Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Eric Garner Case

stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 2:10:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I didn't see a recent thread for this topic, so maybe I missed it. I wanted to hear other peoples opinions. I largely agree with Jon Stewart.

https://www.youtube.com...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 12:39:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 2:10:30 PM, stubs wrote:
I didn't see a recent thread for this topic, so maybe I missed it. I wanted to hear other peoples opinions. I largely agree with Jon Stewart.

https://www.youtube.com...

I disagree it was "more simple" than Ferguson, as he claims.
I do not see how excessive force warrants a charge of murder, especially when the force did not cause the death, it was the asthma attack he suffered because of it.

If we applied this logic, then a high speed chase that ends with a car crash that kills ANYONE, is also murder, is it not?
My work here is, finally, done.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 1:25:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 12:39:32 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:10:30 PM, stubs wrote:
I didn't see a recent thread for this topic, so maybe I missed it. I wanted to hear other peoples opinions. I largely agree with Jon Stewart.

https://www.youtube.com...

I disagree it was "more simple" than Ferguson, as he claims.
I do not see how excessive force warrants a charge of murder, especially when the force did not cause the death, it was the asthma attack he suffered because of it.

If we applied this logic, then a high speed chase that ends with a car crash that kills ANYONE, is also murder, is it not?

The coroner called it a homicide. You can read the report haha. Secondly even if it was an asthma attack why in the world did they take him down anyways. He's not threatening at all. Saying "I can't breath." wasn't good enough evidence to, I don't know, believe he couldn't breath?

Your high speed chase analogy is silly and not even close to similar to this situation. It doesn't seem worthy of a response, but I'll believe that was an honest attempt and you were not trying to waste our time. In a high speed chase, the suspect would have fled. Eric Garner did not. He's standing there. I'm not sure how the analogy is supposed to work at all to be relevant to this case, but if you expand upon it, I'll argue again.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 1:30:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 1:25:37 PM, stubs wrote:
At 12/16/2014 12:39:32 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:10:30 PM, stubs wrote:
I didn't see a recent thread for this topic, so maybe I missed it. I wanted to hear other peoples opinions. I largely agree with Jon Stewart.

https://www.youtube.com...

I disagree it was "more simple" than Ferguson, as he claims.
I do not see how excessive force warrants a charge of murder, especially when the force did not cause the death, it was the asthma attack he suffered because of it.

If we applied this logic, then a high speed chase that ends with a car crash that kills ANYONE, is also murder, is it not?

The coroner called it a homicide. You can read the report haha. Secondly even if it was an asthma attack why in the world did they take him down anyways. He's not threatening at all. Saying "I can't breath." wasn't good enough evidence to, I don't know, believe he couldn't breath?

Your high speed chase analogy is silly and not even close to similar to this situation. It doesn't seem worthy of a response, but I'll believe that was an honest attempt and you were not trying to waste our time. In a high speed chase, the suspect would have fled. Eric Garner did not. He's standing there. I'm not sure how the analogy is supposed to work at all to be relevant to this case, but if you expand upon it, I'll argue again.

And to clarify it was not an asthma attack that killed him. The report says he died from "compression of the neck" and "compression of the chest." read the report for yourself.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 1:33:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 1:30:39 PM, stubs wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:25:37 PM, stubs wrote:
At 12/16/2014 12:39:32 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:10:30 PM, stubs wrote:
I didn't see a recent thread for this topic, so maybe I missed it. I wanted to hear other peoples opinions. I largely agree with Jon Stewart.

https://www.youtube.com...

I disagree it was "more simple" than Ferguson, as he claims.
I do not see how excessive force warrants a charge of murder, especially when the force did not cause the death, it was the asthma attack he suffered because of it.

If we applied this logic, then a high speed chase that ends with a car crash that kills ANYONE, is also murder, is it not?

The coroner called it a homicide. You can read the report haha. Secondly even if it was an asthma attack why in the world did they take him down anyways. He's not threatening at all. Saying "I can't breath." wasn't good enough evidence to, I don't know, believe he couldn't breath?

Your high speed chase analogy is silly and not even close to similar to this situation. It doesn't seem worthy of a response, but I'll believe that was an honest attempt and you were not trying to waste our time. In a high speed chase, the suspect would have fled. Eric Garner did not. He's standing there. I'm not sure how the analogy is supposed to work at all to be relevant to this case, but if you expand upon it, I'll argue again.

And to clarify it was not an asthma attack that killed him. The report says he died from "compression of the neck" and "compression of the chest." read the report for yourself.

Find me a link and I will.
Tell me, how does a choke hold compress the chest, exactly?
My work here is, finally, done.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 1:44:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 1:33:36 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:30:39 PM, stubs wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:25:37 PM, stubs wrote:
At 12/16/2014 12:39:32 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:10:30 PM, stubs wrote:
I didn't see a recent thread for this topic, so maybe I missed it. I wanted to hear other peoples opinions. I largely agree with Jon Stewart.

https://www.youtube.com...

I disagree it was "more simple" than Ferguson, as he claims.
I do not see how excessive force warrants a charge of murder, especially when the force did not cause the death, it was the asthma attack he suffered because of it.

If we applied this logic, then a high speed chase that ends with a car crash that kills ANYONE, is also murder, is it not?

The coroner called it a homicide. You can read the report haha. Secondly even if it was an asthma attack why in the world did they take him down anyways. He's not threatening at all. Saying "I can't breath." wasn't good enough evidence to, I don't know, believe he couldn't breath?

Your high speed chase analogy is silly and not even close to similar to this situation. It doesn't seem worthy of a response, but I'll believe that was an honest attempt and you were not trying to waste our time. In a high speed chase, the suspect would have fled. Eric Garner did not. He's standing there. I'm not sure how the analogy is supposed to work at all to be relevant to this case, but if you expand upon it, I'll argue again.

And to clarify it was not an asthma attack that killed him. The report says he died from "compression of the neck" and "compression of the chest." read the report for yourself.

Find me a link and I will.

I'm gonna assume you have google so if you just type in Eric Garner coroner you can find several articles that quote it as well as on youtube people post pictures of it.

Tell me, how does a choke hold compress the chest, exactly?

Dude c'mon. Think for a second. I never said the choke hold compressed his chest. Yeah a cop put him in a choke hold which compressed his neck and there were other cops there dude. You watched the video right? Saying he died from compression of the neck and chest doesn't mean both of those were from the choke hold man.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 1:45:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 1:25:37 PM, stubs wrote:
At 12/16/2014 12:39:32 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:10:30 PM, stubs wrote:
I didn't see a recent thread for this topic, so maybe I missed it. I wanted to hear other peoples opinions. I largely agree with Jon Stewart.

https://www.youtube.com...

I disagree it was "more simple" than Ferguson, as he claims.
I do not see how excessive force warrants a charge of murder, especially when the force did not cause the death, it was the asthma attack he suffered because of it.

If we applied this logic, then a high speed chase that ends with a car crash that kills ANYONE, is also murder, is it not?

The coroner called it a homicide.
What else could they have called it?
It wasn't natural, suicide, or other. Nor was it an accident as the action the cop took was intentional. It does not mean it is charged as a murder.

You can read the report haha.
I've tried, but I cannot find it.

Secondly even if it was an asthma attack why in the world did they take him down anyways. He's not threatening at all.
Oh, I wasn't aware that resisting arrest or whatever the motions he was making towards the cops (like sweeping their hands off him) had anything to do with being threatening.
I do not deny the chokehold seems like excessive force. However, since when is excessive force grounds for murder? It is grounds for dismissal and a civil suit, sure.
Saying "I can't breath." wasn't good enough evidence to, I don't know, believe he couldn't breath?
Did he say this at any point before the choke hold?
People say they can't breathe all the time, and it is tragic no one realized (or cared) he was being honest. After the cop's hands were off him, and he was still saying that a few times, it should have been believed.

Note: I have not watched the video, and I am not inclined to watch a man die.


Your high speed chase analogy is silly and not even close to similar to this situation.
Because a high speed chase to catch a speeder, who isn't doing anything violent or threatening in any way, isn't considered excessive?
Fine, how about giving chase (by foot) to a jaywalker who runs, who then runs into traffic and dies.

It doesn't seem worthy of a response, but I'll believe that was an honest attempt and you were not trying to waste our time. In a high speed chase, the suspect would have fled. Eric Garner did not. He's standing there.
He was refusing to cooperate or resisting arrest - I hear different tales.
So, if I refuse to put my hands up, and am under arrest, and am just standing there (not fleeing), the police are not allowed to force me into handcuffs at some point?

I'm not sure how the analogy is supposed to work at all to be relevant to this case, but if you expand upon it, I'll argue again.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 1:48:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 1:44:56 PM, stubs wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:33:36 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:30:39 PM, stubs wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:25:37 PM, stubs wrote:
At 12/16/2014 12:39:32 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:10:30 PM, stubs wrote:
I didn't see a recent thread for this topic, so maybe I missed it. I wanted to hear other peoples opinions. I largely agree with Jon Stewart.

https://www.youtube.com...

I disagree it was "more simple" than Ferguson, as he claims.
I do not see how excessive force warrants a charge of murder, especially when the force did not cause the death, it was the asthma attack he suffered because of it.

If we applied this logic, then a high speed chase that ends with a car crash that kills ANYONE, is also murder, is it not?

The coroner called it a homicide. You can read the report haha. Secondly even if it was an asthma attack why in the world did they take him down anyways. He's not threatening at all. Saying "I can't breath." wasn't good enough evidence to, I don't know, believe he couldn't breath?

Your high speed chase analogy is silly and not even close to similar to this situation. It doesn't seem worthy of a response, but I'll believe that was an honest attempt and you were not trying to waste our time. In a high speed chase, the suspect would have fled. Eric Garner did not. He's standing there. I'm not sure how the analogy is supposed to work at all to be relevant to this case, but if you expand upon it, I'll argue again.

And to clarify it was not an asthma attack that killed him. The report says he died from "compression of the neck" and "compression of the chest." read the report for yourself.

Find me a link and I will.

I'm gonna assume you have google so if you just type in Eric Garner coroner you can find several articles that quote it as well as on youtube people post pictures of it.

I don't want to find articles on it. I want to see it.
I see enough spin with everything already. So, find me a link that you trust.

Tell me, how does a choke hold compress the chest, exactly?

Dude c'mon. Think for a second. I never said the choke hold compressed his chest.
But that has the cause of death, wasn't it?
So, if the cause of death was not from the choke hold, then how is it murder?

Yeah a cop put him in a choke hold which compressed his neck and there were other cops there dude. You watched the video right? Saying he died from compression of the neck and chest doesn't mean both of those were from the choke hold man.
But, again, you said the coroner DID say this.
So, if not from a choke hold, then how is it the cop's fault for death?
My work here is, finally, done.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 1:54:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 1:45:19 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
The coroner called it a homicide.
What else could they have called it?
It wasn't natural, suicide, or other. Nor was it an accident as the action the cop took was intentional. It does not mean it is charged as a murder.

An asthma attack would have been natural.... the coroner called it a homicide.

You can read the report haha.
I've tried, but I cannot find it.

google.com

Secondly even if it was an asthma attack why in the world did they take him down anyways. He's not threatening at all.
Oh, I wasn't aware that resisting arrest or whatever the motions he was making towards the cops (like sweeping their hands off him) had anything to do with being threatening.
I do not deny the chokehold seems like excessive force. However, since when is excessive force grounds for murder? It is grounds for dismissal and a civil suit, sure.

When the excessive force murders a guy...

Saying "I can't breath." wasn't good enough evidence to, I don't know, believe he couldn't breath?
Did he say this at any point before the choke hold?

I don't believe so.

People say they can't breathe all the time, and it is tragic no one realized (or cared) he was being honest. After the cop's hands were off him, and he was still saying that a few times, it should have been believed.

Note: I have not watched the video, and I am not inclined to watch a man die.


Your high speed chase analogy is silly and not even close to similar to this situation.
Because a high speed chase to catch a speeder, who isn't doing anything violent or threatening in any way, isn't considered excessive?
Fine, how about giving chase (by foot) to a jaywalker who runs, who then runs into traffic and dies.

Eric Garner didn't run...

It doesn't seem worthy of a response, but I'll believe that was an honest attempt and you were not trying to waste our time. In a high speed chase, the suspect would have fled. Eric Garner did not. He's standing there.
He was refusing to cooperate or resisting arrest - I hear different tales.

They don't put everyone in a choke hold who resists arrest. Never mind murder.

So, if I refuse to put my hands up, and am under arrest, and am just standing there (not fleeing), the police are not allowed to force me into handcuffs at some point?

Are they allowed to murder you because of it? Well we know they are from the case, but I wish the answer was no. I don't even know the law to be honest but my best guess is selling untaxed cigarettes is some sort of fine, rather than arrest, but I could be wrong I'll openly admit I don't know what the typical penalty is for that.

I'm not sure how the analogy is supposed to work at all to be relevant to this case, but if you expand upon it, I'll argue again.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 1:58:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 1:48:27 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Find me a link and I will.

I'm gonna assume you have google so if you just type in Eric Garner coroner you can find several articles that quote it as well as on youtube people post pictures of it.

I don't want to find articles on it. I want to see it.
I see enough spin with everything already. So, find me a link that you trust.

I'm not doing work for you. I don't care if you ever read it or not haha.

Tell me, how does a choke hold compress the chest, exactly?

Dude c'mon. Think for a second. I never said the choke hold compressed his chest.
But that has the cause of death, wasn't it?
So, if the cause of death was not from the choke hold, then how is it murder?

The cause of death was compression of the neck (choke hold) and compression of the chest. Think about it a little harder.

Yeah a cop put him in a choke hold which compressed his neck and there were other cops there dude. You watched the video right? Saying he died from compression of the neck and chest doesn't mean both of those were from the choke hold man.
But, again, you said the coroner DID say this.
So, if not from a choke hold, then how is it the cop's fault for death?

Dude seriously? Who are you gonna blame for the death if not the cop?
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 2:03:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 1:33:36 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:30:39 PM, stubs wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:25:37 PM, stubs wrote:
At 12/16/2014 12:39:32 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:10:30 PM, stubs wrote:
I didn't see a recent thread for this topic, so maybe I missed it. I wanted to hear other peoples opinions. I largely agree with Jon Stewart.

https://www.youtube.com...

I disagree it was "more simple" than Ferguson, as he claims.
I do not see how excessive force warrants a charge of murder, especially when the force did not cause the death, it was the asthma attack he suffered because of it.

If we applied this logic, then a high speed chase that ends with a car crash that kills ANYONE, is also murder, is it not?

The coroner called it a homicide. You can read the report haha. Secondly even if it was an asthma attack why in the world did they take him down anyways. He's not threatening at all. Saying "I can't breath." wasn't good enough evidence to, I don't know, believe he couldn't breath?

Your high speed chase analogy is silly and not even close to similar to this situation. It doesn't seem worthy of a response, but I'll believe that was an honest attempt and you were not trying to waste our time. In a high speed chase, the suspect would have fled. Eric Garner did not. He's standing there. I'm not sure how the analogy is supposed to work at all to be relevant to this case, but if you expand upon it, I'll argue again.

And to clarify it was not an asthma attack that killed him. The report says he died from "compression of the neck" and "compression of the chest." read the report for yourself.

Find me a link and I will.
Tell me, how does a choke hold compress the chest, exactly?

In the video of Eric Garner's death you can see that after the police take him down with a choke hold they applied weight onto his back to hold him down, compressing his chest. I'm not sure whether I would call Eric Garner's death a homicide, however it would have been easily preventable except the officers involved ignored Garner's repeated pleas that he couldn't breathe.

There's a myth that "if you can speak, you can breathe" and it's clear that law enforcement officials aren't being properly trained to recognize that this myth is false, and this has lead to easily preventable deaths including Garner's and Jorge Azucena's earlier this year. [http://www.reddit.com...]
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 2:05:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 1:58:04 PM, stubs wrote:

Dude seriously? Who are you gonna blame for the death if not the cop?

The issue at hand isn't blame, dude. It is culpability. It is the criminality of the death.

Newsflash: the medical examiner is not a policeman. They do not make notes on the legal issue, just the medical facts.
Guess what the coroner is going to report your death as if I shoot you dead while you are in the middle of a killing spree? You guessed it, homicide, even though I would not be charged with a single crime.

A homicide does not mean murder, so why don't you make the case for murder.
Since, you have said the cop is not at fault for the compression to the chest which where the cause of death, how can you say the cop killed him?
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 2:09:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 2:03:00 PM, Enji wrote:


In the video of Eric Garner's death you can see that after the police take him down with a choke hold they applied weight onto his back to hold him down, compressing his chest. I'm not sure whether I would call Eric Garner's death a homicide, however it would have been easily preventable except the officers involved ignored Garner's repeated pleas that he couldn't breathe.

Agreed.
And the coroner ruling it a homicide is misleading, since the death was a result of voluntary actions by others. It does not mean it is murder, and I tire of people implying it is proof of murder.

There's a myth that "if you can speak, you can breathe" and it's clear that law enforcement officials aren't being properly trained to recognize that this myth is false, and this has lead to easily preventable deaths including Garner's and Jorge Azucena's earlier this year. [http://www.reddit.com...]

And that could explain why no one helped.
My work here is, finally, done.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 9:13:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 2:05:17 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:58:04 PM, stubs wrote:

Dude seriously? Who are you gonna blame for the death if not the cop?

The issue at hand isn't blame, dude. It is culpability. It is the criminality of the death.

You were the one that talked about not blaming the policeman... I just responded to it. I guess that's why you cut it out tho.

Newsflash: the medical examiner is not a policeman. They do not make notes on the legal issue, just the medical facts.

I know bro. The medical examiner said he died because he was choked to death (by the policeman per the video). I know you're gonna run semantics and be like "you said compression of the chest and throat before bro" but c'mon we both know what we are talking about haha. The cops killed the guy.

Guess what the coroner is going to report your death as if I shoot you dead while you are in the middle of a killing spree? You guessed it, homicide, even though I would not be charged with a single crime.

lol wow. The definition of a homicide is "the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder."

A homicide does not mean murder, so why don't you make the case for murder.
Since, you have said the cop is not at fault for the compression to the chest which where the cause of death, how can you say the cop killed him?

When did I say the cop is not at fault for compression to the chest lol? I believe he is. Anyone who watched the video can see that. That is what I find so disturbing. We know the cop killed the guy because we all just watched it happen. That's crazy to me.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 9:16:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 2:09:19 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 2:03:00 PM, Enji wrote:

Agreed.
And the coroner ruling it a homicide is misleading, since the death was a result of voluntary actions by others. It does not mean it is murder, and I tire of people implying it is proof of murder.

What the heck did I just read hahahahah. That's like you getting pulled over for speeding and the cop shoots you and everyone saying "It's not a murder because he voluntarily was speeding." I hope I'm not understanding your argument though and I apologize if I am.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 10:18:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 9:16:45 PM, stubs wrote:
At 12/16/2014 2:09:19 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 2:03:00 PM, Enji wrote:
Agreed.
And the coroner ruling it a homicide is misleading, since the death was a result of voluntary actions by others. It does not mean it is murder, and I tire of people implying it is proof of murder.

What the heck did I just read hahahahah. That's like you getting pulled over for speeding and the cop shoots you and everyone saying "It's not a murder because he voluntarily was speeding." I hope I'm not understanding your argument though and I apologize if I am.

I'm not entirely sure what he meant here either (although admittedly I said homicide when I meant murder). Is a coroner ruling that a murder is a homicide misleading since the victim's death is the result of voluntary actions by the perpetrator? I don't believe that's what Khaos_Mage actually meant, but that's how I interpreted it too.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 10:33:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 9:13:01 PM, stubs wrote:
lol wow. The definition of a homicide is "the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder."
Although murder and homicide are often used synonymously, legally homicide is much broader in scope than murder (a murder is a homicide, but a homicide is not necessarily a murder). The officer responsible for Eric Garner's death was almost certainly not going to be found guilty of murder because he never intended to kill the victim. The case for manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide was much stronger, however the prosecutions arguments that Officer Pantaleo's actions were criminally negligent were evidently not enough to sway the jury.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 12:11:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 10:33:52 PM, Enji wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:13:01 PM, stubs wrote:
lol wow. The definition of a homicide is "the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder."
Although murder and homicide are often used synonymously, legally homicide is much broader in scope than murder (a murder is a homicide, but a homicide is not necessarily a murder). The officer responsible for Eric Garner's death was almost certainly not going to be found guilty of murder because he never intended to kill the victim. The case for manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide was much stronger, however the prosecutions arguments that Officer Pantaleo's actions were criminally negligent were evidently not enough to sway the jury.

Yeah I agree. I don't think there is a way to prove the cop was actually trying to kill the guy, but as you pointed out it's crazy to me that he didn't get charged with anything... shocking.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 11:08:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 10:18:06 PM, Enji wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:16:45 PM, stubs wrote:
At 12/16/2014 2:09:19 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 2:03:00 PM, Enji wrote:
Agreed.
And the coroner ruling it a homicide is misleading, since the death was a result of voluntary actions by others. It does not mean it is murder, and I tire of people implying it is proof of murder.

What the heck did I just read hahahahah. That's like you getting pulled over for speeding and the cop shoots you and everyone saying "It's not a murder because he voluntarily was speeding." I hope I'm not understanding your argument though and I apologize if I am.

I'm not entirely sure what he meant here either (although admittedly I said homicide when I meant murder). Is a coroner ruling that a murder is a homicide misleading since the victim's death is the result of voluntary actions by the perpetrator? I don't believe that's what Khaos_Mage actually meant, but that's how I interpreted it too.

Coroners/medical examiners must rule the death one of the following:
Suicide
Accident
Homicide
Natural
Other/Investigation Pending

The medical examiner, to my understanding, does not work directly with the detectives investigating a crime. They examine the medical evidence.

For example, I would assume that a death in a car accident due to a brake failure would be ruled an accident. However, the police may have found the brake lines were cut, thus, it is not an accident, and someone is going down for manslaughter/murder.

Murders are homicides, but homicides are not necessarily murders. Homicide is where another person causes the death causes the death of another through voluntary action, such as shooting them, or, in this cause, choking them and applying pressure to the chest, which triggered an asthma attack. (if this is wrong, give me a source to the death certificate or where they say that the choking is what literally killed him, and his asthma had no effect - in other words, that had I been choked like that, I'd have died)

As you said, the compresssions on the neck and chest were 100% intentional, thus it was not an accident that this occurred. However, it does not mean it is a crime.

http://www.harriscountytx.gov... (an easier source to read, but cannot C/P)
https://netforum.avectra.com...

"Homicide occurs when death results from a volitional act committed by another
person to cause fear, harm, or death. Intent to cause death is a common element but is
not required for classification as homicide (more below). It is to be emphasized that
the classification of Homicide for the purposes of death certification is a "neutral"
term and neither indicates nor implies criminal intent, which remains a determination
within the province of legal processes. "


Also of note:
J. Volition versus Intent.
In evaluating the manner of death in cases involving external causes or factors (such as injury or poisoning), injuries are often categorized as "intentional" (such as inflicted injury in child abuse or shooting a person during a robbery) or "unintentional" (such as falling from a building). Thus, assessment of "intent" does relate to manner-of-death classification: it necessarily underlies the quasijudicial
responsibility derived from the enabling law in the relevant jurisdiction of the
death certifier. However, the legal view of intent may differ from the death investigator"s viewpoint. It is sometimes agonizingly difficult, and occasionally impossible, for the unbiased investigator to infer a victim"s or "perpetrator"s" intent. Intent is also much more apparent in some cases than others. For this reason, the concept of "voluntary acts" or "volition" may be useful. In general, if a person"s death results at the "hands of another" who committed a harmful volitional act directed at the victim, the death may be considered a homicide from the death investigation standpoint. For example, consider the case of a variation of firearms "roulette" in which the game is played as usual (one bullet in the revolver"s cylinder) except that another person holds the gun to the "player"s" head, spins the cylinder, pulls the trigger, and the gun discharges and kills the "player." All acts (loading the gun, spinning the cylinder, placing the gun to the head, and pulling the trigger) were both volitional and intentional. Although there may not have been intent to kill the victim, the victim died because of the harmful, intentional, volitional act committed by another person. Thus, the manner of death may be classified as homicide because of the intentional or volitional act"not because there was intent to kill.


Thus, the classification of homicide is not evidence of guilt or that a crime was even committed. To rest on the laurels of such classification, as the OP seems to do, is just intellectually lazy.

I stand by my argument that the cop's actions are not legally murder or even manslaughter. However, yes, the cop (or is it cops?) are at fault for the death, and since the cop used excessive force (not force, but excessive force) and a banned maneuver, he should easily lose in a civil suit.
My work here is, finally, done.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 6:01:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/17/2014 11:08:12 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

Thus, the classification of homicide is not evidence of guilt or that a crime was even committed. To rest on the laurels of such classification, as the OP seems to do, is just intellectually lazy.

I know this was a while ago, but I disagree with what you've stated and I'd like to discuss the matter with you, if you'd like.

The description of homicide that you provided matches with the situation in the Eric Garner case, and it is thus a crime. I don't see how it isn't a homicide. You state that the "classification of homicide is not evidence ... that a crime was even committed." How did you reach that conclusion based off the description given? I suppose not all homicides are crimes (e.g. self defense), but this certainly seems like a crime. It was the unlawful killing of another individual.

Regardless, I'd just like to say some things about what happened.

People often say that Eric resisted arrest. Yes, he did, but the only thing he did that constitutes as resisting arrest was moving his hands away from the officer. After that, over 3 officers decided to tackle him to the ground and hand cuff him in addition to the banned chokehold performed by the officer. They wouldn't get off of him, either, despite the fact that he couldn't go anywhere anyway. How is this considered reasonable in any way? I'm surprised they couldn't hear the distress and fear in his voice when he stated, multiple times, that he couldn't breathe. Or maybe they did hear it, but simply chose to ignore him. When I heard his voice, it greatly affected me. This may have lead to some bias in my way of viewing the case, but it still gave me a horrible feeling. Because of their actions, he ended up dying, yet not even one of the officers got indicted. They didn't even get a case.

The cause of death was compression of the neck (due to the chokehold) and compression of the chest (due to the weight of several officers bearing down on him).

I have seen other cases where individuals resist arrest in a very similar fashion and nobody ends up dying. This is because, in those cases, the officers reacted appropriately.

This inappropriate use of excessive force is something that should have been taken to court at the very least, but they wouldn't even indict him. If someone can't perform their job properly, then they shouldn't be performing their job or they should, at the very least, be reprimanded very heavily.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 9:08:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/24/2014 6:01:25 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 12/17/2014 11:08:12 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

Thus, the classification of homicide is not evidence of guilt or that a crime was even committed. To rest on the laurels of such classification, as the OP seems to do, is just intellectually lazy.

I know this was a while ago, but I disagree with what you've stated and I'd like to discuss the matter with you, if you'd like.

The description of homicide that you provided matches with the situation in the Eric Garner case, and it is thus a crime. I don't see how it isn't a homicide. You state that the "classification of homicide is not evidence ... that a crime was even committed." How did you reach that conclusion based off the description given? I suppose not all homicides are crimes (e.g. self defense), but this certainly seems like a crime. It was the unlawful killing of another individual.

Regardless, I'd just like to say some things about what happened.

People often say that Eric resisted arrest. Yes, he did, but the only thing he did that constitutes as resisting arrest was moving his hands away from the officer. After that, over 3 officers decided to tackle him to the ground and hand cuff him in addition to the banned chokehold performed by the officer. They wouldn't get off of him, either, despite the fact that he couldn't go anywhere anyway. How is this considered reasonable in any way? I'm surprised they couldn't hear the distress and fear in his voice when he stated, multiple times, that he couldn't breathe. Or maybe they did hear it, but simply chose to ignore him. When I heard his voice, it greatly affected me. This may have lead to some bias in my way of viewing the case, but it still gave me a horrible feeling. Because of their actions, he ended up dying, yet not even one of the officers got indicted. They didn't even get a case.

The cause of death was compression of the neck (due to the chokehold) and compression of the chest (due to the weight of several officers bearing down on him).

I have seen other cases where individuals resist arrest in a very similar fashion and nobody ends up dying. This is because, in those cases, the officers reacted appropriately.

This inappropriate use of excessive force is something that should have been taken to court at the very least, but they wouldn't even indict him. If someone can't perform their job properly, then they shouldn't be performing their job or they should, at the very least, be reprimanded very heavily.

Oh this is so ridiculous.

A homicide may by justified, and therefore IS NOT A CRIME.

When are you guys going to get this?
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 10:19:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/24/2014 9:08:28 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

Oh this is so ridiculous.

A homicide may by justified, and therefore IS NOT A CRIME.

"I suppose not all homicides are crimes (e.g. self defense), but this certainly seems like a crime. It was the unlawful killing of another individual."

When are you guys going to get this?

The entire point of my post is that I didn't believe what the officers did was justified. At all.

I think I got it.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2014 12:22:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/24/2014 10:19:06 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:08:28 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

Oh this is so ridiculous.

A homicide may by justified, and therefore IS NOT A CRIME.


"I suppose not all homicides are crimes (e.g. self defense), but this certainly seems like a crime. It was the unlawful killing of another individual."

When are you guys going to get this?

The entire point of my post is that I didn't believe what the officers did was justified. At all.

I think I got it.

Not at all. When a coroner lists death by homicide, that is not evidence in even the smallest degree that an actual crime was committed.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2014 5:31:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 12:39:32 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:10:30 PM, stubs wrote:
I didn't see a recent thread for this topic, so maybe I missed it. I wanted to hear other peoples opinions. I largely agree with Jon Stewart.

https://www.youtube.com...

I disagree it was "more simple" than Ferguson, as he claims.
I do not see how excessive force warrants a charge of murder, especially when the force did not cause the death, it was the asthma attack he suffered because of it.

If we applied this logic, then a high speed chase that ends with a car crash that kills ANYONE, is also murder, is it not?

There's a difference between fleeing in a dangerous fashion and Passively resisting arrest.

Garner seemed to be passively resisting arrest... and only just barely.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2014 9:16:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/25/2014 5:31:56 AM, mortsdor wrote:
At 12/16/2014 12:39:32 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:10:30 PM, stubs wrote:
I didn't see a recent thread for this topic, so maybe I missed it. I wanted to hear other peoples opinions. I largely agree with Jon Stewart.

https://www.youtube.com...

I disagree it was "more simple" than Ferguson, as he claims.
I do not see how excessive force warrants a charge of murder, especially when the force did not cause the death, it was the asthma attack he suffered because of it.

If we applied this logic, then a high speed chase that ends with a car crash that kills ANYONE, is also murder, is it not?

There's a difference between fleeing in a dangerous fashion and Passively resisting arrest.

Garner seemed to be passively resisting arrest... and only just barely.

What is that difference, exactly?
Let's say it wasn't high speed, but just normal speed. Or chasing a suspect on foot.
Had Garner ran and had a heart attack, or had been tazed and had an asthma attack, or take the hypothetical tackling of a hemophiliac, who then bleeds to death from his scrapes (or gets an infection and dies), would you still be out for blood?

These are the three significant factors:
1. He was under arrest and resisting. Thus, some force was authorized. Do you agree?
2. The choke hold killed him because of the contributing factors of obesity, asthma, and hypertension. Had I been Garner, I would have survived. Do you agree?
3. Garner saying "I'm not going with you" and removing the cops hand from Garner's person, is resisting arrest and, technically, assault. Taking him down quickly, given the nature of their visit, his size, and the neighborhood is police procedure (to ensure safety of the officers, since being distracted by one suspect is dangerous). What do you think they should have done?

The level of crime and the level of resistance is immaterial to the legal issue we are discussing.
Also, why were the police called?
My work here is, finally, done.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2014 9:32:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/25/2014 9:16:25 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/25/2014 5:31:56 AM, mortsdor wrote:
At 12/16/2014 12:39:32 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:10:30 PM, stubs wrote:
I didn't see a recent thread for this topic, so maybe I missed it. I wanted to hear other peoples opinions. I largely agree with Jon Stewart.

https://www.youtube.com...

I disagree it was "more simple" than Ferguson, as he claims.
I do not see how excessive force warrants a charge of murder, especially when the force did not cause the death, it was the asthma attack he suffered because of it.

If we applied this logic, then a high speed chase that ends with a car crash that kills ANYONE, is also murder, is it not?

There's a difference between fleeing in a dangerous fashion and Passively resisting arrest.

Garner seemed to be passively resisting arrest... and only just barely.

What is that difference, exactly?
Let's say it wasn't high speed, but just normal speed. Or chasing a suspect on foot.
Had Garner ran and had a heart attack, or had been tazed and had an asthma attack, or take the hypothetical tackling of a hemophiliac, who then bleeds to death from his scrapes (or gets an infection and dies), would you still be out for blood?

These are the three significant factors:
1. He was under arrest and resisting. Thus, some force was authorized. Do you agree?
2. The choke hold killed him because of the contributing factors of obesity, asthma, and hypertension. Had I been Garner, I would have survived. Do you agree?
3. Garner saying "I'm not going with you" and removing the cops hand from Garner's person, is resisting arrest and, technically, assault. Taking him down quickly, given the nature of their visit, his size, and the neighborhood is police procedure (to ensure safety of the officers, since being distracted by one suspect is dangerous). What do you think they should have done?

The level of crime and the level of resistance is immaterial to the legal issue we are discussing.
Also, why were the police called?

They were plainclothes officers, so they weren't called.

And we can sit her and armchair prosecute all we want, but the point is that there should have been a trial, where matters would have been decided in an official, fair manner. But there wasn't, because even though grand juries in this country have a very high indictment rate (11 out of 162,000 federal grand juries failed to indict in 2010, meaning that grand juries indicted 99.99% of the time), that indictment rate does not translate to cases in which the police are the accused.

"Cases involving police shootings, however, appear to be an exception. As my colleague Reuben Fischer-Baum has written, we don"t have good data on officer-involved killings. But newspaper accounts suggest, grand juries frequently decline to indict law-enforcement officials. A recent Houston Chronicle investigation found that "police have been nearly immune from criminal charges in shootings" in Houston and other large cities in recent years. In Harris County, Texas, for example, grand juries haven"t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004; in Dallas, grand juries reviewed 81 shootings between 2008 and 2012 and returned just one indictment. Separate research by Bowling Green State University criminologist Philip Stinson has found that officers are rarely charged in on-duty killings, although it didn"t look at grand jury indictments specifically."
http://fivethirtyeight.com...

This is an unconscionable state of affairs, especially considering the fact that grand juries were created in the first place in order to allow ordinary civilians to hold those in power accountable. I'm not saying that all of these officers should be considered guilty before they are innocent, I'm simply saying that they should have their day in court and face judgement.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2014 9:42:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/25/2014 9:32:53 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 12/25/2014 9:16:25 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/25/2014 5:31:56 AM, mortsdor wrote:
At 12/16/2014 12:39:32 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:10:30 PM, stubs wrote:
I didn't see a recent thread for this topic, so maybe I missed it. I wanted to hear other peoples opinions. I largely agree with Jon Stewart.

https://www.youtube.com...

I disagree it was "more simple" than Ferguson, as he claims.
I do not see how excessive force warrants a charge of murder, especially when the force did not cause the death, it was the asthma attack he suffered because of it.

If we applied this logic, then a high speed chase that ends with a car crash that kills ANYONE, is also murder, is it not?

There's a difference between fleeing in a dangerous fashion and Passively resisting arrest.

Garner seemed to be passively resisting arrest... and only just barely.

What is that difference, exactly?
Let's say it wasn't high speed, but just normal speed. Or chasing a suspect on foot.
Had Garner ran and had a heart attack, or had been tazed and had an asthma attack, or take the hypothetical tackling of a hemophiliac, who then bleeds to death from his scrapes (or gets an infection and dies), would you still be out for blood?

These are the three significant factors:
1. He was under arrest and resisting. Thus, some force was authorized. Do you agree?
2. The choke hold killed him because of the contributing factors of obesity, asthma, and hypertension. Had I been Garner, I would have survived. Do you agree?
3. Garner saying "I'm not going with you" and removing the cops hand from Garner's person, is resisting arrest and, technically, assault. Taking him down quickly, given the nature of their visit, his size, and the neighborhood is police procedure (to ensure safety of the officers, since being distracted by one suspect is dangerous). What do you think they should have done?

The level of crime and the level of resistance is immaterial to the legal issue we are discussing.
Also, why were the police called?

They were plainclothes officers, so they weren't called.
Were they on duty, or just happened to be there?
I heard there was a fight, which Garner broke up, and that is why the police were there (beyond the alleged mayoral edict of cleaning up Stanton Island).

And we can sit her and armchair prosecute all we want, but the point is that there should have been a trial, where matters would have been decided in an official, fair manner. But there wasn't, because even though grand juries in this country have a very high indictment rate (11 out of 162,000 federal grand juries failed to indict in 2010, meaning that grand juries indicted 99.99% of the time), that indictment rate does not translate to cases in which the police are the accused.
I'd also like to hear non-federal numbers. Though, I am sure they are still very high.

"Cases involving police shootings, however, appear to be an exception. As my colleague Reuben Fischer-Baum has written, we don"t have good data on officer-involved killings. But newspaper accounts suggest, grand juries frequently decline to indict law-enforcement officials. A recent Houston Chronicle investigation found that "police have been nearly immune from criminal charges in shootings" in Houston and other large cities in recent years. In Harris County, Texas, for example, grand juries haven"t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004; in Dallas, grand juries reviewed 81 shootings between 2008 and 2012 and returned just one indictment. Separate research by Bowling Green State University criminologist Philip Stinson has found that officers are rarely charged in on-duty killings, although it didn"t look at grand jury indictments specifically."
http://fivethirtyeight.com...

This is an unconscionable state of affairs, especially considering the fact that grand juries were created in the first place in order to allow ordinary civilians to hold those in power accountable. I'm not saying that all of these officers should be considered guilty before they are innocent, I'm simply saying that they should have their day in court and face judgement.

I would normally agree with you, just not in this case. I don't think a trial is warranted. Wilson, yes, there should have been one.
And the reason for non-indictment is multi-faceted, IMO.
You have people who trust police to do the right thing, even in difficult times. (and when 99% of officers have clean jackets, it is easy to see why people have this confirmation bias)
You have the DA who works closely with the police, who is often loathe to prosecute.
You have the blue wall.
You have the officer's (defendants) testimony in the grand jury, which is rarely the case for civilian defendants.
And you have have fears of backlash if they indict. (will the police come after them?)

I would like to see how the juries vote. Like, is it often unanimous refusal, or close?
My work here is, finally, done.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2014 9:45:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/25/2014 9:16:25 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/25/2014 5:31:56 AM, mortsdor wrote:
At 12/16/2014 12:39:32 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:10:30 PM, stubs wrote:
I didn't see a recent thread for this topic, so maybe I missed it. I wanted to hear other peoples opinions. I largely agree with Jon Stewart.

https://www.youtube.com...

I disagree it was "more simple" than Ferguson, as he claims.
I do not see how excessive force warrants a charge of murder, especially when the force did not cause the death, it was the asthma attack he suffered because of it.

If we applied this logic, then a high speed chase that ends with a car crash that kills ANYONE, is also murder, is it not?

There's a difference between fleeing in a dangerous fashion and Passively resisting arrest.

Garner seemed to be passively resisting arrest... and only just barely.

What is that difference, exactly?

Garner made no attempt to flee, he just argued, and didn't stick his hands out to be cuffed.
Not that they really gave him much of a chance to cooperate once they made it clear they were actively arresting him.