Just quoted your question bro.
My contention is the question should not even be asked since cops did not treat him at all therefore cops did not treat him correctly.
I never said that they treated him correctly. Trying reading my posts again. I said that once he stopped breathing that had the absolute requirement to render him aid.
- Merg
Since you asked...
The officer broke policy by using that maneuver. And while the officer does appear to be giving a chokehold, can you actually tell from the video how tight he is holding him? You can even see that the guy is so big that the officer can't lock the chokehold down. There were also no injury to his throat or windpipe and only a small bruise on the back of his neck.
And just because a person that is resisting arrest says they can't breathe or something hurts, the police are supposed to just stop trying to arrest them? The cop makes the arrest and then they assist him. Oh, and by the way, if you can say "you can't breathe", that means that you are breathing.
Now, did the cops treat him correctly after he was in cuffs? I don't know. If there was negligence, I could definitely see that being where it was.
As for it being negligent, apparently the GJ didn't think so.
- Merg
Just quoted your question bro.
My contention is the question should not even be asked since cops did not treat him at all therefore cops did not treat him correctly.
EVEN if you think the cops were right in useing a choke hold how can anyone defend NOT giving him aid? that in itself should be grounds in being charged.
it's sad when you hear stories where the cops refuse to give aid. so much for protect and serve eh?
This is all about an illegal black market on the sale of cigarettes in New York. It is about tax evasion and black marketing. It may be more about state and city taxes on cigarettes. I looked at the photo of this guy showing the police officer next to him. The man stood about 6 1/2 feet tall and weighed over 300 lbs. If a large man resists arrest you have to use extreme measures to subdue him.
This is all about a criminal resisting arrest.
Why should honest tax payers care about these criminals that resist arrest?
Good news!! The federal government WILL conduct a federal investigation of this case. I hope this dirty cop gets to spend a few years behind bars to comtemplate what he did.
https://plus.google.com/+FoxNews/posts/UYpTDCPMdc9#+FoxNews/posts/UYpTDCPMdc9
Good news!! The federal government WILL conduct a federal investigation of this case. I hope this dirty cop gets to spend a few years behind bars to comtemplate what he did.
https://plus.google.com/+FoxNews/posts/UYpTDCPMdc9#+FoxNews/posts/UYpTDCPMdc9
This is all about an illegal black market on the sale of cigarettes in New York. It is about tax evasion and black marketing. It may be more about state and city taxes on cigarettes. I looked at the photo of this guy showing the police officer next to him. The man stood about 6 1/2 feet tall and weighed over 300 lbs. If a large man resists arrest you have to use extreme measures to subdue him.
This is all about a criminal resisting arrest.
Why should honest tax payers care about these criminals that resist arrest?
This is all about an illegal black market on the sale of cigarettes in New York. It is about tax evasion and black marketing. It may be more about state and city taxes on cigarettes. I looked at the photo of this guy showing the police officer next to him. The man stood about 6 1/2 feet tall and weighed over 300 lbs. If a large man resists arrest you have to use extreme measures to subdue him.
This is all about a criminal resisting arrest.
Why should honest tax payers care about these criminals that resist arrest?
Listen, if you are too stupid to figure out what is going on here, feel free not to add anything.
Since I haven't seen the grand jury report, I cant comment on the legality of what happened. However if what occurred is not illegal we need to take a serious look at the law.
Negligent cops are what killed this guy.
Watching the video in full, I came away with the impression that the cops were thugs. They look like scarey gang-banging mofos.... completely above and beyond the law. The rules are for us riff-raff. It looks like police departments across the nation are hiring the most testosterone laden confrontional douches they can find and prosecutors/juries and are letting them get away with murder.
This is one of the worst days in American history, it shows to the entire world how utterly broken our supposed justice system is.
Of course Z would have walked. Video would have completely changed the perception of what happened because people would immediately see the media lied to them about the "sweet angel" Martin. A video would have been a HUGE relief for Z and there would be absolutely no public outrage about his case.I assume even if there were clear video evidence for the Zimmerman Martin case, Zimmerman would still have walked. Obviously, having video evidence and police cams makes no difference. The problem isn't evidence, it is perception. The law always has the upper hand. That should be quite clear by now.
I suppose only when white republican children start dying by the hand of law enforcement will anything be done.
Can you imagine if the tides were turned, the outrage from white republican parents?
Yeah, like that tide would ever happen in America.
Charlie Manson always wanted a race war.
Looks like his wishful thinking was a bit ahead of its time.
What?
The kid was simply walking in an area he was justified to be walking in, unarmed, with candy and a drink.
Naturally, when most people are unjustly challenged for doing nothing, they are going to be quite irritated.
Most white folks have never been asked why they were simply walking on the sidewalk, browsing in a store, or driving down the street.
Most white people have no idea what it is to be challenged for just minding their own business.
Maybe if that were to happen, say once, the white guy would just brush it off.
Twice? Then it gets a bit irritating.
As a general rule? Queue the attitude and justly so.
If a white guy wears a gold watch, he gets complimented.
If a black guy wears the same watch, most assume it was stolen.
At least when it comes to law enforcement.
GZ would still get off the hook if it was on video.
Of course. GZ was innocent. TM beat him brutally.
TM was an angel! Wouldn't you be irritated if you were racially profiled?
You might read Andrew McCarthy's take. I think he's looked at precisely what you're talking about.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/393933/staten-island-decision-andrew-c-mccarthy
Understand that intent matters critically in a criminal case. In civil cases, a person who negligently or recklessly injures someone is said to take his victim as he finds him. Lets say A does not know B has a heart condition and intentionally frightens B, who proceeds to suffer a heart attack. A is responsible for all Bs damages, even if they are far heavier than would have occurred if B were an average person. By contrast, the criminal law usually does not hold a person liable unless he intends, or at least should have foreseen, the natural consequences of his actions.
Here, bear in mind that murder was not the only potential homicide charge at issue. The grand jury would also have been considering such offenses as involuntary manslaughter (i.e., recklessly causing the death of another person) or criminally negligent homicide. To be criminally culpable, the officer need not have intended to kill or even seriously injure Garner. If there is probable cause that Pantaleo acted recklessly or with criminal negligence i.e., if he acted with an unreasonable degree of force an indictment for a grade of criminal homicide less serious than murder would be the appropriate result.