Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidelle
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I'm only speaking of this particular case. My opinion, based on the information I've seen so far, is that I think the cops went overboard here and it appears they recklessly or negligently caused this man's death. I don't believe I was implying in any way that the NYPD are generally "overzealous" or run around "killing everyone" whenever they feel like it though. Lol.
So NY state law says it's legal to use a choke hold and the NYC regulations have banned it's use. Were the cops acting lawfully or not when they used it on Eric Garner then? Confused and not a lawyer...
In any case, they could have eased up a bit on the guy once he was down. They weren't in danger from him at that point, at least he wasn't trying to hurt them that I could see.
|
Yes, that was my fault in my wording. I didn't mean to explicitly state you said the NYPD was overzealous or killing everyone. I was more talking about the general reactions. As far as the chokeholds go it is one of those things that is a rule that isn't really followed. Internal Affairs won't pursue it 99% of the time and civil lawsuits won't get anything out of it because the state law trumps in that case. Even the whole argument about what really constitutes a chokehold is a grey area. In the academy officers are actually taught certain moves that resembled chokeholds but stay away from the neck and throat. I believe their idea of a chokehold is force to neck which they think is different than pressure to the neck. You can see how this is so convoluted.
This also wasn't death by asphyxiation, the coroner's finding was that he died from "compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police.” It was also stated that this could have been due to the man's medical condition. You can see how defense lawyers would have a field day with this and no prosecutor wants to open up the Pandora's box of prosecuting cops in such a gray area.