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

[dblack]

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.

Lethal force is the essence of law enforcement. Every time we pass a law, we're saying that, if necessary, someone should be killed if they won't obey.

 

[depotoo]

So you have never suggested here, ever that white cops inherently profile blacks? If not, then it must be asclepias (sp?) I am thinking of... If it was you, then suddenly with this case when Black cops are involved, it isn't a race issue, just all cops .

Are you going to tell me why their races matter or not? You brought it up and put it in bold I thought you had a reason

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

Lethal force is the essence of law enforcement. Every time we pass a law, we're saying that, if necessary, someone should be killed if they won't obey.

That's a ridiculous statement to make.

Most laws are enforced with $, not bullets.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So you have never suggested here, ever that white cops inherently profile blacks? If not, then it must be asclepias (sp?) I am thinking of... If it was you, then suddenly with this case when Black cops are involved, it isn't a race issue, just all cops .

Are you going to tell me why their races matter or not? You brought it up and put it in bold I thought you had a reason

Black cops profiling black people isn't any better than white cops profiling black people.

 

[depotoo]

Exactly right. And if a cop is working in a black neighborhood, kind of hard to call their actions profiling.

So you have never suggested here, ever that white cops inherently profile blacks? If not, then it must be asclepias (sp?) I am thinking of... If it was you, then suddenly with this case when Black cops are involved, it isn't a race issue, just all cops .

Are you going to tell me why their races matter or not? You brought it up and put it in bold I thought you had a reason

Black cops profiling black people isn't any better than white cops profiling black people.

 

[dblack]

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.

Lethal force is the essence of law enforcement. Every time we pass a law, we're saying that, if necessary, someone should be killed if they won't obey.

That's a ridiculous statement to make.

Most laws are enforced with $, not bullets.

No. It's not. Every single law is backed by force of violence. If you think not, ask yourself what happens if someone refuses to pay a fine.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

From the article linked in the OP:
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?

Q

From the article linked in the OP:
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?

I can't believe I have to explain this. You paid tax on your purchase, but your customers aren't paying theirs.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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?

Q

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?

I can't believe I have to explain this. You paid tax on your purchase, but your customers aren't paying theirs.

Let me explain how cigarette taxes work.

When the cigarette distributer wants to sell cigarettes in a certain state, they have to buy tax stamps from the state, and put them on the bottom of each pack.

That's the only step in the chain in which the government receives any revenue.

The taxes are then passed on as part of the price of the cigarettes through each retail step.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

So you have never suggested here, ever that white cops inherently profile blacks? If not, then it must be asclepias (sp?) I am thinking of... If it was you, then suddenly with this case when Black cops are involved, it isn't a race issue, just all cops .

Are you going to tell me why their races matter or not? You brought it up and put it in bold I thought you had a reason

Black cops profiling black people isn't any better than white cops profiling black people.

Nothing wrong with profiling. The FBI does it all day every day. It works.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

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?

Q

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?

I can't believe I have to explain this. You paid tax on your purchase, but your customers aren't paying theirs.

You don't understand how stamp taxes work, do you?

Oh, cut the crap. How did the government put Al Capone away?

 

[deltex1]

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?

pepper spray could have stopped him, but the question is, WHY was the cop arresting him for an offense that only required a paper citation?

The neck hold CAUSED his weak heart to have the attack....even the coroner said so and there are even 30 year old articles from Doctors and Medical Examiners on choke/neck holds by police that kill the people with weak hearts and major discussions on not using them...

We need to give thugs and protesters signs that say, "I have a weak heart, don't choke me bro!"

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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?

Q

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?

I can't believe I have to explain this. You paid tax on your purchase, but your customers aren't paying theirs.

You don't understand how stamp taxes work, do you?

Oh, cut the crap. How did the government put Al Capone away?

I edited my post with an explanation of how cigarette taxes work.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

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?

Q

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?

I can't believe I have to explain this. You paid tax on your purchase, but your customers aren't paying theirs.

You don't understand how stamp taxes work, do you?

Oh, cut the crap. How did the government put Al Capone away?

I edited my post with an explanation of how cigarette taxes work.

His customers weren't paying sales tax now, were they.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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?

Q

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?

I can't believe I have to explain this. You paid tax on your purchase, but your customers aren't paying theirs.

You don't understand how stamp taxes work, do you?

Oh, cut the crap. How did the government put Al Capone away?

I edited my post with an explanation of how cigarette taxes work.

His customers weren't paying sales tax now, were they.

Sales tax is also paid only at one step in the chain - at the retail level. If he bought the cigarettes at the store, he paid the sales tax too.

 

[Pop23]

Failing to obey a lawful order rarely ends up well for the offender.

Teach this to your young and life should be good.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

Q
I can't believe I have to explain this. You paid tax on your purchase, but your customers aren't paying theirs.

You don't understand how stamp taxes work, do you?

Oh, cut the crap. How did the government put Al Capone away?

I edited my post with an explanation of how cigarette taxes work.

His customers weren't paying sales tax now, were they.

Sales tax is also paid only at one step in the chain - at the retail level. If he bought the cigarettes at the store, he paid the sales tax too.

Once again I can't believe I have to explain this. He has made a sale without getting sales tax. Why else would the government want him to stop?

 

[dblack]

You don't understand how stamp taxes work, do you?

Oh, cut the crap. How did the government put Al Capone away?

I edited my post with an explanation of how cigarette taxes work.

His customers weren't paying sales tax now, were they.

Sales tax is also paid only at one step in the chain - at the retail level. If he bought the cigarettes at the store, he paid the sales tax too.

Once again I can't believe I have to explain this. He has made a sale without getting sales tax. Why else would the government want him to stop?

Also, he's dead.

 

[dblack]

Failing to obey a lawful order rarely ends up well for the offender.

Teach this to your young and life should be good.

If we could just teach it to every idiot who thinks "there oughta be a law" for everything under the sun, maybe we could avoid some of this crap.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You don't understand how stamp taxes work, do you?

Oh, cut the crap. How did the government put Al Capone away?

I edited my post with an explanation of how cigarette taxes work.

His customers weren't paying sales tax now, were they.

Sales tax is also paid only at one step in the chain - at the retail level. If he bought the cigarettes at the store, he paid the sales tax too.

Once again I can't believe I have to explain this. He has made a sale without getting sales tax. Why else would the government want him to stop?

You don't seem to understand how taxes work.

The government doesn't care who pays the sales taxes, as long as someone does.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

Oh, cut the crap. How did the government put Al Capone away?

I edited my post with an explanation of how cigarette taxes work.

His customers weren't paying sales tax now, were they.

Sales tax is also paid only at one step in the chain - at the retail level. If he bought the cigarettes at the store, he paid the sales tax too.

Once again I can't believe I have to explain this. He has made a sale without getting sales tax. Why else would the government want him to stop?

You don't seem to understand how taxes work.

The government doesn't care who pays the sales taxes, as long as someone does.

You're missing it. Why is it against the law for Garner to sell single cigs on the street?