Death of Eric Garner, The Use of Force & How It Ties Into Your Gun Rights

Opinion

Eric Garner Dies After NYPD Cop Puts Him In Chokehold
Eric Garner Dies After NYPD Cop Puts Him In Chokehold, IMG Huffington Post

Fayetteville, AR – -(AmmoLand.com)- Five years after Eric Garner was killed in an encounter with NYPD officers, Daniel Pantaleo, the officer who administered the chokehold that contributed to Garner’s death, has been fired. The incident began when the police approached Garner for selling untaxed cigarettes and escalated rapidly to an attempt to handcuff Garner, with Pantaleo’s arm wrapping around Garner’s throat. Pantaleo’s experience had been mostly as a plainclothes officer dealing with violent crime, and he reacted as if Garner was a threat to public safety, rather than someone who was getting around New York City’s regulations to make a meager living.

I frequently encounter people on social media who believe that if you cooperate with the police, you’ll get through interactions with them. Of course, I’m also told that it’s best not to break the law. This latter statement is true, though the same people telling me this will often say in a few minutes that taxation is theft and that revolution would be an appropriate response to Medicare for All. And we who support gun rights do often point out that the Second Amendment acts as a backstop against tyrannical government, a guarantee that if all else fails, American gun owners constitute an overwhelming potential fighting force for the resistance.

Suspiciously, when the person who is the object of police use of force is black, a lot of us in the community are silent, as if the abuses perpetrated by law enforcement don’t matter. The lack of outrage over the shooting of Philando Castile, for example, did a lot of damage to the cause of gun rights. Here was someone who was legally armed and who was wrongly identified as a criminal.

In other words, he was one of us. He was someone we could find ourselves being. And the same is true about Eric Garner for anyone who believes that private interactions between free persons should not be something that the government can meddle in. If you’ve ever objected to licensing requirements for carrying a gun or starting a small business, to speed traps and sobriety checkpoints, or to the ability of officers to stop and frisk people who aren’t obviously committing a crime, you have planted your feet solidly on the road down which Eric Garner walked.

And this is the point for those of us who are concerned about preserving gun rights. Can a hundred million gun owners fight back effectively against a government run amok? Yes, it’s possible. This is especially true when the armed population gets aid from countries that want to score an easy blow against a rival, as our experience against England, the Vietnamese experience against France and the United States, the Afghan experience against the Soviet Union and us, and on and on illustrate this. But as the popular rules of a gun fight remind us, the less time you spend in a fight, the fewer holes you’ll find in yourself, and drawing that observation to its conclusion, if we don’t have to fight tyrannical powers, that’s for the best. If we allow law enforcement to get away with or at most getting fired after taking a life when no violence was justified, how long will it be until we are the ones facing such violence?

And as I often insist, we need to win over new people to the cause. If we’re not seen regularly standing up for people whose rights are being violated by the police, we shouldn’t be surprised when the same people don’t show any enthusiasm for protecting our rights.

Valuing one right means defending all rights. The mechanisms for chipping away at and tearing one down work as well for every other right, and this is true no matter how similar to or different from ourselves the person is who is currently being violated.


About Greg CampGreg Camp

Greg Camp has taught English composition and literature since 1998 and is the author of six books, including a western, The Willing Spirit, and Each One, Teach One, with Ranjit Singh on gun politics in America. His books can be found on Amazon. He tweets @gregcampnc.

Subscribe
Notify of
39 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
24and7

If the federal government would stop encouraging certain races of people to believe they were above the law, then maybe Eric Garner wouldn’t have been unintentionally killed.. Maybe he would have respectfully cooperated with the police, if the federal government wouldn’t take sides and give “protected class privilege”..

Dr. Strangelove

Eric Garner was a drug abuser and petty criminal who was well-known to police. He had been repeatedly warned not to sell cigarettes in front of businesses, the owners of which frequently complained to police about it. People act like he was some king of martyr, when nothing could be further from the truth.

JohnBored

Selling untaxed cigarettes. It was Bloomberg who pushed the enforcement of laws against selling untaxed cigarettes. I surprised the cops didn’t beat up somebody with a large gulp soda. It is a stupid unenforceable law (just like a lot of gun laws) that contributed to the death of one person and the loss of a career and ruining of the life of another. That’s libitard laws for you. They push for some stupid law, push for zero tolerance enforcement, then hang the enforcer out to dry when they do their job. The New York cops should put Deblasio and Fredo… Read more »

StreetSweeper

Search for “Daniel Shaver” and watch a police murder. I believe “National Review” is the topmost site with the full video. Philip Brailsford, the LEO trigger man, was also fired. Not all, but some police, are out of control.

TheRevelator

The major issue with this article, and one I wish Greg Camp would have touched on in his writing. Eric Garner was not choked to death. He was very much alive when he received transportation to a hospital, where he died as a result of complications from a heart attack.

The fact that this information was left out of the article is a little disturbing. Mr Camp, if you see this I would like to know your response to it.

tomcat

I do not agree with this writer. This very large individual was breaking the law and doing it in plain site. I think the police were justified in taking him down and I have heard reports that his size added to his demise rather than 100% the cop’s fault. New York is anti cop and pro criminal because that is who will vote for the pssants. Arrests have decreased by a large margin from before this happened. The police have no backing and they are not going out on a limb for any dirt bag in NY. If this officer… Read more »

UncAl

Get a copy of Sheriff David Clarke’s book “Cop Under Fire”, and read the real take on this matter; might surprise most of you!

RoyD

I see that Greg didn’t bother to state why the Police were interacting with Garner. Oh yes, he mentions the “untaxed cigarettes” and him just “trying to make a meager living.” That is not why the Police were there. They were there because several of the legitimate businesses along that street had called the authorities about Garner undercutting their business by illegally selling “singles.” If Garner had not been, in effect stealing from those businesses, he would not have been arrested that day for that crime. Also, given his size, he was playing Russian roulette with his life under normal… Read more »

Mikey

Phillandro was a piece of shit pothead and was higher than a kite when he got himself killed. It does not matter if he had a ccw he had a shitton of weed in his system at autopsy so under federal law he was not supposed to have the firearm. Also he was to high to understand what the officer was saying. This writer is no friend of the 2nd with this nonsense of sticking up for criminals. As to garner he already had a pending case for the same thing, police just wanted him to leave and have his… Read more »

Beeroy

The erosions of our rights started under the War on Drugs with the weakening of the 4th Amendment, but since they “Only affected drug dealers” nobody much cared. That’s how they do it. Go after the low hanging fruit. First they decide in the courts that evidence is admissible because the police were acting in good faith that a search warrant WOULD have been available. Then they decide that it’s okay to confiscate your assets without charging you with a crime because it’s only a CIVIL asset forfeiture because we don’t want all these rich drug dealers hiring fancy lawyers… Read more »