What crime did Eric Garner commit, that made the NYPD go after him?

[konradv]

Cigarettes are a gateway crime? Many people do it to supplement whatever income they have. There's no correlation with committing other crimes. That's just prejudicial thinking that allows some people look down on others and feel better about someone getting killed for no good reason.

Garner had a long criminal history, he wasn't just some innocent guy.

What did I say? It's giving you permission to look down on the guy, but NO you're not racist. I wasn't born yesterday. I know the score.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The police exist to protect and serve the law-abiding public

Exactly what were they protecting the law-abiding public from in this case, Gyal?
BTW, you have it slightly backward.
Laws exist to protect and serve the public.
Police exist to enforce the laws.
So, what was this particular law protecting us from?

From someone breaking the law

So, nobody's right were being violated. Nobody was being harmed. Nobody was even being threatened.

Except, government was losing out on some cash.

The police did what they did, to protect government.

Does that seem like a proper law to you, Gyal?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

What a load of crap.

If he hadn't been illegally selling cigarettes,he would have been engaged in some other criminal enterprise.

The liberals are slowing down today.

It took five posts before one of them said, "But... but... but... well, if he hadn't commited the crime of evading our ridiculous taxes, I'm SURE he would have committed some other crime, eventually!"

Completely missing the point that the liberals are making so many laws, regulations, and restrictions on so many subjects, that's its' nearly impossible to live without violating at least one of them.

The fault is government's subjects, not government, right?

If by "one of them" you are referring to me as a a liberal" LOL

 

[Carib Gyal]

The police exist to protect and serve the law-abiding public

Exactly what were they protecting the law-abiding public from in this case, Gyal?
BTW, you have it slightly backward.
Laws exist to protect and serve the public.
Police exist to enforce the laws.
So, what was this particular law protecting us from?

From someone breaking the law

So, nobody's right were being violated. Nobody was being harmed. Nobody was even being threatened.
Except, government was losing out on some cash.
The police did what they did, to protect government.
Does that seem like a proper law to you, Gyal?

Are you reading my responses? You've been quoting yourself for the last 3 posts.

Do I, personally think it's a proper law? No, I do not. But the police are not the judges of the law, they are the enforcers of the law.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Do I, personally think it's a proper law? No, I do not. But the police are not the judges of the law, they are the enforcers of the law.

Oh, I see. Befehl ist befehl, eh?

That's the response I expected from a big-govt liberal. Ignore the fact that the law itself was wrong, and cast the blame on the government's subjects.

 

[SwimExpert]

There is yet any evidence that Garner was selling cigarettes. The entire story was a post hoc fabrication about SUSPICION that Garner selling cigarettes. That suspicion was based on nothing more than the fact that he had been caught doing it before. The reason police arrested him was because he refused to talk with them as they investigated a physical altercation between to other people, to which the police were responding.

 

[Anathema]

We should just go down my road...... Immediate Execution for anyone possessing drugs, alcohol or tobacco.

 

[Carib Gyal]

Do I, personally think it's a proper law? No, I do not. But the police are not the judges of the law, they are the enforcers of the law.

Oh, I see. Befehl ist befehl, eh?

That's the response I expected from a big-govt liberal. Ignore the fact that the law itself was wrong, and cast the blame on the government's subjects.

Was he breaking the law by a) not paying his fair share of taxes, and then b) resisting his arrest for doing so?

It doesn't matter if I agree with the law or not. I don't believe a lot of the laws, but I certainly expect to get arrested if I break them.

 

[Carib Gyal]

There is yet any evidence that Garner was selling cigarettes. The entire story was a post hoc fabrication about SUSPICION that Garner selling cigarettes. That suspicion was based on nothing more than the fact that he had been caught doing it before. The reason police arrested him was because he refused to talk with them as they investigated a physical altercation between to other people, to which the police were responding.

Are you saying the supervisor on the scene ordered his arrest for doing absolutely nothing?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Look at the liberals ducking and dodging in this thread, desperately trying to ignore the fact that Garner was killed over a law that the liberals had no business making. Raising taxes to ridiculous levels, simply to "help" their poor, beknighted subjects. It's "for their own good", you know.

And so government could collect more money, of course.

These are the same liberals who constantly blast "big business" for being "too greedy", for "doing things for the almighty dollar".

This is the result of big-government liberalism, every time.

Especially in a country with a heritage of freedom, where people have always done what it took to overcome problems themselves and make their own way.

That heritage clashes directly with the agenda of the big-government liberals. Their subjects must bow down and accept the "better judgement" of the liberals, They must do what the liberals want them to do. Rights be damned.

And by God, the liberals will apply whatever force they have to, to defeat that heritage.

 

[Little-Acorn]

In fact, the Eric Garner tragedy exemplifies all that's wrong with big-government liberalism.

Government decided its job was to make everyone behave "in better ways" - meaning, making people do what liberals thought they should do. Including quitting smoking.

The fact that those people were harming no one, threatening no one... and that they didn't want to do what liberals thought they should be doing... didn't matter any more.

The liberals decided they could bring the full force of government to bear on these people. Despite the almost certainty that, when you apply such force to a city of eight million people, someone somewhere will likely wind up dead.

And sure enough, someone did.

But that's OK with the liberals.

It's OK to make misbegotten laws. It's OK to put someone in the population, at risk of death at the hands of those tasked to enforce laws.

Hey, no big deal. It's for their own good.

And if Eric Garner winds up dead, it's his fault. Not ours.

Right?

 

[SwimExpert]

There is yet any evidence that Garner was selling cigarettes. The entire story was a post hoc fabrication about SUSPICION that Garner selling cigarettes. That suspicion was based on nothing more than the fact that he had been caught doing it before. The reason police arrested him was because he refused to talk with them as they investigated a physical altercation between to other people, to which the police were responding.

Are you saying the supervisor on the scene ordered his arrest for doing absolutely nothing?

Sadly, it happens all the time in these Fascist States of America.

 

[Carib Gyal]

In fact, the Eric Garner tragedy exemplifies all that's wrong with big-government liberalism.

Government decided its job was to make everyone behave "in better ways" - meaning, making people do what liberals thought they should do. Including quitting smoking.

The fact that those people were harming no one, threatening no one... and that they didn't want to do what liberals thought they should be doing... didn't matter any more.

I think he ended up dead because he was in such poor health and he resisted arrest, but I agree with the rest of your post.

 

[Little-Acorn]

In fact, the Eric Garner tragedy exemplifies all that's wrong with big-government liberalism.

Government decided its job was to make everyone behave "in better ways" - meaning, making people do what liberals thought they should do. Including quitting smoking.

The fact that those people were harming no one, threatening no one... and that they didn't want to do what liberals thought they should be doing... didn't matter any more.

I think he ended up dead because he was in such poor health and he resisted arrest, but I agree with the rest of your post.

Of course. In any big city, there are always people in poor health. And when liberals crack down on them, there are always some who resist arrest.

Put liberals in charge of any large government, with the power (and the desire) to make laws "for the little people's own good", and you are guaranteed that somebody is going to wind up dead.

Eric Garner wasn't the first of those. And he won't be the last.

Until we get the big-govt liberals OUT of government.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Eric Garner was selling cigarettes.

And not even packs of them. Individual cigarettes. ("Loosies")

WTF? Why was he even doing that? And why was it a crime?

Answer: Because New York City had hugely increased TAXES on cigarettes. So much that the city had nearly tripled the price on them.

In a low-tax state like North Carolina, cigarettes can be bought for $5 a pack.

In New York City, the same cigarettes are anywhere from $11 to $15 a pack.

Garner's "crime"? He hadn't paid those extra taxes.

Unsurprisingly, NYC's crushing taxes created a huge black market. People like Eric Garner regularly drive down to North Carolina, load up on $5/pack cigarettes, come back to NYC, and sell them for "only" $8 or $9.

NYC's government had driven prices so artificially high, that Eric Garner even sold individual cigarettes. Because many people couldn't afford even a single, whole pack. Or he did, until NYC's police killed him.

Used to be, that government only made laws to protect people's rights. That was their whole job.

But more recently, big-government liberals have decided that government's job was to save people from their own mistakes, whether they were violating anybody else's rights or not. Places like New York City have gone so far off the rails, they even made laws against selling soft drinks that were "too large".

And they have a law that you are forbidden to sell a pack of cigarettes for under $10.50.

NYC Mayor DiBlasio issued an edict not long ago, telling NYPD cops to crack down on those terrifying hardened criminals who were selling individual cigarettes. The memo didn't mention exactly how those sellers were violating people's rights, or which rights were being violated. But the local government was missing out on some tax revenue (the taxes that tripled the price of cigarettes). And that could not be tolerated.

Garner had been busted for doing this, a number of times before. Of course, if the govt hadn't hiked taxes to such ridiculous levels, he probably would have never been busted for it at all. Nobody would have bothered to buy North Carolina cigarettes from him, so he never would have gone into business selling them in the first place.

An Obama official once remarked, "If you want to make an omelet, you have to crack a few eggs." The "eggs" that got "cracked" in that case were U.S. Border Patrol agents who were killed by Mexican drug cartels with gun illegally sold to them by the Obama administration.

Looks like another egg got cracked, this time in response to New York City government raising taxes on cigarettes, creating a whole new group of criminals who tried to evade those taxes. This "egg" was named Eric Garner.

Oops. Oh, well.

The NYC govt wanted to make an omelet, protecting people from their own faults (smoking cigarettes). Hope they enjoy it.

His crime was cheating DeBlasio out of money

De Blasio quietly filed untaxed cig suit the week of Garner decision New York Post

 

[ninja007]

Garner was resisting arrest and intimidating the store owners. He should have known better because thirty arrests prior.

 

[Carib Gyal]

In fact, the Eric Garner tragedy exemplifies all that's wrong with big-government liberalism.

Government decided its job was to make everyone behave "in better ways" - meaning, making people do what liberals thought they should do. Including quitting smoking.

The fact that those people were harming no one, threatening no one... and that they didn't want to do what liberals thought they should be doing... didn't matter any more.

I think he ended up dead because he was in such poor health and he resisted arrest, but I agree with the rest of your post.

Of course. In any big city, there are always people in poor health. And when liberals crack down on them, there are always some who resist arrest.

Put liberals in charge of any large government, with the power (and the desire) to make laws "for the little people's own good", and you are guaranteed that somebody is going to wind up dead.

Eric Garner wasn't the first of those. And he won't be the last.

Until we get the big-govt liberals OUT of government.

I guess. Either way, the protests and murders of the police are misguided. They were just doing their job and were not charged with any crime.

 

[westwall]

Eric Garner was selling cigarettes.

And not even packs of them. Individual cigarettes. ("Loosies")

WTF? Why was he even doing that? And why was it a crime?

Answer: Because New York City had hugely increased TAXES on cigarettes. So much that the city had nearly tripled the price on them.

In a low-tax state like North Carolina, cigarettes can be bought for $5 a pack.

In New York City, the same cigarettes are anywhere from $11 to $15 a pack.

Garner's "crime"? He hadn't paid those extra taxes.

Unsurprisingly, NYC's crushing taxes created a huge black market. People like Eric Garner regularly drive down to North Carolina, load up on $5/pack cigarettes, come back to NYC, and sell them for "only" $8 or $9.

NYC's government had driven prices so artificially high, that Eric Garner even sold individual cigarettes. Because many people couldn't afford even a single, whole pack. Or he did, until NYC's police killed him.

Used to be, that government only made laws to protect people's rights. That was their whole job.

But more recently, big-government liberals have decided that government's job was to save people from their own mistakes, whether they were violating anybody else's rights or not. Places like New York City have gone so far off the rails, they even made laws against selling soft drinks that were "too large".

And they have a law that you are forbidden to sell a pack of cigarettes for under $10.50.

NYC Mayor DiBlasio issued an edict not long ago, telling NYPD cops to crack down on those terrifying hardened criminals who were selling individual cigarettes. The memo didn't mention exactly how those sellers were violating people's rights, or which rights were being violated. But the local government was missing out on some tax revenue (the taxes that tripled the price of cigarettes). And that could not be tolerated.

Garner had been busted for doing this, a number of times before. Of course, if the govt hadn't hiked taxes to such ridiculous levels, he probably would have never been busted for it at all. Nobody would have bothered to buy North Carolina cigarettes from him, so he never would have gone into business selling them in the first place.

An Obama official once remarked, "If you want to make an omelet, you have to crack a few eggs." The "eggs" that got "cracked" in that case were U.S. Border Patrol agents who were killed by Mexican drug cartels with gun illegally sold to them by the Obama administration.

Looks like another egg got cracked, this time in response to New York City government raising taxes on cigarettes, creating a whole new group of criminals who tried to evade those taxes. This "egg" was named Eric Garner.

Oops. Oh, well.

The NYC govt wanted to make an omelet, protecting people from their own faults (smoking cigarettes). Hope they enjoy it.

He was violating TAX laws. Remember children, the progressives here demand all of your money because you're not responsible enough to use it wisely, so they will use it for you. And woe be to the person who refuses to pay their taxes!

 

[Carib Gyal]

Eric Garner was selling cigarettes.

And not even packs of them. Individual cigarettes. ("Loosies")

WTF? Why was he even doing that? And why was it a crime?

Answer: Because New York City had hugely increased TAXES on cigarettes. So much that the city had nearly tripled the price on them.

In a low-tax state like North Carolina, cigarettes can be bought for $5 a pack.

In New York City, the same cigarettes are anywhere from $11 to $15 a pack.

Garner's "crime"? He hadn't paid those extra taxes.

Unsurprisingly, NYC's crushing taxes created a huge black market. People like Eric Garner regularly drive down to North Carolina, load up on $5/pack cigarettes, come back to NYC, and sell them for "only" $8 or $9.

NYC's government had driven prices so artificially high, that Eric Garner even sold individual cigarettes. Because many people couldn't afford even a single, whole pack. Or he did, until NYC's police killed him.

Used to be, that government only made laws to protect people's rights. That was their whole job.

But more recently, big-government liberals have decided that government's job was to save people from their own mistakes, whether they were violating anybody else's rights or not. Places like New York City have gone so far off the rails, they even made laws against selling soft drinks that were "too large".

And they have a law that you are forbidden to sell a pack of cigarettes for under $10.50.

NYC Mayor DiBlasio issued an edict not long ago, telling NYPD cops to crack down on those terrifying hardened criminals who were selling individual cigarettes. The memo didn't mention exactly how those sellers were violating people's rights, or which rights were being violated. But the local government was missing out on some tax revenue (the taxes that tripled the price of cigarettes). And that could not be tolerated.

Garner had been busted for doing this, a number of times before. Of course, if the govt hadn't hiked taxes to such ridiculous levels, he probably would have never been busted for it at all. Nobody would have bothered to buy North Carolina cigarettes from him, so he never would have gone into business selling them in the first place.

An Obama official once remarked, "If you want to make an omelet, you have to crack a few eggs." The "eggs" that got "cracked" in that case were U.S. Border Patrol agents who were killed by Mexican drug cartels with gun illegally sold to them by the Obama administration.

Looks like another egg got cracked, this time in response to New York City government raising taxes on cigarettes, creating a whole new group of criminals who tried to evade those taxes. This "egg" was named Eric Garner.

Oops. Oh, well.

The NYC govt wanted to make an omelet, protecting people from their own faults (smoking cigarettes). Hope they enjoy it.

He was violating TAX laws. Remember children, the progressives here demand all of your money because you're not responsible enough to use it wisely, so they will use it for you. And woe be to the person who refuses to pay their taxes!

Somebody's gotta pay for all that free health care.

 

[Skull Pilot]

They went after him for violating his parole. It doesn't matter what he was doing.

He then did not comply with the officers as he was supposed to as a condition of his parole.

The fat fuck knew he was going back to prison and decided to resist arrest