Posted on 12/03/2014 8:58:20 PM PST by TigerClaws
You can watch all the MIs you want. Restraints which restrict respiratory flow can still permit a person to talk yet slowly suffocate. Research proves it and procedures have changed because of it.
It’s extremely unhelpful to us when seemingly legitimate cases of police brutality are lumped in with clear cases of officer self defense. To the race baiters there is no distinction, for the rest of us, there must be.
Congressthing Pete King (”R”-NY) chimes in with his 2 cents, to paraphrase “It’s his fault he died cause he’s fat”. Long Island is blessed to have this .357 caliber mind represent them in Congress.
And everyone saying “if you’re talking you can breath”, should STFU, I had bad asthma as a kid, I know what it’s like. I suppose most people are fortunate enough not to experience almost suffocating.
I can’t much blame Mitt for thinking he has a chance (at the nomination). The GOPE frontrunners are the seriously flawed Jeb and Fat Boy. Clearly much of the GOPE is not satisfied with that.
Out of the 3 I guess I’d take fat boy.
Gee, Romney is sure trying to emulate Dewey who lost the nomination in 1940, lost the GE in 1944, and lost the GE again against a different rat in 1948. The key difference is that Dewey wasn’t 500 years old.
You had asthma so you know EVERYTHING that happened.
Pay no attention to those of us with medical knowledge of speech and breathing.
Pay no attention to those on here who have knowledge of different restraining holds and take downs.
You have asthma so as per your instructions, we should “stfu”.
Did i get that right?
No that is not a way of saying he couldn’t breathe.
And really...you are quoting Time Magazine?
They never lie or twist the facts to suit their agenda. s/
Neither you nor I (or Time Magazine) has seen the evidence the grand jury saw and heard, so your rush to judgement is no better than “hands up don’t shoot”.
If the trachea was partially crushed there is that possibility. Have not seen autopsy report.
You got it, mack.
Then there is RESTRICTIVE pulmonary disease. This is a condition where physical conditions restrict the natural movement of air of respiration. For example when one is markedly obiese the lungs cannot expand because the content of the abdomen 'restrict' normal excursion of the lungs to allow air to go into and out of the lungs. Or in a very large person the chest wall may be so heavy that it restricts movement of the lungs. Or when 4 police officers are on top of this man with all of that extra weight complicates and exacerbates that restriction. All of this obstruction and/or restriction diminish the movement of air into the lungs and thus diminish the pO2 level in the blood. With heart disease there will be more inefficient pulmonary artery volumn of blood to 'pick up' or exchanges gases (O2 exchanged for CO2).
Now, with obstruction of the airway such as tumor (occluding, say, 50% of the lumen of the bronchus or trachea) is restricting movement of gases in and out of the lungs. Diphtheria, will cause a 'membrane' to develop in the upper airway and create a smaller passage for air to to in and air to go out. I have seen profound cases of follicular tonsillitis causing obstruction. These are not 100% obstruction, but maybe 50%. Now, many of these people with both obstructive and restrictive lung disease have a marginal reserve of O2 saturation. You and I walk around with a PO2 of 97-98% saturation on room air while the emphysema patient may walk around with a O2 saturation of 91%. When you get to a 90% saturation we begin to put people on ventilators with oxygen given under pressure to "drive" O2 into the alveoli and exchange gases into the lungs.
Now this man had his airway obstructed by external physical pressure being put on his trachea. Now, many of these people as well as the restrictive movement of the muscles caused by the weight of the police officers and the weight of his chest wall and contents of the abdominal cavity. Whether it was 25% or 50% obstructed or 75% obstructed he had such a compromised margin and probably a marginal oxygen saturation level that his fragility and susceptibility to even marginal obstruction was enough to kill him.
To say, "he was speaking indicates he was breathing", is simply to say you do not understand pulmonary physiology enough to speak on the issue.
I do not mean that in a rude way. I do am incredibly ignorant on engineering and rocket science. We all have our forte. But things are more complicated than many are indicating on this thread.
Just food for thought.
You played the “asthma card”. Too bad for you it doesn’t mean squat.
Facts mean more than your “feel sorry for me and tell me I am right” baloney.
He was breathing. Proven by the fact that he could speak. Loudly and clearly I might add.
I studied speech pathology. In depth anatomy of the speech mechanism.
I never said he was not somewhat restricted. That will happen to most anyone who is on the ground with a person on top of them.
He caused it to happen. He resisted arrest. He is obese and of poor health. He died. It was an accident. That is what I am saying. Obviously that is what the grand jury is saying as well.
And yes. Speaking means you are breathing air in and out. Don’t try to tell me you can speak without air. It is not possible.
He’s dead isn’t he, buddy.
Your “knowledge” means nothing to me. Now leave me alone please.
No, I’m saying the takedown didn’t kill him. It may be a homicide, but I guess the jury felt it couldn’t be laid at the feet of that particular cop.
What responsibility do the other cops have, especially the fake sergeant?
Good still shots; thanks.
I don’t know what the jury was thinking, and I won’t second-guess them. Eric Garner had his first day in court; he’ll have others.
Boogieman’s stills are much clearer than what I had seen on the TV; I can’t know what the jurors based their decision on. We have a legal process, and the thought of amending that only for certain races is disturbing to me; we already do that for education, jobs, and promotions.
Yes, he did resist arrest....so does a person who is holding 7 hostages at gunpoint.....and the police "talk to him".
You say he caused this to happen. But the proximate cause of his death was not his act of standing on the sidewalk. The proximate cause of his death was a group of men taking him to the ground, exacerbating his pulmonary (and thus oxygen saturation of the blood) restricting excursion of the chest wall and obstructing or partially obstructing his large passage airway (trachea).
It is not obvious that is what the grand jury said. Have you read the transcript of the grand jury proceedings?
Yes he was in poor health and obese....these are not crimes. Consider the following.
A 73 year old man with metastatic colon cancer with only a few weeks to live out his life. His son, who wants his inheritance walks in the 73 year old's bedroom and shoots him in the chest. Do you know what that is called in the law. It is called homocide. Probably 1st degree murder. Oh, well, he would have been dead in 4 weeks anyway. So how do we deal with the incessant analysis that this man's death. He was sick anyway....just a small foul. No! His son shot and killed him just as if he was going live in perfect health for the next40 years. So, I fail to see the relevance of adjudicating his preexisting conditions. He was fine up until he was taken down by 5 men, intent on acquiring their desired end. And for what? The sale of single cigarettes. It is heartbreaking that life is that cheap for some. Meanwhile Hillary put up $1000 t make $100,000 in cattle futures (which, if you have ever traded futures or options that is arithmetically nearly impossible). And she doe not even have to answer one question. But this poor guy is selling a single cigarette. ONE cigarette.
Yes, if you are speaking you are moving air across your cords. The question is irrelevant. The question is , is he moving enough oxygen for exchange in his lungs to adequately oxygenate his cells, especially the myocardium. Have you ever seen an emphysema patient die? They are moving air. But not enough to keep them alive at the end. Yes, they are moving enough air across the cords to speak, but they are not exchanging gases at the alveolar.
So, the death certificate reads: Cause of Death: Cardiac arrest, secondary to hypoxia, secondary to chronic obstructive lung disease, secondary to long term tobacco abuse. (this is just an example).
In this case I suspect his cause of death was: Cardiac arrest secondary to hypoxia, secondary to obstructive airway and restrictive lung disease , complicated by tobacco abuse, obesity,
This nonsense on this thread.....'He died of a cardiac arrest". Don't we all? Cardiac arrest secondary to hypoxia, secondary to hypovolemia, secondary to ruptured spleen, secondary to motor vehicle turnover accident, secondary to alcohol toxicity. I
I think you get the gist of what I am saying. There are a million ways of characterizing a persons death. Most would have a modicum of fact basis, but only one is the truth.
I agree. As I said in my initial post, why fear the police state and unlimited State power if FR members are unwilling to admit that power can be abused?
This dead man was posing no threat of immediate physical harm to anyone and once restrained begged to be able to breathe.
He was a pos criminal.
He is now dead.
I know what I know about speech. I will not bow down to you and say I don’t know what I do know.
I am weary of this subject.
You feel sorry for him fine. Go protest with the others. Put a good man in prison and a criminal up for sainthood.
Whatever floats your boat.
One thing I noticed is that DiBlasio is skating on this, if Rudy was still mayor, the coverage would have been all about him.
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.