On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 18:51:17 -0500, KC wrote:

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!)



I wasn't really expecting an answer from him.
--

"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 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.
--

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

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

On 12/4/2014 9:23 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 18:51:17 -0500, KC wrote:

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!)



I wasn't really expecting an answer from him.
--

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

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



Not worth answering.

BTW John, I don't know if you did this on purpose or not but the way
you have your "signature" formatted results in it not being deleted in
replies. You recently commented on this wondering why it keep showing up.

I've been deleting it manually but I left it as is in this reply.

Formatted properly the signature is usually stripped by most newsreaders
including Thunderbird which I am using.

On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 16:01:53 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

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.

No. The question is just too f'ing hard for you to answer. Whenever
you're backed into a corner, you come out with 'insults' or
name-calling. Have you ever noticed that?
--

"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 21:30:57 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/4/2014 9:23 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 18:51:17 -0500, KC wrote:

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!)



I wasn't really expecting an answer from him.
--

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

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



Not worth answering.

Why not? You've made several (disparaging?) comments about him. Do you
think he's lying?

BTW John, I don't know if you did this on purpose or not but the way
you have your "signature" formatted results in it not being deleted in
replies. You recently commented on this wondering why it keep showing up.

Thanks. I asked the question because my attempt to do fix it failed.

I've been deleting it manually but I left it as is in this reply.

Formatted properly the signature is usually stripped by most newsreaders
including Thunderbird which I am using.

I can honestly understand why you might find it disagreeable.
--

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

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

On 12/4/2014 9:42 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 21:30:57 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/4/2014 9:23 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 18:51:17 -0500, KC wrote:

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!)



I wasn't really expecting an answer from him.
--

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

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



Not worth answering.

Why not? You've made several (disparaging?) comments about him. Do you
think he's lying?

BTW John, I don't know if you did this on purpose or not but the way
you have your "signature" formatted results in it not being deleted in
replies. You recently commented on this wondering why it keep showing up.

Thanks. I asked the question because my attempt to do fix it failed.

I've been deleting it manually but I left it as is in this reply.

Formatted properly the signature is usually stripped by most newsreaders
including Thunderbird which I am using.

I can honestly understand why you might find it disagreeable.
--

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

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



Doesn't bother me at all Clara. I was going to tell you what's wrong
with the formatting but decided to let you figure it out.

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.


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

On 12/4/14 9:31 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 16:01:53 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

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.

No. The question is just too f'ing hard for you to answer. Whenever
you're backed into a corner, you come out with 'insults' or
name-calling. Have you ever noticed that?
--

No, Johnny...your assessment is wrong. No sense commenting on much of
your nonsense.

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

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.
--

"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 22:01:29 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 12/4/14 9:31 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 16:01:53 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

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.

No. The question is just too f'ing hard for you to answer. Whenever
you're backed into a corner, you come out with 'insults' or
name-calling. Have you ever noticed that?
--

No, Johnny...your assessment is wrong. No sense commenting on much of
your nonsense.

Of course not, the corner's a bitch.
--

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

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