Frank Serpico: Incidents like Eric Garner's death drive wedge between police and society

[Little-Acorn]

From the article linked in the OP:

This is the use of excessive force for no apparent reason on a guy who is selling loosie cigarettes; what is the threat to your well-being?

A very good question.

And it begs an even more obvious question: If there is no threat to your well-being, then why is this law on the books in the first place?

Garner was busted, not for selling cigarettes (there is a store on the same block that sells them all the time, and nobody is upset about that), but for selling them without paying the taxes on them.

In other words, Garner wasn't busted because there was any threat to anybody's well-being. He was busted because government wasn't getting the money it wanted. And police used excessive force (if that was what it was) in furtherance of government getting more money, not to protect anyone.

Is that a proper law? One that puts citizens at risk, and authorizes police to use force (that might become excessive) simply so that government can get more money?

 

[Lakhota]

This is disgusting! Graduating another class of disrespectful union thugs with guns.

Bill De Blasio Booed At NYPD Graduation Ceremony

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Cowardly cops living by the 'shoot first, ask questions later' mantra put the good guys in a bad light and threaten the public's right to justice.

Cowardly cops 'don't belong in the uniform', according to retired NYPD Officer Frank Serpico.

Was I surprised by the Staten Island grand jury? Of course not. When was the last time a police officer was indicted?

This is the use of excessive force for no apparent reason on a guy who is selling loosie cigarettes; what is the threat to your well-being? If a police officer's life is in danger, he has every right to use every force in his means to defend himself.

In the old days, they used to put a gun or a knife on somebody after a shooting. Now they don't even bother.

But today, we have cops crying wolf all the time. They testify "I was in fear of my life," the grand jury buys it, the DA winks and nods, and there's no indictment.

I remember a guy I worked with back in the 81st Precinct, an ex-Marine named Murphy. He would not turn out for roll call until his shoes were spit-shined, and his uniform was creased.

One night, he was called to a family dispute. There was a man waiting behind the door, and he came out with a butcher knife and slashed Murphy's face.

Murphy could have emptied his gun in him. Instead, he disarmed the man and put him in cuffs. What's happening today in the performance of some officers can only be described as sheer cowardice. They don't belong in the uniform, and they shouldn't have weapons — whether they're cops or not.

I hear cops saying all the time — and they're proud of it — "shoot first, ask questions later."

They say, "It's my job to get home safe." Yes, but not at the cost of a human being who never posed a threat to you in the first place.

I called for, way back when before the Knapp Commission, for an independent investigative body. When I was testifying about police corruption, I saw very clearly how the DA can lead the grand jury in any direction they so desire.

More: Frank Serpico on Eric Garner: Cops cry wolf all the time - NY Daily News

If you don't know who Frank Serpico is - you should make an effort to find out.

Thank you, Lakhota. I've been thinking a lot about Frank Serpico in the last couple of months, for obvious reasons.

 

[Little-Acorn]

This is disgusting! Graduating another class of disrespectful union thugs with guns.
Bill De Blasio Booed At NYPD Graduation Ceremony

How typical of a liberal fanatic, to think that the existence of police is the problem.

Liberals always resent the presence of police, because the police enforcing the law, so frequently interferes with what liberal fanatics want to do.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Race baiters, like Sharpton, do more to divide people than anyone else. .

Nope, dead unarmed black kids are what starts the problem.

Clemmy, let me explain something to you: Large communities of under-represented minorities will have individuals (like Sharpton) represent them, large corporations have well-paid lobbyists.
Got it, yet?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

From the article linked in the OP:

This is the use of excessive force for no apparent reason on a guy who is selling loosie cigarettes; what is the threat to your well-being?

A very good question.

And it begs an even more obvious question: If there is no threat to your well-being, then why is this law on the books in the first place?

Garner was busted, not for selling cigarettes (there is a store on the same block that sells them all the time, and nobody is upset about that), but for selling them without paying the taxes on them.

In other words, Garner wasn't busted because there was any threat to anybody's well-being. He was busted because government wasn't getting the money it wanted. And police used excessive force (if that was what it was) in furtherance of government getting more money, not to protect anyone.

Is that a proper law? One that puts citizens at risk, and authorizes police to use force (that might become excessive) simply so that government can get more money?

I know that you guys love trying to make this about taxes, but that's not the issue at all.

Selling "loosies" is illegal, and always has been.

 

[Freewill]

Race baiters, like Sharpton, do more to divide people than anyone else. .

Nope, dead unarmed black kids are what starts the problem.

Clemmy, let me explain something to you: Large communities of under-represented minorities will have individuals (like Sharpton) represent them, large corporations have well-paid lobbyists.
Got it, yet?

No, the social/economic environment that creates thugs that get killed is what starts the problem.

 

[ScienceRocks]

How do you bring down a guy the size of Garner with only one cop? Also, he didn't die from a choke hold but a heartattack...

So cops should just stop doing their jobs and go home?

First question should be...Why take down Garner in the first place?

The NYPD BLACK Chief of Patrol Philip Banks ordered INCREASED ENFORCEMENT of the cigarette laws a few days before the Garner incident. THAT is why the police had a BLACK, FEMALE, SGT. SUPERVISOR leading the arrest and GIVING THE ORDER to arrest him when he didn't co-operate! Odd thought that the BLACK FEMALE SGT. was given IMMUNITY before the GRAND JURY to testify!

Why do you think their race matters?

Isn't that what you BLACK RACISTS always throw out? What, you forgot your RACE CARD TODAY?.... Here, they're all over the streets in Brooklyn!

I missed the part on why you think their race matters

Weird, as you always scream about your race when it benefits you and love that the media talks about the black thug getting shot by a WHITE PIG. JUSIFIED OR NOT.

What a sad sack of shit.

 

[ScienceRocks]

First question should be...Why take down Garner in the first place?

The NYPD BLACK Chief of Patrol Philip Banks ordered INCREASED ENFORCEMENT of the cigarette laws a few days before the Garner incident. THAT is why the police had a BLACK, FEMALE, SGT. SUPERVISOR leading the arrest and GIVING THE ORDER to arrest him when he didn't co-operate! Odd thought that the BLACK FEMALE SGT. was given IMMUNITY before the GRAND JURY to testify!

Why do you think their race matters?

Isn't that what you BLACK RACISTS always throw out? What, you forgot your RACE CARD TODAY?.... Here, they're all over the streets in Brooklyn!

I missed the part on why you think their race matters

How's this, because if the Chief and the Sgt. were white, you and your Bros would be having a FIELD DAY with It's WHITEY'S FAULT! Does it ring a familiar bell, or are you also TONE DEAF?

All this anti-police bs is about black hatred of white people. Burning down furgason was a show of force against white people.

Anyone that says that blacks aren't racist against whites = blind and dumb.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

This is disgusting! Graduating another class of disrespectful union thugs with guns.

Bill De Blasio Booed At NYPD Graduation Ceremony

Oh so now you're anti union?

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Little-Acorn]

From the article linked in the OP:

This is the use of excessive force for no apparent reason on a guy who is selling loosie cigarettes; what is the threat to your well-being?

A very good question.

And it begs an even more obvious question: If there is no threat to your well-being, then why is this law on the books in the first place?

Garner was busted, not for selling cigarettes (there is a store on the same block that sells them all the time, and nobody is upset about that), but for selling them without paying the taxes on them.

In other words, Garner wasn't busted because there was any threat to anybody's well-being. He was busted because government wasn't getting the money it wanted. And police used excessive force (if that was what it was) in furtherance of government getting more money, not to protect anyone.

Is that a proper law? One that puts citizens at risk, and authorizes police to use force (that might become excessive) simply so that government can get more money?

I know that you guys love trying to make this about taxes, but that's not the issue at all.

Selling "loosies" is illegal, and always has been.

Nice try at avoiding the point of the post.

Back to the subject:
If there is no threat to your well-being, then why is this law on the books in the first place?

Garner was busted, not for selling cigarettes (there is a store on the same block that sells them all the time, and nobody is upset about that), but for selling them without paying the taxes on them.

The police's job is to enforce ALL laws. They don't get to pick and choose which ones they don't have to enforce. (This should be pointed out to Obama sometime.) Any time the legislature makes a law, they are OKing use of force to enforce it. That should only be done when use of force is proper for the "offense" in question.

Garner wasn't busted because there was any threat to anybody's well-being. He was busted because government wasn't getting the money it wanted. And police used excessive force (if that was what it was) in furtherance of government getting more money, not to protect anyone.

Is that a proper law? One that puts citizens at risk, and authorizes police to use force (that might become excessive) simply so that government can get more money?

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

The left demands more government, then cries and moans when they see the fruition of their desires. Stupid is as stupid does. That's what mama always says.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

From the article linked in the OP:

This is the use of excessive force for no apparent reason on a guy who is selling loosie cigarettes; what is the threat to your well-being?

A very good question.

And it begs an even more obvious question: If there is no threat to your well-being, then why is this law on the books in the first place?

Garner was busted, not for selling cigarettes (there is a store on the same block that sells them all the time, and nobody is upset about that), but for selling them without paying the taxes on them.

In other words, Garner wasn't busted because there was any threat to anybody's well-being. He was busted because government wasn't getting the money it wanted. And police used excessive force (if that was what it was) in furtherance of government getting more money, not to protect anyone.

Is that a proper law? One that puts citizens at risk, and authorizes police to use force (that might become excessive) simply so that government can get more money?

I know that you guys love trying to make this about taxes, but that's not the issue at all.

Selling "loosies" is illegal, and always has been.

Nice try at avoiding the point of the post.

Back to the subject:
If there is no threat to your well-being, then why is this law on the books in the first place?

Garner was busted, not for selling cigarettes (there is a store on the same block that sells them all the time, and nobody is upset about that), but for selling them without paying the taxes on them.

The police's job is to enforce ALL laws. They don't get to pick and choose which ones they don't have to enforce. (This should be pointed out to Obama sometime.) Any time the legislature makes a law, they are OKing use of force to enforce it. That should only be done when use of force is proper for the "offense" in question.

Garner wasn't busted because there was any threat to anybody's well-being. He was busted because government wasn't getting the money it wanted. And police used excessive force (if that was what it was) in furtherance of government getting more money, not to protect anyone.

Is that a proper law? One that puts citizens at risk, and authorizes police to use force (that might become excessive) simply so that government can get more money?

I'm not "avoiding" the point, I'm pointing out that your "point" is nonsense.

The law that Gardner violated had nothing to do with taxes, or "the government getting money". There's not even any indication that the cigarettes that Gardner was selling were untaxed or "bootleg" cigarettes. He was busted for selling loose cigarettes, not "untaxed" cigarettes.

If you believe that laws regarding the sale of loose cigarettes are bullshit, I don't disagree with you - but that's the law everywhere, not just New York, and has been for decades.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

From the article linked in the OP:

This is the use of excessive force for no apparent reason on a guy who is selling loosie cigarettes; what is the threat to your well-being?

A very good question.

And it begs an even more obvious question: If there is no threat to your well-being, then why is this law on the books in the first place?

Garner was busted, not for selling cigarettes (there is a store on the same block that sells them all the time, and nobody is upset about that), but for selling them without paying the taxes on them.

In other words, Garner wasn't busted because there was any threat to anybody's well-being. He was busted because government wasn't getting the money it wanted. And police used excessive force (if that was what it was) in furtherance of government getting more money, not to protect anyone.

Is that a proper law? One that puts citizens at risk, and authorizes police to use force (that might become excessive) simply so that government can get more money?

I know that you guys love trying to make this about taxes, but that's not the issue at all.

Selling "loosies" is illegal, and always has been.

Nice try at avoiding the point of the post.

Back to the subject:
If there is no threat to your well-being, then why is this law on the books in the first place?

Garner was busted, not for selling cigarettes (there is a store on the same block that sells them all the time, and nobody is upset about that), but for selling them without paying the taxes on them.

The police's job is to enforce ALL laws. They don't get to pick and choose which ones they don't have to enforce. (This should be pointed out to Obama sometime.) Any time the legislature makes a law, they are OKing use of force to enforce it. That should only be done when use of force is proper for the "offense" in question.

Garner wasn't busted because there was any threat to anybody's well-being. He was busted because government wasn't getting the money it wanted. And police used excessive force (if that was what it was) in furtherance of government getting more money, not to protect anyone.

Is that a proper law? One that puts citizens at risk, and authorizes police to use force (that might become excessive) simply so that government can get more money?

I'm not "avoiding" the point, I'm pointing out that your "point" is nonsense.

The law that Gardner violated had nothing to do with taxes, or "the government getting money". There's not even any indication that the cigarettes that Gardner was selling were untaxed or "bootleg" cigarettes. He was busted for selling loose cigarettes, not "untaxed" cigarettes.

If you believe that laws regarding the sale of loose cigarettes are bullshit, I don't disagree with you - but that's the law everywhere, not just New York, and has been for decades.

There are no taxes paid on selling "loose" cigarettes. You might get by with that in Butte, Montana, but not in NYC.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

From the article linked in the OP:

This is the use of excessive force for no apparent reason on a guy who is selling loosie cigarettes; what is the threat to your well-being?

A very good question.

And it begs an even more obvious question: If there is no threat to your well-being, then why is this law on the books in the first place?

Garner was busted, not for selling cigarettes (there is a store on the same block that sells them all the time, and nobody is upset about that), but for selling them without paying the taxes on them.

In other words, Garner wasn't busted because there was any threat to anybody's well-being. He was busted because government wasn't getting the money it wanted. And police used excessive force (if that was what it was) in furtherance of government getting more money, not to protect anyone.

Is that a proper law? One that puts citizens at risk, and authorizes police to use force (that might become excessive) simply so that government can get more money?

I know that you guys love trying to make this about taxes, but that's not the issue at all.

Selling "loosies" is illegal, and always has been.

Nice try at avoiding the point of the post.

Back to the subject:
If there is no threat to your well-being, then why is this law on the books in the first place?

Garner was busted, not for selling cigarettes (there is a store on the same block that sells them all the time, and nobody is upset about that), but for selling them without paying the taxes on them.

The police's job is to enforce ALL laws. They don't get to pick and choose which ones they don't have to enforce. (This should be pointed out to Obama sometime.) Any time the legislature makes a law, they are OKing use of force to enforce it. That should only be done when use of force is proper for the "offense" in question.

Garner wasn't busted because there was any threat to anybody's well-being. He was busted because government wasn't getting the money it wanted. And police used excessive force (if that was what it was) in furtherance of government getting more money, not to protect anyone.

Is that a proper law? One that puts citizens at risk, and authorizes police to use force (that might become excessive) simply so that government can get more money?

I'm not "avoiding" the point, I'm pointing out that your "point" is nonsense.

The law that Gardner violated had nothing to do with taxes, or "the government getting money". There's not even any indication that the cigarettes that Gardner was selling were untaxed or "bootleg" cigarettes. He was busted for selling loose cigarettes, not "untaxed" cigarettes.

If you believe that laws regarding the sale of loose cigarettes are bullshit, I don't disagree with you - but that's the law everywhere, not just New York, and has been for decades.

So why is it illegal to sell individual ciggs if not for tax reasons?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

From the article linked in the OP:

This is the use of excessive force for no apparent reason on a guy who is selling loosie cigarettes; what is the threat to your well-being?

A very good question.

And it begs an even more obvious question: If there is no threat to your well-being, then why is this law on the books in the first place?

Garner was busted, not for selling cigarettes (there is a store on the same block that sells them all the time, and nobody is upset about that), but for selling them without paying the taxes on them.

In other words, Garner wasn't busted because there was any threat to anybody's well-being. He was busted because government wasn't getting the money it wanted. And police used excessive force (if that was what it was) in furtherance of government getting more money, not to protect anyone.

Is that a proper law? One that puts citizens at risk, and authorizes police to use force (that might become excessive) simply so that government can get more money?

I know that you guys love trying to make this about taxes, but that's not the issue at all.

Selling "loosies" is illegal, and always has been.

Nice try at avoiding the point of the post.

Back to the subject:
If there is no threat to your well-being, then why is this law on the books in the first place?

Garner was busted, not for selling cigarettes (there is a store on the same block that sells them all the time, and nobody is upset about that), but for selling them without paying the taxes on them.

The police's job is to enforce ALL laws. They don't get to pick and choose which ones they don't have to enforce. (This should be pointed out to Obama sometime.) Any time the legislature makes a law, they are OKing use of force to enforce it. That should only be done when use of force is proper for the "offense" in question.

Garner wasn't busted because there was any threat to anybody's well-being. He was busted because government wasn't getting the money it wanted. And police used excessive force (if that was what it was) in furtherance of government getting more money, not to protect anyone.

Is that a proper law? One that puts citizens at risk, and authorizes police to use force (that might become excessive) simply so that government can get more money?

I'm not "avoiding" the point, I'm pointing out that your "point" is nonsense.

The law that Gardner violated had nothing to do with taxes, or "the government getting money". There's not even any indication that the cigarettes that Gardner was selling were untaxed or "bootleg" cigarettes. He was busted for selling loose cigarettes, not "untaxed" cigarettes.

If you believe that laws regarding the sale of loose cigarettes are bullshit, I don't disagree with you - but that's the law everywhere, not just New York, and has been for decades.

There are no taxes paid on selling "loose" cigarettes.

Of course there are.

If I go into a store and buy a pack, then go outside and sell the cigarettes one by one, I paid the taxes on them, didn't I?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

From the article linked in the OP:

This is the use of excessive force for no apparent reason on a guy who is selling loosie cigarettes; what is the threat to your well-being?

A very good question.

And it begs an even more obvious question: If there is no threat to your well-being, then why is this law on the books in the first place?

Garner was busted, not for selling cigarettes (there is a store on the same block that sells them all the time, and nobody is upset about that), but for selling them without paying the taxes on them.

In other words, Garner wasn't busted because there was any threat to anybody's well-being. He was busted because government wasn't getting the money it wanted. And police used excessive force (if that was what it was) in furtherance of government getting more money, not to protect anyone.

Is that a proper law? One that puts citizens at risk, and authorizes police to use force (that might become excessive) simply so that government can get more money?

I know that you guys love trying to make this about taxes, but that's not the issue at all.

Selling "loosies" is illegal, and always has been.

Nice try at avoiding the point of the post.

Back to the subject:
If there is no threat to your well-being, then why is this law on the books in the first place?

Garner was busted, not for selling cigarettes (there is a store on the same block that sells them all the time, and nobody is upset about that), but for selling them without paying the taxes on them.

The police's job is to enforce ALL laws. They don't get to pick and choose which ones they don't have to enforce. (This should be pointed out to Obama sometime.) Any time the legislature makes a law, they are OKing use of force to enforce it. That should only be done when use of force is proper for the "offense" in question.

Garner wasn't busted because there was any threat to anybody's well-being. He was busted because government wasn't getting the money it wanted. And police used excessive force (if that was what it was) in furtherance of government getting more money, not to protect anyone.

Is that a proper law? One that puts citizens at risk, and authorizes police to use force (that might become excessive) simply so that government can get more money?

I'm not "avoiding" the point, I'm pointing out that your "point" is nonsense.

The law that Gardner violated had nothing to do with taxes, or "the government getting money". There's not even any indication that the cigarettes that Gardner was selling were untaxed or "bootleg" cigarettes. He was busted for selling loose cigarettes, not "untaxed" cigarettes.

If you believe that laws regarding the sale of loose cigarettes are bullshit, I don't disagree with you - but that's the law everywhere, not just New York, and has been for decades.

So why is it illegal to sell individual ciggs if not for tax reasons?

Dunno, I didn't make the law. But the taxes have nothing to do with it. Tobacco taxes are paid via tax stamp - if I sell loosies from a pack with a tax stamp, the taxes have already been paid.

 

[Little-Acorn]

He was busted for selling loose cigarettes, not "untaxed" cigarettes.

(patiently)

OK, if that's the case....

If there is no threat to your well-being, then why is this law on the books in the first place?

The police's job is to enforce ALL laws. They don't get to pick and choose which ones they don't have to enforce. (This should be pointed out to Obama sometime.) Any time the legislature makes a law, they are OKing use of force to enforce it. That should only be done when use of force is proper for the "offense" in question.

Garner wasn't busted because there was any threat to anybody's well-being.

According to you, he was busted for selling one or two cigarettes at a time instead of twenty at a time.

Is that a proper law? One that puts citizens at risk, and authorizes police to use force (that might become excessive) simply so that Eric Garner will sell the number of cigarettes the big-govt liberals think he should sell?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

He was busted for selling loose cigarettes, not "untaxed" cigarettes.

(patiently)

OK, if that's the case....

If there is no threat to your well-being, then why is this law on the books in the first place?

The police's job is to enforce ALL laws. They don't get to pick and choose which ones they don't have to enforce. (This should be pointed out to Obama sometime.) Any time the legislature makes a law, they are OKing use of force to enforce it. That should only be done when use of force is proper for the "offense" in question.

Garner wasn't busted because there was any threat to anybody's well-being.

According to you, he was busted for selling one or two cigarettes at a time instead of twenty at a time.

Is that a proper law? One that puts citizens at risk, and authorizes police to use force (that might become excessive) simply so that Eric Garner will sell the number of cigarettes the big-govt liberals think he should sell?

Do I think the law is "proper"? No.

Does it have anything to do with "big government liberals"? No.

Loosey laws, and all other sin laws come from big-government social conservatives, not "liberals".