Big City USA Protesters

[God or Mammon?]

There are cutoffs to what's acceptable behavior during an arrest, and for many of us, the way the police handled Eric Garner's case is an example of what police cannot do. They cannot escalate a basically peaceful situation over a few pennies in taxes and turn it into death scene simply because they feel like it, while avoiding a public investigation into what happened.  That's not reasonable and nobody should have to expect it over what was on that video, and that's why there are people on the streets and international headlines. 

(Also, if you think Mr. Garner's rap sheet is relevant, why not mention the NYPD's? Over the past decade, they conducted literally millions of unlawful and abusive detentions of innocent people, mostly minorities, and are still fighting judges who've ordered them to stop and/or found them racist. It would be hard to find a police department with a more clearly established pattern of excessive force.)

Why don't you let us know what the appropriate cutoff is for resisting arrest then?  And also let us know the exact line that demarcates resisting arrest vs being a dumb thug who doesn't see that when the authorities are arresting you for doing crimes you know you've committed you best comply (like the 30 other times you got arrested) or things might get rough.

His rap sheet is relevant because selling untaxed cigarettes wasn't the only law he had broken at the time of his arrest.

You keep talking about "crimes," plural. There were no "crimes," plural! There was alleged to be one crime (and a misdemeanor, at that). The other things you claim as "crimes" were Garner acting in self-defense, caused by the police violating his civil rights.

The reason why there is no such thing as an "appropriate cutoff for resisting arrest" is because the phrase doesn't make sense by definition. The appropriate threshold for resisting comes precisely when the incident stops being a valid arrest and turns into an assault. So what you're really asking is "what is the appropriate cutoff for use of force during an arrest," which we've explained to you over and over again.

Maybe Garner was a "bad guy." But I don't give a shit, and anyone who isn't a complete moron or totalitarian sociopath shouldn't either, because the police in a free society are not allowed to fucking murder people without trial just because they're "bad guys!"

Oh, and by the way, I gave you a pass on your "he died an hour later, so maybe it wasn't the choke hold that killed him" claim because I didn't feel like looking stuff up at the time. But just FYI, you're absolutely wrong about that because the coroner ruled that the choke hold is what killed him.

So if someone commits a crime, but dies in a struggle resisting arrest, it is not a crime, only an 'alleged' crime?  Who's the real moron?

And you should tone down your rhetoric, because it makes you sound like an idiot.  He wasn't *murdered*.  There was no malice aforethought.  At worst, you could say it was involuntary manslaughter.

Where in your link does it say "the coroner ruled that the choke hold is what killed him"?  It doesn't say that anywhere, and neither does any other report, because that is actually not the case.  Do you just make up facts that fit your worldview?

He was pronounced dead over an hour later - look it up anywhere, including Wikipedia.

[Gin1984]

There are cutoffs to what's acceptable behavior during an arrest, and for many of us, the way the police handled Eric Garner's case is an example of what police cannot do. They cannot escalate a basically peaceful situation over a few pennies in taxes and turn it into death scene simply because they feel like it, while avoiding a public investigation into what happened.  That's not reasonable and nobody should have to expect it over what was on that video, and that's why there are people on the streets and international headlines. 

(Also, if you think Mr. Garner's rap sheet is relevant, why not mention the NYPD's? Over the past decade, they conducted literally millions of unlawful and abusive detentions of innocent people, mostly minorities, and are still fighting judges who've ordered them to stop and/or found them racist. It would be hard to find a police department with a more clearly established pattern of excessive force.)

Why don't you let us know what the appropriate cutoff is for resisting arrest then?  And also let us know the exact line that demarcates resisting arrest vs being a dumb thug who doesn't see that when the authorities are arresting you for doing crimes you know you've committed you best comply (like the 30 other times you got arrested) or things might get rough.

His rap sheet is relevant because selling untaxed cigarettes wasn't the only law he had broken at the time of his arrest.

You keep talking about "crimes," plural. There were no "crimes," plural! There was alleged to be one crime (and a misdemeanor, at that). The other things you claim as "crimes" were Garner acting in self-defense, caused by the police violating his civil rights.

The reason why there is no such thing as an "appropriate cutoff for resisting arrest" is because the phrase doesn't make sense by definition. The appropriate threshold for resisting comes precisely when the incident stops being a valid arrest and turns into an assault. So what you're really asking is "what is the appropriate cutoff for use of force during an arrest," which we've explained to you over and over again.

Maybe Garner was a "bad guy." But I don't give a shit, and anyone who isn't a complete moron or totalitarian sociopath shouldn't either, because the police in a free society are not allowed to fucking murder people without trial just because they're "bad guys!"

Oh, and by the way, I gave you a pass on your "he died an hour later, so maybe it wasn't the choke hold that killed him" claim because I didn't feel like looking stuff up at the time. But just FYI, you're absolutely wrong about that because the coroner ruled that the choke hold is what killed him.

So if someone commits a crime, but dies in a struggle resisting arrest, it is not a crime, only an 'alleged' crime?  Who's the real moron?

And you should tone down your rhetoric, because it makes you sound like an idiot.  He wasn't *murdered*.  There was no malice aforethought.  At worst, you could say it was involuntary manslaughter.

Where in your link does it say "the coroner ruled that the choke hold is what killed him"?  It doesn't say that anywhere, and neither does any other report, because that is actually not the case.  Do you just make up facts that fit your worldview?

He was pronounced dead over an hour later - look it up anywhere, including Wikipedia.

Yes, however the cause of death was the choke hold and yes, the article says the coroner ruled it a homicide and yes, other articles were clearer that thee coroner did say the cause of death was the choke hold but you can understand that from the linked article.

[God or Mammon?]

There are cutoffs to what's acceptable behavior during an arrest, and for many of us, the way the police handled Eric Garner's case is an example of what police cannot do. They cannot escalate a basically peaceful situation over a few pennies in taxes and turn it into death scene simply because they feel like it, while avoiding a public investigation into what happened.  That's not reasonable and nobody should have to expect it over what was on that video, and that's why there are people on the streets and international headlines. 

(Also, if you think Mr. Garner's rap sheet is relevant, why not mention the NYPD's? Over the past decade, they conducted literally millions of unlawful and abusive detentions of innocent people, mostly minorities, and are still fighting judges who've ordered them to stop and/or found them racist. It would be hard to find a police department with a more clearly established pattern of excessive force.)

Why don't you let us know what the appropriate cutoff is for resisting arrest then?  And also let us know the exact line that demarcates resisting arrest vs being a dumb thug who doesn't see that when the authorities are arresting you for doing crimes you know you've committed you best comply (like the 30 other times you got arrested) or things might get rough.

His rap sheet is relevant because selling untaxed cigarettes wasn't the only law he had broken at the time of his arrest.

You keep talking about "crimes," plural. There were no "crimes," plural! There was alleged to be one crime (and a misdemeanor, at that). The other things you claim as "crimes" were Garner acting in self-defense, caused by the police violating his civil rights.

The reason why there is no such thing as an "appropriate cutoff for resisting arrest" is because the phrase doesn't make sense by definition. The appropriate threshold for resisting comes precisely when the incident stops being a valid arrest and turns into an assault. So what you're really asking is "what is the appropriate cutoff for use of force during an arrest," which we've explained to you over and over again.

Maybe Garner was a "bad guy." But I don't give a shit, and anyone who isn't a complete moron or totalitarian sociopath shouldn't either, because the police in a free society are not allowed to fucking murder people without trial just because they're "bad guys!"

Oh, and by the way, I gave you a pass on your "he died an hour later, so maybe it wasn't the choke hold that killed him" claim because I didn't feel like looking stuff up at the time. But just FYI, you're absolutely wrong about that because the coroner ruled that the choke hold is what killed him.

So if someone commits a crime, but dies in a struggle resisting arrest, it is not a crime, only an 'alleged' crime?  Who's the real moron?

And you should tone down your rhetoric, because it makes you sound like an idiot.  He wasn't *murdered*.  There was no malice aforethought.  At worst, you could say it was involuntary manslaughter.

Where in your link does it say "the coroner ruled that the choke hold is what killed him"?  It doesn't say that anywhere, and neither does any other report, because that is actually not the case.  Do you just make up facts that fit your worldview?

He was pronounced dead over an hour later - look it up anywhere, including Wikipedia.

The other 'crimes': Illegally selling cigarettes (instances before the day of his death), driving without a license, marijuana possession and false impersonation.  He was out on bail (that means previously arrested but released while awaiting trial for the CRIMES COMMITTED) when he was arrested the day of his death for, once again, illegally selling cigarettes.

[Gin1984]

There are cutoffs to what's acceptable behavior during an arrest, and for many of us, the way the police handled Eric Garner's case is an example of what police cannot do. They cannot escalate a basically peaceful situation over a few pennies in taxes and turn it into death scene simply because they feel like it, while avoiding a public investigation into what happened.  That's not reasonable and nobody should have to expect it over what was on that video, and that's why there are people on the streets and international headlines. 

(Also, if you think Mr. Garner's rap sheet is relevant, why not mention the NYPD's? Over the past decade, they conducted literally millions of unlawful and abusive detentions of innocent people, mostly minorities, and are still fighting judges who've ordered them to stop and/or found them racist. It would be hard to find a police department with a more clearly established pattern of excessive force.)

Why don't you let us know what the appropriate cutoff is for resisting arrest then?  And also let us know the exact line that demarcates resisting arrest vs being a dumb thug who doesn't see that when the authorities are arresting you for doing crimes you know you've committed you best comply (like the 30 other times you got arrested) or things might get rough.

His rap sheet is relevant because selling untaxed cigarettes wasn't the only law he had broken at the time of his arrest.

You keep talking about "crimes," plural. There were no "crimes," plural! There was alleged to be one crime (and a misdemeanor, at that). The other things you claim as "crimes" were Garner acting in self-defense, caused by the police violating his civil rights.

The reason why there is no such thing as an "appropriate cutoff for resisting arrest" is because the phrase doesn't make sense by definition. The appropriate threshold for resisting comes precisely when the incident stops being a valid arrest and turns into an assault. So what you're really asking is "what is the appropriate cutoff for use of force during an arrest," which we've explained to you over and over again.

Maybe Garner was a "bad guy." But I don't give a shit, and anyone who isn't a complete moron or totalitarian sociopath shouldn't either, because the police in a free society are not allowed to fucking murder people without trial just because they're "bad guys!"

Oh, and by the way, I gave you a pass on your "he died an hour later, so maybe it wasn't the choke hold that killed him" claim because I didn't feel like looking stuff up at the time. But just FYI, you're absolutely wrong about that because the coroner ruled that the choke hold is what killed him.

So if someone commits a crime, but dies in a struggle resisting arrest, it is not a crime, only an 'alleged' crime?  Who's the real moron?

And you should tone down your rhetoric, because it makes you sound like an idiot.  He wasn't *murdered*.  There was no malice aforethought.  At worst, you could say it was involuntary manslaughter.

Where in your link does it say "the coroner ruled that the choke hold is what killed him"?  It doesn't say that anywhere, and neither does any other report, because that is actually not the case.  Do you just make up facts that fit your worldview?

He was pronounced dead over an hour later - look it up anywhere, including Wikipedia.

The other 'crimes': Illegally selling cigarettes (instances before the day of his death), driving without a license, marijuana possession and false impersonation.  He was out on bail (that means previously arrested but released while awaiting trial for the CRIMES COMMITTED) when he was arrested the day of his death for, once again, illegally selling cigarettes.

No, that is not what it means.  It means you have been accused of a crime and are released while awaiting trial.  There is an unsubtle legal distinction there.

[lr]

And you should tone down your rhetoric, because it makes you sound like an idiot.  He wasn't *murdered*.  There was no malice aforethought.  At worst, you could say it was involuntary manslaughter.

I'm glad we agree that there's something that could have been prosecuted. If it helps, I agree that the cop probably didn't intend to kill Mr. Garner, because nobody would be so stupid as to think what he did was a capital offense.

Instead, I think the cop felt entitled to use excessive, reckless, negligent force to subdue a guy who at worst was committing a trivial offense, because the cops in NY were trained that people have to comply with their demands, even when the cops are breaking the law and the other citizen is innocent. That's what they were trained to do, and they did it to about four and a half million innocent people.

Anyway, if you're keeping score: Reckless endangerment, manslaughter, or criminally negligent homicide are each worse crimes than anything the victim did in his entire life.  And it was on video.   

Now, who really gets to determine if it was a crime?  Well, a jury.  But because of a secret backdoor proceeding, no judge or jury will see the evidence.  And that's fucked up.  And so is anyone who whines that it's unfair to ask a cop to defend why he killed a guy over a few alleged nickels, or blames a dude for being killed because he finally got fed up enough to speak his mind, and was born too big and black to be treated professionally by cops who understand when to escalate and when to pause.