There are some nagging questions. Though quoted, I haven't seen the actual coroner's report. He labeled the death a homicide. That's his opinion, it's really up to the grand jury to make that distinction and return an indictment. I'm really be interested in the cause of death. A choke hold is considered deadly force, but if that's not the actual cause of the death then it's use only serves to create more drama.

It's been said that a choke hold is not allowed in New York. Unless there is a specific New York statute that states this, the officer violated agency policy and not the law with it's use alone. The fact that someone died shortly after it's use will certainly cloud that issue though.

That report has been quoted as saying that the fact that the guy was in a prone position contributed to his death. Every single day hundreds if not more people are taken into custody and handcuffed while face down. Few die. If this led to his death then there may possibly a related health condition.

At the end of the day, it needs to be determined whether the police officers had a lawful right to detain him while investigating a criminal matter. The seriousness of which really has no bearing whatsoever. Keep in mind Timothy McVeigh was caught because another officer chose to investigate a car being driven with no license plate.

At this point there are plenty of unanswered questions that new to be considered.

on the NPRs this morning some dude was quoting the 'no choke hold statute thing'... 😟

Abrignac is right. It's not against their law just against policy. Something to be careful of.

And it is interesting that the autopsy report is not available, yet widly quoted.

I do not beleive the only issue is if they had the right to detain him and the seriousness of the offense does have a bearing on how they approached things Timothy McVeigh not withstanding. I'm thinking the video shows at least one cop going way beyond what he should be and violating policy while doing so. I think the others should have stopped him (I know Abrig and I disagree a bit on that). I'm willing to consider there is more to the story but if we have all the facts (we do not) this is a bad deal.

I choked the chicken in the shower recently...


wheel,,

Jade wants to see the video to determine if it's a violation or just exciting.

The first thing a Monday morning quarter back does is say the crime wasn't serious enough to justify an officer's actions. Unfortunately, it's all crock. It's real easy to critique anther's actions after an entire situation has played completely out. Especially after they have spent many minutes pondering actions that lasted mere seconds. I'm sure many times officers regret taking certain actions. But, they make split second decisions everyday. The alternative is to set up a conference call, wait for a call back and make sure all their planned actions are completely vetted before they make a move.

In terms of allowing the seriousness of a situation dictate a reaction, that's all fine and well. But, there is no such thing as a routine call. Most LEO's cringe at that term as they know it is a media stereotype that flat out doesn't exist. Until an officer on scene has began on investigation, they really have absolutely no idea how serious a situation is or will become. I could list plenty of names of officers who responded to "routine calls" shortly thereafter they left behind widows and fatherless children.

Take Lt. Vicki Wax for example. She tried to effect an arrest on a person who shop lifted a $14 camera. She never made it home.

http://www.odmp.org/officer/17326-lieutenant-vickie-salassi-wax 

Should she have ignored the fact that this person committed a misdemeanor theft? If she did, then she could have been charged with malfeasance in office, a felony.

If the people don't want a law enforced, it needs to come off the books. But, certainly we don't need to be telling officers what laws to enforce and what not to enforce do we? It seem quite a few folks around here have a problem with the President doing just that.

The bottom line is very clear. One can choose to be a law abiding citizen or one can choose to not follow the laws and deal with the consequences.

Come on. You know you have to weigh the situation.

That aside what I am saying is regardless of that having the right to detain does not absolve police brutality therefor it is not the only issue involved.

What brutality? 😟

Lol.

Honestly I don't think Abrig believes the cop with the chokehold was in the right.

And jetbI didn't say there was any in this case. You are clear. If you do anything worthy of the police arresting you they can kill you if they choose. You chose to break the law (an arrest is good enough, a conviction is s formality).

But there was. he shouldn't have befn choked out.

Typing on a cell phone sucks.

They attempted to arrest him. He resisted. **** went downhill from there. It sucks to be him, because he's dead. "If he had only listened & complied", he'd still be alive. He didn't, and he died. Oh well. Another stupid criminal off the streets. Boo-Hoo.

At meat you are clear.

Least not meat lol.

We know whats on your mind

Let's deal with the choke hold for what it's worth. It's considered deadly force. There are numerous laws regarding acceptable use of deadly force. Should someone die or become injured as a result, it's use will be scrutinized.

A more relevant question should be answered. Were the officers acting within the scope of reasonable suspicion when they attempted to detain the suspect? If so, did he unlawfully resist. If that's the case it must be proven that an officer's unlawful action caused his death in order to have grounds for prosecution. So regarding it's use in this situation there must be evidence that the choke hold was the cause of death.

I have heard that the suspect was an asthmatic and had a heart condition. I've read he died of cardiac arrest. Perhaps that is the reason the Grand Jury declined top indict the officer Perhaps they felt that the heart attack was brought on by the stress of the detainment. Perhaps they felt that since he didn't die from asphyxiation, they felt the choke hold was not the cause of death. Maybe they felt had he not unlawfully resisted; his detainment would not have been as stressful and he would have likely survived.

Who knows what they thought?

To be tangentially contrarian here, the guys was selling illegal cigarettes.

Oh wait...tobacco is a legal substance! How could these be illegal?!? Well, because some of the biggest black-market items are perfectly legal. But organized crime makes millions (if not billions) of dollars of revenue in these items alone: guns, tobacco, and liquor.

And now they want to legalize marijuana, so as to "remove the criminal element" from its sales and distribution. Oh, and have the government "regulate" this industry and make is "safe".

The same government that put a choke-hold on a black man in a city run by an avowed socialist.

I don't see any upside to this story, the legalization of marijuana, and the slavish devotion to big government that teedubbya has.

Your apology is accepted.

"They taxed me on the copper, they taxed me on the corn & they taxed me on the sugar, but they want to throw me in jail for my liquor". - Popcorn Sutton