The Eric Garner case

[cb1000rider]

the Video Does in Fact show a Illegal police choke maneuver being used. I am sorry but the officer broke NYPD policy by choking someone and needs to face the Charges. I have no idea what the Grand Jury was told by the DA. I am for the police 100% but the video speaks volumes along with the fact that NYPD are not allowed to choke any person at all. The Officer clearly broke NYPD policy. beyond a shadow of a doubt.

You're right, the NYPD actually banned all of these holds in 1993: http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/24/nyreg ... icers.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Even if it was a violation of NYPD policy, that policy is not the law... And thank goodness NYPD doesn't make the law.. The actual "law" and subsequent established case law, such as Graham v. Connor, has granted officers great latitude in the use of force when arresting someone. And what I heard on the air from someone who said he was with NYPD was that when they decide to arrest someone, they don't dilly-dally around or provide a chance to talk about it. That's scary.

This officer was attempting to use non-lethal force to subdue someone. It sounds like he could be disciplined by the department if he violated internal policy on the means of that submission, but it's not "illegal" to use that type of hold while making an arrest.

My understanding is that for the officer to be indited, the DA would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer intended to cause death... Could you prove that? I'm pretty sure that I couldn't. I'll wager that the soon-to-be-pending civil case will have a very different result as the bar for success is very different.

Then again, the saying is that DA's can indite "ham sandwiches" if they want to... I don't trust DA prosecutions of police officers - there has to be cooperation in that relationship to begin with and it's not arms-length. We need someone else prosecuting the police, not the people that they work with every day... DA's prosecuting the police is pretty idiotic, actually...

Note, I'm not defending the actions of the officer here, nor do I remotely agree with what happened. I'm explaining why it's going down the way it is...

[buddyhotrod]

EELLIS wrote the following

"The video just doesn't show what you claim. First if it was a choke hold then the officer would of been using a restraint tactic that is banned by the NYPD which does not make it illegal. He would of violated a work regulation not any law. Second it wasn't a banned choke hold but a submission hold that works by limiting the blood flow. No choking involved."

ummmm Sir are we talking about the same video?

I am speaking of the topic and video which is titled the Eric Garner case.

Please reference the video we are speaking of and watch closely as the officer clearly puts his arm around Eric Garners neck.That is against NYPD policy.

Maybe not try the officer for murder but for sure breaking NYPD policy. The officer absolutely broke NYPD policy

ummmmm Hello

[buddyhotrod]

Thanks for the link

Here it is in plain English.

The New York City Police Department has issued an order banning the use of choke holds, the restraining maneuvers that cut off the flow of blood and oxygen to the brain and have been blamed in the deaths of suspects here and around the nation.

The directive comes as police departments around the country have prohibited or reviewed the use of various choke holds by officers. It also underscores a nationwide debate, fueled by greater violence on city streets, on the appropriate use of police force, from 9-millimeter handguns to "hogtying" to pepper spray.

The policy in New York grew from concern about the rising number of deaths in police custody over the last eight years, including that of Federico Pereira, a 21-year-old Queens man who in 1991 died of what the medical examiners called "traumatic asphyxia." Five officers were charged, but the charges against four were dropped and the fifth was acquitted. Order Called a Clarification

Chief John F. Timoney, commander of the department's office of management analysis and planning, said the deaths coincided with the rise of crack, which often made suspects harder to restrain and which was shown to contribute to some deaths. The new policy -- which he said was part of a broader review of police procedure -- is aimed at restraining difficult suspects in the safest possible way, he said.

[cb1000rider]

buddyhotrod, breaking NYPD policy isn't against the law...

[buddyhotrod]

I'm sorry but I have sadness for Eric Garner.

I believe the entire situation could have been handled better.

So Sad

I will say a prayer for his family. :-(

[EEllis]

EELLIS wrote the following

"The video just doesn't show what you claim. First if it was a choke hold then the officer would of been using a restraint tactic that is banned by the NYPD which does not make it illegal. He would of violated a work regulation not any law. Second it wasn't a banned choke hold but a submission hold that works by limiting the blood flow. No choking involved."

ummmm Sir are we talking about the same video?

I am speaking of the topic and video which is titled the Eric Garner case.

Please reference the video we are speaking of and watch closely as the officer clearly puts his arm around Eric Garners neck.That is against NYPD policy.

Maybe not try the officer for murder but for sure breaking NYPD policy. The officer absolutely broke NYPD policy

ummmmm Hello

Again you are incorrect in your assertions. That is not a choke hold. Choke holds are designed to interfere with a persons breathing. The hold in the video is designed to restrict blood flow. Two different things. The NYPD policy as I understand it restricts from use and technique that interferes with someones breathing. That would not include the hold shown on the video.\

“Members of the NYPD will NOT use chokeholds,” the NYPD patrol guide clearly states. “A chokehold shall include, but is not limited to, any pressure to the throat or windpipe which may prevent or hinder breathing to reduce intakes of air.”

[CowboyEngineer]

This use of "law enforcement" resources is so absurd it beggars description. Even if he was selling cigs untaxed by NYC, and no proof has been offered that he did, the amount of revenue expended in this operation is far in excess of any taxes they could have ever collected from this seller. In the real world of business that's called stupidity and leads to bankruptcy. It's even more stupid since they killed the goose and now cannot receive any future tax revenue from him.

The cig tax/law is a two fold shake down operation. The city is shaking down consumers and then offering mafia like protection to the stores in order to eliminate their competition, which is also competition for the city. I have yet to see any proof offered that Garner was even doing anything illegal. He may have purchased legally taxed cigs and just offered a service that the stores weren't offering....."loosies."

It's pretty clear that his real crime was failing to bow low enough to the police and city tax authority. The cops decided to teach him a lesson by arresting him. I doubt that any of them intended to kill him, but it didn't bother them in the least that they did....no one even attempted to render aid...and the cop who killed him flipped off the crowd afterwards. And it's my understanding that the only indictment the DA managed to get is of the guy who took the video. You might like that kind of "law enforcement" but that's not the kind of country I want to live in. In my view, there is something seriously wrong with any government under which you can end up dead for the mere act of selling a legal item without the government's sanction or permission. And when it's on the scale of a single cigarette you're living under a government that has lost its sanity. It is certainly not a "free" country.

The real criminals are the politicians who pass volumes of laws and regulations every year in order to regulate and control society even more. The police are just their proxies in keeping the sheep in line. As the politicians continue to increase control over society and to provide cover for the excessive use of force by the police, the police will become more abusive, at least until the sheep wake up.

[Keith B]

Again you are incorrect in your assertions. That is not a choke hold. Choke holds are designed to interfere with a persons breathing. The hold in the video is designed to restrict blood flow. Two different things. The NYPD policy as I understand it restricts from use and technique that interferes with someones breathing. That would not include the hold shown on the video.\

“Members of the NYPD will NOT use chokeholds,” the NYPD patrol guide clearly states. “A chokehold shall include, but is not limited to, any pressure to the throat or windpipe which may prevent or hinder breathing to reduce intakes of air.”

NYPD has never been trained on LVNR techniques and have banned 'choke holds' (their words) of any type. While the move may not have been against the law, the hold of any type on the neck is against department policy. The Grand Jury apparently determined the hold in itself was not enough evidence to indict the officer for the death of Mr. Garner. However, that doesn't mean the department will not fire the officer, and as the officer has apparently not been trained in LVNR, if he tried to use the technique without proper training there will definitely be civil suits filed to try and prove negligence and even civil rights violations.

[Cedar Park Dad]

I'm sure physical stature played a big role in the grand jury's decision. The officer should be disciplined within his department for violating policy. I can't see convicting him of manslaughter though. It was a freak accident and I see big changes coming to law enforcement. I see officers going for their taser before going hands on since tasers are deemed safe. People will still die but it will be written off as technical error.

Here comes the Godwin. I certain group of guys in awesomely terrifying uniforms were just following policy. We bombed them, invaded them, killed them and hung a few of them for it.

Following policy or not should not protect you from what you do.

Are you honestly comparing American Law Enforcement to Nazis? Really?

That comparison is a special kind of stupid and inflammatory. Godwin indeed.

Only if the shoe fits-aka only to the extent persons are using this as to excuse unconstitutional behavior.

I am just following orders is the excuse of the dictator.

Following policy doesn't make it legal.

[Jaguar]

This use of "law enforcement" resources is so absurd it beggars description. Even if he was selling cigs untaxed by NYC, and no proof has been offered that he did, the amount of revenue expended in this operation is far in excess of any taxes they could have ever collected from this seller. In the real world of business that's called stupidity and leads to bankruptcy. It's even more stupid since they killed the goose and now cannot receive any future tax revenue from him.

The cig tax/law is a two fold shake down operation. The city is shaking down consumers and then offering mafia like protection to the stores in order to eliminate their competition, which is also competition for the city. I have yet to see any proof offered that Garner was even doing anything illegal. He may have purchased legally taxed cigs and just offered a service that the stores weren't offering....."loosies."

It's pretty clear that his real crime was failing to bow low enough to the police and city tax authority. The cops decided to teach him a lesson by arresting him. I doubt that any of them intended to kill him, but it didn't bother them in the least that they did....no one even attempted to render aid...and the cop who killed him flipped off the crowd afterwards. And it's my understanding that the only indictment the DA managed to get is of the guy who took the video. You might like that kind of "law enforcement" but that's not the kind of country I want to live in. In my view, there is something seriously wrong with any government under which you can end up dead for the mere act of selling a legal item without the government's sanction or permission. And when it's on the scale of a single cigarette you're living under a government that has lost its sanity. It is certainly not a "free" country.

The real criminals are the politicians who pass volumes of laws and regulations every year in order to regulate and control society even more. The police are just their proxies in keeping the sheep in line. As the politicians continue to increase control over society and to provide cover for the excessive use of force by the police, the police will become more abusive, at least until the sheep wake up.

The whole situation makes me think of this.

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Ayn Rand

[VMI77]

I'm sure physical stature played a big role in the grand jury's decision. The officer should be disciplined within his department for violating policy. I can't see convicting him of manslaughter though. It was a freak accident and I see big changes coming to law enforcement. I see officers going for their taser before going hands on since tasers are deemed safe. People will still die but it will be written off as technical error.

Here comes the Godwin. I certain group of guys in awesomely terrifying uniforms were just following policy. We bombed them, invaded them, killed them and hung a few of them for it.

Following policy or not should not protect you from what you do.

Oh come on, admit it, those uniforms were really cool looking. The one thing about that certain group is that they knew their symbols and knew how to dress. Oh yeah, and they had some pretty awesome martial music too. In fact, when it comes to military music, no one else even comes close.

[Cedar Park Dad]

I'm sure physical stature played a big role in the grand jury's decision. The officer should be disciplined within his department for violating policy. I can't see convicting him of manslaughter though. It was a freak accident and I see big changes coming to law enforcement. I see officers going for their taser before going hands on since tasers are deemed safe. People will still die but it will be written off as technical error.

Here comes the Godwin. I certain group of guys in awesomely terrifying uniforms were just following policy. We bombed them, invaded them, killed them and hung a few of them for it.

Following policy or not should not protect you from what you do.

Oh come on, admit it, those uniforms were really cool looking. The one thing about that certain group is that they knew their symbols and knew how to dress. Oh yeah, and they had some pretty awesome martial music too. In fact, when it comes to military music, no one else even comes close.

They did have good tailors. I think you'll find most of your finest dictatorships have excellent clothing lines.
For my money though, a million guys in lederhosen would have been much more terrifying. "Surrender or we shall Oompah Band your capital!"

[EEllis]

Again you are incorrect in your assertions. That is not a choke hold. Choke holds are designed to interfere with a persons breathing. The hold in the video is designed to restrict blood flow. Two different things. The NYPD policy as I understand it restricts from use and technique that interferes with someones breathing. That would not include the hold shown on the video.\

“Members of the NYPD will NOT use chokeholds,” the NYPD patrol guide clearly states. “A chokehold shall include, but is not limited to, any pressure to the throat or windpipe which may prevent or hinder breathing to reduce intakes of air.”

NYPD has never been trained on LVNR techniques and have banned 'choke holds' (their words) of any type. While the move may not have been against the law, the hold of any type on the neck is against department policy. The Grand Jury apparently determined the hold in itself was not enough evidence to indict the officer for the death of Mr. Garner. However, that doesn't mean the department will not fire the officer, and as the officer has apparently not been trained in LVNR, if he tried to use the technique without proper training there will definitely be civil suits filed to try and prove negligence and even civil rights violations.

I think you are right that the family will be getting a sizable payout. As to the 'choke hold' issue. I think part of the problem is that the definition depends on who you talk to. There was a report early this year with the civilian review board complaining about use of choke holds. One of the issues they wrote about was the difference in what different people in the system define as a choke hold. When they have police review boards sometimes it's anything near the neck, sometimes it's only if you directly interfere with a persons breathing. It doesn't seem to be a consistently held standard for what constitutes a choke hold. That being said, and contrary to what the civilian review board believes should be the standard, NYPD disciplinary actions sure seem to support that unless you actually interfere with someones breathing in a major way you will not be considered to have violated policy. So saying that this guy violated policy when the NYPD tacitly approved of such things regularly is a bit much.

[VoiceofReason]

There are many ways of controlling a person resisting arrest without causing major or life threatening injuries. The police are not trained to use them. A petite female can easily control a large man and may not even get her uniform dirty.

Until governments and police departments decide to provide this training to the officers, we will continue seeing situations like this happen.

[Keith B]

So saying that this guy violated policy when the NYPD tacitly approved of such things regularly is a bit much.

Well, the Commissioner apparently felt right off the bat that it was a 'chokehold' and they stripped the officer of his badge and gun while the investigaiton was being done http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /12936547/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In a news conference a day after Garner's death, NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton said Garner "appeared to have been in a chokehold." He said the investigations will "seek to make that final determination."

So, again, while the GJ decided the tactic didn't cause the death, the internal thoughts were that it 'sure looked like a chokehold'.