It is interesting he brings up Garner and Michael Brown. I think Garner was a good example of police overstepping the mark that everyone could agree on and Brow

It is interesting he brings up Garner and Michael Brown. I think Garner was a good example of police overstepping the mark that everyone could agree on and Brown was much controversial. But weirdly enough it seemed that Brown was pushed more than Garner by activists. I think this is quite common with activist organisations. They seem to deliberately push more controversial causes. I'm not sure if this is because more controversial causes are more effective or it is because there are weird personal incentives in play. Also, it could be that no-one wants to bring attention to negative effects from a popular policy. Garner had the attention of police because he was selling untaxed cigarettes. Taxing cigarettes is quite popular and I guess no-one wants to explicitly bite the bullet that some people need to die to have these laws on the book. In a country with a population over 300 million there is a good chance people are going to randomly die from run-ins with law enforcement over non-violent crime. All law is a trade off between the good effects and the bad effects but a lot of people believe any serious bad effect means the law is immoral.