The chokehold death of Eric Garner in NYPD custody wasn’t “a black-and-white thing,” his widow said Sunday — a stunning admission that breaks sharply from lawmakers and protesters who have seized on the racial aspect of the case.

 

Esaw Snipes said she believed her husband was “murdered unjustly,” but said skin color wasn’t a factor behind his fatal arrest for allegedly selling loose cigarettes on Staten Island last summer.

Eric Garner?s widow denies race was chokehold motive | New York Post

Whether or not the cops were biased against Garner, I can't speak to that. How can anyone know but them?

 

Normally I'm a police supporter but in this case there has to be some more dialogue before you jump an unarmed man like a pride of lions on a water buffalo. He's unarmed. He's not threatening the police. You've got him surrounded. Let's try some conflict resolution.

 

I don't like the zero to 60 right out of the gate. If that's how they're trained, we need to work on the training process.

Whether or not the cops were biased against Garner, I can't speak to that. How can anyone know but them?

 

Normally I'm a police supporter but in this case there has to be some more dialogue before you jump an unarmed man like a pride of lions on a water buffalo. He's unarmed. He's not threatening the police. You've got him surrounded. Let's try some conflict resolution.

 

I don't like the zero to 60 right out of the gate. If that's how they're trained, we need to work on the training process.

 

How did they know at the time he was unarmed? Did they pat him down? Of course we know he was unarmed now, but did they at the time?

 

They didn't jump him right away, or go from 0 to 60 right out of the gate like you say. Do you know how long they talked to him before trying to arrest him?

 

They tried to arrest him peacefully, he pulled away and I believe he told them not to touch him. What would you train them to do at that point?

I think where I'm most uncomfortable in all these various discussions, is that there seems to be "guilty until proven innocent" mindset amongst many...not just the law enforcement, but society as well.

 

If one is arrested, and later found not guilty of any crime, that arrest still stays on ones record and can be a detriment if trying to get some jobs/licenses in the future. I certainly wouldn't acquiece just to keep the police from killing me. Don't citizens have the right to at least have done something wrong before getting arrested?

 

The other day, my fiiend Katie in Washington State was at home in bed with her fiance. There was a loud banging on the door and the fiance jumped out of bed, grabbed a baseball bat and shouted "Who's there?!" At that point, the door was kicked in and several police came barreling in. They threw the fiance and Katie on floor, in their underwear, and proceeded to begin to handcuff them. Then, they led them outside and made them stand outside, IN THE COLD, IN THEIR UNDERWEAR, BAREFOOT while they searched their apartment and found nothing. Then, they concluded after about 45 minutes it was a case of mistaken identity and basically said, "oops, my bad". In all of the chaos, Katie's cats escaped the apartment and are still missing after a week.

 

Katie and Doug are pursuing legal action. And they're moving. And the police have given them no reason as to why they burst into their apartment, nor why they cuffed them and made them stand out in the cold with no clothes on while they figured out that they'd screwed up.

How did they know at the time he was unarmed? Did they pat him down? Of course we know he was unarmed now, but did they at the time?

 

They didn't jump him right away, or go from 0 to 60 right out of the gate like you say. Do you know how long they talked to him before trying to arrest him?

 

They tried to arrest him peacefully, he pulled away and I believe he told them not to touch him. What would you train them to do at that point?

 

I'd let him know he is free to go, wish him a good afternoon, and request that if it isn't too much trouble maybe he could try not to break any laws for a little while. Given that he had been arrested over 30 times, perhaps they could have given him a punch card or something that would entitle him to a free pass on every 5th arrest attempt.

I think where I'm most uncomfortable in all these various discussions, is that there seems to be "guilty until proven innocent" mindset amongst many...not just the law enforcement, but society as well.

 

If one is arrested, and later found not guilty of any crime, that arrest still stays on ones record and can be a detriment if trying to get some jobs/licenses in the future. I certainly wouldn't acquiece just to keep the police from killing me. Don't citizens have the right to at least have done something wrong before getting arrested?

 

The other day, my fiiend Katie in Washington State was at home in bed with her fiance. There was a loud banging on the door and the fiance jumped out of bed, grabbed a baseball bat and shouted "Who's there?!" At that point, the door was kicked in and several police came barreling in. They threw the fiance and Katie on floor, in their underwear, and proceeded to begin to handcuff them. Then, they led them outside and made them stand outside, IN THE COLD, IN THEIR UNDERWEAR, BAREFOOT while they searched their apartment and found nothing. Then, they concluded after about 45 minutes it was a case of mistaken identity and basically said, "oops, my bad". In all of the chaos, Katie's cats escaped the apartment and are still missing after a week.

 

Katie and Doug are pursuing legal action. And they're moving. And the police have given them no reason as to why they burst into their apartment, nor why they cuffed them and made them stand out in the cold with no clothes on while they figured out that they'd screwed up.

 

If you are under arrest, you don't have a choice. If the police screwed up, that's what court and smart attorneys are for.

 

I'm pretty sure arrests can be removed from ones record, especially if the charges are dropped or if you are found to be not guilty.

I don't think they are. Even if a court record is expunged, the record of the arrest stays. And even if it can be removed with the help of a good lawyer, why would an innocent person have to PAY to have the record removed?

If you are under arrest, you don't have a choice. If the police screwed up, that's what court and smart attorneys are for.

 

I'm pretty sure arrests can be removed from ones record, especially if the charges are dropped or if you are found to be not guilty.

 

To address the first part of this, I remain disturbed that innocent people have no recourse at the time of the incident. Now Katie and Doug have to either pursue legal action, at a cost to themsves, or just let an injustice go unaccounted for. As innocent people, why? And I don't think they were ever arrested. Just handcuffed and made to stand in the cold, practically naked, in front of all their neighbors. They lost their pets, had to pay to have their door repaired and were humiliated in front of friends and strangers. This is just wrong. And I am absolutely not OK with a society where it's OK for citizens to be treated like that.

How did they know at the time he was unarmed? Did they pat him down? Of course we know he was unarmed now, but did they at the time?

 

They didn't jump him right away, or go from 0 to 60 right out of the gate like you say. Do you know how long they talked to him before trying to arrest him?

 

 

They tried to arrest him peacefully, he pulled away and I believe he told them not to touch him. What would you train them to do at that point?

 

 

It's obvious by the way the officers approached him they weren't concerned that he might be armed.

 

None of the officers had their weapons out, and none were prepared to quickly pull their weapons should it turn ugly.

 

What's the harm in talking further? They've got him cornered.

 

If they talk for a few more minutes and he becomes belligerent, they're still in the same position to take him down forcefully.

 

A more patient approach might have worked. It might not have. But we'll never know.

To address the first part of this, I remain disturbed that innocent people have no recourse at the time of the incident. Now Katie and Doug have to either pursue legal action, at a cost to themsves, or just let an injustice go unaccounted for. As innocent people, why? And I don't think they were ever arrested. Just handcuffed and made to stand in the cold, practically naked, in front of all their neighbors. They lost their pets, had to pay to have their door repaired and were humiliated in front of friends and strangers. This is just wrong. And I am absolutely not OK with a society where it's OK for citizens to be treated like that.

 

If the case is as slam dunk as you say I'm sure there is a lawyer that will take the case on a contingency and it won't cost them a penny. If the case is as you stated.

Does anyone know what the penalty is for selling loose cigarettes?

 

Jail time? Fine?

 

I'm just curious.

 

Seems like I read he'd been arrested a bunch of times before for the same crime.

Does anyone know what the penalty is for selling loose cigarettes?

 

Jail time? Fine?

 

I'm just curious.

 

Seems like I read he'd been arrested a bunch of times before for the same crime.

He had been, plus other charges...all 30 arrest weren't for selling cigarettes.

If the case is as slam dunk as you say I'm sure there is a lawyer that will take the case on a contingency and it won't cost them a penny. If the case is as you stated.

The case is as I stated. There is still lost time from work and related inconveniences and costs. It's just wrong that innocemt people have to go through all this.

Whether or not the cops were biased against Garner, I can't speak to that. How can anyone know but them?

 

Normally I'm a police supporter but in this case there has to be some more dialogue before you jump an unarmed man like a pride of lions on a water buffalo. He's unarmed. He's not threatening the police. You've got him surrounded. Let's try some conflict resolution.

 

I don't like the zero to 60 right out of the gate. If that's how they're trained, we need to work on the training process.

 

I almost always give the police the benefit of the doubt but think they acted inappropriately in the Garner arrest. Michael Brown it appeared was threatening the police. Garner was not. The police in Garner's situation may not have committed a crime but that does not mean they got it right.

To address the first part of this, I remain disturbed that innocent people have no recourse at the time of the incident. Now Katie and Doug have to either pursue legal action, at a cost to themsves, or just let an injustice go unaccounted for. As innocent people, why? And I don't think they were ever arrested. Just handcuffed and made to stand in the cold, practically naked, in front of all their neighbors. They lost their pets, had to pay to have their door repaired and were humiliated in front of friends and strangers. This is just wrong. And I am absolutely not OK with a society where it's OK for citizens to be treated like that.

 

What recourse do you think they should have? I'm not sure what you expect.

 

If their case is as good as you say it is, I'm sure they will get their attorney fees and more paid for in a lawsuit. I'd be interested in hearing the other side of the story.

 

If it happened as you say, I agree that it is wrong. No one is saying it is okay. However, those incidents are few and far between. It's not like that is happening to everyone.