December 3, 2014

"Grand Jury Said to Bring No Charges in Staten Island Chokehold Death of Eric Garner."

The NYT reports.

152 comments:

Rob said...

Why would the police want to put a chokehold on Errol Garner anyway? It's not just that he's an extraordinary pianist. The man was born in 1921! It shouldn't take six cops to wrestle him to the ground.

Chris said...

This is the death that still has me fuming. New York's "finest" stood around for fifteen minutes doing fuck-all for a man who'd indicated respiratory distress, became unresponsive, and failed to regain consciousness.

And EMS wasn't much better.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

I can't see access the NYT at this time. What charges were being considered? Certainly charges of murder are not warranted, but it appears the officer was using a technique that he was not supposed to because it was known to be dangerous. Something along the lines of negligent homicide would seem to be applicable.

Anonymous said...

More fucking pigs getting away with murder.

B said...

This is beyond belief. Just stunned.

Burn this bitch down!

Nonapod said...

This is appalling. The guy was murdered on camera. Granted, I'm sure it wasn't intentional - so that's what? Manslaughter?

I'm still baffled why this story didn't take off over the Ferguson one. It's about a billion times more provocative.

JPS said...

This is sad. Even starting with a cautiously pro-cop, some-are-bad-but-most-are-OK, I-wasn't-there default position, I see no reason this had to happen. And Chris' point at 2:07 is an important one.

Anonymous said...

We always learn the wrong lessons for these things.

How about some ResponsaDAMNbility?

Was what he did a killing offense? Of course not.

But let's not compare this to Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr.

The guy was committing a crime. He then went on to resist arrest. In a world where life is fragile, why put your life on the line like that?

Is it going to bring you back to life if the officers are arrested, or fired?

Nope.

Lesson: If you're committing a crime and officers move to arrest you, go peacefully. It's not worth your life to resist.

Big Mike said...

Let's wait until a real newspaper reports the grand jury findings.

SMGalbraith said...

This is really unacceptable.

Granted, I know nothing about what the GJ heard or saw but I cannot conceive how this broke no laws. Not even indicted?

Do I contradict myself? Yes, I do.

JPS said...

eric,

"But let's not compare this to Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr."

Who is?

I can disapprove of his illicitly selling cigarettes, or whatever he was doing; I can agree he was dumb to resist arrest - but I still don't think he had to die.

Or, more to the point, I don't see how the police would have been at markedly greater risk by not killing him.

BarrySanders20 said...

They suspected him of selling out of state cigarettes. Not even caught in the act. He felt harassed, and he was difficult, but hardly violent toward them.

So they attack him as if he is a danger and killed him.

Outrageous. Without video, they would have lied about what happened. But it doesn't matter anyway because the grand jury won't indict.

Cops should be required to record every encounter with a member of the public.

I am certain the cop in Milwaukee who shot the mentally ill guy 14 times in a city park (his crime: sleeping) would be facing charges if there was video of the homicide.

Brando said...

Outrageous behavior by the cops--not sure what legal standards the grand jury was given or evidence they had to look at, but it's hard to believe they weren't guilty of at least manslaughter.

At any rate, his family should clean up with a civil suit against the city.

Lauderdale Vet said...

"But after several months of reviewing the evidence, a majority on the panel, which sources said consisted of 15 white and 8 black or Hispanic jurors, concluded there was not enough to charge Pantaleo with manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide."

I don't know enough about the case to have a proper opinion, but my gut doesn't like it so far.

I wonder what the GJ's issues were.

Brando said...

"I'm still baffled why this story didn't take off over the Ferguson one. It's about a billion times more provocative."

A very good question. There are a number of cases of the police being abusive (the Diallo case in New York back in the '90s was a good one) but the Brown case was hardly a good example.

Joe E said...

The video of him getting killed, isn't that what a body camera would show?

JAORE said...

"I'm still baffled why this story didn't take off over the Ferguson one. It's about a billion times more provocative."

I have not followed this story as closely as that of Ferguson. But the above sure seems true to me. Of course Ferguson became a symbol long before the facts came into view.

Chris said...

Lesson: If you're committing a crime and officers move to arrest you, go peacefully. It's not worth your life to resist.

And once Garner was in police custody, and unconscious, who's responsible for his welfare?

Anonymous said...

JPS wrote;


Or, more to the point, I don't see how the police would have been at markedly greater risk by not killing him.


They didn't try to kill him. He resisted arrest and a struggle ensued.

The same thing could happen if you disagree with the speeding laws of your state and get pulled over for speeding and refuse to cooperate with the officer.

Should the officer say, "Oh well, on your way then good lad!" No. He will probably place you under arrest if he finds he cannot get you to cooperate (By showing your license and registration, or getting out of the car, or whatever).

As we know, life is fragile. If you struggle with another human, even in play, you may lose your life. Doesn't mean the other person wanted to kill you.

Regardless, you may be killed.

Lesson? Don't resist arrest. Not unless you're willing to die for the cause for which you're resisting.

EMD said...

This, and the Cleveland boy shooting are very appropriate evidence to hold police more accountable for their actions. The Ferguson fiasco is not.

Anonymous said...

Chris asks;

And once Garner was in police custody, and unconscious, who's responsible for his welfare?

The police are. But so what? He's dead. Does it help him to know the police are responsible for his death? Does it bring him back to life if the police are fired, or put in jail over this?

He's still dead. It's indisputable that he would still be alive today if he hadn't resisted arrest.

Why do we send this ridiculous message, especially to minorities, that they are justified in resisting arrest? Why do we care what the infraction is? It could be jay walking, or littering, etc.

It becomes a completely different crime, usually a felony, when you resist arrest.

Take some responsibility. Save your life.

Brando said...

"Lesson: If you're committing a crime and officers move to arrest you, go peacefully. It's not worth your life to resist."

That's true, and good advice whether the police are in the right or in the wrong. At the same time, though, the police need to be held accountable when they use excessive force. Emphasis on "excessive"--obviously the police need to use enough force to ensure their safety and subdue the suspect, but there are many instances where they go way over the line and cause unnecessary death or injury. If they're not held accountable, they will conform their behavior in the same way any unaccountable person will.

Birkel said...

This seems an example of police misconduct. The NYPD has a long history of abuses going back as far as I can recollect.

Chris said...

He's still dead. It's indisputable that he would still be alive today if he hadn't resisted arrest.

He also might be alive if police had rendered aid, instead of standing around with their dicks in their hands. That's what's so infuriating.

The police failed to render aid, and I find that inexcusable.

Brando said...

"Why do we send this ridiculous message, especially to minorities, that they are justified in resisting arrest?"

Holding the police accountable isn't the same thing as saying "you were right to resist arrest". In fact, in most instances the police get a lot of leeway in abusing suspects and claiming they were just resisting arrest (by getting in the way of a nightstick, for example). And that's always an extra charge that gets tacked on.

But the police do have to have limits in how they treat suspects, even if the suspect is resisting arrest.

Anonymous said...

Chris writes;

The police failed to render aid, and I find that inexcusable.

If they did, then I agree with you.

But it makes me wonder. Why wasn't anyone indicted if this is true?

JPS said...

eric:

"They didn't try to kill him….If you struggle with another human, even in play, you may lose your life. Doesn't mean the other person wanted to kill you."

You're refuting an argument I'm not making.

I have no doubt the officer didn't mean to kill him. But what happened sure seems to me like manslaughter. I could be wrong. Apparently most of the grand jury would think so.

Birkel said...

The police are neither your servants nor your protectors. They will be civilly liable, beyond question. Or rather the tax payers of NYC will be liable. Remove immunity and these events go differently.

SMGalbraith said...

We can hold two - indeed, several - thoughts in our heads at the same time.

Such as: Don't resist arrest AND the police cannot use excessive force even if the person is resisting.

And we can add other principles at the same time.

It's not one or the other.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

This actually is an outrage, unlike that thug in Ferguson.

Don't the cops have anything fucking better to do than enforce the nanny state prohibition on "loosies?"

Anonymous said...

Blogger SMGalbraith said...
We can hold two - indeed, several - thoughts in our heads at the same time.

Such as: Don't resist arrest AND the police cannot use excessive force even if the person is resisting.

And we can add other principles at the same time.

It's not one or the other.

12/3/14, 3:06 PM


I get this. But the problem is, the police weren't indicted.

We don't know why, yet, but they weren't.

But someone still lost his life. Which is the real tragedy here. And such a thing can be avoided.

Not by prosecuting more police, but by teaching people not to resist arrest.

Personally, I believe there can be legitimate reasons to resist arrest.

But this isn't even near that.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Nonapod said...

I'm still baffled why this story didn't take off over the Ferguson one. It's about a billion times more provocative.

This is about a billion times more provocative than what happened in Ferguson. It is about one billionth as provocative as what was alleged to have happened in Ferguson. ( Surrendering vs resisting, intentionally vs accidentally killing. )

Chris said...

But it makes me wonder. Why wasn't anyone indicted if this is true?

I don't know about indictments. But I do know I wouldn't want any of those cops on my police force.

Chris said...

Not by prosecuting more police, but by teaching people not to resist arrest.

And by teaching police basic first aid and CPR.

harrogate said...

"Lesson: If you're committing a crime and officers move to arrest you, go peacefully. It's not worth your life to resist."

Lesson for all of us to remember: police officers are above the law and can kill with impunity. "I feared for my life" is all they have to say.

Big Mike said...

There are a number of cases of the police being abusive (the Diallo case in New York back in the '90s was a good one) but the Brown case was hardly a good example.

As I've noted numerous times before, it's almost as though the media deliberately pick cases where it's an open and shut case of self-defense, so they can be sure that the luckless individual (Zimmerman, Wilson) will be not charged or acquitted. Consequently they are guaranteed of being able to whip up a riot, and sell more papers or attract more viewers when they report on the riots.

Or maybe even get a dead Bosnian.

BDNYC said...

This was worse than Ferguson. Garner may have been surly or whatever, but he was a low-level offender. Peddling illegal cigarettes is not even remotely similar to robbery and assaulting a police officer. Garner did not even arguably present a physical danger to the police.

Garner's death may have been an accident -- as opposed to Wilson's shooting of Mike Brown -- but the tactics used to subdue Garner were unorthodox and not part of any policy or training. There is more to protest in this case than in the Ferguson case.

harrogate said...

Why are people presuming the cop didn't kill him on purpose? He's already breaking the law by putting the guy in a chokehold and further breaking the law by not rendering aid after choking the guy to his last breath.

Benefit of the doubt for this fucking guy. Does he deserve it? A case can be made , I guess, but it looks like he just straight up killed a dude cause he could, base on the video and failure to render aid.

Tank said...

Color Tank surprised. I was sure we would get a manslauter type of true bill here. Of course, I did not see the many witnesses or forensics, but stil ...

Franklin said...

This is bullshit. The Mike Brown thing, meh; the Eric Garner is fucked up.

Clayton Hennesey said...

I'm still baffled why this story didn't take off over the Ferguson one. It's about a billion times more provocative.

Because this story took place in the Capitol City of the enlightened. You don't want to burn that bitch down.

The Brown case took place in midwestern Ferguson - where? - MO, where those cracker white cops probably go home and have sex with their livestock after a full day harassing black folks.

No one will miss Ferguson, Mo if it burns. When was the last time they made a movie there?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Why are people presuming the cop didn't kill him on purpose?

Because unless you continue the chokehold until the person is dead ( which the officer did not do ) a chokehold is unlikely to kill a person.

Shanna said...

I'm still baffled why this story didn't take off over the Ferguson one. It's about a billion times more provocative.

I feel like the stories that get promoted are the ones with problematic facts that make sure everyone isn't on the same side. I haven't decided if that is on purpose or not. Maybe it's simply an age thing (Trayvon/Brown both being young).

Anonymous said...

There is a good video on youtube by the Gracies on choke holds and what happened to Garner.

I'm of the opinion that the Grand Jury had more information than I do. Maybe they saw evidence that he died of a heart attack because he was 400 pounds and had asthma, not because of how the police put their arm around his neck.

Anonymous said...

I should say the Gracies, in their youtube video, directly say that based on the video evidence and their experience in martial arts, the choke wasn't what caused "Eric's" death.

Big Mike said...

But someone still lost his life. Which is the real tragedy here. And such a thing can be avoided.

Not by prosecuting more police, but by teaching people not to resist arrest.


@eric, was Garner even being arrested? On what charges? Garner claimed -- on the video -- that he was merely being harassed. Strangulation is a pretty extreme form of harassment, even by New York standards.

Anonymous said...

Big Mike wrote:

"@eric, was Garner even being arrested? On what charges? Garner claimed -- on the video -- that he was merely being harassed. Strangulation is a pretty extreme form of harassment, even by New York standards.

He wasn't strangled. He was brought down to the ground by the head and neck (Watch the Gracie video and explanation). There was no damage, according to the autopsy, to his neck or trachea. He couldn't breath because he had asthma.

He died in the back of the ambulance on the way to the hospital.

Shanna said...

I haven't looked into the details enough on this case, but if they did decide that the chokehold didn't 'cause' the death, I suppose that could be why they wouldn't indict.

Regardless, the cop should be fired. If they would do that, I think we could potentially have a non-legal outcome that would be at least a little bit satisfactory. (although certainly not to the point of bringing back his life).

Maybe also some sort of training/procedure changes?

madAsHell said...

I believe he was selling out-of-state cigarettes while being obese.

It may not have been the choke hold that killed him....directly. If I recall the video, they disabled him, and laid him on his substantial stomach.

Out here in the Soviet of Seattle, the police no longer put people on their stomachs, because the fat ones were dying.....without applying a choke hold.

Here's a link from Pasadena. Notice this article was published over 20 years ago. I couldn't find the example from Seattle, but I feel sure that it happened in the last 10 years.

I believe this may also help explain the Grand Jury decision.

Big Mike said...

@eric, I have to admit that my view of the police has been colored by the case of Prince Jones back in 2000.

Don't bother trying to defend Officer Carleton Jones; it can't be done.

Anonymous said...

Shanna writes:

Regardless, the cop should be fired.

What did the officer do that deserves firing over?

Big Mike said...

@madasHell, thanks for answering the question eric couldn't be bothered to answer.

@eric, the police killed a man for selling out-of-state cigarettes??? And you're of the opinion that it was all his fault?

Big Mike said...

What did the officer do that deserves firing over?

He killed a man for trying to peddle out-of-state cigarettes, apparently.

Big Mike said...

He died in the back of the ambulance on the way to the hospital.

@eric, surely you're aware that when a person dies and when that person is pronounced dead are usually two different times?

Big Mike said...

And eric, I don't care what the Gracies have to say. I'm nowhere near their league as a martial artist (especially not now that my knees are made of metal), but I've done enough judo and aikido back in the day to know that when your forearm is across a man's windpipe you are choking him.

Anonymous said...

Big Mike,

He wasn't killed, he died of a heart attack.

If you and I were wrestling in my yard and you died of a heart attack, I didn't kill you. You killed you for being 400 pounds overweight and wrestling with me, when you should have been watching your diet better and exercising.

The person most at fault for Eric Garner's death is Eric Garner.

Unknown said...

Don't resist arrest AND the police cannot use excessive force even if the person is resisting.

Cool with it. Do you think it was excessive force because it was excessive force, or because he died? Is that how excessive force is defined?

Shanna said...

What did the officer do that deserves firing over?

People skills.

Anonymous said...

Shanna writes;

People skills.

Huh?

traditionalguy said...

This is the actual test case for large African American men who come under police harassment for petty crimes being so easily executed for resisting police authority.

Which may also explain why the huge men I know are all smiles and friendly compared to the smaller guys.

Freeman Hunt said...

He didn't die from asthma. He died because a cop choked him out and stood around while he died.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Eric is all in on his thin blue line bullshit.

I don't think there is any scenario where he would admit any wrong doing by law enforcement.

Saying that this cop didn't do anything wrong is just as ignorant as the retards who claim Michael Brown didn't do anything wrong.

Shanna said...

The Medical Examiner’s Office ruled Garner’s death a homicide caused by “compression of neck (chokehold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police.”

What they did led to his death. It was a massive overreaction to his actual crime. And they clearly need to know how dangerous the chokehold is for people who are that overweight.

This is an awful case.

Anonymous said...

He didn't die from asthma. He died because a cop choked him out and stood around while he died.

12/3/14, 4:30 PM


This is factually incorrect. He was never "choked out". The officer used a take down move, using the head and neck, to get him subdued on the ground. Once he was down on the ground, the officer released him. There was never any choking, let alone, choking out.

Really large people are hard to subdue. The easiest area to attack are the head and neck. A leg sweep, for example, isn't as effective on a 400 pound guy as it is on a 100 pound guy. Your leg sweep tends to bounce right off.

On the other hand, no matter how large you are, your body tends to follow the head. If you can control the head, you can control the body.

Watch the video. Once he is down on the ground and subdued, the officer releases him. As soon as he is released, he starts saying through gasps of air, "I can't breath, I can't breath" which we know now is due to his asthma, not because he's being choked, and not because there was damage to his neck or trachea (Which there wasn't). It was because he was fat and had asthma.

The facts are clear in this case, let's not make stuff up to support our positions.

Anonymous said...

And what is this about officers standing around while he died?

The officers called in the paramedics. He was still alive when the paramedics arrived.

What were the officers supposed to do? CPR probably would have killed him faster. Open heart surgery right there on the street?

You can argue that the officers never should have tried to enforce the law to begin with. But this meme that the officers "Stood around while he died" is a fiction.

They called the paramedics and the paramedics came. They are police, not doctors.

MayBee said...

Hmmm.... I see the SEIU is onhand to protest in New York with pre printed signs.

Are they pretty much just a union of paid protesters now?

MayBee said...

The cops who killed Kelly Thomas were indicted, but still found not-guilty at trial.

It needn't be a racial thing. Cops have decided if someone isn't going to go home, it isn't going to be them. So what if it's you?

And good job, progressives. It's illegal to sell loose cigarettes. How you like that law?

Anonymous said...

I'll steal this from HotAir, the link to this is over there.

I spent decades in law enforcement. During my time with the NYPD, I was responsible for over 1,400 felony arrests — any of which could’ve required the use of deadly physical force.

Volunteering to be a decoy cop in the 1970s, I was the victim of more than 500 muggings, about 30 of which injured me seriously enough that I was hospitalized. I wound up in countless physical situations and was always able to get the perp into cuffs.

Now, as owner of a security company here in the city, I consult for police departments across the country.

I’ve served as co-chairman of the National Crime Commission and chairman of the state Security Guard Advisory Council. I have extensive experience when it comes to police procedure, safety and security.

So I speak with some authority on the events surrounding Garner’s attempted arrest and death.

It’s tragic that a life was lost, but I’m outraged at how this incident is being used to hobble the NYPD.

The officers who approached Garner were responding to community complaints about his ongoing activities. When he grew uncooperative and resisted arrest, they followed protocol on taking him into custody.

Officers are required to be as quick as possible in getting a perpetrator into custody so that he has no chance to injure the officer, innocent bystanders or himself.

Garner was 6-foot-3 and 350 pounds. Using a headlock to bring down a man of that size was appropriate.

Headlocks are used in thousands of arrests each year, especially of individuals not cooperating with the police. I used the maneuver in dozens of arrests.

And it was a headlock, not a chokehold. To be a chokehold, there must be constant pressure on the person’s neck, compressing his windpipe or cutting off the flow of blood to the carotid artery, rendering him unconscious.

Watch the video: It’s obvious that the arresting officer put his arm around Garner’s neck to bring him to the ground — but once Garner was on the ground, he was still conscious and able to say he couldn’t breathe.

That’s when the officers called for medical back-up. Tragically, the EMS personnel failed to administer oxygen or to ascertain that Garner was asthmatic and use an inhaler to assist with his breathing.

A top medical examiner (who can’t publicly fault the city ME) tells me it was very irresponsible for the Medical Examiner’s Office to issue the press release stating that Garner’s death was caused by a chokehold (with asthma, heart disease and obesity as contributing factors) and ruling his death a homicide.

Two big points: 1) The final autopsy report hasn’t been released. We don’t have the full story, just headlines. 2) “Homicide” only means that one person has caused the death of another.

The term has no bearing on intent or recklessness. The ME’s press release only poured oil on an already fiery situation.

Again, it’s unfortunate that a life was lost — but to blame Garner’s death on the officers doing their job is ridiculous.


Remember, no one was indicted for this. That should tell you something about the evidence.

MayBee said...

I think perhaps we need to have a big old talk about what we want the police to do if someone is resisting arrest.

Garner and Brown had that in common, but in very different circumstances. But what do we want them to do?

What should they have done differently in each case?

Big Mike said...

He wasn't killed, he died of a heart attack.

Perhaps the law is different where you live, but here in the Commonwealth of Virginia a person can be charged with murder if the dead victim has a medical condition such that, if the same physical act was performed on a person without that condition it would not have resulted in death. I'm not a lawyer so I may not be stating it exactly correctly. (If someone could help with the statute and wording I'd be obliged.)

So, if you and I were wrestling because both of us wanted to wrestle and I died as a consequence because I'm overweight and out of shape, that's one thing. If you were to maliciously attack someone with a weak heart, and as a consequence of that attack the person had a heart attack, it does you no good to argue in court that you didn't know he had a weak heart -- you should not have attacked him in the first place.

Back to Garner. The video clearly shows that Officer Pantaleo was behind Garner and in a position to secure at least one of his wrists. He chose instead to throw his arm over Garner's windpipe and consequently Garner died. In Virginia Daniel Pantaleo would have committed murder under the law.

Except that Virginia doesn't like to put cops on trial, no matter how egregious their actions and how fatal the consequences. Apparently it's the same in New York. Most cops are good people doing a damned dangerous job, but police union solidarity covers up for sadistic bastards who should never wear a badge. Like Daniel Pantaleo in New York and Carleton Jones in Prince Georges County, MD.

rhhardin said...

Epstein on Ferguson grand jury (may start mp3).

Michael said...

I don't think a "choke hold" killed this poor man. If you watch the video the cops hand goes off his neck as soon as he is on the ground and subdued.

Having said that I believe this is a case of some horrible police work. The guy was engaged in a minor crime and was overwhelmed by more cops than should be deployed to arrest a single guy in a victimless and nonviolent "crime."

I think the cop(s) should be fired.

Big Mike said...

The guy was engaged in a minor crime and was overwhelmed by more cops than should be deployed to arrest a single guy in a victimless and nonviolent "crime."

Shit. Now I'm on Eric's side. What research has shown is that if a criminal thinks he has an even or near-even chance of escape through resisting arrest, the criminal will almost always resist. The point of bringing four officers is to convince the person being arrested that resistance is futile. The officers position themselves very well to my eyes, spaced evenly and just out of reach -- the only one out of position is Pantaleo, who if he had to use his service weapon would be jeopardizing one of the other officers.

MayBee said...

Who has decided to make these cases about race? the focus on race and the SEIU involvement in protests makes me think there is some coordination going on.

Big Mike said...

What should they have done differently in each case?

If Wilson wasn't alone perhaps Brown wouldn't have been emboldened to try to punch him, and facing two drawn guns he might not have charged forward. Good argument for multiple officers in a squad car.

Pantaleo should not have tried for a headlock and takedown against a person so much taller -- to much chance his arm would slip down over the guy's throat.

Chris said...

And what is this about officers standing around while he died?

The officers called in the paramedics. He was still alive when the paramedics arrived.


Did you see this video? All of it?

I'd expect better from a new teenage lifeguard. Note that the paramedics were all suspended without pay for their shit performance. The police might have saved Eric Garner's life, if they'd tried.

They didn't try.

David said...

First the cops choked him so violently that he stopped breathing, and they they poked him as he lay there. The entire force is trained in CPR for sure yet they did nothing. The video from after the choking is disgusting. Complete lack of concern or rapid action.

Is this murder? Probably not but there's a good case for manslaughter here, or some other crime involving negligence.

One of the things this case has in common with Ferguson is bad policing probably brought on by bad training. I still see no reason for officer Wilson to have chased Michael Brown with his gun drawn (and perhaps firing as he chased.) Just as there must have been other ways to gain control of Garner without killing him.

If a man is calling out "I can't breathe" its best to stop choking him.


Roost on the Moon said...

Heartened to see a little frustration here about this.

Eric, labeling this guy a criminal, and then referring to his protestations as "resisting arrest",
and then minimizing the aggressive escalation of the situation as "an officer doing his job" (as if it were the only way)...

There's a very plain video here, we can see what happened. And you are stretching all over the place in order to absolve the cops of any wrongdoing and blame the victim. This is called being a bootlicker.

Big Mike said...

@eric, I've poked around HotAir, and I can't find a link to anything that resembles it. Can you please post the link? Thanks.

Big Mike said...

Oops. "It" being what you posted at 4:50.

Achilles said...

Nonapod said...

"I'm still baffled why this story didn't take off over the Ferguson one. It's about a billion times more provocative."

Our goal is justice. For the people who pushed Ferguson the goal is division. They need the white guy to get off.

If they went after these officers they would be indicted and in jail. That would be justice and everyone would go home. In Ferguson the white guy is innocent and goes home. This with a few lies makes it an ever lasting event that has no JUSTICE. They can lie to people, do hands up protests, and pretend something bad happened.

Their goals are not in good faith.

Achilles said...

eric said...
Chris asks;

And once Garner was in police custody, and unconscious, who's responsible for his welfare?

"The police are. But so what? He's dead. Does it help him to know the police are responsible for his death? Does it bring him back to life if the police are fired, or put in jail over this?

He's still dead. It's indisputable that he would still be alive today if he hadn't resisted arrest.

Why do we send this ridiculous message, especially to minorities, that they are justified in resisting arrest? Why do we care what the infraction is? It could be jay walking, or littering, etc.

It becomes a completely different crime, usually a felony, when you resist arrest.

Take some responsibility. Save your life."

Bullshit. We couldn't even act that way in Afghanistan. These people are supposed to be protecting and serving, not killing anyone who resists.

And yes it matters what the infraction is. That is the difference between law enforcers and peace officers. We need peace officers again. Not jack boots like you appear to be.

Big Mike said...

@eric, never mind. The link is actually to Ace of Spades.

Anonymous said...

Big Mike writes;

The video clearly shows that Officer Pantaleo was behind Garner and in a position to secure at least one of his wrists.

It looks to me like he tries to secure one of his wrists by grabbing it. He has a hold of his right arm while he's saying, "Don't touch me" and pulling his arm away from the Officer.

It looks like the officer tries to put his arm behind his back, then Eric Garner brings his right arm in close to his body and pulls it forward so the officer can't get his arm behind his back. Then and only then does the officer put one arm under his right armpit and the other arm around his neck and lock hand and arm. This is called an arm bar and doesn't cause any choking because one arm is under the armpit.

At some point, which we can't see on the video because he is behind a pile of other officers, the arm under his right armpit comes out and it becomes a choke, as he brings him down to the ground.

Moments after bringing him down to the ground, he releases him, because he wasn't trying to "choke him out" as some claim. He was wrestling him to the ground.

So, you claim he was in a position to secure one of his wrists. And it appears he tried to secure one of his wrists.

This is why you don't resist arrest. It's pretty damn hard to secure a wrist of someone fighting back who is the size of Eric Garner.

Anonymous said...

David wrote:

"
If a man is calling out "I can't breathe" its best to stop choking him."

Did you even watch the video? They weren't choking him when he was saying, "I can't breathe." You can hear the other officers saying, "He's down, he's down." and then the officer who brought him down releases him.

Once he is down, you can't see what the police are doing. They are no longer wrestling with him, or physically assaulting him in any way. They appear to be bending over and talking with him. One officer has his hand on his upper arm, he is on his side, not on his back or stomach.

At this point, other than wait for the paramedics to arrive, what is it the officers are supposed to do?

Anonymous said...

Achilles writes;

Not jack boots like you appear to be.

Maybe. But somehow I think the jackboots will be the ones who see a video like this, not bother with evidence, and string up the officer.

Fortunately, I live in a country with a system where a jury of our peers gets to consider all of the evidence and make a decision.

You may think it's a jury of fools, or a terrible system, but I for one am grateful for it. Grateful that you and the media don't get to judge this officer and punish him because you saw a video and decided to draw your conclusions without considering all the evidence.

I'm thankful that 23 peers were able to sit and consider the evidence carefully. And I trust that there wasn't enough evidence to convince 12 of those 23 to send it to court.

You on the other hand want to live in a society that sees a video posted online, reads a few headlines about it, and are ready to destroy another man's life based on your opinion of what you're seeing without considering all the evidence.

Thank God I live in this country, and not the country you imagine to be better.

Babaluigi said...

Do not resist arrest
Do not resist arrest
Do not resist arrest

Eric Garner did not "deserve" to die for his crime, minor as it was, which must have been a violation of his bail. But he was breaking the law, and attracted the attention of the police. He seems to have been known to them. I have not had the delightful experience of having been arrested or convicted of anything, (unlike him, with 31 arrests and 4 convictions) but is one allowed to stay free on the streets after breaking a law while out on bail?

Oh, and by the way, do not resist arrest.

Steve Uhr said...

Why the heck does the government have the right tell someone they can't sell single cigarettes? Should it be a crime for me to sell singe M&M's? What's the difference. The state doesn't lose out on any tax since tax was paid on the initial purchase. And if someone only wants one cigarette why force him/her to buy, and smoke, 20?

Another bullshit anti-consumer nanny state law.

William said...

I saw the video. The violence doesn't appear to be gratuitous or over the top. The tactics the one officer used had a catastrophic effect, but you've got to make quite a leap to state that he intentionally strangled Garner. I'd give the cop the benefit of the doubt......The most egregious offense was in not treating him properly when he went into respiratory or cardio arrest. And the most egregious offender was he EMT who arrived on the scene and examined him in a desultory way. However, the media and the community are not at war with the EMS, so it passes without comment.......A couple of weeks ago, there was another video of police interaction with the community. In that video, an athletic, six foot black man comes running at three cops with an axe. The officers had their backs turned to him. He managed to cleave the skull of one officer and, if I recall correctly, injure the arm of another before he was shot.....The man was a Muslim convert and the attack was considered an act of religious terrorism. That begs the question, however. My guess is that he converted to Islam because that religion gave him the greatest opportunity to express and nurture his racial grievances......At any rate, perhaps we should respond in such a way to Garner's death as not to fuel the next axe (or hammer) wielder's sense of grievance.

Birkel said...

eric:

As a police officer, please tell me what gave the police in the instant situation a right to touch a citizen who enjoys a full panoply of rights as guaranteed by both the United States and New York State Constitutions. Must I submit to the police merely because they demand I do, even if I have committed no crime?

Curious George said...

That was no choke hold. It was a headlock. Sheesh.

Anonymous said...

"Don't the cops have anything fucking better to do than enforce the nanny state prohibition on "loosies?""

If the state passes ridiculously stupid laws like this, you can't blame the cops who have to enforce it. Blame the progressive nanny staters like Bloomberg.

That said, this does strike me as a case where excessive force was used.

Chris said...

At this point, other than wait for the paramedics to arrive, what is it the officers are supposed to do?

CPR. You didn't actually watch the video I linked, did you?

Cops aren't doctors (usually), but let's see what the Mayo Clinic recommends in this situation:

"It's far better to do something than to do nothing at all if you're fearful that your knowledge or abilities aren't 100 percent complete. Remember, the difference between your doing something and doing nothing could be someone's life."

And:

"If the person doesn't respond and two people are available, one should call 911 or the local emergency number and one should begin CPR."

Now, maybe that's completely off base in some way I don't recognize, but that's what's had me steamed for months.

AJ Lynch said...

Eh it's a big country and shit happens. And every incident does not a trend make. So have the lawyers start their engines, have NYC pay the family off and the rest of us should get over it.

RecChief said...

I'm not defending the police here. However, from what I've read, Garner resisted attempts to handcuff him. Should the police have tasered him? should they have let him walk away?

One thing I am unclear of, what is the charge for selling single cigarettes? It seems to me that it should be along the lines of a speeding ticket.

RecChief said...

I'm still baffled why this story didn't take off over the Ferguson one. It's about a billion times more provocative.

Garner was selling cigarettes. to the NYT and its readership thats synonymous with Big Tobacco

RecChief said...

I'm still baffled why this story didn't take off over the Ferguson one. It's about a billion times more provocative.

After the narrative that the NYT, Vox, MSNBC, Salon, and others were pushing blew up, not to mention their cheerleading for a riot, perhaps they are chastened somewhat

Anonymous said...

Chris, why would you start CPR?

Let's Monday morning quarterback this.

We just took down and handcuffed Eric Garner. He is on the ground. Rasping and saying, I can't breath. It looks like, according to both videos, at least one officer is talking to him. We don't know what he says to the officer, if anything, but let's suppose all he says is, I can't breath.

What do you do?

Birkel said...

Yeah, you just took down and handcuffed a guy. And the question you're asking is what should happen next, eric.

The question a reasonable person ought to ask is "Did the police have the right to detain by force and handcuff the person?"

Answer that one.

Michael K said...

"Why are people presuming the cop didn't kill him on purpose? He's already breaking the law by putting the guy in a chokehold and further breaking the law by not rendering aid after choking the guy to his last breath. "

Because most of us aren't hard lefties. I think the use of force was inappropriate and the cop should be fired. Civil suit might be good.

Intuiting a motive to kill a black guy because he's black is your specialty and I want no part of your mental illness.

Anonymous said...

Birkel,

I'm assuming Chris wants to have a reasoned discussion, thus I'm engaging him.

I already know that's not possible with you, based on similar discussions in the past.

Big Mike said...

@eric, regarding your post at 6:05. One difference between me and any liberal is that I know how to say "you're right and I'm wrong" (or at any rate I'm only incompletely right). I watched the video again, looking for what you told me to look for, and Garner does yank his arms away from Pantaleo's attempt to cuff him. I disagree that Pantaleo was trying for an arm bar, however, but that's perhaps because you and Pantaleo were taught a different way to subdue a person with an arm bar. I don't like the way Pantaleo went at it -- the way I was taught basically puts the guy's arm into a raised and twisted position similar to the way you hold a chicken leg when you use your hands to separate a thigh from the drumstick on a chicken quarter. It only hurts a little on the receiving end (having been there myself during training) but if you resist you mainly have a choice between dislocating your shoulder or dislocating your elbow. Neither is pleasant.

Having written all that, I still think that what I wrote at 4:59 applies. It's not Pantaleo's fault that Garner had medical conditions, but the proximate cause of Garner's fatal medical conditions being triggered continues -- in my mind -- to be Pantaleo's forearm across Garner's throat. Maybe NYPD officers need better training or maybe he should have used a taser instead (does ultra left wing NYC even allow its officers to carry tasers?). Maybe if he had used a taser it would have triggered the fatal asthma attack anyway, but there's no way to know.

I'll lighten up.

Freeman Hunt said...

What do I do?

I call an ambulance. I look in the guy's mouth to see if something is in there. I turn him on his side and support his head with something. I ask if he has asthma when I don't find anything in his mouth. If he responds that he does, I ask where his inhaler is. If he tells me, I get it. If not, I try to find it and start yelling for someone, anyone, to bring me a rescue inhaler. I also get someone to bring over a glass of water and a straw in case he wants it. (Some people find water extremely helpful in an asthma attack.) If he loses consciousness, I start CPR.

That is my off the cuff, layman's response.

One thing I don't do: stand around doing nothing while a guy dies right next to me.

Big Mike said...

The question a reasonable person ought to ask is "Did the police have the right to detain by force and handcuff the person?"

It's questions like this which make me angry. It's a worthless, picayune law that Garner broke, but it is the law in New York City. He broke it. They didn't have the right to arrest Garner, they had an obligation to arrest him, using as much force as it took to place him under arrest.

Maybe de Blasio should have passed the word to his police force via his police commissioner to ignore the loose cigarette law.

But he didn't.

Maybe New York City should reduce selling loose cigarettes to something officers write a ticket for, instead of making an arrest.

But they won't.

I'm arguing that Pantaleo needed more and better training (or a taser), not that he shouldn't have done his job.

Michael The Magnificent said...

BarrySanders20: I am certain the cop in Milwaukee who shot the mentally ill guy 14 times in a city park (his crime: sleeping) would be facing charges if there was video of the homicide.

The Milwaukee officer shot the mentally ill guy 14 times because the mentally ill guy got the officer's baton and was beating him over the head with it. It's called self defense, and is the reason why no charges were filed against the officer.

Not that the facts will stop you from insinuating the officer shot a mentally ill homeless guy for the simple matter of sleeping in a park.

I swear, if leftists were forced to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, they'd have nothing to say.

Anonymous said...

Freeman, thank you for responding. That was a very clear and concise response.

We don't have any evidence that

A: The police knew he had athsma or that he told them he had asthma, do we?

B: That the police knew he was having a heart attack, do we?

C: That the police knew the man on the ground in front of them was dying, do we?

I've had a number of physical altercations in my time on the police force. Usually when the fight goes out of some one, after all of that adrenaline, they are plumb Tuckered out. Sometimes they sleep. We always call the paramedics.

Notice that the one officer clearing the crowd says something like, "He's fine".

What reason would they have to think otherwise? Its not like they shot him. Or pummeled him with fists or batons. Hell, I've had worse fights with my brother.

He started saying he can't breath when he was taken to the ground. Which makes sense. He is winded after a fight and had an officer with his arm around his neck.

This isn't a reason to think he is having a heart attack and dying.

In other words, the options here strain credulity. You're asking me to believe that approximately 6 NYPD hated this guy so much, they knew he was laying there and dying and wanted him to die.

How about the more plausible explanation that they thought he was fine, just winded, and called the paramedics, and it was the paramedics who should have realized his distress and failed to act on it?

Chris said...

Chris, why would you start CPR?

In the video I linked (you clearly haven't seen it), Eric Garner is shown completely unresponsive for several minutes. For a guy who was quite verbal prior to being taken down, I'd expect him to continue to talk if he was conscious.

We don't know what he says to the officer, if anything, but let's suppose all he says is, I can't breath.

What do you do?


But that's not all he did. He lost consciousness, and became unresponsive, which happens when not enough oxygen gets to the brain. This is a life threatening condition (that any 15 year old lifeguard will recognize), and minutes matter. Call for medical help, and begin CPR until help arrives.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

How full of shit you are Eric.

Who should we trust, our lying eyes with the video, or some former cop covering for one of his buddies in blue.

It is the complete inability of law enforcement to ever, under even the most blatant circumstances, admit that one of your union buddies fucked up that gives police such a bad name.

You are no better than the looters in Ferguson, and I am sad that you will be mooching off the tax base with your inflated pension with bullshit "heart and hyptertension" add ons.

Yeah, I know about that little trick, you douchebag. A pox on both the sharptonite looters and the police apologists.

phantommut said...

I'm still baffled why this story didn't take off over the Ferguson one. It's about a billion times more provocative.

Because the people who are profit from the flames of Ferguson actually own property in New York City. D'uh.

phantommut said...

By the way, de Blasio is a total coward.

richard mcenroe said...

Get over to Twitchy: the better class of white folk are attacking Darius Rucker for singing "White Christmas"...

Big Mike said...

We don't have any evidence that
.
.
.

C: That the police knew the man on the ground in front of them was dying, do we?


@eric, I think Freeman's got the right of the argument. Garner says "I can't breathe" clearly enough for it to be picked up on the video, and goes unconscious. He's dying.

Look, I'm not saying that Pantaleo woke up that morning and decided that it was a great day to kill a black guy. If his training was crap, it was crap. If he violated his training, and the official response certainly suggests that, Pantaleo needs at the very least to be fired and probably prosecuted. If I had been on the grand jury, that's how I would have voted given the evidence I've seen so far. Policing is a dangerous job, but that's not an excuse to let someone walk free if they ignored their training.

Here in Fairfax an officer had an accidental discharge of his handgun during a simple arrest for illegal gambling. The perpetrator, a medical doctor, died instantly. Hey, I had an AD during a match once (I got a match DQ for it). I knew, and the officer was trained, that you keep your freaking finger outside the trigger guard until you're ready to shoot and it's safe to shoot. That particular policeman was not fired and the county took that stance that, well, accidents happen. Yeah, but when they result in loss of life, someone needs to pay a price.

Ctmom4 said...

@ Eric - Are you NYPD? ( apologize if you have said this,; I am skimming through the comments). The Daily News said it was Phil Banks who sent the cops to Staten Island in January to get the guys selling "loosies". He has been MIA, as far as I know, since this happened. I haven't seen Red Bill owning up to it either.

Ctmom4 said...

@ Chris- Do you have a link for the video that shows Garner on the ground unresponsive? I have only seen one that ends right after he is down.

I have heard of cops commenting that perps always say they can't breathe when they are subdued>

richard mcenroe said...

I'm still baffled why this story didn't take off over the Ferguson one. It's about a billion times more provocative.

After the narrative that the NYT, Vox, MSNBC, Salon, and others were pushing blew up, not to mention their cheerleading for a riot, perhaps they are chastened somewhat.

...or they don't want a riot in THEIR down. Unfortunately, they're learning it's hard to control a mob once it gets started, much as the Reds found out they couldn't put a leash on Stalin...

Freeman Hunt said...

You're asking me to believe that approximately 6 NYPD hated this guy so much, they knew he was laying there and dying and wanted him to die.

No, I'm asking you to believe that some highly annoyed cops were too cavalier with a man's life, and he died as a result. They thought it would all work out. ("Surely, it will all work out!") But it didn't. Their passivity killed him.

garage mahal said...

he Milwaukee officer shot the mentally ill guy 14 times because the mentally ill guy got the officer's baton and was beating him over the head with it. It's called self defense, and is the reason why no charges were filed against the officer.

Says the fired cop.

Twelve weeks later, lawyers for the family said Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm is still awaiting the results of both an FBI and an independent expert analysis of whether Manney’s use of force was appropriate.

Get your facts straight.

Chris said...

@ Chris- Do you have a link for the video that shows Garner on the ground unresponsive? I have only seen one that ends right after he is down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT66U_Ftdng

Watch the video, then go look up recommendations for CPR, and try to reconcile the two. I can't manage it.

Anonymous said...

"...or they don't want a riot in THEIR town. Unfortunately, they're learning it's hard to control a mob once it gets started, much as the Reds found out they couldn't put a leash on Stalin..."

Yeah, it's one thing to promote and excuse rioting in fly-over country far from where any of the media elites live. It's quite another thing to have "protesters" blocking traffic (and ambulances) on the Upper West Side.

If some black cake lady's shop gets trashed in Nowheresville, Missouri, well, social justice. But Zabar's?

Drago said...

garage: "Get your facts straight"

LOL

Yes.

Garage actually wrote that, and apparently, with no sense of irony.

Paul said...

Didn't the cops have pepper spray and Tasers?

So why the choke hold?

William said...

There's a difference between acting in a cavalier way and murdering someone. The cop has lost his job, and the Garner family will become millionaires. That's not perfect justice, but it's far more justice than the next hundred murder victims in America will receive.......Not here, but I've seen some commentators on TV describe this as some kind of heinous, appalling offense. It wasn't.

William said...

In the recent past, there was an incident where a cop in NYC tasered a deranged man who had climbed on a store awning and was screaming at passersby. The man fell from the awning, cracked his skull, and later died. Tasering the guy was the wrong move. A few months later, the cop committed suicide.......Cops are thrown into high pressure, fast developing situations where things can go wrong in a big way and where wrong decisions can easily happen. I'm inclined to give the cops a break.

Anonymous said...

Big Mike wrote;


Look, I'm not saying that Pantaleo woke up that morning and decided that it was a great day to kill a black guy. If his training was crap, it was crap. If he violated his training, and the official response certainly suggests that, Pantaleo needs at the very least to be fired and probably prosecuted. If I had been on the grand jury, that's how I would have voted given the evidence I've seen so far. Policing is a dangerous job, but that's not an excuse to let someone walk free if they ignored their training.


I think you're conflating two things here.

The guy who brings Eric Garner to the ground has almost nothing to do with the end of this conflict. The take down lasts no more than 20 seconds total, from start to finish. From the time he says he can't breathe (At least, from what I can hear) and the time his neck is released is approximately 2 seconds.

Freeman is talking about when he's laying on the ground, handcuffs on, and he is not responsive.

At this point, the officer who took him down is further away from Eric Garner than approximately 10 other police officers in uniform. He's sort of far back in the background and he appears to be interviewing someone. He isn't in uniform, so I assume he's a plain clothes officer. All the Officers working on Garner appear to be in Uniform.

chickelit said...

Before "Prosser-cuting" the cop, this discussion could benefit from a technical distinction between a chokehold and a headlock.

Thanks in advance.

Anonymous said...

Freeman writes;

No, I'm asking you to believe that some highly annoyed cops were too cavalier with a man's life, and he died as a result.

Why did no one else notice? There were 10 uniformed cops and several bystanders. One lady video taping is talking about the whole thing as she tapes. She isn't saying, "He's dying! Help him! He's dying!"

And she is standing 3 to 5 feet from him in the video.

Was she also annoyed with him and cavalier?

You can also hear other people in the background and catch glimpses of people. At 2:42 minutes from the beginning of this, an officer says, "Clear the sidewalk, an ambulance is coming down the sidewalk."

Still, no one is saying, "He's dying! Help him! There's an officer holding him up at 3:20 who asks him a garbled question, I think it's about medication but I'm not sure, and Eric Garner responds with an audible "No" at 3:32 a different Officer says, "Let's keep him on his side so he can breath." EMS gets there at 4 minutes and starts to talk to him.

The lady puts her fingers to his neck to, presumably take his pulse. She is also holding his wrist, presumably to take his pulse.

Still, no one, not the cops, not the EMS, not the lady shooting the video, not any of the bystanders are screaming, "He's dying! He's dying!" or "He can't breath!" or "He's having a heart attack!" Etc.

Why do you suppose that is?

Because even the lady shooting the video is too cavalier?

Finally, at 6:35 of the video, someone says, "Why aint nobody doin CPR?"

And an Officer standing next to the woman with the camera says, "Because he's breathing." And they respond, "He's breathing?" and he responds, "Yeah."

Just because the video is titled, "Over 7 minutes handcuffed not breathing" doesn't make it true.

You DO NOT do CPR on someone who is breathing.

Do you have evidence he wasn't breathing, or that this officer was lying?

Here is the video.

Smilin' Jack said...

You people have lost sight of the big picture. Cigarettes kill many thousands of people annually, and those who traffic in them must be stopped by any means necessary.

That is, unless they've paid the appropriate bribes--er, I mean taxes--in which case it's totally OK.

Achilles said...

eric said...
Achilles writes;

Not jack boots like you appear to be.

"Maybe. But somehow I think the jackboots will be the ones who see a video like this, not bother with evidence, and string up the officer."

You mean evidence like the video? Where a man says he can't breath. Then he stops breathing. Then he goes unresponsive, unconscious, and dies?

"Fortunately, I live in a country with a system where a jury of our peers gets to consider all of the evidence and make a decision."

This was a grand jury, not peers. A distinction that you seem to miss. We plebes down here in the gutter know the difference.

"You may think it's a jury of fools, or a terrible system, but I for one am grateful for it. Grateful that you and the media don't get to judge this officer and punish him because you saw a video and decided to draw your conclusions without considering all the evidence.

I'm thankful that 23 peers were able to sit and consider the evidence carefully. And I trust that there wasn't enough evidence to convince 12 of those 23 to send it to court."

Absurd on it's face. The video is evidence enough to indict. There was at least negligence involved. We had to perform first aid on people we shot overseas. These police enforcers obviously didn't give a shit. Someone died and all you can say was Don't resist?"

"You on the other hand want to live in a society that sees a video posted online, reads a few headlines about it, and are ready to destroy another man's life based on your opinion of what you're seeing without considering all the evidence.

Thank God I live in this country, and not the country you imagine to be better."

Bullshit. I have seen witch hunts. We had people fired, demoted, and put in jail from situations that were far more stressful than taking down some fat guy selling cigarettes.

We apparently had more oversight in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban than you have in Staten Island taking down american citizens who bought cigarettes somewhere and sold them to people in New York. A better country? I fought for a free country. Not a country where if you sell cigarettes the police can come tackle you and if you end up dead? OH WELL DON"T RESIST YOU PROLE!

Seriously fuck off and take your holier than thou shit with you. Police should not be tackling people who sell cigarettes and they should be held accountable if their negligence causes the death of a citizen.

Achilles said...

chickelit said...
"Before "Prosser-cuting" the cop, this discussion could benefit from a technical distinction between a chokehold and a headlock.

Thanks in advance."

He was in a headlock. There may have been constriction on the throat but if you can say "I can't breath" you aren't being choked. The take down was inept and clumsy but things in real life rarely look clean or pretty like the movies.

The part where this goes wrong is that after he says he can't breath a couple times he obviously stops breathing and responding. And... they all just kinda stand there... and the narrator talks... and they stand there more... then the paramedics come... nothing... he is put in an ambulance... oh crazy he dead!

If there was some response to a violent incident or the guy was disturbing the peace in a meaningful manner get him out of there. But this guy wasn't messing with anyone. There was no reason to tackle him or escalate in the first place.

As soon as he went unresponsive and stopped breathing the officers had a responsibility to try to bring him back to breathing. They all had multiple CPR training sessions. They have some sort of first aid training. Someone had to know enough to clear his airway and check responsiveness. Once that was done start CPR. The goal of CPR isn't to have them wake up, it is to have blood continue going to the brain until the paramedics get there. They did nothing. At minimum that's negligence.

Gabriel said...

I don't really have anything to add, except that contrary to what garage alleged in every single Ferguson thread, only one commenter here appears to reflexively defend cops.

I also know that garage will never have enough integrity to admit it.

Kirk Parker said...

Big Mike,

Sounds like you're talking about the (evocatively-name) "eggshell-skull" doctrine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull


william,

"I'd give the cop the benefit of the doubt"

Once upon a time, I'd have done so too.

Today.....? ......


Freeman,

"One thing I don't do: stand around doing nothing while a guy dies right next to me. "

OK, but that's because you're a real human being, not one of the Only Ones™.

eric,

Re your 9:03pm comment: You Are Part Of The Problem. I just pray to G-d you are far, far away from the left coast so I never have to encounter you and your f'n warped sense of what your duties are.




Hey all,

Can we figure out where eric lives, and worked (before he retired if I read things correctly)? Because one thing I want to know is the he isn't working (and didn't work) in any jurisdiction I am likely to pass through.

Kirk Parker said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

Freeman,

I have about a 160 IQ and it is clear that you've forgotten more about asthma than I'll ever know. Before I thought of asthma and an inhaler I'd think of anaphylaxis and an epi-pen. Of course if he'd allowed them to cuff and seRch him they might have found his inhaler and added 2+2.

That said. A million restaurant signs say you're wrong. They say that if the victim can speak, breathe or cough, that he is not choking-or at least that his airway is not obstructed. He said I can't breathe. By definition he is lying, he took breath to say that.

It is foolish to blame the cops for arresting loosies sellers. Blame whoever passed the law.

Birkel, in what circumstances do you expect sworn officers to turn their back on their duty as they evaluate it to be? Their comeuppance, if violating his right to commit crimes in the open air, is a lawsuit.

And as a New Yorker, I don't want to pay for a civil verdict with my taxes. Take the arrest, schmuck!

Unknown said...

Meanwhile has anyone any good new ideas on how to gently restrain difficult people?

Birkel said...

Big Mike:
There was a report that somebody was breaking the law. Those police were responding to a call. They did not know if a law had been broken. They assumed Garner was involved.

Again: Did they have the right to start a physical altercation without p.c.?

Chris said...

There's an officer holding him up at 3:20 who asks him a garbled question, I think it's about medication but I'm not sure, and Eric Garner responds with an audible "No" at 3:32 a different Officer says, "Let's keep him on his side so he can breath." EMS gets there at 4 minutes and starts to talk to him.

People are talking at Garner, sure. But I don't see or hear anything at 3:20, or anywhere else in the video that looks or sounds like a response from Garner.

Considering Garner's behavior prior to the takedown, I'd expect him to be talking if he was conscious, and struggling to get into a more comfortable position. If Garner was breathing and responsive, police could have gotten him into a sitting position. Garner never even raised his head.

Because even the lady shooting the video is too cavalier?

Should we expect no more from trained police than from random bystanders? The bystanders' and video-takers' behavior may be disturbing and disappointing, too. But that's not really the point.

And an Officer standing next to the woman with the camera says, "Because he's breathing." And they respond, "He's breathing?" and he responds, "Yeah."

That officer was in no position to make that determination. Maybe he assumed Garner was breathing and fine, because nobody was performing CPR. Or it was a little white lie meant to keep bystanders calm.

Just because the video is titled, "Over 7 minutes handcuffed not breathing" doesn't make it true.

Just because a cop said Garner was breathing or fine, doesn't make it true.

You DO NOT do CPR on someone who is breathing.

Breathing normally, you mean. If Garner was breathing normally, and his heart was working, oxygen would be getting to his brain, and he would be conscious and responsive. I think he'd be talking, and struggling to get into an upright position.

I see none of that in the video.

Birkel said...

Unknown:
You assume a crime based on a call from a private citizen. We cannot assume the private citizen gives the police p.c. Can we?

If posters here believe otherwise, I invite them to think through the implications of such a determination.

Paul said...

Why didn't the cops USE Tasers or pepper spray?

I bet they had them right there.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Why didn't the cops USE Tasers or pepper spray?"

-- Let's answer why before we get any questions. There may be a good reason.

I don't know enough about this incident to say anything intelligent on the matter. At the moment though, this is the uncomfortable natural fall out of criminalizing stupid things. We really need to take a look at our laws, and if we're not comfortable with the police harming someone who resists arrest over them [either intentionally, negligently, or unintentionally] -- MAYBE it shouldn't be illegal.

Unknown said...

Trayvon Martin is a hero. Michael Brown is a hero. Erol Garner is a hero. Why? Not because of their criminal actions, but because they were killed fightin' the man.

That's a pretty bad message.

Shanna said...

Meanwhile has anyone any good new ideas on how to gently restrain difficult people?

I feel like if restraints are so potentially dangerous, they should be careful about when they restrain people. Like they are with car chases, and tasers. There is a known problem there, so you should only use serious methods in a serious situation. That guy who sells lose cigarettes does not qualify.

And then of course, the way they didn't help afterwards was awful, but I can see what Unknown is saying too - that if you dont' know about something specific like asthma you may not know what to do. I remember having a weird asthma like attack one time in college and I had no idea what to do and one of my friends was on the phone with someone who had asthma and she talked me through it. So it may not be something that is obvious, but I feel like I have heard about someone dying of asthma in similar circumstances before. So it should be in the training the cops get.

Mark Caplan said...

Given the tremendous bravery of peace officers in their trying day and night to maintain order in hostile war-zone "communities," we should award each officer two career mulligans, no questions asked.

Officer Pantaleo, you've got one mulligan left.

Shanna said...

At the moment though, this is the uncomfortable natural fall out of criminalizing stupid things. We really need to take a look at our laws, and if we're not comfortable with the police harming someone who resists arrest over them [either intentionally, negligently, or unintentionally] -- MAYBE it shouldn't be illegal.

Yes. This too. Or at the very least, keep stupid things on the ticket level. Are you going to knock someone to the ground and handcuff them for not mowing their grass? No, and there are good reasons for that.

CStanley said...

I feel like if restraints are so potentially dangerous, they should be careful about when they restrain people

This. The police should only be "taking people down" if there is imminent danger to the public or the cops themselves. And the cops should be trained to avoid, whenever possible, triggering the imminent danger to themselves,

I get that this means some crime suspects will flee, but that should be trade off we are willing to make. If there is probable cause for arrest and a non-dangerous suspect is attempting to flee, maybe they should paintball him, similar to the ink bombs that bank tellers can put into money that is handed over to robbers.

Matthew Sablan said...

If someone resists arrest, you need to be able to restrain and arrest them. We can't have effective policing if people can simply walk away from being arrested.

If we don't want them arresting people for things, let's rewrite the laws so those things aren't illegal or aren't arrest-able offenses.

Birkel said...

Matthew Sablan:
Are you saying that non-criminals who resist illegal detention because it is their right to be free must submit to the state even when there is no probable cause for arrest?

Matthew Sablan said...

I would, and I think most people would as well because we have an existing, legitimate method for dealing with excesses and abuses of state power.

We can sue the state for infringing on your rights and work with the local and national media to ensure the people who abused their power are fired.

That's how civil society is SUPPOSED to work. Because you can't tell if the cop has bad information, is being a dick, making a bad judgment call, etc., etc.

As a society, we're empowering cops to act on our behalf -- we expect them to do their job. They can use violence legitimately; the remedy for if they choose to detain you illegally is through the courts and exerting public opinion against politicians who handle the police.

If you want to resist arrest -- there are very likely to be consequences. The court system exists, in part, to be a check on the state as much as a check on the people. We just need to start using it as such.

Birkel said...

Put Matthew Sablan down for "the state over all" and me down for "individual rights over the state".

Now that we've sorted out who is in favor of the Constitutional protections and who is not, I will withdraw from engaging you.

richard mcenroe said...

Do you know what you get if you pepper spray an asthmatic? A dead asthmatic.

Do you know what you get if you taser a fat man with hypertension? A dead fat man?

Do you know what you get if you perform CPR on someone who still has a heartbeat? Someone with no heartbeat.

Love all the expert opinions being offered here...

richard mcenroe said...

Do you know what you get if you pepper spray an asthmatic? A dead asthmatic.

Do you know what you get if you taser a fat man with hypertension? A dead fat man?

Do you know what you get if you perform CPR on someone who still has a heartbeat? Someone with no heartbeat.

Love all the expert opinions being offered here...

Unknown said...

rape! If they can speak breathe or cough you don't do CPR.

Meanwhile who has a link to the damn video?

Unknown said...

Haha stupid Android voice to text. Rape//Right!