Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 2:26:00 PM (view original):
"You've never been an X, so you can't argue X things."

Cool.

Well, if you're going to keep saying "He wasn't a threat!!!", I want to know how you know. 

I'm sure you've had numerous dealings with large men with a long record of criminal activity who do not want you to restrain them. 

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Bill ******* O'Reilly believes the NYPD overreacted. This is actually very well said.

O'REILLY: Yes, both deceased men should have cooperated with the police officers who confronted them. But as we all know people do stupid things. In the Ferguson case Mr. Brown did engage in violence so I have no trouble, no trouble with the grand jury's decision not to indict Darren Wilson, the police officer.

But in the New York City case Mr. Garner clearly a low level offender was not a threat. American police are held to a very high standard because they have power. They have guns. They must control inflammatory situations not make them worse.

As we proved on Monday, generally speaking, American police do a great job across the board. The charlatans who say police are targeting young black men are completely shut down by the statistics which we have posted on billoreilly.com. But in the Garner case excessive force may have been used.

JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO, FOX NEWS JUDICIAL ANALYST: This ought to have been an indictment and it ought to have been an indictment for some form of manslaughter. It's not first degree murder. It's not second degree murder. But it's certainly reckless manslaughter.

O'REILLY: Unlike Judge Napolitano, I'm unwilling to say that Officer Daniel Pantaleo committed reckless manslaughter. What I will say is there was a police overreaction to Mr. Garner. And that should have been adjudicated in a court of law.

So now O'Reilly is right?  

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2014 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 2:26:00 PM (view original):
"You've never been an X, so you can't argue X things."

Cool.

Well, if you're going to keep saying "He wasn't a threat!!!", I want to know how you know. 

I'm sure you've had numerous dealings with large men with a long record of criminal activity who do not want you to restrain them. 

I'd love to hear the defendant's reasoning on how he thought he was a threat.

Why do you think he thought he was a threat? I don't think he was because there's 4 cops (they have guns, btw) to one unarmed man with his hands up in the air.

You ever notice that when an offensive lineman picks up a football, he's generally tackled pretty quickly, and it doesn't involve choking him?

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2014 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Bill ******* O'Reilly believes the NYPD overreacted. This is actually very well said.

O'REILLY: Yes, both deceased men should have cooperated with the police officers who confronted them. But as we all know people do stupid things. In the Ferguson case Mr. Brown did engage in violence so I have no trouble, no trouble with the grand jury's decision not to indict Darren Wilson, the police officer.

But in the New York City case Mr. Garner clearly a low level offender was not a threat. American police are held to a very high standard because they have power. They have guns. They must control inflammatory situations not make them worse.

As we proved on Monday, generally speaking, American police do a great job across the board. The charlatans who say police are targeting young black men are completely shut down by the statistics which we have posted on billoreilly.com. But in the Garner case excessive force may have been used.

JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO, FOX NEWS JUDICIAL ANALYST: This ought to have been an indictment and it ought to have been an indictment for some form of manslaughter. It's not first degree murder. It's not second degree murder. But it's certainly reckless manslaughter.

O'REILLY: Unlike Judge Napolitano, I'm unwilling to say that Officer Daniel Pantaleo committed reckless manslaughter. What I will say is there was a police overreaction to Mr. Garner. And that should have been adjudicated in a court of law.

So now O'Reilly is right?  

He's right about this. I bet he also believes the sky is blue. I agree with him in that aspect as well.

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2014 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 2:26:00 PM (view original):
"You've never been an X, so you can't argue X things."

Cool.

Well, if you're going to keep saying "He wasn't a threat!!!", I want to know how you know. 

I'm sure you've had numerous dealings with large men with a long record of criminal activity who do not want you to restrain them. 

I'd love to hear the defendant's reasoning on how he thought he was a threat.

Why do you think he thought he was a threat? I don't think he was because there's 4 cops (they have guns, btw) to one unarmed man with his hands up in the air.

You ever notice that when an offensive lineman picks up a football, he's generally tackled pretty quickly, and it doesn't involve choking him?

Sure.   He was a large man with a long record of criminal activity who did not want to cooperate with the police.   The police require the cooperation of suspects in order to peacefully arrest them.   When they choose not to, you can act off of that or you can wait to see what he does.   Waiting is dumb.

Which one of those police officers plays in the NFL?

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2014 2:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 2:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2014 2:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 1:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2014 1:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 1:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/5/2014 1:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2014 1:18:00 PM (view original):
At the end of the day, I see it as an officer doing his job, a suspect(with a record) resisting arrest and an unfortunate outcome.   Garner certainly did nothing that should have ended in his death(unlike Brown) but the cop shouldn't be looking at prison time either.   Suspend him, fire him, send him to sensitivity training, whatever.   But don't clog up the courts with something like that. 

But he wasn't just "doing his job." He exceed his authority by using a choke hold. That choke hold was the proximate cause of death. How you can think that absolutely no crime was committed is baffling.

.

He was attempting to restrain a suspect in a non-lethal manner.   That's what cops do.   He chose the wrong procedure.   Not a crime.  A violation of protocol.

Could the argument be made that it was reckless?

I won't pretend to know the proper police procedure for taking down a man twice your size.    As a civilian, I'd think "maximum force".   That was not maximum force.   Do you think he should have been zapped?   Baton to the knee?   What procedure would have made you happy?

There's 4 cops there. Do something different, something that's allowed by the NYPD. At least attempt to get his hands behind his back. He's not threatening you. And if he was, what would you expect for him to do, with 4 cops there? Choking him out can easily be argued as reckless. Unless you're the DA. Then it's difficult, I guess.

How many cops were around Rodney King?   That ****** kept coming. 

Again, you've never been a cop.  I don't think you're the arbiter of all things threatening.    Garner was a big man, with an extensive record, he apparently had no interest in being arrested. 

Wait, do you view the Rodney King beating as an example of a suspect threatening the police? Wow.

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 2:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2014 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Bill ******* O'Reilly believes the NYPD overreacted. This is actually very well said.

O'REILLY: Yes, both deceased men should have cooperated with the police officers who confronted them. But as we all know people do stupid things. In the Ferguson case Mr. Brown did engage in violence so I have no trouble, no trouble with the grand jury's decision not to indict Darren Wilson, the police officer.

But in the New York City case Mr. Garner clearly a low level offender was not a threat. American police are held to a very high standard because they have power. They have guns. They must control inflammatory situations not make them worse.

As we proved on Monday, generally speaking, American police do a great job across the board. The charlatans who say police are targeting young black men are completely shut down by the statistics which we have posted on billoreilly.com. But in the Garner case excessive force may have been used.

JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO, FOX NEWS JUDICIAL ANALYST: This ought to have been an indictment and it ought to have been an indictment for some form of manslaughter. It's not first degree murder. It's not second degree murder. But it's certainly reckless manslaughter.

O'REILLY: Unlike Judge Napolitano, I'm unwilling to say that Officer Daniel Pantaleo committed reckless manslaughter. What I will say is there was a police overreaction to Mr. Garner. And that should have been adjudicated in a court of law.

So now O'Reilly is right?  

He's right about this. I bet he also believes the sky is blue. I agree with him in that aspect as well.

FOX has been all over indicting the NY cop.   I sort of felt like they were trying to balance the "Brown got what he deserved" stance they took on that case.

You can't claim "Fair and balanced" if you always think the black guy was wrong. 

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Bill ******* O'Reilly believes the NYPD overreacted. This is actually very well said.

O'REILLY: Yes, both deceased men should have cooperated with the police officers who confronted them. But as we all know people do stupid things. In the Ferguson case Mr. Brown did engage in violence so I have no trouble, no trouble with the grand jury's decision not to indict Darren Wilson, the police officer.

But in the New York City case Mr. Garner clearly a low level offender was not a threat. American police are held to a very high standard because they have power. They have guns. They must control inflammatory situations not make them worse.

As we proved on Monday, generally speaking, American police do a great job across the board. The charlatans who say police are targeting young black men are completely shut down by the statistics which we have posted on billoreilly.com. But in the Garner case excessive force may have been used.

JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO, FOX NEWS JUDICIAL ANALYST: This ought to have been an indictment and it ought to have been an indictment for some form of manslaughter. It's not first degree murder. It's not second degree murder. But it's certainly reckless manslaughter.

O'REILLY: Unlike Judge Napolitano, I'm unwilling to say that Officer Daniel Pantaleo committed reckless manslaughter. What I will say is there was a police overreaction to Mr. Garner. And that should have been adjudicated in a court of law.

Even right wing blogs like Redstate are calling the grand jury decision "pathetic."

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2014 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 2:26:00 PM (view original):
"You've never been an X, so you can't argue X things."

Cool.

Well, if you're going to keep saying "He wasn't a threat!!!", I want to know how you know. 

I'm sure you've had numerous dealings with large men with a long record of criminal activity who do not want you to restrain them. 

We know because we saw the video.

Posted by tecwrg on 12/5/2014 12:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 11:37:00 AM (view original):
I'm just trying to understand why you're so fixated on the idea that there's no reasonable chance that a crime occurred, based on the information given to you.

I'm not arguing one way or the other about whether or not a crime occurred.  And I have not offered a single opinion in this thread as to whether one did or not.

I'm just questioning your line of argument which seems to imply that the ME's noted cause of death as "homicide" inherently implies that a criminal act took place.  That's not the ME's job.  His/her job is to only determine the cause of death.  The determination of "criminal act" is made by the police, the DA's office, and the legal system.  Real life isn't a Patricia Cornwall novel.

It seems to me that there is a generally accepted medical definition of "homicide", and a NYS legal statute definition of "homicide".  To me, they are not necessarily the same thing.  Seeing that the ME is not a part of the legal system, I'm not sure why you are assuming that he/she is bound to use the legal definition of homicide when filling out a death certificate.

Just found this.  Seems I'm not alone in thinking that an ME and the legal system can and do have different definitions of "homicide".

The Medical Examiner's office clarified Monday that its definition of homicide is different than what a court may use.  It defines homicide as "death at the hands of another"

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2014 2:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2014 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 2:26:00 PM (view original):
"You've never been an X, so you can't argue X things."

Cool.

Well, if you're going to keep saying "He wasn't a threat!!!", I want to know how you know. 

I'm sure you've had numerous dealings with large men with a long record of criminal activity who do not want you to restrain them. 

I'd love to hear the defendant's reasoning on how he thought he was a threat.

Why do you think he thought he was a threat? I don't think he was because there's 4 cops (they have guns, btw) to one unarmed man with his hands up in the air.

You ever notice that when an offensive lineman picks up a football, he's generally tackled pretty quickly, and it doesn't involve choking him?

Sure.   He was a large man with a long record of criminal activity who did not want to cooperate with the police.   The police require the cooperation of suspects in order to peacefully arrest them.   When they choose not to, you can act off of that or you can wait to see what he does.   Waiting is dumb.

Which one of those police officers plays in the NFL?

What is he going to do if you decide to wait more than 2 seconds and not kill him?

None of them do, but it also doesn't take 4 NFL guys to get an offensive lineman to the ground. These 4 officers ARE trained on how to arrest someone larger than they are, and it isn't by choking.

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 2:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2014 2:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2014 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 2:26:00 PM (view original):
"You've never been an X, so you can't argue X things."

Cool.

Well, if you're going to keep saying "He wasn't a threat!!!", I want to know how you know. 

I'm sure you've had numerous dealings with large men with a long record of criminal activity who do not want you to restrain them. 

I'd love to hear the defendant's reasoning on how he thought he was a threat.

Why do you think he thought he was a threat? I don't think he was because there's 4 cops (they have guns, btw) to one unarmed man with his hands up in the air.

You ever notice that when an offensive lineman picks up a football, he's generally tackled pretty quickly, and it doesn't involve choking him?

Sure.   He was a large man with a long record of criminal activity who did not want to cooperate with the police.   The police require the cooperation of suspects in order to peacefully arrest them.   When they choose not to, you can act off of that or you can wait to see what he does.   Waiting is dumb.

Which one of those police officers plays in the NFL?

What is he going to do if you decide to wait more than 2 seconds and not kill him?

None of them do, but it also doesn't take 4 NFL guys to get an offensive lineman to the ground. These 4 officers ARE trained on how to arrest someone larger than they are, and it isn't by choking.

Two seconds is a long time if you feel a physical confrontation is coming.   I'm old and I bet I can get off at least three punches in two seconds.   Down goes three officers and there's one left to defend himself from a man twice his size.

As I said, he used the wrong procedure.   Policy violation, not a crime. 

Using the wrong procedure resulted in a death. That could easily be argued as negligence. Unless you're a DA.

"If you feel a physical confrontation is coming" - why did you get this indication? I didn't get this indication. His hands are in the air. That's generally the "leave me alone, I'm not going to hurt you" pose, not the "I'm about to throw down" pose.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2014 2:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 2:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2014 2:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2014 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 2:26:00 PM (view original):
"You've never been an X, so you can't argue X things."

Cool.

Well, if you're going to keep saying "He wasn't a threat!!!", I want to know how you know. 

I'm sure you've had numerous dealings with large men with a long record of criminal activity who do not want you to restrain them. 

I'd love to hear the defendant's reasoning on how he thought he was a threat.

Why do you think he thought he was a threat? I don't think he was because there's 4 cops (they have guns, btw) to one unarmed man with his hands up in the air.

You ever notice that when an offensive lineman picks up a football, he's generally tackled pretty quickly, and it doesn't involve choking him?

Sure.   He was a large man with a long record of criminal activity who did not want to cooperate with the police.   The police require the cooperation of suspects in order to peacefully arrest them.   When they choose not to, you can act off of that or you can wait to see what he does.   Waiting is dumb.

Which one of those police officers plays in the NFL?

What is he going to do if you decide to wait more than 2 seconds and not kill him?

None of them do, but it also doesn't take 4 NFL guys to get an offensive lineman to the ground. These 4 officers ARE trained on how to arrest someone larger than they are, and it isn't by choking.

Two seconds is a long time if you feel a physical confrontation is coming.   I'm old and I bet I can get off at least three punches in two seconds.   Down goes three officers and there's one left to defend himself from a man twice his size.

As I said, he used the wrong procedure.   Policy violation, not a crime. 

In Mike's world, all black people are comic book villains. Four officers approach super-black, two seconds later, three are down with one-hitter-quiter punches from super-black, leaving only one helpless NYPD to run for his life. 

Using the wrong procedure alone isn't a crime. Using the wrong procedure and causing death is.

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 2:53:00 PM (view original):
Using the wrong procedure resulted in a death. That could easily be argued as negligence. Unless you're a DA.

"If you feel a physical confrontation is coming" - why did you get this indication? I didn't get this indication. His hands are in the air. That's generally the "leave me alone, I'm not going to hurt you" pose, not the "I'm about to throw down" pose.

Ever been in a bar and a guy sits down and, soon enough, says "I'm not looking for a fight" for no apparent reason?    If so, you know that dude is fighting somebody within a half hour.   Appearances/words don't mean a lot.   Actions do.

The police indicated they intended to detain him.   That requires cuffing.   You can't cuff a guy who has his hands in the air.   Do you think he was suddenly going to cooperate?