- 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: Officer in Eric Garner case: I never used a choke hold
Posted on 12/11/14 at 10:40 am to Five0
Posted on 12/11/14 at 10:40 am to Five0
quote:
Dealing with an a-hole cop? Comply. In a couple of years find an attorney with my background and own him and more importantly his agency. That is how you fight police misconduct.
Ya know, that sounds great and all. But one of the primary points in this conversation is the lattitude LEO's receive in a legal environment. You (of course, not YOU) can write your report in such a way that the entire burden of proof is on the "criminal" to prove wrongdoing. And in general, the statement of an LEO is given much heavier weight than an oral account from a single suspect, and you're human, so you're going to write that report in such a way that it will cover your arse. It's essentially he said/she said at that point, and you win that every time. Videos like this are a rare occurence, and then we see continued efforts from police to restrict videos, or flat out destruction of evidence like in the Denver case. Just in the past 10 days, Illinois damn near unanimously passed a law making the recording of officers a much easier "crime" to prosecute. It's the second attempt b/c the first attempt was shot down by the state supreme court, so they used much more ambiguous language this time, but IMO the intent is pretty clear.
LINK
The deck is completely stacked against someone wanting to "comply, then fight it in court", not to mention the finances involved with such an endeavor.
Add in the lack of enforced accountability from your unions and disciplinary bodies (which I have seen you speak out against on this board), in addition to everything I mentioned above, and is it really surprising the level of distrust is where it is?
ETA: Another like taken in a no-knock raid for drugs that were never found. Posted on the OT. Just ridiculous at this point.
This post was edited on 12/11/14 at 10:46 am
1
Posted on 12/11/14 at 10:41 am to Hawkeye95
Who is paying the settlement? Certainly not the cop or police union. It will be approved by political appointees and come from the tax payers in that area. No guilt should be perceived by the settlement as its just easier for the politican to admit guilt that doesn't affect him in any way.
Posted on 12/11/14 at 10:49 am to MSMHater
Think about it MSM, liberal states (you cite IL) are making recording harder. Police admins there are on board. Those of us doing the job are all for recording done right.
I want police recorded when I'm dealing with them. Specifically when I'm given a verbal order by any supervisor that isn't covered by statute.
I want police recorded when I'm dealing with them. Specifically when I'm given a verbal order by any supervisor that isn't covered by statute.
Posted on 12/11/14 at 10:50 am to mmcgrath
quote:;sigh:
And yet above you stated "Neither cause would be lethal"
No mmcgrath, as i'm certain you understood before you posted, I said episodic straining or relatively brief jugular compression could produce petechiae, but neither would be a cause of death. Put another way the petechiae do not equate with any sort of lethal cerebral hemorrhage here. They do not equate to any sort of determinative evidence of an asphyxia producing choke hold, airway or vascular. The ME's findings relative to cardipulmonary collapse are bizarrely conflicted. What was publicized was a weird report.
My suspicion is this guy, like Luis Hernandez, had significant underlying medical issues --- OSA, Asthma, Coronary/Myocardial Disease --- and rapidly lost conscious in a restrained, chest-compressed, prone position. The cops did not recognize extremis. They continued actions after loss of consciousness and should be held liable in some way.
The ME claiming Garner was choked to death and crushed to death is not only unhelpful, it is such a ridiculous finding that it could have exonerated any of the cops on its own. No doubt, considering language associated with the ME's report, that was not the ME's intent.
Posted on 12/11/14 at 11:01 am to C
quote:
Who is paying the settlement? Certainly not the cop or police union. It will be approved by political appointees and come from the tax payers in that area. No guilt should be perceived by the settlement as its just easier for the politican to admit guilt that doesn't affect him in a
Come on. The police union should be the ones required to carry the liability insurance. That would stop a lot of this nonsense. The fact that it's not properly set up so the cops can push their lability on to people who have nothing to do with it isn't an argument against the culpability of the cops. It just shows us an inefficiency in the process.
Posted on 12/11/14 at 11:04 am to Five0
quote:
Five0
My man, that's why I said "of course, not YOU". I've seen your posts, and have a pretty good idea of where you stand.
I was just trying to explain the thought process of a civilian when the advice we continually get is "comply with our demands, then fight me in court".
It's really a lose/lose, no matter the choice we make. We are susceptible to the whims of dirty or angry police, and even you must realize they exist, at least, in the same percentage as bad people in the general population. That's a scary thought considering the increased militarization and lack of accountability.
And I'm not of the opinion that this is a left/right or black/white issue, though it's very obvious that is the narrative.
This post was edited on 12/11/14 at 11:06 am
Posted on 12/11/14 at 11:09 am to MSMHater
I took no offense. More of a general reply. 
Posted on 12/11/14 at 11:10 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Care to answer the question as to differentiating autopsy results between obstructive vs compression asphyxia? Differences, if any, between autopsy presentations of endogenous vs atraumatic exogenous airway obstruction?
You're obviously far more versed on this from an anatomical standpoint so I'm not going to try to bluff my way out of this.
The finding of homicide by check and neck compression, however, isn't an unheard of thing. The fact that this is a relatively well-known risk within law enforcement circles precludes the argument that it's accidental to some degree. When you have a known risk and you act in ways that accentuate the risk, in this case - neck and chest compression, it's difficult to argue that it's a complete surprise that he died.
The finding of an asphyxia death isn't solely a pathological finding. To some degree, it's a finding of exclusion. There are many people who have asphyxiated who don't present with hematomas. Atypical compression includes the violent pulling back of the head in the forearm in a pincer move. This is noted in the intro to this paper:
LINK
And some more fun on the topic:
LINK
Posted on 12/11/14 at 11:12 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
The ME claiming Garner was choked to death and crushed to death is not only unhelpful, it is such a ridiculous finding that it could have exonerated any of the cops on its own. No doubt, considering language associated with the ME's report, that was not the ME's intent.
I think this is incorrect.
The interruption of the mechanical movement of the chest bellows is crushing to death?
This post was edited on 12/11/14 at 11:14 am
Posted on 12/11/14 at 11:15 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
And yet above you stated "Neither cause would be lethal"
quote:Dude, I just produced a direct quote. My post was "You stated [insert direct quote from nc_tigah]". Yet you reply "No".
No mmcgrath, as i'm certain you understood before you posted,
I don't get you.
Posted on 12/11/14 at 11:15 am to the808bass
quote:You've made that clear.
I think this is incorrect.
You have not made clear as to what facts you base that opinion on..
Posted on 12/11/14 at 11:15 am to the808bass
I don't disagree but my post was in response that a civil payment is a clear admittance of guilt. They are clearly unrelated in a case like this.
Posted on 12/11/14 at 11:17 am to Five0
quote:
Were brought on by Garner's actions.
This is a nonsensical argument. Taken to its logical end, the police can kill anyone they are taking into custody if they resist arrest. Is that really the argument you want to make?
Posted on 12/11/14 at 11:18 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
You've made that clear. You have not made clear as to what facts you base that opinion on..
Linked above.
Posted on 12/11/14 at 11:20 am to C
quote:
I don't disagree but my post was in response that a civil payment is a clear admittance of guilt. They are clearly unrelated in a case like this.
They are not unrelated. There may not be a one-to-one correspondence. But they are clearly related. The $10M settlement will not be reached because of nothing. It will happen because Garner died while having his neck and chest compressed.
Posted on 12/11/14 at 11:20 am to the808bass
quote:And resisting arrest could involve the simple action of raising your hands to the point that shorter cops can't grab your wrists. Or simply not producing your wrists for handcuffs upon command... which seems to be a civil rights violation / failure to comply as opposed to "resisting".
This is a nonsensical argument. Taken to its logical end, the police can kill anyone they are taking into custody if they resist arrest. Is that really the argument you want to make?
Posted on 12/11/14 at 11:20 am to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
Ok so its not murder. Doesn't mean its not anything.
Hmmm...I didn't realize that he wasn't doing a choke hold. From the video, it looked like a choke hold. But, I'm admittedly no martial artist or expert in these matters in any way.
If he wasn't using a choke hold, and that wasn't the cause of death, that COULD change the analysis - depending upon the language in the New York Penal Code.
Perhaps this is just a case of use of excessive force. Given the circumstances (i.e., simple misdemeanor with the guy just pulling his hands back after being suddenly surrounded by cops), I doubt anyone could argue that the cops didn't use excessive force. There could be mitigating circumstance, e.g., if the guy had previously resisted arrest and was known to these cops as being difficult?
What was the official cause of death?
Did the cops do what they were trained to do but because this guy's own circumstances (extremely bad shape and health) he couldn't take it?
I'm guessing that is what the grand jury decided.
This post was edited on 12/11/14 at 11:24 am
Posted on 12/11/14 at 11:21 am to mmcgrath
Yes. Resisting arrest can be simply not moving fast enough in response to an officer command.
Posted on 12/11/14 at 11:27 am to C
The only cops that this board likes are the ones that kill people.
Page 4 of 7
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News