Policing Thread

[Dan H.]

Darren Wilson was fired from his first job as a police officer along with 44 other cops on suspicions of corruption, racism, and excessive violence.

A St. Louis Sheriff went on Twitter and said about the protestors: "Where's a Muslim with a backpack when you need one?"

At least two cops have been filmed brandishing automatic weapons at journalist and threatening to murder them

A black woman was shot in the head in Ferguson during the protests, and the police confiscated the bullet from the hospital ( while she was in a coma) then conveniently lost the bullet and haven't returned her calls about making a police report/statement.

This whole situation is so fucked up.

[AdriftatSea]

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.

No, it is not how it works. Well, it is not how it is SUPPOSED to work. If you ask an attorney, he will gladly sue the pants off of that policeman, the police-force and the city if this ever happens to you. Police are to serve and protect. This wasn't serving and protecting. Those policeman were not interested in the welfare of his children. The knew the children would arrive any moment. Children should come first.

Expecting him to keep his mouth shut and not explain himself is not the answer. Why should he get arrested, incur legal expenses then work it out in court? Are we not innocent until proven guilty? That's saying he's guilty, then having to go to court to prove his innocence.

What you speak of about incriminating yourself by speaking to a police officer doesn't apply in this situation. That applies in criminal matters. The guy was waiting to pick up his children.

You've even back-tracked on your debate here calling the cops 'ignorant' when you first said the guy was at fault. You go on to state most cops in the US are rednecks and they only hire people with low I.Q.'s? What?? So you just contradicted yourself. Was the man wrong or were the police wrong? You can't have it both ways. If you settle for both ways, where does that leave us as a country?

And please, don't give me all this wordy legalese you are throwing around and proclaiming you know our Jurisprudence System. I was married to a lawyer and I don't want to have to sift through all that crap. You didn't go to law school. I know the real deal. Just speak your mind. That I can respect.

[Dan H.]

#notallcops

[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.

No, it is not how it works. Well, it is not how it is SUPPOSED to work. If you ask an attorney, he will gladly sue the pants off of that policeman, the police-force and the city if this ever happens to you.

Any competent attorney, hell even the that aren't competent, will tell you to keep your mouth shut.

http://www.freeadvice.com/resources/articles/arrest_donts_dinday.htm

http://www.wecansue.com/Practice-Areas/Dos-Donts-When-You-Get-Arrested.shtml

http://michaelbluejay.com/misc/arrest.html

http://www.themcshanefirm.com/pa-criminal-lawyer/top-10-things-not-to-do-if-you-are-arrested/

http://criminal.lawyers.com/criminal-law-basics/what-to-do-after-youre-arrested.html

This ain't rocket science, it is basic criminal law.

Police are to serve and protect.

No they are not. They are there to uphold the laws of their jurisdiction, and arrest those that break those laws. You people watch too much tv.

This wasn't serving and protecting. Those policeman were not interested in the welfare of his children. The knew the children would arrive any moment. Children should come first.

Yes, they should, but that is irrelevant of the facts. The facts are that the guy was told he was in a restricted place, and to leave. he then proceeded to to keep explaining his situation to the cop after the cop made it obvious he didn't want to hear it.

I wonder how many of you have ever dealt with police? I suspect few of the ones contributing to this thread, because you are ignorant as fuck about the process. You think that your rights will protect you against some cop. They fucking won't... at least not until you get to argue the merits before a judge! Most cops don't give two shits about your rights! And most of the time they will suffer no consequences for violating them.

You think that you are going to sue the shit out of the cops? Google "sovereign immunity" and realize the truth behind that.

continued...

[Not An FSB Agent]

... continued from above

...Expecting him to keep his mouth shut and not explain himself is not the answer.

Perhaps, it shouldn't be, but it is. That is how it works.

Why should he get arrested, incur legal expenses then work it out in court? Are we not innocent until proven guilty? That's saying he's guilty, then having to go to court to prove his innocence.

I tell you what, tell that to the next cop that is asking to see your ID, and see it far it will get you.

What you speak of about incriminating yourself by speaking to a police officer doesn't apply in this situation. That applies in criminal matters. The guy was waiting to pick up his children.

It applies in every situation. He was technically trespassing. The cop told him to move on. Had he moved on and kept his mouth shut, he wouldn't been arrested.

Yeah, the charges were dropped; the system worked in the end, but he still had a fucked up day... because *his rights*... *he knew his rights*. He sure did, but what he didn't seem to understand was that the cops didn't give a fuck.

You've even back-tracked on your debate here calling the cops 'ignorant' when you first said the guy was at fault.

I haven't back tracked on shit! I didn't say the guy was at fault, I said he was a dumb ass, and that is why he was arrested.

You go on to state most cops in the US are rednecks and they only hire people with low I.Q.'s? What?? So you just contradicted yourself.

I provided the links to back up what I wrote. Where is the contradiction. Specifically, where did I contradict myself? I didn't! Go back and re-read what I have written.

Was the man wrong or were the police wrong?

I have already answered that in this thread. The police can be wrong, and the guy can be a dumb ass for getting locked up.

You can't have it both ways. If you settle for both ways, where does that leave us as a country?

Again, what is the basis for that claim? Specifically, what did I write for you to infer that I want to "have it both ways"?

And please, don't give me all this wordy legalese you are throwing around and proclaiming you know our Jurisprudence System. I was married to a lawyer and I don't want to have to sift through all that crap. You didn't go to law school. I know the real deal. Just speak your mind. That I can respect.

Wordy legalese??? That says more about you, than me that you would think that I write like that. You know nothing of my educational background, or my participation in legal proceedings. That you were married to a lawyer doesn't really mean a damn thing, other than you were married to a lawyer.

I was married to a nurse, but I don't know shit about medicine.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Not An FSB Agent

[AdriftatSea]

... continued from above

...Expecting him to keep his mouth shut and not explain himself is not the answer.

Perhaps, it shouldn't be, but it is. That is how it works.

Why should he get arrested, incur legal expenses then work it out in court? Are we not innocent until proven guilty? That's saying he's guilty, then having to go to court to prove his innocence.

I tell you what, tell that to the next cop that is asking to see your ID, and see it far it will get you.

What you speak of about incriminating yourself by speaking to a police officer doesn't apply in this situation. That applies in criminal matters. The guy was waiting to pick up his children.

It applies in every situation. He was technically trespassing. The cop told him to move on. Had he moved on and kept his mouth shut, he wouldn't been arrested.

Yeah, the charges were dropped; the system worked in the end, but he still had a fucked up day... because *his rights*... *he knew his rights*. He sure did, but what he didn't seem to understand was that the cops didn't give a fuck.

You've even back-tracked on your debate here calling the cops 'ignorant' when you first said the guy was at fault.

I haven't back tracked on shit! I didn't say the guy was at fault, I said he was a dumb ass, and that is why he was arrested.

You go on to state most cops in the US are rednecks and they only hire people with low I.Q.'s? What?? So you just contradicted yourself.

I provided the links to back up what I wrote. Where is the contradiction. Specifically, where did I contradict myself? I didn't! Go back and re-read what I have written.

Was the man wrong or were the police wrong?

I have already answered that in this thread. The police can be wrong, and the guy can be a dumb ass for getting locked up.

You can't have it both ways. If you settle for both ways, where does that leave us as a country?

Again, what is the basis for that claim? Specifically, what did I write for you to infer that I want to "have it both ways"?

And please, don't give me all this wordy legalese you are throwing around and proclaiming you know our Jurisprudence System. I was married to a lawyer and I don't want to have to sift through all that crap. You didn't go to law school. I know the real deal. Just speak your mind. That I can respect.

Wordy legalese??? That says more about you, than me that you would think that I write like that. You know nothing of my educational background, or my participation in legal proceedings. That you were married to a lawyer doesn't really mean a damn thing, other than you were married to a lawyer.

I was married to a nurse, but I don't know shit about medicine.

Cool your jets. Why are you so upset when you are all over this place insulting people? And, that is a whole lot to read. I really wish you could just formulate an answer without writing in between everyone's comments like that. It's not very reader friendly. If you would form a complete paragraph and line of thought all at once you wouldn't come across as so insufferable I'm sure. I'm not going to carry this on in a test like 'question/answer' format you are pushing for. Convincing you is not going to happen.

You've proven my point with your own literature.

I did click on your many links. Free advice my mother would give. Your second link proves exactly what I said - and you provided this supporting information to me. Thanks. I'll list it again for you and copy / paste the quote just in case you missed it.

http://www.wecansue.com/Practice-Areas/Dos-Donts-When-You-Get-Arrested.shtml

3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence:

DO, if you are arrested in your car, show the police officer your driver's license and registration information. In other situations, such as when you are stopped while walking down the street, you cannot be arrested for the sole reason of refusing to provide information, including your name and address, to the police.

Go have a drink on me. Calm down. If you were married to a nurse, hopefully you can find a valium loose in the couch cushions or something.

[Ace Nova]

I wonder how many of you have ever dealt with police? I suspect few of the ones contributing to this thread, because you are ignorant as fuck about the process. You think that your rights will protect you against some cop. They fucking won't... at least not until you get to argue the merits before a judge! Most cops don't give two shits about your rights! And most of the time they will suffer no consequences for violating them.

You think that you are going to sue the shit out of the cops? Google "sovereign immunity" and realize the truth behind that.

This can be accurate at times (from personal experience).

Unfortunately, reality can be different than the Constitution or television, for that matter.

In all fairness, to all sides, not all poilce are like this. There are police that actually have character, decency and follow the law....as it was written in the Constitution.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Kasanova King

[Not An FSB Agent]

... continued from above

...Expecting him to keep his mouth shut and not explain himself is not the answer.

Perhaps, it shouldn't be, but it is. That is how it works.

Why should he get arrested, incur legal expenses then work it out in court? Are we not innocent until proven guilty? That's saying he's guilty, then having to go to court to prove his innocence.

I tell you what, tell that to the next cop that is asking to see your ID, and see it far it will get you.

What you speak of about incriminating yourself by speaking to a police officer doesn't apply in this situation. That applies in criminal matters. The guy was waiting to pick up his children.

It applies in every situation. He was technically trespassing. The cop told him to move on. Had he moved on and kept his mouth shut, he wouldn't been arrested.

Yeah, the charges were dropped; the system worked in the end, but he still had a fucked up day... because *his rights*... *he knew his rights*. He sure did, but what he didn't seem to understand was that the cops didn't give a fuck.

You've even back-tracked on your debate here calling the cops 'ignorant' when you first said the guy was at fault.

I haven't back tracked on shit! I didn't say the guy was at fault, I said he was a dumb ass, and that is why he was arrested.

You go on to state most cops in the US are rednecks and they only hire people with low I.Q.'s? What?? So you just contradicted yourself.

I provided the links to back up what I wrote. Where is the contradiction. Specifically, where did I contradict myself? I didn't! Go back and re-read what I have written.

Was the man wrong or were the police wrong?

I have already answered that in this thread. The police can be wrong, and the guy can be a dumb ass for getting locked up.

You can't have it both ways. If you settle for both ways, where does that leave us as a country?

Again, what is the basis for that claim? Specifically, what did I write for you to infer that I want to "have it both ways"?

And please, don't give me all this wordy legalese you are throwing around and proclaiming you know our Jurisprudence System. I was married to a lawyer and I don't want to have to sift through all that crap. You didn't go to law school. I know the real deal. Just speak your mind. That I can respect.

Wordy legalese??? That says more about you, than me that you would think that I write like that. You know nothing of my educational background, or my participation in legal proceedings. That you were married to a lawyer doesn't really mean a damn thing, other than you were married to a lawyer.

I was married to a nurse, but I don't know shit about medicine.

Cool your jets. Why are you so upset when you are all over this place insulting people? And, that is a whole lot to read. I really wish you could just formulate an answer without writing in between everyone's comments like that. It's not very reader friendly. If you would form a complete paragraph and line of thought all at once you wouldn't come across as so insufferable I'm sure. I'm not going to carry this on in a test like 'question/answer' format you are pushing for. Convincing you is not going to happen.

You've proven my point with your own literature.

I did click on your many links. Free advice my mother would give. Your second link proves exactly what I said - and you provided this supporting information to me. Thanks. I'll list it again for you and copy / paste the quote just in case you missed it.

http://www.wecansue.com/Practice-Areas/Dos-Donts-When-You-Get-Arrested.shtml

3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence:

DO, if you are arrested in your car, show the police officer your driver's license and registration information. In other situations, such as when you are stopped while walking down the street, you cannot be arrested for the sole reason of refusing to provide information, including your name and address, to the police.

Go have a drink on me. Calm down. If you were married to a nurse, hopefully you can find a valium loose in the couch cushions or something.

Be specific! That is the same thing you did in your last post. You make claims about me, but don't provide the quote to back up those claims... that is disengenuine. Now, you are saying that I am "all over this place insulting people". Where, specifically did I insult someone, much less "all over the place" doing it? What is the exact quote?

I am not upset. I just don't like people misrepresenting my position. That is why I responded to everything that you wrote that I thought was in error.

If you read the link above that you quoted, you will notice that my entire thesis- don't incriminate yourself- is there, too.

DON'T offer information to the police, no matter what tactics they use.

DON'T get into an argument with the police, no matter how hard they may try to bait you into losing your temper.

DON'T speak to the police about anything before you attorney arrives and talks to you first.

DON'T provide the police with any information other than your name and address if you are arrested unless your attorney is present and approves.

DON'T sign anything, no matter what it is, without an attorney being present.

DON'T say anything if your attorney instructs that you remain silent. Let your attorney do the talking for you, no matter how hard it may be to resist the urge to speak.

re: the valium, or whatever it was... I don't use drugs, but thanks for the concern.

[Not An FSB Agent]

I wonder how many of you have ever dealt with police? I suspect few of the ones contributing to this thread, because you are ignorant as fuck about the process. You think that your rights will protect you against some cop. They fucking won't... at least not until you get to argue the merits before a judge! Most cops don't give two shits about your rights! And most of the time they will suffer no consequences for violating them.

You think that you are going to sue the shit out of the cops? Google "sovereign immunity" and realize the truth behind that.

This can be accurate at times (from personal experience).

Unfortunately, reality can be different than the Constitution or television, for that matter.

In all fairness, to all sides, not all poilce are like this. There are police that actually have character, decency and follow the law....as it was written in the Constitution.

All this idealistic nonsense aside, here is the truth about suing police agencies:

The United States as a sovereign is immune from suit unless it unequivocally consents to being sued. The United States Supreme Court in Price v. United States observed: "It is an axiom of our jurisprudence. The government is not liable to suit unless it consents thereto, and its liability in suit cannot be extended beyond the plain language of the statute authorizing it."

and

The US Supreme Court re-affirms that states possess sovereign immunity and are therefore generally immune from being sued in federal court without their consent. In later cases, the Supreme Court has strengthened state sovereign immunity considerably.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#United_States

[AdriftatSea]

FSB - I can't keep quoting your comments. It's too much of a big mess.

Thank you for not intertwining your comments within mine. This makes it much easier to respond to your comments however it still isn't easy to reply to you. I agree one should not incriminate oneself. Anyone would agree to this. If that's your point. You got me. Why did that take you pages to explain? I know this. Everyone knows this.

The guy being hauled away by the cops knew this. All those 'Don't's' you post are great. But so what? You are spinning your wheels here. I hear you now clicking away on your keyboard getting ready to hammer me on that one. This isn't the topic. Again, I refer you to the post above from your second link. I'm not going to post it again. But anyone should be able to walk down the street minding their own business without fear of being arrested. This isn't a police state. He was told to be on his way and he was.

I wrote you were 'all over the place insulting people' because you are 'all over the place' in that when you reply to people in the manner that you do, replying one sentence at a time you take up pages of thread. I've skimmed over some of them. They are excruciatingly difficult to read. Some of your comments to others are insulting when you actually think you are getting your point across, you're patronizing. I like the asshole's on here. They know they aren't trying to teach a class to anyone though. You think you are. Big difference. Forgive me for not going back for quotes. Too much work. You are welcome to prove me wrong.

I do agree with your stand on gun control. I think. I couldn't read all of it, too long. Please stop quoting the internet. Each time you do, your words lose value. Why don't we agree to stop talking about this with each other? I don't think we are discussing the same thing. You can have the last word if you like.

[Not An FSB Agent]

FSB - I can't keep quoting your comments. It's too much of a big mess.

Thank you for not intertwining your comments within mine. This makes it much easier to respond to your comments however it still isn't easy to reply to you. I agree one should not incriminate oneself. Anyone would agree to this. If that's your point. You got me. Why did that take you pages to explain? I know this. Everyone knows this.

The guy being hauled away by the cops knew this. All those 'Don't's' you post are great. But so what? You are spinning your wheels here. I hear you now clicking away on your keyboard getting ready to hammer me on that one. This isn't the topic. Again, I refer you to the post above from your second link. I'm not going to post it again. But anyone should be able to walk down the street minding their own business without fear of being arrested. This isn't a police state. He was told to be on his way and he was.

I wrote you were 'all over the place insulting people' because you are 'all over the place' in that when you reply to people in the manner that you do, replying one sentence at a time you take up pages of thread. I've skimmed over some of them. They are excruciatingly difficult to read. Some of your comments to others are insulting when you actually think you are getting your point across, you're patronizing. I like the asshole's on here. They know they aren't trying to teach a class to anyone though. You think you are. Big difference. Forgive me for not going back for quotes. Too much work. You are welcome to prove me wrong.

I do agree with your stand on gun control. I think. I couldn't read all of it, too long. Please stop quoting the internet. Each time you do, your words lose value. Why don't we agree to stop talking about this with each other? I don't think we are discussing the same thing. You can have the last word if you like.

Too much of a mess? Really??? Responding to specific allegations, or assertions, is known as a "point by point refutation". It shouldn't be hard to follow as it is usually just reading a single sentence. You call me patronizing, perhaps, at times. I don't like people misrepresenting what I have written, and I don't tolerate fools, well.

Twice, I have ask you to clarify, specifically, where you think that I " back-tracked" or where i was "over this place insulting people", and you reply with some insipid circular crap about being all over the place, and "too much work" to pull the quotes. I don't know what is worse, the dishonesty in that statement, or your feigned laziness? You can't pull it because there were no insults and I didn't back track.

I have tried to be generous in my responses to you, but you continue with passive-aggressive style of vague nothings in your reply. So, as such, unless you can produce specific examples for you claims, I am through with this discussion as fruitful dialogue appears to be nonexistent.

[downzy]

I wonder how many of you have ever dealt with police? I suspect few of the ones contributing to this thread, because you are ignorant as fuck about the process. You think that your rights will protect you against some cop. They fucking won't... at least not until you get to argue the merits before a judge! Most cops don't give two shits about your rights! And most of the time they will suffer no consequences for violating them.

You think that you are going to sue the shit out of the cops? Google "sovereign immunity" and realize the truth behind that.

This can be accurate at times (from personal experience).

Unfortunately, reality can be different than the Constitution or television, for that matter.

In all fairness, to all sides, not all poilce are like this. There are police that actually have character, decency and follow the law....as it was written in the Constitution.

All this idealistic nonsense aside, here is the truth about suing police agencies:

The United States as a sovereign is immune from suit unless it unequivocally consents to being sued. The United States Supreme Court in Price v. United States observed: "It is an axiom of our jurisprudence. The government is not liable to suit unless it consents thereto, and its liability in suit cannot be extended beyond the plain language of the statute authorizing it."

and

The US Supreme Court re-affirms that states possess sovereign immunity and are therefore generally immune from being sued in federal court without their consent. In later cases, the Supreme Court has strengthened state sovereign immunity considerably.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#United_States

No.

Your comprehension of what state immunity is and how it operates within the United States is off by a country mile.

A citizen can absolutely bring litigation against a police force. The purpose of the Eleventh Amendment, where all of this comes from, speaks to the notion of whether a citizen can sue a state in federal courts. It stems from the 1793 case of Chisholm v. Georgia. It has nothing to do with whether a citizen of the United States can't bring litigation against a police force for misconduct. Also intended as to protect the state and lawmakers against litigation from those damaged as a result of legislation. In other words, if I was an asbestos manufacturer and the U.S. federal government or the state government enacted a law on banning asbestos, state immunity prevents me from suing for damages against the state or those who enacted the law. It has nothing to do with people seeking retribution for having their civil rights violated by state actors.

If what you suggest were to be true, we would not see a multitude of cases brought and won against police forces around the country (see here, here, and most recently, and related to this thread, here).

Moreover, there are exceptions to the Eleventh Amendment. Specifically, litigation can be brought against a state's subdivision - like a county, city, or municipality - within federal court.

Edited September 2, 2014 by downzy

[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

Umm ... you neglected to include a few parts of the article in your quotes. Did you think I wasn't going to read the entire article?

"Rosenfeld said he was puzzled about why the stop rate for whites was so low in Ferguson. He said one possible factor is that the black population in the area, as a whole, is younger than the white population. Older people are less likely to be stopped, he said, and are less likely to be on the roads in general."

"Rosenfeld also noted that the attorney general’s data has some limitations, specifically that it doesn’t account for whether drivers live in the jurisdiction where they’re stopped. This means that an index could be skewed in an area with interstate highways, busy roads or shopping centers. Additionally, an officer may not know the race of a driver when making the decision to stop someone."

Like I've said many times before, some numbers can easily be skewed and manipulated.

Ya know as much as I respect those such as yourself who spend a lot of time studying textbooks, NOTHING is as valuable as real life personal experiences. You can study a subject 24/7 for years, but you'll never quite grasp reality without actually experiencing it. And in the real world, away from textbooks, the law will always scrutinize people differently based on a number of factors.

Example 1: I know somebody in Ontario, a younger fellow, who owns a very rare and expense car. Even though he is white, he has been stopped multiple times by the OPP ... not for breaking any laws, but because the officers wanted to find out how someone like him can afford a car like that. So they asked him "What do you do for a living? Where do you work? Did you buy this car with drug money?" and other outrageous questions. Again, a WHITE person being pulled over for no other reason than the officer was suspicious of a young man driving an expensive car.

Example 2: One time I was driving through New Jersey late at night and got lost trying to find my hotel. I wound up driving through a high crime area. No exaggeration, I was stopped TWICE within a half hour and questioned ... not because I broke any laws, but because the officers just assumed that all white guys driving through drug-infested areas late at night are looking to make a score. Did it piss me off when I was stopped the second time? Yeah, it did ... but I had enough common sense to understand why the cops did what they did.

Example 3: As you know I cross the Canadian border several times a year. When I'm traveling with my girlfriend or mother, I never have any issues at the border ... just answer a few questions and off I go, both coming and going. BUT whenever I cross the border by myself, 4 out of 5 times I get at least my trunk searched and 2 out of 4 times I'm forced to park and leave the car while they do a complete search of the interior and exterior. One time last year when I was driving alone I was forced to do the park-and-search both times, coming and going. I was really pissed, and threw a shit fit in the waiting area as the car was being searched. And guess what, the only other travelers in the waiting area were men driving alone just like me. Coincidence? Hell no, the border agents absolutely are more likely to hassle men driving alone than they would women or than men driving with their girlfriend or elderly mother. But no matter how irritating each half-hour delay was, I knew they wouldn't be targeting men driving alone unless there was a higher probability of them being involved in illegal activity based on border crossing statistics.

Again, three real-life examples that you won't read in any textbooks ... but it's clear evidence that minorities aren't the only ones who get unfairly hassled, in both Canada and the US. I'm sure you'll just ignore these facts as you always do, but hey at least I can say I tried to show you where I'm coming from without using more links and copied articles etc.

Well, funny how you take issue with me being selective regarding what gets copied and pasted and then you go about and do the same:

Rosenfeld said the rate at which drivers are searched is a more useful metric. While the data doesn’t prove the existence of racial profiling, the fact that Ferguson police were more likely to search a vehicle when the driver was black yet less likely to find contraband than when the driver was white could be more indicative of a problem, he said.

But this was just one case, relating to Ferguson. The fact that more black people get pulled over relative to their population, despite the fact that whites are more likely to actually break the law, is all you need to prove racial bias. Great, you found where the social scientist qualified his findings; it still doesn't disqualify the basic lesson found within, that black individuals disproportionately get pulled over within Ferguson despite being less likely to carry contraband. If you can't at least acknowledge the very obvious racial bias within that finding (and the many that corroborate it), well, you're just not someone who has any interest in having a genuine conversation.

Again, this was just one location. Similar findings can be duplicated all over the country. Do police operate on patterns and bias in other areas? Sure. Nobody would dispute that. Do less attractive men get more speeding tickets than bimbo blonds? I have no doubt that they do. But none of that matters. Because the only interpretation that I can gather from your post is that minorities shouldn't be so upset about being discriminated against because you, as a man, or your friend, as a young person who drives a really nice car, also get discriminated against. Do you understand how insane that position is? You also understand that you, as a white male, also get a ton of privileges. Tell me, other than the common racial stereotypes, what advantages do black men get to even out all the shit that they take from the cops?

[Bumblefeet]

WTF?! He asked him to get his license and then he shoots him for trying to get it? For a seatbelt violation?

[bran]

WTF?! He asked him to get his license and then he shoots him for trying to get it? For a seatbelt violation?

shit like this makes my blood boil.

[magisme]

He was coming right at him!

inb4 some dumbass tries to justify it

[AxlisOld]

God I hate cops.

[downzy]

He was coming right at him!

inb4 some dumbass tries to justify it

Sorry, Subs making me a mod probably drove away the one guy who would. It's a shame too, because it would have been a fun read.

[Satanisk_Slakt]

I made this post on another forum and it is my opinions on the matter:

"In fact, we as society grant cops a certain amount of authority to make those calls because we acknowledge that their job is difficult and dangerous and unfortunately very few people respect that authority."

It should of course be investigated what happened, but it's a shame that people don't respect the police officers and take for granted that they were the ones to blame, when we know for a fact that they have one of the most dangerous jobs in society and if they make the wrong calls or react too slow they might end up dead. I'm sorry, but I'd rather see a thug die than a police officer.

We must acknowledge the risks and dangers they're put in constantly. Say this thug attacked them, how are they supposed to react when they live in a country where police murder happens all the time and lots of the ghetto thugs carry guns or knives? Yeah, perhaps they should have shot him in the leg or arms, they would of course have been better, but I won't be spilling any tears for that a criminal thug that attacks police officer ends up dead.

And before anyone cries racist... don't bother. Won't be getting into an argument here.

[Len Cnut]

No you didnt 'make' that, you took it from a crap film with Edward Norton

[Satanisk_Slakt]

Hence why that line is in quotation marks. The rest of the post was all mine.

Edited September 27, 2014 by Satanisk_Slakt

[Len Cnut]

No, you said I made this post in another forum and it is my opinion on the matter...without stating that it was in fact someone elses words as opposed to you quoting yourself. But nevermind.

[Not An FSB Agent]

Why has no one mentioned that the cop was fired and indicted, and he most likely will spend years in a prison cell.

http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/dashboard-video-shows-shooting-of-unarmed-driver

[Ace Nova]

WTF?! He asked him to get his license and then he shoots him for trying to get it? For a seatbelt violation?

shit like this makes my blood boil.

For a second there I thought the guy got out of his car and was holding a gun. I had to rewind the video a few times and realized it was his arm and the glare from the window made it look like he had a gun. I'm pretty sure that it was from the poor video quality and didn't look like that in real life.

So what's the story behind the video? The cop thought he was reaching in his car for a gun? And he continued to fire shots when the guy had both hands in the air?

Edit: I just read the article. Pathetic.

They need to start having mandatory drug testing for police officers. I've heard that some of these guys take steroids and HGH....which could explain their over-aggressiveness.

Edited September 27, 2014 by Kasanova King

[Strange Broue]

I made this post on another forum and it is my opinions on the matter:

"In fact, we as society grant cops a certain amount of authority to make those calls because we acknowledge that their job is difficult and dangerous and unfortunately very few people respect that authority."

It should of course be investigated what happened, but it's a shame that people don't respect the police officers and take for granted that they were the ones to blame, when we know for a fact that they have one of the most dangerous jobs in society and if they make the wrong calls or react too slow they might end up dead. I'm sorry, but I'd rather see a thug die than a police officer.

We must acknowledge the risks and dangers they're put in constantly. Say this thug attacked them, how are they supposed to react when they live in a country where police murder happens all the time and lots of the ghetto thugs carry guns or knives? Yeah, perhaps they should have shot him in the leg or arms, they would of course have been better, but I won't be spilling any tears for that a criminal thug that attacks police officer ends up dead.

And before anyone cries racist... don't bother. Won't be getting into an argument here.

I don't cry when a police dies cuz he probably deserved it

I don't cry when a gangster dies cuz he probably deserved it