No Indictment In New York

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Budman

I agree 100%. Less government is better government. I want as little to do with the government as possible. Unfortunately they keep adding more and more laws and regulations to infringe into our daily lives.

In a "dream world" that works.

In other words, if everyone did what was correct, responsible, and respectful of others, there would be little need for LE or most of the judicial system, and only a handful of lawyers in town. That's not reality. Sad, but true.

Same with this board ... no "rules" and no "mods."

[Budman]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

In a "dream world" that works.

In other words, if everyone did what was correct, responsible, and respectful of others, there would be little need for LE or the most of the judicial system, and only a handful of lawyers in town. That's not reality. Sad, but true.

So you believe that the bigger the government becomes the better? I'm not advocating the elimination of government, police or the judicial system but I do see cases of government intrusion into our lives that IMO is ridiculous.

[boardman]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Yea, I "Get it"!

You are "ASSUMING" .... in order to attempt to make a point. The problem is:

1. He was selling cigarettes.
2. He didn't have a license.
3. He was out on bond ALREADY on a charge of selling cigarettes.
4. And he was doing 1, 2, and 3, while on a PUBLIC SIDEWALK.



Here WAS his opportunity to produce his LICENSE! He didn't have one, ticket or arrest him for that. What else do you need?
Here WAS his opportunity to allow them to search him for loose smokes.
Here WAS his opportunity to explain what he was doing there.

There is no "third-law" ... it's all contained in one ordinance. You are saying that there was no previous ordinance against selling without a license or selling untaxed cigarettes. I'm pretty sure you'd be wrong on both counts.

The rationale for prohibiting the sale of "loose" cigarettes (outside of a package that would normally have the tax stamps on it) is to avoid days of pissing back and forth over a non-issue ... Garner standing their arguing that he had paid the tax on the cigarettes when he bought them, but he (1) didn't get a receipt (2) lost the receipt or (3) forgot where he bought them when the paid the tax. If he couldn't produce a receipt then he should be ticketed. In the long run passing more laws makes the argument easier, not harder. Then, yes, you stand there arguing with an adult like you would a 5 year old. What do you tell a 5 year old. You tell them what they did was wrong because __________________ and you give them a logical explanation of how their transgression hurt someone else. You don't keep heaping rules on him just because and without explanation. Why? Because he soon loses respect for the bullshit you keep throwing at him.

Criminal statutes are often written in manner to avoid disputes over issues involving the target of the prohibition or focus in the statute.

An LE officer expects to see the tax sticker on a carton of cigarettes sold in a store. Do your packages of cigarettes have a sticker on them? The officer expects to see one on the pack as well. If there is no sticker, no taxes were collected. To avoid the argument ... ban the sale of loose cigarettes. The same for liquor. When serving at the bar, it better come out of a taxed bottle. When the bottle is empty .. what do you do with the label/sticker on it? Why?

Perhaps the politicians need to take into consideration the unintended consequences of laws like this then before they pass them and really put some thought into whether or not it's done for the benefit of society or whether it's done to benefit them.

[boardman]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Most people I've met who called a law "stupid" were just wanting to violate it.

And got caught doing so.

That's a pretty broad brush you're using.

I don't smoke or sell cigarettes...

[boardman]

Originally Posted by Budman

I'm not advocating the elimination of government, police or the judicial system but I do see cases of government intrusion into our lives that IMO is ridiculous.

Pretty much summed up what I've been trying to say for pages.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Budman

So you believe that the bigger the government becomes the better?

No.

I think it is "better" if people take responsibility for themselves and conduct themselves in a manner that reduces the negative impact on the community.

[boardman]

Pardon me,
I forgot to address one thing.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Here WAS his opportunity to explain what he was doing there.

Explain what he was doing there? By your own admittance it is a public street.

Perhaps this would have been a better picture to make your point.



or this...

[boardman]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

No.

I think it is "better" if people take responsibility for themselves and conduct themselves in a manner that reduces the negative impact on the community.

You'd just like to see more laws that force "them" to do that, Right?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by boardman

That's a pretty broad brush you're using.

I don't smoke or sell cigarettes...

I don't think we have met.

Originally Posted by LexusLover:

Most people I've met ....

And I don't either, and I don't consume alcoholic beverages.

But that is not the basis for any part of my discussion on the thread topic.

My point is for pages of posts ... if Garner had done what was lawful ....

He would be alive and we wouldn't have wasted all this time, ...

....along with a shit load of a lot of other people around the country, including those who had to clean up the mess creating by all the lawless people who were pissed.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by boardman

You'd just like to see more laws that force "them" to do that, Right?

No.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by boardman

Explain what he was doing there? By your own admittance it is a public street.

It appears to me he is in a "public place" talking with two police officers who have not laid a hand on him, searched him, or patted him down.

Now if he were standing in the "public street" it might be a different matter, since he might be impeding traffic and not walking in a designated walkway for pedestrian traffic, so they might be inclined to request that he not stand or walk in the middle of the street and hopefully he would have followed their request and not try to take the weapon from either one of them and beat either one of them in the face ... so they wouldn't have to shoot him.

I think you were using "public street" vs. "private property" .. not me.

Now any time you think that reads too much like a

... "frustrated law school drop out" ... just let me know, and I'll try to dumb it down for you so you can better understand it.

[boardman]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I don't think we have met.



And I don't either, and I don't consume alcoholic beverages.

But that is not the basis for any part of my discussion on the thread topic.

My point is for pages of posts ... if Garner had done what was lawful ....

He would be alive and we wouldn't have wasted all this time, ...

....along with a shit load of a lot of other people around the country, including those who had to clean up the mess creating by all the lawless people who were pissed.

On that we can both agree. My statements have never been about his guilt or innocence of the laws in place. They were meant to question the need for the law in the first place since there were other existing laws covering what was actually harmful.

Hell yes, cooperating with the police makes everyone's life easier. I don't blame the police for doing their job...
That is until the police take it too far. But then there are remedies for holding them accountable. Certainly, on the street is not the place to do it.
The problem is that, for many, the street is the only place where they feel they have a voice and the police are the easiest and sometimes only targets for their frustrations. I get that part too.

I'll give you a personal example.
I recently was made aware of an obscure law concerning a water well. That law was passed over thirty years ago but the district just started enforcing it. As part of the enforcement a fine was levied all the way back to the inception for not having complied with the required registration of the well.
I voiced my frustration to the attorney handling the property that there should be some statute of limitations on how far back they can go to assess the fine. Hell, the IRS can only go back 7 years. The attorney agreed with me 100%. She also said that she had two choices in her opinion. Pay the fine or go to court to make the argument. She advised paying the fine as that was more economical. That sucks!

[boardman]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

It appears to me he is in a "public place" talking with two police officers who have not laid a hand on him, searched him, or patted him down.

Now if he were standing in the "public street" it might be a different matter, since he might be impeding traffic and not walking in a designated walkway for pedestrian traffic, so they might be inclined to request that he not stand or walk in the middle of the street and hopefully he would have followed their request and not try to take the weapon from either one of them and beat either one of them in the face ... so they wouldn't have to shoot him.

I think you were using "public street" vs. "private property" .. not me.

Now any time you think that reads too much like a

... "frustrated law school drop out" ... just let me know, and I'll try to dumb it down for you so you can better understand it.

Public sidewalk is what you said. My mistake.

Simple presence on a public sidewalk does not allow the cops to have me explain my presence. This isn't the Third Reich. Garners presence on the public sidewalk doesn't make him guilty of something and the police should not be allowed to assume he is doing something wrong simply by his presence. That's what it seemed you were implying.
Now if he is a known felon then, yes, some of his rights are relinquished and he can be questioned without some probable cause.
I know it's a stretch for your sensibilities but let's say the loosie law is not in play and the cops see him selling loose cigarettes. Do they have the authority to ask to see a tax stamp or receipt to make sure he paid the taxes? I think that's reasonable. If he doesn't have that proof then write him a ticket and let him explain himself to the judge. If he continues to do it then it's reasonable to assume he either hasn't gone to see the judge or the judge didn't do enough the previous time to make him stop so maybe he needs to see the judge again. The cop can either continue to write tickets or take him for a ride to make sure he sees the judge. Again, those are reasonable options and they are based on observation of him doing something wrong.
In my opinion a guy selling someone a loose cigarette out of a pack of 20 that has been bought legally is no more harmful to me than that same guy occupying 4 square feet of sidewalk.

[bigcockpussylicker]

Originally Posted by boardman

My problem is not with the police enforcing the law it's with the politicians who come up with this stupid shit in the first place.

that's irrelevant though,
When the cops talk to you, you gotta treat them nice,
just like when I'm driving and you think you have the right of way to walk in front of my car....maybe you do have the right of way, but I run you over cause I don't see you.
Im fine, your dead/cant walk.
oh but you are right?.... oh, you werent right,, my light was green....
Guess you better yield to the car or the cops, because they have the power.

in all the publicized cases, garner/brown/rice....the guys who died didnt show respect for the police.....show some respect or shit happens and no one is going to punish the cops.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by boardman

I'll give you a personal example.
I recently was made aware of an obscure law concerning a water well. That law was passed over thirty years ago but the district just started enforcing it.

The attorney agreed with me 100%. She also said that she had two choices in her opinion. Pay the fine or go to court to make the argument. She advised paying the fine as that was more economical. That sucks!

I was sitting with beside a guy many years ago in a bar across the River in Boys' Town trying to sweet talk a rather attractive prostitute into some "free pussy" and he thought she would bite, because he considered himself good looking. After a drink and some friendly conversation she stated ....

"Business is business." (sounded more like beeeeesnessss es beeeeesnesss).

There is another viewpoint to the well-registration. May be more. If by caving into the district and paying the fine you are accepting the district's authority to regulate the well and the operation of the well, the future expense and inconvenience might justify addressing their authority now and potentially put an end to the thorn in your side. Occasionally, quasi-governmental agencies will agree to waive their regulation of a specific subject matter of their focus in order to avoid the potential of having all of their authority found to be nonexistent and potentially having to refund fines and/or assessments for all similarly situated subject matter. And the waiver can be done by a "friendly suit" or agreed judgment to "run with the land."

The problem is .. the "issue" is not "principle" it is "principal." "Beeeeesnessss es beeeeesnesss."