Reading the comments

[pen_grunt]

I shouldn't. I know. Read the comments. Ever. Goodlord. Everything is awful.

On Eric Garner's murder:

Random internet commenter 1: "There was no evidence that he couldn't breathe."
Random commenter 2: "He is dead, you moron. There is your evidence that he couldn't breathe--he is fucking dead."

All these, "Whelp, if you don't want the cops to do their job*, don't break the law**" comments drive me insane.

Let's just pretend for a moment that there's no element of "accident" or "defense" here. Someone steals $5 from a convenience store. Someone sells a pack of untaxed cigarettes. Why bother with a trial? Just kill them on the spot. Because that's cool now.

Hey, if they didn't want to be killed, they shouldn't have done anything wrong, right? Arrests take time. We've seen that execution is totally appropriate in the eyes of citizens.

Do they not see how this is a ridiculous argument?

"Oh, I'm sorry. Your meter expired so it's no longer legal to park here."
"Do I get a ticket, officer?"
"Nope. Shot to the head. Guess you should have fed the meter you law-breaking criminal."

I really just don't even have the words.


*Which is, apparently, flat-out killin'
**With a heaping helping of "But-but-but race isn't a factor!"

Comments

[tediousandbrief.livejournal.com]

In this ridiculous argument world you speak of, if you're going 5 over the speed limit, the officer shouldn't try to pull you over. Instead he should just grab his firearm and start shooting at your car with you driving.

I seem to recall that grand juries seldom refuse to indict someone; except when it is a police officer. Otherwise, as the story goes, a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich.

[pen-grunt.livejournal.com]

In this ridiculous argument world you speak of, if you're going 5 over the speed limit, the officer shouldn't try to pull you over. Instead he should just grab his firearm and start shooting at your car with you driving.

Well naturally. I mean. What does one expect? If they're going to break the law, they must be ready for the consequences. The police person might endanger their lives by trying to stop you in any other manner. You probably have a gun in your glovebox or something.

[tediousandbrief.livejournal.com]

True! IF they're breaking one law, they very well could even be a mafia kingpin for all they know! You just don't know!!! It is best to arm the squad cars with those mounted machine guns to be super safe.

[silverpoet01.livejournal.com]

I don't get how a grand jury could not indict with the evidence in front of them - the coroner said he was murdered...I'm of the utmost confused with our country today.

Btw, don't Cops carry mace and/or tasers on the regular? I have no idea why they felt the need to physically attack Garner, you can plainly see on the tape he's not acting violently (IMO) - if the goal was to detain him and in their eyes he was resisting why not just mace him to gain that control? Physical violence as it played out wasn't necessary in the way it was carried out IMO.

Personally I think the tape shows exactly what was happening - a man was harassed by the Cops and died at their hands - super fucked up and something needs to be done.

[pen-grunt.livejournal.com]

I don't get how a grand jury could not indict with the evidence in front of them - the coroner said he was murdered..

I know. It is a gross miscarriage of justice. It's even not like it was a trial and they returned a not-guilty of [manslaughter, negligent homicide, whatever] verdict. They were like: This is so not a thing we're not even going to take it to trial. No indictment. I do not understand. At all.

I forced myself to watch the video again (it is very hard to watch, knowing the outcome, for me). Garner's gestures are not violent. It's more of the "brushing off someone who is trying to grab you". I'm totally baffled that there was no indictment.

It's just so...fucked up. That's the perfect way to describe it.