Garner didn’t have a lot of options. After 30+ arrests, Garner should have known that he had few options. 1) Don’t commit a crime. 2) Don’t resist arrest.
How do you know that the police didn’t come in response to a fight that Eric Garner broke up? And that the arrest was due to him “breaking up a fight?”
Oh that is right, you are the all knowing who refuses to answer any real debate points and who thinks winning a debate through attrition means your point won.
Thank goodness our country wasn’t founded on your ideals, although they do fit in with the British ideals of the time.
I would hate to see the distain you have for men like John Hancock and Samuel Adams!
Your statement that he committed a crime is based on a cop pointing at someone, apparently.
(post shortened for a more manageable byte size)
I won’t speak for Samenow but generally-speaking, criminals don’t believe laws apply to them. Just because you own something doesn’t mean they can’t take it whenever they feel like it. Or stab you if you object to the theft.
Standing 21 feet apart is absurd. How do you interview a suspect, or have a general conversation, standing 2 car lengths away from someone?
"What are you doing here? WHAT? WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE? WAITING FOR MY FRIEND. YOU WERE JUST SEEN LEAVING A CONVIENT STORE THAT HAS JUST BEEN ROBBED. NO, I WASN’T. DO YOU HAVE AN ID? WHAT? ID! DO YOU HAVE AN ID? YA. TOSS IT OVER HERE. WHAT? TOSS YOUR ID OVER HERE.
I’m not seeing this becoming law.
The officer(s) witness the crime. The officers were arresting Garner. Garner chose to resist arrest.
Are you making any “debate points”?
By debate points, are you using the definition of broad, sweeping statements supported by improbable interpretations based on absurd analyses?
How do you know?
That’s a hell of a broad brush, there. A guy who sells drugs is the same as an armed robber, who’s the same as a bootleg DVD seller, who’s the same as an unlicensed cabbie, who’s the same as serial killer? I notice a lot of othering language in your posts on these matters, as though there are classes of people that have different rights and worth than you do.
Either I’m not making myself clear, or you’re skimming over posts in your quest to answer them all. I was referring to this specific situation: the police are trying to arrest someone for a nonviolent offense, he claims he’s being harassed yet again and maintains his innocence - not a blanket rule for all police/civilian encounters. In such a scenario, if the police were, as they should be, interested in reserving the use of force as a last resort, one way to contribute to that is to have one officer speak with the suspect, while the others remain at a reasonable distance - close enough to assist, not so close as to escalate the situation.
Speaking of the number of police involved, Malcolm Gladwell wrote in Blink about the effect it has on the outcome, as he discusses here:
Just food for thought.
Perhaps. Gotta wonder how the other officer’s judgement of the officer relates. And if the first officer is a comparative “rookie” anxious for approval.
(post shortened)
-
Two under cover cops mingled with the demonstrators. One, or more, demonstrators discovered that they were police officers. One demonstrator struck one of the officers in the back of his head. The officers detained and arrested the person who attacked them. The mob became angry and one of the officers drew his weapon to protect himself and his partner. It appears that the mob attacked the officers because they were officers.
-
Garner chose to fight (resist) his arrest.
-
I gave several option in post 584. The police chose to gang tackle Garner in order to make the arrest.
Obviously he needs help, he’s screwing it up badly so far.
(post shortened)
Career criminals, criminals in general, have no regard for the law. Laws against stealing, rape, murder, don’t apply to them.
- Garner had several minutes to comply. It appears that Garner was primarily being addressed by, and responding to, one officer. It appears that Garner wasn’t going to comply. It appears that force was the last resort.
Times a wastin’. What are you still doin’ here? Pack your bags. The Big Apple awaits. 
Doubly wrong
- The cops did not witness a crime, a crime was reported to them.
- The crime was selling untaxed cigarettes. Garner did not have cigarettes on him at the time of the arrest so how did the police witness this?
I’m curious if doorhinge is constitutionally capable of admitting that he was wrong about something.
I’ll take your word that someone other than a police officer reported Garner for illegally selling illegal cigarettes provided you provide a cite. It’s NYC, or more specifically Staten Island, and I believe it’s illegal to sell untaxed cigarettes and untaxed cigarettes are illegal to own.
Let’s see, Garner sold untaxed cigarettes. Someone bought those untaxed cigarettes and walked away. Garner no longer had illegal cigarettes in his possession. It can’t possibly be that simple, can it?
In other words, no, you don’t have any evidence that police witnessed lawbreaking.
Where’s yours?
Dude, you’re awesome -seriously, Chuck has nothing on you! Not even a stylish mullet.
Fact remains he died due to an illegal chokehold. Not 30 years worth, but a minute or two. End of.
Back to you Sensei.