Replies

Well, it was not the autopsy report, but rather a newspaper report. But since you are satisfied that it shows what you need use for your position I will reference back to that.

In a previous report you stated , "THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT THE REPORT DID NOT STATE", when I said that the proximate cause of his death was airway compression (post 143). In your authoritative reference (NY Post) it does not say what you said it did. You play fast and loose with what was written.

But a source close to the Medical Examiner's investigation said coroners are also investigating whether the chokehold still contributed to Garner's death by aggravating his pre-existing conditions of obesity, asthma, and possible heart disease..............."If an obese person with co-existing medical problems can't get good oxygenation to begin with, then a chokehold could put him over the edge," and lead to a homicide finding, the source said"

You see, most of us over 50 have some extant medical condition. We get along, but we are not physiologically perfect. Take for example the 71 year old fellow who walks through the mall for exercise and some 'knock-out' thug runs by him and hits him on the head and he goes down with a subdural hematoma and dies. Now the thug was not the cause of this fellow being 71 years of age, but his act was the proximate cause of the man's death. Your argument seems to be,....he was old with concurrent disease and tenuous strength in the wall of the vessels of the brain or dura, and therefore it was just one of those things. Now, assuredly the intent to kill may come into question in both of these scenarios. The cops were arresting him and the striker just wanted a good laugh at the expense of the 71 year old. Both men are dead. But the Proximate Cause of death seems clear in both cases. Neither man should be dead. Who is responsible? It seems clear a jury should make that determination. No one is above the law.