Judge Recommends Firing Cop Who Choked Eric Garner

"I can't breathe" became a rallying cry for activists opposing police brutality.

A judge has recommended that New York Police Department (NYPD) officer Daniel Pantaleo be fired for his role in the death of Eric Garner in 2014, a killing that was captured on cellphone video and provoked nationwide outrage.

Pantaleo was recorded confronting Garner, apparently suspecting that he was selling loose, untaxed black market cigarettes. Garner resisted when Pantaleo attempted to arrest him. Pantaleo put the man in a chokehold, and Garner ultimately died; an autopsy blamed the chokehold for his death. Garner's final words, a repetition of "I can't breathe," became a rallying cry for the Black Lives Matter movement.

A grand jury declined to indict Pantaleo for any crimes, and in July, five years later, the Justice Department announced it would not file civil rights charges against him. The city has been dragging its feet in determining what sort of discipline, if any, Pantaleo should face for his role in Garner's death. Protesters showed up at the Democratic primary debates earlier this week to heckle Mayor Bill de Blasio for failing to force Pantaleo out of the NYPD. (Pantaleo, meanwhile, has been on desk duty.)

Today, following an administrative hearing, NYPD Deputy Commissioner of Trials Rosemarie Maldonadoa—the judge presiding over Pantaleo's disciplinary trial—recommended that the officer be terminated. But this does not actually end Pantaleo's employment with the NYPD. The recommendation now goes to NYPD Commissioner James O'Neill, who will ultimately decide whether to fire Pantaleo.

While it's not impossible, it seems unlikely that O'Neill would decide to buck the judge and keep Pantaleo on the force. CNN reports from inside sources that O'Neill is expected to follow the recommendation. But New York state has laws that mandate official secrecy about police discipline and shield misconduct records from the eyes of the press and the public. If Pantaleo is fired, he could quietly be hired by another police department in New York or another state.

After the the announcement, Pantaleo was suspended for 30 days without pay, which is standard procedure when firing is recommended.

Comments

[NashTiger]

When are the anti-science imbeciles here at Reason and elsewhere going to stop peddling a false narrative of this case?

There was not a Killing, Garner died of medical complications brought about by his enormous weight, no doubt aggravated by the police interaction. But it had nothing to do with choking. You don't die an hour after being choked (unless your windpipe is crushed, not the case here). In fact, if you can audibly say "I can't breather", you are not being choked to death.

This article is one of the worst excuses for journalism you can find. Pantaleo did not "confront" Garner, a smaller female cop did, who he repeatedly brushed aside. More cops were called to the scene, including Pantaleo.
It is as if this rag is a totally fact-free zone nowadays

[Zeb]

Nowhere in this article does it say that he was choked to death. And what do you think "confront" means? It's perfectly possible to confront someone who has already been confronted by someone else.
The medical examiner apparently thought that the chokehold led to his death. Seems reasonable to me to call that a killing.

[Last of the Shitlords]

“In fact, if you can audibly say “I can’t breather”, you are not being choked to death.”

Bullshit. He was experiencing escalating oxygen debt as he couldn’t get sufficient air due to the chokehold. If you’re really unclear on how that works, I could demonstrate on you for your own edification.

[Last of the Shitlords]

Unlike with the cop, I’ll make sure you don’t die afterwards.

[Unicorn Abattoir]

Pantaleo did not “confront” Garner, a smaller female cop did, who he repeatedly brushed aside.

He was confronted without cause. He wasn't selling loosies. He wasn't committing a crime. He was being harassed by law enforcement for selling them in the past, and he rightfully refused them.

[JesseAz]

Cops can be dicks. You confront them in court, not during an arrest.

[Chipper Jones]

And if you instead decide to confront them during an arrest, you:

a) find yourself on the receiving end of some additional force, resulting in an application of handcuffs that may lead to a few bruises
b) get murdered

[Teddy Pump]

BINGO!!!!!

[markm23]

It sounds to me like he was "confronted" for doing the cops' job for them. He broke up a fight before the cops got there, denying them the opportunity to show off their power and arrest the innocent - so they did that to him, instead.

[shortviking]

I’ll believe it when I see it.

[Longtobefree]

What does the NYPD HR department union say about a judge making hiring and firing decisions?
Sounds like grounds for a strike, at least.

[jph12]

This appears to be a NYPD administrative judge, which is probably the process required by the collective bargaining agreement. If he is fired, the union will probably appeal (and sadly, prevail).

[KatinaDenniston]

nice

[Rob Misek]

Firing a cop as a scapegoat for a fucked up system won’t prevent this from happening again.

Police interactions with citizens consist of two parties and a real solution must address both.

The first 15 seconds can and should set the stage for the interaction.

The first communication should be standardized for both parties. The police trained to use a standard script and the public respond with a standard response. At least for the first 15 seconds.

By that time people should be demonstrating that they are unarmed and complying. That should allow police to de escalate their threat status and proceed with the interaction.

The first 15 seconds. Police use standard commands and citizens know in advance what they will be and how they should respond.

Going off script is dangerous for everyone.

[Unicorn Abattoir]

That's how it works in a "well-ordered society".

[Unicorn Abattoir]

and the public respond with a standard response

Compelled speech? Tell me again how you don't want to tear up the First Amendment.

[Rob Misek]

You fucking retard.

Free speech is not intended to fuck with authorities in dangerous situations, like yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

[Unicorn Abattoir]

like yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

Schenck was overturned by Brandenburg v Ohio, nazi.

[Square = Circle]

Free speech is not intended to fuck with authorities in dangerous situations, like yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

Or when you're being ordered into the delousing chamber, amirite?

[jph12]

"Free speech is not intended to fuck with authorities in dangerous situations, like yelling fire in a crowded theatre."

Or protesting a war, because that's what that case was about. The oh so dangerous situation that just had to be stopped, First Amendment be damned, was a peaceful protest against World War I. That needs to be stressed any time someone brings up that trope. And it's "falsely." At least Holmes had the decency to limit it to falsely.

[Rob Misek]

Yes, nobody was stupid enough to yell fire in a crowded theatre.

Maybe you are.

Aside from a few dipshits, who the fuck do you think would side with you?

[jph12]

My side has the support of the Supreme Court and most of the American public. I have no idea who you think is supporting you.

[Rob Misek]

When dead children’s bodies are displayed along with you chuckling for scaring them to their death, you’ll see who’s on your side.

Do you think “yelling fire in a crowded theatre” is what libertarians stand for?

[jph12]

Yes, I am absolutely sure that libertarians strongly support the right to criticize the government, especially on important issues like going to war or whether the draft is legitimate. That's what the case your quote comes from was about. Criticizing World War I and the draft. That's what Holmes likened to falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.

Now I get that outlawing protest against the government may appeal to an authoritarian like you, but it certainly doesn't to any libertarian.

[Rob Misek]

Dipshit, I never mentioned any fucking case about WW1 protests.

I have only talked about speech that intentionally induces harm, like fucking with authorities in dangerous situations or causing panic and death intentionally by yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

Are you so fucking stupid that you can’t understand this difference between protesting a war and falsely causing panic and death?

[jph12]

"Dipshit, I never mentioned any fucking case about WW1 protests."

Yes you did. You just misquoted a passage from an infamous case upholding the conviction of a peaceful World War I protestor against a First Amendment challenge as if it were a profound statement. You may be ignorant enough to believe that to be the case, and you may be ignorant enough to not know the origins of the trope, but I don't have to wallow in your ignorance.

[Rob Misek]

You are to ignorant to admit that whenever someone refers to falsely “yelling fire in a movie theatre” they may not be referring to that one case which was actually about protesting war.

I have been abundantly clear and you are wallowing in your own ignorance.

[Last of the Shitlords]

Rob, you might have more credibility if you weren’t an anti Semite and a holocaust denier.

[Rob Misek]

Real credibility comes to those whose statements are supported by the truth demonstrated by irrefutable evidence of logic and science.

I have demonstrated that if only by the inability or refusal of others to refute what I have said.

Your stubborn refusal to review all the evidence and attempt to refute it demonstrates your own lack of credibility.

It doesn’t matter why you’re a slave to a false narrative.

[jph12]

And I suppose you'll have a separate seminar for America's dogs, so they can learn how not to be shot by the police as well. Or to get their families shot when the police inevitably miss.

[Rob Misek]

Fuck, control your own dog for its own safety.

[jph12]

So police can't be expected to control themselves or their firearms, but the people are expected to control their dog when the police burst into their yard and order them to get down on the ground. What little respect I had for you is rapidly diminishing.

[Rob Misek]

If your dog attacks. It’s dead, get over it.

Cops have the right to do what criminals don’t want them to in accordance with the law.

Nobody has the right to break the law.

It’s a basic principle. Why don’t you get it?

[jph12]

"It’s a basic principle. Why don’t you get it?"

Perhaps because you are barely coherent and seem to have only a tangential relationship with reality. I would wish you well in your quixotic quest to turn every person in America into a bootlicker like you (will your training be part of the customs process for tourists--or are they still open game for shitty cops?), but I don't.

[Square = Circle]

Police use standard commands and citizens know in advance what they will be and how they should respond.

We should incorporate drills into the elementary school curriculum, for public safety.

[Rob Misek]

Absolutely

[Fats of Fury]

I'm surprised Garner was never beaten to death by the crackheads he was overcharging for loosies.

[IceTrey]

Why? He provided a service they appreciated.

[David Emami]

I (and probably most libertarians) are used to getting scoffed at when we point out that a law is a threat to kill someone. Garner's death tragically illustrates the point.

There's a widely-known "Four Rules of Firearm Safety" list. The first two are "Treat all guns as if they're loaded" and "Never point a gun at something you're not willing to destroy." Police officers don't just have *have* guns. They, and the laws they enforce, must be treated *as* guns. Do not write a law applying to anyone you're not willing to destroy. I'm willing to destroy a murderer, rapist, thief, or similar person. Not so a guy selling cigarettes. Regardless of what you think of the conduct of the police in this case, the problem ultimately is the fact that police were involved at all. I think a lot of folks here are too quick to assume they're malicious, but even if every cop were an angel, casually waving them around is unforgivably reckless, the same as if you did so with a Glock.

[Rob Misek]

Anyone can be a murderer.

That’s how people whose job it is to interact with people, write them tickets or put them in custody, must treat every encounter.

[Unicorn Abattoir]

Anyone can be a murderer.

Including cops, and that's how encounters with them should be treated. Right?

[Rob Misek]

If police knew you had the right to record your observations and they were being stored in the cloud do you think they would break the law as much as they do now?

You could still fuck with them and get what you deserve though.

[David Emami]

I agree, which is why such interactions should be kept to an absolute minimum. Not because I think police are bad, but because like the rest of us they're neither infallible nor omniscient. And really, I would think that would make the officers' jobs easier as well, by cutting down on the ambiguity they have to deal with.

[Rob Misek]

Yes, I would like there to be less crime and with it less need for police to enforce the law upon criminals.

That’s why I advocate the right for all citizens to record everything they observe and the criminalization of lying outside of courts and contracts.

When all corruption is illegal and interactions are recorded there is nowhere for any criminal to hide.

Until then I want police doing their jobs.

Standardize interactions.

[IceTrey]

So you want cops to continue enforcing immoral laws.

[Rob Misek]

morality
character or virtue; concern with the distinction between good and evil or right conduct; the right principles of human conduct:

I want people to recognize that right conduct is always supported by the truth demonstrated by the evidence of logic and science.

To achieve morality people must advocate the sharing of evidence and its scrutiny for truth.

After this process, there will be no immoral laws.

Laws are to be obeyed.

[jph12]

Being a police officer is pretty much the only profession where members of the general public are expected to act more responsibly than the allegedly trained professional during an encounter.

[Rob Misek]

The definition of insanity is to do the same thing while expecting different results.

Change it by standardizing interactions and training both police and citizens.

[jph12]

I bet there's some other definitions of insanity.

And who has suggested doing the same thing? Many people have suggested things like reducing the criminal code, better training for police, demilitarization of police, and community policing to improve interactions. It's not like every department in the country is full of officers who kill people. But none of those things require "training" the civilians to do anything.

[Rob Misek]

Addressing the police only is the same thing.

As long as citizens respond randomly during dangerous situations the risk of escalation is high.

It’s not about casting blame but minimizing risk while allowing police to do their jobs.

[jph12]

What you seem incapable of understanding is that there are thousands of police departments across our fair land whose officers don't choke people to death, especially people who weren't breaking any laws when approached by officers. You act as if there is one single police department across the entire country and everyone does things the same way. There isn't. They don't. And it's the bad departments, not the people, who need to change.

[markm23]

It is evident that Misek expects very, very little from cops. But if his view of them is accurate, why in heck would we give them authority over others, let alone issue them guns?

[Rob Misek]

I expect that cops come from a dipshit population, like you.

In a constitutional republic you need to be governed. Cops will help you with that.

If you don’t like that, you probably need more governing, or a new social model.

[IceTrey]

Or just prohibit the government from initiating force. You know make them follow the NAP.

[Rob Misek]

If the police tell you to stop, and you don’t, your disobedience forces their subsequent behaviour.

[IceTrey]

No it doesn't. Cops have discretion on enforcing the law. They could have just let him walk away. Especially since they were lying about seeing him selling loosies and were trying to falsely arrest him.

[Don't look at me!]

Yeah, but cigarettes are dangerous, so....

[Eddy]

"The recommendation now goes to NYPD Commissioner James O'Neill, who will ultimately decide whether to fire Pantaleo."

If it's merely a recommendation, then the official who presided at the hearing isn't a "judge."

This isn't arcane - the US Supreme Court justices from the earliest days refused to provide advisory opinions to the executive because that's not part of judicial duty.

[jph12]

I don't know about this particular case, but in some instances the people presiding over administrative hearings are considered judges, even if they aren't real Article III judges. Article II administrative law judges are an example. The story (probably false) is that they wanted to be able to call themselves judges when they made restaurant reservations because they got better service that way.

[Eddy]

Well, they can call themselves whatever they want. How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg?

[jph12]

Usually five. The four traditional legs and the tail you've agreed to call a leg.

If you ever find yourself in front of an administrative law judge, I highly suggest that you do not tell them that they are not a real judge.

[Eddy]

If she wants me to call her Your Supreme Highness, if the matter was important enough I'd probably do it.

[Eddy]

I mean, if you can call a Chicago judge "honorable," why not call an administrative hearing officer a judge? Whatever strokes their ego boner. But behind their backs...

[Eddy]

For that matter, consider the other things you have to say or face social or legal penalties - women can have penises, men can get pregnant...so why not refer to someone who reports to the police commissioner as a judge? Reality is a social construct, anyway.

[jph12]

"Reality is a social construct, anyway."

Reality isn't, but the meanings of words are. There's no dictionary on high that shines down, illuminating the true meaning of words.

"women can have penises, men can get pregnant"

I don't think either the science or society is settled on that. But if there are significant differences between the brains of men and women, which seems likely, and if it's possible for there to be a mismatch between the body and the brain, which doesn't seem at all improbable given all the other things that go wrong during human development, then society will have to come to a consensus about whether the physical or mental characteristics are more important to defining a person's sex. Why is the penis automatically mightier than the brain?

[Eddy]

Ah, but what if a *judge* told you that only men have penises?

[jph12]

It wouldn't change anything, unless it was a ruling in a case. And then it would only matter for that case. A single judge doesn't decide the meaning of words any more than a dictionary on high.

[Eddy]

Here's what you said in support of your claim that administrative hearing officers are judges:

"If you ever find yourself in front of an administrative law judge, I highly suggest that you do not tell them that they are not a real judge."

If someone with power says something is true, it's true.

An executive branch official is a judge because the official says he's a judge and you can't challenge him without bad consequences.

I guess they're like trans-judges.

[jph12]

"Here’s what you said in support of your claim that administrative hearing officers are judges:

'If you ever find yourself in front of an administrative law judge, I highly suggest that you do not tell them that they are not a real judge.'"

That wasn't in support of my claim at all. That was simply practical advice.

My claim, being based in reality, doesn't need arguments in its favor. If you can't understand that administrative law judges are real things, there's not much I can do to help you. You could try Google or Wikipedia if you want to learn more.

[Eddy]

"That wasn’t in support of my claim at all. That was simply practical advice."

Offered out of the blue apropos of nothing.

Right after you gave a bunch of arguments in favor of the status quo.

I'm not going to apologize for criticizing the administrative state on a libertarian blog, or for making embarrassing reminders of what adjudication is constitutionally, regardless of how many people "call a tail a leg" and say that administrative law is totally consistent with constitutional liberty.

[Eddy]

Once you've finished exhausting the educational possibilities of Wikipedia, you might take a glance at Hayek's Constitution of Liberty, unless it's too polysyllabic for you.

[jph12]

"Right after you gave a bunch of arguments in favor of the status quo."

I haven't made any arguments in favor or against the status quo. I merely pointed out that you were wrong about what the status quo is. You seem to believe that if you close your eyes really hard and stick your fingers in your ears, things you don't like will disappear. They won't.

"I’m not going to apologize for criticizing the administrative state on a libertarian blog"

Nobody is asking you to.

"or for making embarrassing reminders of what adjudication is constitutionally"

This isn't an Article III adjudication. He already went through that process and came out smelling like a rose.

"regardless of how many people “call a tail a leg” and say that administrative law is totally consistent with constitutional liberty."

Whether the administrative state is consistent with the constitution has nothing to do with whether the people who preside over the hearings are called judges or something else. Contrary to what you seem to think, the legitimacy of a proceeding does not depend on the name given to the person at the front of the room.

[Eddy]

"I merely pointed out that you were wrong about what the status quo is."

No, I made quite clear that I *disagreed* with the status quo.

I referenced the longstanding joke about how many legs a dog has if you called a tail a leg -

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/11/15/legs/

To which, *of course,* the "punch line" is that it only has four legs. You simply do not get it.

[Eddy]

Your quite revealing answer:

“Usually five. The four traditional legs and the tail you’ve agreed to call a leg.”

A tail is simply an unconventional leg!

[Eddy]

*Of course* with logic like that you'll refer to administrators and executive branch employees as judges, because that's what they've managed to get themselves called. Maybe to get better dinner reservations.

Such officials are as deluded as a guy with solely male equipment who says he's a lady.

[jph12]

"No, I made quite clear that I *disagreed* with the status quo."

No you didn't.

"I referenced the longstanding joke about how many legs a dog has if you called a tail a leg –"

That was in response to the comment we are discussing, not before it. And it's not a funny, or insightful, joke. It would be very easy to broaden the definition of leg to where it could encompass a tail as well, just like we could broaden the definition of intelligent to fit you in. Sure, you lose a lot of expressive power when you dilute the meaning of words like that, but that doesn't mean it can't happen.

"Such officials are as deluded as a guy with solely male equipment who says he’s a lady."

Right. The person whose job title says he's a judge. The person who is recognized as a judge under federal law (and state law too--many of them have administrative law judges as well). That person is the deluded one. Not the guy throwing a tantrum on the internet that administrative law judges aren't judgey enough to be real judges.

You have a childish view of the world. Let us know how you protest of the pie eating contest at the county fair goes. How dare they call those people judges!

[Eddy]

"No you didn’t."

Who should the reader believe - you, or their lying eyes?

"And it’s not a funny, or insightful, joke."

Who should I accept as an authority on jokes - you, or Abraham Lincoln?

If you are, in fact, a greater jokester than Abraham Lincoln then so far you gave given no indication of it, Unless your humorless cluelessness is an act like OBL's.

Could you do me one favor? Piss up a rope.

[Eddy]

"Let us know how you protest of the pie eating contest at the county fair goes. How dare they call those people judges!"

You've already ratcheted your cluelessness to 11, I don't think it's a good for you to ratchet it up any further.

If the county-fair judges simply issued recommendations, leaving the final decision to others, then they wouldn't be judges...but why am I pretending that your point was made in good faith?

[jph12]

That tyrant Lincoln? I thought you were a superstar libertarian ready to demolish the administrative state by wishing really hard. Now you're praising Lincoln?

Oh, have you read about Ex Parte Merryman? There your boy Lincoln decides he doesn't have to listed to the courts. Andrew Jackson did it too. Maybe nobody is judgey enough to be a judge for Eddy.

[Eddy]

"But...but...you're saying the government is wrong about something! How dare you insinuate such a crazy thing!"

[Eddy]

Numbnuts, you're the one criticizing Lincoln...by denouncing a joke which he almost certainly used. He didn't claim to have invented the joke, of course, but unlike some people he recognized a funny and insightful joke when he saw it.

So far you've asked the reader to accept the following propositions:

-That a dog has five legs if you call a tail a leg.

-That Lincoln isn't a good enough humorist for you.

-That if the government approves something that makes it true. Just like it must be true that it's OK to take your property and give it to a private corporation. The government said *that,* too.

And those are the points where you're minimally coherent.

[Eddy]

"I thought you were a superstar libertarian ready to demolish the administrative state by wishing really hard."

Really? I thought I was criticizing the administrative state. I can criticize it, just as I can criticize idiots like you, without assuming that either will just up and disappear right away.

[jph12]

"If the county-fair judges simply issued recommendations, leaving the final decision to others, then they wouldn’t be judges"

It's like you've never been to the county fair. The emcee picks the winner, the judges just make sure the competitors don't cheat.

"but why am I pretending that your point was made in good faith?"

Of course it's in good faith. Nobody has claimed that administrative law judges are Article III judges, yet you insist that they can't be judges because they don't satisfy the requirements for Article III judges. You know who else doesn't satisfy the requirements of Article III? Judges at wet t-shirt contests, Aaron Judge, the NFL is chock full of them--back judges, down judges, line judges, side judges (all of whom can be overruled by the referee), and don't get me started on all of those judges in other countries--they've never even sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and yet they have the audacity to call themselves judges. Why the world is positively teeming with judges who don't satisfy the Article III requirements and you've never made any attempt to demonstrate why not issuing advisory opinions is any more important to whether or not a person is judgey enough to be be a judge than any of the other requirements.

[Eddy]

"Andrew Jackson did it too."

Fake news. Whatever Jackson may have *wanted* to do, he didn't actually have a chance to defy the Supreme Court. Allow me to educate you:

The Supreme Court refused to issue an order against the Trail of Tears expulsion of the Cherokees from Georgia. The Court *did* issue a mandate to overturn the conviction of Worcester, who had been sent to prison by a Georgia court in defiance of the relevant Cherokee treaty. The Georgia court ignored the mandate, creating an impasse until the governor let Worcester out of prison.

The thing is, as Charles Warren should have explained to you, the President would not be in a position to enforce the mandate unless, under the laws of the time, Worcester had gone back to the Supreme Court and gotten a new order specifically releasing him from prison - and Worcester didn't do this - but I won't burden your brain with the technicalities.

[Eddy]

Quit yer babbling. You asked the reader to believe:

So far you’ve asked the reader to accept the following propositions:

-That a dog has five legs if you call a tail a leg.

-That Lincoln isn’t a good enough humorist for you.

-That if the government approves something that makes it true. Just like it must be true that it’s OK to take your property and give it to a private corporation. The government said *that,* too.

It's as if you want to pretend you never said that crazy shit.

[jph12]

"Really? I thought I was criticizing the administrative state. I can criticize it, just as I can criticize idiots like you, without assuming that either will just up and disappear right away."

You aren't. You're whining about what the administrative state calls itself, not what it does. Administrative hearings will go on whether the presiding officer is called an administrative law judge or something different.

So if it makes you feel any better, carry on with your little tantrum. Just know that it devalues any substantive criticism you may have.

[Eddy]

"Administrative hearings will go on whether the presiding officer is called an administrative law judge or something different."

Nobody is going to believe your straw men.

Only courtiers and sycophants believe that a dog has five legs just because you call a tail a leg.

And nobody believes you're a better expert on humor than Abraham Lincoln. You really stepped in it that time.

And you stepped in it with Andrew Jackson, too, although to be fair your mistake there probably consisted in simply parroting some stuff you saw on the Internet.

[Eddy]

Assuming you're minimally intelligent, you're going to try to recover from your Jackson fumble by citing Jackson's pre-Presidential behavior, where as a general he locked people up in New Orleans in defiance of a court order.

Just to close off any avenue of escape you may attempt in that direction, this is *not* a case where Jackson "decides he doesn’t have to listed (sic) to the courts" - after the proclamation of the peace treaty he paid the fine the court imposed on him for his defiance, even though he believed the fine to be unjust. And he paid the fine out of his own pocket, refusing an offer from the locals to pay his fine for him. It was much later that Congress repaid the fine - at the time, Jackson submitted to it.

[Eddy]

"Usually five. The four traditional legs and the tail you’ve agreed to call a leg."

Or to paraphrase you a little bit:

“Yes, sometimes two plus two is four. But sometimes it’s five or even three. Sometimes it’s all of those at the same time.”

[Eddy]

I am impressed by jph12's ability to achieve what philosophers denied was possible - he's repealed the Law of Noncontradiction.

Under the principle that reality is whatever a stronger person tells you it is, then if you're in a partisan Democratic judge's courtroom, Trump is Hitler, but if you're in a partisan Republican judge's courtroom, Trump is King Cyrus.

If a human-rights tribunal says that the law requires you to wax a "woman's" ballsack, then that's the truth.

If a judge of a different religious orientation says that LGBTQ people must be killed by having a wall pushed onto them, then *that* becomes the truth.

So long as America is strong, it's a good country. But if you're captured by an enemy, and they require you to denounce your country, you do it, because that's what the new reality requires.

[Tony]

How can you say Eric Garner was innocent when he was clearly selling loose cigarettes against the law?

(My John impression)

[Get To Da Chippah]

Close, but you forgot to somehow tie this in to the dad who forgot his kids in the car.

[Last of the Shitlords]

Tony, you do know that although Garner was k own for doing that, it had nothing to do with why the police were there, right? Garner had broken up a fight, the police were called regarding said fight, and proceeded to hassle Garner because in the last he had sold loosies.

[IceTrey]

No the cops are clearly lying about him selling cigarettes.

[Fist of Etiquette]

These comments have been eye opening.

[Pat001]

The fat dude's so-called "crime" was was selling UNTAXED loose cigarettes. Cops should be catching bad guys, not acting as tax collectors or revenue agents.

[bocsci2018]

Thanks admin for giving such valuable information through your article . Your article is much more similar to https://www.bocsci.com/slv319-cas-362519-49-1-item-112540.html word unscramble tool because it also provides a lot of knowledge of vocabulary new words with its meanings.

[Zeb]

I agree. But Mr. Tiger seems to think it doesn't count unless asphyxiation from choking was the immediate and sole cause of death.

[JesseAz]

Hes right in this case. They are also applauding a judge asking to punish someone a jury declined to indict which is another mark against reason.

You dont break norms because you disagree with an outcome.

[JesseAz]

Was the cause the last item or the first. Would a normal non fatass have lived? If the cops didn't act abnormally in taking down an uncooperative person, then it isnt their fault. Do you blame cops for deaths during car chases too? You're ignoring the culpability of Garner completely.

[jph12]

"Would a normal non fatass have lived?"

Completely and utterly irrelevant. You take people as they are, not as they could be.

"You’re ignoring the culpability of Garner completely."

What was his culpability? What crime was he committing that justified the police attacking him? If I remember correctly, he wasn't actually doing anything illegal at the time.

[IceTrey]

Cops have killed a lot of people by asphyxiation.
Yes I do blame cops for car chase deaths.

[Teddy Pump]

Bottom line: He does not resist arrest, he lives!.....Just like Michael Brown in Ferguson as well!

[JesseAz]

So comparison. Do you blame border patrol for the deaths in their facilities, or do you ci sider the health and state of the occupants prior to entry?

[JesseAz]

By the way, I think the situation is shitty but I blame the laws on the books that allowed police to intervene more than standard police activity. As I said below, your time to argue is in court, not during an arrest. I'd prefer the laws on the books to be struck by 80% to limit encounters.

[jph12]

That entirely depends on what actions border patrol took with respect to the deceased, just as it does in this case.

[Mr. Tibbs]

The standard of proof for a criminal conviction is different than for employment matters. If you saw one of your employees stealing from the register, would you fire him, or wait for a criminal conviction (which may never come because it’s your word against his)?