Boycotting the NFL

[OurBigTrip]

Out of curiosity, is that the law in NYC--that this was only a ticketable offense?

I know you said there was no reason--but does the law agree with you, all else aside?

Apparently not, as Eric Garner had been arrested for the same offense before.

Once again, the poutrage brigade has chosen a street thug as their icon.

 

[missbrooke06]

Yes, Garner was a large guy resisting arrest (although not particularly aggressively) and the officer that used the chokehold was smaller than him. But there were 3 other officers surrounding him immediately. I have a hard time believing 4 trained officers were incapable of finding a method other than the banned chokehold.

 

[OurBigTrip]

Yes, Garner was a large guy resisting arrest (although not particularly aggressively) and the officer that used the chokehold was smaller than him. But there were 3 other officers surrounding him immediately. I have a hard time believing 4 trained officers were incapable of finding a method other than the banned chokehold.

I agree - I'm not arguing that use of the chokehold was correct, I'm arguing that the implication that Eric Garner was just some innocent guy, murdered by police, is incorrect. Like Michael Brown, the guy was a thug, and like many thugs, they knowingly and willingly chose to break the law.

Is it Eric Garner's fault that the officer used a banned chokehold? Absolutely not.

Is it Eric Garner's fault that he was being arrested? Absolutely.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Yes, Garner was a large guy resisting arrest (although not particularly aggressively) and the officer that used the chokehold was smaller than him. But there were 3 other officers surrounding him immediately. I have a hard time believing 4 trained officers were incapable of finding a method other than the banned chokehold.

Did the recording catch audio and what they were all saying? Clearly they had to have been "together" on that decision since the hold continued. I do agree with you that could not have been the ONLY way.

 

[Airship Ariadne]

Apparently in NYC, unlicensed sellers in possession of untaxed cigarettes are subject to arrest. Why would they just give him a ticket?

Because arresting people for that is insane...unjust...and immoral. read your Thoreau.

 

[OurBigTrip]

Because arresting people for that is insane...unjust...and immoral. read your Thoreau.

Then instead of complaining about police officers enforcing the law as written, complain about the law or better yet, work to get it changed.

 

[olwyngdh]

False analogies. In all three examples, nothing illegal was being done.

To me,the Eric Garner case is much less clear cut than the Michael Brown case, as the video shows that the police officer was using a banned choke hold. But let's not pretend that Eric Garner was some law abiding guy walking down the street, minding his own business when the police decided to kill him. Should there have been an indictment? Maybe. But Eric Garner, like Michael Brown before him, made bad decisions. Break the law, resist arrest...it rarely ends in death, but it rarely ends well either.

Blaming the victim is blaming the victim. It is not a false analogy at all. What if the girl that got raped was underage, she is breaking the law then, so I guess from your logic she is responsible for being raped?

Abuse of power is abuse of power. The cop violated the rules he is supposed to follow and that violation resulted in the death of the subject. It doesn't matter that the subject swatted at him, he was not allowed to use a chokehold and he did. What he did may not be illegal, but it is a violation of the rules and protocols of his job and he should have been fired even if he was not found legally culpable for the death.

 

[Airship Ariadne]

Then instead of complaining about police officers enforcing the law as written, complain about the law or better yet, work to get it changed.

Again...read your Thoreau:
"Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to be on the alert to point out its faults, and do better than it would have them?"

Civil Disobedience 1849

 

[Airship Ariadne]

Apparently not, as Eric Garner had been arrested for the same offense before.

Once again, the poutrage brigade has chosen a street thug as their icon.

Or a 21st Century Son of Liberty

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Because arresting people for that is insane...unjust...and immoral. read your Thoreau.

That is a different argument, though regardless of how relevant it may be In the big scheme of things.

Bottom line--was it an arrestable offense? If yes, then the arrest in and of itself was not in error. But rather the events that took place during the arrest are the only events at issue.

 

[OurBigTrip]

Abuse of power is abuse of power. The cop violated the rules he is supposed to follow and that violation resulted in the death of the subject.

It was definitively stated that the choke hold caused Garner's death?

It doesn't matter that the subject swatted at him, he was not allowed to use a chokehold and he did. What he did may not be illegal, but it is a violation of the rules and protocols of his job and he should have been fired even if he was not found legally culpable for the death.

I agree, the officer should be fired for using the choke hold. Perhaps he should have been indicted as well, but since the evidence presented to the grand jury has not been released, I don't know. Nor does anyone else that wasn't on the grand jury.

 

[OurBigTrip]

Or a 21st Century Son of Liberty

Yeah, right.

 

[olwyngdh]

It was definitively stated that the choke hold caused Garner's death?.

With contributing factors. Autopsy showed blood in the neck as a result of the chokehold and the coroner called it homicide (The killing of one human being by another human being according to the legal dictionary), not natural death due to contributing factors.

GJ said it is not criminal homicide by refusing to indict.

 

[TaylorEar]

Of course he didn't die of his own accord but he did have a MAJOR part in it. There are many, many things Eric Garner could have done (or not done) to avoid the end result of death.

This is EXACTLY the same as saying, "Hey ladies, don't want to get raped? Don't get drunk around men, and don't wear short skirts."

 

[Disneychick75]

This is EXACTLY the same as saying, "Hey ladies, don't want to get raped? Don't get drunk around men, and don't wear short skirts."

These types of posts make no sense. If a thief breaks into a house and threatens the family, then gets shot by the homeowner. It's the homeowner's fault because the thief thought the house was worth robbing?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

This is EXACTLY the same as saying, "Hey ladies, don't want to get raped? Don't get drunk around men, and don't wear short skirts."

These types of posts make no sense. If a thief breaks into a house and threatens the family, then gets shot by the homeowner. It's the homeowner's fault because the thief thought the house was worth robbing?

What they are saying is that it doesn't matter if a crime is committed. It's the burglar suing for the puddle on the floor reasoning.

Resisting arrest is a common no no. None of us are permitted to resist arrest ever.

The problem is the outcome as a result of that resisting. Resisting lead to it, but it doesn't excuse it per se.

Comparing this to a rape victim is pathetic and a fallacy. Wearing short skirts is not illegal and saying no certainly is not.

We don't get to say no to arrests. It does not mean we are subject to inappropriate treatment during arrest. But it doesn't mean the original arrest was wrong or that resisting that arrest was an option.

 

[usd2bmd]

Dante Stallworth killed a man while drinking and driving.
Ray Lewis's bodyguards killed someone in a club.
Michael Vick was involved in a dogfighting ring.
Lawrence Taylor hired an underage prostitute.
Adrian Peterson whipped his son bloody.
Ray Rice punched his fiancee unconscious.
Dez Bryant hit his mother.
Brett Favre sexually harassed a female journalist.
Ben Roethlesberger may have raped several women.
O. J. Simpson probably killed his wife.

Yet protesting the death of black men by the hands of police is the straw that broke your back.

OK.

Yes, this.

Many of you are not seeing my side at all. The point is, I, like millions of others, take this wearing of the controversial comments to be offensive. It is their right to wear it, I am conceding that.
It is my right to show my displeasure by cutting my ties with the NFL until I feel it has dealt with the situation. They don't have to do anything, and I don't have to go back to going to or watching the games.
To the many of others that are also unhappy with these displays, I say, make your voices heard, and stop being in the silent majority. This is an action for change. Me by myself doing this is laughable, but I sincerely am starting a campaign to get people to wake up and STOP being silent.

you do realize the irony in this statement don't you?

 

[Disneychick75]

What they are saying is that it doesn't matter if a crime is committed. It's the burglar suing for the puddle on the floor reasoning.

Resisting arrest is a common no no. None of us are permitted to resist arrest ever.

The problem is the outcome as a result of that resisting. Resisting lead to it, but it doesn't excuse it per se.

Comparing this to a rape victim is pathetic and a fallacy. Wearing short skirts is not illegal and saying no certainly is not.

We don't get to say no to arrests. It does not mean we are subject to inappropriate treatment during arrest. But it doesn't mean the original arrest was wrong or that resisting that arrest was an option.

I know my point was that people who do wrong sometimes have consequences as a result of their actions. The best way to avoid "death by cop" or by someone defending their life is to obey the law. Simple

 

[missbrooke06]

I know my point was that people who do wrong sometimes have consequences as a result of their actions. The best way to avoid "death by cop" or by someone defending their life is to obey the law. Simple

So I should be careful to avoid going 26 in a 25 mph zone because I'm now fair game to be treated in whatever manner a police officer deems necessary?

 

[TaylorEar]

What they are saying is that it doesn't matter if a crime is committed. It's the burglar suing for the puddle on the floor reasoning.

Resisting arrest is a common no no. None of us are permitted to resist arrest ever.

The problem is the outcome as a result of that resisting. Resisting lead to it, but it doesn't excuse it per se.

Comparing this to a rape victim is pathetic and a fallacy. Wearing short skirts is not illegal and saying no certainly is not.

We don't get to say no to arrests. It does not mean we are subject to inappropriate treatment during arrest. But it doesn't mean the original arrest was wrong or that resisting that arrest was an option.

I know my point was that people who do wrong sometimes have consequences as a result of their actions. The best way to avoid "death by cop" or by someone defending their life is to obey the law. Simple

Ok... since you are both hung up on the legality issue, let me amend my statement.

It's exactly the same as saying "Hey ladies, don't want to get raped? Don't drink underage at a frat party"