No Indictment In New York

Nothing wrong with requiring someone to have a basic understanding of the traffic laws and physically being able to obey them in order to get a license to use the same roadways as the general public. Having those same requirements if I want to drive only on my own private land would be stupid, would it not? Originally Posted by boardman

I'll try not to respond like a "law school dropout" so if it gets over your head, let me know, ok?



Get it now?

I've asked several times now for someone, anyone, to explain to me how selling loosies is inherently wrong. No one has answered the question yet.
Fact is, there is nothing inherently wrong with selling a loose cigarette for which the tax has already been paid. For that matter there is nothing inherently wrong with selling your buddy a swig off of your bottle of MD20/20. Who does that hurt? That's my point.

Someone please tell me how selling a loose cigarette, for which the pack has been legally bought and paid for, to another consenting adult, is a danger to the people of the state or for that matter how making it illegal benefits them.

. Originally Posted by boardman

Using your simplistic MD20/20 scenario you are correct that it is not harming anyone. I'm sure if Garner was only selling a smoke to a buddy then this would never have happened and the police would not have been involved. The problem is he was a habitual offender in this area for selling individual smokes to the general public. The harm is against the businesses that he is taking business from. The business owners are the ones that called the police. Do you think it would be OK for someone to go to Sam's and buy a case of beer and then stand in front of 7-11 and sell individual beers to the general public? Probably not. There are plenty of laws that most of us agree are stupid laws. That being said if I am a business owner playing by the rules, regardless of how stupid I think they are, I am not going to allow someone to infringe on my customer base without a fight.

That being said if I am a business owner playing by the rules, regardless of how stupid I think they are, I am not going to allow someone to infringe on my customer base without a fight. Originally Posted by Budman

And I "presume" if you are a parent of an "underaged" child that you would object to a vendor hawking cigarettes or booze in a place where your child may partake without anyone accountable for selling those consumable's to minors.

The legitimate justification for laws cannot be rationally attacked by disparaging the law based on legal activities for which the law was not intended in the first place.

Using your simplistic MD20/20 scenario you are correct that it is not harming anyone. I'm sure if Garner was only selling a smoke to a buddy then this would never have happened and the police would not have been involved. The problem is he was a habitual offender in this area for selling individual smokes to the general public. The harm is against the businesses that he is taking business from. The business owners are the ones that called the police. Do you think it would be OK for someone to go to Sam's and buy a case of beer and then stand in front of 7-11 and sell individual beers to the general public? Probably not. There are plenty of laws that most of us agree are stupid laws. That being said if I am a business owner playing by the rules, regardless of how stupid I think they are, I am not going to allow someone to infringe on my customer base without a fight. Originally Posted by Budman

Now we're getting somewhere.
Yes, selling those smokes without a permit(or business license) in front of a store that is paying for a business license is an unfair advantage. I assume there is a law that requires you to have a permit. You don't need another one to make it illegal to sell loosies.

Now to address the business aspect of it. There is a high probability that if Garner had bought those smokes at that store then gone out front to sell them individually that it would increase the store's business because Garner is selling to customers that wouldn't necessarily buy a full pack in the store. When he runs out he goes back in the store and buys another pack. I mean if they could afford a full pack why pay a premium on a single smoke. A shrewd business person would understand the economics and not call the cops. That doesn't prevent the owner of the store across the street who isn't getting Garner's business from calling the cops on Garner for selling without a permit unless, of course, he has someone doing the same thing in front of his store that he is profiting from at which point he is likely to remain silent on the whole situation.

In all likelyhood those smokes were not bought at that store and very well may have been bootlegged from out of state. The owner of the store has a legitimate complaint against Garner for not paying for a business license when he(the owner) did have to pay for one AND the state, or city, has a legitimate complaint against Garner for selling bootlegged cigarettes that they didn't get their cut off of. You've got two reasons to ticket or arrest Garner right there. What's the point of the other law?

What's the point of the other law? Originally Posted by boardman

What "other law"?

And I hope I asked that like a "law school dropout" so it's not over your head,

What other law are you referring to? Is there a law specific to selling "loosies"?

I'll try not to respond like a "law school dropout" so if it gets over your head, let me know, ok?



Get it now? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Nope, I guess it's still over my head.
Who was Garner hurting assuming the cigarettes were legally bought and paid for?
The guy who paid for a license to sell cigs legally? OK, ticket or arrest him for not having the proper permit if the store owner complains. If the store owner isn't being hurt he's probably not going to complain, right? Then who is being hurt? What is the transgression that is damaging to society?

Assuming the cigs were bootlegged then he's hurt the store owner and the people of the state, city. Arrest him or ticket him for either or both of those offenses. You don't need a third law making it illegal to resell something that you've legally bought and paid for "just because". That's either a money grab or a power grab.

Get it now?

Nope, I guess it's still over my head.
Who was Garner hurting assuming the cigarettes were legally bought and paid for?
The guy who paid for a license to sell cigs legally? OK, ticket or arrest him for not having the proper permit if the store owner complains. If the store owner isn't being hurt he's probably not going to complain, right? Then who is being hurt? What is the transgression that is damaging to society?

Assuming the cigs were bootlegged then he's hurt the store owner and the people of the state, city. Arrest him or ticket him for either or both of those offenses. You don't need a third law making it illegal to resell something that you've legally bought and paid for "just because". That's either a money grab or a power grab.

Get it now? Originally Posted by boardman

What's your point? Is it that there is a law that doesn't need to be there? If so we can list numerous such laws. Garner was breaking the law and it is my understanding that the shop owners are the ones that called the police. The exact law that they were arresting him for breaking is incidental. He knew he was breaking the law because he had been told on other occasions not to do it. He should not have resisted arrest. Once the decision is made to arrest you resisting will only make it worse. The police will not and cannot just walk away because you don't want to be arrested. If that becomes the policy then everyone will resist arrest.

What "other law"?

And I hope I asked that like a "law school dropout" so it's not over your head, Originally Posted by LexusLover

What other law are you referring to? Is there a law specific to selling "loosies"? Originally Posted by Budman

Yes
New York City local ordinance number 97 which took effect January 2014 makes it illegal to sell loose cigs. I'm pretty sure that is what Garner was being arrested for.

FDA regulations prohibit it too. http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/P.../ucm205021.htm

They describe it as a way to prevent minors from getting tobacco products but I'm pretty sure every state has laws on the books already making that illegal. I've been seeing those signs on convenience store counters saying it was long before 2014.

What's your point? Is it that there is a law that doesn't need to be there? Yes,
If so we can list numerous such laws. Exactly, redundancy dilutes the importance of the existing laws and only benefits the lawyers paid to sort it out. It also makes the cop's job harder, not easier.

Garner was breaking the law and it is my understanding that the shop owners are the ones that called the police. If that's the case then the shop owner had every right to complain because Garner was doing something without a permit that the shop owner was required to buy a permit for. The exact law that they were arresting him for breaking is incidental. What he was selling is very relevant at least to the shop owner., therefore his complaint. If he had been selling, say, a handcrafted item that the shop owner couldn't have cared less about he probably wouldn't have complained. He knew he was breaking the law because he had been told on other occasions not to do it. He should not have resisted arrest. Once the decision is made to arrest you resisting will only make it worse. I'm not arguing that point. In fact I agree 100%.
The police will not and cannot just walk away because you don't want to be arrested. If that becomes the policy then everyone will resist arrest. Originally Posted by Budman

My problem is not with the police enforcing the law it's with the politicians who come up with this stupid shit in the first place.

Yes
New York City local ordinance number 97 which took effect January 2014 makes it illegal to sell loose cigs. I'm pretty sure that is what Garner was being arrested for.

FDA regulations prohibit it too. http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/P.../ucm205021.htm

They describe it as a way to prevent minors from getting tobacco products but I'm pretty sure every state has laws on the books already making that illegal. I've been seeing those signs on convenience store counters saying it was long before 2014. Originally Posted by boardman

Sounds like another stupid law. Here's several more:

1. Designating something a hate crime. If you are murdered does it really matter if it was because the color of your skin or just for fun?

2. Using your cell phone while driving. If you're driving like shit "wreckless driving" should cover it.

Maybe we need a thread just for posting stupid laws.

Nope, I guess it's still over my head.
Who was Garner hurting assuming the cigarettes were legally bought and paid for?
The guy who paid for a license to sell cigs legally? OK, ticket or arrest him for not having the proper permit if the store owner complains. If the store owner isn't being hurt he's probably not going to complain, right? Then who is being hurt? What is the transgression that is damaging to society?

Assuming the cigs were bootlegged then he's hurt the store owner and the people of the state, city. Arrest him or ticket him for either or both of those offenses. You don't need a third law making it illegal to resell something that you've legally bought and paid for "just because". That's either a money grab or a power grab.

Get it now? Originally Posted by boardman

Yea, I "Get it"!

You are "ASSUMING" .... in order to attempt to make a point. The problem is:

1. He was selling cigarettes.
2. He didn't have a license.
3. He was out on bond ALREADY on a charge of selling cigarettes.
4. And he was doing 1, 2, and 3, while on a PUBLIC SIDEWALK.



Here WAS his opportunity to produce his LICENSE!
Here WAS his opportunity to allow them to search him for loose smokes.
Here WAS his opportunity to explain what he was doing there.

There is no "third-law" ... it's all contained in one ordinance.

The rationale for prohibiting the sale of "loose" cigarettes (outside of a package that would normally have the tax stamps on it) is to avoid days of pissing back and forth over a non-issue ... Garner standing their arguing that he had paid the tax on the cigarettes when he bought them, but he (1) didn't get a receipt (2) lost the receipt or (3) forgot where he bought them when the paid the tax.

Criminal statutes are often written in manner to avoid disputes over issues involving the target of the prohibition or focus in the statute.

An LE officer expects to see the tax sticker on a carton of cigarettes sold in a store. Do your packages of cigarettes have a sticker on them? The officer expects to see one on the pack as well. If there is no sticker, no taxes were collected. To avoid the argument ... ban the sale of loose cigarettes. The same for liquor. When serving at the bar, it better come out of a taxed bottle. When the bottle is empty .. what do you do with the label/sticker on it? Why?

My problem is not with the police enforcing the law it's with the politicians who come up with this stupid shit in the first place. Originally Posted by boardman

I agree 100%. Less government is better government. I want as little to do with the government as possible. Unfortunately they keep adding more and more laws and regulations to infringe into our daily lives.

Maybe we need a thread just for posting stupid laws. Originally Posted by Budman

Most people I've met who called a law "stupid" were just wanting to violate it.

And got caught doing so.

Most people I've met who called a law "stupid" were just wanting to violate it.

And got caught doing so. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Maybe you need to hang out with a better crowd.