People and Cops

• sleeper

  

  O-Trap;1746080 wrote:

  I would bet the vast majority of these cases are not people defying cops orders based on their constitutional rights but because they are ignorant trash. The reason cops need full authority is because they do not have perfect information and need to feel safe in order to do their job correctly. Don't believe me? Look at the cop who got pistol whipped because he was afraid to enact full control over the situation and be blasted on social media for it. The reality is this; if a cop is infringing your rights, you deal with it after the fact and you go hard and heavy. During the actual stop, you follow lawful orders and "resist" only if it reaches the point of absolute insanity.
• isadore

  Glory Days;1745946 wrote:Seriously, wrong again. and by your theory, he should have been pulling over MORE blacks.
  
  Post #90

  Waller County has a notorious history of racism. Encinia was patrolling what The New York Times called “a sleepy state road” that leads from the highway to the entrance of Prairie View A&M University, where more than 80 percent of students are black.
  Also noteworthy is the principal feature of the four-lane road on which Bland drove: it’s desolate. What constructive police work could possibly occupy Encinia’s time there? During the first 15 minutes of the video, only 36 vehicles passed in her direction. Two of them made illegal u-turns — without signaling — and continued on their way
  
  http://thelawyerbubble.com/tag/texas-highway-patrol/
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Go home, Isa. You're drunk.
• superman

  CenterBHSFan;1746142 wrote:Go home, Isa. You're drunk.

  He it's home. Waiting on the mailman to bring his check.
• isadore

  CenterBHSFan;1746142 wrote:Go home, Isa. You're drunk.

  I am sorry, you can not accept the truth. Repent and be redeemed as a person of worth.
• friendfromlowry

  Why do you guys argue with him
• O-Trap

  

  friendfromlowry;1746154 wrote:Why do you guys argue with him

  Because in a way, it's perversely dignifying.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  friendfromlowry;1746154 wrote:Why do you guys argue with him

  
  I'm just trying to get them to straighten up!
• j_crazy

  

  friendfromlowry;1746154 wrote:Why do you guys argue with him

  I'm not disagreeing with you, but what are you supposed to do when some shithead is saying outright lies? I mean if he wants to see racism in Houston, it's not hard. But in no way is what happened to Sandra Bland racist. She was pulled over for a minor traffic violation, given a warning, and then shit popped off. While I question why the cop would ask her to put out a cigarette while she's in her own vehicle, the proper response to that is not to throw a tantrum the way she did.
• O-Trap

  

  j_crazy;1746190 wrote:I'm not disagreeing with you, but what are you supposed to do when some shithead is saying outright lies? I mean if he wants to see racism in Houston, it's not hard. But in no way is what happened to Sandra Bland racist. She was pulled over for a minor traffic violation, given a warning, and then shit popped off. While I question why the cop would ask her to put out a cigarette while she's in her own vehicle, the proper response to that is not to throw a tantrum the way she did.

  This might fall into the realm of what I mentioned earlier. If I were a smoker, I might fail to comply with this order. If it is my own cigarette in my own vehicle, the officer's authority does not include making me put it out within its purview (unless it can somehow be shown to be plausibly perceived as a threat, which it's not). She was stupid for going banana-sandwich over it, though, and she certainly contributed to the escalation of the situation.
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1746094 wrote:I would bet the vast majority of these cases are not people defying cops orders based on their constitutional rights but because they are ignorant trash.

  No argument here, but laws regarding personal safety and personal protection are typically only necessary during exceptional circumstances, and not normative ones.
  

  sleeper;1746094 wrote:The reason cops need full authority is because they do not have perfect information and need to feel safe in order to do their job correctly.

  I certainly don't think so. They have the right to give orders based on perceived threats as it is, but one doesn't need complete and unbridled authority in the moment in order to feel safe, or even BE safe.
  

  sleeper;1746094 wrote:Don't believe me? Look at the cop who got pistol whipped because he was afraid to enact full control over the situation and be blasted on social media for it.

  He was afraid to appropriately control the situation. An officer has the ability to give orders for the purpose of safety, and this guy didn't do it.
  
  I understand his fear. There have been far too many incidents where police have been vilified in recent months. Now, maybe those police deserved it. Maybe they didn't. But whether or not they did, it's easy to see how this man would be conflicted.
  
  However, you still have to make a quick value judgment ANY time you would use force, and frankly, an officer SHOULD have to evaluate the consequences of his actions like anyone else does.
  

  sleeper;1746094 wrote:The reality is this; if a cop is infringing your rights, you deal with it after the fact and you go hard and heavy.

  At that point, what you're saying is that those things aren't really "rights." You get compensated for them, but you have no "right" to refuse to have them infringed. Hence, they're no longer rights at all. Just some unfortunate lottery.
  

  sleeper;1746094 wrote:During the actual stop, you follow lawful orders and "resist" only if it reaches the point of absolute insanity.

  As Glory pointed out, there is a distinction to be made between resistance and failure to comply. Resistance, as you say, should indeed only come about in the rarest of circumstances. However, failure to comply if the request or command violates my rights shouldn't come with the threat of violence. Ever.
• sleeper

  

  O-Trap;1746193 wrote:No argument here, but laws regarding personal safety and personal protection are typically only necessary during exceptional circumstances, and not normative ones.
  
  
  
  I certainly don't think so. They have the right to give orders based on perceived threats as it is, but one doesn't need complete and unbridled authority in the moment in order to feel safe, or even BE safe.
  
  
  
  He was afraid to appropriately control the situation. An officer has the ability to give orders for the purpose of safety, and this guy didn't do it.
  
  I understand his fear. There have been far too many incidents where police have been vilified in recent months. Now, maybe those police deserved it. Maybe they didn't. But whether or not they did, it's easy to see how this man would be conflicted.
  
  However, you still have to make a quick value judgment ANY time you would use force, and frankly, an officer SHOULD have to evaluate the consequences of his actions like anyone else does.
  
  
  
  At that point, what you're saying is that those things aren't really "rights." You get compensated for them, but you have no "right" to refuse to have them infringed. Hence, they're no longer rights at all. Just some unfortunate lottery.
  
  
  
  As Glory pointed out, there is a distinction to be made between resistance and failure to comply. Resistance, as you say, should indeed only come about in the rarest of circumstances. However, failure to comply if the request or command violates my rights shouldn't come with the threat of violence. Ever.

  So which one of these cases are you crying about? All of these people were resisting arrest and I have no sympathy for any of them. These are trash and while trash doesn't deserve to die, they certainly won't be missed.
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1746197 wrote:So which one of these cases are you crying about? All of these people were resisting arrest and I have no sympathy for any of them. These are trash and while trash doesn't deserve to die, they certainly won't be missed.

  I'm not really crying about any of them. I'm simply stating that I think there is significant ground between (a) what is sufficient for police to be reasonably safe and (b) police being granted carte blanche with a citizen. Moreover, it is possible to defy an officer's orders without resisting. I'm not speaking to a particular circumstance, and I prefer to leave anecdotes out of rational arguments anyway. I'm simply saying this:
  
  (a) The woman acted like an idiot when she lost her shit with an officer. Want to give an officer grounds for feeling threatened? Go ape shit. That makes pretty much EVERYONE feel threatened. As such, I'm not at all opposed to the use of force when someone acts as though they've lost control.
  
  (b) Force doesn't necessarily mean lethal force, and I think there is a sliding scale for what force is warranted in a given situation.
  
  (c) Whether the woman in this particular circumstance was "trash" is something I can't know, and frankly, it doesn't matter to me, because it's a subjective concept.
• sleeper

  

  O-Trap;1746203 wrote:I'm not really crying about any of them. I'm simply stating that I think there is significant ground between (a) what is sufficient for police to be reasonably safe and (b) police being granted carte blanche with a citizen. Moreover, it is possible to defy an officer's orders without resisting. I'm not speaking to a particular circumstance, and I prefer to leave anecdotes out of rational arguments anyway. I'm simply saying this:
  
  (a) The woman acted like an idiot when she lost her shit with an officer. Want to give an officer grounds for feeling threatened? Go ape shit. That makes pretty much EVERYONE feel threatened. As such, I'm not at all opposed to the use of force when someone acts as though they've lost control.
  
  (b) Force doesn't necessarily mean lethal force, and I think there is a sliding scale for what force is warranted in a given situation.
  
  (c) Whether the woman in this particular circumstance was "trash" is something I can't know, and frankly, it doesn't matter to me, because it's a subjective concept.

  It's not subjective. It's binary. There is trash and there is non-trash and acting like an asshole to a police officer, a person granted authority and puts his/her life on the line to keep both non trash and trash safe, is trash. There's no debate.
  
  It's not "comply or die"; it's "comply or face the consequences for your actions". In all of these cases, simply following lawful orders would have kept everyone involved alive. These people are trash and I think society got just a bit better on those days.
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1746205 wrote:It's not subjective. It's binary. There is trash and there is non-trash and acting like an asshole to a police officer, a person granted authority and puts his/her life on the line to keep both non trash and trash safe, is trash. There's no debate.

  While it does satisfy the Aristotelian laws of logic (A or "not A" and all that), it is subjective. You view a person as "trash" based on a subjective checksum. Your list and mine are likely different, if not in item, at least in severity, and there exists no objective appeal to which we can identify a person as trash.
  
  Moreover, I'd suggest you're using a single variable to identify the sum total of the parts. Even if we were to agree on what "trash" is, and even if it were possible for that one item to accurately define the sum total, it's a logical leap.
  

  sleeper;1746205 wrote:It's not "comply or die"; it's "comply or face the consequences for your actions". In all of these cases, simply following lawful orders would have kept everyone involved alive. These people are trash and I think society got just a bit better on those days.

  I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the latter part, as I don't know much about the woman beyond this incident. Perhaps society is indeed improved in her absence. And I agree that her resistance, which escalated the situation, is partially responsible for how things turned out.
• sleeper

  

  O-Trap;1746207 wrote:While it does satisfy the Aristotelian laws of logic (A or "not A" and all that), it is subjective. You view a person as "trash" based on a subjective checksum. Your list and mine are likely different, if not in item, at least in severity, and there exists no objective appeal to which we can identify a person as trash.
  
  Moreover, I'd suggest you're using a single variable to identify the sum total of the parts. Even if we were to agree on what "trash" is, and even if it were possible for that one item to accurately define the sum total, it's a logical leap.
  
  
  
  I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the latter part, as I don't know much about the woman beyond this incident. Perhaps society is indeed improved in her absence. And I agree that her resistance, which escalated the situation, is partially responsible for how things turned out.

  Well fortunately for me, I only needed a single piece of data to make a determination if someone is trash or non-trash. Are you actually defending these people as being good quality citizens who will contribute a net-positive value add to society? Laughable at best. I'm sure Michael Brown and Eric Garner were going to be doctors who cured AIDS. Get real. MB would have ended up with 5 children, selling drugs and spending time in and out of jail and Eric Garner was already a low life criminal.
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1746210 wrote:Well fortunately for me, I only needed a single piece of data to make a determination if someone is trash or non-trash. Are you actually defending these people as being good quality citizens who will contribute a net-positive value add to society?

  I specifically said that I wasn't. I simply said that there's not enough information to know one way or the other.
  

  sleeper;1746210 wrote:I'm sure Michael Brown and Eric Garner were going to be doctors who cured AIDS. Get real. MB would have ended up with 5 children, selling drugs and spending time in and out of jail and Eric Garner was already a low life criminal.

  I said nothing of these other cases. I'm not saying anyone is going to become a scientist, doctor, lawyer, etc. All I said was that there isn't enough to know whether or not the sum total of who they are can be adequately defined by a single incident.
• sleeper

  

  O-Trap;1746212 wrote:I specifically said that I wasn't. I simply said that there's not enough information to know one way or the other.
  
  
  
  I said nothing of these other cases. I'm not saying anyone is going to become a scientist, doctor, lawyer, etc. All I said was that there isn't enough to know whether or not the sum total of who they are can be adequately defined by a single incident.

  Not sure what else to tell you. It's always nice to have more data points but you don't need a PHD in Neurology to see that these people were net negative value to society. Now, of course, that doesn't mean they deserved to die or that I'm glad that they are dead, but I'm not going to get all up in arms over trash and demand any change.
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1746213 wrote:Not sure what else to tell you. It's always nice to have more data points but you don't need a PHD in Neurology to see that these people were net negative value to society. Now, of course, that doesn't mean they deserved to die or that I'm glad that they are dead, but I'm not going to get all up in arms over trash and demand any change.

  Of course you don't need a PHD to see whether or not someone is a value to society. However, you do need an accurate sample. One item is insufficient to fulfill this.
  
  And since "trash" isn't something that the law can objectively take into account, I'd suggest it's not adequate to include when looking at this from a legal standpoint. A citizen resisted, and what followed should be evaluated based on the actions themselves. Not the person or her character.
• gut

  Man, Hillary gave it to BLM good. I wonder if she intended for that video to be leaked or not (she had to know she'd be recorded). Honestly one of the most impressive things I've seen her say.
• friendfromlowry

  j_crazy;1746190 wrote:I'm not disagreeing with you, but what are you supposed to do when some shithead is saying outright lies?

  I usually just ignore trolls. It's fun to occasionally fuck with tiernan/Iggy but continued arguments with them? Noooo.
• Glory Days

  

  gut;1746317 wrote:Man, Hillary gave it to BLM good. I wonder if she intended for that video to be leaked or not (she had to know she'd be recorded). Honestly one of the most impressive things I've seen her say.

  I muted the exchange back and forth but her response at the end definitely caught me off guard for how aggressive it was.