The Story of Officer Daniel Pantaleo

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

NYPD Officer Daniel Pantaleo was fired.  And if you believed that Officer Pantaleo brutally choked Eric Garner to death for nothing more than selling cigarettes, then the firing came as welcome news—a small but hard-fought move toward justice. 

Hard-fought because, even though cellphone videos show Officer Pantaleo’s arm around the neck of Mr. Garner, the 2014 Staten Island grand jury declined to indict the officer.  The U.S. Department of Justice refused to prosecute.  And the NYPD Deputy Commissioner of Trials found Pantaleo not guilty of an intentional strangling. 

If you believed that Officer Pantaleo was responsible for the death of Eric Garner, you would have to wait over five years for accountability, which ultimately relied, not on criminal charges, but instead on a decades old NYPD policy that banned the use of choke holds.  That was as much as the NYPD Deputy Commissioner of Trials would find Pantaleo guilty of, and for that Officer Pantaleo was fired.

Many of you are resisting the characterization that Officer Pantaleo choked Mr. Garner to death.  The autopsy showed that he died of cardiac arrest.  Asthma, obesity, and high blood pressure were identified as contributing factors, and medical experts disagree as to what role, if any, the choke hold played.  The NYPD Commissioner who approved the firing, admitted the death was tragic and unintended.  Some would argue, unforeseeable.  And those who view the death of Mr. Garner as the unintended, unforeseeable, and tragic consequence of physically resisting arrest, they will not view the firing of Officer Pantaleo as reasonable.  They will not see this as justice.    

Same Video.  Different Story.

How do people watching the same video come to such drastically different conclusions?  How can they all feel a sincere sense of moral outrage?  Simply, they are watching the same video but hearing different stories.

Stories provide context. They set expectations and create the filter through which we experience, predict, and judge human behavior.  Police violence is no different.  It is understood and judged by the stories that surround it. 

Our reaction to violence is overwhelmingly influenced by the reason we attribute to the violence, whether accurate or imagined.  It’s the difference between seeing a man tackled on a football field versus a street corner.  It’s the awful feeling you might get seeing the police shoot an unarmed suspect, without realizing the suspect had moments earlier broken the exhausted officer’s nose and attempted to shoot him with his own gun.

Contact sports provide context and rules that audiences can quickly learn to recognize.  In contrast, police use of force often requires a sophisticated understanding of laws, facts, and behavioral science to fairly judge.

People who witness police violence, like all of us, will interpret that violence in light of the stories they’ve heard—some true, some false, and some simply imagined. Like all of us, their collection of stories will come from whoever is available and willing to tell them. And, like all of us, they will subconsciously recognize and interpret evidence to confirm the truth of their stories—and ignore the rest.

People who witness police violence, like all of us, will interpret that violence in light of the stories they’ve heard—some true, some false, and some simply imagined.

Tell a Better Story

Some stories have tragically conditioned people to believe that police are targeting them because of their skin color. Their subconscious default is to characterize every enforcement action as a product of racism. They are convinced that abuse, even death, at the hands of the police are routine—even likely.

Although studies continue to challenge these perceptions, simply yelling, “That’s not true!” isn’t enough. Unless and until they experience, hear, and believe a different story, they will continue to filter police violence through the lens of abuse, oppression, and injustice.  They need to hear a better story.  A story delivered from trusted sources with honesty, persistence, and above all, cultural sensitivity.

Most of us understand the extraordinary challenge of correcting law enforcement stories we know to be inaccurate or incomplete.  Emotional reactions to perceived injustice are too frequently immune from facts. Of course, historic racism and cultural trauma can make it increasingly difficult for some to abandon their mistrust of police.  A challenge made greater in those having experienced “racial trauma;” the psychological injury attributed to experiencing, witnessing, or hearing stories of personal or institutional racism.

Now, some of you will resist any suggestion that modern police are racist or that institutional racism continues to exist. You might argue that racial disparity in the criminal justice system is a product of culture and conduct and not bias or racism.  Fair enough. But when it comes to protecting people from the consequences of a perceived abuse, social progress may not matter as much as we’d like.

Because the human brain doesn’t distinguish between what is vividly imagined and what is actually happening, people who believe they are targets of racist, abusive police, can suffer from anxiety, fear, racial trauma, and severe forms of PTSD, whether the police are actually abusive or not.

Whatever trauma or offense a person might experience from exposure to police violence, it is made worse when malevolence, betrayal, injustice, or immorality are alleged…or presumed.  Instances of truly outrageous, criminal misconduct by police can be replayed so frequently that viewers completely lose sight of the rarity of those events.  But setting aside strategically edited and sensationalized accounts of policing, even the most routine enforcement actions can generate violent resistance and outrage when people are convinced that they are part of an unjustly targeted community.

…even the most routine enforcement actions can generate violent resistance and outrage when people are convinced that they are part of an unjustly targeted community.

Recognizing Our Stories

Most police have experienced decision making under time compressed, high stakes circumstances.  These operating environments, characterized by shifting goals, uncertainty, and dynamic interactions, provide little time or opportunity to analyze response options.  Instead, officers observe the circumstances until enough similarities to past experiences are recognized and then quickly, almost intuitively, execute a response (See Gary Klein’s recognition primed decision making).  In other words, in very little time, they attempt to recognize the story that is unfolding and then proceed as though that story is true.  Their threat assessment and response are always “best guesses,” the accuracy of which is tied to past experiences, education, and the realism of simulated training events.

Community members who believe they are witnessing racist, abusive police may similarly respond with quick, intuitive decisions and sincerely held outrage.  They believe they recognize the story of abusive police, to which they respond emotionally, and sometimes physically, at the scene of arrests.  Unfortunately, many do not have the benefit of training in the law, human factors, or tactics to intuitively or even rationally know the difference between a lawful use of force or excessive force.  To them, a forcible arrest can seem unnecessary, disrespectful, and dehumanizing.  It can be indistinguishable from an assault.  This challenge can be compounded by those who clearly know the difference, but simply don’t care.

The Story of American Policing

Watching Officer Pantaleo get fired can be disorienting for those who thought they knew the story of policing.  A story in which the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that officers should maintain unquestioned command at the scene of investigations.  A story in which the police stand in a position of social authority and, when people refuse lawful orders, may forcibly compel compliance.  Although Officer Pantaleo was found to have violated the NYPD policy against “choke holds,” it remains that properly applied vascular neck restraints are legal and are expected to reduce injury to officers and suspects with rare exception.  For many, the decision to arrest Eric Garner was a routine exercise of law enforcement, and the tragedy of his death should not disrupt those basic truths.

But there is another story that is screaming for attention.  It is the story of historically disenfranchised communities struggling to eliminate what they perceive as unearned social inequalities and obstacles.  They sincerely view the disparities in criminal justice involvement and outcomes as products of historic racism and bias; the police being the most visible representatives of that system.  Community activists focus, not on what is legally justified, but rather what they view as fair, necessary, or preventable.  They maintain an implicit, and sometimes expressed, desire to save suspects from the consequences of their bad decisions; which they recognize as the by-products of limited education, broken families, and depressed employment opportunities. 

The story of Officer Daniel Pantaleo may very well be the story of American policing.  Is it being accurately told? Is it being heard?  Is it being re-written?  Until we agree on answers to these questions, we will continue to watch the same videos—and hear different stories.

For important information on neck restraint research, please see:

2 Responses
  1. Hey Dudes Wake Up

    Death due to restraint asphyxia is unconstitutional according to SCOTUS. See lower WY court case Weigel v Broad. No one should die in restraint, especially in non-emergency situations.

    Mr. Eric Garner died due to a trapped diaphragm situation, not from a chokehold or asthma. The fat mass on his abdomen pushed the abdominal contents and the diaphragm into the upward position. The trapped diaphragm was unable to pull down into the downward position, exert pressure in the chest cavity, and pull outside air into the lungs. If the diaphragm was trapped, there was no airflow anywhere in the body. If there was no airflow, there was no chokehold at the neck or asthma in the lungs as etiologies of Mr. Garner’s suffocation death. There is only one cause of death: the trapped diaphragm mechanism. The chest wall must also be free; both the diaphragm and the chest wall must be able to move and activate the bellows function that allows respiratory function or suffocation occurs.

    The death of Mr. Garner was not related to race but rather a technical failure-to-train situation. The NYPD, including the top supervisors, was responsible for not educating officers properly. Many deaths of pregnant and/or obese individuals have occurred during restraint due to the trapped diaphragm situation.

    Also, there is no such thing as death due to “exited delirium” during restraint; death in restraint is due to restraint asphyxia until proven otherwise. Obscuring the facts is obstruction of justice and results in citizen retaliation against the police.

    Please educate the officers about this poorly known mechanism to prevent further harm to both the public and the police charged with their protection.

  2. James Mill

    What a load of garbage. I hope at least you believe this desensitized, delusional, sorry excuse for an argument you put together here. Please go tell your theory to Eric Garner’s family, along with the long line of African American families who had their family members die at the hands of police. I am sure they will understand.

Leave a Reply


  • Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy

Effective date: January 06, 2019

Force Science Institute, Ltd. (“us”, “we”, or “our”) operates the https://www.forcescience.org/ website (hereinafter referred to as the “Service”).

This page informs you of our policies regarding the collection, use, and disclosure of personal data when you use our Service and the choices you have associated with that data. Our Privacy Policy for Force Science Institute, Ltd. is based on the Privacy Policy Template from Privacy Policies.

We use your data to provide and improve the Service. By using the Service, you agree to the collection and use of information in accordance with this policy. Unless otherwise defined in this Privacy Policy, the terms used in this Privacy Policy have the same meanings as in our Terms and Conditions, accessible from https://www.forcescience.org/

Information Collection And Use

We collect several different types of information for various purposes to provide and improve our Service to you.

Types of Data Collected

Personal Data

While using our Service, we may ask you to provide us with certain personally identifiable information that can be used to contact or identify you (“Personal Data”). Personally identifiable information may include, but is not limited to:

  • Email address
  • First name and last name
  • Phone number
  • Address, State, Province, ZIP/Postal code, City
  • Cookies and Usage Data

Usage Data

We may also collect information on how the Service is accessed and used (“Usage Data”). This Usage Data may include information such as your computer’s Internet Protocol address (e.g. IP address), browser type, browser version, the pages of our Service that you visit, the time and date of your visit, the time spent on those pages, unique device identifiers and other diagnostic data.

Tracking & Cookies Data

We use cookies and similar tracking technologies to track the activity on our Service and hold certain information.

Cookies are files with small amount of data which may include an anonymous unique identifier. Cookies are sent to your browser from a website and stored on your device. Tracking technologies also used are beacons, tags, and scripts to collect and track information and to improve and analyze our Service.

You can instruct your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent. However, if you do not accept cookies, you may not be able to use some portions of our Service. You can learn more how to manage cookies in the Browser Cookies Guide.

Examples of Cookies we use:

  • Session Cookies. We use Session Cookies to operate our Service.
  • Preference Cookies. We use Preference Cookies to remember your preferences and various settings.
  • Security Cookies. We use Security Cookies for security purposes.

Use of Data

Force Science Institute, Ltd. uses the collected data for various purposes:

  • To provide and maintain the Service
  • To notify you about changes to our Service
  • To allow you to participate in interactive features of our Service when you choose to do so
  • To provide customer care and support
  • To provide analysis or valuable information so that we can improve the Service
  • To monitor the usage of the Service
  • To detect, prevent and address technical issues

Transfer Of Data

Your information, including Personal Data, may be transferred to — and maintained on — computers located outside of your state, province, country or other governmental jurisdiction where the data protection laws may differ than those from your jurisdiction.

If you are located outside United States and choose to provide information to us, please note that we transfer the data, including Personal Data, to United States and process it there.

Your consent to this Privacy Policy followed by your submission of such information represents your agreement to that transfer.

Force Science Institute, Ltd. will take all steps reasonably necessary to ensure that your data is treated securely and in accordance with this Privacy Policy and no transfer of your Personal Data will take place to an organization or a country unless there are adequate controls in place including the security of your data and other personal information.

Disclosure Of Data

Legal Requirements

Force Science Institute, Ltd. may disclose your Personal Data in the good faith belief that such action is necessary to:

  • To comply with a legal obligation
  • To protect and defend the rights or property of Force Science Institute, Ltd.
  • To prevent or investigate possible wrongdoing in connection with the Service
  • To protect the personal safety of users of the Service or the public
  • To protect against legal liability

Security Of Data

The security of your data is important to us, but remember that no method of transmission over the Internet, or method of electronic storage is 100% secure. While we strive to use commercially acceptable means to protect your Personal Data, we cannot guarantee its absolute security.

Service Providers

We may employ third party companies and individuals to facilitate our Service (“Service Providers”), to provide the Service on our behalf, to perform Service-related services or to assist us in analyzing how our Service is used.

These third parties have access to your Personal Data only to perform these tasks on our behalf and are obligated not to disclose or use it for any other purpose.


We may use third-party Service Providers to monitor and analyze the use of our Service.

  • Google AnalyticsGoogle Analytics is a web analytics service offered by Google that tracks and reports website traffic. Google uses the data collected to track and monitor the use of our Service. This data is shared with other Google services. Google may use the collected data to contextualize and personalize the ads of its own advertising network.You can opt-out of having made your activity on the Service available to Google Analytics by installing the Google Analytics opt-out browser add-on. The add-on prevents the Google Analytics JavaScript (ga.js, analytics.js, and dc.js) from sharing information with Google Analytics about visits activity.For more information on the privacy practices of Google, please visit the Google Privacy & Terms web page: https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en

Links To Other Sites

Our Service may contain links to other sites that are not operated by us. If you click on a third party link, you will be directed to that third party’s site. We strongly advise you to review the Privacy Policy of every site you visit.

We have no control over and assume no responsibility for the content, privacy policies or practices of any third party sites or services.

Children’s Privacy

Our Service does not address anyone under the age of 18 (“Children”).

We do not knowingly collect personally identifiable information from anyone under the age of 18. If you are a parent or guardian and you are aware that your Children has provided us with Personal Data, please contact us. If we become aware that we have collected Personal Data from children without verification of parental consent, we take steps to remove that information from our servers.

Changes To This Privacy Policy

We may update our Privacy Policy from time to time. We will notify you of any changes by posting the new Privacy Policy on this page.

We will let you know via email and/or a prominent notice on our Service, prior to the change becoming effective and update the “effective date” at the top of this Privacy Policy.

You are advised to review this Privacy Policy periodically for any changes. Changes to this Privacy Policy are effective when they are posted on this page.

Contact Us

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, please contact us:

  • By email: support@forcescience.org
  • By visiting this page on our website: https://www.forcescience.org/contact
  • By phone number: 866-683-1944
  • By mail: Force Science Institute, Ltd.