Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Eric Garner and the Dog Who Didn’t Bark
Amid the contention over the Eric Garner case — whether the force used against him was justified, how much his criminal and medical histories should bear on the events, etc. — two points have emerged with what should be crystal clarity: that the cigarette taxes that make selling “loosies” so profitable are absurd, and that the crime Garner was being arrested for at the time of his death is almost wholly a creation of these taxes.
To give a sense of just how crazy cigarette taxes are in New York City, consider that each pack of 20 is subject to $4.35 in state taxes, plus an additional $1.50 in city taxes: in all, a little over $0.29 per cigarette. Given that cigarettes are legally available within a day’s drive for less than the cost of the taxes, it’s little wonder that an estimated 57% of the cigarettes sold in the state are smuggled in (the highest rate in the nation; Lord knows how much higher the figure is for NYC itself). It’s even less of a surprise that street vendors like Garner and this fellow can make a living selling individual cigarettes for $0.70 each or $1 for two.
Now, given this situation — and the supposed concern for people victimized by overzealous law enforcement — you would think that at least someone in the Empire State or Gotham would call for a reexamination of the tax policies that directly led to Garner’s arrest and, indirectly, to his death.
What have we gotten? Nary a whisper. If Andrew Cuomo or Mayor de Blasio have said anything to that effect, it has escaped Google’s notice. Indeed, as recently as this past July (the month Garner died) Cuomo was heralding the success of the state’s anti-cigarette smuggling task force. NYT columnist Gail Collins — who wrote a piece just last year praising President Obama’s call for increasing national cigarette taxes — hasn’t made a peep on the matter. Even the wonderful Heather Mac Donald at the equally wonderful City Journal hasn’t commented on New York’s cigarette taxes in the three pieces she’s written that touch on Garner’s death, other than to cite his violations of them as broken windows in need of policing; the idea that the taxes themselves lead to criminality by incentivizing smuggling has not appeared in any of her work that I can find.
Meanwhile, in Washington State, Governor Jay Inslee launched a call for increasing the Evergreen State’s cigarette taxes by $0.50/pack in just the last few weeks; if successful, this would make the Evergreen State the home of the second-highest cigarette taxes in the nation (it’s currently at #6). Curiously — though not surprisingly — Washington currently has the fourth-highest rate of cigarette smuggling. Anyone want to make a bet which way that number goes if Inslee is successful?
Broken Windows is a solid theory with a good deal of empirical data to support it; one can endorse it in general while criticizing its specific application in enforcing laws that aren’t merely minor, but profoundly stupid.
Published in General
Seconded. I’ve seen nothing to suggest that Pantaleo was actively trying to harm Garner beyond subduing him but my (personal, partially informed) opinion is that he was criminally negligent in taking Garner down as violently as he did when he did.
They’re the only ones who are keeping track and releasing numbers. If you have an alternative source showing something different, do share.
“The trouble here is that you’re claiming crime when several authoritative bodies disagree with you…”
Several? There’s the grand jury… Last time there was a conviction in a choking death, the officer was only convicted at the federal level.
“…But history shows the odds were always in Pantaleo’s favor.
“A Daily News investigation found that at least 179 people were killed by on-duty NYPD officers over the past 15 years. Just three of the deaths have led to an indictment in state court. In another case, a judge threw out the indictment on technical grounds and it was not reinstated.
“Only one officer who killed someone while on duty has been convicted, but he was not sentenced to jail time….
“…The NYPD declined to comment for this article or provide its own internal statistics on officer-involved deaths, and the information has not been submitted to the FBI since 2006.”
Police are public servants. They should have to answer for their actions. The oversight process in NY appears to be quite broken.
I really don’t think anyone here arguing the other side feels that Pantaleo intended to harm Garner. But he did. And it resulted in his death. And it was, partially or fully, the result of a bad move.
The previous argument put up by Ed. G about tackling someone and they hit their head is rather a straw man argument – no one would consider that anything but a freakish accident in the process of doing one’s duty.
Neck pressure – you open yourself to potential problems. If Mr. Garner had been healthier this whole discussion probably wouldn’t have happened. But as an alternative, ?what if Pantaleo had drawn his weapon and ordered Garner “On your knees or I shoot!” And when Garner said, “?What for,” he fired. But not to “kill”. Except that he hit, say, the femoral artery and Garner bled to death in 30 seconds. ?Is that negligence. At least I would think.
So one solution would be for suits against this type of action to be made – with large rewards. It wouldn’t take long for the NYPD to decide, strictly on a monitory basis, that there will be NO MORE NECK HOLDS – of any kind.
You are correct in that. the ultimate gunshot will be, legally and technically, the result of my barricading myself in my home and ultimately, resisting arrest. the arrest brought about because I decided to trespass (in the home foreclosed) because I didn’t pay my taxes. It all begins in the same place Eric Garner began. Evading (or not paying) taxes and resisting the resultant arrest.
One follows another. I don’t like the excessive taxes. on my home or on NYC cigs. but we all have to deal ith them until the time the electorate decides to end them. and NYC citizens voted in the yahoos who created these taxes.
I would have agreed with you, except that I’ve heard people justify their outrage with something along the lines of “but he died” without regard to whether the underlying actions would have been reasonably expected to likely result in serious injury or death. Here on Ricochet too.
In that post specifically I only brought it up in order to probe Tuck’s point about Garner having died and having complained about not being able to breathe being evidence of either intent or negligence.
But is a head lock perhaps slipping into a choke hold really comparable to firing a gun at someone? I don’t think it is comparable in terms of pre-incident assessment of potential lethality.
Also, saying “what for?” is not the same as pushing away.
The officers in the Garner case did talk (long enough for backup and a supervisor to arrive), they did refrain from employing more force than needed in order to subdue him (like kicking, punching, tazering, shooting, batoning). Was the actual move misapplied or misselected? Perhaps. Does that make it excessive, negligent, or intentionally injurious? I don’t think it does.
Why will you be barricading yourself in your house and resisting arrest? Are you claiming that taxation is illegitimate? All taxation or only some taxation? I’m not following.
Ed G. #66 – Well, they are comparable in that both were NOT INTENDED to kill the person. Both are potentially lethal uses of force. ?Would you accept that a full house blow to the head with a baton is acceptable. The problem is not why Pantaleo did what he did, but what he did.
I think the Grand Jury had enough evidence to indict Pantaleo on, at minimun, negligent use of force. Whether in a trial he would be found guilty is another story. The 4 guys that shot Amadeo (?sp) were tried and found not guilty. But there appeared to be enough evidence to at least indict.
Yes, and the devil is in the details, as usual. For instance, I’ve argued that all force is potentially lethal. But that word “potential” is a variable. There’s not nearly as much lethal potential with a head lock as there is with a gun shot or a baton to the head or even kicks and punches. I consider the move employed by Pantaleo to be on the less-potential-for-lethality end of the spectrum. I realize that not everyone will agree with this point; from those people I’d like to know what non-excessive yet sufficient force would have looked like.
So if we accept that he was justified in trying to subdue Garner and if we acknowledge that the move actually employed was within the family of moves that resides on the lower end of the risk spectrum, then the remaining points on which Pantaleo is open to criticism is on technique and on move selection within that family of moves. To me that calls for extra training and perhaps disciplinary measures, but not a crime since he
Agreed. I wouldn’t have thought it wrong for there to be an indictment nor do I think it wrong that there was no indictment (though I believe that to be the correct call).
A similar-sounding incident:
“This is the level of service that makes people very upset and distrustful of law enforcement.”
Wonder why they didn’t also throw the FBI agent in the car?