Posted on 12/15/2014 5:47:10 PM PST by Altura Ct.
Eric Garner, a 43-year-old father of six, is dead. This is a tragedy, regardless of the circumstances. We rightly mourn with his wife and children. They will never see their husband and father again, and that should break everyone's heart.
When we witness a gut-rending tragedy like this, we want to know who is responsible. Who is to blame for depriving this family of its husband and father? As the facts emerge, it becomes increasingly clear that, as tragic as this situation is, in the end the culpability for Eric Garner's death rests with Eric Garner.
To put it as simply as possible, if Mr. Garner had not broken the law and then resisted arrest, he would be alive today.
While protesters are trying to make this about race, it must be noted that the police showed up in response to complaints from black business owners. The arrest was ordered by a black officer, and the arrest itself was supervised by a black officer, a female sergeant.
A crackdown on the sale of illegal, untaxed cigarettes - called "loosies" since they are sold in singles rather than in packs - had been ordered just days before Garner's arrest by the highest ranking black police officer in the NYPD, Philip Banks.
So a black officer ordered the crackdown, black business owners called for the arrest, a black officer ordered the arrest, and a black officer supervised the arrest itself. It's also worth noting that the 23-member grand jury which refused to indict the arresting officer included nine non-white members. Ask yourself how many of those facts you have heard from any member of the race-obsessed, low-information media.
Garner had been arrested 31 times, ... His rap sheet goes back decades and includes arrests for assault and grand larceny.
(Excerpt) Read more at onenewsnow.com ...
Agreed.
...
Trayvon and Brown got what was coming to them.
Garner was "suckerchoked" by a little NYPD weasel.
You forgot the "/sarc" tag.
Actually, what you are trying to do here is to exaggerate death as being the penalty for unlawful sales.
That is a lie, a fabricated to blame the police for his death, and thus provoke an anti-law riot.
In this case the cause of death is escalating the police response needed to carry out a lawful order to desist, to subdue one's level of defiance in resisting arrest, and to remove one from the site. Eric Garner brought the consequences upon himself, knowing that the excitement could bring on a life-threatening asthmatic reaction of his constitution.
That is the actual truth, and a sarcastic response is out of order, IMHO.
The cases where police did something wrong are all over the news now. The media is making a point of reporting every incident where a cop might be at fault or mad a mistake. The number of times a cop does something really wrong are tiny compared to the thousands of police and sheriffs working 24/7 every day of the year and doing a good job.
Also, tell me where you find a profession where everyone is perfect? Are there no bad doctors, lawyers, etc.? Let me know when you find any group that is full of angels and one where nobody ever makes a mistake.
In the beginning of the Republic, there were no police.
"Police" wasn't a profession when the Founding Fathers were alive.
“You forgot the “/sarc” tag.”
No sarcasm. All laws are enforced at the threat of physical violence. Even tax laws.
In this case NYC doesn’t want a small time loosie hustler cutting into their revenue. I’d jail this officer.
In the country I grew up in - America - police were respected public safety officers, who were respectful and well disciplined to use minimum force. Today, in the United States, they are arrogant, quick to use force, and disrespectful to citizens.
That is probably one of the most asinine statements about our government that I have ever seen. You really don't want to repeat it to any law-abiding citizen. Here's why:
Every child born to man possesses an original nature of sinfulness, and is naturally not "good," but is a born criminal.
To suppress that criminal tendency there has always been a need for law, a commandment, a proscription for keeping the peace.
Wherever there has been law, there has been a need for administration and enforcement of obedience to the law.
The enforcement of the law has always demanded a police function.
Every one of our thirteen original colonies formulated a system of laws, administered by an executive magistrate, and enforced by his subordinates, sheriffs and constables.
You would do well to improve your education by finding and absorbing a description of these offices, and committing it to memory:
The word "sheriff" is a contraction of the term "shire reeve". The term, from the Old English scīrgerefa, designated a royal official responsible for keeping the peace (a "reeve") throughout a shire or county or parish on behalf of the king.[1] The term was preserved in England notwithstanding the Norman Conquest. From the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, the term spread to several other regions, at an early point to Scotland, latterly to Ireland and to the United States.
A constable is a person holding a particular office, most commonly in law enforcement. The office of constable can vary significantly in different jurisdictions. A constable is commonly the rank of an officer within the police.
In the establishment of the Pilgrim "Plimouth Colonie" who was Myles Standish?
In the community of Puritans, what was a Church warden, anf what were "stocks"? Warden (click here)
If the Church Warden caught any person truant from church services without illness or permissible excuse, the truant was pilloried and the truant's ear was nailed to the wood.
In the Virginia Colony, who was John Smith?
In the United States Navy ships, who were the United States Marines?
In our legislatures, who is the Sergeant-At-Arms, and what is his function?
. . . ad nauseum . . .
Bumping this excellent post (and original excellent post) for later reading.
Every one of our thirteen original colonies formulated a system of laws, administered by an executive magistrate, and enforced by his subordinates, sheriffs and constables.
Right. No standing army of police, nor yet a police state such as we have today.
Any of the Founding would have back-handed you for your presumption.
Six kids. What kind of man who is unable to find legal employment goes out and sires six kids? What kind of woman marries him?
We had law enforcement, but we didn't have Swarms of Police officers harassing our People, and eating out their substance (it's our tax dollars funding the standing army of Polices, in a manner that would be strange to the Founding Fathers).
To pretend that the status quo was the status quo back at the Founding, and through the lives of the Founders, is blatant manipulation of the historical record.
I certainly know this, but the cause of death for Eric Garner is/was not a penalty for illicit sale of smokes. The cause of death was not the fact that the officer applied a blood-circulation (not air restriction) hold. The cause of death was the defiant resistance to arrest and transport magnified by the resister's asthmatic and heart condition. That method of hold is not life-threatening. And the misdirected logic of your statement, if not sarcasm, could be taken as a deliberate lie to foster sympathy for the perpetrator and shifting the blame to the officer carrying out his duty.
If in this case you would jail the officer, I believe that you have a bad case of misplaced compassion. The person who needed to be jailed was the hustler for his continuous history of disobeying the law.
In the country I grew up in - America - police were respected public safety officers, who were respectful and well disciplined to use minimum force.
If you believe in this exaggeration of the conduct of police against law-breakers, it sounds to me like belief in a fairy tale. Perhaps in your youth they were faced with fewer and less violent scofflaws threatening them. Or perhaps in your youth you hadn't yet turned on the police, and therefore only saw the response of officers to those respecting them (which is still the way they seem to be behaving toward me).
And it is an offense to me to see people incited to riot by deliberately fixing the blame in the wrong place for the wrong motivation, and by those who support that dangerous attitude toward law enforcement.
I started here as a Constitutionalist crowding 18 years ago (in March it will be 18), and have seen the Constitution trodden down by the Sophists on both sides of the aisle in CONgress. The Constitution is easily twisted by deceit, hairsplitting & twisting of original intent; whereas the Declaration is immutable. It is the Rock upon which Fascists like The Sunni Emperor Barry the First & his weak-kneed minions like John Boehner will shatter themselves.
I like to call sniveling worms like them "Declaration deniers", to use their own weapons against them.
@ Tomato lover: Just FYI - a more civilized folk (the Romans) constrained their law enforcement from laying violent hands on Roman citizens (As a Roman citizen, [the apostle] Paul could not be punished by flogging, or even by binding, without a legal hearing and judgement against him). Of course, we Americans have been reduced to peasants, slaves, and chattel of our Masters in government, and their violent gunthugs, so we should just accept our lot, like some here on Free Republic do, dontchathink? ;)
Bill Clinton and Jon Corzine violated laws in the presence of police, yet no arrests were forthcoming, nor yet were violent hands laid upon them.
Garner's mistake was being a peasant, and a slave.
“I certainly know this, but the cause of death for Eric Garner is/was not a penalty for illicit sale of smokes. The cause of death was not the fact that the officer applied a blood-circulation (not air restriction) hold. The cause of death was the defiant resistance to arrest and transport magnified by the resister’s asthmatic and heart condition.”
No. The cause is the rule that prohibits circumventing the high cost of cigarette taxes. Everything else flowed from there. All enforced with violence. He was such a threat selling loose cigs on the corner that they had to do whatever it takes to arrest him. /s
“That method of hold is not life-threatening.”
If only he had taken better care of his health, he would have fared much better while being choked.
“If in this case you would jail the officer, I believe that you have a bad case of misplaced compassion.”
No. I have no compassion for the one who resisted arrest, nor for the poorly trained and violent officer, nor the taxing authority. I would jail the officer without compassion for killing during a minor arrest issue. I would also jail the idiots who passed this law. I would fine Mr. Garner.
“The person who needed to be jailed was the hustler for his continuous history of disobeying the law.”
No. He didn’t need to be jailed. He could have been fined on a civil basis. The last thing we need is more people in jail for selling cigarettes or other minor offenses. The tax payers do not need to pay for his upkeep. He was taking care of that on his own by selling loose ciggies. One of the only opportunities for income in the Obama economy.
“If you believe in this exaggeration of the conduct of police against law-breakers, it sounds to me like belief in a fairy tale. “
Sorry, I’ve met great officers like that. Other nations do not visit violence nor incarcerate for minor offenses. Nor do they justify escalating police action to death for minor offenses.
And it is an offense to me “
Your offense may be important to you, but not interesting to others. Why waste your time being offended? You’re alive. He’s dead. You’re offended??
I noted that, too.
Is it that kind of man and woman who suffer from being freed from the indignity of slavery, and then demand that the community protect them from accountability of misusing their liberty?
(It was under slavery that one got the idea that producing slews of offspring was profitable to their masters.)
aMorePerfectUnion wrote in response: No. The cause is the rule that prohibits circumventing the high cost of cigarette taxes. Everything else flowed from there. All enforced with violence. He was such a threat selling loose cigs on the corner that they had to do whatever it takes to arrest him. /s
That's weird. I seem to remember others who defiantly resisted arrest and transport, while they were also circumventing taxes by the Central Authority. The Central Authority responded with violence, but was ultimately unsuccessful. That was some 230-240 years ago...
I see miles of difference between Trayvon (attacked a guy), Michael Brown (attacked a cop) and Garner — busted for circumventing a stupid Democrat confiscatory task.
Yes, Garner should have been a good boy and surrendered to Caesar’s tax collectors (er, I mean “DeBlasio’s tax collectors” — confused my Italian tyrants for a moment), but the uniformed tax collectors were out of hand.
Was it racist? No.
Was it criminal? No.
Was it wrong? Yes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.