The problem was that Mr. Gardner was the subject of complaints coming from the small busineses in the area he was in.
I believe all three of those were present in this case and would have voted to indict the officer. I acknowledge, however, that reasonable can disagree on this and hold no animus againast those who come to a different conclusion.
Cops are typically merely under “color of law,” they are not the law. So merely having the appearance of law, unlike a Sheriff who is the law. They are more like revenue officers, investigating petty infractions such as selling cigarettes on the street. Certainly at some point they have the authority to arrest, but they are just a liable for poor behavior as any citizen when they do, regardless of statute. When a man says he can’t breathe, and you don’t take ANY action to relieve his distress... that YOU are causing... YOU have committed the greater crime. He sold cigarettes, you killed him. This is not Ferguson, it is different. Freepers need to realize that.
A solution: White cops shouldn’t answer calls in black crime ridden areas. Let them kill each other. Or send black cops in and let them put their lives on the line. Problem solved.
Technically, I don't think this is correct. This was a grand jury, not a trial jury in a criminal case. I believe the grand jury's charge is simply to determine if there is sufficient evidence to support a criminal charge.
If the video was the only piece of evidence in the case, I figured an indictment was inevitable. But a grand jury weighs a lot of evidence, and I would have thought conservatives in the media -- especially a legal professional like Napolitano -- would know that better than anyone.
Personally, I wonder if the grand jury basically walked away from the case when they learned that Garner had been arrested previously more than 30 times -- and that he was out on bail awaiting trial after his last prior arrest when this incident occurred.
The grand jury is NOT convened to determine guilt or innocence. The grand jury merely decides if a case has merit to move forward to a trial.
What this author suggests is that there is a wide options of opinion. In most grand jury decisions, if there is a wide options of opinions, then there is an indictment. Then it is up to a court of law to determine guilt or innocence.
Great piece thanks for the thoughtful post
I don’t know where this notion that grand juries are infallible comes from. They get it wrong sometimes. They got it wrong in Garner.
Mark Davis is an ass. I could never stand him when he filled in for Limbaugh.
Garner was a tragedy that could have been avoided if the cops had used some common sense. They are not trained for commons sense anymore. They are trained to use the most force available.
In the Ferguson case, I was glad the perp wound up dead because otherwise he would have lived to attack and rob more people. I think the officer responded appropriately.
In this case I’m sorry the guy is dead, but agree with the simplistic summary, “if you resist arrest bad things can happen”.
However, what does (and has always) concern me is the over regulation in the county.
Laws against murder, rape, and robbery, etc.. have been on the books since before the united states, but today we have tens of thousands of pages of laws and regulations, all of which may ulitmately end in a confrontation with a police officer.
So, for example, if someone doesn’t like you and puts in an anonymous false complaint to child protective services and the cops show up without a warrant and you refuse to let them in, you will get taken down.
If your speeding and happen not to have your license, the cop may decide to arrest you because he needs to positively identify you to give you the ticket. This too may result in confrontation.
One of the things that is complicating this in the mind of some is the statement the author makes about a “silly law “ referring to the law against selling “untaxed” cigarettes. The reason they are “untaxed,” however, is not because there is some special “untaxed” cigarette that these loosie sellers can sell, but because the cigarettes are either stolen or smuggled and are supplied by criminal rings - ranging from the mafia to jihadi groups - that obtain a lot of income from their sale of stolen or smuggled products (not only cigarettes, but they’re an easy one). Stealing a truckload of cigarettes for resale to people like Garner, who then resell them to people on the street in slum neighborhoods, is pretty easy money for them.
Cigarettes taxes may be too high, but that’s another issue. The “untaxed” cigarette is actually part of a much bigger criminal activity.
So that’s why there’s a law against selling them. In addition, activity of this type is treated as a quality of life violation in poor neighborhoods, since the presence of free-lance vendors hustling stolen or dubiously acquired products is an unpleasant feature of street life, attracts other lowlifes who buy them, provides a sort of backdrop for the sales of drugs, etc. This is why the neighbors object and want the situation cleaned up.
Finally, the legitimate merchants in the area, who have paid the full price and bought their cigarettes legally for resale, have a valid complaint about these vendors. In the case of Garner, he was selling his cigarettes right in front of the convenience store. In fact, he had been arrested several times for doing the same thing, so we can see how much fear of the police he had! Why he decided to resist arrest that time is a mystery, but he did, and the consequences were disproportional because of his health problems.
"Along Comes" is the key to this article and many others. We are being fed a train of pablum, Ferguson, Garner... while the country goes to hell. OK, lets take a timeout from $18 Trillion in Debt, a MØnarch in power, porous border and opening the gates for MUCH more with handouts, Middle east going caliphate with Ø's help, and so on....