Posted on 12/21/2014 5:58:23 AM PST by RC one
There is NO evidence of an MI, early reports or not. Admit you are not an ER nurse. MI is determined in the field by EKG showing ST elevation and, in the ER, using cardiac enzyme markers like troponins and ckmb. You can’t tell from a video or from “early reports” that someone has a “heart attack”.
The FACT that EMS did not start ACLS means the dude had a pulse and was breathing. You DO NOT start CPR in that case.
An ER nurse would know this.
Nota Particle, RN, BLS, ACLS, PHTLS
You represent stolen honor. You are Not an ER nurse. You don’t even know what a “heart attack” is. Most of my friends, dozens if not hundreds, are ER nurses and EMS. I am an ER nurse. These are terrible jobs that few can do. Stop pretending.
Having had a major heart attack I know that my primary symptom was an inability to fully breathe.
There was no pain
yeah, I’m sitting in an ER right now getting ready to discharge someone you freaking loser. You have zero arguments and are obviously clueless. Get lost.
Garner was overwight, african american, diabetic, and had heart disease and asthma. His heart attack was inevitable. I don't necessarily blame the officers for the supposed choke hold. They didn't know his health history. I just think that they could have done a little more once it was clear that he was unconscious and not breathing. My real issue, however, is that this very well illustrates the decreased police emphasis on protecting and serving the citizens and the increased emphasis on enforcing the will of petty little tyrants like Bill de Blasio who wish to squeeze taxes out of people and interfere with free trade.
You aren’t an ER nurse.
I understand that difficulty breathing is a symptom of myocardial infarction (heart attack). I work in a chest pain center and a cardiac cath center. I deal with MI’s almost every shift
The fat guy who wheezed when talking died because any stress would have killed him. The cops and EMS couldn’t save a dead man. Early responders did their God given responsibil ity.
A Jury says so.
Could you please show me where where the autopsy mentions “heart attack”?
Multiple reports said it was the retail merchants who complained about Garner and rightly so.
That would be an example of the police serving the citizen merchants.
The videos, the best and only real evidence we have, clearly shows that Garner's neck was not being compressed when he was complaining of difficulty breathing. What's more, it shows that he was on his side in the recovery position throughout the video except for a few seconds in the initial struggle to take him down. He was not prone when he was complaining of difficulty breathing.
Only after he was down, on his side, with Pantaleo's hands on the side of his head did we hear the repeated complaints of difficulty breathing. There was no neck compression and he was on his side and he was talking which means, as you have already stated, he was breathing. He clearly stopped breathing a short time after all of that however. and that is the real question, when did he really stop breathing? There on the sidewalk or an hour later in the back of an ambulance on the way to the hospital?
More to the point, the video also shows that Garner was completely unresponsive and limp. What's more, I have watched that video dozens of times and I sure don't see any chest movement to suggest meaningful respirations. His lack of muscle tone, lack of responsiveness, and lack of breathing surely suggests a man in major distress-someone who ought to be receiving CPR for example.
The initial line was that he died of a heart attack in the back of the ambulance an hour later on the way to the hospital. this is what was reported prior to this becoming a national tipping point. I don't know how anyone with any sense at all can watch video number 2 and then believe that he died an hour later in the back of an ambulance.
What I would like to see is all the data from the lifepak that, as rumor has it, Garner was connected to in the back of the ambulance. This would be very useful and it would be illegal to destroy it so I assume it exists. I'm about as likely to see the holy grail as I am to see Eric Garner's lifepak data however.
So you go ahead and defend that autopsy report but I think anyone with eyes and the capacity to think for themselves will want to believe the videos that have been posted at the top of this thread.
Do retail merchants own the sidewalks? Taxes were paid on the initial pack(s) of cigarettes incidentally so the local tax law wasn’t even being broken. Who are these merchants to say that a man doesn’t have a right to freely compete against them unless he does it from inside his own store? This is all very typical of course and it burns my a55. We all talk about free trade and how in favor of it we are but then when we see it actually happening in our country, we call in the enforcers to shut it down. I have been in Garner’s position before. I have had the police confiscate (steal) my legally owned property for selling it in a park. Were I the mayor of any large city, there would be free trade and there would be no shutting it down.
You never know unless you try. and they didn't. But it's good to see you admitting that he was, in fact, dead when the cops were standing around him getting their story straight.
What do you do in the heart cath center btw, answer the phone for the doctors and nurses? No, I'll bet you clean up the messes they leave.
Your question singles out retail merchants.
Do the street vendors own the sidewalk?
Does any individual own the sidewalk?
The answer is that the public owns the sidewalk and sets the rules what can be done on the sidewalk thru their local government.
The merchants are the ones who rent store fronts based on the rules that have been set.
People don't individually own public sidewalks and it's not theirs to do whatever they please.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.