October 28, 2016

"I’m troubled by the revelation that you and this campaign actually discussed ‘using’ Eric Garner … Why would you want to ‘use my dad?"

"These people will co opt anything to push their agenda. Police violence is not the same as gun violence." And: "I'm [very] interested to know exactly what @CoreyCiorciari meant when he said ‘I know we have an Erica Garner problem’ in the #PodestaEmails19."

Eric Garner's daughter Erica Garner tweets out about what she saw in the Wikileaked email.

This strikes me as the human instinct: If you think you have me as your problem, I will be your problem.

29 comments:

vicari valdez said...

just clinton being deplorable again.

cubanbob said...

Some people find it deplorable that they or their relatives are used by others for those other people's interests.

Gusty Winds said...

The video of Garner's death was disturbing. A poor man trying to make a buck selling loose cigarettes gets choked to death by the state because they can't collect the taxes on the transaction.

That's the real problem. Does anybody really think the Clinton Campaign gives a shit about these people?

Achilles said...

Hillary does have an Eric Garner problem. The progressives have used black people ever since they bought them from Africa. Currently They show up and manufacture crises while they force black kids into shitty schools and undermine black fathers.

Black people were ignored by the GOPe because they are a false flag operation. Trump is finally speaking to black people and their real problems. Trump is coming in at 10-15% among black voters in polls now. Expect that to improve. The polls are "unexpectedly" getting close again. Trump leads among independents and is outperforming Romney with black and Hispanic voters.

You are fooling yourself if you think this election is over.

vicari valdez said...

to clinton eric garner is just another 'super predator,' smh

traditionalguy said...

African- Americans are Americans too. And she realizes Americans' independence is either maintained by consent of the governed in un-rigged and fair elections, or it is taken away by mind control propaganda, and rigged vote counts, and finally by gun confiscation.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

If you think you have me as your problem, I will be your problem.

I find that incomprehensible.

Perhaps I did not inherit that gene.

Nonapod said...

I'm constantly surprised that people are surprised by the general mendacity of Democrats in general and the Clinton's in particular. I've always assumed it was axiomatic that the Clinton's lie, that they try to construct fables, that they are opportunistic, that they take advantage of people, that they exploit tragedy. Why is it that people still seem to be behaving as though these things aren't known and accepted by all? Why don't more people seem to understand who and what this group is?

Bruce Hayden said...

Not sure what is going on there with the linked article. Doesn't load in Firefox, but does in IE. In any case, she seemed miffed because the Dems wouldn't use her father in their BLM propaganda, since he didn't die as a result of gun violence (though most of the notable BLM deaths were legally justified self-defense).

Keep this in mind when discussing the Eric Gardner death - he died primarily because he was actively resisting arrest, and was in ill health, due mostly to his morbid obesity. He was technically not put in a choke hold, and his airways were not closed off (he was able to shout about being choked). If he had not been actively resisting a legally valid arrest, or hadn't been morbidly obese, he probably would not have died. The question almost invariably comes down to whether we want to live in an ordered society with rules that we have to follow, or not. If there are laws on the books, and someone has repeatedly been cited for violating them, and has repeatedly ignored the citations, then the only choice is to allow him to continue to flaunt the law, or to arrest him (which is what happened there). Yes, it is a stupid law. And, yes, the cops were there because the neighboring businesses were complaining. That is their job. One that I wouldn't want to do, but one that is necessary for an ordered society, at least until the proletariat gain enough enlightenment that they no longer need direction (at which time, the state will supposedly wither away, or something like that).

William said...

Eric Garner fathered an illegitimate child. The mother of that child recently filed for an order of protection against Garner's wife. She doesn't like her romantic rival, nor sharing the settlement money with the out of wedlock child. She made some kind of Facebook posting that threatened her.......The Garner family are not especially sympathetic. This cannot be said aloud nor in any way alluded to. Black people who die in racially charged incidents achieve martyrdom status, and their bad choices in life can neither be criticized, nor for that matter even mentioned. This protective halo extends to their family members and friends, even if, as in the case of Keith Scott and Michael Brown, they told lies about the shooting.......In the interests of fairness, however, you can research and report on any damaging fact you can find out about the white person involved in the shooting.

Achilles said...

"The question almost invariably comes down to whether we want to live in an ordered society with rules that we have to follow, or not. If there are laws on the books, and someone has repeatedly been cited for violating them, and has repeatedly ignored the citations, then the only choice is to allow him to continue to flaunt the law, or to arrest him (which is what happened there). "

Garbage. If Hillary gets her wish for an Australian style confiscation law we will all be Eric Garner.

The state was using the police to enforce a protection racket. Our government at every level has morphed into the mafia without the limitations of the law.

damikesc said...

...but Trump said "pussy". Way worse.

Ann Althouse said...

"I find that incomprehensible."

Well, you'd better be careful then.

CJinPA said...

Isn't it common for Democrats to use black citizens this way (usually with permission, I would think)?

I remember the horrible dragging death of James Byrd in Texas in 1998. In the aftermath, the U.S. Attorney General gave the family some type of medal for their response, using the crime to foster unity instead of division.

Then, in the 2000 presidential campaign, Democrats ran an TV ad reenacting the crime, complete with pickup truck and chain, with this voice over:

I’m Renee Mullins, James Byrd’s daughter. On June 7, 1998 in Texas my father was killed. He was beaten, chained, and then dragged 3 miles to his death, all because he was black. So when Governor George W. Bush refused to support hate-crime legislation, it was like my father was killed all over again. Call Governor George W. Bush and tell him to support hate-crime legislation. We won’t be dragged away from our future.

I don't think John Podesta thought there would be a problem exploiting the Garner family.

Bill Peschel said...

This is the problem with using isolated incidents to gin up racial hatred for your cause.

There have been several cases in which police officers have shot civilians and been sent to trial.

There's also the case of the Hummelstown, Pa., police officer who chased a suspect after a traffic stop, subdued him with a taser, and shot him several times in the back. That part was caught on camera.

The jury found the police officer not guilty.

This didn't make the news nationwide because the officer was a white female, the victim a white male. The Democrats in Pennsylvania didn't give a shit.

No, most of the time, you have to raise a protest over the dubious cases. Jump in at the beginning before all the facts are known, such as the George Zimmerman case (whom the New York Times identified as a "white Hispanic," because they had to bring the white "race" into it. Not that they would call Obama a "white black." Race does have its privileges.

You have to fight with the weapons that you're given, and if they explode in your hand every once in awhile, well, that's just collateral damage in politics.

CJinPA said...

William said...

There was a total of three women claiming mother status during the saga surrounding the death of Trayvon Martin: his birth mother, his father's ex-wife, and his father's new girlfriend. Wasn't pretty.

mezzrow said...

"I find that incomprehensible."

Well, you'd better be careful then.


This is useful advice. I recommend it.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Breaking news: the Left uses and exploits minorities crassly for political gain. Stay tuned to the Media shaming that will never occur.

Bruce Hayden said...

I disagree about using the dubious cases to make a point. George Zimmerman acted in clear self-defense, likely beyond a reasonable doubt (given that the burden of proof and standard of proof are actually reversed). He was jumped, knocked to the ground, and physically assaulted by Martin. Martin hitting his head into the concrete and trying to strangle him both would be aggravated assault and possibly attempted murder, and, thus, justifying a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury on the part of Zimmerman. Ditto for Big Mike Brown, who physically attacked Owen Wilson, punched him in the head, tried to take his gun away, and then later kept trying to physically assault him again, after Wilson had left his car. Brown charged. Wilson would shoot, Brown would stop, shake it off, then start charging again. Rinse and repeat, as Wilson continued to backpedal, and as his shots moved from arms to torso to, fatally, Brown's head. The purveyor of the "hands up, don't shoot" was Brown's co-conspirator and accomplice, who could legally have been tried for felony murder of Brown, after helping Brown in his beating of Officer Wilson in his vehicle. Both clear cases of legal self-defense.

The only lessons that I learned from these incidents is that the level of violence tolerated in the inner city poorer Black communities is extremely high, and that much of it is a result of Dem policies over the last half century that subsidized fatherless child rearing, continuing the party's two century plus subjugation of Blacks in this country.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

I guess this means she isn't buying the "Russian forgery" explanation.

Bay Area Guy said...

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste" - Rahm Emanuel

The whole purpose of the Left is to "use" unfortunate people (Garner) or unfortunate situations (false rape charge at University of Virgina Frat house) to push a Leftist political agenda.

Matthew Sablan said...

Using suffering people in politics is tacky.

Getting caught conspiring to do it without even consulting them is tackier.

Big Mike said...

The Eric Garner case offers a number of opportunities for learning. Of course leave it to the media to push a meme that involves none of those opportunities.

1) Garner was violating the law by selling "loosies." Selling loosies is against the law because there's no way to prove that New York's cigarette tax was paid (and hence there is a high likelihood that it, in fact, was not paid). The city tax is $1.50 per pack of 20 cigarettes and the state tax is $4.35. So if someone is charging less than 30 cents per loose cigarette then that certainly suggests that the taxes were no paid.

However -- lesson number one -- at a tax of 29 1/2 cents per cigarette Garner would have had to sell a heck of lot of cigarettes to cover the cost of the five or more police officers sent to subdue him. This is not at all cost effective.

2) Garner certainly was put in a chokehold, I don't care what the police try to say. I earned a first degree brown belt in aikido before my knees went bad and I competed in judo back in the days when I was young and strong and still had hair.

Lesson number two -- the police shouldn't try to lie and cover up. If an officer violated the policy then at least acknowledge that and slap his wrist. Don't tell us that we aren't seeing what our eyes see. We just start feeling contempt for you and right now the police should not be asking for our contempt.

3) Once a person is subdued and in custody, the police are responsible for the health and well-being of that individual. Garner died due to his health problems, but there's nothing he could do to alleviate his breathing problems while restrained.

The police need some serious attitude readjustment and if the above is not part of their training then make it part of their training and retrain them.

4) It has been alleged that the local shopkeepers requested that Garner be asked to move along. I seem to recall that from accounts at the time, but nothing I can find in current write-ups about the case mention anything about it.

Lesson number four -- what are the limits of force that can be applied to force someone to relocate?

jaed said...

Garner was violating the law by selling "loosies."

Not that day, he wasn't. No cigarettes were found on his body, and no witnesses alleged he'd been selling cigarettes that day. This is why he was so indignant when the police decided to arrest him: at that time he wasn't actually doing anything even dubiously illegal.

Someone else commented that he was "actively resisting arrest". He was not fighting with the police or trying to run away. He did refuse to put his hands behind his back for handcuffs, and protested verbally, and I suppose you could call that "passively resisting arrest", but it's not the sort of conduct for which anyone sane would expect a violent response.

Unknown said...

One of the best articles I've ever seen online is 2005's "Speak of the Dead" by Noemie Emery. Discusses the shameless behavior at the Wellstone memorial service, the enlisting of the Jersey wives after 9/11, and the Cindy Sheehan fiasco. Democrats can't even wait until bodies are cold before walking over them in a rush to gain political capital from their deaths.

Link - http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/7168

Big Mike said...

@jaed, I stand corrected. However my point still stands.

Big Mike said...

All of my points still stand.

Martin said...

I think the fact that the Clinton people considered using the Garner death in this way proves that their agenda is not against gun violence, it is against cops as a way to churn black turnout if they assume black people are ignorant of the Garner case.

I am NOT saying Garner was doing anything wrong, nor that he deserved what happened, just that there was no gun involved.

The only other plausible explanation is that the Clinton people are ignorant and stupid, and I do not think that is the case.

Evil, on the other hand, is still in the running...

Bruce Hayden said...

It doesn't really matter that Garner wasn't running away. He was refusing to be arrested. That legally allows the police to use as much force, up to, but not typically including, the use of deadly force, to arrest him. What must be remembered here is that he was bigger, and presumably stronger, than any of the police present. So, he could theoretically just amble off, if he so wanted. Where do you draw the line? At some point, when you have crimes, including regulatory crimes, you either need to allow the police to arrest people breaking the law, or you might as well not have either police or laws. And, thus, not an ordered society. If people are allowed to determine whether or not they want to be arrested, you might as well not have police, because no one in their right mind would voluntarily allow themselves to be arrested. Garner had, in the past, apparently been issued multiple citations, which he had agreed to respond to in court, and didn't. Issuing him more citations would just be a waste of police time and paper.

I am not suggesting that Garner should have been arrested the first time that he was caught selling "loosies", taken to Central Booking, etc. Rather, after the police either had to arrest him after his umpteenth time, or after refusing to show up in response to umpteen citations, or just not bother him. But, the timing shouldn't be up to him, because, if it is, then he is unlikely to ever decide that the time to show up is appropriate.

Should Garner's ill health (due probably primarily to his apparent morbid obesity) have excluded him from arrest? I don't think so, because that again would be license for him to break the law with impunity. My view is that the police should still be able to arrest you, regardless of your health, if they have probable cause to believe that you have, at some point, broken the law (which the police here did have, given the multiple citations requiring probable cause). What they cannot do is take actions that they reasonably believed had a decent chance of causing death or great bodily injury. In cases like this, they can kill you to effect a lawful arrest (as this one apparently was), as long as they had no real reason to believe that their actions would do so. They can't shoot you, or put you in the type of choke hold that results in unconsciousness in a couple seconds, unless your are posing a significant danger to the police or the community (which Garner was not, but Big Mike Brown was).

I don't like giving the police the power to kill, even accidentally. But, I see no alternative. They either have to be able to enforce the law, or they shouldn't bother. If we are going to live in an ordered society, we need rules, and a mechanism to enforce rules. Voluntary compliance does not always work, which is where the police come in.