2 NYPD cops shot dead ‘execution style’ as ‘revenge’ for Garner

New York Post ^ | 12/20/2014 | Larry Celona, Kevin Fasick and Jamie Schram

[oldfart]

Well, police FORCES were non-existent until sometime in the 1800s. Prior to that time a sheriff or constable would enforce the law with a volunteer posse. Usually the expenses for that posse would be borne by the city/county but the members were seldom paid for their time.
For minor issues, individual citizens worked a solution out among themselves. Of course, dueling was still legal then too. Somehow, the possibility that one might have to pay for his foolish actions with his life made his decisions a bit more... thoughtful, shall we say?

[Responsibility2nd]

To equate tyranny as anywhere nearly remotely the conservative position indicates you know nothing about conservatism.

[Half Vast Conspiracy]

I’m saying tyranny and conservatism are NOT the same.

And, that “law and order conservatives” aren’t
conservatives.

[the Original Dan Vik]

Half Vast Conspiracy is merely a Libertarian who is claiming that only Libertarians are conservatives.

[Half Vast Conspiracy]

Half Vast Conspiracy is merely a Libertarian who is claiming that only Libertarians are conservatives.

I'm a conservative pointing out that big government includes the (too many) cops.

[miserare]

“Somehow, the possibility that one might have to pay for his foolish actions with his life made his decisions a bit more... thoughtful, shall we say?”

Not guys like Billy the Kid, and there were lots of them.

[paristexas]

I thought the US Supreme Court ruled that we had a right to a handgun for self defense under the Second Amendment.

[dragnet2]

There’s aren’t “huge numbers” of ordinary people who hate law enforcement.

There are. However most of them won't act out on it at this time. Their hate can be defined as angry distrust.

This is much bigger issue regarding that hate attitude which is driven by massive escalating distrust of government at all levels. Law enforcement is part of that government. They are seen as agents of government.

Like it or not, it's widespread and escalating and much of it very justified.

These are serious cracks in the government foundation and they're rapidly growing. No question IMO. If not righted has the potential of becoming extremely ugly on a history changing national scale.

[the Original Dan Vik]

Ummm...yah. Sure. Burp.

[rawcatslyentist]

Me> “Garner ded because he was physically manhandled beyond his capability to survive.”

You> Not true. He died of a coronary. Brought on as a result of his criminal actions.

How can it be not true when you agree with me?

He died of a coronary set off by being manhandled by the police state. PERIOD

You>Whether or not he deserved to die is irrelevant.

To us, maybe. To our future where police can murder at will, definitely relevant.

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

[rawcatslyentist]

>"Would you rather have Trayvon Martin and the Gentle Giant as your next door neighbors or 2 random cops? Ponder on that."Honestly I wouldn't want neither either any or of them as neighbors.

Now if it was 2 cops I know, it would be a different story. I know quite a few righteous men of God that wear a badge, and indeed are my neighbors.

I do NOT HATE our LEOs.

Eric Garner did not deserve to be mauled to death over cigarette taxes.

St Skiddles and Unarmed got everything they paid for. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Lethal force is often an unfortunate occurrence in LE duty. It is often justified!

Nazi death squads with grenades in the middle of the night are NOT! There are many ways to take perps without military maneuvers aka POLICE STATE mentality.

They did this at Waco, where they could have taken Koresh while jogging or in town shopping. Instead the POLICE STATE murdered almost 80 US men women and children citizens, many of them by burning them alive!

Just how much POLICE STATE BRUTALITY does it take before you realize it's not a good thing?

[jjsheridan5]

Eric Garner did not deserve to be mauled to death over cigarette taxes.

I am as against excessive force as much as anyone. In fact, one of the reasons that I am such a supporter of the 2nd amendment is that I do not grant the government the right to render me defenseless against the government. And I am as against cigarette taxes as much as anyone. In fact, one of the reasons that I am against sin taxes (or regulations that impede the exercise of individual choices, in general), is because they invariably lead to an over-militarization of police, and the criminalization of pursuits that most people would consider in some way justified.

However, this guy was not "mauled". Nor was he not mauled over cigarette taxes. This is pure hyperbole, and aggrandizement. He died because he resisted arrest, and, as a morbidly obese asthmatic, resisting arrest is not the wise decision. If you can't win your argument without resorting to verbs like "maul", or to causes like "over cigarette taxes", you have lost your argument.

You also refer to "police state brutality". I suspect that you have no idea at all what that means. And I also suspect that you have no idea at all what the fringes of society are like, when it is your job to shield ordinary people from this fringe entering into their daily existence. Police brutality (let alone police "state" brutality)? Please. A morbidly obese man makes a darwinian choice to resist arrest, resulting in a mildly violent takedown. Heart attack, and, for the compassion-challenged among us, hilarity, ensues. Nothing more.

[rawcatslyentist]

If you can't win your argument without resorting to verbs like "maul", or to causes like "over cigarette taxes", you have lost your argument.

>"A morbidly obese man makes a darwinian choice to resist arrest, resulting in a mildly violent takedown."

Whom was the least violent during this "mildly" violent takedown?

Looks like you should try another mild verb. Have you seen the autopsy reports about Eric's neck? Mild~

What was that you said about having to rely on verbs causing you to lose an argument?

Let's strip it all down.

The man was alive. The police overpowered him. He died.

Any factual qualms? No hyperbole. No comparisons to lemonade stand violations. Just the facts!

Why couldn't they have just written him a ticket? It's not like they didn't know who he was or where he lived or where he worked, and clearly arresting him wasn't having any affect, until the last time.

[jjsheridan5]

"Mild" is relative. When you have a large man resisting arrests, it takes a lot of force to subdue them. Yes, by the standards necessary to subdue people resisting arrest, this is, compared to other violent takedowns, relatively mild. If you have a better way, I am sure that there would be much interest. But, I suspect, you don't have a better way. Quarterbacking is so much easier, from the armchair.

What was that you said about having to rely on verbs causing you to lose an argument?

I said that to refer to this as "mauling" is an exaggeration, to the point of discrediting your argument. Once again, I suspect that you have no comprehension of how difficult it is to subdue a large man determined to resist arrest. A real "mauling", done in excess of what is necessary, would involve a whole lot more than this.

Don't forget, that the police have to deal with the fringes of society on a daily basis. They cannot afford to take chances, or the law of averages will get them killed in no time. It is easy, I am sure, from your sofa. It is a lot more difficult when this is an everyday occurrence.

Let's strip it all down.

The man was alive. The police overpowered him. He died.

But you are not stripping this down. You are missing step "b", the part that necessitated the police overpowering him. Once again, you are showing that you have no real point, but rather an agenda. The critical step is the part between step "b" (the actions that necessitated the overpowering), and "c" (the actual overpowering). The fact that you don't address that, is telling, to say the least.

In addition, you fail to mention step "d", which is the part between the overpowering, and the death. Once again, omission is telling. You try to imply that the overpowering led directly to the death, when it is more likely that it is the actions of the deceases which led to his demise (don't bring a lard ass to the resistance of an arrest attempt).

Why couldn't they have just written him a ticket?

Do you have any, and I mean any, idea what would happen if the police stopped arresting people who showed the slightest aggression towards them, on the basis that they could always arrest them later? Somehow, I don't think you know. But more importantly, I don't think you care.

Whom was the least violent during this "mildly" violent takedown? ... Looks like you should try another mild verb

Not to nitpick, but "mildly" is not a verb. Not even a mild one.

[the Original Dan Vik]

Nice job dissembling rawcatslyentist’ partial argument.

[jjsheridan5]

Nice job dissembling rawcatslyentist’ partial argument.

Thank you, and thank goodness I chose a hobby as harmless as dissembling, albeit only that which was fragile to begin with. Otherwise, I might get bored, and resort to wandering the streets aimlessly, looking for a cop to antagonize, because, as we all know, they live in such a picture-perfect world where all decisions are easy, and no mistake results in harmful repercussion. Surely, I could fully expect these cops to indulge my innate desire to express my inner thug.

[dirtboy]

He died because he resisted arrest, and, as a morbidly obese asthmatic, resisting arrest is not the wise decision.

I just missed a bus Saturday. I knew from its route that it would hit red lights and I could probably run it down. Twenty years ago I would not have given it a second thought. Now, in my fifties, with hypertension, it would be inviting a heart attack. So I waited for the next one. I took into account my own knowledge of my health before I acted. And I can walk just fine, walk several miles a day. Garner could hardly walk a block.

The cops did not kill Garner. His own decision to resist arrest did. He knew he was in poor health. The cops didn't, they just saw a large man resisting arrest and used just enough force to get him on the ground, hardly a mauling. But a short wrestling match puts a tremendous strain on the body.

One can fairly debate NY cig taxes and laws, but, according to Garner's own wife, he was lazy. If smokes weren't taxed into the black market, he would probably have just found some other way to make money in another black market. And he had been arrested for selling single smokes before, so he knew full well why he was being arrested.

Garner is yet another case of the anti-cop and pro-race-card factions making a poor choice of poster child. And I am not pro cop - with Brown and Garner, I waited for the facts to come out. The facts showed both men, like Trayvon, made poor choices that contributed directly to their deaths. But with Garner, no one applied lethal force - his own heart did him in.

[rawcatslyentist]

Like I originally stated

Enjoy your police state. Hopefully they wont enforce anything against you.

[oldfart]

But it might be different with a politician.

[i_robot73]

Sorry, but it appears most are missing step 0: Over-bearing/over-reaching/intrusive GOV’T.

The man died over TAXES, as the State must make sure to get ‘its piece of the pie’. That is NYC. Those cops had everything else under control/no other higher-level infractions? They couldn’t just give another option: knock it off OR go to jail? If ANYONE has ‘prosecutorial discretion’, it’s the cops...

But no, “Oh, he’s a repeats LOOSE seller...The HORROR”. And, yes, when ever ANYONE has their forearm across a neck (or pair of hands), that’s a choke hold in my book; as much as touching an officer with a FINGER constitutes assault. Some animals are NOT more equal than others!