It is my view that Eric Garner was killed as a result of an over-militarized police force having been conditioned to believe that lethal force is an acceptable way for officers of the state to enforce by-laws.
Hell hath no fury like the nanny state, and simply put-the consequences of hyper regulation can be lethal.
The Department of Bureaucracy has a permit to kill you for any number of reasons.
In this case, a bylaw violation was a licence to kill.
A legal one.
This article, via Instapundit, explains it very slowly and clearly:
"On the opening day of law school, I always counsel my first-year
students never to support a law they are not willing to kill to enforce.
Usually they greet this advice with something between skepticism and
puzzlement, until I remind them that the police go armed to enforce the
will of the state, and if you resist, they might kill you."
"I wish this caution were only theoretical. It isn’t."
view on the refusal of a New York City grand jury to indict the police
officer whose chokehold apparently led to the death of Eric Garner, it’s
useful to remember the crime that Garner is alleged to have committed:
He was selling individual cigarettes, or loosies, in violation of New
This is clearly the case for fewer laws in free societies. The more regulation, the less freedom and more chance of abuse of power, leading in many instances to a wanton disregard for common sense and many unnecessary deaths at the hands of the state.
In a nutshell, the advice 'don't support a law you are not willing to kill to enforce' is sage and brilliant and a very pertinent warning to citizens the world over.