- This topic has 175 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
ubiquitin -“Granted they may not have ben oiver as much as garner but According to a highschool classmate of Officer Ramos’s Detective Ramos once took his tuna fish sandwich. according to your “logic” and your evil religion healthism, it is now “very good” that he was murdered.”
Your obsession to be right is getting to you. Who said the kid was more than six years old? Maybe they traded and the kid wanted it back after Ramos picked it up? In these scenarios, he wasn’t Oiver the 7 Mitzvahs of B’nai Noach!
RebYidd23 -“Self defense is different.”
It isn’t self-defense when you put yourself in that situation in the first place. And cops do it all the time.
“And I find it disturbing that you think it’s okay for anyone to kill evil people.
By the way, to what religion do you belong?”
Not yours!
I feel bad that you’re so disturbed!
Health:
It is self defense when the purpose is to preserve one’s own life.
I know that you do not belong to my religion. In my religion murder is a crime.
I’m not disturbed. I find you disturbing, so most of the time I avoid you.
Health,
he wasnt 6 in high school, they didnt trade. Ramos took his sandwich
ubiquitin -“they didnt trade. Ramos took his sandwich”
How do you know? Where you there? Or is it that you never can be wrong?
RebYidd23 –
Health:
It is self defense when the purpose is to preserve one’s own life.
I know that you do not belong to my religion. In my religion murder is a crime.
“Even a person who is pure evil should be brought to trial, not killed by police.”
I also believe murder is a crime, but what the libs don’t understand is that cases like Garner isn’t murder.
Health: You didn’t respond to my point. Violating the 7 Mitzvos (or any Chiyuv Misah) doesn’t create a free-for-all on killing them. You still need a Beis Din to give a P’sak Din. It’s a Misas Beis Din, not Kol HaKodem Zacha.
Sam2 -“Health: You’re wrong. Being Over on the 7 Mitzvos is not a blanket death sentence.”
No one said it was!
“It’s a Chiyuv on Beis Din (like any Misas Beis Din) to mete out.”
So what?
“It’s not a free-for-all for anyone to kill someone who was Over.”
It becomes one when the Gov. don’t keep the 7 Mitzvahs. Anyone can do it, if they can do it legally.
“We don’t do it because if we did it would be Retzicha Al Pi Halacha, not because American law won’t let us.”
You’re wrong again!
“Misas Beis Din have to be done by Beis Din, not Stam vigilantes.”
It’s Not vigilantism, when it’s Rozon Hashem!
Health: Prove it. Bring a source. You are wrong. Completely and totally wrong.
You, sir, are a dangerous person and should be imprisoned for the good of humanity. Murder is always a crime.
Sam2 -“We don’t do it because if we did it would be Retzicha Al Pi Halacha, not because American law won’t let us.”
Prove that it’s called Retzicha Al Pi Halacha!
Prove that it’s not!
Health: You’re the one claiming there’s a Chiyuv to kill someone. I’m saying there’s an Issur. In normal circumstances, killing is an Issur. Hence, the burden of proof that it’s not Assur right now is one you.
But if you insist on a source that killing people is Assur, it says in Chumash “Lo Sirtzach” or, depending on how you Lein, “Lo Tirtzach”.
Sam2 -“I’m saying there’s an Issur. In normal circumstances, killing is an Issur. Hence, the burden of proof that it’s not Assur right now is one you.”
Ok. Fair enough! I’ll start this round:
?????? ????? ????? ??????????
??????. ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???. ??????? ?? ???. ??? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?????. ????? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ?????. ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ????? ??? ?????. ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???:
RebYidd23 – “Murder is always a crime.”
Is it always? I heard Abortion is legal, but Not acc. to the Torah!
Health: So you need Eidus and a Dayan (with Smichah). It’s still Misas Beis Din, just a lower definition of Beis Din.
Health I’m confused why are you quoting Jewsih sources? Especialy when they say the OPPOSITE of your perverse view.
The Rambam says “??? ??? ?????? ???” Who was the eid that Garner stole? who was the dayan?
Sam2 -“So you need Eidus and a Dayan (with Smichah). It’s still Misas Beis Din, just a lower definition of Beis Din.”
Read the Rambam again & think about it. You appear to be a Talmid Chochom, not like other posters.
Health: Kodem Matan Torah you didn’t need Smichah. So Shimon and Levi could themselves function as the Eidim and Dayanim that the city knew and allowed Shchem to get away with it.
You still need a Dayan, though, and to be Kasher for Dayanus you need Smichah. You still need a Kosher Eid (meaning a Jew, not a Goy). It’s a Misas Beis Din. There is just a more lenient requirement here for what constitutes a Beis Din and what constitutes testimony.
Fact one: Garner committed a crime
Fact two: he resisted arrest
Fact three: the officer used a technique which is not allowed by the NYPD
Fact four: Eric Garner died
My thought’s based on these facts he deserved to be arrested and i believe the officer used excessive force that did result in his death, It is my belief the officer should have been indicted and the case should have gone to a jury.
The Goq -“Fact one: Garner committed a crime
Fact two: he resisited arrest
Fact three: the officer used a technique which is not allowed by the NYPD”
Your Facts are not factual! The Grand Jury looked at all the evidence & found No reason to indict. It just proves that you shouldn’t believe everything in the News.
BTW, I found this online:
“Police unions have denied that Pantaleo used a chokehold.”
Sam2 -“You still need a Dayan, though, and to be Kasher for Dayanus you need Smichah. You still need a Kosher Eid (meaning a Jew, not a Goy). It’s a Misas Beis Din. There is just a more lenient requirement here for what constitutes a Beis Din and what constitutes testimony.”
You’re wrong! The Dayan & the Eid can be Goyim. The Rambam comes from Sanhedrin 56b.
Look it up!
Health
Pretending you are right,
who was the eid? Who was the dayan?
Health: No. If they set up a system they are allowed to use whatever they want. That’s their Dinim. If we want to punish them for not having Dinim, it has to be a Kosher Jewish Beis Din, which means Smichah and a Kosher Eid.
Which of the four facts that i stated do you find not factual health answer and please explain why.
Sam2 -“Health:If we want to punish them for not having Dinim, it has to be a Kosher Jewish Beis Din, which means Smichah and a Kosher Eid.”
Whose talking about Yidden punishing them? The cop was enforcing the 7 Mitzvos!
Goq, fact three is disputed.
Health, did he make a hin’ni muchan um’zuman? Maybe I missed it on the video.
This one: “Fact three: the officer used a technique which is not allowed by the NYPD”
I posted this above: “Police unions have denied that Pantaleo used a chokehold.”
“It just proves that you shouldn’t believe everything in the News.”
I also saw a still of the takedown. The cop’s arms were Not around the guy’s neck!
DY – LOL!
I’m glad you found it funny, but really, your whole line of thinking here is totally off. He wasn’t trying to enforce the mitzvos of b’nei Noach, and whether Garner happened to have been a criminal is irrelevant. The sole issue here is whether the police officer was responsible for his death, and that’s it. If he was, then he did no mitzvah, and he should have been indicted.
The police officer may have caused his death accidentally while in the process of carrying out his duties as a deputized law enforcement officer in engaging a criminal suspect. If so, there is no basis for an indictment. Even accidental deaths caused by regular civilians are not necessarily indictable offenses.
Lior: Do you have any idea how easy it is to get an indictment? Something like .001% of cases brought before Grand Juries aren’t indicted. Basically, the only cases of non-indictments are when cops are accused of crimes.
Because cops are risking their lives every day of their job, putting their lives on the line to protect the public, and thus they are certainly granted a greater benefit of the doubt when the necessity of their job includes the use of force resulting in a suspects death. That being said, again, even a civilian who accidentally causes a death will not necessarily result in an indictment. True, a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich should he so desire, but correctly not every accidental death results in an indictment whether the person is a law enforcement officer or a civilian. Not every case is even brought to a grand jury in the first place as often the prosecutor himself will decide to not indict. That is what should have happened in Ferguson, for example, but the prosecutor brought the non-existent case to a grand jury due to public pressure by minority groups whereas he should have dismissed the case on his own.
Yes he was resisting arrest but he was not getting violent they could have just talked to him a little more before taking such extreme measures he did not deserve to die.
It’s got nothing to do with whether he deserved to die; the issue is whether the officer should have been expected to think that what he did could kill him.
So lets say for the sake of argument that a chokehold s not allowed what could/should the officer have done to detain garner.
Headlock?
Fact 3 is not in dispute. he NYPD admited that the used technique was banned. though it is not illegal.
I’d be happy if anyone can direct a source otherwise.
All 4 of Goq’a facts are factual.
Though reasonable I guess resoanbale people can disagree regarding DY’s point.
Though without question Sam2’s point above is correct. Cops are rarely held accountable and tha is where the anger comes from.
Overall though I thik there is more that is agreed upon than disgareedd:
Namely, both Garner and the police are culable in his death. The police used excessive force. when injustice occurs protests are called for (this is actually what OP began with).
and Finnaly to quote DY Helath’s “whole line of thinking here is totally off”
Ubiquitin, google “chokehold or headlock”.
Thanks DY
DaasYochid – If you happened to read All the comments before posting, it would be helpful.
“He wasn’t trying to enforce the mitzvos of b’nei Noach,”
No one said he was!
“and whether Garner happened to have been a criminal is irrelevant.”
It is very relevant. We were talking about what the Torah holds.
“The sole issue here is whether the police officer was responsible for his death, and that’s it.”
Who said?
“If he was, then he did no mitzvah, and he should have been indicted.”
I say it was a Mitzvah. And he wasn’t indicted, because it wasn’t an indictable offense.
How was he resisting? And how much do you know about police procedure?
DaasYochid -“It’s got nothing to do with whether he deserved to die; the issue is whether the officer should have been expected to think that what he did could kill him.”
The cop isn’t a Novi!
The cop isn’t a Novi!
You should read my post before commenting.
You actually gave sound advice earlier, just to the wrong person.
DY -“You should read my post before commenting.”
I did. That’s why I posted Your quote:
DaasYochid -“It’s got nothing to do with whether he deserved to die; the issue is whether the officer should have been expected to think that what he did could kill him.”
The cop did what he was supposed to do, whether it was PC or Not!
You should keep reading it until you understand it.
Health,
“The cop did what he was supposed to do, whether it was PC or Not! “
Is that becasue he was supposed to arrest him and is therfore not responsible for the death? Or he was supposed to kill him becasue Garner had previously violated sheva mitzvos.
I (and most people commenting) are having trouble following your train of “thought”
I haven’t thoroughly reviewed every post here but there is one point I haven’t seen addressed. Why would a officer responding to a call of illegal peddling be notified of the suspects state of health? How would this officer know whether this suspect would resist causing him to use any means of physical contact, be it the proper way or not? And finally, if this man had no health issues, would subduing him in this method (proper or not) have harmed him in any way more then the usual restraint method?
- The topic ‘No police protection for a week’ is closed to new replies.