I can't breathe!

[Thief]

Law enforcement must show evidence of a crime committed or to subdue any citizen who is an immediate threat to justify taking a citizen into custody.

I didn't see evidence, nor any incriminating statements, nor any threat by Garner to justify the LEO's present to take him into custody.

and the evidence will be presented....in court.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

and the evidence will be presented....in court.

Do you support warrantless searches?

 

[Thief]

Do you support warrantless searches?

I support the system.
and my son has offered his efforts to the military.

You might not like uniforms.....but it's a fact of life.

Too bad the big guy had no respect for that.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I have two sons in the Armed Forces. One just coming back from his 12-month infantry tour from hostile territory in Afghanistan.

My husband is also a combat veteran from the War in Iraq.

You may stop assuming things about me.

But you didn't answer my question....do you support warrantless searches?

 

[Thief]

I have two sons in the Armed Forces. One just coming back from his 12-month infantry tour from hostile territory in Afghanistan.

My husband is also a combat veteran from the War in Iraq.

You may stop assuming things about me.

But you didn't answer my question....do you support warrantless searches?

No of course not.
But neither will I support stupidity in the face of the law.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

No of course not.
But neither will I support stupidity in the face of the law.

Stupidity does not warrant brutality.

 

[Thief]

Stupidity does not warrant brutality.

and the cops won't let you walk from an arrest just cause you don't know better.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

and the cops won't let you walk from an arrest just cause you don't know better.

And THIS is part of the problem.

As a business owner, as a teacher, as a parent, and even here as an administrator....I'm faced with stupidity a lot, as well. Even with my permissions to utilize my authority in said positions to prohibit attendance or offer a penalty, I am never in any position to brutalize anyone.

Is there a reason why law enforcement officers so frequently brutalize and kill unarmed citizens? No matter how stupid citizens can be?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

how is this anything but speculation?

Your scenario seems produced.

The officer talking with Garner said he had sold to a man in a red shirt. When Garner asked which guy with a red shirt the officer looking into the crowd of onlookers said..."Not that red shirt, there’s another guy in a red shirt"... There was no one taken into custody prior to Garner's altercation with police for supposedly buying loose cigarettes from Garner. The police that actually accused him of selling cigarettes had to turn to the crowd as if he was looking for the buyer. Last I checked...it's just as illegal to buy them as it is to sell them.

By the Way, It's Not Clear Eric Garner Even Had Illegal Cigarettes When He Was Killed - The Daily Banter

At this point, it’s Garner’s word against the word of a tentative-sounding cop that he sold a loose cigarette to someone, but early reporting on the incident suggests the cops didn’t even have that much, but rather “accused him of passing a cigarette to someone,” which isn’t illegal. They suspected Garner, Garner had been busted before for selling “loosies,” but it’s not even clear they had a prima facie charge against him for this incident. As it turned out, the cigarettes he was carrying were perfectly legal.

The story of the mysterious man in a red shirt who supposedly committed a crime for buying loose cigarettes wasn't in custody and the accusing officer apparently was unable to find the criminal wearing a red shirt within the crowd of people. No. It sounds like they made a rush to judgement seeking an arrest.

 

[McBell]

Law enforcement must show evidence of a crime committed or to subdue any citizen who is an immediate threat to justify taking a citizen into custody..

Since when?

Wait, perhaps you are not in the USA...

 

[McBell]

The officer talking with Garner said he had sold to a man in a red shirt. When Garner asked which guy with a red shirt the officer looking into the crowd of onlookers said..."Not that red shirt, there’s another guy in a red shirt"... There was no one taken into custody prior to Garner's altercation with police for supposedly buying loose cigarettes from Garner. The police that actually accused him of selling cigarettes had to turn to the crowd as if he was looking for the buyer. Last I checked...it's just as illegal to buy them as it is to sell them.

By the Way, It's Not Clear Eric Garner Even Had Illegal Cigarettes When He Was Killed - The Daily Banter


The story of the mysterious man in a red shirt who supposedly committed a crime for buying loose cigarettes wasn't in custody and the accusing officer apparently was unable to find the criminal wearing a red shirt within the crowd of people. No. It sounds like they made a rush to judgement seeking an arrest.

To bad he went got a case of dead.
Now we will never know either way...

Though, the not knowing either way is nothing more than fuel for fire..
Of both sides.

 

[Thief]

And THIS is part of the problem.

As a business owner, as a teacher, as a parent, and even here as an administrator....I'm faced with stupidity a lot, as well. Even with my permissions to utilize my authority in said positions to prohibit attendance or offer a penalty, I am never in any position to brutalize anyone.

Is there a reason why law enforcement officers so frequently brutalize and kill unarmed citizens? No matter how stupid citizens can be?

Just circumstance.
The cops are the ones that have to take people to jail.

Resist....and get slammed on your face.

Hope you're up for that.
Garner wasn't.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Law enforcement must show evidence of a crime committed or to subdue any citizen who is an immediate threat to justify taking a citizen into custody.

I didn't see evidence, nor any incriminating statements, nor any threat by Garner to justify the LEO's present to take him into custody.

At most, I could easily understand if the police were to have detained Garner while they fetched this mysterious red-shirted man to retrieve the evidence that a crime had been committed. But they did not do this, and instead went after someone who had no solid evidence on him. Even on the show COPS you can see cases where they went after both the dealer and buyer, which is really saying A LOT.

Resist....and get slammed on your face.

There is a world of difference between slamming someone's face on the ground and using a choke hold that is clearly banned, illegal, outlawed, proscribed, and outside of the legal procedures of the NYPD, and is on paper that the hold is prohibited.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Since when?

Wait, perhaps you are not in the USA...

LOL

 

[Thief]

At most, I could easily understand if the police were to have detained Garner while they fetched this mysterious red-shirted man to retrieve the evidence that a crime had been committed. But they did not do this, and instead went after someone who had no solid evidence on him. Even on the show COPS you can see cases where they went after both the dealer and buyer, which is really saying A LOT.

There is a world of difference between slamming someone's face on the ground and using a choke hold that is clearly banned, illegal, outlawed, proscribed, and outside of the legal procedures of the NYPD, and is on paper that the hold is prohibited.

oh!....I was exaggerating.

Fact is....getting slammed on your face could kill.
Choking was not intended to be fatal.

Sorry for your bleeding heart it worked out that way.

Do not wave your hands at the police and say.....Don't touch me!

 

[averageJOE]

Your scenario assumes evidence was produced. This isn't the case with Garner. A lie was produced and challenged. After the lie was exposed that's when the officers, who seemingly lost control over the lie, began their attack.

Wow. At least Shadow Wolf was able to answer the hypothetical question rather than doge.

 

[averageJOE]

Hopefully this will clarify things.
If the police have you, and you know they have you, own up to your actions. If they claim they have you, but don't, then by all means assume the role of adversary.
But the police do not have the final say so. This is ultimately up to a judge. But you, as a person, who did or did not commit a crime, know if the police really have anything on you or not. This is where knowing your rights is paramount. No, telling the cops how wrong they are probably will not get you anywhere on the streets, and a judge may not like seeing someone who is anti-or-combative towards authority, but if they really have nothing and they are arresting you anyways they deserve to be called a ****ing pig, you should not give in and go easily, and you should definitely not hit them (unless they are about to sexually assault you, then by all means beat the living **** out of them if you think you can because road side cavity searches are very illegal, and it would bring the national attention that is deserved of pigs raping people). This does require a strong degree of self-honesty, and it is absolutely necessary you know your rights and know for sure, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that you are in the right and the cop is in the wrong, but it is very much better to have fought and lost than to not have fought at all if you are being wronged. Unfortunately society has reached a point in which it will take a number of innocents being martyrs to even begin to correct the grave wrongs we, as civilians, have been subjected to at the hands of those who have sworn to protect and uphold the law.

This is exactly why guilt and innocence cannot be determined on the street. Everything you posted above involves too many variables to be dealt with right then and there. That's why, in this country, guilt and innocence is determined in a court, by a judge.

The system you describe above relies on the honor system; "This does require a strong degree of self-honesty..." Sorry, but that is not the world we live in. The honor system died back in the 1800's.

 

[averageJOE]

Law enforcement must show evidence of a crime committed or to subdue any citizen who is an immediate threat to justify taking a citizen into custody.

I didn't see evidence, nor any incriminating statements, nor any threat by Garner to justify the LEO's present to take him into custody.

Please educate me on this. Can you cite the law that says a cop must show evidence to the person they are about to arrest before they arrest him? Because I always believed that the cops were required to show evidence to judges and prosecutors, then they determine if said evidence is valid.

 

[McBell]

Please educate me on this. Can you cite the law that says a cop must show evidence to the person they are about to arrest before they arrest him? Because I always believed that the cops were required to show evidence to judges and prosecutors, then they determine if said evidence is valid.

I wonder if "probable cause" will be covered?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Wow. At least Shadow Wolf was able to answer the hypothetical question rather than doge.

Yeah but why play your game of (what if). Your what if tries to move the goal post. It assumes actual evidence was produced. How does tangible evidence shown to a suspect relate to the current situation where nothing was shown. Even when the mere mention of a guy in a red shirt...it in itself seemed disingenuous.