Axulus
Veteran Member
But your scenario passes the "but for" test. But for the car accident (had it not occurred at all), would he not have been killed that day? Almost certainly yes. But for the choke-hold, would Eric Garner still be alive and not have suffered a heart attack? Probably, but not certainly.
I wouldn't even say probably. The cause of death appears to be the pile of officers subduing him. I don't see that the chokehold had anything to do with it.
The medical examiner declared it a contributory factor. As Sabine pointed out, the lack of oxygen to his vital organs could very well have triggered the heart attack. The lack of oxygen came from two sources: the officers on top of him (you can't move your diaphragm) and the choke hold (can't get adequate air through the trachea). The question for a criminal proceeding, however, is whether or not everything else, in the absence of the choke-hold, was itself sufficient to have possibly caused his death.
I've seen no one here provide anything convincing that the pile of officers on him _definitely_ would not have triggered his heart attack. I mean, how often does a choke hold trigger a heart attack anyway? No reasonable person would expect a choke hold to trigger a heart attack. If he was choking him so severely that he died from asphyxiation, that's one thing, but a heart attack is something else all together.
	