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.
Seriously, I would be embarrassed to have that article represent my point of view.
First "Quality of life", that is embarrassing. N.Y. has no problem with cigarette's being sold as long as they get their cut. Even thinking about this brings up the entire problem. Police harassment for things that should be absolutely none of their business. It's crazy that we would arrest people for smoking.
Six officers are not sent out to bust a guy selling cigarette's. Nowhere does it state that they saw Garner selling them either. They just recognized him from before and decided they would harass him over what is a non issue.
What happened 3 months earlier is irrelevant to that day. Would I be absolutely surprised if he hadn't learned his lesson? No, but as far as the law is concerned he can't be harassed over his past actions when no new evidence is present. They did not see him selling smokes.
The article you posted has zero facts to back up that Garner was doing anything illegal the day the police killed him.
'Quality of life' isn't important to you, but it mattered plenty to De Blasio and his appointed police brass.
Too bad the DA won't do what they did in Ferguson and release the GJ testimony. The public still doesn't know whether the cops approached Garner because he was a well-known loosie seller or they saw him selling, whether they did or didn't find evidence he was selling [not that you'd believe they did].
'Quality of life' isn't important to you, but it mattered plenty to De Blasio and his appointed police brass.
It probably does. N.Y. mayors have a history of wanting to control nearly everything the people of the city does. It's kind of creepy.
Quote:
Too bad the DA won't do what they did in Ferguson and release the GJ testimony. The public still doesn't know whether the cops approached Garner because he was a well-known loosie seller or they saw him selling, whether they did or didn't find evidence he was selling [not that you'd believe they did].
I believe that if they did they would have released the evidence.
/The article you posted has zero facts to back up that Garner was doing anything illegal the day the police killed him.
The best I can do is post the article because I can't post the police report. It was up to the police to determine if he did anything wrong or not, not me. And the article represents the city's point of view not mine. I have made no judgments regarding Mr. Gardiner's actions other than he made a miserable situation worse by resisting arrest.
But I think you have lost the thread of our discussion. To refresh your memory, we weren't discussing whether he broke the law. We were talking about why the police approached him.
You said it was about him breaking up a fight and I posted an article that stated that the police had been called several times before about him irritating store owners and that's what it was about. That's what we were talking about, not legalities.
Do you think the police just grabbed some random guy and took him down? I don't. Even his significant other stated on radio that she had tried to get him to stop selling loosies because of the trouble it was causing them.
By saying the police came because he had broken up a fight you are evading the previous issues that aggravated his situation. And if you don't think what you did a couple of months ago can have an effect on you today you must have trouble making a connection between your behavior and consequences. Here's an example: You have an affair. Two years go by. You girlfriend finally figures it out. You say, "Give me a break. That happened two years ago." How much difference do you think that will make to her? Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior as Mr. Gardiner proved.
As far as believing your eyes by viewing the video - it looks awful. But ask any pro football player if the camera always catches the full truth of what actually happens on the field.
I talked to a Chicago Detective (and union lawyer) yesterday at the gym, and he believes that moral in the NYPD will plummet, and the proactive police work that has made NYC one of the safest in the US will suffer. Let's see if crime doesn't go up under this buffoon Bill de Blasio making such an idiotic comment. Can you imagine our POTUS making a similar statement about the US armed forces?
He did, right as he became President.
Ron Paul had the Military vote.
Freedom has been restored to the people, because a Mayor misspoke?
The bad part is, they have disarmed to populace, so they cannot protect & police themselves from a real threat.
The best I can do is post the article because I can't post the police report. It was up to the police to determine if he did anything wrong or not, not me.
That simply is not true. The police are indeed suppose to be accountable to society.
Quote:
And the article represents the city's point of view not mine. I have made no judgments regarding Mr. Gardiner's actions other than he made a miserable situation worse by resisting arrest.
Without the miserable situation there is no resisting. Why shouldn't people resist "miserable situations"?
Quote:
But I think you have lost the thread of our discussion. To refresh your memory, we weren't discussing whether he broke the law. We were talking about why the police approached him.
You said it was about him breaking up a fight and I posted an article that stated that the police had been called several times before about him irritating store owners and that's what it was about. That's what we were talking about, not legalities.
First off, I never said it was about him breaking up a fight nor did the article state what you claim.
Quote:
Do you think the police just grabbed some random guy and took him down? I don't. Even his significant other stated on radio that she had tried to get him to stop selling loosies because of the trouble it was causing them.
I stated why I thought they targeted him. Why do I always need to repeat myself? I would venture to guess you didn't actually take the time to read what I wrote, you just replied based upon your initial impressions. I'm not even sure you will actually read this.
Quote:
By saying the police came because he had broken up a fight you are evading the previous issues that aggravated his situation. And if you don't think what you did a couple of months ago can have an effect on you today you must have trouble making a connection between your behavior and consequences. Here's an example: You have an affair. Two years go by. You girlfriend finally figures it out. You say, "Give me a break. That happened two years ago." How much difference do you think that will make to her? Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior as Mr. Gardiner proved.
As far as believing your eyes by viewing the video - it looks awful. But ask any pro football player if the camera always catches the full truth of what actually happens on the field.
We saw what happened, and again, I never said they were called because he was breaking up a fight. Garner's wife could continue to get mad at him if she knew he was selling cigarette's. The police can not continue to harass him and arrest him without actual proof.
And the whole world is witnessing how well that wrong decision is playing out.
Hmmm.. I wasn't privy to all the testimony the grand jury received so I could make such a determination. How did you get it? You must me psychic.... psychotic? I know it's something like that.
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.
