- 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: Frick You Bill De Blasio.You are Fricking toast. Liberal Shitebag.
Posted on 12/21/14 at 8:55 am to LSU0358
Posted on 12/21/14 at 8:55 am to LSU0358
quote:So you don't know what a chokehold is. Perhaps that is the excuse of media members spreading the false narrative too?
No reasonable person can look at the 1:25 to 1:35 section and say there was no choke hold.
Doubt it; but maybe so.
A "chokehold" is typically applied to render loss of consciousness to the victim. Normally it entails occlusive pressure applied to both carotids cutting blood supply to the brain leading to rapid loss of consciousness. By contrast, "choking" (sometimes included under a haedding of "chokehold")usually involves occluding the airway at level of the neck.
If you focus on the salient elements "loss of consciousness" and/or "occluding the airway," you'll understand there was no "chokehold", or contribution of chokehold to death. Watching the video, that is completely indisputable.
The choke-cop releases Garner's neck as soon as he is on the ground. Garner is clearly completely conscious at that point. He clearly does not have an occluded airway at that point. There was no chokehold.
2
Posted on 12/21/14 at 8:58 am to double d
quote:Supporting our Constitutional rights to assembly and free speech should be commendable.
Your Mayor allowed the protestors to shut down streets, bridges,
quote:
and attack two police Lt.'s and did not back his officers.
I disagree with you here. Did De Blasio explicitly sanction attacking police officers? Of course not. He has no control over individuals. It's absolutely absurd to blame the mayor for what happened during a single arrest attempt in the entire city where the protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful.
This post was edited on 12/21/14 at 8:58 am
Posted on 12/21/14 at 8:58 am to bencoleman
quote:So solutions are not constructive?
Arguing about whether he was choked or not isn't very constructive either.
We know he died at the hands of police
Ah, good to know.
Posted on 12/21/14 at 9:02 am to NC_Tigah
quote:We should consider how the NYPD defines chokeholds.
So you don't know what a chokehold is. Perhaps that is the excuse of media members spreading the false narrative too?
Doubt it; but maybe so.
A "chokehold" is typically applied to render loss of consciousness to the victim. Normally it entails occlusive pressure applied to both carotids cutting blood supply to the brain leading to rapid loss of consciousness. By contrast, "choking" (sometimes included under a haedding of "chokehold")usually involves occluding the airway at level of the neck.
If you focus on the salient elements "loss of consciousness" and/or "occluding the airway," you'll understand there was no "chokehold", or contribution of chokehold to death. Watching the video, that is completely indisputable.
The choke-cop releases Garner's neck as soon as he is on the ground. Garner is clearly completely conscious at that point. He clearly does not have an occluded airway at that point. There was no chokehold.
From the New York Police Department Patrol Guide, 2004 Edition
quote:
Members of the New York City Police Department will NOT use chokeholds. A chokehold shall include, but is not limited to, any pressure to the throat or windpipe, which may prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air.
The NYPD defines a chokehold as any pressure to the throat or windpipe which may hinder intake of air.
That's it. It doesn't have to occlude anything. It only has to hinder breathing. It looks pretty clear from the video that his breathing would be at least hindered, especially considering that the victim claimed he couldn't breathe (which probably meant that he was at least having difficulty breathing).
This post was edited on 12/21/14 at 9:03 am
Posted on 12/21/14 at 9:05 am to BBONDS25
Negligence isn't premeditated but it doesn't let them off the hook either
Posted on 12/21/14 at 9:08 am to bencoleman
quote:I agree, negligence is the key question in this case. I think it would be an uphill battle for a prosecutor to prove that the officer was guilty of negligent homicide, but I think that it could possibly be proven in this case, maybe, depending on the specific facts and evidence.
Negligence isn't premeditated but it doesn't let them off the hook either
Based purely on the little info I have as a person who was not part of the grand jury, I lean toward thinking he should have been indicted and that a jury should have been asked to decide whether he was guilty.
Posted on 12/21/14 at 9:21 am to bencoleman
Negligence is a legal term. Please explain the elements of the crime you accuse them of, and the actions that support the elements being met.
Eta. I have no vested interest either way. I haven't really followed the case until the mayor started calling cops racist. I am not interested in the normal knee-jerk responses, though. What,specifically, are you accusing and what evidence backs that up?
Eta. I have no vested interest either way. I haven't really followed the case until the mayor started calling cops racist. I am not interested in the normal knee-jerk responses, though. What,specifically, are you accusing and what evidence backs that up?
This post was edited on 12/21/14 at 9:23 am
Posted on 12/21/14 at 9:28 am to TxTiger82
quote:
TxTiger82
How's the leeching of your working Wisconsin citizens going for you?
Posted on 12/21/14 at 9:29 am to NC_Tigah
The NYPD Patrol Guide disagrees with you.
Out of curiosity, why so adamant about saying Garner wasnt choked?
Overall, it was an incident that was handled poorly from the start until now. The cops obviously screwed up and proper procedure wasnt followed.
DeBlasio lost any ability to affect change by handling the police situation in the press. One press conference wont solve the military mindset the police in this country seemed to have developed.
Out of curiosity, why so adamant about saying Garner wasnt choked?
Overall, it was an incident that was handled poorly from the start until now. The cops obviously screwed up and proper procedure wasnt followed.
DeBlasio lost any ability to affect change by handling the police situation in the press. One press conference wont solve the military mindset the police in this country seemed to have developed.
Posted on 12/21/14 at 9:34 am to BBONDS25
quote:For sake of discussion:
Negligence is a legal term. Please explain the elements of the crime you accuse them of, and the actions that support the elements being met.
Eta. I have no vested interest either way. I haven't really followed the case until the mayor started calling cops racist. I am not interested in the normal knee-jerk responses, though. What,specifically, are you accusing and what evidence backs that up?
Negligent Homicide
quote:
A person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when, with criminal negligence, he causes the death of another person. Criminally negligent homicide is a class E felony. - See more at: LINK
Criminal Negligence
quote:
4. "Criminal negligence." A person acts with criminal negligence with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. - See more at: LINK
IMO whether these apply should have been decided by a jury. I think it's reasonable to believe that the officer may have been guilty of negligent homicide. But as I've said many times, I haven't seen all the evidence presented.
This post was edited on 12/21/14 at 9:36 am
Posted on 12/21/14 at 9:36 am to LSU0358
quote:
Out of curiosity, why so adamant about saying Garner wasnt choked?
Because he wasn't.
I'm like NC. I too think Garner's death was not warranted.
However, that is not a choke hold. My seven year old that takes karate knows this.
All people like NC and myself are asking is to push the right narrative, which is:
quote:
One press conference wont solve the military mindset the police in this country seemed to have developed.
Which is the problem.
No, furthering the racial divide like DiBlasio did is NOT the way to handle the situation at all.
Posted on 12/21/14 at 9:36 am to EZE Tiger Fan
quote:According to NYPD policy, you are wrong.
Because he wasn't.
Posted on 12/21/14 at 9:42 am to Hog on the Hill
Well...evidence was presented to a grand jury. If a grand jury doesn't indict.....it is very unlikely a jury would convict. Grand jury indictment is A LOT easier to get than a conviction.
Posted on 12/21/14 at 10:01 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Negligence
Was covered by another poster.
The second the officer deviated from departmental policy and grabbed the guy around the neck I would think he opened himself up to a negligence charge and when you take into account that the man was grossly overweight and obviously in poor health.
Posted on 12/21/14 at 10:04 am to bencoleman
What occurred was a "gross deviation" of the standard of care a reasonable person should apply?
Was this what they presented to the grand jury?
Was this what they presented to the grand jury?
Posted on 12/21/14 at 10:04 am to LSU0358
quote:
Overall, it was an incident that was handled poorly from the start until now. The cops obviously screwed up and proper procedure wasnt followed.
Yeah. They "screwed up." Oh yeah. And a guy died. Carry on.
Posted on 12/21/14 at 10:06 am to the808bass
What should have been done? You think going to the grand jury was a bad decision?
Posted on 12/21/14 at 10:07 am to BBONDS25
quote:IMO, that's a question for a trial jury.
What occurred was a "gross deviation" of the standard of care a reasonable person should apply?
This post was edited on 12/21/14 at 10:08 am
Posted on 12/21/14 at 10:08 am to Hog on the Hill
I get that. Which is why I asked if it was presented to a grand jury? What is it about the grand jury process you think would have been cured by going to a jury trial?
Posted on 12/21/14 at 10:10 am to BBONDS25
quote:
A person acts with criminal negligence with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists.
That part doesn't sound as good for the argument. There was a policy against "chokeholds" (which are "not limited" to pressure applied to the throat where the throat is the neck in front of the spine. The reason for that policy is that sometimes people die from sudden pressure to the throat for a variety of reasons. The officer executed pressure to the neck, compressing the neck and chest of Eric Garner and killed him.
The fact that the policy exists (the semantic dancing on this is remarkable and brings to mind the old Clinton "depends on your definition of 'is' is" argument) shows that the actions were a substantial and unjustifiable risk. This is supported with the fact that Eric Garner died.
Page 8 of 14
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News