Mr. Brown and Mr. Garner died because they broke the law and fought back against police officers. These two police officers died because they were not black. Simple, really.
Garner didn't die because he broke the law and fought back against police. He died because the officer didn't do what he was supposed to do.
You're right. He was fat and had previous health issues that caused his death.
Selling illegal cigarettes and attempting to not be handcuffed also probably didn't help his case.
Mr. Brown and Mr. Garner died because they broke the law and fought back against police officers. These two police officers died because they were not black. Simple, really.
I love that people who try to look at other angles of this story are met with, "So you're saying you don't give a damn about people / you think cigarettes are worth death." I know the people saying similar on this board are smarter than this. (I also am not a fan of trying to paint Garner & Brown as hell-bent crooks, even though their histories do not support their case very well.)
I understand the focus (it is very important), but there's much, much more to these stories, and looking at the other aspects does NOT imply taking away from the death of the people.
The very real question that is important is to what extent police should go to arrest a person. There are so many factors that go into that, factors that we don't know, like how threatened an officer feels at that moment. That is going to vary from officer to officer.
I love that people who try to look at other angles of this story are met with, "So you're saying you don't give a damn about people / you think cigarettes are worth death." I know the people saying similar on this board are smarter than this. (I also am not a fan of trying to paint Garner & Brown as hell-bent crooks, even though their histories do not support their case very well.)
I understand the focus (it is very important), but there's much, much more to these stories, and looking at the other aspects does NOT imply taking away from the death of the people.
Garner having a criminal history means what, exactly? This has now been mentioned a couple times and the only thing I can infer from it is that it makes his life more expendable for some reason.
The very real question that is important is to what extent police should go to arrest a person. There are so many factors that go into that, factors that we don't know, like how threatened an officer feels at that moment. That is going to vary from officer to officer.
Yeah there are a lot of factors that went into what happened, but none of them evoke any questions relating to anything other than the police and excessive force.
We can talk about selling cigarettes and resisting arrest and being overweight, but what is there to say? You shouldn't do that? Ok, cool. But that's not what should come out of discussions about the garner incident. What is evocative or important about any of the other material? Anything?
Well, I know very little about being a cop, but I'd imagine that knowing that you're going after a person already on bail from a previous arrest, as well as someone arrested 30 times in 34 years (with assault & larseny charges) would have to change your mindset about approaching an individual over, say... approaching a van with "Baby on Board," registered to a family of six, regarding speeding on a highway, or another person who does not seem to have said criminal record. And if they resist, the person is likely put on a much shorter leash before being taken down.
"A criminal record" and being arrested 30 times are slightly different.
Yes, it's profiling, but everyone in the world "profiles": it's called reading the situation. I "profile" when approaching someone for directions, or for something else: I don't go up to a teenager and speak in an uber-polite tone in the way that I would to an elderly woman. And no, I'm not meaning it "makes his life more expendable," not in the slightest. I'm saying it may make sense when trying to actually look at the situation through the lens of the cop. The cop didn't go up to the guy & try to kill him, and it's turned into an absolutely horrible situation that has brought about revenge-murders & mass protests.
According to this article... yes. (God, the bias in this article is just as bad as Fox News. Terrible writing. [Edit: Just noticed it was a stupid editorial. Oh well.])
On the day of his death, bystanders say Garner was breaking up a fight when he caught the eye of the police. The NYPD claims officers had previously targeted Garner for selling untaxed, individual cigarettes.
I'd assume that, in "targeting" him, they were made aware of his previous troubles with the law.
Last edited by Avyran on Tue Dec 23, 2014 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
According to this article... yes. (God, the bias in this article is just as bad as Fox News. Terrible writing. [Edit: Just noticed it was a stupid editorial. Oh well.])
On the day of his death, bystanders say Garner was breaking up a fight when he caught the eye of the police. The NYPD claims officers had previously targeted Garner for selling untaxed, individual cigarettes.
I'd assume that, in "targeting" him, they were made aware of his previous troubles with the law.
That doesn't say that the guy who killed him had any clue - which is the real question.
According to this article... yes. (God, the bias in this article is just as bad as Fox News. Terrible writing. [Edit: Just noticed it was a stupid editorial. Oh well.])
On the day of his death, bystanders say Garner was breaking up a fight when he caught the eye of the police. The NYPD claims officers had previously targeted Garner for selling untaxed, individual cigarettes.
I'd assume that, in "targeting" him, they were made aware of his previous troubles with the law.
That doesn't say that the guy who killed him had any clue - which is the real question.
Can't find anything that says Pantaleo (the officer) knew about Garner's record; however, again, I would assume that they did know. Lots of stories about Garner constantly being harassed by the cops (taken from this NPR blog), whereas this NYTimes blog says "the police considered Mr. Garner, 43, a vestige of the disorder that still cropped up in the area," though they don't give any actual proof of the fact.
A whole lot of assumptions & "facts" thrown out without a lot of evidence in that aspect of the story.
I have watched the video multiple times and I still wonder WTF the EMT/Paramedic woman was doing? She didn't seem to be too concerned with his pleas for help? I haven't heard much discussion on that. MY wife is a nurse and was more upset with the medical response to the incident than with the actual take down of the man. Where was the defib unit, the O2, the adrenaline shots? It looked like they just let him lay there.
So this Antonio Martin (who shockingly has an extensive criminal record) is on video pointing a gun at an officer right before he was hot and killed. The reaction? You guessed it "Cops are trained to detain suspects they didn't have to kill him"
Last edited by DudeMan2766 on Wed Dec 24, 2014 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
So this Antonio Martin (who shockingly has an extensive criminal record) is on video pointing a gun at an officer right before he was hot and killed. The reaction? You guessed it "Cops are trained to detail suspects they didn't have to kill him"
My Facebook newsfeed was blowing up with "Police shoot and kill another unarmed black teenager", linking to a story with a headline directly referencing that Martin pointed a gun toward the police officer.
I think one small take away with the Garner case is that we need to be careful with bad laws because depending how aggressive they are enforced they can end up contributing to the death of someone.
If the stupid single cigarette law was never in place then Eric Garner would be alive today. When you combine that with overzealous cops who use excessive force you get can a tragedy like this.
If Garner didn't resist, he'd also be alive. If there was a different cop, he'd most likely be alive. If he wasn't incarcerated 30 previous times, he wouldn't have been as much of a suspect & thus would've likely not been approached, keeping him alive. If his body health was better... and so on.
I, too, can play the "if" game. There are hundreds of stupid laws in this country, made from times past & ignored because politicians often care more about votes than about actually running the country or going over "tradition" that many will point to as the fabric of the country or some stupid thing (and others will want to throw everything out for the sake of "liberty" or "freedom" or "tolerance"... the baby with the bath water). There are many reports of cops going overboard, and one could probably point to the abuse that cops take as well if you'd want. There are examples of racism, & examples of counter-racism. And so on.
But go ahead & try and pin it on one or two things. I'll step out of this conversation now.
you would have thought that people would have learned the lesson about jumping to conclusions based on reactions from social media, but here we are. Seriously... what is a cop to do when there's a guy pointing a gun at him?
i'm not saying that there's not inherent racism in the system, because there definitely is. But if you present yourself as a threat to a police officer, what is he supposed to do? but, it's a powder keg, and people love throwing matches
I feel pretty ok about pinning his death on...you know...the guy who killed him. You should too.
If it makes you happy to damn someone, be my guest. Just don't expect sympathy if you kill someone through a car accident because you were having a bad day, speeding, & being reckless, causing an innocent person to die. As someone who has friends as cops, I'll try to give them just as much benefit of the doubt as I would give Garner. And even though I've tarnished him in the thread, I still think he needs to be given the benefit of the doubt just the same... the Ny Times blog I posted said he was a positive influence in the community, breaking up fights & trying to improve the neighborhood.
Besides, as I noted, I'm not condoning Pantaleo. The act was reckless, stupid, and likely caused death. I'm also not crucifying him.
