If he was talking he was. I'm trained to alleviate someone choking if they have an full airway obstruction. One of the ways that is determined is they aren't breathing becuase they are making sounds, coughing, etc. If they are coughing, they're breathing. I let them cough until they either get the parital obstruction out or it becomes full at which time they aren't breathing.
Ok, then can you explain how it was that while being choked Eric Garner could breathe but died of suffocation anyway?
He could talk.
Avoiding the question?
He could talk, therefore he could breathe but died of unrelated asphyxiation. That's your answer?
I answered it. You don't have to like it or agree for it to be a valid answer. What you dickheads need to learn is that getting the answer you want doens't make it incorrect. All he had to do was stop resisting. When he fought back more, the police fought at an equal level to his resistance. What should they have done, let him go because he didn't want to be arrested? Garner initiated the entire thing. If he doesn't commit a crime FIRST, nothing that happens second, third, and so on occurs. All people like you see is black thug and white officer. What occurred that led up to it doens't matter to you.
I don't know what the police officer should've done, as I have no experience arresting people, especially people who are resisting arrest. Perhaps the officer reacted in the best way he knew how at that time.
Nice try at changing the subject...
But this thread was about Eric Garner faking that he couldn't breathe because he was able to say that he couldn't breathe. You say he could breathe because he was able to speak. I am curious as to how he could breathe but died of suffocation. Your answer was: "He could talk".
So either your answer is unrelated to my question, or you realize that your premise is flawed and are unwilling or ashamed to acknowledge it.