A take on the chokehold guy

The Coffee Shop
1

The other thread was filling up with rhetoric, so I wanted to start a new one.

I think I see why the grand jury didn’t indict. The guy actually died from a heart attack- that was why he felt as if he couldn’t breathe. That being said, the actions of the police did appear overly aggressive, and the choke hold (forbidden to start with) was not properly applied. Also, a guy with enough arterial disease to have a heart attack likely has enough arterial disease to potentially have a stroke when the carotid arteries are compressed- the police can’t be expected to know this, so chokeholds are simply banned for all.

In the end, the guy may have died walking up the stairs if he had never interected with the police, but we’ll never know. I don’t believe the cop who applied the chokehold killed the guy, but he may have been a proximate cause of the event that killed him. A less aggressive approach was definitely in order.

Agree or disagree with the non-indictment based on this?

2

If they had tazed him and he died, the same people would have been saying “there were six cops there, weren’t they man enough to take him down without a tazer?” And they would blame the cops for using a tazer.

People will find prejudice and malice wherever they look for it - even if it doesn’t exist.

3

And if the big guy ran from the police the police would have been blamed for giving chase. It’s a no-win situation for those in the perps camps. Bottom line, if the guy simply complied he wouldn’t be dead, from resisting arrest at least.

4

The other thread was filling up with rhetoric, so I wanted to start a new one.

I think I see why the grand jury didn’t indict. The guy actually died from a heart attack- that was why he felt as if he couldn’t breathe. That being said, the actions of the police did appear overly aggressive, and the choke hold (forbidden to start with) was not properly applied. Also, a guy with enough arterial disease to have a heart attack likely has enough arterial disease to potentially have a stroke when the carotid arteries are compressed- the police can’t be expected to know this, so chokeholds are simply banned for all.

In the end, the guy may have died walking up the stairs if he had never interected with the police, but we’ll never know. I don’t believe the cop who applied the chokehold killed the guy, but he may have been a proximate cause of the event that killed him. A less aggressive approach was definitely in order.

Agree or disagree with the non-indictment based on this?

I would have indicted him. I don’t buy your rationalization of the event.

5

Police are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Fact is we need them. It may be time for different/better policy but we need them.

6

It’s easy for me to say since I’ve never been in the situation, but why not just comply?

Not making any comments to this specific case:

If your civil rights are being violated, comply, take down the badge number and press charges - it’s not like there aren’t enough cameras around at this point to prove it.

If you’re dealing with a hot head officer, comply, take down the badge number and press charges. If the officer is apt to overuse force, you’re not going to calm him down by resisting.

This way - you get to expose true overuse of force and still be alive to see justice served.

twomarks

7

I dont see much resisting in the video, he didnt flee, didnt strike out, his hands were up. Cops are terrible at defusing a situation…you can’t talk first, give warnings, you gotta go straight to a sneak attack choke? Since when can you not question a cop? You can say the choke wasnt the “cause” of death, but it certainly was the “reason” the guy died. In other words, if the guy was left standing there for another 30 seconds I doubt he would have keeled over from a heart attack, it was due to the chokehold and overly aggressive treatment by the cop. Saying he probably would have died soon anyway cuz he was fat/unhealthy is simply not the issue.

The Ferguson incident I get, don’t agree with necessarily, but lots of he said/she said and all that which makes me just accept the outcome on no indictment…but this one is on video and its pretty clear, its just terrible. Also, I am white.

8

Choke holds (properly applied) don’t cause heart attacks or strokes.

Hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of chokes and strangles have occurred in Jiu jitsu, judo and mma gyms throughout the world, for decades. Nobody is dying.

9

Didn’t the medical examiner rule it was a homicide?

10

Didn’t the medical examiner rule it was a homicide?

The amount of ignorance about what that means is astounding.

11

If your civil rights are being violated, comply, take down the badge number and press charges - it’s not like there aren’t enough cameras around at this point to prove it.

If you’re dealing with a hot head officer, comply, take down the badge number and press charges. If the officer is apt to overuse force, you’re not going to calm him down by resisting.

99.99% of the time I agree. In this case I would say I definitely agree. However remember there was also a recent post here of a story of a cop that took a lady out somewhere and raped her. I do think in some cases you should question the cop and possibly resist arrest. That is the rare, rare, rare case however. I think more importantly is the education of knowing police procedure. I would be a bit disconcerted about being taken into custody by a single hot head police officer, which I believe is the reason that in most arrest cases there are at least two if not more police present.

But in the majority of all cases simply complying is the right way to go. In the worst case scenario, such as the rape case, the law should come down so hard on the cop and the department the cop is part of that the lesson will never be forgotten.

~Matt

12

Ruling that it was a homicide has been completely mischaracterized by the media. From time.com:

“But “homicide” in this context doesn’t mean what you think. It’s one of five categories medical examiners use to label causes of death and it indicates that “someone’s intentional actions led to the death of another person,” says Gregory G. Davis, president of the National Association of Medical Examiners. The other four labels are suicide, accident, natural, and undetermined, Davis says.
So in a medical examiner’s report “homicide” just means one person intentionally did something that led to the death of someone else. It doesn’t mean the death was intentional and it doesn’t mean it was a crime.”

Spot

13

help me become less ignorant
.

14

So in a medical examiner’s report “homicide” just means one person intentionally did something that led to the death of someone else.

Okay that is exactly what I thought it meant. So the medical examiner ruled the police officer’s actions caused his death.

15

So in a medical examiner’s report “homicide” just means one person intentionally did something that led to the death of someone else.

Okay that is exactly what I thought it meant. So the medical examiner ruled the police officer’s actions caused his death.

Correct. However, Garner wasn’t asphyxiated…he died of cardiac arrest, which was attributed to his many health problems.

Spot

16

So in a medical examiner’s report “homicide” just means one person intentionally did something that led to the death of someone else.

Okay that is exactly what I thought it meant. So the medical examiner ruled the police officer’s actions caused his death.

the amount of ignorance it takes to turn that definition into “see, he didn’t do it on purpose so it doesn’t mean anything” is astounding.

17

Sounds like you trying to have it both ways. He would overwhelmingly likely be alive today if the choke hold hadn’t been applied. His other health conditions are irrelevant.

For the record, I am making no characterization as to whether the use of force was justifiable or legal, merely whether x caused y.

18

Choke holds (properly applied) don’t cause heart attacks or strokes.

Hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of chokes and strangles have occurred in Jiu jitsu, judo and mma gyms throughout the world, for decades. Nobody is dying.

Then by your definition it wasn’t properly applied. Whether properly applied or improperly applied, it is against the police policy.

19

I would have indicted him. I don’t buy your rationalization of the event.

Why not? I’m not rationalizing, I’m looking at the facts I have/as I understand them. I’m on the fence on this one- intent to kill was not there, but the cop who applied the choke definitely acted improperly. A murder charge seems like it would be too much, but manslaughter may be appropriate here.

20

I dont see much resisting in the video, he didnt flee, didnt strike out, his hands were up. Cops are terrible at defusing a situation…you can’t talk first, give warnings, you gotta go straight to a sneak attack choke?

I listened to a long list of callers, mostly LEOs, to a conservative talk radio program give their take. The majority agreed that he crossed the line with the choke hold, but then qualified it with “at the end of the day, I have the right to go home to my family…” One caller suggested that he could have been charged with assault and battery of an officer for how he made contact while waving his arms. This is a distorted way of thinking that comes from a collective PTSD among LEOs. It’s understandable, but irrelevant as a defense for overly aggressive policing.

Nothing about this interaction should have given any reasonable officer of the law cause to fear for their life, which, to my knowledge, is the only time when the maneuver is allowed by policy. When someone poses a threat, yes, the continuum of force is defensible and appropriate. This wasn’t one of those instances.

Regarding the cause, or proximate cause of death: when you’re dealing with a non-threatening but uncooperative person, nonphysical deescalation should be the rule, not just a throwaway line in the incident report after the fact. It doesn’t take a medical professional to see that he wasn’t the picture of health, and applying and maintaining a choke hold, then compressing his chest after he said repeatedly that he couldn’t breathe, is inarguably dangerous. You wouldn’t take down a fleeing senior citizen handicap parking space abuser with a flying tackle, because 1) it’s a minor violation and they pose no immediate threat to anyone, and 2) the risk of breaking a hip or inflicting some other serious injury far outweighs the benefit.

There’s also the option to issue the guy a citation rather than make an arrest for peddling $1 cigarettes.

Pepper spray or taser may well have ended his life as well. Both of those should also be employed as last resort interventions for uncooperative but nonviolent individuals in violation of law. Had he cooperated he’d likely be alive today. The chokehold and subsequent treatment triggered his demise, and it was not justified by the situation or by policy. Whether or not that should translate to an indictment–I think it should, but then I don’t know what kind of indictment he was facing. I am absolutely certain there is some law on the books, a lesser charge than murder, or even manslaughter, that a grand jury could find probable cause for a trial, though.