Controversy erupts after unarmed black man choked to death by cops in NYC

December 04, 2014

The Glenn Beck Program

Another unarmed black man was killed in NYC but this incident was very different from the one in Ferguson.

This time, the man was being confronted by several officers because he was allegedly selling cigarettes without paying taxes. After some discussion the officers jump on the large man and put him in a strangle hold. The footage is tragic and really disturbing, as you can hear the man struggle to say ‘I can’t breathe’ before going limp.

A grand jury cleared the officer.

Glenn, Pat and Stu discuss their disappointment in the legal system for failing to indict the officer of any charges.

GLENN: Hello, America. Let me — let me be counterintuitive, I guess, not to you. Not to the fans. Not to the people who have listened for a long time, but I would imagine to the rest of the press. Let us be counterintuitive. While I disagree with the protests and what they're doing in New York, I strongly disagree with the decision of the grand jury in New York.

PAT: No question.

GLENN: I mean, I would like to see the parameters. I would like to see exactly what they were doing. How they made this decision?

STU: And that's the most — you have to know that part.

PAT: If they couldn't charge him with anything, but murder —

GLENN: I mean, manslaughter should have been considered. I don't know exactly how this happened, but I will tell you this: The decision of the grand jury in New York on the death of Eric Garner, here's a guy who was — was not resisting arrest. Was not being a jerk. The video is very, very clear. The police put him in a choke hold. Threw him down.

PAT: Against department policy, by the way.

GLENN: Right. He has a heart attack and dies. Now, did they —

PAT: And he's crying out the whole time. Just heart wrenching to hear him say. Please I can't breathe. I can't breathe. Over and over. Then he goes limp.

GLENN: How this cop did not go to jail, was not held responsible is beyond me?

STU: Not even indicted. I think if you to get to a trial there are a lot more questions. But should he have been indicted? It seems that way.

GLENN: This is ridiculous.

STU: The jury's rationale was not made public.

GLENN: But that is important. If you're not indicting — for instance, in Ferguson, we know the rationale, we know what happened. We know there were witnesses. There were actual black witnesses that testified in favor of the cop. That said, I saw it. And what everybody is saying in the press, that didn't happen.

So we know exactly what happened in Ferguson. We know why that jury verdict came out the way it did. This one, we don't. And you got nothing, but a vacuum. We have to understand: How could you have possibly come up with this particular verdict? What went wrong?

When you look at what they did to this guy and putting him in a choke hold like that, it's inexcusable. Absolutely inexcusable.

PAT: And brutal. One of them has him in a choke hold. Knee on his head. Couple others pin him down elsewhere. Huge guy. 350 pounds. Has asthma. He's telling them, I can't breathe. Do you not at that point at least lighten up at that point. He's not even resisting. He didn't punch anybody. I've seen the video start to finish when the cops first arrive. I guess his deal is he's sold illegal cigarette on the streets.

GLENN: [Gasp]

In New York? Wait a minute. What does it mean to sell illegal cigarettes? It means the state didn't get their tax dollars. It's not that they're more dangerous than regular cigarettes. It means these were cigarettes that were purchased through the company and then sold on the street without the state getting their tax dollars. So they killed a man for their tax dollars.

PAT: That's bad.

GLENN: That makes it even worse.

PAT: It's really bad. And all he's doing at the beginning — he's not even resisting, he's just yelling at them to leave him alone. I didn't do anything. Leave me alone. Just let —

STU: Yeah. It's a light resist. It's a talkative resisting arrest.

PAT: It's not physical. When they say, put your hands behind your back. He doesn't swing on them.

STU: As soon as they take physical control of the situation. They can put his hands behind his back. They can push him to the ground. They can't do the choke hold fortunately. He doesn't do anything physical to resist. He's not even arguing about being pushed to the ground. He just says, I can't breathe. I'm about as pro cop as humanly allow allowable.

GLENN: I won't let you get away with that. We're all pro cop.

STU: I didn't say you weren't.

GLENN: I know, but you will give the benefit of the doubt to the cop in every possible scenario.

STU: I do not agree with that analysis.

PAT: Anybody who heard the show yesterday would.

STU: Again, I would disagree with that analysis. I'm fine with it. If you're going to err with the judgment on me and it's towards being pro police. That's probably too pro police. I think there are people in the audience that think that. And you guys probably think that. Which is fine. But even in this case. I don't know what the grand jury did.

GLENN: That's the problem. When you're in a grand jury, they give you specific parameters. So they say you can't consider this. You can't consider this. You can't do this. This doesn't count. And you're like, well —

STU: They may have only been going for murder and weren't allowing manslaughter.

STU: Person guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when he recklessly causes the death of someone. Yeah, I think so. It's at least worth a try.

GLENN: Yes, it is. You have to remember, a grand jury is not a jury trial. It is: Here are the facts. Is there enough that says we should look into this?

PAT: And the parameters could also be: Is he guilty of only homicide or murder in the first degree? Well, obviously it wasn't premeditated. I don't think there was intent to kill. They just did.

STU: I agree. They wanted to subdue him. He's a very large guy. Maybe they thought they needed a lot of force. But what they did wasn't okay. And the guy didn't die by choking. He had asthma and he died of a heart attack.

PAT: Brought on by not being able to breathe. Panic attack.

STU: They classified it as a homicide, the coroner did.

PAT: They did...

GLENN: Here's the thing, if you were in New York and you were there for the lighting of the tree, would you listen — would you listen to these protesters if they were walking down the street holding signs that said, F the tree, and they were chanting there with your children, F the tree. And they're snarling at traffic and everything, F the tree. F the cops.

STU: Let's just judge it on the merits of the case. We don't need swearing.

GLENN: If you did what Martin Luther suggested to do, that is, they could have easily gone into that crowd singing O Holy Night, and people would have said, what is this? They're closing it down, and they're sitting in the center of the street and they're singing O Holy Night. And one person just gets up and says, this doesn't make sense to us. Americans would have stopped and listen to them. Instead, it's no justice, no peace. F the cops. F the tree. Nobody will listen to you.

PAT: It doesn't make sense.

GLENN: It doesn't.

STU: I saw his wife or fiancé — I guess his wife — on TV this morning sitting right next to Al Sharpton. Al Sharpton is an incredible liar who tried to take every other case you've heard of where the police didn't do anything wrong and envelope it into this case. Weakening the strength of this case of a guy who really died for the wrong reasons. He's like: Look, this is the same thing that happened in Ferguson —

PAT: No, it's not.

STU: You listen to three or four cases. No. It's not the same. Why can't you judge people — Al Sharpton is not out there because he cares about this person. He's out there for what he wants and power. And taking on his counsel is detrimental to her late husband. It really is. People will just not listen to you. I mean, a lot of conservatives have come out on Eric Garner's side on this. Which is not common.

Something you said conservatives are pro cop. A lot of them will give the benefit of the doubt no matter what happens except this case. This is the only one in history.

PAT: That's a little extreme.

GLENN: I think it's important as conservatives to stand up against the grand jury on this particular —

PAT: Definitely.

GLENN: — event. Yeah, it's important. If you want to have any credibility, you cannot lump Ferguson with this one. This is the New York police completely out of control. They did not murder him, but manslaughter, absolutely should have been considered. Why that wasn't considered is beyond me.

STU: We don't know.

GLENN: Right. And this is the way Americans deal with injustice. We let the system work. The system didn't work here. Now let's calmly and rationally say, why didn't the system work? What were the instructions to the grand jury, what was the evidence that they said didn't matter? Because we've seen the video. Now, explain to me how that's not manslaughter. And if you can't rationally explain it or if it's because of some loophole, we has Americans need to fix that loophole. We need to figure out what it is. But we need to do it without saying F the tree.

STU: Hopefully we can fix this case. There are other avenues we can go down. Hopefully the next one can —

GLENN: We don't shut cities down. We don't burn doughnut shops. And we don't destroy cars. That's what we don't do.

Critical theory destroys truth and justice

Editor's note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Critical theory once stood out as the absurd progressive notion that it is. Now, its maxims are becoming an integral part of ordinary political discourse. The more you repeat a lie, the more you will believe it, and this is the very dangerous place in which we find ourselves today.

Take this critical theory maxim as an example: If we desire justice, we must sometimes champion what may appear superficially as injustice. It's a necessary evil, if you will, the necessity of “controlled injustice.”

By using truth through fabrication and controlled injustice for justice, we’ll save the republic. We’ll be acting in a noble way.

This definition of justice is defined by the “oppressed,” not the “oppressor.” It is the greatest happiness for the greatest number. To achieve this justice, however, we need to endorse acts on occasion that, while seemingly unjust, serve a higher purpose. It will ensure the stability and the unity of our republic, and this may manifest in ways that seem contradictory to our values. But these are the necessary shadows to cast light on “true justice.”

And isn’t that what we are all after, anyway?

Here’s another critical theory maxim: Sometimes we find the truth through fabrication. Our pursuit of truth sometimes requires a strategic use of falsehoods. The truth is a construct that has been shaped and tailored to promote the well-being of the collective.

We sometimes need to accept and propagate lies designed by "the system” — not the old system, but the system that we’re now using to replace the old to get more justice through injustice and more truth through fabrication.

We’re engaging in a higher form of honesty. When we fabricate, it’s for the right reason. We are reaching up to the heavens fighting for a higher sort of honesty. To fortify the truth, we occasionally must weave a tapestry of lies. Each thread, essential for the greater picture, will ultimately define our understanding and ensure our unity under this infallible wisdom.

The election is coming up. Does this maxim sound familiar? Many think it is imperative that we secure our republic through election control to maintain our republic. Sometimes, we might need to take actions that by traditional standards might be questionable.

The act of securing elections requires cheating. It's not mere deception. It is a noble act of safeguarding our way of life. We're on the verge of losing this democracy, and without deception, we will lose it.

To ensure it doesn't fall into the hands of those we know will destroy it, we may have to make a few fabrications. We're fabricating stories to be able to control or secure the republic through our elections. By using truth through fabrication and controlled injustice for justice, we'll save the republic. Therefore, we'll be acting in a noble way. Stealing an election from those who wish to harm our society is truly an act of valor and an essential measure to protect our values and ensure the continuation of our just society.

If we desire justice, we must sometimes champion what may appear superficially as injustice.

I know it's a paradox of honor through dishonor. But in this context, by embracing the dishonor, we achieve the highest form of honor, ensuring the stability and the continuation of our great republic.

Let this be heard, far and wide, as a great call to patriotic action. As we advance, let each of us, citizens of this great and honorable republic, consider these principles. Not as abstract or paradoxical but as practical guides to daily life. Embrace the necessity of controlled injustice, the utility of lies, the duty to secure our electoral process, and the honor and apparent dishonor. These are not merely strategies for survival. They are prerequisites for our prosperity.

We all have to remember that justice is what our leaders define, that truth is what our party tells us. Our republic stands strong on the values of injustice for justice, honor through dishonor, and the fabrication of truths. To deviate from this path is to jeopardize the very fabric of our society. Strength through unity; unity through strength.

We've heard this nonsense for so long. But now, this nonsense is becoming an instituted reality, and we are entering perilous times. Don't be fooled by the narratives you will hear during the march to November. Never let someone convince you that the ends justify the means, that a little bit of injustice is needed to achieve a broader, collective vision of justice, that truth sometimes requires fabricated lies and narratives. If we do, justice will cease to be justice, truth will cease to be truth, and our republic will be lost.

Top 5 MOST EVIL taxes the government extorts from you

David McNew / Staff | Getty Images

"In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes." -Ben Franklin

The injustice of taxation has been a core issue for Americans since the very beginning of our country, and it's a problem we have yet to resolve. This belief was recently reignited in many Americans earlier this month on tax day when the numbers were crunched and it was discovered that the government was somehow owed even more hard-earned money. As Glenn recently discussed on his show, it's getting to be impossible for most Americans to afford to live comfortably, inflation is rising, and our politicians keep getting richer.

The taxpayer's burden is heavier than ever.

The government is not above some real low blows either. While taxes are a necessary evil, some taxes stretch the definition of "necessary" and emphasize the "evil." Here are the top five most despicable taxes that are designed to line the IRS coffers at your expense:

Income Tax

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

"It would be a hard government that should tax its people one-tenth part of their income." -Ben Franklin

On February 24th, 2024 we hit a very unfortunate milestone, the 101st anniversary of the 16th Amendment, which authorized federal income tax. Where does the government get the right to steal directly out of your paycheck?

Death Taxes

Dan Mullan / Staff | Getty Images

"Now my advice for those who die, Declare the pennies on your eyes" -George Harrison

Not even in death can you escape the cold pursuit of the tax collector. It's not good enough that you have to pay taxes on everything you buy and every penny you make your entire life. Now the feds want a nice slice, based on the entire value of your estate, that can be as much as 40 percent. Then the state government gets to stick their slimy fingers all over whatever remains before your family is left with the crumbs. It's practically grave-robbery.

Payroll

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

"The power to tax is the power to destroy." -John Marshall

What's that? The nice chunk of your paycheck the government nabs before you can even get it to the bank wasn't enough? What if the government taxed your employer just for paying you? In essence, you make less than what your agreed pay rate is and it costs your employer more! Absolutely abominable.

Social Security

VALERIE MACON / Contributor | Getty Images

"We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much." -Ronald Reagan

Everyone knows the collapse of Social Security is imminent. It has limped along for years, only sustained by a torrent of tax dollars and the desperate actions of politicians. For decades, people have unwillingly forked over money into the system they will never see again.

FICA

Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Images

"What at first was plunder assumed the softer name of revenue." -Thomas Paine

FICA is the payroll equivalent of Social Security. Your employer has to match however much you pay. It means it costs your employer even more to pay you—again, you'll NEVER see that money. At this point, are you even working for yourself, or are you just here to generate money for the government to frivolously throw away?

5 DISTURBING ways World War III will be different from previous wars

Oleg Nikishin / Stringer | Getty Images

Has World War III begun?

Over the weekend, Iran launched an unprecedented attack against Israel involving over 300 missiles and drones. This marked the first direct attack on Israel originating from Iranian territory. Fortunately, according to an Israel Defense Forces spokesperson Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari, 99 percent of missiles and drones were successfully neutralized by Israeli defense systems. Iran claimed that the operation against Israel had concluded and that no further offensive was planned, although the possibility of another attack is still present.

This has left many people, including Glenn, wondering the same thing: did we just witness the start of World War III?

Glenn recently had a World War II Air Force Veteran as a guest on his TV special, who told stories of the horrors he and his brothers-in-arms faced in the skies over war-torn Europe. This was a timely reminder of the terrors of war and a warning that our future, if it leads to another world war, is a dark one.

But, if Glenn's coverage of the Iranian attack revealed one thing, it's that World War III will look nothing like the world wars of the twentieth century. Long gone are the days of John "Lucky" Luckadoo and his "Bloody Hundredth" bravely flying their B-17s into battle. Over the weekend, we saw hundreds of autonomous drones and missiles clashing with extreme speed and precision over several different fronts (including space) simultaneously. This ain't your grandfather's war.

From EMP strikes to cyber attacks, here are FIVE ways the face of war has changed:

EMP attacks

New York Daily News Archive / Contributor | Getty Images

The entire modern world, on every level, is completely dependent on electricity. From your home refrigerator to international trade, the world would come to a grinding halt without power. And as Glenn has pointed out, it wouldn't even be that hard to pull off. All it would take is 3 strategically placed, high-altitude nuclear detonations and the entire continental U.S. would be without power for months if not years. This would cause mass panic across the country, which would be devastating enough on its own, but the chaos could be a perfect opportunity for a U.S. land invasion.

Nuclear strikes

Galerie Bilderwelt / Contributor | Getty Images

Nuclear war is nothing new. Many of us grew up during the Cold War, built fallout shelters, and learned to duck and cover. But times have changed. The Berlin Wall fell and so did the preparedness of the average American to weather a nuclear attack. As technology has advanced, more of our adversaries than ever have U.S. cities within their crosshairs, and as Glenn has pointed out, these adversaries are not exactly shy about that fact. Unfortunately, the possibility of an atomic apocalypse is as real as ever.

Immigration warfare

Nick Ut / Contributor | Getty Images

The strategy of strangling an opposing nation's economy to gain the upper hand is a wartime tactic as old as time. That's why the Border Crisis is so alarming. What better way to damage an opponent's economy than by overburdening it with millions of undocumented immigrants? As Glenn has covered, these immigrants are not making the trek unaided. There is a wide selection of organizations that facilitate this growing disaster. These organizations are receiving backing from around the globe, such as the WEF, the UN, and U.S. Democrats! Americans are already feeling the effects of the border crisis. Imagine how this tactic could be exploited in war.

Cyber shutdowns

Bill Hinton / Contributor | Getty Images

Cyber attacks will be a major tactic in future wars. We've already experienced relatively minor cyber strikes from Russia, China, and North Korea, and it is a very real possibility that one of our adversaries inflicts a larger attack with devastating consequences on the United States. In fact, the WEF has already predicted a "catastrophic" cyber attack is imminent, and Glenn suggests that it is time to start preparing ourselves. A cyber attack could be every bit as devastating as an EMP, and in a world run by computers, nothing is safe.

Biological assault

WPA Pool / Pool | Getty Images

Don't trust the "experts." That was the takeaway many of us had from the pandemic, but something less talked about is the revelation that China has manufactured viruses that are capable of spreading across the globe. We now know that the lab leak hypothesis is true and that the Wuhan lab manufactured the virus that infected the entire world. That was only ONE virus from ONE lab. Imagine what else the enemies of America might be cooking up.

The government is WAGING WAR against these 3 basic needs

NICHOLAS KAMM / Contributor | Getty Images

The government has launched a full-on assault against our basic needs, and people are starting to take notice.

As long-time followers of Glenn are probably aware, our right to food, water, and power is under siege. The government no longer cares about our general welfare. Instead, our money lines the pockets of our politicians, funds overseas wars, or goes towards some woke-ESG-climate-Great Reset bullcrap. And when they do care, it's not in a way that benefits the American people.

From cracking down on meat production to blocking affordable power, this is how the government is attacking your basic needs:

Food

Fiona Goodall / Stringer | Getty Images

Glenn had Rep. Thomas Massie on his show where he sounded the alarm about the attack on our food. The government has been waging war against our food since the thirties when Congress passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. They started by setting strict limits on how many crops a farmer could grow in a season and punishing anyone who grew more—even if it was intended for personal use, not for sale on the market. This sort of autocratic behavior has continued into the modern day and has only gotten more draconian. Today, not only are you forced to buy meat that a USDA-approved facility has processed, but the elites want meat in general off the menu. Cow farts are too dangerous to the environment, so the WEF wants you to eat climate-friendly alternatives—like bugs.

Water

ALESSANDRO RAMPAZZO / Contributor | Getty Images

As Glenn discussed during a recent Glenn TV special, the government has been encroaching on our water for years. It all started when Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972, which gave the government the ability to regulate large bodies of water. As the name suggests, the act was primarily intended to keep large waterways clear of pollution, but over time it has allowed the feds to assume more and more control over the country's water supply. Most recently, the Biden administration attempted to expand the reach of the Clean Water Act to include even more water and was only stopped by the Supreme Court.

Electricity