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.
He was being charged for that. Of course, they have not presented evidence to that case because it's really not the issue. If he didn't have cigarettes he could have argued that in court which is the proper way to got about it. If you believe you are innocent of the charge, court is the place to present that. You do not have the right to refuse the arrest and fight the police. At that point, he was guilty of the second crime of resisting arrest.
He wasn't fighting the police or resisting arrest, nor did he have anything on him at the time of the incident. He was previously arrested for selling cigarettes and had an upcoming court date for that. However, that wasn't what happened on this particluar incident.
He was being charged for that. Of course, they have not presented evidence to that case because it's really not the issue. If he didn't have cigarettes he could have argued that in court which is the proper way to got about it. If you believe you are innocent of the charge, court is the place to present that. You do not have the right to refuse the arrest and fight the police. At that point, he was guilty of the second crime of resisting arrest.
I don't hear the cops saying "you are under arrest".
And in the end there is no proof he was doing anything.
I believe he had been under investigation and they were picking him up on suspicion of selling untaxed cigarettes in competition with local merchants.
Regardless. he reisisted, and fought when he simply could have cooperated.
Sadly, too many have gone before him with the "you are hurting me; I can't breath; I have to use the toilet" excuses such officers have become deaf to these protestations.
I am certainly no fan of the police, but the bottom line is that they were arresting a known criminal who did not cooperate. They took him down while he resisted, and he died.
That's too bad for the guy, but it doesn't mean automatically that the police behaved improperly. It seemed to me that the film showed the cops being as "gentle" as possible given the circumstances: a hugely overweight criminal resisting arrest.
He wasn't fighting the police or resisting arrest, nor did he have anything on him at the time of the incident. He was previously arrested for selling cigarettes and had an upcoming court date for that. However, that wasn't what happened on this particluar incident.
I'm quoting the NY Times when I say he was being arrested for that. You can argue that point with them or show the link showing that wasn't actually the case. He absolutely was resisting arrest. He said "this ends here," refused to put his hands behind his back and attempted to fend off the officer when he tried to grab his arms to make the arrest - all while saying "don't touch me." That part is crystal clear.
I believe he had been under investigation and they were picking him up on a warrant.
Regardless. he reisisted, and fought when he simply could have cooperated.
Sadly, too many have gone before him with the "you are hurting me; I can't breath; I have to use the toilet" excuses such that an officer has to do what they have to do.
The chokehold was banned. Obviously he had a legitimate complaint.
Quote:
I am certainly no fan of the police, but the bottom line is that they were arresting a known criminal who did not cooperate. They took him down while he resisted, and he died.
That's too bad for the guy, but it doesn't mean automatically that the police behaved improperly. It seemed to me that the film showed the cops being as "gentle" as possible given the circumstances: a hugely overweight criminal resisting arrest.
The officer was not allowed to use the chokehold on him. Yes they behaved improperly.
Thanks for the paragraphs but the choke didn't kill him. Grand jury didn't indict and there was no damage to windpipe. It was negligent not to ensure alertness and be especially watchful at his size in the prone position but it wasn't criminal.
I think you are really missing the point.
We keep talking about crime and laws, without really addressing what a crime is, and why laws exist. Or more importantly, why government itself exists.
The sort of "original purpose" of government was for the purpose of "providing justice". Justice is supposed to be "blind". But everyone knows that humans are biased. And the closer you are to a situation, the more biased you are.
Thus the purpose of the police and of government, is that the government is supposed to act as an "unbiased third-party". An entity which neither takes sides or holds grudges.
The problem of course is that the government, or its enforcement agencies, or the law itself is not devoid of bias. On top of that, the police themselves do take sides and hold grudges. Thus we know that the concept that "justice is blind" is actually a fallacy.
Now, if justice isn't blind, then justice doesn't exist. Something is only "just" if it is free of bias. On top of that, if the laws themselves don't create the possibility of justice, then whether something is legal or illegal in law is sort of pointless.
The goal is the provide justice.
I am not saying that the cop should be "strung up". All I'm saying is that, these kinds of incidents happen all the time. And the police are never punished in any way. The question then is, was what happened to Garner "just". And secondly, if there are no penalties to the police for what happened, is that "just"?
More importantly, you need to try to imagine this man being your brother or your father. Had the police killed your own family in a similar way under similar petty circumstances, would you be upset? Would there be any consolation for you when someone tells you "Well your brother should have just done what the cops told him to do."
If this man had been your father, would you not have felt hatred towards the police?
I promise you, if this man had been a family member or a friend, I would be so upset I would have fantasized about killing the police officer. The behavior of the police was simply unreasonable. It wasn't just. And I'm pretty sick and tired of people defending the police when they are obviously behaving poorly.
"I believe that liberty is the only genuinely valuable thing that men have invented, at least in the field of government, in a thousand years. I believe that it is better to be free than to be not free, even when the former is dangerous and the latter safe. I believe that the finest qualities of man can flourish only in free air – that progress made under the shadow of the policeman’s club is false progress, and of no permanent value. I believe that any man who takes the liberty of another into his keeping is bound to become a tyrant, and that any man who yields up his liberty, in however slight the measure, is bound to become a slave." - HL Mencken
I don't hear the cops saying "you are under arrest".
You can't hear what they're saying at all because they weren't yelling and were trying to keep the situation calm. That's a pretty common tactic for people that really don't want a physical confrontation, but you do hear him complaining about it and saying "this ends now" and "don't touch me."
When the EMT had him on the stretcher I heard an officer say he is breathing. My question is what happened in the ambulance? Did he arrest? Did they attempt CPR? He had a thick neck and as a nurse that in itself presents problems opening an airway. I wonder what measures were taken in route to the hospital and what documentation was presented if he indeed was alive when he left the scene. Did the EMTs do what all they should have? These are also questions in my mind.
The more I learn about this story, the more the lack of indictment makes total sense. Not from a "cop is innocent" perspective or a preponderance of unknown and exculpatory evidence. No, the lack of indictment makes sense because of why Garner was hassled in the first place, which is NYC's own brand of Leviathan ordering the centurions to collect and enforce tax revenue. ~61% of the tobacco market in NYC is black market based on the absurd taxes of Leviathan and the Nanny State. To paraphrase JD Tucille, Garner died for the cause of tax revenue.
His "crime" was selling untaxed cigarettes. But utopian behavior schemes, like taxing tobacco use out of existence, requires force applied to those who simply refuse to modify their behavior to suit Leviathan's demands.
Welcome to the dark side of the Nanny State. We will enact our absurd taxes on perfectly legal behavior, artificially raise the price of proper compliance, encouraging people to go around our retarded compliance costs to engage in perfectly legal behavior at the old price point. Hence the black market for cigarettes in NYC.
And to all you liberal champions of civil liberties and poor Eric Garner...he's a low level, grassroots version of a tax evader, as are all of the folks who purchased his untaxed wares. This is the very personal, up close, in your face example of where ordering your thugocracy attack dogs on those who would choose to avoid onerous taxation gets you. It's funny as hell to all you nanny state gooftards when it's a millionaire or billionaire being destroyed for tax evasion, but the humor kind of dies down when it's Joe Blow black market cigarette salesman on the street being destroyed for the exact same thing.
That's why there's no indictment. Better to chalk up to court of public opinion accusations of racism than face the real truth for Leviathan, which is that Garner was approached, accosted and ultimately killed because DeBlasio et al demand tribute, same as any mafioso demanding protection money.
I guaran-effing-tee every beat cop in NYC has marching orders to figuratively bust skulls on illegal tobacco sales to make sure the local populace is properly scared into compliance with DeBlasio's tax revenue schemes. Guaran-effing-tee. So the deal I'd wager dime to donuts was made is that Pantaleo gets hollered at but no indictment, and in return for not prosecuting one of the centurions, none of us storm the imperial palace demanding to know why Caesar has the centurions terrorizing the masses over cigarette taxes. Pantaleo was doing exactly what he was told, and DeBlasio's speech is a bunch of political whitewash horseshizzle.
Or your death...or severe injury...or you are indeed convicted of the crime with which you were originally to be questioned (you can be convicted and actually be innocent) or you live in a small town and you are now known as trouble by the local police force that may decide that you speeding 2 MPH over the limit is worthy of a ticket and so on and so forth.
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.
