Yep, every police officer in America wakes up every day hoping they can get into a fight and have an excuse to exert unnecessary force...:no:

 

To be fair he didn't say every police officer.

Yep, every police officer in America wakes up every day hoping they can get into a fight and have an excuse to exert unnecessary force...:no:

 

Where did I say anything even close to that? I said this guy, you know, the one with the racial accusations in his past.

 

I think he wanted to exert unnecessary force on the guy.

 

What are you basing that on?

Where did I say anything even close to that? I said this guy, you know, the one with the racial accusations in his past.

I was just extrapolating out your thought process.

 

So you think this guy was just waiting for his chance to exert force on someone? Then he picks someone twice his size to do it? Maybe he was just trying to arrest a man that was resisting arrest, no more no less.

 

But that's too easy isn't it...there has to be more...

I was just extrapolating out your thought process.

 

So you think this guy was just waiting for his chance to exert force on someone? Then he picks someone twice his size to do it? Maybe he was just trying to arrest a man that was resisting arrest, no more no less.

 

But that's too easy isn't it...there has to be more...

 

So ignore the officer's past?

I do think watching the news they are promoting one false narrative in this story questioning if the guy resisted . They had a former NYPD trainer on CNN who was trying to explain to Don Lemon why what he was doing was resisting arrest. One person said he was walking backwards with hands up how is that resisting. As the trainer said they told him multiple times he was under arrest and to put his hands behind his back. Avoiding a police order to submit is by definition resisting arrest. He did recieve multiple chances. If it were a fair narrative we would start there.

 

Now where the debate begins is what happens on that ground. But to act like the police weren't just in subdueing him in a physical manner after resisting arrest is being dishonest.

So ignore the officer's past?

 

I won't until it was posted it was the first I heard of it. I'd have to look at the accusations to see the pattern. Was he cleared on any of them?

 

I would say a white police officer in a mostly minority neighborhood is bound to recieve some complaints. But that's not see all of his complaints aren't real. I just want to see them first.

There's like 6 cops there yet they had to put him in a choke hold?

There's like 6 cops there yet they had to put him in a choke hold?

 

I think that is what makes this case difficult for a lot of people. It just seems like a better job of subduing him without him dying could have been accomplished.

There is a $6. a pack cigarette tax people buying from him were avoiding. Should have been a ticketing offence, but that is not the way the law was written. Police uphold the law and he dies. Everything is so wrong.

Officer's testimony:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/nyregion/officer-told-grand-jury-he-meant-no-harm-to-eric-garner.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

I will say one big issue I have is why they were arresting him . I'm waiting for that reason. I know apparently a lot of these cases end with summons or a ticket. But prior arrests can come into play in arresting for a small offense.

 

This case so far is struggle for me. I do think the man resisted arrest and I'm ton if the force was to excessive because he resissted. But in my gut I don't think someone should die for sell black market cigarettes . This is just a really bad situation. I would prefer it played out in court. In Ferguson I felt the officer was justified , in this case I'm torn and that's why I would prefer it to play out in court.

I just don't see any way that this is an acceptable way to handle this type of violation. The man did not attack, charge, draw a gun or weapon. He didn't appear to be cursing. Is it criminal? IMO it has to be. Murder, manslaughter involuntary or voluntary. In this instance, it did not look like any of the officers were in danger. People can defend the officers actions all they want, but that is protecting the profession blindly and not looking at each circumstance individually.

 

I truly believe you give police officers the benefit of the doubt. There is no doubt in this one to me.

When it gets down to it, everybody dies of cardiac arrest.

 

(Insert sarcastic smiley here)).

One challenge for the police is that two officers involved say the guy never looked like he was having any problems or that he was in distress. Said nothing looked serious.

 

Either they are lying or they are just lacking situational awareness. Neither are good in their profession.

 

 

Which is odd, as most would think officers will stick together, these two did not. Why would they lie to help bring a fellow officer down? There is a third option, that these other two officers did take into account of the situation awareness, and telling the truth.