Use of force

[Nepene]

I support most of your and crayzz's argument here, and I'm rather surprised to do so over dbd, but no... This does not prove intent to kill. It can easily be said the cop believed the Garner was simply trying to get the cop off him by any means possible. What this proves is negligence or incompetence, and excessive force in using the chokehold in the first place, none of which fall under 'intent to kill'.

If I go to shoot you in the leg to disable you, and aim too high and hit something vital or a major artery and you die, then all the actions I took were ones I could reasonably have seen leading to your death, but I didn't intend to kill you.

Imagine it's winter and we are making snowmen. You taunt me for some reason or other and so I pick up a snowball and throw it at your face to shut you up.

There are two separate types of intent here. There's my frame of mind- my intention is to stop the mocking, not to hit you with a snowball. There's also my actions- to hit you with a snowball. Both are used in a court of law to refer to types of intent. if the second type of consent applies I have to accept responsibility for consequences from the snowball, even if those weren't my intent.

So if you do something that is likely to lead to someone's death, and it leads to their death in a predictable manner, that is often called an intent to kill, even if you had another intent.

This applies to other things. Suppose you try to shoot me in the leg. I dodge, it hits Crayzz and he dies. There's the idea that intent is transferable. You didn't intent to kill Crayzz, but you did intent to do something that may well lead to my death,so legally you would still have an intent to kill.

[Deepbluediver]

For a start they shouldn't be opening with "Hey we're here to arrest you." They should actually try to investigate the crime. They suspected him of selling cigarettes. They should have asked him "Hey, are you selling illegal cigarettes." He said no irl. They should then consider their rights. Suppose, say, they want to search him for cigarettes and they have the right. They should inform him "We suspect you of having illegal cigarettes and so we intend to search you in such and such a way. Do you have anything to declare before we start? Could you stand with your hands up to make it easier please?" Though they should only do this if they have probable cause. If he seems especially agitated then they can spend a little time standing at an appropriate distance away from him, not touching him, not agitating him, perhaps make sure you have a supervisor or some expert on scene. If they lack probable cause they should just walk away, or make a 'tactical disengagement' if that helps save their egos. They should advance backwards.

What I read of the full incident, parts of which where not caught on video AFAIK, is that the police where dispatched to the scene based on the reports of local shopkeepers that people (including Eric Garner) where illegally selling loose cigarettes in violation of New York's laws, which cut into the prophets of the law-abiding business owners. What is "a little time" and "an appropriate distance"? In the video, they are talking to him for over a minute, plus some amount of additional time that is cut.
And there was a supervisor on the scene, a black female actually.

Also, once police have said "we are going to arrest you" they cannot back down and walk away from a scene. If you want to put someone in cuffs, detain them at the location until new evidence is gathered, and then release them, fine. But changing your mind about arresting someone just means that no one will ever cooperate with police ever again.*

*edit: ok, this is probably an exaggeration, but it would certainly make some people a lot less likely to cooperate- probably those people who should most be arrested

Now, before when people noted clear and good police procedures to you you didn't really reply. Are you going to dismiss this one too? Do you think saying "We're going to arrest you" *chokehold* is better than the above?

I haven't replied to every single line that crayzz wrote, just like he hasn't replied to every single one of mine. I've been trying to stay focused on not let myself be sidetracked with endless minutia.
If you have a direct question that you want me to answer, please highlight it or draw my attention to it in some manner.

You need credit for surrendering? Just lying there still saying "I can't breathe" and not resisting isn't enough?

Since the whole argument is over excessive force, the point at which the suspect stop resisting is critical, and as far as I can tell, Eric Garner never made that choice.

Yes, and you noted your judgement criteria, which make it largely impossible to ever get an indictment because they defer so strongly to the police. So investigating the police is moot, they have the benefit of the doubt.

Benefit of doubt is not an absolute criteria- but if the police can't investigate themselves (which I don't believe they should) then neither should we base criminal charges on public opinion.

The police are not executioners. Someone mouthing out to them shouldn't be an excuse for them to kill him. If they do so, they should face criminal charges. They shouldn't arrest people unless they have probable cause. You should be able to mouth off to anyone and expect the law to punish people if they are violent to you due to freedom of speech.

Most of this I agree with, but freedom of speech is not an absolute either.

Eric Garner said he couldn't breathe and the officer continued to hold him in a choke hold.

Then he ran out of breathe and died. So yes, I can.

You would probably also have to prove that the officer believed him.
And the defense would claim that despite being against regulations the cop was simply trying to subdue the suspect in the best manner possible, which is why he didn't shoot him or tazer him or beat him with a nighstick, and it was a tragic accident.
And then it would probably be up to the jury to decide, assuming you've figured out what to charge him with.

I'm more noting that since police work is extremely safe it's fine them taking on a little extra danger. I mean, soldiers have much clearer rules of engagement and their job is much more dangerous. They actually have to wait till people fire at them before firing back.
....
They should have rules of engagement like the military.

Cops are not soldiers, nor do I think most people want them to be. I also believe that most people want police the actively try to PREVENT crime and violence, instead of merely cleaning up the mess afterwards.
Also, from what little I know of military doctrine, there are general rules of engagement, but they can be modified for any individual mission as necessary.

It's somewhat an issue that the police don't keep good official records on this matter, so the highest estimate is a civilian one based on news reports. The actual death rate could easily be much higher, including stories that didn't make it to the news. This is part of why data gathering is important.

I fully support keeping better records in this matter.

As I noted above, there's another way to deal with non violent criminals or people who they want to harass because they're black.

We're leaving race out of this remember?

Yes...what tactic isn't?

Talking to non violent people.

How do you arrest someone who doesn't want to be arrested in a non-violent manner?
Personally I'd rather be tazer'd than shot, and I'd rather be put in a chokehold than tazer'd- it's not the kind of thing I would expect to kill or even injure a person under normal circumstances.
I'll ask you the same thing I asked crayzz- have you ever fought with anyone? Or even sparred in a non-violent (i.e. you don't actually want to hurt the other person) type of setting?

Serve the actual purpose of the indictment grand jury and be accurately told what they are trying to do, work out if there is probable cause for a trial, and not spammed with evidence that isn't relevant to this purpose and isn't normal to get an indictment.

Like I mentioned in another post, we should probably save this discussion for another thread, but in the meantime, think about what you want the purpose of a grand jury to be. If it's merely to rubber-stamp the prosecutors indictments, what purpose is it really serving?

I don't believe you addressed the cases where the police shot non violent people in the back. Do so.

If we're talking about James Boyd, then I did address it in my responses to crayzz.
I said that I believe since they the police have bean-bag guns and a dog, they should not have shot him with bullets first. I also pointed out though that they spent several hours talking to him first, and he refused to drop the knives he was holding.

So you don't actually want to make criminals less dangerous? You're ok if they do become more dangerous due to the police? Because the 'problem lies with them'?

I feel like they had this argument in Batman....
To me, the threat of escalation is not sufficient evidence to justify disarming the law-enforcement agents. More training, fine. Punishments when/if they do step over the line, fine. Handcuffing the cops to prevent them from doing their jobs? Not fine.

There are two separate types of intent here. There's my frame of mind- my intention is to stop the mocking, not to hit you with a snowball. There's also my actions- to hit you with a snowball. Both are used in a court of law to refer to types of intent. if the second type of consent applies I have to accept responsibility for consequences from the snowball, even if those weren't my intent.

So if you do something that is likely to lead to someone's death, and it leads to their death in a predictable manner, that is often called an intent to kill, even if you had another intent.

Since we're discussing intent, in case anyone hasn't heard of it, The LAW webcomic is a good primer on criminal law. I would advise EVERYONE to read the whole thing, but here is a part where it compares intent in the event of someone's death.

And using that chart (accidental, negligent, reckless, knowing, intentional) the most you'd probably be able to prove to a jury was negligence, and even that would be a stretch.

[crayzz]

crazzy

You know, it's been a decade since I started using this 'nym. I don't think I'll ever get tired of watching people misspell it.

If I go to shoot you in the leg to disable you, and aim too high and hit something vital or a major artery and you die, then all the actions I took were ones I could reasonably have seen leading to your death, but I didn't intend to kill you.

I was gonna make the same analogy, actually. I can accept the the cop did not intend specifically for Garner to die, but I do not accept that Garner's death could, in any way, be called a blameless accident.

You keep raising points that I already said I agree with, except for Eric Garner.

Really? Because you've insisted that the police are held to standard apparently un-evident by a cursory look at specific cases and hard statistics.

I've already asked you what, specifically, Garner did that constituted 'violence' (i.e. fighting). The most you had was "raise his hands." You can insistent that Garner was violent all you want, but the video does not show that.

Ok, so just out of curiosity, if a cop suffered a heart-attack because he was wrestling with a suspect, trying to arrest him, would you consider that to be the suspect's fault?

Depends. Are there specific actions that make a heart attack more likely (beyond simple physical activity), and can I reasonably expect said suspect to know that? I suspect the answer to both questions is "no" across the board, so generally no.

Most of this I agree with, but freedom of speech is not an absolute either.

Could you expand on this? Which restriction on free speech, exactly, applies, here? This looks suspiciously like someone trying to justify violent retaliations against lawful speech via the assumption that free speech restrictions are somehow commutative.

Cops are not soldiers, nor do I think most people want them to be.

No, I want them to be less murderous, not more. I want stricter rules of engagement , not looser.

And using that chart (accidental, negligent, reckless, knowing, intentional) the most you'd probably be able to prove to a jury was negligence, and even that would be a stretch.

I'm seeing reckless, at least. The cop chocked Garner, put pressure onto his chest, and the left him in a position in which it was difficult to breath, all while Garner specifically stated that he could not breath. They then left him there, not giving any first aid even after he went silent, passed out, and finally died. That Garner suffocated is not a surprise to anyone. Sure, you can argue that the cop assumed Garner was lying, but the fact remains that cop had such a risk repeatedly brought to his attention. He's culpable for what happened.

I'm trying to imagine a situation in which I would be able to deliberately choke someone, than argue that I didn't know they had trouble breathing. I'm not seeing it.

Handcuffing the cops to prevent them from doing their jobs? Not fine.

What, specifically, would keep them from doing their job? Why would not choking Garner to death keep them from doing their job? Why would not shooting a 12 year old without warning keep them from doing their job? Why would shooting a homeless man in the back keep them from doing their job?

Many police forces around the world get along just fine without repeatedly killing unarmed teens. Why can't the US do it? Be specific, please.

[Tem]

http://genderheretic.tumblr.com/post/93904842801/dannerzz-my-mom-has-been-a-cop-for-over-20

If you are a member of a group many cops just hate, not resisting their violence will get you nowhere.

[Deepbluediver]

crazzy
You know, it's been a decade since I started using this 'nym. I don't think I'll ever get tired of watching people misspell it.

Sorry, that was a mistake on my part. I'll go back and fix it.

Really? Because you've insisted that the police are held to standard apparently un-evident by a cursory look at specific cases and hard statistics.

I believe that the standards are sufficient, but that we need to find a different method of enforcement. For example, most police departments AFAIK have an "internal affairs" department, and MAYBE that's sufficient for investigating complaints of one cop against another, but obviously it's to hard for this to work out as well when it's a civilian or a perp complaining about a LEO (or prison guard).
Some people have already started to try and work around this, with such things a civilian complaint-review board. Maybe what we need is an entirely separate mini-justice system for this kind of thing...but how exactly would that work?

I've already asked you what, specifically, Garner did that constituted 'violence' (i.e. fighting). The most you had was "raise his hands." You can insistent that Garner was violent all you want, but the video does not show that.

I've repealed my claim that he was fighting, and from what I've actually said about this specific case, I've only every claimed that he was "resisting arrest", which he was, both verbally and physically. My claims about violence are that it is incredibly easy elevate a previously non-violent situation, as I'm sure you will agree with me, and that the cops took what they felt where reasonable steps to prevent Eric Garner from acting violently against them.

Depends. Are there specific actions that make a heart attack more likely (beyond simple physical activity), and can I reasonably expect said suspect to know that? I suspect the answer to both questions is "no" across the board, so generally no.

I'm simply trying to get a good sense of where your idea of how culpable certain actions are for certain outcomes.
Suppose a cop is involved in a vehicular pursuit, and attempts to bump the suspects car with his own to cause it to spin out (a fairly common maneuver, you can find videos of it on youtube).
But maybe it doesn't go quite as planned and the suspect ends up dead. What is your take on the cop's culpability in that situation?
Suppose the suspect had just escaped from the hospital where he was recuperating after his last brush with law-enforcement, and the cop was informed that the suspects health was in a very delicate state; would that change your take on things?

Could you expand on this? Which restriction on free speech, exactly, applies, here? This looks suspiciously like someone trying to justify violent retaliations against lawful speech via the assumption that free speech restrictions are somehow commutative.

Mainly it was just a statement of fact, without specific regards to - I feel that to many people adopt an attitude of "I can say anything to anyone at any time for any reason and there should be no consequences" which just isn't true.

I believe that it should be (and it is, AFAIK) legal for people to document police activity. I believe that there should be reasonable standards for not interfering in police work though.
If I'm trying to wrestle someone to the ground, I don't want his friends standing within arms reach of me. For the safety of both the police officers and themselves. I especially don't want them getting in the way or possible getting dragged into any potential melee or get in the way or gunfire if it comes to that.
If I'm trying to "talk down" a subject in a non-violent manner, I don't want a crowd of people standing around egging him on or distracting the police.

I'm seeing reckless, at least. The cop chocked Garner, put pressure onto his chest, and the left him in a position in which it was difficult to breath, all while Garner specifically stated that he could not breath. They then left him there, not giving any first aid even after he went silent, passed out, and finally died. That Garner suffocated is not a surprise to anyone. Sure, you can argue that the cop assumed Garner was lying, but the fact remains that cop had such a risk repeatedly brought to his attention. He's culpable for what happened.

The grand jury apparently disagrees with you.

Also, EMTs where called to the scene- I haven't been able to find an exact count of how long after the takedown they showed up, but apparently they where there for at least several minutes during which they didn't do much except check his pule, before loading him into an ambulance.

I'm trying to imagine a situation in which I would be able to deliberately choke someone, than argue that I didn't know they had trouble breathing. I'm not seeing it.

Exactly how long did the cop have Eric Garner in a chokehold? I've been put in one before and as evidenced by the fact that I'm sitting here, typing this, they are survivable. (though maybe you'll claim the oxygen deprivation obviously caused brain damage )

I've also had people sit on my chest and still managed to breathe, albeit probably not with as much as multiple full-grown police officers would weigh.

What, specifically, would keep them from doing their job? Why would not choking Garner to death keep them from doing their job? Why would not shooting a 12 year old without warning keep them from doing their job? Why would shooting a homeless man in the back keep them from doing their job?

I believe I've already explained my stance on James Boyd.
If someone points a gun at you, you have every right to shoot them in order to protect yourself. There's a reason the first two rules of gun safety are "never point a gun at something you don't want to put a hole in" and "treat every gun as if it was loaded". The most abhorrent feature of a gun is that you don't need to be big or strong or even an adult to kill someone with it.

And for Eric Garner, I don't believe those chose tactics with a killing intent. A chokehold is apparently against department regulations, but not state law, and cops are allowed under the law, to use physical force to subdue an uncooperative suspect.
If you would like to advocate a change in the law, in policies, or in the exact moves used to get handcuffs on a 300 pound, 6+ foot tall person, please let me know. Be specific.

Many police forces around the world get along just fine without repeatedly killing unarmed teens. Why can't the US do it? Be specific, please.

What countries would you like to use are your model for how U.S. police should behave?

http://genderheretic.tumblr.com/post/93904842801/dannerzz-my-mom-has-been-a-cop-for-over-20
If you are a member of a group many cops just hate, not resisting their violence will get you nowhere.

I can agree that such people should not be a member of the police force, but how then do you weed them out ahead of time or train certain tendencies out of someone?
Alternatively, if this sort of thing is an issue, how do you effectively determine guilt and innocence in both parties, and distribute reasonable punishments?

[Deepbluediver]

Since we've been discussing various real-world events, and my local newspaper carries more new about crime than I wish it did, here's two other recent events that I'd be interested in hearing people's reactions to.
http://nypost.com/2014/12/10/police-sub ... n-midtown/
http://nypost.com/2014/12/09/cops-shoot ... synagogue/

[Nepene]

What I read of the full incident, parts of which where not caught on video AFAIK, is that the police where dispatched to the scene based on the reports of local shopkeepers that people (including Eric Garner) where illegally selling loose cigarettes in violation of New York's laws, which cut into the prophets of the law-abiding business owners. What is "a little time" and "an appropriate distance"? In the video, they are talking to him for over a minute, plus some amount of additional time that is cut.

So as I noted, you don't really intend to address what I say, so is there much point in me saying what better procedure is? I didn't say they should talk to him about something related, I said they should specifically inform him before they touch him so that he has a chance to assume an appropriate position.

Also, once police have said "we are going to arrest you" they cannot back down and walk away from a scene.

This is an attitude that kills a lot of people, the idea that if you 'lose then that's the end of your power. It's not like the police will suddenly be unable to mob people if they walk away one. I also note that you didn't address my idea that you should only arrest people you have some good reason to arrest.

Since the whole argument is over excessive force, the point at which the suspect stop resisting is critical, and as far as I can tell, Eric Garner never made that choice.

You don't see someone lying still as stopping resisting? Does death count as stopping resisting? Anyway, since your standards for resisting arrest include lying still it is impossible for anyone to ever not give the police reason to murder them.

Plus, if someone chokes you your natural impulse is to try to clear your airway.

Most of this I agree with, but freedom of speech is not an absolute either.

It should be absolutely inviolate when there is no threat or harm to anyone else.

You would probably also have to prove that the officer believed him.

No you don't. As I noted about intent, if you shoot someone and they die, not intending to kill someone, you're still liable if you're not a cop. The courts take into account if your actions are likely to lead to death. If you choke someone, and they can't breathe (and they inform you of such), then they'll die. This is a predictable reaction, the courts could punish the cop.

Cops are not soldiers, nor do I think most people want them to be. I also believe that most people want police the actively try to PREVENT crime and violence, instead of merely cleaning up the mess afterwards.

You're not addressing my argument at all.

How do you arrest someone who doesn't want to be arrested in a non-violent manner?

What is the point in me answering if you don't listen? You talk to them. You tell them what to do, you inform them of what you intend to do, you show sensitivity to their issues.
*sigh*

[Deepbluediver]

So as I noted, you don't really intend to address what I say, so is there much point in me saying what better procedure is? I didn't say they should talk to him about something related, I said they should specifically inform him before they touch him so that he has a chance to assume an appropriate position.
...What is the point in me answering if you don't listen? You talk to them. You tell them what to do, you inform them of what you intend to do, you show sensitivity to their issues.

And when that doesn't work?
You seem to be adopting his attitude that anyone can be talked into doing anything, which strikes me as being rather naive.
Eric Garner had multiple chances to cooperate with police; if he wanted to surrender peacabely why didn't he do what they asked him to do the first time?

This is an attitude that kills a lot of people, the idea that if you 'lose then that's the end of your power. It's not like the police will suddenly be unable to mob people if they walk away one.

The police do not have unlimited manpower and resources, and every time they have to call additional cops or take longer to resolve an issue it prevents them from responding to another. How many crimes are the police supposed to let you commit before they stop letting you walk away?
Also, in the end, they basically did exactly what you describe which is have 6 guys dogpile on him.

I also note that you didn't address my idea that you should only arrest people you have some good reason to arrest.

Because it's a totally pointless argument to have- either the cops have already decided they have a good reason, or they are acting outside the boundaries of the law and I agree with you.
But if you don't like the laws, than suggest that they should be changed, not that the cops should be punished for enforcing them.

You don't see someone lying still as stopping resisting? Does death count as stopping resisting? Anyway, since your standards for resisting arrest include lying still it is impossible for anyone to ever not give the police reason to murder them.

Temporarily going still does not indicate you won't change your mind or resist more later, especially when you have shown no inclination to do so prior to being physically restrained.

Plus, if someone chokes you your natural impulse is to try to clear your airway.

And if I have to subdue someone my natural impulse is to do so in a manner that creates the least risk for myself.

It should be absolutely inviolate when there is no threat or harm to anyone else.

I responded to this more when crayzz asked something similar, but basically the idea of threat or harm is exactly what we are arguing about.

No you don't. As I noted about intent, if you shoot someone and they die, not intending to kill someone, you're still liable if you're not a cop. The courts take into account if your actions are likely to lead to death. If you choke someone, and they can't breathe (and they inform you of such), then they'll die. This is a predictable reaction, the courts could punish the cop.

Except nothing the cop did is against the law- the law against assaulting someone is superseded by the law that allows cops to use physical force to subdue a non-cooperative subject.
Police and law enforcement have certain privileges to do things that would be illegal if a citizen did them, because those things are a requirement of their job.

If you want to change the law, by all means suggest how, but you can't go back and punish someone for something that was legal at the time they did it.

You're not addressing my argument at all.

Because it's not relevant- you're comparing apples to oranges.

[JustinReilly]

Plus, if someone chokes you your natural impulse is to try to clear your airway.

And if I have to subdue someone my natural impulse is to do so in a manner that creates the least risk for myself.

They are a trained agent of the government. If they can't control their natural impulses in a tight situation, they need to be out of that job. We expect that kind of discipline from 18 year olds thrown into Afghanistan, we oughta be able to expect it from adult police officers in a far less dangerous environment.

It should be absolutely inviolate when there is no threat or harm to anyone else.

I responded to this more when crayzz asked something similar, but basically the idea of threat or harm is exactly what we are arguing about.

Fuck that, cops are government agents. They are the precise target of the first amendment. Telling a cop to go fuck themselves is not the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theatre. Insulting a cop ought not be a licence for a beatdown.

No you don't. As I noted about intent, if you shoot someone and they die, not intending to kill someone, you're still liable if you're not a cop. The courts take into account if your actions are likely to lead to death. If you choke someone, and they can't breathe (and they inform you of such), then they'll die. This is a predictable reaction, the courts could punish the cop.

Except nothing the cop did is against the law- the law against assaulting someone is superseded by the law that allows cops to use physical force to subdue a non-cooperative subject.
Police and law enforcement have certain privileges to do things that would be illegal if a citizen did them, because those things are a requirement of their job.

If you want to change the law, by all means suggest how, but you can't go back and punish someone for something that was legal at the time they did it.[/quote]
"Reckless homicide is the killing of another person by a reckless act. In some states, involuntary manslaughter committed by use of a motor vehicle is called reckless homicide. Laws governing reckless homicide vary by jurisdiction.

In general, "recklessly" means that a person acts recklessly with respect to circumstances surrounding the conduct or the result of the conduct when the person is aware of, but consciously disregards, a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the accused person's standpoint."(link)

"To constitute depraved indifference, the defendant's conduct must be 'so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes a crime. Depraved indifference focuses on the risk created by the defendant’s conduct, not the injuries actually resulting.

In one case, People v Register, 60 NY2d 273, 469 NYS2d 599 (1983),while exploring the meaning of "depraved indifference recklessness" the Court of Appeals ruled that intoxication is not a defense or excuse to "depraved mind murder," although it may be to intentional murder. Its analysis started with distinguishing reckless manslaughter from the "depraved indifference recklessness" necessary for murder:

"to bring defendant’s conduct within the murder statute, the People were required to establish also that defendant’s act was imminently dangerous and presented a very high risk of death to others and that it was committed under circumstances which evidenced a wanton indifference to human life or a depravity of mind. . . . . The crime differs from intentional murder in that it results not from a specific, conscious intent to cause death, but from an indifference to or disregard of the risks attending defendant’s conduct." 60 NY2d at 274."(link)

Dude.

[Deepbluediver]

Getting tired, gonna go to bed soon- I figured I'm pump out one more reply tonight.

They are a trained agent of the government. If they can't control their natural impulses in a tight situation, they need to be out of that job. We expect that kind of discipline from 18 year olds thrown into Afghanistan, we oughta be able to expect it from adult police officers in a far less dangerous environment.

Which they do- the police did not shoot, or tazer or beat Eric Garner, all of which I would count as more violent responses, and would have put the cops at less risk than going toe-to-toe with him.

Also, I've said it before, comparing the police and the military is not a good idea. A drone-strike seems like a pretty good example of a preemptive attack designed to eliminate a potential threat before it causes harm. And between Iraq and Afghanistan approximately 150,000 civilians have been killed in the last 10 years of fighting. Using the highest estimates of civilians killed by police that I've seen so far, in the same time span cops in america have killed about 10-11k people; they've got 140,000 to go to catch up.
So when someone says "I want the police to be less murderous than the military", well, bam, wish granted. What's next?

Fuck that, cops are government agents. They are the precise target of the first amendment. .... Insulting a cop ought not be a licence for a beatdown.

I am in total agreement with you here. What are we arguing over?

"Reckless homicide is the killing of another person by a reckless act. In some states, involuntary manslaughter committed by use of a motor vehicle is called reckless homicide. Laws governing reckless homicide vary by jurisdiction.

In general, "recklessly" means that a person acts recklessly with respect to circumstances surrounding the conduct or the result of the conduct when the person is aware of, but consciously disregards, a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the accused person's standpoint."(link)

"To constitute depraved indifference, the defendant's conduct must be 'so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes a crime. Depraved indifference focuses on the risk created by the defendant’s conduct, not the injuries actually resulting.

In one case, People v Register, 60 NY2d 273, 469 NYS2d 599 (1983),while exploring the meaning of "depraved indifference recklessness" the Court of Appeals ruled that intoxication is not a defense or excuse to "depraved mind murder," although it may be to intentional murder. Its analysis started with distinguishing reckless manslaughter from the "depraved indifference recklessness" necessary for murder:

"to bring defendant’s conduct within the murder statute, the People were required to establish also that defendant’s act was imminently dangerous and presented a very high risk of death to others and that it was committed under circumstances which evidenced a wanton indifference to human life or a depravity of mind. . . . . The crime differs from intentional murder in that it results not from a specific, conscious intent to cause death, but from an indifference to or disregard of the risks attending defendant’s conduct." 60 NY2d at 274."(link)

You're gonna have to help me out on this one- I'm not sure just what you're getting at.

I feel like a lot of people don't get just how difficult it can be to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, as compared to the court of public opinion.

My understanding of Recklessness is that you need to prove the actions taken where unreasonable for the given situation or that the cop believed that an average person would have been unlikely to survive. The stuff you quote even mentions a measure of depravity (which is usually a judgement call anyway).
I can tell you from personal experience that being choked or having to hold your breath does not guarantee a fatality, and once the cops realized something was wrong they called EMTs to the scene. I said earlier that you might get the cop on negligence, but I doubt you'd get a fair jury to convict on recklessness.