Replies

Eric Garner did not deserve to be mauled to death over cigarette taxes.

I am as against excessive force as much as anyone. In fact, one of the reasons that I am such a supporter of the 2nd amendment is that I do not grant the government the right to render me defenseless against the government. And I am as against cigarette taxes as much as anyone. In fact, one of the reasons that I am against sin taxes (or regulations that impede the exercise of individual choices, in general), is because they invariably lead to an over-militarization of police, and the criminalization of pursuits that most people would consider in some way justified.

However, this guy was not "mauled". Nor was he not mauled over cigarette taxes. This is pure hyperbole, and aggrandizement. He died because he resisted arrest, and, as a morbidly obese asthmatic, resisting arrest is not the wise decision. If you can't win your argument without resorting to verbs like "maul", or to causes like "over cigarette taxes", you have lost your argument.

You also refer to "police state brutality". I suspect that you have no idea at all what that means. And I also suspect that you have no idea at all what the fringes of society are like, when it is your job to shield ordinary people from this fringe entering into their daily existence. Police brutality (let alone police "state" brutality)? Please. A morbidly obese man makes a darwinian choice to resist arrest, resulting in a mildly violent takedown. Heart attack, and, for the compassion-challenged among us, hilarity, ensues. Nothing more.

If you can't win your argument without resorting to verbs like "maul", or to causes like "over cigarette taxes", you have lost your argument.

>"A morbidly obese man makes a darwinian choice to resist arrest, resulting in a mildly violent takedown."

Whom was the least violent during this "mildly" violent takedown?

Looks like you should try another mild verb. Have you seen the autopsy reports about Eric's neck? Mild~

What was that you said about having to rely on verbs causing you to lose an argument?

Let's strip it all down.

The man was alive. The police overpowered him. He died.

Any factual qualms? No hyperbole. No comparisons to lemonade stand violations. Just the facts!

Why couldn't they have just written him a ticket? It's not like they didn't know who he was or where he lived or where he worked, and clearly arresting him wasn't having any affect, until the last time.

He died because he resisted arrest, and, as a morbidly obese asthmatic, resisting arrest is not the wise decision.

I just missed a bus Saturday. I knew from its route that it would hit red lights and I could probably run it down. Twenty years ago I would not have given it a second thought. Now, in my fifties, with hypertension, it would be inviting a heart attack. So I waited for the next one. I took into account my own knowledge of my health before I acted. And I can walk just fine, walk several miles a day. Garner could hardly walk a block.

The cops did not kill Garner. His own decision to resist arrest did. He knew he was in poor health. The cops didn't, they just saw a large man resisting arrest and used just enough force to get him on the ground, hardly a mauling. But a short wrestling match puts a tremendous strain on the body.

One can fairly debate NY cig taxes and laws, but, according to Garner's own wife, he was lazy. If smokes weren't taxed into the black market, he would probably have just found some other way to make money in another black market. And he had been arrested for selling single smokes before, so he knew full well why he was being arrested.

Garner is yet another case of the anti-cop and pro-race-card factions making a poor choice of poster child. And I am not pro cop - with Brown and Garner, I waited for the facts to come out. The facts showed both men, like Trayvon, made poor choices that contributed directly to their deaths. But with Garner, no one applied lethal force - his own heart did him in.