Republicans Struggle to Explain Away Eric Garner's Death


Def: tautology: a word Paul Constant has been looking for an excuse to use since he saw Andrew Sullivan do it.
I presume the officer tried to apply an LVNR and fucked up, applying a choke hold instead and damaging Garner's windpipe. "choke holds" are banned, LVNRs are peachy.

here's how cops distinguish one from the other:…

why you would apply a LVNR for selling loosies instead of just giving the malefactor a ticket is the issue at hand. a disproportionate response to minority offenders.

that a Repuke can't acknowledge that is unsurprising.

Yeah, you really need to be in the libertarian mindset to not recoil at the Rand Paul viewpoint there. But once you are in that mindset, I do think it is refreshing to hear a politician talk about how government is somewhat responsible for keeping the lower classes down.
@1 that you think 'tautology' is such a fancy word might say a little bit more about you than it does Paul Constant.

on another note, I'm surprised that nobody's combined the Rand Paul and Peter King approach to say that it's about time we've done something about this obesity epidemic. Maybe someone has, but I certainly don't want to go looking for it.
What, exactly, is this argument supposed to prove?

It's not supposed to prove anything, but like most reactionary arguments trying to defend the indefensible, it is meant to obfuscate and sow doubt about the victim.
That's not Steve King, he's from Iowa. The screeenshot says Peter King from NY.
Yeah, that's the loathsome, loathsome Peter King from Long Island.
'Garner died, King says, because he "had asthma, and a heart condition, and was so obese.”'

There is a long-established legal principle called the "eggshell cranium" rule. An eggshell cranium is one that his thinner and more brittle than is common and is therefore more prone to injury. The eggshell cranium rule in law, which has been extended to include any medical condition that is not immediately apparent, holds that a plaintiff or a defendant is responsible for the actual injuries caused to the actual plaintiff, not another, hypothetical, more "normal" one. If a person with brittle bones falls down a poorly lit stairway and breaks a hip, the plaintiff cannot say "if she didn't have osteoporosis, she wouldn't have broken any bones." If a man punches a hemophiliac who then dies of an internal hemorrhage, the defendant cannot plead, "I didn't know he was a hemophiliac when I punched him." The defendant or the plaintiff is responsible for the actual injuries caused to the actual victim.
@2. Exactly. You see in the video the cop's forearm is across Garners trachea. It was an air choke (and a blood choke). He crushed that guys trachea so when he let up the guy couldn't breath and he went into cardiac arrest.

I've been choked dozens and dozens of times in jiu jitsu (yes, that's not a good thing). you have to TRY to hurt somebody. It doesn't happen by accident.

An air choke is a rookie bullshit move. It hurts and it will make you panic and thrash involuntarily - lust like drowning. It's even worse on big guys with big necks.

A skillfully applied blood choke - like a rear naked - will put you asleep in seconds and you'll barely feel it. It's fairly safe if you don't hold it more than a few seconds.

In the video of Garner the cop holds that choke waaay too hard for waaay to long. Well over a minute. Garner was inuolvnaritly thrashing like ANYONE will with an air choke.

The cop's biceps was also compressing Garners carotid long enough that the combination put him into cardiac arrest. Anybody who has trained knows big guys with big necks go out EASIER.

It's clear he didn't intend to kill the guy but he DID intend to HURT him, not subdue him, because that choke won't subdue it will cause pain and reflexive panic. He was angry, reckless, and out of control and wanted to punish the big black man.

It's manslaughter pure and simple.
@8 It's maddening. It's not like Garner had some expiration date stamped on him and was going to drop dead that day anyway.

You know I have asthma. And I did BJJ for nearly a decade. I was choked dozens and dozens of times. Yet here I am. Somehow I managed to not get killed. Even with my asthma.

Because nobody was TRYING to kill me.
@9 If it applies to tort law rather than criminal law, perhaps the Garner family should file a wrongful death lawsuit.
@9 and 12, the thin-skull victim is a tort concept. But felony murder is similar in that undertaking the felony crime you end up responsible any and all deaths tangentially related.

Agree with @5, blame the victim is the Republican platform. Solve unsolvable problems before doing anything about real issues is the fallback - fix mental health rather than guns, fix racism rather than the grand jury process or police disconnect from their community.
@10: tell me more about this "rear naked". sounds hawt.
@14 Whatever floats your boat:…
@ 12 Homicide by omission is a criminal offense. That would typically be at least manslaughter. The question for a higher level offense is one of foreseeability--not proximate cause.
This man died because he was selling untaxed cigarettes? What will the republicans think of next?
SeattleLiberal is neither Seattle nor liberal, he's a rightwing libertarian trying to point out supposed hypocracy among liberals.
i get the feeling seattleliberal is one of the unregistered trolls i never saw the posts of. too bad it registered.
My favorite part about the "you can't say 'I can't breathe' if you can't breathe" argument is that they are essentially saying he was faking it - faking it so hard he died. Even by the low low standards of arguing with racists on the internet, that strains credulity that Garner was so willing to play the victim card that he would willingly die to do so. Which is what they are saying.