4 ms·
Small complaint (about an otherwise very good article): > Eric Garner ... guilty only of selling single cigarettes The cops involved suspected this, but I don
by moskie 12y ago
Small complaint (about an otherwise very good article):
> Eric Garner ... guilty only of selling single cigarettes
The cops involved suspected this, but I don't believe it's known that he is guilty of this. Especially in a legal sense: he did not live to see a trial.
- jMyles 12y agoIt actually seems quite plausible that he was innocent: the cops were there for other reasons, saw him and knew him to have a history of selling cigarettes, and engaged him as such. None were found on his person.
- hellbanner 12y agoWhy exactly is selling single cigarettes illegal?
- cushychicken 12y agoLegal constraints of selling tobacco require a licensed vendor to sell them in licensed packages/quantities. Eric Garner wasn't licensed, and single cigarettes aren't allowed to be sold in the US. Fairly petty crimes, but crimes.
- jonah 12y agoYou can buy single cigarettes in many bars. (Don't know if it's legal though.)
- cushychicken 12y agoInteresting. I've never seen that. The packaging thing may be a state to state restriction, because I've never been to a bar that sold cigarettes in quantities less than a pack.
- sp332 12y agoTaxes on packs of cigarettes are very high in New York. So people smuggle in packs or cartons from neighboring states and sell them under the table.
- waterlesscloud 12y agoUntil this story I didn't realize how expensive cigarettes are now in New York. They're $13-14 for a pack of 20. So people sell them as singles for $1 each. Likely brought in from lower-taxed areas so the profit margin is higher. I've heard cigs sell for $5 a pack in South Carolina, which doesn't add on taxes at all, so you can see how much the taxes add up. EDIT- changed price in SC based on googling.
- mc32 12y agoI dont know for sure but i think they typically come from contraband cigarettes (where taxes have not been paid and, as others point out, without required license). It'd be like selling whiskey shots on a street corner.
- thrownaway2424 12y agoStrangely not illegal: making and marketing a toxic product that has killed literally tens of millions of people.
- freditup 12y agoAlcohol? </sarcasm> Truth is, pretty much everything is toxic at some point of consumption or another. Deciding where to draw the line is not black & white to me
- refurb 12y agoTaxes. You can do a lot of things to the government and get away with it, but the second you take their money all hell breaks loose.
- fnordfnordfnord 12y agoIt's tax evasion. They buy them in Jersey or something and import them into NYC illegally. They can't just sell packs of cigarettes over the counter because they lack a tax-stamp or something. Edit: I mean, it's for the children of course. /s
- parineum 12y agoAs far as I know, he was guilty of doing that in the past. He was killed in the process of being arrested for suspicion of doing it again.
- superuser2 12y agoWhen people fixate on the untaxed ciagarettes thing, what's often going on is an implicit assumption that once someone has an interaction with the police, it's just inevitable that the police will summarily execute them. That's stupid. We can debate the laws too, but you should be demanding police that enforce the laws with due process and respond to threats proportionally. If you're thinking, "well, once the police suspect someone of violating regulations, of course they're going to kill him" then we're never going to get anywhere.
- angersock 12y agoWhen police fixate on the criminal thing, what's often going on is an implicit assumption that once someone has an interaction with a suspect, it's just inevitable that the suspect will attack. See how that works? As for the rest, go look up Warren vs. District of Columbia. The police are not there to serve and protect.
- superuser2 12y agoThen programmers are not there to write good software, firefighters are not there to fight fires, doctors are not there to cure diseases, etc. There is a huge difference between being "there" to do something, and going to prison or paying out a massive judgement because you weren't successful.
- angersock 12y agoNo, read the case: they are literally not required to do their jobs--in contrast with the other professions you listed.
- rayiner 12y agoSigh. The word "duty" as used in the case is a term of art in tort law. It doesn't just mean you have a generic obligation to do your job, as it does in common parlance, but it means you can be legally liable for someone's damages in a tort lawsuit. If programmers had a "duty" to do their jobs, most software companies would have been sued out of existence. Software companies would get sued over every bug that caused people to lose time or money, and would be liable not just for the purchase price of the software, but if they were found to be negligent in writing-in that bug, would be liable for the actual damage suffered.
- RealGeek 12y agoSeveral eye witnesses say that he was not selling cigarettes when he was arrested. The cops suspected him because of his previous history of selling cigarettes.