You are saying “resisted” like it is a singular thing that never changes. That there is no gray area or nuance to it or measured response. The second anyone “resists” (which by your definition is pulling your hand away) that’s it, all bets are off and the police can pile on.
As for his prior record it seems he was a petty criminal mostly involved in petty crimes. Do we know more about the assault charge? How long ago it happened? The circumstances? Who he assaulted?
Does ANY of that matter when he was clearly not being violent towards the police and in fact was holding his hands up? He was selling loose cigarettes and he was not being aggressive. If he went at the police I could see your point. He didn’t.
You keep holding on to this minutiae like it means something or makes a difference. It doesn’t change a thing as regards police using excessive force. If you or I did this we’d be up on murder charges. Because the police did it the question becomes were their actions reasonable? That’s it. That they killed Garner is beyond question. You nitpicking which aspect of the factors of his death are listed does not change the fact that police action killed Garner.
Sometimes the irresponsibility comes first. If you look back on who were the worst bullies in high school, the biggest assholes with the most disturbing obsessions with weapons, what was the most probable career path they chose?
It’s your all-encompassing devotion to your ideological beliefs, and that the “other team” must always, in all circumstances, be wrong, that makes you hang your hat on such trivia. In my opinion, anyway.
I don’t think so. I saw a video of a man who didn’t have to die. Killed because some overzealous cops piled on him. You are not taking issue with that, just changing the narrative to, “The popular description of the incident is slightly wrong. So, cops justified.”
You’re nit-picking because you simply must find fault with the “liberal” side. And I guess you’ve decided that the “liberal” side includes those that find issue with the police crushing the life out of a man.
“Slightly wrong”? They are claiming that he was “Choked to death for selling loose cigarettes”. That’s not slightly wrong. That’s about as wrong as it gets.
Yes, the cops were overzealous. (Note: you can be overzealous and justified at the same time). No, it wasn’t a crime. If the protestors were all about overzealousness instead of about charging the cop with murder, I’d be supporting them.
Not many people over the age of 11 use “I’m rubber, you’re glue” as an actual argument. Maybe you didn’t learn that growing up in a country where the police were deities, though.
You’ve taken so many positions, often contradictory ones, that it’s pretty much impossible to credit you for having one at all. Your anger at the idea that cops can be at fault for anything overpowers any reasoning or moral consideration you might actually be capable of. But that’s how life in a democracy works, and it’s time you grew the fuck up a little and accepted the responsibility that goes along with the privileges.
This doesn’t matter at all. The cops killed Garner because of the holds/pressure on his neck and chest and the position on the ground they put him in. It doesn’t sound any better or worse if the positioning on the ground is left out.
He was killed by the cops. Maybe their actions were justified, but the cops definitely killed Garner – just as if it were a bunch of guys dressed like cops who attacked Garner with identical video.
ISTM you’re being a little unfair to Terr, mon frère. He has acknowledged that in plain English the cops killed him. He has said it was unintentional homicide, but not murder and not a crime. He has agreed they were overzealous. Am I missing something?