I guess it is OPEN SEASON to kill black men in America...no one seems to care.

Did I miss something? Where was it stated he was under probation?

 

I've heard it written several places that he was currently on probation for previous charges but I don't know that for a fact. If he wasn't on probation then it makes his actions even more ridiculously stupid.

 

Wow, after watching this video, it's even harder to understand that the cops weren't indicted. The guy who was on his head (was it the same guy as the chokehold guy), that was even worse than the chokehold. The guy had long been subdued already. Even the initial "attack" by the police officer seemed very sinister. Yes, the guy was arguing, but he wasn't threatening the cops or anything. He just said he hadn't done anything and to please leave him alone. I feel very sorry for this man and his family. It just doesn't seem right.

I can understand that people are extremely upset about this. Much more so than the Ferguson case, actually.

 

Once again I'm disturbed by the lack of knowledge about the technique applied and why it is so dangerous. I will repeat again that the point of this technique isn't primarily to cut off the airflow but to cut the blood supply to the brain. Both of those alone are very dangerous. The other part is that it is applying pressure down on the neck which can also cause injury. In Judo we limit how much pressure can be applied down to the neck precisely for that reason that it could cause major injury.

While yes Garner is obese and such techniques are already far more dangerous to apply on someone in that condition these techniques even on fully healthy and in shape individuals are still dangerous. I've seen several people with neck injuries from these type of chokeholds particularly in situations where they aren't released quickly.

Regarding Garner's size making it more difficult to put the technique possibly causing more damage. While his neck is larger than others in the video clearly Officer Pantaleo has no difficulty in putting it on and reaching all the way around his neck. This wasn't a case of an improperly applied technique leading to a tragic accident but one that was applied properly. Again people have to consider why the NYPD banned this technique in the first place. Even when the technique is done right it can be lethal.

Another issue that has come out today is that apparently in Officer Pantaleo's testimony he claims that putting that chokehold on wasn't his intent and he was trying another technique so any contact on Garner's neck was incidental. Looking at the video I don't see how that could be any other technique and the fact that he continues to hold it even while Garner is down and being cuffed shows that contact on Garner's neck is anything but incidental. It baffles me that any other conclusion can be drawn except that Pantaleo deliberately used a banned technique.

 

Well it's hard to prove but you are probably correct about that but it's irrelevant as far as criminal charges are concerned for reasons i've pointed out ad nauseam. I think he could be, and should be, fired as a result of his actions though and it would be relevant then and it'll probably be relevant in the civil suit against the NYPD.

 

Irrelevant comments. While the chokehold is banned by the NYPD, it's not illegal under NY state law for a cop to subdue a suspect.

 

Godamn the dumbass is going strong here. Keep it going.

 

Not enough intention is given to the size issue. 6'5 300 pound white guys are also gonna be given a takedown if they don't willfully comply with police. If this guy REALLY had 31 priors, then he should have complied while committing an illegal act. Plus he was obese and in obvious poor health. Cops have to be given benefit of the doubt in this case due to the aforemtnioned.

 

I have watched the video again and couldn't help but notice something. When the officer initially put him in a headlock, he places his right arm under Garner's right armpit. He then places the top part of his left forearm, with his palm downward, around the neck area. You can see it's not a tight grip. This is not the way to choke someone to death. That move was done as part of a take down move. That move lasted for about half of the total 15 seconds the officer's arms had Garner in a head lock. Once they fell to the ground the officer had his arms around Garner's neck area for a few more seconds. Even if the officer had been trying to kill Garner, I don't believe he had a sturdy enough grip for long enough to suffocate him. You can tell he only had what may have been a tight grip for a few moments.

 

It's also not illegal for a cop to shoot someone in the face, provided the cop has legitimate reason to do so.

Resisting arrest is not a legitimate reason to "subdue" Eric Garner in such a dangerous manner. Especially so when you factor in the evidence of the scene, the non-violent behavior of the suspect, and the crime he was suspected of.

Cops have to show restraint and patience. This cop did not, and his negligence cost a man his life. He should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

 

What we know about who police kill in America



Interesting read on the topic.

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/605104...led-police-statistics-homicide-official-black

 

that's your opinion.

Too bad it's not based on all the facts. The grand jury had the facts and disagrees with you.

 

You either allow yourself to be handcuffed, or force is going to be used to take you into custody. When force is used to arrest someone, it is not a pretty sight. It doesn't look good. It isn't about being tough guys or proving a point; it boils down to officer safety. When someone isn't complying, it makes an officer ask him or herself, "What is the suspect planning to do?" He may reach for a gun, throw a punch or take off running. People react differently when they learn that their liberty is going to be restricted/arrested. Is there a safe way to subdue someone? When someone is being forced to do something...............someone may get hurt.

I just can't think of a polite way to arrest him after he told them to get their hands off of him. They had tried being cordial and it failed. I **** sure don't want that guy falling on top of me. And I'm not going to place myself in unnecessary danger to effect an arrest. More times than I can remember I have talked myself out of use of force situations, and been much more patient that I should have been, but still got the job done without locking my arm around someone's head. Right or wrong, patience isn't a requirement. Although it [patience] has kept me out of use of force complaints and injuries.

When patience doesn't work, what would you have done? Tripped him? Pushed him down? Jumped on his back? Beat him with a baton? If the officers were so wrong in how they handled it, I'd like to hear a alternative solution instead of judging everything the officers did that was wrong. I will be the first to tell you, taking a big boy down like the officer did was dangerous. He could have fell right on top of him. Grabbing someone by their head and taking them down isn't brutality, but it isn't the preferred method I would pick for someone that size.

 

According to the law, resisting arrest is legitimate reason to tackle him. How many times have I posted the law on this already? How is this issue still causing confusion?

Use logic, not emotion.

 

And blacks commit a disproportionate number of crimes. Next.

 

White killed black. That means something is wrong and everyone wants revenge.

 

um, you missed the point of that.

Read through it, it's informative.

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/605104...led-police-statistics-homicide-official-black

 

For a complete picture There should also be one more bar depicting the breakdown of violent crime.

 

Can someone explain the profit margins of selling individual cigarettes on a corner? Doesn't 1 pack cost $10 nowadays? Can't see people paying a dollar for 1 cigarette.