|
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 04:57 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 04:52 Plansix 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. 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.
There was also Eric Harris who after being 'accidentally shot' plead with officers that he couldn't breathe to which they gave the only professional response they could "Fuck your breath!"...
But I guess they just reasonably thought he was faking it too...
|
On April 30 2015 05:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 04:57 Millitron wrote:On April 30 2015 04:52 Plansix 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:
[quote]
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. There was also Eric Harris who after being 'accidentally shot' plead with officers that he couldn't breathe to which they gave the only professional response they could "Fuck your breath!"... But I guess they just reasonably thought he was faking it too...
You obviously do not know the physiology of black people, they work differently and can survive and continue attacking after several gunshots, which was repeatedly stated by the people you are arguing with on the last several occasions.
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting it to come out different"
|
On April 30 2015 05:05 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 05:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 04:57 Millitron wrote:On April 30 2015 04:52 Plansix 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:
[quote]
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. There was also Eric Harris who after being 'accidentally shot' plead with officers that he couldn't breathe to which they gave the only professional response they could "Fuck your breath!"... But I guess they just reasonably thought he was faking it too... You obviously do not know the physiology of black people, they work differently and can survive and continue attacking after several gunshots, which was repeatedly stated by the people you are arguing with on the last several occasions. "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting it to come out different"
Yeah one of the reasons I bother is because I know people lurk this thread and I wan't the people who may encounter these arguments in real life to have some information regarding the typical talking points we've been seeing.
@Ghost what was it you thought about that video I posted again?
|
On April 30 2015 04:48 GreenHorizons 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... 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. 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. 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?
Why are you even here? You refuse entirely that you might be wrong in any sense and when you get challenged you just accuse people of racism or trolling.
You have no reason to suspect that they won't release a report on Friday. You have no reason to suspect that it won't be a proper investigation. Black people have control over who's doing the investigation. Black people elected the people who put the investigators in their job. If you don't think that it isn't credible then the only result is that you think black people are not capable of electing people with integrity.
Thank god I disagree with you.
|
On April 30 2015 04:57 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 04:52 Plansix 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. 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.
People have called my firm claiming they were going to kill themselves if we enforced a court order. We know they are lying every time and ever time we take them seriously. We call the police every time and every time it turns out to be nothing. I have zero tolerance for the excuse "people lie about medical stuff a lot, so I ignored it"
When people say things like "I can't breath" and police ignore them, I don't want them to be empowered to arrest people any more. When police arrest someone, its their job to take care of them. When they can't do that any more, they should turn in their badge.
|
On April 30 2015 04:44 ZasZ. 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. 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.
I'm not familiar with Baltimore. Was there a history of trying and failing to reform the police?
|
On April 30 2015 05:08 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 04:48 GreenHorizons wrote: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: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. 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? Why are you even here? You refuse entirely that you might be wrong in any sense and when you get challenged you just accuse people of racism or trolling. You have no reason to suspect that they won't release a report on Friday. You have no reason to suspect that it won't be a proper investigation. Black people have control over who's doing the investigation. Black people elected the people who put the investigators in their job. If you don't think that it isn't credible then the only result is that you think black people are not capable of electing people with integrity. Thank god I disagree with you.
Apparently you missed my BLACK PEOPLE CAN BE RACIST AGAINST BLACK PEOPLE post. When you say things like "Black people have control" and/or "If you don't think that it isn't credible then the only result is that you think black people are not capable of electing people with integrity." it shows an almost irredeemable ignorance of the situation.
I have a very good reason not to believe it and I posted the related story, did you even bother to read it?
On April 30 2015 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 04:44 ZasZ. 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. 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. I'm not familiar with Baltimore. Was there a history of trying and failing to reform the police?
Of course they do? Did anyone read what I posted about a previous internal investigation?
|
On April 30 2015 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 04:44 ZasZ. 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. 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. I'm not familiar with Baltimore. Was there a history of trying and failing to reform the police?
So much so they made an entire show about it on HBO and the struggles of doing police work in the city. That was over 10 years go and the issues have existed for longer.
|
On April 30 2015 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 05:08 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 04:48 GreenHorizons wrote: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: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:
[quote]
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? Why are you even here? You refuse entirely that you might be wrong in any sense and when you get challenged you just accuse people of racism or trolling. You have no reason to suspect that they won't release a report on Friday. You have no reason to suspect that it won't be a proper investigation. Black people have control over who's doing the investigation. Black people elected the people who put the investigators in their job. If you don't think that it isn't credible then the only result is that you think black people are not capable of electing people with integrity. Thank god I disagree with you. Apparently you missed my BLACK PEOPLE CAN BE RACIST AGAINST BLACK PEOPLE post. When you say things like "Black people have control" and/or "If you don't think that it isn't credible then the only result is that you think black people are not capable of electing people with integrity." it shows an almost irredeemable ignorance of the situation. I have a very good reason not to believe it and I posted the related story, did you even bother to read it? Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 30 2015 04:44 ZasZ. 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. 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. I'm not familiar with Baltimore. Was there a history of trying and failing to reform the police? Of course they do? Did anyone read what I posted about a previous internal investigation?
If they release a report Friday, are you going to immediately assume its flawed if it doesn't agree 100% with your opinion on the situation?
What does a good report look like? I mean, it seems at this point that any report that is anything short of "All officials of Baltimore are murdering racists." will be met with cries of racism. Even if it's findings are legitimate.
It's like arguing with 9/11 truthers. They saw the government did it. You show them evidence to the contrary, and they say the government fabricated that evidence.
|
On April 30 2015 05:20 Millitron wrote:
It's like arguing with 9/11 truthers. They saw the government did it. You show them evidence to the contrary, and they say the government fabricated that evidence.
I'd like to see that evidence
|
On April 30 2015 05:20 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2015 05:08 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 04:48 GreenHorizons wrote: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: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:
[quote]
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? Why are you even here? You refuse entirely that you might be wrong in any sense and when you get challenged you just accuse people of racism or trolling. You have no reason to suspect that they won't release a report on Friday. You have no reason to suspect that it won't be a proper investigation. Black people have control over who's doing the investigation. Black people elected the people who put the investigators in their job. If you don't think that it isn't credible then the only result is that you think black people are not capable of electing people with integrity. Thank god I disagree with you. Apparently you missed my BLACK PEOPLE CAN BE RACIST AGAINST BLACK PEOPLE post. When you say things like "Black people have control" and/or "If you don't think that it isn't credible then the only result is that you think black people are not capable of electing people with integrity." it shows an almost irredeemable ignorance of the situation. I have a very good reason not to believe it and I posted the related story, did you even bother to read it? On April 30 2015 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 30 2015 04:44 ZasZ. 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. 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. I'm not familiar with Baltimore. Was there a history of trying and failing to reform the police? Of course they do? Did anyone read what I posted about a previous internal investigation? If they release a report Friday, are you going to immediately assume its flawed if it doesn't agree 100% with your opinion on the situation? What does a good report look like? I mean, it seems at this point that any report that is anything short of "All officials of Baltimore are murdering racists." will be met with cries of racism. Even if it's findings are legitimate. It's like arguing with 9/11 truthers. They saw the government did it. You show them evidence to the contrary, and they say the government fabricated that evidence.
I wouldn't trust any report from BPD even if it confirmed everything I thought. The reason I wouldn't trust it isn't even just the obvious racism present in the department. It's actually about how cops protect cops first even when they are criminals. It's incredibly rare to have a successful officer report wrong doing by fellow officers, rarer still that any officer reports crimes by fellow officers unless facing potential charges themselves.
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The otherwise low-key trial of Cleveland police officer Michael Brelo saw some drama Wednesday, the third day of testimony, when a fellow police officer refused to testify.
Prosecutors got through just a couple basic questions about the identity and work history of Cleveland police officer Michael Demchak before Demchak invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination on the witness stand.
According to a report from the Bureau of Criminal Investigation, Demchak was one of 13 officers that fired their guns one night in November 2012, when two unarmed suspects were killed. Investigators concluded Demchak fired his gun four times.
Source
EDIT: Imagining the world where they do release a report and it does confirm what seems rather obvious, I still wouldn't trust it. Neither would plenty of people on the other side of this issue. It wouldn't be long before it was called racist revenge by a black commissioner.
If it absolves the officers of responsibility the same insatiably idiotic statements about how "they are black though" will come right back.
|
On April 30 2015 05:21 Saumure wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 05:20 Millitron wrote:
It's like arguing with 9/11 truthers. They saw the government did it. You show them evidence to the contrary, and they say the government fabricated that evidence. I'd like to see that evidence
I don't have it. They're releasing it Friday. My point is that the report will be denied no matter how good it is.
On April 30 2015 05:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
It's incredibly rare to have a successful officer report wrong doing by fellow officers, rarer still that any officer reports crimes by fellow officers unless facing potential charges themselves.
That's kinda the crux of the issue to me. You're coming into this with your mind already made up. You consider it success when an officer is convicted of wrongdoing. Really you should consider it success when the system works like its supposed to, regardless of if that entails a conviction or not.
|
On April 30 2015 05:24 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 05:21 Saumure wrote:On April 30 2015 05:20 Millitron wrote:
It's like arguing with 9/11 truthers. They saw the government did it. You show them evidence to the contrary, and they say the government fabricated that evidence. I'd like to see that evidence I don't have it. They're releasing it Friday. My point is that the report will be denied no matter how good it is.
You cant have cops investigate cops when they have a history of covering their own and expect it to be taken at face value. Even more so if the department in question has been known for issues for many years without reform.
Plus as i said before. Even if nothing criminal is found does not mean the situation is socially acceptable.
The US has a problem with some (one could argue many) police departments being rotten to the core. You cant expect people to not jump to conclusions just because 1 in 100 happens to be right.
|
On April 30 2015 05:24 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 05:21 Saumure wrote:On April 30 2015 05:20 Millitron wrote:
It's like arguing with 9/11 truthers. They saw the government did it. You show them evidence to the contrary, and they say the government fabricated that evidence. I'd like to see that evidence I don't have it. They're releasing it Friday. My point is that the report will be denied no matter how good it is.
The root of the problem is do you trust that Baltimore Police Department as a whole. I am not really sure I do given the long history of issues in that city.
On April 30 2015 05:29 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 05:24 Millitron wrote:On April 30 2015 05:21 Saumure wrote:On April 30 2015 05:20 Millitron wrote:
It's like arguing with 9/11 truthers. They saw the government did it. You show them evidence to the contrary, and they say the government fabricated that evidence. I'd like to see that evidence I don't have it. They're releasing it Friday. My point is that the report will be denied no matter how good it is. You cant have cops investigate cops when they have a history of covering their own and expect it to be taken at face value. Even more so if the department in question has been known for issues for many years without reform. Plus as i said before. Even if nothing criminal is found does not mean the situation is socially acceptable. The US has a problem with some (one could argue many) police departments being rotten to the core. You cant expect people to not jump to conclusions just because 1 in 100 happens to be right.
Excuse me. Do you get a lot of first hand experience with US police departments in the Netherlands? Or are you also living in the US and have had a lot of run ins with our police?
|
On April 30 2015 05:24 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 05:21 Saumure wrote:On April 30 2015 05:20 Millitron wrote:
It's like arguing with 9/11 truthers. They saw the government did it. You show them evidence to the contrary, and they say the government fabricated that evidence. I'd like to see that evidence I don't have it. They're releasing it Friday. My point is that the report will be denied no matter how good it is.
Any reasonable person would doubt the report, the only sane people are the ones who admit the police screwed up royally and should be punished, but otherwise want to address the real socioeconomic and racial problems that got us here (and I don't even know if any of these exist in the white republican community)
|
*golfclap*
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott on Tuesday asked the State Guard to monitor a U.S. military training exercise dubbed "Jade Helm 15" amid Internet-fueled suspicions that the war simulation is really a hostile military takeover.
The request comes a day after more than 200 people packed a meeting in rural Bastrop County and questioned a U.S. Army commander about whether the government was planning to confiscate guns or implement martial law. Bastrop County Judge Paul Pape said "conspiracy theorists" and "fear mongers" had been in a frenzy.
Pape thanked Abbott for the letter to the Texas State Guard, which he believed helped emphasize the benefit of the military training rather than further fuel theorists.
"It's a sad when people's greatest fear is their own government," Pape said. "Think about the ramification of that. If Americans go to sleep at night worrying whether their own government is going to sell them out before morning, it'd be hard to sleep."
Suspicions about Jade Helm intensified on some conservative websites and social media after a map labeled Texas, Utah and parts of California as "hostile" for the purposes of the three-month training exercise that begins in July. Such war simulations aren't unusual, though the Army has acknowledged that the size and scope of Jade Helm makes it unique.
Texas and six other states are hosting the exercises on public and private lands. The Army says the terrain and topography in the areas selected are ideal to replicate foreign combat zones.
Source
|
Living in Brazil, I thought this was a very interesting read:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/29/ferguson-missouri-michael-brown-brazil-rio-black-teenager-lucas-lima
Many of the exerpts seem equally applicable to the US as to Brazil:
"Ferguson is a daily occurrence in Brazil", noted Ignacio Cano, of Rio de Janeiro State University, whose studies have shown that blacks in Rio are three times more likely to be wounded or killed by police than would be expected by their share in the population.
And especially:
"We have numbers that equate to a war," Goulart said. "The central issue in these homicides is institutional racism," he said. "The war on drugs is, in reality, a war on poor and black people … The state is killing young, black males."
|
On April 30 2015 05:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:*golfclap* Show nested quote +AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott on Tuesday asked the State Guard to monitor a U.S. military training exercise dubbed "Jade Helm 15" amid Internet-fueled suspicions that the war simulation is really a hostile military takeover.
The request comes a day after more than 200 people packed a meeting in rural Bastrop County and questioned a U.S. Army commander about whether the government was planning to confiscate guns or implement martial law. Bastrop County Judge Paul Pape said "conspiracy theorists" and "fear mongers" had been in a frenzy.
Pape thanked Abbott for the letter to the Texas State Guard, which he believed helped emphasize the benefit of the military training rather than further fuel theorists.
"It's a sad when people's greatest fear is their own government," Pape said. "Think about the ramification of that. If Americans go to sleep at night worrying whether their own government is going to sell them out before morning, it'd be hard to sleep."
Suspicions about Jade Helm intensified on some conservative websites and social media after a map labeled Texas, Utah and parts of California as "hostile" for the purposes of the three-month training exercise that begins in July. Such war simulations aren't unusual, though the Army has acknowledged that the size and scope of Jade Helm makes it unique.
Texas and six other states are hosting the exercises on public and private lands. The Army says the terrain and topography in the areas selected are ideal to replicate foreign combat zones. Source
I never cease to be amazed by the stupidity that is possible in man.
|
On April 30 2015 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 05:08 Sermokala wrote:On April 30 2015 04:48 GreenHorizons wrote: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: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:
[quote]
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? Why are you even here? You refuse entirely that you might be wrong in any sense and when you get challenged you just accuse people of racism or trolling. You have no reason to suspect that they won't release a report on Friday. You have no reason to suspect that it won't be a proper investigation. Black people have control over who's doing the investigation. Black people elected the people who put the investigators in their job. If you don't think that it isn't credible then the only result is that you think black people are not capable of electing people with integrity. Thank god I disagree with you. Apparently you missed my BLACK PEOPLE CAN BE RACIST AGAINST BLACK PEOPLE post. When you say things like "Black people have control" and/or "If you don't think that it isn't credible then the only result is that you think black people are not capable of electing people with integrity." it shows an almost irredeemable ignorance of the situation. I have a very good reason not to believe it and I posted the related story, did you even bother to read it? Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 30 2015 04:44 ZasZ. 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. 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. I'm not familiar with Baltimore. Was there a history of trying and failing to reform the police? Of course they do? Did anyone read what I posted about a previous internal investigation?
Are you asking me or telling me?
I don't read every post here, sorry.
On April 30 2015 05:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 30 2015 04:44 ZasZ. 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. 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. I'm not familiar with Baltimore. Was there a history of trying and failing to reform the police? So much so they made an entire show about it on HBO and the struggles of doing police work in the city. That was over 10 years go and the issues have existed for longer.
You mean the TV show 'The Wire'?
|
On April 30 2015 05:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:*golfclap* Show nested quote +AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott on Tuesday asked the State Guard to monitor a U.S. military training exercise dubbed "Jade Helm 15" amid Internet-fueled suspicions that the war simulation is really a hostile military takeover.
The request comes a day after more than 200 people packed a meeting in rural Bastrop County and questioned a U.S. Army commander about whether the government was planning to confiscate guns or implement martial law. Bastrop County Judge Paul Pape said "conspiracy theorists" and "fear mongers" had been in a frenzy.
Pape thanked Abbott for the letter to the Texas State Guard, which he believed helped emphasize the benefit of the military training rather than further fuel theorists.
"It's a sad when people's greatest fear is their own government," Pape said. "Think about the ramification of that. If Americans go to sleep at night worrying whether their own government is going to sell them out before morning, it'd be hard to sleep."
Suspicions about Jade Helm intensified on some conservative websites and social media after a map labeled Texas, Utah and parts of California as "hostile" for the purposes of the three-month training exercise that begins in July. Such war simulations aren't unusual, though the Army has acknowledged that the size and scope of Jade Helm makes it unique.
Texas and six other states are hosting the exercises on public and private lands. The Army says the terrain and topography in the areas selected are ideal to replicate foreign combat zones. Source
There isn't a lot to do in Texas and I am unsure why we would want to take over land we already own. But it is Texas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
