To Protect and to Serve...

[n_huffhines]

The result is that they are arresting people for subway performing, etc., in big numbers. But get this -- murders are down from 2400 to 300. So while this incident sparks protest, and understandably so as to the choke hold, there may be value to the theory of police presence as a deterrent in and of itself that shouldn't be lost in the noise.

:whistling:

 

[lawgator1]

Rule by fear...subway performers were by large my favorite part of new York.

Also that police officer needs to be arrested for murder. A choke hold is never necessary.

Fantastic. It's okay that a few people die in a demonstration of forceful police presence, as long as the numbers look better for the politicians.

2400 down to 300 isn't a political number, its the consequence of a greater police presence. And so how about instead of focusing entirely on the occasional bad outcome, we moderate that with recognition that 1) the police presence is deterring crime; and 2) maybe place at least some of the blame on the guy standing there, yelling at the officers, refusing what I counted as at least several reasonable instructions from the officers, forcing their hand.

What were the officers supposed to do? Just walk away because he was huge and refusing to cooperate?

I don't deny that the choke hold was wrong. Medical review will show whether it was that, his enormous weight, his asthma, his excited state caused by yelling at and defying the police, or a combination of all of that, which caused his death.

But he was rightfully to be arrested, imo. And he was wrong to resist.

 

[hog88]

2400 down to 300 isn't a political number, its the consequence of a greater police presence. And so how about instead of focusing entirely on the occasional bad outcome, we moderate that with recognition that 1) the police presence is deterring crime; and 2) maybe place at least some of the blame on the guy standing there, yelling at the officers, refusing what I counted as at least several reasonable instructions from the officers, forcing their hand.

What were the officers supposed to do? Just walk away because he was huge and refusing to cooperate?

I don't deny that the choke hold was wrong. Medical review will show whether it was that, his enormous weight, his asthma, his excited state caused by yelling at and defying the police, or a combination of all of that, which caused his death.

But he was rightfully to be arrested, imo. And he was wrong to resist.

I'll agree with you on this. The responsible parties are the politicians who pass stupid laws like outlawing the sale of single cigarettes and expect the police to be a source of intimidation and revenue production.

 

[n_huffhines]

I'll agree with you on this. The responsible parties are the politicians who pass stupid laws like outlawing the sale of single cigarettes and expect the police to be a source of intimidation and revenue production.

At the same time, cops have a choice. They can let people off the hook. They don't enforce every law all the time, and we all are willing to accept that. The notion that "an unjust law is no law at all" is much older than democracy.

 

[hog88]

At the same time, cops have a choice. They can let people off the hook. They don't enforce every law all the time, and we all are willing to accept that. The notion that "an unjust law is no law at all" is much older than democracy.

They do have choices, the cop who strangled this man to death chose to do so and should be punished along with the others that chose to not stop him.

A lot of choice has been taken from the police over the years, they do not have the discretion they used to. IMHO it's due to revenue demands and overactive politicians. Now there are a great many police who are fine with this and enjoy the power, they are trash. There are others who just chose to do their job as told and they are lemmings.

 

[n_huffhines]

They do have choices, the cop who strangled this man to death chose to do so and should be punished along with the others that chose to not stop him.

A lot of choice has been taken from the police over the years, they do not have the discretion they used to. IMHO it's due to revenue demands and overactive politicians. Now there are a great many police who are fine with this and enjoy the power, they are trash. There are others who just chose to do their job as told and they are lemmings.

What do you mean by that? In what ways, or what changed?

 

[lawgator1]

At the same time, cops have a choice. They can let people off the hook. They don't enforce every law all the time, and we all are willing to accept that. The notion that "an unjust law is no law at all" is much older than democracy.

That's true. And ordinarily I'd say that had this gentleman cooperated he'd have been let off with a warning or with a citation.

But if you watched and listened to the video, the guy goes on and on about the multiple other times he's been confronted over this.


"At the time of his death, the Port Richmond resident had three misdemeanor cases pending in Stapleton Criminal Court. He was free on $2,000 bail.


On Aug. 22 of last year, Garner was arrested on School Road and Bay Street, Fort Wadsworth, for allegedly driving without a license, according to a criminal complaint.


Garner, 43, gave cops a phony name and put himself in more hot water when officers allegedly found untaxed cigarettes and a small amount of marijuana in the 1998 Lincoln Navigator he was driving, the complaint said.


He was charged with aggravated unlicensed vehicle operation, false personation, possession or sale of untaxed cigarettes and marijuana possession, according to information from District Attorney Daniel Donovan's office.


Seven months later, while out on $1,000 bail, Garner was busted on March 28 for allegedly selling unstamped cigarettes on the street outside of 200 Bay St., Tompkinsville. He had 24 packs of untaxed smokes in his possession, police said.


The location is next door to 202 Bay St., where the fatal confrontation occurred Thursday between cops and Garner.


Garner was charged with a misdemeanor count of violating the cigarette and tobacco products tax and posted $1,000 bail, online state court records show.
Garner was arrested again on May 7 on Victory Boulevard and St. Marks Place, Tompkinsville. The site is across the block from Bay Street.


Cops accused him of possessing six packs of untaxed cigarettes.


Garner last appeared in court to answer the three cases on July 2. The matters were all adjourned then to Oct. 7, online state court records show."




Misdemeanor cases over alleged untaxed cigarettes preceded fatal police incident with Eric Garner | SILive.com


Now if you watch that video, he is adamant he did nothing wrong. He just broke up a fight -- next to the places he had previously been arrested for doing this? Ok, possible. Not likely. And he has lied before.

 

[CNCVol88]

2400 down to 300 isn't a political number, its the consequence of a greater police presence. And so how about instead of focusing entirely on the occasional bad outcome, we moderate that with recognition that 1) the police presence is deterring crime; and 2) maybe place at least some of the blame on the guy standing there, yelling at the officers, refusing what I counted as at least several reasonable instructions from the officers, forcing their hand.

What were the officers supposed to do? Just walk away because he was huge and refusing to cooperate?

I don't deny that the choke hold was wrong. Medical review will show whether it was that, his enormous weight, his asthma, his excited state caused by yelling at and defying the police, or a combination of all of that, which caused his death.

But he was rightfully to be arrested, imo. And he was wrong to resist.

So choking him to death is a reasonable course of action over selling some cigs... Seems legit.

 

[lawgator1]

So choking him to death is a reasonable course of action over selling some cigs... Seems legit.

No, first of all s choke hold is wrong. Period.

But some use of force in my view was reasonably necessary in order to secure him. Had they used tasers, for example, and he died after that, I would not be critical of the cops of that.

The law in this area, generally speaking, is that the right to arrest carries with it the right to use reasonable force to effectuate the arrest. The more a person resists, the greater the use of force permitted.

A choke hold is not reasonable by definition according to the NYPD. But certainly some significant use of force would have been.

 

[YorkVol]

2400 down to 300 isn't a political number, its the consequence of a greater police presence. And so how about instead of focusing entirely on the occasional bad outcome, we moderate that with recognition that 1) the police presence is deterring crime; and 2) maybe place at least some of the blame on the guy standing there, yelling at the officers, refusing what I counted as at least several reasonable instructions from the officers, forcing their hand.

What were the officers supposed to do? Just walk away because he was huge and refusing to cooperate?

I don't deny that the choke hold was wrong. Medical review will show whether it was that, his enormous weight, his asthma, his excited state caused by yelling at and defying the police, or a combination of all of that, which caused his death.

But he was rightfully to be arrested, imo. And he was wrong to resist.

They could have simply issued a citation for selling without a permit. He could pay the fine or fight it in court. It is a non-violent offense, no need for arrest and detention.

 

[n_huffhines]

They could have simply issued a citation for selling without a permit. He could pay the fine or fight it in court. It is a non-violent offense, no need for arrest and detention.

It's so weird to me that anyone would have any other opinion than this.

 

[YorkVol]

What do you mean by that? In what ways, or what changed?

My friends on the force tell me that once they are called, someone is going to be cited and perhaps arrested. Their chain of command doesn't want to risk allowing a beat cop to let someone off and then have that person hurt someone later. They will cite or arrest and let the courts work it out.

 

[YorkVol]

No, first of all s choke hold is wrong. Period.

But some use of force in my view was reasonably necessary in order to secure him. Had they used tasers, for example, and he died after that, I would not be critical of the cops of that.

The law in this area, generally speaking, is that the right to arrest carries with it the right to use reasonable force to effectuate the arrest. The more a person resists, the greater the use of force permitted.

A choke hold is not reasonable by definition according to the NYPD. But certainly some significant use of force would have been.

Physical force is not warranted for an economic crime (alleged).

They need to admit they were scared of him because he was a large Black man and they were short White guys. Otherwise they wouldn't have gone directly to a submission move. If they weren't afraid of him, they would have calmly explained he was being detained and let him get in the police car. If he decided to run, they could have simply followed him until he quit running, which would have been around 10 feet away. Then they could say, "Now will you get in the car?"

The biggest problem with all of these events is the police don't see themselves as part of this man's community. They were acquainted with him, but they didn't know him. Had they known him the way someone knows a neighbor, they would have dealt with the situation much differently then they did. But, the police are in a war against the citizens in many of our towns and cities. We need to bring them back into the community the way they were in the past.

 

[hog88]

What do you mean by that? In what ways, or what changed?

Take domestic violence calls for one. If the police are called for domestic violence, someone is going to jail even if there is no evidence of it ever occurring.

 

[MercyPercy]

If you feel harassed by the police, you should be able to express that opinion without getting taken down with knees digging in your back and elbows pushing your face into the concrete. LG, your stance on his "defiance" is kind of ridiculous. If defiance is questioning the police about their intent before you submit yourself to capture, I hope I don't end up in a choke hold one day.

 

[lawgator1]

Physical force is not warranted for an economic crime (alleged).

They need to admit they were scared of him because he was a large Black man and they were short White guys. Otherwise they wouldn't have gone directly to a submission move. If they weren't afraid of him, they would have calmly explained he was being detained and let him get in the police car. If he decided to run, they could have simply followed him until he quit running, which would have been around 10 feet away. Then they could say, "Now will you get in the car?"

The biggest problem with all of these events is the police don't see themselves as part of this man's community. They were acquainted with him, but they didn't know him. Had they known him the way someone knows a neighbor, they would have dealt with the situation much differently then they did. But, the police are in a war against the citizens in many of our towns and cities. We need to bring them back into the community the way they were in the past.

When he resists numerous verbal orders and is posturing his huge body in a confrontational "I will fight you" manner, is that passive physical on the use of force matrix?

If so, they may use pain compliance and take down techniques. The problem here, quite simply, is that the take down technique that was arguably used by the one officer is prohibited by policy.

From the agency's perspective, the issue immediately confronting them is whether he violated policy. If so, he will be disciplined according to their procedures. In terms of a lawsuit, the plaintiff will point to a violation of policy as proof that it was excessive force.

The judge may agree, but it is also possible that the defense attorneys would hire expert witnesses to testify a) even if a violation of policy it wasn't unconstitutional or unreasonable; and b) even if it was, the cause of death was something else.

In that way, the case gets tried to a jury. The possibility that a jury might agree with the defense, either on a or b, is incentive to the plaintiff to settle before trial.

 

[lawgator1]

If you feel harassed by the police, you should be able to express that opinion without getting taken down with knees digging in your back and elbows pushing your face into the concrete. LG, your stance on his "defiance" is kind of ridiculous. If defiance is questioning the police about their intent before you submit yourself to capture, I hope I don't end up in a choke hold one day.

Go along with them then, complain later. You do not have the right to resist, even verbally, an arrest. It was on video. Go to the precinct, get bailed out, a lawyer will take the case, you get a little bit of dough and the officer gets talked to. Everybody moves on.

But don't yell at the officers and make it clear you are not going to go peacefully.

 

[utvolpj]

Charge them all with murder. Let them take their chances with a jury. Better chances than the dead man had

 

[YorkVol]

When he resists numerous verbal orders and is posturing his huge body in a confrontational "I will fight you" manner, is that passive physical on the use of force matrix?

If so, they may use pain compliance and take down techniques. The problem here, quite simply, is that the take down technique that was arguably used by the one office is prohibited by policy.

From the agency's perspective, the issue immediately confronting them is whether he violated policy. If so, he will be disciplined according to their procedures. In terms of a lawsuit, the plaintiff will point to a violation of policy as proof that it was excessive force.

The judge may agree, but it is also possible that the defense attorneys would hire expert witnesses to testify a) even if a violation of policy it wasn't unconstitutional or unreasonable; and b) even if it was, the cause of death was something else.

In that way, the case gets tried to a jury. The possibility that a jury might agree with the defense, either on a or b, is incentive to the plaintiff to settle before trial.

His posture wasn't aggressive, it was entirely defensive. He was reasonable and courteous to the officers the entire conversation. He made no threats in either words or behavior. They just couldn't see it and in their fear they found everything he said to be intimidating. What a world we live in when a NYC police officer can be intimidated by a 47 y/o obese asthmatic.

 

[lawgator1]

His posture wasn't aggressive, it was entirely defensive. He was reasonable and courteous to the officers the entire conversation. He made no threats in either words or behavior. They just couldn't see it and in their fear they found everything he said to be intimidating. What a world we live in when a NYC police officer can be intimidated by a 47 y/o obese asthmatic.

We must have watched different videos. I read his words and his actions to be that he was simply not going to cooperate, at all.

 

[YorkVol]

Go along with them then, complain later. You do not have the right to resist, even verbally, an arrest. It was on video. Go to the precinct, get bailed out, a lawyer will take the case, you get a little bit of dough and the officer gets talked to. Everybody moves on.

But don't yell at the officers and make it clear you are not going to go peacefully.

Sure, we should all do that and would if it didn't mean that we would then lose our jobs, be prohibited from visiting our kids at their schools, perhaps lose visitation rights altogether, have our credit ratings affected and have to pay court costs even when acquitted.

 

[YorkVol]

We must have watched different videos. I read his words and his actions to be that he was simply not going to cooperate, at all.

Which only proves you are intimidated by obese asthmatics.

 

[lawgator1]

Which only proves you are intimidated by obese asthmatics.

I watched it again. Just before the choke hold, he was waiving his arms around and physically pulled away. A take down would be authorized by any standard use of force matrix.

I agree that they could not use a choke hold. But on the other hand, obviously a standard arm bar or controlled take down was not going to work here.

 

[YorkVol]

I watched it again. Just before the choke hold, he was waiving his arms around and physically pulled away. A take down would be authorized by any standard use of force matrix.

I agree that they could not use a choke hold. But on the other hand, obviously a standard arm bar or controlled take down was not going to work here.

True, but if they knew the guy, they would have, one, talked to him differently and convinced him to go with them, or two, let him run down the road until his asthma kicked in, then he would have welcomed a ride.

And, yes I believe police should know the people in their jurisdictions, but maybe that is just me.

 

[lawgator1]

True, but if they knew the guy, they would have, one, talked to him differently and convinced him to go with them, or two, let him run down the road until his asthma kicked in, then he would have welcomed a ride.

And, yes I believe police should know the people in their jurisdictions, but maybe that is just me.

Given his substantial record, including two recent arrests within 100 yards of there, I'd bet at least a few of them did know him.