• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Eric Garner’s daughter posts address of cop at his death

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
They were initiated by police officers being rude.

Two kids walking down the street and not moving out of the way. Officer tells them to move out of the street (realize that the words that you posted are hearsay and we do not know if in fact the police officer spoke that way to the kids) and they tell him to essentially take a hike. Police officer pulls up to the kids and one reaches into the car to attack the cop. At what point here did the police officer initiate the crime?



Interesting. That shows that some of you have a reading and listening problem as she didn't say anything about him breaking the law THAT day. So keep spreading that lie that he was breaking the law when you've got no proof of that.

If there was no proof, the police could have arrested him, he be brought into the station, be shown that there is no proof and then he could have filed for false arrest. I haven't seen any false arrest charges, have you?


You don't know the details of why he stuck his hand in the car. The only person who really knows is the man who killed him and either he's a liar or his chief is. That by itself is probable cause for an indictment.

Hmm - What would be the purpose for any man to reach into a police car and try to wrestle the gun from the police officer? He had GSR on his hands. That's pretty clear.


You're stretching to your version of the truth now. The public wasn't running to get away from him. The public didn't have issues with Mike Brown. They did with the police.

So the young man reaches into a police car, tries to take the cops gun, gets shot and you say he's not a threat to the public? Would you like for your daughter to be near him at that point? I'm sorry but he would be a VERY clear threat to the public.


What do you think the legal next step should have been since you're so gung ho on the police shooting people?

The logical next step would be for the police officer to gain custody of the perpetrator.



Again, you keep stating that lie and apparently not reading what she said. At no point did she say he was selling cigarettes that day.

Hmm - he was arrested 9 times for selling illegal cigarettes and he was out on bail for this particular crime. If he wasn't selling cigarettes, why not cooperate with the police? Why not show them that he wasn't selling anything and that he could check his pockets and stuff? Or maybe it was that the police had already seen the crime occur?
 

Zaac

Well-Known Member
Saints or Aints.....skin color judgment is for chumps.

Then I guess you, out of fairness, need to include your friends who are calling me a racist in that.

Aww, but you seem to have excluded them from your proclamation...and THAT should tell you just how much what you just said matters to me.
 

Zaac

Well-Known Member
Two kids walking down the street and not moving out of the way. Officer tells them to move out of the street (realize that the words that you posted are hearsay and we do not know if in fact the police officer spoke that way to the kids) and they tell him to essentially take a hike.

And you can stop right there. There was no trial so you don't know what was hearsay anymore than anyone else does.

Police officer pulls up to the kids and one reaches into the car to attack the cop. At what point here did the police officer initiate the crime?

Why isn't this account hearsay?

If there was no proof, the police could have arrested him, he be brought into the station, be shown that there is no proof and then he could have filed for false arrest. I haven't seen any false arrest charges, have you?

I haven't seen any arrest charges either.


Hmm - What would be the purpose for any man to reach into a police car and try to wrestle the gun from the police officer? He had GSR on his hands. That's pretty clear.

Got me. Another reason why a trial was warranted.

So the young man reaches into a police car, tries to take the cops gun, gets shot and you say he's not a threat to the public?

Hearsay.


Would you like for your daughter to be near him at that point? I'm sorry but he would be a VERY clear threat to the public.

Based upon what? Do you know what the cop did that precipitated him supposedly reaching into the car? Noyou don't. All you know is what the man who killed him...a man who just might be a liar based upon his chief's testimony...says happened.

Warranted a trial.

The logical next step would be for the police officer to gain custody of the perpetrator.

The perp is dead . So I guess he got him.


Hmm - he was arrested 9 times for selling illegal cigarettes and he was out on bail for this particular crime. If he wasn't selling cigarettes, why not cooperate with the police?

Oh I don't know. maybe because they had walked by him plenty of times selling cigarettes and not done anything. Maybe because they teased him about it as though it wasn't a big deal. Maybe because they had harassed him again and again when he actually was selling them that he didn't see any reason for them to be bothering him when he wasn't selling them.

SO what does he have to cooperate for if he wasn't doing anything? Do you let the police just search your house without a warrant if you haven't done anything?

Why not show them that he wasn't selling anything and that he could check his pockets and stuff?

Watch the tape. They could have just asked that if that's what they thought.

Or maybe it was that the police had already seen the crime occur?

Then watch the tape. That's all they had to say if that were the case. They didn't. The only crime they saw was a fight and they didn't help with that either.

Why not?
 

righteousdude2

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apparently.

Garner should have known better. He could've saved himself by listening to his common sense.

1) He had several disabilities or chronic diseases, and he should have known that with these liabilities (physically speaking), entering into a physical confrontation put his life in peril!
2) he had been arrested 9 other times for selling loosey's. Common sense tells me that it is a law, (granted a very stupid one) and I need to find a REAL job, or evolve to a different kind of crime, because I have been busted one too many times.
3) The cops will win, especially since they outnumbered him from the start.
4) Don't resist arrest.
5) Once you start a fight, it will continue until one of the sides loses.
6) Ask if the crime was worth doing the time? Apparently for Garner, it was worth it, or he wouldn't have continued to commit it.
7) When you slap at the cops, try to get away from their hold on you and smart mouth them with diefiant comments, wel, they will take it as a challenge to their authority and most times, the bad guys lose. Garner would have and should have watched more Fox Channel "Cops" shows, 'cause he would've know that these guys mean business!
8) He had a family to go home to, as did the cops.
9) The cops never decided that morning before shift, that they would find an overweight black man seling losey's and kill him.

I can go on. But Garner failed to respect the very laws the cops are enforcing. He must have had a short memory, because like a prostitute, he'd been busted for the same crime more than once.

Like they say, bust me once shame on me. Bust me more than once shame on me big time.

Garner would be alive today, if he wouldn've only listened to common sense. He did not deserve to die ... no one deserves to die .... but he was the author of his own circumstances. Sure the cops may have been more than forceful in arresting him. In fact they should ALL be disciplined for excessive force, but murder, no way. Involuntary manslaughter? Again, no way. They were doing their job, and Garner refused to comply to their directions when they attempted to arrest him!

He was at fault, and his death is on his shoulders, not the NYPD!
 

Jedi Knight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Garner would be alive today, if he wouldn've only listened to common sense. He did not deserve to die ... no one deserves to die .... but he was the author of his own circumstances. Sure the cops may have been more than forceful in arresting him. In fact they should ALL be disciplined for excessive force, but murder, no way. Involuntary manslaughter? Again, no way. They were doing their job, and Garner refused to comply to their directions when they attempted to arrest him!

He was at fault, and his death is on his shoulders, not the NYPD!

Straight up true bro.
 

righteousdude2

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Straight up true bro.

Thanks ... I can be rational when not fighting the naysayers. :smilewinkgrin: It seems that I am forever putting out fires from the matches tossed my way by RD2 haters! Well, if there is any positive to take away from this, it is simply this. I am hated enough by many on the board, that they love to see my name pop up so they can come after me, even it's just for spelinq and gramer errers :smilewinkgrin:

May HIs force be with you!
 

Jedi Knight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Thanks ... I can be rational when not fighting the naysayers. :smilewinkgrin: It seems that I am forever putting out fires from the matches tossed my way by RD2 haters! Well, if there is any positive to take away from this, it is simply this. I am hated enough by many on the board, that they love to see my name pop up so they can come after me, even it's just for spelinq and gramer errers :smilewinkgrin:

May HIs force be with you!

Your not the only one friend.......I have a fan club too! :0)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gina B

Active Member
Two kids walking down the street and not moving out of the way. Officer tells them to move out of the street (realize that the words that you posted are hearsay and we do not know if in fact the police officer spoke that way to the kids) and they tell him to essentially take a hike. Police officer pulls up to the kids and one reaches into the car to attack the cop. At what point here did the police officer initiate the crime?





If there was no proof, the police could have arrested him, he be brought into the station, be shown that there is no proof and then he could have filed for false arrest. I haven't seen any false arrest charges, have you?




Hmm - What would be the purpose for any man to reach into a police car and try to wrestle the gun from the police officer? He had GSR on his hands. That's pretty clear.




So the young man reaches into a police car, tries to take the cops gun, gets shot and you say he's not a threat to the public? Would you like for your daughter to be near him at that point? I'm sorry but he would be a VERY clear threat to the public.




The logical next step would be for the police officer to gain custody of the perpetrator.





Hmm - he was arrested 9 times for selling illegal cigarettes and he was out on bail for this particular crime. If he wasn't selling cigarettes, why not cooperate with the police? Why not show them that he wasn't selling anything and that he could check his pockets and stuff? Or maybe it was that the police had already seen the crime occur?

Concerning Brown, it is alleged that he fit the description of the store suspect and the officer was waiting on backup, but chose to confront Brown and his partner, alone, while sitting down, before backup arrived. That was not wise or safe. Further, if Brown then proved he could overpower the officer, what kind of training says that once you are safe and the suspect is away, that you then confront him again - alone - when your backup has not yet arrived?

It makes no sense. Justified shooting or not, the actions of the police officer showed poor judgment, which in and of itself would make any logical person question the entire situation. His version of events make it seem justified, but I have my doubts about trusting his word because of those illogical actions.
I doubt he would have have put another box of cigarillos in danger if the officer, after seeing his sheer size and that he was outnumbered, would have waited another 160 seconds, more or less, for help.
 

righteousdude2

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Concerning Brown, it is alleged that he fit the description of the store suspect and the officer was waiting on backup, but chose to confront Brown and his partner, alone, while sitting down, before backup arrived. That was not wise or safe. Further, if Brown then proved he could overpower the officer, what kind of training says that once you are safe and the suspect is away, that you then confront him again - alone - when your backup has not yet arrived?

It makes no sense. Justified shooting or not, the actions of the police officer showed poor judgment, which in and of itself would make any logical person question the entire situation. His version of events make it seem justified, but I have my doubts about trusting his word because of those illogical actions.
I doubt he would have have put another box of cigarillos in danger if the officer, after seeing his sheer size and that he was outnumbered, would have waited another 160 seconds, more or less, for help.

Great points. I never looked at it this way. But, those two boys were walking in the middle of the street. I think the entire thing started with him asking or telling them to get out of the street. From there it escalated, and we all know that sometimes we get ourself in way too deep, and we have to ride it out! Still, you make a good point!
 
Top