna do?" would be a sign that the laws punishing rape weren't exactly something we're willing to enforce.

Fanatical Zealot

Keltoi Samurai
Riviera de la Mancha
Keltoi Samurai
Riviera de la Mancha
Keltoi Samurai


To be fair, the choke hold ban is a little less than absolute, considering the officer used one, admits to using it, was captured on video doing so, killed a man in the process, and was allowed to skip off on his merry way.

I mean, sure, technically, on paper, the choke hold occupies the same place on the NYC police continuum of force as oversized double-ended adult novelties and the M-29 Davy Crockett Weapon System ( in that it doesn't have a place on there, and it's expected that they never resort to such a measure under any circumstance ) , but in practice, they seem to be more'n a little forgiving of violations of this "absolute" ban.

Its not less than absolute. Its absolute. Whether or not the NYPD treats it as such is a different question. Its treatment however doesn't change the meaning of the ban.

To argue that treatment of a law changes its official meaning when done by a government official is an untenable position in Western law.

This is why I said that these deaths as well as other events (like NYPD's use of stop-and-frisks) should serve as an opportunity for all of us to step back and seriously review the authority cops have to effectuate law enforcement duties and whether we all want to it to continue as is.


My comment was to say: How absolute can a ban truly be if no one enforces it?

You can't argue that they are enforcing it, since it's been shown that they are not.

What matters is the letter of the law here. If there must be absolute enforcement for something to be an absolute ban, then no such ban is ever absolute. Where we say there is an absolute ban on non-consensual sexual intercourse (rape), there is no such ban in your mind because despite this, people are still raped.


This situation is a little bit different than a case slipping through the cracks, though.

To continue your rape analogy, this is less saying that the existence of rape disproves that rape is illegal, and more like saying that a rape that occurs in front of multiple witnesses, with a video recording made of the rape that leads to the rapist being allowed to walk free because a judge shrugs and says "well, what are ya gonna do?" would be a sign that the laws punishing rape weren't exactly something we're willing to enforce.


A big difference is that of an absolute ban and that of justified use. Rape is always illegal, but sex and killing is not. You can kill in self defense, you can have sex legally. So just as a person can do those things legally, they can use a chokehold or headlock properly.

The difference is that it's not a law, it's a departmental regulation, and the regulation is open to interpretation for many reasons. The internal review board of judges have ruled that it's justified to use in times which lethal force is warranted, so there are obviously times when it's justified. People look at the NYPD's own regulations and say, it MUST mean this one thing, because that's how I interpret it, but if the NYPD's own department regulators say, no, it doesn't mean that, since they are the one's who set the rules, then that's what it means.

Like, if a case goes to the supreme court, like Roe V. Wade, which more or less makes abortions legal. The current interpretation of the law is that they are legal; you may read through some legal documents and say "Hah, this MUST prove it's one way, because of the wording!" but the fact of the matter is, no matter how weird the wording may be, the current interpretation of the law is really what matters. The current interpretation of the departmental regulation is essentially, what matters.
Rebeldoomer
The officer should at least go to court then see if he is innocent or guilty.
That would be fair.
Didn't that already happen and they acquitted him?
The20
Rebeldoomer
The officer should at least go to court then see if he is innocent or guilty.
That would be fair.
Didn't that already happen and they acquitted him?

No - the grand jury refused to indict him. An indictment, in case you are not aware, is a bill of court alleging that there is sufficient evidence to believe that a crime occurred, that the person accused may be guilty, and that there should be a trial to decide if the accused is in fact guilty.

No trial was even commenced regarding his death. The NYPD however has begun an internal disciplinary investigation and the federal government is investigating the case to see if there was a civil rights violation. No criminal trial though; now, or ever.
Keltoi Samurai
Riviera de la Mancha
Keltoi Samurai
Riviera de la Mancha
Keltoi Samurai


To be fair, the choke hold ban is a little less than absolute, considering the officer used one, admits to using it, was captured on video doing so, killed a man in the process, and was allowed to skip off on his merry way.

I mean, sure, technically, on paper, the choke hold occupies the same place on the NYC police continuum of force as oversized double-ended adult novelties and the M-29 Davy Crockett Weapon System ( in that it doesn't have a place on there, and it's expected that they never resort to such a measure under any circumstance ) , but in practice, they seem to be more'n a little forgiving of violations of this "absolute" ban.

Its not less than absolute. Its absolute. Whether or not the NYPD treats it as such is a different question. Its treatment however doesn't change the meaning of the ban.

To argue that treatment of a law changes its official meaning when done by a government official is an untenable position in Western law.

This is why I said that these deaths as well as other events (like NYPD's use of stop-and-frisks) should serve as an opportunity for all of us to step back and seriously review the authority cops have to effectuate law enforcement duties and whether we all want to it to continue as is.


My comment was to say: How absolute can a ban truly be if no one enforces it?

You can't argue that they are enforcing it, since it's been shown that they are not.

What matters is the letter of the law here. If there must be absolute enforcement for something to be an absolute ban, then no such ban is ever absolute. Where we say there is an absolute ban on non-consensual sexual intercourse (rape), there is no such ban in your mind because despite this, people are still raped.


This situation is a little bit different than a case slipping through the cracks, though.

To continue your rape analogy, this is less saying that the existence of rape disproves that rape is illegal, and more like saying that a rape that occurs in front of multiple witnesses, with a video recording made of the rape that leads to the rapist being allowed to walk free because a judge shrugs and says "well, what are ya gonna do?" would be a sign that the laws punishing rape weren't exactly something we're willing to enforce.

Willingness to follow the law though does not change the definition or character of the law, and that was what you originally said; that the ban was a little less than absolute.

Alien Dog

17,850 Points
  • Citizen 200
  • Voter 100
  • Mark Twain 100
Riviera de la Mancha
Keltoi Samurai
Riviera de la Mancha
Keltoi Samurai
Riviera de la Mancha
Keltoi Samurai


To be fair, the choke hold ban is a little less than absolute, considering the officer used one, admits to using it, was captured on video doing so, killed a man in the process, and was allowed to skip off on his merry way.

I mean, sure, technically, on paper, the choke hold occupies the same place on the NYC police continuum of force as oversized double-ended adult novelties and the M-29 Davy Crockett Weapon System ( in that it doesn't have a place on there, and it's expected that they never resort to such a measure under any circumstance ) , but in practice, they seem to be more'n a little forgiving of violations of this "absolute" ban.

Its not less than absolute. Its absolute. Whether or not the NYPD treats it as such is a different question. Its treatment however doesn't change the meaning of the ban.

To argue that treatment of a law changes its official meaning when done by a government official is an untenable position in Western law.

This is why I said that these deaths as well as other events (like NYPD's use of stop-and-frisks) should serve as an opportunity for all of us to step back and seriously review the authority cops have to effectuate law enforcement duties and whether we all want to it to continue as is.


My comment was to say: How absolute can a ban truly be if no one enforces it?

You can't argue that they are enforcing it, since it's been shown that they are not.

What matters is the letter of the law here. If there must be absolute enforcement for something to be an absolute ban, then no such ban is ever absolute. Where we say there is an absolute ban on non-consensual sexual intercourse (rape), there is no such ban in your mind because despite this, people are still raped.


This situation is a little bit different than a case slipping through the cracks, though.

To continue your rape analogy, this is less saying that the existence of rape disproves that rape is illegal, and more like saying that a rape that occurs in front of multiple witnesses, with a video recording made of the rape that leads to the rapist being allowed to walk free because a judge shrugs and says "well, what are ya gonna do?" would be a sign that the laws punishing rape weren't exactly something we're willing to enforce.

Willingness to follow the law though does not change the definition or character of the law, and that was what you originally said; that the ban was a little less than absolute.


Willingness to follow the law has nothing to do with the level of absoluteness of the law, but a willingness to enforce the law certainly does, and that was what I was saying: Yes, they aren't supposed to use chokeholds, but nobody's willing to do anything about them using chokeholds, so the ban is only as strong as an individual officer's desire to not perform a chokehold, since performing one comes with no consequences.

I mean, technically, pot is illegal in the Netherlands, but the attitude of non-enforcement means that they have a flourishing trade in the stuff.

Would you say that Amsterdam has an absolute ban on soft drugs, considering they are technically illegal, but not even the courts are willing to enforce those laws?
Keltoi Samurai
Riviera de la Mancha
Keltoi Samurai
Riviera de la Mancha
Keltoi Samurai


My comment was to say: How absolute can a ban truly be if no one enforces it?

You can't argue that they are enforcing it, since it's been shown that they are not.

What matters is the letter of the law here. If there must be absolute enforcement for something to be an absolute ban, then no such ban is ever absolute. Where we say there is an absolute ban on non-consensual sexual intercourse (rape), there is no such ban in your mind because despite this, people are still raped.


This situation is a little bit different than a case slipping through the cracks, though.

To continue your rape analogy, this is less saying that the existence of rape disproves that rape is illegal, and more like saying that a rape that occurs in front of multiple witnesses, with a video recording made of the rape that leads to the rapist being allowed to walk free because a judge shrugs and says "well, what are ya gonna do?" would be a sign that the laws punishing rape weren't exactly something we're willing to enforce.

Willingness to follow the law though does not change the definition or character of the law, and that was what you originally said; that the ban was a little less than absolute.


Willingness to follow the law has nothing to do with the level of absoluteness of the law, but a willingness to enforce the law certainly does, and that was what I was saying: Yes, they aren't supposed to use chokeholds, but nobody's willing to do anything about them using chokeholds, so the ban is only as strong as an individual officer's desire to not perform a chokehold, since performing one comes with no consequences.

I mean, technically, pot is illegal in the Netherlands, but the attitude of non-enforcement means that they have a flourishing trade in the stuff.

Would you say that Amsterdam has an absolute ban on soft drugs, considering they are technically illegal, but not even the courts are willing to enforce those laws?

In what way does enforcement change the literal meaning of a rule though? You keep saying this is not your position, but again I ask if your position is the same because we do not have absolute enforcement of a rape laws?

And the NYPD is willing to enforce its chokehold ban; it entertained several hundred complaints in the last two years. The problem is one of substantiation and certain judges not applying the definition as directed by the plain-meaning of the regulation, its history, and the board which oversees the complaint process.

If I open up the Amsterdam code of laws and see that it flatly says in no unclear language a ban on "soft drugs" (whatever that means), then it would be nonsense to ignore this plain language and talk or act as if its not there. It is. Plain as day. Such a ban is therefore an absolute ban.

Alien Dog

17,850 Points
  • Citizen 200
  • Voter 100
  • Mark Twain 100
Riviera de la Mancha
Keltoi Samurai
Riviera de la Mancha
Keltoi Samurai
Riviera de la Mancha
Keltoi Samurai


My comment was to say: How absolute can a ban truly be if no one enforces it?

You can't argue that they are enforcing it, since it's been shown that they are not.

What matters is the letter of the law here. If there must be absolute enforcement for something to be an absolute ban, then no such ban is ever absolute. Where we say there is an absolute ban on non-consensual sexual intercourse (rape), there is no such ban in your mind because despite this, people are still raped.


This situation is a little bit different than a case slipping through the cracks, though.

To continue your rape analogy, this is less saying that the existence of rape disproves that rape is illegal, and more like saying that a rape that occurs in front of multiple witnesses, with a video recording made of the rape that leads to the rapist being allowed to walk free because a judge shrugs and says "well, what are ya gonna do?" would be a sign that the laws punishing rape weren't exactly something we're willing to enforce.

Willingness to follow the law though does not change the definition or character of the law, and that was what you originally said; that the ban was a little less than absolute.


Willingness to follow the law has nothing to do with the level of absoluteness of the law, but a willingness to enforce the law certainly does, and that was what I was saying: Yes, they aren't supposed to use chokeholds, but nobody's willing to do anything about them using chokeholds, so the ban is only as strong as an individual officer's desire to not perform a chokehold, since performing one comes with no consequences.

I mean, technically, pot is illegal in the Netherlands, but the attitude of non-enforcement means that they have a flourishing trade in the stuff.

Would you say that Amsterdam has an absolute ban on soft drugs, considering they are technically illegal, but not even the courts are willing to enforce those laws?

In what way does enforcement change the literal meaning of a rule though? You keep saying this is not your position, but again I ask if your position is the same because we do not have absolute enforcement of a rape laws?

And the NYPD is willing to enforce its chokehold ban; it entertained several hundred complaints in the last two years. The problem is one of substantiation and certain judges not applying the definition as directed by the plain-meaning of the regulation, its history, and the board which oversees the complaint process.

If I open up the Amsterdam code of laws and see that it flatly says in no unclear language a ban on "soft drugs" (whatever that means), then it would be nonsense to ignore this plain language and talk or act as if its not there. It is. Plain as day. Such a ban is therefore an absolute ban.


So how in the world is a ban left willingly unenforced in any way "absolute?"

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum