|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 30 2015 03:54 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 03:45 Gorsameth wrote:On April 30 2015 03:38 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 03:23 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 03:01 Sermokala wrote:
Innocent until proven guilty? He's in a union? There's a clear process following every other police related death and this is no different? Didn't stop them from firing the SC officer before he went to trial. I don't see a lot of difference regarding it being obvious the police screwed up. The police have already admitted to not having a reason for the arrest in the first place, and that they were supposed to secure their prisoner and didn't. They were supposed to call for medical help and didn't. If that's not enough for the union or the PD that's on them, that has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty. The sc situation was a lot more cut and dry with a single officer caught on tape clearly braking procedure. This Baltimore case had a lot more people who might be responsible for his death in a number of waves. And that's where the lengthy investigation and union comes in. Can you even imagine a scenario where the breaking of procedure they have admitted to breaking already under the known circumstances that is acceptable for an officer? There's a sharp difference between ignorance negligence and homicidal intent. If the departed resisted then all bets are off from them say putting a knee on the back neck to control him. Him falling or being thrown to the ground could have a host of honest mistakes made. It's unrealistic to expect cops to be prepared for every medical condition that someone they meet might have and certainly can't trust that person to be honest all the time. Right now cops go to an Academy for 2 years and can take extra classes much like a teacher does. Maybe we should consider moving that up or at the least increasing post graduation first aid training. Yes why would a man who has done nothing wrong, being arrested on no charge and thrown into the back of a van resist. He should sit there like a good little boy while they drive him off. I don't know what is more disgusting, the out of control police or the people who keep defending them despite a new scandal showing up every week. And you wonder why the victims (the poor/minorities) are not quietly waiting for due process and 'proper' investigation. If people wave their right to due process then they can't complain when they get shot randomly. Don't rabble that bullshit that they just picked him up and threw him in a van for kicks. At least have the decency to see both sides reasonably.
Whaddafuck. So if you don't exactly know how to respond to police correctly, it is reasonable to shoot you? I guess this explains why so many people get killed by the police in the US. Your per rate of people killed by police is roughly two order of magnitude larger than that of other western nations, and somehow people don't see that as a problem, and i simply can't explain why anyone would think that.
US police kills too many people. That should not be point of discussion. You should try to figure out how to stop them from doing so, not making up excuses. Other countries police forces manage to operate just fine without killing a thousand people each year.
|
Waive
Sheer
Sorry, just couldn't stand seeing misspellings. Not a commentary on anything.
Also, I thought the reason for the arrest voiced by the police on national TV was seeing a knife in his back pocket or something? Anyone hear that also? Would be interesting to see why they said that if the police report doesn't mention the same.
|
On April 30 2015 03:54 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 03:45 Gorsameth wrote:On April 30 2015 03:38 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 03:23 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 03:01 Sermokala wrote:
Innocent until proven guilty? He's in a union? There's a clear process following every other police related death and this is no different? Didn't stop them from firing the SC officer before he went to trial. I don't see a lot of difference regarding it being obvious the police screwed up. The police have already admitted to not having a reason for the arrest in the first place, and that they were supposed to secure their prisoner and didn't. They were supposed to call for medical help and didn't. If that's not enough for the union or the PD that's on them, that has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty. The sc situation was a lot more cut and dry with a single officer caught on tape clearly braking procedure. This Baltimore case had a lot more people who might be responsible for his death in a number of waves. And that's where the lengthy investigation and union comes in. Can you even imagine a scenario where the breaking of procedure they have admitted to breaking already under the known circumstances that is acceptable for an officer? There's a sharp difference between ignorance negligence and homicidal intent. If the departed resisted then all bets are off from them say putting a knee on the back neck to control him. Him falling or being thrown to the ground could have a host of honest mistakes made. It's unrealistic to expect cops to be prepared for every medical condition that someone they meet might have and certainly can't trust that person to be honest all the time. Right now cops go to an Academy for 2 years and can take extra classes much like a teacher does. Maybe we should consider moving that up or at the least increasing post graduation first aid training. Yes why would a man who has done nothing wrong, being arrested on no charge and thrown into the back of a van resist. He should sit there like a good little boy while they drive him off. I don't know what is more disgusting, the out of control police or the people who keep defending them despite a new scandal showing up every week. And you wonder why the victims (the poor/minorities) are not quietly waiting for due process and 'proper' investigation. If people wave their right to due process then they can't complain when they get shot randomly. Don't rabble that bullshit that they just picked him up and threw him in a van for kicks. At least have the decency to see both sides reasonably.
Are you for real? When the fuck did anyone wave their rights? The cops still have not provided a reason for him being in that van.
|
On April 30 2015 03:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 03:50 Sermokala wrote:
If you run away when cops look at you or talk to you that's enough to detain and search you. They don't need to put handcuffs on you to detain you on suspicion. If you resist them then it's a petty crime or a violation of paroles and they can areas you for what then is no reason. If you see a guy wearing a heavy coat and he happens to have a gun or drugs your a resting him before you have cause if he resists. Ok that doesn't make any sense... You can't be serious...?
I'm not sure I agree with it, but legally, fleeing at the sight of cops is probable cause.
I absolutely agree that there's tons of room for thugs to exploit that, but I also agree that fleeing at the sight of cops is pretty suspicious.
On April 30 2015 03:59 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 03:54 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 03:45 Gorsameth wrote:On April 30 2015 03:38 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 03:23 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 03:01 Sermokala wrote:
Innocent until proven guilty? He's in a union? There's a clear process following every other police related death and this is no different? Didn't stop them from firing the SC officer before he went to trial. I don't see a lot of difference regarding it being obvious the police screwed up. The police have already admitted to not having a reason for the arrest in the first place, and that they were supposed to secure their prisoner and didn't. They were supposed to call for medical help and didn't. If that's not enough for the union or the PD that's on them, that has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty. The sc situation was a lot more cut and dry with a single officer caught on tape clearly braking procedure. This Baltimore case had a lot more people who might be responsible for his death in a number of waves. And that's where the lengthy investigation and union comes in. Can you even imagine a scenario where the breaking of procedure they have admitted to breaking already under the known circumstances that is acceptable for an officer? There's a sharp difference between ignorance negligence and homicidal intent. If the departed resisted then all bets are off from them say putting a knee on the back neck to control him. Him falling or being thrown to the ground could have a host of honest mistakes made. It's unrealistic to expect cops to be prepared for every medical condition that someone they meet might have and certainly can't trust that person to be honest all the time. Right now cops go to an Academy for 2 years and can take extra classes much like a teacher does. Maybe we should consider moving that up or at the least increasing post graduation first aid training. Yes why would a man who has done nothing wrong, being arrested on no charge and thrown into the back of a van resist. He should sit there like a good little boy while they drive him off. I don't know what is more disgusting, the out of control police or the people who keep defending them despite a new scandal showing up every week. And you wonder why the victims (the poor/minorities) are not quietly waiting for due process and 'proper' investigation. If people wave their right to due process then they can't complain when they get shot randomly. Don't rabble that bullshit that they just picked him up and threw him in a van for kicks. At least have the decency to see both sides reasonably. Whaddafuck. So if you don't exactly know how to respond to police correctly, it is reasonable to shoot you? I guess this explains why so many people get killed by the police in the US. Your per rate of people killed by police is roughly two order of magnitude larger than that of other western nations, and somehow people don't see that as a problem, and i simply can't explain why anyone would think that. US police kills too many people. That should not be point of discussion. You should try to figure out how to stop them from doing so, not making up excuses. Other countries police forces manage to operate just fine without killing a thousand people each year.
To be fair, other nations don't have out of control gangs.
|
The quote in my post mentioned people not waiting for due process or an investigation. A lack of information doesn't give people the right to treat their assumptions as fact.
Gh are you saying you don't understand what I'm saying or that you don't understand why that is how policy is?
|
On April 30 2015 04:04 Sermokala wrote:
The quote in my post mentioned people not waiting for due process or an investigation. A lack of information doesn't give people the right to treat their assumptions as fact.
Gh are you saying you don't understand what I'm saying or that you don't understand why that is how policy is?
I'm saying it's nonsensical.
|
On April 30 2015 03:59 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 03:54 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 03:45 Gorsameth wrote:On April 30 2015 03:38 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 03:23 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 03:01 Sermokala wrote:
Innocent until proven guilty? He's in a union? There's a clear process following every other police related death and this is no different? Didn't stop them from firing the SC officer before he went to trial. I don't see a lot of difference regarding it being obvious the police screwed up. The police have already admitted to not having a reason for the arrest in the first place, and that they were supposed to secure their prisoner and didn't. They were supposed to call for medical help and didn't. If that's not enough for the union or the PD that's on them, that has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty. The sc situation was a lot more cut and dry with a single officer caught on tape clearly braking procedure. This Baltimore case had a lot more people who might be responsible for his death in a number of waves. And that's where the lengthy investigation and union comes in. Can you even imagine a scenario where the breaking of procedure they have admitted to breaking already under the known circumstances that is acceptable for an officer? There's a sharp difference between ignorance negligence and homicidal intent. If the departed resisted then all bets are off from them say putting a knee on the back neck to control him. Him falling or being thrown to the ground could have a host of honest mistakes made. It's unrealistic to expect cops to be prepared for every medical condition that someone they meet might have and certainly can't trust that person to be honest all the time. Right now cops go to an Academy for 2 years and can take extra classes much like a teacher does. Maybe we should consider moving that up or at the least increasing post graduation first aid training. Yes why would a man who has done nothing wrong, being arrested on no charge and thrown into the back of a van resist. He should sit there like a good little boy while they drive him off. I don't know what is more disgusting, the out of control police or the people who keep defending them despite a new scandal showing up every week. And you wonder why the victims (the poor/minorities) are not quietly waiting for due process and 'proper' investigation. If people wave their right to due process then they can't complain when they get shot randomly. Don't rabble that bullshit that they just picked him up and threw him in a van for kicks. At least have the decency to see both sides reasonably. Whaddafuck. So if you don't exactly know how to respond to police correctly, it is reasonable to shoot you? I guess this explains why so many people get killed by the police in the US. Your per rate of people killed by police is roughly two order of magnitude larger than that of other western nations, and somehow people don't see that as a problem, and i simply can't explain why anyone would think that. US police kills too many people. That should not be point of discussion. You should try to figure out how to stop them from doing so, not making up excuses. Other countries police forces manage to operate just fine without killing a thousand people each year.
I don't have the numbers on me but statistically it's still a wildly insignificant number compared to dozens of other ways people die. It just makes more sense to worry about the root causes and easier things to fix then a cultural and socioeconomic quagmire that a majority of the nation doesn't experience and isn't apart of any important voting demographic.
|
On April 30 2015 04:04 Sermokala wrote:
The quote in my post mentioned people not waiting for due process or an investigation. A lack of information doesn't give people the right to treat their assumptions as fact.
Gh are you saying you don't understand what I'm saying or that you don't understand why that is how policy is?
That's fine, but I don't see why you are defending their actions or trying to justify the victim had a broken spine. Even the chief of police has said the officers acted improperly, did not follow procedure and failed to get him medical attention.
|
On April 30 2015 04:12 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 03:59 Simberto wrote:On April 30 2015 03:54 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 03:45 Gorsameth wrote:On April 30 2015 03:38 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 03:23 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 03:01 Sermokala wrote:
Innocent until proven guilty? He's in a union? There's a clear process following every other police related death and this is no different? Didn't stop them from firing the SC officer before he went to trial. I don't see a lot of difference regarding it being obvious the police screwed up. The police have already admitted to not having a reason for the arrest in the first place, and that they were supposed to secure their prisoner and didn't. They were supposed to call for medical help and didn't. If that's not enough for the union or the PD that's on them, that has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty. The sc situation was a lot more cut and dry with a single officer caught on tape clearly braking procedure. This Baltimore case had a lot more people who might be responsible for his death in a number of waves. And that's where the lengthy investigation and union comes in. Can you even imagine a scenario where the breaking of procedure they have admitted to breaking already under the known circumstances that is acceptable for an officer? There's a sharp difference between ignorance negligence and homicidal intent. If the departed resisted then all bets are off from them say putting a knee on the back neck to control him. Him falling or being thrown to the ground could have a host of honest mistakes made. It's unrealistic to expect cops to be prepared for every medical condition that someone they meet might have and certainly can't trust that person to be honest all the time. Right now cops go to an Academy for 2 years and can take extra classes much like a teacher does. Maybe we should consider moving that up or at the least increasing post graduation first aid training. Yes why would a man who has done nothing wrong, being arrested on no charge and thrown into the back of a van resist. He should sit there like a good little boy while they drive him off. I don't know what is more disgusting, the out of control police or the people who keep defending them despite a new scandal showing up every week. And you wonder why the victims (the poor/minorities) are not quietly waiting for due process and 'proper' investigation. If people wave their right to due process then they can't complain when they get shot randomly. Don't rabble that bullshit that they just picked him up and threw him in a van for kicks. At least have the decency to see both sides reasonably. Whaddafuck. So if you don't exactly know how to respond to police correctly, it is reasonable to shoot you? I guess this explains why so many people get killed by the police in the US. Your per rate of people killed by police is roughly two order of magnitude larger than that of other western nations, and somehow people don't see that as a problem, and i simply can't explain why anyone would think that. US police kills too many people. That should not be point of discussion. You should try to figure out how to stop them from doing so, not making up excuses. Other countries police forces manage to operate just fine without killing a thousand people each year. I don't have the numbers on me but statistically it's still a wildly insignificant number compared to dozens of other ways people die. It just makes more sense to worry about the root causes and easier things to fix then a cultural and socioeconomic quagmire that a majority of the nation doesn't experience and isn't apart of any important voting demographic.
That really says it all doesn't it
Here I thought protecting constitutional rights was part of a huge voting demographic, my mistake.
|
On April 30 2015 04:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 04:04 Sermokala wrote:
The quote in my post mentioned people not waiting for due process or an investigation. A lack of information doesn't give people the right to treat their assumptions as fact.
Gh are you saying you don't understand what I'm saying or that you don't understand why that is how policy is? I'm saying it's nonsensical.
So is when domestic violence goes up whenever local sports team wins or loses or rioting in general. People want things but don't want the things that comes with those things.
|
On April 30 2015 04:03 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 03:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 03:50 Sermokala wrote:
If you run away when cops look at you or talk to you that's enough to detain and search you. They don't need to put handcuffs on you to detain you on suspicion. If you resist them then it's a petty crime or a violation of paroles and they can areas you for what then is no reason. If you see a guy wearing a heavy coat and he happens to have a gun or drugs your a resting him before you have cause if he resists. Ok that doesn't make any sense... At least have the decency to see both sides reasonably. You can't be serious...? I'm not sure I agree with it, but legally, fleeing at the sight of cops is probable cause.
Nope.
|
On April 30 2015 04:19 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 04:03 Millitron wrote:On April 30 2015 03:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 03:50 Sermokala wrote:
If you run away when cops look at you or talk to you that's enough to detain and search you. They don't need to put handcuffs on you to detain you on suspicion. If you resist them then it's a petty crime or a violation of paroles and they can areas you for what then is no reason. If you see a guy wearing a heavy coat and he happens to have a gun or drugs your a resting him before you have cause if he resists. Ok that doesn't make any sense... At least have the decency to see both sides reasonably. You can't be serious...? I'm not sure I agree with it, but legally, fleeing at the sight of cops is probable cause. Nope.
I was going to say something, but was not 100% sure. Probable cause is a lot harder to prove that most people think.
|
On April 30 2015 04:12 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 03:59 Simberto wrote:On April 30 2015 03:54 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 03:45 Gorsameth wrote:On April 30 2015 03:38 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 03:23 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 03:01 Sermokala wrote:
Innocent until proven guilty? He's in a union? There's a clear process following every other police related death and this is no different? Didn't stop them from firing the SC officer before he went to trial. I don't see a lot of difference regarding it being obvious the police screwed up. The police have already admitted to not having a reason for the arrest in the first place, and that they were supposed to secure their prisoner and didn't. They were supposed to call for medical help and didn't. If that's not enough for the union or the PD that's on them, that has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty. The sc situation was a lot more cut and dry with a single officer caught on tape clearly braking procedure. This Baltimore case had a lot more people who might be responsible for his death in a number of waves. And that's where the lengthy investigation and union comes in. Can you even imagine a scenario where the breaking of procedure they have admitted to breaking already under the known circumstances that is acceptable for an officer? There's a sharp difference between ignorance negligence and homicidal intent. If the departed resisted then all bets are off from them say putting a knee on the back neck to control him. Him falling or being thrown to the ground could have a host of honest mistakes made. It's unrealistic to expect cops to be prepared for every medical condition that someone they meet might have and certainly can't trust that person to be honest all the time. Right now cops go to an Academy for 2 years and can take extra classes much like a teacher does. Maybe we should consider moving that up or at the least increasing post graduation first aid training. Yes why would a man who has done nothing wrong, being arrested on no charge and thrown into the back of a van resist. He should sit there like a good little boy while they drive him off. I don't know what is more disgusting, the out of control police or the people who keep defending them despite a new scandal showing up every week. And you wonder why the victims (the poor/minorities) are not quietly waiting for due process and 'proper' investigation. If people wave their right to due process then they can't complain when they get shot randomly. Don't rabble that bullshit that they just picked him up and threw him in a van for kicks. At least have the decency to see both sides reasonably. Whaddafuck. So if you don't exactly know how to respond to police correctly, it is reasonable to shoot you? I guess this explains why so many people get killed by the police in the US. Your per rate of people killed by police is roughly two order of magnitude larger than that of other western nations, and somehow people don't see that as a problem, and i simply can't explain why anyone would think that. US police kills too many people. That should not be point of discussion. You should try to figure out how to stop them from doing so, not making up excuses. Other countries police forces manage to operate just fine without killing a thousand people each year. I don't have the numbers on me but statistically it's still a wildly insignificant number compared to dozens of other ways people die. It just makes more sense to worry about the root causes and easier things to fix then a cultural and socioeconomic quagmire that a majority of the nation doesn't experience and isn't apart of any important voting demographic.
Yeah who cares that societies protectors kill over a 1000 people a year (could be 2, could be 20. Its not like they have to report these numbers). So long as it doesn't bother you who cares right?
Easier to fix the root cause? You mean the social injustice of several hundred years is easier? You should propose those ideas then, easier Nobel price you ever earned...
|
On April 30 2015 04:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 04:19 cLutZ wrote:On April 30 2015 04:03 Millitron wrote:On April 30 2015 03:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 03:50 Sermokala wrote:
If you run away when cops look at you or talk to you that's enough to detain and search you. They don't need to put handcuffs on you to detain you on suspicion. If you resist them then it's a petty crime or a violation of paroles and they can areas you for what then is no reason. If you see a guy wearing a heavy coat and he happens to have a gun or drugs your a resting him before you have cause if he resists. Ok that doesn't make any sense... At least have the decency to see both sides reasonably. You can't be serious...? I'm not sure I agree with it, but legally, fleeing at the sight of cops is probable cause. Nope. I was going to say something, but was not 100% sure. Probable cause is a lot harder to prove that most people think.
Probable cause is the standard you need for a warrant, wiretap, or arrest. Reasonable suspicion is a much lower standard, which is what is required for a Terry stop.
|
On April 30 2015 04:21 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 04:19 Plansix wrote:On April 30 2015 04:19 cLutZ wrote:On April 30 2015 04:03 Millitron wrote:On April 30 2015 03:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 03:50 Sermokala wrote:
If you run away when cops look at you or talk to you that's enough to detain and search you. They don't need to put handcuffs on you to detain you on suspicion. If you resist them then it's a petty crime or a violation of paroles and they can areas you for what then is no reason. If you see a guy wearing a heavy coat and he happens to have a gun or drugs your a resting him before you have cause if he resists. Ok that doesn't make any sense... At least have the decency to see both sides reasonably. You can't be serious...? I'm not sure I agree with it, but legally, fleeing at the sight of cops is probable cause. Nope. I was going to say something, but was not 100% sure. Probable cause is a lot harder to prove that most people think. Probable cause is the standard you need for a warrant, wiretap, or arrest. Reasonable suspicion is a much lower standard, which is what is required for a Terry stop.
And explaining why you need 7 officers for a Terry stop is going to be pretty hard. I really don't understand what their plan was.
|
On April 30 2015 04:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 04:19 cLutZ wrote:On April 30 2015 04:03 Millitron wrote:On April 30 2015 03:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 03:50 Sermokala wrote:
If you run away when cops look at you or talk to you that's enough to detain and search you. They don't need to put handcuffs on you to detain you on suspicion. If you resist them then it's a petty crime or a violation of paroles and they can areas you for what then is no reason. If you see a guy wearing a heavy coat and he happens to have a gun or drugs your a resting him before you have cause if he resists. Ok that doesn't make any sense... At least have the decency to see both sides reasonably. You can't be serious...? I'm not sure I agree with it, but legally, fleeing at the sight of cops is probable cause. Nope. I was going to say something, but was not 100% sure. Probable cause is a lot harder to prove that most people think.
Sorry, I used the wrong term. The term I meant is reasonable suspicion.
|
On April 30 2015 04:23 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 04:21 cLutZ wrote:On April 30 2015 04:19 Plansix wrote:On April 30 2015 04:19 cLutZ wrote:On April 30 2015 04:03 Millitron wrote:On April 30 2015 03:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 03:50 Sermokala wrote:
If you run away when cops look at you or talk to you that's enough to detain and search you. They don't need to put handcuffs on you to detain you on suspicion. If you resist them then it's a petty crime or a violation of paroles and they can areas you for what then is no reason. If you see a guy wearing a heavy coat and he happens to have a gun or drugs your a resting him before you have cause if he resists. Ok that doesn't make any sense... At least have the decency to see both sides reasonably. You can't be serious...? I'm not sure I agree with it, but legally, fleeing at the sight of cops is probable cause. Nope. I was going to say something, but was not 100% sure. Probable cause is a lot harder to prove that most people think. Probable cause is the standard you need for a warrant, wiretap, or arrest. Reasonable suspicion is a much lower standard, which is what is required for a Terry stop. And explaining why you need 7 officers for a Terry stop is going to be pretty hard. I really don't understand what their plan was.
Typical Baltimore policing. It's well known to anyone willing to listen that this stuff happens regularly.
|
On April 30 2015 04:25 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 04:19 Plansix wrote:On April 30 2015 04:19 cLutZ wrote:On April 30 2015 04:03 Millitron wrote:On April 30 2015 03:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 03:50 Sermokala wrote:
If you run away when cops look at you or talk to you that's enough to detain and search you. They don't need to put handcuffs on you to detain you on suspicion. If you resist them then it's a petty crime or a violation of paroles and they can areas you for what then is no reason. If you see a guy wearing a heavy coat and he happens to have a gun or drugs your a resting him before you have cause if he resists. Ok that doesn't make any sense... At least have the decency to see both sides reasonably. You can't be serious...? I'm not sure I agree with it, but legally, fleeing at the sight of cops is probable cause. Nope. I was going to say something, but was not 100% sure. Probable cause is a lot harder to prove that most people think. Sorry, I used the wrong term. The term I meant is reasonable suspicion.
Which is true, but there is no such thing as "reasonable suspicion for arrest".
|
On April 30 2015 04:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 04:23 Plansix wrote:On April 30 2015 04:21 cLutZ wrote:On April 30 2015 04:19 Plansix wrote:On April 30 2015 04:19 cLutZ wrote:On April 30 2015 04:03 Millitron wrote:On April 30 2015 03:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 03:50 Sermokala wrote:
If you run away when cops look at you or talk to you that's enough to detain and search you. They don't need to put handcuffs on you to detain you on suspicion. If you resist them then it's a petty crime or a violation of paroles and they can areas you for what then is no reason. If you see a guy wearing a heavy coat and he happens to have a gun or drugs your a resting him before you have cause if he resists. Ok that doesn't make any sense... At least have the decency to see both sides reasonably. You can't be serious...? I'm not sure I agree with it, but legally, fleeing at the sight of cops is probable cause. Nope. I was going to say something, but was not 100% sure. Probable cause is a lot harder to prove that most people think. Probable cause is the standard you need for a warrant, wiretap, or arrest. Reasonable suspicion is a much lower standard, which is what is required for a Terry stop. And explaining why you need 7 officers for a Terry stop is going to be pretty hard. I really don't understand what their plan was. Typical Baltimore policing. It's well known to anyone willing to listen that this stuff happens regularly.
Which is why you have these protests/riot. Proper procedure hasn't been working for years now. At some point protests are the only option left.
|
On April 30 2015 04:25 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 04:19 Plansix wrote:On April 30 2015 04:19 cLutZ wrote:On April 30 2015 04:03 Millitron wrote:On April 30 2015 03:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 03:50 Sermokala wrote:
If you run away when cops look at you or talk to you that's enough to detain and search you. They don't need to put handcuffs on you to detain you on suspicion. If you resist them then it's a petty crime or a violation of paroles and they can areas you for what then is no reason. If you see a guy wearing a heavy coat and he happens to have a gun or drugs your a resting him before you have cause if he resists. Ok that doesn't make any sense... At least have the decency to see both sides reasonably. You can't be serious...? I'm not sure I agree with it, but legally, fleeing at the sight of cops is probable cause. Nope. I was going to say something, but was not 100% sure. Probable cause is a lot harder to prove that most people think. Sorry, I used the wrong term. The term I meant is reasonable suspicion.
Say they had reasonable suspicion, they still didn't articulate why they arrested him. It's preposterous to presume we should accept some explanation that comes weeks later as to why they arrested him, let alone the negligence (or worse) that led to his death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
