Bodycam video shows handcuffed man telling Ohio officers 'I can't breathe' before his death
In video of the April 18 encounter, Frank Tyson can be seen lying motionless on the floor of a bar for more than 5 minutes before police check him for a pulse.
The Canton Police Department in Ohio has released body camera video from the night a 53-year-old man died after he repeatedly told officers “I can’t breathe” as he was handcuffed with his hands behind his back and he was pinned to the ground.
In video of the encounter on April 18, the man, Frank Tyson, can be seen lying motionless on the floor of a bar for more than 5 minutes before police check him for a pulse and about 8 minutes before CPR is started.
In the nearly 36-minute video, police respond to the scene of a single-car crash to find a downed power pole and an unoccupied vehicle with the driver’s side door open and an airbag deployed.
So the police killed him. Wish titles would stop pussy footing around.
Yeah. The details are in the article. Officer had his knee on the victims upper back for at least 30 seconds while the victim begged the officer to move as he couldn't breathe. At some point he stopped responding entirely while the officers were holding him. He needed immediate medial attention from the instant he stopped breathing. Instead of helping him officers told him "shut the fuck up you're fine". And only after he had stopped moving for 5 minutes did they check and realize he was dead.
The knee on the upper back position is illegal. The correct thing to do is to have 1 officer hold his shoulders steady and the other hand cuff him. If there's only 1 officer present (which there never should be), there are many other holds that are not life threatening. I think it's entirely fair and legitimate to say that they killed him. It's not libelous, or exaggeration, they killed him and did not seek medical attention when he very clearly stated he wasn't able to breathe. That's manslaughter and negligent homicide at least.
They'll get a paid vacation and possibly early retirement with pension for the trauma this murder caused them.
*tax payer funded
And then it took them extra 3 minutes to decide they might want to do CPR.
Its too much to ask for what should be an anti-police story related to them murdering a civilian to not use passive voice to describe the murder.
Yes because it's not an anti-police story, it's a reporting of events with which you can use your brain to reach a conclusion. What you're describing is better suited for commentary like this thread.
If someone died from a non cop entity you would likely see a much less passive voice.
For example: https://www.wtrf.com/top-stories/19-year-old-dead-in-alleged-ohio-murder/
In that little write up I see "murder", " Killed" and "Shots fired". This was also a very short article.
If you look at the URL the original published headline said 'alleged murder', it's always more passive until something sticks, like a murder charge.
Edit: NBC is not doing their jobs correctly if they make assumptions about the cause of death. We've seen excessive force in similar situations being the direct cause of death but it's not the job of these news outlets to make assumptions on your behalf. An assumption about something that was likely to have happened is still an assumption.
If NBC calls it a murder and a report comes out that definitively shows that the death happened concurrently but was not caused by the use of force then NBC is in the shit because they appealed to your emotions instead of reporting the facts.
Maybe they just don't like lawsuits? There is a reason the word allegedly is used so often.
Police unions are litigious
Yeah it's there some unwritten rule against the press saying they killed him? Only good reason i can think of is they're still waiting for the autopsy to confirm cause of death.
There are actually written laws...
Yo dawg that is what I'm asking, you dig?
Perhaps because a court hasn't ruled on it, they won't word it that explicitly?
My best guess is that the new paper could be charged with defamation if the court ruled that the police didn't kill him and they claimed he did.
But I'm not a lawyer and have no idea about the law regarding journalism nor its ethics.
Watch the autopsy "find" that he was high on weed or some other shit
Because even though there's a video showing that a cop killed a man, everybody (even cops) is innocent until proven guilty. Otherwise, you could get into a trial for slander and for having caused distress.