Man Dies After NYPD Chokehold

[Que]

There is no question the guy was resisting. There is no question he was killed for it. I'm sure he was connected to some high-level crime syndicate and they were using him as a source to take them down. They used his illegal cigarette sales as a way to put pressure on him to dime out the leaders. There is no way possible the authorities in New York would ever harass someone for no reason. He was probably selling large sodas back when those were banned, too.

 

[TopDog]

If you as a citizen are physically attacking somebody and they die during that attack you will be charged with murder. What makes the police doing it any different? I really find it perverse that so many of you on here say we must bow down to police in some situations but are defending our rights by not bowing down in others. Making fun of this guy's weight also seems pointless, he is a big guy, ok, is it OK to kill people now as long as they are fat?

It is not OK to kill people because they are fat. None of the cops in the video tried to kill the man. The point is this: he put himself in the situation and the cops went easy on him. They did not directly do anything to kill him. What is the alternative? A man is resisting arrest and the cops should just walk away because the guy "might" die because of his physical condition? The cops are not doctors, they allowed to use reasonable force. And in this case going off of just what I saw in the video, they used reasonable force. By the way the cops were not physically attacking the man, they were arresting him, he chose to resist. Living in a free country does not mean you can do as you please with no consequences to your actions.

 

[Que]

I'm sure he was saying he couldn't breathe as a ploy to truck the police into letting him go. At that point, he was going to run, alluding all of the officers on the scene, and get to his fully-automatic AK. They could not let that happen by loosening their grip or cuffing him in the front. I'm sure they don't practice other restraints for larger people and it's one size fits all, live or die.

 

[Destro]

There is no question the guy was resisting. There is no question he was killed for it. I'm sure he was connected to some high-level crime syndicate and they were using him as a source to take them down. They used his illegal cigarette sales as a way to put pressure on him to dime out the leaders. There is no way possible the authorities in New York would ever harass someone for no reason. He was probably selling large sodas back when those were banned, too.

Sounds like you’re in on the ground level of the coming tyranny. If/when marijuana is “legalized and taxed” we will hear how awful it is that government has nothing better than to harass these types of scofflaws in the name of revenue to perpetuate their jack booted thuggary.

 

[Darral27]

It is not OK to kill people because they are fat. None of the cops in the video tried to kill the man. The point is this: he put himself in the situation and the cops went easy on him. They did not directly do anything to kill him. What is the alternative? A man is resisting arrest and the cops should just walk away because the guy "might" die because of his physical condition? The cops are not doctors, they allowed to use reasonable force. And in this case going off of just what I saw in the video, they used reasonable force. By the way the cops were not physically attacking the man, they were arresting him, he chose to resist. Living in a free country does not mean you can do as you please with no consequences to your actions.

When you are arrested is there a rule saying you must first be thrown to the ground? I am pretty sure a simple "put your hands behind your back" is generally good enough. If you start yanking on a persons arm trying to force them to the ground and wrap your arm around their neck to choke them you are by definition attacking that person.
I have to ask, why do so many think it is ok for an officer to assault people for failure to obey? Did we somehow transport to nazi Germany and I was just not made aware?

 

[TopDog]

When you are arrested is there a rule saying you must first be thrown to the ground? I am pretty sure a simple "put your hands behind your back" is generally good enough. If you start yanking on a persons arm trying to force them to the ground and wrap your arm around their neck to choke them you are by definition attacking that person.
I have to ask, why do so many think it is ok for an officer to assault people for failure to obey? Did we somehow transport to nazi Germany and I was just not made aware?

Were you watching a different video than I was? He was not assaulted, he was resisting arrest. We can argue it back and forth but the bottom line. I bet nothing happens to the cops, I did not see them do anything that warrants punitive action against them.

 

[Darral27]

Were you watching a different video than I was? He was not assaulted, he was resisting arrest. We can argue it back and forth but the bottom line. I bet nothing happens to the cops, I did not see them do anything that warrants punitive action against them.

I do agree, nothing will happen to the cops.
Still gotta ask, did I miss the part in the video when the man was asked politely to put his hands behind his back? I said earlier, being an overweight man myself I don't want to be thrown to the ground, it would simply be reflex to try to not fall to the ground. That is not resisting arrest. That is trying avoid being needlessly injured.
The cops did kill this man, whether intentionally or not, you are ok with and even supportive of that, I am not.

 

[Denny347]

It is really strange how people interpret resisting. If the cop gives you direction and you ignore him and continue to do as you please you are resisting. I learned as a young boy, cops says stop you stop, you no stop you suffer the consequences.

Second that was some choke hold . Really, if you have ever been choked out you can not repeatedly speak while being choked. The assclown being arrested clearly was not being choked out. Without further information I would say that chicken and waffles killed this man. Al Sharpton is a flat out race baiter. A dirt bag that makes money off of situations blown way out of proportion. Adding Al Sharpton to the case just invalidates anything from the side of the man that was arrested as far as I am concerned.

The choke hold was used to get him on the ground only. That's why I believe it was NOT responsible for his death. They stayed on his back once on the ground, him being very fat, and likely weak heart, added together to equal death. That is just my opinion from behind my keyboard.

 

[Fargo]

It is really strange how people interpret resisting. If the cop gives you direction and you ignore him and continue to do as you please you are resisting. I learned as a young boy, cops says stop you stop, you no stop you suffer the consequences.

Second that was some choke hold . Really, if you have ever been choked out you can not repeatedly speak while being choked. The assclown being arrested clearly was not being choked out. Without further information I would say that chicken and waffles killed this man. Al Sharpton is a flat out race baiter. A dirt bag that makes money off of situations blown way out of proportion. Adding Al Sharpton to the case just invalidates anything from the side of the man that was arrested as far as I am concerned.

Under Indiana law, you are dead wrong about what constitutes resisting LE. Passive resistance or disobedience of commands does not constitute resisting absent a use of force against the officer. Additionally, forcible resistance of unlawful police conduct is also excluded from the legal definition.

Look up IC 35-41.1-3-1.

 

[hopper68]

I do agree, nothing will happen to the cops.
Still gotta ask, did I miss the part in the video when the man was asked politely to put his hands behind his back? I said earlier, being an overweight man myself I don't want to be thrown to the ground, it would simply be reflex to try to not fall to the ground. That is not resisting arrest. That is trying avoid being needlessly injured.
The cops did kill this man, whether intentionally or not, you are ok with and even supportive of that, I am not.

Since it was edited and you have somebody narrating it is hard to tell. But at the 42 second mark the officers try to cuff the subject and he screams don't touch me and pulls his arms away, so he was resisting. After that is when he gets tackled.

I believe the resident INGO LEO's have already pointed out what the NYPD did wrong.

 

[renauldo]

There's info on the NY Times WS but it's kinda buried and linking to it doesn't work. The cop involved was first put on desk duty then asked to give up his badge n gun. Too bad.

 

[Que]

Sounds like you’re in on the ground level of the coming tyranny. If/when marijuana is “legalized and taxed” we will hear how awful it is that government has nothing better than to harass these types of scofflaws in the name of revenue to perpetuate their jack booted thuggary.

So, are you for or against the legalization of marijuana? And do you believe the police have the right to kill a man for selling it, whether it's legal or not?

 

[TopDog]

Under Indiana law, you are dead wrong about what constitutes resisting LE. Passive resistance or disobedience of commands does not constitute resisting absent a use of force against the officer. Additionally, forcible resistance of unlawful police conduct is also excluded from the legal definition.

Look up IC 35-41.1-3-1.

Thanks for the clarification. But my opinion is this, if you think you are not being treated correctly the best thing to do is report it, fight it in court. Not physically resist being arrested at the time.

There is a game low life's here in Indianapolis play called pay day. I have spoken of this con game on INGO before. They do everything they can to get a cop to use force on them, have some one record it and then try to sue in court. I have seen crack heads in my neighborhood employ this scam. I watched a arrest right in front of my house where one of the drug addicts from my neighborhood tried to get cops to shoot him. He kept pretending he had a gun and was faking pulling it from his waist band under his hoodie. I talked to the drug addict after he got out and was on the street again. He explained the con game to me. He was trying to get the cops to shoot him but the cops were too smart and well trained. They did not shoot him because they did not see a gun. You could not pay me enough to be a cop. They put up with way too much crap just trying to do their job.

 

[Destro]

So, are you for or against the legalization of marijuana? And do you believe the police have the right to kill a man for selling it, whether it's legal or not?

I am for decriminalization of small amounts for personal use and maybe 2-4 plants. I believe the penality I believe the penalty for mass cultivation and dealing should be severe. The whole regulate and tax scheme is just going to create new criminals under another new government bureaucracy

 

[PRasko]

I'm in no way condoning the use of a choke hold in police actions...but 39 prior arrests...

Just saying.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I am for decriminalization of small amounts for personal use and maybe 2-4 plants. I believe the penality I believe the penalty for mass cultivation and dealing should be severe. The whole regulate and tax scheme is just going to create new criminals under another new government bureaucracy

But isn't the amount-driven approach somewhat like saying "I'm a good person because I only commit adultery once a month." Seriously, while some things are by nature a bit arbitrary, where personal conduct is concerned, I do not understand how it can be argued that there is a place for conduct declared malum prohibitum in a free society. If it were malum in se to the extent to require prohibition there should be no amount-based differentiation whatsoever since any amount is evil.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

If you as a citizen are physically attacking somebody and they die during that attack you will be charged with murder.

Nope. Just had it happen in our very county. Man is physically attacked and robbed, shortly thereafter dies of a heart attack while driving away. No murder charge. There was no intent to murder, therefore no murder charge.

There are multiple instances of cops having heart attacks while fighting with resisting suspects without murder charges as well.

Examples:
School Police Officer At George Washington HS Dies After Sufferi - FOX 29 News Philadelphia | WTXF-TV

Georgia Police Officer Dies While Breaking Up Fight | Officer.com (actually dies during the fight)

 

[Destro]

But isn't the amount-driven approach somewhat like saying "I'm a good person because I only commit adultery once a month." Seriously, while some things are by nature a bit arbitrary, where personal conduct is concerned, I do not understand how it can be argued that there is a place for conduct declared malum prohibitum in a free society. If it were malum in se to the extent to require prohibition there should be no amount-based differentiation whatsoever since any amount is evil.

What someone does at home is their business. The decriminalization aspect keeps it at home. If you get busted with it outside your residence, pay your $50 civil fine and keep it at home next time. Busted 5 times? Your on the hook for $250.
You eliminate the “marketplace”, you can reduce the ancillary crime associated with it.

 

[IndyDave1776]

What someone does at home is their business. The decriminalization aspect keeps it at home. If you get busted with it outside your residence, pay your $50 civil fine and keep it at home next time. Busted 5 times? Your on the hook for $250.
You eliminate the “marketplace”, you can reduce the ancillary crime associated with it.

Why make it so difficult? Why the limit by volume? Why shouldn't one person with the room be allowed to grow enough for all his friends, the same way that people I know share vegetables from the garden--after all, without the law, there is no artificially supported price. As you said, this will eliminate the other crimes associated with it. Problem solved, no .gov intervention needed with the possible exception of driving while inebriated.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

No, they wanted a country without oppressive tax laws and with due process. If you think the folks by and large responsible for the Declaration of Independence were the same ones suppressing the whiskey tax protest nearly 20 years later, you are historically mistaken. Neither Washington nor Hamilton are even signatories to the DoI. Please reread what you quoted, it says nothing like what you say.

It saddens me that the American people are on board with making it a criminal offense to sell your own individual cigarettes.

I'm confident that the men who died fighting for our independence would feel the same.


This doesn't mean I'm advocating for rebellion or even breaking the law. It means I don't believe the law should be what it is.

I'd dispute being a signatory to the DoI is what makes a "founding father", as few history books narrow it so far, but as you like. What were those founding fathers position on taxes? How many went on to become tax collectors themselves?

Index of Signers by State

Congress did not originally have the power to levy taxes. They quickly realized that the nation could not exist on import taxes alone, and Congress gained the authority to tax. Whisky was taxed as a result. The nation put down a rebellion. My point was, and remains, that the nation was not designed to be a haven for smuggling and tax evasion, or a nation where bullets replace ballots, as some seem to insinuate that our founding fathers meant.

You have due process. That does not mean you have the right to decide to resist a peaceful arrest.

You have the right to champion those who would change the law, or to run for office yourself. You do not have the right to ignore the laws you don't like without penalty.

If the cops were wrong, an investigation and autopsy will show that. I'm sure there will be a civil lawsuit filed as well. The cops also have due process, and also have to abide by the law.