- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: man dies after NYPD cop puts him in chokehold (for selling untaxed cigarettes)
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:21 pm to Negative Nomad
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:21 pm to Negative Nomad
quote:
But not against the law. That's the difference.
This kills me. How is possible that someone as dumb as you has amassed enough wealth to purchase a computer?
Do you think a jury, when they award for the plaintiff, will care about that distinction?
We can debate why the guy died all day long.
Yes, he bears some responsibility for his actions (resisting). The jury will find that NYPD was at fault also, for violating their own internal policies.
NYPD will lose the civil case and the taxpayers will pay millions.
If I'm wrong I will drive to Texas and take BP out to lunch.
1
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:24 pm to Bleeding purple
quote:
But I did not assert any of that because I am too far away to make a diagnosis. I am not however too far away to watch a video and describe the potential affects of an action in the video.
Fine. I won't quibble with you on semantics with respect to the term "diagnosis," but you most assuredly did not describe the "potential" effects on anything. You made an express statement.
quote:
Your implication that the choke hold killed the man and that any other assertion by a trained medical professional is wrong, which you supported with the distance argument, does not strictly make that claim but certainly implies it.
At the risk of repeating myself (but it is apparently necessary), please show me where I said that the choke hold killed the man. Please. I'll stand by.
quote:
Nope but I agree with many more here than I would in NYC where you seem to dislike so many but still choose to live.
Fine. That's your choice, and a great thing about freedom. How do you know I dislike "so many?" I've mentioned taxes on cigarettes and jaywalking. Is that "many" to you?
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:28 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:
What level of force is appropriate to use against you for taking more than three sips of beer at a time while standing?
none
You do realize that ZERO force was used until they told him he was being arrested and he resisted.
so I will ask again:
Please tell me what you would have deemed necessary and appropriate force? What is the next step in securing this very large and powerful mans hands after he has forcefully pulled them away from you during your attempt to handcuff him?
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:29 pm to VetteGuy
quote:
If I'm wrong I will drive to Texas and take BP out to lunch
we need to go out to lunch anyway you seem like a good guy.
quote:
The jury will find that NYPD was at fault also, for violating their own internal policies. NYPD will lose the civil case and the taxpayers will pay millions.
and this will happen. should not have used choke hold.
should have stepped back and continued to talk him down until they had to deploy tazers (which are allowed) when he continued to resist.
wonder what the OT would have said then
"they didn't have to taze him"
"the law is stupid it was just ciggs"
"but he was black and that white cop tazed him"
"they killed him with the tazer"
"they should have just wrestled him to groud like a man"
"they could have just overpowered with more men and not used tazer"
yadda yadda yadda
This post was edited on 7/23/14 at 2:36 pm
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:34 pm to Bleeding purple
quote:
Please tell me what you would have deemed necessary and appropriate force? What is the next step in securing this very large and powerful mans hands after he has forcefully pulled them away from you during your attempt to handcuff him?
Here, I'll let Reason Magazine provide you with some food for thought. Click here.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:44 pm to Bleeding purple
quote:
"the law is stupid it was just ciggs"
You really have a problem with citizens questioning the validity of certain laws and the state's appropriate use of force with respect to those laws, don't you? You would fit right in in an authoritarian state. You should be happy since the U.S. appears to be heading in that direction as the state consolidates more power.
I hope for your sake that you're not caught on the wrong side of that one day. I know, I know, it'll never happen to you because you're a law abiding citizen, right? Of course, today there are an estimated 4,500 crimes in federal statutes, a number that only continues to grow. Good luck!
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:46 pm to Mo Jeaux
you posted an article that in summary said:
choke holds are illegal
choke hold overused
and that the law is wrong because the city places too high on a tax preventing its poor people from getting the self damaging cigs they want
please
again:
choke holds are illegal
choke hold overused
and that the law is wrong because the city places too high on a tax preventing its poor people from getting the self damaging cigs they want
please
again:
quote:
Please tell me what you would have deemed necessary and appropriate force? What is the next step in securing this very large and powerful mans hands after he has forcefully pulled them away from you during your attempt to handcuff him?
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:49 pm to Bleeding purple
Sorry I made you uncomfortable. 
It's not like Reason is some left-wing rag that wants to implement a communist regime.
ETA: And what is your obsession with "large and powerful" men? Not that there is anything wrong with that, but you keep repeating it.
It's not like Reason is some left-wing rag that wants to implement a communist regime. ETA: And what is your obsession with "large and powerful" men? Not that there is anything wrong with that, but you keep repeating it.
This post was edited on 7/23/14 at 2:51 pm
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:51 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:
You really have a problem with citizens questioning the validity of certain laws and the state's appropriate use of force with respect to those laws, don't you?
No I have not problem with that. I think that there are better ways to do that than resisting arrest after the law is in effect. You don't like the potential law then vote in a way that prevents that law or move.
What is really funny is many of the people here that would bemoan the high tax on the cigs are the same people who are very anti war on drugs and support that with the idea that they should be legally sold and regulated and taxed thus making them profitable?
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:53 pm to Bleeding purple
quote:
No I have not problem with that. I think that there are better ways to do that than resisting arrest after the law is in effect. You don't like the potential law then vote in a way that prevents that law or move.
I don't disagree with this statement BTW.
quote:
What is really funny is many of the people here that would bemoan the high tax on the cigs are the same people who are very anti war on drugs and support that with the idea that they should be legally sold and regulated and taxed thus making them profitable?
I don't find this funny. Are the two concepts mutually exclusive?
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:55 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:
And what is your obsession with "large and powerful" men?
divert and distract
but to play along and answer your question I have continually been quoting my original (now several pages back) questions pertaining to this 6'4" 400+ lb man.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:57 pm to Bleeding purple
quote:
What is really funny is many of the people here that would bemoan the high tax on the cigs are the same people who are very anti war on drugs and support that with the idea that they should be legally sold and regulated and taxed thus making them profitable?
It is a mistake and possibly simply misleading to think that the motivation for most people who are anti war on drugs is tax and revenue. It is only used as a talking point.
ETA: Rather than saying talking point, it is just one of many arguments. I doubt that it is prime motivation for many.
This post was edited on 7/23/14 at 2:59 pm
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:59 pm to Bleeding purple
quote:
Please tell me what you would have deemed necessary and appropriate force?
Giving him a citation to appear in court.
I mean really...you people seem to think that just because he resisted that his life is expendable, but never question the use of force...
Basically, what you are saying, is that anyone who resists arrest can be killed at law enforcement's discretion
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:01 pm to Bleeding purple
quote:
wonder what the OT would have said then
"they didn't have to taze him"
"the law is stupid it was just ciggs"
"but he was black and that white cop tazed him"
"they killed him with the tazer"
"they should have just wrestled him to groud like a man"
"they could have just overpowered with more men and not used tazer"
why would this be a bad opinion to have?
We should just assume that if a law is on the books it can't be stupid?
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:03 pm to Rantavious
quote:
Basically, what you are saying, is that anyone who resists arrest can die for being unhealthy and dumb enough to resist.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:05 pm to meauxjeaux2
Cops need to be fit for always on cams otherwise it'll always an us against them mentality regarding how the police deal with the public.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:08 pm to Sl4m
quote:i said this earlier.
Cops need to be fit for always on cams otherwise it'll always an us against them mentality regarding how the police deal with the public.
It's the one thing I've said in this whole thread that that asshat objeyou or whatever the frick his name is agreed with me on.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:20 pm to meauxjeaux2
are cops required to enforce the law?
was the guy accused of breaking a law that was on the books that he had been guilty of before?
are cops allowed to pick and choose which laws they want to enforce because they personally feel the law is stupid?
I don't intend to debate the merits of the law. It is what it is. the merits of that argument have no bearing on weather or not force was used to enforce the law.
He resisted arrest. Force was used.
Some of you act like this is equivalent to the cop walking up and announcing "selling cigs without tax is illegal" and then shooting the guy in the head.
He resisted arrest. Force was used. He died.
No cop in that video was seemingly intent on killing the guy. If they had been there were much better methods to do so. If they just wanted to brutally beat they guy they could have done a better job. I did not see one punch, one kick, one baton used.
Stop arguing the merits of the individual cig law. We all know that is not the issue. Stop sensationalizing that this guy was murdered by cops for selling untaxed cigs.
He was arrested for selling untaxed cigs.
He resisted arrest.
He died.
was the guy accused of breaking a law that was on the books that he had been guilty of before?
are cops allowed to pick and choose which laws they want to enforce because they personally feel the law is stupid?
I don't intend to debate the merits of the law. It is what it is. the merits of that argument have no bearing on weather or not force was used to enforce the law.
He resisted arrest. Force was used.
Some of you act like this is equivalent to the cop walking up and announcing "selling cigs without tax is illegal" and then shooting the guy in the head.
He resisted arrest. Force was used. He died.
No cop in that video was seemingly intent on killing the guy. If they had been there were much better methods to do so. If they just wanted to brutally beat they guy they could have done a better job. I did not see one punch, one kick, one baton used.
Stop arguing the merits of the individual cig law. We all know that is not the issue. Stop sensationalizing that this guy was murdered by cops for selling untaxed cigs.
He was arrested for selling untaxed cigs.
He resisted arrest.
He died.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:22 pm to Peazey
quote:
It is a mistake and possibly simply misleading to think that the motivation for most people who are anti war on drugs is tax and revenue. It is only used as a talking point. ETA: Rather than saying talking point, it is just one of many arguments. I doubt that it is prime motivation for many.
well said and I completely agree.
Most I personally know who are strongly against the war on drugs simply want to continue to partake.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:30 pm to meauxjeaux2
quote:
i said this earlier.
It's really the only fair way for both involved.
In the end it will catch some loud obnoxious offenders & prove them guilty plus it'll likely curb any overly aggressive police work that might would occur otherwise.
The next logical step IMO.
Page 13 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News