Another Police officer not to be prosecuted

[Hibbyradge]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30323750

Even though I'm not party to all the facts, I find it astonishing that this can happen and the officer isn't required to defend his actions in a court of law.

I realise that this could be the Island News Effect, but it does seem that there is a major race problem in the US legal system.

[Tyler Durden]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30323750

Even though I'm not party to all the facts, I find it astonishing that this can happen and the officer isn't required to defend his actions in a court of law.

I realise that this could be the Island News Effect, but it does seem that there is a major race problem in the US legal system.

I'm assuming the link is to the Eric Garner story. Maybe best to merge this with the Ferguson thread.

Not a race issue according to Sylar remember....

Half the U.S. is now at a standstill due to protests. There must be some way to overturn these decisions and serve justice to these killers.

[hibsbollah]

I am starting to wonder if some of these prosecutors are being deliberately perverse because of the colour of the man in The White House. As result it looks like America is closer to a mass protest movement than at any time since the late 60s. A Tianemmen type movement would probably be a good thing for democracy and race relations. Obama is saying nothing of substance and seems incapable of leading a debate about race because of his unpopularity among wider Americans.

[Sylar]

I'm assuming the link is to the Eric Garner story. Maybe best to merge this with the Ferguson thread.

Not a race issue according to Sylar remember....

Half the U.S. is now at a standstill due to protests. There must be some way to overturn these decisions and serve justice to these killers.

Would you refrain from b***ardising my words into saying something I didn't?

I said the particular shooting of Michael Brown was not ENTIRELY a race-centric issue and is one that highlights a wider problem with gun culture in America, that's inclusive of abuse of power by the police force.

A sentiment that's supported by the wider statistics.

This is an entirely different case altogether and given the officer has used a 'banned' hold to restrain the victim, it's surprising he hasn't faced charges.

Of course, the officer wasn't to know the victim had asthma but that's neither here nor there if the hold is illegal within the NYPD.

[Hibbyradge]

The poor man was heard to complain "I can't breathe" 11 times, but the officer didn't relax his grip.

And yet he doesn't have to answer for his actions?

What is the definition of police brutality these days? :confused:

[Hibbyradge]

A totally unnecessary death

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2014/dec/04/i-cant-breathe-eric-garner-chokehold-death-video?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

[Sylar]

It took FIVE officers to detain him?!

He wasn't posing any threat, he wasn't acting in an aggressive or violent manner and he was pounced upon (literally) using an illegal maneuver...

OK, he was refusing to be placed in handcuffs but does that merit a 5-man assault? Ludicrous use of excessive police force.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Meanwhile in a very British version of police brutality

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/shocking-video-police-cs-spray-8223393

a middle class kid gets a slap after getting wide with the pigs.

[hibsbollah]

The poor man was heard to complain "I can't breathe" 11 times, but the officer didn't relax his grip.

And yet he doesn't have to answer for his actions?

What is the definition of police brutality these days? :confused:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/04/obama-police-killings-eric-garner-decision

According to Republican representative forNewYork, Peter King, the victim wouldn't have died if he wasn't 'so obese' and police hear detainees use the phrase 'I can't breathe' all the time when complaining about detention, so there's no case to answer :dunno:

There are definitely some politicians looking to fan the flames.

[Betty Boop]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/04/obama-police-killings-eric-garner-decision

According to Republican representative forNewYork, Peter King, the victim wouldn't have died if he wasn't 'so obese' and police hear detainees use the phrase 'I can't breathe' all the time when complaining about detention, so there's no case to answer :dunno:

There are definitely some politicians looking to fan the flames.

What an absolute disappointment Obama has been as President. I remember how optimistic you and Liverpoolhibs were, when he was elected.

[hibsbollah]

What an absolute disappointment Obama has been as President. I remember how optimistic you and Liverpoolhibs were, when he was elected.

I was very optimistic about Obama but IIRC LiverpoolHibs thought he would be just another cog in the big business machine? :dunno: (He was probably right, as it turned out)

I think Obama deserves congratulation for pushing through health insurance, even in a watered down form. Hes done this in the face of fearsome hatred from the extreme right (the tea party's hatred of health insurance is as inexplicable to me as their hatred for control of semi automatic machine guns). But Guantanamo is still open, and he just seems to have lost his confidence. He used to have a great line in political oratory; I literally had goosebumps listening to some of his speeches. Now he sounds a man running scared; trying to appeal in vain to a section of America who will always hate him anyway.

http://m.foxnews.com/
(If you want confirmation have a look at fox news, the fact that demonstrators are on the streets of every major US city last night doesn't get a mention apart from a sarcastic op ed, instead the main story is some manufactured pish about Hillary C having sympathy for ISIL) :hilarious

For a free country some of the USAs media outlets look North Korea esque.

[Hibernia&Alba]

The poor man was heard to complain "I can't breathe" 11 times, but the officer didn't relax his grip.

And yet he doesn't have to answer for his actions?

What is the definition of police brutality these days? :confused:

It does seem strange, and from the footage I saw on the news last night, he didn't seem to be resisting in the first place. He was a very big bloke but didn't appear aggressive in any way. Without knowing the context of whether the way the police reacted is par for the course in New York, their conduct looked very OTT.

[over the line]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30323750

Even though I'm not party to all the facts, I find it astonishing that this can happen and the officer isn't required to defend his actions in a court of law.

I realise that this could be the Island News Effect, but it does seem that there is a major race problem in the US legal system.

I heard on the radio from one commentator, that the police supervisor at the scene was a black African American. If that was the case, then it would make the racist allegation a bit redundant. I've not checked if this was the case, so don't know if its true.

[blackpoolhibs]

I heard on the radio from one commentator, that the police supervisor at the scene was a black African American. If that was the case, then it would make the racist allegation a bit redundant. I've not checked if this was the case, so don't know if its true.

Racist or not, that just looked like assault that ended with a man losing his life. America does seem to have different laws on the way police go about their business, maybe its fear that everyone could be carrying a gun that causes this over reaction? :dunno:

[hibsbollah]

I heard on the radio from one commentator, that the police supervisor at the scene was a black African American. If that was the case, then it would make the racist allegation a bit redundant.

No it wouldn't.

[over the line]

Racist or not, that just looked like assault that ended with a man losing his life. America does seem to have different laws on the way police go about their business, maybe its fear that everyone could be carrying a gun that causes this over reaction? :dunno:

Yes could be, I suppose if there is a good chance you might get shot on a daily basis whilst at work, you would be a bit on edge wouldn't you? As I've said before, these tragedies will continue, whilst America continues to have such a perverse obsession with guns and violence.

[over the line]

No it wouldn't.


Why not?

[hibsbollah]

Why not?

Because the policeman who attacked him was white and the prosecutor who decided there was no case to answer was white. But even if these individuals were black, they would still be employed by the NYPD who are perceived by the communities they serve (to generalise, but it seems to be widely accepted as being true) as rougher on black neighbourhoods than white ones.

[over the line]

Because the policeman who attacked him was white and the prosecutor who decided there was no case to answer was white. But even if these individuals were black, they would still be employed by the NYPD who are perceived by the communities they serve (to generalise, but it seems to be widely accepted as being true) as rougher on black neighbourhoods than white ones.

I accept it is a huge and complex subject and there will be racist police officers, the same as there are racist bus drivers, dentists, etc etc. But if the supervisor at the scene was black, I'm suggesting its unlikely that that group of officers were targeting black people for racist reasons.

[over the line]

Racist or not, that just looked like assault that ended with a man losing his life. America does seem to have different laws on the way police go about their business, maybe its fear that everyone could be carrying a gun that causes this over reaction? :dunno:


Statistics suggest that in America, you are 10 times more likely to die from being shot if you are black, than if you're white. (If that is anywhere near true, then how shocking is that!?!).

I think this goes some way to show the disproportionate amount of crime and violence there is in black neighbourhoods. (A huge discussion in its self)

Surely if crime and violence is so high in these areas, then the tragic deaths reported recently are sadly bound to occur aren't they? The police will target areas of high crime and they are much more likely to get involved in violent conflict aren't they?

Just to clarify, I'm neither condoning, or criticising any specific police actions, merely making a general observation.

[HibsMax]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/04/obama-police-killings-eric-garner-decision

According to Republican representative forNewYork, Peter King, the victim wouldn't have died if he wasn't 'so obese' and police hear detainees use the phrase 'I can't breathe' all the time when complaining about detention, so there's no case to answer :dunno:

There are definitely some politicians looking to fan the flames.

IMO, he wouldn't have died if the police officer didn't choke him to death. I understand that the police have a very hard job and meet all sorts of people (good and bad) in the line of duty but that's no excuse.

[HibsMax]

Statistics suggest that in America, you are 10 times more likely to die from being shot if you are black, than if you're white. (If that is anywhere near true, then how shocking is that!?!).

I think this goes some way to show the disproportionate amount of crime and violence there is in black neighbourhoods. (A huge discussion in its self)

Surely if crime and violence is so high in these areas, then the tragic deaths reported recently are sadly bound to occur aren't they? The police will target areas of high crime and they are much more likely to get involved in violent conflict aren't they?

Just to clarify, I'm neither condoning, or criticising any specific police actions, merely making a general observation.

Those numbers are "probably" inflated due to gang violence.

[HibsMax]

I was very optimistic about Obama but IIRC LiverpoolHibs thought he would be just another cog in the big business machine? :dunno: (He was probably right, as it turned out)

I think Obama deserves congratulation for pushing through health insurance, even in a watered down form. Hes done this in the face of fearsome hatred from the extreme right (the tea party's hatred of health insurance is as inexplicable to me as their hatred for control of semi automatic machine guns). But Guantanamo is still open, and he just seems to have lost his confidence. He used to have a great line in political oratory; I literally had goosebumps listening to some of his speeches. Now he sounds a man running scared; trying to appeal in vain to a section of America who will always hate him anyway.

http://m.foxnews.com/
(If you want confirmation have a look at fox news, the fact that demonstrators are on the streets of every major US city last night doesn't get a mention apart from a sarcastic op ed, instead the main story is some manufactured pish about Hillary C having sympathy for ISIL) :hilarious

For a free country some of the USAs media outlets look North Korea esque.
Over here the line goes something like this. Republicans believe that the media is controlled by the Liberals and Fox News is where they get their news from. Outlets like CNN are widely regarded as being a very poor source for news. Sweeping generalisations of course.

[over the line]

Over here the line goes something like this. Republicans believe that the media is controlled by the Liberals and Fox News is where they get their news from. Outlets like CNN are widely regarded as being a very poor source for news. Sweeping generalisations of course.

I watched Fox news when I was in Thailand earlier this year. I thought it was a wind up at first, how biased and misinformed are they! It is so unbelievably bad that I couldn't stop watching it. It's frightening that a proportion of the world's most powerful nation get their "news, political comment/direction and information" from this joke of a channel. Even the reporters/presenters come across as dim.

[HibsMax]

I watched Fox news when I was in Thailand earlier this year. I thought it was a wind up at first, how biased and misinformed are they! It is so unbelievably bad that I couldn't stop watching it. It's frightening that a proportion of the world's most powerful nation get their "news, political comment/direction and information" from this joke of a channel. Even the reporters/presenters come across as dim.

Scarier still, perhaps, is that those same people believe that everything trotted out by CNN, etc. is questionable. I don't doubt that some of it is but after having watched both channels in the past, I know who I am more likely to believe.

[Hibrandenburg]

http://conservativetribune.com/police-black-crime/

Hope the link works, if not it's worth copying and pasting.

[Hibbyradge]

http://conservativetribune.com/police-black-crime/

Hope the link works, if not it's worth copying and pasting.

If anyone is saying that all police killings are racist, then they're wrong.

If anyone says that the police do no good, then they're wrong.

If anyone says that the police are always justified in their actions, then they're wrong too.

[over the line]

http://conservativetribune.com/police-black-crime/

Hope the link works, if not it's worth copying and pasting.

As I've said on a similar thread on here, brilliant link. I would urge everyone that has posted on this and similar threads to watch it. Puts a bit of reality and balance into the mix. It may help to temper some peoples views.

[over the line]

If anyone is saying that all police killings are racist, then they're wrong.

If anyone says that the police do no good, then they're wrong.

If anyone says that the police are always justified in their actions, then they're wrong too.

Agree, agree and agree.

But people do seem to be saying at least the first point and some are possibly saying the second.

Some people seem to think one answer is for there to be less police and more crack dealers in the troubled neighbourhoods! (Although I don't think they really mean that, I just don't think they have thought it through). If I lived there I'd defo want more police!

Gotta take yer hat off to that police chief though haven't you? Nice to see an official just saying it like it is, instead of fudging the issue and kowtowing to the media et al. He is spot on with what he says I think. As tragic as the police related deaths are, they are sadly a drop in the ocean compared to all the violence in these communities. I don't see how fewer police, or "weaker" police tactics would reduce the violence and murders in these areas.

[HibsMax]

I saw that link before, it's powerful stuff.

I know that there is a lot of focus on the race aspect of these cases but, to me, this would be just as awful if it was an Asian cop who shot / strangled a white man. My issue is not that a black kid was shot and a black man was strangled to death. My issue is that cops are getting away with murder.

We can't really blame the government (or whomever), it was a the grand jury that didn't find enough to prosecute. The grand jury is made up of normal men and women, just like you and me. I am not 100% certain about this but my belief is:
1. if the grand jury finds enough ground to indict, the prosecutor can more easily move forward with a trial.
2. if the grand jury does not find enough ground to indict, the prosecutor can still move forward with a trial but it will be a little harder

I know that a prosecutor can still try to prosecute even if the grand jury votes against it but I don't know if the reverse is true. If I understand things correctly, the fact that the grand juries did not indict means that the general public doesn't think that there is enough evidence to prosecute (and the prosecution agrees). One would like to think / hope that they are a valid representation of the general public and somewhat reflect the opinions of the cross-section of society...but I don't know if that is close to true.

[over the line]

I saw that link before, it's powerful stuff.

I know that there is a lot of focus on the race aspect of these cases but, to me, this would be just as awful if it was an Asian cop who shot / strangled a white man. My issue is not that a black kid was shot and a black man was strangled to death. My issue is that cops are getting away with murder.

We can't really blame the government (or whomever), it was a the grand jury that didn't find enough to prosecute. The grand jury is made up of normal men and women, just like you and me. I am not 100% certain about this but my belief is:
1. if the grand jury finds enough ground to indict, the prosecutor can more easily move forward with a trial.
2. if the grand jury does not find enough ground to indict, the prosecutor can still move forward with a trial but it will be a little harder

I know that a prosecutor can still try to prosecute even if the grand jury votes against it but I don't know if the reverse is true. If I understand things correctly, the fact that the grand juries did not indict means that the general public doesn't think that there is enough evidence to prosecute (and the prosecution agrees). One would like to think / hope that they are a valid representation of the general public and somewhat reflect the opinions of the cross-section of society...but I don't know if that is close to true.

The jury system has its flaws of course, but I genuinely believe it is the fairest and safest sytem to use. I don't see any of the alternatives as a better option. Like you say it is a group of normal people making the decision, they kind of represent us all in a way.

I have personally experienced the jury system earlier this year in Crown Court, when I was wrongly accused of two assaults and perverting the course of justice (worst 9 days of my life!). The jury where unanimously in my favour. Really did restore my faith in the general public and the legal system. They got it right on that occasion but obviously its not always the case.

As I have said in an earlier post, the juries in these sad police related death cases have had the benefit of seeing all the evidence and have had time to deliberate over it. We just get snippets of information, normally with a slant or bias from the journalist. I think we have to trust the jury, even if some people don't necessarily agree with their decision.

Edit: if its deemed lawful, its not murder is it?

[blackpoolhibs]

I saw that link before, it's powerful stuff.

I know that there is a lot of focus on the race aspect of these cases but, to me, this would be just as awful if it was an Asian cop who shot / strangled a white man. My issue is not that a black kid was shot and a black man was strangled to death. My issue is that cops are getting away with murder.

We can't really blame the government (or whomever), it was a the grand jury that didn't find enough to prosecute. The grand jury is made up of normal men and women, just like you and me. I am not 100% certain about this but my belief is:
1. if the grand jury finds enough ground to indict, the prosecutor can more easily move forward with a trial.
2. if the grand jury does not find enough ground to indict, the prosecutor can still move forward with a trial but it will be a little harder

I know that a prosecutor can still try to prosecute even if the grand jury votes against it but I don't know if the reverse is true. If I understand things correctly, the fact that the grand juries did not indict means that the general public doesn't think that there is enough evidence to prosecute (and the prosecution agrees). One would like to think / hope that they are a valid representation of the general public and somewhat reflect the opinions of the cross-section of society...but I don't know if that is close to true.

Thats my take on it too, i did not see the shooting but the guy that was pounced on by all those policemen was clearly not resisting arrest, and i couldn't see any reason for all that force?

It just makes no sense whatsoever what they did to that poor man?

[HibsMax]

Thats my take on it too, i did not see the shooting but the guy that was pounced on by all those policemen was clearly not resisting arrest, and i couldn't see any reason for all that force?

It just makes no sense whatsoever what they did to that poor man?

Let's not forget the heinous crime he died for committing...selling untaxed cigarettes.

[HibsMax]

The jury system has its flaws of course, but I genuinely believe it is the fairest and safest sytem to use. I don't see any of the alternatives as a better option. Like you say it is a group of normal people making the decision, they kind of represent us all in a way.

I have personally experienced the jury system earlier this year in Crown Court, when I was wrongly accused of two assaults and perverting the course of justice (worst 9 days of my life!). The jury where unanimously in my favour. Really did restore my faith in the general public and the legal system. They got it right on that occasion but obviously its not always the case.

As I have said in an earlier post, the juries in these sad police related death cases have had the benefit of seeing all the evidence and have had time to deliberate over it. We just get snippets of information, normally with a slant or bias from the journalist. I think we have to trust the jury, even if some people don't necessarily agree with their decision.

Edit: if its deemed lawful, its not murder is it?

Just to clarify, and apologies if you know all of this already, but a grand jury is different than a normal jury. I've faced a federal grand jury before (as a witness, not as a felon) and it's weird. No judge. No lawyers. You HAVE to answer their questions. If you plead the fifth then the court can seek an immunity order. If they get you an immunity order, you HAVE to speak. You cannot plead the fifth. If you do you still refuse to answer questions then you can be thrown in jail for the duration that the grand jury sits (typically 18 months).

I agree with your initial point though. We're all human. I just wonder what they saw that made them decide not to press for a trial.

[blackpoolhibs]

Let's not forget the heinous crime he died for committing...selling untaxed cigarettes.

Ridiculous, and as you say what were the authorities who decide whether or not the police have a case to answer here watching?

Its no wonder that folk are angry over this, justice does not appear to be getting served at all?:confused:

[sleeping giant]

Ridiculous, and as you say what were the authorities who decide whether or not the police have a case to answer here watching?

Its no wonder that folk are angry over this, justice does not appear to be getting served at all?:confused:

If this was happening in the Middle East , America would be intervening by now.
Land of the free , home of the brave.

[over the line]

Just to clarify, and apologies if you know all of this already, but a grand jury is different than a normal jury. I've faced a federal grand jury before (as a witness, not as a felon) and it's weird. No judge. No lawyers. You HAVE to answer their questions. If you plead the fifth then the court can seek an immunity order. If they get you an immunity order, you HAVE to speak. You cannot plead the fifth. If you do you still refuse to answer questions then you can be thrown in jail for the duration that the grand jury sits (typically 18 months).

I agree with your initial point though. We're all human. I just wonder what they saw that made them decide not to press for a trial.

No I didn't know any of that. Does sound an unusual set up. Who presents the evidence and who asks the witnesses the questions if there are no lawyers?

Who are the jurors and do the same people do it for 18 months?

[over the line]

Just to clarify, and apologies if you know all of this already, but a grand jury is different than a normal jury. I've faced a federal grand jury before (as a witness, not as a felon) and it's weird. No judge. No lawyers. You HAVE to answer their questions. If you plead the fifth then the court can seek an immunity order. If they get you an immunity order, you HAVE to speak. You cannot plead the fifth. If you do you still refuse to answer questions then you can be thrown in jail for the duration that the grand jury sits (typically 18 months).

I agree with your initial point though. We're all human. I just wonder what they saw that made them decide not to press for a trial.

With regards to the last bit of your post, I read somewhere that the evidence in one of the recent cases (I forget which one), consisted of 5000 pages. Which puts it into perspective when you think that most of us are making our minds up based on a couple of column inches of a journalists opinion, or chosen facts of the case, or a couple of minutes of a news report. That's why I like to keep an open mind really. I am assuming the grand jury system have a burden of proof of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' do they? If so it would seem they have found that reasonable doubt in the evidence, but yes it would be interesting to know what that doubt is in each of the recent cases.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

How long would this guy have lasted in America? (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/pictured-teenager-points-rifle-police-4787466)

Admirable restraint shown by the Scottish Officers.

[HibsMax]

No I didn't know any of that. Does sound an unusual set up. Who presents the evidence and who asks the witnesses the questions if there are no lawyers?

Who are the jurors and do the same people do it for 18 months?

In my case it was the USADA (US Assistant District Attorney) who ran the entire show. He asks the questions. He presents the evidence. Remember it's not a trial. There is no "that is not admissable" because there are no lawyers or judges present. Federal Grand Jury - read up on it some time if you are inclined, it's quite interesting. It's very important to know your right before you head into something like that, even as a witness. I was in a side room off from the court, waiting to be called in to "testify" (not sure that is the correct word, but you answer questions). The USADA came into the room and started asking me questions. This is before I have taken any oaths or anything like that. Luckily I had read about Federal Grand Juries and some of the tactics that they use and I just answered politely and laughed at him (seriously) when he asked me questions that he should not have been asking me outside of the court room. They try to rattle you so that you can crack and say things that help them getting the grand jury to indict. It's really quite fascinating, and disturbing.

The people on the Grand Jury are regular members of the public. They sit for something like 18 months but they are not in court every day. I think they have to show up like once or twice a month.

[HibsMax]

With regards to the last bit of your post, I read somewhere that the evidence in one of the recent cases (I forget which one), consisted of 5000 pages. Which puts it into perspective when you think that most of us are making our minds up based on a couple of column inches of a journalists opinion, or chosen facts of the case, or a couple of minutes of a news report. That's why I like to keep an open mind really. I am assuming the grand jury system have a burden of proof of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' do they? If so it would seem they have found that reasonable doubt in the evidence, but yes it would be interesting to know what that doubt is in each of the recent cases.

Remember, this is not a typical court. All they are trying to do is prove that there is enough viable evidence to press for a conviction (indict a person). They aren't trying to prove anything to anyone at this point. Even if the Grand Jury does indict, that doesn't mean that the person is guilty. It just means that the DA thinks he has enough evidence to successfully convict if they move ahead. Also, not that this is important, when you are in front of the Grand Jury there are only the jurors and court officials in the room. No suspect. No other witnesses. And no lawyers. You can take a lawyer with you and you can ask to be excused between questions to seek legal counsel but that is frowned upon and I think the DA can even prevent that from happening.

I heard on the radio, BBC World Service, that not many DAs are motivated to indict cops.

I am sure there is a lot of evidence that we are not privvy to but we've seen footage and we know that in Garner's case, the cop used an illegal chokehold on him resulting in his death. How that is not ground to indict I don't know.

[Hibbyradge]

It wasn't an illegal hold as such.

I agree with you though.

[Phil D. Rolls]

It wasn't an illegal hold as such.

I agree with you though.

they are allowed to restrain people by the neck?

[over the line]

they are allowed to restrain people by the neck?

If they can shoot people dead, then restraining someone by the neck is mild isn't it? Obviously, ordinarily it wouldn't result in a death. I don't think anything is banned as such, but they need to be able to justify their actions I suppose.

[over the line]

How long would this guy have lasted in America? (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/pictured-teenager-points-rifle-police-4787466)

Admirable restraint shown by the Scottish Officers.

Probably too windy up there to get a clean shot away. ;)

[Phil D. Rolls]

If they can shoot people dead, then restraining someone by the neck is mild isn't it? Obviously, ordinarily it wouldn't result in a death. I don't think anything is banned as such, but they need to be able to justify their actions I suppose.

I just can't see what they are hoping to achieve putting the guy in a stranglehold. His arms and legs are already restrained, what damage can he do with his head?

[over the line]

I just can't see what they are hoping to achieve putting the guy in a stranglehold. His arms and legs are already restrained, what damage can he do with his head?

I don't suppose in the heat of the moment and being full of adrenaline, the officers are necessarily aware of what each other are doing. It's easy for us to see what's going on when we have the benefit of watching the whole incident on film, from the comfort of our armchairs. Edit: did look a bit rough though.

I'm not sure what the cause of death was, was it strangulation?

[Phil D. Rolls]

I don't suppose in the heat of the moment and being full of adrenaline, the officers are necessarily aware of what each other are doing. It's easy for us to see what's going on when we have the benefit of watching the whole incident on film, from the comfort of our armchairs.

I'm not sure what the cause of death was, was it strangulation?

Having done control and restraint training myself, one of the things that was hammered into us was to allow the person to breathe. For a professional to use the Heat of the moment as an excuse is pretty lame IMO.

i believe the man died from heart failure - although I understand that NYPD considered using the "black people's necks are too thin" defence.

[over the line]

Having done control and restraint training myself, one of the things that was hammered into us was to allow the person to breathe. For a professional to use the Heat of the moment as an excuse is pretty lame IMO.

i believe the man died from heart failure - although I understand that NYPD considered using the "black people's necks are too thin" defence.

So you are saying that professionals aren't affected by adrenaline when they are in a confrontational situation?

I accept that being grabbed around the neck won't have increased the poor guys chances of survival, but being put in a headlock doesn't ordinarily or automatically lead to a heart attack does it? I'd suggest it was down to the overall stress of the situation that triggered his heart attack. The sad outcome may well have been the same, headlock or not. Obviously we will never know though.

[Betty Boop]

If they can shoot people dead, then restraining someone by the neck is mild isn't it? Obviously, ordinarily it wouldn't result in a death. I don't think anything is banned as such, but they need to be able to justify their actions I suppose.

Choke holds are definitely banned in New York.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/05/nyc-police-chokeholds_n_6272000.html

[over the line]

Choke holds are definitely banned in New York.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/05/nyc-police-chokeholds_n_6272000.html

Well its not clear from that article really. Firstly it says it is banned, then it says its not, then it says it sort of is but sort of isn't because they've changed the definition. Confusing!

I still can't see how any restraint, or action can be banned outright, when the laws in the US allow police to shoot people in the head, whether they are armed or not. A restraint may occasionally result/contribute toward a tragic death, but obviously there is (almost) no doubt in the outcome of being shot in the head.

[over the line]

In my case it was the USADA (US Assistant District Attorney) who ran the entire show. He asks the questions. He presents the evidence. Remember it's not a trial. There is no "that is not admissable" because there are no lawyers or judges present. Federal Grand Jury - read up on it some time if you are inclined, it's quite interesting. It's very important to know your right before you head into something like that, even as a witness. I was in a side room off from the court, waiting to be called in to "testify" (not sure that is the correct word, but you answer questions). The USADA came into the room and started asking me questions. This is before I have taken any oaths or anything like that. Luckily I had read about Federal Grand Juries and some of the tactics that they use and I just answered politely and laughed at him (seriously) when he asked me questions that he should not have been asking me outside of the court room. They try to rattle you so that you can crack and say things that help them getting the grand jury to indict. It's really quite fascinating, and disturbing.

The people on the Grand Jury are regular members of the public. They sit for something like 18 months but they are not in court every day. I think they have to show up like once or twice a month.

Interesting. So its a bit like a more formal version of a pre trial conference then, where they decide if the case is strong enough to proceed with?

Unfortunately I know all about the games they play in court, shocking behaviour! I hope never to be back in court as a defendant again, horrible experience! Giving evidence (for 3 hrs) was the easiest part for me, because I got to have my say. It was sitting through all the other nonsense and lies that I found torturous.

[Hibrandenburg]

Having done control and restraint training myself, one of the things that was hammered into us was to allow the person to breathe. For a professional to use the Heat of the moment as an excuse is pretty lame IMO.

i believe the man died from heart failure - although I understand that NYPD considered using the "black people's necks are too thin" defence.

Having had years of training on restraint and self defence and having put both theories into practice I can assure you that the lines between both theories become blurred. Especially when self preservation kicks in. All plans and preparation get thrown out the window when it gets real.

[HibsMax]

It wasn't an illegal hold as such.

I agree with you though.

That's how it was reported.

[HibsMax]

Well its not clear from that article really. Firstly it says it is banned, then it says its not, then it says it sort of is but sort of isn't because they've changed the definition. Confusing!

I still can't see how any restraint, or action can be banned outright, when the laws in the US allow police to shoot people in the head, whether they are armed or not. A restraint may occasionally result/contribute toward a tragic death, but obviously there is (almost) no doubt in the outcome of being shot in the head.

I don't believe that there is any law that explicitly allows police officers to shoot unarmed people in the head. But that is a different topic.

Restraining someone and shooting someone are two totally different things and I don't really see what purpose there is in using the two in some sort of comparison? Police officers are allowed to protect themselves in the line of duty and sometimes that means the use of deadly force. If a man is charging an officer with a weapon then the officer has the right to protect himself. Whether deadly force it warranted is not black and white, it needs to be reviewed. Clearly a man charging an officer with a gun presents more immediate danger than a man with a sword which in turn is more dangerous than a man charging you with a rolled up newspaper.

From what I have seen, I don't think that deadly force was warranted in this case.

[HibsMax]

Interesting. So its a bit like a more formal version of a pre trial conference then, where they decide if the case is strong enough to proceed with?
Yes, that sounds just like this.


Unfortunately I know all about the games they play in court, shocking behaviour! I hope never to be back in court as a defendant again, horrible experience! Giving evidence (for 3 hrs) was the easiest part for me, because I got to have my say. It was sitting through all the other nonsense and lies that I found torturous.
I can only imagine what it's like to be a defendant. I've been to court once in Scotland, as a witness for the prosecution, and I felt like I was on trial.

[HibsMax]

Having had years of training on restraint and self defence and having put both theories into practice I can assure you that the lines between both theories become blurred. Especially when self preservation kicks in. All plans and preparation get thrown out the window when it gets real.

I'm sure it does but they are supposed to be well-trained and be able to cope with this sort of thing. I mean, if rather than putting the man in a chokehold, let's say the officer pulls out his night stick and beats him to death. Would that be OK? After all, he's just acting on adrenaline. Surely he should be excused, just like if he had killed the man with a chokehold. I am sure that you don't agree with that, the example was purposefully extreme. I don't believe the cop meant to kill him, but he did. The second worst part of this is that he doesn't even go to trial. That is ridiculous. If you killed someone in a bar fight because you choked him out and he died, you think you would avoid trial?

[over the line]

I'm sure it does but they are supposed to be well-trained and be able to cope with this sort of thing. I mean, if rather than putting the man in a chokehold, let's say the officer pulls out his night stick and beats him to death. Would that be OK? After all, he's just acting on adrenaline. Surely he should be excused, just like if he had killed the man with a chokehold. I am sure that you don't agree with that, the example was purposefully extreme. I don't believe the cop meant to kill him, but he did. The second worst part of this is that he doesn't even go to trial. That is ridiculous. If you killed someone in a bar fight because you choked him out and he died, you think you would avoid trial?

I don't think he did choke him out did he, I thought he was still concious after he released the grip wasn't he? I don't think he choked/strangled him to death either, I thought it was a heart attack that killed him?

Again I'm neither defending nor criticising the officers action, just trying to keep it factual.

[over the line]

I don't believe that there is any law that explicitly allows police officers to shoot unarmed people in the head. But that is a different topic.

Restraining someone and shooting someone are two totally different things and I don't really see what purpose there is in using the two in some sort of comparison? Police officers are allowed to protect themselves in the line of duty and sometimes that means the use of deadly force. If a man is charging an officer with a weapon then the officer has the right to protect himself. Whether deadly force it warranted is not black and white, it needs to be reviewed. Clearly a man charging an officer with a gun presents more immediate danger than a man with a sword which in turn is more dangerous than a man charging you with a rolled up newspaper.

From what I have seen, I don't think that deadly force was warranted in this case.

My point was that anything is allowed, if it can be justified.

[Hibrandenburg]

I'm sure it does but they are supposed to be well-trained and be able to cope with this sort of thing. I mean, if rather than putting the man in a chokehold, let's say the officer pulls out his night stick and beats him to death. Would that be OK? After all, he's just acting on adrenaline. Surely he should be excused, just like if he had killed the man with a chokehold. I am sure that you don't agree with that, the example was purposefully extreme. I don't believe the cop meant to kill him, but he did. The second worst part of this is that he doesn't even go to trial. That is ridiculous. If you killed someone in a bar fight because you choked him out and he died, you think you would avoid trial?

I've not seen the video so I can't comment on details but the fine line between some choking holds and head locks can be crossed depending on how hard the person being restrained struggles.

All deaths of this kind should be investigated and depending on the results of the subsequent investigation brought to trial if deemed necessary.