SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
New York City Police officer Daniel Pantaleo put Eric Garner in a chokehold while other officers held him down and placed handcuffs on the man who ultimately died from the assault. (Video screengrab)
In NYT's Retelling of Eric Garner's Death, the Officer's Arm Has a Mind of Its Own
A piece in the New York Times (12/3/14) about Eric Garner's death included a weird description of the videotaped chokehold that killed him:
Dec 05, 2014
A piece in the New York Times (12/3/14) about Eric Garner's death included a weird description of the videotaped chokehold that killed him:
On the videos, Mr. Garner, a 350-pound man who was about to be arrested for illegally selling cigarettes, can be seen first complaining of harassment, then physically resisting arrest by several officers, including Officer Pantaleo, whose arm finds its way around the struggling man's neck.
It's debatable whether or not you'd refer to Garner as resisting; he's certainly loudly protesting that he'd done nothing wrong, and he does not appear eager to put his hands behind his back to be handcuffed. But that "resistance" lasted a few seconds before he was choked.
The most bizarre part is the idea that police officer Daniel Pantaleo's arm has a mind of its own. It "finds its way" around Garner's neck?
Times reporters J. David Goodman and Michael Wilson presumably used the language they meant to use; just a few paragraphs later:
As the struggle continued, one of Officer Pantaleo's arms moved around Mr. Garner's neck.
Seemingly of its own accord!
And then later, readers are told that "the men toppled to the ground, but the arm around Mr. Garner's neck did not appear to move."
If only Pantaleo had been able to somehow control his own arm, Eric Garner would not have died.
(h/t to Reed Richardson @reedfrich)
An Unconstitutional Rampage
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
© 2023 Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
Peter Hart
Peter Hart is the Domestic Communications Director at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
A piece in the New York Times (12/3/14) about Eric Garner's death included a weird description of the videotaped chokehold that killed him:
On the videos, Mr. Garner, a 350-pound man who was about to be arrested for illegally selling cigarettes, can be seen first complaining of harassment, then physically resisting arrest by several officers, including Officer Pantaleo, whose arm finds its way around the struggling man's neck.
It's debatable whether or not you'd refer to Garner as resisting; he's certainly loudly protesting that he'd done nothing wrong, and he does not appear eager to put his hands behind his back to be handcuffed. But that "resistance" lasted a few seconds before he was choked.
The most bizarre part is the idea that police officer Daniel Pantaleo's arm has a mind of its own. It "finds its way" around Garner's neck?
Times reporters J. David Goodman and Michael Wilson presumably used the language they meant to use; just a few paragraphs later:
As the struggle continued, one of Officer Pantaleo's arms moved around Mr. Garner's neck.
Seemingly of its own accord!
And then later, readers are told that "the men toppled to the ground, but the arm around Mr. Garner's neck did not appear to move."
If only Pantaleo had been able to somehow control his own arm, Eric Garner would not have died.
(h/t to Reed Richardson @reedfrich)
Peter Hart
Peter Hart is the Domestic Communications Director at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
A piece in the New York Times (12/3/14) about Eric Garner's death included a weird description of the videotaped chokehold that killed him:
On the videos, Mr. Garner, a 350-pound man who was about to be arrested for illegally selling cigarettes, can be seen first complaining of harassment, then physically resisting arrest by several officers, including Officer Pantaleo, whose arm finds its way around the struggling man's neck.
It's debatable whether or not you'd refer to Garner as resisting; he's certainly loudly protesting that he'd done nothing wrong, and he does not appear eager to put his hands behind his back to be handcuffed. But that "resistance" lasted a few seconds before he was choked.
The most bizarre part is the idea that police officer Daniel Pantaleo's arm has a mind of its own. It "finds its way" around Garner's neck?
Times reporters J. David Goodman and Michael Wilson presumably used the language they meant to use; just a few paragraphs later:
As the struggle continued, one of Officer Pantaleo's arms moved around Mr. Garner's neck.
Seemingly of its own accord!
And then later, readers are told that "the men toppled to the ground, but the arm around Mr. Garner's neck did not appear to move."
If only Pantaleo had been able to somehow control his own arm, Eric Garner would not have died.
(h/t to Reed Richardson @reedfrich)
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.