Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

VIDEO ANALYSIS: DOJ Correctly Declined Civil Rights Charges in Eric Garner Death

VIDEO ANALYSIS: DOJ Correctly Declined Civil Rights Charges in Eric Garner Death

The purported “chokehold killing of Eric Garner” is just as much a lie as that of Michael Brown being shot dead by police as he surrendered “hands up, don’t shoot.”

Five years ago, on this exact date, Eric Garner died while violently resisting lawful arrest for a petty crime. Yesterday the Department of Justice announced that there would be no civil rights charges against the police officer most associated with that arrest (although numerous officers were involved).

This perfectly reasonable decision by the DOJ —- consistent with similar conclusions drawn by every other official review of this case, including that of a grand jury—has predictably led to confusion and outrage among the ill-informed, so it seems worth taking a moment to recollect the facts and law that apply to the Garner case.

On July 17, 2014, Eric Garner was observed by New York police officers to be engaged in the petty crime of selling “loosies,” individual cigarettes drawn from a pack that normally holds twenty.

New York City makes selling “loosies” a crime for a variety of reasons, primarily because it undercuts the city’s ability to collect taxes on sales of full packs of cigarettes, which bear a state tax stamp, and also because it competes with the lawful sale of cigarettes by local merchants, who are generally the people to call police on sellers of “loosies.”

Reasonable people can disagree as to whether this should be an offense subject to arrest, but that’s a decision for politicians and their constituents, not for individual police officers tasked with enforcing the laws passed by those politicians.

Garner’s conduct in violating this particular law had been particularly egregious—he’d previously been arrested 31 times, mostly for this particular offense, and his arrest took place directly in front of a store attempting to lawfully engage in the business of selling cigarettes—that it was no surprise that an NYPD task force in the neighborhood established specifically to arrest those engaged in this unlawful conduct observed Garner selling” loosies” yet again. Several police officers moved in to make a lawful arrest, including Police Officer Daniel Pantaleo.

Instead of the complying with the lawful arrest, the approximately 400-pound Eric Garner—massing far more than any of the individual officers seeking to arrest him—instead chose to violently resist lawful arrest.

It should go without saying that if suspects can avoid lawful arrest simply by deciding that they don’t want to be arrested that day, law enforcement would be a pointless exercise. Accordingly, the police making the arrest increased their use of force in order to accomplish their lawful goal. As is common today, and was already in 2014, video of the arrest was taken and widely distributed afterward.

We’re all aware that Eric Garner would end up dead following his decision to violently resist lawful arrest, and that’s certainly an unfortunate outcome given the stakes of a minor criminal offense.

What made Garner’s death major news, however, was the widespread claim that he was actually intentionally or negligently killed by the New York Police Department in general, and by Officer Pantaleo in particular.

The claimed method Officer Pantaleo used to kill Garner? A so-called “chokehold.”

An informed view of the actual facts and law that apply to this case, however, readily shows that the purported “chokehold killing of Eric Garner” is just as much a lie as that of Michael Brown being shot dead by police as he surrendered “hands up, don’t shoot” and that George Zimmerman got out of his vehicle to confront Trayvon Martin after being ordered not to do so by the police dispatcher.

All of these are lies of the most contemptible sort, not just for being lies but for being lies intended to falsely foster racial hatred and division within American society. (And it’s always worth asking in such cases that are built on outright lies, cui bono?)

It’s also worth noting that this case has been subject to numerous official reviews, including by a grand jury, as well as by Attorney General Loretta Lynch under the Obama administration, over a five year period, and none of them—zero, zilch, nada—have found cause for either criminal or civil rights charges.

Indeed, the real indictment of this entire process has been the five years wasted on it, during which Officer Pantaleo has been held in professional limbo. After all, it’s not as if any new evidence emerged in the last five years, yet it took until July 2019 for the Department of Justice to announce they’d not be charging Officer Pantaleo for non-existent civil rights violations.

Everything we know now that led to this perfectly appropriate decision by the DOJ has been known for years, so why the delay? Contemptible.

The general propaganda-induced claim of misconduct by Officer Pantaleo is that he killed Eric Garner by the application of an unlawful “chokehold” while making the arrest.

Given how often this claim has been uncritically echoed by the #fakenews media, the general public may be shocked to learn that no such “chokehold” ever occurred, or if it did occur transiently and incidentally did not induce the harm that would have been necessary to be the cause of Garner’s death.

This is not opinion, but demonstrable fact based on all the available evidence.

There are two forms of “chokehold” relevant to this case: a carotid chokehold and a respiratory chokehold. Either can cause death, and both are largely restricted or outright prohibited for use by police as non-deadly force in making an arrest.

Both are also very specific techniques with very specific physiological consequences. Merely throwing one’s arm around a suspect’s neck does not constitute any kind of chokehold, absent the required technique and absent the physiological consequence.

Let’s Go to the Video Tape

I’ve included in this post some screen captures from the most commonly viewed video of the Garner arrest, along with referenced time-stamps from that video which I’ve embedded here. (Note that throughout the video Officer Pantaleo can be identified as wearing the green T-shirt with “99” printed across the back.) The full-length video is included at the end of the video version of this post.

Garner was Not Killed by a Carotid Chokehold

A carotid chokehold involves the constriction of the carotid arteries of the neck in order to limit blood flow to the brain and induce unconsciousness. To accomplish this physiological effect the arm is placed around the neck such that the forearm is on one side of the neck and the bicep on the other. Typically then the free arm is used to apply pressure to the applicant’s hand or wrist so as to squeeze together the forearm and bicep, and apply pressure to the sides of the suspect’s neck.

It is notable that the inside of the applicant’s elbow is positioned over the suspect’s larynx, and that no pressure is applied to the suspect’s respiratory passage—this is what distinguishes the carotid chokehold from the respiratory chokehold.

The physiological consequence of the carotid chokehold is the rapid loss of consciousness by the suspect, typically within a few seconds. If pressure is released promptly, the suspect typically regains consciousness almost immediately. If the hold is maintained well past the loss of consciousness it is possible that the brain could be denied blood flow long enough to induce death, but this would require the continuous application of the carotid chokehold.

None of this—neither the required technique of the carotid chokehold nor the physiological outcome of death while the chokehold is being applied—is in evidence in the case of Eric Garner.

The video of the arrest does not show Officer Pantaleo applying a carotid chokehold, as the technique is properly understood and described above. In addition, Garner clearly does not suffer death while he was being engaged by Officer Pantaleo—Garner’s death occurred only later, and thus could not have been proximately caused by a carotid chokehold applied by Officer Pantaleo.

Even if one chose to believe, contrary to evidence, that Pantaleo applied a carotid chokehold to Garner, note that in the embedded video of Garner’s arrest, Pantaleo has affirmatively released Garner’s neck no later than 00:50 seconds into the video.

By that 00:50 second point Pantaleo has both palms holding Garner’s head to the sidewalk, and is no longer applying any “chokehold” of any sort to Garner.

Yet at this point Garner is conscious and resisting arrest.

Clearly, then, no carotid chokehold applied by Pantaleo, even had there been one, could have been the cause of Garner’s death. Garner was still alive after Pantaleo was no longer applying pressure of any sort to Garner’s neck.

Garner was Not Killed by a Respiratory Chokehold

But what about a respiratory chokehold? Did the application of a respiratory chokehold by Officer Pantaleo kill Eric Garner?

A respiratory chokehold is distinct from a carotid chokehold in that its effect is intended to target the respiratory, rather than the circulatory system.

The technique involves placing the forearm across the front of the throat, typically the area of the larynx, as opposed to the carotid chokehold which places the inside of the elbow over that same area. Thus the respiratory chokehold applies direct pressure to the respiratory system, whereas the carotid chokehold does not.

The physiological consequence of the respiratory chokehold is that the victim cannot—you guessed it—respire. That is, they cannot breathe. Naturally, if breath is denied for a long enough period of time, the suspect may die as a result.

The respiratory chokehold is commonly banned as a police use-of-force technique for two reasons. First, it is an ineffective means of inducing rapid compliance by a suspect—breath can be denied for as much as several minutes before a suspect loses consciousness. In contrast, the carotid chokehold has its affect within seconds. Second, it is remarkably easy to inadvertently cause permanent, life-ending trauma using the respiratory chokehold by crushing the larynx.

We know for a certainty, however, that Officer Pantaleo was not actually applying a respiratory chokehold to Eric Garner, or alternatively that even if such a chokehold was being inadvertently and transiently applied—or for that matter being intentionally applied—it was not inducing the harmful physiological effect of constricting respiration and thus could not have caused Garner’s death.

How do we know this? Because throughout Pantaleo’s application of force to Garner, while Garner was on the ground and being wrestled with by several officers attempting to lawfully arrest the non-compliant Garner, Garner was repeatedly heard stating “I can’t breathe.”

First of all, speaking requires breathing. It is simply not possible to speak unless one is able to pass air over one’s vocal cords. The fact that Garner was able to enunciated the statement “I can’t breathe” and to do so repeatedly is proof positive that he was, in fact, breathing.

Second of all, even if the statement “I can’t breathe” was instead meant to communicate that Garner was having difficulty breathing, rather than completely unable to breathe, there are obvious reasons why he might be having such difficulty in breathing that do not require a respiratory chokehold by Pantaleo.

Notably, the fact that the morbidly obese Garner, who knew he already suffered from asthma and cardiac disease, had compelled the police to put him on the ground, where he continued to resist arrest to the point that multiple officers were seeking to subdue him. That, however, is on Garner.

Further, even Garner himself is never heard to say that his difficulty in breathing was due to pressure on his neck—the phrase “You’re choking me” is never said by Garner.

Even if one chose to believe, contrary to evidence, that Pantaleo applied a respiratory chokehold to Garner, note that in the embedded video of Garner’s arrest, Pantaleo has affirmatively released Garner’s neck no later than 00:50 seconds into the video.

After the point at which Pantaleo is no longer applying pressure of any sort to Garner’s neck, Garner repeats the statement, “I can’t breathe” at least nine times. Clearly, he’s breathing.

By that 00:50 seconds point Pantaleo has both palms holding Garner’s neck to the sidewalk, and is no longer applying any “chokehold” to Garner.

Yet at this point Garner is still breathing and speaking: the “I can’t breathe” speech already discussed.

Clearly, then, there was no respiratory chokehold with life-ending physiological effect applied by Pantaleo to Garner, and thus no respiratory chokehold applied by Pantaleo could have been the cause of Garner’s death.

So What Was Pantaleo’s Arm Doing?

The question may naturally arise that if Pantaleo was not subjecting Garner to either a carotid or a respiratory chokehold, what was he doing with his arm around Garner’s neck?

The answer is that Pantaleo was attempting to employ a non-deadly force take-down method known as the “seatbelt” technique, a perfectly lawful non-deadly force technique on which he was trained while attending the NYPD police academy.

The seatbelt technique involves placing an arm around the suspect’s shoulder and diagonally across the suspect’s chest, much like a seatbelt would be positioned, and then using one’s weight to bring the suspect to the ground.

The seatbelt technique is a commonly approved takedown technique for use by police in dealing with non-compliant suspects and was an approved technique by the NYPD at the time of Garner’s arrest. Properly applied, the seatbelt technique has essentially zero risk of causing a suspect serious injury or death, and thus is properly understood as a non-deadly force technique.

The video shows Pantaleo’s application of this seatbelt technique was imperfect, at best, but any technique is going to be less than “academy perfect” when applied to a real violently non-compliant suspect in the real world than when applied in a sterile training environment. That’s on the violently non-compliant suspect, not on the officer seeking to make a lawful arrest using approved techniques.

In any case, we know that even this imperfectly applied seatbelt technique caused neither constricted blood flow nor respiration in the case of Garner, for the reasons already discussed in detail above, and thus could not have been the proximate cause of Garner’s death.

Death by Obesity, Morbidity, and Poor Judgment

The reason that Officer Pantaleo has never been criminally charged and why even the Obama Department of Justice declined to bring civil rights charges against him, despite the #fakenews media repeatedly and falsely claiming that Pantaleo had killed Garner unlawfully with a chokehold, is because criminal or civil rights charges would have required such claims to be made in the adversarial setting of a courtroom, where emotion and propaganda would be contested with actual facts and evidence, and where the chokehold false narrative would have met a swift and embarrassing end.

So if Eric Garner was not killed by chokehold, what did cause his death?

In short, Garner’s death was almost certainly caused by his own gross obesity—again, he weighed as much as 400 pounds—his own morbidity—he suffered from both pre-existing respiratory and cardiac disease—and his own poor judgment—deciding to violently resist, rather than comply, with a lawful arrest being made by multiple New York Police Department officers.

That doesn’t make Garner’s death anything but the tragedy it genuinely is.

It does, however, make Garner’s death the responsibility of Garner, and not of Officer Pantaleo or anyone else.

DOJ Explanation Supports This Analysis

The DOJ explanation of why charges were not brought follows a similar analysis to mine:

Cui Bono?

In closing, if you’re wondering why large groups of people, including the #fakenews media, continue to falsely portray the death of Eric Garner as if he were the victim of an unlawful killing by the police, I again recommend that you ask again, cui bono?

Who benefits?

Finally, as always, remember:

You have a gun so you’re hard to kill.

Know the law so you’re hard to convict.

— Andrew

Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC
Law of Self Defense CONSULT Program

You can find almost daily self-defense law content by Attorney Branca, freely available, at his blog: lawofselfdefense.com.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Don’t fight with the police, and you won’t risk getting your ass kicked and dying.

I’ve been saying for years it was just a take down method

    in-suhr-ect in reply to Aggie9595. | July 17, 2019 at 9:15 pm

    Panatelo was set up as the fall guy. He was following orders from his immediate sup K Adonis who was on the spot and who ordered that specific arrest. Ms Adonis’s role doesn’t fit the Narrative, and thus it isn’t mentioned. I recall reading about the case in a local online newsblog, Gothamist. When I pointed out Ms Adonis’s role, politely and with no harsh language, my account was immediately banned and -all- previous comments deleted. The readership was left expecting charges against the Bad Cop, and set up to be angry when Mysterious Forces failed to hang him. The policy of cracking down on loosie sales was DiBlasio’s, and the enforcement of that policy happened at several levels in NYPD. Social Justice oriented outlets like Gothamist omitted all of that, of course.

    The Gothamist readership might now think that Donald Trump somehow derailed Justice, gaining time-traveling powers just for this case.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to in-suhr-ect. | July 18, 2019 at 3:08 pm

      It is interesting how many people feel their speech is sacred, while feeling entitled to suppress other people’s speech.

There were at least four people more responsible for Eric Garner’s death than Officer Daniel Pantaleo: Eric Garner, two EMTs, and Sergeant Kizzy Adonis.

When a morbidly obese man claims to be having difficulty breathing, don’t keep him prone so that he has to overcome the weight of his own chest to breathe!

    guinspen in reply to ecreegan. | July 17, 2019 at 7:53 pm

    “Instead of the complying with the lawful arrest, the approximately 400-pound Eric Garner—massing far more than any of the individual officers seeking to arrest him—instead chose to violently resist lawful arrest.”

    No, there was only one person entirely responsible for Eric Garner’s death.

    Eric Garner.

    Olinser in reply to ecreegan. | July 17, 2019 at 8:49 pm

    Screw off.

    As they point out in this very story, it is physically impossible to scream ‘I can’t breathe’ multiple times if you cannot, in fact, breathe.

    If the POS had STOPPED FIGHTING, he would have quickly been handcuffed and put in a car.

    THE ONLY reason he had people piled on top of him so he ‘couldn’t breathe’ was because he was PHYSICALLY FIGHTING THEM AND FORCING THEM TO SUBDUE HIM.

    He is 100% responsible for his own situation.

    Another Ed in reply to ecreegan. | July 18, 2019 at 2:05 am

    “When a morbidly obese man claims to be having difficulty breathing…”
    I recall that his claim was “I cannot breathe” which is a shorter but poor substitute for “I have difficulty exchanging sufficient oxygen to support my current activity level”. Those who have an obstruction in their airway “cannot breath”, they also “cannot speak”. You ask a possible choking victim “Can you speak?”. If the response is a clear and loud “Yes!”, then you need to assess whether they are seeking attention, suffering anxiety in a panic attack, or exchanging sufficient oxygen to support their current activity level as they may have asthma or a partially obstructed airway that can progress to fully obstructed. As they become more hypoxic (lower oxygen level in the blood and hence the tissues) they may lose consciousness and cease resistance, but then you then must move 400 pounds of deadweight (no pun intended) instead of them moving themselves.

    https://opentextbc.ca/clinicalskills/chapter/5-3-causes-of-hypoxemia-2/

    JusticeDelivered in reply to ecreegan. | July 18, 2019 at 3:38 pm

    Who cares if he is obese. I am tired of all the ghetto lotteries.

Morons try and whine about crap like this all the time. It kills me.

When a police officer tells you ‘you are under arrest’, there is NO SCENARIO in which arguing with them or physically fighting with them will not conclude with you under arrest.

New York City makes selling “loosies” a crime for a variety of reasons, primarily because it undercuts the city’s ability to collect taxes on sales of full packs of cigarettes, which bear a state tax stamp, and also because it competes with the lawful sale of cigarettes by local merchants, who are generally the people to call police on sellers of “loosies.”

This is inaccurate. Federal law makes selling “loosies” a crime. There used to be a company that legally packaged individual cigarettes, which bore tax stamps. They had to stop when their product became illegal. The motive is not taxes or competition, it’s based on the dubious theory that since loosies are bought by children and others who haven’t got the money for a whole pack, if they can’t get them then they won’t smoke.

    Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | July 17, 2019 at 9:29 pm

    You are both right and wrong.

    While federal law makes it a FEDERAL crime to sell “loosies”, because single cigarettes can not be issued a federal tax stamp, neither the NYPD, in general, nor the members of this “task force”, in particular, are authorized to enforce FEDERAL law. So, that is moot. What is applicable is the New York state statute and the NY City ordinance which makes it a crime to sell cigarettes which have not been taxed by the state, and possibly city, government. These laws were enforceable by the NYPD task force. Any other “motivation” for the enforcement action is not based upon applicable law.

      Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | July 18, 2019 at 12:35 am

      The federal ban is not because of taxes. Single cigarettes can be taxed, and there was a company that was packaging them and paying the tax. The ban’s purpose is to try to reduce smoking by those who can’t afford to buy a pack.

      And it is not true that local police can’t enforce federal law.

        Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | July 18, 2019 at 1:29 pm

        “And it is not true that local police can’t enforce federal law.”

        This both true and false.

        Let me explain how law enforcement works. A law enforcement officer’s power to enforce laws comes from the government body which makes the laws. A law enforcement officer can only enforce those laws which the issuing entity [the Legislature or Constitution] authorizes him to enforce. In the case of state statutes, most states only authorized agents recognized by the state [state and local LEOs] to enforce those laws. Federal agents usually have no authority to enforce state laws. The same is true of federal laws. Most state and local LEOs are not authorized by the US Constitution or by federal law to enforce federal laws.

        Now, there are some programs, at both the state and federal level, where LEOs from other agencies can be authorized to enforce both state and federal laws. This usually requires the LEO to be deputized by the agency authorized to enforce such laws. The DEA partnered with local LEAs, in this manner, to police the illicit drug trade.

        So, local LEOs can ONLY enforce federal law, if the Congress grants them this power. And federal LEOs can only enforce state, and local laws, if the state legislature [in the case of state law]and the city or county commission [in the case of subordinate state political subdivision] authorize them to do so.

        So, NYPD personnel can not enforce federal law, except for those members of the force specifically authorized to so by the federal government in accordance with federal law.

          Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | July 19, 2019 at 1:52 am

          Wrong. Local LEOs can enforce any federal law, unless either their state or the federal government says they can’t.

          Mac45 in reply to Mac45. | July 19, 2019 at 10:04 am

          “Wrong. Local LEOs can enforce any federal law, unless either their state or the federal government says they can’t.”

          I have NO idea where you get this stuff. It is exactly the opposite. I know because I spend over 3 decades in LE. State and local LEOs CAN NOT ENFORCE federal law, unless authorized to do so by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT through Congressional legislation and authorized to do so under state statute.

          There are 3 portions of the Federal INA which authorize state and local LEOs to enforce certain portions of federal immigration laws. [ https://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0457.htm%5D However, such enforcement is restricted to certain explicitly enumerated situations. And, the state in which the local LEOs operate has to grant them the authority to enforce these federal laws. If local LEOs had the power to enforce all federal laws, then Arizona would never have had to pass their in-state immigration law and we would never have had US v Arizona. Local LEOs could simply have acted like BPS agents and detained suspected illegal aliens.

the forearm is on one side of the neck and the bicep on the other.

Biceps. Bicep is not a word.

    Another Ed in reply to Milhouse. | July 18, 2019 at 1:01 am

    From dictionary.com:

    bicep
    [ bahy-sep ]SHOW IPA
    EXAMPLES|WORD ORIGIN

    noun
    a biceps muscle, especially the one at the front of the upper arm.

    ORIGIN OF BICEP
    First recorded in 1955–60; back formation from biceps

    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bicep

    So, is “bicep” a word? It is used as if it was a word, especially in expressions such as “bicep curl”.

      Milhouse in reply to Another Ed. | July 18, 2019 at 10:51 am

      It was an error then and it’s still an error. “Pea” and “cherry” were originally errors too, but they eventually took over. “Bicep” hasn’t.

Someone in Garner’s condition has no business resisting not just arrest but any type of assault. If he’s mugged he should just quietly hand over his wallet. If he’s kidnapped he should go quietly with the kidnappers. It’s not a matter of right or wrong but simple consideration for his health. He was in no condition to fight anybody, and that’s what killed him.

And no, resisting arrest does not deserve the death penalty. Nobody claims it does. But it can sometimes result in death. Jaywalking also doesn’t deserve the death penalty, and yet it too often results in death; nobody protests that, or demands the prosecution of the poor driver in front of whom the victim walked.

    Olinser in reply to Milhouse. | July 17, 2019 at 11:33 pm

    Walking down a street in the ghetto in the middle of the night fanning yourself with $100 bills doesn’t mean you ‘deserve’ to get robbed.

    But it makes it INFINITELY more likely its going to happen and you have nobody to blame but yourself for intentionally putting yourself in the situation.

    Occasional Thinker in reply to Milhouse. | July 18, 2019 at 8:46 am

    ” or demands the prosecution of the poor driver in front of whom the victim walked”

    Sadly, this is not true. In the area where I live, two black teenagers leaving a party, where social media is claiming under age drinking was occurring, were jaywalking and were struck by a vehicle. It occurred around midnight in an area with widely spaced streetlights making it hard to see as a driver passes from brightly lit to dark areas. Social media outrage was immediate when it was announced police were not charging the driver with the chorus singing the driver is ‘always’ at fault when a pedestrian is struck. I am of the mind that this has more to do with aiding a lawsuit by the teens family than anything else, but they are demanding the driver be lynched.

Do not wander off ito the high grass here. This is a very simple case.

Garner was actively and knowledgeably violating the law He knew exactly what he was doing. He had been arrested and charged with the same crime 13 times previous to this incident. Garner had the option of immediately surrendering, going to jail, bonding out, going to trial and taking his chances with the criminal justice system. Instead, he chose to resit arrest through violent physical action. His death was attributed, through scientific examination, to his physical condition, not strictly to the actions of the LEOs. Further, the force used by the LEOs was lawful.

That is it. Garner was solely responsible for his own demise. whether his crime justified the death penalty is immaterial.

    tom_swift in reply to Mac45. | July 18, 2019 at 8:41 pm

    This is a very simple case.

    All cases are simple if you ignore the more subtle aspects.

Do not wander off into the high grass here. This is a very simple case.

Garner was actively and knowledgeably violating the law He knew exactly what he was doing. He had been arrested and charged with the same crime 13 times previous to this incident. Garner had the option of immediately surrendering, going to jail, bonding out, going to trial and taking his chances with the criminal justice system. Instead, he chose to resit arrest through violent physical action. His death was attributed, through scientific examination, to his physical condition, not strictly to the actions of the LEOs. Further, the force used by the LEOs was lawful.

That is it. Garner was solely responsible for his own demise. whether his crime justified the death penalty is immaterial.

    Milwaukee in reply to Mac45. | July 18, 2019 at 2:19 am

    ” Garner had the option of immediately surrendering,…”

    Back that up a bit, he had the option in engaging in legal commerce. Weren’t there any fast food, convenience stores, or hot dog vendor carts in need of employees? He chose the option of selling something which had netted 31 previous arrests.

      tom_swift in reply to Milwaukee. | July 18, 2019 at 8:44 pm

      The 31 priors didn’t result in his death. Obviously, it would have been possible to go for 32 without killing anyone.

        Milhouse in reply to tom_swift. | July 19, 2019 at 1:54 am

        He didn’t fight the previous 31 times. And if he hadn’t fought the 32nd time he wouldn’t have given himself a heart attack.

Richard Aubrey | July 17, 2019 at 10:15 pm

I used to do judo and jiu jitsu. I know chokes. I’ve been choked out in competition and have prevailed by choking out my opponent. I have choked out two assailants when assaulted.
I know chokes.
I watched the Garner video. Garner was not choked.

I don’t think this man was killed on purpose. But it is a sad day when a poor man who is selling single cigarettes to even poorer individuals is treated like this. This is a result of the cigarette tax being so high as to make a pack unaffordable…yet the distribution of less than the pack a crime that warrants the presence of 4 police officers. Disgusting. A breakdown of commonsense.

    Milhouse in reply to puhiawa. | July 18, 2019 at 12:30 am

    So how many policemen do you think should respond to such an offense? 3? 2? Or should the police just ignore it?

    Mac45 in reply to puhiawa. | July 18, 2019 at 12:42 am

    This is a ridiculous statement.

    First of all, Garner knew exactly what he was doing. He had been arrested 13 times before this incident for the exact same offense. And, while it sounds like a relatively harmless crime. the sale not only deprived the state and city of tax revenue, but it harms the owner of the store in which Garner was selling these cigarettes because it depresses his cigarette sales. Also, cigarettes are not a necessity of life, such as food and water. Millions of people survive every year without ever smoking a single cigarette.

    As to the number of LEOs who should be present at any arrest, the rule of thumb is as many as possible. The idea being that an arrestee is less like to resist arrest, if he is facing overwhelming force. There ar a number of misconceptions that non-law enforcement personnel have concerning police work. Such as one riot one ranger or shooting a man armed with a firearm in the leg, or worse, shooting the gun out of his hand.

All of this because he was selling cig’s to homies. You can say what you want about resisting arrest, but we should be disgusted at the excuse for his being arrested. I’m SOOOO glad the government is out to protect us from bad men like this. In the meantime, they allowed Epstein to do whatever he liked. People like this make it hard to get behind law enforcement, as well as all the cops that drink and drive and get away with it.

    cucha in reply to Mark. | July 18, 2019 at 10:47 pm

    You can thank the Clintons, the corrupt Obama administration, and the degenerate Dem Party for protecting Epstein.

He was selling cigarettes to children to Black school children. Why the city gave his family 4.5 million is just ridiculous.

He was selling cigarettes to children to Black school children. Why the city gave his family 4.5 million is just ridiculous.

And yet even Fox News perpetuates the “choke hold” lie. This morning FNC was reporting on the demonstrators who showed up at Officer Pantaleo’s home last night to protest the DoJ announcement. In the process a talking head repeated the lie that Pantaleo used a “choke hold” on Garner. The truth has had five years to be subdued by the lie.

play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Government supporting a Drug Cartel? “How is that possible” is often asked. “Why isn’t it inevitable” is the better question.

“See, if you look at the drug war from a purely economic point of view, the role of the government is to protect the drug cartel.” – Economist Milton Friedman (1991)

Besides we learned that from Alcohol Prohibition.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend