Edit, my language was a bit harsh so I decided to edit and tone it down a bit. Also, I missed half your post and I'm just now replying to it.
1. My reply was in direct response to your "the choking never happened" comment. I pointed out the excerpt from coroner's report where you may have been proven wrong. It seems to say that the primary contributor was the chokehold in causing the death. Meaning a choking DID happen. Only the specific information that directly adresses the issue at hand is needed when addressing said issue.
It is NOT my responsibility to type in the whole coroner's report, especially when I provided a link to it. Best not accuse people of omission, man. That like Implying that they're lying. FYI, you never asked for the coroner's report from me at that point, so your whole allegation is kinda BS, man.
2. I'm well aware what you meant by your statement. I just don't think you're aware about the implications of what you said, or maybe you do, I don't know. To aggravate implies that something existing was simply made worse. It was the heart attack that killed him later on (not the fact that he was fat), saying that the cop only "aggravated" his condition (taken to its literal point) is like saying the heart attack was present beforehand. The wording is very important here as it is required to determine where you are implying blame. The attack CAUSED his condition (made worse by his poor health to begin with) to deteriorate to the point of death would have been a better way of putting it, and we'd have no argument there.
Funny you should use the whole "reading comprehension" spiel only to misinterpret what I meant when I said "LIKE (<- very important!) he was having..." segment of my reply. Of course, I wasn't saying that you directly said he was suffering from a heart attack beforehand (especially when you mentioned that he suffered it later). That's the point. I used sarcasm to point out how your very statement was self-contradictory.
3. Yes, because a cause is always contributory but something that is simply contributory can't always be the cause. In many investigations, they categorize everything as "possibly contributory" until they can isolate the exact cause. Get it now? If you can fault anything is that I was very cautious in my use of language (not directly attributing the choke hold as the cause until I had more information).
So what's your point?
4. Yes, because I had to emphasize "(most likely) cause" later on as people (just you tbh) are trying to blur the line between the relevance of the chokehold vs the relevance of Garner's health in what caused his death. I needed to be more specific with my language in order to separate most probably cause vs factors that may have simply contributed.
What's the point to all this?
5. It is causal > contributory (and yes, the use of > is the same as =/= only more specific). Maybe once you wrap your mind around that (or do you need me to explain further?), you can stop trying to take this debate into a semantical tangent and debate the facts instead.
6. Good. NOW wer're getting somewhere.
Yes, we can agree about the blame being due to incompetence. But at the same time, don't forget thst it was also due to the overly aggressive nature of police reactions. Their inability and unwillingness to use de-escalation tecnhiques (in this specific scenario) and the fact that one douchebag (Pantaleo) used a banned move for almost no reason.
/rant
Police need to be accountable for their actions. I know it's a tough job that puts their lives at risk on a daily basis. But I would rather they increase hazard pay, get fewer, better trained cops that have a better mindset about their dealings with people and share a higher level of accountability than have a bunch of trigger-happy (or in this case, chokehold-happy) power tripping douchebags who think they're above the very laws and lives they swore to protect.
/rant off
