Ferguson

[Light Cleric]

I forgot to respond to this but:

James, he didn't die from choking...he died of a heart attack from being obese and the physical exertion......on the way to the hospital.

The medical examiner ruled his death a homicide and due to "compression of neck, compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police." His condition was found to be a contributing factor, but his actual cause of death was the result of the cops. It was not a heart attack.

 

[Antilogic]

James, he didn't die from choking...he died of a heart attack from being obese and the physical exertion......on the way to the hospital.

There is simply no doubt the guy was resisting arrest, and he was also huge in comparison to those trying to arrest him.

By the way, if you can say 'I cant breathe' your're obviously taking in breath to say that. The guy was getting air, but the real problem was him having a heart attack from all the physical effort in resisting arrest.



Lets not pretend that when you resist arrest bad things can happen. And it takes a LOT of effort to subdue someone, especially a guy as big as that. Far more than people realize. So by default, you share in the blame of bad things happening if you resist arrest.

He was a huge guy with health problems, he shouldn't have resisted arrest. He wouldn't have had a heart attack and would be alive if he hadn't fought being arrested.



Words actually have meaning you know. This wouldn't have been murder, so lets not be ignorant and use that term describing this shall we? I suggest saying 'killed'. Far more accurate term given the facts.

Indeed, words do have meaning. The NYC medical examiner report states this was a homicide, and given your prior statements on the Ferguson case, may I assume you hold this expert testimony in high regard?

This guy died before Michael Brown was shot, though. If we wanted to "pick" a victim, for lack of a better word, that incident happened first.

It's been going on for farrr longer than Brown, Garner, whoever you pick, though.

 

[Ajidica]

James, he didn't die from choking...he died of a heart attack from being obese and the physical exertion......on the way to the hospital.

The medical examiner would beg to disagree:

The city's medical examiner's office said Garner's death was caused by "the compression of his chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police".

But it said other factors contributing to his death included asthma and heart disease.
Mr Pantaleo's lawyer had argued he had used a move taught by the police department, not a chokehold which is banned under New York Police Department policy.

I thought a lawyer/paralegal would have at least a basic grasp of the "but for..." idea with negligence but apparently not.

 

[Commodore]

Lets not pretend that when you resist arrest bad things can happen. And it takes a LOT of effort to subdue someone, especially a guy as big as that. Far more than people realize. So by default, you share in the blame of bad things happening if you resist arrest.

He was a huge guy with health problems, he shouldn't have resisted arrest. He wouldn't have had a heart attack and would be alive if he hadn't fought being arrested.

I agree that he shouldn't have resisted arrest, but there was no justification for the amount of force applied in this situation. You are correct that it takes a good amount of effort to subdue such a large man, but that is why the police are issued pepper spray, tazers, and other non-lethal weapons to reduce the need for actual physical force to be used to subdue a resisting suspect. Not once did the officers involved in this incident attempt to use any of the non-lethal methods at their disposal to resolve this situation.

 

[Berzerker]

its really a bad idea to handcuff big people behind their backs much less lay them face down and sit on them, he aint the first to die from that

cops dont know that?

 

[James Stuart]

its really a bad idea to handcuff big people behind their backs much less lay them face down and sit on them, he aint the first to die from that

cops dont know that?

Knowing isn't the same as caring.

I'm going to admit, in this thread, to having used handcuffs and chokeholds on multiple occasions in my, um, private life. I've even choked a lot harder than this cop does in the video. The big difference is that I'm not putting my entire body weight on top of the person I'm choking - in fact, if I'm choking them, I'm definitely dragging them backwards and have my entire body weight off them - and that I'm not doing it to anyone who weighs 400 lbs and has a heart condition. I'm also not inviting half a dozen or more of my friends to join in, or smashing anyone's head into concrete. And I release them if they start screaming; "I can't breathe."

This was ruled as a homicide, and it most definitely was. Choking someone until they suffer a heart attack is murder; even in my security days, we were explicitly warned against using any chokeholds unless it was a matter of life and death. If you really need to subdue someone that size, an armbar, kneebar, or one of the several tasers police are issued with would have more than sufficed.

 

[Kennigit]

Im trying to learn new words

What does "failure to mitigate" mean in manslaughter, homicide, or other relevant physical crimes?

Thanks

 

[sophie]

I selected some key sections there. You don't resist arrest. I don't think this can get any clearer obey the officers commands and if you believe you have been wronged take them to court! Resisting arrest forces officers to escalate the use of force until the subject is subdued.

Or another bright idea, STOP BREAKING THE LAW!

Yes, because years of evidence show that contesting cops in court is totally a fair fight, and likely to succeed.

 

[Traitorfish]

Seriously, Colonel, that's your position? "Obey the law, or die?" Even Judge Dredd doesn't kill people for minor offences. You are actually expressing a more liberal attitude towards police violence than a cartoon fascist.

 

[Borachio]

It's not actually such a bad idea. I think Gaddafi had the same sort of thing in mind when he made jumping a red light a capital offence. His argument was that since the penalty was so high no one would ever risk breaking that particular law.

Still, I'm not really being serious.

What really puts people off breaking the law isn't simply the penalty but the chances of them being caught as well. That and the idea that some things simply aren't the right things to do.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Im trying to learn new words

What does "failure to mitigate" mean in manslaughter, homicide, or other relevant physical crimes?

Thanks

In all probability in this case it meant "I work with law enforcement and know some buzz words and I'm desperate to create an aura of credibility".

 

[MobBoss]

Indeed, words do have meaning. The NYC medical examiner report states this was a homicide, and given your prior statements on the Ferguson case, may I assume you hold this expert testimony in high regard?

You do realize that homicide doesn't necessarily mean a crime has occurred correct?

For example, killing someone in self-defense is still a homicide. Doesn't make it a crime.

Im trying to learn new words

What does "failure to mitigate" mean in manslaughter, homicide, or other relevant physical crimes?

Thanks

Means if I know I'm obese, have asthma and heart disease, I know I shouldn't get myself into a situation where I have to fight someone.

I agree that he shouldn't have resisted arrest, but there was no justification for the amount of force applied in this situation. You are correct that it takes a good amount of effort to subdue such a large man, but that is why the police are issued pepper spray, tazers, and other non-lethal weapons to reduce the need for actual physical force to be used to subdue a resisting suspect. Not once did the officers involved in this incident attempt to use any of the non-lethal methods at their disposal to resolve this situation.

People die from tazers, pepper spray and other non-lethal weapons too on occasion.

A choke-hold, done properly, isn't lethal either. It doesn't actually cut off the persons airway but cuts off the blood supply to the brain, rendering them unconscious.

The medical examiner ruled his death a homicide and due to "compression of neck, compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police." His condition was found to be a contributing factor, but his actual cause of death was the result of the cops. It was not a heart attack.

I stand corrected. The premise of it being a heart attack was something that was initially given when this all happened months ago.

 

[Kennigit]

Thank you moboss for the clarification!

golly gee wiz, all this legal mumbo jumbo and complicated jargon sure flies right over my head. Sometimes, it gets me confused when terms are used in lawyerin'. If only there were some, I dunno, "previous court case thingy" that, hmmm, "referenced" risk of heart attack, asthma, or heart disease and being a "failure to mitigate" or "mitigation of damages" or something like that in manslaughter or homicide cases. Double bonus points would be awarded, if, say, those are "cited" (ah bugger, was that the word I was looking for earlier?) in cases of suffocation. I'm not talking about potential verbal provocation, or anything else, but specifically those things.

I also wonder, shockingly so, if maybe saying a phrase like "don't touch me" by an obese, asthmatic, heart diseased man is an indication to avoid physical conflict.

 

[Colonel]

I also wonder, shockingly so, if maybe saying a phrase like "don't touch me" by an obese, asthmatic, heart diseased man is an indication to avoid physical conflict.

So your defense is if I tell the cops don't touch me while committing a crime that they shouldn't attempt to arrest me? Dang and I've been following all these laws for so long if only I knew it were that easy to get away with

 

[Commodore]

People die from tazers, pepper spray and other non-lethal weapons too on occasion.

A choke-hold, done properly, isn't lethal either. It doesn't actually cut off the persons airway but cuts off the blood supply to the brain, rendering them unconscious.

I know, I was trained in the use of several non-lethal weapons in the Army (as a result of having the 203 on my rifle); but there is a significantly greater chance of death from the use of physical force, than from any of those non-lethal methods. And no attempt was made to even use any of the non-lethal methods available to them. Had the officers attempted to use their pepper spray or tazers I would be completely on their side. But jumping immediately to the use of physical force when it should be a last resort is just something I cannot condone.

 

[Colonel]

I know, I was trained in the use of several non-lethal weapons in the Army (as a result of having the 203 on my rifle); but there is a significantly greater chance of death from the use of physical force, than from any of those non-lethal methods. And no attempt was made to even use any of the non-lethal methods available to them. Had the officers attempted to use their pepper spray or tazers I would be completely on their side. But jumping immediately to the use of physical force when it should be a last resort is just something I cannot condone.

Just a note, pepper spray and possibly a tazer most likely would have resulted in the same end result of death in the case of the New York incident.

 

[Commodore]

Just a note, pepper spray and possibly a tazer most likely would have resulted in the same end result of death in the case of the New York incident.

Given his heart condition, you are probably right. The main point I am making though was the immediate jump to physical force instead of attempting other methods to resolve the incident is something that seems very suspect in this case.

EDIT: Had to complete that last sentence. I realized after looking at it that it wasn't really a complete thought.

 

[Kennigit]

correct. that is what I said, in context. Every asthmatic, heart diseased, obese man who is committing a crime should be set free into the world without arrest when asking a police officer to not touch them

in a new context:

a 5 second google search actual yields terrible results for whether he had any cigarettes on his possession at time of death, or it is not clear from the edited video (only one I see) that he was being told "you are under arrest". I do not know how precedent is in cases of resisting arrest when the defendant is not told he is under arrest. But, the edited video that I do see seems that he was being asked to be "taken down [to the station presumably]" because the officers watched him sell cigarettes to a man in a "red shirt", so I suppose that is not an issue. The deceased knew he was wanted for questioning or to be arrested.

 

[Colonel]

correct. that is what I said, in context. Every asthmatic, heart diseased, obese man who is committing a crime should be set free into the world without arrest when asking a police officer to not touch them

in a new context:

a 5 second google search actual yields terrible results for whether he had any cigarettes on his possession at time of death, or it is not clear from the edited video (only one I see) that he was being told "you are under arrest". I do not know how precedent is in cases of resisting arrest when the defendant is not told he is under arrest. But, the edited video that I do see seems that he was being asked to be "taken down [to the station presumably]" because the officers watched him sell cigarettes to a man in a "red shirt", so I suppose that is not an issue. The deceased knew he was wanted for questioning or to be arrested.

You don't need to be told that you are being arrested to be charged with resisting arrest. Resisting an officer trying to detain you qualifies as resisting arrest. Thus he was resisting arrest and the officer was in the right to escalate the use of force. Perhaps not to the level he did, I don't know enough about the case to comment as to the legality of how much force he used but he was authorized to use some level of force.

 

[MobBoss]

I know, I was trained in the use of several non-lethal weapons in the Army (as a result of having the 203 on my rifle); but there is a significantly greater chance of death from the use of physical force, than from any of those non-lethal methods. And no attempt was made to even use any of the non-lethal methods available to them. Had the officers attempted to use their pepper spray or tazers I would be completely on their side. But jumping immediately to the use of physical force when it should be a last resort is just something I cannot condone.

Just a note, pepper spray and possibly a tazer most likely would have resulted in the same end result of death in the case of the New York incident.

I don't presume to know what the officers had available for use and what they didn't. I think it a valid question if they did have that stuff available and didn't use it, but with the caveat it still probably would have killed the guy given his health problems.