On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 10:35:21 -0500, KC wrote:

On 12/4/2014 10:31 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 he read the coroner's report?

I never said anything about Peter King...

I was, responding to Luddite's comment, suggesting that perhaps Peter
King had read the autopsy report.
--

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

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

On 12/4/2014 10:39 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 10:35:21 -0500, KC wrote:

On 12/4/2014 10:31 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 he read the coroner's report?

I never said anything about Peter King...

I was, responding to Luddite's comment, suggesting that perhaps Peter
King had read the autopsy report.

No problem, just trying to keep things clear. Either way, just for the
record, I have not taken a stand on this one yet. I think I can see what
happened there but I am not sure. I do know one thing though, I "heard"
that 18 of the 24 on the GJ were "not white", and 9 were black. This is
just what I heard. If that is the case, it takes 12 to pass down a bill,
and they didn't.
--

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

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

On 12/4/2014 10:25 AM, KC wrote:
On 12/4/2014 10:23 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 4 Dec 2014 08:46:21 +0000, 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 was pointing out the 'union' position. Either the cop was wrong or
the union is wrong. I'll let the liberals sort that one out.

But, the fact still remains that the choke hold was not against the
law. It was against NYPD 'policy' for which the GJ cannot indict.
--

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

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


It may not have been a "choke" hold at all, but just a hold... In
fairness where else on that guy could you get your arm around him? In
most of the video, the elbow, not the forearm is across the throat. If
he was talking, he was breathing... every perp says "you're breaking my
arm, or you're choking me". The cops can not let go, I have gone over
that before...


You have obviously been watching and listening to Peter King. Almost
word for word what he's been promoting, especially on Fox News.

On 12/4/2014 10:35 AM, KC wrote:
On 12/4/2014 10:31 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 he read the coroner's report?

I never said anything about Peter King...


No. You are just quoting him almost word for word.

It's ok. You can believe whatever you want to believe.

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.

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.

"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.
--
Sent from my iPhone 6+

On 12/4/2014 1:25 PM, 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.



There may be a civil suit settlement with the city but if it turns out
he was still breathing well after the cop released him, the cop can't be
held accountable for "death by chokehold".

Hell, the family of the guy that died of Ebola at the Texas hospital
that tried their best to treat him were awarded a undisclosed
"settlement" to avoid a civil trial.

Maybe the GJ was shown this version of the video. Today was the first
time I saw it on any of the major media outlets.

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.

Caused by stupidity of a minor criminal. Also by the greed and control of
lifestyle by government. He would not be selling loose cigarettes if there
was not a $10 or so tax on a pack of cigarettes in NYC.

On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 10:49:03 -0500, KC wrote:

On 12/4/2014 10:39 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 10:35:21 -0500, KC wrote:

On 12/4/2014 10:31 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 he read the coroner's report?

I never said anything about Peter King...

I was, responding to Luddite's comment, suggesting that perhaps Peter
King had read the autopsy report.

No problem, just trying to keep things clear. Either way, just for the
record, I have not taken a stand on this one yet. I think I can see what
happened there but I am not sure. I do know one thing though, I "heard"
that 18 of the 24 on the GJ were "not white", and 9 were black. This is
just what I heard. If that is the case, it takes 12 to pass down a bill,
and they didn't.
--

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

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



And reported on CNN last night was that the police'man' in charge of
the detail was a black female sergeant.

Question - shouldn't my signature disappear when you respond to a post
of mine?
--

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

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