On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 10:55:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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.


Similar comments were made on CNN. No one argued with him about it. Do
you think he is lying?
--

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

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

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?
--

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

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

On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 13:17:35 -0500, "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.


Apparently you know more than the medical examiner.
(Just couldn't resist!)
--

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

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

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.

--
I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers.
After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer.

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.

If that amount of scuffle was the 'cause' of the heart attack, how
come all those NFL football players, who go through a lot worse every
weekend, are still alive?

With all your medical knowledge, Toad, that question should be a
no-brainer.
--

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

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

On 12/4/14 3:59 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.

If that amount of scuffle was the 'cause' of the heart attack, how
come all those NFL football players, who go through a lot worse every
weekend, are still alive?


And you wonder why so many of your posts get no responses from rational
people.


--
I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers.
After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer.

On 12/4/2014 3:53 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 10:55:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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.




Similar comments were made on CNN. No one argued with him about it. Do
you think he is lying?

Please don't take anything dick says about me or my sources as fact, in
fact based on his record here lately, you can pretty much dismiss
anything he says about me as just another harryism, dick is still
wondering why nobody stands around and claps for his dissertations here
anymore, poor guy.

Seems when dick finds himself woefully uninformed, he writes off what I
say any way he can.. Of course a few months later when he finally
catches up, I don't expect an apology...
--

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

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

L'il Snot snorts...
"Please don't take anything dick says about me or my sources as fact, in
fact based on his record here lately, you can pretty much dismiss
anything he says about me as just another harryism, dick is still
wondering why nobody stands around and claps for his dissertations here
anymore, poor guy.

Seems when dick finds himself woefully uninformed, he writes off what I
say any way he can.. Of course *a few months later when he finally
catches up, I don't expect an apology... "


Oh man.....where is that 'Twilight Zone intro when I need it.

On 12/4/2014 7:31 PM, True North wrote:
L'il Snot snorts...
"Please don't take anything dick says about me or my sources as fact, in
fact based on his record here lately, you can pretty much dismiss
anything he says about me as just another harryism, dick is still
wondering why nobody stands around and claps for his dissertations here
anymore, poor guy.

Seems when dick finds himself woefully uninformed, he writes off what I
say any way he can.. Of course a few months later when he finally
catches up, I don't expect an apology... "


Oh man.....where is that 'Twilight Zone intro when I need it.


I am sure harry can find it for you dummy....

On 12/4/14 6:51 PM, KC wrote:


Please don't take anything dick says about me or my sources as fact, in
fact based on his record here lately, you can pretty much dismiss
anything he says about me as just another harryism, dick is still
wondering why nobody stands around and claps for his dissertations here
anymore, poor guy.


Funniest post of the day...


--
I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers.
After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer.