- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 79,903
- Reaction score
- 20,981
- Location
- I love your hate.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Really? The thread is into page 189, that sort of silliness has been well covered already.
Moderator's Warning: |
Really? The thread is into page 189, that sort of silliness has been well covered already.
Apparently not. There are people who have been in this thread since the beginning still claiming to know things they can not know about why the police chose to use force to subdue Garner. Hell, there are still those insinuating that the police knew their use of force could be fatal.
Looking at Eric Garner in those videos reminds me a lot of Michael Clark Duncan. Nobody could know by looking at Duncan that he had a weak heart. Look at the arms and shoulders on Garner alone, the man was gigantic.
No matter how much people want to deny it, the simple fact remains that there is a different amount of force needed to subdue a man the size of Garner than there is the average person. It happened to be that that amount of force was also fatal to a person as frail as Eric Garner was.
I'm not going to stop pointing out your false characterizations, Hatuey. You are the one assuming you know what happened when you actually don't have the information. You are building a narrative on Eric Garner did nothing wrong, my telling you that you have no grounds to make the assumption is not a what it, it is a rational assessment of the lack of evidence on your part.
I mean, you sail past the what ifs right into wholly ignorant assumptions of what happened.
Another issue, is you noticed there were no beat cops?
It's not high speed, low drag to be a beat cop anymore......
A beat cop would have known Eric and handled it with diplomacy.
False characterizations of your what if arguments? They are "What Ifs". Do you have any evidence that something did happen? No? Then why are the alleged missing pieces so important?
The only thing he did wrong was make police notice him for stopping a fight. :shrug:
Apparently not. There are people who have been in this thread since the beginning still claiming to know things they can not know about why the police chose to use force to subdue Garner. Hell, there are still those insinuating that the police knew their use of force could be fatal.
Looking at Eric Garner in those videos reminds me a lot of Michael Clark Duncan. Nobody could know by looking at Duncan that he had a weak heart. Look at the arms and shoulders on Garner alone, the man was gigantic.
No matter how much people want to deny it, the simple fact remains that there is a different amount of force needed to subdue a man the size of Garner than there is the average person. It happened to be that that amount of force was also fatal to a person as frail as Eric Garner was.
It does not matter what he did or did not do wrong before he was confronted by the police. It does not matter if he yelled or did not yell at the police. It does not matter what he said or did not say. It does not matter if Garner was a white supremacist, a drug dealer, a 90 year old lady, or Rambo.
The bottom line is that he was unarmed and did not initiate any violence. That is enough for a thorough investigation and a trial. Period.
Another issue, is you noticed there were no beat cops?
It's not high speed, low drag to be a beat cop anymore......
A beat cop would have known Eric and handled it with diplomacy.
What makes you think none of these were beat cops? A beat cop would know he's a seller and would be moving him on whenever he found him on his beat. Kinda like what started this whole thing.
It does not matter what he did or did not do wrong before he was confronted by the police. It does not matter if he yelled or did not yell at the police. It does not matter what he said or did not say. It does not matter if Garner was a white supremacist, a drug dealer, a 90 year old lady, or Rambo.
The bottom line is that he was unarmed and did not initiate any violence. That is enough for a thorough investigation and a trial. Period.
I didn't make a what if argument. You just keep trolling that I did.
Nope.
Yeah, I've seen quite a few in my lifetime, and I've spoken out against them every time. I don't like that cops have to enforce such ****ty law there in NYC, but that's not on the cops. The only thing done wrongly here by the cops was an against department policy chokehold meant to subdue a very large resisting fellow.
Because he wouldn't go peacefully. This was his choice.
It doesn't matter if it was Michael Clark Duncan. Being big and black does not give the police the right to use ANY force on you. You don't get to say.. hey that guy is really big and if he were to be violent I might be in trouble. Sorry, there's no right for the police to be pre-emptively violent unless there's an actual threat.
Why again were we subduing said "man of size"?
It use to be that cops actually were neighborhood people. They lived in the neighborhoods they patrolled or at least knew a lot of the people living in those neighborhoods and knew how to treat them. These narratives are still pretty present in American cultural items. You ever seen those TV shows in the 60s where cops walk into a shop and know everyone? That wasn't made up. That was a reflection of the relationship between law enforcement and the community. Back in Cali knew cops by their last names. We didn't necessarily like them but we knew who they were. The cops in this video, they all looked like rejects from Dog The Bounty Hunter. See the tattoos? See tight little shirts? They want to present an image of toughness to make up for the fact that they're foreigners in those neighborhoods.
didn't have a chance. officer choke hold had him rather quickly.
You tell me. I am not claiming to know.
Because he wouldn't go peacefully. This was his choice.
Pantaleo was sued twice in the past for alleged racially motivated misconduct while on the job. Two black men accused him in 2012 of subjecting them to an illegal strip search in broad daylight. Pantaleo purportedly “tapped” each man’s testicles during the search, which he claimed was a bid to discover any contraband, the Daily News reported. The suit was settled last January.
In a second lawsuit, a man named Rylawn Walker accused a group of NYPD officers that included Pantaleo of arresting him despite the fact that he was “committing no crime at the time and was not acting in a suspicious manner” and of including misleading data on a police report to justify the arrest, the Staten Island Advance reported. Charges against the man were ultimately dismissed.
No one -- NO ONE -- has accused Garner of attempting to flee, or using force on anyone. There is absolutely no reason why such information would be restricted to the grand jury. If he had acted that way, there is NO QUESTION the NYPD would have released that information.You have access to the sealed Grand Jury testimony?
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?