[Madelaine Amee]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

I don't know Gary, what was on anybody's mind. BUT it stands out to me that the little puny skinny butt officer was looking at this great big beefy guy towering over him who was saying leave me alone and a bunch of stuff like that. His job was to arrest him. The man refused to be handcuffed. The man was not new to being arrested. What if it was YOUR job to arrest someone who is a LOT bigger than you? I guess you go with martial arts, or wrestling, or one of those things that you are taught in police school. The last thing I thought is the officer was thinking how much pigmentation was present in the man's skin. He was thinking how he could get him in handcuffs and arrested.

Never once did it occur to me that the little officer was trying to kill the big guy. NEVER once. Nor did the thought enter my mind that he was thinking about sociological problems. He may have had a little short man syndrome, a little attitude from THAT, but it never came to my mind that the police officer disliked this fellow due to his race and wanted to kill him. Never once.

I know that that man would be alive today if he had been taught what I had been taught. Do what you are told.Right or wrong the police officer is the boss in this situation.

But this is not being generally taught Gracie. Remember the time when it was OK to call the police "PIGS"? Unfortunately, the attitude of the public in general has changed.

When we raised our two boys if they had trouble with the police in our small town, they would have had more trouble from their Father for bringing shame to our home! Not so in this day and age.

[Sandtrap328]

Originally Posted by Madelaine Amee

[/B][/SIZE]

When we raised our two boys if they had trouble with the police in our small town, they would have had more trouble from their Father for bringing shame to our home! Not so in this day and age.

You do have to remember the cities of St. Louis and New York are not the small town in which you raised your sons. The sociological differences are huge as are attitudes of the citizens.

This is not to say there are excuses for breaking the law. There is a general distrust of police among urban youths in general, though.

[eweissenbach]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

I don't know Gary, what was on anybody's mind. BUT it stands out to me that the little puny skinny butt officer was looking at this great big beefy guy towering over him who waYs saying leave me alone and a bunch of stuff like that. His job was to arrest him. The man refused to be handcuffed. The man was not new to being arrested. What if it was YOUR job to arrest someone who is a LOT bigger than you? I guess you go with martial arts, or wrestling, or one of those things that you are taught in police school. The last thing I thought is the officer was thinking how much pigmentation was present in the man's skin. He was thinking how he could get him in handcuffs and arrested.

Never once did it occur to me that the little officer was trying to kill the big guy. NEVER once. Nor did the thought enter my mind that he was thinking about sociological problems. He may have had a little short man syndrome, a little attitude from THAT, but it never came to my mind that the police officer disliked this fellow due to his race and wanted to kill him. Never once.

I know that that man would be alive today if he had been taught what I had been taught. Do what you are told.Right or wrong the police officer is the boss in this situation.

Just a minor correction, there were three other uniformed armed officers surrounding him, not just the skinny butt dude, who appeared to be able to handle himself pretty well. Not saying the officer intentionally killed him, but with four armed police officers around him, it seems to me that it could or even should have been handled with a bit more finesse, and we would have one more human alive and one less cop facing consequences. IMHO incidents like this should prompt police departments to train officers in how to negotiate and diffuse incidents rather than overreacting and possibly causing more harm. Now if the perp attacks or pulls a weapon - fair game.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

Just a minor correction, there were three other uniformed armed officers surrounding him, not just the skinny butt dude, who appeared to be able to handle himself pretty well. Not saying the officer intentionally killed him, but with four armed police officers around him, it seems to me that it could or even should have been handled with a bit more finesse, and we would have one more human alive and one less cop facing consequences. IMHO incidents like this should prompt police departments to train officers in how to negotiate and diffuse incidents rather than overreacting and possibly causing more harm. Now if the perp attacks or pulls a weapon - fair game.

I saw how many folks were there, Ed. You would have thought Mr. Garner would have been more compliant.

Let me ask you this. If you were in charge and you had to get handcuffs on the guy, what exactly would you have done? I think I would use a stun gun.

This isn't a baby game. It is the law officer's job to ...keep the law, do their job. They can't act like Dr. Phil.

Imagine for a moment that you were in charge of a high school team and you had a big guy who wanted to do it his way. Would you let him, or throw him off the team after thirty run in's with him?

I do NOT believe anyone meant to kill that man.

[eweissenbach]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

I saw how many folks were there, Ed. You would have thought Mr. Garner would have been more compliant.

Let me ask you this. If you were in charge and you had to get handcuffs on the guy, what exactly would you have done? I think I would use a stun gun.

This isn't a baby game. It is the law officer's job to ...keep the law, do their job. They can't act like Dr. Phil.

Imagine for a moment that you were in charge of a high school team and you had a big guy who wanted to do it his way. Would you let him, or throw him off the team after thirty run in's with him?

I do NOT believe anyone meant to kill that man.

As a former teacher, you know that is a bad analogy. Any public school teacher or coach who did what that officer did would be immediately fired, probably prosecuted, and surely sued, and that is if the student survived.

The Dr Phil analogy is clever, but in reality, a little transactional psychology might be beneficial in diffusing a situation like this. I, unlike you, did not see a present threat or danger to the FOUR ARMED POLICE OFFICERS prior to the take down. If you can't allow that everyone would have been better off by diffusing the situation, we have no basis for agreement on this issue.

[Challenger]

When a police officer tells you that you are under arrest, it is not a subject for negotiation. You are obligated by law to comply. No compliance(non submission ) to a lawful order, is in itself a violation of law. The officers showed restraint and did not use weapons of any kind that I saw. I did not see unnecessary punches or brutal procedures. Mr Garner was obligated to submit to the lawful arrest action.

I have never heard that officers must submit a subject of an arrest to a psycological or medical examination before taking action.

Mr Garner is dead because of his numerous physical problems and his bad choices. Why would a person with such problems allow himself to be involved in such an altercation? He had to know that it might be life threatening.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

As a former teacher, you know that is a bad analogy. Any public school teacher or coach who did what that officer did would be immediately fired, probably prosecuted, and surely sued, and that is if the student survived.

The Dr Phil analogy is clever, but in reality, a little transactional psychology might be beneficial in diffusing a situation like this. I, unlike you, did not see a present threat or danger to the FOUR ARMED POLICE OFFICERS prior to the take down. If you can't allow that everyone would have been better off by diffusing the situation, we have no basis for agreement on this issue.

You missed my point. What EXACTLY would YOU have done if you were in the situation as a law enforcement officer with Mr. Garner?

THEN in a completely different situation, what would you have done exactly, if a boy in high school did not take your direction for 30 times? Of course I know you wouldn't have used force, but would you have thrown him off the team?

There comes a time when a man must act to do his job. What would YOU have done?

[TexaninVA]

Originally Posted by Challenger

When a police officer tells you that you are under arrest, it is not a subject for negotiation. You are obligated by law to comply. No compliance(non submission ) to a lawful order, is in itself a violation of law. The officers showed restraint and did not use weapons of any kind that I saw. I did not see unnecessary punches or brutal procedures. Mr Garner was obligated to submit to the lawful arrest action.

I have never heard that officers must submit a subject of an arrest to a psycological or medical examination before taking action.

Mr Garner is dead because of his numerous physical problems and his bad choices. Why would a person with such problems allow himself to be involved in such an altercation? He had to know that it might be life threatening.

Challenger ... I think you have nailed it. Thank you for clarifying what, in some cases, have been emotional and well-intentioned statements that don't really get to the nub of it. Your post did.

[eweissenbach]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

You missed my point. What EXACTLY would YOU have done if you were in the situation as a law enforcement officer with Mr. Garner?

THEN in a completely different situation, what would you have done exactly, if a boy in high school did not take your direction for 30 times? Of course I know you wouldn't have used force, but would you have thrown him off the team?

There comes a time when a man must act to do his job. What would YOU have done?

I give - you win.

[eweissenbach]

http://www.peninsulabehavioralhealth..._Peninsula.pdf

[dbussone]

Originally Posted by Challenger

When a police officer tells you that you are under arrest, it is not a subject for negotiation. You are obligated by law to comply. No compliance(non submission ) to a lawful order, is in itself a violation of law. The officers showed restraint and did not use weapons of any kind that I saw. I did not see unnecessary punches or brutal procedures. Mr Garner was obligated to submit to the lawful arrest action.

I have never heard that officers must submit a subject of an arrest to a psycological or medical examination before taking action.

Mr Garner is dead because of his numerous physical problems and his bad choices. Why would a person with such problems allow himself to be involved in such an altercation? He had to know that it might be life threatening.

Appropriately noted. Thanks for stating this situation so succinctly.

[Sandtrap328]

"I did not see ... Brutal procedures"

A choke hold around the neck, having a cop kneel on your chest and another cop kneel on your head are not brutal procedures? The medical examiner report show this is what killed Garner and ruled it a HOMICIDE.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Sandtrap328

"I did not see ... Brutal procedures"

A choke hold around the neck, having a cop kneel on your chest and another cop kneel on your head are not brutal procedures? The medical examiner report show this is what killed Garner and ruled it a HOMICIDE.

They should have just let him go to do whatever he wanted to do????


Did you see that the one police officer came to just under Mr. Garner's chin? Mr. Garner seemed to be a very big man and he didn't want to follow directions at all. If you had been there, what exactly would you have directed people to do? AND which is it? Did he die from "Brutal Procedures" or from Asthma and heart difficulties? I know that one cannot speak if one's airway is occluded and he kept saying, I can't breathe. WHO can we trust and turn to to guide us? Are we to let the scofflaws just do what they want? And only arrest people who won't resist? Perhaps we should only have very LARGE and TALL law enforcement officers who are black? NO, then there would still be cries of brutality.

If you don't want to be sat on and choked, do what you are told to do. He had been arrested 30 times! You would think that changing his ways would have been considered by him. He could have just found a job within the law.......

No one intended to kill him.

Why do some of us always feel sympathy for the law breakers and some of us feel sympathy for the law enforcers?

[gomoho]

Gracie - I don't believe we are feeling sympathy for the lawbreakers - I think we are simply looking for answers. There are bad cops out there and Officer Pantaleo has been involved in two other questionable situations. We are only looking for answers.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by gomoho

Gracie - I don't believe we are feeling sympathy for the lawbreakers - I think we are simply looking for answers. There are bad cops out there and Officer Pantaleo has been involved in two other questionable situations. We are only looking for answers.

I know you are right. In fact I knew one myself. He was the arrogant son of a friend in Cincinnati. I am blessed to have personally NOT known a pedophile priest. I have only just met a doctor who I don't respect here in The Villages, doing unncecessary tests in his office. I switched immediately.

I still think that most law enforcement officers are law abiding. That most people are doing the right thing, that most doctors are ethical and that laws are there to protect all of us. If we cannot find good, support good, be on the side of good and promote good, we will be lost.

I think most of the protestors are wrong. More than any other thing about this mess, other than two lives that have been lost that should be still here, is that people cannot get mad over people who are breaking laws. It is wrong to steal small items and to defraud anyone. AND to resist arrest.