[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Seriously? You don’t believe a state imposed tax of $4.35 per pack of cigarettes and an additional tax of $1.60 per pack by NYC does not equate big government? This is per pack not carton. I’d hate to think what you do consider big government.
[/quote]
I already explain what I feel big government is and no a single state taxing an item as they see fit is not “big government.” imo.
Jezz I thought small federal government guys liked when states made these decisions at the state level
[/quote]
No, some of us dont’ see the world in black or white, and understand that just because a state makes a shit law, doesn’t make it an okay law because a state made it. Conversely, we don’t automatically think just because a federal law stops the states from enforcing shitty laws (which I assume was your angle with the Parks = big government nonsense) that is wrong or big government too.
Lets not forget Garner had over 30 previous arrests including assault, resisting arrest, and several arrests for selling cigarettes. I’m sure his criminal history was not lost on the arresting officers. One typically does not give warnings to repeat offenders. Do any of you know if Garner’s past assaults and resisting arrests were particularly violent in nature?
Would this information not be relevant in judging the amount of force used necessary to subdue Garner? There are two reasons this tragedy occurred: 1. Garner’s decision to resist arrest for committing a crime and 2. The state’s decision to make it illegal for one adult to sell another adult a legal product.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Seriously? You don’t believe a state imposed tax of $4.35 per pack of cigarettes and an additional tax of $1.60 per pack by NYC does not equate big government? This is per pack not carton. I’d hate to think what you do consider big government.
[/quote]
I already explain what I feel big government is and no a single state taxing an item as they see fit is not “big government.” imo.
Jezz I thought small federal government guys liked when states made these decisions at the state level
[/quote]
Do you think the states would enact obscene taxes on cigarettes if the ATF didn’t regulate tobacco and the federal government didn’t demonize smoking?
I would also add that if the department “banned” the use of this hold as a submission technique, they did so because the department classified it as a use of deadly/lethal force on the use-of-force spectrum/continuum and the officer is charged with knowledge that this was a use of lethal force. That means he needed to be justified to shoot the perp, i.e., authorized to use deadly/lethal force, before applying the hold.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Seriously? You don’t believe a state imposed tax of $4.35 per pack of cigarettes and an additional tax of $1.60 per pack by NYC does not equate big government? This is per pack not carton. I’d hate to think what you do consider big government.
[/quote]
I already explain what I feel big government is and no a single state taxing an item as they see fit is not “big government.” imo.
Jezz I thought small federal government guys liked when states made these decisions at the state level
[/quote]
No, some of us dont’ see the world in black or white, and understand that just because a state makes a shit law, doesn’t make it an okay law because a state made it. Conversely, we don’t automatically think just because a federal law stops the states from enforcing shitty laws (which I assume was your angle with the Parks = big government nonsense) that is wrong or big government too. [/quote]
You are adding a value judgement with words like “okay,” “shitty,” and “wrong” to this conversation. I did not make a value judgement in this thread in regards to any of the laws that have been discussed.
I did not say a law is okay because a state made it vs. the Fed. That would be preposterously absurd. Do you really think I would make that claim? Especially being a MD resident…
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Seriously? You don’t believe a state imposed tax of $4.35 per pack of cigarettes and an additional tax of $1.60 per pack by NYC does not equate big government? This is per pack not carton. I’d hate to think what you do consider big government.
[/quote]
I already explain what I feel big government is and no a single state taxing an item as they see fit is not “big government.” imo.
Jezz I thought small federal government guys liked when states made these decisions at the state level
[/quote]
Do you think the states would enact obscene taxes on cigarettes if the ATF didn’t regulate tobacco and the federal government didn’t demonize smoking?
[/quote]
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
There are two reasons this tragedy occurred: 1. Garner’s decision to resist arrest for committing a crime and 2. The state’s decision to make it illegal for one adult to sell another adult a legal product. [/quote]
I did not say a law is okay because a state made it vs. the Fed. That would be preposterously absurd. Do you really think I would make that claim? Especially being a MD resident…[/quote]
No, I’m just making a snarky comment in response to yours.
I don’t think we differ too much in our opinion here, other than, now that the damage is done, I’d like to see the conversation be about the Nanny State and how we fix that, than this be turned into “racism” and “which holds should be used to arrest people for selling cigarettes.”
The hold he used is irrelevant in my mind. It’s the fact this dude could be arrested for selling loosie in the first place.
I did not say a law is okay because a state made it vs. the Fed. That would be preposterously absurd. Do you really think I would make that claim? Especially being a MD resident…[/quote]
No, I’m just making a snarky comment in response to yours.
I don’t think we differ too much in our opinion here, other than, now that the damage is done, I’d like to see the conversation be about the Nanny State and how we fix that, than this be turned into “racism” and “which holds should be used to arrest people for selling cigarettes.”
The hold he used is irrelevant in my mind. It’s the fact this dude could be arrested for selling loosie in the first place. [/quote]
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
The real question here is what were the charges the officer was indicted for? That hasn’t been released. Commissioner Kelly is trying to get that, along with all requisite documents, released to the public.
If the charges were 2nd degree homicide for instance, intent on the officers part would have been very difficult to approve. [/quote]
Here is where my ignorance of court procedure shines through: Can’t a GJ choose to indict on either Murder 3 or Murder 2, either by simply making that choice, or because a prosecutor gives them the option, or something? I could be very wrong.[/quote]
No sir. The GJ can only consider what the person is charged with. And the charges are brought by the State/ District Attorney. In many cases, the DA will bring a variety of charges, and the GJ and bring a True Bill or No True Bill on one, some, all or none of the crimes. And herein lies the allegation of “prosecutor bias”. That’s why in many times a Special Prosecutor will be brought on that does not have any ties to the police/community and possible offer a more objective presentation of the charges.
[/quote]
Got it, thanks.
So both murder 2 & 3 could have been brought, and the GJ could have elected 3? Though we don’t/probably won’t know what was brought?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Either the police officer was in the right and this whole debate is silly, OR the police officer was in the wrong and this involves more than that police officer.
[/quote]
No, there is a third option.
The police officer was doing the job we as society ask him to do, which is enforce the law. The now dead man resisted, and the officer did what he was supposed to do. So he was right to try and detain the individual. HOWEVER the greater circumstances (government regulation) that put the police officer in a position to have even been standing there that day are the greater issue here.
In essence, the cop was right, but there is still, and more important lessons to be learned, than what hold was used. [/quote]
That is true. I was referring more to the debate about this particular incident.
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
The real question here is what were the charges the officer was indicted for? That hasn’t been released. Commissioner Kelly is trying to get that, along with all requisite documents, released to the public.
If the charges were 2nd degree homicide for instance, intent on the officers part would have been very difficult to approve. [/quote]
Here is where my ignorance of court procedure shines through: Can’t a GJ choose to indict on either Murder 3 or Murder 2, either by simply making that choice, or because a prosecutor gives them the option, or something? I could be very wrong.[/quote]
No sir. The GJ can only consider what the person is charged with. And the charges are brought by the State/ District Attorney. In many cases, the DA will bring a variety of charges, and the GJ and bring a True Bill or No True Bill on one, some, all or none of the crimes. And herein lies the allegation of “prosecutor bias”. That’s why in many times a Special Prosecutor will be brought on that does not have any ties to the police/community and possible offer a more objective presentation of the charges.
[/quote]
Got it, thanks.
So both murder 2 & 3 could have been brought, and the GJ could have elected 3? Though we don’t/probably won’t know what was brought?[/quote]
It is very easy for a prosecutor to wash the whole deal through the grand jury because it is generally secret and non-adversarial. I am not saying this was or was not done here, but washing a shooting through the grand jury isn’t something that happens only in conspiracy-theory fantasies. And one way to do it is simply by overcharging.
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
The real question here is what were the charges the officer was indicted for? That hasn’t been released. Commissioner Kelly is trying to get that, along with all requisite documents, released to the public.
If the charges were 2nd degree homicide for instance, intent on the officers part would have been very difficult to approve. [/quote]
Here is where my ignorance of court procedure shines through: Can’t a GJ choose to indict on either Murder 3 or Murder 2, either by simply making that choice, or because a prosecutor gives them the option, or something? I could be very wrong.[/quote]
No sir. The GJ can only consider what the person is charged with. And the charges are brought by the State/ District Attorney. In many cases, the DA will bring a variety of charges, and the GJ and bring a True Bill or No True Bill on one, some, all or none of the crimes. And herein lies the allegation of “prosecutor bias”. That’s why in many times a Special Prosecutor will be brought on that does not have any ties to the police/community and possible offer a more objective presentation of the charges.
[/quote]
In other words, the DA can say, “I DID charge that sunovabitch cop with MURDER! It’s not MY fault that the grand jury didn’t hold it up!”.
(but he COULD have brought charges of MANSLAUGHTER and the cop that killed the unarmed black guy would be CHARGED and at least face a TRIAL for his/her actions).
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
The real question here is what were the charges the officer was indicted for? That hasn’t been released. Commissioner Kelly is trying to get that, along with all requisite documents, released to the public.
If the charges were 2nd degree homicide for instance, intent on the officers part would have been very difficult to approve. [/quote]
Here is where my ignorance of court procedure shines through: Can’t a GJ choose to indict on either Murder 3 or Murder 2, either by simply making that choice, or because a prosecutor gives them the option, or something? I could be very wrong.[/quote]
No sir. The GJ can only consider what the person is charged with. And the charges are brought by the State/ District Attorney. In many cases, the DA will bring a variety of charges, and the GJ and bring a True Bill or No True Bill on one, some, all or none of the crimes. And herein lies the allegation of “prosecutor bias”. That’s why in many times a Special Prosecutor will be brought on that does not have any ties to the police/community and possible offer a more objective presentation of the charges.
[/quote]
In other words, the DA can say, “I DID charge that sunovabitch cop with MURDER! It’s not MY fault that the grand jury didn’t hold it up!”.
(but he COULD have brought charges of MANSLAUGHTER and the cop that killed the unarmed black guy would be CHARGED and at least face a TRIAL for his/her actions).
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
There are two reasons this tragedy occurred: 1. Garner’s decision to resist arrest for committing a crime and 2. The state’s decision to make it illegal for one adult to sell another adult a legal product. [/quote]
An officer decided to ignore departmental policy. [/quote]
Easy to say in hindsight. Policy is not the first thing on anyone’s mind when trying to physically subdue someone especially when that someone is the size of Garner. Yes, it would have been optimal had the officer not used a neck hold from behind to begin with but that is a most effective way to bring a person larger than you to the ground without striking them. Once down, it’s not an easy thing to just let go while the guy is still fighting regardless of what policy says. Do you know the details of Garner’s previous arrests and resistance? Do you understand what criminal intent is? I can see the officer being found liable for his death in a civil suit however.
I did not say a law is okay because a state made it vs. the Fed. That would be preposterously absurd. Do you really think I would make that claim? Especially being a MD resident…[/quote]
No, I’m just making a snarky comment in response to yours.
I don’t think we differ too much in our opinion here, other than, now that the damage is done, I’d like to see the conversation be about the Nanny State and how we fix that, than this be turned into “racism” and “which holds should be used to arrest people for selling cigarettes.”
The hold he used is irrelevant in my mind. It’s the fact this dude could be arrested for selling loosie in the first place. [/quote]
Gotcha, ya that’s fine. [/quote]
THE NANNY STATE AND HOW WE FIX THAT…
I would LOVE to have that discussion.
Do you guys want to have that here? Or do you think it is worthy of it’s own thread (I don’t want to hijack something just a few pages in).
