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?
--

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

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

On 12/4/2014 10:36 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 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 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 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 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!)