- 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: if anybody has a copy of the Garner medical examiner report, please link
Posted on 12/4/14 at 2:36 pm to Ace Midnight
Posted on 12/4/14 at 2:36 pm to Ace Midnight
if you have read my other posts, I think it's possible that the cops did not get indicted because the video combined with the autopsy report shows that it was not they but the EMS people who "compressed" the neck.
It's okay. The four or five of us who actually give a frick about the legal standard and the specific facts applied are all wrong here. The mob is right. It's obvious from the video, right? No, it's actually not. What you can see from the outside does not indicate that the cop was negligent.
It's okay. The four or five of us who actually give a frick about the legal standard and the specific facts applied are all wrong here. The mob is right. It's obvious from the video, right? No, it's actually not. What you can see from the outside does not indicate that the cop was negligent.
2
Posted on 12/4/14 at 2:37 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
and well they are more violent frequently which doesn't result in death, so its cool.
In your extensive legal research, is the applicable standard a "reasonable person" standard or a "reasonable police officer standard"?
Is there no room for argument that the officer could not reasonably have foreseen that this guy would die?
Posted on 12/4/14 at 2:42 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
Is there no room for argument that the officer could not reasonably have foreseen that this guy would die?
Oh, I think death would be relatively rare. But the NYPD felt that the risk was high enough on that technique to stop its usage. I think at a minimum there was negligence on the part of the officer.
Isn't that exactly what negligence is? He was not following the rules and this resulted in a dude dying.
I am sure the cop didn't want the guy to die, but IMHO that doesn't matter. He used a banned technique and it resulted in death. The fricker should be put on trial.
Posted on 12/4/14 at 2:44 pm to Hawkeye95
negligence is negligence. negligence per se is negligence per se. not following a LAW can be evidence of negligence, but is not necessarily negligence per se. And we are not talking about a law. we are talking about a policy. Just because you are going 5 mph over the speed limit, have an accident that was not otherwise your fault, and somebody dies, does that make you negligent?
You learn the difference in law school, but not from the mass media when its significance truly is at issue.
It's a sad time to give a shite about the rules.
You learn the difference in law school, but not from the mass media when its significance truly is at issue.
It's a sad time to give a shite about the rules.
This post was edited on 12/4/14 at 2:46 pm
Posted on 12/4/14 at 2:49 pm to ljhog
quote:It most certainly can. That's why the other officers were telling the one cop to stop almost immediately. Yet he held on as tight as he could then pushed his head down. You can hear Eric Garner starting to choke before he says "I can't breathe", and even the times he says that you can hear that he isn't getting much air.
go look at the video. how does having your around his neck for 15 seconds or less = choking him to death
Posted on 12/4/14 at 3:03 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
if you have read my other posts, I think it's possible that the cops did not get indicted because the video combined with the autopsy report shows that it was not they but the EMS people who "compressed" the neck.
Do you have anything other than speculation for this?
Posted on 12/4/14 at 3:11 pm to the808bass
yeah, the commonsense proposition that the cop didn't even choke the guy into unconsciousness, which a reasonably intelligent person would expect to precede death from such action.
The gap between him releasing the choke and him going limp is significant to me.
consider, by contrast, this case, which was about a civil rights charge. LINK (here is where the cop was originally acquitted under state law while a judge held his nose LINK
consider that this officer's conduct was not "gratuitous" as the officer's was in Baenz's case.
I wonder whether anything that gets leaked will change anybody's mind. Poor grand jurors. Don't even realize they were undoubtedly duped.
The gap between him releasing the choke and him going limp is significant to me.
consider, by contrast, this case, which was about a civil rights charge. LINK (here is where the cop was originally acquitted under state law while a judge held his nose LINK
consider that this officer's conduct was not "gratuitous" as the officer's was in Baenz's case.
I wonder whether anything that gets leaked will change anybody's mind. Poor grand jurors. Don't even realize they were undoubtedly duped.
This post was edited on 12/4/14 at 3:17 pm
Posted on 12/4/14 at 3:17 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
The four or five of us who actually give a frick about the legal standard and the specific facts applied are all wrong here.
Calm down, bro. I care about the legal standard. But, they shouldn't have choked him at all. Since they did, and the ME says "homicide" secondary to "neck restriction" - what kind of conclusion should I draw?
I next go to permissible versus impermissible conduct. His agency says, "Don't choke" -
What am I missing BBF? Enlighten me as to how there aren't sufficient legal and factual questions to present this to a petit jury?
Posted on 12/4/14 at 3:24 pm to Ace Midnight
I've said it over and over, man. It was not reasonably forseeable to think that the minimal choking of this guy would kill him, nor the pressing him against the ground. Couple that with the reasonableness of taking him down at all.
To me, it's very easy to see a decision not to charge this guy with negligent homicide.
The banning of the chokehold can be considered, but was what the guy did even a choke hold, and the banning is not necessarily an overriding factor considering the guy was resisting arrest.
To me, it's very easy to see a decision not to charge this guy with negligent homicide.
The banning of the chokehold can be considered, but was what the guy did even a choke hold, and the banning is not necessarily an overriding factor considering the guy was resisting arrest.
Posted on 12/4/14 at 3:28 pm to TK421
quote:
There is really no way to argue otherwise.
there are tons of ways to argue against that,
like he was still alive after the choking grab was released, If he didn't damage the windpipe then something else must have caused it.
Probably an athma attack combined with the compression.
Posted on 12/4/14 at 3:28 pm to baybeefeetz
also, in teh Baez case, the medical examiner testified:
So we know what the medical examiner would have to have testified to here. Garner was choked a mere ten seconds or so. DID NOT go unconscious while being choked and had an opportunity to breath after choke hold was let go. Is it unreasonable for a cop to do that under the circumstances of a resisting, extremely, extremely large (350 lbs) perp whom he was lawfully arresting?
quote:
The city's medical examiner testified that while Baez had chronic asthma, he was died of asphyxia because he was tightly choked for at least one minute.
So we know what the medical examiner would have to have testified to here. Garner was choked a mere ten seconds or so. DID NOT go unconscious while being choked and had an opportunity to breath after choke hold was let go. Is it unreasonable for a cop to do that under the circumstances of a resisting, extremely, extremely large (350 lbs) perp whom he was lawfully arresting?
Posted on 12/4/14 at 3:30 pm to SammyTiger
there is choking a guy to the point that you crush his windpipe and there is something less. There is choking a guy for a minute and choking him for 10-15 seconds. It's a spectrum, in my opinion. One end would be unreasonable, another would be unreasonable. I think we are firmly on the reasonable side here.
Posted on 12/4/14 at 3:33 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
It was not reasonably forseeable to think that the minimal choking of this guy would kill him
except choking was explicitly banned by the department due to the chance for bodily harm. The department decided its unreasonable to choke people due its risk.
Posted on 12/4/14 at 3:36 pm to baybeefeetz
You're headed into meaujeaux land, man. It's a homicide. You are looking for someone besides police to blame and it's just not there. You can however rest easy in the knowledge that it is far easier to indict a priest with no criminal record than a cop with a history of civil rights abuses.
AD got your back, man. It's all good.
AD got your back, man. It's all good.
Posted on 12/4/14 at 3:38 pm to Hawkeye95
but not because choking FOR ANY LENGTH OF TIME is reasonably foreseeable to cause death. If it were, think about how many more people in street fights would die from choking.
Face it, this guy wasn't choked out. You can see that in the video. WTF.
So there are two avenues for non-indictment in my view: the choking, as performed, was not reasonably likely to cause death. the full autopsy, which nobody is talking about because nobody in the public has it, showed something that minimized the choke's role in the death more than the medical examiner's spokesperson stated.
Face it, this guy wasn't choked out. You can see that in the video. WTF.
So there are two avenues for non-indictment in my view: the choking, as performed, was not reasonably likely to cause death. the full autopsy, which nobody is talking about because nobody in the public has it, showed something that minimized the choke's role in the death more than the medical examiner's spokesperson stated.
This post was edited on 12/4/14 at 3:40 pm
Posted on 12/4/14 at 3:39 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
but not because choking FOR ANY LENGTH OF TIME is reasonably foreseeable to cause death. If it were, think about how many more people in street fights would die from choking. Face it, this guy wasn't choked out. You can see that in the video. WTF.
And now you're arguing against the results of the autopsy again.
Posted on 12/4/14 at 3:42 pm to the808bass
I have a view on teh autopsy and on the specific actions of the guy. But hey, the grand jury was just a bunch of cop-lovers and racists who got it wrong.
Right? that's the only way to see this. No.
Right? that's the only way to see this. No.
Posted on 12/4/14 at 3:46 pm to baybeefeetz
No. It's not the only way to see it.
I think it's fairly axiomatic that police get a far higher degree of leniency in the criminal justice system.
It's also axiomatic that they get far nicer treatment from the DA than a civilian would.
I'm sure you'll argue with that.
I think it's fairly axiomatic that police get a far higher degree of leniency in the criminal justice system.
It's also axiomatic that they get far nicer treatment from the DA than a civilian would.
I'm sure you'll argue with that.
Posted on 12/4/14 at 3:46 pm to baybeefeetz
I totally just choked myself for 10 seconds. Did not die. if I don't post anymore after this, though, send help.
eta: I think I am out of the woods.
frick this shite. I'm out.
eta: I think I am out of the woods.
frick this shite. I'm out.
This post was edited on 12/4/14 at 3:49 pm
Posted on 12/4/14 at 3:55 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
I have a view on teh autopsy and on the specific actions of the guy. But hey, the grand jury was just a bunch of cop-lovers and racists who got it wrong.
Right? that's the only way to see this. No.
oh the GJ could have very well made the right decision to not indict. But the reality is that they almost never indict police officers, when clearly in 1000_ killings a year by police officers some of them must be some that result in criminal proceedings.
The reality is cops are almost never indicted for these cases.
Unless cops are perfect, and we know they are not, there at least should be some portion rotting in jail over it. But I can't even think of one, sure some have been sued but in jail?
Until such time I see some officers prosecuted, I am going to deem the system to be rigged.
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News