A Choking in NY

[Knightshadow]

I'd like to open up the floor on the Eric Garner death in NYC and police procedures.

One comment from CNN is quoted as follows:

We have laws. Laws are because actions effect other people. Garner selling cigarettes is ILLEGAL. Most likely he was targeting people outside a business that sells them legally and pays high taxes for the sale. What is not mentioned is Garner was on probation. He was a habitual petty criminal and knew if arrested he would go to jail for probation violation. He broke the law anyway. That is what he did regularly. He also died from more the just the 'chokehold' which makes for a nice slogan. What is buried in the CNN article was "But the medical examiner also listed acute and chronic bronchial asthma, obesity and hypertensive cardiovascular disease as contributing factors in Garner's death". Clearly his resisting arrest contributed to his death because of his poor health. You can bet nearly every criminal resisting arrest says they can't breathe, you are hurting them, the baby is sleeping or whatever they can think of. No excuses stop cops when arresting you. All that can be discussed at your hearing. No one intended to kill Garner. It was an accident as a result of his own bad behavior.

Any opinions?

[Ephiral]

As a civilian, try cutting off someone's airflow in a potentially lethal way, then arguing that you shouldn't be charged with manslaughter at the very least, citing their bad behaviour.

Something tells me it won't fly.

Somehow I'm sure that there were other, far less risky methods of restraining a nonviolent suspect. He might have been doing wrong, but that does not excuse extremely dangerous and questionable tactics on the part of the police - and we need to stop pretending that it does.

[Avis habilis]

His "contributing factors" showed no sign of being about to kill him before a panicking cop applied a choke, already officially prohibited by the department, that can cause continuing, worsening tracheal damage even after it's released.

The victim's past has precisely no relevance to the question of whether the cop's action at that moment was reasonable or even legal.

[Blythe]

Chokeholds are a banned tactic for the NY police. They've been banned for something like 20 years, and it's still a problem among officers who do continue to use this tactic.

I think saying that Garner's ill health contributing to his death is...misleading. Yes, being overweight and having asthma will certainly make a chokehold more effective, but...it's still the chokehold that killed him, not his other health issues.

Also, I noticed this in particular:

He was a habitual petty criminal and knew if arrested he would go to jail for probation violation. He broke the law anyway. That is what he did regularly.

Why is his previous record relevant? Just because someone has broken the law before does not necessarily make their death justified. Unfortunately, this is way too close to too many "he was a thug" arguments I've read on other sites as an effort to justify an unjustifiable death for me to be comfortable with it.

I think an injustice has happened. Was Garner necessarily a good man? Maybe not. Yes, he violated his parole. But it is the responsibility of the NYPD to find ways to bring in offenders for appropriate sentencing/trial/etc., not to choke someone to death for resisting arrest. More officers could have been brought in to restrain him properly or chase him down or whatever it took to do it right. He did not deserve to die, and I am sad that Pantaleo was not indicted.

/end2cents

[Knightshadow]

Is it possible---and I ask this in all sincerity and ignorance---that Garner's previous crimes included violence and the police, being cautious, used force to subdue him, albeit excessive force as seen on video?  Some have argued that police officers enter into potentially violent situations and have protection of self and others foremost in mind, at the cost of the perpetrator in question. Again, NOT an excuse for the results, but a possible motive on their part.

[Avis habilis]

Even if the police knew anything about his record, it's still immaterial to the question of how he was behaving at the time the police choked him.

Civil rights Cordelia Rice has some insight into this.

[Ephiral]

Is it possible---and I ask this in all sincerity and ignorance---that Garner's previous crimes included violence and the police, being cautious, used force to subdue him, albeit excessive force as seen on video?  Some have argued that police officers enter into potentially violent situations and have protection of self and others foremost in mind, at the cost of the perpetrator in question. Again, NOT an excuse for the results, but a possible motive on their part.

In the sense that absolutely nothing has a 0% probability, yes, but I would be loath to bet on it. Any violent history at all would have been used in the usual "He was a thug who deserved it" narrative.

Further, using a banned and dangerous restraint is not "being cautious" or acting "with protection of self and others foremost in mind". There's a very good reason it's banned.

[Aiden]

That is complete bullshit, you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. The force that was used against that man is despicable.

http://time.com/3016326/eric-garner-video-police-chokehold-death/

Watch the video and see as a man's life is taken away from them even as he struggles to breath.

It doesn't matter about his criminal past
It doesn't matter that he "MIGHT" have been selling loose cigarettes outside a store.
To be treated that way then lay the victim on them is horrible.
Might as well blame women who are raped for wearing a short skirt.
I don't want to call it a race issue...but I feel it is, the footage shot after that is a white office beating a black man who is already down. How do do justify that?

[Ebb]

It was an accident...

Okay, I'm with you there. I don't think the cops entered into this encounter with the intent to kill Mr. Garner.

...as a result of his own bad behavior.

This, though, is just inaccurate. While every event has a multitude of causal factors, when you say that "X is a result of Y" then you're implicitly saying that Y is the most important factor, eclipsing the others. The behaviors you're characterizing as 'bad' here are a combination of very minor criminal activity and poor health. Neither of which come close to "having a banned chokehold forcefully applied to you" if you had to weight all the different factors that resulted in Mr. Garner's death. Sure, they're on the list somewhere. But I think it's a gross distortion of the facts to put them up at the top.

On the morning of July 17th a whole lot of out of shape petty criminals woke up in New York City. The vast majority of them were still alive on the morning of the 18th.

[Inkidu]

His "contributing factors" showed no sign of being about to kill him before a panicking cop applied a choke, already officially prohibited by the department, that can cause continuing, worsening tracheal damage even after it's released.

The victim's past has precisely no relevance to the question of whether the cop's action at that moment was reasonable or even legal.

Of all the issues in this forum this one was easiest for me. The cop is at fault, he should be punished as much as possible. For the sole reason that the choke hold was a banned tactic by the NYPD. It was a move that shouldn't have ever been employed.

Sadly, I think that the victims chronic issues made something that should have never happened in the first place lethal. :(

EDIT: Though it does raise an interesting question. It was obvious that the man was fighting despite calling for a time-out.

However more to the point:

You can't shoot him for obvious reasons.
You can't taze him because he has heart problems.
You can't pepper spray him because he's an asthmatic.

So, barring the fact that the move the cop used was not permitted how were they supposed to restrain him without using those options, and despite his conditions he was a big person with surprising strength, and for whatever reason he did not stop fighting the cops. (I won't presume whether it was deliberate or fight-or-flight response.)

[Cherri Tart]

Is it possible---and I ask this in all sincerity and ignorance---that Garner's previous crimes included violence and the police, being cautious, used force to subdue him, albeit excessive force as seen on video?  Some have argued that police officers enter into potentially violent situations and have protection of self and others foremost in mind, at the cost of the perpetrator in question. Again, NOT an excuse for the results, but a possible motive on their part.

An overweight asthmatic black man selling ciggerettes and not showing any signs of hostile aggression. yeah, looked pretty dangerous to me. i would have just shot him instead of using a choke hold, just to make sure. seriously, anyone watching the video feel at any time that any of the several officers present were threatened or in danger?

[Cherri Tart]

Of all the issues in this forum this one was easiest for me. The cop is at fault, he should be punished as much as possible. For the sole reason that the choke hold was a banned tactic by the NYPD. It was a move that shouldn't have ever been employed.

Sadly, I think that the victims chronic issues made something that should have never happened in the first place lethal. :(

EDIT: Though it does raise an interesting question. It was obvious that the man was fighting despite calling for a time-out.

However more to the point:

You can't shoot him for obvious reasons.
You can't taze him because he has heart problems.
You can't pepper spray him because he's an asthmatic.

So, barring the fact that the move the cop used was not permitted how were they supposed to restrain him without using those options, and despite his conditions he was a big person with surprising strength, and for whatever reason he did not stop fighting the cops. (I won't presume whether it was deliberate or fight-or-flight response.)

he was selling cigerettes. the cops started hassling him and than attacked him. if i a cop attacked me for no reason, i'd fucking put up a fight too. it's called panic response. why they felt compelled to go after him in the first place is beyond me. how about. why would they need to taze or pepper spray him for that? oh, right, he's a scary black man. forgot that part. come one, taze him, pepper spray him? he wasn't a threat. if they simply left him alone i am 100% certain that he wasn't going to rob, kill, maim, or blow up innocent bystanders. how the hell anyone can watch that video, an unbiased witness to the events, and still defend that happened is ludicris. the guy was treated like a mad dog and put down. wake up people, this shit needs to stop.

[consortium11]

Case seems simple to me; the New York police don't allow choke holds, Eric Garner was choked by a police officer which led to his death. Even if the officer claims that he only accidentally choked him during the struggle that's still what we'd call manslaughter... and far more likely murder. The fact that his poor physical condition/health may have contributed to his death is irrelevant in that regard; it's a basic principle of criminal justice that you take your victim as you find them.

That said

he was selling cigerettes. the cops started hassling him and than attacked him. if i a cop attacked me for no reason, i'd fucking put up a fight too.

If you accept that Eric Garner was selling cigarettes then it's not a case of the police "hassling" him or attacking him "for no reason". The selling of single, untaxed cigarettes is a crime in New York and it seems the police had a reasonable suspicion that he was doing that; reasonable suspicion allows the police to detain someone, they tried to detain him and then the tragedy occured.

One should (and I'd argue must) separate out whether the police acted legitimately in trying to detain Eric Garner and if they went about it in a legitimate manner. The answer to the first appears to be yes, the second appears to be no.

Of course one can debate about New York's punitively high taxes on cigarettes and (through a combination of the "broken windows" policies and pressure from the City which wants to protect its tax revenue) the way the police have a heavy pressure on them to strictly enforce such laws... personally I think both the level of tax and the enforcement of it are ridiculous... but that's a separate matter to the death itself. 

[Inkidu]

he was selling cigerettes. the cops started hassling him and than attacked him. if i a cop attacked me for no reason, i'd fucking put up a fight too. it's called panic response. why they felt compelled to go after him in the first place is beyond me. how about. why would they need to taze or pepper spray him for that? oh, right, he's a scary black man. forgot that part. come one, taze him, pepper spray him? he wasn't a threat. if they simply left him alone i am 100% certain that he wasn't going to rob, kill, maim, or blow up innocent bystanders. how the hell anyone can watch that video, an unbiased witness to the events, and still defend that happened is ludicris. the guy was treated like a mad dog and put down. wake up people, this shit needs to stop.

As Consortium points out he was breaking the law, and it did escalate. 

[Beguile's Mistress]

I got two phone calls today from the family of one of the two men who broke into my house.  It seems his attorney passed the numbers for my home and work on to the family.  His mother wants me to tell the police he was in my home under duress.  That would be a lie on my part because I was locked in my bedroom until the police arrived and handcuffed the two at gun point.  But that is okay with her because her boy is a good boy and don't do nothin' wrong.  The brother was much worse, used profanity to describe me, racial slurs against me and threats to try to subdue me.  Now according to some of the remarks in this thread since they are all members of a minority I shouldn't report anyone for suborning perjury, breaching my privacy or making terroristic threats mostly because nothing bad happened to me.  I now get to live in fear for my home which could be burned down like those stores in Ferguson according to the brother because I'm a stuck up white woman with a sense of privilege in the mother's words.

This is the reality of what many people are going to have to live with now along with the fact that if a police officer so much as points a gun at someone all hell will break loose.  I don't blame Darren Wilson or the police in New York for this either.  I don't blame anyone.  I just wish that everyone - EVERYONE - would take responsibility for their own actions and just not commit crimes.

[Valthazar]

This is the reality of what many people are going to have to live with now along with the fact that if a police officer so much as points a gun at someone all hell will break loose.  I don't blame Darren Wilson or the police in New York for this either.  I don't blame anyone.  I just wish that everyone - EVERYONE - would take responsibility for their own actions and just not commit crimes.

+1.   I have avoided posting in this thread, and the Ferguson one, because so many people want to vilify one side or the other.

[Inkidu]

+1.   I have avoided posting in this thread, and the Ferguson one, because so many people want to vilify one side or the other.

Another +1 from me.

[Ebb]

I got two phone calls today from the family of one of the two men who broke into my house.  It seems his attorney passed the numbers for my home and work on to the family.  His mother wants me to tell the police he was in my home under duress.  That would be a lie on my part because I was locked in my bedroom until the police arrived and handcuffed the two at gun point.  But that is okay with her because her boy is a good boy and don't do nothin' wrong.  The brother was much worse, used profanity to describe me, racial slurs against me and threats to try to subdue me.  Now according to some of the remarks in this thread since they are all members of a minority I shouldn't report anyone for suborning perjury, breaching my privacy or making terroristic threats mostly because nothing bad happened to me.  I now get to live in fear for my home which could be burned down like those stores in Ferguson according to the brother because I'm a stuck up white woman with a sense of privilege in the mother's words.

It's horrible that you were a victim of a crime like that, and it's reprehensible on the part of both the people who called you and their attorney that you should be subject to further harassment in this way. If you haven't already reported this to the police I hope that you do soon. You don't deserve to live in fear for your safety.

I doubt anyone posting in this thread, and I hope anyone here on Elliquiy, would disagree with that sentiment.

[Beguile's Mistress]

It's horrible that you were a victim of a crime like that, and it's reprehensible on the part of both the people who called you and their attorney that you should be subject to further harassment in this way. If you haven't already reported this to the police I hope that you do soon. You don't deserve to live in fear for your safety.

I doubt anyone posting in this thread, and I hope anyone here on Elliquiy, would disagree with that sentiment.

People live in fear everyday.  None of us should have to. 

I've reported the situation to the District Attorney's office.  I already have a relationship with them due to my own assault some years ago.  I have a button on my phone at work that records calls since we work with call ins and record for accuracy and training purposes.  Because I do a lot of work from home and make calls for the company I can record there as well.  Yay me! 

I see many people looking at the police as adversaries but I don't see them that way at all.  I also see many people who are wary and afraid of minorities simply because the bad actors among them.  Today after the first call to my office I did my tour through my department where at least half of the 400 people currently working there are non-white.  All I saw were people working hard to earn a living and provide for themselves and their families.  Didn't see one gangsta among them. 

[Ephiral]

This is the reality of what many people are going to have to live with now along with the fact that if a police officer so much as points a gun at someone all hell will break loose.  I don't blame Darren Wilson or the police in New York for this either.  I don't blame anyone.  I just wish that everyone - EVERYONE - would take responsibility for their own actions and just not commit crimes.

It's worth noting that the chokehold in question was a crime. It was not part of the very specific continuum of force this officer was authorized to use - under any circumstances. It was, in fact, specifically cited as not being authorized. So, regardless of his possession of a badge, when applying it? He was committing a crime.

So... this is just a little hypocritical.

What happened to you is horrible, should be responded to with the full extent of the law, and has zero bearing whatsoever on any attempt to curb police abuses.

[Zakharra]

This is the reality of what many people are going to have to live with now along with the fact that if a police officer so much as points a gun at someone all hell will break loose.  I don't blame Darren Wilson or the police in New York for this either.  I don't blame anyone.  I just wish that everyone - EVERYONE - would take responsibility for their own actions and just not commit crimes.

+1 from me too.  And I'm sorry to hear of the threats against you. If you got the phone calls recorded (the record function is a good idea for any phone), then that strengthens your case. Hopefully nothing bad will happen to you because of the threats. 
/hug

[Cherri Tart]

Case seems simple to me; the New York police don't allow choke holds, Eric Garner was choked by a police officer which led to his death. Even if the officer claims that he only accidentally choked him during the struggle that's still what we'd call manslaughter... and far more likely murder. The fact that his poor physical condition/health may have contributed to his death is irrelevant in that regard; it's a basic principle of criminal justice that you take your victim as you find them.

That said

If you accept that Eric Garner was selling cigarettes then it's not a case of the police "hassling" him or attacking him "for no reason". The selling of single, untaxed cigarettes is a crime in New York and it seems the police had a reasonable suspicion that he was doing that; reasonable suspicion allows the police to detain someone, they tried to detain him and then the tragedy occured.

One should (and I'd argue must) separate out whether the police acted legitimately in trying to detain Eric Garner and if they went about it in a legitimate manner. The answer to the first appears to be yes, the second appears to be no.

Of course one can debate about New York's punitively high taxes on cigarettes and (through a combination of the "broken windows" policies and pressure from the City which wants to protect its tax revenue) the way the police have a heavy pressure on them to strictly enforce such laws... personally I think both the level of tax and the enforcement of it are ridiculous... but that's a separate matter to the death itself.

Jaywalking is a crime too. A very minor infraction. So is littering. Yes, what he was doing was illegal. Is it on the same level as armed robbery or murder? Obviously not. A fine would not have been out of place. Lethal force, however, was.

[Inkidu]

They didn't use lethal force. They used force that unfortunately turned out to be lethal. If they'd used pepper spray and it triggered his asthma and he died from that, or the taser sent him into cardiac arrest they would still not be lethal options, and yes as previously stated, the NYPD is trained and knows explicitly not to use choke holds. So the cop should certainly be punished to the full extent of the law.

Okay, but say he was jaywalking and the cop approached him with the intent of writing him a ticket and the perpetrator starts pushing and shoving, what do you expect a cop to do when someone starts acting such a way to a simple citation?

[Zakharra]

Jaywalking is a crime too. A very minor infraction. So is littering. Yes, what he was doing was illegal. Is it on the same level as armed robbery or murder? Obviously not. A fine would not have been out of place. Lethal force, however, was.

From what I have heard, the police were called by the owner of the story he was selling in front of (a minority story owner from what I've heard), so he was going to be arrested anyways. His crime was higher on the list than jaywalking (selling illegal untaxed cigarettes is a huge no-no in NY City, they want all of the money they can squeeze out of people) so he was going to be arrested no matter what. And probably jailed for violating probation. I do agree the choke hold was unwarranted and the death very unfortunate, but I am not going to say or think that because the person who died is black that somehow makes it worse. It's unfortunate that a human being, Mr. Garner, died. Race and/or gender has no relevance in it as far as I see.

[Cherri Tart]

They didn't use lethal force. They used force that unfortunately turned out to be lethal. If they'd used pepper spray and it triggered his asthma and he died from that, or the taser sent him into cardiac arrest they would still not be lethal options, and yes as previously stated, the NYPD is trained and knows explicitly not to use choke holds. So the cop should certainly be punished to the full extent of the law.

Okay, but say he was jaywalking and the cop approached him with the intent of writing him a ticket and the perpetrator starts pushing and shoving, what do you expect ay

I expect the cop to behave as he should be trained to, to diffuse the situation. physical force should always be the last resort. Maybe that's a bit idealistic, but they should be above losing their tempers or trying to prove something. why they had to subdue him at all, is my question. and yes, he SHOULD be punished to the full extent of the law, but somehow, that's not going to happen because of the Grand jury's decision, yet again.