Posted on 12/12/2014 5:53:59 PM PST by Enza Ferreri
As the protest over his death has reached London, we can say that what happened to Eric Garner, whatever his faults, is certainly, tragically terrible. If I had been a police officer I probably would have stopped holding him down when I heard "I can’t breathe!", but then I'm not a police officer used to dealing with criminals lying all the time, including Garner himself who - as is shown in a distressing video that includes his altercation with the police before his arrest - had possibly been lying to the police until a few seconds earlier, when he was claiming he was doing nothing. It was probably a case of cry wolf.
And New York City policeman Daniel Pantaleo was supposed not to let go of Garner, it was his job not to do so.
Garner did not die from strangulation. According to city medical examiners, he was killed by neck compression, along with "the compression of his chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police". The cops were holding him down by sitting on him, with an arm around his neck, which contributed to, but did not cause, his death.
Contributing factors were his obesity and various ailments, including bronchial asthma, heart disease, hypertensive cardiovascular disease. Without them, as Rep. Peter King said, he would not have died.
After Garner was handcuffed and had passed out, the police did no Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on Garner because, they say, he was still breathing, and it would be improper to do CPR on someone who was breathing on his own.
The police maintain that, before Garner passed out, there was no reason to believe that he was in serious condition, because they assumed that, if Garner was unable to breathe, he would also have been unable to speak. The medical examiner found no damage to Garner's windpipe or neck bones.
He was put in an ambulance, where he suffered cardiac arrest, and was pronounced dead at the hospital about an hour later.
This is what Pat Buchanan says in "Racist Cops—or Liberal Slander?":
Why would a Staten Island grand jury not indict Pantaleo for murder or manslaughter in the death of Eric Garner? In a word, intent. Did Pantaleo intend to kill Eric Garner when he arrived on the scene? Did Pantaleo arrive intent on injuring Eric Garner? No and no.I think that the New York case - Garner's death - is more nuanced than the Ferguson one, but the grand juries' decisions were right in both cases.Pantaleo was there to arrest Garner, and if he resisted, to subdue him and then arrest him. That was his job. Did he use a chokehold, which the NYPD bans, or a takedown method taught at the police academy, as his lawyer contends? That is for the NYPD to decide. The grand jury, viewing the video, decided that the way Pantaleo brought down Garner was not done with any criminal intent to kill or injure him, but to arrest him.
Garner’s death, they decided, was accidental, caused by Pantaleo and the other NYPD cops who did not intend his injury or death, with Garner’s asthma and heart disease as contributing factors. Now that grand jury decision may be wrong, but does it justify wild allegations of “racist cops” getting away with “murder”?
This reflexive rush to judgment happens again and again.
Given the outrage that dominates much of the mainstream media over a grand jury's decision not to indict officer Pantaleo in the death of Eric Garner, here are 11 crucial facts about the Eric Garner case that the media are not going to tell you:
1. There is no doubt that Garner was resisting an arrest for illegally selling untaxed cigarettes. Former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik put it succinctly: "You cannot resist arrest. If Eric Garner did not resist arrest, the outcome of this case would have been very different," he told Newsmax. "He wouldn't be dead today."Regardless of what the arrest was for, the officers don't have the ability to say, 'Well, this is a minor arrest, so we're just going to ignore you.'"
2. The video of the July 17 incident clearly shows Garner, an African-American, swatting away the arms of a white officer seeking to take him into custody, telling him: "Don't touch me!"
3. Garner, 43, had history of more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980, on charges including assault and grand larceny.
4. At the time of his death, Garner was out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession and false impersonation.
5. The chokehold that Patrolman Daniel Pantaleo put on Garner was reported to have contributed to his death. But Garner, who was 6-foot-3 and weighed 350 pounds, suffered from a number of health problems, including heart disease, severe asthma, diabetes, obesity, and sleep apnea. Pantaleo's attorney and police union officials argued that Garner's poor health was the main cause of his death.
6. Garner did not die at the scene of the confrontation. He suffered cardiac arrest in the ambulance taking him to the hospital and was pronounced dead about an hour later.
7. Much has been made of the fact that the use of chokeholds by police is prohibited in New York City. But officers reportedly still use them. Between 2009 and mid-2014, the Civilian Complaint Review Board received 1,128 chokehold allegations.
Patrick Lynch, president of the New York City Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, said: "It was clear that the officer's intention was to do nothing more than take Mr. Garner into custody as instructed, and that he used the takedown technique that he learned in the academy when Mr. Garner refused."
8. The grand jury began hearing the case on Sept. 29 and did not reach a decision until Wednesday, so there is much testimony that was presented that has not been made public.
9. The 23-member grand jury included nine non-white jurors.
10. In order to find Officer Pantaleo criminally negligent, the grand jury would have had to determine that he knew there was a "substantial risk" that Garner would have died due to the takedown.
11. Less than a month after Garner's death, Ramsey Orta, who shot the much-viewed videotape of the encounter, was indicted on weapons charges. Police alleged that Orta had slipped a .25-caliber handgun into a teenage accomplice's waistband outside a New York hotel.
Google "198 Bay St, Staten Island, NY" and zoom in on the Street View. You'll see a fat guy standing there with what looks like a loosie in his left hand.
What are the odds that on the random day Google Earth drives by...
Nonsense. Had there been no arrest, he’d still be alive. Reckless conduct during the arrest (warranted or not) caused the death. Unless one believes it’s “reasonable” to leave a suspect in custody to die of cardiac arrest while 5 -or more- officers stand around.
You’re quite right. I guess New York has second degree homicide rather than Involuntary. I don’t see much of a distinction between Second Degree and Reckless Endangerment though in the code.
Whatever. It’ll go civil anyway and the Garner heirs will get an obscene amount of money. It’s a safe bet it settles well before it gets to court.
Witty and original.
And as meaningless as your baseless opinions on this matter.
So he was manslaughtered via arrest?
I’m not sure I follow.
Which reckless conduct specifically caused his death and precisely how?
And no, I don’t think it’s reasonable for 5 or more officers to stand around while he was in medical need, but maybe those officers weren’t trained in medical responses.
None of that means the officers who arrested him killed him.
I still want to see the call logs and the "loosies" evidence.
I say plainclothes boy Pairapanties was power-tripping. Whoops, for Eric Garner. But no worries! The DA was looking out for Danny Boy...
I posted links to actual news stories. You shot your mouth off. Big difference.
@ moe - chris is just interested in shooting his/her mouth off, not a real discussion. :)
Dead guy still dead, cop still not charged, no one going to show you jack squat, because you don’t matter.
I’m not really sure why you want to have a discussion with me anyway, I’m not sympathetic to your cause, and you won’t be convincing me to change my mind with LOLs and smilies.
This case goes to show everyone that cops can kill people without sanction for violating petty laws.
3. Garner, 43, had history of more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980, on charges including assault and grand larceny.
How many convictions? (How many wrongful arrests?) This report doesn't say. But being arrested for something doesn't prove guilt, and especially so in a jurisdiction where cops profile.
4. At the time of his death, Garner was out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession and false impersonation.
On the other hand, how many crimes does someone have to have under their belt to be held away from society?
5. The chokehold that Patrolman Daniel Pantaleo put on Garner was reported to have contributed to his death. But Garner, who was 6-foot-3 and weighed 350 pounds, suffered from a number of health problems, including heart disease, severe asthma, diabetes, obesity, and sleep apnea. Pantaleo's attorney and police union officials argued that Garner's poor health was the main cause of his death.
The "but" (underlined) does not logically belong. Chokeholds were banned, and the cop apparently used one. Police brutality is a worse crime than selling untaxed cigarettes.
6. Garner did not die at the scene of the confrontation. He suffered cardiac arrest in the ambulance taking him to the hospital and was pronounced dead about an hour later.
So? If a citizen fought a police officer and the officer died an hour later, you can be sure the citizen would have been charged in the death.
7. Much has been made of the fact that the use of chokeholds by police is prohibited in New York City. But officers reportedly still use them. Between 2009 and mid-2014, the Civilian Complaint Review Board received 1,128 chokehold allegations.
So, apparently, not enough has been made of this fact, because police are still acting in contravention to policy. Such officers should be sanctioned, from loss of pay to being fired to facing criminal charges.
Patrick Lynch, president of the New York City Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, said: "It was clear that the officer's intention was to do nothing more than take Mr. Garner into custody as instructed, and that he used the takedown technique that he learned in the academy when Mr. Garner refused."
Irrespective of where he learned it, if it was banned, it was banned.
9. The 23-member grand jury included nine non-white jurors.
This fact is meaningless without some indication of the necessary majority. If it was the case of a simple majority, then the blacks are outnumbered and could have unanimously voted to indict without result.
10. In order to find Officer Pantaleo criminally negligent, the grand jury would have had to determine that he knew there was a "substantial risk" that Garner would have died due to the takedown.
Why was the chokehold banned? Why didn't the officer comply with the ban? Did the officer ever learn of cases, or was he ever officially told, of the fact and/or reason of the ban? Which chokehold he nevertheless elected to use on an obviously obese person?
11. Less than a month after Garner's death, Ramsey Orta, who shot the much-viewed videotape of the encounter, was indicted on weapons charges. Police alleged that Orta had slipped a .25-caliber handgun into a teenage accomplice's waistband outside a New York hotel.
This is nothing more than an attack-the-messenger fallacy. Unless the video is being alleged to be fake, what sort of person Orta is has zero bearing on the facts of the Garner case, and one has to wonder what is the agenda of any person who raises this issue.
1. Which cop specifically killed him and how?
1a. If you choose to resist an arrest order, then it is possible that you can die as a result of that choice.
3. None of that matters. What does matter is that he resisted an arrest order that day.
5. It was not a choke hold. At no time in that video did I see the officer purposely attempt to prevent Garner from breathing or receiving natural blood flow to the brain, and and no time during the time period that the officer was in contact with garner did Garner lose consciouness, which the the result of a chokehold.
6. From what I saw in the video, it looked to me that Garner was dead before he was in the ambulance, but that is just my opinion, I have no proof of that.
6a. A citizen does not have the right to fight a police officer whereas an officer does have the right to arrest a citizen, and that citizen does not have the right to resist that arrest. If a person fights an officer and that officer later dies as a result of that fight, then that person should be charged in that death.
7. It wasn’t a choke hold.
9. The necessary majority was 12.
10. It wasn’t a choke hold.
11. The record of the person who filmed Garner’s arrest is not relevant in my mind. I am glad he filmed it so that I could watch it and decide for myself to be perfectly honest. So I definitely agree here.
Was the hold being used specifically banned, even if it was not a “choke hold”?
Here you can see the "not a chokehold" wrapped around Mr. Garner's throat.
To me, it looks like it's not "not a chokehold"... LOL! :)
It should look like not a chokehold to you, what I mean especially considering that it’s not a chokehold.
Maybe you should educate yourself about chokeholds before you try talking about what is and is not a chokehold so you can stop being an ignorant little punk LOL exclamtion point smiley DURR HURR.
Though I don't think the Suit was Magic in the end, in this particular case... LOL! :)
No, and he was taught the maneuver at the police academy.
The maneuver was a take down, and personally I think it is safer than a single or double leg takedown considering Garner’s size versus the size of the police.
Yes, I would tell anyone that it isn’t a chokehold, because for one, it’s not a chokehold, and for two, I am not full of horsecrap like yourself LOL exclamation point smiley DURR HURR.
I've been punking you this whole time, chrissie - using the teachings of the Great Laz:
Lazamataz posted:
The Secret To Posting On Facebook (fun Vanity)
Posted on 5/6/2014, 9:41:47 PM by Lazamataz
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3153014/posts
Have you ever noticed you can say the most hideous things to people on Facebook so long as you follow it with a LOL and a smiley face?
For example and when communicating with a foreign person:
=======
I stuned you with a beeber, chris. All yer chokeholds are belong to us. LOL! :)
Don't waste your time, coloradan.
It's like arguing with an Inuit over the 47 different kinds of snow. LOL! :)
Amazing.
You are an regular internet ninja.
Oh and, let me tell you, you are the very first person in my entire life to call me chrissie. You are as original as they come.
Anyway, dead guy is still dead, cop is unindicted, and there ain’t squat you can do about it but laugh and smile about it on an internet forum.
Too bad, so sad LOL exclamation point smiley DURR HURR.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.