Cops don't arrest you if there is no reason. They can investigate probable cause, and if you resist and lie, then read the statutes.
Gyaos.
NYPD chokehold case
- Thread starter Smallcock
- Start date
Gyaos.
LOL. Don't forget to take your meds. Dorian Johnson, the ISIS terrorist and guilty partner of terrorist thug Michael Brown, can steal them for you, and then claim they are aspirin.
Gyaos
Just putting in my $0.02:
No, Garner didn't "deserve" to die. He did, however, initiate the actions which led to his tragic death.
If you run out into a busy street you don't "deserve" to die. Death is much too high a punishment for a momentary lapse in judgement. It is, however, a reasonably likely outcome of your actions.
If you resist arrest at the level Garner was resisting arrest, you don't "deserve" to die. Again, death is much too high a punishment for that momentary lapse in judgement. It is, again, a possible outcome of your actions.
That's sad. It's terribly sad. It's utterly tragic. And it's predictable that in a certain percentage of cases where someone resists arrest, whether that arrest is for selling loosies or for gunning down a mall, something bad will happen. In every movie with a hostage situation, what is it that the criminals are most afraid of? Getting killed by the cops while trying to surrender. Of something going wrong during the arrest. That's why you lie down and behave when you're caught misbehaving. It isn't that difficult an idea to deal with, but we're also talking about a population of people (of whatever race) who are misbehaving to begin with.
Yes, every effort should be made to reduce the fatal incidents in police custody. The police accept a great deal of responsibility when they get their shield. But I've put on worse chokeholds for much longer on my friends when roughhousing as middle aged guys (all much smaller than Garner).
The Garner case is a hell of a lot closer to the line than the Brown case. I could see the argument on both sides. I'm honestly a bit surprised it didn't clear the grand jury, but it's still open to prosecute the case in the future.
The background on this story was that the victim, Eric Garner, had a history with police for selling loosies (single cigarettes) and untaxed smokes on the street. In this instance a fight had broken out between two other folks which generated calls to the police; Garner broke up the fight and was still at the scene when police arrived.
That's where the video apparently picks up.
Police DO NOT have the right to arrest, detain or handcuff someone for no reason; they have to be perfectly clear why they are doing so. Garner was not involved in the fight, other than to stop it, was not caught selling loosies or packs of untaxed smokes by police at the time and was not known to carry a weapon in any of his numerous arrests for "cigarette crimes", so there was no probable cause to search, arrest or detain him. This was simply a case of harassment of a guy who was involved in very minor "grey market" crime. It was an utter failure of police work in the "serve and protect" sense.
Further, the officer involved then used a chokehold - amove outlawed by the NYPD and numerous police departments for the very reason it is so dangerous - to 'subdue' someone who hadn't been told what he was being arrested for and who did not put his hands on the officers. Garner simply kept pulling his arms away. This was a colossal clusterfuck brought on by an overzealous, incompetent, and in my mind, criminal cop who made zero effort to de-escalate the situation and instead went almost immediately for a choke while not under any threat of physical harm whatsoever.
Well, the police didn't tell him he was to be arrested according to the video.
Where did you read about the background to the story?
If it's what you say, then the police have seriously fucked up. Poor Eric.
I believe an independent federal investigation will vindicate the judgement. I sincerely believe Michael Brown escalated the situation and left the officer with a split second decision to kill.
I would advise against this. You will get yourself killed.
I'm not a lawyer, I just pretend to be one on the internets.
That said, the GJ is NOT adversarial. The there's no duty for the prosecutor to give the GJ any evidence other than what it takes to indict. So yes, it's very possible to push and get an indictment if the prosecutor really wants one. If a prosecutor wanted to prosecute me for Abraham Lincoln's murder, he could probably get an indictment.
As has been discussed on the Michael Brown thread, the prosecutor in that case did things out of the box. The best analysis I can see of the situation is that the prosecutor knew it was a dog shit case that stood 0% chance of getting a conviction. At that point, what does the prosecutor do? If he just dismisses the case, as he would (based on the evidence) if it didn't receive as much notoriety, then things go to hell and he's accused of doing nothing. If he goes through with the trial, things still might go to hell and the city is out millions of dollars prosecuting a dog shit case that has no chance of convicting. Or, he can "throw" the indictment proceedings by giving the grand jury ALL of the evidence and seeing if all of the evidence (left just on its own) could clear the 50%+ mark to get an indictment. Because if the evidence couldn't clear the grand jury's 50%+ mark, that means the prosecutor would have to be more than 49%+ better to get a conviction (basing a conviction on a 99%+ mark).
The people of Ferguson are effectively asking their prosecutor to believe he can take a 0% chance case, push it to 99%, regardless of who the defense lawyer is (and let's face it, it's likely to be a pretty good one).
And, on top of that, if Wilson gets off (very, very likely), if they someday find footage of Wilson wearing a KKK hood executing Brown in the middle of the street, the best they can prosecute Wilson for is a federal civil rights charge instead of murder, because an acquittal in a murder trial ends that line of prosecution FOREVER.
I don't know. I think the best result came of this shitty set of evidence. I'm not saying Wilson is telling the truth. I'm saying the evidence is shit. The eyewitnesses who keep saying Wilson executed Brown keep telling stories that don't fit the physical evidence. The people who tell a story that fits the physical evidence say Wilson didn't execute Brown. There's some overlap, yes, but that's the pattern in the testimony. There just isn't reasonable doubt: there's probable doubt.
Sorry, I disagree with almost everything you've written.
Eric Garner was under NO obligation to submit to the police officer "just because." Suspicion of selling cigarettes is not enough of a reason to put someone under arrest, let alone assault them. People need to stop giving police more powers than the already sizeable ones they possess.
Further, I do not believe that you've "put on worse chokeholds for much longer on my friends when roughhousing as middle aged guys (all much smaller than Garner)." Sorry, but a proper choke takes literally seconds to render someone unconscious.
On top of that Garner, with both arms in front of him in a surrender position, repeatedly stated that he couldn't breathe and the cop still held on, only to let go and have other cops pin his head, neck and torso down - another easy way to kill someone by smothering.
The cops escalated a situation that didn't need to be escalated; they then broke police procedure in using a chokehold to subdue a man who did not attempt to flee or assault them in any way; and finally they ignored his repeated cries of "I can't breathe" while continuing to choke and smother him. After that, they made ZERO effort to resuscitate him or perform any type of CPR.
Who did the police serve and protect in this instance? How was that good policework?
Not only should the officer be fired, he should face criminal charges.
Not telling him that he was under arrest before jumping him is only one of the major obvious fuckups by the police here.
Eric was well within his right to question (i.e. "resist") the officers for nagging him for doing nothing wrong. Eric did not "escalate" the situation. There was no situation to escalate until the cops made it into one.
The cops and the people defending them after watching that video are unconscionable. Cops exist to defend and protect, to enforce law and order. They did no such thing here. A group of thugs with badges put a guy they didn't like in his place by killing him.
Crime rates have been falling for decades yet we have overzealous cops like these who act like they're in a war zone.
As a poster earlier suggested, if this type of thing continues, and the cops involved get off, it wouldn't surprise me if citizens begin killing cops more frequently.
I am not sure. I came across it while doing some research on erotic choking for an argument I was having. (My opinion is there is no such thing as safe choking.) I believe it has to do with the way the vein flattens that it can't reopen and partly to do with the vargus nerve. It can happen with anyone and there doesn't seem to be any way to tell ahead of time but it just seems to be more common with Black people.
A few years back there was one particular where a father was playing WWF with his young son. The son put a sleeper on his father, his father went down like a sack of cement and didn't get up again. No way to tell which is why the NYPD banned its use.
.
Worse, it shows that even if police have body cams there will still be instances where cops get away with murder (or at the very least, manslaughter) and keep incompetent cops (see: Loehmann, Tim) on the job.
Ok thanks but unless the evidence is faulty or lacking, I might have indicted Wilson. Brown was away when he was shot. It wasn't up close and personal like in the Zimmerman case.
You mean when an over eager neighbourhood watch guy stalked, harassed and shot to death an unarmed teenager who had done nothing wrong until GZ kept following him and after he was told by a police dispatcher to stand down?
Either you're a troll or an awful little man... "It's his own fault"?!?
What is it with people like you who think police have the right to detain, arrest and assault anyone they want without following procedure or obeying the laws they are supposed to uphold?
So if a cop said "give me your hands, you're under arrest" for no reason you'd do it? And if you said no and he choked, handcuffed and arrested you, you'd be cool with that, because it's "your own fault"?
What if he told you to get on your knees and suck his dick?
Sweet Jesus, people 'round here are either incomprehensibly supplicant or have no idea what their basic rights are.
If I'm committing a crime with a ticketible offense I'll take the ticket. Such as speeding and just pulling over. It would be stupid for me to try to outrun the police to avoid the ticket. What I'm saying is that he was committing a minor crime, when he refused to cooperate he escalated the situation from minor to major. An asthmatic selling smokes on the street. So stupid is as stupid does.
You keep saying that he was committing a crime. What crime was he committing?
Standing on a sidewalk isn't committing a crime.
An asthmatic selling smokes on the street.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/03/justice/new-york-grand-jury-chokehold/
I see you have a case of selective reading...
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/03/justice/new-york-grand-jury-chokehold/
I see you have a case of selective reading...
