independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > NYPD Judge Recommends Firing Officer Over Eric Garner's Chokehold Death
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 2 of 6 <123456>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #30 posted 08/19/19 12:05pm

2elijah

avatar

UPDATE:

It’s about time:



clapping clapping

NYPD Fires Daniel Pantaleo, Who Used Banned Chokehold On Eric Garner Before His Death

August 19, 20191:07 PM ET

BOBBY ALLYN


Bebeto Matthews/AP
Updated at 2:35 p.m. ET

“New York City Police Commissioner James O'Neill announced Monday that the police department is terminating the officer involved in the fatal 2014 altercation with Eric Garner, ending a five-year battle over the officer's status.

Officer Daniel Pantaleo used a chokehold on Garner, which is banned by the city's police department, O'Neill said.

The decision backs the recommendation of an NYPD administrative judge earlier this month that Pantaleo should be fired for his role in Garner's death.


NYPD Judge Recommends That The Officer Involved In Eric Garner's Death Be Fired
Garner's dying words, "I can't breathe," were recorded on bystander cellphone video and became a watershed moment in the Black Lives Matter movement.

"Every time I watch that video, I say to myself, 'Mr. Garner, don't do it, comply.' 'Mr. Pantaleo, don't do it,' " O'Neill said on Monday. "There are no victors here."

Garner, 43, was confronted on July 17, 2014, by police officers who suspected he was selling loose cigarettes on a Staten Island sidewalk. Video footage shows Garner, who was black, waving his hands in the air in protest as Pantaleo, who is white, and his partner approached. Pantaleo applied the chokehold, and Garner later died.”
[Edited 8/19/19 12:10pm]
Always smile in the face of adversity. smile
#NOFEAR
BIDEN/HARRIS 11/3/20
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #31 posted 08/19/19 12:05pm

2elijah

avatar


[Edited 8/19/19 12:06pm]
Always smile in the face of adversity. smile
#NOFEAR
BIDEN/HARRIS 11/3/20
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #32 posted 08/19/19 1:05pm

ThatWhiteDude

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

2elijah said:

It was an illegal choke hold. He kept telling them he couldn’t breathe but the cop wouldn’t let go. So he had no regard for Garner’s life. That chokehold contributed to his death. The entire way they took him down, was unnecessary force. [Edited 8/2/19 13:09pm]

it was not illegal... thoes that say it was...what was the term? are "Partisan liars..."


if you can talk... you are breathing...


but I agree the act was excessive and not necessary... (they knew him and they did not really NEED to arrest him right there and then just to enforce the far left tax.

Just because you can talk doesn't mean you can breath properly. Here's a link that explains a lot more: https://skeptics.stackexc...an-breathe

That chokehold was illegal and it's right that he got fired but honestly, it should've happened sooner. He got away with it for 5 years.

[Edited 8/19/19 13:07pm]

"Like books and BLACK LIVES, Albums still MATTER."

Poppys, Shanon319, Number23, Kares. #lifttheban
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #33 posted 08/19/19 3:01pm

poppys

Thank goodness he got fired. Still can't wrap my head around a cop killing a man using a banned chokehold for selling loosies. disbelief

"if you can't clap on the one, then don't clap at all"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #34 posted 08/19/19 4:18pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

Seems like the right call... As I've said from day one it is up to the department. (and No it was not an ILLEGAL hold) but it was deemed to be a banned hold or otherwise reckless and endangering.

I stand with Ben and the Moderators!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #35 posted 08/19/19 4:28pm

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

It was an illegal hold. Glad he was fired.

VOTE VOTE VOTE....EARLY
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #36 posted 08/19/19 4:37pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

DiminutiveRocker said:

It was an illegal hold. Glad he was fired.

no it was not... look I think he deserved to be fired. but it was not an illegal hold... what LAW did it break? at the time chokehold were not illegal in New York. PERIOD.

I stand with Ben and the Moderators!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #37 posted 08/19/19 4:46pm

poppys


Chokeholds were banned by the New York City Police Department in 1993.

"if you can't clap on the one, then don't clap at all"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #38 posted 08/19/19 4:50pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

poppys said:


Chokeholds were banned by the New York City Police Department in 1993.

yeah I know...

I stand with Ben and the Moderators!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #39 posted 08/19/19 4:51pm

IanRG

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Seems like the right call... As I've said from day one it is up to the department. (and No it was not an ILLEGAL hold) but it was deemed to be a banned hold or otherwise reckless and endangering.

.

Reckless Endangerment in the Second Degree – NY PL 120.20

.

Simply put, if one engages in conduct that is reckless and that conduct creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury, then one can be guilty of Reckless Endangerment in the Second Degree.

It is critical to note that the statute requires not only a “substantial risk,” but that the injury that may occur be “serious physical injury.” A black eye, split lip or similar injury is not enough to meet the requirements and elements of Reckless Endangerment. The New York Penal Law defines “serious physical injury” as the type of injury that “creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes death or serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ. In addition to the level of injury as addressed above, the potential serious physical injury must be both foreseeable and the defendant’s conduct must actually create a risk of that injury.

.

If it is reckless endangement to use that banned hold as you accept, then it is an illegal hold by NY law because it is recklessly endangering the person.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #40 posted 08/19/19 5:03pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

IanRG said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Seems like the right call... As I've said from day one it is up to the department. (and No it was not an ILLEGAL hold) but it was deemed to be a banned hold or otherwise reckless and endangering.

.

Reckless Endangerment in the Second Degree – NY PL 120.20

.

Simply put, if one engages in conduct that is reckless and that conduct creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury, then one can be guilty of Reckless Endangerment in the Second Degree.

It is critical to note that the statute requires not only a “substantial risk,” but that the injury that may occur be “serious physical injury.” A black eye, split lip or similar injury is not enough to meet the requirements and elements of Reckless Endangerment. The New York Penal Law defines “serious physical injury” as the type of injury that “creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes death or serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ. In addition to the level of injury as addressed above, the potential serious physical injury must be both foreseeable and the defendant’s conduct must actually create a risk of that injury.

.

If it is reckless endangement to use that banned hold as you accept, then it is an illegal hold by NY law because it is recklessly endangering the person.

that application of that hold in that situation may have been reckless endangerment--the state and federal prosecutors did not seem to think it was--but the hold itself is not (or was not at that time) illegal. Nice try! Very nice... Really impressive... even if I already said that it may have been.

I stand with Ben and the Moderators!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #41 posted 08/19/19 5:16pm

poppys

cborgman already posted all of this in reply #26. Nothing's changed. Pure d repetitive trolling and disrespect towards a murdered man. troll

"if you can't clap on the one, then don't clap at all"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #42 posted 08/19/19 5:39pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

poppys said:

cborgman already posted all of this in reply #26. Nothing's changed. Pure d repetitive trolling and disrespect towards a murdered man. troll

the first part of his post said what I have been saying since this happened... but then goes off in a totally speculative rant... but he agrees and supports me when I said the hold was not at the time illegal. But mostly said what I have been saying. so how is him saying it wise and what I am saying is trolling and disrespectful?

I stand with Ben and the Moderators!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #43 posted 08/19/19 6:10pm

IanRG

poppys said:

cborgman already posted all of this in reply #26. Nothing's changed. Pure d repetitive trolling and disrespect towards a murdered man. troll

.

Just another far-right believer playing semantics to protect violence (so long it is violence against people they are opposed to).

[Edited 8/19/19 18:11pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #44 posted 08/19/19 6:15pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

IanRG said:

poppys said:

cborgman already posted all of this in reply #26. Nothing's changed. Pure d repetitive trolling and disrespect towards a murdered man. troll

.

Just another far-right believer playing semantics to protect violence (so long it is violence against people they are opposed to).

[Edited 8/19/19 18:11pm]

except i never used it to protect him. I said he was wrong from the start. (as I did with zimmerman and the cop that killed mike brown. I do mention issues any precaution or plaintiff would have to deal with but that is not done as a defence)

was cborgman protecting the cop when he said some of the same things that I said?

I stand with Ben and the Moderators!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #45 posted 08/19/19 8:10pm

cborgman

avatar

My post subtly points out youre trolling with word games in a very dumb way.

And that youre comments about chokeholds reveal you dont seem to know even basic level stuff about chokeholds and are arguing nonsense about not being able to say anything while in one.

Combine the trolling about legality with denying he was even in a chokehold, and thats why your posts play like a defense, despite soft utterances about it shouldnt have happened.

Especially with the memory of you having said in the past in a different thread that the democrats and their taxes on cigs are partially to blame, it really starts to seem like you are desperate to exonerate a killer.




.
[Edited 8/19/19 20:22pm]
Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. - Lord Acton
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #46 posted 08/20/19 4:14am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

cborgman said:

My post subtly points out youre trolling with word games in a very dumb way. And that youre comments about chokeholds reveal you dont seem to know even basic level stuff about chokeholds and are arguing nonsense about not being able to say anything while in one. Combine the trolling about legality with denying he was even in a chokehold, and thats why your posts play like a defense, despite soft utterances about it shouldnt have happened. Especially with the memory of you having said in the past in a different thread that the democrats and their taxes on cigs are partially to blame, it really starts to seem like you are desperate to exonerate a killer. . [Edited 8/19/19 20:22pm]

Except my only point was that a choke-hold was illegal and I only said that after people falsely asserted that it was. And you and another suggested that using one was a crime under a more general law. But no... again how it was used in this case maybe but not the hold itself. But that is a legal fallacy.

Did I say at any time it was my opinion that it was NOT a choke-hold? I know I did suggest it may have been a headlock or some other hold.

The reason I do this is not to defend but to bring out issues any prosecutor would have to address. Same reason why I have mentioned his health issues that absolutely contributed to this. I also mentioned his statements that he was going to resist arrest and that he did in-fact resist arrest. Again his actions contributed to the over all situation. Also a factor was his history of violations of the law.

I have always said it was an offence... there is nothing soft about that. I am not sure why because I do not freak out and get all emotional means I am in anyway okay.

Yes the root cause of this was the far left wing liberal policy and this is not the first or last time a liberal law lead to a death.

but you and others have your agenda and can not have facts get in the way of agendas. (in this case I agree with the outcome)

I stand with Ben and the Moderators!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #47 posted 08/20/19 4:45am

2elijah

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:



DiminutiveRocker said:


It was an illegal hold. Glad he was fired.





no it was not... look I think he deserved to be fired. but it was not an illegal hold... what LAW did it break? at the time chokehold were not illegal in New York. PERIOD.


It wasn’t allowed. So technically it was illegal. If it wasn’t illegal they wouldn’t have banned it in 1993. Common sense. The murderer should have gotten fired long ago. No one should die because of accusations of having loose cigarettes, especially when his daughter said none was found on him.

Garner knew some of those cops, as his wife said they used to harass both of them on the street even when they were walking just to go shopping. The cop’s ego and abuse of authority got in the way of his making a professional decision.

They don’t even chokehold mass shooters who commit massacres like that.

I’m glad the racist bastard lost his job and pension. Let that be a lesson for bad cops who make it bad for the good ones.

He got away with it since Garner’s death, and it was only a matter of time before that cop got his karma. Too many bad cops/poorly trained/or racist cops, especially in NYC, for years have gotten away with murder. It’s about time that shit stops, and bad cops are held accountable.
[Edited 8/20/19 4:47am]
Always smile in the face of adversity. smile
#NOFEAR
BIDEN/HARRIS 11/3/20
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #48 posted 08/20/19 6:22am

Empress

cborgman said:

My post subtly points out youre trolling with word games in a very dumb way. And that youre comments about chokeholds reveal you dont seem to know even basic level stuff about chokeholds and are arguing nonsense about not being able to say anything while in one. Combine the trolling about legality with denying he was even in a chokehold, and thats why your posts play like a defense, despite soft utterances about it shouldnt have happened. Especially with the memory of you having said in the past in a different thread that the democrats and their taxes on cigs are partially to blame, it really starts to seem like you are desperate to exonerate a killer. . [Edited 8/19/19 20:22pm]

I love seeing your comments on this site. They are truthful and very insightful. As for the person you are referring to, this is his MO. He is always using "soft utterances". It gets very stale because most of us know what he really means.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #49 posted 08/20/19 9:43am

jjhunsecker

avatar

Empress said:

cborgman said:

My post subtly points out youre trolling with word games in a very dumb way. And that youre comments about chokeholds reveal you dont seem to know even basic level stuff about chokeholds and are arguing nonsense about not being able to say anything while in one. Combine the trolling about legality with denying he was even in a chokehold, and thats why your posts play like a defense, despite soft utterances about it shouldnt have happened. Especially with the memory of you having said in the past in a different thread that the democrats and their taxes on cigs are partially to blame, it really starts to seem like you are desperate to exonerate a killer. . [Edited 8/19/19 20:22pm]

I love seeing your comments on this site. They are truthful and very insightful. As for the person you are referring to, this is his MO. He is always using "soft utterances". It gets very stale because most of us know what he really means.

Exactly. We all know where he's coming from...

And Cborgman is always a welcome brath of fresh air and sanity

#SOCIETYDEFINESU
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #50 posted 08/20/19 9:45am

jjhunsecker

avatar

2elijah said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

no it was not... look I think he deserved to be fired. but it was not an illegal hold... what LAW did it break? at the time chokehold were not illegal in New York. PERIOD.

It wasn’t allowed. So technically it was illegal. If it wasn’t illegal they wouldn’t have banned it in 1993. Common sense. The murderer should have gotten fired long ago. No one should die because of accusations of having loose cigarettes, especially when his daughter said none was found on him. Garner knew some of those cops, as his wife said they used to harass both of them on the street even when they were walking just to go shopping. The cop’s ego and abuse of authority got in the way of his making a professional decision. They don’t even chokehold mass shooters who commit massacres like that. I’m glad the racist bastard lost his job and pension. Let that be a lesson for bad cops who make it bad for the good ones. He got away with it since Garner’s death, and it was only a matter of time before that cop got his karma. Too many bad cops/poorly trained/or racist cops, especially in NYC, for years have gotten away with murder. It’s about time that shit stops, and bad cops are held accountable. [Edited 8/20/19 4:47am]

Firing him was the least they should have done. I guess we should be glad he got that, since cops in similar cases after killing civilians under dubious circumstances often get to keep their jobs and their pensions, or get hired by other police forces.

#SOCIETYDEFINESU
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #51 posted 08/20/19 1:43pm

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

jjhunsecker said:

Empress said:

I love seeing your comments on this site. They are truthful and very insightful. As for the person you are referring to, this is his MO. He is always using "soft utterances". It gets very stale because most of us know what he really means.

Exactly. We all know where he's coming from...

And Cborgman is always a welcome brath of fresh air and sanity

And he has been dealing with he who shall not be named for years now - and quite effectively. I heart Cborgman




Back to Garner and Pantaleo's firing. He killed a man and then was on paid leave during the investigation. It was determined he used brute force he has no place on any police force, IMO

[Edited 8/20/19 13:49pm]

VOTE VOTE VOTE....EARLY
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #52 posted 08/20/19 1:56pm

IanRG

OnlyNDaUsa said:

cborgman said:

My post subtly points out youre trolling with word games in a very dumb way. And that youre comments about chokeholds reveal you dont seem to know even basic level stuff about chokeholds and are arguing nonsense about not being able to say anything while in one. Combine the trolling about legality with denying he was even in a chokehold, and thats why your posts play like a defense, despite soft utterances about it shouldnt have happened. Especially with the memory of you having said in the past in a different thread that the democrats and their taxes on cigs are partially to blame, it really starts to seem like you are desperate to exonerate a killer. . [Edited 8/19/19 20:22pm]

Except my only point was that a choke-hold was illegal and I only said that after people falsely asserted that it was. And you and another suggested that using one was a crime under a more general law. But no... again how it was used in this case maybe but not the hold itself. But that is a legal fallacy.

Did I say at any time it was my opinion that it was NOT a choke-hold? I know I did suggest it may have been a headlock or some other hold.

The reason I do this is not to defend but to bring out issues any prosecutor would have to address. Same reason why I have mentioned his health issues that absolutely contributed to this. I also mentioned his statements that he was going to resist arrest and that he did in-fact resist arrest. Again his actions contributed to the over all situation. Also a factor was his history of violations of the law.

I have always said it was an offence... there is nothing soft about that. I am not sure why because I do not freak out and get all emotional means I am in anyway okay.

Yes the root cause of this was the far left wing liberal policy and this is not the first or last time a liberal law lead to a death.

but you and others have your agenda and can not have facts get in the way of agendas. (in this case I agree with the outcome)

.

This is why you always fail in any legal based argument.

.

In Australia this is what we call a bush lawyer argument. Every law must be applied in the rules and laws of interpretation. This means that to the extent that the chokehold breaks the laws against reckless endangerment, the chokehold is illegal. All you are obsessing about is whether the hold is specifically illegal.

.

Legally it makes not difference, the choke hold by the holder was illegal. Law is about its applications to each circumstance.

.

Logically, it makes no sense - there are many acts that can be done in dangerous and illegal ways and safe legal ways. This is why there is principal based laws, not just prescriptive laws. Otherwise you will get into arguments like: No, I did not use that banned hold because I did this similar but different one that still killed him.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #53 posted 08/20/19 3:27pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

IanRG said:

.

This is why you always fail in any legal based argument.

.

In Australia this is what we call a bush lawyer argument. Every law must be applied in the rules and laws of interpretation. This means that to the extent that the chokehold breaks the laws against reckless endangerment, the chokehold is illegal. All you are obsessing about is whether the hold is specifically illegal.

.

Legally it makes not difference, the choke hold by the holder was illegal. Law is about its applications to each circumstance.

.

Logically, it makes no sense - there are many acts that can be done in dangerous and illegal ways and safe legal ways. This is why there is principal based laws, not just prescriptive laws. Otherwise you will get into arguments like: No, I did not use that banned hold because I did this similar but different one that still killed him.

except he was not charged with a crime! and I am not saying what he did was legal I am just correcting the lie that the choke-hold was illegal and even cborgman agees with me on this... and for him to agree with me ought to mean something.

you are correct! Sex is not illegal but if you force it then it is a crime... same thing the choke-hold was at the time legal... and to that there is no argument. Period.

I stand with Ben and the Moderators!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #54 posted 08/20/19 5:55pm

cborgman

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:



cborgman said:


My post subtly points out youre trolling with word games in a very dumb way. And that youre comments about chokeholds reveal you dont seem to know even basic level stuff about chokeholds and are arguing nonsense about not being able to say anything while in one. Combine the trolling about legality with denying he was even in a chokehold, and thats why your posts play like a defense, despite soft utterances about it shouldnt have happened. Especially with the memory of you having said in the past in a different thread that the democrats and their taxes on cigs are partially to blame, it really starts to seem like you are desperate to exonerate a killer. . [Edited 8/19/19 20:22pm]



Except my only point was that a choke-hold was illegal and I only said that after people falsely asserted that it was. And you and another suggested that using one was a crime under a more general law. But no... again how it was used in this case maybe but not the hold itself. But that is a legal fallacy.

Did I say at any time it was my opinion that it was NOT a choke-hold? I know I did suggest it may have been a headlock or some other hold.

The reason I do this is not to defend but to bring out issues any prosecutor would have to address. Same reason why I have mentioned his health issues that absolutely contributed to this. I also mentioned his statements that he was going to resist arrest and that he did in-fact resist arrest. Again his actions contributed to the over all situation. Also a factor was his history of violations of the law.


I have always said it was an offence... there is nothing soft about that. I am not sure why because I do not freak out and get all emotional means I am in anyway okay.


Yes the root cause of this was the far left wing liberal policy and this is not the first or last time a liberal law lead to a death.

but you and others have your agenda and can not have facts get in the way of agendas. (in this case I agree with the outcome)




Chokeholds are illegal under assault laws. Period. That’s the problem with your constant trolling that its not illegal. It very much is, just not under its own specific classification. That’s exactly why the NYPD banned use of them in 1993. It is not legal for citizens to use, and not an exception when police do it. It is illegal. You’re using the fact it isnt singled out as its own class of assault to say it’s either legal or gray area. Its isnt.

I’m not even going to waste the time to play your silly partisan game about taxes having caused this. That’s your ridiculous and extremely dumb agenda.

And its also what i and everyone else is pointing out. Yes, you admit the police officer was wrong, but then you say ridiculous shit like that chokeholds are not illegal, that there was no way he could have said i cant breathe if the chokehold was applied, that this was caused by taxes, and god only knows what other bullshit to make excuses.
Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. - Lord Acton
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #55 posted 08/20/19 6:01pm

cborgman

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:



IanRG said:






.


This is why you always fail in any legal based argument.


.


In Australia this is what we call a bush lawyer argument. Every law must be applied in the rules and laws of interpretation. This means that to the extent that the chokehold breaks the laws against reckless endangerment, the chokehold is illegal. All you are obsessing about is whether the hold is specifically illegal.


.


Legally it makes not difference, the choke hold by the holder was illegal. Law is about its applications to each circumstance.


.


Logically, it makes no sense - there are many acts that can be done in dangerous and illegal ways and safe legal ways. This is why there is principal based laws, not just prescriptive laws. Otherwise you will get into arguments like: No, I did not use that banned hold because I did this similar but different one that still killed him.




except he was not charged with a crime! and I am not saying what he did was legal I am just correcting the lie that the choke-hold was illegal and even cborgman agees with me on this... and for him to agree with me ought to mean something.

you are correct! Sex is not illegal but if you force it then it is a crime... same thing the choke-hold was at the time legal... and to that there is no argument. Period.




No, i do not agree with you. The chokehold is illegal under general assault laws.

I do agree with Ian that you are really bad at interpreting law. For instance saying Harry Reid should be charged with treason and executed for pointing out we lost the iraq war, or your calling throwing a milkshake at an elected figure felony assault, or when you said the Supreme Court would decide gay marriage based on gender discrimination, or any number of ridiculous statements you’ve made.

You fancy yourself as a Perry mason, but youre incredibly bad at understanding law. It is amusing to watch though
Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. - Lord Acton
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #56 posted 08/20/19 6:03pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

cborgman said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

except he was not charged with a crime! and I am not saying what he did was legal I am just correcting the lie that the choke-hold was illegal and even cborgman agees with me on this... and for him to agree with me ought to mean something.

you are correct! Sex is not illegal but if you force it then it is a crime... same thing the choke-hold was at the time legal... and to that there is no argument. Period.

No, i do not agree with you. The chokehold is illegal under general assault laws. I do agree with Ian that you are really bad at interpreting law. For instance saying Harry Reid should be charged with treason and executed for pointing out we lost the iraq war, or your calling throwing a milkshake at an elected figure felony assault, or when you said the Supreme Court would decide gay marriage based on gender discrimination, or any number of ridiculous statements you’ve made. You fancy yourself as a Perry mason, but youre incredibly bad at understanding law. It is amusing to watch though

but it isn't you said so yourself. are you lying or making this up or just parroting something you were told?

I stand with Ben and the Moderators!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #57 posted 08/20/19 6:04pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

cborgman said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Except my only point was that a choke-hold was illegal and I only said that after people falsely asserted that it was. And you and another suggested that using one was a crime under a more general law. But no... again how it was used in this case maybe but not the hold itself. But that is a legal fallacy.

Did I say at any time it was my opinion that it was NOT a choke-hold? I know I did suggest it may have been a headlock or some other hold.

The reason I do this is not to defend but to bring out issues any prosecutor would have to address. Same reason why I have mentioned his health issues that absolutely contributed to this. I also mentioned his statements that he was going to resist arrest and that he did in-fact resist arrest. Again his actions contributed to the over all situation. Also a factor was his history of violations of the law.

I have always said it was an offence... there is nothing soft about that. I am not sure why because I do not freak out and get all emotional means I am in anyway okay.

Yes the root cause of this was the far left wing liberal policy and this is not the first or last time a liberal law lead to a death.

but you and others have your agenda and can not have facts get in the way of agendas. (in this case I agree with the outcome)

Chokeholds are illegal under assault laws. Period. That’s the problem with your constant trolling that its not illegal. It very much is, just not under its own specific classification. That’s exactly why the NYPD banned use of them in 1993. It is not legal for citizens to use, and not an exception when police do it. It is illegal. You’re using the fact it isnt singled out as its own class of assault to say it’s either legal or gray area. Its isnt. I’m not even going to waste the time to play your silly partisan game about taxes having caused this. That’s your ridiculous and extremely dumb agenda. And its also what i and everyone else is pointing out. Yes, you admit the police officer was wrong, but then you say ridiculous shit like that chokeholds are not illegal, that there was no way he could have said i cant breathe if the chokehold was applied, that this was caused by taxes, and god only knows what other bullshit to make excuses.

nope... that is not how the law works... if it was illegal then when did other new your departments train its officers in its use?

[Edited 8/20/19 18:05pm]

I stand with Ben and the Moderators!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #58 posted 08/20/19 6:08pm

cborgman

avatar

cborgman said:

the NYPD banned the chokehold in 1993. While not necessarily illegal as its own classification, they are explicitly prohibited by NY police code, and would get anyone using one arrested under a broader applicable law, such as assault, likely level 2 under NY law

https://www.martinkanelaw...-new-york/


.
[Edited 8/2/19 23:43pm]

Reposting, as your memory or comprehension levels are low, only.
[Edited 8/20/19 18:08pm]
Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. - Lord Acton
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #59 posted 08/20/19 6:11pm

cborgman

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:



cborgman said:


OnlyNDaUsa said:




Except my only point was that a choke-hold was illegal and I only said that after people falsely asserted that it was. And you and another suggested that using one was a crime under a more general law. But no... again how it was used in this case maybe but not the hold itself. But that is a legal fallacy.

Did I say at any time it was my opinion that it was NOT a choke-hold? I know I did suggest it may have been a headlock or some other hold.

The reason I do this is not to defend but to bring out issues any prosecutor would have to address. Same reason why I have mentioned his health issues that absolutely contributed to this. I also mentioned his statements that he was going to resist arrest and that he did in-fact resist arrest. Again his actions contributed to the over all situation. Also a factor was his history of violations of the law.


I have always said it was an offence... there is nothing soft about that. I am not sure why because I do not freak out and get all emotional means I am in anyway okay.


Yes the root cause of this was the far left wing liberal policy and this is not the first or last time a liberal law lead to a death.

but you and others have your agenda and can not have facts get in the way of agendas. (in this case I agree with the outcome)



Chokeholds are illegal under assault laws. Period. That’s the problem with your constant trolling that its not illegal. It very much is, just not under its own specific classification. That’s exactly why the NYPD banned use of them in 1993. It is not legal for citizens to use, and not an exception when police do it. It is illegal. You’re using the fact it isnt singled out as its own class of assault to say it’s either legal or gray area. Its isnt. I’m not even going to waste the time to play your silly partisan game about taxes having caused this. That’s your ridiculous and extremely dumb agenda. And its also what i and everyone else is pointing out. Yes, you admit the police officer was wrong, but then you say ridiculous shit like that chokeholds are not illegal, that there was no way he could have said i cant breathe if the chokehold was applied, that this was caused by taxes, and god only knows what other bullshit to make excuses.



nope... that is not how the law works... if it was illegal then when did other new your departments train its officers in its use?

[Edited 8/20/19 18:05pm]



Which departments trained in its use and when?
Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. - Lord Acton
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 2 of 6 <123456>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > NYPD Judge Recommends Firing Officer Over Eric Garner's Chokehold Death