NYPD kill asthmatic father with chokehold

nighttimer said:

How other cops are reacting online to Eric Garner's death:

To serve. And to protect.

Who exactly?

Click to expand...

Now I feel sick to my stomach...but thank you, NT, for finding and sharing this...

nighttimer said:

They also killed him. You can't put the chokehold aside, Emilander, as much as you might want to try to.

"Relatively tame?" Three or four cops are jumping on one man and that's "relatively tame?"

Click to expand...

Yup. Completely agree. Three, four officers basically standing on a guy isn't merely getting him in cuffs and it's certainly not tame, not on a relative nor an absolute scale.

Officers have a need to get a situation under control. I give officers latitude to use force of numbers to do that. But it seems me that in cases like this officers weren't just getting control of the person. They sought to subdue him, to "conquer" him.

By any measure, this guy felt his life slipping away. Anyone in that situation is going to struggle to survive. Or die trying. This man wasn't fighting to get away. He was fighting to live. These officers denied him that fundamental right.

I don't wish ill of police officers. But I wonder if these officers aren't in need of realizing that, and of having to live with that.

I am not expert on police procedures or people's reactions to being arrested or detained by police, but it seems an obvious natural reaction to tense up when a cop or group of cops attempts to physically subdue someone.

The cops may be telling the 'suspect' to relax or stop resisting, and it seems to me they're not resisting - you can't help but tense up when someone is trying to tackle you.

If you know you're going down, you automatically try to get your hands and arms in front of you to protect your face/head. They want to hold your arms behind you while they fling you to the ground so you can pound your face into the concrete?

How can you blame someone in such a situation for trying to protect themselves from injury?

Quite aside from the choke hold, the cops should not even have attempted to arrest him for what he was accused of doing. Write the citation, and leave it at that.

Devil Ledbetter said:

What do you think this reveals, other than that he couldn't speak while they had him in a chokehold? Certainly you can't be suggesting that his failure to complain during the chokehold means he was breathing just fine then.

Click to expand...

I was pointing out the factual error in Nighttimer's claim that Garner was saying he couldn't breathe while being choked. It also stands to reason that he would be breathing better after the chokehold ended. Paradoxically, if you repeatedly say, "I can't breathe," you can breathe because breath is required for speech.

And yes, people give a shit because he died. Do you find that hypocritical or something?

Click to expand...

My point is that if Garner hadn't died, i.e., everything goes down exactly the same during the arrest, the chokehold and the dogpile, wouldn't in and of itself generate outrage. The chokehold might have stirred up a little kerfuffle, but I think most people would have at least understood that, given the size of Garner, that sometimes things happen.

Emilander said:

I was pointing out the factual error in Nighttimer's claim that Garner was saying he couldn't breathe while being choked. It also stands to reason that he would be breathing better after the chokehold ended. Paradoxically, if you repeatedly say, "I can't breathe," you can breathe because breath is required for speech.


My point is that if Garner hadn't died, i.e., everything goes down exactly the same during the arrest, the chokehold and the dogpile, wouldn't in and of itself generate outrage. The chokehold might have stirred up a little kerfuffle, but I think most people would have at least understood that, given the size of Garner, that sometimes things happen.

Click to expand...

But, he did die.

Diana Hignutt said:

But, he did die.

Click to expand...

Yes he did. I still think people are wrongly focused on the chokehold than the fact that they just stood around without trying to help him at all.

Emilander said:

Yes he did. I still think people are wrongly focused on the chokehold than the fact that they just stood around without trying to help him at all.

Click to expand...

Not me, I'm just focused on the fact that's he's dead, and he wouldn't have been if it weren't for the police. Police brutality is police brutality, I don't care what flavor it is. Chokehold flavor, dog-pile flavor....who cares...these are details...

The big picture is still the same. A man is dead who shouldn't be.

Diana Hignutt said:

Not me, I'm just focused on the fact that's he's dead, and he wouldn't have been if it weren't for the police. Police brutality is police brutality, I don't care what flavor it is. Chokehold flavor, dog-pile flavor....who cares...these are details...

The big picture is still the same. A man is dead who shouldn't be.

Click to expand...

I think the details do matter. It's quite possible that Garner could still be alive if the cops had done more than just call an ambulance after realizing something was wrong.

We can argue whether the force used was excessive or an example of police brutality, but that aside, the failure of the officers to render first aid made a bad situation worse. I feel that failure contributed to Garner's death more than the force used did.

Devil Ledbetter said:

So, we're just supposed to conveniently forget the fact the Garner was in the medical condition he was in because of the officers putting him in a chokehold, and then dogpiling on him?

He is dead, so obviously the force was excessive. Anyone arguing that it wasn't excessive, or that "we don't really know" whether it was excessive, is being intellectually dishonest.

Failing to render first aid was just the icing on a 3-layer death cake.

Click to expand...

That's assuming that the cops knew of Garner's health problems before arresting him and there's no reasonable way they could have known that the level of force used would have put Garner into cardiac arrest. A healthy individual could have been subjected to the same "excessive" force and not gone into cardiac arrest.

Failing to render aid is the death cake, not just the icing. Going into cardiac arrest is not a situation where you just say, "Fuck it. There's nothing we can do." Like I said earlier, if the cops had rendered aid it's possible that Garner would still be alive.

Emilander said:

Not trying to exonerate the cops...

Click to expand...

Ten posts later it is apparent that is exactly what you are trying to do.

Which is fine by me. There's always more to any story than what is immediately apparent. When the investigations and inquiries and autoposies are done and over, the NYPD officers may be found not responsible for Eric Garner's death.

Yet no one in this thread has engaged in more idle speculation with less hard fact as to what the chokehold applied to Mr. Garner did or did not do than you have repeatedly, aggressively and inaccurately.

Misinterpreting the available information to put a spin on a horrific tragedy only does a disservice to both the deceased and the cops.

To paraphrase Megyn Kelly to Karl Rove on Election Night 2012 when he insisted there was still a chance for Romney to win, "Is this just math that you do to make yourself feel better, or is this real?"

The chokehold has not been mentioned in the report at all. Also that he did not appear to be in distress.

I will now refrain any further comment.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/nicolasmedinamora/police-report-on-asthmatic-new-yorkers-death-does-not-mentio

I've been looking over the video of this and other incidents where the subject of a police arrest appears to have died while being put into custody, and I've seen something that truly disturbs me. But I admit that I'm not sure I'm seeing the real picture, so that's a major caveat.

When the decision is made to place a person in custody, or under arrest, police have not just a right but a duty to put the situation into a safe state. I, for one, give police a lot of discretion in the use of force during those moments.

But I also hold them completely responsible for the outcome of their actions. A civilian being placed into custody doesn't get to decide that a moment is over. And that's where my concern comes out.

Here in this case, and in the case of Luis Rodriguez, I see police exercise an "overwhelm with numbers" tactic to getting the subject into custody. To me, that's a tactic LESS likely to cause injury, not more.

But there's a catch: Very few people can breathe with four or five (or more) officers all but standing on their chest.

So when the people express distress (the subject himself saying he can't breathe, or others yelling that the subject isn't moving), I believe officers have a duty to act with urgency and with considered haste to end that confrontation, and to understand that at that moment, someone's life is *entirely* in their hands.

The case of Luis Rodriguez is especially important, I think, because Luis wasn't even the one for whom the police had been called. Police arrived, made assumptions, and acted on them to the point of pepper spray while he was on the ground underneath a dogpile of officers.

In the case of Rodriguez, and again here, with Mr Garner, I see an appalling lack of urgency to render care and to assure the safety of the person once they are in custody. Based on those videos, the police showed no concern for well-being of the person in their custody. That, to me, is atrocious, mostly because they also denied anyone else access to carry out that concern. I know why they hold people back. But they have to understand the huge responsibility this places on them, and I don't see that these officers understood that.

Now, back to my caveat. This is based on videos from the people alleging police brutality. That doesn't make the videos suspect. It's just that video cameras have even less of a field of view than human eyes. They can and do miss things.

Still, in both cases, we see officers making no CPR-style attempt to assure breathing. In Garner's case, they shake him a bit, but leave him on his side until EMT's arrive, and I see no effort to assure him an open airway. In the case of Luis Rodriguez, it seems from the video that the officers continued to stay on top of him well after his was in cuffs and reasonably under control. They are (I think, from the shaky video) five officers on top of him. He's been pepper-sprayed, his hands cuffed, and I saw no effort to assure his airway, either.

And then I see comments in the links provided previously, comments by people claiming to be police officers. And they don't care for being told that this was wrong?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...

Click to expand...

The Declaration of Independence isn't a legal document. But it sure seems that a great many in "service" to society are desperately in need of education on the principles therein.

I don't have any comments on the specific cases in this thread, I always feel like maybe we're not getting full info. One observation that comes to mind though, is something I've seen on a regular basis.

Now, as part of my job I ride out with cops, between one and four times a month. So I get to be on scene when someone's arrested. Something that happens with surprising regularity is that the person arrested, once he or she's been unable to talk themselves out of being arrested: they fake illness. Sometimes the faking is so bad it's laughable, but it really does happen quite a lot.

Now, it seems pretty apparent that's not what was going on in the cases you mention Rob, but I do wonder if year after year of seeing suspects fake heart attacks/fainting/nausea/ etc played into their mindset.

Food for thought, maybe.

MarkEsq said:

I don't have any comments on the specific cases in this thread, I always feel like maybe we're not getting full info. One observation that comes to mind though, is something I've seen on a regular basis.

Now, as part of my job I ride out with cops, between one and four times a month. So I get to be on scene when someone's arrested. Something that happens with surprising regularity is that the person arrested, once he or she's been unable to talk themselves out of being arrested: they fake illness. Sometimes the faking is so bad it's laughable, but it really does happen quite a lot.

Now, it seems pretty apparent that's not what was going on in the cases you mention Rob, but I do wonder if year after year of seeing suspects fake heart attacks/fainting/nausea/ etc played into their mindset.

Food for thought, maybe.

Click to expand...

I get that. The thing is, though...why not err on the side of caution? If they're faking, they'll be caught out soon enough, and AFAIK, they'd still be in custody. If they're NOT faking, they get prompt medical attention, and the cops don't have to face down a PR shitstorm and accusations of brutality. Not to mention not having to deal with the fact that their actions led to someone's death.

That I *don't* get.

MarkEsq said:

Now, it seems pretty apparent that's not what was going on in the cases you mention Rob, but I do wonder if year after year of seeing suspects fake heart attacks/fainting/nausea/ etc played into their mindset.

Food for thought, maybe.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be at all surprised by that, Mark.

The thing for me, though, is that the fakers don't alter the officer's responsibility. That's *still* a person who is now completely helpless to fend for themselves. Sometimes with good reason, but helpless nonetheless.

I don't want an officer bit, or spat on, by a suspect who is faking. Neither, however, is it okay to do next to nothing for a person in custody who expresses distress.

MarkEsq said:

I always feel like maybe we're not getting full info.

Click to expand...

We aren't. The videos in the two cases I highlighted are compelling, but they are one person's POV, and are limited by when the person who took the video started to do so. My impressions and opinions are based on what I see and know, but I'll always acknowledge that what I see and know may not be a full or fair picture.

nighttimer said:

Ten posts later it is apparent that is exactly what you are trying to do.

Which is fine by me. There's always more to any story than what is immediately apparent. When the investigations and inquiries and autoposies are done and over, the NYPD officers may be found not responsible for Eric Garner's death.

Yet no one in this thread has engaged in more idle speculation with less hard fact as to what the chokehold applied to Mr. Garner did or did not do than you have repeatedly, aggressively and inaccurately.

Misinterpreting the available information to put a spin on a horrific tragedy only does a disservice to both the deceased and the cops.

To paraphrase Megyn Kelly to Karl Rove on Election Night 2012 when he insisted there was still a chance for Romney to win, "Is this just math that you do to make yourself feel better, or is this real?"

Click to expand...

Wow. Are you deliberately ignoring the posts where I explicitly state that the cops are wrong and responsible because they failed to render aid once Garner was in custody? Perhaps you should answer Megyn Kelly's question yourself.

Questioning claims that the force used was excessive is not trying to spin anything. Claiming that the force used must be excessive because someone died in hindsight, unless you want to argue that the cops intended to kill him, is unfair, in my opinion, because it presumes knowledge available to the officers that they reasonably could not have had.

Once again, I feel that people have been focusing too much on the chokehold, simply because it is a banned action. So when I saw reports that the chokehold didn't do damage, I assumed good faith on the part of the media that it was true and that the medical examiner was the source of the quote. I made a mistake. While assuming it was true though, I still said that it was unacceptable that the cops just left Garner unconscious on the ground without attempting to render aid.

To state it clearly:
Do I think it was a bullshit reason to arrest him? Yes.

Do I think the force used to arrest him was excessive? No. The cops didn't strike him while taking Garner down and, as far as I can tell, they got off of him as soon as he was cuffed. I also believe that if the same actions were done to a healthy person, that person would not have sustained injury. Now Garner was not a healthy person, but it is unreasonable to presume that the cops would have known that.

Do I think that the cops should be punished for leaving Garner on the ground once he was in custody? Absolutely.

Emilander said:

Wow. Are you deliberately ignoring the posts where I explicitly state that the cops are wrong and responsible because they failed to render aid once Garner was in custody? Perhaps you should answer Megyn Kelly's question yourself.

Questioning claims that the force used was excessive is not trying to spin anything. Claiming that the force used must be excessive because someone died in hindsight, unless you want to argue that the cops intended to kill him, is unfair, in my opinion, because it presumes knowledge available to the officers that they reasonably could not have had.

Once again, I feel that people have been focusing too much on the chokehold, simply because it is a banned action. So when I saw reports that the chokehold didn't do damage, I assumed good faith on the part of the media that it was true and that the medical examiner was the source of the quote. I made a mistake. While assuming it was true though, I still said that it was unacceptable that the cops just left Garner unconscious on the ground without attempting to render aid.

To state it clearly:
Do I think it was a bullshit reason to arrest him? Yes.

Do I think the force used to arrest him was excessive? No. The cops didn't strike him while taking Garner down and, as far as I can tell, they got off of him as soon as he was cuffed. I also believe that if the same actions were done to a healthy person, that person would not have sustained injury. Now Garner was not a healthy person, but it is unreasonable to presume that the cops would have known that.

Do I think that the cops should be punished for leaving Garner on the ground once he was in custody? Absolutely.

Click to expand...

There's a corpse that disagrees with you.

Like Mark, I don't want to comment on this specific incident except to reiterate that it's not the way things are supposed to go down.

But there are a couple of things about the realities on the street that I think should be mentioned.

First of all, as Mark says, sometimes suspects in a confrontation will start claiming they can't breathe, more commonly, something like "hey man ease up, you're breaking my arm."

And when you do ease up, they take that opportunity to break free and renew their assault. I'm speaking from personal experience. After that happens to you once, usually as a rookie, you're not quite so willing to take the suspect at his word.

What you want to do is take a suspect down as quickly as possible and get him under control and handcuffed. Then you can ease up. If you have three officers there, a good idea is for all three to jump on the guy. If there are four, great, all four of you should be there. The more officers, the quicker the suspect is contained, and the less chance there is injury to anyone, including the suspect. There's no such thing as a "fair fight," where an officer is required to take on someone one on one.

Anytime you're in a serious fight, there's the possibility of getting seriously injured. And I don't mean just a bruise, I mean having your head slammed into the pavement, or having someone land a punch and knock out a couple of teeth or fracture your jaw.

So yeah, what is considered by some as piling on is not only acceptable, it is proper procedure. There are indeed cops that relish the opportunity of tackling somebody and driving them into the ground. They live for that. There are others who do the exact same actions but simply because they want to end it as quickly as possible and they don't want to get hurt. If you work every day with cops you know which ones are which but it's pretty hard to tell otherwise.

And as far as a person passively resisting, passive resistance cam turn into violence in the blink of an eye. When someone refuses to obey commands, is distraught, and says they just want to be left alone, you can be pretty sure that unless you walk away from them there's going to be trouble involved.

And let's not forget, when you have a distraught person, person that's upset at police whether that is justified or not, you have no idea what the backstory is.

You don't know if he is mentally troubled, if he's just had a bad day, it is just mouthing off, or if he is a dangerous violent person just waiting for an opportunity to strike out.

And you don't know if he has a weapon – a knife, or even a gun.

Here is a random video of an obviously distraught man the police are talking to, trying to calm down, who clearly wants to be left alone but is posing no threat to the officers.

Not until the very end, that is. It's a bit disturbing, but not extremely graphic since the guy shooting the video on his cell phone ducks for cover and you lose the picture, which is just as well.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TlhM-HJ3U0o

But what's interesting to me here is how the cops are really trying to de-escalate the situation, and just how quickly it all happens. I mean, things are just going along and then that of nowhere, bam.

And that's really how it happens -- one moment things are normal, if tense, the next, all hell breaks loose. Blink and you miss it.

Again, I am not talking about the situation in this thread. I'm simply trying to give people some insight about how difficult it is to handle situations that can erupt into violence, and why cops sometimes act like they do.

Rugcat is correct. If you have never been there, you have no idea just how quick it can all go to pieces.

Way back, I was backing up an officer on a traffic arrest right in front of the guy's house. We were both rookies. he made a rookie mistake and let the guy get to his house for some reason. Before the night was over, there were dozens of police and hundreds of spectators.

He did eventually get arrested, but it was a painful learning experience. Anyone in law enforcement has had at least one incident like that. You quickly learn to get the arrest done as quickly as possible.

No comment on this specific situation, because it is pointless to speculate in the absence of complete information.

There was a case in Cobb County, GA recently where a man left his son in a hot car all day and the child died. The initial outcry from "social media," was that the father was being railroaded. After a while, as details were revealed, the tone changed.

The only point I am making is that sometimes it is better not to rush to judgment and allow the emotion of the moment to subside a bit.

I get how quickly things can deteriorate. Really, I do. In this case, however, and in the other, I saw a situation under control, and officers either didn't appear to act, or they continued to stay on top of the man.

You got four officers? Use 'em. Get that man under control, in cuffs, and get the hell off of him. Even the healthiest of people *will* suffocate with four people on top of him.

There's a video out of LA County with an officer trying to deal with a woman walking in traffic on a busy highway. Knowing LA, it might have been an interstate. I see outrage all over the place because the officer punched the woman, repeatedly. I saw an officer trying to save lives while the woman continued to put herself and other drivers in danger.

Just like in the other cases I've cited, I realize that one citizen's video isn't going to present the whole picture, and a more complete accounting could change the story rather drastically. But as presented, general descriptions of possibilities that could have happened don't change what did, and they don't invalidate what's presented in the videos.

These officers (in these incidents) are not Colonel Jessup. Hell, even Colonel Jessup isn't Colonel Jessup. (Paraphrased) "I resent you partaking of the freedom that I provide, and then questioning the manner in which I provide it."

You don't provide it, officer. So I resent you believing you do so.