The coroner ruled his death a homocide.

 

All the equivocation about his strained efforts to tell the officers that they were choking him to death are idiotic. He was murdered in cold blood on film, but since he was murdered by a group of police officers it was deemed lawful.

I still wouldn't call it murder, but I was unaware of the coroner's ruling. That's very disturbing. To be ruled a homocide in the autopsy yet this man faces no trial of any kind??  Shameful to our justice system. 

 

Here's a good article from last evening when protests began in the city  -  good info on the whole thing. 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/nyregi....html?_r=0

---

More on protests in NYC here:  

 

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/1...pe=article

---

I still wouldn't call it murder, but I was unaware of the coroner's ruling. That's very disturbing. To be ruled a homocide in the autopsy yet this man faces no trial of any kind??  Shameful to our justice system. 

 

Here's a good article from last evening when protests began in the city  -  good info on the whole thing. 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/nyregi....html?_r=0

 

Why wouldn't you call it murder? Because the man with health problems was unnecessarily overpowered and subdued by three police officers while he was being killed?

---

 

Besides, it appears like he released the choke-hold before he even said he couldn't breathe. Am I mistaken there? How much of his lack-of-breathing is because of his physical condition and that he continues to resist arrest?

I can't speak to your questions with certainty, but the coroner did :

 

An autopsy by the city’s medical examiner found that Mr. Garner’s death was a homicide resulting from the chokehold — a maneuver banned by the Police Department in 1993 — and the compression of his chest by police officers.
(NYtimes)

 

So the chokehold AND the compression of his chest were deemed lethal. 

So his resistance contributed in part momentarily - but can't we argue that when he is repeatedly pleading for air - he is no longer resisting, but simply struggling to breathe? 

---

Stupid laws being passed and enforced by over stressed officers in a militarized police force these things are bound to happen. There's so many parties at fault here including the officer it's ridiculous.

---

Why wouldn't you call it murder? Because the man with health problems was unnecessarily overpowered and subdued by three police officers while he was being killed?

Because he initiated the act of being physically detained by resisting arrest  - after conducting illegal activity. 

 

If they walked up to him unprovoked and did this - it's murder. 

 

These men were doing their jobs, only they did it with a woeful, disgusting and lethal amount of negligence. 

---

Doesn't really matter who was right or wrong in this situation. We live in a society where you're extremely LUCKY if you're asked to do something more than twice by a police officer. They're not there for social calls and they usually mean business. If you want to fuss, fight and argue it's usually going to end very badly for you.


I get that the reason why the cops were there, the "loosies".. And as minimal of a charge as that is, you still comply and fight the charge if necessary. Unfortunately for him, he resisted arrest and now he's no longer around to fight that charge. Meaningless death, but if he would have complied, he'd be alive today.

---

Doesn't really matter who was right or wrong in this situation. We live in a society where you're extremely LUCKY if you're asked to do something more than twice by a police officer. They're not there for social calls and they usually mean business. If you want to fuss, fight and argue it's usually going to end very badly for you.


I get that the reason why the cops were there, the "loosies".. And as minimal of a charge as that is, you still comply and fight the charge if necessary. Unfortunately for him, he resisted arrest and now he's no longer around to fight that charge. Meaningless death, but if he would have complied, he'd be alive today.

 

I agree, again, but were these officers not negligent in the way they handled the situation? 

---

I agree, again, but were these officers not negligent in the way they handled the situation?

That SHOULD have been for a grand jury to decide.

---

I agree, again, but were these officers not negligent in the way they handled the situation? 

 

Well for one choke holds are prohibited by the NYC police department.

---

Well for one choke holds are prohibited by the NYC police department.

Banned but not illegal. Choke holds are still being taught at police academies. And I think they should be outlawed.

---

Banned but not illegal. Choke holds are still being taught at police academies. And I think they should be outlawed.

 

Can we really call anything a police department does "illegal"?

 

After this case I'm really not convinced there is.

---

Can we really call anything a police department does "illegal"?


After this case I'm really not convinced there is.

When its a taught tactic during training, no.

---

When its a taught tactic during training, no.

 

Stop with that line of reasoning.

 

A lot of things are taught to someone at some point in time that they shouldn't be doing.

 

It's enough to know that the practice is prohibited by his employer and he used it to murder someone.

---

Stop with that line of reasoning.


A lot of things are taught to someone at some point in time that they shouldn't be doing.


It's enough to know that the practice is prohibited by his employer and he used it to murder someone.

It's not a line of reasoning, its the truth. Think about it for a minute. How can something be illegal when it's taught as a tactic at police academies?


Think before you question.

---

The only way for the choke hold to be outlawed is to make the hold illegal.


Now, whether the police academies stop teaching that tactic is another story. It's also a very powerful self defense tactic. The problem here is that the officer used the tactic to detain a suspect instead of self defense. That's the problem.

---

It's not a line of reasoning, its the truth. Think about it for a minute. How can something be illegal when it's taught as a tactic at police academies?


Think before you question.

 

I don't know.

 

You think when people are taught that it's legal to grow, buy, and smoke pot in Colorado that it's just as legal in NYC?

 

Think carefully before you answer this.

---

I don't know.


You think when people are taught that it's legal to grow, buy, and smoke pot in Colorado that it's just as legal in NYC?


Think carefully before you answer this.

Since when is pot a tactic for self defense?

---

Since when is pot a tactic for self defense?

 

Smoking people out makes them really mellow.

 

Of course your answer is a complete nonsequitur and has nothing to do with the discussion.

 

What someone was taught about something at some point some place does not make it appropriate or particularly legal at some specific time and place.

---

Smoking people out makes them really mellow.


Of course your answer is a complete nonsequitur and has nothing to do with the discussion.


What someone was taught about something at some point some place does not make it appropriate or particularly legal at some specific time and place.

I get that and that's what I said in a post above. The hold should still be taught as a self defense tactic ONLY.

---