I can't breathe!...

[Hossfly]

Easy to say when its someone else. Entirely different thing when it is you, or a loved one, are gang tackled by a bunch of thugs with badges.

I wouldn't need to be gang tackled. That's the point. Cooperate and you won't get gang tackled.

Whether you "need to be" or not is not the discussion. Whether its right or not should be and when its one 400 pound dude and 5 cops he didnt "need to be" gang tackled either.

Well since its him and not you, I'm sure you feel differently

When a cop tells you to turn around and put your arms behind your back you are to obey. Then he will tell you that you're under arrest and read you your rights. What is the argument about these simple proceedings that all you and the other shit house lawyers don't understand?

I Dont believe the police did any of those things in this case, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Can you try to stay above the childish name-calling please?

Who knows what transpired before the camera started filming. The guy was on parole and is subject to search and questioning at all times. The childishness is not name calling but an apt description. Sorry 'bout that.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Unless you have a wallet

Officers in Bronx Fire 41 Shots And an Unarmed Man Is Killed - New York Times

An unarmed West African immigrant with no criminal record was killed early yesterday by four New York City police officers who fired 41 shots at him in the doorway of his Bronx apartment building, the police said.

It was unclear yesterday why the police officers had opened fire on the man at 12:44 A.M. in the vestibule of his building at 1157 Wheeler Avenue in the Soundview section. The man, Amadou Diallo, 22, who came to America more than two years ago from Guinea and worked as a street peddler in Manhattan, died at the scene, the police said.

That's a tragedy. Why is it only the ones where criminal behavior on the part of the deceased is at the root of the situation are made nationwide protests?

Oh are we going on the black guy scale of things?

When no criminal record means that he was a criminal? Where up is down?

No, that's not what I'm asking.

The link you posted seems the victim was not in the process of any sort of criminal behavior...at first glance. But the two making headlines now, were in fact engaging in criminal behavior at the time of the altercations

It's clear that the protests are geared more at defending criminal behavior and it's consequences then actual police over reach.

I cant with you...you're just being stupid and translating what people say into bullshit. No one ever defended any criminal behavior....of course all you have to do is throw out another "seems like" strawman to avoid talking about what people are really saying.

Maybe you can find the most ignorant person on youtube to back up your argument against all blacks in general....Thats another fav

No, you've become emotional and irrational on this subject. That's too bad.

Nice, keep making it up because reality is too tough to speak on. Instead you talk about fake defense of crimes and how people feel.

People are really saying the lives of those two crimes are representative of something larger. They are, that crime doesn't pay, but it's their way of like the cops need to back off.

"People are really saying"...seriously?

But if the protests were centered on actually innocent men (there are many) being targets and victims of the police misconduct it wouldn't be a phony race bait.

Guilt of innocence isnt the top...nevermind

1. Changing the subject: debater is losing so he tries to redirect the attention of the audience to another subject area where he thinks he can look better relative to the person he is debating, but admits to no change of subject and pretends to be refuting the original on-subject statement of his opponent
   

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Easy to say when its someone else. Entirely different thing when it is you, or a loved one, are gang tackled by a bunch of thugs with badges.

Don't break the law and your chances are slim to none that you will be gang tackled by a bunch of thugs with badges.

Slim, but not close enough to zero as it should be. He should have been verbally told of his arrest, and then talked into an arrest position. If he failed to follow those commands THEN the police should have gone active and forcefully arrested him.

Instead they just jumped him.

Did you watch the entire video ****-witt?
The answer would be no.
The cops repeatedly asked Garner to comply with their commands. And YES they were commands!
They were dealing with a career criminal with over 30 convictions. They knew he had a probation violation warrant out for his arrest. So did he.
The walrus was 400 ******* pounds, 6'4".

Are you intelligent enough to carry on a conversation without childish name-calling? If not, then go back to your corner.

I have seen the video on the news (CNN & fox), but never heard any commands, nor have I read about any in news reports.

Can any adult confirm there is video of the police giving him commands, which he ignored, BEFORE they grabbed him by hands and neck?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Easy to say when its someone else. Entirely different thing when it is you, or a loved one, are gang tackled by a bunch of thugs with badges.

Don't break the law and your chances are slim to none that you will be gang tackled by a bunch of thugs with badges.

Slim, but not close enough to zero as it should be. He should have been verbally told of his arrest, and then talked into an arrest position. If he failed to follow those commands THEN the police should have gone active and forcefully arrested him.

Instead they just jumped him.

Did you watch the entire video ****-witt?
The answer would be no.
The cops repeatedly asked Garner to comply with their commands. And YES they were commands!
They were dealing with a career criminal with over 30 convictions. They knew he had a probation violation warrant out for his arrest. So did he.
The walrus was 400 ******* pounds, 6'4".

I love excuses...there simply is no end to how many you can make

 

[R.D.]

That's a tragedy. Why is it only the ones where criminal behavior on the part of the deceased is at the root of the situation are made nationwide protests?

Oh are we going on the black guy scale of things?

When no criminal record means that he was a criminal? Where up is down?

No, that's not what I'm asking.

The link you posted seems the victim was not in the process of any sort of criminal behavior...at first glance. But the two making headlines now, were in fact engaging in criminal behavior at the time of the altercations

It's clear that the protests are geared more at defending criminal behavior and it's consequences then actual police over reach.

I cant with you...you're just being stupid and translating what people say into bullshit. No one ever defended any criminal behavior....of course all you have to do is throw out another "seems like" strawman to avoid talking about what people are really saying.

Maybe you can find the most ignorant person on youtube to back up your argument against all blacks in general....Thats another fav

No, you've become emotional and irrational on this subject. That's too bad.

Nice, keep making it up because reality is too tough to speak on. Instead you talk about fake defense of crimes and how people feel.

People are really saying the lives of those two crimes are representative of something larger. They are, that crime doesn't pay, but it's their way of like the cops need to back off.

"People are really saying"...seriously?

But if the protests were centered on actually innocent men (there are many) being targets and victims of the police misconduct it wouldn't be a phony race bait.

Guilt of innocence isnt the top...nevermind

1. Changing the subject: debater is losing so he tries to redirect the attention of the audience to another subject area where he thinks he can look better relative to the person he is debating, but admits to no change of subject and pretends to be refuting the original on-subject statement of his opponent

I have not changed the subject. It's just you've become emotional.

Take care

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Easy to say when its someone else. Entirely different thing when it is you, or a loved one, are gang tackled by a bunch of thugs with badges.

I wouldn't need to be gang tackled. That's the point. Cooperate and you won't get gang tackled.

Whether you "need to be" or not is not the discussion. Whether its right or not should be and when its one 400 pound dude and 5 cops he didnt "need to be" gang tackled either.

Well since its him and not you, I'm sure you feel differently

When a cop tells you to turn around and put your arms behind your back you are to obey. Then he will tell you that you're under arrest and read you your rights. What is the argument about these simple proceedings that all you and the other shit house lawyers don't understand?

I Dont believe the police did any of those things in this case, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Can you try to stay above the childish name-calling please?

Who knows what transpired before the camera started filming. The guy was on parole and is subject to search and questioning at all times. The childishness is not name calling but an apt description. Sorry 'bout that.

Correct on your first point. I haven't seen any video of before cops grabbed him. If they did give him commands and he ignored them, then I stand corrected. However I have not read any reports that they did.

Half Correct on second point - parolees are subject to questioning, however I believe they still have privacy rights.

Totally wrong on third point - there is no need for name calling among adults.

 

[Hossfly]

Oh are we going on the black guy scale of things?

When no criminal record means that he was a criminal? Where up is down?

No, that's not what I'm asking.

The link you posted seems the victim was not in the process of any sort of criminal behavior...at first glance. But the two making headlines now, were in fact engaging in criminal behavior at the time of the altercations

It's clear that the protests are geared more at defending criminal behavior and it's consequences then actual police over reach.

I cant with you...you're just being stupid and translating what people say into bullshit. No one ever defended any criminal behavior....of course all you have to do is throw out another "seems like" strawman to avoid talking about what people are really saying.

Maybe you can find the most ignorant person on youtube to back up your argument against all blacks in general....Thats another fav

No, you've become emotional and irrational on this subject. That's too bad.

Nice, keep making it up because reality is too tough to speak on. Instead you talk about fake defense of crimes and how people feel.

People are really saying the lives of those two crimes are representative of something larger. They are, that crime doesn't pay, but it's their way of like the cops need to back off.

"People are really saying"...seriously?

But if the protests were centered on actually innocent men (there are many) being targets and victims of the police misconduct it wouldn't be a phony race bait.

Guilt of innocence isnt the top...nevermind

1. Changing the subject: debater is losing so he tries to redirect the attention of the audience to another subject area where he thinks he can look better relative to the person he is debating, but admits to no change of subject and pretends to be refuting the original on-subject statement of his opponent

I have not changed the subject. It's just you've become emotional.

Take care

He,s a lawyer. Lawyers get confused with facts sometimes. They never admit they make stupid mistakes and comments.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Easy to say when its someone else. Entirely different thing when it is you, or a loved one, are gang tackled by a bunch of thugs with badges.

Don't break the law and your chances are slim to none that you will be gang tackled by a bunch of thugs with badges.

Slim, but not close enough to zero as it should be. He should have been verbally told of his arrest, and then talked into an arrest position. If he failed to follow those commands THEN the police should have gone active and forcefully arrested him.

Instead they just jumped him.

Did you watch the entire video ****-witt?
The answer would be no.
The cops repeatedly asked Garner to comply with their commands. And YES they were commands!
They were dealing with a career criminal with over 30 convictions. They knew he had a probation violation warrant out for his arrest. So did he.
The walrus was 400 ******* pounds, 6'4".

I love excuses...there simply is no end to how many you can make

So what was Garners excuse for getting arrested over thirty times,being on parole,resisting arrest and selling illegal cigs?
And you're right about one thing....there would be no end to the excuses as to why fat boy led a life of crime.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Easy to say when its someone else. Entirely different thing when it is you, or a loved one, are gang tackled by a bunch of thugs with badges.

I wouldn't need to be gang tackled. That's the point. Cooperate and you won't get gang tackled.

Whether you "need to be" or not is not the discussion. Whether its right or not should be and when its one 400 pound dude and 5 cops he didnt "need to be" gang tackled either.

Well since its him and not you, I'm sure you feel differently

When a cop tells you to turn around and put your arms behind your back you are to obey. Then he will tell you that you're under arrest and read you your rights. What is the argument about these simple proceedings that all you and the other shit house lawyers don't understand?

I Dont believe the police did any of those things in this case, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Can you try to stay above the childish name-calling please?

Who knows what transpired before the camera started filming. The guy was on parole and is subject to search and questioning at all times. The childishness is not name calling but an apt description. Sorry 'bout that.

Ahhh that old chestnut...love that one. Dont even consider what you actually saw with your eyes...whats more important to consider is what you didnt see so you cannot even judge what you saw initially.

So, according to your last post you didnt see anyone tell him he was under arrest right? Why cant you just say what you saw?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Oh are we going on the black guy scale of things?

When no criminal record means that he was a criminal? Where up is down?

No, that's not what I'm asking.

The link you posted seems the victim was not in the process of any sort of criminal behavior...at first glance. But the two making headlines now, were in fact engaging in criminal behavior at the time of the altercations

It's clear that the protests are geared more at defending criminal behavior and it's consequences then actual police over reach.

I cant with you...you're just being stupid and translating what people say into bullshit. No one ever defended any criminal behavior....of course all you have to do is throw out another "seems like" strawman to avoid talking about what people are really saying.

Maybe you can find the most ignorant person on youtube to back up your argument against all blacks in general....Thats another fav

No, you've become emotional and irrational on this subject. That's too bad.

Nice, keep making it up because reality is too tough to speak on. Instead you talk about fake defense of crimes and how people feel.

People are really saying the lives of those two crimes are representative of something larger. They are, that crime doesn't pay, but it's their way of like the cops need to back off.

"People are really saying"...seriously?

But if the protests were centered on actually innocent men (there are many) being targets and victims of the police misconduct it wouldn't be a phony race bait.

Guilt of innocence isnt the top...nevermind

1. Changing the subject: debater is losing so he tries to redirect the attention of the audience to another subject area where he thinks he can look better relative to the person he is debating, but admits to no change of subject and pretends to be refuting the original on-subject statement of his opponent

I have not changed the subject. It's just you've become emotional.

Take care

1. Name calling: debater tries to diminish the argument of his opponent by calling the opponent a name that is subjective and unattractive; for example, cult members and bad real estate gurus typically warn the targets of their frauds that “dream stealers” will try to tell them the cult or guru is giving them bad advice; name calling is only intellectually dishonest when the name in question is ill defined or is so subjective that it tells the listener more about the speaker than the person being spoken about; there is nothing wrong with using a name that is relevant and objectively defined;
   
   
2. Changing the subject: debater is losing so he tries to redirect the attention of the audience to another subject area where he thinks he can look better relative to the person he is debating, but admits to no change of subject and pretends to be refuting the original on-subject statement of his opponent
   

 

[ClosedCaption]

Easy to say when its someone else. Entirely different thing when it is you, or a loved one, are gang tackled by a bunch of thugs with badges.

Don't break the law and your chances are slim to none that you will be gang tackled by a bunch of thugs with badges.

Slim, but not close enough to zero as it should be. He should have been verbally told of his arrest, and then talked into an arrest position. If he failed to follow those commands THEN the police should have gone active and forcefully arrested him.

Instead they just jumped him.

Did you watch the entire video ****-witt?
The answer would be no.
The cops repeatedly asked Garner to comply with their commands. And YES they were commands!
They were dealing with a career criminal with over 30 convictions. They knew he had a probation violation warrant out for his arrest. So did he.
The walrus was 400 ******* pounds, 6'4".

I love excuses...there simply is no end to how many you can make

So what was Garners excuse for getting arrested over thirty times,being on parole,resisting arrest and selling illegal cigs?
And you're right about one thing....there would be no end to the excuses as to why fat boy led a life of crime.

Changing the subject: debater is losing so he tries to redirect the attention of the audience to another subject area where he thinks he can look better relative to the person he is debating, but admits to no change of subject and pretends to be refuting the original on-subject statement of his opponent

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Easy to say when its someone else. Entirely different thing when it is you, or a loved one, are gang tackled by a bunch of thugs with badges.

Don't break the law and your chances are slim to none that you will be gang tackled by a bunch of thugs with badges.

Slim, but not close enough to zero as it should be. He should have been verbally told of his arrest, and then talked into an arrest position. If he failed to follow those commands THEN the police should have gone active and forcefully arrested him.

Instead they just jumped him.

Did you watch the entire video ****-witt?
The answer would be no.
The cops repeatedly asked Garner to comply with their commands. And YES they were commands!
They were dealing with a career criminal with over 30 convictions. They knew he had a probation violation warrant out for his arrest. So did he.
The walrus was 400 ******* pounds, 6'4".

I love excuses...there simply is no end to how many you can make

So what was Garners excuse for getting arrested over thirty times,being on parole,resisting arrest and selling illegal cigs?
And you're right about one thing....there would be no end to the excuses as to why fat boy led a life of crime.

I dont think anyone is saying this guy was an upstanding citizen. That's not the issue.

Neither is the issue his skin color.

The issue is the police's assault of him that led to his death.

 

[PredFan]

Easy to say when its someone else. Entirely different thing when it is you, or a loved one, are gang tackled by a bunch of thugs with badges.

I wouldn't need to be gang tackled. That's the point. Cooperate and you won't get gang tackled.

I didn't see anywhere that he failed to follow commands. They didn't verbally tell him he was being placed under arrest, they didn't command him to turn around and place his hands behind his back.

Instead they simply jumped him, and he initially resisted out of surprise when he was assaulted.

Yeah because cops do that all the time.

 

[dannyboys]

I wouldn't need to be gang tackled. That's the point. Cooperate and you won't get gang tackled.

Whether you "need to be" or not is not the discussion. Whether its right or not should be and when its one 400 pound dude and 5 cops he didnt "need to be" gang tackled either.

Well since its him and not you, I'm sure you feel differently

When a cop tells you to turn around and put your arms behind your back you are to obey. Then he will tell you that you're under arrest and read you your rights. What is the argument about these simple proceedings that all you and the other shit house lawyers don't understand?

I Dont believe the police did any of those things in this case, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Can you try to stay above the childish name-calling please?

Who knows what transpired before the camera started filming. The guy was on parole and is subject to search and questioning at all times. The childishness is not name calling but an apt description. Sorry 'bout that.

Correct on your first point. I haven't seen any video of before cops grabbed him. If they did give him commands and he ignored them, then I stand corrected. However I have not read any reports that they did.

Half Correct on second point - parolees are subject to questioning, however I believe they still have privacy rights.

Totally wrong on third point - there is no need for name calling among adults.

I guess you are going to have to "stand corrected".
The GJ HEARD all the audio from when the cops first walked up to Garner.
You did not pal.
A parolee,especially someone who's had 30 plus criminal convictions knows ******* well every detail about how the justice system works.
When a cop approaches a parolee and tells that person he is being detained the parolee knows better than to start arguing with the cop. Garner was too ******* stupid to understand this very simple law.
Imagine a world where the negro race was suddenly given full control of all law enforcement and the Justice system.
Check out the direction S. Africa is going.
It's like handing the keys to the mental institutes to the negro inmates.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Whether you "need to be" or not is not the discussion. Whether its right or not should be and when its one 400 pound dude and 5 cops he didnt "need to be" gang tackled either.

Well since its him and not you, I'm sure you feel differently

When a cop tells you to turn around and put your arms behind your back you are to obey. Then he will tell you that you're under arrest and read you your rights. What is the argument about these simple proceedings that all you and the other shit house lawyers don't understand?

I Dont believe the police did any of those things in this case, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Can you try to stay above the childish name-calling please?

Who knows what transpired before the camera started filming. The guy was on parole and is subject to search and questioning at all times. The childishness is not name calling but an apt description. Sorry 'bout that.

Correct on your first point. I haven't seen any video of before cops grabbed him. If they did give him commands and he ignored them, then I stand corrected. However I have not read any reports that they did.

Half Correct on second point - parolees are subject to questioning, however I believe they still have privacy rights.

Totally wrong on third point - there is no need for name calling among adults.

I guess you are going to have to "stand corrected".
The GJ HEARD all the audio from when the cops first walked up to Garner.
You did not pal.
A parolee,especially someone who's had 30 plus criminal convictions knows ******* well every detail about how the justice system works.
When a cop approaches a parolee and tells that person he is being detained the parolee knows better than to start arguing with the cop. Garner was too ******* stupid to understand this very simple law.
Imagine a world where the negro race was suddenly given full control of all law enforcement and the Justice system.
Check out the direction S. Africa is going.
It's like handing the keys to the mental institutes to the negro inmates.

Wow, you've seen the evidence the GJ saw? How? Its not even out

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Easy to say when its someone else. Entirely different thing when it is you, or a loved one, are gang tackled by a bunch of thugs with badges.

I wouldn't need to be gang tackled. That's the point. Cooperate and you won't get gang tackled.

I didn't see anywhere that he failed to follow commands. They didn't verbally tell him he was being placed under arrest, they didn't command him to turn around and place his hands behind his back.

Instead they simply jumped him, and he initially resisted out of surprise when he was assaulted.

Yeah because cops do that all the time.

They use to, back when their job was to protect and serve.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Whether you "need to be" or not is not the discussion. Whether its right or not should be and when its one 400 pound dude and 5 cops he didnt "need to be" gang tackled either.

Well since its him and not you, I'm sure you feel differently

When a cop tells you to turn around and put your arms behind your back you are to obey. Then he will tell you that you're under arrest and read you your rights. What is the argument about these simple proceedings that all you and the other shit house lawyers don't understand?

I Dont believe the police did any of those things in this case, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Can you try to stay above the childish name-calling please?

Who knows what transpired before the camera started filming. The guy was on parole and is subject to search and questioning at all times. The childishness is not name calling but an apt description. Sorry 'bout that.

Correct on your first point. I haven't seen any video of before cops grabbed him. If they did give him commands and he ignored them, then I stand corrected. However I have not read any reports that they did.

Half Correct on second point - parolees are subject to questioning, however I believe they still have privacy rights.

Totally wrong on third point - there is no need for name calling among adults.

I guess you are going to have to "stand corrected".
The GJ HEARD all the audio from when the cops first walked up to Garner.
You did not pal.
A parolee,especially someone who's had 30 plus criminal convictions knows ******* well every detail about how the justice system works.
When a cop approaches a parolee and tells that person he is being detained the parolee knows better than to start arguing with the cop. Garner was too ******* stupid to understand this very simple law.
Imagine a world where the negro race was suddenly given full control of all law enforcement and the Justice system.
Check out the direction S. Africa is going.
It's like handing the keys to the mental institutes to the negro inmates.

Do you have a source for your info?

 

[saveliberty]

Usually you don't find out someone is unarmed until after you arrest them.

Correct. But simply being armed, or being large, should not be cause for police to attacking you during an arrest.

I have watched the video several times, he was trying to get away. You also can't talk when you can't breathe. I still think the incident was handled wrong, and hopefully changes are made.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Most people do try to get away when they are being attacked.

And many people certainly can talk when they are getting insufficient air (ie: feel like they "can't breathe"). Asthmatics, COPD'ers, and CHF'ers who are respiratory distress often say the same thing...."I can't breathe"

 

[Skull Pilot]

Usually you don't find out someone is unarmed until after you arrest them.

Correct. But simply being armed, or being large, should not be cause for police to attacking you during an arrest.

When you are on parole you are to comply with the cops at all times or you can have your parole violated and be sent back to the slammer.

Garner was a career criminal who was on parole therefore any failure to cooperate with the cops was worthy of an arrest.

He's been a criminal his entire life so of course he knew that

Being on parole does not mean cops can simply attack you. They should have verbalized commands before going active on this suspect.

He shouldn't have been slapping at them either.