On 12/4/2014 10:36 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 10:11:09 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/4/2014 9:26 AM, KC wrote:
On 12/4/2014 3:46 AM, RGrew176 wrote:
Poco Loco;1020850 Wrote:
....not the chokehold.

Guess they didn't read the coroner's report.

http://tinyurl.com/p8ggn2g
--

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument
with a liberal."

....Peter Brimelow (Author)
(Thanks, Luddite!)

Make that the illegal choke hold. The choke hold had been banned by the
NYCPD some time ago. I think the grand jury got this one wrong.





I saw an interview last night by a guy that does the math Either way
the hold was an "artery" hold not a choke hold. It could very well have
cut off or slowed the blood flow but the coroners report was clear, "no
bruising on the throat, no damage to the airway"....



Ah, maybe you saw Peter King, the Republican Congressman from New York.
He's making the media circuit (was just on Fox News again) making
these claims.

Did he perform his own, independent autopsy?


Perhaps the police union did:

"Police union officials and Pantaleo's lawyer, however, argued that
the officer used a takedown move taught by the police department, not
a banned maneuver, because Garner was resisting arrest. They said his
poor health was the main reason he died."

http://tinyurl.com/omvs3k6

Surely you and Toad wouldn't contradict the unions, would you?


A police union opinion on the cause of death is not the same as a
medical examiner's autopsy and death certificate.

If the medical examiner had not called Garner's death a homicide, there
never would have been a GJ or any suggestion of potential charges
brought on the police officer involved.