- 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: So was Garner put in a choke hold or not?
Posted on 12/4/14 at 12:10 am to Chappy
Posted on 12/4/14 at 12:10 am to Chappy
quote:
This is incomplete. The cause of death was neck compression with asthma, high blood pressure, obesity, and his position listed as contributing factors. That is important, it seems to indicate that the neck restraint alone did not kill him I think that is what SammyTiger was trying to tell you. The actions of the other officers, according to the ME, contributed to his death. However, their actions were actions which normally would not cause death or great bodily harm.
If I hit a guy in a bar fight and he goes over backwards and hits his head and dies, will I get the same opportunity to make that argument? Well, me hitting a guy wouldn't normally cause him to die so we should be good to go here? No. I won't.
Also, if I punch an old guy and it kills him, I won't get to argue that it wouldn't have killed someone in better health.
Eta:
quote:
The actions of the other officers, according to the ME, contributed to his death.
If the ME wanted to say that the compression contributed to his death, that's what he wouldve said in the report. He didn't. He said it was a homicide. That's very specific.
This post was edited on 12/4/14 at 12:12 am
2
Posted on 12/4/14 at 12:12 am to the808bass
You'd be charged with 2nd degree murder because you had the specific intent to inflict great bodily harm
Posted on 12/4/14 at 12:13 am to the808bass
quote:
The cause of death is listed as "neck compression." And it is listed as a "homicide." I looked for the text of it but haven't been able to find it. Those two facts, however, seem to clearly indicate it was the hold of the officer which killed him.
Do you have a link?
I just like to read things for myself.
Posted on 12/4/14 at 12:14 am to the808bass
"Police say the 44-year-old Rodriguez became uncooperative when officers questioned him about a possible domestic disturbance. Police handcuffed the man."
Notice a pattern?
Notice a pattern?
Posted on 12/4/14 at 12:14 am to John McClane
quote:
Excessive force? His right to his person? You think this was reasonable?
The GJ didn't find a criminal excessive force, right to his person? Don't know what that means, he was under arrest. I don't know if it was reasonable, the GJ clearly didn't find it criminal
Posted on 12/4/14 at 12:16 am to SammyTiger
I have only found quotes from the autopsy. I haven't found a full text of it.
Posted on 12/4/14 at 12:17 am to Chappy
So now the GJ's decision is gold. Jesus man.
There was no need for that type of force over untaxed cigarettes. EVER. You would have made a great loyalist.
There was no need for that type of force over untaxed cigarettes. EVER. You would have made a great loyalist.
Posted on 12/4/14 at 12:17 am to Coach72
quote:
"Police say the 44-year-old Rodriguez became uncooperative when officers questioned him about a possible domestic disturbance. Police handcuffed the man." Notice a pattern?
Yes. Police think it's ok to kill fat minorities with pre existing health conditions if they start questioning them.
Posted on 12/4/14 at 12:21 am to the808bass
808 you are really freaking me out tonight, you are normally very sharp and insightful
No, you wouldn't be charged with murder
You seem to be thinking that homicide and murder mean the same thing, they don't
If you mean compression to his body he did say that. Again you are confusing homicide with murder
quote:
If I hit a guy in a bar fight and he goes over backwards and hits his head and dies, will I get the same opportunity to make that argument? Well, me hitting a guy wouldn't normally cause him to die so we should be good to go here? No. I won't.
No, you wouldn't be charged with murder
You seem to be thinking that homicide and murder mean the same thing, they don't
quote:
If the ME wanted to say that the compression contributed to his death, that's what he wouldve said in the report. He didn't. He said it was a homicide. That's very specific.
quote:
If the ME wanted to say that the compression contributed to his death, that's what he wouldve said in the report. He didn't. He said it was a homicide. That's very specific.
If you mean compression to his body he did say that. Again you are confusing homicide with murder
Posted on 12/4/14 at 12:29 am to Chappy
No. You're confusing me saying he should be disciplined with me saying he should be charged with murder. Murder is a reach as a charge because there's no intent that's apparent. But there are clear issues here.
1). Appropriate and proportional force to the subject's resistance
2). Use of a sometimes fatal hold for a non violent offender
3). A lack of consequences for what I would term gross negligence.
1). Appropriate and proportional force to the subject's resistance
2). Use of a sometimes fatal hold for a non violent offender
3). A lack of consequences for what I would term gross negligence.
Posted on 12/4/14 at 12:29 am to the808bass
I really get a kick out of listening to you touchy-feely liberals spew this nonsense. You want our streets safe, yet you obviously have no earthly idea of the situations these officers find themselves in on a daily basis. You would have them talk to these criminals as if they were second graders. Let me fill you in on something, Mr. Rodgers & Captain Kangaroo would have lasted about 5 minutes on the streets of New Orleans, Miami, or Detroit.
These officers first priority is to secure the situation (for everyone's safety), and when someone is resisting arrest all bets are off. Perhaps if these deceased suspects had taken my class or played for one of my teams, they would have learned this valuable lesson and still be alive today so they could continue suckle off the government teat.
These officers first priority is to secure the situation (for everyone's safety), and when someone is resisting arrest all bets are off. Perhaps if these deceased suspects had taken my class or played for one of my teams, they would have learned this valuable lesson and still be alive today so they could continue suckle off the government teat.
Posted on 12/4/14 at 12:31 am to Coach72
quote:
I really get a kick out of listening to you touchy-feely liberals
That's where I stopped.
I can't remember the last time I voted for a democrat. I'm a right wing social conservative who sees real issues with the current models of policing.
This post was edited on 12/4/14 at 12:32 am
Posted on 12/4/14 at 12:33 am to the808bass
LINK
Here is what I was talking about see third paragraph
Sorry for the messy posts, this 1st gen iPad is starting to suck
Here is what I was talking about see third paragraph
Sorry for the messy posts, this 1st gen iPad is starting to suck
Posted on 12/4/14 at 12:34 am to the808bass
Sign the waiver and accompany our boys in blue on a few ride-a-longs during the 6pm to 6am shift - it might open your eyes.
Posted on 12/4/14 at 12:36 am to Chappy
quote:
The autopsy also found that compressions to the chest and “prone positioning during physical restraint by police” killed Garner. The manner of death, according to the medical examiner, was homicide.
Yeah. That's kinda my point. When you put an obese person in a prone position and then compress their chest, it can cause severe cardiac stress. Coupled with pre existing conditions, and it's easier to kill someone than you think. Police departments know this (or should, it happens often enough). They pretend to not know it to escape liability.
Posted on 12/4/14 at 12:38 am to the808bass
quote:
So was Garner put in a choke hold or not? No. You're confusing me saying he should be disciplined with me saying he should be charged with murder. Murder is a reach as a charge because there's no intent that's apparent. But there are clear issues here. 1). Appropriate and proportional force to the subject's resistance 2). Use of a sometimes fatal hold for a non violent offender 3). A lack of consequences for what I would term gross negligence.
1. IMHO not an unreasonable position. Could have been caused in part with their previous incidents with this guy.
2. Not so much. A similar restraint is still taught by many depts and death is very rare
3. Only a lack of criminal (state level) consequences so far
Posted on 12/4/14 at 12:39 am to Coach72
quote:
Sign the waiver and accompany our boys in blue on a few ride-a-longs during the 6pm to 6am shift - it might open your eyes.
It won't. If you can't handle the stress of being a police officer without accidentally killing a guy every now and again, the job is not for you. It's not an easy job and it's not a job that's supremely over-compensated. But they know that when they take the job.
"Protect and serve" used to mean the public. It seems to more and more civilians that it applies more to themselves than it does to the public.
Posted on 12/4/14 at 12:40 am to Chappy
quote:
death is very rare
What's an acceptable rate of death for "choke holds"?
Do you think an average police officer knows that this is potentially lethal? If not, should it be addressed in their training?
Eta: The police officer will face no consequences for this. The police boards are less harsh than any grand jury (because they're police). Maximum will be some time suspended. Probably already has served it and that will be the end of it.
This post was edited on 12/4/14 at 12:43 am
Posted on 12/4/14 at 12:42 am to the808bass
quote:
Yeah. That's kinda my point. When you put an obese person in a prone position and then compress their chest, it can cause severe cardiac stress. Coupled with pre existing conditions, and it's easier to kill someone than you think. Police departments know this (or should, it happens often enough). They pretend to not know it to escape liability.
If you know this, and maybe I misunderstood some of your previous post, why do you think he should be indicted? In your next post below you even talk about accidental death
Posted on 12/4/14 at 12:44 am to Chappy
Because it's the same standard that a civilian would face. If I choke a guy out and he dies, I don't get to say "normally that doesn't kill a guy." It's still a crime.
Page 9 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News