The fact that you and your butt-buddy are trying to call me out on lying while defending a known, visceral, verifiable liar tells me this is more about something personal you have against me... I really don't care what the fuck it is.
Trump being a liar doesn't make most of the shit you've said about him true.
Also, Biden is just as much of a liar. Perhaps moreso!
Lying is watching a few minutes of January 6 footage from an area that had not been infiltrated by rioters yet and claiming that that's proof there wasn't a riot.
There wasn't a riot by any metric.
And the fact is, Garner would have gone home that day if it wasn't for some fucking idiot jumping on his back and choking him for SELLING FUCKING CIGARETTES.
You are conflating arguments (typical of liars when they are called on their lies).
Of course Garner would have gone home that day if he hadn't gotten into an escalation with police.
The fault of the escalation is no one but his own.
Here's the chain of how things work:
(1) Crime committed (this happened).
(2) Police must apprehend/arrest (this is not optional, or society breaks down as we've seen with all the ridiculous shoplifting in California, etc).
(3) Criminal refuses arrest (this happened).
(4) Force must be used to apprehend non-compliant criminal.
It's that simple.
If the criminal didn't commit steps 1 or 3, he would still be alive. It's his own fault as much as anyone elses.
If you are trying to make the argument that the police overstepped their authority, consider
(1) the vast, vast majority of times police do overstep their authority they are either terminated or prosecuted,
(2) most claims of police overstepping their authority are incorrect, and based on ignorance or lies.
(3) the police have to use strong force to stop criminals even if they aren't "violent, dangerous criminals," because then no one would submit to arrest and you'd have a breakdown of society (see California, again).
And finally.... it's all avoidable if the criminal simply submits to arrest and lets his lawyer work out the details, which results in a just outcome the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of the time.
In this particular incident, the hold that the officer used WASN'T ILLEGAL at the time he used it. He used it for exactly as long as was necessary to get the perp on the ground. This wasn't a George Floyd incident where the officer continued to constrict his breathing well after he was subdued (though in the Floyd incident there is question about that as well). Garner was handled forcibly, yes, but that's what you have to do to 300 pound, huge resistors of arrest. You have to force them to the ground.
Tell you what... watch a UFC fight and see if an official will allow a choke to be applied for 14 seconds... most of these guys who are in fantastic condition will be past the point where they can even tap out after less than 10 seconds. And you pass out from the lack of bloodflow to your brain, you moron, not only because you can't breathe.
But Garner wasn't passed out. He didn't pass out due to blood not flowing to his brain. So clearly the "choke hold" was not a UFC quality choke hold that stops blood flowing to the brain. He was fully conscious after the choke hold had been released.
The reality was he was having a heart attack. That's why he "couldn't breathe" long after the choke hold had been released.
So what? Cops just aren't allowed to take down people who are resisting arrest?
Sorry, that kind of "reform," will never happen. People who resist arrest will always be allowed to be taken down. They will be taken down other ways, without chokeholds, like with stun guns, lassos, or whatever the fuck else, and then still have heart attacks from the exertion and die.
The only way of avoiding such incidents is to comply and sort it out later.
There is never, ever, EVER, a reason to resist arrest in this country.
Period.
For you to claim that every cop who abuses his authority is prosecuted is also a lie.
The times that an officer deserving prosecution does not get it is the extreme minority.
The system works.