What about not profiling based on "he was black in a hoodie"?
How is resisting arrest for racial profiling wrong? It doesn't matter if I have a criminal record or not. I'm not the man you're looking for and have every right to say no.
You actually don't have a right to say no. If a police officer says, "I need to take you in for questioning", you have a right to not say a word, and to get an attorney, but you have no rights to not be arrested. And you certainly have no rights to run away, or assault an officer, which just makes it look like you are guilty, and/or have something to hide.
I think people aren't actually clear on rights. Rights are not the assumption that you can do whatever you damn well please, with no regards to consequences.
Was the cop ever suspended for using an illegal choke hold? Five or more cops to take down an unarmed guy seems excessive to me. Also, the cop should have the mental capability to know if a civilian needs a goddamn ambulance.
The chokehold wasn't illegal. It was against department policy, but it isn't illegal.
And I don't know what you wanted the police to do. I suppose they should have just stood around and had coffee until Garner needed to take a nap? He swatted at police, was a known, repeat offender, and he very clearly didn't want to cooperate with them. The police have a right to be wary.
So you think resisting arrest is synonymous with attacking the police?
No wonder you think Eric Garner deserved to die.
Resisting arrest and attacking the police are two totally different things.
You could say during the Civil Rights movement many protestors resisted arrest.
According to you, if they were all massacred by the police it would be understandable.
I don't know that the Civil Rights movement had a lot of people resisting arrest. They were arrested, but they were peaceful.
And let's not compare the greatness of the Civil Rights movement, which was done in order to make the world a better place, to cases of people resisting arrest because they were thieves who were getting caught.
Resisting arrest shouldn't be a capital offense.
The punishment should fit the crime.
Police shouldn't expect to get away with killing someone who's biggest crime was being non-compliant during an arrest.
Well, no. The outcome of most cases of people resisting arrest is a charge of resisting arrest. Eric Garner's case is tragic, but he resisted arrest. End of story. If he hadn't tried to hit officers, he would probably still be alive. Michael Brown tried to reach for the officer's gun, and was hitting him.
If you don't want to die during an encounter with police, then keep your hands to yourself, and cooperate with them, even if they're in the wrong. Don't touch them, don't try to run away, don't even think of reaching for their weapon.
Like mentioned before if Mark Wahlberg died at the hands of a cop would you say you don't feel sorry for him because of his criminal past? Its annoying that you all keep bringing up what they did in the past as if they were doing the crime at the time of their deaths. They couldn't even prove Garner was selling cigarettes at the time of his death? He was just standing around, but I'm sure someone here will say "hey well that's loitering which is a crime". None of their past actions are worthy of dying over. These cops need to face consequences for what they did.
If Mark Wahlberg died at the hands of an officer, and he was in the process of resisting arrest, or was hitting an officer, or if he pulled a weapon, or if he even acted like he was pulling a weapon, I wouldn't care.
This has nothing to do with skin color, wealth, or fame (which is what I think you're implying here). If he was being dumb, then I wouldn't have a single problem with the use of force that ended with his life being over.
And besides that, I don't think that anyone here is saying that Eric Garner or Michael Brown 'deserved' to die because of their criminal past, no matter how recent it had been. What everyone is saying is that if you resist arrest, and you force the officers to have to either defend themselves, or think that they have to defend themselves, then...no sympathy.
If the video had shown Mr. Garner being attacked randomly by officers, for no apparent reason, I would have been angry. If Mr. Garner had been cooperative with the police, and the officers still used force on him, I would have been angry.
I'm sad that he died. And I'm angry that there weren't ANY charges filed, because I feel that at the very least, manslaughter should have been brought against the officer, because I do think the force on the ground (not necessarily the chokehold itself) was excessive and unreasonable.
But I'm not going to claim that Mr. Garner was an innocent man who was minding his own business when the officers attempted to arrest him. It's not true. It's not reasonable to claim that officers should not be allowed to use force when someone begins to act in an unpredictable fashion. It's just not.
Now, if we want to discuss an actual case of improper police violence, let's talk about Tamir Rice, and his death. I will be more than angry if charges are not brought against that officer. They didn't give the child a chance to put down the 'gun'. The officer who shot him didn't do anything right in that case. And it also does call into question background checks on police officers. That officer should never have been allowed to be on the police force.
