How To Win A Debate With Conservatives About The Eric Garner Case

I am not sure about you, but speaking for myself, I am sick and tired of trying to debate conservatives on Facebook hellbent on justifying the death of Eric Garner by New York City police officers.

To avoid having to write out the same arguments, I decided to write up a clear and concise position on Garner’s death and thought I would share it with you, in hopes it might give you some ammunition to use against conservatives driving you insane on your own profiles and pages.

This is actually a very simple case to consider if one sticks to the basic facts.

1. Eric Garner’s death was ruled a HOMICIDE by the NYC ME’s office.[1][2] It matters not that he had contributing factors to include asthma, heart disease and obesity. None of those pre-existing conditions are relevant to a final determination of HOMICIDE as a cause of death.

2. The finding of the ME at its core was that Garner died as the result of a chokehold (or in more technical terms, compression to the neck).[1][2] Use of the chokehold has been prohibited by New York City Police Department policy since 1993.[3][4]

3. “Legal standards for use of force are judged on a case by case basis. Excessive force is determined, according to the United States Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor in 1989, by the objective reasonableness of the police officer’s use of force.

A reasonable officer’s actions, the ruling states, would take into account the severity of the crime, whether the suspect was actively resisting and whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the officer or others. If the officer does the above, and still chooses to use force, it will not be deemed excessive, even if it results in grave injury or death. The rules of escalation are built into police training as the Use-of-Force Continuum.”[5]

“Most law enforcement agencies have policies that guide their use of force. These policies describe a escalating series of actions an officer may take to resolve a situation. This continuum generally has many levels, and officers are instructed to respond with a level of force appropriate to the situation at hand, acknowledging that the officer may move from one part of the continuum to another in a matter of seconds.”[6]

4. REVIEW/CONCLUSIONS: Based on review of the video, the Use-of-Force Continuum and commentary by experts, a reasonable person could draw the following conclusion:

Looking at the Use-of-Force Continuum, the NYPD had physical presence and communication operational at the time Garner resisted arrest. At this point, the next level should have been some sort of wrist lock, finger lock, then pepper spray, and tasers.

Use of pepper spray or an impact weapon such as a taser would have decreased the possibility of lethality in that situation and Garner would likely still be alive today. And this is notwithstanding the fact that the option selected by officers at the scene – a chokehold – is against departmental policy and therefore not part of the Use-of-Force Continuum they were required to follow.

Additionally, the use of those alternate use-of-force techniques would have not only decreased the chancing of lethality, they also would have better protected the officers on the scene as pepper spray can be employed effectively from a distance of about 20 feet and a taser from 15 feet, giving police more distance from a resisting subject. [7]

FOOTNOTES:

1. http://fxn.ws/1zwUaq3
2. http://bit.ly/12toR45
3. http://nyti.ms/1w7hxZX
4. http://abcn.ws/1yyGNHz
5. http://reut.rs/1vxKD2L
6. http://bit.ly/1zwTUqW
7. http://bit.ly/12tlquu

ADDITIONAL READING ON USE-OF-FORCE-CONTINUUM

http://1.usa.gov/127IXkB

You must be logged in to post a comment Login