By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
DrDoomz on 06 December 2014
Edit Thread
KLAMarine said:
DrDoomz said:

1. Asthma and obesity is irrelevant. A banned move known to have lethal effects is to blame when someone is killed, not the victim's health. Garner was neither having an asthma attack nor heart attack UNTIL AFTER he was choked and smothered to unconsciousness and left to die.

You're mistaking blame and explanation. I'm explaining why Garner lost his life.

DrDoomz said:

2. Contributing =/= Causal. Choke+smother caused it. Poor health just made death more likely but did not cause it. You need to wrap your brain around this, buddy. An arsonist can't blame the victims of his fire for building a wooden house.

No but the vulnerability of a wooden house can be used to EXPLAIN, not assign blame, EXPLAIN why a house fire took place. Using this fact, it's perfectly valid to say the arsonist set the wooden house on fire.

DrDoomz said:

3. I would actually indict every single incompetent cop who took part in the assault and just stood there and let the man die.

And I would not protest this move.

DrDoomz said:

4. You need to seriously stop clinging to the victim blaming man. 

I never blamed the victim. You should understand the difference between an explanation and an assignment of blame.

DrDoomz said:

5. No, you're placing the blame on Garner's health. Which is in essence, blaming Garner himself (for who else but Garner had control over his health?). Think about it, the police had every bit if control over how whether to escalate or diffuse the situation, they had every bit of control over how much force they could use. They had every bit of control in dialing back the force they were using when it appeared that Garner was in distress. They had every bit of control to render aid when he went unconcious (police are trained basic CPR AFAIK). One would usually blame those who had the most control of the situation when it's time to assign accountability.

How stupid does a person have to be to not know that obese people would have heart problems? Especially in a country where a good chunk of people are obese? I mean how many "healthy people" are there really? My example stands. Nice try, tho.

I don't think police officers are trained to be well acquainted with the health problems of obese people; they're not doctors. They're probably busier being trained how to file paperwork, how to use their equipment, and how to go about arresting people.

DrDoomz said:

6. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2711232/Players-punch-killed-soccer-referee.html

Context: in this case, it was heat-of-the-moment aggravation due to sports rage thus this was second-degree murder, not manslaughter.

pepharytheworm said:
I think KLAMarine's stance is: Hey you guys better be healthy 'cause if not cops might accidentally kill ya and it's your fault.

Good advice, thank goodness we all can afford good medical care, healthy food, and a healthy habitat to live in so we all have an equal opportunity to be healthy individuals.

No, you would think wrong: my stance is Garner's death was an accident.


1. We don't need you to explain how he died, the coroner did that already. You just need to stop trying to rewrite the narrative by trying to deflect blame to Garner's health instead of the police's overly brutal reaction.

2. And the house's vulnerability to burning would have absolutely no relevance on the assignment of fault on the deaths of whoever was in the house. Just as Garner's health has absolutely no relevance on the assignment of fault when someone used a known potentially lethal move on him.

3. Good, then we can agree on this, at least.

4. See 1

5. It takes a special kind of stupid to not know obese people would have heart problems. Unless you're implying that the NY police force are all absolute morons, I'd have to just disregard this comment of yours....

6. Sports rage had nothing to do with it the judge's exact reasoning on why it was made murder 2 instead of manslaughter was that it was due to him knowing that the punch could have lethal consequences and he proceeded to do it anyway (http://archive.freep.com/article/20140731/NEWS02/307310121/Man-accused-of-killing-soccer-ref-returns-to-court-this-afternoon). Just like the choke hold being a KNOWN BANNED move by the NYPD because it was known to have lethal consequences and he decided to use it anyway.

7. And I'm not saying the he intended to kill Garner but that his poor handling of the situation combined with him gambling with someone's life using a banned move just to make his job easier caused someone to lose his life. And in this, Pantaleo is absolutely responsible for the man's death. Intentional or not.