He we go again, Garner case in NYC

[Patrick]

Lets save a lot of money and remove the police and just let the country, states, counties, towns, cities and neighborhoods take care of themselves. Or, should we only allow purple cops into purple neighborhoods and when anything happens they'll just have to wait until the politically correct people can respond.

Talk about spending tax dollars, how about the search for JFK Jr.  How long would anyone have looked for any of us if we had so stupidly screwed ourselves into the ocean.
I understand this is apples/oranges to the main subject and I'll be called on it. But, its still about spending tax dollars.

[G-Man]

Must be time to burn down Staten Island!!!

well, ok but just Staten Island! 

Maybe if we blow up the bridges on either side of the island, and force everyone to one side………….

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cesSRfXqS1Q

[G-Man]

Lets save a lot of money and remove the police and just let the country, states, counties, towns, cities and neighborhoods take care of themselves. Or, should we only allow purple cops into purple neighborhoods and when anything happens they'll just have to wait until the politically correct people can respond.

I say we give them what they want!!  Here me out…….

We keep trying to fight nonsense with logic.  Let's give them what they want.  Load up all the black neighborhoods with black cops and white neighborhoods with white cops.  Only Chinese cops in Chinatown.  When crime is still high in certain neighborhoods and like cops have to be physical with like perps the tale will be told.  Silly to think that the color of law enforcement dictates the behavior of the citizens, but let's find out.

[Patrick]

Lets save a lot of money and remove the police and just let the country, states, counties, towns, cities and neighborhoods take care of themselves. Or, should we only allow purple cops into purple neighborhoods and when anything happens they'll just have to wait until the politically correct people can respond.

I say we give them what they want!!  Here me out…….

We keep trying to fight nonsense with logic.  Let's give them what they want.  Load up all the black neighborhoods with black cops and white neighborhoods with white cops.  Only Chinese cops in Chinatown.  When crime is still high in certain neighborhoods and like cops have to be physical with like perps the tale will be told.  Silly to think that the color of law enforcement dictates the behavior of the citizens, but let's find out.

Yep, pretty much what I meant.  Just as you, I'm willing to find out.

When Mrs Garner [and daughter] said what she said while sharpton was sitting next to her, did you notice the look on his face.

[Oss]

Well you almost got it

today the Verrazano bridge shut down by protesters for awhile

Millions spent investigating whether Gov Christie KNEW that there was a problem at the GW bridge lane closed.

NOTHING will be spent prosecuting the people who incited this "protest"

Send em to Gitmo under national security for blocking a federal interstate highway

[Patrick]

Must be time to burn down Staten Island!!!

well, ok but just Staten Island! 

Maybe if we blow up the bridges on either side of the island, and force everyone to one side………….

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cesSRfXqS1Q

Especially if nitwit Johnson is there with them.

[old2soon]

Well you almost got it

today the Verrazano bridge shut down by protesters for awhile

Millions spent investigating whether Gov Christie KNEW that there was a problem at the GW bridge lane closed.

NOTHING will be spent prosecuting the people who incited this "protest"

Send em to Gitmo under national security for blocking a federal interstate highway

         REALLY Evan-ya want the fed gubmint to attempt to do something when folks break Federal Law?  Like sending illegals back?  RIDE SAFE.

[Robert]

I would not have wanted to be the arresting officer on this case. He had a job to do and he did it , but maybe he should have said please to or negotiated with him to make someone with this kind of history do what you command. Garner knew his personal health conditions and if was not up to the challenge then should have found a legal line of work. Cause of death was a heart attack not a asphyxiation. WE are setting a dangerous and unjustified precedent in second guessing the Grand Jury in these cases. Since when has it been that we question a decision of peers, especially one that will indited anyone on the least cause.

1. There is no doubt that Garner was resisting an arrest for illegally selling untaxed cigarettes. Former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik put it succinctly: "You cannot resist arrest. If Eric Garner did not resist arrest, the outcome of this case would have been very different," he told Newsmax. "He wouldn't be dead today.

"Regardless of what the arrest was for, the officers don't have the ability to say, 'Well, this is a minor arrest, so we're just going to ignore you.'"

2. The video of the July 17 incident clearly shows Garner, an African-American, swatting away the arms of a white officer seeking to take him into custody, telling him: "Don't touch me!"

3. Garner, 43, had history of more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980, on charges including assault and grand larceny.

4. At the time of his death, Garner was out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession and false impersonation.

5. The chokehold that Patrolman Daniel Pantaleo put on Garner was reported to have contributed to his death. But Garner, who was 6-foot-3 and weighed 350 pounds, suffered from a number of health problems, including heart disease, severe asthma, diabetes, obesity, and sleep apnea. Pantaleo's attorney and police union officials argued that Garner's poor health was the main cause of his death.

6. Garner did not die at the scene of the confrontation. He suffered cardiac arrest in the ambulance taking him to the hospital and was pronounced dead about an hour later.

7. Much has been made of the fact that the use of chokeholds by police is prohibited in New York City. But officers reportedly still use them. Between 2009 and mid-2014, the Civilian Complaint Review Board received 1,128 chokehold allegations.

Patrick Lynch, president of the New York City Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, said: "It was clear that the officer's intention was to do nothing more than take Mr. Garner into custody as instructed, and that he used the takedown technique that he learned in the academy when Mr. Garner refused."

8. The grand jury began hearing the case on Sept. 29 and did not reach a decision until Wednesday, so there is much testimony that was presented that has not been made public.

9. The 23-member grand jury included nine non-white jurors.

10. In order to find Officer Pantaleo criminally negligent, the grand jury would have had to determine that he knew there was a "substantial risk" that Garner would have died due to the takedown.

11. Less than a month after Garner's death, Ramsey Orta, who shot the much-viewed videotape of the encounter, was indicted on weapons charges. Police alleged that Orta had slipped a .25-caliber handgun into a teenage accomplice's waistband outside a New York hotel.

[G-Man]

Columbia Law students are having their exams postponed because the students are distract over the Grand Juries decision.

I did not make this up.

[old2soon]

That old T V show Beretta had a line he used a LOT. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Amend that to include-IF you do the crime the L E Os WILL take you into custody-It's what they do. I'm not brave/idiotic/stupid enough to go against what a L E O tells me to do-especially if he has his weapon drawn. And-YES-I've had encounters where the L E Os had their weapons drawn on me. LISTEN to what the L E Os say-mucho better than becoming a statistic.  And from what I've heard-SOME jurisdictions STILL do "tune ups" on some questionable type folks. My question is-WHY haven't folks rioted when a white person is put down by a L E O of color?? RIDE SAFE.

[Serk]

Lets save a lot of money and remove the police and just let the country, states, counties, towns, cities and neighborhoods take care of themselves. Or, should we only allow purple cops into purple neighborhoods and when anything happens they'll just have to wait until the politically correct people can respond.

I say we give them what they want!!  Here me out…….

We keep trying to fight nonsense with logic.  Let's give them what they want.  Load up all the black neighborhoods with black cops and white neighborhoods with white cops.  Only Chinese cops in Chinatown.  When crime is still high in certain neighborhoods and like cops have to be physical with like perps the tale will be told.  Silly to think that the color of law enforcement dictates the behavior of the citizens, but let's find out.

Problem with that idea is the first time a black "kid" wanders into a white neighborhood and does something warranting arrest, and resists arrest, we're right back where we started... (But ever worse because "Profiling!")

[The emperor has no clothes]

I would not have wanted to be the arresting officer on this case. He had a job to do and he did it , but maybe he should have said please to or negotiated with him to make someone with this kind of history do what you command. Garner knew his personal health conditions and if was not up to the challenge then should have found a legal line of work. Cause of death was a heart attack not a asphyxiation. WE are setting a dangerous and unjustified precedent in second guessing the Grand Jury in these cases. Since when has it been that we question a decision of peers, especially one that will indited anyone on the least cause.

1. There is no doubt that Garner was resisting an arrest for illegally selling untaxed cigarettes. Former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik put it succinctly: "You cannot resist arrest. If Eric Garner did not resist arrest, the outcome of this case would have been very different," he told Newsmax. "He wouldn't be dead today.

"Regardless of what the arrest was for, the officers don't have the ability to say, 'Well, this is a minor arrest, so we're just going to ignore you.'"

2. The video of the July 17 incident clearly shows Garner, an African-American, swatting away the arms of a white officer seeking to take him into custody, telling him: "Don't touch me!"

3. Garner, 43, had history of more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980, on charges including assault and grand larceny.

4. At the time of his death, Garner was out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession and false impersonation.

5. The chokehold that Patrolman Daniel Pantaleo put on Garner was reported to have contributed to his death. But Garner, who was 6-foot-3 and weighed 350 pounds, suffered from a number of health problems, including heart disease, severe asthma, diabetes, obesity, and sleep apnea. Pantaleo's attorney and police union officials argued that Garner's poor health was the main cause of his death.

6. Garner did not die at the scene of the confrontation. He suffered cardiac arrest in the ambulance taking him to the hospital and was pronounced dead about an hour later.

7. Much has been made of the fact that the use of chokeholds by police is prohibited in New York City. But officers reportedly still use them. Between 2009 and mid-2014, the Civilian Complaint Review Board received 1,128 chokehold allegations.

Patrick Lynch, president of the New York City Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, said: "It was clear that the officer's intention was to do nothing more than take Mr. Garner into custody as instructed, and that he used the takedown technique that he learned in the academy when Mr. Garner refused."

8. The grand jury began hearing the case on Sept. 29 and did not reach a decision until Wednesday, so there is much testimony that was presented that has not been made public.

9. The 23-member grand jury included nine non-white jurors.

10. In order to find Officer Pantaleo criminally negligent, the grand jury would have had to determine that he knew there was a "substantial risk" that Garner would have died due to the takedown.

11. Less than a month after Garner's death, Ramsey Orta, who shot the much-viewed videotape of the encounter, was indicted on weapons charges. Police alleged that Orta had slipped a .25-caliber handgun into a teenage accomplice's waistband outside a New York hotel.

I'm not to sure quoting Bernard Kerik adds much validity to your preposition 

[Patrick]

I would not have wanted to be the arresting officer on this case. He had a job to do and he did it , but maybe he should have said please to or negotiated with him to make someone with this kind of history do what you command. Garner knew his personal health conditions and if was not up to the challenge then should have found a legal line of work. Cause of death was a heart attack not a asphyxiation. WE are setting a dangerous and unjustified precedent in second guessing the Grand Jury in these cases. Since when has it been that we question a decision of peers, especially one that will indited anyone on the least cause.

1. There is no doubt that Garner was resisting an arrest for illegally selling untaxed cigarettes. Former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik put it succinctly: "You cannot resist arrest. If Eric Garner did not resist arrest, the outcome of this case would have been very different," he told Newsmax. "He wouldn't be dead today.

"Regardless of what the arrest was for, the officers don't have the ability to say, 'Well, this is a minor arrest, so we're just going to ignore you.'"

2. The video of the July 17 incident clearly shows Garner, an African-American, swatting away the arms of a white officer seeking to take him into custody, telling him: "Don't touch me!"

3. Garner, 43, had history of more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980, on charges including assault and grand larceny.

4. At the time of his death, Garner was out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession and false impersonation.

5. The chokehold that Patrolman Daniel Pantaleo put on Garner was reported to have contributed to his death. But Garner, who was 6-foot-3 and weighed 350 pounds, suffered from a number of health problems, including heart disease, severe asthma, diabetes, obesity, and sleep apnea. Pantaleo's attorney and police union officials argued that Garner's poor health was the main cause of his death.

6. Garner did not die at the scene of the confrontation. He suffered cardiac arrest in the ambulance taking him to the hospital and was pronounced dead about an hour later.

7. Much has been made of the fact that the use of chokeholds by police is prohibited in New York City. But officers reportedly still use them. Between 2009 and mid-2014, the Civilian Complaint Review Board received 1,128 chokehold allegations.

Patrick Lynch, president of the New York City Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, said: "It was clear that the officer's intention was to do nothing more than take Mr. Garner into custody as instructed, and that he used the takedown technique that he learned in the academy when Mr. Garner refused."

8. The grand jury began hearing the case on Sept. 29 and did not reach a decision until Wednesday, so there is much testimony that was presented that has not been made public.

9. The 23-member grand jury included nine non-white jurors.

10. In order to find Officer Pantaleo criminally negligent, the grand jury would have had to determine that he knew there was a "substantial risk" that Garner would have died due to the takedown.

11. Less than a month after Garner's death, Ramsey Orta, who shot the much-viewed videotape of the encounter, was indicted on weapons charges. Police alleged that Orta had slipped a .25-caliber handgun into a teenage accomplice's waistband outside a New York hotel.

I'm not to sure quoting Bernard Kerik adds much validity to your preposition 

Does that mean Mr Kerik is wrong ?  That statement appears to be correct to me.

[The emperor has no clothes]

My point was quoting someone who was sentenced to 4 years prison for lying under oath, tax fraud, and other charges as an authority on legal matters doesn't hold much weight. At least in my book. Maybe he is authoritative in your book, I don't know.

[Patrick]

My point was quoting someone who was sentenced to 4 years prison for lying under oath, tax fraud, and other charges as an authority on legal matters doesn't hold much weight. At least in my book. Maybe he is authoritative in your book, I don't know.

OK, point taken.

[Robert]

My point was quoting someone who was sentenced to 4 years prison for lying under oath, tax fraud, and other charges as an authority on legal matters doesn't hold much weight. At least in my book. Maybe he is authoritative in your book, I don't know.
[/quote

He has a lot of police experience and the facts pretty much speak for themselves. Instead of reviewing the points you looked at one and found one name that you could somehow find fault with. The facts no matter who writes them are facts. So right back at you   for your false premise and wrong conclusion. How about telling everyone which point is wrong and why that way we could all have a better understanding of what really happened.

 11 Facts About the Eric Garner Case the Media Won't Tell You

Thursday, 04 Dec 2014 11:54 AM

By Jim Meyers

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/eric-garner-chokehold-grand-jury-police/2014/12/04/id/611058/#ixzz3LSZzX0JB
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

I also consider your moral grounds point kind of ironic given that O and the current gov has on board tax cheats, liars, just general covering things up and so much more. like can anyone say O care and numerous scandals that O and Holder have been in.  So I don't really see where morals and good character can come into play with who is currently running the gov. The only difference is he didn't have the clout to stay out of jail.

[The emperor has no clothes]

My point was quoting someone who was sentenced to 4 years prison for lying under oath, tax fraud, and other charges as an authority on legal matters doesn't hold much weight. At least in my book. Maybe he is authoritative in your book, I don't know.

Its no better to make false assumptions, that the article was written by him which it wasn't. Even if it was he has a lot of police experience and the facts pretty much speak for themselves. This is a great example of liberal thinking instead of reviewing the points you looked at one and found one name that you could somehow find fault with. But the real problem is your own thinking since the facts no matter who writes them are facts. So right back at you  for your false premise and wrong conclusion.

 11 Facts About the Eric Garner Case the Media Won't Tell You

Thursday, 04 Dec 2014 11:54 AM

By Jim Meyers

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/eric-garner-chokehold-grand-jury-police/2014/12/04/id/611058/#ixzz3LSZzX0JB
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

I assumed nothing of the sort. Just pointing out the idiocy of quoting a convicted liar, tax thief, etc. as an expert seems ludicrous.

[Robert]

What point that is made do you say is wrong?

[The emperor has no clothes]

What point that is made do you say is wrong?

Never mind, I can see I'm not explaining myself clearly enough 

[Patrick]

What point that is made do you say is wrong?

Never mind, I can see I'm not explaining myself clearly enough 

You're explaining yourself just fine. You don't like Kerik. Thats OK. He screwed up, admitted it and served his time. I at least give him credit for that. But, because he is a felon doesn't mean what he said about Eric Garner is wrong.

[The emperor has no clothes]

What point that is made do you say is wrong?

Never mind, I can see I'm not explaining myself clearly enough 

You're explaining yourself just fine. You don't like Kerik. Thats OK. He screwed up, admitted it and served his time. I at least give him credit for that. But, because he is a felon doesn't mean what he said about Eric Garner is wrong.

I think I will start quoting Charles Manson, Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin. I'm sure they said plenty of "right" things

[Willow]

You're explaining yourself just fine. You don't like Kerik. Thats OK. He screwed up, admitted it and served his time. I at least give him credit for that. But, because he is a felon doesn't mean what he said about Eric Garner is wrong.

If he did, it was apparently not well understood.  He didn't say the statement was correct or incorrect, only that one gains little or no credibility by quoting someone who has publicly been known of criminal falsehood.

[Patrick]

You're explaining yourself just fine. You don't like Kerik. Thats OK. He screwed up, admitted it and served his time. I at least give him credit for that. But, because he is a felon doesn't mean what he said about Eric Garner is wrong.

If he did, it was apparently not well understood.  He didn't say the statement was correct or incorrect, only that one gains little or no credibility by quoting someone who has publicly been known of criminal falsehood.

I understand. He is still not willing to say if the statements are correct. Apparently anyone who has been or done wrong sometime during their life is not to be ever listened to again.
Regardless of Keriks background/history, It appears what he said about Garner is correct. To me, true is true or false is false regardless of who it comes from.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Patrick, I have no doubt the statement that if he had complied to officers commands he would be alive.

[Patrick]

Patrick, I have no doubt the statement that if he had complied to officers commands he would be alive.

 .  But you do doubt all others made. 

[Willow]

Patrick, I have no doubt the statement that if he had complied to officers commands he would be alive.

.  But you do doubt all others made.  

Wow!  Patrick, trying to carry on a logical discussion with someone who insist on assumptions of interpretation must be frustrating.

I can't speak for meathead, but I can let you know what I think about the subject of this entire senseless discussion.

The dead man was a regular law violator and continued to be.  What he was and had done was wrong.  Nothing changes that.

The police officers involved in the take down behaved poorly and without regard for any goal other than beating down the perp.  It doesn't make him right but it made them wrong.  Did he die because of how he was handled by the PO's?  I don't think I can answer that with surety.  Would he be alive if they hadn't taken him in the over aggressive way they did?  I can't answer that assuredly.  Did they behave like thugs in uniform?  Yep.  A couple more than others.  Did the organization willingly lie to protect the behavior of their "brothers"? Absolutely!  Did the behavior of the participants or defenders do anything to support the integrity of the NYPD.  I don't believe so.  Do I want to be anywhere near a city protected by the class of police officers we saw in the video?  Nope.

The perp was criminal and behaved poorly.  No doubt.  Did he deserve to be choke-holded to death?  Meaningless question.  Life is full of instances of bad choices gone worse.  I hope I never get down to getting just what I deserve.  Someones somewhere were grieved because a loved one was selling cigarettes for two bucks each and then made the really poor choice of mouthing off to people with guns and bad attitudes.    

[The emperor has no clothes]

I'm glad somebody can state the situation clearly I tried several times with no success .

[Jess from VA]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/12/08/why-obama-police-plan-is-toxic-propaganda/

This is a close cousin of the president's long campaign to motivate our citizens to question the decency of elements of American life — this time the decency of law enforcement officers.

First, there was the president's apology tour, seemingly designed to make Americans question their role on the world stage. Then there was the domestic equivalent: the president's assertion that American businessmen didn't actually create their own businesses (implying, I suppose, that they were egomaniacal thieves who had commandeered their successes from the common man); the president's assertion that the Constitution is “flawed"; the dismissive coffee cup salute to the military; and, now, the encouragement to look with suspicion upon our police officers and officials.

[specialdose]

                      Well Jess, all I can add to your remarks is, " Amen "

[Robert]

The fact that the guy dies of a heart attack and not suffocation is a important point you guys seem to be missing. Also even if tazed may in fact have suffered a heart attack and does not discriminate when it will happen. I also would not want to be the one trying to arrest a felon out on bond flapping my arms at a officer. He may have been known to the officers since he was just arrested for the same crime. I would be interested to hear faced with the same circumstances how anyone else would handle this situation.
 One last point the statement made by meathead is the very misleading and can be taken very broadly. This kind of statement made on one point of a discussion is intentionally not clearly defined to bring doubt on good points made. A person who is clear is understood to everyone. This is a very nasty trick and one used a lot when strong arguments against are not available or you just don't have a strong point at all, don't want to acknowledge the correctness of the points being made or give anyone else credit. It offers no explanation diverts attention away from having to answer. So you focus on the point he brings up rather than the fact of the truth of the statements made.

[Patrick]

The fact that the guy dies of a heart attack and not suffocation is a important point you guys seem to be missing. Also even if tazed may in fact have suffered a heart attack and does not discriminate when it will happen. I also would not want to be the one trying to arrest a felon out on bond flapping my arms at a officer. He may have been known to the officers since he was just arrested for the same crime. I would be interested to hear faced with the same circumstances how anyone else would handle this situation.
 One last point by the statement made by meathead is the very misleading and can be taken very broadly. This kind of statement made on one point of a discussion is intentionally not clearly defined to bring doubt on good points made. A person who is clear is understood to everyone. This is a very nasty trick and one used a lot when strong arguments against are not available or you just don't have a strong point at all. 

Not all of us are missing many or any points. 

[Willow]

The fact that the guy dies of a heart attack and not suffocation is a important point you guys seem to be missing. ...

You must be speaking to someone else, Robert.  I didn't miss the point that he died of a heart attack.  I was careful not to say that I think the evidence proves that they were solely responsible for his death.  I did mean to say specifically that the behavior of the uniformed offers was inappropriate at best.  Whether that inappropriate behavior directly resulted in a death is for someone seeing more than the video and with more expertise than I to decide.

You aren't perchance missing the fact that an extended choke-hold resulting in a period of time without breath could be instrumental in bringing on a heart attack in someone with a heart problem.  You didn't miss, did you, that none of the uniformed officers seemed at all interested in the victim's health and welfare after he was passed out and obviously not a threat to them?

We, it appears see things differently.  I'm okay with that.  Not necessarily in this particular case, but with values in general, it puts you in a clear majority of those in this world.    

[big d]

Two questions for you Carl,
1) if garner had not been breaking the law would he be alive?
2) if garner had obeyed the commands of the officers and allowed himself to be arrested would he still be alive?
  It is about time that people take a little personal responsibility for their actions. Stop blaming everyone else for bad things that happen to you if you do something wrong or illegal.
 Please don't take this as anything other than what it says. I am not defending the police officers in their actions as I do believe they were rough, let's not forget that adrenalin is heightened during any confrontation.
 The best way to not be injured by police is don't commit a crime and if confronted by an officer obey their commands.

[Willow]

Two questions for you Carl,
1) if garner had not been breaking the law would he be alive?
2) if garner had obeyed the commands of the officers and allowed himself to be arrested would he still be alive?
  It is about time that people take a little personal responsibility for their actions. Stop blaming everyone else for bad things that happen to you if you do something wrong or illegal.
 Please don't take this as anything other than what it says. I am not defending the police officers in their actions as I do believe they were rough, let's not forget that adrenalin is heightened during any confrontation.
 The best way to not be injured by police is don't commit a crime and if confronted by an officer obey their commands.

Two answers for you, Darrell, but first a question.  Did you bother to read what I posted?  I did clearly state that the dead man was wrong.  I hope that I implied the arrest was valid.  What I did try to express was that the method of the beat down was inappropriate, especially for the uniformed officer executing the extended choke-hold.

The two answers to your questions are we don't know and we don't know.  I'm inclined to believe the heart attack would not have occurred at that time if he hadn't been beat down by the police officers and yes, I believe the police wouldn't have beat him down if he had simply held out his hands out and accepted the arrest.

Does his resistance give the representatives of the law carte blanche in the arrest procedure?  I don't think so.  Did it give them the responsibility to subdue and arrest the individual?  Yes, I believe it did.  Righteous arrest gone bad by gang mentality in my opinion.

I'm not sure any court of law will accept adrenaline as an excuse for life threatening behavior.  "I'm sorry your honor.  I just got carried away."

I appreciate the risk our law enforcement officers encounter in the day to day execution of their duties.  I believe the vast majority our dedicated law enforcement officers are people of high integrity and responsibility.  There are in every profession some that have pursued a form of employment for the wrong reasons.

The video I watched was not an example of the level of behavior I would expect of well trained police professionals.       

[Bonzo]

This is just my opinion.
In the Garner case I believe it was a correct take down. You cannot resist arrest and You never win fighting cops.
Having said that the travesty  was the lack of care given and disregard for his condition when he was subdued.  There was a supervisory officer there and I believe failed in her management of the situation.

[Patrick]

I keep reading mention of a choke hold. It was not.

[Willow]

I keep reading mention of a choke hold. It was not.

I won't argue it at length with you.  It's always possible that I can't recognize a choke hold.  I watched the video again to be sure of what I saw.  He certainly wasn't the best in it's execution but it appears to me the choke hold was his intent and he did maintain it through the entire time of the take down.

By the way, in Marine Corps boot camp they taught us to use that with the intent to kill.  Like I said the police officer wasn't really very good at it.

[Patrick]

I keep reading mention of a choke hold. It was not.

I won't argue it at length with you.  It's always possible that I can't recognize a choke hold.  I watched the video again to be sure of what I saw.  He certainly wasn't the best in it's execution but it appears to me the choke hold was his intent and he did maintain it through the entire time of the take down.

By the way, in Marine Corps boot camp they taught us to use that with the intent to kill.  Like I said the police officer wasn't really very good at it.

Both the police investigation and grand jury said it was a 'text book' seatbelt maneuver which they are taught rather than a choke hold.  They said so, so, it must be true. Video seems to bear that out.

[Bonzo]

He never got the "Lock" with his two arms around the late Mr. Garner's neck. The officers weight hanging off of him may have accomplished the same thing.
As a younger man on the streets of The Bronx, I watched an unruly friend of mine go completely passive when a NYPD officer apply a "Billy Club" enhanced choke hold on. I had already assumed the position with no back talk being not that drunk or stupid to lip up.
 

[Robert]

He never got the "Lock" with his two arms around the late Mr. Garner's neck. The officers weight hanging off of him may have accomplished the same thing.
As a younger man on the streets of The Bronx, I watched an unruly friend of mine go completely passive when a NYPD officer apply a "Billy Club" enhanced choke hold on. I had already assumed the position with no back talk being not that drunk or stupid to lip up.
 

  I was always taught don't give lip to the police and don't even hang around with friends that may be questioned because of guilt by association. Like this Chris Rock video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8     
Chris Rock how not to get your @@@ kicked by the police

Willow I do know about the choke hold heart attack possibility and Garner should have been aware of that also. If I was him I wouldn't have put myself in that position of it becoming necessary to use force knowing I may have a problem with my ticker. A seasoned criminal will try to talk his way out of a situation instead of it provoking confrontation knowing you will lose either now or later. Not call for help after I have provoked the officers into action and the adrenaline was running. I do agree with all on the cops were not helpful after the incident, which all it means is they just didn't care or were jerks.