mike brown vs. eric garner

[dcs13]

Sorry all I see from you is "Slurp slurp slurp...spit...slurp slurp...gag...slurp...gag...spit..."

Yeah, don't let facts get in the way. When facts don't work on the side of your argument, start calling names and foul... That's one of the problems with some of you guys. Can't have an adult conversation with actual opinions.

[Jewrrick]

I have watched the video and so have "experts". They agree its not a choke hold.
Look at any MMA fight, if anyone was going to die from a choke hold , it would be an MMA fighter.
The head lock had nothing to do with his breathing issue. His breathing issue came bout because he was face down with weight on him (his own and the officers) look up positional asphyxia.
From the last time you hear "I can't breath" to where there is an obvious issue is less than 30 seconds. Anyone can hold their breath that long. He had his arm around his neck for a very short period of time taking him down and he was talking after that. You have to breath to talk.
Its a bad deal, but this is a mdeical issue with a 400 lb guy that decided he didn't want to get arrested.

Sorry all I see from you is "Slurp slurp slurp...spit...slurp slurp...gag...slurp...gag...spit..."

[Denny]

I have watched the video and so have "experts". They agree its not a choke hold.
Look at any MMA fight, if anyone was going to die from a choke hold , it would be an MMA fighter.
The head lock had nothing to do with his breathing issue. His breathing issue came bout because he was face down with weight on him (his own and the officers) look up positional asphyxia.
From the last time you hear "I can't breath" to where there is an obvious issue is less than 30 seconds. Anyone can hold their breath that long. He had his arm around his neck for a very short period of time taking him down and he was talking after that. You have to breath to talk.
Its a bad deal, but this is a mdeical issue with a 400 lb guy that decided he didn't want to get arrested.

So... the officer's actions played a role in his death. Gotcha.

[dcs13]

I have watched the video and so have "experts". They agree its not a choke hold.
Look at any MMA fight, if anyone was going to die from a choke hold , it would be an MMA fighter.
The head lock had nothing to do with his breathing issue. His breathing issue came bout because he was face down with weight on him (his own and the officers) look up positional asphyxia.
From the last time you hear "I can't breath" to where there is an obvious issue is less than 30 seconds. Anyone can hold their breath that long. He had his arm around his neck for a very short period of time taking him down and he was talking after that. You have to breath to talk.
Its a bad deal, but this is a mdeical issue with a 400 lb guy that decided he didn't want to get arrested.

[Broncojohnny]

That is a bad argument. Against policy does not always equate to illegal acts.

True but at the same time there is a reason why they don't allow it. This guy did it anyway and should be held accountable.

[BP]

This was at least indictable. I'm not a FTP guy nor am I a badge homer, but anyone with a reasonable head on their shoulders could see that it was enough for a judge to hear both sides.

Neither prosecutor did a very good job presenting their case to the grand jury. What kind of attorney goes to court and presents both sides? A prosecutor is supposed to present one side of the argument in the best light possible to get an indictment.

Instead they were both worried about their relationships with the local populace and the police force so they deferred judgement to the grand jury. Where everything is handled in secret and there isn't anyone there to cross examine witnesses.

[Denny]

mace-not against policy
taser-not against policy
choking a man to death-obv. not against policy either.

god bless.

That is a bad argument. Against policy does not always equate to illegal acts.

[ELVIS]

Because of the 23 grand jurors that listened to the FACTS of the case, there wasn't 12 that thought there was any criminal culpability. I applaud both grand juries for listening to the facts and making a decision based on facts and not on public sentiment. Knowing that their decision would be second guessed and riots would happen, they still made a decision based on the factual evidence.
This deal was made to be all about the "choke hold". What was used was not a lateral vascular neck restraint. It was a head lock used to pull the guy to the ground. Getting a big fat guy to the ground isn't the easiest thing to do if they don't wanna go down.

mace-not against policy
taser-not against policy
choking a man to death-obv. not against policy either.

god bless.

[Broncojohnny]

It was a head lock used to pull the guy to the ground.

I think you may have forgotten there is a video.

[Denny]

Because of the 23 grand jurors that listened to the FACTS of the case, there wasn't 12 that thought there was any criminal culpability. I applaud both grand juries for listening to the facts and making a decision based on facts and not on public sentiment. Knowing that their decision would be second guessed and riots would happen, they still made a decision based on the factual evidence.
This deal was made to be all about the "choke hold". What was used was not a lateral vascular neck restraint. It was a head lock used to pull the guy to the ground. Getting a big fat guy to the ground isn't the easiest thing to do if they don't wanna go down.

Call it what you want, the hold went across his neck and it did restrict his airway. You can call it the Million Dollar Dream for all I care. This was at least indictable. I'm not a FTP guy nor am I a badge homer, but anyone with a reasonable head on their shoulders could see that it was enough for a judge to hear both sides.

He argued that it was a takedown tactic he learned in the academy, but he failed to mention that when the person is being choked, it is now a choke hold.

[jluv]

This deal was made to be all about the "choke hold". What was used was not a lateral vascular neck restraint. It was a head lock used to pull the guy to the ground. Getting a big fat guy to the ground isn't the easiest thing to do if they don't wanna go down.

Why did they need to put him on the ground at all? And LOL @ the headlock vs choke hold argument.

[dcs13]

That's where I'm at. This grand jury decision wasn't if he's guilty or not, it was to see if the prosecutor could even fight this in court. Thinking that it could go either way, I don't see why it didn't at least go to trial.

Because of the 23 grand jurors that listened to the FACTS of the case, there wasn't 12 that thought there was any criminal culpability. I applaud both grand juries for listening to the facts and making a decision based on facts and not on public sentiment. Knowing that their decision would be second guessed and riots would happen, they still made a decision based on the factual evidence.
This deal was made to be all about the "choke hold". What was used was not a lateral vascular neck restraint. It was a head lock used to pull the guy to the ground. Getting a big fat guy to the ground isn't the easiest thing to do if they don't wanna go down.

[Denny]

That's where I'm at. This grand jury decision wasn't if he's guilty or not, it was to see if the prosecutor could even fight this in court. Thinking that it could go either way, I don't see why it didn't at least go to trial.

[YALE]

I don't see how they avoided charges. Manslaughter, at least, as mentioned earlier. If you fuck up and kill someone, even if you didn't do it on purpose, you typically face charges, right? But this ruling seems to say that they didn't fuck up, and that the way they treated this guy was justified. That's crazy to me. And the other message it sends is that cops can be bullies and assholes and get away with it, even when caught on tape. Even when it causes a senseless death. Why? Because they're cops? That's a shame.

I thought you were going a different way with this. I agree with you.

[jluv]

No?

I don't see how they avoided charges. Manslaughter, at least, as mentioned earlier. If you fuck up and kill someone, even if you didn't do it on purpose, you typically face charges, right? But this ruling seems to say that they didn't fuck up, and that the way they treated this guy was justified. That's crazy to me. And the other message it sends is that cops can be bullies and assholes and get away with it, even when caught on tape. Even when it causes a senseless death. Why? Because they're cops? That's a shame.