Source: https://frederickleatherman.wordpress.com/category/positional-asphixiation/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 04:22:29+00:00

Document:
The police officers who placed Eric Garner, 43, in a choke hold and asphyxiated him by sitting on him and ignoring his complaints that he could not breathe should be prosecuted and sentenced to prison for killing him.
They are thugs in uniform.
NYPD regulations forbid the use of choke holds.
I have written about the dangers of positional asphyxiation.
(2) Carotid artery compression cutting off blood to the brain.
Given the emphasis on educating first responders regarding the dangers of positional asphyxiation and the ban on using choke holds, no police officer can credibly claim today that they did not know they were endangering Garner’s life when they placed him in a choke hold and sat on him ignoring his protests that he could not breathe.
If they did not intentionally kill him, they certainly acted with reckless disregard for his life, which is manslaughter.
He was unarmed, peaceful and none of the officers were in any physical danger. They did not have to arrest him. If they were so hot and bothered about him selling untaxed cigarettes, they could have issued him a citation.
But, no. They just had to show him how tough they were, so they killed him.
Not one of them even attempted to resuscitate him.
Unless police departments are looking forward to a future where armed civilians gun them down at will in the streets, every one of them needs to go to prison.
This is our 1143rd post.
If you appreciate what we do, please make a donation to enable us to keep the lights on.
Don West filed a written motion this afternoon identifying the defendant’s statements that he claims are admissible pursuant to the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule.
The statements are hearsay and not admissible pursuant to the res gestae or any other exception to the hearsay rule.
Witness 13 and his wife heard a commotion in the back of their townhome. They heard yelling and then heard a shot. Witness 13 grabbed a flashlight and went outside to see what had happened. Within seconds of the shooting, W13 approached Mr. Zimmerman who was staggering, bleeding and breathing hard. The witness observed blood on Mr. Zimmerman’s face and the back of his head consistent with someone having been injured in a fight. Mr. Zimmerman asked W13 if he was bleeding? Witness 13 said “Yes” and W13 asked Mr. Zimmerman what had happened? Mr. Zimmerman told W13 that the other person was “beating me up” and he shot him.
Within a minute or so, Sanford Police Officer Tim Smith arrived on foot at the location where Mr. Zimmerman and W13 were standing. Officer Smith spoke with Mr. Zimmerman at the scene upo his arrival. Mr. Zimmerman acknowledged being the person who fired the shot and that he had a firearm on him. Mr. Zimmerman spontaneously stated that he had yelled for help and that no one helped him.
We conclude that the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of witnesses to the shooting that described appellant Alexander’s exclamations and actions immediately after firing the shot that killed the victim. This testimony was admissible under the res gestae rule now codified in sections 90.803(1), (2), and (3), Florida Statutes (1991), which define the conditions for admissibility of (1) spontaneous statements, (2) excited utterances, and (3) then existing mental and emotional conditions of the declarant. The statements about which these witnesses could testify were made almost simultaneously with the act of shooting, a period of time too short to support a finding of fabrication that would destroy the apparent trustworthiness of this evidence. The mere fact that statements are self-serving is not, in and of itself, a sufficient evidentiary basis for their exclusion from evidence. No legal principle excludes statements or conduct of a party solely on the ground that such statements or conduct is self-serving. State v. Johnson, 671 P.2d 215 (Utah 1983); State v. Wallace, 97 Ariz. 296, 399 P.2d 909 (1965); Commonwealth v. Fatalo, 345 Mass. 85, 185 N.E.2d 754 (1962). See also United States v. Dellinger, 472 F.2d 340, 381 (7th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 970, 93 S.Ct. 1443, 35 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973). While exculpatory statements of the accused generally are excluded from criminal cases because of their hearsay character, 29 Am.Jur.2d Evidence § 621 (1967), the courts of this state have long recognized an exception to this general rule where the statements form a part of the res gestae of the alleged offense. Jenkins v. State, 58 Fla. 62, 50 So. 582 (1909); Lowery v. State, 402 So.2d 1287 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Watkins v. State, 342 So.2d 1057 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 353 So.2d 680 (Fla. 1977). Furthermore, Florida has followed a liberal rule concerning the admittance of res gestae statements. See Appell v. State, 250 So.2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 257 So.2d 257 (Fla. 1971). Accordingly, we do not see any basis on this record for concluding that this testimony was lacking in apparent trustworthiness and probative value. Thus, we are impelled to conclude that the exclusion of the proffered testimony of res gestae statements in this case was an abuse of discretion and, under the circumstances of this case, cannot be treated as harmless error.
Accord: Stiles v. State, 672 So.2d 850 (4th DCA 1996).
Contrary to the defense assertion that “within seconds of the shooting,” the witness saw the defendant “staggering, bleeding and breathing hard,” the evidence will show that the witness described the defendant as “calm and collected” and within a few minutes all of his vital signs were normal when an EMT checked him. Indeed, he was cool, calm and collected.
With the exception of a few minor injuries that did not require stitches, a trip to the ER or even a bandaid, the defendant did not even appear to have been in a fight. Moreover, the only witness who described seeing a fight subsequently retracted that statement.
The evidence also will establish that the terrified death shriek ended when the defendant fired the fatal shot and both of the state’s expert witnesses have excluded the defendant as the person who uttered that haunting scream.
The evidence will show that, at the time he uttered the statements, he knew that the police were on their way and due to arrive any second.
Finally, the evidence will show that, instead of using his cell phone to call 911 for an emergency vehicle and attempting CPR until medical assistance arrived, he mounted Trayvon, placed his hands around his throat and subsequently stood up and had a casual conversation with a neighbor about the type of gun and ammunition he used to shoot Trayvon.
Under these circumstances, unlike the two cases cited by Mr. West, there is no basis for Judge Nelson to conclude that the statements “form a part of the res gestae of the alleged offense” such that the Court can find that there is no basis to conclude that “the testimony [is] lacking in apparent trustworthiness and probative value.” In fact, quite the opposite is true.
Statements that are evidence of someone’s state of mind.
The defendant’s statements establish that he was in a full cover-up mode knowing that the police were en route and due to arrive any second.
Therefore, the cases cited by Mr. West do not apply and the defendant’s statements are inadmissible hearsay.
In my article posted yesterday, I detailed what Zimmerman did and did not do to delay the arrival of emergency medical assistance at the scene, despite his own injuries, which he claimed were so serious that he believed he was imminent danger of suffering death or serious bodily injury.
I suggested that his motive for delaying the arrival of medical assistance might have been to assure that Trayvon Martin would be dead when they arrived.
Keep in mind that he could not have known whether Trayvon Martin would die when he shot him and, despite the shot that destroyed his right ventricle and collapsed both lungs, Trayvon might have remained conscious for several minutes, according to two forensic pathologists interviewed by Rene Stutzman of the Orlando Sentinel.
My article yesterday has a link to her article.
Today, I follow-up on my article yesterday and discuss what George Zimmerman might have done to assure that Trayvon would not live long enough to tell anyone what really happened when George Zimmerman shot him.
a form of asphyxia which occurs when someone’s position prevents them from breathing adequately. A significant number of people die suddenly during restraint by police, prison (corrections) officers and health care staff. Positional asphyxia may be a factor in some of these deaths.
Research has suggested that restraining a person in a face down position is likely to cause greater restriction of breathing than restraining a person face up. Multiple cases have been associated with the hogtie or hobble prone restraint position. Many law enforcement and health personnel are now taught to avoid restraining people face down or to do so only for a very short period of time.
Risk factors which may increase the chance of death include obesity, prior cardiac or respiratory problems, and the use of illicit drugs such as cocaine. Almost all subjects who have died during restraint have engaged in extreme levels of physical resistance against the restraint for a prolonged period of time. Other issues in the way the subject is restrained can also increase the risk of death, for example kneeling or otherwise placing weight on the subject and particularly any type of restraint hold around the subject’s neck. Research measuring the effect of restraint positions on lung function suggests that restraint which involves bending the restrained person or placing body weight on them, has more effect on their breathing than face down positioning alone.
placing an individual’s body FACE-DOWN (“prone”) upon ANY surface (such as the ground, a long back board, an ambulance wheeled stretcher, a bed, or any other surface), and Restrainers physically applying pressure with their HANDS (and/or OTHER BODY PARTS) to the Victim’s shoulders, posterior torso (“back”), hips, and/or upper legs – physically preventing the Victim from moving out of the PRONE position.
If I were a member of the prosecution team, I would do everything possible to investigate this possible theory of the case because I cannot think of any valid reason for George Zimmerman to be straddling Trayvon Martin’s back, unless he was attempting under cover of darkness to surreptitiously and furtively finish him off by positional asphyxiation while surrounded by witnesses, including children.
A logical place to start would be to find out if he took the CPR course, which is a part of the Criminal Justice curriculum at Seminole Community College. If he did, were they warned about positional asphyxiation and the dangers of choke holds.
I would also check with his fellow private party bouncers to see whether they were ever warned not to use choke and sleeper holds.
I also would check with the police liaison for the Neighborhood Watch Program to see if this subject was covered in the materials and if she ever discussed it with Zimmerman.
This avenue of inquiry might well determine the outcome of the case.
You are currently browsing the archives for the Positional Asphixiation category.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 621
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.