|
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 04:13 Plansix 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? 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.
Hate and anger doesn't help anyone. Understanding the situation and using your empathy to help even the worst of us change just a little can make all the difference.
|
On April 30 2015 04:30 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 04:13 Plansix wrote: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. Hate and anger doesn't help anyone. Understanding the situation and using your empathy to help even the worst of us change just a little can make all the difference.
Dude your posts keep getting more and more ridiculous... Are you just trolling?
|
On April 30 2015 04:27 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 04:25 Millitron 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. 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".
But you don't need to arrest someone to detain them under reasonable suspicion. If you find something while detaining someone then you can arrest them. This is ofc while not on private property or without the expectation of privacy.
|
On April 30 2015 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 04:30 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 04:13 Plansix wrote: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. Hate and anger doesn't help anyone. Understanding the situation and using your empathy to help even the worst of us change just a little can make all the difference. Dude your posts keep getting more and more ridiculous... Are you just trolling?
I'm entirely serious and consistent.
|
On April 30 2015 04:34 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 04:27 cLutZ wrote:On April 30 2015 04:25 Millitron 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. 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". But you don't need to arrest someone to detain them under reasonable suspicion. If you find something while detaining someone then you can arrest them. This is ofc while not on private property or without the expectation of privacy.
Maybe Freddie Gray was actually one of Kalisi's dragons and was just about to engulf the officers in flames and that's why they tried to sever his spine.
"If they find something" give me a fucking break.
|
On April 30 2015 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 04:30 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 04:13 Plansix wrote: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. Hate and anger doesn't help anyone. Understanding the situation and using your empathy to help even the worst of us change just a little can make all the difference. Dude your posts keep getting more and more ridiculous... Are you just trolling?
Are you seriously the right person to be asking that question considering your track record in this thread?
EDIT: Case in fucking point:
On April 30 2015 04:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 04:34 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 04:27 cLutZ wrote:On April 30 2015 04:25 Millitron 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. 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". But you don't need to arrest someone to detain them under reasonable suspicion. If you find something while detaining someone then you can arrest them. This is ofc while not on private property or without the expectation of privacy. Maybe Freddie Gray was actually one of Kalisi's dragons and was just about to engulf the officers in flames and that's why they tried to sever his spine. "If they find something" give me a fucking break.
|
On April 30 2015 04:34 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 04:27 cLutZ wrote:On April 30 2015 04:25 Millitron 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. 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". But you don't need to arrest someone to detain them under reasonable suspicion. If you find something while detaining someone then you can arrest them. This is ofc while not on private property or without the expectation of privacy.
Except they have not provided any of that and still have not provided a reason for the arrest. Nor have they provided a reason why they had 7 officers on the scene.
|
On April 30 2015 04:38 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 04:30 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 04:13 Plansix wrote: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. Hate and anger doesn't help anyone. Understanding the situation and using your empathy to help even the worst of us change just a little can make all the difference. Dude your posts keep getting more and more ridiculous... Are you just trolling? Are you seriously the right person to be asking that question considering your track record in this thread? EDIT: Case in fucking point: Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 04:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 04:34 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 04:27 cLutZ wrote:On April 30 2015 04:25 Millitron 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. 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". But you don't need to arrest someone to detain them under reasonable suspicion. If you find something while detaining someone then you can arrest them. This is ofc while not on private property or without the expectation of privacy. Maybe Freddie Gray was actually one of Kalisi's dragons and was just about to engulf the officers in flames and that's why they tried to sever his spine. "If they find something" give me a fucking break.
You apparently couldn't find the point if someone shoved it up your nether parts. The police wrote why they arrested him, we don't need to speculate about that.
|
The majority of sources I can find lists 6 officers - the 4 on bikes who together made.initial contact and 2 who joined during the arrest. Which is this 7.the cop?
EDIT: You are really.making a wonderful case for not trolling...
|
On April 30 2015 04:30 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 04:13 Plansix wrote: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. Hate and anger doesn't help anyone. Understanding the situation and using your empathy to help even the worst of us change just a little can make all the difference.
Well protesting peacefully was obviously not getting the results we are looking for i.e. less dead black people by police officers. It's easy for us to be like "whoa, violence and rioting is wrong," when we aren't the ones who have been on this end of it, until now.
It would have been like England telling the 13 colonies that they don't like "our tone," after the Boston massacre. And then decrying violence and civil disturbance at the outbreak of the revolution. Sure, it's easy for them to say, but at a certain point violence really is the only answer.
Does rioting now improve the perception of black people by police in this country? Probably not, but what they were doing before obviously wasn't working either.
|
On April 30 2015 04:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 04:34 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 04:27 cLutZ wrote:On April 30 2015 04:25 Millitron 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. 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". But you don't need to arrest someone to detain them under reasonable suspicion. If you find something while detaining someone then you can arrest them. This is ofc while not on private property or without the expectation of privacy. Except they have not provided any of that and still have not provided a reason for the arrest. Nor have they provided a reason why they had 7 officers on the scene.
They can't release details on an investigation while they're doing it. They have Friday scheduled for their report and that should be some information.
After trayvon and Ferguson you'd think people would be a little more patient before jumping to conclusions about these things.
|
On April 30 2015 04:43 Ghostcom wrote:
The majority of sources I can find lists 6 officers - the 4 on bikes who together made.initial contact and 2 who joined during the arrest. Which is this 7.the cop?
EDIT: You are really.making a wonderful case for not trolling...
I thought there was one more driving the van, my mistake. That is still a lot of officers for a standard stop and arrest.
|
On April 30 2015 04:43 Ghostcom wrote:
The majority of sources I can find lists 6 officers - the 4 on bikes who together made.initial contact and 2 who joined during the arrest. Which is this 7.the cop?
EDIT: You are really.making a wonderful case for not trolling...
Well as long as we get down to the real issue of whether it was 6 or 7 cops it's all worth it right. For what it's worth I've seen 6 names released.
On April 30 2015 04:47 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 04:41 Plansix wrote:On April 30 2015 04:34 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 04:27 cLutZ wrote:On April 30 2015 04:25 Millitron 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. 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". But you don't need to arrest someone to detain them under reasonable suspicion. If you find something while detaining someone then you can arrest them. This is ofc while not on private property or without the expectation of privacy. Except they have not provided any of that and still have not provided a reason for the arrest. Nor have they provided a reason why they had 7 officers on the scene. They can't release details on an investigation while they're doing it. They have Friday scheduled for their report and that should be some information. After trayvon and Ferguson you'd think people would be a little more patient before jumping to conclusions about these things.
Ok you're not serious. Tell me why anyone should believe that the police's "investigation" is going to be honest and complete in the first place? Then you can tell me what makes you think the police have any intention on releasing that report to the public on Friday?
|
As it turns out The Wire was a documentary after all.
|
On April 30 2015 04:47 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 04:41 Plansix wrote:On April 30 2015 04:34 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 04:27 cLutZ wrote:On April 30 2015 04:25 Millitron 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. 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". But you don't need to arrest someone to detain them under reasonable suspicion. If you find something while detaining someone then you can arrest them. This is ofc while not on private property or without the expectation of privacy. Except they have not provided any of that and still have not provided a reason for the arrest. Nor have they provided a reason why they had 7 officers on the scene. They can't release details on an investigation while they're doing it. They have Friday scheduled for their report and that should be some information. After trayvon and Ferguson you'd think people would be a little more patient before jumping to conclusions about these things.
I mean, there was also that man in NY that just died on the sidewalk because officers are to brain dead to understand the phrase "I can't breath", but who is keeping track these days. And their own police chief saying "they did not call for medical assistance when they should have."
But sure, they are innocent until guilty by a court of law.
My opinion of the matter is not a court of law.
|
On April 30 2015 04:47 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 04:41 Plansix wrote:On April 30 2015 04:34 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 04:27 cLutZ wrote:On April 30 2015 04:25 Millitron 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. 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". But you don't need to arrest someone to detain them under reasonable suspicion. If you find something while detaining someone then you can arrest them. This is ofc while not on private property or without the expectation of privacy. Except they have not provided any of that and still have not provided a reason for the arrest. Nor have they provided a reason why they had 7 officers on the scene. They can't release details on an investigation while they're doing it. They have Friday scheduled for their report and that should be some information. After trayvon and Ferguson you'd think people would be a little more patient before jumping to conclusions about these things.
Just because an action is lawful doesn't make it socially acceptable.
Every death caused by the police that is not a measure of last resort is one to many and America is way to fast with allowing its protectors to kill those they are protecting.
|
On April 30 2015 04:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 04:43 Ghostcom wrote:
The majority of sources I can find lists 6 officers - the 4 on bikes who together made.initial contact and 2 who joined during the arrest. Which is this 7.the cop?
EDIT: You are really.making a wonderful case for not trolling... I thought there was one more driving the van, my mistake. That is still a lot of officers for a standard stop and arrest.
¨
It is cool - I was just wondering if you had some updates that I hadn't seen.
@GH: Stop trolling - I never once even remotely stated what you are trying to make it seem like.
|
On April 30 2015 04:52 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 04:47 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 04:41 Plansix wrote:On April 30 2015 04:34 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 04:27 cLutZ wrote:On April 30 2015 04:25 Millitron 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:
[quote]
Ok that doesn't make any sense...
[quote]
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". But you don't need to arrest someone to detain them under reasonable suspicion. If you find something while detaining someone then you can arrest them. This is ofc while not on private property or without the expectation of privacy. Except they have not provided any of that and still have not provided a reason for the arrest. Nor have they provided a reason why they had 7 officers on the scene. They can't release details on an investigation while they're doing it. They have Friday scheduled for their report and that should be some information. After trayvon and Ferguson you'd think people would be a little more patient before jumping to conclusions about these things. I mean, there was also that man in NY that just died on the sidewalk because officers are to brain dead to understand the phrase "I can't breath", but who is keeping track these days. And their own police chief saying "they did not call for medical assistance when they should have." But sure, they are innocent until guilty by a court of law. My opinion of the matter is not a court of law.
Have you ever watched Cops? People constantly lie about medical issues. Every episode has at least 3 people lying about injuries. It's not unbelievable that the police would ignore him. The guy in NY I mean.
Now, whether they should've arrested him in the first place is a whole nother issue. I don't believe selling cigarettes is worth arresting people. Hell, it probably shouldn't even be a crime.
|
On April 30 2015 04:53 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 04:47 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 04:41 Plansix wrote:On April 30 2015 04:34 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 04:27 cLutZ wrote:On April 30 2015 04:25 Millitron 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:
[quote]
Ok that doesn't make any sense...
[quote]
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". But you don't need to arrest someone to detain them under reasonable suspicion. If you find something while detaining someone then you can arrest them. This is ofc while not on private property or without the expectation of privacy. Except they have not provided any of that and still have not provided a reason for the arrest. Nor have they provided a reason why they had 7 officers on the scene. They can't release details on an investigation while they're doing it. They have Friday scheduled for their report and that should be some information. After trayvon and Ferguson you'd think people would be a little more patient before jumping to conclusions about these things. Just because an action is lawful doesn't make it socially acceptable. Every death caused by the police that is not a measure of last resort is one to many and America is way to fast with allowing its protectors to kill those they are protecting.
Your missing the point of everything. Black lives matter just as much as any other life. Anything else is clear raceism. Saving less lives instead of more beacuse the color of their skin Flys in the face of everything. You are trying to argue that racism is good please stop.
|
On April 30 2015 05:00 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 04:53 Gorsameth wrote:On April 30 2015 04:47 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 04:41 Plansix wrote:On April 30 2015 04:34 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 04:27 cLutZ wrote:On April 30 2015 04:25 Millitron 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:
[quote]
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". But you don't need to arrest someone to detain them under reasonable suspicion. If you find something while detaining someone then you can arrest them. This is ofc while not on private property or without the expectation of privacy. Except they have not provided any of that and still have not provided a reason for the arrest. Nor have they provided a reason why they had 7 officers on the scene. They can't release details on an investigation while they're doing it. They have Friday scheduled for their report and that should be some information. After trayvon and Ferguson you'd think people would be a little more patient before jumping to conclusions about these things. Just because an action is lawful doesn't make it socially acceptable. Every death caused by the police that is not a measure of last resort is one to many and America is way to fast with allowing its protectors to kill those they are protecting. Your missing the point of everything. Black lives matter just as much as any other life. Anything else is clear raceism. Saving less lives instead of more beacuse the color of their skin Flys in the face of everything. You are trying to argue that racism is good please stop.
I don't even know to who you are replying rofl.
Please try harder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
