I feel that he was murdered unjustly. I really don't feel like it's a black and white thing. I feel like it's just something that he continued to do and the police knew. You know, they knew. It wasn't like it was a shock. They knew. You know? They knew him by name. They harassed us. They said things to us. We would go shopping. You know? "Hi Cigarette Man. Hey Cigarette Man Wife." You know? Stuff like that. And I would just say, "Eric, just keep walking. Don't say anything. Don't respond. You know? Don't give them a reason to do anything to you." And he just felt like, "But baby, they keep harassing me." And I said, "Just ignore them, Eric." And he said, "But how much can I ignore them?" And I would say, "Just stay away from the block. You know? Just find something else to do." And he's like, "What else can I do? I keep getting sick." He tried working with the Parks Department. But he had asthma. You know? He had issues. You know? Heavy guy. And he was very lazy. You know? He didn't like to do anything. He wasn't used to it, so.
७ डिसेंबर, २०१४
If you have the widow on your show, you have to let her talk, whether it fits the theme you have planned or not.
Esaw Snipes-Garner, the widow of Eric Garner, was on "Meet the Press" today. The moderator, Chuck Todd, mostly just asked her how does she feel.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
११६ टिप्पण्या:
Is the they the same police officers (or some of them) who took him down in the final encounter?
His wife says Garner was fat and lazy and that the cops overreacted and harassed him.
This sounds right.
so how will the mob deal with what she said? the man's wife actually called him fat and lazy?
She sounds a bit too honest. She is going off the Obama-Holder-Lefty-Media reservation.
When did it become a crime to be fat or lazy? If true, this blog could risk classification as a criminal network.
This statement is not surprising. Garner was a pretty criminal. The police knew him and knew he wasn't violent. They had little reason to put their hands on him.
I just learned another reason to avoid being fat and lazy. Your widow may go on national television and tell everybody.
I better lose a few pounds and be sure to keep my work up-to-date!
Dean Wormer had it right.
As every law is ultimately backed by deadly force from the state any lawbreaker faces the chance of execution.
Garner died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. But to hear the politicians, you would think he died on the spot. Who knows how many such police encounters happen everyday?
I don't think this incident makes it to Obama/Holder cabal, because the cop is black. But it seems as unfortunate an incident as the other and heart wrenching to hear the audio.
Beware of the politicians who are abusing these situations.
Makes little difference to me, whether he "fat and lazy" or a great family man. The deed (arrest and "arrest") stands on its own.
@Birkel,
Where do you get that from?
"Policy" is that you cuff the arrestees regardlkess of who or what they are and what the arrest is for.
And everybody who owns a TV set know that.
Ans shopkeepers and indeed just citizens have every right in the world to call the police to have panhandlers and lawbreakers removed from their premises or frontage. You will get nowhere arguing that we are supposed to tolerate that.
It makes me believe that police abuse was real. You don't have to be a saint, if something done was unjust it doesn't matter if he was fat & lazy.
BTW I think the protests are overkill and obnoxious...
"They keep harassing me in my illegal business, honey . Why do they keep doing that? Why do they call me cigarette man, honey? I'm just trying to sell illegal cigarettes like everybody else. Why they gotta harass me for my illicit activities?
Here's a hint. It's not legal to sell such cigarettes . If cops know you as the cigarette guy
and you're arrested 8 or so times for it maybe find another line of work or a different neighborhood at least.
It wasn't harrasment here. A shop owner called the cops to complain about activity outside of his store. When they got there they saw Garner who was out on bail and had three open court cases. And he had been involved in said altercation and or was selling cigarettes right in front of the cops. Don't see how cops called to a complaint are now harassing people.
Everybody has run with the word chokehold.. but was it? Truth is the casualty in all of this, especially when Obama/Holder/VJ/Sharpton get together and abuse the situation politically.
Oh, and selling "loose" cigarettes obviously is a large health hazard. Nothing would be easier to adulterate.
I hope this issue becomes a national issue. Now, here is the clip.
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/eric-garners-widow-he-was-murdered-unjustly-n263371
It is amazing that when you actually listen to the speaker, it makes a big difference than just reading the transcript.
Why the sunday talk shows do not release their entire show right away on the web is beyond me?
Al-Jazeera has live webcast. Why cannot the sunday talk shows be like that?
"When did it become a crime to be fat or lazy?"
When the straw man got respect..
"Don't see how cops called to a complaint are now harassing people."
I don't think so, either. The problem is with excessive taxes and the development of black markets, which follow as the moon follows the sun. The Mayor of New York is a communist and the government of that city is by the far left. Bloomberg was nominally a Republican but he is a statist just like DeBlasio.
The nanny state is no different from the rest of Democrat strongholds. The basic cause of hostility between cops and black residents of Ferguson MO was the use of taxes and fines to fund city government. It's been mentioned on this blog before and elsewhere, as well.
Democrats and their blue state model do not follow normal economics. The only way you can maintain such a state is with force.
That's what we have here.
If you want to discuss the issue of taxing cigarettes to $14.50/pack, take it up with DeBlasio, Bloomberg, and their supportrs; not the police department.
(If I paid $1.35 for a carton in the PX 60 years ago, in constant dollars that is about the same as $14.50 today, so the total taxes collected is about 1000% of the taxfree cost to manufacture and market.)
Well, 900%, anyway.
"Everybody has run with the word chokehold.. but was it?"
Or, we could go with ARM's New Republic link and call it strangulation.
"But baby, they keep harassing me."
Oh my God...the police were harassing a chronic and habitual criminal? Often while he was committing his crimes?
The horror!!
They had little reason to put their hands on him.
Except for the whole resisting arrest thing.
Or were the police supposed to let him continue to stand there and break the law?
Why did these small cops-in-shorts decide to take this guy down for a crime like that? Why did that make sense?
and the ME said that chokehold or not, that is not what killed Mr. Garner.
I thought the widow was interestingly honest. She considers it murder, yet she's letting slip these unnecessary details that put the dead husband in a bad light.
But the point is — and her honesty makes this clear — that he was a private citizen making his share of mistakes, but the police are working for all of us and are supposed to have some standards and some training and technique.
Cop-in-shorts-with-pink-hairy-legs
Why did that make sense?
It does not..
They finally did (they had been arguing with him for 10-15 minutes beforehand) because they had been told to bring him in, and it is policy to cuff arrestees, and Mr. Garner did not want to be arrested and cuffed and tried to fight them off.
And you, a law professor!
Hagar:
When last you got a traffic ticket were you cuffed or were you released on your own recognizance?
And what is the police reason to antagonize the guy or his wife when they are out shopping? It's petty and unprofessional.
I thought the widow was interestingly honest. She considers it murder, yet she's letting slip these unnecessary details that put the dead husband in a bad light.
"Murder" is an interesting word because in a Zenn diagram sense it comprises everything from Sharon Tate's death to an apparent negligent use of force.
Imprecise language IMO. I doubt a jury would have convicted of murder. And forget any racism angle. That point is moot.
Why are there laws which price cigarettes at $11/pack?
Why does current policy enforce that?
Why not tax Manolos instead?
Why did these small cops-in-shorts decide to take this guy down for a crime like that? Why did that make sense?
Because the crime of resisting arrest is in no way related to the crime the person is being arrested for, no matter how insignificant the crime
When resisting arrest, you've moved off the map, so to speak. A petty criminal like Garner should've known better, and I suspect his widow feels the same on some level. I can imagine her thinking, "You big, dumb, lazy sonofabitch, why the hell did you have to go off and pull a stupid stunt like that?"
A traffic ticket is not a result of complaints coming down from the alderman's office and a request that something be done about me as an habitual criminal and vagabond.
And the cell-phone video clips they have been showing were never complete, and is getting shorter and shorter as the media are getting the line and the language down pat. This is an organized campaign by now.
I can see with the current language coming out of the White House about selective enforcement of the laws that people are getting confused, but even the White House will tell you that it only is legal "when the President does it," it is not for every agency or individual officer to decide for himself.
Oddly reminiscent of Caroline Kennedy. You know?
At that, is not the general demand of the current campaign supposed to be for uniform execution of the laws, especially where Black people are concerned?
I get dizzy with all this switching back and forth at light speed.
I think this is deBlasio's fault for making selling cigarettes into an arrestable crime. It should be something you give a ticket for. All these new crimes - selling 16 oz. sodas or serving two hamburgers (with salt!) at a school lunch or blowing off an immigration hearing or spreading Ebola or being a DC pig and raping (if you are President) or murdering (if you are a Kennedy). Citations for them all. Don't sweat the small stuff. That's sensible policing.
Next thread up, Wally.
Hagar:
You'll need no switching in any direction from me. I'm in favor of less government and fewer rules. When the laws are written so that nearly everybody is committing crimes, unwittingly, and without consideration of mens rea there will be an increase in these sorts of incidents.
The whirlwind is reaped. When the government controls more and more of citizens' lives, the citizens will see more negative consequences. This has always been true.
There are always diminishing marginal returns. I believe from an empirical perspective that the number of laws we have has long-since passed the Pareto-optimal point. Society is made worse as more control is exerted. And the middle class will feel the negative effects of Leviathan in short order.
The tipping point is nigh.
Yeah, I've gotten real tired of DeBlasio's "down with the struggle" routine. Were squads of cops going out to arrest loosie dealers before DeB became mayor?
".. and Mr. Garner did not want to be arrested and cuffed and tried to fight them off."
The police were unprepared to deal with a task that they were put on the street to do. They were trying to fight someone much larger than they were and the undertaking led them to resort to methods that appear excessive. Garner wasn't threatening them with serious harm, just resisting arrest. He shouldn't have done that, but that doesn't entitle the police to do anything they want. The police seem to be using methods obviously ill-suited to the situation. If you were planning police policies and training police, you wouldn't look at this and say that was the right approach!
When I look at the video I see officers engaged in some target practice. They are degrading their fellow man for fun because they can get away with it.
We have reached a point on several issues including our ridiculously high incarceration rates, the war on drugs and the ridiculously high rate of police mediated homicides where a majority of people who want to see reform. Unfortunately it is an awkward coalition of left of center liberals and libertarian leaning right wingers. Hopefully sufficient common ground can be found to produce some real reforms. I am not especially hopeful but it well past time for some significant changes.
"NYPD No. 3′s order to crack down on selling loose cigarettes led to chokehold death of Eric Garner
EXCLUSIVE: Chief of Department Philip Banks made the order to investigate complaints over the sale of untaxed cigarettes in Tompkinsville, Staten Island, a source told The News. That fierce crack down resulted in the lethal manhandling of Eric Garner."
Read on.. Banks is black.
The police seem to be using methods obviously ill-suited to the situation
What would you have done? Sent him to a timeout?
Why did these small cops-in-shorts decide to take this guy down for a crime like that? Why did that make sense?
They didn't take him down for selling loosies. They took him down because he refused to put his hands behind his back after he was arrested.
You go to war with army you have, whether it is what you wanted or not.
They should not have wasted all that time arguing with him either; it does not inspire confidence in the onlookers. Steven Segal or Clint Eastwood would have taken him down at once.
Speaking of traffic tickets, only once have I been pulled over by a really competent officer. I think it was the same one that nailed William Scott, the Illinois Attorney General at the time for speeding on I-55 - twice. That guy was letter perfect and did not need muscle to impress - it really was an experience to be pulled over by him, although it was only to inform me my rear license plate was coming loose.
But officers like that naturally are very rare - to be expected considering what we pay cops. So we have to do with what we are willing to pay for.
And politicians too.
…ARM … call it strangulation...
It was a strangulation. It was an incineration. It was an abortion.
Up is down
Black is White
Oceiana has always been at war with Eastasia.
How much jail time do you think the cops deserve?
Deny them the opportunity to kill you.
Come to think of it, the second time he got caught, Bill Scott left I-55 and took off on Old US66 and down through the cornfields until he got stuck.
Should this officer have risked the life and limbs of the Illinois Attorney General for such a minor infraction as driving 75 mph on I-55 during the "Double nickel" regime?
What EXACTLY is the reason cops decided to arrest Garner at that time? Who claims to have seen him selling cigarettes? Is there an alleged buyer? Did the cops confiscate any untaxed cigarettes that he allegedly sold to some unidentified person just before he was killed?
I watched the tape. When did the arrest happen? What were the charges? Was Garner duly mirandized?
I am no radical libertarian. I am an empiricism and I see laws passed without careful deliberation doing more harm to We, the People, than the laws allegedly fix.
I do not sympathize with Garner, the petty criminal. But the defenders of the police should ask if the power of the government is judiciously administered. If not, those who administer the unjust laws cannot escape blame for their participation.
Why did these small cops-in-shorts decide to take this guy down for a crime like that?
I see what the professor's real issue is here.
I really don't feel like it's a black and white thing.
The grieving widow in her honesty puts Obama/Holder cabal into shame.
Now that is a new one.
Police officers should resign rather than follow orders any time they think a law they are requested to enforce is unreasonable? However minor he issue is?
Here in Albuquerque, the City has a hard time finding officers willing to serve for what the City is willing to pay as it is.
Empiricist, damn it.
Why is that not in the dictionary, Kindle Fire?
And why was damn (lower- and upper-case) not in the dictionary?
Hagar,
Would you make the same excuses for former Enron employees?
Garner scenario is a Rorschach test for left and right. The interpretations, regardless of facts involved are either "racism" or "tyranny".
Garner's dead..straw man lives.
And he's bipolar.
Campus authorities are violating student rights. Should they participate in the process?
Does ethics depend on how much people are paid?
walter:
I see you have a different hobby horse. Please, ride it well.
walter said...
Garner scenario is a Rorschach test for left and right.
No, it divides libertarians and authoritarians, who are distributed across the political spectrum.
If some "former Enron employees" have found employment as police officers, I do not see why not.
If they have become NYT columnists and gasbag TV panel members, probably not.
But seriously, Bill Scott would only wasted a couple of ounces of gasoline driving that State limo from Springfield to Chicago that fast.
Surely that is too minor an infraction to risk his life and the officer's valuable time to arrest him for?
Suppose that Garner's suspected crime had been much more serious? What is the proper protocol for arresting an outsized man who is resisting arrest? Just more hands on deck?
New York Daily News has this on Officer Pantaleo:
"A pair of Civilian Complaint Review Board filings in April 2012 charged Pantaleo with strip-searching two suspects in public — and “slapping” their testicles."
How so, Birkel?
AR, happy to read your examples.
The Garner case is significantly more interesting than the Brown case.
The argument that Garner was resisting arrest seems to finesse its way around dealing with any of the important questions. Did Garner really need to be arrested here? Wouldn't the forces of truth and justice be equally well served by giving him a ticket?
Hagar is demonstrating some rather slippery ethics. Some people will read that as lacking ethics.
walter:
Puzzle it out.
Aww Birkel. Post was on topic. Do tell. Puhleeze?
Althouse wrote:
Why did these small cops-in-shorts decide to take this guy down for a crime like that? Why did that make sense?
why do cops deal with homeless people or squeegee men, why do they go after people who spit on the subway or urinate in public? there are myriad issue that are minor yet which cops deal with.
In this particular case they didn't go to the scene because they were out to him. They were responding to a nuisance complaint. When they go there they found Garnwr, and he was either involved in a fight or selling cigarettes right in front of cops. I don't see why cops are supposed to somehow not respond to calls.
And they didn't take him down for selling cigarettes. They took him down for resisting.
Also he had three open court cases and had just posted bail for selling cigarettes and impersonation, and diving without a license.
Zachary wrote:
The argument that Garner was resisting arrest seems to finesse its way around dealing with any of the important questions. Did Garner really need to be arrested here? Wouldn't the forces of truth and justice be equally well served by giving him a ticket?
he just posted bail and had three open court cases one of which involved him selling illegal cigaretttes. So my guess is he wasn't going quietly because he was worried that this incident would impact his court cases. And similarly my guess is cops recognized that he was out on bail and selling cigs again, or involved in a fight of some kind. (You hear someone talk about how he tried breaking up a fight. He may have been in the fight though and that may have been why the store complained).
So it's not a case of some random guy who was caught selling cigs once. He was a repeat offender out on bail, who is involved in An altercation in front of a store.
The highly rational thinking approach to why Panteleo felt free to choke hold Garner only talks about his being vested with Authority That Must Be Obeyed. That is all you permit yourself to see.
But experience of this wise woman includes understanding that there is an instinct to murder opponents that needs legal restraints and push back.
Sicilian Families organise and use that talent, and the giving of civilian Police Dept titles and badges changes nothing among the reality of Bosses, Underbosses, Capos and Soldiers.
As she observes it is not a black and white thing. It is an ethnic territorial war.
jeff Norman wrote:What EXACTLY is the reason cops decided to arrest Garner at that time? Who claims to have seen him selling cigarettes? Is there an alleged buyer? Did the cops confiscate any untaxed cigarettes that he allegedly sold to some unidentified person just before he was killed?
There is a long period of time before the tape starts where two officers are talking with him and waiting for other cops to arrive, and we don't know what the call was about, or his involvement in the fight that took place. The cigarettes may in fact be incidental to the case. Yet everyone is jumping on cops as if they know exactly what it's all about.
jeff Norman wrote:What EXACTLY is the reason cops decided to arrest Garner at that time? Who claims to have seen him selling cigarettes? Is there an alleged buyer? Did the cops confiscate any untaxed cigarettes that he allegedly sold to some unidentified person just before he was killed?
There is a long period of time before the tape starts where two officers are talking with him and waiting for other cops to arrive, and we don't know what the call was about, or his involvement in the fight that took place. The cigarettes may in fact be incidental to the case. Yet everyone is jumping on cops as if they know exactly what it's all about.
Michael K wrote:
"Don't see how cops called to a complaint are now harassing people."
I don't think so, either. The problem is with excessive taxes and the development of black markets, which follow as the moon follows the sun. The Mayor of New York is a communist and the government of that city is by the far left. Bloomberg was nominally a Republican but he is a statist just like DeBlasio.
just because Deblasio was wrong DIDNT make Garner right for selling illegal cigarettes. And while its a small fry offense, by the same token thr state goes after people who legally sell cigarettes of they don't comply with the law. So then why should people who sell illegal cigarettes get off Scott free?
People who sell cigarettes in stores have to pay for rent, have to pay taxes, have to card people, or they get fined. Meanwhile this guy doesn't pay taxes, doesn't card kids, doesn't pay rent, and yet he gets to walk around Scott free? Why then should lawful businesses not similarly get in the game and sell cigs illegally? Since people here seem to be suggesting that the state shouldn't hold people selling illegal cigarettes to account. But should hold businesses that sell legal cigaretttes to account.
"So then why should people who sell illegal cigarettes get off Scott free?"'
Death penalty ? This is another of these small fines and penalties that harass the poor and blacks who are mostly poor.
What do you do instead ? I dunno. Lower taxes ? Seize his truck ? I dunno. Just try not to kill him.
Hagar said...
Oh, and selling "loose" cigarettes obviously is a large health hazard.
what state made cigarettes $13 a pack, setting the conditions for black markets in cigarettes? Progressives never consider the logical effects of the actions they take to feel better about themselves in the short term
Jr..as you can see, you are not likely to get far with actual information and context and/or appeal to law and order.
Gotta pick "Raaacism!" or "Tyrrrrrany!"
But wow..
"small cops-in-shorts"
Read a lot of posts around the web..might be the most petty characterization so far.
Helpful hint. Raising taxes and the establishment of a Black Market is very deliberate. They generate a lot of nice untraceable cash. And if there is anything a big city Dem loves it's cash. You can use it to buy votes, or vacation in Umbria, or drive a Bently. See prohibition, prostition, numbers, the drug business and whatever else.
Just another reason why we need real newspapers.
Please!
Bloomberg ran as "nominally a Republican" for his first term because he realized he was not going to win nomination as a Democrat. Running as a "Republican" he got most of "his" Democrats plus the Republicans, which put him over.
The reast of his born life, Bloomberg has been a gentry Democrat.
Garner wasn't threatening them with serious harm, just resisting arrest.
What action would you have them take if a person is resisting arrest? just let him go and try to catch up to him later, when he is in a more amenable mood?
RecChief - civil disobedience is a virtue.
"Civil disobedience" isn't saying this stops today while swatting hands away.
RecChief said...
so how will the mob deal with what she said? the man's wife actually called him fat and lazy?
She also made it clear that she loved him and had his best interests at heart. He was a lost soul. Defenseless, if you will. And they killed him. Blessed are the meek . . . .
Althouse: "If you were planning police policies and training police, you wouldn't look at this and say that was the right approach!"
According to their training, it is the right approach. They are trained to take immediate control of the situation. If that involves force, so be it. Most of the time the threat of force or minimal force is sufficient to get the person under control. But there are so many incidents, that "most of the time" still leaves many encounters that get out of hand. It's inevitable, and the no backdown training the cops get makes injury and death of the citizen inevitable in some cases too.
While it's not as clear cut, the Ferguson case had a lot of these same elements.
Especially that they both could have lived to tell their tale..if they had complied, meek or otherwise.
Should you resist arrest? No. If a person resists arrest, does that mean that the police should feel free to use any level of force necessary to arrest the person without regard to the crime of which he is accused? No.
He's not dangerous. No need to freak out and throw him on the ground. He shouldn't even have been arrested. If that's the usual thing for selling loose cigarettes, the law is draconian and needs to be changed.
Run the guy off. Talk to him. Write him a ticket. Tell him you've got to see him at the station by the end of the day or you'll have to come get him at home in the evening. Come back when he's not so puffed up. Go talk to the wife, and send her to talk to him. There are plenty of answers besides, "Escalate the situation."
If you could get him to go talk privately, perhaps that would greatly deescalate things. Audiences make people feel they have to save face. If you show someone public respect by requesting to speak privately, he saves face.
Look at all the little bootlickers cheer-leading the authoritarians. The tea party in Boston, one of those events this country was founded on, was no different than people undermining absurd cigarette taxes.
The fact that so many of you cheer on a state government that is indistinguishable from the mob is terrible. Some guy was selling cigarettes and undercutting the "lawful" stores who paid their protection money. They complained and the mob sent out their toughs to rough him up and collect their vig. Don't pay taxes? Here is a ticket/fine. Pay up or go to jail.
He wasn't hurting anyone. But he wasn't paying paying Mr. Big. And you all cheer it on. This country and the citizens in it will lose the freedom we once fought for because of people like you.
Sounds like a sensible woman.
T Rellis said...
"As every law is ultimately backed by deadly force from the state any lawbreaker faces the chance of execution."
And that is the ONLY lesson from the death of Eric Garner. The power of the liberal state will be enforced. So the liberals like a big powerful state, but they don't like this? They are using his death to make the state even more powerful. Do not ask for whom the bell tolls....
This looks like an unfortunate confluence of events:
Seriously unhealthy victim, petty criminal history, resisting arrest.
Over zealous police dealing with a very large man.
As they say "shit happens"
I agree totally with Ann's take on this. However, I think the key issue here is what Obama and Holder are seeking to make of this and do about it. Better police training to handle such situations is clearly called for on the part of these cops. A sweeping decision to blame this on racism and use that to institute major federal oversight of police departments is clearly not called for.
That Obama and Holder are doing this is of a piece with the DOJ and DOE campaign now to stop "excessive" black suspensions from school by misapplying the disparate impact concept to school discipline. Their doing this I consider to be the single biggest threat now to effective schooling in troubled schools in inner cities. In the name of anti-racism, the government will be making it vastly harder for teachers to provide value to the students, black and white, who do want to learn. I cannot imagine any other action more likely to undercut any and all other efforts to improve public schooling. And yet, the rhetoric of race justifies this travesty.
In the face of that, the plain simple honesty of this man's widow stands as testimony of real truth to power.
This one is totally different from the Ferguson case. Garner was resisting but only weakly - the cops were not in danger and should have been able to arrest him safely. It was overreach for sure but was it criminal? Possibly negligent homicide but not worse than that.
FWIW I think the Garner case should have gone to trial.
This is one of the most amazing things I've ever read. A widow's painfully honest eulogy for her husband, so heartbreakingly true that it's almost funny.
It's a found poem.
His widow has dignity.
Michael K wrote:
Death penalty ? This is another of these small fines and penalties that harass the poor and blacks who are mostly poor.
What do you do instead ? I dunno. Lower taxes ? Seize his truck ? I dunno. Just try not to kill him.
they didn't try to kill him. They tried to arrest him or detain him. And in the course of said detaining he died. Hiw is this different than football players tacking someone and when everyone gets up there is someone lying on the ground winth a broken back?
Taking down a person who doesn't want to go down is hard. Taking down a 300 pound guy who doesn't want to go down is even harder. There are only so many ways to do it. And this wasn't a chokehold it was a takedown.
I don't really get what Althouse and Michale K want cops to do with people hat don't want to be arrested? Offer them the cake or death (or in this case, arrest) option? Won't they always choise the cake?
How do you propose to take down a 300 pound man who doesn't want to be arrested? I'd like some ideas befor you call what was done murder. They could have used a stun gun or taser. But we've all heard the cases of people dying when tased. So if they did that and he died would you call it MURDER? They could hit him with billy clubs till he fell down, but it they did that and he was all bruised and had broken bones and then died would you call it abuae and murder? They could shoot him wih their guns. And we all know how hat would be viewed. Or, they could do the least harmful action and simply get him to the ground and then hold him there till they can apply the cuffs.
There was no excessive force here. Not a single extra punch was applied. No billy clubs. As we can see though, sometimes people die even during routing takedowns.
And even here people are beig unreasonable. The question that has to be answered again is how do you take down a 300 pound man. I doubt grabbing him around the chest would work to well considering how far he was. They could try for his legs. But if you grab him by the legs and he falls he could land on his head and crack his skull. And unless you did a charging football style tackle you'd have I grab him by his legs and as he lost his balance he might fall on his head or on the officer. The best way in this case would be to grab him from around the neck shoulder and pull him down.
So the pull down is the least harmful means to wffwct an arrest. It's tragic they he died, but these things happen. Which is why you shouldn't resist arrest. Especially over something minor like what he was facing.
All these Monday morning quarterback era please tell me how you would have got the handcuffs on him? Or would you not respond to the call? Then you shouldn't be a policeman.
Criming while white? Or just an Oregon fan?
The guy just got out on bail! And here he is in front of the storr again being a nuisance. I don't know if the cops knew it was him when they got the call, but they probably quickly realized it was him as soon as they saw him. What should they do with someone out on bail causing a public nuisance doing the exact same thing he was on trial for? That person a cop should ignore? Reasonable people who should know better, law professors even, are really viewing this irrationally and emotionally.
The cops did nothing wrong when it came to arresting him. They did nothing wrong responding to the complaint. They weren't acting overzealously. The tape cuts in after ten minute of tho cops trying to talk to him and he was working himself up more about how he wasn't going to take it anymore.
They didn't apply any more force than necessary. And yet he still died.
jr565:
Assume a citizen must be arrested and the analysis is strikingly simple. You have amply demonstrated that point. Please keep doing so for any readers who don't see your point.
Now, let us discuss whether Leviathan is unleashed or whether the expansion of the state might be reversed. Would we be more secure in our Life, Liberty and Happiness if the state were less intimately involved in our lives?
That is a conversation worth having.
Zach said...
Did Garner really need to be arrested here?
I agree that police arrest too many people who could've been ticketed (and even more so that the cig tax is stupid 'n' evil), but -
"Garner, 43, had history of more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980, on charges including assault and grand larceny.
At the time of his death, Garner was out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession and false impersonation."
Her honesty is absolutely refreshing, especially when you expect her to be 'coached' to preach a narrative.
At the time of his death, Garner was out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession and false impersonation."
Garner was a shady dude. But was he in the act of breaking the law when he was approached?
"Murdered".
You Keep Saying That Word. I Don't Think It Means What You Think It Means.
(I can excuse that in the widow, naturally; she is not required or expected to be thinking about her husband's death with legalistic pure reason.
But random people on the Internet keep using it, too.
All I can say is, if you have some evidence that was murder, you should have presented it.)
The police were unprepared to deal with a task that they were put on the street to do. They were trying to fight someone much larger than they were and the undertaking led them to resort to methods that appear excessive.
Yes, bigger guys could have taken him wherever they wanted with no problem--club bouncers do this all the time. And the police used to have required standards for size and strength. Feminism killed Garner.
Assuming there was a reason to arrest, such as a complaint, or literally catching him selling loosies (which, lets face it, he probably was), I've got zero problem with this outcome. He chose, stupidly, to resist arrest even when hopelessly outnumbered. He had to know that eventually they'd either physically take him down or tase him, and he was far too much of a lard bucket to run. Like his wife said, fat, lazy, and not too bright. Throw in his anger issues (with a rap sheet including assault), and he brought this on himself. I think the NY cig taxes are crazy high too, but I've got zero problem with cops enforcing the law as written. Also, what if he was selling those loosies to kids as well as adults? You think Garner was carding his customers? Of course he wasn't.
Honestly, given his resistance, this went down exactly as it had to. I refuse to blame the cops. I'd rather shake their hands.
Garner wasn't aborted or murdered. It was an accidental death incidentally triggered by a restraining force.
He was a pitiable figure, and the whole thing is unfortunate. People like that tend to not have good lives. It's sad that the silly little policemen couldn't see their way to ignoring their duty for his sake.
I hope for your sake that when a policeman comes upon you being raped, Althouse, he will let the perp get his nut and have a smoke before arresting him. That seems the best way to go about it. Much more understanding of human frailty.
Perhaps if he is not a sufficiently big, long-panted specimen, he should go back to the station and tell someone else to go and help you. That way the rapist can flip you over and go for seconds. Ideally the small cop will also be slow so your satisfied attacker can go home to his family, avoiding paperwork and racial strife. Just try to remember to be a good lay for him, it would be a pity to waste his time and sperm.
That said, once the decision has been made to arrest, the good of society demands that the cops win.
My instinct would have been to put a plastic bag over his head and hold it there till he calmed down, but I think people like you would take that the wrong way.
However, since none of the naysayers can seem to think of any helpful ideas for securing such a person, I came up with one. We need the Latin American bolo, or a bullwhip if not racist, to throw around the suspect's legs to immobilize and trip him.
Perhaps this could be combined with a skyhook, so that the criminal suspect can be swiftly lifted into the air upside down, at which point he can presumably be managed more or less straightforwardly. If necessary, he can just be picked up and dumped in the back of a paddy wagon or a bomb disposal truck. Ideally, there should also be matting or airbags distributed on the ground around him, in case he falls and hurts himself. I calculate a mere 1.5 million dollars per arrest. Which is, you know, not too much to save the life of a career petty criminal with no future. That'll save New York.
I also agree that the federal prohibitions against sales of cigarettes in units smaller than 20, such as the ww2 c-ration cigarette packs, is the nanny state at work, and I'm not very interested in defeating the loosie menace, in fact I think loosies are a good idea.
Hagar, in theory you're right, in actuality there is not a lot of opportunity or reason to adulterate singles. As anyone knows who has spent much time handling machine-rolled cigarettes, there is not a lot of opportunity or reason to adulterate them in general. It's a pretty straightforward proposition. You have a paper tube filled with a pennyworth of a dried plant, but someone will pay you these days a buck for.
Adulterated? You mean somebody picked it up off the floor? I've dropped a cigarette on the ground, picked it up and smoked it, so have you. I take it we're both alive.
So I pity the poor fool and I have no personal objection to his trade, any more than I object to women offering their most precious gifts to men on a commercial basis, but that's the law, and if you don't like the law, the idea is that you take steps to change it. If I'm allowed to do whatever I think is right, there'll be a lot of bodies on the floor, because I think killing people is often a great way to solve problems.
However the social contract constrains me, as it should have constrained Mr
Garner.
Why did these small cops-in-shorts decide to take this guy down for a crime like that? Why did that make sense?
The Washington Times described Garner as 6'3" and 350 pounds. The police in the video may only look small compared to him.
To answer AA. NYC has such a high cigarette tax that black market cigarettes are now a huge business. Loose, in packs or cartons NYC is estimated to have lost $250,000,000 in taxes to the cigarette black market last year. It is not unusual to see law enforcement surround and raid bodegas for selling untaxed cigarettes. These arrests are being conducted by an assortment of law enforcement agencies. Tax Agents, ATF and even the FBI effect arrests for untaxed cigarettes daily. Many of the bodega and the minivans that conduct daily runs down south to purchase the cigarettes are muslim and the claim is much of the black market money is funding terrorism. Which is why the FBI and other federal agencies often make these arrests. The NYPD cops involved in the Garner arrest had been specifically ordered by Chief Banks (male/black) to target street cigarette dealers due to complaints from store owners. Simply returning the cigarette tax to a more reasonable rate would do away with the entire problem, but leftists are too anti-tobacco to allow that.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा