Pretty wise words from a law professor. Senseless death over cigarettes is inevitable when you make laws that have trivial impact on society.
How about don’t pass laws you aren’t willing to die to enforce. I think a lot of politicians are sociopaths and wouldn’t have a problem with the killing innocents part.
I said in one of the other threads that I blame his death on high cigarette taxes.
Agree and disagree. However, he wasn’t “killed for selling cigarettes”. He was being arrested for that, but then committed the crime of Resisting a Lawful Arrest (that is a law everywhere I am aware of, but maybe New York is different". In resisting the arrest, he elevated the level of crime, the level of violence, and therefore the level of response by the police.
Speeding is against the law. Would police use lethal force to stop someone from speeding? Not a chance. However, if the person continues speeding and driving in a way that endangers the public (elevating the crime to Dangerous Driving), then lethal force is sometimes required.
If the police are not able to use force to effect an arrest, why would anyone consent to be arrested?
In the past 10 years or so, various locations prohibited police pursuits due to the number of innocent people being hurt or killed. Then the public found out. Anyone driving a stolen vehicle just took off when they saw police. No insurance? Just keep driving. Driving drunk? Hell no, not stopping. It wasn’t very long before police pursuits were allowed again, albeit with more restrictions than before. People pull over again.
The public has recognized that the police need to be able to use force when required to do their duty. That duty is often making a lawful arrest. Most people don’t want to be arrested, but go voluntarily because they know that if they don’t, the police will continue to escalate the amount of force used until the arrest is made.
If someone is willing to resist arrest for a minor offence with pretty minimal punishment, what will they be willing to do to prevent arrest for a crime that has jail time?
I get it. If he just complied he would be alive. But nearly every one of us has committed an offense that could quickly escalate with an encounter with police depending on a bunch of things, including if that cop or you are having a bad day.
I’m not saying this is the case here, but what if you were continuously harassed by police for trivial stuff. For instance, while I was growing up, police used petty shit all the time to question me and my boys. My friends were mostly black in this period of time. And while they were not wholesome characters, most of those encounters we committed no crimes. Have you ever been stopped for jay walking at an intersection with no stoplight or cross walks, and limited traffic in a residential suburb? I have. And the questions quickly turned to where are you heading. Where did you come from? My interactions after breaking from that crowd were limited, but it certainly educated me.
Pretty wise words from a law professor. Senseless death over cigarettes is inevitable when you make laws that have trivial impact on society.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…-to-kill-to-enforce/
That’s a pretty dumb sentiment. Maybe it would be better stated as, “don’t support laws that you aren’t willing to enforce, knowing that accidental death could occur during any enforcement effort.” That’s not the same thing, of course, and it sounds sexier when you say it the way the columnist says it.
Pretty wise words from a law professor. Senseless death over cigarettes is inevitable when you make laws that have trivial impact on society.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…-to-kill-to-enforce/
That’s a pretty dumb sentiment. Maybe it would be better stated as, don’t support laws that you aren’t willing to enforce, knowing that accidental death could occur during any enforcement effort." That’s not the same thing, of course, and it sounds sexier when you say it the way the columnist says it.
This. That was a cute little comment law professors like to make for the sole purpose of getting a reaction, with the requisite embellishment from the media.
Pretty wise words from a law professor. Senseless death over cigarettes is inevitable when you make laws that have trivial impact on society.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…-to-kill-to-enforce/]
Stupid statement. Think of all the laws we have. Most of them are not ones I think you should be willing to kill to enforce. Traffic laws, tariffs, nuisance laws, tax laws, disclosure laws, etc. Yet I don’t think we should eliminate them simply on the “willing to kill to enforce” them criteria. Simply a stupid statement.
Your act is tiring. We all know that you believe there is little the state can do wrong. Like I said in the other thread, people like you are why gov’t should have as little power as possible.
Your act is tiring. We all know that you believe there is little the state can do wrong. Like I said in the other thread, people like you are why gov’t should have as little power as possible.
Your lack of comprehension is tiring. I have plenty of problems with the State, and have no problem believing that the State can do things wrong. When you say “we all know” what you really mean is, “TheForge can’t think of a rational response, so he’s going to attack you personally instead.”
I do. I think there should be very few criminal laws. Define a nuisance law, and tell me why it should be enforced via criminal courts? Traffic laws are selectively enforced, and include a multitude of petty laws that really have not business in criminal courts. Tax laws are sanctioned theft? Tariffs are not enforced on its citizens and people have died for failing to abide by them, and I don’t have a problem with that.
Unless it is a crime that specifically harms another, I don’t think it should be enforced via criminal law. I think a majority of petty offense could be better handled via civil courts, because they really only should be prosecuted if they harm somebody anyways.
My view is actually a lot stricter than this law professor’s is, but since I’m willing to concede too many of you not only accept the nanny and police state, but want more of it, I think the death litmus test takes us in the right direction.
Pretty wise words from a law professor. Senseless death over cigarettes is inevitable when you make laws that have trivial impact on society.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…-to-kill-to-enforce/
I agree with the general sentiment, but the presentation is a little over the top. Taken to an extreme, this would mean we should have minimal laws, but the penalty for violating any of them is death.
Likewise, the police and DAs ignore violation of many laws all the time, especially when the violators are white and/or wealthy and chose to often very strongly enforce minor statutes against those that are black and/or poor. My favorite analogy right now, is no arrests were even attempted when HSBC admitted to laundering billions of dollars for Mexican drug cartels, but six officers killed an unarmed black man during an arrest that stemmed from illegally selling loose cigarettes.
Pretty wise words from a law professor. Senseless death over cigarettes is inevitable when you make laws that have trivial impact on society.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…-to-kill-to-enforce/
I agree with the general sentiment, but the presentation is a little over the top. Taken to an extreme, this would mean we should have minimal laws, but the penalty for violating any of them is death.
Likewise, the police and DAs ignore violation of many laws all the time, especially when the violators are white and/or wealthy and chose to often very strongly enforce minor statutes against those that are black and/or poor. My favorite analogy right now, is no arrests were even attempted when HSBC admitted to laundering billions of dollars for Mexican drug cartels, but six officers killed an unarmed black man during an arrest that stemmed from illegally selling loose cigarettes.
FBI statistics show that the percent of whites are arrested pretty darn close to their percentage of population (within 3 percentage points or so per year).
Spot
Pretty wise words from a law professor. Senseless death over cigarettes is inevitable when you make laws that have trivial impact on society.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…-to-kill-to-enforce/
I agree with the general sentiment, but the presentation is a little over the top. Taken to an extreme, this would mean we should have minimal laws, but the penalty for violating any of them is death.
Likewise, the police and DAs ignore violation of many laws all the time, especially when the violators are white and/or wealthy and chose to often very strongly enforce minor statutes against those that are black and/or poor. My favorite analogy right now, is no arrests were even attempted when HSBC admitted to laundering billions of dollars for Mexican drug cartels, but six officers killed an unarmed black man during an arrest that stemmed from illegally selling loose cigarettes.
FBI statistics show that the percent of whites are arrested pretty darn close to their percentage of population (within 3 percentage points or so per year).
Spot
Shhhh, facts destroy the narrative . . . .
Pretty wise words from a law professor. Senseless death over cigarettes is inevitable when you make laws that have trivial impact on society.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…-to-kill-to-enforce/
I agree with the general sentiment, but the presentation is a little over the top. Taken to an extreme, this would mean we should have minimal laws, but the penalty for violating any of them is death.
Likewise, the police and DAs ignore violation of many laws all the time, especially when the violators are white and/or wealthy and chose to often very strongly enforce minor statutes against those that are black and/or poor. My favorite analogy right now, is no arrests were even attempted when HSBC admitted to laundering billions of dollars for Mexican drug cartels, but six officers killed an unarmed black man during an arrest that stemmed from illegally selling loose cigarettes.
FBI statistics show that the percent of whites are arrested pretty darn close to their percentage of population (within 3 percentage points or so per year).
Spot
Do you have a link to the stats or an article, because I would be interested in seeing them.
Blacks are placed in prison at a disproportionately higher rate, http://www.naacp.org/pages/criminal-justice-fact-sheet, or maybe the NAACP is just making it up.
The FBI arrest statistics are actually probably proving my point. An “arrest” is not enforcement of the law in and of itself, handing out the actually punishment is and in that respect, blacks are getting punished a lot more often and more severely.
This is for 2011. Other years are similar.
http://www.fbi.gov/...2011/tables/table-43
ETA: I haven’t looked at the NAACP stats, but blacks commit many more murders, percentage-wise, than any other race. That is a (possible) explanation for the discrepancy in the punishment stats from the NAACP, although I will fully admit that I’m just guessing at that at the moment.
Spot
I said in one of the other threads that I blame his death on high cigarette taxes.
What are you talking about high taxes, it’s only 30 cents a cigarette.
I think a better way to state it would be, don’t pass laws that will in of themselves create a black market.
I’m backing you up on this one, tri_yoda.
From what I can tell selling loosies is illegal because it breaks a tax law. It’s small-time tax fraud. What’s the state sales tax on a single cig? Not much, probably. Probably some huge portion of white collar America commits far greater, but still low-grade, tax fraud annually. Fudging charitable donations a bit. Messing with cost bases. Doing a bit of contract work under the table. Wink-wink. But I’d imagine it’s very, very rare to be forcibly arrested for those tax offenses.
Yet Eric, here, is treated like he’s dealing crack. Not committing minor tax fraud.
Edit: Or let me throw out this one. You have Clive Bundy who effectively committed many thousands of dollars in tax fraud for decades. But he was never threatened with arrest. And then law enforcement came to seize the property he was using to make illlegal profit, he resisted, and had supports who threatened to kill the law enforcement officers. And, to many, he’s an American hero. Clive claiming the land is “his” property is effectively the same as Garner claiming the pack of cigs he bought is “his” property.
Yet if Garner’s buddies had pulled guns and told the cops to back off I’d don’t think we’d see total capitulation by the cops.
I agree 100%. Why do we have laws against such petty crimes. I should be able to walk into a store, shoplift a Snickers and the police state should not be allowed to arrest me. If they do approach me, I should just be allowed to ignore them and walk away without the pigs touching me. This damn police state that we live in is really crowding my style!
Do you guys actually think about the shit you write?