NY - Officer Daniel Pantaleo used deadly chokehold on Eric Garner, Staten Island, July 2014

[jmcgladr]

It has been pointed out numerous times on this thread. It is the video from the Huffington Post and you can see where the female EMT's audio has been cut at about 4:05.

But is there a link that proves it's doctored (i.e. an outside source declaring it "doctored")? Or is it just supposition/analysis in this thread?

 

[epiphany]

Middle age obese people do not carry guns?

Course they do. Speaking of this case: his hands are visible at all times. IMO they know he's unarmed. He was breaking the law & he was resisting arrest in an uncooperative but non-violent manner. But there was no need to take him down in the manner visible on the tape.

 

[Archangel7]

But you didn't really answer the question - do/should police officers automatically assume everyone they encounter in public is armed?

Think of this way..I stop you for probable cause that you are or about to commit a crime of selling illegal cigs. I have a right under the law Terry v Ohio to do a frisk to ensure my safety AND your safety(I validate your unarmed so if you inadvertently reach in your pocket I can't say I thought you were going for a gun)make sense?

I assume every one is armed until I know differently for your and my safety while we interact on a probable cause interaction.

 

[CoolJ]

"Please, leave me alone officer"
"Please, don't touch me"
LOL Those words constitute "resisting arrest"???
Wow, those cops must have felt pretty threatened by those harsh and resistive words...

JMO

 

[Archangel7]

Great, more ridiculous case law. Listen, I am not arguing with you. Just disagreeing with these laws you keep citing. We are closer to a Police State than I think people realize.

They have been on the books since at least as long a Dr King was advocating his principles, 1968 I believe for Terry v Ohio.
Nothing new.

 

[Archangel7]

"Please, leave me alone officer"
"Please, don't touch me"
LOL Those words constitute "resisting arrest"???
Wow, those cops must have felt pretty threatened by those harsh and resistive words...

JMO

Not about them. It's the LAW.

 

[Archangel7]

Course they do. Speaking of this case: his hands are visible at all times. IMO they know he's unarmed. He was breaking the law & he was resisting arrest in an uncooperative but non-violent manner. But there was no need to take him down in the manner visible on the tape.

If a person being arrested won't comply what would you do? Walk away? He's being arrested and taken into custody and he is resisting that attempt so they "force" him to comply using the amount of force necessary to effect the arrest. EXACTLY what the law states.

 

[CHERIE.T]

"Please, leave me alone officer"
"Please, don't touch me"
LOL Those words constitute "resisting arrest"???
Wow, those cops must have felt pretty threatened by those harsh and resistive words...

JMO

you conveniently omitted that he said don't touch me and threw his arms and hands around.

 

[jmcgladr]

Its quite scary, I can't understand why they are protesting these cases when these people were criminals. I think this country has gone insane

Someone being a criminal doesn't mean they deserve to die. Especially if they are just a petty criminal, as EG was.

 

[bwt42]

Just a thought. Why don't we see if we can say something nice about someone we disagree with. Maybe even give them a point or two instead of attacking everything they say.

 

[jmcgladr]

Just a thought. Why don't we see if we can say something nice about someone we disagree with. Maybe even give them a point or two instead of attacking everything they say.

I'm not going to concede points I don't agree with. That would be dishonest. But I do try to be civil.

 

[CoolJ]

They have been on the books since at least as long a Dr King was advocating his principles, 1968 I believe for Terry v Ohio.
Nothing new.

After listening to you tell us about some of the laws surrounding the topics of probable cause, resisting arrest, justifiable force etc.. I am really beginning to think that a big big part of the problem is that the general public has no idea about what is allowed and what is not allowed. The reaction we are getting from the protests (at this point I would call it a movement not a protest)is a reaction to what they see happening and what they organically feel is right and wrong morally. There seems to be quite a divide between what people genuinely feel should be allowed and what the law actually allows. I think Public relations for Police Departments should be getting more involved in getting these laws out there through marketing campaigns and what not. If the majority of people do not agree, then that is what this movement can be about. Changing those laws that people feel are morally wrong.
JMO

 

[CoolJ]

Not about them. It's the LAW.

Then the LAW is wrong.

 

[jmcgladr]

Then the LAW is wrong.

Agreed. A law being on the books since the 60s doesn't make it infallible. If anything, a law that old has a high possibility of being irrelevant in a world that has changed dramatically since the 1960s!

 

[CoolJ]

If a person being arrested won't comply what would you do? Walk away? He's being arrested and taken into custody and he is resisting that attempt so they "force" him to comply using the amount of force necessary to effect the arrest. EXACTLY what the law states.

Ahhh, now we are getting somewhere... So they do not get a Carte Blanche? "The amount of force necessary to effect the arrest"
It is my opinion and I believe the opinion of a whole crap load of other people that in this case the amount of force that was used was unnecessary and over the top. That man was not a threat.

 

[Archangel7]

Someone being a criminal doesn't mean they deserve to die. Especially if they are just a petty criminal, as EG was.

I totally agree however that isn't the issue at hand. EG was being arrested and resisted, forcing officers to use force to arrest him. Are we such a liberal nanny state that everyone else is responsible for our lack of good common sense? Are the police responsibility for his life of crime and lack of health? He had a choice to comply and refused bringing some culpability on himself.

 

[CHERIE.T]

Someone being a criminal doesn't mean they deserve to die. Especially if they are just a petty criminal, as EG was.

petty criminal with 31 arrest.

 

[epiphany]

you conveniently omitted that he said don't touch me and threw his arms and hands around.

Respectfully BBM

He's been around the block, thirty plus times. He's using his hands to let them know he's unarmed. They know he's unarmed. He's not reaching for their weapons, not physically attacking them. Give it a few more seconds, a half minute more. The sirens are heard. Additional LE are appearing on the sidewalk. What was he gonna do? Run when they all surrounded him?

He would have done what he did the other thirty times>submit to arrest.

 

[CoolJ]

you conveniently omitted that he said don't touch me and threw his arms and hands around.

Read my post again re: your don't touch me comment.

It looked to me like he put his arms up as though to say I am not a threat. Maybe it is just me and there was something threatening about what he was doing, I dunno...

 

[jmcgladr]

petty criminal with 31 arrest.

31 arrests for petty crimes is still a petty criminal. Just one who was caught a lot.