TexasCHLforum.com

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:I'm sure physical stature played a big role in the grand jury's decision. The officer should be disciplined within his department for violating policy. I can't see convicting him of manslaughter though. It was a freak accident and I see big changes coming to law enforcement. I see officers going for their taser before going hands on since tasers are deemed safe. People will still die but it will be written off as technical error.

Here comes the Godwin. I certain group of guys in awesomely terrifying uniforms were just following policy. We bombed them, invaded them, killed them and hung a few of them for it.

Following policy or not should not protect you from what you do.

Oh come on, admit it, those uniforms were really cool looking. The one thing about that certain group is that they knew their symbols and knew how to dress. Oh yeah, and they had some pretty awesome martial music too. In fact, when it comes to military music, no one else even comes close.

Keith B wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:
The duties, and goals, of a paramedic are different than those of a policeman.

I know this. My point was that it is not a humane way to force an individual into compliance by intentionally interrupting basic physiological processes that if not applied in a very strict manner can cause death. Training (and the term here is used loosely) cadets to use this technique and assuming that it will be applied consistently and strictly is a farce. Do LEO certify on a regular basis to allow them to use these techniques? Are they applied under strict supervision?

I highly doubt it. I fully suspect that if these techniques were reviewed for correctness and consistency the results would show that there is a vast difference in skill level. If these techniques are not dangerous then why are many forbidden?

Here's another test....what would happen if, say, Mr. Garner pushed you, and you took him down in the exact same manner, and he died just like he did in this incident? What are your chances of walking away without a trial? My bet is zero unless you've got blue privilege. The police aren't supposed to be above the law. If you or I would stand trial for the same action they should too. In fact, the police, since they're trained, have backup, and get the latitude granted by the public trust, should be held to a HIGHER standard than the rest of us....if not under the law itself, then by the departments they work for.

There is a difference. You cannot issue a lawful order on a misdemeanor offense like a police officer can. If the person was given a lawful order and refuses, then the officer has the right to arrest them. if they refuse to cooperate, then they are resisting arrest. if the person pushes the officer, then it is assault on a police officer.

Now, as a non-LEO, you can use force to stop a crime that is listed in TPC 9.31 and issue a citizens arrest, or 9.32 and use deadly force if it is justified. . However, in this case of a misdemeanor offense, you do not have the authority to engage the person like a LEO does.

I am not saying the officers were right in the use of excessive force in this case, however, when the individual refused to cooperate, they were justified in restraining and arresting Mr. Garner, where a non-LEO would not have been.

And I'm not saying they didn't have a right to arrest him under the law. First I'm saying arresting someone for a violation like this is ridiculous. But, once they did affect an arrest, they had no right to kill him. The officers were not defending themselves so there is so self-defense killing here. What it should be considered is a negligent homicide. There should be a trial, and if convicted, the officer should get the same punishment as anyone else convicted of negligent homicide.

I also think there should be lesser charges against all the officers on the scene since none of them attempted to render aid. I'm not going to support this kind of treatment for poor people selling cigarettes until I see the real criminals in this country like John Corizine get the same treatment.

ScooterSissy wrote:

VMI77 wrote:Here's another test....what would happen if, say, Mr. Garner pushed you, and you took him down in the exact same manner, and he died just like he did in this incident? What are your chances of walking away without a trial? My bet is zero unless you've got blue privilege. The police aren't supposed to be above the law. If you or I would stand trial for the same action they should too. In fact, the police, since they're trained, have backup, and get the latitude granted by the public trust, should be held to a HIGHER standard than the rest of us....if not under the law itself, then by the departments they work for.

There's a difference though. As a citizen, I am not charged with affecting the arrest of a person for pushing someone. A policeman is.

So?

anygunanywhere wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:
The duties, and goals, of a paramedic are different than those of a policeman.

I know this. My point was that it is not a humane way to force an individual into compliance by intentionally interrupting basic physiological processes that if not applied in a very strict manner can cause death. Training (and the term here is used loosely) cadets to use this technique and assuming that it will be applied consistently and strictly is a farce. Do LEO certify on a regular basis to allow them to use these techniques? Are they applied under strict supervision?

I highly doubt it. I fully suspect that if these techniques were reviewed for correctness and consistency the results would show that there is a vast difference in skill level. If these techniques are not dangerous then why are many forbidden?

Here's another test....what would happen if, say, Mr. Garner pushed you, and you took him down in the exact same manner, and he died just like he did in this incident? What are your chances of walking away without a trial? My bet is zero unless you've got blue privilege. The police aren't supposed to be above the law. If you or I would stand trial for the same action they should too. In fact, the police, since they're trained, have backup, and get the latitude granted by the public trust, should be held to a HIGHER standard than the rest of us....if not under the law itself, then by the departments they work for.

ScooterSissy wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:By the way, I understand that a single pack of cigarettes in NYC, with the city, state and federal taxes runs about $14.00. That would make a carton cost around $140.00. That's what has spurred the sale of single cigarettes, smuggled from neighboring states. I can remember buying a pack of cigarettes as a teenager for a quarter. Some of this problem can be placed on outrageous tax laws. The cops don't get to pick and choose the laws they must enforce (well, unless they're Holder or Obama).

Actually they do. Always have and always will, since like every other organization on the planet, the resources available to them put constraints on their activities. But hey, since they've solved all the violent crime, thefts, and rapes, I guess they got plenty of resources to arrest and kill people for selling cigarettes. On, and btw, according to witnesses, the officer who killed this guy flipped off the crowd after he did it. What does that say about attitude?

No one killed anyone for selling cigarettes. Resisting arrest is what got him killed.

Sure they did, and without any evidence that he was doing anything illegal. I've watched the video several times and nothing he did justifies the force used, let alone his murder (or, homicide, according to the ME). They were there apparently because his sales were hurting the cigarette sales of the stores selling cigarettes and a store or stores called the police. That sounds more like a mafia protection racket than law enforcement.

This use of "law enforcement" resources is so absurd it beggars description. Even if he was selling cigs untaxed by NYC, and no proof has been offered that he did, the amount of revenue expended in this operation is far in excess of any taxes they could have ever collected from this seller. In the real world of business that's called stupidity and leads to bankruptcy. It's even more stupid since they killed the goose and now cannot receive any future tax revenue from him.

The cig tax/law is a two fold shake down operation. The city is shaking down consumers and then offering mafia like protection to the stores in order to eliminate their competition, which is also competition for the city. I have yet to see any proof offered that Garner was even doing anything illegal. He may have purchased legally taxed cigs and just offered a service that the stores weren't offering....."loosies."

It's pretty clear that his real crime was failing to bow low enough to the police and city tax authority. The cops decided to teach him a lesson by arresting him. I doubt that any of them intended to kill him, but it didn't bother them in the least that they did....no one even attempted to render aid...and the cop who killed him flipped off the crowd afterwards. And it's my understanding that the only indictment the DA managed to get is of the guy who took the video. You might like that kind of "law enforcement" but that's not the kind of country I want to live in. In my view, there is something seriously wrong with any government under which you can end up dead for the mere act of selling a legal item without the government's sanction or permission. And when it's on the scale of a single cigarette you're living under a government that has lost its sanity. It is certainly not a "free" country.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Teamless wrote: If you resist, you will be dealt with.

If you resist you will die?
Avoiding so many Godwin references right now.

What if you quit resisting (as occurred). Do you still have to die?

I too worked hard to avoid a Godwin reference.

baldeagle wrote:I think some of you are missing the point.

Some definitely are missing the point. Some of those commenting sound like school administrators espousing "zero tolerance." Mentally they've already given up their rights as sovereign citizens to the government. And that is exactly the state of mind of those who register their guns and will meekly surrender them during a confiscation.

I find the "leave it to the courts" nostrum pretty revolting. In the first place, the courts cost you money even in an uncorrupted system. Why should I have to pay to defend myself from improper policing? Furthermore, at this point in the game the courts are just about as likely to further the injustice as they are to correct it. It's not long from the point where this kind of police conduct is accepted to when it becomes embedded in the culture, and then to when the courts no longer offer ANY expectation of justice.

baldeagle wrote:But assault him and then ignore his pleas for help? Is that REALLY what you think the police should do?

Some clearly do think so. One comment was along the lines that criminals have used ruses with the police, expressing phony distress, so apparently, given the possibility that the person expressing distress may be exploiting a ruse, all suspects should be treated as criminals exploiting a ruse. The logical conclusion is that if a few die in the process, so be it, as long as every LEO goes home without a scratch. The same logic suggests that since there may be a CHL or two that would shoot a LEO, all CHLs should be considered dangerous criminals on the verge of shooting a LEO. And hey, "what if?" What if a motorist has a stolen Russian nuclear device in his vehicle? What if that soccer mom has hidden explosive vests under her children's coats in a plot to murder school children? The old "what if" is a handy justification for anything and everything.

Deleted

Teamless wrote:Sounds to me the answer is simple, and has been said above.

You are not going to the win the argument on the side of the road with a police officer.
You may beat the rap, but you may not beat the ride.
Do I want to do the ride? No, but I am also not going to fight the officer who is doing his duty.

If you resist, you will be dealt with.
I understand that "its only a cigarette tax", but what if the "dealer" of cigarettes also has a gun or knife or club hidden and intends to do harm.
The officer needs to be able to subdue, hopefully peacefully, the alleged perp, and control the situation and mostly, make sure HE (the officer) does not get injured in the process.

Seriously? The what if game? And the police just want to go home at night without stubbing their toe defense? Well, what if you have a bomb in your car, or a machine gun in your lap the officer can't see when he pulls you over. Wouldn't want him to get hurt, because, what if, so maybe he should just shoot you through the window from a safe distance? And hey, you carry a gun, what if you just snapped and started shooting people.....maybe the police better take you out because, you never know.

A-R wrote:For those who think the NYPD cop is guilty or at least have some qualms about what he did, answer this:

How do you propose the police affect a lawful arrest on a 400-pound man who is actively (though not yet violently) resisting said arrest? Please spare us the arguments about "it was just cigarettes" and understand that cops don't make the law (Bloomberg made the law, if you want to point fingers), they merely enforce it.

When Garner began actively resisting, should the cops have just let him go because arresting him was too difficult?

Should they have used a different tactic? Guns are a no go. Tasers? Pepper spray? What would those weapons have done to a man in Garner's physical condition? Baton strikes to the legs?

Serious question looking for serious answers.

I propose people NOT be arrested for trivial "crimes" that are non-violent, and affect no one but the corpulent tax consumers who use their power to tax and live off a gullible public. There was no reason to arrest Garner in the first place as they had absolutely no evidence or probable cause to believe he had committed even the ridiculous offense he was accused of. Even if he was seen selling a "loosie" there was no evidence that that "loosie" had avoided any tax. Witnesses said he attracted attention by breaking up a fight. This was purely a case of teaching someone who didn't pay the cops the "proper respect" a lesson.

anygunanywhere wrote:

n5wd wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:Choke holds are no longer taught in the academy. We now use lateral vascular neck restraint. It is NOT a choke hold but it does put the person to sleep by cutting off blood flow to the brain.

Great. This makes me feel all safe and warm.

Don't resist arrest and you won't find out how well it works.

I am not worried about me.

Individuals utilizing techniques that "cut off blood flow to the brain" are using techniques that are potentially deadly, and to state in a cavalier manner that this common and no big deal is obscene.

When I was a paramedic we did everything in our power and skill to maintain "blood flow to the brain" but LEO are trained to interrupt the person's life sustaining blood flow as a means of controlling them? People are ok with this?

Anyone that's ok with this, or has the attitude that the cops should be able to do anything they want to you and you can sort it out it court, has absolutely no reason to complain if they're ever brutalized by the police, for it is exactly this permissive attitude that creates the environment where improper police action is tolerated. That kind of acceptance and tolerance leads to a spiral of police abuse that ends in a police state. The notion that you can be arrested and jailed for selling cigarettes without paying some city tax is absurd on its face. The notion that killing someone over it is acceptable is police state thinking. It seems many Americans have lost all sense of proportion.

sjfcontrol wrote:By the way, I understand that a single pack of cigarettes in NYC, with the city, state and federal taxes runs about $14.00. That would make a carton cost around $140.00. That's what has spurred the sale of single cigarettes, smuggled from neighboring states. I can remember buying a pack of cigarettes as a teenager for a quarter. Some of this problem can be placed on outrageous tax laws. The cops don't get to pick and choose the laws they must enforce (well, unless they're Holder or Obama).

Actually they do. Always have and always will, since like every other organization on the planet, the resources available to them put constraints on their activities. But hey, since they've solved all the violent crime, thefts, and rapes, I guess they got plenty of resources to arrest and kill people for selling cigarettes. On, and btw, according to witnesses, the officer who killed this guy flipped off the crowd after he did it. What does that say about attitude?