December 29, 2014 8:09 pm at 8:09 pm #1051546
” if what they were doing is what the law permits, then it cannot go to trial” Circular reasoning, whether the law permits it should be determined at trial
At any rate: “Of course, protests should always be allowed,” As I said we agree!!
(It was forseeable as YW fan helfully provided: “He wheezed when he talked and could not walk a block without resting,” It was certainly forceeable when he began saying “I cant breathe” and they stood around not helping. If EMs was called then and he was treated, I MAY have had less of a case, but when you squeeze the life out of a obese man who “wheezed when he talked” and then stand around doing nothing, you don’t need a Medical degree to guess what will happen)December 29, 2014 8:20 pm at 8:20 pm #1051547
Whatever he did does not justify the police’s actions. If he is guilty of a capital crime, that is for the courts to decide, not the police.December 29, 2014 8:34 pm at 8:34 pm #1051548
4. Garner had been arrested 31 times and eight of those had been for selling loosies. His rap sheet goes back decades and includes arrests for assault and grand larceny”
ubiquitin -“in the wild west theri was free reign to kill whomever you didnt like, we do not live in the wild west, that is why the police should be held to a standard and answer for their actions.”
That’s what the libs do -they deny the truth! At least in the Wild, Wild West you could carry a gun, these days only the perps carry! Then libs pervert the justice!
“you must have a different list of 7 mitzvos, mine doesnt include selling loose cigarettes. What on Earth are you talking about,.
Please don’t insult the Torah by dragging it in to defend your krum bloodthirsty shitos. Everybody from Reform going full circle to Neturei karta also claims they have the Torah on their side. If you have a source indicating that selling loose cigarettes or resisting arrest is punishable by the death penalty fine otherwise stop claiming to speak for Hashem.”
Sad that you claim that you’re right, by peverting the truth. Obviously you don’t think “assault and grand larceny” is part of the 7 mitzvos. Kol Haposel B’momo Poisel on your whole post!December 29, 2014 8:56 pm at 8:56 pm #1051549
Sam2 -“Hashem wants him killed? Excuse me? So why don’t you go around killing every Goy who’s ever stolen? Here’s a hint: Hashem doesn’t want them killed. He wants Misas Beis Din administered when it’s deserved. Not the free vigilante “justice” you’re advocating.”
If the Goyim don’t keep the 7 Mitzvos, any way that Hashem’s will can be kept is fine. I detect PC, inspite of the Torah!
“And no, he wasn’t acquitted. The Grand Jury refused to even send it to trial. That is the miscarriage of justice here.”
But you continue to be PC, inspite of the truth! The reason the Grand Jury refused to even send it to trial was because No law was broken. There are those that claim you have to be PC, even if that’s a miscarriage of justice!December 29, 2014 9:11 pm at 9:11 pm #1051550kfbParticipant
I don’t get what everyone’s arguing about. Eric Garner resisted arrest, therefore the cops tried to arrest him. It took 5 cops to take him, the guy was huge. It’s unfortunate he died after the whole ordeal, however it didn’t have to be that way, had he not resisted arrest.December 29, 2014 9:19 pm at 9:19 pm #1051551
Police brutality is a crime.December 29, 2014 10:12 pm at 10:12 pm #1051552
I’m not sure if you are serious, Garner wasn’t being arrested/killed for grand larceny. What does that have to do with anything? Are you aying becasue of his stealing in the past it allows for him to be killed?
If so, it would follow based on your “logic” that any body who stole ever can just be killed.
If it tuns out that Officers Ramos and Liu have ever stolen anything in their lives (even a shava perutah or less), ever been mevarech Hashem, gilui Arayos etc, then it is “very good” that they got shot!?
And you have the nerve to attribute this gross krumkeit to Hashem?December 29, 2014 11:07 pm at 11:07 pm #1051553
pardon me for interrupting this argument that I started 🙂 but I had a question. Is there anyone who thinks that Garner still would’ve died even if he was not obese, didn’t have asthma, didn’t have diabetes, ect.?December 29, 2014 11:12 pm at 11:12 pm #1051554
They had the right to arrest him. They did not set out to kill him, and at no point was there any action that would ordinarily kill, so, whilst you may believe there is a case to answer, please stop referring to ‘capital crimes’ or ‘death penalty’. It’s blatant straw manning, to borrow a phrase. So, even from a purely impartial standpoint (which I am not, but go with it), there is no question of this being murder, in any way deliberate. So if you wish, call them violent, or perhaps guilty of manslaughter (not that I believe they are).
Furthermore, while I’m at it, leave halacha out of this. It isn’t relevant as far as this argument is concerned. Everybody seems to be forgetting that the people involved aren’t jewish, and as such are mechuyav to have a legal system, and that’s it. So simply talk about this in terms of Din, that is, the Law of the United States of America, and avoid making ill-advised, often misinformed comments about Beis Din and the like.December 29, 2014 11:27 pm at 11:27 pm #1051555
In both cases the law has to decide if there was a case to answer, as per due process. In both cases the decision whether or not to indict was given over to a Grand Jury. This was as open as the decision could be, left up to the discretion not of a federal prosecutor with an agenda, but to a jury of his peers, exactly the same as he would face in court. In both cases they decided there was not grounds to indict. This means a jury decided both that they did not believe there was a case to answer, and that in a court the officer would be found innocent. That is democracy, that is law. It is not a miscarriage of justice, as the law was followed to the letter. What would be a miscarriage of justice would be if the case was reopened on the frankly ridiculous grounds that this is somehow a civil rights issue.
I am also sure that whatever evidence was provided to the juries, it was far fairer and more accurate than whatever has appeared in the media. Therefore, respecting their decision is not only respecting the law, but respecting the fact that not everything is as simple as it appears to be on YouTube.December 29, 2014 11:34 pm at 11:34 pm #1051556
You have many comments in your last post worthy of rsponses, I will go in order:
– I am not using “murder” in the legal sense. They used waht you agree is “excesive force” which directly led to death. Legally it is probably negligent homicide.
– I agree regarding Halacha.
– It is not the exact same as in court, it doesnt need to be unanimous, odds are it was a heavily biased Jury in a borough were many are related to police officers. (I am of course making assumptions but hey so are you in your last paragraph.)
– “That is democracy, that is law. ” If the law is wrong then there is a moral duty to protest in some way *This is the point YW fan originally disagreed with*
– Whats amazing about this case is it is clear, it is on tape. What I find so frustrating about this story is thta after Fergusen which was largely a he said he said (or he said she said he said she said… if you count all the eyewitness accounts) I gave the benefit of the doubt to the grand jury. I thought, as Obama and other suggested that equipping police officers with cameras would solve these issues as events would be plain for all to see. Yet here we have tape of an unarmed nonthreatening person, literally with his hands up! jumped on and choked to death. The video is widely available and the perpetrators still got off scot free!
almost definitely not.December 30, 2014 12:06 am at 12:06 am #1051557
ubiquitin, then maybe you could help me out with this one…why should the officer be charged with MURDER if garners medical issues played a DIRECT roll in his death??? If I had to charge the officer with ANYTHING it would be excessive force!December 30, 2014 12:57 am at 12:57 am #1051558
YW fan glad to help (though we have covered this)
If he didnt have asthma they would be LESS culpable in murder. I gave an example of pushing on a person’s head. with a tiny bit of force. If by some freak accident a person died as a result of that, it wouldnt be murder, (maybe manslaughter). However if the persn was an infant with a open fontanelle (“soft spot”) you wouldnt say (I hope) well the baby’s physical condition led to its death.
Or (more direct nalagy) if I find a chronic COPD’R who is oxygen dependent and I clamp down on his oxygen supply watch him die as he gasps “I cant breathe” Would you say, well if he wasnt so sick clamping on oxygen wouldnt kill him so his medical issues are what casued death not my choking off his oxygen supply.December 30, 2014 1:15 am at 1:15 am #1051559
You agree the law has been adhered to, but you claim the law is unjust. Can you please come up with a fairer system of choosing when to indict. There is a system to decide whether somebody should be prosecuted, in this case for manslaughter, and they decided that there was no case to answer. You could say anybody is biased. If you’re gonna call any jury biased, or somehow believe they misjudged the evidence, despite them having far more access to the facts of the case than you have, then it would be very hard to please you. Remember, you’ve watched an obviously edited video on YouTube, and followed up the case on biased media sites looking or a story. They’ve had a chance to watch cross examinations of participants and witnesses, detailed analysis without bias, and an entire system in place to ensure what they see is accurate and free from conjecture. I trust that when they made that decision, they were making an informed decision as part of a well-thought out, accurate process.
So feel free to protest. That is a demonstration of your free speech, and could lead too positive changes in the system. But I don’t believe it is broken. There was just a single episode involving a stupid man (I don’t wish to speak ill of the dead, but he shouldn’t have resisted), and some stupid officers who, in the moment, went too far. No crime was adjudged to have been committed and I believe that decision was fair, as being stupid is not a crime, being a criminal is. And they did not commit a crime.December 30, 2014 1:52 am at 1:52 am #1051560
ubiquitin, thanks for clarifying. I didn’t understand the explanation the 1st time being that i wasnt clear on the definition of a fontelle. However regarding your second analogy the cops weren’t doing it with the knowledge that he had asthma so why would they be MORE culpable to the murder?December 30, 2014 2:57 am at 2:57 am #1051561yaakov doeParticipant
Police brutality may be a crime, but not complying with a police officers directive is sheer stupidity. If Garner had complied and not resisted arrest he’d still be on the street selling “loosies”.December 30, 2014 2:57 am at 2:57 am #1051562
– “You agree the law has been adhered to,”
I dont agree, Ive heard different reports regarding the “chokehold” ranging between “illegal” and “discouraged” I’ve avoided that line of argument simply because I’m not clear on the facts The the most leniant take i ahve heard is that it is “discouraged” do you know if anyone says it is a routine (encouraged?) use of force such as mace?
-“Can you please come up with a fairer system of choosing when to indict. “
No, that is not my job (thankfully).
– “despite them having far more access to the facts of the case than you have,”
I’m not sure what more evidence they can have than a videotape.
-“So feel free to protest.”
Again so you dont agree with YW fan (read the op) as I have been saying all along.
-“single episode involving a stupid man (I don’t wish to speak ill of the dead, but he shouldn’t have resisted)”
-“being stupid is not a crime”
It absolutely is if it leads to death! I’m not sure if driving with my eyes closed is illegal, though it certainly is stupid, If somebody dies as a result of that of course I committed a crime!
Question for You. (Depending on your age I guess) What did you think of say the OJ Simpson verdict?
knowledge isnt always a factor. If I don’t know red means stop,I still get a ticket for driving through it.December 30, 2014 3:47 am at 3:47 am #1051563
ubiquitin -“I’m not sure if you are serious, Garner wasn’t being arrested/killed for grand larceny. What does that have to do with anything? Are you aying becasue of his stealing in the past it allows for him to be killed?”
That’s right, but you know that! He has a Din of a Treifa!
“If so, it would follow based on your “logic” that any body who stole ever can just be killed.”
That’s right, but you know that, also!
“If it tuns out that Officers Ramos and Liu have ever stolen anything in their lives (even a shava perutah or less), ever been mevarech Hashem, gilui Arayos etc, then it is “very good” that they got shot!?”
What religion are you? Why do libs always have to make the good people (cops) bad & the bad people good?
“And you have the nerve to attribute this gross krumkeit to Hashem?”
I agree, but that’s your ideology!December 30, 2014 4:02 am at 4:02 am #1051564
ubiquitin, the two cases are very different! When you go to a foreign country you are responsible to being up on the laws of that country and therefore if the law of the country is that you have to stop by a red light, you needed to know that! In this case it is impossible to read up on every singles persons medical condition!December 30, 2014 4:03 am at 4:03 am #1051565
I meant it is impossible for every cop to read up on every single persons medical conditionDecember 30, 2014 4:08 am at 4:08 am #1051566
The law states that in a case such as this, the Prosecutor determines, through his choice of one of several processes, whether to indict. He chose the Grand Jury, probably the most open and clear of the available procedures. The Jury decided that there was no case to answer. Therefore the law has been adhered to. You admit to not knowing the legal status of the chokehold. Now, if the chokehold was illegal, he would have been charged. So we see that the status of the chokehold is contested, and the Prosecutors decision is probably the best authority to go on, and the Jury’s verdict is doubtless better informed that mine or yours’. The law has certainly been followed, as such adhered to.
You said earlier that the law is wrong, and that is why you must protest. Now, protesters usually push for reform, but you appear unclear as to the process, and freely say that you have no idea how the law can be improved. Basically, you see what you determine to be injustice, but don’t actually seem to know why, as it’s ‘not your job’. Well, how about we come up with a system for choosing people whose job it is to sort out these processes and implement them, maybe, I don’t know, getting together every few years to pick a guy to represent your interests in a wider forum, and call it, let’s think of something random, Congress? And then, the next time a contested situation such as this comes up, we can determine it using the processes thought up by those whose job it is to do so. Wait a second, that sounds familiar…
Furthermore, the Jury almost certainly had evidence not freely available, such as witness testimony, participant testimony, the ability to question those involved as to the justification for their actions, the relevant laws as presented by impartial experts, the relevant police policy presented by impartial experts, the medical reports from unbiased experts, and probably the extended videotape not available online, as well as character assessments and profiles on those involved. That enough for ya’?
And I will always support the right to protest, even if I believe there is nothing to protest about or that those protesting aren’t sure as to the aims of their protest (see above). As the quote often wrongly attributed to Voltaire goes, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. And I don;t think anybody here has as of yet disagreed with that explicitly (The first post does not count, it is obviously not literal).
And being stupid isn’t a crime, unlawfully killing someone is. And in this case, when looked at by a jury, it was not deemed to be unlawful. Therefore, it must be that the tactics used were deemed permitted for an officer arresting a non-compliant suspect to carry out. When I said they were stupid, I meant that common sense should have told them that this tactic, whilst not illegal, was probably unnecessary in that scenario.
And the officers had no way of knowing he had asthma, so to say they are more culpable because of this is going too far. They don’t have to consider possible ailments every time they arrest someone. It either makes them less culpable or doesn’t make a difference, but certainly not more.
And I am not clued in fully as to the events of the OJ trial, mainly because I’m not American. But the system then was not the system of today, and so saying that that case is evidence of a possible incorrect jury ruling is both conjecture and inaccurate.December 30, 2014 4:21 am at 4:21 am #1051567
Health: You’re being ridiculous here. He does not have the Din of a Treifa unless he had a Psak Din L’misa.
Frankly, you’re sounding like you’ll disagree with anything just because a liberal says it. If a liberal says the sky is blue that doesn’t make it green. Just because you disagree with someone usually doesn’t make them always wrong. (And no one in this thread is claiming racism, just a case of police violence.)
YW Fan and NE: So you are arguing that this is R’tzicha B’shogeg. You did something dangerous but not usually lethal and it turned out to be lethal. It’s still R’tzicha.December 30, 2014 4:23 am at 4:23 am #1051568
It absolutely is if it leads to death! I’m not sure if driving with my eyes closed is illegal, though it certainly is stupid, If somebody dies as a result of that of course I committed a crime!
It’s illegal. It’s called dangerous driving. And if it wasn’t illegal, and if there was no law against driving with ones eyes closed, and there was no law against causing death through negligence (that’s illegal too, it’s called culpable homicide or manslaughter), and if there was no law at all that you could be proven to have broken, then you would not be a criminal. You would be an idiot and an inconsiderate, dangerous, individual, but not a criminal. One is only a criminal if they have broken the law. For whatever reason, the officer in this case didn’t. Therefore, whilst I may believe he is stupid, he is still not a criminal.December 30, 2014 11:36 am at 11:36 am #1051569
I dont know fake halacha so well, but I’ll bite. Why was he a treifa?
You also didnt respond to my question to you. here it is again:
“If it tuns out that Officers Ramos and Liu have ever stolen anything in their lives (even a shava perutah or less), ever been mevarech Hashem, gilui Arayos etc, then it is “very good” that they got shot!?”
– “The Jury decided that there was no case to answer” I beleive the jury was wrong. And this isnt the first time
-“the Jury’s verdict is doubtless better informed that mine or yours'” Doubtless? A jury of 12 people too dumb to get out of jury duty is now doubtless? You are aware that in choosing a jury lawyers avoid educated people as thye prefer people they can manipulate.
also you have quite a few “probably”s in your post.
-“but you appear unclear as to the process, and freely say that you have no idea how the law can be improved.”
I have lots of ideas bu we are already of topic, if something is worng I dont think you have to offer a better solution inorder to be allowed to protest.
-“don’t actually seem to know why”
Weve been going at this for quite a few posts, you can disagree with me obviously, but I think Ive been pretty clear on why I think an injustice occured here.
-Your congress suggestion was hilarious btw (I assume you were kidding, if you were serious that paragraph is more naive than the one about the infalliable jury)
– “That enough for ya’?”
No! Thats a “probably” and “almost certainly” Definitely not enough to get off scot free fur killing (even accidentally)
-“And I will always support the right to protest”
Again so we agree! as Ive said from my very first post that mentioned you.
-“th officers had no idea he had asthma”
The guy looked like a walking health disaster. YW fan says he wheezed when he taked and couldnt walk a block.
-” But the system then was not the system of today”
Not sure if you are serious. It is exactly the same!
-“that case is evidence of a possible incorrect jury ruling is both conjecture and inaccurate.”
Agreed! it was definitely incorrect jury ruling (Oj later all but confessed). (Though I wonder how you can judge that case if you arent clued in to the events of that trial)December 30, 2014 2:03 pm at 2:03 pm #1051571
BTw in my comment regarding juries I use jury and grand jury interchangeably. This isnt accurate. The case of garner involved a grand jury. Grand juries dont get screened for bias and such. In a borough like Staten Island which is heavily populated by police officers and their families, it is not improbable tha the jury was biased. Even if they said hey I used to be a cop and I think cops shouldnt be indited they still can serve on a grand jury. Please keep that in mind as you evaluate whether a grand jury decision should be “doubtless”December 30, 2014 2:24 pm at 2:24 pm #1051572
OK, I’m taking an extended break from the CR in about two hours, so let’s get this over with as soon as possible.
Let’s leave our personal views aside for one moment, and look at the facts. The facts were that a legal process determined by years of democracy was carried out, and there was not deemed enough evidence to go to trial on. Incidentally, it takes a lot less evidence to indict than to convict, so it is safe to say that in a similar courtroom scenario it would have been even less likely he would be found guilty of a crime.
You believe the Jury was wrong. It’s possible, I’ll grant you that. But the fact is, both of us have acknowledged that we are unsure of the law in this case. For example, you have gone from calling it murder to manslaughter over the last few posts. You have admitted that you do not know the legal status of the chokehold, and neither do I. We have both got our colouring of the case from the media. which will always look for a story and is hardly a reliable source, and an edited video on YouTube (and you haven’t contested that it’s obviously edited). This is not clear evidence, and neither of us have all the facts. The Jury certainly got access to clearer and more evidence than we did. And therefore, when they make a decision, based on more evidence than we had, and with clear guidance on what the law is, which we definitely don’t have, don’t just write them off as biased or misinformed.
And even if you will stick to your assertion that the Jury was mistaken in some way, and that you know better, can you think of a better system? This mimics a court system, and is as impartial as humanely possible. You said you have ideas. They are on topic, so let’s hear them.
That is what Congress is for (Yes, of course it was a joke, is there any other way you can read it? OH, and thanks). The country votes for (officially) clever people whose job it is to represent their constituent’s, and who come up with the relevant laws.
And yes, you have a right to protest about this, and I have a right to protest about the offside rule and marshmallows. But having an idea of what needs to be fixed lends your case legitimacy. You can see what you perceive to be injustice, but don’t know what justice should look like. With details, please.
And as concerns the asthma, they didn’t see him panting or being unable to run. They didn’t chase him. They arrested him. And in the moments prior to the arrest, he appears to be healthy. Overweight, but not obviously asthmatic or in any way ill enough that the chokehold would kill him. And they had the right to arrest him, and he was resisting arrest. All that is clear from the video. Whether what they did was illegal is not. And a jury with access to guidance from a judge, who does know. And access to clear evidence, which is not apparent from an edited video. So it is not a stretch to trust their decision. And process was followed, which is what must happen in a democracy, not a lynching.
And let’s put OJ to one side for a moment. I don’t know that much about this case, not being American. But from what I know, comparisons are unfair. Firstly, that was a trial based on evidence. The jury was there to make a judgement call as to whether the evidence available tied OJ to a crime. And the decision was wrong, but that will happen in a democracy, where we put people through a process to decide if they have committed a crime, not the court of public opinion. And in that process, mistakes can be made, and occasionally are. But in the Garner case, the evidence was clear and uncontested. We know who did what to whom where and when. What is in question here is whether a crime was committed. And that is much less of a judgement call, as it is a question of Law. Therefore, the chances of Jury error are far smaller. Secondly, they were simply there to look at the law and decide if there was even the remotest possibility that it had been broken, just enough to go to trial, and they decided there wasn’t. And that was not in a courtroom where it is a yes/no question (I was going to say black/white but decided against it), but simply a question of balance. And they, far better informed (by which I mean, access to more information) than either of us, decided no. And that is that. Do you have any actual suggestions as to what should be improved here that would change the process?December 30, 2014 3:27 pm at 3:27 pm #1051574
-“The facts were that a legal process determined by years of democracy was carried out”
Years of democracy doesnt make it right. ITs not like it is a sytem that is reevluated and fixed, it hasnt chnaged in quite some time, is arguably antiquitated and most of the Western world has dropped it.
-“it would have been even less likely he would be found guilty of a crime.”
I have no problem with that
-“You believe the Jury was wrong. It’s possible, I’ll grant you that”
Hence the protest, Now I think we agree more than we disagree. The discussion began over wether those who protest deserve police protection, You from the start agreed protest was accepable and now concede tha the Jury may have even been wrong! (Which arguably would demand for protest)
-“you have gone from calling it murder to manslaughter over the last few posts”
My view hasnt chanegd I just shifted from using a coloquial expression to legal as per your request. (I dont think i said manslaughter, it isnt manslaughter , I’d call it negligent homicide)
-“We have both got our colouring of the case from the media.”
I dont care for the media they have 24 hours of news o fill and their almost necer is 24 hours of news so they make stuff up to fill most of the time. I got my view on this case from watching the incident myself.
– you keep asking for a better system. I dont think that is my responsobility, but at your insistence sure! here is an idea lets screen out potential biased grand jurors. A reform that has been called for for years and now is being spoken of again thanks to this very case, and the PROTESTS that followed.December 30, 2014 4:05 pm at 4:05 pm #1051575
One very significant thing edited out of the video is the radio call for EMS. Police placed Garner in recovery position and watched to see him continue breathing until the ambulance arrived. When EMTs came he was still breathing. He died of a heart attack en route to the hospital- possibly from the stress of the situation. Whatever the case is, EMS was called.December 30, 2014 4:23 pm at 4:23 pm #1051576
before your break i’d like ot thnak you for your time, it has been fun. You provided well written and thought out responses (unlike some other posters here, including myself as far as well-written goes). I think we agree more than we disagree as I’ve said in my last response (at this moment it is still in moderation)
Brings me back to late night yeshiva hock sessions which I miss.
All the best hope to see you back some time.
I hope you werent offended when I called you naive, I got caught up in the moment.December 30, 2014 5:42 pm at 5:42 pm #1051577
Gamanit, where may I ask did you get that info? I’ve never heard anything like thatDecember 30, 2014 5:55 pm at 5:55 pm #1051578
Thanks, it was a good debate. I wish I’d be able to answer your last post, but I’m calling it a day now.
Whilst I think a jury could be wrong, I don’t think it was. I was just saying that that is what can and occasionally will happen in a free and fair system, hence OJ. But I explained why I believe the margin for error here is very small, as it was not a judgement call but a matter of law, and bias couldn’t practically make that much of a difference, unless they were set out from the beginning to find white men innocent. I also do not think this is a race issue.
I think it’s a bit much to pin the entire problem here on the juries. I think it is a bit too much to insinuate the juries are all biased, as those in charge of arranging them have processes, and even if they aren’t as extensive as in an actual trial, they do ward off bias.
And furthermore, if the officer was in clear contravention of the law, do you honestly believe it still would not go to trial? I trust a man whose profession is the law to guard his own integrity and follow the law, especially in a modern state like NY.
Manslaughter is culpable/negligible homicide, you just don’t call it that there in the USA.
And lastly, the video does not show the entire story. It doesn’t tell you what method of arresting someone is legal or not, it does not tell you what the law is when faced with this situation, and it does not say what happens when a police officer accidentally kills someone whilst arresting them. Those details, plus more, were considered in the court of law, and he was not found to have even possibly committed a crime, as it didn’t even go to trial. And had it, it would almost definitely have been not deemed a crime.
The system isn’t the problem. Neither are the police. What happened was a freak accident, a combination of many different factors including stupidity and medical issues, and that led to the death. He could not have resisted arrest. The police could have used a different tactic. He could not have had those medical issues. They could have realised the problem sooner. All mistakes, not brutality or racism. It’s not institutional, just unfortunate.
Anyway, that’s all from me. I’ll assume you disagree, have a good one!December 30, 2014 7:07 pm at 7:07 pm #1051579
It’s on the wikipedia page. True, popa may have written it but it sounds right.December 30, 2014 9:29 pm at 9:29 pm #1051580
popa may have written it
Lol, yes, we in the CR are all kind of skeptical about anything on Wikipedia.
Another very important factor here is that the grand jury saw the video with the officer’s explanation of what he was thinking as everything was occurring.
Yes, Sam and ubiquitin, I saw the video. It is far from conclusive to me.
Is that a chokehold or a headlock? The officer let go almost immediately after Garner first said “I can’t breathe”, and he kept on saying “I can’t breathe”. The coroner’s report said there was no throat damage. There was compression of the chest, but I, as a layman, don’t see lethal force to the chest. If his health issues were a contributing factor, was the officer supposed to think he might be killing him? If not (and it’s not at all apparent that he’s trying to kill him), is he legally responsible? I assume the grand jury had more of this information than you or I do.
Was the grand jury correct or incorrect? I’m not sure either way, but neither can I understand how any of you are sure.December 30, 2014 10:06 pm at 10:06 pm #1051581
It’s possible that the officers that were leaning on his back (thereby compressing his chest) were more responsible for his death. No grand jury was asked that question. Only the officer that did the “chokehold” was brought before a grand jury.December 31, 2014 1:40 am at 1:40 am #1051582
Sam2 -“Health: You’re being ridiculous here. He does not have the Din of a Treifa unless he had a Psak Din L’misa.”
He does; even though there is no Psak. The US doesn’t keep the 7 Mitzvahs B’nai Noach so it doesn’t mean he goes scot free.
“Frankly, you’re sounding like you’ll disagree with anything just because a liberal says it. If a liberal says the sky is blue that doesn’t make it green. Just because you disagree with someone usually doesn’t make them always wrong. (And no one in this thread is claiming racism, just a case of police violence.)”
There is no cop brutality & the Jury said so! Laws aren’t based on the PC of the generation, but on morals, basically.December 31, 2014 2:58 am at 2:58 am #1051583
Great point, Gamanit.
Also, when I posted, I hadn’t seen your post from page 1. Apparently, you and I saw a different video than Sam and ubiquitin saw. In the one we saw, he was resisting arrest, and the “chokehold” doesn’t really seem to be a cause of death, or even an attempt to harm him, just a maneuver to get him on the ground.December 31, 2014 6:36 am at 6:36 am #1051584
Health: Wrong. If you want someone to have a Din Treifa, there needs to be a P’sak Din L’misa. Would you call every Ba’al T’shuvah a Treifa? Heck, you just made the whole world Treifos, now it should be Muttar (Al Pi the Minchas Chinuch) to kill anyone to save your own life. Yasher Koach! You removed Mai Chazis.
DY: The goal might have been to get him on the ground. The outcome was that he was killed.December 31, 2014 12:12 pm at 12:12 pm #1051585
Health You have still not answered here is my question again:
“”If it tuns out that Officers Ramos and Liu have ever stolen anything in their lives (even a shava perutah or less), ever been mevarech Hashem, gilui Arayos etc, then it is “very good” that they got shot!?”
(this is what you replied: “What religion are you? Why do libs always have to make the good people (cops) bad & the bad people good?” I dont see an answer there, As to your question I am definitely not an adherent of healthism)
DY, I never said they attemped to harm him, and of course he was resisting arrest.
That isnt exactly how grand juries work they can indict any one they want. For them to watch that video and say nobody did naything worthy of goinfg to trial is upseting o me and worthy of protest. This point has gotten lost over the course of this conversation. I’m not sure that the officers should be found guilty, all I’m saying is there should at least be a trial. For a grand jury to watch the video I saw and conclude nothing wrong took place is very disconcerting and worthy of protest. That is all I am saying. (If you read through the entire looooong conversation this is clear, it may not be apparent from one specific comment). To this end Nequetim agrees, protest is acceptable, he also agrees he police were (partly) “culpable” in the death and used “excessive force” our argument now is if the grand jury should automatically be accepted or not.
So really even if THOSE officers were justly not charged, it doesnt really change the overall situation, in whihc an injustice took place and nobody is being called to answer for it
I love wikipedia, but if you read something that sounds strange check the source. If you look at the source where the heart attack is referenced, it is not thereDecember 31, 2014 1:05 pm at 1:05 pm #1051586
He was resisting arrest, for which force is necessary, and there wasn’t especially brutal force in that context (although honestly, as someone who doesn’t often watch violent scenes, the whole thing was disturbing to me). So I don’t see any imperative to indict.
Politically, these things usually get classified as a ham sandwich, but legally, I don’t know enough to think there was any kind of mistake. I don’t think you do either, unless maybe you’re a criminal lawyer (is that redundant?) and not telling us.December 31, 2014 3:01 pm at 3:01 pm #1051587
Source is there. Source #60, the original report of the story.December 31, 2014 9:03 pm at 9:03 pm #1051588
thanks i read that story but somehow skipped that line.December 31, 2014 9:08 pm at 9:08 pm #1051589
Sam2 -” Health: Wrong. If you want someone to have a Din Treifa, there needs to be a P’sak Din L’misa. Would you call every Ba’al T’shuvah a Treifa? Heck, you just made the whole world Treifos, now it should be Muttar (Al Pi the Minchas Chinuch) to kill anyone to save your own life. Yasher Koach! You removed Mai Chazis”
Look, I don’t understand your post, but I’ll try to explain mine. The reason we don’t enforce the 7 Mitzvahs is because we would be prosecuted. Here the cop legally was able to act to do the Rozon of Hashem! I don’t understand why you & liberals have a problem with this.December 31, 2014 10:07 pm at 10:07 pm #1051590
ubiquitin -“Health You have still not answered here is my question again:
“”If it tuns out that Officers Ramos and Liu have ever stolen anything in their lives (even a shava perutah or less), ever been mevarech Hashem, gilui Arayos etc, then it is “very good” that they got shot!?””
I’ll answer your question, even though it’s irrelevant! Yes, if they were Oiver the 7 Mitzvahs of B’nai Noach. I’ll repeat what I said before, “Why do libs always have to make the good people (cops) bad & the bad people good?”
Now I want to ask you a question – Did you agree with Sharpton when he said “Kill the Jews”?
The mob then did kill S/O! If not, what’s the difference between mobs?December 31, 2014 10:14 pm at 10:14 pm #1051591
It’s not the cop’s job to kill evil people. Even a person who is pure evil should be brought to trial, not killed by police.December 31, 2014 10:45 pm at 10:45 pm #1051592
Ok So when you can say “very good” when cops get killed, well you are right we dont belong to the same religion. Nobody I know from Open orthodoxy coming full circle to neturei karta agrees with you.
does healthism (or does your religion have a more creative name?) have many adherents? I would imagine the life expectancy in your religion isnt very high
As to your question:”Did you agree with Sharpton when he said “Kill the Jews”?”
Obviously not (did he actually say that? I have never heard that claim before, but no matter I’m not sure I agree with al sharpton ever, he is an evil person, though not as evil as people who call the murder of any inocen person let alone police officers “very good”)
“The mob then did kill S/O! If not, what’s the difference between mobs?”
I’m sorry I dont follow. which mob? in 91? Do you mean Charles Price? He was jailed for incitement.
Are you talking about something else?January 1, 2015 12:43 am at 12:43 am #1051593
RebYidd23 -“It’s not the cop’s job to kill evil people. Even a person who is pure evil should be brought to trial, not killed by police.”
You’re right! It’s the job of the government, but it’s great when the government doesn’t do it’s job, s/o else fills in for them.
“Even a person who is pure evil should be brought to trial, not killed by police.”
So No cops should carry guns! This way they wouldn’t be able to shoot perps. Only perps are allowed to carry.January 1, 2015 1:07 am at 1:07 am #1051594
ubiquitin -“Ok So when you can say “very good” when cops get killed, well you are right we dont belong to the same religion.”
You’re right, we don’t! You lie, just to make a point. I never said or claimed that. I wrote anybody who doesn’t keep the 7 Mitzvahs of B’nai Noach deserves death! I’m sorry that you have a problem with the Torah.January 1, 2015 1:11 am at 1:11 am #1051595
Um Health You did, “I’ll answer your question, even though it’s irrelevant! Yes, if they were Oiver the 7 Mitzvahs of B’nai Noach.”
(thanks for answering btw, though I dont get the good cops bad thing not all your comments make much sense (see also the Al Sharpton thing) is thta part of your religion too?)
Now who is lying. Granted they may not have ben oiver as much as garner but According to a highschool classmate of Officer Ramos’s Detective Ramos once took his tuna fish sandwich. according to your “logic” and your evil religion healthism, it is now “very good” that he was murdered.January 1, 2015 1:20 am at 1:20 am #1051596
Self defense is different.
And I find it disturbing that you think it’s okay for anyone to kill evil people.
By the way, to what religion do you belong?January 1, 2015 1:35 am at 1:35 am #1051597
Health: You’re wrong. Being Over on the 7 Mitzvos is not a blanket death sentence. It’s a Chiyuv on Beis Din (like any Misas Beis Din) to mete out. It’s not a free-for-all for anyone to kill someone who was Over. We don’t do it because if we did it would be Retzicha Al Pi Halacha, not because American law won’t let us. Misas Beis Din have to be done by Beis Din, not Stam vigilantes.
- The topic ‘No police protection for a week’ is closed to new replies.