Problems with the Eric Garner Eric Garner is dead, a fact which no doubt brings grief to somebody somewhere. Hes dead, according to people who have no ability to think critically, because he was black. This is, of course, ridiculous, and more importantly detracts from any intelligent discourse that could be had about what may or may not have gone wrong. The crime, the contact, the use of force, the aftermath...all of it drowned up by ignorant assertions of racism. As you might imagine, the case created quite a discussion (and some disagreement) within the ranks of our minions. Responses ranged from *shrug* Play stupid games, win stupid prizes to, Why are we going hands on so fast for such insignificant cause? and many points between. None of them had anything to do with the color of anyones skin (suspect, officers, bystanders, etc.) and everything to do with aspects that merit discussion. Heres one of our minions perspective. Youll see more in coming days on this, the murder of 2 NYPD officers and what we see as some legitimate problems. In the meantime Chris addresses breathing, probably cause, the choke hold and his bottom line. Mad Duo Sometimes cops do something controversial, but dont get in trouble because what they did was right. Darren Wilson, for example, was right to use deadly force against Michael Brown in Ferguson. Sometimes cops do something controversial, but dont get in trouble because what they did was legal. Let me say these things first: I do not believe the officers involved in the Eric Garner case intended to do anything other than arrest him. I do not believe racism was a factor. I don’t think Garner would have died if he hadn’t had previous medical problems. I’m not saying any of the officers involved should be in prison. Only one officer applied the controversial hold that brought about Garners death, so even if I agreed that he had committed a crime I still wouldnt think the other officers were guilty. And I don’t know certain details of the incident which might be pertinent. I’ll also say I firmly believe in using as much force as necessary, when it’s warranted. One quote I’ve heard that makes a lot of sense is, “Violence is rarely the answer, but when it is, it’s the only answer.” I’ve written at length about the shooting of Michael Brown, and explained why I believe it was justified. I expected the Grand Jury not to indict Officer Darren Wilson, and when I heard he was cleared I was relieved the jurors didn’t bow to unreasonable public pressure. But when I heard the Garner Grand Jury decision, I cringed. Eric Garner, even if he was a longtime petty offender, was no Michael Brown. I knew a lot of people would be furious about the Grand Jury’s decision not to indict anyone for Garner’s death. I understand why. And I think we cops need to seriously rethink some of the practices and attitudes that led to this tragic and needless outcome. First I’m going to address a couple of points supporting the officers, then I’ll explain why I have a problem with the entire incident. “I can’t breathe.” There’s a very good reason the arresting officers didn’t take Garner’s “I can’t breathe” statement seriously. A dirty fact of police work is that we constantly get lied to by people we’re arresting. Faking an injury or illness is a time-honored tradition, especially among those who have been arrested many times and know the system (and even people who have never been arrested before might spontaneously lie about a medical condition, like when Reese Witherspoon lied about being pregnant during her arrest for public intoxication). I’ve had prisoners falsely claim they had broken bones, or an injured back, or AIDS, or multiple illnesses and injuries. One suspect I had to wrestle claimed he couldn’t walk afterward, then wouldn’t give my pen back when I asked him to sign for his property. After I jerked the pen away he said, “Now my finger is sprung too.” The next day, after sobering up, he walked out of the jail without complaint or injury. Back when I worked in small towns we knew certain “regulars” would always claim injury or illness when arrested. Some of them would laugh as they said “My neck hurts” or complained of some other problem, because they knew we’d have to call EMS even if it was obvious they were lying. They knew the game, and played it well. I’ve heard many suspects say “I can’t breathe” as we struggled to get them in cuffs. I’ve said the exact words an officer said to Eric Garner: “If you couldn’t breathe you couldn’t talk.” I’ve never had an in-custody death or come close to one. If the officers in the Garner case had any street time, they probably heard lots of prisoners claiming “I can’t breathe,” “the cuffs are too tight” or “you’re twisting my arm too far behind my back”. I’ve let up pressure on suspects because I thought I actually was twisting their arm too far, then had them use that as an opportunity to fight harder or try to get away. So I’m not surprised the officers disregarded that statement. But as we all know, Eric Garner wasn’t lying. It’s not likely the officers knew his prior medical problems. So how can street cops tell who’s lying and who’s not? There’s no easy answer to that. “Banned Chokehold” As many have noted, the “chokehold” applied to Eric Garner isn’t allowed by NYPD. However, that doesn’t mean it’s illegal. It was against department policy, which is totally different. For example, in one police department I know of, weapon lights were temporarily banned. So let’s say an officer disregarded that ban and mounted a light to his pistol, and then was in a shooting. Even if the shooting was totally justified and had the best possible outcome, the officer still violated policy even though he didn’t violate any laws. In the Garner case, even if the officer applied a chokehold, he didn’t violate law. He simply violated policy. I’ll also point out that the officer didn’t initially grab Garner in a chokehold. He grabbed him in a hold from one side of his neck to under one arm. The officer apparently couldn’t keep that hold, probably because Garner was so big. So the hold went from under the arm to around the neck. Again, I don’t think the officer intended to do anything other than arrest him, and didn’t even intend to grab him around the neck when he first tried to take him down. But as far as I know, the chokehold, neckhold or whatever else you want to call it did cause bleeding in his neck and burst blood vessels in his eyes, which is a sign of choking. There have been debates about whether or not an actual chokehold was applied to Garner (as opposed to simply holding him around the neck). Ive never received chokehold training as a cop, and only had blood choke training in martial arts, so Im no expert on chokeholds. But whatever kind of hold was applied to Garner, it apparently helped kill him. So why didnt the grand jury indict the officer who applied it? My only guess is that the jurors decided the officer didnt intend to choke him. And thats just a guess. I do understand that the officer showed no intent to kill, he was just trying to arrest. But still... That hold bothers me, in that situation. Yes, there are plenty of dangerous, violent criminals who will respond only to a massive application of force. Im all for officers using that force, including chokeholds, if it gets those criminals under control without injury to the officers or public. But in this case? Against a guy selling loose cigarettes, whos simply noncompliant? Probable Cause Just to clarify, Garner was in fact breaking a law, and had apparently done so many times in the past. The officers had probable cause to arrest, gave appropriate verbal commands, and attempted to apply empty hand control techniques. Aside from the chokehold, the officers’ escalation of force was appropriate. And the chokehold - though I have a hard time saying this - apparently wasnt as bad as it seems on video.
Posted on: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 19:51:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015