Is this notable? GerardM ( talk) 10:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Of cores this article is notable. It is being talked about around the country and have sparked conversation about issue of police brutally and the importance of black lives. Protest around the country are making their voices heard and speaking about this topic. There is no reason why this wouldn't be notable. I think the aftermath portion of this article is very important. These are issues that continue to be swept under the rug as black problems not worthy or international concern and the idea that is might not be notable is problematic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aangell123 ( talk • contribs) 00:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the article, or at least the lead of it, was written by a heavily biased person. Right from the beginning you could smell through the text an anti-police rhetoric. How arguments are getting unfolded in order to lead/guide the reader in the anti-police direction. For instance, bringing up the notion that he's supposedly asthmatic, then conveniently adding the word "chokehold", giving a false sense of implication as if the police officer did it on purpose while having knowledge of the man being asthmatic. Or saying how medics determined it was the "primary" reason for the death, which is controversial. I say, at least, let the lead present arguments from both sides. Not just one. 2601:4:1500:33A:44BA:DC84:4D7:BA94 ( talk) 08:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
if this wasn't on the news then it wouldn't need to be in this website ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.27.140 ( talk) 20:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
"Garner previously had been arrested for selling untaxed cigarettes." This is not related to his death or the reason for his detainment. He was detained by police for being involved in breaking up a physical altercation between unnamed individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.90.74.7 ( talk) 20:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Footnote 14 (currently a NYTimes article "Man's Death After Chokehold Raises[...]") doesn't support one of the (two) sentences it's cited for ("The New York Times reported that the autopsy suggested his obesity and health problems caused his fatal heart attack.")
The linked article is from before the autopsy. 173.11.206.129 ( talk) 00:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Really? Is it just me, or does this language seem awkward. I'm not seeing the distinction between a "grappling hold" and a "chokehold" made in many of the sources on this incident. Most just call it a "chokehold". Was there a previous discussion on this? NickCT ( talk) 06:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
talk see the reference that the NYPD denied the use of the chokehold and that was a major defense. The officer denied using a chokehold. How does one know it was a chokehold? that seems to be conclusory as written. but medical examiner did determine it was a chokehold? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dghavens ( talk • contribs) 07:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Does this article get "Category:Deaths in police custody in the United States". When does "police custody" begin. Is it when they put handcuffs on you, or is it when you are booked? I believe you are in custody once the handcuffs go on. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 18:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The comment "you really have to wonder why you are reading this wiki page instead of protesting right now" presumes that all readers are living in the US. It's arrogant, not to mention inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.125.124 ( talk) 09:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I removed his alleged criminal record has not and is not valid and was poorly sourced. Court records to validate would be the only source not frivolous tabloid blogs.
Posting links to the shooting of Michael Brown and the following unrest in Ferguson without a brief annotation or explanation as to the relevance is against MOS:SEEALSO. As such, I've removed them for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pishcal ( talk • contribs) 16:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The opening sentence and the info box both say that he died of a heart attack. The NYTimes article cited says it was ruled a homicide by chokehold and chest compression. The other article cited says it is a heart attack but does not cite the autopsy. Is there an official autopsy release or statement? Are these contradictory or was it homicide by causing a heart attack by chokehold and chest compression?
Perhaps in this controversial case which is causing riots and under federal inquiry, it would be more responsible to either cite an autopsy or call the cause of death "under investigation". It seems wrong to jump to any conclusion without meeting the verifiable requirement of wp--
WovenLore (
talk)
13:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Update- Apparently the "Neck Compression" was a quote from the medical examiner but still this doesn't sound right. I would expect there to exist an actual cause of death by "asphyxia" or "cardiac arrest" for example. Neck compression does not sound like a medical evaluation, but a narrative explanation. I would like to see the actual "Cause of Death" line on the medical report before getting behind this current notation.-- WovenLore ( talk) 13:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
From http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/01/justice/new-york-choke-hold-death/: "The cause of Garner's death was "compression of neck (choke hold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police," said Julie Bolcer, a spokeswoman for the medical examiner's office. The death was ruled a homicide. Acute and chronic bronchial asthma, obesity and hypertensive cardiovascular disease were listed as contributing conditions in a controversial death that sparked anti-police demonstrations and calls for a federal investigation." The medical examiner did cite compression of neck as well as pre-existing conditions, but these sound like supporting causes. I don't see the actual report or death certificate. Ramses89 ( talk) 18:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
It is misleading to selectively cite "neck compression" but omit the other causes given by the medical examiner. Ideally, we would quote a summary cause of death directly from an official death certificate or a medical report. The CNN link http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/01/justice/new-york-choke-hold-death/ clearly cites the medial examiner listing multiple causes including neck compression, chest compression, prone positioning, and pre-existing health conditions. Ramses89 ( talk) 19:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Curent version states "The video also showed that police waited seven minutes before giving Garner cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).[15][27] Use of the chokehold has been prohibited by New York City Police Department policy since 1993.[28]" However the video quoted contains the voice of a bystander asking why don't you do CPR on him to a police officer who clearly answers "because he is breathing" It seems wrong to state that police waited to perform CPR when it was not required at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.37.82 ( talk) 21:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
A (extremely small) portion of the grand jury evidence has been released. I'm sure RS will start reviewing shortly.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/249192105/Garner-Grand-Jury-Release-Small-Details-2014 Gaijin42 ( talk) 23:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Death of Eric Garner has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
the use of the word 'chokehold' in this reference is incorrect.
206.209.166.65 ( talk) 04:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
For God's sake, don't any of the editors on this site have enough sense to put punctuation "inside quotation marks like this?" Look at a grammar book and revise this rubbish please... 66.87.114.44 ( talk)
![]() | This
edit request to
Death of Eric Garner has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the end of the paragraph stating what happened to the various EMT's and police (at note 16, I believe), I would like to see entered that "The only person who was charged by the police was the person who was filming the event." Aidanbh ( talk) 10:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Death of Eric Garner has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article states that Officer Pantaleo, "at the time of Garner's death was a 29 year old European American man." Obviously, his ethnicity isn't connected to the time of the incident, so it should maybe go before "New York City Police Department officer." Also, unless Wikipedia or some offical report has adopted some specific construct, virtually no one uses the phrase "European American." The citation to that sentence says nothing about Officer Pantaleo's ethnicity. Arnold Rothstein1921 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The citations next to the chokehold as a "banned tactic" are not actually useful for proving or explaining the fact that it was banned. I'd suggest finding a better source for that. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Why? Why do you have to remark that he is 'white'? That's not important for the article. It's just a case where the police force was excessively applied, resulting in the death of Eric Garner. But the skin color of the police officer (or the victim) has nothing to do with the situation. The police officer should be incarcerated, independently of his skin color. Please, stop the stupid racial wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.17.18.188 ( talk) 18:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
According to recent edits,
#1 by
User:Pishcal and
#2 by
User:The Anonymouse (edit #1 cites
Death of Azaria Chamberlain as an example), "Eric Garner" in the lead should be bolded. But according to
WP:BOLDTITLE, If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence. Otherwise, include the title if it can be accommodated in normal English. If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it.
In particular, edit #1 refers to the text However, if an article is about an event involving a subject about which there is no main article, especially if the article is the target of a redirect, the subject should be in bold.
However, the article talks more about Garner's death's fallout than about the death itself. So, should the lede actually be bold?
Epicgenius (
talk)
19:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Am I the only one who finds it macabre, bizarre, and inappropriate that this article has a picture of a human skull towards the bottom next to the words "death portal"? No matter the underlying politics here, this deceased person still has family and friends grieving his passing. It seems like Wikipedia's fans of death are fetishizing this incident by sticking that cartoonish death icon on the article; I argue this is highly insensitive and doesn't make the article better. (I acknowledge this may be a routine thing to add to articles like this, I'm just noticing it for the first time here.) Townlake ( talk) 17:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
There is no evidence that his death has anything to do with racism. Since I cannot edit the article, please add some relevant information from this recent interview [1] with the victims daughter. 143.176.62.228 ( talk) 16:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Death of Eric Garner has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Your page " Death of Eric Garner" is IN ERROR, and is contributing to massive civil disobedience, that is inconveniencing million of New York motorists, as well as slandering New York police officer Pantaleo, and th ewhole NY police dept.
The cause of death that you list as > "Compression of neck (chokehold)" is FALSE. This statement should be removed as well as any mention in the text, of a "chokehold" causing Garner's deatn. This original determination by the NY medical examiner's office is out of date, and has been revised by them.
"Street thug Eric Garner wasn’t killed by a chokehold, GotNews.com has learned from NYPD sources as well as medical records.According to medical examiner spokeswoman Julie Bolcer, Garner was killed by “…the compression of his chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police… Asthma, heart disease and obesity were contributing factors…” The medical examiner, while ruling the death a homicide, said there was no damage to neck or windpipe and so therefore it isn’t a chokehold."
http://gotnews.com/coroner-no-chokeh...-icantbreathe/
68.200.146.58 ( talk) 20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Protectionist
68.200.146.58 (
talk)
20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Not done GotNews is not a reliable source.
Gaijin42 (
talk)
20:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
The page is saying he died an hour before the police even approached him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100A:B128:1E49:F0D0:3F9F:F06:8887 ( talk) 12:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I've looked at the coroner's web site under press releases. Web searches just return innumerable links to variations of the Associated Press story. None of the articles I looked at, link to the original source. Mindbuilder ( talk) 17:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
This should be included in the article.
173.75.156.61 ( talk) 22:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Is NY Daily News considered a reliable source?
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/decision-not-indict-eric-garner-death-disgrace-article-1.2032435
Either way it doesn't matter. What kind of encyclopedia would note the races of every person involved in a historical incident? Wikipedia isn't for furthering racism. 67.164.188.243 ( talk)
Is Wikipedia really the place to play the race card back and forth? 67.164.188.243 ( talk) 07:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Race seems extremely relevant to this article as the chant resulting is "Black Lives Matter". In fact, people have been criticized for saying "All Lives Matter" and for not specifying "Black". This is being used as a symbol that black lives don't matter. Though to be fair, as black on black murder is much higher than white on black, maybe they don't matter to the black community either...
When I looked at the article earlier I saw the statement "Garner swatted their arms away, saying, "Don't touch me, please." This is as of now gone from the article. Looking back into the history I can see it was there on the 4th as well. Have we found references that dispute this information? If so the dispute can be mentioned as well. If not, it should be kept in the article. The article reads very different without it. Sephiroth storm ( talk) 03:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
"As a result of Garner's death, four EMTs and paramedics who responded to the scene were suspended without pay on July 21, 2014" I thought the source at the end of the line, 17, would lead to the source, but the article only talks about Daniel Pantaleo. Action taken against the EMTs on the scene seems relevant. A quick search found this article: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Staten-Island-Chokehold-Arrest-Death-Staten-Island-Eric-Garner-Video-NYPD-267913291.html MisterBeardguy ( talk) 03:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Updated: Also it should be noted in the description that they were suspended without pay for not administering CPR. That's a crucial detail that leaves the reader very puzzled. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Coasterreal (
talk •
contribs)
15:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
In the most recent edit, the text "(unconfirmed as he would have been 10 years old at that time)" was added to the text "Garner had a criminal record that includes more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980". This seems unencyclopedic, like Wikipedia itself is commenting on the text, and while it is indeed true that he would have been 10 years old in 1980, the text in the article is supported by one of the sources given for said text, and is therefore surely as "confirmed" as is necessary for inclusion. Could this edit be reverted, please? 86.157.222.94 ( talk) 11:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I propose you add Governor Cuomo to the Reaction section under politicians.
Three days before the NYPD [killed] Eric Garner, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced that his Cigarette Strike Force had “seized nearly $1.7 million in cash and contraband” during its first six months of operation. [1] and [2]
“Cigarette smugglers should be on notice – our administration will not stand for those who break the law and steal from taxpayers,” Governor Cuomo said. “With 36 separate interventions since January, our Cigarette Strike Force is aggressively cracking down on individuals who store, traffic, or sell contraband products. This quick success is a reminder to would-be traffickers that New York has zero tolerance for this illegal activity, and those who further it will be brought to justice.” [3]
Governor Cuomo set the policy agenda that resulted in the officers on that day targetting Eric Garner for selling loose cigarettes. The broader context of where the directives were coming from to target petty offences should be noted in the wikipedia article; whether it be the head of Police for strictly enforcing broken windows policing, or Governor Cuomo in this case prioritizing illegal cigarette sales crackdown.
References
There is no reliable secondary source I can identify at this moment outlining how the orders moved down the chain of command. At the very least, the wikipedia page does not need to connect the two but it can present the facts based on the primary sources. That Governor Cuomo set policy from the Governor's office starting on March 31, 2014 [1] that prioritized a crackdown on illegal cigarette sales, and that on July 14, 2014 Cuomo issued a new statement re-emphasizing that, "Cigarette smugglers should be on notice our administration will not stand for those who break the law and steal from taxpayers". [2]. Three days later Mr. Garner is arrested and subdued for a cigarette sales infraction, "for selling loose cigarettes" [3]. This is important contextual information on the state political level, that readers of the Garner case should find relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.220.68 ( talk) 18:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
References
I added the quote, but I know this section can be better written incorporating the events as seen on footage with what was said by all players. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dghavens ( talk • contribs) 05:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Death of Eric Garner has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Regarding this line in the first paragraph, "However, the police have argued that before Garner passed out, there was no reason to believe that he was in serious condition, since they assumed that if Garner was unable to breathe, he would also have been unable to speak.[14]"
I believe it is actually misinformation. According to the source which it is linked to U.S. House Representative Republican Peter T. King actually said, "The fact is if you can't breathe, you can't talk."
I believe either this line should be removed from the article or changed to accurately reflect that no police officer had actually argued that if Garner was able to speak he could also breathe or that there is no current source for such information in the sources of this wikipedia article. DeliriousB ( talk) 08:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The citations for the sentence "After Pantaleo removed his arm from Garner's neck, four officers restrained Garner who repeated "I can't breathe" 11 times while lying facedown on the sidewalk." all contradict each other over how many times Garner said it. Huffington Post says 11, New York Daily News says 6, and USA Today says 8. Should these contradictory reports be mentioned in the article? Pishcal ( talk) 23:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Death of Eric Garner has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I made some improvements to this article. Manofpeace87 ( talk) 20:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Mindbuilder has added variously that the chokehold lasted for 9 or 19 seconds. The citation is to a video; the accompanying news article does not state the duration. Given the disputed characterization of the events and the chaos of the scene, I believe this falls afoul of WP:NOR. Also, it does not match what I am able to see in the video, so as far as I can tell the citation does not support this assertion. I removed the phrase. NTK ( talk) 05:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Death of Eric Garner has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to edit more relevant details to this website. thank you Joshbosnir ( talk) 15:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Death of Eric Garner has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add Derrick Rose to the list of NBA athletes with the "I Can't Breathe" shirt. He started the movement in the NBA, and is listed in the cited CNN article as having done so, and his name deserves to be included.
73.44.121.163 ( talk) 22:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Death of Eric Garner has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
citation #53 is quoted incorrectly. The wikipedia page states that there was compression of the neck while the linked article states that there was compression of the chest. Gregw3482 ( talk) 15:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I've provided references that Pantaleo and the police unions deny it was a chokehold. That should be enough to establish that there are significant adherents to that position. Even just Pantaleo alone would be enough. I also provided the Hannity and Furman references just because they were the first I came across. Now I've added Bo Dietl and Harry Houck. There are undoubtedly many more. It is against Wikipedia policy to try to discredit a position using an ad Hominem attack by citing a bad person that supports that position. You don't go to the Democrat page and say in the lead that some serial killer was a democrat so Democrats are bad. You don't go to the Republican page and say some mass murderer was a Republican so Republicans are bad. That is not a neutral tone. Mindbuilder ( talk) 19:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I am proposing a new article here for 2014 civil rights protests in the United States. It is clear that the protests are a result of both the deaths of Michael brown and Eric Garner. With protests happening in multiple cities and numerous arrests being made I feel we need a parent article here for the whole event. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 18:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I have re-added the tag please do not remove it until a consensus can be reached. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 19:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
It appears we have consensus not to split. I will remove the tag. If the tide turns the other way, we can return the tag.-- Nowa ( talk) 02:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I propose the creation of a page for Eric Garner Millions March Protests. Many articles have appeared on yesterday's events. I think we should move to do this asap. All in favor? OR drohowa ( talk) 02:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Off-topc, but I also advocate for a separate article for "I can't breathe", which has obviously received a lot of coverage in its own right. See " Hands up, don't shoot" for a similar concept. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 16:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Since a headlock is apparently also called a rear chancery I think it would be informative to utilize that term to make the controversy regarding the hold applied to Garner an alliterative one, and thus more memorably.
I would like to know if any still images exist from the video which might be able to answer this dilemma. Far as I know from watching MMA or pro wrestling, the central difference is whether the arm is under the chin (on the throat) or whether it was on it or above it (on the face).
If video is not able to answer this, I am wondering if a coroner report might be able to distinguish neck or facial injuries to the point of answering it. This may be difficult since Garner appears to fall on his face throughout the struggle but I figure a skilled coroner would be able to tell the difference between bruising from squeezing versus impact or laceration bruises... or at least I hope there is a way to do that. -- Ranze ( talk) 23:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The article sources two pages in claiming that Pantaleo used a banned maneuver in the incent--however, his lawyer has argued that he used a method taught in police training, and not a banned maneuver [1].
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
As this has not been proven to be the case, I believe the sentence "Use of the chokehold has been prohibited by New York City Police Department policy since 1993." should be changed to "Use of a chokehold..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fosojedi ( talk • contribs) 14:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Need a better source probably, but likely to bubble soon. http://nypost.com/2014/07/19/man-in-chokehold-death-had-no-throat-damage-autopsy/ Gaijin42 ( talk) 19:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
You don't need to necessarily damage the throat to choke some one. Constricting the blood flow to the brain is sufficient and can be accomplished by compresing the arteries without causing physical damage to the throat. 67.164.188.243 ( talk) 03:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The above point is fair about constricting blood flow, but from what I have read, the blood flow was constricted on the veins, not the arteries. Therefore, there would be no choke. Why is the official ME report not available anywhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fosojedi ( talk • contribs) 14:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I had added the link to the Shooting of Akai Gurley before by due to some edit warring it got deleted. In any case, I removed the link to the Travon Martin article, as that case is not as closely related to this case. Martin was killed by a civilian not a police officer. Moreover, the deaths of Garner, Brown and Gurley (the link just I added) are usually discussed as a recent overall trend by the news media. In fact, there are many articles that discuss them all in single piece. Likeminas ( talk) 15:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll just leave this here....
Thin Skull Rule Legal Definition: An additional exposure in tort liability towards persons who are particularly vulnerable or more fragile than the norm, who may have inherent weaknesses or a pre-existing vulnerability or condition; the tort-feasor takes his victim as he finds them; he compensates for all damages he caused, even if damages are elevated compared to a norm because the plaintiff was thin skulled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.25.18.222 ( talk) 19:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Of Pantaleo's arm around Garner's neck from the Time video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N__5p_dNW3U The times are as follows: (where f is the frame number at 30frames/sec) At 1:28f25 Pantaleo (shirt 99) puts his arm around Garner's neck. Pantaleo's arm is clearly around Garner's neck until 1:33f9 when another officer (I think Justin Damico - shirt back D.D.) blocks the view, though the arm is still almost certainly around Garner's neck during the blocked time of the takedown. At 1:35f21 Pantaleo's locked fists and arm around Garner's neck becomes clearly visible again as Pantaleo is on Garner's back and Garner crawls on his hands and knees a short distance. There is a very brief, less than one second, blockage of the view by D.D. again from 1:37f25 to 1:38f17, but that is too brief for the arm to have come away and gone back around the neck. Continuing, Pantaleo's arm is clearly around Garner's neck until 1:41f27, when another officer blocks the view. It's hard to see at full speed, but in frame by frame mode, at 1:44f5, you can see Pantaleo's left fist come away from the right side of Garner's face, and the arm is clearly no longer around Garner's neck. At 1:46f0 Pantaleo is above Garner and clearly has both arms nearly straight down and clearly has both hands, and notably, all fingers, on Garner's head, not around his neck. If you can't see the hand come away at 1:44f5, then there is an uncertainty of four seconds about when Pantaleo's arm came away from Garner's neck between 1:41f27 and 1:46f0. So the time is 1:44f5 minus 1:28f25, or 15 seconds plus 10 frames, or 15.3 seconds, give or take two seconds at the end if you cant see the release at 1:44f5. Are any of these numbers wrong? Shall we put 15.3 seconds into the article?
You can see the time more accurately in the video if you pause it when Pantaleo's arm goes around and look at the video player time clock, then resume and pause it again as Pantaleo goes up above Garner with his arms straight down. Rewinding it a few times around the time in question also allows you to anticipate when to pause it better for an accurate read of the time. You can also copy and paste the URL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N__5p_dNW3U into the VLC media player's open network stream dialog to enable playback in slow motion and even frame by frame. In VLC the e key on the keyboard goes one frame at a time, and the minus key pressed once or a few times, gives slow motion. The plus key returns to normal speed.
This isn't original research because anyone can verify this by viewing the primary source using free software in a few minutes, or even just with a stopwatch. Does it really matter if it's 5 or 25 or 19 or 15.3 seconds anyway? Mindbuilder ( talk) 17:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Mindbuilder, what you are doing not only violates WP:OR, or more accurately WP:PRIMARY, which says "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself", but you're also violating WP:VERIFY, which says that information in an article needs to come from a reliable source. Your analysis here of how long the chokehold lasted could not be cited as a reliable source. Pishcal ( talk) 18:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
The example of analyzing letters is admittedly rather extreme, but I also gave the example of describing the plot. If you're not making a direct quote, you have to interpret the meaning of what you're describing. In many cases that is easy and clear. In some cases academics debate and interpret and analyze for centuries the meaning of various plot elements. Whether it is analysis or not by the narrower definition of analysis is just a question of how clear the facts are. Primary sources aren't always written. For example we might summarize the plot of a movie. Some important plot elements might not be spoken language (e.g. did Han Solo shoot first?) Anyone can view the movie and determine if our description is accurate. We could point them to the exact second of the movie, or if the detail of importance was quick, we might point them to a particular frame of the movie. We might say something like, "a laser pulse exited Han Solo's gun at frame 27 and a pulse exited the other guy's gun at frame 29." That's not an analysis in the narrow sense, it's just a simple description based on slow looking. It need not be fiction. Some reliable sources are non-fiction video, like newscasts. A newscaster might say something like "watch what happens, the silent video speaks for itself." Then we could describe what happens in the video and it wouldn't necessarily be analysis. If the precise timing was important and clear, we could describe the precise timing without it being analysis in the narrow sense. Another example I was looking at a while back was the dropping of a hammer and a feather on the moon. We could play the video in slow motion and describe if they hit the ground at exactly the same time to the resolution of the video framerate. No analysis would be required, just simple close observation using the widely available tool of slow motion playback. Anyone could verify our report by just a close look in slow motion.
There is a tendency to think that looking at something frame by frame is analysis pretty much just by definition. And by the common broad definition of analysis that may be true. But just looking at something slowly and carefully does not make the looking an analysis in the sense used in the OR policy. A video is just a sequence of still images. For example imagine an article with a sequence of say 20 still images. You might be able to just glance at the images in sequence and see the important parts. But what if you decide to slow down and take a few seconds looking at each one. Are you suddenly doing an analysis? What if you look at each one for a whole minute before describing the content? Does that mean you did an analysis? Often times I think people would describe that as an analysis. But not in the narrower sense used in the OR policy.
Apparently from a previous headlock rough estimate of 5 to 25 seconds by another editor, and Nowa not seeing the headlock happen at 1:28-9, people will have to verify some aspects frame by frame or at least in slow motion. This is especially true of the moment the headlock ended at 1:44 which I even missed in several slow motion passes. But people won't have to analyze, they'll just have to look at the frames. Just look at the source slowly. Just looking slowly and carefully doesn't make it analysis. They don't have to do complicated calculations, or have expert understanding. They just have to look slowly.
There might be much disagreement if we discuss the precise timing. But I think good slow motion viewing and careful observation of the timing will make it much clearer. If there is persistent disagreement after looking at the source slowly, then we could not declare the facts to be straightforward, and we won't have a reference to point to to settle it. But if the frames are clear, we can point to the frames and to TIME as our source. But just because we have to look slowly doesn't mean we have to abandon the effort without even trying for consensus. Mindbuilder ( talk) 01:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I've removed Police misconduct from the "See Also" section because I think it doesn't belong there. It seems to be slightly POV, and considering how the officer was not indicted, I don't think it falls under the definition of police misconduct. I know Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but the page at Misconduct says that "misconduct is wrongful, improper, or unlawful conduct motivated by premeditated or intentional purpose or by obstinate indifference to the consequences of one's acts.", and that seems inappropriate to have in the See Also section. If you disagree then leave a message rather than reverting. Pishcal ( talk) 19:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I have removed what appears to be a self published excerpt of the Orta video as a reference. Here is a link It fails to meet wp:rs and may well be wp:copyvio. We have to be particularly careful about references in this article since it is governed by wp:blp. Nonetheless, I would be happy to hear alternative points of view as to why this is an appropriate reference.-- Nowa ( talk) 14:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
The Brooklyn NYPD killings do not belong in the lead. Reliable sources currently only imply that the Brooklyn killings were retaliation for Michael Brown and Eric Garner. Even if the killings were in retaliation for Garner's death, placing them in the lead creates the implication that they were somehow among the most major responses when there's a single paragraph devoted to the killings in the body (raising WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEAD concerns). Dyrnych ( talk) 21:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
The lead is an embarrassment. "After losing consciousness, officers turned Garner on his side..." - the officers did not, in fact, lose consciousness. Numerous violations of the MOS need correcting too. Problem with that, of course, is that knowledge of the existence and contents of the MOS is very rare. 46.37.55.80 ( talk) 23:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a reliable source for the time of 4:45 pm? I remember hearing/reading the incident occurred at 3:45 or 3:30 pm. BankSLP ( talk) 04:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
It is my understanding that negligent homicide implies wrongdoing, i.e., a person's actions fell below a standard that we expect of reasonable people. Please, help me understand. ( User talk:dghavens 01:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC))
125.10 Criminally negligent homicide.
A person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when, with criminal negligence, he causes the death of another person.
15.05 Culpability; definitions of culpable mental states.
4. "Criminal negligence." A person acts with criminal negligence with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.
69.74.180.19 (
talk)
02:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The autopsy noted that Garner died thanks to acute and chronic bronchial asthma, obesity, and heart disease. Daniel Pantaleo had already released his “submission hold” (not a choke hold) from Garner, before Garner said “I can't breathe”. Garner did not die of asphyxiation, as the head of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association noted at the time. The preliminary autopsy showed no damage to Garner’s windpipe or neck bones. According to Garner’s friends, he “had several health issues: diabetes, sleep apnea, and asthma so severe that he had to quit his job as a horticulturist for the city’s parks department. He wheezed when he talked and could not walk a block without resting, they said.” If Garner hadn’t resisted arrest, he would be alive today. So would Michael Brown. But that’s a different story. Brown attacked the officer and was charging him and trying to take his gun. The bullets were in the front at close range. It’s so obvious he was attacking. It was self-defense.
FaithandFreedom (
talk)
02:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/12/03/actual-facts-eric-garner/
|
The following statement seems to be WP:OR:
"however, homicide does not by itself imply murder as in negligent homicide or even wrongdoing as in justifiable homicide"
According to WP:SYNTHESIS,
In this case, the editor is using the dictionary definitions to imply that the homicide of Eric Garner was not a murder or a crime. However, the dictionary definitions don't explicitly mention Garner, and in Jimmy Wales' terms, a dictionary defnition is not an article in relation to the topic of the article.
You need to find a source that says "the coroner's ruling that Garner's death was a homicide does not imply that it was murder or criminal," or words to that effect. That shouldn't be too hard. The Time article doesn't quite seem to say that, although you could persuade me if you could find a quote in it that says that. The Time article seems to say that it might or might not be a crime.
I was going to delete it, but I saw your note asking that I discuss it first in Talk. -- Nbauman ( talk) 03:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
References
I agree that this is not synth. Its directly covered by TIME, in the context of this incident. Gaijin42 ( talk) 22:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I changed the sentence to "The medical examiner ruled Garner's death a homicide, indicating that his death was caused by the intentional actions of another person or persons; however, the designation means neither that the death itself was intentional nor that a crime was committed." I don't think that the previous iteration was SYNTH, but I do think that this version is slightly better. Dyrnych ( talk) 16:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Internet personality Charles Green, known under the YouTube screenname Angry Grandpa, uploaded a video on July 19, 2014, entitled "JUSTICE FOR ERIC GARNER! (GRANDPA GOES CRAZY!)" [1]
References
Dummy post just so I can add a timestamp to this section so sigmabot can archive it. Pishcal — ♣ 04:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
there has been a lot in this area, including the samuel L. jackson video, a number of notable tweets, etc?
Another dummy post. Pishcal — ♣ 04:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I was just looking over the article and at the citation for "Compression of neck (choke hold)", and I wondered if the (choke hold) part was added in by the author of the article. There isn't too much of a reason to believe this, but either way it would be better if we could link directly to what the Medical Examiner said, if that's even online. this CBS News article doesn't say choke hold in the quote, and neither does this time article. I'm okay with it being there, it clears up any confusion someone might have, but I was wondering if it belonged there. Pishcal — ♣ 23:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
In reply to your question: "The “Chokehold.” At issue in this case is the so-called “chokehold” used by Pantaleo. Chokeholds have been banned by the NYPD entirely since 1993; chokeholds are typically defined as holds that prevent people from breathing. Thanks to the video showing Garner stating that he cannot breathe, many pundits have wrongly suggested that Pantaleo was “choking” Garner by depriving him of air from his windpipe. Bratton himself suggested that Pantaleo used a “chokehold,” which is defined by the NYPD as “any pressure to the throat or windpipe, which may prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air.” That does not appear to have been the case. Garner did not die of asphyxiation, as the head of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association noted at the time. The preliminary autopsy showed no damage to Garner’s windpipe or neck bones. The autopsy further noted that Garner died thanks to acute and chronic bronchial asthma, obesity, and heart disease. Garner was not choked to death, as the media seems to maintain. According to Garner’s friends, he “had several health issues: diabetes, sleep apnea, and asthma so severe that he had to quit his job as a horticulturist for the city’s parks department. He wheezed when he talked and could not walk a block without resting, they said.” he weighed about 400lbs. If he hadn't resisted, he would be alive today. But probably not for long due to his poor health. FaithandFreedom ( talk) 03:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC) source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/12/03/actual-facts-eric-garner
Subject: Your inquiry to OCME
I continue to believe that the above attempt to debunk the reporting of reliable sources was an inappropriate exercise ab initio, but I assume that this settles the matter. Dyrnych ( talk) 03:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
An editor has reverted in excess of three times in one 24 hour period a claim that the cause of death is a chokehold, without qualifying which source made this assertion in the article. The claim of chokehold is in dispute by multiple government entities, executive, judicial, and unionized entities. Since Eric Garner is now dead and the police officers and EMT on scene are still living, this a BLP violation. A report will be made on the 3RR notice board and BLP board unless the offending editor corrects his or her excess reverting promptly. Afronig ( talk) 22:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
"Garner had been arrested by the NYPD thirty times since 1980 on charges such as assault, resisting arrest, and grand larceny."
Citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.1.229 ( talk) 18:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Is this notable? GerardM ( talk) 10:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Of cores this article is notable. It is being talked about around the country and have sparked conversation about issue of police brutally and the importance of black lives. Protest around the country are making their voices heard and speaking about this topic. There is no reason why this wouldn't be notable. I think the aftermath portion of this article is very important. These are issues that continue to be swept under the rug as black problems not worthy or international concern and the idea that is might not be notable is problematic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aangell123 ( talk • contribs) 00:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the article, or at least the lead of it, was written by a heavily biased person. Right from the beginning you could smell through the text an anti-police rhetoric. How arguments are getting unfolded in order to lead/guide the reader in the anti-police direction. For instance, bringing up the notion that he's supposedly asthmatic, then conveniently adding the word "chokehold", giving a false sense of implication as if the police officer did it on purpose while having knowledge of the man being asthmatic. Or saying how medics determined it was the "primary" reason for the death, which is controversial. I say, at least, let the lead present arguments from both sides. Not just one. 2601:4:1500:33A:44BA:DC84:4D7:BA94 ( talk) 08:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
if this wasn't on the news then it wouldn't need to be in this website ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.27.140 ( talk) 20:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
"Garner previously had been arrested for selling untaxed cigarettes." This is not related to his death or the reason for his detainment. He was detained by police for being involved in breaking up a physical altercation between unnamed individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.90.74.7 ( talk) 20:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Footnote 14 (currently a NYTimes article "Man's Death After Chokehold Raises[...]") doesn't support one of the (two) sentences it's cited for ("The New York Times reported that the autopsy suggested his obesity and health problems caused his fatal heart attack.")
The linked article is from before the autopsy. 173.11.206.129 ( talk) 00:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Really? Is it just me, or does this language seem awkward. I'm not seeing the distinction between a "grappling hold" and a "chokehold" made in many of the sources on this incident. Most just call it a "chokehold". Was there a previous discussion on this? NickCT ( talk) 06:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
talk see the reference that the NYPD denied the use of the chokehold and that was a major defense. The officer denied using a chokehold. How does one know it was a chokehold? that seems to be conclusory as written. but medical examiner did determine it was a chokehold? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dghavens ( talk • contribs) 07:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Does this article get "Category:Deaths in police custody in the United States". When does "police custody" begin. Is it when they put handcuffs on you, or is it when you are booked? I believe you are in custody once the handcuffs go on. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 18:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The comment "you really have to wonder why you are reading this wiki page instead of protesting right now" presumes that all readers are living in the US. It's arrogant, not to mention inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.125.124 ( talk) 09:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I removed his alleged criminal record has not and is not valid and was poorly sourced. Court records to validate would be the only source not frivolous tabloid blogs.
Posting links to the shooting of Michael Brown and the following unrest in Ferguson without a brief annotation or explanation as to the relevance is against MOS:SEEALSO. As such, I've removed them for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pishcal ( talk • contribs) 16:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The opening sentence and the info box both say that he died of a heart attack. The NYTimes article cited says it was ruled a homicide by chokehold and chest compression. The other article cited says it is a heart attack but does not cite the autopsy. Is there an official autopsy release or statement? Are these contradictory or was it homicide by causing a heart attack by chokehold and chest compression?
Perhaps in this controversial case which is causing riots and under federal inquiry, it would be more responsible to either cite an autopsy or call the cause of death "under investigation". It seems wrong to jump to any conclusion without meeting the verifiable requirement of wp--
WovenLore (
talk)
13:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Update- Apparently the "Neck Compression" was a quote from the medical examiner but still this doesn't sound right. I would expect there to exist an actual cause of death by "asphyxia" or "cardiac arrest" for example. Neck compression does not sound like a medical evaluation, but a narrative explanation. I would like to see the actual "Cause of Death" line on the medical report before getting behind this current notation.-- WovenLore ( talk) 13:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
From http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/01/justice/new-york-choke-hold-death/: "The cause of Garner's death was "compression of neck (choke hold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police," said Julie Bolcer, a spokeswoman for the medical examiner's office. The death was ruled a homicide. Acute and chronic bronchial asthma, obesity and hypertensive cardiovascular disease were listed as contributing conditions in a controversial death that sparked anti-police demonstrations and calls for a federal investigation." The medical examiner did cite compression of neck as well as pre-existing conditions, but these sound like supporting causes. I don't see the actual report or death certificate. Ramses89 ( talk) 18:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
It is misleading to selectively cite "neck compression" but omit the other causes given by the medical examiner. Ideally, we would quote a summary cause of death directly from an official death certificate or a medical report. The CNN link http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/01/justice/new-york-choke-hold-death/ clearly cites the medial examiner listing multiple causes including neck compression, chest compression, prone positioning, and pre-existing health conditions. Ramses89 ( talk) 19:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Curent version states "The video also showed that police waited seven minutes before giving Garner cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).[15][27] Use of the chokehold has been prohibited by New York City Police Department policy since 1993.[28]" However the video quoted contains the voice of a bystander asking why don't you do CPR on him to a police officer who clearly answers "because he is breathing" It seems wrong to state that police waited to perform CPR when it was not required at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.37.82 ( talk) 21:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
A (extremely small) portion of the grand jury evidence has been released. I'm sure RS will start reviewing shortly.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/249192105/Garner-Grand-Jury-Release-Small-Details-2014 Gaijin42 ( talk) 23:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Death of Eric Garner has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
the use of the word 'chokehold' in this reference is incorrect.
206.209.166.65 ( talk) 04:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
For God's sake, don't any of the editors on this site have enough sense to put punctuation "inside quotation marks like this?" Look at a grammar book and revise this rubbish please... 66.87.114.44 ( talk)
![]() | This
edit request to
Death of Eric Garner has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the end of the paragraph stating what happened to the various EMT's and police (at note 16, I believe), I would like to see entered that "The only person who was charged by the police was the person who was filming the event." Aidanbh ( talk) 10:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Death of Eric Garner has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article states that Officer Pantaleo, "at the time of Garner's death was a 29 year old European American man." Obviously, his ethnicity isn't connected to the time of the incident, so it should maybe go before "New York City Police Department officer." Also, unless Wikipedia or some offical report has adopted some specific construct, virtually no one uses the phrase "European American." The citation to that sentence says nothing about Officer Pantaleo's ethnicity. Arnold Rothstein1921 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The citations next to the chokehold as a "banned tactic" are not actually useful for proving or explaining the fact that it was banned. I'd suggest finding a better source for that. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Why? Why do you have to remark that he is 'white'? That's not important for the article. It's just a case where the police force was excessively applied, resulting in the death of Eric Garner. But the skin color of the police officer (or the victim) has nothing to do with the situation. The police officer should be incarcerated, independently of his skin color. Please, stop the stupid racial wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.17.18.188 ( talk) 18:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
According to recent edits,
#1 by
User:Pishcal and
#2 by
User:The Anonymouse (edit #1 cites
Death of Azaria Chamberlain as an example), "Eric Garner" in the lead should be bolded. But according to
WP:BOLDTITLE, If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence. Otherwise, include the title if it can be accommodated in normal English. If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it.
In particular, edit #1 refers to the text However, if an article is about an event involving a subject about which there is no main article, especially if the article is the target of a redirect, the subject should be in bold.
However, the article talks more about Garner's death's fallout than about the death itself. So, should the lede actually be bold?
Epicgenius (
talk)
19:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Am I the only one who finds it macabre, bizarre, and inappropriate that this article has a picture of a human skull towards the bottom next to the words "death portal"? No matter the underlying politics here, this deceased person still has family and friends grieving his passing. It seems like Wikipedia's fans of death are fetishizing this incident by sticking that cartoonish death icon on the article; I argue this is highly insensitive and doesn't make the article better. (I acknowledge this may be a routine thing to add to articles like this, I'm just noticing it for the first time here.) Townlake ( talk) 17:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
There is no evidence that his death has anything to do with racism. Since I cannot edit the article, please add some relevant information from this recent interview [1] with the victims daughter. 143.176.62.228 ( talk) 16:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Death of Eric Garner has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Your page " Death of Eric Garner" is IN ERROR, and is contributing to massive civil disobedience, that is inconveniencing million of New York motorists, as well as slandering New York police officer Pantaleo, and th ewhole NY police dept.
The cause of death that you list as > "Compression of neck (chokehold)" is FALSE. This statement should be removed as well as any mention in the text, of a "chokehold" causing Garner's deatn. This original determination by the NY medical examiner's office is out of date, and has been revised by them.
"Street thug Eric Garner wasn’t killed by a chokehold, GotNews.com has learned from NYPD sources as well as medical records.According to medical examiner spokeswoman Julie Bolcer, Garner was killed by “…the compression of his chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police… Asthma, heart disease and obesity were contributing factors…” The medical examiner, while ruling the death a homicide, said there was no damage to neck or windpipe and so therefore it isn’t a chokehold."
http://gotnews.com/coroner-no-chokeh...-icantbreathe/
68.200.146.58 ( talk) 20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Protectionist
68.200.146.58 (
talk)
20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Not done GotNews is not a reliable source.
Gaijin42 (
talk)
20:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
The page is saying he died an hour before the police even approached him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100A:B128:1E49:F0D0:3F9F:F06:8887 ( talk) 12:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I've looked at the coroner's web site under press releases. Web searches just return innumerable links to variations of the Associated Press story. None of the articles I looked at, link to the original source. Mindbuilder ( talk) 17:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
This should be included in the article.
173.75.156.61 ( talk) 22:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Is NY Daily News considered a reliable source?
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/decision-not-indict-eric-garner-death-disgrace-article-1.2032435
Either way it doesn't matter. What kind of encyclopedia would note the races of every person involved in a historical incident? Wikipedia isn't for furthering racism. 67.164.188.243 ( talk)
Is Wikipedia really the place to play the race card back and forth? 67.164.188.243 ( talk) 07:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Race seems extremely relevant to this article as the chant resulting is "Black Lives Matter". In fact, people have been criticized for saying "All Lives Matter" and for not specifying "Black". This is being used as a symbol that black lives don't matter. Though to be fair, as black on black murder is much higher than white on black, maybe they don't matter to the black community either...
When I looked at the article earlier I saw the statement "Garner swatted their arms away, saying, "Don't touch me, please." This is as of now gone from the article. Looking back into the history I can see it was there on the 4th as well. Have we found references that dispute this information? If so the dispute can be mentioned as well. If not, it should be kept in the article. The article reads very different without it. Sephiroth storm ( talk) 03:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
"As a result of Garner's death, four EMTs and paramedics who responded to the scene were suspended without pay on July 21, 2014" I thought the source at the end of the line, 17, would lead to the source, but the article only talks about Daniel Pantaleo. Action taken against the EMTs on the scene seems relevant. A quick search found this article: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Staten-Island-Chokehold-Arrest-Death-Staten-Island-Eric-Garner-Video-NYPD-267913291.html MisterBeardguy ( talk) 03:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Updated: Also it should be noted in the description that they were suspended without pay for not administering CPR. That's a crucial detail that leaves the reader very puzzled. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Coasterreal (
talk •
contribs)
15:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
In the most recent edit, the text "(unconfirmed as he would have been 10 years old at that time)" was added to the text "Garner had a criminal record that includes more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980". This seems unencyclopedic, like Wikipedia itself is commenting on the text, and while it is indeed true that he would have been 10 years old in 1980, the text in the article is supported by one of the sources given for said text, and is therefore surely as "confirmed" as is necessary for inclusion. Could this edit be reverted, please? 86.157.222.94 ( talk) 11:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I propose you add Governor Cuomo to the Reaction section under politicians.
Three days before the NYPD [killed] Eric Garner, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced that his Cigarette Strike Force had “seized nearly $1.7 million in cash and contraband” during its first six months of operation. [1] and [2]
“Cigarette smugglers should be on notice – our administration will not stand for those who break the law and steal from taxpayers,” Governor Cuomo said. “With 36 separate interventions since January, our Cigarette Strike Force is aggressively cracking down on individuals who store, traffic, or sell contraband products. This quick success is a reminder to would-be traffickers that New York has zero tolerance for this illegal activity, and those who further it will be brought to justice.” [3]
Governor Cuomo set the policy agenda that resulted in the officers on that day targetting Eric Garner for selling loose cigarettes. The broader context of where the directives were coming from to target petty offences should be noted in the wikipedia article; whether it be the head of Police for strictly enforcing broken windows policing, or Governor Cuomo in this case prioritizing illegal cigarette sales crackdown.
References
There is no reliable secondary source I can identify at this moment outlining how the orders moved down the chain of command. At the very least, the wikipedia page does not need to connect the two but it can present the facts based on the primary sources. That Governor Cuomo set policy from the Governor's office starting on March 31, 2014 [1] that prioritized a crackdown on illegal cigarette sales, and that on July 14, 2014 Cuomo issued a new statement re-emphasizing that, "Cigarette smugglers should be on notice our administration will not stand for those who break the law and steal from taxpayers". [2]. Three days later Mr. Garner is arrested and subdued for a cigarette sales infraction, "for selling loose cigarettes" [3]. This is important contextual information on the state political level, that readers of the Garner case should find relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.220.68 ( talk) 18:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
References
I added the quote, but I know this section can be better written incorporating the events as seen on footage with what was said by all players. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dghavens ( talk • contribs) 05:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Death of Eric Garner has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Regarding this line in the first paragraph, "However, the police have argued that before Garner passed out, there was no reason to believe that he was in serious condition, since they assumed that if Garner was unable to breathe, he would also have been unable to speak.[14]"
I believe it is actually misinformation. According to the source which it is linked to U.S. House Representative Republican Peter T. King actually said, "The fact is if you can't breathe, you can't talk."
I believe either this line should be removed from the article or changed to accurately reflect that no police officer had actually argued that if Garner was able to speak he could also breathe or that there is no current source for such information in the sources of this wikipedia article. DeliriousB ( talk) 08:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The citations for the sentence "After Pantaleo removed his arm from Garner's neck, four officers restrained Garner who repeated "I can't breathe" 11 times while lying facedown on the sidewalk." all contradict each other over how many times Garner said it. Huffington Post says 11, New York Daily News says 6, and USA Today says 8. Should these contradictory reports be mentioned in the article? Pishcal ( talk) 23:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Death of Eric Garner has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I made some improvements to this article. Manofpeace87 ( talk) 20:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Mindbuilder has added variously that the chokehold lasted for 9 or 19 seconds. The citation is to a video; the accompanying news article does not state the duration. Given the disputed characterization of the events and the chaos of the scene, I believe this falls afoul of WP:NOR. Also, it does not match what I am able to see in the video, so as far as I can tell the citation does not support this assertion. I removed the phrase. NTK ( talk) 05:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Death of Eric Garner has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to edit more relevant details to this website. thank you Joshbosnir ( talk) 15:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Death of Eric Garner has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add Derrick Rose to the list of NBA athletes with the "I Can't Breathe" shirt. He started the movement in the NBA, and is listed in the cited CNN article as having done so, and his name deserves to be included.
73.44.121.163 ( talk) 22:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Death of Eric Garner has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
citation #53 is quoted incorrectly. The wikipedia page states that there was compression of the neck while the linked article states that there was compression of the chest. Gregw3482 ( talk) 15:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I've provided references that Pantaleo and the police unions deny it was a chokehold. That should be enough to establish that there are significant adherents to that position. Even just Pantaleo alone would be enough. I also provided the Hannity and Furman references just because they were the first I came across. Now I've added Bo Dietl and Harry Houck. There are undoubtedly many more. It is against Wikipedia policy to try to discredit a position using an ad Hominem attack by citing a bad person that supports that position. You don't go to the Democrat page and say in the lead that some serial killer was a democrat so Democrats are bad. You don't go to the Republican page and say some mass murderer was a Republican so Republicans are bad. That is not a neutral tone. Mindbuilder ( talk) 19:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I am proposing a new article here for 2014 civil rights protests in the United States. It is clear that the protests are a result of both the deaths of Michael brown and Eric Garner. With protests happening in multiple cities and numerous arrests being made I feel we need a parent article here for the whole event. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 18:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I have re-added the tag please do not remove it until a consensus can be reached. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 19:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
It appears we have consensus not to split. I will remove the tag. If the tide turns the other way, we can return the tag.-- Nowa ( talk) 02:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I propose the creation of a page for Eric Garner Millions March Protests. Many articles have appeared on yesterday's events. I think we should move to do this asap. All in favor? OR drohowa ( talk) 02:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Off-topc, but I also advocate for a separate article for "I can't breathe", which has obviously received a lot of coverage in its own right. See " Hands up, don't shoot" for a similar concept. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 16:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Since a headlock is apparently also called a rear chancery I think it would be informative to utilize that term to make the controversy regarding the hold applied to Garner an alliterative one, and thus more memorably.
I would like to know if any still images exist from the video which might be able to answer this dilemma. Far as I know from watching MMA or pro wrestling, the central difference is whether the arm is under the chin (on the throat) or whether it was on it or above it (on the face).
If video is not able to answer this, I am wondering if a coroner report might be able to distinguish neck or facial injuries to the point of answering it. This may be difficult since Garner appears to fall on his face throughout the struggle but I figure a skilled coroner would be able to tell the difference between bruising from squeezing versus impact or laceration bruises... or at least I hope there is a way to do that. -- Ranze ( talk) 23:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The article sources two pages in claiming that Pantaleo used a banned maneuver in the incent--however, his lawyer has argued that he used a method taught in police training, and not a banned maneuver [1].
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
As this has not been proven to be the case, I believe the sentence "Use of the chokehold has been prohibited by New York City Police Department policy since 1993." should be changed to "Use of a chokehold..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fosojedi ( talk • contribs) 14:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Need a better source probably, but likely to bubble soon. http://nypost.com/2014/07/19/man-in-chokehold-death-had-no-throat-damage-autopsy/ Gaijin42 ( talk) 19:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
You don't need to necessarily damage the throat to choke some one. Constricting the blood flow to the brain is sufficient and can be accomplished by compresing the arteries without causing physical damage to the throat. 67.164.188.243 ( talk) 03:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The above point is fair about constricting blood flow, but from what I have read, the blood flow was constricted on the veins, not the arteries. Therefore, there would be no choke. Why is the official ME report not available anywhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fosojedi ( talk • contribs) 14:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I had added the link to the Shooting of Akai Gurley before by due to some edit warring it got deleted. In any case, I removed the link to the Travon Martin article, as that case is not as closely related to this case. Martin was killed by a civilian not a police officer. Moreover, the deaths of Garner, Brown and Gurley (the link just I added) are usually discussed as a recent overall trend by the news media. In fact, there are many articles that discuss them all in single piece. Likeminas ( talk) 15:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll just leave this here....
Thin Skull Rule Legal Definition: An additional exposure in tort liability towards persons who are particularly vulnerable or more fragile than the norm, who may have inherent weaknesses or a pre-existing vulnerability or condition; the tort-feasor takes his victim as he finds them; he compensates for all damages he caused, even if damages are elevated compared to a norm because the plaintiff was thin skulled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.25.18.222 ( talk) 19:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Of Pantaleo's arm around Garner's neck from the Time video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N__5p_dNW3U The times are as follows: (where f is the frame number at 30frames/sec) At 1:28f25 Pantaleo (shirt 99) puts his arm around Garner's neck. Pantaleo's arm is clearly around Garner's neck until 1:33f9 when another officer (I think Justin Damico - shirt back D.D.) blocks the view, though the arm is still almost certainly around Garner's neck during the blocked time of the takedown. At 1:35f21 Pantaleo's locked fists and arm around Garner's neck becomes clearly visible again as Pantaleo is on Garner's back and Garner crawls on his hands and knees a short distance. There is a very brief, less than one second, blockage of the view by D.D. again from 1:37f25 to 1:38f17, but that is too brief for the arm to have come away and gone back around the neck. Continuing, Pantaleo's arm is clearly around Garner's neck until 1:41f27, when another officer blocks the view. It's hard to see at full speed, but in frame by frame mode, at 1:44f5, you can see Pantaleo's left fist come away from the right side of Garner's face, and the arm is clearly no longer around Garner's neck. At 1:46f0 Pantaleo is above Garner and clearly has both arms nearly straight down and clearly has both hands, and notably, all fingers, on Garner's head, not around his neck. If you can't see the hand come away at 1:44f5, then there is an uncertainty of four seconds about when Pantaleo's arm came away from Garner's neck between 1:41f27 and 1:46f0. So the time is 1:44f5 minus 1:28f25, or 15 seconds plus 10 frames, or 15.3 seconds, give or take two seconds at the end if you cant see the release at 1:44f5. Are any of these numbers wrong? Shall we put 15.3 seconds into the article?
You can see the time more accurately in the video if you pause it when Pantaleo's arm goes around and look at the video player time clock, then resume and pause it again as Pantaleo goes up above Garner with his arms straight down. Rewinding it a few times around the time in question also allows you to anticipate when to pause it better for an accurate read of the time. You can also copy and paste the URL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N__5p_dNW3U into the VLC media player's open network stream dialog to enable playback in slow motion and even frame by frame. In VLC the e key on the keyboard goes one frame at a time, and the minus key pressed once or a few times, gives slow motion. The plus key returns to normal speed.
This isn't original research because anyone can verify this by viewing the primary source using free software in a few minutes, or even just with a stopwatch. Does it really matter if it's 5 or 25 or 19 or 15.3 seconds anyway? Mindbuilder ( talk) 17:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Mindbuilder, what you are doing not only violates WP:OR, or more accurately WP:PRIMARY, which says "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself", but you're also violating WP:VERIFY, which says that information in an article needs to come from a reliable source. Your analysis here of how long the chokehold lasted could not be cited as a reliable source. Pishcal ( talk) 18:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
The example of analyzing letters is admittedly rather extreme, but I also gave the example of describing the plot. If you're not making a direct quote, you have to interpret the meaning of what you're describing. In many cases that is easy and clear. In some cases academics debate and interpret and analyze for centuries the meaning of various plot elements. Whether it is analysis or not by the narrower definition of analysis is just a question of how clear the facts are. Primary sources aren't always written. For example we might summarize the plot of a movie. Some important plot elements might not be spoken language (e.g. did Han Solo shoot first?) Anyone can view the movie and determine if our description is accurate. We could point them to the exact second of the movie, or if the detail of importance was quick, we might point them to a particular frame of the movie. We might say something like, "a laser pulse exited Han Solo's gun at frame 27 and a pulse exited the other guy's gun at frame 29." That's not an analysis in the narrow sense, it's just a simple description based on slow looking. It need not be fiction. Some reliable sources are non-fiction video, like newscasts. A newscaster might say something like "watch what happens, the silent video speaks for itself." Then we could describe what happens in the video and it wouldn't necessarily be analysis. If the precise timing was important and clear, we could describe the precise timing without it being analysis in the narrow sense. Another example I was looking at a while back was the dropping of a hammer and a feather on the moon. We could play the video in slow motion and describe if they hit the ground at exactly the same time to the resolution of the video framerate. No analysis would be required, just simple close observation using the widely available tool of slow motion playback. Anyone could verify our report by just a close look in slow motion.
There is a tendency to think that looking at something frame by frame is analysis pretty much just by definition. And by the common broad definition of analysis that may be true. But just looking at something slowly and carefully does not make the looking an analysis in the sense used in the OR policy. A video is just a sequence of still images. For example imagine an article with a sequence of say 20 still images. You might be able to just glance at the images in sequence and see the important parts. But what if you decide to slow down and take a few seconds looking at each one. Are you suddenly doing an analysis? What if you look at each one for a whole minute before describing the content? Does that mean you did an analysis? Often times I think people would describe that as an analysis. But not in the narrower sense used in the OR policy.
Apparently from a previous headlock rough estimate of 5 to 25 seconds by another editor, and Nowa not seeing the headlock happen at 1:28-9, people will have to verify some aspects frame by frame or at least in slow motion. This is especially true of the moment the headlock ended at 1:44 which I even missed in several slow motion passes. But people won't have to analyze, they'll just have to look at the frames. Just look at the source slowly. Just looking slowly and carefully doesn't make it analysis. They don't have to do complicated calculations, or have expert understanding. They just have to look slowly.
There might be much disagreement if we discuss the precise timing. But I think good slow motion viewing and careful observation of the timing will make it much clearer. If there is persistent disagreement after looking at the source slowly, then we could not declare the facts to be straightforward, and we won't have a reference to point to to settle it. But if the frames are clear, we can point to the frames and to TIME as our source. But just because we have to look slowly doesn't mean we have to abandon the effort without even trying for consensus. Mindbuilder ( talk) 01:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I've removed Police misconduct from the "See Also" section because I think it doesn't belong there. It seems to be slightly POV, and considering how the officer was not indicted, I don't think it falls under the definition of police misconduct. I know Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but the page at Misconduct says that "misconduct is wrongful, improper, or unlawful conduct motivated by premeditated or intentional purpose or by obstinate indifference to the consequences of one's acts.", and that seems inappropriate to have in the See Also section. If you disagree then leave a message rather than reverting. Pishcal ( talk) 19:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I have removed what appears to be a self published excerpt of the Orta video as a reference. Here is a link It fails to meet wp:rs and may well be wp:copyvio. We have to be particularly careful about references in this article since it is governed by wp:blp. Nonetheless, I would be happy to hear alternative points of view as to why this is an appropriate reference.-- Nowa ( talk) 14:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
The Brooklyn NYPD killings do not belong in the lead. Reliable sources currently only imply that the Brooklyn killings were retaliation for Michael Brown and Eric Garner. Even if the killings were in retaliation for Garner's death, placing them in the lead creates the implication that they were somehow among the most major responses when there's a single paragraph devoted to the killings in the body (raising WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEAD concerns). Dyrnych ( talk) 21:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
The lead is an embarrassment. "After losing consciousness, officers turned Garner on his side..." - the officers did not, in fact, lose consciousness. Numerous violations of the MOS need correcting too. Problem with that, of course, is that knowledge of the existence and contents of the MOS is very rare. 46.37.55.80 ( talk) 23:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a reliable source for the time of 4:45 pm? I remember hearing/reading the incident occurred at 3:45 or 3:30 pm. BankSLP ( talk) 04:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
It is my understanding that negligent homicide implies wrongdoing, i.e., a person's actions fell below a standard that we expect of reasonable people. Please, help me understand. ( User talk:dghavens 01:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC))
125.10 Criminally negligent homicide.
A person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when, with criminal negligence, he causes the death of another person.
15.05 Culpability; definitions of culpable mental states.
4. "Criminal negligence." A person acts with criminal negligence with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.
69.74.180.19 (
talk)
02:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The autopsy noted that Garner died thanks to acute and chronic bronchial asthma, obesity, and heart disease. Daniel Pantaleo had already released his “submission hold” (not a choke hold) from Garner, before Garner said “I can't breathe”. Garner did not die of asphyxiation, as the head of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association noted at the time. The preliminary autopsy showed no damage to Garner’s windpipe or neck bones. According to Garner’s friends, he “had several health issues: diabetes, sleep apnea, and asthma so severe that he had to quit his job as a horticulturist for the city’s parks department. He wheezed when he talked and could not walk a block without resting, they said.” If Garner hadn’t resisted arrest, he would be alive today. So would Michael Brown. But that’s a different story. Brown attacked the officer and was charging him and trying to take his gun. The bullets were in the front at close range. It’s so obvious he was attacking. It was self-defense.
FaithandFreedom (
talk)
02:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/12/03/actual-facts-eric-garner/
|
The following statement seems to be WP:OR:
"however, homicide does not by itself imply murder as in negligent homicide or even wrongdoing as in justifiable homicide"
According to WP:SYNTHESIS,
In this case, the editor is using the dictionary definitions to imply that the homicide of Eric Garner was not a murder or a crime. However, the dictionary definitions don't explicitly mention Garner, and in Jimmy Wales' terms, a dictionary defnition is not an article in relation to the topic of the article.
You need to find a source that says "the coroner's ruling that Garner's death was a homicide does not imply that it was murder or criminal," or words to that effect. That shouldn't be too hard. The Time article doesn't quite seem to say that, although you could persuade me if you could find a quote in it that says that. The Time article seems to say that it might or might not be a crime.
I was going to delete it, but I saw your note asking that I discuss it first in Talk. -- Nbauman ( talk) 03:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
References
I agree that this is not synth. Its directly covered by TIME, in the context of this incident. Gaijin42 ( talk) 22:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I changed the sentence to "The medical examiner ruled Garner's death a homicide, indicating that his death was caused by the intentional actions of another person or persons; however, the designation means neither that the death itself was intentional nor that a crime was committed." I don't think that the previous iteration was SYNTH, but I do think that this version is slightly better. Dyrnych ( talk) 16:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Internet personality Charles Green, known under the YouTube screenname Angry Grandpa, uploaded a video on July 19, 2014, entitled "JUSTICE FOR ERIC GARNER! (GRANDPA GOES CRAZY!)" [1]
References
Dummy post just so I can add a timestamp to this section so sigmabot can archive it. Pishcal — ♣ 04:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
there has been a lot in this area, including the samuel L. jackson video, a number of notable tweets, etc?
Another dummy post. Pishcal — ♣ 04:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I was just looking over the article and at the citation for "Compression of neck (choke hold)", and I wondered if the (choke hold) part was added in by the author of the article. There isn't too much of a reason to believe this, but either way it would be better if we could link directly to what the Medical Examiner said, if that's even online. this CBS News article doesn't say choke hold in the quote, and neither does this time article. I'm okay with it being there, it clears up any confusion someone might have, but I was wondering if it belonged there. Pishcal — ♣ 23:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
In reply to your question: "The “Chokehold.” At issue in this case is the so-called “chokehold” used by Pantaleo. Chokeholds have been banned by the NYPD entirely since 1993; chokeholds are typically defined as holds that prevent people from breathing. Thanks to the video showing Garner stating that he cannot breathe, many pundits have wrongly suggested that Pantaleo was “choking” Garner by depriving him of air from his windpipe. Bratton himself suggested that Pantaleo used a “chokehold,” which is defined by the NYPD as “any pressure to the throat or windpipe, which may prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air.” That does not appear to have been the case. Garner did not die of asphyxiation, as the head of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association noted at the time. The preliminary autopsy showed no damage to Garner’s windpipe or neck bones. The autopsy further noted that Garner died thanks to acute and chronic bronchial asthma, obesity, and heart disease. Garner was not choked to death, as the media seems to maintain. According to Garner’s friends, he “had several health issues: diabetes, sleep apnea, and asthma so severe that he had to quit his job as a horticulturist for the city’s parks department. He wheezed when he talked and could not walk a block without resting, they said.” he weighed about 400lbs. If he hadn't resisted, he would be alive today. But probably not for long due to his poor health. FaithandFreedom ( talk) 03:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC) source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/12/03/actual-facts-eric-garner
Subject: Your inquiry to OCME
I continue to believe that the above attempt to debunk the reporting of reliable sources was an inappropriate exercise ab initio, but I assume that this settles the matter. Dyrnych ( talk) 03:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
An editor has reverted in excess of three times in one 24 hour period a claim that the cause of death is a chokehold, without qualifying which source made this assertion in the article. The claim of chokehold is in dispute by multiple government entities, executive, judicial, and unionized entities. Since Eric Garner is now dead and the police officers and EMT on scene are still living, this a BLP violation. A report will be made on the 3RR notice board and BLP board unless the offending editor corrects his or her excess reverting promptly. Afronig ( talk) 22:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
"Garner had been arrested by the NYPD thirty times since 1980 on charges such as assault, resisting arrest, and grand larceny."
Citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.1.229 ( talk) 18:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)