Garner case

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Troianii, Dec 9, 2014.

  1. Troianii

    Troianii Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    13,464
    Likes Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Okay, there is one key thing that I keep hearing people skip over - was there any intent to kill? Assume for a second we all agree the officer's actions directly led to Garner ' s death. The key would be intent, yes?

    Because if a police officer accidentally kills someone doing exactly what he was trained to do when an individual resists an arrest, a thing that is almost never fatal, and there is no indication whatsoever that there was intent to do serious harm - what do you want the officer to go to trial for? It seems to me all that is left to put on trial is the law.

    So is there some clear indication of intent that I'm missing? Is this action something that you would expect to normally be lethal (for the sake of argument)?
     
  2. Hairball

    Hairball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,699
    Likes Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I saw the video. It didn't look like an accident. The intention to assault Garner with deadly force was very clear in the video.

    It's a clear case of murder IMO.
     
  3. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Remember Oscar Grant? The subject that complied with the Police and the cop mistakenly shot him with his gun instead of the tazer? The officer was convicted of manslaughter as Grant was NOT the proximate cause of his injuries because he was complying. In the case of Brown, he was the proximate cause of his own death by refusing to comply with a sworn police officer, but attacking him instead. In the case of Garner, he was the proximate cause of his own death by refusing to comply with a sworn police officers, and resisting arrest instead. Had it not been for their own actions both would be alive today. PROXIMATE CAUSE.
     
  4. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I disagree, had the intent to kill been there the officer had many guaranteed option available. I saw a 200 lb, cop trying to subdue a 300 lb. person and doing so in one of the less damaging ways he could. I suppose he could have simply Tazed him and hoped for the best.
     
  5. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think had they tazed him the results would have been the same, considering his morbid obesity, heart problems, asthma and diabetes.
     
  6. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Probably true....but at least then the Cop would only be getting blamed for blowing the guys heart up.
     
  7. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Police should have no additional powers in this regard to your average citizen. If a CCW permit holder would be indicted - so should the police officer.
     
  8. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why would anyone be indicted in the Garner case?
     
  9. hiimjered

    hiimjered Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    7,924
    Likes Received:
    143
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Intent determines the classification of the crime, but a crime can exist without intent. If intent exists, usually the crime will be first-degree. If there is no intent it can still be murder or manslaughter, just a second or third degree version.

    This case wouldn't be murder. There just isn't any evidence the cop went out that day intending to kill someone. Thus we either have manslaughter or no crime.

    If, in the heat of the moment the officer suddenly decided that he wanted to kill this man, it would have intent and would be first degree or voluntary manslaughter.

    If he was extremely negligent - significantly violating safety standards, it would be second degree or involuntary manslaughter.

    The next option is key to our legal system, and is the one that makes the people outside the case angry, while protecting people from witch hunts and false or unsupported charges: if there isn't evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the killer was reckless and negligent beyond an ordinary level, under the law the killer didn't commit a crime. If doubt exists, the killer is considered to be innocent of a crime.

    So, intent really isn't critical. It would make a crime worse, but manslaughter and even murder can exist without intent.
     
  10. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If is a powerful word.
     
  11. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You said it not me.
     
  12. HTownMarine

    HTownMarine Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    8,348
    Likes Received:
    4,155
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You really think that guy put him in that choke hold, and in his mind he's thinking "I hope I can choke this guy to death right here on the sidewalk". Guess he failed, considering he didn't die from suffocation.

    Mod edit,,2,,flounder
     
  13. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The hold lasted 15 seconds......

    [video=youtube;pvATEjsf41g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvATEjsf41g[/video]

    The first time he said I can't breathe was after the hold was released.
     
  14. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,839
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Rights come with responsibilities. We give the police the responsibility to stop, arrest and detain criminal suspects, which includes suspects who will violently resist arrest. Without any additional rights, police officers wouldn't even be allowed to touch a person they're arresting, let alone prevent them escaping, handcuff them or put them in cells.
     
  15. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What is always glossed over is the reason for the harassment of Garner, the States insatiable lust for other people's money. If the State does not get it's cut, it can kill you with impunity. The reason Garner was taken down was because of a very regressive tax that affects the poorest the hardest.

    The Police were just doing their job based on the requirements of the State.
     
  16. AlphaOmega

    AlphaOmega Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2013
    Messages:
    28,747
    Likes Received:
    4,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think him being a large man worked against him. They probably thought they needed to use extra force to subdue him since he was so much larger than them, that being said, I wasn't there so I don't know what transpired before the video or how many times they instructed him to put his hands behind his back to be placed under arrest. In the video he does resist arrest but it was blatantly obvious he was gesturing with his hands as he was defending his position to them and did not intend to physically assault any of the police officers. Secondly once he was on the ground there was even more excessive force applied which I understand is a valid tactic for violent suspects but in this case it was not needed in my opinion especially when he repeated he couldn't breathe.
     
  17. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Take downs like this have occasionally caused death. I can't find the one where an overweight guy was forced to his belly at home that died a couple of years ago but here is another one that caused death from the same. It seems to involve people that are not very fit and may have medical problems.

    [video=youtube_share;Qy66quF0pek]http://youtu.be/Qy66quF0pek[/video]

    Here is another by tazer and take down.

    Sheriff's probe in-custody death
     
  18. TomFitz

    TomFitz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2013
    Messages:
    40,413
    Likes Received:
    15,901
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are several things wrong with the artifical scenario you set up.

    First of all, being charged with murder does not necessarily require intent.

    There is manslaughter.

    Second, the officers were not doing what they were trained to do. They were doing something that was expressly forbidden.

    Which brings up the third point. If a chokehold is "almost never fatal", than why is is expressly forbidden by the NYPD?
     
  19. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They were doing what they were trained to do in the academy. NYPD rules are not law.
     
  20. TomFitz

    TomFitz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2013
    Messages:
    40,413
    Likes Received:
    15,901
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is not true. Chokeholds are expressly forbidden. There isn't any debate about this.
     
  21. Papastox

    Papastox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2014
    Messages:
    10,296
    Likes Received:
    2,731
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I certainly don't think it was racially motivated nor do I think it was intentional. But what the police did, led to a man's death over cigarettes. That is negligence. The police are trained. People on here say that the police can't know someone's health, but don't they have EYES to see how obese he is? After all, he wasn't a stranger to them. They should know he has health issues by looking at him. He was not armed and he really didn't resist. There were plenty of cops around him. If you listen to the tape, he was actually polite, not belligerent. Ok, they took him down. He's not fighting them. He says he can't breathe 11 times! People with common sense would loosen their grip, don't you think? EMS come. My opinion was when she took his pulse, he was already dead.
    When do people stop paying attention to a coroner's report? It said there was neck and chest compression and ruled it a homicide which means that his death was not from natural causes. It was verified by Michael Baden who is an expert.
    I am definitely pro police and defend them as good people who risk their lives every day for us. But things happen and people have to be held accountable. Unlike Darren Wilson who had a clean record, this officer doesn't he had at least 2 prior suits against him and this is the third and he is only 29. In my opinion, with the video, there was ample evidence that this should have gone to trial. Even with the trial, he may have been found innocent, but we will never know. But I think we do know that he will probably be terminated. The EMS workers were suspended without pay and I don't think they acted properly either from what I have read. We are not privy to all the information, but what we do know certainly is damaging.
     
  22. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wrong again. The political ban of choke holds is not law but police regulation that the police resisted because it puts officers in danger.

    http://www.vox.com/2014/12/3/7329219/chokehold-ban
     
  23. TomFitz

    TomFitz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2013
    Messages:
    40,413
    Likes Received:
    15,901
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not wrong, and you're playing parsing games and we both know it.

    The ban on choke holds doesn't have to be law. Violating procedure has consequences.

    Here is the standard for negligent homicide in New York, which is what I think this man should be charged with.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...nd_jury_why_did_it_refuse_to_indict_eric.html
     
  24. Foolardi

    Foolardi Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2009
    Messages:
    47,987
    Likes Received:
    6,805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What was truly stunning and was NEVER,I mean,not once reported was the fact that
    a Black Female Officer is the one who made the call to go over and confront and if
    necessary arrest Eric Garner.
    Ask youself why that little tidbit of Reality was left out in ALL MSM reporting.
    Which isn't reporting.That's like saying a Schoolyard Brat reports back to the
    Schoolyard Bully for the OK. Or for further instruction.
    Don't forget who and what Obama is. He is a former Community Organizer/Activist.
    Michelle Obama clarified in 2007-2008 that her husband was a
    Community Activist.
    or as Bill Cunningham told his Sunday Night Drudge Radio audience ...
    Barack Hussein Sharpton.
     
  25. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are confusing training with a NYPD politically inspired regulation.
     

Share This Page