When is it okay to choke someone to death?

Under what circumstances do you believe it is justified to threaten or use violence against another human being? 

Should that threshold be the same for all people? 

Why?

In July of 2014, Eric Garner was approached by a police officer for reasons that are unclear. Witnesses assert that Garner, who was 43, 6'3" and weighed 350 pounds, broke up a fight at the location a few minutes earlier. The police claim that he was illegally selling individual cigarettes. After some verbal interaction in which Garner asked to be left alone, several officers moved in on Garner to arrest him. He put up minimal resistance.

In the process of taking him to the ground, New York Police Officer Daniel Pantaleo's forearm went across and compressed Garner's neck and trachea for roughly 13 seconds; for the last half of that his hands were clasped. In martial arts, the technique is sometimes called a trachea crush or an air choke, because it compresses the victim's trachea with the radius bone, making it difficult or impossible for him to breath (this is distinct from a blood choke, strangle or sleeper hold which, when properly applied, primarily cuts off the blood supply to the brain, causing the recipient to lose consciousness in a few seconds). Light application of an air choke causes temporary pain. Heavy application can actually crush the trachea (hence the name). Medium to heavy pressure can cause ongoing breathing problems, even if only applied for a second, and even when released. Such breathing problems can be complicated by other issues (e.g., asthma), or trigger other physical responses (e.g., passing out, heart attack, vomiting, etc.), depending on the overall circumstances. In healthy people, a light air choke is painful but rarely serious. However, in unhealthy people, or if powerfully applied, it can cause injury or death.

In addition to the trachea compression, the video shows several officers placed their weight on Garner's body and head, pressing/pinning him to the ground. Given their size, this could have totaled up to 1000 or more pounds. Upon application of the choke and body pressure, Garner made some garbled sounds. When the choke was released and body weight applied, he complained several times that he could not breathe. Shortly thereafter, video shows him unconscious and unresponsive on the ground, with police standing around him for several minutes. It does not appear that he was breathing. Police did not provide any aid. An ambulance arrived a few minutes later. Garner was declared dead about an hour later at the hospital, though the precise moment of death and any singular cause remain unclear.

The city coroner determined that the death was externally caused -- it isn't as if Garner was about to drop dead anyway, and it was just a coincidence that someone came by and choked him -- and noted signs of neck compression. The police and police spokesmen denied that a choke hold was applied at all (though it is obvious from the video). Some police and spokesmen claimed that the hold was a "seatbelt" hold. A seatbelt hold is one in which one arm goes over the shoulder and the other under the other shoulder, with hands clasped, similar to a shoulder seatbelt. Here is an example of a seatbelt hold from a jiu jitsu class (jiu jitsu specializes in restraining holds from various positions):

In a standard seatbelt hold, some pressure can be applied to one side of the neck, but not really to both (cutting off the blood supply) or to the trachea. It is an excellent restraint hold, and difficult to escape. However, at no point in the Garner video does it appear that Pantaleo had his hands clasped in the standard seatbelt hold. Rather, the hold was initiated from standing with one arm across the throat, and by the time they were on the ground, the hands were clasped in the trachea crush hold across the neck alone.

The person who recorded and posted the video was later arrested on unrelated charges; that is, thus far the only person arrested with any connection to Garner's death is the person who recorded it. It is further interesting that some news footage of the event (e.g., MSNBC, et. al.) has specifically edited out the section of the footage that shows the choke.

A grand jury was convened to decide whether there was sufficient evidence to charge the officer or police department with wrongdoing. For reasons that remain unclear, they decided in the negative.

Some have brought up that Garner had a history with the police, and had been arrested many times. This, of course, is precisely what Garner was complaining about at the beginning of the recording -- he was objecting to police harassment and said he wasn't putting up with it anymore. Assuming there were no warrants for his arrest, and no evidence (or reasonable suspicion) of wrongdoing here, were the police actions justified?

Some have argued that Garner brought the situation on himself, by illegally selling cigarettes. However, no evidence has come forth to support the police claim that Garner was doing so, Garner did not have any cigarettes on him, and witness contradict the police claim. That is, there is every indication that the claim was, in fact, a lie generated to justify the contact and subsequent arrest. Some have also argued that Garner brought the situation on himself, by resisting arrest. What do you think?

Some have argued that the police did nothing wrong, and that Garner, effectively, killed himself, both by resisting arrest, and due to his own poor health. However, the coroner's report did not support this position. What do you think?

Some have argued that, if Garner truly couldn't breathe, then he wouldn't have been able to say "I can't breathe." While it is true that someone who truly can't breathe at all will be unable to talk, it is also true that someone can enter into a state in which they are not getting enough oxygen, will often describe it as "I can't breathe," and then pass out shortly thereafter (and perhaps die).

I encourage the reader to consider the following questions (for personal reflection or discussion with others):

1. Under what circumstances is it "okay" to threaten or initiate force against another human being? What makes it so? That is, on what basis can we credibly say it is okay to use force in situation X but not in situation Y?
2. If you were to put someone in a choke hold, and they were to ultimately die either from that hold or from complications arising from that hold, should you be held responsible for that death?
3. What if you didn't intend the person's death, but were just trying to restrain him; should you be held responsible anyway? Why or why not?
4. What if someone put that hold on you, your parent, spouse or loved one, or one of your children, ultimately killing them?
5. What difference does it make, if any, whether the person who applies the choke hold was a police officer, or was "just doing his job"?
6. Let us assume that Pantaleo did not intend to kill Garner. How does his intention come into play? Does it change his responsibility in the death? How?
7. Would it matter if choke holds were forbidden by the New York Police Department (and many others)?
8. If someone resists arrest, does that justify killing him? Are there situations where it would be morally justified to resist arrest, or even injure or kill a police officer? Was this one of them?
9. Given the available information, what do you think the consequences should be for Pantaleo and the other involved officers?
10. Police officers frequently claim that the media is anti-law-enforcement. If that is so, why would they edit out the section of the video showing Pantaleo choking Garner? Do you think that the general culture is biased against law-enforcement officers? Why or why not?
11. Let us assume that Garner actually did engage in illegal activity -- perhaps he sold a cigarette. Does such action warrant arrest and jailing? Does it warrant violence or the threat thereof?
12. What does your own religion or political alignment suggest with regard to this situation?