Apparently being arrested a lot makes one a career criminal to some folks, whether or not those arrests result in criminal conviction. I don’t buy it. Not that it’s relevant to whether the police should have killed him or not.
They would if the kids resisted arrest.
These are the pettiest of petty offences.
(underline added)
Apparently, it does.
*career criminal (kəˈrɪə ˈkrɪmɪnəl)
Definitions
noun
a person who earns his income through criminal activities ⇒ Thomas was an ambitious career criminal, specializing in armed robbery and drug dealing.*
This doesn’t support anything you’re saying. Career criminals are convicted of lots and lots of crimes. You’ve failed to show that Garner was convicted of lots and lots of crimes. Being arrested a lot is not the same.
Decisions, decisions… The Collins Dictionary definition doesn’t agree with your definition. Which one should I choose? 
Hmmm. I’m gonna have to go with the dictionary.
Someone repeatedly illegally selling stuff seems to be pretty much a perfect definition of a career criminal. Regardless of whether you think the things he was selling should be illegal.
I agree. Saying he was a career criminal is asking the reader to conclude that he was repeatedly guilty – which is something that the state was unable to convince a judge or jury to find.
It seems to me that you’re conflating arrest with proof that he did the act. You confidently assert he was repeatedly selling illegal stuff, and for evidence you point to his arrests. But those arrests only show that there was probable cause to believe that he did it --a very low standard that doesn’t justify your confident declaration.
The media chooses which stories to focus on. The more ambiguous cases are better for ratings.
Ok, if Garner was repeatedly selling untaxed cigarettes he could fairly be described as a career criminal. My point was more that, even if the crime is minor and you don’t believe it should be a crime, the description can still fit.
Not that the nature of any of his alleged crimes apart from resisting arrest have any bearing on whether his killing was illegal.
What are you talking about? You underlined a quote by iiandyiiii saying “Apparently being arrested a lot makes one a career criminal” and tried to prove that was correct by providing a dictionary definition that is “a person who earns his income through criminal activities.”
Now you’re claiming that definition says that being arrested a lot makes one a career criminal?
Not to mention that I still haven’t seen evidence that Garner earned his income through criminal activities. Not saying he didn’t, but I haven’t seen any numbers. How much did he earn from his illegal activities? How much did he earn in legal ways?
Yes, Garner was arrested many, many times for violating the law. Yes, Garner earned income from criminal activities. That makes Garner a career criminal.
Is there an actual legal definition of the term “career criminal”?
Is Garner’s complete arrest record available to the public? I only found a partial list.
How much income did he earn from criminal activities? How much from non-criminal activities? That would seem to be the chief distinction we’d need to know before we could call someone a “Career criminal”.
You’re line of reasoning made no sense and I pointed that out to you. You’re not responding to that and instead just repeating claims that aren’t valid conclusions from your own premises.
So, how do you suggest we modify our legal codes to fully incorporate and enable your bold new initiative for the legal rights of “career criminals”? Who is going to make this determination? Will the “career criminal” have an opportunity to contest the designation? Preferably, before he is actually dead?
No. Repeat felony offenders are sometimes called “habitual offenders,” and there are often state laws defining a habitual offender, but “career criminal,” is not a term of art in criminal law.
His adult arrest record is public, but not Internet-searchable for free.
The dictionary definition didn’t include any defining reference to a percentage of income. You may require such a chief distinction, but I don’t. “We” don’t have to refer to Eric Garner as career criminal. I believe Eric Garner is a career criminal based on his multiple arrests for violating various laws.
So, you who have ordered something on the internet and avoided local taxes are also a “career criminal”?
I am a “career criminal”, as is also any other poster in this thread most likely? I don’t make a living by buying things online but the money I save does help me live and would fit your overly broad scope here.
Or wait…do you need to be “arrested” and not convicted? Must suck to be a non-white male in NYC.
Seeing as “Guilt” of those crimes seems to not matter.