Thursday, December 4, 2014

Jon Stewart on Garner "Chokehold" Case

Image from source, Raw Story
Because, I just can't. But even Stewart is all, "I can't even. . ."


Jon Stewart goes off on serious Garner case rant: ‘We’re definitely not living in a post-racial society’
Even Daily Show host Jon Stewart found it hard to come up with anything funny to say on Wednesday in the wake of a Staten Island grand jury’s decision not to indict Officer Daniel Pantaleo in connection with the death of Eric Garner. “I don’t know,” Stewart confessed. “I honestly don’t know what to say. If comedy is tragedy plus time, I need more f*cking time. But I would really settle for less f*cking tragedy, to be honest with you. . .”

Read more at: Raw Story


  1. Eric Garner had been arrested at least 30 times, so he knew the routine of being arrested.
    Instead, he wanted to fight.
    Too bad for him, his medical conditions like being heavy, heart disease, asthma and other problems helped him die.
    So, I don't blame the cops for his death, he was 100% at fault.
    Now, was it right to arrest him for selling untaxed cigarettes? That's another question but Bloomberg was mayor at the time and you know what his views of being healthy are- he was pretty much the eat healthy or be arrested mayor of NYC.
    But I don't expect the media, least of all, Stewart, to consider these fact.

  2. He wasn't 100% at fault. He didn't strangle himself. The choke-hold is against the law, and the coroner said it was homicide. That, and the fact that it was all on video, and that the guy--while not cooperative--was hardly a PCP-fueled dynamo either. The swarm of cops holding him down killed him. If they swarmed a little old lady with a weak heart and it killed her, you wouldn't say it was 100% her fault, even if she'd had a storied past as well.

    I can't believe people are saying things like, "well, he resisted arrest, and did something illegal, so it's okay they killed him." Selling loosies is a death penalty-worthy offense? But beyond that, what is being asked for is not a murder conviction, not by most serious people. It's for a TRIAL. These cops are getting grand juries where they're being vigorously defended by the PROSECUTERS. It's bizarre, and it flips on the head the usual outcome of grand juries, which is almost always a trial. When it involves a cop, it tends to be almost always NO trial. I find that strange. And I find it strange that so many anti-government conservatives tend to side with government when it's cops who kill "thugs."

    But other than that, how are you Dan? :)


Have something to say to us? Post it here!

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...