To Protect and to Serve...

Status
Not open for further replies.
#4,051
#4,051
Rasputin_Vol said:
Look, the man could obviously breathe in the technical sense. The problem is that his breathing was being restricted or he was laboring to breathe because of the situation.

Why are you trying to play coy and getting into a semantics argument? You know full well what a person screaming for help is.
Click to expand...

I think you mean he could obviously exhale. But, breathing consists of at least two necessary activities: inhaling and exhaling. Merely exhaling is not breathing. This is why all humans can exhale underwater and none can breath underwater without the aid of oxygen tanks or snorkels.

Hell, 5 year old children understand this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,052
#4,052
therealUT said:
1. You cannot prove that something is false. So, that's idiotic.

2. According to the Medical Examiner, he died because he could not ****ing breath anymore. So, one of you is correct: either the ME or...you. I'm going with the ME you pterodactyl-brained moron.
Click to expand...

Notice you conveniently fail to mention his obesity, heart disease, and chronic/acute asthma as other reasons he passed away.
 
#4,053
#4,053
tim said:
Notice you conveniently fail to mention his obesity, heart disease, and chronic/acute asthma as other reasons he passed away.
Click to expand...

The reason given by the medical examiner is asphyxiation due to the force imposed by the homicidal cop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#4,054
#4,054
therealUT said:
I think you mean he could obviously exhale. But, breathing consists of at least two necessary activities: inhaling and exhaling. Merely exhaling is not breathing. This is why all humans can exhale underwater and none can breath underwater without the aid of oxygen tanks or snorkels.

Hell, 5 year old children understand this.
Click to expand...

Again, it is an argument about semantics. And it deviates us from the real discussion/topic... which is probably what the intention was in the first place.
 
#4,055
#4,055
Rasputin_Vol said:
Again, it is an argument about semantics. And it deviates us from the real discussion/topic... which is probably what the intention was in the first place.
Click to expand...

See I acrually think this turd thought he was making a valid argument at first. This isn't the first time I've heard the "if you can speak, you can breathe" argument before.

Then when I pointed out how idiotic it was, he backed himself into a corner and then turned it into argument about semantics to save face.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,058
#4,058
Cdywolfe said:
See I acrually think this turd thought he was making a valid argument at first. This isn't the first time I've heard the "if you can speak, you can breathe" argument before.

Then when I pointed out how idiotic it was, he backed himself into a corner and then turned it into argument about semantics to save face.
Click to expand...
Fact is you guys are making mistakes in both of your arguments. He could breathe if he was speaking. Its idiotic for you to argue otherwise. The question is, could he breathe well enough to sustain life.
 
#4,059
#4,059
tim said:
So the ME says nothing about obesity, asthma, and cardiovascular disease?
Click to expand...

The cops should have easily been aware of his medical condition and acted accordingly. Obvious, he wasn't going to evade arrest and get in a foot race with cops at close to 400 lbs.
 
#4,060
#4,060
therealUT said:
The ME rules that the cause of death is asphyxiation due to the force imposed by the officer and rules the death a homicide. The rest is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

No, it is not irrelevent. The debate was argued in a grand jury and the facts are that although it was a homicide (by mere definition) it was not an intentional homicide and that the officer could not have been expected to know the medical history of EG.
 
#4,061
#4,061
tim said:
Fact is you guys are making mistakes in both of your arguments. He could breathe if he was speaking. Its idiotic for you to argue otherwise. The question is, could he breathe well enough to sustain life.
Click to expand...

Exhaling is not necessarily breathing. ****!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#4,062
#4,062
tim said:
No, it is not irrelevent. The debate was argued in a grand jury and the facts are that although it was a homicide (by mere definition) it was not an intentional homicide and that the officer could not have been expected to know the medical history of EG.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with whether or not Garner could breath. Thus, irrelevant. ****!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,063
#4,063
Rasputin_Vol said:
The cops should have easily been aware of his medical condition and acted accordingly. Obvious, he wasn't going to evade arrest and get in a foot race with cops at close to 400 lbs.
Click to expand...

Not sure why I continue to reapond to you. At least Trut tries to be logical. You on the other hand pull stuff out of your ass.
 
#4,066
#4,066
tim said:
Did he say "I cant breathe" once? Repeatedly saying it would require him to inhale at some point dont ya think? So breathing is inhaling and exhaling....no?
Click to expand...

I don't think it does. Our lungs hold more air than we think they do, also forcing air out is much easier when being choked than drawing air in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,067
#4,067
tim said:
In your opinion.
Click to expand...

In the ME's opinion, as well. The question of whether the officer choked Garner to death is distinct from whether the officer was justified or excused from doing so. ME ruled on the first; grand jury ruled on the second.

Note, one can take issue with either ruling. However, we can reasonably assert that the ME is an expert in his field; we cannot reasonably assert the grand jury members are experts in questions of justice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,068
#4,068
Cdywolfe said:
See I acrually think this turd thought he was making a valid argument at first. This isn't the first time I've heard the "if you can speak, you can breathe" argument before.

Then when I pointed out how idiotic it was, he backed himself into a corner and then turned it into argument about semantics to save face.
Click to expand...

Look buddy im in the medical field so I fully understand what I was arguing. Continue with the name calling.
 
Last edited:
#4,069
#4,069
jp1 said:
Cant tell much from the article, but I can tell you this....if you are able to say "I can't breathe" then you can breathe.
Click to expand...

Yeah. You don't learn much from the article because the cops aren't saying ****. Not a good sign for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,073
#4,073
jp1 said:
Look buddy im in the medical field so I fully understand what I was arguing. Continue with the name calling.
Click to expand...

Would you mind telling me what county you work in? I want to be extra careful in preventing the need for medical care if I'm within 25 miles of you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#4,075
#4,075
Rasputin_Vol said:
And that is the main question... the other question is just a diversion from the most important item. The guy could not breathe enough to sustain his life.
Click to expand...

Yes, and it's obvious he couldn't. But, the reason he could not breathe enough to sustain life can, and is, tied directly to his poor health and obesity. Arguing that he died solely because of one reason is not factual, a multitude of things are cited in the report.

I feel like we had a thread for this debate some time ago.
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top