Talk:Killing of Eric Garner/Archive 1

Seriously ?

Is this notable? GerardM (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Does it not follow the general guidelines for notability? WikiWinters (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

A man being murdered by police, with the whole thing being caught on camera and extensively covered by the national and even worldwide news media, is not notable? 75.76.213.161 (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

easily qualifies as notable. the only argument one could use against it is WP:RECENT, but the truth is, there is more notability for many more recent events, due to there being so much more communication. that cant be helped.(mercurywoodrose)76.254.33.49 (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

murdered?? Slightly incendiary choice of word - implying malice aforethought, planning and intention. with asthma, heart disease and obesity as contributing factors - the word "homicide" in terms of coroners, only means that death was caused by external action from another person, i.e. not by internal factors. His death is notable in that it's caused a media stir. But let's leave the polemics out of it.Oathed (talk) 04:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Only calling it first-degree murder would imply "aforethought, planning and intention." Calling it murder is accurate. MrBook (talk) 14:32, 4 December 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)

NPOV issues

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)

Ok, now the lead looks much more neutral and objective. With reliable sources backing up most of the arguments. 2601:4:1500:33A:44BA:DC84:4D7:BA94 (talk) 09:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Is the dispute resolved? You created the tag. WikiWinters (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I was expecting to get a more reliable source (such as NYPD's site or some other .edu sites) other than news sites regarding whether chokehold tactic is prohibited by NYPD. Because according to other information, in rare cases, it might be allowed to be used (as well as excessive force). Also, user "Cyanidethistles" removed information about carotid restraint citing "grammar" as the reason, while whether it was a chokehold or not is disputed (and had it really been the cause of death, because according to other information, the man was asthmatic and could've had hard time breathing due to being laid down onto the ground, resulting to his own weight creating pressure onto himself). The sentence might have been written in an informal manner, but it's not a reason making the sentence to appear less neutral, stripping it off from a balancing argument. However, feel free to remove the POV template, I will not oppose it, for it seems to me that only a meticulously minor issue is left now. 2601:4:1500:33A:2D96:7497:75F3:6804 (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave that up to you. There are definitely still some anonymous editors with clear bias who occasionally edit the page. WikiWinters (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

but if not news

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)

If that's a simplified version of Wikipedia:Notability, then sure. WikiWinters (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Relevance of prior arrest?

"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

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)

a grappling hold that may have been a chokehold.......?

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)

Never mind. Upon review looks like a recent addition from User:Dghavens.

Per WP:BRD, I've undone it. NickCT (talk) 06:57, 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)

@Dghavens: - I think we'd generally look to reliable sources to answer questions like that. Do you see any reliable sources which call it a "grappling hold"? NickCT (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Deaths in police custody in the United States

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)

You are in custody as soon as you are not "permitted to leave". When exactly that point began in this encounter is vague (because he did not ask "am I free to go" or try to leave), but certainly by the time they were cuffing him he was in custody. The relevant standard is Terry stop Gaijin42 (talk) 16:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

editorial remark

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.

 Already done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

"See Also" Section

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)

They are closely linked (the event shappened within 1 month of each other, and the unrest in Ferguson spread to NYC, which was also protesting Garner's death). But I agree, we should not have this link yet. Epicgenius (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Per Epic's logic I think it should be included. Their inclusion was not against any policy. MOS is a guideline, and says "should" not "must". WP:SOFIXIT if you think a description needed to be added. The relationship is quite obvious. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous/preposterous reason provided to keep those see also links out.TMCk (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
And I urge the OP (apparently also editing as IP) to to find consensus before reverting again.TMCk (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Cause of death

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)

grand jury evidence

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2014

the use of the word 'chokehold' in this reference is incorrect.

206.209.166.65 (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 11:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Punctuation

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)

No, you go read a grammar book. It is correct. Entire sentences aren't being quoted. Epicgenius (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2014

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)

 Not done Actually, that is WP:TRIVIA. The man filing was charged in a different incident. I do not think it needs to be added here. Epicgenius (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2014

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)

Because Pantaleo cannot have changed races before or after the death. I changed it. I am considering it  Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Citations for "banned tactic"

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 do you have to say "white New York City Police Department officer" ?

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)

The article notes his skin color because many media outlets and the ensuing protests have alleged that the killing is a racial issue, and part of a recent wave of violence perpetrated by white police against black people. Whether or not you or anyone else personally agrees with this is irrelevant- the fact that the sentiment exists makes it notable within the article. Wall Screamer (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

It is important because this is why the article even exists. People are protesting as a result of what they describe as police brutality and police racism, which is a notable consequence. Please, if you want to express an opinion like that, post it on social media, not Wikipedia. Epicgenius (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

If the news made an issue out of something seen as seemingly/obviously pointless by everyone else, would you guys still say it was an issue. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

No, but that is the opposite of this case. The majority viewpoint regarding this case is that it is a racial issue, or at the very least that race is being called into question. Therefore, the language of the articles gives due weight to the racial angle and viewpoint, per WP:DUE. Wall Screamer (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

True, I don't know if you agree with the issue or not, but we also know from history and experience that the majority viewpoint can just as easily be incorrect. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Should the subject be bold?

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)

Well, I'm not sure I'm in the best position to be commenting on this considering how I made one of those edits, but I might as well provide some more justification. WP:BOLDTITLE does say to not distort an article's wording to include the title, and nobody is suggesting that. It does say that an article involving a subject with no main article should bold the name of the subject. You claim that the article is more about the fallout resulting from Garner's death, and while that may be true, the central point of the article is connected to Eric Garner. Whether or not the article is more about the fallout or the actual death itself, both are directly tied to Garner. Pishcal (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

"Death Portal"

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)

I agree. I took it out, but it wouldn't surprise if someone wants it back in.--Nowa (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see it as an issue the article involves a death that is not disputed. If the issue is the image then that matter should be discussed elsewhere. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that portals are about particular subjects. If I want information on "death", I would look at articles on the death portal. This article really isn't about death per se, however. It's about a person who is notable by his death. I don't think that warrants inclusion in the death portal. But I am always open to hearing other points of view.--Nowa (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Not racism

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)

Quote "It was about the officer's pride. It was about my father being 6'4 and 350 pounds and he wants to be the top cop that brings a man down." 143.176.62.228 (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I added a family reaction section with the daughter's quote.--Nowa (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 10:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2014

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 death time and time listed under "death" don't match.

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)

Fixed with the approximate time of the incident. I haven't seen a source with the exact time of death, and I doubt it is possible to tell exactly. At least one source said cardiac arrest happened in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. Mindbuilder (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Is There a Copy of the Coroner's Press Release Available Online?

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)

That's been annoying me, too. The stories after the cop was let off copied the cause of death verbatim from our infobox. If you find a copy, share it here. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Black Female Police Sergeant Supervised Eric Garner’s Deadly Arrest

This should be included in the article.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/12/breaking-eric-garner-arrest-death-supervised-by-black-female-police-sergeant/

173.75.156.61 (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Not a reliable source, but it may be covered by others eventually. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:07, 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...

Removed info

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)

Have you looked at the video? I went frame by frame and Garner only ever moves his arms away from the officers' approaching arms, either in avoidance or to place his arms upward in a surrender position, with palms open and fingers spread (the universal gesture of surrender showing he has no intent to strike, leaving his torso and body, including his head, completely vulnerable). He never swats - i.e. he categorically never pushes or attempts to accelerate the officers arms in an opposing direction by a show of force, whatsoever. His physical responses are decidedly passive - i.e. non-aggressive.

I do think these empirically non-aggressive movements should be included in the article.

Filingpro (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not see that Garner does anything to resist the choker, Pantaleo. Garner does not respond by moving his arms in any way to remove the choker's arms or hold. Instead when Garner is choked, he puts his arms up in the air in a surrender position. His legs do not assume a squat position. He is thrown from side to side by Pantaleo. He moves his arms in front of his body when he is thrown to the ground to protect his face. He then turns to his side and offers up his right hand open palm, simultaneously allowing his left hand to be pulled behind his back by the officers, and says "I can't breath". Pantaleo continues the choke position. An officer says "give us your hand buddy". Garner extends his right hand (with shoulder pinned to ground) slightly in the direction of the officer, widening his fingers. A crying or whimpering sound is heard on the recording (it sounds to me to be Garner), as Pantaleo continues the choke position with his left arm while reaching and grabbing Garner's wrist. As he is rolled over towards his front, his right arm is now used to support his body on the ground. An officer says "put your hand behind your back." Garner says "I can't breath" as he is rolled over onto his front, and Pantaleo, sill mounted on Garners shoulders, responds by pushing both hands onto Garner's head. Garner says again "I can't breath" (third time) and his right hand is moved behind him. He says again "I can't breath" at least five more times while Pantaleo continues to pin Garners head and apply his left knee to Garner's back. Garner continues to say "I can't breath" several more times before the audio is overtaken by an officer ordering the person taking the video "Back up. Back up."

Filingpro (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that removing information published in reliable sources in favor of your own personal analysis of the video seems to be WP:OR. If you can find a reliable source that disputes the claim that Garner swatted away officers' hands, then the dispute can be mentioned, or at least discussed more. Pishcal (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

'EMTs suspended' could use a source

"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)

"More than 30 arrests dating back to 1980"

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)

 Already done by Pishcal. Epicgenius (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Politicians

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. and

“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.”

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

We need a reliable secondary source that makes the connection between Cuomo's action and Gardner's death. The "Pro liberate" blog you cite is a self published source so it would not qualify. Can you find a reliable secondary source?--Nowa (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

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 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".. Three days later Mr. Garner is arrested and subdued for a cigarette sales infraction, "for selling loose cigarettes" . 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 had a couple of thoughts for you. There are references that connect the policy of aggressively enforcing cigarette tax laws with Garner's death. This one is already used in the article. This is another. If you can find one more and then summarize the points all three articles make, then I think the topic should go in the article, perhaps under the background section.

Another thought is that right now there is no article in Wikipedia about Loosies (cigarette). If we can find five or more references on that subject (and we already have 2), then it might be worth putting together a stand alone article on the subject.

Let me know what you think.Nowa (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Death Section

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2014

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)

I added a couple references for that. Mindbuilder (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Citation contradiction

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)

It is not clear to me from watching the video exacltly how many times he said it, so maybe we'll have to rely on the sources. Eleven seems consistent with what I hear. USA Today says at least 8, so that is not really a contradiction with 11. NY Daily News said 6 but it is very clear from the video that he said it more than 6 times, so that is clearly an unreliable conservative underestimate, and can be dismissed. I'll remove that reference. Mindbuilder (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Well it seems Cwobeel didn't like me removing the NYDN reference because I guess it is there to back up other parts of the lede. I guess we should just leave it since if anybody cares they can listen for themselves and clearly hear him say it more than 6 times. I don't see any meaningful confusion coming from it. Mindbuilder (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2014

I made some improvements to this article. Manofpeace87 (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done this is not an edit request. Please make a request for a specific change Gaijin42 (talk) 20:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Duration of chokehold

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)

The first value I put up, 9 seconds was just a digit mistake, it was always 19 seconds. Actually it looks more like 17 seconds, but I allowed an uncertainty of one extra second on each side to prevent nitpicking about the exact value. Anyway, in the video, Pantaleo can be seen putting his arm around Garner's neck and then about 17 to 19 seconds later Pantaleo gets up above Garner and pushes down on his head with both arms nearly straight down, obviously not in a choke hold. Perhaps you are thinking that holding somebody's neck and choking them is a choke hold, so you think Pantaleo may be still choking him after getting up above with his arms straight down, but that wouldn't be a choke hold. A choke hold is only when the arm is wrapped around the neck. Otherwise it is just choking, not a choke hold, and anyway there is no indication that Pantaleo continued to choke Garner after rising up above him and holding his head down. The video has been published by numerous reliable sources and I don't think simply describing the video is original research. If the description of the video is inaccurate then of course we should straighten that out. It's hard to see how you can get a significantly different time. How long was it by your observation? Mindbuilder (talk) 08:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

As this is considered WP:OR (your eyes aren't reliable sources on Wikipedia no matter how well you can see...), we can;t use the video source anyway. Epicgenius (talk) 03:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the blanket statement that "your eyes aren't reliable sources on Wikipedia". If somebody says something on a video and it is then cited as a source for the comment, will you argue that your ears are not a reliable source? The threshold for verifiability is whether or not we can all agree on what is heard or seen in the video. Determining how long someone is choking someone in an unambiguous unedited video is not some kind of research that only an expert can do. Any lay person who reads the article can look at the video and verify it. An actual example of wp:or would be if somebody added a graph analyzing how many pounds of force Pantaleo was applying as a function of time. Merely noting how long an action took place is not. 64.233.173.174 (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)aka Googleman

I saw 12 seconds, not entirely continuous (it's not working while Garner crawls forward). You can't count the first part where the cop's pulling his neck sideways. That's just a headlock, not a chokehold. Doesn't cut off air or blood. Illusions like this are exactly why we're supposed to rely on published analysis. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't know what you mean by illusions but yeah you make a fair point. 64.233.173.178 (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Aka Googleman

No, it isn't. Can't make an argument about that. Everyone sees and hears differently. Epicgenius (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If there is persistent dispute between us editors about what is plainly in the video, then yea, I'd say we would be doing analysis and then it would be OR. But if we all see it the same or without significant differences, and readers can easily verify it for themselves without expert understanding, then I don't see any significant risk of hurting the reliability of the encyclopedia. One editor disputed the length, but after clarification he seems to have dropped his dispute. If there is dispute about whether the choke hold continued after Pantaleo took his arm out from around Garner's neck then we could revise the wording to say something like "Pantaleo had his arm around Garner's neck in a manner similar to a choke hold for about 19 seconds, and then rose up above Garner with arms nearly straight down."

There is no danger here to the encyclopedia's reliability if all us editors agree and readers can easily check the video. The only other reason to deny it on the OR grounds is if it is not notable. But this is clearly an important fact in a case that hinges on whether the deceased was choked to death or died otherwise. It is valuable for people to realize this fact. There is even a slight chance that rioting and lives could hinge on this realization that the choking was only for 19 seconds. So even if this might or might not be a technical violation of the OR rules, I think we should leave it up, because it's verified by video, until we settle the technicalities.

If there is a break in the video, there is a continuous version here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYSnp1UGVGc Pantaleo's arm goes around at 8:13 and he is clearly above by 8:30. The video is continuous in this section. Mindbuilder (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean there's a break in the video, but there's a break in the chokehold. After Garner is floored, he crawls toward the camera. During this time, the cop doesn't have the leverage to choke. The pressure's on the clavicle/lower neck instead, somewhat controlling him, but not cutting off air or blood. An arm around the neck creates the illusion of a choke, but if it had been applied for 19 seconds, he'd be sleeping. Have a friend try it on you, or for safer proof, watch an MMA fight that ends this way. UFC 181 recently saw Racquel Pennington bulldog her opponent unconscious in about five seconds. Many more similar. Now have your friend apply the headlock the way the cop started, from the side. Uncomfortable, sure, but unless your own shoulder is pressed against your other artery, you're safe (aside from asthma, obesity or heart disease aggravation). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you added the information back into the article, I don't think you had consensus on that. Regardless, the main dispute here (as far as I understand it) is not over how long the chokehold lasted, but rather over the reliability of a video source. It isn't that it shouldn't be in the article because the time is disputed, it's that it shouldn't be in the article because even if we all agreed on the time, it would still constitute WP:OR. I'd appreciate if you would self revert, at least until we hear some other thoughts on the matter. Pishcal (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Even if all of us agree on the time, it wouldn't be a reliable source. (Others can argue that since the blind, for example, cannot see it, they can't verify the YouTube video as a reliable source, and so forth.) Epicgenius (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Plain descriptions of videos from reliable sources are not a violation of NOR. To quote: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Note that this policy qualifies that educated persons, not every person, need be able to verify the fact from the primary source. Other reasonable qualifications are likely that blind people need not be able to verify videos, deaf people need not be able to verify sound recordings, and people with dyslexia so severe, that they can't read, need not be able to verify written sources. We can't insist that EVERYBODY be able to verify everything, or else nothing could be verified, because some people are in comas and can't verify anything.

It is only analysis that is prohibited. So if we all agree that it is a simple fact from the video that Pantaleo had his arm around Garner's neck for 19 seconds or thereabout, then we can put that in the article as a description of a primary source without violating policy. And even if it is a grey area of policy, it's important information, obviously true (to a likelyhood much higher than many facts from "reliable" sources), and don't we have more important flaws to spend time rooting out of Wikipedia? Lets just leave the obviously true fact there until we sort out the technicalities. It is reliable even if it is not "reliable". Why take it down? Just a mindless following of a rule? A rule made to prevent problems that don't exist in this situation? now if there is some dispute about the facts, lets straighten that out. Mindbuilder (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Given no more dispute for the last couple hours, I'll restore the 19 seconds statement. Mindbuilder (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I get how it's tempting to treat silence as consensus, but most often, editors have left the computer or don't know they have to continually repeat their opposition for it to count. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Well what's the dispute now? I've quoted the NOR policy that says we can descibe clear facts from primary sources. I thought that would settle it. It was two days ago that somebody disputed the time. How long do we have to wait for them to come back? I think that when there is a dispute, at least on an important current event, you do need to check back in to the discussion every few hours or your silence can be assumed to be aquiecence. Are you disputing the time? you said 12 seconds before. I'm OK with that. Is that what you want to go with? Have you watched the uncut video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYSnp1UGVGc ? The part in question begins at 8:13 and Pantaleo's clearly up by 8:31. I think we should stick to 19 or 17seconds to prevent any nitpicking on the exact time. Plus or minus ten, twenty, or thirty seconds doesn't matter as far as the implications as to whether he was choked to death. The people who don't like anything favorable to the officer are going to be upset if we don't go with the longest possible interpretation. Besides, we just don't really know to high confidence if he was or was not choking Garner during part or the whole time he had his arm around his neck. If we try to determine if it actually was a choke hold or not, then we really will be violating the NOR policy. We could change it to 19 seconds or less. Anyway, there has been 9 hours, all evening, to respond to my previous comment, so I'll give it another try. Usually I might wait longer for a response, but ongoing rioting means that there might be a small but non-negligibe chance that these facts could have life or death consequences, and there doesn't seem to be important dispute about the 19 second fact, but rather just about minor Wikipedia policy issues. Mindbuilder (talk) 07:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

There's no consensus on 19 seconds, it's not a clear fact, and I've removed it. NTK (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

How long do you think Pantaleo had his arm around Garner's neck? Are you suggesting 19 seconds is too long or too short? Have you viewed the video from Time at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N__5p_dNW3U where the segment of interest starts at 1:30? It's clearer, has better sound, and is continuous in the segment of interest. Are you suggesting the "chokehold" continued after Pantaleo took his arm out from around Pantaleo's neck, or is it just the length of the segment with the arm around his neck that you consider unclear? Would it be acceptable to use wording such as "Pantaleo had his arm around Garner's neck for 19 seconds, then rose up above Garner, pushing Garner's head down and possibly continuing to choke Garner from above while Garner was complaining he couldn't breath"? If you don't like the just suggested wording or a variation of it, why not? Mindbuilder (talk) 03:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop adding this back in without sources. Just because someone doesn't respond in 2 hours doesn't mean there's suddenly consensus. His arm was around his neck somewhere between 5 and 25 seconds. What's clearly visible is closer to 5. I'm not going to add anything further. NTK (talk) 06:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia expects editors to have some meaningful discussion about issues and attempt to come to a consensus. I'm going to outdent here and create a new section.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2014

I would like to edit more relevant details to this website. thank you Joshbosnir (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2014

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)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2014

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)

Somebody fixed it by changing the reference to point directly to the original AP story. Mindbuilder (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Ad Hominiem Attacks on Headlock vs Chokehold

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)

Proposed Split

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)

• Oppose. The proposed article has no content, despite the fact that the proposer feels he needs a parent article. There would be no reason to remove anything from this article in the anyway. If the proposer wishes to start another article and use information from this page s/he can so if s/he so chooses, but not at the expense of this one. What would be constructive or useful about stripping this page of extremely relative content? Djflem (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• Of course there is no content, it is a proposed article. The protests remain ongoing and include reactions from both Michael Brown and Eric Garner's deaths those are two events that made up one movement. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
• As for your question about stripping information the info I feel can be expanded upon. There have been numerous arrests in multiple cities that are a result of these two deaths and you don't think that this is notable for a stand alone article? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Please explain why you want to remove information from this article to create another.Djflem (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with Djflem. I do not see a need to remove material from this article in a split. On the other hand, an overall article in 2014 protests in the US would be fine, similar to the current article on 2014 Hong Kong protests.--Nowa (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, but nothing stops you from starting a new article 2014 civil rights protests in the United States. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article can be created. The content, however, does not need to be removed, as it is highly relevant; removing it will force people to go to another article for context. Epicgenius (talk) 01:53, 7 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)

• Support: I am strongly in favor of splitting, and starting an article for 2014 civil rights protests in the United States detailing the events of the global protests for Ferguson, MO, and for the Death of Eric Garner. As I see it, these two protests need to be on the same page. OR drohowa (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Could you explain why you think that? Pishcal (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi yes, I think that we are looking at a growing, new Civil Rights movement, that isn't the response to any one incident. I think this was proven by the Millions March protests in NYC, which had about 30,000 protestors, the March on Washington, which had another 10,000, and other protests in Boston, Chicago, Miami, New Orleans, as well as internationally. This seems to me to be a movement with many collective inspirations and events leading together, rather than a series of isolated incidents. That's my reason for having a 2014 civil rights protests in the United States parent article. OR drohowa (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Eric Garner Millions March Protests

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)

As I said above this needs a parent article but nobody seems to be on board. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

For those interested, conversation on this topic is now happening above at Talk:Death of Eric Garner#Proposed Split.

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)

I think it might be a little too soon for that. Pishcal (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Why? There are tons of sources about the phrase. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Choke or Chancery

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 TIME video is probably the best I've seen so far. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N__5p_dNW3U He's very clearly under the chin at 1:39. See the bottom of the Frame By Frame Timings section of this talk page for how to view the video in slow motion. Mindbuilder (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Did Pantaleo Use a Banned Take-Down Method?

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.

References

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)

autopsy : No throat damage

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)

'See also' section

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)

About this being a trend, see FBI data on justifiable homicide by law enforcement, 2009-2013, and law enforcement officers feloniously killed in the line of duty. The FBI's expanded homicide data site also includes justifiable homicides by private citizens (which are roughly one third of the total). This works out to a per capita rate of between 0.0013 to 0.0015 per 100,000 per year. The total homicide rates during 2009-2013 ranged from 4.7 to 5.0. So about 0.03% 3% of homicides are police-involved. [Error in rates... Roches (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)]

Long, I know, and not a direct answer to your post. But this is being presented as a growing problem, a trend, as you said, so I thought I'd provide some numbers for comparison. This case is not really a justifiable homicide, of course; it's an accidental death in police custody. (That doesn't by any means mean it's okay.) I didn't look for statistics on that. Roches (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thin Skulled

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)

Please add to an existing section or start a new one when commenting on the talk page. Mindbuilder (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

And naturally officers are immune from liability for such damages from making legitimate arrests without excessive force. The chokehold/headlock might be considered excessive force, but since there was no damage to the windpipe found, there is no evidence that there was any significant damage from the 15.3 second chokehold itself. There may have been other excessive force and damages caused by the officers, but there may not have been. It is not clear from the video if the officers did anything else improper. You don't let somebody up just because they say they can't breath, and handcuffing them shouldn't impede breathing anyway. Whatever the cops were doing, the black commander on scene apparently didn't see it as bad enough to make them stop. Mindbuilder (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Frame by Frame Timings

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)

What makes something not original research is a reliable secondary source. Likewise, what makes something "matter" is also a reliable secondary source.--Nowa (talk) 18:20, 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)

Nowa wrote: "What makes something not original research is a reliable secondary source." This is a misconception that even I had before getting involved in this article. If you read the original research page carefully, you'll see that obvious descriptions of a primary source can be consdiered NOT original research. That Time Inc. published this video makes the contents of the video "matter". Time Inc. is the reliable secondary source making description of this video notable. Mindbuilder (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's the section about primary sources from the original research page:

"Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

Notice particularly where it says "reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia" and "A primary source may ... be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person..."

Description is not always interpretation. When it says a secondary source is required for "interpretation", it doesn't mean that any description of a fact in a primary source requires you to interpret what is seen in the source, and therefore requires a secondary source, or else there would NEVER be a case where "reliable primary sources may be used". All description is not interpretation or analysis as the words interpretation and analysis are used in this context.

But of course just because ALL description is not interpretation or analysis, doesn't mean that my description didn't involve analysis. So lets look at whether my description involved significant analysis. Don't just dismiss my description as analysis out of hand. If I describe plain facts, then I'm not doing interpretation or analysis as the words are used in this context.

Start with the time that Pantaleo's arm went around Garners neck. In the Time video that happened at 1:29. If you watch the timer on the video and pause the video at 1:28, anybody can see without interpretation or analysis that Pantaleo's arm is clearly not around Garner's neck. If the video is continued and paused at 1:30 or thereabouts, anyone can see without interpretation or analysis that Pantaleo's arm is clearly around Garner's neck. You could use a broad definition of the words interpretation and analysis and say it's my interpretation or analysis of when the arm went around, but that's not the narrower definition of interpretation being used in the OR policy. If that's interpretation, then every description requires interpretation and the OR primary source policy would be contradicting itself by allowing primary sources and then prohibiting them on the grounds that every description requires interpretation.

If you continue playing the video it is clear that Pantaleo keeps his arm around Garner's neck until 1:42, when another officer blocks the view. If you really stretch to deny the obvious, you might question if the arm came off for a couple seconds in there but I'll come back to that later.

If you pause the video at 1:41, it is blatantly obvious that Pantaleo has his arm around Garner's neck. No interpretation or analysis is required to observe that. Just a CAREFUL look at the primary source.

If you next pause the video at 1:46, it is blatantly obvious that Pantaleo is above Garner with his arms straight down and his hands on Garner's head pointing away from Garner's neck. It is blatantly obvious that Pantaleo does not have his arms around Garner's neck at 1:46 right?

Now before we get into the slightly more involved questions, first please tell me your observation on just these three specific questions:

Is it an obvious description that Pantaleo put his arm around Garner's neck at 1:29 in the video? I'm not asking about anything that happened before or after, just whether the arm went around at that moment.

Is it an obvious description that Pantaleo had his arm around Garner's neck at 1:41 in the video? I'm not asking if the arm was around before or after, just at that moment.

Is it an obvious description that Pantaleo did not have his arm around Garner's neck at 1:46 in the video? I'm not asking if the arm was around the neck or if there was choking before or after, just was the arm clearly not around the neck at that moment 1:46?

You might argue that the situation is more complex than those three limited questions, and you'd be right. But I think it is important we have an agreement on those three questions before we address more complex questions about interpretation and analysis. Mindbuilder (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it an obvious description that Pantaleo put his arm around Garner's neck at 1:29 in the video? No, at 1:29 in the video, it's not clear. The view is blocked.Is it an obvious description that Pantaleo had his arm around Garner's neck at 1:41 in the video? If office Pantelo is the person with a “99” on his back, then it is clear that his arm is around Garner's neck.Is it an obvious description that Pantaleo did not have his arm around Garner's neck at 1:46 in the video? Yes.--Nowa (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Pantaleo is identified in the video at 2:32 as the guy in the 99 shirt. When you say the view is blocked at 1:29, are you referring to the view of Pantaleo's face being blocked at 1:29? Ok I had assumed that the timing of the chokehold/headlock was the issue being looked at, and hadn't really even thought about the identity of the person behind Garner at 1:29, because I knew what Pantaleo looked like and saw him walk up behind Garner a few seconds before 1:29 and saw his 99 shirt a few seconds later as he spun around, and he had been described in all the media as the guy who did the chokehold. So to refine my question from above, once you know what Pantaleo looks like and you see him walk up behind Garner and you see his shirt back a few seconds after grabbing Garner's neck, then is it obvious that Pantaleo put his arm around Garner's neck at 1:29(or actually 1:28.9 to be more exact without rounding)?

I'm interested in Pishcal's answer to these three questions as well. And as to Pishcal's question of verifiability, the source of the video is Time Inc, which should be good enough, and the verifiability of the description of that video is provided by the Primary sources section of the OR policy, which says that in primary sources "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person" are considered verifiable enough. I have to admit though that putting my own description in as a reference was probably not what references are meant to be. It's not like there was any chance that was going to fool anybody. I just meant it as an easy way to get people to see the very accurate description of the times so people would know it wasn't just a rough estimate. Mindbuilder (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

When you say the view is blocked at 1:29, are you referring to the view of Pantaleo's face being blocked at 1:29? No, I was referring to the fact that the view of Panteleo’s left arm is blocked on the particular frame I stopped at. I went back and reviewed the frames more carefully between 1:27 and 1:30 and I cannot say that “it is an obvious description” that Pantaleo “had his arm around Garner’s neck” during that time period. But the issue here is not what Pantaleo did or did not do, but rather what use can we make of the video in the article. So for the sake of argument, let’s assume it is an obvious description. Did you have more to add?--Nowa (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It's too abstract to discuss what if we could agree on the simple facts when we can't. I discovered a new way to do Youtube URLs so that we can be sure we are both looking at the same one second segment of video, the times are unambiguous, and its bigger too. When the video comes up, don't click the play arrow in the middle of the picture, click the arrow at the bottom left and then click it again the instant the video starts to play to pause. Then click it twice in quick succession to advance a split second at a time. Try to pause it in the last tenth of a second to see Pantaleo's arm around Garner's neck. To play it again at the same time segments, you have to hit the refresh button in your web browser or click the URL in your address bar and hit enter, otherwise it will restart from the beginning of the video. Notice in the URL the start and end time are 88 and 89 seconds from the start of the video, or 1:28 and 1:29 respectively. Here is the URL https://www.youtube.com/embed/N__5p_dNW3U?start=88&end=89&rel=0&autohide=0

If your browser is playing the videos with flash instead of html5, then I think you won't have the slow speed setting in the gear menu. You can go to http://www.youtube.com/html5 and enable html5 mode and then you can play the video at .25 speed. I'm assuming you are using a desktop computer. This might all be trickier on a tablet or phone.

Better still is if you can use VLC media player to access the youtube url and within that you can advance the video at 1/12 speed or frame by frame with the e key. And you'll probably find VLC better for other video viewing as well. But you can't use the embed URL in VLC, you have to use one of the regular watch URLs from above. Mindbuilder (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

There is one thing we can discuss before agreeing on what is seen in the video. Do you agree that the contents of the video are notable? The video has been published by numerous reliable sources. And the chokehold/headlock segment we're interested in has often been excerpted by reliable sources to draw special attention to the contents of that section right? So consider for example a blind person visiting this Wikipedia page. Wouldn't it be legitimate for us to describe the video or particulary relevant parts of it for the blind, under the primary sources exemption of the original research policy? At least as long as we are only relating "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person" and not interpretation, analysis, etc? Mindbuilder (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I discovered a new way to do Youtube URLs... That's great, but I'm afraid you've exceeded my interest in digging into the details of the video. Do you agree that the contents of the video are notable? No. The video certainly is notable, but just because there is content in the video, that doesn't make that content notable. Wouldn't it be legitimate for us to describe the video or particularly relevant parts of it for the blind.. ? Yes, but notability of different parts of the video is conveyed by RS and we can rely on their description of it.--Nowa (talk) 02:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Then what's the point of the "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" exception of the original research policy? If the only time you can describe a primary source is when a secondary source has already given the same description, then the only time you can use the exception is when you don't need it. There would be no point to putting it in the OR policy if it could never be used. It would be original research if, say, I made a video demonstrating chokeholds, or capturing cops doing chokeholds during arrests, but no secondary source ever republished my video. Then describing the contents of my video would be describing original research without a secondary source to make it notable.

Also, the primary sources section of the original research policy says "For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, ..." Notice that a secondary source is not needed to first point out the notable parts of the plot. Once it has been established that the novel is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, then the details of what to put in the plot description are for us to decide. This is even more true when we're only talking about a 20 second clip rather than a whole novel. If an editor gives too much unimportant detail, other editors can trim it. As Wikipedia editors we make decisions about what in the secondary sources is notable enough to include all the time. Sometimes we revert an edit that gives way too much information, especially in the lede. Sometimes we look to add much more information than some secondary sources give.

It's ok if we describe some of the important parts of the plot of this highly notable video provided by a reliable secondary source, where we can agree on a straightforward description of the facts. We can do that within policy. The dominant narative in the media is that this guy died after getting put in a dangerous banned chokehold. The implication being that the dangerous chokehold killed the guy. But if there is no windpipe damage then the chokehold alone couldn't have caused his suffocation in just 15 seconds. The difficulty breathing must have been caused by something else like asthma, or them sitting on him or something. Yes that last conclusion is original research, that's why I din't put that explicitly in the article. But the fact that Pantaleo took his arm off from around Garner's neck after 15.3 seconds (or even more clearly at most 17 seconds) in the video is a plain description of the fact. We can give that important fact and let the reader decide the implications. Imagine if there was a widespread misconception about the plot of a particular novel. Wouldn't we be allowed to include a simple description of the plot in the Wikipedia article to dispel the misconception? There are many Wikipedia articles that include info to dispel misconceptions.

I think that the main reason people didn't like the time of the chokehold included is because of just how notable it is. They don't like the implication it has that casts doubt on the cops guilt. If somebody puts something in the article that makes the cops look bad, I have no problem with that. I want to see it. I want to see both sides. I don't make policy excuses to remove info that doesn't push my viewpoint. I removed an uncited comment somebody put in accusing Garner of being a thug. If I just wanted the cops to look good, I'd have left that in. I want to see all good points from both sides fairly represented. The plot of this video and the length of the chokehold is very notable, the only question is if the facts are straightforward. People might have to view it in slow motion to see that. Mindbuilder (talk) 06:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Mindbuilder, a book and a video are two very different things. The fact that you've done a frame by frame analysis of this video almost by definition makes it not a straightforward description of facts. Articles about books can reference primary sources because it is almost indisputable as to what is written in a book. This video does not have a plot. To quote OR, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." You may argue that what you are doing is not an interpretation, but I'm pretty sure a frame by frame analysis falls somewhere under interpretation, analysis or evaluation. I'm not attempting to push an anti-police POV, in fact I believe including how long the hold lasted is a great idea, once it's published in a reliable secondary source. Pishcal (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Pishcal and I are in agreement.--Nowa (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You're right, a book and video are two very different things. And you're right that articles about books can reference primary sources because it is almost indisputable as to what is written in them. But the primary source exemption isn't only about direct quotes from books. We can do a plot description of the book, and settle it between us wiki editors as to if the description is accurate. And we can cite "straightforward description" of facts about what's in a source from other types of primary sources. For example we can make a straightforward description of the fact that at 1:46 in the video, Pantaleo does not have his arm around Garner's neck. That fact is almost indisputable as acknowledged by Nowa. Of course anything can be disputed. Perfect indisputability is not required on Wikipedia because then nothing could be written. And you're right again that this video doesn't have a plot, but it does have a sequence of important events, at least some of which are indisputable.

But analysis is prohibited without a secondary source backing it up. The question is what is the difference between analysis and straightforward descrition of facts. The word analysis is often used in a very broad sense. For example, if you're taking direct quotes from a book for a plot description, your brain has to analyze whether the symbols on the page are zeros or ohs, ones, els, or capital i's. You have to analyze the chapter structure of the book just to determine if the quote came from the actual story or from a forward or appendix, or whether the quote accurately reflects the plot, or has a misleading meaning after being taken out of context. Virtually every straightforward description of facts involves that kind of analysis or interpretation by the broad definitions of those words. We know the broad definition of those words is not being used in the primary source exemption of the original research policy, because if it was then the exemption would be a waste of words with no purpose.

The detailed description of the timing of facts in the video I gave has the appearance and style of what people would often call analysis. But remember, we're not supposed to be using the broad definition of the word analysis. When people see careful observation and very detailed description of something, they often call it an analysis. But if it is only close careful observation and description, then no matter how detailed it is, or what style it is in, it is not "analysis" by the narrower definition used in the OR policy. Even if it is analysis by the common use of the word.

So when does straightforward description of facts cross over into the narrower definition of analysis? The first and most important issue is if it "can be verified by any educated person". We know that it need not be verifiable by absolutely any person. For example, if we cite a quote from a book, many persons may not have access to that book. They might not even have access to a library that has it. Even if they could get to the library, the trip there might be somewhat expensive. When the primary source is a fast action video, it is reasonable that a careful observation be based on a slow motion viewing. For example, imagine in the article on subliminal advertising, if a short video clip was cited and described as having a single frame showing a picture of a chocolate bar. It would be reasonable to expect Wikipedia editors to view the video frame by frame to determine if the claim "can be verified by any educated person". Some wiki editors might not be allowed to install VLC or might not even want to switch their Youtube settings to html5 mode. Others might not want to take the time for a slow careful viewing and recording of the precise times. But that doesn't make it an analysis and it doesn't mean that it is not verifiable by a reasonable method available to a large majority of wiki editors.

The next question is whether a supposed "straightforward description" of a fact is actually that or if there is significant, not negligible, doubt about what is shown. In the chocolate bar example, some objects might not clearly be chocolate bars, but others obviously would be. That is the discussion we need to be having about the timing of this video. When viewed in slow motion, what are the clear facts.

The length of the choke that supposedly killed a man is as notable as any plot point in any book. Even if it is not perfectly clear if it is a violation of the OR policy, keep the purpose of the policy in mind, rather than just exercise slave-ish adherence to the policy. The purpose is to keep articles from being filled up with non-notable or un-verifiable content. If a fact is very well verifiable and we have wide agreement that it is notable, what does it hurt if it is on the border line of the OR policy or even slightly over? It's useful information to the world and it's well verifiable. That's what matters. Mindbuilder (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you as to the "slave-ish" adherence to policies. I find what you say about a broad/narrow definition of analysis quite silly, to be honest. There's a very large difference between "analyzing" whether I'm looking at the letter e or the letter m, and doing a frame-by-frame analysis of a video. The difference between the material found in a book and the material found in a video is that describing the plot of a book requires no citation. Anybody reading that article who came across a statement they didn't believe would only have to read the book, and do nothing else. In fact, the exact page number of the book could be cited. This is very straightforward, and simple. However, anybody reading this article who came across the duration of the chokehold and disagreed with what you've found would have to look at the video, and perhaps even do their own frame-by-frame analysis, as you have done. Even then, they would probably get a different result than you. In an article about a book there can be literally no argument as to what's written in the book. In contrast, this article would likely be subject to heavy disagreement as to duration of the chokehold, and we couldn't cite anything and say "this is where we got our information from.", like we could in an article about a book. Pishcal (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Outdenting just for formatting. Pishcal (talk) 22:41, 16 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)

The thing about all those examples you provided is that there are secondary sources to support those, there's no need to do an analysis / interpretation. Even a video of a newscast would be a secondary source, assuming they talk about what happened in the video they played. Whether or not what you've done is an analysis or not, the fact remains that if we put how long the hold lasted in the article there's no citation we can provide to prove it. I believe this article still falls under WP:BLP, and as per WP:BLPSOURCES, "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed... This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article." Pishcal (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

My example was of a newscaster saying "watch what happens, the silent video speaks for itself." So in that case there is no spoken or printed language secondary source, just the silent video itself. We could still describe what happens in the video without it being analysis if it is straightforward when viewed slowly. The citation would be to the straightforward facts in the video provided by a reliable secondary source. An even clearer example would be if the newscaster said something like "watch how fast these ten champions solve these rubik's cubes." Then we could view the video frame by frame to determine the precise solving time for each solver and report that. The solving times would be straightforward facts verifiable by any viewer of the video who viewed slowly and carefully, not analysis just because careful timings were taken and the video was viewed slowly. Straightforward facts in a video are even fairer to a living person and much much more reliable, than so called reliable sources. The question is not whether we can report straightforward facts from a notable video. The question is only if the facts are straightforward with slow careful observation or if they require analysis more than just looking slowly and noting precise times. That's the discussion we need to have. Mindbuilder (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you give an example of what you would consider to be impermissible analysis?--Nowa (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Police Misconduct

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)

It seems to me that "police misconduct" is a subject a person viewing this article would be legitimately interested in. On that basis, I think the link should be in "See Also"--Nowa (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Removed self published excerpt of Orta video as reference

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)

Brooklyn killings

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)

I agree. It is already mentioned in the section titled "Public" already so it's adequately covered. Epicgenius (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Basic grammar and style errors

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)

So, um, fix it? Dyrnych (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

If only it wasn't protected. 46.37.55.80 (talk) 01:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough; didn't see the tag. Dyrnych (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I did things! Rhydic (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Nice to see it greatly improved! 46.37.55.80 (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Time of incident

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)

Homicide

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))

From New York State Penal Law:

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)

If you forget to do something that you know or should know failing to do so can result in death. Think construction worker forgets to put a manhole cover back on and someone walks falls down the shaft and dies.69.74.180.19 (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I think negligent homicide does imply wrongdoing. I've deleted a bunch of what I had written here because it was based on my misreading of your 18:10 edit. I support your edit at 18:10. Mindbuilder (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Lawyer here. CNH is by definition not murder. Murder always—whether at common law or statutorily defined—requires intent (with the exception of felony murder). Dyrnych (talk) 07:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Eric Garner responsible for his own death.

WP:NOTFORUM

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/ This is not at forum for discussing what you think happened, regardless of how strongly you might hold your beliefs. Dyrnych (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Original research

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,

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.

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

There was no intention to state or imply that the homicide of Eric Garner was or was not wrongdoing. The purpose of that statement in the article is only for the reader to realize that just because the coroner ruled it a "homicide", does not by itself imply it was a murder or even wrongdoing. Maybe it was or maybe it wasn't. Just the word homicide itself doesn't imply murder. If you think that is too fine a distinction, then perhaps if necessary you can suggest some wording to make it clear that we are not implying there was no wrongdoing by Pantaleo or the others. I had originally wrote it as "...homicide does not necessarily imply murder or wrongdoing... " Mindbuilder (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's a quote from the TIME article

'So in a medical examiner’s report “homicide” just means one person intentionally did something that led to the death of someone else. It doesn’t mean the death was intentional and it doesn’t mean it was a crime.'

Note that both the Wikipedia phrase and this TIME phrase are talking about the meaning of the word "homicide" and what it implies or at least what it does not imply in general, and are not trying to draw implications about the right or wrong of what the officers did in the Garner case. Mindbuilder (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

If the WP article and the sources are talking about the meaning of "homicide" in general, they can't go in the article. According to the explanation of WP:OR above (from Jimmy Wales himself) the sources have to use "the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." The topic of the article is "Death of Eric Garner," not "homicide." If the dictionaries don't mention Eric Garner, they are WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and can't go in the article.

The passage seems to be defending the police, by saying that homicide isn't necessarily a crime, in Wikipedia's narrative. That violates WP:NPOV. You can quote a passage from Time magazine, defending the police, as long as you attribute it to the author. But if you're going to follow Time, you should make the complete point that some people (like Napolitano) think it was a crime, other people (like the grand jury) don't. --Nbauman (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The whole point of that TIME article is to clarify the definition of the word homicide so that people won't misunderstand what the coroner was stating when using the word homicide in this case. It's about the definition of the word homicide in general, but also the relevance of the general definition to this case. The point of this section in the wiki article is the same as the TIME article, so it's not OR. The TIME article doesn't make a judgment or implication about whether the homicide was murder or a crime or innocent, and neither does our Wiki article. It's not meant to be defending the police any more than the TIME article. And I don't think most people would see it as defending the police, because it leaves open the possibility that it was murder, and takes no stand on that point. Perhaps you would like to propose some wording to make it clear that Wikipedia isn't implying that it was not a crime, but only clarifying that the word homicide itself doesn't imply anything either way. I don't think further clarification is necessary though, because I think readers will realize that just because a homicide is not necessarily a murder, doesn't imply that it wasn't a murder. We're also trying to keep the lede short. So little needed clarification would be more appropriate in the body of the article. Mindbuilder (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't really need the dictionary references to the homicide definition. They're not SYNTH because the TIME article does the synthesis with the definition, so those references are really just reinforcing the TIME article for those in doubt. The wiki article isn't doing any synthesis with the definitions that the TIME article didn't already do. Mindbuilder (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

Read WP:SYNTH again. If the dictionary definitions do not specifically mention Garner (the topic of the article), which they don't, they are SYNTH. The Time article is about Garner, and so is not SYNTH, and is an acceptable WP:RS. --Nbauman (talk) 05:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The TIME article defines homicide and defines it the same way the other references do. So it's not like the TIME article says A, the other references say B, and the wiki article concludes C. It's more like the TIME article says A and B and therefore C and the other references also say A, and our article says A and B and therefore C like the TIME article. The other references are not new original research or synthesis, they're just redundant to part of the TIME article. The original research prohibition doesn't mean that EVERY reference has to do the complete synthesis we have in the article. One good reference can do the complete synthesis, and the rest of the references can just be there to back the one reference in various partial ways. We could just delete the other references, but why? They just give the same definition for homicide as the TIME article, letting people know that this TIME writer is not using his own unusual definition of the word. Mindbuilder (talk) 06:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

We could (and must) delete the dictionary references because they are WP:SYNTH and violate Wikipedia guidelines.

The guidelines make sense. You don't know if the dictionary references apply to "homicide" as we use it in this specific case, under New York State law, or as it applies to the Garner situation. We are not lawyers and we are not qualified to do research into the laws.

You say:

It's more like the TIME article says A and B and therefore C and the other references also say A, and our article says A and B and therefore C like the TIME article.

That follows the definition of WP:SYNTH, so we can't use it. Time can say "A and B and therefore C", and we can cite them if they are a WP:RS. A Wikipedia editor cannot say, "A and B and therefore C", in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia editors are not WP:RSs. They are just anonymous guys on the Internet with no special qualifications except their willingness to follow Wikipedia guidelines. They can't look up legal definitions and interpret the law. --Nbauman (talk) 10:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds to me like using the Time article as a RS resolves this issue. "A homocide determination 'doesn’t mean the death was intentional and it doesn’t mean it was a crime.'" ... and footnote to the time article. John2510 (talk) 15:38, 29 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)

@Nbauman - Saying A and B and therefore C, is a synthesis that we can't do on our own, but if the RS does the synthesis for us, then we can copy that synthesis. The dictionary cites could have been left in because TIME defined homicide the same way as the dictionary and did the legal analysis for us, so a reference saying the same as TIME would not be OR or SYNTH, but I'll leave it at that, since those references aren't worth arguing about. Mindbuilder (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Removed in popular culture

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!)"

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)

Celebrities reaction

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)

Regarding "Compression of neck (choke hold)"

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

I noticed that synthesis and removed it a week or so ago. It was invented by a Wikipedia editor, but copied verbatim by many news sources after the cop was let off. Since citing them would be circular, I'll remove it again. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

We need to find out what was really in the medical examiner's report or at least the press release. Somebody call them on the phone and see if you can at least get the press release, and more if possible. Don't bother emailing, the response takes weeks. Their press releases are listed here but show nothing about Garner: http://www.nyc.gov/html/ocme/html/pa/pa.shtml

Their phone number is 212-447-2030. It's found on their email contact page here: http://www.nyc.gov/html/ocme/html/contact/email.shtml

The ME also has a Staten Island branch. The medical examiner's spokesperson, Julie Bolcer, might be a more responsive contact. @JulieBolcer looks like her twitter page with her picture. If you've got a Facebook or LinkedIn account or something, maybe you could contact her there and she could point us to the press release. I don't even know if the press release was printed or live. Mindbuilder (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

We know what was in the report because reliable sources have reported on it. Each of Time ("Medical examiner spokeswoman Julie Bolcer said that the death was caused by “compression of neck (choke hold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police,” and that asthma and heart disease also played a role."), NBC ("The city medical examiner has ruled the death of Eric Garner, the 43-year-old father whose death in police custody sparked national outrage, a homicide, saying a chokehold killed him."), and The Associated Press ("A medical examiner ruled Friday that a police officer's chokehold caused the death of a man whose videotaped arrest and final pleas of 'I can't breathe!' sparked outrage and led to the overhaul of use-of-force training for the nation's largest police department.") report that the medical examiner established that a choke hold was implicated in Garner's death. I'm not sure what WP policy suggests that editors should engage in their own investigations to debunk what reliable sources have reported, especially when those reliable sources are uniform in their characterization. Dyrnych (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Your faith in the reliability of "reliable sources" greatly exceeds mine. I suspect the uniformity of the sources stems not from independent verification but from repeating the same original, possibly inaccurate, report. Almost all the reports of the medical examiner's press release that I've seen, seem to have been derived from the AP story, which doesn't have "choke hold" in quotes. In other Wikipedia articles, we've even seen cases of feedback loops, where "reliable sources" printed stuff made up in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia then cited those reliable sources. The Wikipedia original research policy allows us to quote primary sources. And if we suspect that "reliable sources" are inaccurately quoting the primary source, then I'd say it is legitimate, and even expected, that we get clarification. Mindbuilder (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the Time, NBC, and AP articles cited, it appears the NBC article was from Aug 21, so it probably is a derivative, and doesn't have a direct quote anyway. The Time and AP articles are both from Aug 1, but I still suspect the Time version is an incorrect derivative of the AP article. I haven't heard the Chief or PBA president dispute the "choke hold" phrase from the Coroner's press release, so it seems likely the phrase is actually in the coroner's report. Still, the exact wording could significantly color the interpretation. Mindbuilder (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Definitely smells fishy, but I can't prove the parenthetical wasn't from the spokeswoman, so will leave it alone. Plenty of bigger fish in the Wikisea. I wish officials would do a better job of providing whole public statements, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

So, erm, what's the consensus, if there is one? Has anybody found where the medical report can be found online, assuming that it is online? Also, looking at the quote "Compression of neck (choke hold), compression of chest...", why would "choke hold" be in parenthesis if it's something that the medical examiner said? Pishcal — ♣ 18:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I just got an email back from Julie Bolcer today. I've left out my email address and I've mangled Julie's with some X's to prevent spam scraping. You can contact the NYC medical examiner at this web page http://www.nyc.gov/html/ocme/html/contact/email.shtml. Strangely my email service provider doesn't have a view source option, so I'm formatting this as close to my email provider's printout version as I can. Particularly note that the text starting with "Cause of Death" and ending with "criminal justice system", has a slightly larger font than the rest of the email, making me think that that part is "worded as it appears in the fuller record". I assume this is inherent in the email and not just some artifact of my email provider's conversion to html, but I'm not sure. My email provider rendered the email in a sans-serif font, whereas it is showing up here in a serif font. I don't know how to change that. I left nothing else out except reducing some multiple blank lines to single blank lines. There were no periods at the end of the "Causes of Death", "Contributing Conditions", and "Manner of Death" lines. I asked for the press release, hence her statement about not issuing press releases.

Subject: Your inquiry to OCME

From: "Bolcer, Julie (OCME)" <XXXXXXX@ocme.nyc.gov>

Date: Jan 2, 2015 7:50:44 AM

Mr. Miller,

Thanks for your inquiry. OCME does not issue press releases about our investigations. Regarding Mr. Garner’s death, we shared the cause and manner of death with those who inquired. The information is below, worded as it appears in the fuller record, which is not made publicly available. Thank you.

Cause of Death: Compression of neck (choke hold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police

Contributing Conditions: Acute and chronic bronchial asthma; Obesity; Hypertensive cardiovascular disease

Manner of Death: Homicide

Please note, the manner of death in this case means that death resulted in whole or in part from the actions of another person or persons and not primarily from natural causes such as disease. The classification does not imply any statement about intent or culpability, and as with all classifications made by OCME, the evaluation of the legal implications of this classification is a function of the District Attorney and the criminal justice system.

Julie

Julie Bolcer

Director of Public Affairs

NYC Office of Chief Medical Examiner

New York, NY 10016

Public Affairs Office: (212) 447-2041

nyc.gov/ocme

Mindbuilder (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

Good enough for me. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

3RR and BLP violation

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)

(edit conflict) I am not the one who has refused to discuss this until now, and I certainly have not reverted the choke hold claim in excess of three times. However, you'll note that the medical examiner's report—which is our source for that statement—states that the cause of death was as we currently state it in the article, "choke hold" language and all. You can see this in the discussion above. I'm not sure how you're getting that this is a BLP violation when it is the explicit, unambiguous, and well-sourced statement of the disinterested ME. Can you point to why we should not label the official cause of death in the same terms that the medical examiner used? Dyrnych (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, given your behavior I would be very hesitant to file a 3RR report on me if I were you. You will almost certainly receive a WP:BOOMERANG. Dyrnych (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you trying to threaten me? I have made only 2 reverts, but escalated this now though the appropriate channels. You have made 4 reverts in 1 24 hour period on multiple topics. Afronig (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I am absolutely not threatening you. I am stating a prediction about what will likely happen given the way that you've behaved in this situation. Dyrnych (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Arrest Record

"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)

Looks like the cite is to the WSJ source immediately following (this one). Dyrnych (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)