FRACTURED UNION ADDRESS | Law and Injustice - Case Study Examination

 

A lesson in hypocrisy - preach peace while advocating the use of violence – the unacknowledged creed of the political and legal establishment in the United States. This is a reality that will never be formally admitted to by anyone occupying a position of authority in the hallowed halls of Washington D.C. 'The unnecessary death of Eric Garner at the hands of law enforcement,' for those unfamiliar with this particular case the following registry link should suffice, as video affirmation of the incident has since been removed from the public arena:

LINKED ARTICLE OF REFERENCE:

Excessive Force/ NYPD Law Enforcement | Eric Garner Killed Following the Application of a Chokehold

The truth regarding the death of this individual at the hands of the NYPD (New York Police Department) is quite different from what communities across America have been lead to believe by the telecommunications industry. According to several eyewitness accounts, on July 17, 2014, Eric Garner, died in the Tompkinsville, subdivision of Staten Island, New York, after he was placed in a chokehold by Officer Daniel Pantaleo - a tactic expressly forbidden by the state authority in practices of civil apprehension for the inherent risk it poses to both law enforcement (This is proven accurate from a legal standpoint in the event of wrongful death, involuntary manslaughter, or negligent homicide resulting from the actions of those seeking to enforce the law) and to those alleged to have committed a crime. In this particular instance, however, the standard legal ramifications typically associated with the commission of such acts were blatantly disregarded, despite the court’s admission of visual evidence contradicting the accounts of those involved, and the testimony of the city’s chief medical examiner who concluded that the victim in this case died as a result of neck compression from the application of a chokehold. Following the grand jury’s refusal to indict NYPD Officer Pantaleo for his role in the death of Mr. Garner, comes the realization that attempts made to subdue the suspect in the case were initiated by personnel in response to some perceived instance of civil disobedience during the course of an impromptu interrogation involving the sale and distribution of tobacco products. Monetary transactions conducted by residents in the state of New York, in accordance with city ordinance, are subject to fine in lieu of concerns referencing the prospect of tax evasion through the genesis of an underground economy. The standard train of thought following the exoneration of the officer in question by the grand jury can then be parsed as such - any act of criminal negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter perpetrated by law enforcement agencies in the state of New York is both permissible, and justifiable, in response to minor infractions where persons assumed to be noncompliant with certain regulations pertaining to tax code administration become little more than casualties of circumstance. The fact that Officer Pantaleo is even employed in the state of New York is alarming in itself, considering his less than stellar record in the realm of constitutional authority, a fact alluded to in the following article:

LINKED ARTICLE OF REFERENCE:

Daniel Pantaleo, 29, the New York Police Officer at the Center of the Eric Garner Controversy, Was Sued THREE TIMES Prior to the Incident in Question For Violating the Constitutional Rights of Ethnic Minorities

Yet perhaps the fault lies not only with law enforcement, but also in a judicial system that openly discriminates against prospective police force applicants based solely on their IQ test assessments, as mentioned in the following:

LINKED ARTICLES OF REFERENCE:

Federal Judge Peter C. Dorsey of the U.S. District Court in New Haven Rules That Police Departments Can Exclude Prospective Hires on the Basis of IQ
2^nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York Upholds Lower Appellate’s Decision to Permit the Exclusion of Prospective Law Enforcement Applicants on the Basis of IQ, With Those Demonstrating Intellectual Proficiency Being Actively Discriminated Against
Police Reject Candidate for Being Too Intelligent


CONCLUSION: Police brutality can no longer be considered an exception to the rule, as there are an inordinate number of instances where the actions of law enforcement officials have contributed to the death or incapacitation of persons deemed to be acting in violation of state regulation. Perhaps what is most disconcerting, should those directly affected by the outcome of these jury-rendered decisions - as well as their supplemental, oftentimes perfunctory course of progression through the legal system - ever come to realize and accept, is that the process by which these regulations are enforced, the enactment of policy by those delegated a certain measure of responsibility in the political electorate, etc. is designed to curtail their personal freedoms, all at their own expense (The current system of taxation allows for the confiscation of earned income by a nebulous extrajudicial assembly, in this instance the Internal Revenue Service, for the express purpose of funding and maintaining the militarization of police departments throughout the continental United States, as well as its territorial municipalities) - a fact that a vast majority of those who would engage in open demonstration against the enactment of these policies remain woefully ignorant of.