The Pernicious Myth Of "If You Can Speak You Can Breathe"

Wrong.

FYI.

There are vital blood vessels on the left and right sides of the neck. You can choke someone out very quickly by compressing both sides of the neck. In this particular homcide case, the perp compressed one side with his bicept and the other side with his forearm. Applying hard pressure to the windpipe is not at all necessary to choke someone out. If you are choking off the carotid arteries that lead from the aorta to the brain, there is no need to choke off the windpipe. In fact, choking off the carotid arteries will choke someone out faster than choking off the windpipe.

 

So you live in an area where the police are "extremely corrupt and abusive" but you think that if anyone resists that "extremely corrupt and abusive" behavior and die as a result then they get what they deserve? Very odd reasoning you have going on there.

If he was not being arrested for selling cigarettes then please enlighten us all as to the real cause of his arrest.

 

I can agree that being choked by an attacker from behind can certainly be a causative factor leading to cardiac arrest. Especially if the victim is in poor health to begin with.

 

Yes it was causative along with compression of his lungs while down and pressing his face into the sidewalk. His health being a factor led to his death where someone healthy would have no effect.

The real crime here is Statism. Cigarette tax is a very regressive tax that leads to things like what Garner was doing trying to make a living in a difficult world. The 'loosie' law targets non-violent crime when the police would be better serving the community targeting real crime. The police do what they are tasked to do so the real crime is caused by the City and State. I believe the family should sue the City and State for whatever they can get.

 

What caused this was Mr. Garners previous record of resisting arrest everything here followed from that. Without that record Mr.Garner would likely still be alive. He would also likely still be alive had the Paramedics not screwed up.

 

"Corrupt" as in "they get kickbacks from the tow companies who charge $350 for a half mile tow." "Abusive" as in pulling people over without good reason. Whether and wherever police are corrupt or not, standing in the street and shouting at them, then resisting them is a one-way ticket to being subdued, legally, morally, and rationally. It's why they are called police and not "happy fun time PC friends."

FFS, you can't even spin the language enough to make the above look right, LOL. He was S-U-B-D-U-E-D for resisting arrest, as you, me or anyone else in the country would be, regardless of the grounds for arrest.

 

No one was. Not even Garner.

... but resisting arrest.

 

Sure you are. LOL

 

There is no spin at all. Binding a human being's hands behind his back and throwing him in a cage is a VIOLENT act to begin with.

Even if he were selling cigarettes, that is a peaceful action and it is immoral to meet peaceful actions with violence...which is exactly what happened here.

Now, go ahead explain why and how it is moral to initiate violence against peaceful people and then we'll see who is "spinning the language".

 

Did you type that with a straight face? You really don't think Garner was met with violence?

How about I come up behind you and use my arms to apply pressure to your neck, then have my friends pull you to the ground while one of them grinds your head into the concrete. We then bind your hands behind your back.

Would you consider that violent action? Or would you buy us all cupcakes afterwards as a thank you for our peaceful actions toward you?

 

Well, it's a myth that many of us are taught in terms of people choking on food. In terms of people choking on food, if they can talk they can breath, or more specifically, their airway is not blocked with food. That is why many of us have that idea. I thought it myself until I read that article. It would be a valuable thing to teach police officers (and others who use physical restraints) about that.

 

Yes, he was being subdued for resisting arrest. He was being arrested for selling individual cigarettes. If there had been no government greed driven law against selling individual cigarettes, there would be no cause for arrest and thus no cause for the any contact between the police and Mr. Garner at all.

 

Of course.

I know Garner was met with force that he himself instigated by refusing and resisting a legal arrest.

Did you type that with a straight face? You try to assualt me like a street thug and you'll end up like Garner. In reality, you would never get close enough, so no need to get all excited.

I would consider it a dumb act on your part. I also consider your attempt at some moral equivalency as to what happened in the Garner case and your dream of being able to affect an assualt on me is just as dumb.

Funny, I was just thinking how Cupcakes would be appropriate for you.

 

Oooh, suddenly, when it's happening to you, it's an assault "like a street thug" would perform, but when it happened to Garner it somehow doesn't even qualify as violence in your mind...

Funny how (*)(*)(*)(*) like that works.

 

My mind is as the law states... not as your feelings dictate.

Funny how (*)(*)(*)(*) like that works.[/QUOTE]Ohhh, I am no criminal like Garner and you're no cop, so of course it works like that. And had I been Garner I would have simply complied. Too bad context around facts just took all the (*)(*)(*)(*) and vinegar out of your "feelings" based arguement ... Cupcake? .

 

Has Jesse Jackson been giving you rhetoric lessons?

You are clearly a stranger to reason when you think that the definition of violence varies depending upon the occupation of the aggressor.

It happens to someone else...it isn't violence...but the mere hypothetical of it happening to you brought out talk of "assault" and then the keyboard commando gibberish followed.

 

That's called a rhyme -- not rhetoric.

When you confuse feelings for reason or logic, you bet I'm a stranger to that nonsense and the phony premise you are trying to set up that this is all about violence and its all the LEO's fault. Too bad reality and the law disagree with your feelings. There is no moral equivelency between your goofy scenario about me and what cops had to do with Garner-- NONE

I see you're hung up on this "violence" thing and I suppose if I didn't have any of the facts or the law to support my feelings I might be inclined to claim such nonsense, but then again, I'd more likely just not participate and look stupid.

Ummm... because that is what it is called. And what the cops did to Garner is called affecting an arrest on some one who is resisting arrest. Garner was in total control as to the outcome of this event and he chose a bad one.

I'm already aware of your habit to skip over facts and details. No sense in over doing it.

 

It was rhetoric that rhymed, hence the Jesse Jackson comment...

More babbling about "feelings"...is that just your fallback argument or something? I haven't been mentioning any feelings, I've been relying on the very clear definition of the word "violence" whereas your definition of the word changes depending on whether the action is happening to you or to someone else. That is the epitome of an emotional argument since you brought it up. In order to support your position you have to redefine words and ignore logic.

Eric Garner was met with violence for allegedly engaging in peaceful actions. Indisputable FACT.

 

QUOTE=tomfoo13ry;1064533517]It was rhetoric that rhymed, hence the Jesse Jackson comment..[/QUOTE]Except it is fact-- not rhetoric.

Feel free to quit anytime. I'd be good with that.

Fallback?... you mean like how you keep insisting on defining violence because you have no argument about what actually happened between Garner and LEO's?

You don't have to-- its obvious when you make such factless claims about how some one shouldn't be subjected to violence for just selling cigarettes.
The fact is, Garner was only subjected to "violence" because he resisted arrest. End of story. He wasn't some one who was attacked and subjected to "violence" for just standing there.

Um, because you have no real argument and need to construct a strawman to make it look like Garner was just standing on the street and partaking of any illegal activity and did nothing to instigate his own demise.

It seems you are chasing your own tail. I've never given a definition of "violence" because this event is less about violence and all about what happens when your are committing a crime and then resist arrest.

I'll just have to take your word for that, I have no experience on such matters and whereas you are clearly an expert.

Allegedly? Yes, he was comitting a "peaceful" crime right up to the time he resisted arrest! Soon after, he really got peaceful!

Where? got a link? LOL

 

There are PLENTY of laws I don't agree with, black market laws aren't among them, but they are laws nonetheless. To turn the silly "arrested for cigarettes" crowd on their ears, if selling cigs is no big deal, and the guy had been arrested over and over for it with little ill effect, why did he commit the FAR MORE SERIOUS CRIME of resisting arrest?

If a cop starts to give you a speeding ticket, and you get out of your car, start yelling at him, YOU WILL BE ARRESTED. If you resist the arrest, YOU WILL BE SUBDUED, and it will not be a pleasant experience. Despite that, if you are not a giant, unhealthy lard-ass, you will likely survive the experience.

 

My argument has been consistent from jump street. Eric Garner was engaging in peaceful actions and was then assaulted by a bunch of street thugs with badges.

An of course this resulted, as can be expected, with statist cowards rolling on the floor laughing because a human being was killed.

 

Like I said. You have no argument because it is based entirely on a false premise. Garner was selling "loosies" which is an illegal activity and when the local merchants reported him to the cops they had to affect an arrest. There is nothing peaceful about resisting arrest, but enjoy your delusion.

No need to provide additional evidence of your over embelished emotional bleeding heart manifistations... besides, it is precisely the leftist "statist cowards" who made selling "loosies" a crime. Go whine to them, but thanks for the laughs. It was fun.

 

Which of my premises is false? Are you saying that he was being arrested for resisting arrest? No, of course not. He was being arrested for allegedly selling cigarettes which is a peaceful activity. The violence was initiated by the police.

Rightist statist coward---Leftist statist coward.....I think you've demonstrated that there is no difference between the two. Enjoy your company.

 

But still illegal, nonetheless and the officers were called in to affect and arrest. The arrest could have been "peaceful" but Garner told them he was not going to comply and then flailed his arms around to avoid the LEO's from putting him in cuffs as is SOP.

Wrong. If Garner had only complied he would be alive-- PERIOD.

When you get all EMO like that you crack me up!

 

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that he was resisting arrest?

Anyone who is not an idiot can see that the pigs murdered a disabled man.