- Joined
- Jan 31, 2010
- Messages
- 31,645
- Reaction score
- 7,598
- Location
- Canada, Costa Rica
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Hi Tres. I get the difference between 'illegal" and "policy" but is it up to the police to decide whether a choke-hold is legal or not? That would seem to be out of their jurisdiction as they are intended to enforce the laws, not create them.As a matter of policy the NYPD prohibits the use. So the answer would be no they cannot. However because it isn't illegal for them to use one a criminal proceeding based solely on the choke-hold will go nowhere.
Therein lies the technical accuracy of the situation. I personally think a chokehold is terrible, and they shouldn't use it for a reason. But from a legal perspective, it isn't illegal. It's a policy issue. The NYPD should release him from any additional affiliation with them for breaking their policy which according to my BIL is something that the cop as well as the other cops should have known by second nature.
Nope. I'm asking why a policy that bans the police from using X, still means that X is legal, even though it isn't legal for the rest of the population. Would it not fall outside of what is legal for them to use if they aren't allowed to use it?
Hi Tres. I get the difference between 'illegal" and "policy" but is it up to the police to decide whether a choke-hold is legal or not? That would seem to be out of their jurisdiction as they are intended to enforce the laws, not create them.
The police are given special powers not enjoyed by the citizen which is why citizens, in granting them these powers, must be careful that the power the police enjoy is not corrupted, as power often is.That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that if the policy is banned by the employer, and it's illegal for another person who isn't a cop to use it, how can it be legal for cops to use it? Yes, and I'm stating it's a double standard.
No....8,734 cheeseburgers too many and no time on the stair master 'killed the man'.Why did the officer announce his intent? On what grounds? And this 'tamest take down', totally unnecessary by the way, killed the man. There was no apparent need to even talk with Eric Garner, much less 'take him down'.
If his 30 prior arrests were anything like selling cigarettes on the street then the NYPD should look around for something more constructive to do.
Here's what the guy who shot the video, who appeared in front of the GJ, had to say. Eric Garner grand jury rigged, says man who filmed chokehold - NY Daily News
So you have evidence that there is a considerable amount of time elapsed? Correct?
No one said he was being arrested for no reason.
As a matter of fact, it's been established the cops approached him over some 3 quarter cigarettes and then put him in a chokehold because he talked a little too loud for their liking.
That's the reason this thread has gone on for 176 pages. We have people like you who thinks this was a reasonable response to a 40 year old smokes peddler and people like me who see it as an assault/manslaughter/murder (depends on the person) by some weak cops. :shrug: Keep at the suppositions though. It's fun to know you haven't moved up from what if.
Ummm... what the hell are you on about? Yes it does. I showed you video depicting what happened before and after the original video. What missing footage are you talking about? Wait.. how do you know there is missing footage?
So choke-holds are legal but against NYPD policy. Would that be right? (I'm still on my first coffee!)Of course it isn't up to the police to make laws. They just enforce them. It's up to the lawmakers to decide what the laws are. Which is why the cop in question couldn't be indicted by the Grand Jury for breaking NYPD policy. People keep bringing up the policy being banned by the NYPD as if it was something they were supposed to consider. They weren't. That's a matter for the NYPD. That said, they should have considered whether this was undue force and intentional or willful disregard for human life (or something like that...not a lawyer here) which has nothing to do with the NYPD policy itself.
Thanks, and a very Happy Friday to you and yours as well!Happy Friday Grant!
I don't know. I have known a few over the years. The ones I met were pretty impressive people. Of course like attracts like.
The rules are far more lenient for a grand jury than for a trial. The bar is intentionally set lower than for a trial. I do not believe you understand that.
Justice was served.
Why did the officer announce his intent? On what grounds? And this 'tamest take down', totally unnecessary by the way, killed the man. There was no apparent need to even talk with Eric Garner, much less 'take him down'.
If his 30 prior arrests were anything like selling cigarettes on the street then the NYPD should look around for something more constructive to do.
Here's what the guy who shot the video, who appeared in front of the GJ, had to say. Eric Garner grand jury rigged, says man who filmed chokehold - NY Daily News
He seemed to be doing all right before the cop jumped him from behind, applied a choke hold, and knocked him to the sidewalk. I doubt the family will be suing MacDonalds for wrongful death..No....8,734 cheeseburgers too many and no time on the stair master 'killed the man'.
It's hard to escape the video evidence.The guy that shot the video...the one w/ 27 (and now 28) arrests for charges ranging from possession, distribution, theft, assault, and weapons charges? Yeah...excuse me if I find his testimony just the tiniest bit self serving.
It doesn't have to be a considerable amount of time. We know there is missing tape, of an indeterminate length, from the video. We know this because there is an obvious cut between Garner's complaint and garner's take down. I am not the one assigning a what if to that missing time. It is you and the other pro-indictment folks imagining what happened in that missing video, I am simply here to tell you that you have no way on making any determination on whether the arrest attempt was warranted or not based on that video because it is clearly incomplete.
Sure they have. Read the thread.
And I am saying that you have no way of knowing what instigated the take down. And your story is wrong anyway. The store owner called the police on Garner.
No, it has gone on for so many pages because there are posters like you who insist that all there is to know is contained in an edited video. :roll:
You're quite right to a point in that we can't see any officer explaining any reason for the arrest but we do have a witness at the end of this video. Cigarettes were not apparently mentioned. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYSnp1UGVGcHow do you know the officer never stated his intent? As I keep telling you folks the part of the video where the officer would have done that is missing from the video. It cuts straight from Garner's complaint to the arrest attempt. You won't often see a police officer explaining the reason for the arrest during the process of wrestling the suspect to the ground. That comes before, and that is where the video is missing.
Shortening the above for you:
- Entire paragraph boils down to: What if there is something in that video which makes this action justified?
- Nobody is assigning what if to the "missing tape". Nobody has even claimed there is anything of relevance in "the missing tape". Actually, you're the first person to suggest that whatever is "missing" is what's really going to justify all of this.
Eh, the takedown was instigated because Garner was allegedly selling bootleg cigarettes and that is a terrible crime worthy of a chokehold, and 5 people piling on you. Do you not realize yet that the supposed probable cause does not justify the police's violent confrontation with a 40 year old? There is no evidence whatsoever that points to Garner being violent at any point and relying on "What if there's something we don't know" is nothing more than a bull**** cop-out to keep justifying the police's abuse. :shrug:
No one -- including the arresting officers -- claim that Garner did anything violent, or tried to flee.It doesn't have to be a considerable amount of time. We know there is missing tape, of an indeterminate length, from the video.
It's pretty clear, even given that gap, that Garner did not try to flee or violently resist arrest.I am simply here to tell you that you have no way on making any determination on whether the arrest attempt was warranted or not based on that video because it is clearly incomplete.
He non-violently resisted arrest. That's not in dispute, by anyone.And I am saying that you have no way of knowing what instigated the take down.
No....8,734 cheeseburgers too many and no time on the stair master 'killed the man'.
The guy that shot the video...the one w/ 27 (and now 28) arrests for charges ranging from possession, distribution, theft, assault, and weapons charges? Yeah...excuse me if I find his testimony just the tiniest bit self serving.
So choke-holds are legal but against NYPD policy. Would that be right? (I'm still on my first coffee!)
Thanks, and a very Happy Friday to you and yours as well!
You're quite right to a point in that we can't see any officer explaining any reason for the arrest but we do have a witness at the end of this video. Cigarettes were not apparently mentioned. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYSnp1UGVGc
Thanks for that Vesper, and it's truly appreciated.
It seems the world is going mad and we're all adjusting to it, and always making ourselves a little bit more crazy during the process. If we can write off this man's life because of suspicion of selling untaxed cigarettes then there really isn't much more can be said that doesn't bring in the much larger picture of where this all might lead.
Wow, project much? The "What if" comes from you and others that have decided that nothing exists between those two cuts to make the arrerst justified. I am not making a claim on the content of the missing video, only that it is missing. YOU are claiming a certainty on the contents of the missing video.
No, again, your statement is both wrong on the details we know and makes an assumption about what happens between the cuts in the video. You are the one building a narrative on make believe evidence. I am here to point out the holes in your narrative and evidence.
The issue isn't whether there was a reason to detain him.....Any claim that Garner did nothing to warrant arrest is unfounded because the public simply doesn't have that information, at least not from that video.
No...the coroner doesnt. In fact the coroner cited all of those problems as contributing factors.The coroner disagrees with you. Assuming you're not a forensic pathologist who's autopsied the body I'll take his word for it.
No...the coroner doesnt. In fact the coroner cited all of those problems as contributing factors.
Of course it isn't up to the police to make laws. They just enforce them. It's up to the lawmakers to decide what the laws are.
Which is why the cop in question couldn't be indicted by the Grand Jury for breaking NYPD policy. People keep bringing up the policy being banned by the NYPD as if it was something they were supposed to consider. They weren't. That's a matter for the NYPD. That said, they should have considered whether this was undue force and intentional or willful disregard for human life (or something like that...not a lawyer here) which has nothing to do with the NYPD policy itself.
Happy Friday Grant!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?