Staten Island man dies after NYPD cop puts him in chokehold [VIDEO]

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by sr20s14zenki


I did not mean to draw you into this or whatever. Im not trying to troll or anything. I just believe that people should be held accountable for what they do, sworn to protect or not. The fact is this, while they did not intend to kill the man, their actions/ improperly following procudure (as you said, you dont normally use that move, as its considered lethal) caused or contributed to a man dying. But its ok because it was an accident? Lets say i get in a fight at a bar (total hypothetical) and im defending myself and accidentally punch the guy in the wrong place, and he dies....am i most likely going to get manslaughter?

I dunno, maybe im understanding it wrong. At any rate, i didn't mean to derail this. I just firmly think people should be held responsible for their actions.

That's fine that you believe people should be held responsible for their actions. I don't know who you think is disputing that, but I'm not that person. Noone should get away with deliberately or negligently killing another person. Noone believes that. I agree that people need to be held responsible. I even said I'm not taking a side, just offering some perspectives from both sides.

I think you are confusing the two events here. I said the Vancouver airport death was as a result of how they handled the event post arrest... but this event, the one in NY, showed a technique that is considered lethal. I didn't say it killed him or didn't kill him. I didn't say it was ok to kill anyone because it's an accident, nor did I say it was an accident.

What I did say was that there are a number of factors at play here, which may or may not have contributed. Maybe those officers were negligent in their actions, knowing full well that what they were doing could seriously injure or kill him - but they continued anyways. That doesn't make a homicide, it makes for gross negligence or manslaughter. Maybe they felt what they were justified and not aware of what was happening inside his body or that they were contributing to that, and continued because they felt they were controlling him and he was still fine. We can't see inside people's bodies, and we have no idea if someone is having a heart attack or experiencing some other medical distress unless it's acutely obvious.

Like I said, not taking a side here.. just offering some viewpoints.

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by sr20s14zenki




you actually gave me a chuckle there.

This tells me your perspective on any of this is already colored by your bias, so I'm not sure what else to tell you.

It's not a fact that we aren't held accountable. Cops are charged and convicted all the time. However, we do have unique jobs and the events we get involved in lead to acts that appear criminal but aren't. Just because someone don't agree with a legal opinion rendered by someone who actually has all the facts doesn't mean cover up.

[sr20s14zenki]

Originally posted by phil98z24


That's fine that you believe people should be held responsible for their actions. I don't know who you think is disputing that, but I'm not that person. Noone should get away with deliberately or negligently killing another person. Noone believes that. I agree that people need to be held responsible. I even said I'm not taking a side, just offering some perspectives from both sides.

I think you are confusing the two events here. I said the Vancouver airport death was as a result of how they handled the event post arrest... but this event, the one in NY, showed a technique that is considered lethal. I didn't say it killed him or didn't kill him. I didn't say it was ok to kill anyone because it's an accident, nor did I say it was an accident.

What I did say was that there are a number of factors at play here, which may or may not have contributed. Maybe those officers were negligent in their actions, knowing full well that what they were doing could seriously injure or kill him - but they continued anyways. That doesn't make a homicide, it makes for gross negligence or manslaughter. Maybe they felt what they were justified and not aware of what was happening inside his body or that they were contributing to that, and continued because they felt they were controlling him and he was still fine. We can't see inside people's bodies, and we have no idea if someone is having a heart attack or experiencing some other medical distress unless it's acutely obvious.

Like I said, not taking a side here.. just offering some viewpoints.

Fair enough. Multiple viewpoints are good.

Im not saying cops are bad, and as im sure you've read in other threads, im all for the police. Without you guys, i dont know what things would be like. HOWEVER, there are bad ones out there, and it seems like they get protected all the time when they fuck up, until its too late. In a few cases, you've seen multiple reprimands to pretty serious issues, before the officer finally does something that ends up in a death, and THEN, maybe they look at it, but its too late.

On the flip side, it would be a tradgedy if an officer was just doing his job, and was falsely accused, or smeared. So, i do realize why this protection for you guys needs to be there....i just think it may be a bit biased to protect the bad cops?

[sr20s14zenki]

Originally posted by phil98z24


This tells me your perspective on any of this is already colored by your bias, so I'm not sure what else to tell you.

It's not a fact that we aren't held accountable. Cops are charged and convicted all the time. However, we do have unique jobs and the events we get involved in lead to acts that appear criminal but aren't. Just because someone don't agree with a legal opinion rendered by someone who actually has all the facts doesn't mean cover up.

LoL, no, it was more on the rich people/politicians side of things. I was thinking about Allison Redford, and how she fucked all of us and got away scott free. I explained in my previous post to you my thoughts, just figured i would address this. Absolutely not, do i think that cops are terrible, and yatta yatta. You get it.

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by sr20s14zenki



LoL, no, it was more on the rich people/politicians side of things. I was thinking about Allison Redford, and how she fucked all of us and got away scott free. I explained in my previous post to you my thoughts, just figured i would address this. Absolutely not, do i think that cops are terrible, and yatta yatta. You get it.

Fair enough, it just came right on the heels of you and I responding to each other, so I jumped the gun.

My apologies.

[cherpintow]

I wonder what would have happened if the police started asking the guy what happened when they showed up? The two guys that initiated the physical contact as soon as back up arrived are responsible for the unnecessary escalation of the situation.

The guy was just standing there, sure he was upset, but not doing anything threatening. It's the immediate escalation that kicks the whole scenario up a notch. If he was breaking up a situation, talk to some witnesses as well. I truly believe there are ways of avoiding and diffusing these situations better.

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by sr20s14zenki



Fair enough. Multiple viewpoints are good.

Im not saying cops are bad, and as im sure you've read in other threads, im all for the police. Without you guys, i dont know what things would be like. HOWEVER, there are bad ones out there, and it seems like they get protected all the time when they fuck up, until its too late. In a few cases, you've seen multiple reprimands to pretty serious issues, before the officer finally does something that ends up in a death, and THEN, maybe they look at it, but its too late.

On the flip side, it would be a tradgedy if an officer was just doing his job, and was falsely accused, or smeared. So, i do realize why this protection for you guys needs to be there....i just think it may be a bit biased to protect the bad cops?

I can say though, being on this side of things, that it's not actually true that we receive reprimand for serious issues and just continue on our way until we kill someone and it's finally taken seriously. Those who employ us have a legal obligation to afford us legal protection until court or a hearing, and sometimes the courts have a different viewpoint or when the facts actually come out, it isn't as serious as it first appears. The public just never hears about the results, or the facts as they are presented after the public trial in the media.

The system that has been set up to protect us due to the unique natures of our work has backfired to some extent, but I can't think of an instance where someone remains on the job after a very serious criminal act or act of extreme negligence. Noone wants to keep someone in their employ who is a liability to the very people they are supposed to be working with and for, but people do slip through. That's not a failure of the system, that's a failure of being human.. it happens in numerous places, but unfortunately law enforcement is the one field where we have a lot of control over people's lives and yes, it can go very, very badly if we don't stop these people before they can do any damage.

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by cherpintow
I wonder what would have happened if the police started asking the guy what happened when they showed up? The two guys that initiated the physical contact as soon as back up arrived are responsible for the unnecessary escalation of the situation.

The guy was just standing there, sure he was upset, but not doing anything threatening. It's the immediate escalation that kicks the whole scenario up a notch. If he was breaking up a situation, talk to some witnesses as well. I truly believe there are ways of avoiding and diffusing these situations better.

Interesting assessment considering we aren't privy to what happened leading up to this video, or what else was happening outside of the view of the lens. I also think this video started well into this interaction, so I think it's a little fast to render an judgement based on this snippit of video.

What I do find interesting is that you missed what happened when this "escalated". They tell him he is under arrest, and go to arrest him, and he kicks off. It appears to me they were talking to him and trying to find out what was happening, he was ranting and raving, they moved in to make an arrest and he resisted, and they tried to take immediate control. There is nothing wrong with that. They can't just release him because he is resisting and escalating the situation.

I think it's the way they did it and what happened afterwards is what needs to be examined.

[jjmac]

Originally posted by FraserB


In which cases have people been handed life sentences without investigation or trial?

You won't find one because every person serving a prison term has been convicted of a crime by a court.

Ya I probably won't find one you're right, because the court system never fails and is always right with their convictions.

[Modelexis]

ASIRT is like a paraplegic lifeguard on duty, sure there technically is a lifeguard on duty but what a fucking joke.

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by jjmac


Ya I probably won't find one you're right, because the court system never fails and is always right with their convictions.

That wasn't the question he asked. He asked if people have been handed sentences without investigation or trial.

[Arash Boodagh]

This is the type of shit we should expect from a Banana Republic country where the police are given immunity to terrorize people, but its becoming the norm in our Americas.

What I find more disturbing is how people accept this kind of behavior with their bizarro world moral standards.

[Nitro5]

Originally posted by Arash Boodagh
This is the type of shit we should expect from a Banana Republic country where the police are given immunity to terrorize people, but its becoming the norm in our Americas.

What I find more disturbing is how people accept this kind of behavior with their bizarro world moral standards.

Curiously in your mind how should they go about arresting a 400lb giant that doesn't want to be arrested?

[Arash Boodagh]

Did he need to be arrested in the first place? In New York if your not Anglo white, police stop and question young males all the time... cops actually have a quota to fill and do this everyday.
The black guy in this video was tired of automatically being seen as a criminal because of the colour of his skin when in fact he was a good samaritan for breaking up a fight.

If I needed to arrest him as an officer and he didnt comply to my respectful requests I would bring out a bean bag shot gun to do the talking.

[sr20s14zenki]

Originally posted by Arash Boodagh
Did he need to be arrested in the first place? In New York if your not Anglo white, police stop and question young males all the time... cops actually have a quota to fill and do this everyday.
The black guy in this video was tired of automatically being seen as a criminal because of the colour of his skin when in fact he was a good samaritan for breaking up a fight.

If I needed to arrest him as an officer and he didnt comply to my respectful requests I would bring out a bean bag shot gun to do the talking.

OMFG...there is some sanity in there? Im absolutely floored.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by Arash Boodagh
Did he need to be arrested in the first place? In New York if your not Anglo white, police stop and question young males all the time... cops actually have a quota to fill and do this everyday.
The black guy in this video was tired of automatically being seen as a criminal because of the colour of his skin when in fact he was a good samaritan for breaking up a fight.

If I needed to arrest him as an officer and he didnt comply to my respectful requests I would bring out a bean bag shot gun to do the talking.

Maybe if he wanted the police to stop seeing him as a criminal, he should stop breaking the law. I know it's a shocking concept for a lot of people, but it would probably work pretty well.

[Nitro5]

You do know that beanbag rounds have a risk of death or serious wounding right? A quick google gives a ton of details.

[Arash Boodagh]

I would start at the feet and work upwards as needed. Im sure that method is a lot safer and humanitarian then all the tactics that police mostly use.

Originally posted by FraserB


Maybe if he wanted the police to stop seeing him as a criminal, he should stop breaking the law. I know it's a shocking concept for a lot of people, but it would probably work pretty well.

From the 50's blacks were denied home loans because of their skin, in the 70's crack (and doped up vets) was flooded into their neighbourhoods by the CIA, and these days we have a hijacked rap culture in which materialism is god. Compound these problems and you get really poor groups of people who need to steal and fill their families stomachs on top of social problems.

To say blacks should stop doing crime and then a collective racist punishment will be lifted is not putting the blame on the source of the problem.

[Nitro5]

Now there's the Arash we know and love

[jjmac]

Originally posted by FraserB


Maybe if he wanted the police to stop seeing him as a criminal, he should stop breaking the law. I know it's a shocking concept for a lot of people, but it would probably work pretty well.

Great investigative work