If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
"I wasn't throwing it at the cops, honest!" What bullshit.
I still don't believe he should be charged, though. It was a tense time, as far as I know no one was hurt by it, so just get it go.
Yeah... I'm not sure I buy that it was to "save the children", I'm only saying it doesn't look like a fastball, which it would have to be to knock a cop over.
(
Last edited by subego; Aug 28, 2015 at 11:17 AM.
)
Making Direct Eye Contact with a Police Officer While Black ... get pulled over.
Avoiding Direct Eye Contact with a Police Officer While Black ... get pulled over.
Any questions?
Looks like there's another item that can be added to The Root's ongoing list of things you can't do while black: making direct, uninterrupted eye contact with a police officer.
An Ohio police officer admitted on camera that he stopped John Felton, a black man, "because you made direct eye contact with me, and you held on to it while I was passing you," after initially claiming that he stopped Felton for failing to signal.
The story was brought to the attention of talk show host and Huffington Post blogger David Pakman, who wrote about the incident for the site.
"As suspicious as 'making direct eye contact' may be to a police officer, doing the exact opposite—that is, avoiding eye contact with a police officer—could be considered equally suspicious by an officer," Pakman wrote. "In other words, both making eye contact and not making eye contact with police could, conceivably, be grounds for a traffic stop."
The incident occurred sometime in July as Felton was driving to his mother's house in Dayton. Felton notes that he began recording the video as soon as he saw the officer following him.
"He saw Michigan plates," Felton says. "He just needed a reason. Why would you follow me every step of the way, every turn I make?"
In the video, the officer approaches Felton's car and asks for both Felton's and the passenger's driver's license. Felton asks why the passenger needs to provide identification, to which the officer claims he needs it in order to "identify who's in the car."
The officer claims that the stop is for falling to use a turn signal and later tells Felton he is letting him go with a warning.
"Like I said, it's a violation if you don't turn your turn signal on," the officer says.
"You've been tailing me for how long? You just needed a reason to pull me over," Felton replies. "No disrespect, I don't have nothing against police officers, but all this s--t that's going on now? That's some scary s--t. To have a police officer just tail you, and then you pull me over, 'cause you said I didn't signal—what? Do you know how it looks?"
Felton asks again why he was stopped, and the officer's story changes.
"Because you made direct eye contact with me," the officer says. "And you held on to it while I was passing you."
A perplexed Felton claims that he didn't see the officer before he began following him. The officer tells Felton he isn't going to argue the point.
Felton tells the passenger, "This is bulls--t" as the officer walks back to his car.
I forgot if this was on the "unwritten rule" list when it comes to cops.
"Make just enough eye contact to demonstrate you aren't furiously averting their gaze, but no more, because it will be seen as a challenge to their authority. Do not forget they are authorized to be total assholes."
I learned this one the hard way, courtesy of an idiot friend.
I forgot if this was on the "unwritten rule" list when it comes to cops.
"Make just enough eye contact to demonstrate you aren't furiously averting their gaze, but no more, because it will be seen as a challenge to their authority. Do not forget they are authorized to be total assholes."
It's a ridiculous situation. Doubly so if you're socially backward. Are they people or bears?
Originally Posted by subego
I learned this one the hard way, courtesy of an idiot friend.
Two weeks ago, Sam Andrews announced that the Oath Keepers, a group of current and former members of the military and police who have pledged to refuse unconstitutional orders, were going to sponsor a march of black men armed with AR-15s in Ferguson, Missouri. Now Andrews has left the organization, charging Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes with holding a "racist double standard" for when it's acceptable to confront cops. Rhodes strongly denies this, calling Andrews a "lying sociopath" with a "personal vendetta." And both the Oath Keepers and Andrews' circle—dubbed the YETIs, for You Exterminating Tyrant Ideology—say they still intend to hold a #BlackOpenCarry march in Ferguson.
This led to an email exchange in which Rhodes said he was "getting backlash from within the gun rights community itself, because of the erroneous perception that we are intending on arming the rioters"; he told Andrews he should "emphasize us training and organizing the peaceful, law abiding to protect themselves and stop the looting and arson themselves, not confront the cops."
…
Andrews charges Rhodes with hypocrisy, complaining that the man "was perfectly willing to 'confront the cops' at Bundy Ranch, but is unwilling to say that when it is black people arming themselves to 'confront the cops'"; he argues that Rhodes refuses to acknowledge "that St. Louis County and St. Louis City police are serial rights violators on a daily basis." Rhodes insists that he was only talking about what Andrews should emphasize, and that he would not object to armed Ferguson protesters who conduct themselves like the armed protesters at the Bundy standoff. ("At the Bundy ranch, thank God, no shots were fired," he says.) When I ask whether he thinks the St. Louis police are indeed "serial rights violators on a daily basis," he replies: "Of course they are. It's a problem across the country. Not just against black people, but against everybody. They start acting like thugs behind badges."
It's a ridiculous situation. Doubly so if you're socially backward. Are they people or bears?
Good story?
Only if being an idiot is good.
This is when I was 18, and new to driving. Cop is behind me, and my friend says "hey, I'm going to stare at this cop. Unbeknownst to both of us, my nominal girlfriend threw her empty cigarette pack out the window.
Blue lights flash. Pull over.
When I ask the cop why I was pulled over he mentioned the cigarette pack (I played dumb). Then he says something along the lines of "and your buddy there decided to try and stare me down".
The punishment was to drive back down the road to pick up the cigarette box, I think with the secret hope we'd make a u-turn, and he could bust us on something worth the paperwork.
I'm hoping for an early winter with lots of bad weather so this shit on both sides will subside. I understand with the violence in the streets that the cops will have to hammer the bad guys to stop the idiots killing cops. The current PC tactic is making things worse.
And naturally the cops said he "resisted arrest" and was "armed with a knife" and they "feared for their lives" and all that other BS. And if it wasn't for some random brother who passing by who chose to video situation in light of all this BS going down these cops in all likelihood wouldn't even be facing any kind of consequences for their actions.
Gilbert Flores is shirtless, running in front of a home in San Antonio as the two sheriff's deputies approach him.
A minute later, he's putting his hands up.
Then the shots ring out, and he falls to the ground.
Cell phone video obtained by CNN affiliate KSAT appears to show sheriff's deputies in Bexar County, Texas, shooting and killing the 41-year-old Friday.
"He put his hands in the air and then he had his hands up for a few seconds and the cops shot him twice," Michael Thomas, the man who filmed the video, told CNN.
Authorities in Bexar County addressed the existence of the video Friday, the day Flores was killed. They confirmed it was Flores on Monday.
The incident comes at a time when law enforcement officers are under scrutiny for how and when they resort to lethal force. The killings of several individuals by police over the past year have heightened tensions between police and the communities they serve, especially among minorities.
The scrutiny of officer-involved shootings is the reason Thomas recorded the scene in Bexar County.
"I thought with everything going on in the world, with police shootings and everything, I thought I would record what was happening," he told CNN.
The Bexar County Sheriff's Office said Flores was armed with a knife and resisting arrest when deputies showed up. Neither deputy was wearing a body camera.
"We are aware that there is recorded video which appears to show the final moments of this deputy-involved shooting," Bexar County Sheriff Susan Pamerleau said Friday. "It's among many pieces of evidence that we are collecting to determine what happened."
The video is shot from far away, so it's not clear whether Flores is brandishing a weapon. The man steps behind a sheriff's car and cannot be seen at certain times. The only audio that was captured was that of the gunshots.
Though it's clear Flores has one hand up, the other is briefly obscured by a utility pole.
Still, the footage appears to show that Flores is not a direct threat to the responding officers.
This certainly explains why this kid was behaving so out of character according to his family and friends. Experimenting with synthetic drugs is never a good idea. That being said, it still doesn't excuse the actions of the officer in this situation. Hence why he was fired 4 days later for exercising "poor judgement".
Coverup after crashing his own vehicle? Overly eager to push this "open season on cops" narrative?
A police officer lied when he said somebody shot at his patrol car, causing it to crash and catch fire, said Millis, Massachusetts, police Sgt. William Dwyer on Thursday.
"We have determined that the officer's story was fabricated," Dwyer said. "Specifically that he fired shots at his own cruiser as part of a plan to concoct a story that he was fired upon."
Dwyer said the officer will be prosecuted. He was a dispatcher hired as a part-time officer and was training to become a full-time officer, Dwyer said.
Dwyer said the officer's name won't be released until charges are filed. He didn't say why the officer made up the story.
On Wednesday, the officer reported that a white man in a dark pickup truck fired shots at him, causing his patrol car to spin around, strike a tree and catch fire. The officer said he returned fire.
Police conducted an intensive search with officers from other law enforcement agencies, firefighters, police dogs and a Massachusetts State Police helicopter.
Also on Wednesday, somebody made a threatening call to a local middle school. City schools were locked down for the day and were closed all day Thursday. Police don't know if that threat and the cruiser incident are related.
Millis is a town of about 8,000 people located about 25 miles southwest of Boston.
Baltimore officials have reached a $6.4 million wrongful death settlement with the family of Freddie Gray, the 25-year-old man who died in April from a neck injury he suffered in police custody.
Holy shit.
Will this lead to better police training or handling of misconduct? Somehow, I doubt it.
It's mostly about getting paid, anyway. So no surprise.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
In what way? Aren't there times it would be far better to have a non-lethal option handy?
The reason you carry a lethal weapon is to minimize the time between when an event begins and your ability to project lethal force. Having the dongle on it interferes with that purpose.
Cops use guns way more than they should? In more situations than they should?
I know this is cliché, but it's not the tool that's the problem, it's the tool user.
The tool user is what needs to get muzzled. If the optimal way to do that is muzzle the tool, then so be it, but isn't a purpose-built tool going to be a better solution?
The thing is it's good how the NYPD has publicly apologized to Mr. Black. But it only highlights how the NYPD is loathe to apologize even when they are clearly in the wrong when the victim is a non-celebrity or not a professional athlete.
It doesn't really make sense to carry it that way, and if you have the time to set it up then I'd prefer you just used a purpose-built device.
Also, covers the front sight.
Not to mention completely destroying accuracy (be negating the rifling) and making any shots beyond 10' a matter of luck.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Might as well give cops muskets, if you're going to outfit them with those, but then, in combat situations, most of the people killed by musket fire weren't the ones who were being targeted.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Yeah, it's a stupid idea. Rather than giving cops more options to use violence, I'd rather that they are trained to properly assess and solve many conflict situations without even touching a weapon (just look at the amount of time devoted to non-violent vs. violent conflict resolution).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Yeah, it's a stupid idea. Rather than giving cops more options to use violence, I'd rather that they are trained to properly assess and solve many conflict situations without even touching a weapon (just look at the amount of time devoted to non-violent vs. violent conflict resolution).
Because the goal isn't to make the police more effective, it's to eventually disarm them completely.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Goal of whom? Nobody but you has mentioned Moore. Should I also find a random quote by someone who thinks of himself as a supporter of the police the way it is now? And then associate you with that person? This behavior is passive aggressive and puts a stop to any sensible discussion.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Passive aggressive? Really? It's cogent because he's a very loud, and much admired (by some), progressive voice, in league with BLM (who also wave the "Disarm the Police" signs) and every other far Left political group in the USA. The guy wants to empty out all the prisons (only minorities) of "non-violent" criminals too, what kind of impact do you think that would have on crime in the USA?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Whereas an accusation of passive aggression is known as sensible discussion lubricant the world over.
Touché. But honestly, I find it quite disruptive to throw random quotes in which do nothing but disrupt the discussion here. And I think it is legitimate to point that out.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
It's not out of nowhere, though. This device, to steal an SJW term, is problematic.
If the intent is for the gun to be carried with the device attached, that is equivalent to a policy which states "there is no situation in which you are allowed to respond immediately with lethal force".
If one claims this is good policy, they're prompting the question whether lethal force is needed at all then. This is especially true considering the justification for why lethal force is needed is immediacy.
IOW, cops are allowed to carry an instrument of lethal force on their person because any less immediate response is considered more dangerous. If the situation doesn't need to be responded to immediately with lethal force, you've lost the justification for using lethal force.
This device implies a policy where there is no situation justifying the immediate application of lethal force.
It's not out of nowhere, though. This device, to steal an SJW term, is problematic.
I criticized the device for different reasons, so I'm not a proponent of it being used in the field. So I am not sure whether you intend to address me with the rest of your post. Be that as it may, the purpose of the device is to give a police officer the option whether or not to use lethal force, but that has exactly zero connection to a call to “disarm all cops”.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Touché. But honestly, I find it quite disruptive to throw random quotes in which do nothing but disrupt the discussion here. And I think it is legitimate to point that out.
How in the world is that a quote to disrupt discussion here? Obviously such a device is for countering lethal action in the event of an imminent threat, effectively disarming the officer from immediate response.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Top