No Indictment In New York

[RandB fan]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Damages?
Loss of consortium .... he's got a mistress with a child?
Loss of income in the future .... he's on welfare?
City of New York .... offset .... reduced food costs for the family.
City of New York .....offset .... recovery of unpaid taxes, penalties, and interest.
U.S.A. ...................recovery of unpaid taxes, penalties, and interest.

Bring it on!

Hopefully the attorney filing the suit can pay sanctions for a spurious lawsuit.

He is out on bail in a NY rape case.. involving, get this, one of Rev Sharptons people.. I told you you can't make this shit up!!

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y.- The high-powered attorney representing Eric Garner's family has been accused of raping a woman who has ties to Rev. Al Sharpton, according to a report in the Daily News.

Sanford Rubenstein, 70, allegedly assaulted the 42-year-old executive at his Manhattan home following a birthday bash for Rev. Sharpton Wednesday, the article said.

The accusation is being investigated as a third-degree rape, a source told the Daily News.

Rubenstein is known for his high-profile cases and has represented a slew of other police brutality victims, including the family of Sean Bell, the paper said.

A spokeswoman for Rev. Sharpton's National Action Network confirmed the woman is a top official at the network.

Garner (who now goes by Snipes-Garner sometimes just Snipes) announces a week later
Part of that struggle means making difficult, but important, decisions on how to proceed with its $75 million suit against the city and NYPD following the rape accusations leveled against their former attorney, Sanford Rubenstein, last week.

Garner's wife, Esaw Snipes, and mother, Gwen Carr, still visibly emotional over their loss, expressed the trying decision to move in a different direction and hire civil rights attorney Jonathan Moore at a rally Saturday at National Action Network headquarters in Harlem.

Now get this Eric's son Eric JR goes by Eric Snipes something smells bad here..

[Jackie S]

In a civil trial, where just about anything goes, ALL of this will come out.

Of course, the City of New York will wimp out, since the Mayor himself has already thrown the Police Dept under the bus.

You are right. This is going to make one hell of a TV movie.

[bigcockpussylicker]

I was thinking about the long term consequences of the brown/wilson case and the eric garner case
They both teach the public, "do what cops tell you to do otherwise you get shot"

seems a good lesson for the public to realize.

[boardman]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I don't know the actual motivation behind the loose cig law, other than what has been posted.

The background may well involve some unmentionable subjects for this board. There are a couple of issues that may be relevant in the effort .... beside taxes.

1. No accountability for underage sales.
2. No accountability as to contamination.
3. No accountability as to the actual substance contained in them.

Recent events surrounding "synthetics" being sold at convenience stores with no age requirement had all the components involved, which resulted in amendments to prohibited lists in regulations and statutes to prevent the uncontrolled sale of some serious shit with no content regulation.

Do the police have a "right" to investigate what Garner was selling on the street, to pat him down (search) for "contraband," and question him about his presence there? Yes. The United States Supreme Court has said so.

If he resists the pat down (search) while the police contact is ongoing that is an offense (an "arrestable" offense).... and while they are in the process of that "contact" if they are concerned about their personal safety they have a right to secure him (handcuff him) to protect themselves while they conduct their "investigation." The United States Supreme Court has said so. Throughout the decisions of The United States Supreme Court are statements of "officer safety."

I don't think this law equates with the Big Drink Prohibition.

As I understand it the taxes got so high on a pack of cigs that the average guy couldn't afford them. As a result two black markets emerged. One was bootlegging cigs from out of state and selling them privately thus cutting the city out of the tax revenue. The other was selling loose cigs to people who couldn't afford the jacked up price on black market packs or high priced "legal" packs.
There are actually federal laws against selling cigs to minors or selling less than a pack. My guess is that it's because there are federal taxes involved as well.

On June 22, 2010, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a rule that restricts the sale, distribution, and marketing of cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, and smokeless tobacco products to protect children and adolescents. The rule is required by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act and is intended to protect kids by making tobacco products less accessible and attractive to them.
http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/P.../ucm205021.htm

Per the FDA it's "Intended to protect kids by making tobacco products less accessible"

There are laws against underage sales. Enforce those.
There are laws against the sale of prohibited substances. Enforce those.

Don't make it illegal to do something that isn't inherently wrong just because there is a chance of someone doing something inherently wrong. That's like taking guns away from law abiding citizens.

Couldn't they just have issued Garner a ticket?

[bigcockpussylicker]

Originally Posted by boardman

Per the FDA it's "Intended to protect kids by making tobacco products less accessible"

There are laws against underage sales. Enforce those.
There are laws against the sale of prohibited substances. Enforce those.

Don't make it illegal to do something that isn't inherently wrong just because there is a chance of someone doing something inherently wrong. That's like taking guns away from law abiding citizens.

Couldn't they just have issued Garner a ticket?

slippery slope
he was selling top underage kids, why you think he wasnt?
cigerattes are a "rohibited substances." to under 18yos, (not that law makes anymore sense than your "anti-drug laws"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8yYJ_oV6xk

didnt garner have many tickets already?
he isnt dead because he was selling cigarettes,he is dead because he didnt treat police like they are in charge
Had he done what they asked, he would be alive today
survival of the fittest isnt about avoiding lions anymore,. its about following laws set by those with guns

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by boardman

Don't make it illegal to do something that isn't inherently wrong just because there is a chance of someone doing something inherently wrong. That's like taking guns away from law abiding citizens.

Couldn't they just have issued Garner a ticket?

There is an amendment that protects your right to have a weapon, but that right is restricted by the government and also the government can restrict when and where you carry a firearm. So, with all due respect it's not the same, but your example also is really not a good one, because firearm ownership and purchase is "regulated."

If governments can regulate the sale of alcohol it can regulate cigarette sales.

People in New York can cross state lines and buy smokes. They just can't sell the smokes they purchase and bring back. Just like people in Texas can leave a dry area, travel to a liquor store in a wet area, purchase booze, and return home to the dry area and drink it. We can go to Mexico and buy booze without the Texas tax and take it home and drink (can also at duty free stores).

You are trying to show how petty the crime is he committed. Well ... if it was so "petty" why didn't he just cooperate with the police on their investigation of this "petty" offense.

Citation? How many do you want to give him before you realize you are wasting paper and he's not going to stop selling cigs without a license ...

.. just like .....

.. how many times are you going to stop him driving with "no license."

And let him go????

This is an interesting inroad into the criminal justice jurisprudence ...

Immunity from Arrest:
Blackman with five or more criminal violations.

[boardman]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Citation? How many do you want to give him before you realize you are wasting paper and he's not going to stop selling cigs without a license ...

.. just like .....

.. how many times are you going to stop him driving with "no license."

And let him go????

It's not the policeman's privilege or responsibility to determine how many citations are enough.

[LexusLover]

And Boardman,
I recall recently a Mod scolded folks for talking about the "unmentionable" in the Houston forum (I think) because it was against the law in Texas, even though ok in Colorado. You know that "stuff" .. Well I'm not "up to speed" on all the ins and outs of the Colorado laws on selling "stuff" ... but it is my understanding that one must get a license, regulate sales, and collect taxes on it that must be turned over to the State of Colorado.

Years ago (40+) there was a Federal tax on the "stuff" ... even a form to fill out. As long as you paid the Federal tax it was not against the Federal law to possess the "stuff." The tax law was challenged and upheld as "good law" ... now whether it was "a good law," is up for debate, now and then. BUT .... IF YOU FILED A TAX RETURN the Feds would just turn you over to the State boys and they prosecuted you for buying and possessing. In the late 60's and early 70's the mean sentence in Texas (1/2 below and 1/2 above) for possession of one "stuff" cig was around 25 years IN PRISON.

This "NYC business" is not "new" .... In fact that is what Obamacare is all about.

Taxing people into behavior....the "dumb" part in the ACA it's cheaper to pay the tax!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by boardman

It's not the policeman's privilege or responsibility to determine how many citations is enough.

It's his discretion (unless there is a "mandate" and I didn't see one.)

When you get stopped for running a red light in Texas, the officer has choices:

1. Let you go after verbally warning you.
2. Write you a "warning" ticket.
3. Write you a ticket.
4. Arrest you.

It's the officer's discretion (unless departmental policy prohibits #1. Some do.).

You do bring up an interesting "point" ... if there was a departmental policy, city ordinance, or state law prohibiting the officer from issuing a citation to a person who is bonded out on the same or similar fine-only offense, but requiring the officer to affect an arrest of the violator ... then the officers arresting Garner were doing so in furtherance of that policy, ordinance, or law, and as such they lacked the "discretion" and were implementing a mandated action. I know of no such mandate, but that's not to say there isn't one relevant to Garner's situation. But if it were to exist, IMO it would provide them with a level of legal protection in a criminal prosecution or civil case .. at least as to the "arrest" or "don't arrest" portion of their decision making.

[boardman]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

And Boardman,
I recall recently a Mod scolded folks for talking about the "unmentionable" in the Houston forum (I think) because it was against the law in Texas, even though ok in Colorado. You know that "stuff" .. Well I'm not "up to speed" on all the ins and outs of the Colorado laws on selling "stuff" ... but it is my understanding that one must get a license, regulate sales, and collect taxes on it that must be turned over to the State of Colorado.

Years ago (40+) there was a Federal tax on the "stuff" ... even a form to fill out. As long as you paid the Federal tax it was not against the Federal law to possess the "stuff." The tax law was challenged and upheld as "good law" ... now whether it was "a good law," is up for debate, now and then. BUT .... IF YOU FILED A TAX RETURN the Feds would just turn you over to the State boys and they prosecuted you for buying and possessing. In the late 60's and early 70's the mean sentence in Texas (1/2 below and 1/2 above) for possession of one "stuff" cig was around 25 years IN PRISON.

This "NYC business" is not "new" .... In fact that is what Obamacare is all about.

Taxing people into behavior....the "dumb" part in the ACA it's cheaper to pay the tax!

All I'm saying is the law against selling "loosies" is stupid.
I get the law against selling bootlegged cigarettes. If he was selling bootlegged cigs then ticket him on that. I get the law against selling without a permit. If he was selling without a permit then ticket him on that. I get the law against selling to minors. If he was selling to minors then ticket him on that. There's a law against lacing the cigs. If he was lacing the cigs then ticket him for that.

My question is, what is inherently wrong about going into a store and buying a pack of cigs with a tax stamp and selling one or more of those cigs on the street to your buddies?

What if four guys chipped in 4 dollars each, one guy goes into the store, buys the cigs, comes back out and they split the pack evenly or stand there and smoke them until they're gone. Would that be illegal? The tax has already been paid so where's the foul? The fact here is that the government is trying to legislate morality by putting a tax on what they perceive to be immoral behavior(smoking a cigarette). In actuality they don't care about what is moral or immoral healthy or unhealthy. What they care about is what they can make money on. IMO making it illegal to sell a loose cigarette that has been taxed and paid for is just wrong.

Futhermore, putting a tax on something and therefore making it legal is asinine. It's just another way of legislating morality and or enforcing compliance with the will of the government. Just like the tax stamp for automatic weapons. The government couldn't get away with saying you couldn't own them but they did get away with saying you could own them only if you paid a tax. I just don't agree with that.

[CuteOldGuy]

None of this matters. The facts are that a guy was passively resisting a cop. No one was in danger. The cop decides to take the guy down by throwing his arms around the guy's neck and forcing him to the ground. This interfered with the guy's ability to breathe. The guy eventually died, according to throw coroner's report, of asphyxiation. The coroner ruled it to be a homicide. Did the cop break the law? Who knows? That's what trials are for, and that's where this case should be going. His past, his wives, his lovers, make no difference. He has been denied justice. And really, so has the cop. He is not able to show the community that his actions were legal and reasonable. That's sad.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by boardman

All I'm saying is the law against selling "loosies" is stupid.

I get the law against selling bootlegged cigarettes. If he was selling bootlegged cigs then ticket him on that. I get the law against selling without a permit. If he was selling without a permit then ticket him on that. I get the law against selling to minors. If he was selling to minors then ticket him on that. There's a law against lacing the cigs. If he was lacing the cigs then ticket him for that.

My question is, what is inherently wrong about going into a store and buying a pack of cigs with a tax stamp and selling one or more of those cigs on the street to your buddies?

I just don't agree with that.

Do you see that part of what you posted I "highlighted" .... ?

Let's continue your "pretend game" ....

Officer: Sir, what is your name?
Garner: What am I doing wrong?
Officer: I asked you what your name is.
Garner: I'm not doing anything wrong.
Officer: Let me see your ID.
Garner: No.
Officer: You have to show me your ID.
Garner: No I don't.
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

Garner "the Sherman Tank" Vendor ... turns and rumbles up the sidewalk.

If you don't like the law ... move to NYC and organize a "loosies" rally.

Whether you like it or not has no relevance to the current events.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

The facts are that a guy was passively resisting a cop.

Forgive me ... what is "passively resisting"?

"A person is guilty of resisting arrest when he intentionally prevents or attempts to prevent a police officer or peace officer from effecting an authorized arrest of himself or another person. Resisting arrest is a class A misdemeanor."
N.Y. PEN. LAW § 205.30 : NY Code - Section 205.30: Resisting arrest.

When a 350 pound 6'+ man holds his hands up so you can't put them behind his back and starts backing away or turning there is an "intentional" ... "attempt" to prevent" the officer from "effecting" the arrest. Refusing to abide by commands (requests) and maintain a position to prevent being restrained is "resisting" ... there is no "passive" or "otherwise" .. it's "resisting"!

Does that officer have to wait until a 350 pound man whacks him in the face?

[boardman]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Do you see that part of what you posted I "highlighted" .... ?

Let's continue your "pretend game" ....

Officer: Sir, what is your name?
Garner: What am I doing wrong?
Officer: I asked you what your name is.
Garner: I'm not doing anything wrong.
Officer: Let me see your ID.
Garner: No.
Officer: You have to show me your ID.
Garner: No I don't.
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

What?
I'm not sure what you're even getting at. I've asked several times what is inherently wrong with selling a cigarette that has been purchased legally once and the tax paid already? By that logic, it would be illegal to have a garage sale and sell my toaster oven to my neighbor.

I don't need to go anywhere. I can sit right here and criticize the validity of stupid laws just as easily as you can sit there and defend them.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Forgive me ... what is "passively resisting"?

"A person is guilty of resisting arrest when he intentionally prevents or attempts to prevent a police officer or peace officer from effecting an authorized arrest of himself or another person. Resisting arrest is a class A misdemeanor."
N.Y. PEN. LAW § 205.30 : NY Code - Section 205.30: Resisting arrest.

When a 350 pound 6'+ man holds his hands up so you can't put them behind his back and starts backing away or turning there is an "intentional" ... "attempt" to prevent" the officer from "effecting" the arrest. Refusing to abide by commands (requests) and maintain a position to prevent being restrained is "resisting" ... there is no "passive" or "otherwise" .. it's "resisting"!

Does that officer have to wait until a 350 pound man whacks him in the face?

There was no need for violence. The guy was huge, but sick and out of shape. The cop apparently dealt with Garner before. He was no threat to the officer. I think the cop hadn't had a chance to take anyone down yet that day, so he decided to get rough with Garner for fun. The cop may be completely innocent, but there are too many questions open for a true bill.