danivon wrote:"evading", but yes. Of course, it's still not a capital offence to avoid cigarette taxes.

Which is why he wasn't executed.

If it wasn't tragic, the way you Statists are avoiding the cause of this would be funny.

So, eventually, there will be draconian taxes on marijuana. It's inevitable. Those taxes will lead to smuggling, which will lead to "loosies," which will lead to confrontations between cops and "loosie dealers."

Only if imports are significantly cheaper. Given that current laws on marijuana already lead to confrontations between cops and dealers (as well as customers), it may be an improvement on the status quo to just have street sellers getting arrested rather than a large part of the War on Drugs seeing marijuana users and small-time dealers locked in prison.

Clearly, you missed a key word . . . let me help: "EVENTUALLY." That means sometime after today, certainly, and perhaps quite some time.

When, inevitably, some health issue with chronic marijuana use arises, the Surgeon General will declare it unsafe and it will be subject to Federal taxes. Then, politicians will seize on the opportunity to institute a new "sin tax" and away we go.

fate

When, inevitably, some health issue with chronic marijuana use arises, the Surgeon General will declare it unsafe and it will be subject to Federal taxes. Then, politicians will seize on the opportunity to institute a new "sin tax" and away we go

.
Where marijuana has been legalized, it is taxed. Just like cigarettes.
What's your point?

If selling cigarettes without taxation is illegal, so should selling legal marijuana without taxation.
And the police should have to enforce those laws.
But not by committing homicide.

rickyp wrote:fate

When, inevitably, some health issue with chronic marijuana use arises, the Surgeon General will declare it unsafe and it will be subject to Federal taxes. Then, politicians will seize on the opportunity to institute a new "sin tax" and away we go

.
Where marijuana has been legalized, it is taxed. Just like cigarettes.
What's your point?

If selling cigarettes without taxation is illegal, so should selling legal marijuana without taxation.
And the police should have to enforce those laws.
But not by committing homicide.

No, marijuana is not taxed "just like" cigarettes. Taxes on cigarettes in NYC are nearly as much as the cigarettes themselves.

fate

No, marijuana is not taxed "just like" cigarettes. Taxes on cigarettes in NYC are nearly as much as the cigarettes themselves.

So the taxes are a little higher. So what? Its still taxed. And anyone avoiding collection of that tax would be arrested and prosecuted.
The notion that taxation of loose cigarettes had anything to do with Garners death is ridiculous.

Colorado collects tax revenue from marijuana sales through a 15 percent excise based tax on the average wholesale market rate; a 10 percent state tax on retail marijuana sales; a state sales tax of 2.9 percent; varied local sales taxes; and local marijuana taxes such as a 3.5 percent tax in Denver.
Washington State collects tax revenue from marijuana sales through a 25 percent tax on producer sales to processors; a 25 percent tax on processor sales to retailers; a 25 percent tax on retailer sales to customers; a state Business & Occupation (B&O) gross receipts tax; a state sales tax of 6.5 percent; and varied local sales taxes. The total effective tax rate to be about 44 percent.

Ricky:

The notion that taxation of loose cigarettes had anything to do with Garners death is ridiculous.

I agree with Ricky that it is not the most important part of this story by a long shot. But certainly the fact that Mr.Garner may have been breaking the law by selling loose cigarettes and may have been resisting arrest has something to do with it.

Ricky has a way of stating things in such extreme ways that even when you agree with him it is hard to agree with him.

BTW, many years ago when I worked in very poor sections of NY (mostly South Bronx) I observed this habit of selling loose cigarettes. It was done this way for 2 reasons: 1. it was a way for minors to buy cigarettes since they could not buy packs in stores. 2. It was done this way because some people were very poor and had intense nicotine cravings. Mostly they would find butts on the street and smoke them, but every now and then they would have a dime or so (they were cheaper then) and splurge on a full cigarette.

Ray Jay wrote:Ricky:

The notion that taxation of loose cigarettes had anything to do with Garners death is ridiculous.

I agree with Ricky that it is not the most important part of this story by a long shot. But certainly the fact that Mr.Garner may have been breaking the law by selling loose cigarettes and may have been resisting arrest has something to do with it.

Wait. Whuh? Read that again.

He WAS selling cigarettes. He WAS resisting arrest. Those two things are indisputable. If you want to dispute them, feel free. I don't believe you can.

Ricky has a way of stating things in such extreme ways that even when you agree with him it is hard to agree with him.

"Extreme" is not the word I would choose; I'd go with "poorly stated."

rickyp wrote:fate

No, marijuana is not taxed "just like" cigarettes. Taxes on cigarettes in NYC are nearly as much as the cigarettes themselves.

So the taxes are a little higher. So what? Its still taxed. And anyone avoiding collection of that tax would be arrested and prosecuted.
The notion that taxation of loose cigarettes had anything to do with Garners death is ridiculous.

Colorado collects tax revenue from marijuana sales through a 15 percent excise based tax on the average wholesale market rate; a 10 percent state tax on retail marijuana sales; a state sales tax of 2.9 percent; varied local sales taxes; and local marijuana taxes such as a 3.5 percent tax in Denver.
Washington State collects tax revenue from marijuana sales through a 25 percent tax on producer sales to processors; a 25 percent tax on processor sales to retailers; a 25 percent tax on retailer sales to customers; a state Business & Occupation (B&O) gross receipts tax; a state sales tax of 6.5 percent; and varied local sales taxes. The total effective tax rate to be about 44 percent.

1. That pales in comparison to cigarette taxes in NYC. NY State is $4.35 per pack. CO is $0.84. NYC is $1.50 per pack. If there is a Denver tax, I can't find it. See the map at the bottom of this page. NYC residents would be THRILLED to be taxed like Colorado taxes marijuana. It would lower the cost substantially given that almost half of the cost in NYC is tax.

2. Denver's mayor has proposed an increase in marijuana taxes. However, that's not been approved. Furthermore, the opponents of his proposal note that it will simply drive consumers to the black market.

3. If Mr. Garner was not selling cigarettes, the local business owners would not have called the cops. He would not have been confronted and he'd still be alive. So, far from "ridiculous," it's actually the first link in the chain of events that led to his death.

4. If anyone avoiding marijuana taxation would be confronted by the cops--you have the same situation as with Garner. Here's a guy selling a legal substance and getting arrested.

fate

He WAS selling cigarettes. He WAS resisting arrest. Those two things are indisputable.

so what?

every person selling loose cigarettes should now fear being tackled by police and placed in illegal choke holds?
Blaming the victim is a dodge. A deflection. An attempt to mitigate responsibility and accountability...
Its along the same lines as blaming a victim of rape for wearing provocative clothes.
Garner is not dead because he was selling loose cigarettes. He is not dead because he verbally resisted arrest. (He did not physically react in any way till he was assaulted by the police putting him in a choke hold)
He is not dead because he was obese.

None of the factors you want to insert into consideration would mean anything if the police had followed nonviolent means of dealing with him. An example of which you have already illustrated for us...
Garner is dead because a cop put him in an illegal choke hold, and his partners and he sat on him...
When they didn't need to.

rickyp wrote:fate

He WAS selling cigarettes. He WAS resisting arrest. Those two things are indisputable.

so what?

every person selling loose cigarettes should now fear being tackled by police and placed in illegal choke holds?
Blaming the victim is a dodge. A deflection. An attempt to mitigate responsibility and accountability...

More vacuity.

I've already addressed the tactics. Btw, it's not a choke hold. And, the choke hold did not kill him.

The bigger issue, which you ignore, because you're incapable of logical thought, is that he was RESISTING arrest. When that happens, officers have a right, some would argue an obligation, to use force necessary to overcome the resistance and make an arrest. That's not blaming the suspect--he is not a victim--it's the law.

If you think Garner is a "victim," then you don't understand the law. He was in violation of the law. He was given lawful orders by police officers and told them he would not comply. That takes him out of the "victim" category unless you can show they violated the law. Oh, btw, even if they used a choke hold (which they didn't--it's a carotid restraint), that is not a violation of the law; it's a violation of Department policy.

Its along the same lines as blaming a victim of rape for wearing provocative clothes.

That is inane, even for you. He was not walking down the street minding his own business. He was violating the law. I know that is difficult for you to grasp, but do try.

Garner is not dead because he was selling loose cigarettes. He is not dead because he verbally resisted arrest. (He did not physically react in any way till he was assaulted by the police putting him in a choke hold)
He is not dead because he was obese.

Resisting arrest is not a part of our system. If you don't like that, change the laws. Oh. Right. Canadian. Do the RCMP look the other way if you tell them you won't cooperate? Try that--oh, and please do have it videotaped, won't you?

None of the factors you want to insert into consideration would mean anything if the police had followed nonviolent means of dealing with him. An example of which you have already illustrated for us...

It may or may not have worked. Like I said, that kind of approach tends to work with someone who doesn't really want to get physical and knows the system (it really is as easy as "we're both professionals. Let's handle this like professionals."). I think they could have taken a PR-24 ("club") to his leg. He might have a broken bone or a knee injury, but he'd be alive. I would give the officer discipline for a very bad approach. I'd probably demote the supervisor for not taking charge and not having a plan better than this. However, nothing that was done looks illegal--poor tactics, but not criminal behavior.

Garner is dead because a cop put him in an illegal choke hold, and his partners and he sat on him...
When they didn't need to.

Please demonstrate:

1. It was a choke hold (by strict definition).
2. It was "illegal." Please cite the law violated.
3. The alleged choke hold was the cause of death.

If you can do all three, I'll publicly apologize. Good luck.

fate

1. It was a choke hold (by strict definition

.
Who's definition? A cops' trying to avoid responsibility for his actions?
This reminds me of the "water boarding isn't torture arguement. Meaningless Hairsplitting..

"A chokehold by another fancy name is still a chokehold. Whatever the name may be, it is really another attempt by an officer to put his arm around someone's neck," Hankerson said. "When we see someone with their arms wrapped around someone's neck, that is a chokehold.

New York's ban includes any pressure to the throat or windpipe that "may prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air." That still leaves a gray area that accounts for officers wrestling suspects into submission, said Maria Haberfeld, chairwoman of the Department of Law, Police Science and Criminal Justice Administration at John Jay College in New York City

The cruel paradox of the chokehold, experts said, meant the victim’s “struggle to free himself only increases the force around the neck. The desire to free himself intensifies and increases the pressure,” wrote Donald T. Reay in a paper published that year in the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology. Other pathologists agreed, saying that the primal “reflex” to get air can actually “aggravate the pressure, inflict more damage.”

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-cho ... story.html

After the incident, city medical examiners concluded that Garner was killed by neck compression, along with "the compression of his chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police"

.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Eric_Garner

So he was killed by neck compression and chest compression, and not a "chokehold" And you think this is a distinction with a difference?

Officer Daniel Pantaleo, also on scene, put his arms around the much taller Garner's neck, applying an apparent chokehold shown in a video recording of the event, which has since gone viral

.
And yet, the media generally describes the move as a chokhold. Meaning no one else sees the distinction you do...

2. It was "illegal." Please cite the law violated
Legal Definition of "Excessive Force"

The term excessive force is defined as using more force than is reasonably necessary under the circumstances to make a lawful arrest. Whether the amount of force used is considered excessive is measured by determining the amount of force a prudent and reasonable law enforcement officer would have used under the circumstances.
When an officer uses excessive force, those actions can constitute a violation of the criminal laws in the State of New York. Additionally, a claim of excessive force involves a violation of an individual's civil rights against cruelty and protection of laws as provided by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

http://www.rochelleberliner.com/CivilRi ... definition

That the hold used by the officer was against regulations, makes the use of it, in any way, excessive.
By definition.
That the hold was responsible for the mans death ... as per the medical examiner, also defines "excessive".

3. The alleged choke hold was the cause of death

After the incident, city medical examiners concluded that Garner was killed by neck compression, along with "the compression of his chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police"

.

rickyp wrote:fate

1. It was a choke hold (by strict definition

.
Who's definition? A cops' trying to avoid responsibility for his actions?
This reminds me of the "water boarding isn't torture arguement. Meaningless Hairsplitting..

No, and if you knew anything of the Law, you'd know that.

The choke hold would have been a matter for the Grand Jury to look at. If the choke hold was actually used, pressure would be applied against the windpipe of Mr. Garner. If you watch the video, that's not what happens. There is no "choke hold" apart from "choking." A "carotid restraint" does not "choke" the party upon whom it is applied.

"A chokehold by another fancy name is still a chokehold. Whatever the name may be, it is really another attempt by an officer to put his arm around someone's neck," Hankerson said. "When we see someone with their arms wrapped around someone's neck, that is a chokehold.

New York's ban includes any pressure to the throat or windpipe that "may prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air." That still leaves a gray area that accounts for officers wrestling suspects into submission, said Maria Haberfeld, chairwoman of the Department of Law, Police Science and Criminal Justice Administration at John Jay College in New York City

The cruel paradox of the chokehold, experts said, meant the victim’s “struggle to free himself only increases the force around the neck. The desire to free himself intensifies and increases the pressure,” wrote Donald T. Reay in a paper published that year in the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology. Other pathologists agreed, saying that the primal “reflex” to get air can actually “aggravate the pressure, inflict more damage.”

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-cho ... story.html

Nothing you've said here indicates what was done to Mr. Garner is other than what I've said.

After the incident, city medical examiners concluded that Garner was killed by neck compression, along with "the compression of his chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police"

.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Eric_Garner

That's not all of it:

The cause of Garner's death was "compression of neck (choke hold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police," said Julie Bolcer, a spokeswoman for the medical examiner's office. The death was ruled a homicide.

Acute and chronic bronchial asthma, obesity and hypertensive cardiovascular disease were listed as contributing conditions in a controversial death that sparked anti-police demonstrations and calls for a federal investigation.

What was done would not have killed a normal, healthy person. Mr. Garner was not healthy.

So he was killed by neck compression and chest compression, and not a "chokehold" And you think this is a distinction with a difference?

Because it is.

Officer Daniel Pantaleo, also on scene, put his arms around the much taller Garner's neck, applying an apparent chokehold shown in a video recording of the event, which has since gone viral

.
And yet, the media generally describes the move as a chokhold. Meaning no one else sees the distinction you do...

2. It was "illegal." Please cite the law violated
Legal Definition of "Excessive Force"

If that law was violated, we should expect to see an indictment and a conviction. I'm waiting.

That the hold used by the officer was against regulations, makes the use of it, in any way, excessive.
By definition.
That the hold was responsible for the mans death ... as per the medical examiner, also defines "excessive".

Not with the additional health issues. And, it's not been determined that he used an unauthorized hold. We only have your word for it. Further, that would not make it excessive force. It would be "unauthorized force." There is a difference. One is criminal; the other is administrative.

3. The alleged choke hold was the cause of death

After the incident, city medical examiners concluded that Garner was killed by neck compression, along with "the compression of his chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police"

.

Not that simple (see above).

Have a nice day.

Fascinating. We are supposed to blame taxes, rather than the proximate cause of death, for a man's death.

I do object to the use of the word "Statist" as a perjorative by someone who spent most of their adult life working for governments. Besides it also being the lazy insult of a true-believing libertarian.

The problem comes when you look at the criminal statutes and see if a conviction is warranted. In California, to be charged with involuntary manslaughter:

(1)The defendant committed a crime [or a lawful in an unlawful manner;
(2) The defendant committted the (crime [or] act) with criminal negligence;

AND
3. The defendant's acts caused the death of another person.

Criminal negligence involves more than ordinary carelessness, inattention or mistake in judgment. A person acts with criminal negligence when:

1. He or she acts in a reckless way that creates a high risk of death or great bodily injury;

AND

2. A reasonable person would know that acting in that way would create such a risk.

Does a choke hold or carotid hold constitute something that causes a high risk of death or great bodily injury?
It's easy to that the officer messed up. Presumably, the reason the department does not allow the hold he did was for safety reasons. And I have not looked at New York's criminal laws. But a civil case with a lesser proof standard looks more viable.

On Fate's comments, he's being absurd, just like he was in the thread "Bush didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." Why don't you take your credibility and throw it out the window a little farther? The cop choked him, which caused his death. Saying, "well, it technically wasn't a chokehold" is complete and utter bull, and attempts to obfuscate that a homicide occurred that apparently no one will be held accountable for.

And Freeman, the cop grabbed a guy around the neck and choked him to death. He said 11 times that he couldn't breath. People need to breath to live. Therefore, he knew what he was doing would likely lead to the death of the individual he was choking to death. What's not clear?

To posit that what is seen in that video is not criminal behavior is to accept that we live in a police state, which is not an unreasonable argument, but it is not an argument that I accept.

fate

If that law was violated, we should expect to see an indictment and a conviction. I'm waiting

I think this is the complaint of persons of color in American cities, and anyone who witnessed the Garner video without prejudice. Where's the indictment?
When the system is rigged, there is no justice and no end of nonsense spouted by apologists for the criminal behavior that is protected by the system makes tha right.

freeman 3

Does a choke hold or carotid hold constitute something that causes a high risk of death or great bodily injury?

Yes. Which is why it is not allowed ..

Weeks after Gates acted, the Los Angeles Police Commission voted to limit the use of the carotid chokehold, in which pressure is applied to the sides of the neck. The commission acted after the death of James Mincey Jr., a 20-year-old black man who was put in a carotid hold after leading officers on a high-speed car chase.

Related story: Tamir Rice's mother wants conviction of white officer who shot her son
Related story: Tamir Rice's mother wants conviction of white officer who shot her son
Mincey's death was the 16th over seven years that was attributed to the carotid chokehold, The Times r

eported in 1993 when the City Council agreed to pay a $450,000 settlement to Mincey's father.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-cho ... story.html