Posted on 12/03/2014 8:58:20 PM PST by TigerClaws
How would you classify that hold around the neck that isn’t choking him?
Well I would say this about that choke looking at the picture.
Even thought the officers arm is in fact under the mans chin, his other arm is not behind the head pushing the head forward and this causing a windpipe choke against the arm under the chin.
That would be the sleeper hold or rear naked choke. That choke can deny a person air, and if held long enough is basically strangulation.
I do not see that here at all.
Also, it is not a choke that is constricting the arteries on either side of the neck.
Neither the man nor the officer is in a proper position for the officer to have the leverage to do that sort of choke which DOES NOT deprive the victim of oxygen to the lungs, but rather causes the victim to pass out due to lack of blood to the brain.
It looks to me like all that is going on here is that the officer is securing the man’s head, which I must say is large.
Wow! Letting him sell unregulated cigarettes, what a crime! Think back several years ago when trying to tax the sell of cigarettes was NOT a crime but was considered commerce. Since when did we become such a regulated country anyway! That is the problem, not the police but what they are now forced to police. It’s called more and more government control of our lives!
What’s next?
The problem with your “send in some big guys” solution is that it’s just so sexist, doncha know.
Police departments can’t just hire men because they’re bigger, stronger, and physically capable of doing the job: they have to hire women too.
I normally love Charles Krauthammer, but every once in a while I think he gets it wrong. This is one of those times.
Those officers’ lives were not in danger due to the actions of Garner. The choke hold appears to be excessive force to me, whether policy permitted or not. He protested numerous times that he could not breathe prior to losing consciousness for the last time. Resisting arrest is not a capital offense, last I checked. The offense for which he was being arrested was or should have been a misdemeanor. The actions of police were completely out of proportion to the situation at hand and this man died because of it. That there will be no legal consequence is astonishing, I agree.
Yeah, but this guy had been cited for selling cigarettes multiple times before...this was the eighth time I think I’ve read. So it was probably past time for citations.
LAPD and NYPD (probably other forces as well) used to use a baton to cut off blood flow to the brain to bring perps under control. You get a guy high on PCP or some other substance, there’s a good chance they are not only going to hurt you, but they can also get hurt in the process. This guy may in fact be a good example of that.
I don’t like the baton method. I don’t care for this either, but this guy wasn’t going to comply in any way.
All he had to do was produce I.D. and take his citation. Instead he refused to cooperate at any stage in this process.
He made his choice. I’m not happy with the one he made, but it was his choice.
If a dozen cops can’t handle a simple daytime arrest of an obese person without doing something wrong and killing him, then something is wrong.
You obviously have never tried to make an arrest on a subject under the influence of certain drugs or combination of drugs. I have and had my ass kicked in the process. I have also had to combat a person under arrest and handcuffed as the person was trying to ram his head through a brick wall. You do what you have too do to survive.....
Yeah, horrible crime! Can’t understand why they allow these scumbags to be on the streets! /s
Bingo! After the second “I can’t breath” the cop should have loosened the hold. If they guy can’t breath he’s not going to be much of a problem. I’ve had a heart attack and believe me, there ain’t no fight in you.
But, remember, many folks believe the cops can do no wrong. And many civilians help the cops keep that thin blue line in place.
Yes it is.
So what you are saying is that it is impossible for a police officer to use only his arms to cut off the blood flow to a perp’s brain?
“The guy was unarmed, and the crime was petty as they come. He was selling loose cigarettes, which in and of itself is almost absurd that somebody has to die over that.”
...
The initial crime was petty. However, Garner stated he was going to resist arrest, then he slapped away the hand of the officer in front of him, which is probably assault as well as resisting arrest. Police are authorized by law to use force in such circumstances. It was absurd that he died for selling cigarettes, however he was in poor health and he decided to commit crimes beyond his initial petty crime.
The policeman also did not have his other arm behind the neck of the suspect. A chokehold is used to cut off the blood flow to the brain, so the second arm is needed to apply pressure at the back of the neck. The hold the policeman used had an arm around the front of his neck and the other arm was not applied. His hands were interlocked.
I agree — the situation is totally stupid and unnecessary, and basically the result of liberalism. Nanny state laws plus the destruction of the black family/culture are root causes here. But of course the libs and their media pals are going to shoehorn this thing into their racial grievance narrative.
I believe the rules refer to "headlocks" being allowed. Some call them submission holds.
Choke holds which are forbidden cause asphyxiation.
So this choked hold was not illegal?
...
The officer does have his arm around the neck, but the coroner found no damage to the trachea or to the bones in the neck that would indicate a choke.
Furthermore, the ban on choke holds is a police department policy, not a New York statute.
It’s not a choke.
It’s a simple headlock.
He isn’t constricting the man’s windpipe with either arm.
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.