NYPD chokehold case
- Thread starter Smallcock
- Start date
Suspected of selling smokes.
Even if it could be proven that he was selling smokes, that's no reason for the cops to behave the way they did.
They didn't even declare that he was under arrest. They just started reaching for his arms and hands, then tackled him with a chokehold.
Each cop needs to be taken off the force.
Only a complete bunch of imbeciles would react to a guy who is not being violent like that. All they needed to explain to him is that he had to calm down, and he had to come with them if not they were going to have to arrest him by force. Explain he could contact a lawyer at the station. No attempt at all to diffuse the situation. Also it is clear this guy was not in good health. Those guys do need to be removed from the force because they are morons and a danger to the public.
Suspected of selling smokes, but the main problem was resisting arrest. When your resist arrest then anything goes.
The guy had been arrested more then 30 times since 1980, you think he wasn't aware of the procedure by now?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Eric_Garner
The guy had been arrested more then 30 times since 1980, you think he wasn't aware of the procedure by now?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Eric_Garner
No, not "anything goes", appropriate level of force, goes. There was no threat of grievous bodily harm or death, therefore there was no need to use lethal force. There are more appropriate soft and hard physical control techniques available; distractionary strikes and pain compliance which are not known to cause crippling, long term injury or risk death would have been more appropriate.
It's pretty plain and simple, guilty or not guilty, the police tell you you're under arrest and you resist, they are going to do what they believe is necessary to make said arrest, they aren't going to apologize and leave you be. This guy died mainly because of underlying health issues and his past history speaks volumes.
One such technique would have been to comply with instructions which unfortunately he chose not to do.
He did not deserve to die, the cop didn't try to kill him. He was uncooperative, the cops used a banned technique for getting control of him, which along with his being morbidly obese killed him.
Had he calmly complied he'd be Christmas shopping this weekend - same with Michael Brown.
OTB
Ahhh. It's all so clear now. The police didn't kill these people, their failure to comply with police is what killed them. The police themselves had absolutely nothing to do with it. It's like they weren't even there!
You're seriously dense. They were there arresting him, he chose to resist. When a person under arrest resists the cops aren't just going to say ah well and give up, no, they are going to increase the force used to make that arrest. In this case, the individual chose to resist and due to underlying health issues he died because if it. Had he simply complied, fought it in court, you know he was innocent of course, he would still be alive and the father of 6 kids. He chose to resist.
Now we're getting somewhere.
The police officers are ACCOUNTABLE for anything that happens henceforth from that moment, and must be made to answer to that in a court of law.
If a civilian is going to be held to the letter of the law, so should the police officer, to an even greater extent, as he is a representative of the law who's actions should be beyond reproach.
Basic handcuffing techniques include various wrist locks, armbars and strikes to major muscle groups to induce pain compliance. A choke should be reserved for when lethal force is justifiable, but using the firearm isn't. The police in this scenario escalated the situation and used a lethal technique (which isn't even taught in that agency) when it was not justifiable to do so.
Was the subject viscously curb stomping someone? No, a choke was inappropriate and excessive; it is never taught as a control technique for that level of resistance.
If the police had not administered a banned technique in subduing him, he wouldn't be dead. It's their fault.
Would it have been reasonable and within the police officers' rights to shoot him in the head to subdue him?
No, reasonable force is what is dictated, lethal force comes in to play when there is a threat to the officers or the publics lives. However, once again, perhaps he shouldn't have resisted arrest. Once again you seem to want to ignore the facts that he was being placed under arrest and was resisting.
And once again, you're ignoring that a choke is lethal force and was not reasonable given the circumstances. Resisting or not, the wrong level of force was used by the police.
Out of policy and against the law are different things. That officer could be subject to discipline without being criminally liable.
And that banned technique, which should be argued was unreasonable force, resulted in a death. He needs to be held responsible.
Funny how you can discern between a banned vs. criminal restraining technique which may have caused a death, but you can't discern between a man putting his arms
up in the air in submission vs arms flailing.
