As much as I disagree with the GP commenter, this doesn't make any sense at all. It's possible to think that Garner was breaking the law and that police use of excessive force (including a banned technique) was _unjustifiable_.

How on earth do you jump from "he was doing something illegal so the police had the right to enforce the law" to "the amount of force used was appropriate and unfortunately led to his death". You may have lost the thread of the conversation, but no one was talking about bakers being killed by inappropriate use of police force in the course of compelling them to serve gay weddings.

I don't think that getting hit with a lawsuit and dying are equivalent disincentives.

> Garner's death is an unfortunate but justifiable collateral damage of the police's clear duty to enforce the social contract

No.