Big City USA Protesters

[JoshuaSpodek]

Most of the protesters in NYC are just trust fund hippies from NYU who just want attention.  It is really pissing people off that they can't get home from work because they are blocking the trains and roads.  Even on the best of days, NYC commutes are hellish and now it's beyond a nightmare.

Most? Since you've said something quantifiable, can you cite your source? Or was that just an opinionated ad hominem attack?

My commute isn't hellish, nor have protests affected it much. On the scale of everyday things like regular subway maintenance the worst inconvenience is negligible.

If your commute was hellish before the protests started, maybe reducing that hellishness independent of protests would improve things.

[FIRE_HELP!]

In NYC, there seems to be a growing fringe movement calling for Mayor De Blasio's resignation on one extreme side sympathetic to the NYPD.  On the other extreme are protesters using hateful (according to De Blasio) speech and, in the worst cases, threatening more violence and crimes against police.

This feels like a powder keg and does not seem like it is going to end well.  I commute into Manhattan for work everyday, but am considering how safe it is to do so in the current environment.

[MoneyCat]

In NYC, there seems to be a growing fringe movement calling for Mayor De Blasio's resignation on one extreme side sympathetic to the NYPD.  On the other extreme are protesters using hateful (according to De Blasio) speech and, in the worst cases, threatening more violence and crimes against police.

This feels like a powder keg and does not seem like it is going to end well.  I commute into Manhattan for work everyday, but am considering how safe it is to do so in the current environment.

There is actually lower amounts of police brutality and violence against police than any time in the past twenty years, but the media is getting lots of clicks with their sensationalist stories, so expect things to escalate even more.

[Gin1984]

In NYC, there seems to be a growing fringe movement calling for Mayor De Blasio's resignation on one extreme side sympathetic to the NYPD.  On the other extreme are protesters using hateful (according to De Blasio) speech and, in the worst cases, threatening more violence and crimes against police.

This feels like a powder keg and does not seem like it is going to end well.  I commute into Manhattan for work everyday, but am considering how safe it is to do so in the current environment.

There is actually lower amounts of police brutality and violence against police than any time in the past twenty years, but the media is getting lots of clicks with their sensationalist stories, so expect things to escalate even more.

Do you have a site for that?  Because I have seen that in anything I've read. 

[FIRE_HELP!]

In NYC, there seems to be a growing fringe movement calling for Mayor De Blasio's resignation on one extreme side sympathetic to the NYPD.  On the other extreme are protesters using hateful (according to De Blasio) speech and, in the worst cases, threatening more violence and crimes against police.

This feels like a powder keg and does not seem like it is going to end well.  I commute into Manhattan for work everyday, but am considering how safe it is to do so in the current environment.

There is actually lower amounts of police brutality and violence against police than any time in the past twenty years, but the media is getting lots of clicks with their sensationalist stories, so expect things to escalate even more.

The protests have mainly been peaceful thus far, but the rhetoric seems to be escalating:

http://nypost.com/2014/12/23/anti-cop-protesters-flood-nyc-despite-de-blasios-appeal/

Meanwhile I fear police may start taking more drastic measures in the name of protecting their own safety, which would obviously cause an even stronger reaction from protesters - a very bad negative feedback loop. 

I have also read comments of those sympathizing with police saying that cops should just stop doing their job and let the results speak for themselves.  That would be pretty bad.

[GuitarStv]

You mean a positive feedback loop.  A negative feedback loop is typically a good situation . . . one thing moderates another, reducing overshoot.  A positive feedback loop has increases from both sides and tends to be unsustainable.

[FIRE_HELP!]

You mean a positive feedback loop.  A negative feedback loop is typically a good situation . . . one thing moderates another, reducing overshoot.  A positive feedback loop has increases from both sides and tends to be unsustainable.

Yes you are right

Maybe I should have used the phrase "vicious cycle" instead

[Gin1984]

In NYC, there seems to be a growing fringe movement calling for Mayor De Blasio's resignation on one extreme side sympathetic to the NYPD.  On the other extreme are protesters using hateful (according to De Blasio) speech and, in the worst cases, threatening more violence and crimes against police.

This feels like a powder keg and does not seem like it is going to end well.  I commute into Manhattan for work everyday, but am considering how safe it is to do so in the current environment.

There is actually lower amounts of police brutality and violence against police than any time in the past twenty years, but the media is getting lots of clicks with their sensationalist stories, so expect things to escalate even more.

The protests have mainly been peaceful thus far, but the rhetoric seems to be escalating:

http://nypost.com/2014/12/23/anti-cop-protesters-flood-nyc-despite-de-blasios-appeal/

Meanwhile I fear police may start taking more drastic measures in the name of protecting their own safety, which would obviously cause an even stronger reaction from protesters - a very bad negative feedback loop. 

I have also read comments of those sympathizing with police saying that cops should just stop doing their job and let the results speak for themselves.  That would be pretty bad.

Start?  You think having military grade weapons and using them on people (including children) is not drastic measures?

[FIRE_HELP!]

In NYC, there seems to be a growing fringe movement calling for Mayor De Blasio's resignation on one extreme side sympathetic to the NYPD.  On the other extreme are protesters using hateful (according to De Blasio) speech and, in the worst cases, threatening more violence and crimes against police.

This feels like a powder keg and does not seem like it is going to end well.  I commute into Manhattan for work everyday, but am considering how safe it is to do so in the current environment.

There is actually lower amounts of police brutality and violence against police than any time in the past twenty years, but the media is getting lots of clicks with their sensationalist stories, so expect things to escalate even more.

The protests have mainly been peaceful thus far, but the rhetoric seems to be escalating:

http://nypost.com/2014/12/23/anti-cop-protesters-flood-nyc-despite-de-blasios-appeal/

Meanwhile I fear police may start taking more drastic measures in the name of protecting their own safety, which would obviously cause an even stronger reaction from protesters - a very bad negative feedback loop. 

I have also read comments of those sympathizing with police saying that cops should just stop doing their job and let the results speak for themselves.  That would be pretty bad.

Start?  You think having military grade weapons and using them on people (including children) is not drastic measures?

In every instance, there is an explanation for the events that occurred.  Not everyone may agree with whether the punishment fit the crime (or actions), but in the most frequently discussed cases a crime was committed or there was a feeling that the general public could be in danger.  Lack of respect for authority has consequences, and sometimes tragically unexpected ones.

If you don't want broken windows policing you should be willing to accept a more lawless, and generally more dangerous, society.  In NYC in particular, while some of the historic policing tactics were unpopular with a segment of the population, the reality is it is a totally different place than it was 30-40 years ago and the city has flourished in large part due to the increased safety and dramatic drop in crime.

[Gin1984]

In NYC, there seems to be a growing fringe movement calling for Mayor De Blasio's resignation on one extreme side sympathetic to the NYPD.  On the other extreme are protesters using hateful (according to De Blasio) speech and, in the worst cases, threatening more violence and crimes against police.

This feels like a powder keg and does not seem like it is going to end well.  I commute into Manhattan for work everyday, but am considering how safe it is to do so in the current environment.

There is actually lower amounts of police brutality and violence against police than any time in the past twenty years, but the media is getting lots of clicks with their sensationalist stories, so expect things to escalate even more.

The protests have mainly been peaceful thus far, but the rhetoric seems to be escalating:

http://nypost.com/2014/12/23/anti-cop-protesters-flood-nyc-despite-de-blasios-appeal/

Meanwhile I fear police may start taking more drastic measures in the name of protecting their own safety, which would obviously cause an even stronger reaction from protesters - a very bad negative feedback loop. 

I have also read comments of those sympathizing with police saying that cops should just stop doing their job and let the results speak for themselves.  That would be pretty bad.

Start?  You think having military grade weapons and using them on people (including children) is not drastic measures?

In every instance, there is an explanation for the events that occurred.  Not everyone may agree with whether the punishment fit the crime (or actions), but in the most frequently discussed cases a crime was committed or there was a feeling that the general public could be in danger.  Lack of respect for authority has consequences, and sometimes tragically unexpected ones.

If you don't want broken windows policing you should be willing to accept a more lawless, and generally more dangerous, society.  In NYC in particular, while some of the historic policing tactics were unpopular with a segment of the population, the reality is it is a totally different place than it was 30-40 years ago and the city has flourished in large part due to the increased safety and dramatic drop in crime.

I take you don't know about this story, because there was no danger. 
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/05/baby-in-coma-after-police-grenade-dropped-in-crib-during-drug-raid/
"A flashbang is an explosive device that emits a deafening boom and a blinding flash of light. It’s designed to temporarily stun the occupants of a building so that the armed men who deployed it can “clear” the building. It is an instrument of war. And cops are tossing these things through doors and windows with no idea what’s on the other side. Indeed, that’s the whole point."
Just a side point, they did not use the flash bang correctly (according to the military) yet the judge said they were not negligent.  If that is the society you want to live, fine, but I want to be in less danger as a suspect (or hell in this case the suspect was not even there) from cops than in a war zone from our military. 
"When a police forces uses a flashbang in this way, it is intentionally inflicting injury on someone who not only has yet to be convicted of a crime, in most cases the person has yet to even be charged — and of course anyone else who happens to be in the home at the time."
We have courts of law for a reason, cops are not judge, jury and executioner, yet now we are allowing them to be.  That is not what our country was founded on.

"The jury called it “sloppy and hurried” and “not in accordance with best practices.” The grand jury said while they want law enforcement to pursue drug dealers “the zeal to hold them accountable must not override cautious and patient judgment.”
 
They went on to say “there should be no such thing as an emergency drug investigation.”", yet no negligence?  Right!

[KBecks2]

The case of the baby hurt by the flash bang grenade is one of the worst I have heard.  I feel there was negligence, and I think it's fair to criticize the police department and the judge.  Each case needs to be looked at very specifically.

I am very sad that three police officers were executed over the weekend in retaliation shootings.  Two in NYC, one in Florida.

Just this morning I read of another man who was shot and killed in St. Louis, MO for pointing a gun at an officer.   It's feeling like insanity.

[viper155]

To the officer it was a pistol.       If every officer took the time to determine if a gun was real or not they would be killed

Bullshit. First of all, taking the time to determine whether a suspect is genuinely a threat is exactly what every officer is supposed to be trained to do.

Second, the job of the police is to protect and serve. If the police can't make that determination, he should give the citizen the benefit of the doubt, even at the cost of his own life. Don't like it? Then don't sign up to be a goddamned cop!

Shooting a guy with a guy is "serving and protecting". And, just exactly how much time is a cop supposed to take to determine if the gun being pointed at him is real or not? Your arguments are so insipid I can't believe my eyes.

[boy_bye]

The case of the baby hurt by the flash bang grenade is one of the worst I have heard.  I feel there was negligence, and I think it's fair to criticize the police department and the judge.  Each case needs to be looked at very specifically.

I am very sad that three police officers were executed over the weekend in retaliation shootings.  Two in NYC, one in Florida.

Just this morning I read of another man who was shot and killed in St. Louis, MO for pointing a gun at an officer.   It's feeling like insanity.

I am saddened by the police killings, too, but let's be clear -- they were not retaliatory in nature. At least the killings in NYC weren't -- they were done by a clearly very mentally ill man who also shot his girlfriend and himself.

[God or Mammon?]

The case of the baby hurt by the flash bang grenade is one of the worst I have heard.  I feel there was negligence, and I think it's fair to criticize the police department and the judge.  Each case needs to be looked at very specifically.

I am very sad that three police officers were executed over the weekend in retaliation shootings.  Two in NYC, one in Florida.

Just this morning I read of another man who was shot and killed in St. Louis, MO for pointing a gun at an officer.   It's feeling like insanity.

I am saddened by the police killings, too, but let's be clear -- they were not retaliatory in nature. At least the killings in NYC weren't -- they were done by a clearly very mentally ill man who also shot his girlfriend and himself.

The NYC cop killer said in his social media postings that retaliation was precisely why he was "putting wings on pigs"

Would he have killed those cops if he weren't so angry about his perceived injustices by the police?

[justajane]

The case of the baby hurt by the flash bang grenade is one of the worst I have heard.  I feel there was negligence, and I think it's fair to criticize the police department and the judge.  Each case needs to be looked at very specifically.

I am very sad that three police officers were executed over the weekend in retaliation shootings.  Two in NYC, one in Florida.

Just this morning I read of another man who was shot and killed in St. Louis, MO for pointing a gun at an officer.   It's feeling like insanity.

I am saddened by the police killings, too, but let's be clear -- they were not retaliatory in nature. At least the killings in NYC weren't -- they were done by a clearly very mentally ill man who also shot his girlfriend and himself.

The NYC cop killer said in his social media postings that retaliation was precisely why he was "putting wings on pigs"

Would he have killed those cops if he weren't so angry about his perceived injustices by the police?

He probably said that and likely meant it, at least as much as someone can mean it when they are mentally ill. But he was nonetheless a lone gunman with a few screws loose and thus should not be used as a referendum against a movement, nor is anyone to blame for his actions but himself. No one but him has "blood on his hands."

[God or Mammon?]

The case of the baby hurt by the flash bang grenade is one of the worst I have heard.  I feel there was negligence, and I think it's fair to criticize the police department and the judge.  Each case needs to be looked at very specifically.

I am very sad that three police officers were executed over the weekend in retaliation shootings.  Two in NYC, one in Florida.

Just this morning I read of another man who was shot and killed in St. Louis, MO for pointing a gun at an officer.   It's feeling like insanity.

I am saddened by the police killings, too, but let's be clear -- they were not retaliatory in nature. At least the killings in NYC weren't -- they were done by a clearly very mentally ill man who also shot his girlfriend and himself.

The NYC cop killer said in his social media postings that retaliation was precisely why he was "putting wings on pigs"

Would he have killed those cops if he weren't so angry about his perceived injustices by the police?

He probably said that and likely meant it, at least as much as someone can mean it when they are mentally ill. But he was nonetheless a lone gunman with a few screws loose and thus should not be used as a referendum against a movement, nor is anyone to blame for his actions but himself. No one but him has "blood on his hands."

I'm not sure what news you are watching, but the 'movement' is becoming a bit uncivilized and mob-like, so it is no wonder violence was incited.

[Kyle Schuant]

The NYC cop killer said in his social media postings that retaliation was precisely why he was "putting wings on pigs"

Would he have killed those cops if he weren't so angry about his perceived injustices by the police?

Well he killed his girlfriend first, and then shot himself afterwards, so this suggests perhaps he wasn't exactly a revolutionary seeking to effect sociopolitical change.

[God or Mammon?]

The NYC cop killer said in his social media postings that retaliation was precisely why he was "putting wings on pigs"

Would he have killed those cops if he weren't so angry about his perceived injustices by the police?

Well he killed his girlfriend first, and then shot himself afterwards, so this suggests perhaps he wasn't exactly a revolutionary seeking to effect sociopolitical change.

And this:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/28/ferguson-protesters-celebrate-christmas-by-singing-deck-the-halls-with-rows-of-dead-cops/?bt_alias=eyJ1c2VySWQiOiJjZDllYTg4OC05M2EwLTRlZDUtOGFlZC1lZjU5ZDk4MjI2NTYifQ%3D%3D

I'm guessing that a not insignificant % of the protesters are "not exactly seeking to effect sociopolitical change", which is why the protests need to be properly policed and furthermore why the mayor of NYC did not do his job properly and hence deserves the scorn of the NYPD.

[Gin1984]

The NYC cop killer said in his social media postings that retaliation was precisely why he was "putting wings on pigs"

Would he have killed those cops if he weren't so angry about his perceived injustices by the police?

Well he killed his girlfriend first, and then shot himself afterwards, so this suggests perhaps he wasn't exactly a revolutionary seeking to effect sociopolitical change.

And this:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/28/ferguson-protesters-celebrate-christmas-by-singing-deck-the-halls-with-rows-of-dead-cops/?bt_alias=eyJ1c2VySWQiOiJjZDllYTg4OC05M2EwLTRlZDUtOGFlZC1lZjU5ZDk4MjI2NTYifQ%3D%3D

I'm guessing that a not insignificant % of the protesters are "not exactly seeking to effect sociopolitical change", which is why the protests need to be properly policed and furthermore why the mayor of NYC did not do his job properly and hence deserves the scorn of the NYPD.

And how would you change how they are policed?  And do you honestly think the mayor is overriding the police in this case?

[Jack]

The NYC cop killer said in his social media postings that retaliation was precisely why he was "putting wings on pigs"

Would he have killed those cops if he weren't so angry about his perceived injustices by the police?

Well he killed his girlfriend first, and then shot himself afterwards, so this suggests perhaps he wasn't exactly a revolutionary seeking to effect sociopolitical change.

And this:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/28/ferguson-protesters-celebrate-christmas-by-singing-deck-the-halls-with-rows-of-dead-cops/?bt_alias=eyJ1c2VySWQiOiJjZDllYTg4OC05M2EwLTRlZDUtOGFlZC1lZjU5ZDk4MjI2NTYifQ%3D%3D

I'm guessing that a not insignificant % of the protesters are "not exactly seeking to effect sociopolitical change", which is why the protests need to be properly policed and furthermore why the mayor of NYC did not do his job properly and hence deserves the scorn of the NYPD.

I'm guessing a not insignificant % of the right-wing asswipes are blatantly lying to discredit the protestors.

In any case, Fox News and their ilk need to back the fuck off. Ideally, they should do so from the perspective that the police should serve and protect the public rather than act as jack-booted enforcers for the totalitarian upper class. But if that's not persuasive, they should at least realize that if they don't tone down their racist bullshit, the proles are going to start a goddamn civil war and that they'll be first up against the wall!

[lr]

They should spend more of their time and energy convincing their fellow citizens not to commit crimes.  Maybe instead of spending a whole day protesting they could spend that time mentoring....

The point of the protests is to stop fellow citizens from committing crimes. It  happens that the citizens in question are police officers, and they often refuse to participate in mentorship programs aimed at keeping troubled officers off the street.

http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2014/09/30/half-of-those-killed-by-san-francisco-police-are-mentally-ill

I, for one, would love to have mentored those six NYPD officers and DA before they turned to a life of murder and evading justice. Now it's too late.

[God or Mammon?]

The NYC cop killer said in his social media postings that retaliation was precisely why he was "putting wings on pigs"

Would he have killed those cops if he weren't so angry about his perceived injustices by the police?

Well he killed his girlfriend first, and then shot himself afterwards, so this suggests perhaps he wasn't exactly a revolutionary seeking to effect sociopolitical change.

And this:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/28/ferguson-protesters-celebrate-christmas-by-singing-deck-the-halls-with-rows-of-dead-cops/?bt_alias=eyJ1c2VySWQiOiJjZDllYTg4OC05M2EwLTRlZDUtOGFlZC1lZjU5ZDk4MjI2NTYifQ%3D%3D

I'm guessing that a not insignificant % of the protesters are "not exactly seeking to effect sociopolitical change", which is why the protests need to be properly policed and furthermore why the mayor of NYC did not do his job properly and hence deserves the scorn of the NYPD.

I'm guessing a not insignificant % of the right-wing asswipes are blatantly lying to discredit the protestors.

In any case, Fox News and their ilk need to back the fuck off. Ideally, they should do so from the perspective that the police should serve and protect the public rather than act as jack-booted enforcers for the totalitarian upper class. But if that's not persuasive, they should at least realize that if they don't tone down their racist bullshit, the proles are going to start a goddamn civil war and that they'll be first up against the wall!

While that appears to be an unfortunate editing snafu (whether deliberate or not is debatable) when large groups chant "what do we want, dead cops, when do we want it, now" it is no different than yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or threatening the lives of political leaders (even as a joke), both of which are illegal

http://youtu.be/dj4ARsxrZh8

[God or Mammon?]

I, for one, would love to have mentored those six NYPD officers and DA before they turned to a life of murder and evading justice. Now it's too late.

While Eric Garner's death was tragic, it was not murder

He resisted arrest (unfortunately there are no cut offs for which illegal acts are ok to resist arrest and which aren't - you must comply or expect to be handled with physical force) and died of a heart attack in an ambulance an hour after the choke hold occurred

[sheepstache]

The NYC cop killer said in his social media postings that retaliation was precisely why he was "putting wings on pigs"

Would he have killed those cops if he weren't so angry about his perceived injustices by the police?

Well he killed his girlfriend first, and then shot himself afterwards, so this suggests perhaps he wasn't exactly a revolutionary seeking to effect sociopolitical change.

And this:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/28/ferguson-protesters-celebrate-christmas-by-singing-deck-the-halls-with-rows-of-dead-cops/?bt_alias=eyJ1c2VySWQiOiJjZDllYTg4OC05M2EwLTRlZDUtOGFlZC1lZjU5ZDk4MjI2NTYifQ%3D%3D

I'm guessing that a not insignificant % of the protesters are "not exactly seeking to effect sociopolitical change", which is why the protests need to be properly policed and furthermore why the mayor of NYC did not do his job properly and hence deserves the scorn of the NYPD.

I'm guessing a not insignificant % of the right-wing asswipes are blatantly lying to discredit the protestors.

In any case, Fox News and their ilk need to back the fuck off. Ideally, they should do so from the perspective that the police should serve and protect the public rather than act as jack-booted enforcers for the totalitarian upper class. But if that's not persuasive, they should at least realize that if they don't tone down their racist bullshit, the proles are going to start a goddamn civil war and that they'll be first up against the wall!

While that appears to be an unfortunate editing snafu (whether deliberate or not is debatable) when large groups chant "what do we want, dead cops, when do we want it, now" it is no different than yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or threatening the lives of political leaders (even as a joke), both of which are illegal

http://youtu.be/dj4ARsxrZh8

That's a stretch. Reasonable people evacuate a building because they hear someone yell 'fire.' Reasonable people do not go kill a cop because protestors chanted it. This is more like the anti-gun arguments that pop up every time a crazy person shoots up a school. We can't trample rights just because some crazy person might take them the wrong way.

I'm not a lawyer but I suspect the reasoning behind threatening the lives of political leaders being illegal is because distinguishing between real and fake threats is a resource-intensive task that all but achieves the aim the speaker was going for. And I'm guessing it's only for individuals. I can't write in a death threat to my congressman but I can stand on the street corner and shout that all of congress ought to be killed.

[Jack]

While that appears to be an unfortunate editing snafu (whether deliberate or not is debatable)

Bullshit. Nobody's that incompetent! It's blatantly obvious that it could have been nothing but deliberate.

when large groups chant "what do we want, dead cops, when do we want it, now" it is no different than yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or threatening the lives of political leaders (even as a joke), both of which are illegal

Fox News was inciting a riot. I'll be happy to agree that those protestors were out of line after that Fox45 anchor gets arrested.

I, for one, would love to have mentored those six NYPD officers and DA before they turned to a life of murder and evading justice. Now it's too late.

While Eric Garner's death was tragic, it was not murder

He resisted arrest (unfortunately there are no cut offs for which illegal acts are ok to resist arrest and which aren't - you must comply or expect to be handled with physical force) and died of a heart attack in an ambulance an hour after the choke hold occurred

It is always ok to act in self-defense, even if the jackbooted thug strangling you has a badge.

How the fuck could any freedom-loving American ever even begin to think it might not be?!?!! I mean, seriously, WTF is wrong with you? You sound like some kind of goddamn NAZI!

"Comply with Your Masters, or you deserve to be murdered" is what you're saying. Do you have any idea how fucking wrong it is for an American to say things like that?!

[God or Mammon?]

While that appears to be an unfortunate editing snafu (whether deliberate or not is debatable)

Bullshit. Nobody's that incompetent! It's blatantly obvious that it could have been nothing but deliberate.

when large groups chant "what do we want, dead cops, when do we want it, now" it is no different than yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or threatening the lives of political leaders (even as a joke), both of which are illegal

Fox News was inciting a riot. I'll be happy to agree that those protestors were out of line after that Fox45 anchor gets arrested.

I, for one, would love to have mentored those six NYPD officers and DA before they turned to a life of murder and evading justice. Now it's too late.

While Eric Garner's death was tragic, it was not murder

He resisted arrest (unfortunately there are no cut offs for which illegal acts are ok to resist arrest and which aren't - you must comply or expect to be handled with physical force) and died of a heart attack in an ambulance an hour after the choke hold occurred

It is always ok to act in self-defense, even if the jackbooted thug strangling you has a badge.

How the fuck could any freedom-loving American ever even begin to think it might not be?!?!! I mean, seriously, WTF is wrong with you? You sound like some kind of goddamn NAZI!

"Comply with Your Masters, or you deserve to be murdered" is what you're saying. Do you have any idea how fucking wrong it is for an American to say things like that?!

You seem like a very angry man

The "dead cops" chant occurred before the Fox news blunder.  Regardless, your logic seems a bit off: even if Fox purposely cutoff the video to incite outrage against *peaceful* protesters, that doesn't make espousing violence against public servants who are working to protect and enforce the law morally correct, much less civilized.

Garner wasn't acting in 'self-defense' - he was resisting arrest.  He knew he had broken the law (he had been arrested more than 30 times since 1980, for charges including assault and grand larceny) and was stupidly fighting back even though he knew he would eventually be arrested.  While his death was tragically unfortunate, it was an accident and he was a career criminal who was asking for trouble and it finally caught up to him.

And since you don't seem to respect the rule of law, why don't you let us know which laws we should comply with and which ones are ok to ignore or break?

[Jack]

You seem like a very angry man

I'm only angry because some people seem Hell-bent on turning America into the next Reich.

The "dead cops" chant occurred before the Fox news blunder.

False. The article I cited was written on 22 December and referenced an event that occurred "last night" (i.e., 21 December). The article you cited was written on 28 December and referred to how "Ferguson protesters spent the weekend after Christmas" (i.e., no earlier than 26 December, if Friday night counts as the weekend).

I'm just speculating, but it could be that the chants you complained about were actually incited by Fox News. I can imagine the thought process: "fuck it -- if Fox News is going to accuse us of chanting about killing cops anyway, we might as well actually do it!" (I'm not saying such a thought process makes a whole lot of sense; I'm just saying some people might have thought that way.)

Regardless, your logic seems a bit off: even if Fox purposely cutoff the video to incite outrage against *peaceful* protesters, that doesn't make espousing violence against public servants who are working to protect and enforce the law morally correct, much less civilized.

I didn't argue that two wrongs make a right; I argued that punishment should not be arbitrary and capricious: if the protestors deserve to be punished for their chant, then Fox News deserves to be punished for its lie.

Garner wasn't acting in 'self-defense' - he was resisting arrest.  He knew he had broken the law (he had been arrested more than 30 times since 1980, for charges including assault and grand larceny) and was stupidly fighting back even though he knew he would eventually be arrested.  While his death was tragically unfortunate, it was an accident and he was a career criminal who was asking for trouble and it finally caught up to him.

He was resisting an illegal choke hold that was strangling him to death. If the police used legal tactics, (A) I wouldn't have a problem with it and (B) Garner would still be alive.

You seem to believe Garner deserved to die for being a "career criminal." Let's temporarily agree on that, for the sake of argument. But even then, he did not deserve to die for any of the offenses being committed at that moment (selling untaxed cigarettes, resisting arrest or "contempt of cop"). And even then, he did not deserve to be executed without a trial.

If you want The Law to have harsher punishments, I can respect that that viewpoint. But if you want The Law to only apply to the little people and not the police themselves too, that's what earns my contempt!

And since you don't seem to respect the rule of law, why don't you let us know which laws we should comply with and which ones are ok to ignore or break?

I respect the rule of law a fuckton more than you do, apparently! In particular, I respect the Constitution including the Bill of Rights. In case you don't recall, that's the document that affirms that the protestors have the right to chant whatever the Hell they want. It's the document that prohibits the government from acting without due process or inflicting cruel and unusual punishment (turning resisting arrest into a capital offense, with the officer acting as judge, jury and executioner, for example).

[God or Mammon?]

False. The article I cited was written on 22 December and referenced an event that occurred "last night" (i.e., 21 December). The article you cited was written on 28 December and referred to how "Ferguson protesters spent the weekend after Christmas" (i.e., no earlier than 26 December, if Friday night counts as the weekend).

I'm just speculating, but it could be that the chants you complained about were actually incited by Fox News. I can imagine the thought process: "fuck it -- if Fox News is going to accuse us of chanting about killing cops anyway, we might as well actually do it!" (I'm not saying such a thought process makes a whole lot of sense; I'm just saying some people might have thought that way.)

The YouTube video I linked to which shows the protesters in NYC yelling to kill cops took place on December 13th.  So your speculation is dead wrong

I didn't argue that two wrongs make a right; I argued that punishment should not be arbitrary and capricious: if the protestors deserve to be punished for their chant, then Fox News deserves to be punished for its lie.

Since we've established that your timeline is off, this is also incorrect, if you are assuming they chanted that in response to Fox's reporting

He was resisting an illegal choke hold that was strangling him to death. If the police used legal tactics, (A) I wouldn't have a problem with it and (B) Garner would still be alive.

Watch the video again - as soon as the cops moved in to arrest him he flailed his arms while yelling "don't touch me" - that was before they put the choke hold on him to take him down.

You seem to believe Garner deserved to die for being a "career criminal." Let's temporarily agree on that, for the sake of argument. But even then, he did not deserve to die for any of the offenses being committed at that moment (selling untaxed cigarettes, resisting arrest or "contempt of cop"). And even then, he did not deserve to be executed without a trial.

He wasn't executed, he died an hour later from a heart attack (in an ambulance) which was induced by the police using physical force when he resisted arrest (which is standard procedure).  If you resist arrest or run from cops and get hurt in the process, and your injury eventually leads to your death, that isn't murder - that is self-inflicted homicide.
 

I respect the rule of law a fuckton more than you do, apparently! In particular, I respect the Constitution including the Bill of Rights. In case you don't recall, that's the document that affirms that the protestors have the right to chant whatever the Hell they want.

I never said chanting 'kill cops' was a crime - but I did say, in response to justajane, that the mob mentality probably contributed to the two NYPD officers death:

I'm not sure what news you are watching, but the 'movement' is becoming a bit uncivilized and mob-like, so it is no wonder violence was incited.

[Gin1984]

False. The article I cited was written on 22 December and referenced an event that occurred "last night" (i.e., 21 December). The article you cited was written on 28 December and referred to how "Ferguson protesters spent the weekend after Christmas" (i.e., no earlier than 26 December, if Friday night counts as the weekend).

I'm just speculating, but it could be that the chants you complained about were actually incited by Fox News. I can imagine the thought process: "fuck it -- if Fox News is going to accuse us of chanting about killing cops anyway, we might as well actually do it!" (I'm not saying such a thought process makes a whole lot of sense; I'm just saying some people might have thought that way.)

The YouTube video I linked to which shows the protesters in NYC yelling to kill cops took place on December 13th.  So your speculation is dead wrong

I didn't argue that two wrongs make a right; I argued that punishment should not be arbitrary and capricious: if the protestors deserve to be punished for their chant, then Fox News deserves to be punished for its lie.

Since we've established that your timeline is off, this is also incorrect, if you are assuming they chanted that in response to Fox's reporting

He was resisting an illegal choke hold that was strangling him to death. If the police used legal tactics, (A) I wouldn't have a problem with it and (B) Garner would still be alive.

Watch the video again - as soon as the cops moved in to arrest him he flailed his arms while yelling "don't touch me" - that was before they put the choke hold on him to take him down.

You seem to believe Garner deserved to die for being a "career criminal." Let's temporarily agree on that, for the sake of argument. But even then, he did not deserve to die for any of the offenses being committed at that moment (selling untaxed cigarettes, resisting arrest or "contempt of cop"). And even then, he did not deserve to be executed without a trial.

He wasn't executed, he died an hour later from a heart attack (in an ambulance) which was induced by the police using physical force when he resisted arrest (which is standard procedure).  If you resist arrest or run from cops and get hurt in the process, and your injury eventually leads to your death, that isn't murder - that is self-inflicted homicide.
 

I respect the rule of law a fuckton more than you do, apparently! In particular, I respect the Constitution including the Bill of Rights. In case you don't recall, that's the document that affirms that the protestors have the right to chant whatever the Hell they want.

I never said chanting 'kill cops' was a crime - but I did say, in response to justajane, that the mob mentality probably contributed to the two NYPD officers death:

I'm not sure what news you are watching, but the 'movement' is becoming a bit uncivilized and mob-like, so it is no wonder violence was incited.

Yelling don't touch me or flailing is not resisting arrest and did not deserve an ILLEGAL choke hold nor being killed as a direct result of that ILLEGAL choke hold.  Why are you not upset at the illegal actions of the cops but upset that Garner sold some cigarettes.  You have some twisted priorities if you hold killing someone to be less than minor tax fraud.   

[God or Mammon?]

Yelling don't touch me or flailing is not resisting arrest and did not deserve an ILLEGAL choke hold nor being killed as a direct result of that ILLEGAL choke hold.  Why are you not upset at the illegal actions of the cops but upset that Garner sold some cigarettes.  You have some twisted priorities if you hold killing someone to be less than minor tax fraud.   

I think you may be misinformed about what constitutes resisting arrest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resisting_arrest

The chokehold was NOT ILLEGAL:
"In an interview in August with CNN's Chris Cuomo, New York Police Commissioner William Bratton said that no local laws criminalize chokeholds, though they are prohibited by his department." http://newday.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/11/chris-cuomo-speaks-with-new-york-city-police-commissioner-william-bratton/

Since the chokehold was not illegal, I have no reason to be "upset at the illegal actions of the cops".  And at the time of his death, Garner, a career criminal, "was out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession and false impersonation."  He was asking for trouble, deserved to be arrested, when the officers approached him he didn't comply and instead resisted arrest, leading to his being taken down physically and eventually his demise from heart failure.

[sheepstache]

He was resisting an illegal choke hold that was strangling him to death. If the police used legal tactics, (A) I wouldn't have a problem with it and (B) Garner would still be alive.

Watch the video again - as soon as the cops moved in to arrest him he flailed his arms while yelling "don't touch me" - that was before they put the choke hold on him to take him down.

That doesn't make the chokehold legal. I agree with you that resisting arrest is willingly taking a big risk (for no possible benefit), but cops don't have carte blanche to do whatever they want to someone just because they're resisting arrest. They can't fatally shoot them just for resisting arrest, I'm sure you'd agree. From there, we get into best practices as have been established by law enforcement agencies. Practices that have been shown to protect both the cops and the person being arrested. That chokehold is not allowed under nypd guidelines. Because it's too risky and there are safer ways to subdue someone. There was some question at the grand jury of whether the officer learned it at a different training institution or before it was removed from acceptable practices. But with so much power given to cops, the onus is on them and their departments to get their fucking shit right. Our legal system has a way to pursue lesser punishment against people who commit crimes through negligence rather than bad intent, but that way wasn't pursued for some reason. Of course, people don't expect cops to be perfect and would be sympathetic to a cop who thought his life was in danger not following the rulebook to the T.  A guy waving his arms and saying 'don't touch me' doesn't cut it.

[God or Mammon?]

He was resisting an illegal choke hold that was strangling him to death. If the police used legal tactics, (A) I wouldn't have a problem with it and (B) Garner would still be alive.

Watch the video again - as soon as the cops moved in to arrest him he flailed his arms while yelling "don't touch me" - that was before they put the choke hold on him to take him down.

That doesn't make the chokehold legal. I agree with you that resisting arrest is willingly taking a big risk (for no possible benefit), but cops don't have carte blanche to do whatever they want to someone just because they're resisting arrest. They can't fatally shoot them just for resisting arrest, I'm sure you'd agree. From there, we get into best practices as have been established by law enforcement agencies. Practices that have been shown to protect both the cops and the person being arrested. That chokehold is not allowed under nypd guidelines. Because it's too risky and there are safer ways to subdue someone. There was some question at the grand jury of whether the officer learned it at a different training institution or before it was removed from acceptable practices. But with so much power given to cops, the onus is on them and their departments to get their fucking shit right. Our legal system has a way to pursue lesser punishment against people who commit crimes through negligence rather than bad intent, but that way wasn't pursued for some reason. Of course, people don't expect cops to be perfect and would be sympathetic to a cop who thought his life was in danger not following the rulebook to the T.  A guy waving his arms and saying 'don't touch me' doesn't cut it.

I generally agree with your comment.  However, think about it from the officers' perspective: he was a very large man, with a known criminal record (they knew his history), and once he started to resist they are trained to escalate to get the situation UNDER CONTROL.  If the perp were 100lbs I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have had to resort to such aggressive tactics.

[sheepstache]

Yelling don't touch me or flailing is not resisting arrest and did not deserve an ILLEGAL choke hold nor being killed as a direct result of that ILLEGAL choke hold.  Why are you not upset at the illegal actions of the cops but upset that Garner sold some cigarettes.  You have some twisted priorities if you hold killing someone to be less than minor tax fraud.   

I think you may be misinformed about what constitutes resisting arrest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resisting_arrest

The chokehold was NOT ILLEGAL:
"In an interview in August with CNN's Chris Cuomo, New York Police Commissioner William Bratton said that no local laws criminalize chokeholds, though they are prohibited by his department." http://newday.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/11/chris-cuomo-speaks-with-new-york-city-police-commissioner-william-bratton/

Since the chokehold was not illegal, I have no reason to be "upset at the illegal actions of the cops".  And at the time of his death, Garner, a career criminal, "was out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession and false impersonation."  He was asking for trouble, deserved to be arrested, when the officers approached him he didn't comply and instead resisted arrest, leading to his being taken down physically and eventually his demise from heart failure.

Again, not a lawyer, but pretty sure any kind of assault that kills someone is illegal. You can't come in with some sweet karate move that no one's ever heard of, kill someone with it, and then the judge is like, 'Well, we can't charge him, because technically that sweet karate move isn't on the books as being illegal.'

Just so our comparison is fair, this cop did have 2 civil rights suits against him last year.

[God or Mammon?]

Yelling don't touch me or flailing is not resisting arrest and did not deserve an ILLEGAL choke hold nor being killed as a direct result of that ILLEGAL choke hold.  Why are you not upset at the illegal actions of the cops but upset that Garner sold some cigarettes.  You have some twisted priorities if you hold killing someone to be less than minor tax fraud.   

I think you may be misinformed about what constitutes resisting arrest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resisting_arrest

The chokehold was NOT ILLEGAL:
"In an interview in August with CNN's Chris Cuomo, New York Police Commissioner William Bratton said that no local laws criminalize chokeholds, though they are prohibited by his department." http://newday.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/11/chris-cuomo-speaks-with-new-york-city-police-commissioner-william-bratton/

Since the chokehold was not illegal, I have no reason to be "upset at the illegal actions of the cops".  And at the time of his death, Garner, a career criminal, "was out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession and false impersonation."  He was asking for trouble, deserved to be arrested, when the officers approached him he didn't comply and instead resisted arrest, leading to his being taken down physically and eventually his demise from heart failure.

Again, not a lawyer, but pretty sure any kind of assault that kills someone is illegal. You can't come in with some sweet karate move that no one's ever heard of, kill someone with it, and then the judge is like, 'Well, we can't charge him, because technically that sweet karate move isn't on the books as being illegal.'

Just so our comparison is fair, this cop did have 2 civil rights suits against him last year.

Garner was pronounced dead (from heart failure) an hour after the choke hold was put on him.  It is reasonable to assume the choke hold contributed to causing his heart attack, but other factors also contributed (he was in poor health).  If the choke hold had not been administered and instead he was simply slammed to the ground (like you see cops doing on TV when perps resist arrest), and from the shock of being taken down he then died of heart failure an hour later in an ambulance, would we be having this conversation (and would all the "Big City USA Protesters" be so vigilant)?

[Jack]

The YouTube video I linked to which shows the protesters in NYC yelling to kill cops took place on December 13th.  So your speculation is dead wrong

I'm at work, and thus didn't watch the youtube video.

I didn't argue that two wrongs make a right; I argued that punishment should not be arbitrary and capricious: if the protestors deserve to be punished for their chant, then Fox News deserves to be punished for its lie.

Since we've established that your timeline is off, this is also incorrect, if you are assuming they chanted that in response to Fox's reporting

You're a little confused there: that claim had nothing to do with the order in which the events occurred.

Yelling don't touch me or flailing is not resisting arrest and did not deserve an ILLEGAL choke hold nor being killed as a direct result of that ILLEGAL choke hold.  Why are you not upset at the illegal actions of the cops but upset that Garner sold some cigarettes.  You have some twisted priorities if you hold killing someone to be less than minor tax fraud.   

I think you may be misinformed about what constitutes resisting arrest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resisting_arrest

The chokehold was NOT ILLEGAL:
"In an interview in August with CNN's Chris Cuomo, New York Police Commissioner William Bratton said that no local laws criminalize chokeholds, though they are prohibited by his department." http://newday.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/11/chris-cuomo-speaks-with-new-york-city-police-commissioner-william-bratton/

What part of "the US Consititution requires due process and bans cruel and unusual punishment" do you not understand? There shouldn't need to be a local law for this sort of thing; the basic fact that deadly force was not warranted doesn't even deserve to be under dispute!

And at the time of his death, Garner, a career criminal, "was out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession and false impersonation."  He was asking for trouble, deserved to be arrested, when the officers approached him he didn't comply and instead resisted arrest, leading to his being taken down physically and eventually his demise from heart failure.

First of all, character assassination is not a valid debate topic. Second, all that stuff is completely irrelevant. The only thing relevant was "did Garner present a mortal threat to the officer?" The answer is no, so the officer was not justified in using deadly force in response.

Besides, regardless of you what you keep trying to pretend, choke holds are excessive force and police brutality, not "standard procedure!" I don't know why you're having such a hard time with the simple idea that, even when arresting someone using physical force is justified, choke holds are not a valid way to do it.

I generally agree with your comment.  However, think about it from the officers' perspective: he was a very large man, with a known criminal record (they knew his history), and once he started to resist they are trained to escalate to get the situation UNDER CONTROL.  If the perp were 100lbs I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have had to resort to such aggressive tactics.

Yes, because we all know keeping the proles UNDER CONTROL is more important than respecting their Constitutional rights (let alone their lives).

From the "officer's perspective," he was (A) supposed to have been trained to handle that situation properly (i.e., without infringing on citizens' rights), and (B) 100% responsible for the decision to use force in the first place. If Garner were so goddamn scary then the officer should have backed off and gotten somebody less incompetent to handle it.

[Jack]

Garner was pronounced dead (from heart failure) an hour after the choke hold was put on him.  It is reasonable to assume the choke hold contributed to causing his heart attack, but other factors also contributed (he was in poor health).  If the choke hold had not been administered and instead he was simply slammed to the ground (like you see cops doing on TV when perps resist arrest), and from the shock of being taken down he then died of heart failure an hour later in an ambulance, would we be having this conversation (and would all the "Big City USA Protesters" be so vigilant)?

If he were simply slammed to the ground, there would have been a whole lot less shock and he probably wouldn't have died, which is precisely why that tactic is kosher and choke holds aren't.

[sheepstache]

He was resisting an illegal choke hold that was strangling him to death. If the police used legal tactics, (A) I wouldn't have a problem with it and (B) Garner would still be alive.

Watch the video again - as soon as the cops moved in to arrest him he flailed his arms while yelling "don't touch me" - that was before they put the choke hold on him to take him down.

That doesn't make the chokehold legal. I agree with you that resisting arrest is willingly taking a big risk (for no possible benefit), but cops don't have carte blanche to do whatever they want to someone just because they're resisting arrest. They can't fatally shoot them just for resisting arrest, I'm sure you'd agree. From there, we get into best practices as have been established by law enforcement agencies. Practices that have been shown to protect both the cops and the person being arrested. That chokehold is not allowed under nypd guidelines. Because it's too risky and there are safer ways to subdue someone. There was some question at the grand jury of whether the officer learned it at a different training institution or before it was removed from acceptable practices. But with so much power given to cops, the onus is on them and their departments to get their fucking shit right. Our legal system has a way to pursue lesser punishment against people who commit crimes through negligence rather than bad intent, but that way wasn't pursued for some reason. Of course, people don't expect cops to be perfect and would be sympathetic to a cop who thought his life was in danger not following the rulebook to the T.  A guy waving his arms and saying 'don't touch me' doesn't cut it.

I generally agree with your comment.  However, think about it from the officers' perspective: he was a very large man,

It's interesting how people's perception if his physicality vary with what point they're trying to make. When he's alive, his bulk makes him a threat. When he's dead, he was obviously an unhealthy, fat bastard whose heart was a ticking time bomb.

with a known criminal record (they knew his history),

So much the worse. They knew his criminal history wasn't violent.

and once he started to resist they are trained to escalate to get the situation UNDER CONTROL.  If the perp were 100lbs I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have had to resort to such aggressive tactics.

This is what I'm saying, though, there are best practices laid out for all situations. The rulebook doesn't go out the window just because the suspect is big. They are trained in the PROPER WAY to escalate to get the situation under control but this cop decided the rules didn't apply to him.

[God or Mammon?]

It's interesting how people's perception if his physicality vary with what point they're trying to make. When he's alive, his bulk makes him a threat. When he's dead, he was obviously an unhealthy, fat bastard whose heart was a ticking time bomb.

Seems like his size worked against him from every angle (he was big so they needed to be aggressive, he was fat so he died from heart failure) - so not sure what point you're trying to make

So much the worse. They knew his criminal history wasn't violent.

Actually he was arrested for assault previously, so he did have a violent criminal history

This is what I'm saying, though, there are best practices laid out for all situations. The rulebook doesn't go out the window just because the suspect is big. They are trained in the PROPER WAY to escalate to get the situation under control but this cop decided the rules didn't apply to him.

Your point has some validity (mainly because of the unfortunate outcome), but the reality is there were 6 cops who were all struggling to get him to the ground and they still had a hard time. 

[ShortInSeattle]

I don't think that, in general, protesters are complainypants.

Protesters can be disruptive (I'm not talking those that throw rocks or break windows - they are criminals, not protesters) but they force us to think about why they are protesting, and what the issues are.

Even when I disagree with the subject of a protest, I admire them for being engaged in free speech and their willingness to be ridiculed in order to get their message out.

I also feel for our police force. There are reasons to be concerned, but I also know that the vast majority of them are good people. It must be hard to have your profession attacked when you are trying to do good.

[Gin1984]

I don't think that, in general, protesters are complainypants.

Protesters can be disruptive (I'm not talking those that throw rocks or break windows - they are criminals, not protesters) but they force us to think about why they are protesting, and what the issues are.

Even when I disagree with the subject of a protest, I admire them for being engaged in free speech and their willingness to be ridiculed in order to get their message out.

I also feel for our police force. There are reasons to be concerned, but I also know that the vast majority of them are good people. It must be hard to have your profession attacked when you are trying to do good.

The vast majority cover for the "bad ones" which make them not good cops. 

[lr]

I, for one, would love to have mentored those six NYPD officers and DA before they turned to a life of murder and evading justice. Now it's too late.

While Eric Garner's death was tragic, it was not murder

Maybe, maybe not.

It was definitely "grabbing a guy who was loudly protesting what he considered unfair police practices, but who was not actually hurting anyone, after being harassed by armed officers who accused him of violating a law that most reasonable people would barely consider worthy of a citation, and escalating the situation by bringing him to the ground and applying pressure to his neck, preventing him from breathing as he begged for mercy until he went unconscious and died from the injuries, and then relying on a shady closed-door legal maneuver to avoid a public trial." 

But that doesn't roll off the tongue quite the same way.

He resisted arrest (unfortunately there are no cut offs for which illegal acts are ok to resist arrest and which aren't - you must comply or expect to be handled with physical force) and died of a heart attack in an ambulance an hour after the choke hold occurred

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.)

[God or Mammon?]

I, for one, would love to have mentored those six NYPD officers and DA before they turned to a life of murder and evading justice. Now it's too late.

While Eric Garner's death was tragic, it was not murder

Maybe, maybe not.

It was definitely "grabbing a guy who was loudly protesting what he considered unfair police practices, but who was not actually hurting anyone, after being harassed by armed officers who accused him of violating a law that most reasonable people would barely consider worthy of a citation, and escalating the situation by bringing him to the ground and applying pressure to his neck, preventing him from breathing as he begged for mercy until he went unconscious and died from the injuries, and then relying on a shady closed-door legal maneuver to avoid a public trial." 

But that doesn't roll off the tongue quite the same way.

He resisted arrest (unfortunately there are no cut offs for which illegal acts are ok to resist arrest and which aren't - you must comply or expect to be handled with physical force) and died of a heart attack in an ambulance an hour after the choke hold occurred

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.

[justajane]

I never said chanting 'kill cops' was a crime - but I did say, in response to justajane, that the mob mentality probably contributed to the two NYPD officers death.

Is there any evidence that the murderer who killed the two cops had spent time exposed to the "mobs?" I'm genuinely asking. For you to claim above what you did, there would need to be indication that there was some kind of direct cause and effect. But even then, there's the whole diminished capacity thing. 

It's like a few years ago when people claimed that Sarah Palin had blood on her hands because of that target she made on TV on congresspeople. Then when Gabby Giffords was shot, the left made unfair claims that she contributed to that event. In reality, that guy was/is similarly mentally ill. Palin's target was wrong, just like the chants about killing cops is, but that doesn't mean they are responsible for violence committed by crazy people. Should we blame Warner Bros. for the Aurora killings, since that guy was influenced by the movies?

[God or Mammon?]

I never said chanting 'kill cops' was a crime - but I did say, in response to justajane, that the mob mentality probably contributed to the two NYPD officers death.

Is there any evidence that the murderer who killed the two cops had spent time exposed to the "mobs?" I'm genuinely asking. For you to claim above what you did, there would need to be indication that there was some kind of direct cause and effect. But even then, there's the whole diminished capacity thing. 

It's like a few years ago when people claimed that Sarah Palin had blood on her hands because of that target she made on TV on congresspeople. Then when Gabby Giffords was shot, the left made unfair claims that she contributed to that event. In reality, that guy was/is similarly mentally ill. Palin's target was wrong, just like the chants about killing cops is, but that doesn't mean they are responsible for violence committed by crazy people. Should we blame Warner Bros. for the Aurora killings, since that guy was influenced by the movies?

Yes, he had a video of a NYC protest in Union Square in early December on his phone.

[justajane]

I never said chanting 'kill cops' was a crime - but I did say, in response to justajane, that the mob mentality probably contributed to the two NYPD officers death.

Is there any evidence that the murderer who killed the two cops had spent time exposed to the "mobs?" I'm genuinely asking. For you to claim above what you did, there would need to be indication that there was some kind of direct cause and effect. But even then, there's the whole diminished capacity thing. 

It's like a few years ago when people claimed that Sarah Palin had blood on her hands because of that target she made on TV on congresspeople. Then when Gabby Giffords was shot, the left made unfair claims that she contributed to that event. In reality, that guy was/is similarly mentally ill. Palin's target was wrong, just like the chants about killing cops is, but that doesn't mean they are responsible for violence committed by crazy people. Should we blame Warner Bros. for the Aurora killings, since that guy was influenced by the movies?

Yes, he had a video of a NYC protest in Union Square in early December on his phone.

Interesting, can you provide a link please?

[God or Mammon?]

I never said chanting 'kill cops' was a crime - but I did say, in response to justajane, that the mob mentality probably contributed to the two NYPD officers death.

Is there any evidence that the murderer who killed the two cops had spent time exposed to the "mobs?" I'm genuinely asking. For you to claim above what you did, there would need to be indication that there was some kind of direct cause and effect. But even then, there's the whole diminished capacity thing. 

It's like a few years ago when people claimed that Sarah Palin had blood on her hands because of that target she made on TV on congresspeople. Then when Gabby Giffords was shot, the left made unfair claims that she contributed to that event. In reality, that guy was/is similarly mentally ill. Palin's target was wrong, just like the chants about killing cops is, but that doesn't mean they are responsible for violence committed by crazy people. Should we blame Warner Bros. for the Aurora killings, since that guy was influenced by the movies?

Yes, he had a video of a NYC protest in Union Square in early December on his phone.

Interesting, can you provide a link please?

http://7online.com/news/police-interview-ex-girlfriend-of-nypd-killings-suspect/445281/

"Investigators say Brinsley was at a protest in Union Square on December 1, before a grand jury decided against charging a white officer in the chokehold death of Eric Garner. They say Brinsley recorded part of the protest on his phone, like other bystanders. Investigators are trying to determine if Brinsley latched onto the cause for the final act in a violent rampage."

[lr]

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.

The cutoff we're talking about is the appropriate use of force for a given arrest, and it's the police officers who crossed that line. The exact line? How about don't escalate a nonviolent situation with deadly force unless absolutely necessary for public safety? How about don't shoot children for holding store merchandise within a store? How about don't escalate mental illness calls and refuse training in how to defuse those situations peacefully? How about a national registry of police officers who've been previously fired for violent mental issues?

Or how about simply having automatic public trials for any deaths resulting from police action, just as we often have for other self-defense claims? I can think of a dozen lines that are reasonable.

If you're asking for my opinion on when it's appropriate to resist an officer, it's hard to answer that because I can't blame people for obeying police demands because it's usually safer to comply when confronted by any armed men.  NYPD's extensive track record of unlawful detentions makes them especially unpredictable and dangerous.

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

I haven't seen other charges mentioned in the news.  What else was he doing?

[Gin1984]

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.

The cutoff we're talking about is the appropriate use of force for a given arrest, and it's the police officers who crossed that line. The exact line? How about don't escalate a nonviolent situation with deadly force unless absolutely necessary for public safety? How about don't shoot children for holding store merchandise within a store? How about don't escalate mental illness calls and refuse training in how to defuse those situations peacefully? How about a national registry of police officers who've been previously fired for violent mental issues?

Or how about simply having automatic public trials for any deaths resulting from police action, just as we often have for other self-defense claims? I can think of a dozen lines that are reasonable.

If you're asking for my opinion on when it's appropriate to resist an officer, it's hard to answer that because I can't blame people for obeying police demands because it's usually safer to comply when confronted by any armed men.  NYPD's extensive track record of unlawful detentions makes them especially unpredictable and dangerous.

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

I haven't seen other charges mentioned in the news.  What else was he doing?

He has a criminal record that includes more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980 on charges such as assault, resisting arrest and grand larceny.  However, an official said the charges include several incidents in which he was arrested for selling unlicensed cigarettes.

[Jack]

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.

[Gin1984]

This case has to go before the grand jury,” she said. “When the medical examiner rules a case a homicide by chokehold, and the entire world has seen a video of the people responsible for the chokehold, the case is going before the grand jury.”
I love that the police PR said this, because it shows that the only reason they were charging the cops is because there video evidence.  More and more reason to tape cops, lol.