A piece in the New York Times (12/3/14) about Eric Garner’s death included a weird description of the videotaped chokehold that killed him:
On the videos, Mr. Garner, a 350-pound man who was about to be arrested for illegally selling cigarettes, can be seen first complaining of harassment, then physically resisting arrest by several officers, including Officer Pantaleo, whose arm finds its way around the struggling man’s neck.
It’s debatable whether or not you’d refer to Garner as resisting; he’s certainly loudly protesting that he’d done nothing wrong, and he does not appear eager to put his hands behind his back to be handcuffed. But that “resistance” lasted a few seconds before he was choked.
The most bizarre part is the idea that police officer Daniel Pantaleo’s arm has a mind of its own. It “finds its way” around Garner’s neck?
Times reporters J. David Goodman and Michael Wilson presumably used the language they meant to use; just a few paragraphs later:
As the struggle continued, one of Officer Pantaleo’s arms moved around Mr. Garner’s neck.
Seemingly of its own accord!
And then later, readers are told that “the men toppled to the ground, but the arm around Mr. Garner’s neck did not appear to move.”
If only Pantaleo had been able to somehow control his own arm, Eric Garner would not have died.
(h/t to Reed Richardson @reedfrich)
It is outrageous. The officer did a blood chokehold which also puts pressure on the arteries and airways. It only meant to be held for 9 seconds max. That is really pushing it– the safe length is 5 seconds. When you watch the video the chokehold is held and locked for far longer then 5 seconds. He at the very least committed involuntary manslaughter.
“The gun went off”…”The firearm discharged” – The practice of using the passive voice when describing police shootings/murders of civilians is so common, between journalists & politicians & officials, that it feels impossible to correct. And I just don’t get it, what exactly is the benefit of this practice, if not *always* to take agency away from cops under investigation for committing a crime? It’s poor English form, and it doesn’t describe unambiguously and exactly how e.g. a gun “discharges”: a human pulls the damned trigger. And how, I wonder, does a human arm choke a man to death? Hm…
Greg: I believe the literary term for that phenomenon might be ‘third person denial of responsibility.’
The long – and exasperatingly unruly – arm of the law
Oy gevalt …
Mistakes were made.
Why in this case as well as the Ferguson killing, does the public not demand that a special prosecutor be appointed? The fact that a grand jury does not issue an indictment does not necessarily end the matter. There was no finding of innocent in either case–jeopardy never attached and as there was no charge filed, double jeopardy isn’t an issue–and the essential reason for this unusual tactic is that the prosecutor is in complete control of the process–conducted in secret, not subject to the rules of evidence and with no cross-examination–and the reason for the failure to get an indictment is the decision of the prosecutor. These two made sure that no charges were filed.
I’ve been an attorney for almost 40 years. They teach this in law school: it’s basic criminal procedure.
In defense of J. David Goodman’s reluctance to find even a remote possibility of police culpability in the deaths of both Eric Garner and Tamir Rice, you have to understand that many of the New York Times’s readers are Republicans.
Greg: I completely agree with your attitude to this issue. However, just for the record, neither “the gun went off” nor “the firearm discharged” are in the passive voice. “Went” and “discharged” are both straightforward active-voice verbs belonging to their (inanimate – which is your real point!) subjects. If you want passive voice, try “the gun was fired” and “the firearm was discharged”. Ironically, however, those clauses imply MORE human agency than the active-voice ones you wrote.
Cops seem always to have an ego problem, in which their “duty” is on the line in encounters where they perceive the need to “arrest”. Its all subjective garbage, and the outmoded term “peace officer” seems rarely to be used referencing them. It all goes with the abandoning of “talk therapy” in mental health. The solutions sought are mechanistic. Overpower the problem with a drug, overpower the problem citizen with forcible arrest.
If you put such a hold on an officer, he would have grounds to shoot you because, as he would tell you, you put me in imminent danger of death. Yet, that’s exactly what this NY cop did to Garner, though Garner did not present a risk of harm to this NYC cop, who had 3 helpers to subdue the unarmed Garner, who was committing a misdemeanor, at worst.
What means and justifications would Garner have had to end the deadly force that put him in imminent and reasonable fear of his own death?
the stories were written.
the lies were told.
the propaganda happened.
the population was satisfied.
the police state continued.