Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Garner was being arrested for the "crime" of selling loose cigarettes that required SEVERAL police officers to respond when he wasn't being violent or causing a disturbance?
The most pettiest of offenses that would normally only result in a warning in many cases.
At that point it wasn't about the loose cigarettes, it was about his refusal to comply. Given his arrest record, he knew exactly how the cops would react.
At that point it wasn't about the loose cigarettes, it was about his refusal to comply. Given his arrest record, he knew exactly how the cops would react.
Nobody knows how cops will react to given situation.
Do you always die when unarmed and surrounded by other officers?
That's a strawman argument. One does not always die unarmed and surrounded by other officers.
You do sometimes die as the result of resisting, armed or not. It is the fault of the individual for resisting, and in Garners case his poor health decisions likely caused a part. A fit individual would have survived this encounter, if it played out in the same manner.
No one is holding these two as martyrs. In fact on city data most people think mike brown got what he deserved. The Eric garner case seems to have mixed feelings-based on his background, and what he did once he was arrested.
True, although Yahoo and CNN still seem determined to nail the officer in the Brown shooting.
The "law" and morality are not the same thing. You're not seeing the bigger picture, and you're trying to argue against my point from within the statist paradigm. I have no quibble with that because, as was my point too, the state DOES decree it illegal and, so, if the state has the moral authority you claim it does, then yes, he deserved what he got.
I'm claiming at a fundamental level that the state DOES NOT have the authority to tell someone they can't sell cigarettes, or that they can't sell anything for that matter. They do it, and they enforce it, but that does not make them moral nor right in the eyes of God or natural law, whichever you believe in.
And, I'll have you point out, that most of the smugglers in the 17th and 18th centuries in America had no notion of themselves being patriots, either. This is an ex-post-facto application of our own opinions of colonial America to the mindset they had in the day. Back then, they just wanted to make money and get around the hyper-restrictive regulations that the state immorally imposed upon them, literally the EXACT same thing Eric Garner was doing.
Again, I didn't defend Mike Brown.
There is a several-hundred-plus year tradition of genuine legal scholars who are more intelligent and have dedicated more of their lives to this than you or I could ever hope to, and most of them would probably take issue with your one-sentence dismissal of a timeless legal theory. Thank God, however, someone such as yourself could prove them all so wrong so easily!
In case you yourself would like to read, and refute, their point of view, here are some works:
I'd bet you a year of my salary you've never read one of those.
If you want o debate the law, it's a different discussion. What the entire hubbub is about is why did they die and how suddenly, it's a lightening rod for debates on race relations, law, and now your question of freedom and the right to pursue happiness and whatever.
The gist of the conversation is whether or not, the two had to die and was it legal? And, as you can see, no one would have anything to say had the media not got involved.
If you wish to debate and/or change the law, pick a different venue. Foe NOW and the foreseeable future, those who resist arrest do so at heir own peril. One can't realistically go to court on the streets in real time and expect favorble results? Using this as a platform to debate your points is senseless and not the right place to do it.
For every tome you present I'm confident there are a litany of tomes that counter the argument. Yours deal in conceptual, the other, reality. Was selling a bunch of illegal cigarettes so bad that this had to happen? No. But, then again, it wasn't about the cigarettes. It was about a guy resisting arrest in an aggressive manner.
Common sense should have ruled the day but, you might think it was an opportune time to debate proposed changes in the law. You are optimistic. Why? Selling illegal substances has a long, long way to go before it is court approved.
The "law" and morality are not the same thing. You're not seeing the bigger picture, and you're trying to argue against my point from within the statist paradigm. I have no quibble with that because, as was my point too, the state DOES decree it illegal and, so, if the state has the moral authority you claim it does, then yes, he deserved what he got.
I'm claiming at a fundamental level that the state DOES NOT have the authority to tell someone they can't sell cigarettes, or that they can't sell anything for that matter. They do it, and they enforce it, but that does not make them moral nor right in the eyes of God or natural law, whichever you believe in.
And, I'll have you point out, that most of the smugglers in the 17th and 18th centuries in America had no notion of themselves being patriots, either. This is an ex-post-facto application of our own opinions of colonial America to the mindset they had in the day. Back then, they just wanted to make money and get around the hyper-restrictive regulations that the state immorally imposed upon them, literally the EXACT same thing Eric Garner was doing.
Again, I didn't defend Mike Brown.
There is a several-hundred-plus year tradition of genuine legal scholars who are more intelligent and have dedicated more of their lives to this than you or I could ever hope to, and most of them would probably take issue with your one-sentence dismissal of a timeless legal theory. Thank God, however, someone such as yourself could prove them all so wrong so easily!
In case you yourself would like to read, and refute, their point of view, here are some works:
I'd bet you a year of my salary you've never read one of those.
P.S. you are right, I never read them. And the two are still dead. Want to bet your list of viewpoints won't bring them back to life either? I'll bet you all the money I'll ever make in this world that anything you might dig up now, or in the future, won't bring them back either. I'll go so far as to double down that the law will never, ever change for anyone to the point that it supports your side.
You are free however to debate this with the cops at any violent encounter and I wish you well in those endeavors.
Two worlds my friend. The one you wish existed and the one we live in. Which one do you think counts?
That's a strawman argument. One does not always die unarmed and surrounded by other officers.
You do sometimes die as the result of resisting, armed or not. It is the fault of the individual for resisting, and in Garners case his poor health decisions likely caused a part. A fit individual would have survived this encounter, if it played out in the same manner.
How many more absolutes do you have at your disposal?
How many more absolutes do you have at your disposal?
There's only one that's needed; don't resist the cops. You choose to do so, that's your choice.
The courts is where someone is found to be guilty or not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
