11 Facts About the Eric Garner Case the Media Won't Tell You

[jc456]

Do you administer it to a breathing person?

Depends.
If the victim has a pulse but is not breathing properly you should perform rescue breathing without any chest compressions. Did you notice NYPD perform any rescue breathing attempts?

nope, do you know they needed to then?

 

[jc456]

first off, get the facts. Second read them. Third understand what CPR is.

What facts do you know about this case I don't?

I guess most of them!

 

[jc456]

And, in fifty years, what has the left helped with that has made it better?

"President Lyndon Johnson signs the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law, abolishing racial segregation in the United States."
July 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So again, for the stupid on here, what has changed since this? Are there not still inner city violence as there has always been. Is crime down? Are there still unnecessary deaths? And yet you all come on here and scream bloody BS about two criminals. doesn't matter their color, two criminals who died because they didn't follow the authority of the cops. I don't know, but to stay alive, I see one direction to take. AGain, the stupid on here is overwhelming.

Are you kidding me? He was just standing there. You conservatives talk about the government taking away your guns and that if they were to come (which they won't) you will not submit to them and you will fight them.

However, when it comes to a black person, they must submit to authority for whatever bullshit reason they come up with and they should just take it and if they die by the hands of a police officer using an illegal procedure, that's okay because they deserved it.

Don't you see the hypocrisy? You won't take any bullshit from the government for whatever made up reason you come up with to justify you feeling "oppressed" but when it comes to actual oppression and injustice by government agents, you don't give a shit because it's not you who gets that kind of treatment, it's African-Americans. As long as it's them and not "your team", you don't care how the government oppresses them.

Yes and Nope!!!

Yes they should follow the authority. It is what it is.

No, I don't see the hypocrisy, your statement made no sense.

What I saw, and all I have, I saw that many police went to take care of a disturbance reported to them by a store owner. Directions were given to Mr. Garner and on tape he flat out refused to abide by those directions. So to you, what was the other alternative the cops had? Been asking it, but haven't seen a reply yet.

 

[jc456]

You seem to be assuming that all the people involved were conspiring to cover things up and protect a cop. They knew riots would ensue if the cop wasn't charged, but I am glad they followed procedure and didn't push this forward despite a lack of evidence.

If the video of Eric Garner's homicide isn't enough evidence for an indictment, what is? Such an indictment wouldn't presuppose a guilty verdict after the case went to trial, but it would allow defense and prosecution to present all evidence in a public courtroom.

but the GJ didn't think so. Time to move on! Again, get the facts to the issue.

 

[Clementine]

You seem to be assuming that all the people involved were conspiring to cover things up and protect a cop. They knew riots would ensue if the cop wasn't charged, but I am glad they followed procedure and didn't push this forward despite a lack of evidence.

If the video of Eric Garner's homicide isn't enough evidence for an indictment, what is? Such an indictment wouldn't presuppose a guilty verdict after the case went to trial, but it would allow defense and prosecution to present all evidence in a public courtroom.

For the sake of argument, if the actions of police were intentionally meant to harm or kill Garner, which is what needed to be proven, just who should have been charged? The cop was acting under direction from his superior, who was present. Should both be convicted if it was intentional? Why does no one mention the black cop in charge of the scene? This fact keeps getting ignored. Can you address that or not?

Given his health, stress would play a huge role and being restrained no doubt causes a lot of stress. The narrative is that the cop literally strangled the man to death, but facts don't back it up. A person can die simply from asthma and a bad heart and becoming seriously agitated can be the final straw. The GJ had to look at evidence to determine whether it was intentional or whether the officers on scene had reason to believe that Garner was in mortal danger. Why does this confuse so many? Asking for murder charges when no murder was committed is just wrong.

Most people complain when restrained. Police often hear that they can't breathe when being held or that the cuffs are cutting off their circulation. Rarely is that the case, but people don't take well to being restrained against their will. If they didn't fight, it would go much differently. I would guess that the goal of many suspects is to talk police into letting up in hopes of finding a chance to run. If a person can talk, they can breathe. It's that simple. Why should police have believed him and why didn't he calm down? Simply telling them he was having an asthma attack would have alerted them to his medical problem, but that wasn't done. In the same way he yelled at them, he could have stopped struggling and told them to get his inhaler or take him to a hospital. It really can't be any clearer. It sucks what happened. I don't think sending that many cops to a guy selling cigarettes is warranted when there are violent crimes being committed in the city, but cops are under orders.

There is no evidence that the cops intended to harm, and certainly not to kill, Garner. That was the issue before the GJ. There could be a valid complaint against unnecessary force. Bottom line is that when you don't cooperate with police, they will use whatever force is needed to take you into custody. Using more force than needed should result in consequences for police, but in this case they were talking murder, which just didn't happen.

 

[georgephillip]

nope, do you know they needed to then?

Apparently.
The patient died.

 

[georgephillip]

but the GJ didn't think so. Time to move on! Again, get the facts to the issue.

What facts, Letitia?
"What happened inside the Eric Garner grand jury proceedings may still become public knowledge.

The office of Public Advocate Letitia James will try to convince a Staten Island judge next Friday to release all testimony and evidence heard by the secret panel that declined to indict the NYPD officer who put the 43-year-old Garner in a chokehold before he died in July.

“The interest of the public and the perception of fairness make transparency vital, and I hope that these actions will result in accessibility of these court documents and proceedings,' James said in a statement Friday.

"Lawyers from her office made the highly unusual application earlier this week."

Eric Garner grand jury evidence could still be released - NY Daily News

 

[georgephillip]

or the sake of argument, if the actions of police were intentionally meant to harm or kill Garner, which is what needed to be proven, just who should have been charged

I'm not sure it's necessary to prove the police had deliberate intentions of harming Garner. The GJ could have indicted on several different charges. If the technique used to subdue Garner was in fact banned, then all the officers present share blame for his death, or so I've heard.

 

[RKMBrown]

You seem to be assuming that all the people involved were conspiring to cover things up and protect a cop. They knew riots would ensue if the cop wasn't charged, but I am glad they followed procedure and didn't push this forward despite a lack of evidence.

If the video of Eric Garner's homicide isn't enough evidence for an indictment, what is? Such an indictment wouldn't presuppose a guilty verdict after the case went to trial, but it would allow defense and prosecution to present all evidence in a public courtroom.

For the sake of argument, if the actions of police were intentionally meant to harm or kill Garner, which is what needed to be proven, just who should have been charged? The cop was acting under direction from his superior, who was present. Should both be convicted if it was intentional? Why does no one mention the black cop in charge of the scene? This fact keeps getting ignored. Can you address that or not?

Given his health, stress would play a huge role and being restrained no doubt causes a lot of stress. The narrative is that the cop literally strangled the man to death, but facts don't back it up. A person can die simply from asthma and a bad heart and becoming seriously agitated can be the final straw. The GJ had to look at evidence to determine whether it was intentional or whether the officers on scene had reason to believe that Garner was in mortal danger. Why does this confuse so many? Asking for murder charges when no murder was committed is just wrong.

Most people complain when restrained. Police often hear that they can't breathe when being held or that the cuffs are cutting off their circulation. Rarely is that the case, but people don't take well to being restrained against their will. If they didn't fight, it would go much differently. I would guess that the goal of many suspects is to talk police into letting up in hopes of finding a chance to run. If a person can talk, they can breathe. It's that simple. Why should police have believed him and why didn't he calm down? Simply telling them he was having an asthma attack would have alerted them to his medical problem, but that wasn't done. In the same way he yelled at them, he could have stopped struggling and told them to get his inhaler or take him to a hospital. It really can't be any clearer. It sucks what happened. I don't think sending that many cops to a guy selling cigarettes is warranted when there are violent crimes being committed in the city, but cops are under orders.

There is no evidence that the cops intended to harm, and certainly not to kill, Garner. That was the issue before the GJ. There could be a valid complaint against unnecessary force. Bottom line is that when you don't cooperate with police, they will use whatever force is needed to take you into custody. Using more force than needed should result in consequences for police, but in this case they were talking murder, which just didn't happen.

Translation: They picked a crime they knew they would not result in indictment, so that they could find the cops innocent. IOW the fix was in from the start.

 

[jc456]

but the GJ didn't think so. Time to move on! Again, get the facts to the issue.

What facts, Letitia?
"What happened inside the Eric Garner grand jury proceedings may still become public knowledge.

The office of Public Advocate Letitia James will try to convince a Staten Island judge next Friday to release all testimony and evidence heard by the secret panel that declined to indict the NYPD officer who put the 43-year-old Garner in a chokehold before he died in July.

“The interest of the public and the perception of fairness make transparency vital, and I hope that these actions will result in accessibility of these court documents and proceedings,' James said in a statement Friday.

"Lawyers from her office made the highly unusual application earlier this week."

Eric Garner grand jury evidence could still be released - NY Daily News

So you have no facts yet? ah, and yet you know what happened. Nice! I think you need a new crystal ball.

 

[jc456]

nope, do you know they needed to then?

Apparently.
The patient died.

yep later when he wasn't in front of the police. Unless you are saying the EMT's lied! Again, no facts yet presented, so not sure how you get there. Again, a new crystal ball might be in your future.

 

[georgephillip]

Translation: They picked a crime they knew they would not result in indictment, so that they could find the cops innocent. IOW the fix was in from the start

And since the local DA decided which evidence to present to the GJ, the prosecution was essentially serving as defense counsel for the cops involved. IMHO, this will never change as long as local DAs have responsibility for prosecuting the police they depend on to further their careers.

 

[georgephillip]

So you have no facts yet? ah, and yet you know what happened. Nice! I think you need a new crystal ball.

I don't know enough facts to form an educated opinion yet which is why I support full public disclosure of all testimony and evidence heard by the GJ.

 

[georgephillip]

yep later when he wasn't in front of the police.

What do you imagine that proves? Had they shot Garner multiple times after he was handcuffed, and Garner died on the way to the hospital, would that absolve the shooters?

 

[Cecilie1200]

So you have no facts yet? ah, and yet you know what happened. Nice! I think you need a new crystal ball.

I don't know enough facts to form an educated opinion yet which is why I support full public disclosure of all testimony and evidence heard by the GJ.

Because it's so necessary for you to have an opinion?

 

[georgephillip]

Because it's so necessary for you to have an opinion?

More or less.

Since opinions supported by facts become arguments and even though people often draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts, opinions are necessary for those interested in acquiring knowledge.

Opinion - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[jc456]

yep later when he wasn't in front of the police.

What do you imagine that proves? Had they shot Garner multiple times after he was handcuffed, and Garner died on the way to the hospital, would that absolve the shooters?

sure it is exactly the same thing. That wasn't your argument. You stated he died in front of the police and EMT and that isn't the case with the evidence that is out at this time. so apples and oranges bub!!!!

 

[georgephillip]

You stated he died in front of the police and EMT

No, I didn't.

 

[jc456]

You stated he died in front of the police and EMT

No, I didn't.

post #462

 

[georgephillip]

Depends.
If the victim has a pulse but is not breathing properly you should perform rescue breathing without any chest compressions. Did you notice NYPD perform any rescue breathing attempts?

^Post #462
Where do I claim Garner died in front of the NYPD?