Policing Thread

[Not An FSB Agent]

He was in a location where he could be. Just read it again. It annoys me that some people never question the authorities. Even the police makes mistakes, like this time. He was just trying to explain the situation to them and they were not willing to listen. That they weren't willing to listen to him, annoys me most of all. He was just panicking, cause he was thinking of his children, wo would be there all alone. The reason he resisted slightly.

Police often make mistakes. The place to question authority is in the courtroom, not with some ignorant cop. Cops aren't going to reason with anyone, and if they have the evidence, you will be arrested. So, the only thing in talking to a cop will do is give them more evidence.

Remember, you have the right to remain silent(in the US), use it. I would tell anyone that is in a similar situation to politely inform the officer that you don't speak to law enforcement without council present. Again, if they have any evidence, they will arrest you and nothing you are going to say will change that; if they don't have any evidence, you might inadvertently give it to them by talking to them.

After this, I am done with it, but do you think that if he had shut up and went on about his business, he still would've been arrested, anyway? Because that is what I implied from your response.

When you want to talk to me about political issues from here on out, just imagine my response would be a facepalm and don't bother.

LOL

[MB.]

Yeah well, that's different in my country or so I hope. They often do ask questions and then evaluate the situation. They should have reasoned first actually.

He was just sticking up for himself and he had the right to do so. They could have talked with him. It's weird they didn't even do that. Is this how it works in the US always?

[magisme]

Is this how it works in the US always?

No.

[MB.]

Is this how it works in the US always?

No.

Good to hear

[magisme]

Is this how it works in the US always?

No.

Good to hear

I still have enough faith in my country to say that video would disgust the vast majority of Americans. I certainly hope I'm right.

[Not An FSB Agent]

Is this how it works in the US always?

No.

Good to hear

It most certainly is how it works. I will submit, that even in your country, if you ask an attorney, they will give you advise similar to what I just wrote.

The reason cops ask questions is because they want to know what happened... who to charge with a crime... by talking to cops, it is possible to inadvertently incriminate yourself. Anyone telling you anything different doesn't know the law, and goes against the advise of every practicing lawyer in the US.

Again, if the cops don't have any evidence, they won't charge you, if they do have evidence, you will be charged no matter what you say to them, and by talking, you may further incriminate yourself. The time to tell argue the merits, is in a court room, not in front of a cop.

[MB.]

So you think, let's say if the guy was an older white man, he was treated the same?

No judgement, just wondering...

[downzy]

He was taken to jail for being a dumb ass. Had he shut his mouth, and went about his business, nothing would've happened, but instead he had to prove that he was not in the wrong. Guess what? He was in the wrong. He was in a location he wasn't supposed to be, and he wasn't smart enough to realize that the cop didn't give a shit about his excuse.

EDIT: Then, the dumb ass resisted arrest when to told to put his hands behind his back.

Um, so a public park is the wrong place for him to wait to pick up his kid? And asking why the police are requiring his identification is an unlawful challenge of authority?

How does anyone look at that situation and blame the black guy and defend the cops? Remember, the police are suppose to serve the public, not arbitrarily make up laws and enforce the racist insecurities of others, which is exactly what happened here.

Edited August 31, 2014 by downzy

[downzy]

Is this how it works in the US always?

No.

Good to hear

The time to tell argue the merits, is in a court room, not in front of a cop.

Right, so why then do people have their lawyers present during an interrogation?

You do understand that your rights are arbitrated well before the courtroom. It's why the district attorney did not pursue the charges that were levied towards the guy in the video. You absolutely do not need charges to go to a court of law before you can make your case. Maybe in places like Saudia Arabia and Iran, but thankfully most western developed nations do not follow such insanity.

[magisme]

Probably better to ignore the crazy instead of giving it a platform, downzy. At least until others show if the crazy is endemic. IMO.

[Not An FSB Agent]

So you think, let's say if the guy was an older white man, he was treated the same?

No judgement, just wondering...

Probably not, unless he was a homeless man, but that is a different issue. I am not trying to justify what the cops did, it was wrong, but the guy was an idiot for trying to convince the cop that he was in the right. He wasn't, he was in an area that was off limits.

Had he just got up and left, he probably would not been arrested.

Just by reading these thread of the last couple of weeks, everyone should at least learn that when a cop is not asking you a question, you don't talk to them. Most cops in the US are redneck assholes that will find a reason to arrest you if you piss them off, so why try to piss them off?

EDIT: Want to read something truly fucked up? Police can refuse to hire you if you have a high IQ. Yep, they want dumb asses that will not think on their own. You can't make this shit up!

http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/01/court-oks-barring-smart-people-from-beco

Edited August 31, 2014 by Not An FSB Agent

[Not An FSB Agent]

He was taken to jail for being a dumb ass. Had he shut his mouth, and went about his business, nothing would've happened, but instead he had to prove that he was not in the wrong. Guess what? He was in the wrong. He was in a location he wasn't supposed to be, and he wasn't smart enough to realize that the cop didn't give a shit about his excuse.

EDIT: Then, the dumb ass resisted arrest when to told to put his hands behind his back.

Um, so a public park is the wrong place for him to wait to pick up his kid? And asking why the police are requiring his identification is an unlawful challenge of authority?

How does anyone look at that situation and blame the black guy and defend the cops? Remember, the police are suppose to serve the public, not arbitrarily make up laws and enforce the racist insecurities of others, which is exactly what happened here.

Again, he was in a restricted area. And since technically he was trespassing, yes the cop could require ID.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/demanding-identification-people-street.html

You can demand your rights all that you want to a cop, and unless you present a copy of your membership to your states bar association, you will probably be arrested. COPS WILL ARREST YOU IF YOU PISS THEM OFF. It will probably be dismissed in court, but the cop doesn't give two shits.

It is obvious none of you have much experience dealing with cops or the courts. Personally, I try to avoid cops. BECAUSE MOST OF THEM ARE ASSHOLES!

I am not defending the cops, I am pointing out why the guy was arrested. We don't live in some utopian society where everything is peachy keen. And the police are not there to "serve the public", they are there to uphold the laws and arrest people that break those laws. Guess what? They are not there to protect you, either.

Probably better to ignore the crazy instead of giving it a platform, downzy. At least until others show if the crazy is endemic. IMO.

You realize that resorting to ad hominem insults is the insipid choice of the intellectually inferior mind, don't you? This twice that you have chosen to insult me rather than defend your position. Welcome to my killfile, asshole.

[Not An FSB Agent]

Is this how it works in the US always?

No.

Good to hear

The time to tell argue the merits, is in a court room, not in front of a cop.

Right, so why then do people have their lawyers present during an interrogation?

Police have the right to question anyone, and anyone has the right (5th Amendment to the US Constitution) against self-incrimination. The lawyer is there, if one chooses to answer questions, to prevent one from incriminating oneself.

You watch too much TV. If it is a serious matter, the police(detective) will want to question you at a location of their choice. Usually, it will be at the police station-- this is an intimidation tactic-- you don't have to speak with them if you are not under arrest.

However, lets say you are an un-indicted co-conspirator in a case. It might be to your best interests to answer their questions... with counsel present, of course.

You do understand that your rights are arbitrated well before the courtroom. It's why the district attorney did not pursue the charges that were levied towards the guy in the video.

I am fairly certain that I know US jurisprudence. Rights, in the United States, are not arbitrated. They are concrete and set in the Constitution.

EDIT: The prosecution didn't pursue the charges because he didn't have sufficient evidence to convict... it really is that simple. If he had the evidence, he would've prosecuted. but guess what? The arresting cops don't give a shit; they ruined a guys day. That was what they intended to do by arresting him. Nothing came back on them, and I wouldn't be surprised if they went out for drinks and laughed about fucking up some guys day.

Remember, most of them are assholes. Paint me a cynic... maybe it is just that most of the ones that I have dealt with were assholes, but these news stories tend to confirm my bias.

You absolutely do not need charges to go to a court of law before you can make your case.

The fuck you don't. You can answer the questions of a police officer, but by definition, that is what a "case" is... a case before the bench.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Not An FSB Agent

[Coma16]

So you think, let's say if the guy was an older white man, he was treated the same?

No judgement, just wondering...

No, white people are never hassled/mistreated by cops in the US.

All white American cops are evil racists, haven't you been reading this thread?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8fh4VmeuTw

Police screw up all the time but when the victim is black (as shown a page back from the guy waiting to pick up his kid) all of the sudden it's a race issue.

[magisme]

Welcome to my killfile, asshole.

More of that, please. Now I have a comedic use for you.

[Not An FSB Agent]

Well, I happened to check this thread without logging in, and noticed that someone in my killfile had made a post. Apparently this person doesn't know what a killfile is, so here, for comedic effect... or for the ignorant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_file

Edited August 31, 2014 by Not An FSB Agent

[downzy]

He was taken to jail for being a dumb ass. Had he shut his mouth, and went about his business, nothing would've happened, but instead he had to prove that he was not in the wrong. Guess what? He was in the wrong. He was in a location he wasn't supposed to be, and he wasn't smart enough to realize that the cop didn't give a shit about his excuse.

EDIT: Then, the dumb ass resisted arrest when to told to put his hands behind his back.

Um, so a public park is the wrong place for him to wait to pick up his kid? And asking why the police are requiring his identification is an unlawful challenge of authority?

How does anyone look at that situation and blame the black guy and defend the cops? Remember, the police are suppose to serve the public, not arbitrarily make up laws and enforce the racist insecurities of others, which is exactly what happened here.

Again, he was in a restricted area. And since technically he was trespassing, yes the cop could require ID.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/demanding-identification-people-street.html

You can demand your rights all that you want to a cop, and unless you present a copy of your membership to your states bar association, you will probably be arrested. COPS WILL ARREST YOU IF YOU PISS THEM OFF. It will probably be dismissed in court, but the cop doesn't give two shits.

It is obvious none of you have much experience dealing with cops or the courts. Personally, I try to avoid cops. BECAUSE MOST OF THEM ARE ASSHOLES!

I am not defending the cops, I am pointing out why the guy was arrested. We don't live in some utopian society where everything is peachy keen. And the police are not there to "serve the public", they are there to uphold the laws and arrest people that break those laws. Guess what? They are not there to protect you, either.

"Minnesota does not currently have a 'stop and identify' statute in place that would give police the right to arrest someone for not identifying himself."

It's nice that you seem like such a staunch advocate of a police state. Sure, we don't live in a utopia, but that does not justify actions indicated in the video.

Moreover, the case you site does not speak to what happened here. Warren v. District of Columbia addresses on whether the police have a specific duty to provide protection or services - on whether they can be held accountable for negligence. That has no bearing here. Rather than the negative (or lack of) presence of police involvement, here we have two officers enforcing laws that do not exist, whereby they are acting beyond their duty and responsibilities. The motto of the Minneapolis Police Department is: "To Protect with Courage, To Serve with Compassion." Does that, in any way, square up with what we saw here.

So you think, let's say if the guy was an older white man, he was treated the same?

No judgement, just wondering...

No, white people are never hassled/mistreated by cops in the US.

All white American cops are evil racists, haven't you been reading this thread?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8fh4VmeuTw

Police screw up all the time but when the victim is black (as shown a page back from the guy waiting to pick up his kid) all of the sudden it's a race issue.

With the exception that it happens, on a proportional basis, to a lot more black people than white people. That's the difference.

[magisme]

God damn it, downzy.

[downzy]

FACT:

Not one case of a white sexual assault on a black female was found in the FBI study."

Funny, someone should have reminded this guy that white people no longer rape black people. I mean, that's exactly what the "FBI stats" say:

http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2014/08/okc_cop_ex-emu_football_star_d.html

[downzy]

FACT:

Not one case of a white sexual assault on a black female was found in the FBI study."

Funny, someone should have reminded this guy that white people no longer rape black people. I mean, that's exactly what the "FBI stats" say:

http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2014/08/okc_cop_ex-emu_football_star_d.html

No longer? What does that even mean? If you're referring to the FBI statistics mentioned earlier in this thread, that was for 2007 as you know ... so no, it wouldn't include someone who was charged with rape just a few days ago.

Funny how you vehemently argued Brown's innocence from Day One, but have already concluded that this guy is guilty of rape.

I was being facetious, in that anyone who takes seriously any stay that suggest black women were not victims of sexual assault/rape by white men for any year deserves a certain level of ridicule.

If you can find me eye witness reports and questionable findings in the state's case that grossly undermine's this officer's guilt, then have at it. I'm sure all eight of the black women involved are just making shit up.

[Not An FSB Agent]

He was taken to jail for being a dumb ass. Had he shut his mouth, and went about his business, nothing would've happened, but instead he had to prove that he was not in the wrong. Guess what? He was in the wrong. He was in a location he wasn't supposed to be, and he wasn't smart enough to realize that the cop didn't give a shit about his excuse.

EDIT: Then, the dumb ass resisted arrest when to told to put his hands behind his back.

Um, so a public park is the wrong place for him to wait to pick up his kid? And asking why the police are requiring his identification is an unlawful challenge of authority?

How does anyone look at that situation and blame the black guy and defend the cops? Remember, the police are suppose to serve the public, not arbitrarily make up laws and enforce the racist insecurities of others, which is exactly what happened here.

Again, he was in a restricted area. And since technically he was trespassing, yes the cop could require ID.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/demanding-identification-people-street.html

You can demand your rights all that you want to a cop, and unless you present a copy of your membership to your states bar association, you will probably be arrested. COPS WILL ARREST YOU IF YOU PISS THEM OFF. It will probably be dismissed in court, but the cop doesn't give two shits.

It is obvious none of you have much experience dealing with cops or the courts. Personally, I try to avoid cops. BECAUSE MOST OF THEM ARE ASSHOLES!

I am not defending the cops, I am pointing out why the guy was arrested. We don't live in some utopian society where everything is peachy keen. And the police are not there to "serve the public", they are there to uphold the laws and arrest people that break those laws. Guess what? They are not there to protect you, either.

"Minnesota does not currently have a 'stop and identify' statute in place that would give police the right to arrest someone for not identifying himself."

It's nice that you seem like such a staunch advocate of a police state.

Yes. Did you even glance at the link that I provided? The very first sentence: Many states have “stop and identify” laws.. Then by implication, not all states have those laws. Congratulations! You found one that doesn't.

Question: Did you learn any logic at that top 20 school you attended? I have to assume not since you continue with the straw man fallacy bullshit. It is easy as hell to defeat an argument when you make up shit and then attack that made up shit.

Where have I implied that I like a "staunch police state"? Why would you infer that when I have repeatedly referred to cops as "assholes", and given instruction on how to foil their attempts at incrimination? Just like to make shit up, I guess.

... but that does not justify actions indicated in the video.

I specifically wrote that it was wrong! Why are you trying to misrepresent what I have written? I explained why the idiot was arrested! Nothing in what I wrote justified the actions of the cops. Do you have a reading comprehension problem, too?

Moreover, the case you site does not speak to what happened here. Warren v. District of Columbia addresses on whether the police have a specific duty to provide protection or services - on whether they can be held accountable for negligence. That has no bearing here. Rather than the negative (or lack of) presence of police involvement, here we have two officers enforcing laws that do not exist, whereby they are acting beyond their duty and responsibilities. The motto of the Minneapolis Police Department is: "To Protect with Courage, To Serve with Compassion." Does that, in any way, square up with what we saw here.

No shit Sherlock! Look at the context in which it was supplied... to illuminate that cops are not your buddy. The Minneapolis Police can have chose any motto that they want, but that doesn't change the paradigm of cynicism that is inherent in all police forces.

Stop trying to misrepresent what I have written.

[downzy]

With the exception that it happens, on a proportional basis, to a lot more black people than white people. That's the difference.

Proportional to what? Crimes committed, or just population? Throw me some links here.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/police-stops-in-ferguson-what-are-the-numbers/article_012cf751-9cec-5733-8025-09e03abb9d86.html

Ferguson police are much more likely to stop, search and arrest African-American drivers than white ones. Last year, blacks, who make up a little less than two-thirds of the driving-age population in the North County city, accounted for 86 percent of all stops. When stopped, they were almost twice as likely to be searched as whites and twice as likely to be arrested, though police were less likely to find contraband on them.

Pronounced as those statistics may seem, they don’t necessarily make Ferguson an outlier.

The figures are provided by the state’s attorney general’s office, which collects the data from police agencies and creates a disparity index comparing the racial breakdown of drivers stopped to the racial breakdown of the driving age population in the police jurisdiction where they were stopped. An index of one means there is no disparity for a particular race. The index for blacks in Ferguson is 1.37.

Statewide, the disparity index for blacks — 1.59 — is higher than in Ferguson. The same is true for many other local police jurisdictions.

On the other hand, the disparity index for whites, at 0.38, is one of the lowest in the state. The statewide index is 0.96

[downzy]

He was taken to jail for being a dumb ass. Had he shut his mouth, and went about his business, nothing would've happened, but instead he had to prove that he was not in the wrong. Guess what? He was in the wrong. He was in a location he wasn't supposed to be, and he wasn't smart enough to realize that the cop didn't give a shit about his excuse.

EDIT: Then, the dumb ass resisted arrest when to told to put his hands behind his back.

Um, so a public park is the wrong place for him to wait to pick up his kid? And asking why the police are requiring his identification is an unlawful challenge of authority?

How does anyone look at that situation and blame the black guy and defend the cops? Remember, the police are suppose to serve the public, not arbitrarily make up laws and enforce the racist insecurities of others, which is exactly what happened here.

Again, he was in a restricted area. And since technically he was trespassing, yes the cop could require ID.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/demanding-identification-people-street.html

You can demand your rights all that you want to a cop, and unless you present a copy of your membership to your states bar association, you will probably be arrested. COPS WILL ARREST YOU IF YOU PISS THEM OFF. It will probably be dismissed in court, but the cop doesn't give two shits.

It is obvious none of you have much experience dealing with cops or the courts. Personally, I try to avoid cops. BECAUSE MOST OF THEM ARE ASSHOLES!

I am not defending the cops, I am pointing out why the guy was arrested. We don't live in some utopian society where everything is peachy keen. And the police are not there to "serve the public", they are there to uphold the laws and arrest people that break those laws. Guess what? They are not there to protect you, either.

"Minnesota does not currently have a 'stop and identify' statute in place that would give police the right to arrest someone for not identifying himself."

It's nice that you seem like such a staunch advocate of a police state.

Yes. Did you even glance at the link that I provided? The very first sentence: Many states have “stop and identify” laws.. Then by implication, not all states have those laws. Congratulations! You found one that doesn't.

Where have I implied that I like a "staunch police state"? Why would you infer that when I have repeatedly referred to cops as "assholes", and given instruction on how to foil their attempts at incrimination? Just like to make shit up, I guess.

... but that does not justify actions indicated in the video.

I specifically wrote that it was wrong! Why are you trying to misrepresent what I have written? I explained why the idiot was arrested! Nothing in what I wrote justified the actions of the cops. Do you have a reading comprehension problem, too?

Moreover, the case you site does not speak to what happened here. Warren v. District of Columbia addresses on whether the police have a specific duty to provide protection or services - on whether they can be held accountable for negligence. That has no bearing here. Rather than the negative (or lack of) presence of police involvement, here we have two officers enforcing laws that do not exist, whereby they are acting beyond their duty and responsibilities. The motto of the Minneapolis Police Department is: "To Protect with Courage, To Serve with Compassion." Does that, in any way, square up with what we saw here.

No shit Sherlock! Look at the context in which it was supplied... to illuminate that cops are not your buddy. The Minneapolis Police can have chose any motto that they want, but that doesn't change the paradigm of cynicism that is inherent in all police forces.

Stop trying to misrepresent what I have written.

Well, we're talking about this particular situation. So the argument that the police were within their right to ask for identification in this particular case is bullshit. You're the one making straw man arguments.

This man was not an idiot for sticking up for himself. Again, in the state of Minnesota, the police did not have the authority to do what they did. This man challenging their conduct was completely reasonable. To suggest he should have just shut his mouth is asinine and akin to endorsing a police state.

The point of all of this, and to tie it to the themes of this thread, is that police are even less your friend if you happen to be black or brown. That assertion is backed up by stats (see the ones I posted above). There is a racial bias within many police forces nationwide. That's the entire argument.

[downzy]

FACT:

Not one case of a white sexual assault on a black female was found in the FBI study."

Funny, someone should have reminded this guy that white people no longer rape black people. I mean, that's exactly what the "FBI stats" say:

http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2014/08/okc_cop_ex-emu_football_star_d.html

No longer? What does that even mean? If you're referring to the FBI statistics mentioned earlier in this thread, that was for 2007 as you know ... so no, it wouldn't include someone who was charged with rape just a few days ago.

Funny how you vehemently argued Brown's innocence from Day One, but have already concluded that this guy is guilty of rape.

I was being facetious, in that anyone who takes seriously any stay that suggest black women were not victims of sexual assault/rape by white men for any year deserves a certain level of ridicule.

If you can find me eye witness reports and questionable findings in the state's case that grossly undermine's this officer's guilt, then have at it. I'm sure all eight of the black women involved are just making shit up.

Why was this thread even steered to other cases that have nothing to do with cops murdering unarmed civilians? It shouldn't have been, as this thread is supposed to be about Brown. But of course any opportunity to portray America as being filled with white racists, off topic we go ... right?

With the exception that it happens, on a proportional basis, to a lot more black people than white people. That's the difference.

Proportional to what? Crimes committed, or just population? Throw me some links here.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/police-stops-in-ferguson-what-are-the-numbers/article_012cf751-9cec-5733-8025-09e03abb9d86.html

Ferguson police are much more likely to stop, search and arrest African-American drivers than white ones.

African Americans are more likely to be stopped in Ferguson, a predominantly African-American city? Wow ... that's some really eye-opening information you've provided there!

You're a piece of work. You're the person who introduced the stats on white on black rape into this thread/discussion and now you have an issue with their relevancy? Fucking rich.

As for your request for stats, I did exactly what you asked. And now you belittle them, as though didn't even bother to read them. It clearly states that African Americans are not only pulled over at a greater rate than their population warrants, but that their cars are searched at a greater rate. Ferguson is less than two-thirds African American and yet they represent 86 percent of all stops. It's not proportional, exactly my initial argument that you asked for links on.

[Not An FSB Agent]

You're the one making straw man arguments.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man