man dies after NYPD cop puts him in chokehold

[xBiffx]

What I meant is the police that do anything now against black Americans are going to be more scrutinized. If I was a cop I would think twice before I did anything that could jeopardize my career.

Absolutely. Hypersensitivity here we come. Public safety may be at risk in some communities. But then these same people will be screaming that the cops didn't do enough.

Exactly why I would never want to be a cop and I chose to respect the good ones out there.

 

[fskimospy]

If I push you off a sidewalk, is my intent to break your ankle?

You would have intent to commit assault/battery.

If there was something particularly dangerous about what you were doing where a reasonable person would have forseen that I would suffer grave injury such as a broken ankle, then maybe you would be guilty of more.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Interesting. You believe that he placed someone in a choke hold but did not intend to restrict breathing or blood flow.

I have to say that's one I hadn't heard before, lol.

I am truly confused as to what Biff thinks the intent of the chokehold was if not to restrict circulation or respiration, even temporarily. A chokehold works to subdue somebody specifically because of those things; if neither one happens, you might as well not even be touching the guy.

 

[xBiffx]

Interesting. You believe that he placed someone in a choke hold but did not intend to restrict breathing or blood flow.

Sure, same reason twisting arms and applying pressure to wrists is done. It reduces or eliminates the ability to resist. Does that mean that if I do that to you I want to break your arm or your wrists?

Intent only refers to whether or not you meant to engage in the action and you could reasonably forsee that it would result in the outcome that's prohibited by law. The officer clearly intended to put Gardner in a choke hold and any reasonable person understands that choke holds obstruct breathing and/or blood flow.

Again, the man was yelling at police and resisting them. How is the cop supposed to reasonably think the man was going to be dead minutes later? The officer intended to subdue him so he could be arrested, not kill him.

The fact that you were engaging in the action for another purpose means nothing.

That means everything. What the hell are you even talking about? If I push you off a sidewalk because you are in my way and you end up tripping and hitting your head causing your death, does that mean that my intent was to kill you? My intent was to get you out of my way.

If I'm out in the middle of nowhere shooting/hunting and I miss my target and hit someone who I didn't know happened to be beyond it, was my intent to kill that person? My intent was to hit my target, not kill another person. I have no idea what you are even talking about when you make such a statement.

 

[fskimospy]

I am truly confused as to what Biff thinks the intent of the chokehold was if not to restrict circulation or respiration, even temporarily. A chokehold works to subdue somebody specifically because of those things; if neither one happens, you might as well not even be touching the guy.

I think he thinks that if the cop is doing the chokehold to subdue someone resisting arrest that he no longer has intent to restrict breathing and/or circulation. That's not correct, but I think that's what he's trying to say.

 

[Mai72]

Absolutely. Hypersensitivity here we come. Public safety may be at risk in some communities. But then these same people will be screaming that the cops didn't do enough.

Exactly why I would never want to be a cop and I chose to respect the good ones out there.

Depends on where you're a police officer. Being a cop in small town NJ is much different than being a NYC police officer. I live in NJ and we have cops who make $80k a year. They don't have to deal with minorities and the crime here is mostly non-existent. I went to Super Fresh and I saw a total of 5 people. Now, compare that to what NYC police officers have to go through.

No comparison.

 

[xBiffx]

I am truly confused as to what Biff thinks the intent of the chokehold was if not to restrict circulation or respiration, even temporarily. A chokehold works to subdue somebody specifically because of those things; if neither one happens, you might as well not even be touching the guy.

Is the intent of a straight arm takedown or armlock to break a person's arm? A chokehold works because it limits the motions a person can make, just like these other things, without them introducing more discomfort or injury on themself. If the intent of a chokehold was to kill a person or stop them from breathing then it wouldn't be stopped once the person was subdued, neither would an armlock if the intent is to break an arm.

 

[JockoJohnson]

The only thing needed in this case was a simple warning, to tell him to stop thoses activities, after all it wasnt for personal enrichment, that s the result of a society that apply non written laws to a part of its members, explicitely do not give jobs to blacks if possible, even if they have a family of 6...

He was warned...and arrested several times according to the NY Daily News article.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/staten-island-man-dies-puts-choke-hold-article-1.1871486

It doesn't make it right that he died because of this. The cops could have turned a blind-eye to the law as they do in many other situations involving small law being broken --- unless this is considered a major felony.


Forget unwritten laws, how about the stupidly written laws?
Also, some deeper thinking, why did he have to resort to selling untaxed cigarettes in the first place? Is it because the fucktards in gov't think it's alright to just keep taxing and taxing cigarettes. People aren't going to put up with that shit. He found a way to skirt the system and sadly, it was illegal. Either make the fucking cigarettes illegal or just leave them the fuck alone at this point. They are taxed enough already. And I am a non-smoker.

 

[fskimospy]

Sure, same reason twisting arms and applying pressure to wrists is done. It reducing or eliminates the ability to resist. Does that mean that if I do that to you I want to break your arm or your wrists?

Again, the man was yelling at police and resisting them. How is the cop supposed to reasonably think the man was going to be dead minutes later? The officer intended to subdue him so he could be arrested, not kill him.

Irrelevant if he thought he was going to be dead. The crime is restricting breathing or blood flow. He clearly intended to do those things.

I'm quite confident that he did not intend to kill him, but actually intending to kill someone doesn't always matter. If you show reckless disregard for his safety that can also be enough, and there's a case for that as well in my opinion. Regardless, that has nothing to do with the Class A misdemeanor you asked about.

That means everything. What the hell are you even talking about? If I push you off a sidewalk because you are in my way and you end up tripping and hitting your head causing your death, does that mean that my intent was to kill you? My intent was to get you out of my way.

You're using intent in a conversational sense as opposed to a legal sense. The intent that matters is if you intended to shove me, which would be, technically speaking, battery. If I died and it was determined that a reasonable person would have forseen the significant possibility of me dying from the result of your shove, then you may have intent for more.

In this case the police officer clearly had the intent to restrict Gardner's breathing. That's why he put him in a choke hold. Therefore he had intent to commit that crime. End of story.

Hey man, you asked what crime. Doesn't this seem pretty cut and dry?

 

[xBiffx]

Depends on where you're a police officer. Being a cop in small town NJ is much different than being a NYC police officer. I live in NJ and we have cops who make $80k a year. They don't have to deal with minorities and the crime here is mostly non-existent. I went to Super Fresh and I saw a total of 5 people. Now, compare that to what NYC police officers have to go through.

No comparison.

Yep, hence my "some communities" wording.

 

[fskimospy]

He was warned...and arrested several times according to the NY Daily News article.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/staten-island-man-dies-puts-choke-hold-article-1.1871486

That would only stand a chance of mattering if the officer in question was aware of Gardner's previous arrest record at the time of the incident.

It doesn't make it right that he died because of this. The cops could have turned a blind-eye to the law as they do in many other situations involving small law being broken --- unless this is considered a major felony.

Forget unwritten laws, how about the stupidly written laws?
Also, some deeper thinking, why did he have to resort to selling untaxed cigarettes in the first place? Is it because the fucktards in gov't think it's alright to just keep taxing and taxing cigarettes. People aren't going to put up with that shit. He found a way to skirt the system and sadly, it was illegal. Either make the fucking cigarettes illegal or just leave them the fuck alone at this point. They are taxed enough already. And I am a non-smoker.

You realize that heavily taxing cigarettes has had pretty huge health benefits for the country, right? One of the biggest factors that keeps new people from smoking is how much they cost.

 

[Mai72]

This cop is going to lose his job! He should lose his job.

I just saw that he had 2 previous lawsuits against him. He needs to go!

The police union is defending him. They are just as bad as the teacher's union. They have a horrible habit of defending bad apples.

 

[Mai72]

Yep, hence my "some communities" wording.

Opps...

Didn't see that.

 

[Fern]

At first I thought this was a clear cut case of abuse. I'm changing to neutral after some new info and watching the vid again. I've heard:

1. The Medical Examiner's report did not find asphyxiation to be the cause of death. Further, there was no damage to man's trachea/windpipe.

2. The officer did NOT use a choke hold as has been reported repeatedly. Grabbing someone around the head/neck area is not a choke hold. A choke hold, while being around the head/neck area, is a very specific maneuver and this isn't one. This grab around the neck is supposedly NOT against police policy.

3. I rewatched the vid and the so-called "choke hold" was applied for a very brief period of time. I don't have a clock with seconds displayed, but I'm guessing around 10 seconds. If you're being choked you can't say "I can't breath" 11 times. If you can't breath you can't say it 11 times either. Furthermore, it was only after the "choke hold" was released that the man started complaining of trouble breathing.

4. This type of police 'take down' of those resisting is policy and is done thousands of times a year in NY. People very rarely die or suffer serious injuries. This death of a suspect is a unique case.

5. While I never saw any reason to believe this arrest was racially motivated recent information suggests claims of racism to be baseless. The police responded to continued complaints by merchants in the area, many of whom are Black. The man was harassing customers and driving away business was the complaint (of course selling cigs without a license is illegal).

The police chief approved the use of police resources to respond to the complaints about this man. The police chief is Black.

The ranking officer on scene in charge was a Black police officer.

I haven't confirmed the above info as reported on cable is correct (I doubt some of it can be as GJ proceedings are sealed) but if accurate I believe the GJ was correct in not indicting.

It may just be that this guy died primarily because of his terrible health (heart problem, asthma, obesity etc) A review of M.E.'s report would be ideal, but since it was a G.J. proceeding we may never see it.

Fern

 

[xBiffx]

He clearly intended to do those things.

Obviously, he clearly didn't. Ref. grand jury.

In this case the police officer clearly had the intent to restrict Gardner's breathing.

Again, nope.

 

[JockoJohnson]

That would only stand a chance of mattering if the officer in question was aware of Gardner's previous arrest record at the time of the incident.



You realize that heavily taxing cigarettes has had pretty huge health benefits for the country, right? One of the biggest factors that keeps new people from smoking is how much they cost.

Not going to argue the first point. I am in complete disagreement with the GJ decision. I just don't see how they could come back with the decision that they did.

As for the last point, just make them completely illegal. But we all know that won't happen. Too much of a revenue generator for the gov't. If they really cared about people's health, they would just ban them. But that would create a situation similar to Prohibition. It is still creating a similar situation in that people are tired of paying the ridiculous taxes on this product. They cross state lines to purchase them illegally and also purchase them off of people like this guy.

 

[xBiffx]

2. The officer did NOT use a choke hold as has been reported repeatedly. Grabbing someone around the head/neck area is not a choke hold. A choke hold, while being around the head/neck area, is a very specific maneuver and this isn't one. This grab around the neck is supposedly NOT against police policy.

3. I rewatched the vid and the so-called "choke hold" was applied for a very brief period of time. I don't have a clock with seconds displayed, but I'm guessing around 10 seconds. If you're being choked you can't say I can't breath 11 times. If you can't breath you can't say it 11 times either. Furthermore, it was only after the "choke hold" was released that the man started complaining of trouble breathing.

I think that's a huge detail that people are missing. Also goes to the intent argument.

To me, its quite clear that the officer's actions could have added to the man's death, but no more than his underlying health issues.

 

[fskimospy]

Obviously, he clearly didn't. Ref. grand jury.

Again, nope.

Again, if you want to argue that the officer put his arm around Garner's neck as he clearly did in the video and you have determined he had no intent to restrict either breathing or blood flow to such a certainty as to not even issue an indictment, which once again is an EXTREMELY low standard... uhmm... okay.

I have a feeling that you didn't realize that such a crime existed and now you just have your back up. (by the way, either a head lock or a choke hold would easily meet the standard of restricting breathing/blood flow)

 

[master_shake_]

Again, if you want to argue that the officer put his arm around Garner's neck as he clearly did in the video and you have determined he had no intent to restrict either breathing or blood flow to such a certainty as to not even issue an indictment, which once again is an EXTREMELY low standard... uhmm... okay.

I have a feeling that you didn't realize that such a crime existed and now you just have your back up. (by the way, either a head lock or a choke hold would easily meet the standard of restricting breathing/blood flow)

he was just giving his a neck a hug from behind.

clearly the officer was trying to show affection.

 

[xBiffx]

Again, if you want to argue that the officer put his arm around Garner's neck as he clearly did in the video and you have determined he had no intent to restrict either breathing or blood flow to such a certainty as to not even issue an indictment, which once again is an EXTREMELY low standard... uhmm... okay.

But there still is a standard, right? Is simple accusation now that standard?

I have a feeling that you didn't realize that such a crime existed and now you just have your back up. (by the way, either a head lock or a choke hold would easily meet the standard of restricting breathing/blood flow)

It wasn't a surprise. Nothing you say really ever is.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Is the intent of a straight arm takedown or armlock to break a person's arm? A chokehold works because it limits the motions a person can make, just like these other things, without them introducing more discomfort or injury on themself. If the intent of a chokehold was to kill a person or stop them from breathing then it wouldn't be stopped once the person was subdued, neither would an armlock if the intent is to break an arm.

How exactly does a chokehold limit the motions a person can make without restricting airflow or circulation? The guy's arms and legs are still free. Was the officer concerned about preventing him from some violent nodding? The only possible use of a chokehold as a submission move is in restricting circulation or airflow. No one said he intended to kill the guy, just as Jon Jones doesn't intend to kill his opponent when he gets him in a rear naked choke. But the efficacy of that move is entirely dependent on immobilizing the target through a lack of oxygen getting to the brain. Without that, a choke is useless.

 

[fskimospy]

But there still is a standard, right? Is simple accusation now that standard?

According to the BJS in 2010 federal prosecutors brought 162,000 cases before grand juries. The grand juries declined to indict on 11 of them. So, you were saying?

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fjs10st.pdf(page 12)

I looked it up before replying to you. It wasn't a surprise. Nothing you say really ever is.

I'm sorry to hear I'm not entertaining you enough.

 

[xBiffx]

How exactly does a chokehold limit the motions a person can make without restricting airflow or circulation?

Try getting out of one. Its rather difficult without a great deal of pain or injuring to your throat. Even then, you aren't moving far.

Here's a hint: maneuvers meant to subdue are meant to be quick. Choking someone until they experience discomfort from not being able to breathe is not a quick, nor a very repeatable response from person to person.

 

[xBiffx]

According to the BJS in 2010 federal prosecutors brought 162,000 cases before grand juries. The grand juries declined to indict on 11 of them. So, you were saying?

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fjs10st.pdf(page 12)

Useless stat is useless. How many times did the GJ fail to indict a cop who was suspected of using deadly force through a choke (or heck any deadly force) hold on a suspect who later died?

Sorry if I don't think that stats for all instances don't apply completely to every instance. I prefer that stats for specific instances be applied as they are more telling.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Try getting out of one. Its rather difficult without a great deal of pain or injuring to your throat.

Here's a hint: maneuvers meant to subdue are meant to be quick. Choking someone until they experience discomfort from not being able to breathe is not a quick, nor a very repeatable response from person to person.

That's why most chokeholds don't bother trying to restrict airflow, they cut off circulation to the brain. You can make someone pass out in less than 10 seconds if you cut off blood to the brain. It's why MMA referees are so quick to call a stoppage when someone gets a choke locked in; it's legitimately dangerous to deprive the brain of oxygen for any length of time. And, again, that's the entire point of a choke; if you don't get it locked in right, it's not subduing anyone.

So, please enlighten me, how was he going to subdue the suspect by putting his arm around his neck without restricting circulation or airflow?