BoatBanter.com - View Single Post - Police Union

Let it snowe

On 12/5/2014 8:11 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 12/5/14 7:13 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 21:59:59 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 12/4/14 9:28 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 15:58:42 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 12/4/14 3:55 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On 4 Dec 2014 18:25:47 GMT, F*O*A*D wrote:

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 12/4/2014 1:07 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 11:01:02 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

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.

I think they said "homicide" because the death was a result of the
fight. With the ambiguous cause of death, I think they have to
charge
them all or let them all go,.He still seemed to be alive after
they
got him on the ground and #99 was holding his head down (not
choking
him).

Long after the fight EMS is on video checking his pulse and
talking to
him. He still said he couldn't breathe. A few minutes later he
was out
and they picked him up, still breathing according to EMS. It
sounds
like the 3 heart attacks I have watched. (two at work and one
diving
in the keys) One guy died, 2 are still alive.

I saw (and just posted about) that video. It was the first
time I saw
the extended version that showed what happened after the take down.

I agree. My non-professional opinion is that he died of a heart
attack.

Caused by the police assault... I wonder how much the civil suit
settlement
will be.

That's what police unions are for - to protect bad cops, eh?
--

You keep repeating that, indicating your ignorance of the purposes
of a
labor union and that if there is a settlement, it will come from a
governmental agency, not the cop. No surprise.

So you agree with the New York Police Union Chief?

New York Police Union Chief:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...garner-n261586

You'll note that's from NBC, not FOX.
--

My comment was about your ignorance, nothing more.

Of course not. The corner's a bitch.
--

Is that your new perseveration?

Frankly, Johnny, I see nothing to gain by playing your little games
here. Your intellectual equals, the two Scotties, for example, seem more
amenable to your rigid simplemindedness.

WAFA!