|
|
Post by bobathon on Jul 17, 2016 9:27:56 GMT -5
We pastyfacers get to play in Easy Mode. Cops are encouraged to play in Invincible Mode. They are some of our respective privileges.
|
|
|
|
Post by MF on Jul 17, 2016 9:42:34 GMT -5
What do you think the level of stress/fear is for a cop in Chicago/Baltimore/Oakland is when he answers a call ?
Do you think a cop answering a call in Vienna, Va. has the same level ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave's Not Here Man on Jul 17, 2016 9:59:43 GMT -5
To what are you playing the BS card? To the assertion that it's the "civilians" who need to de-escalate. And with "respect is earned" comment, that goes both ways as well. In my experience, most people who use that statement are the assholes in the relationship. Getting right down to it, they expect it from you, but you have to earn from them, and rarely will. So now I have a pair of BS cards. For context, my disdain for law enforcement transcends the fact that current and former family members, including my brother, are cops. My multiple encounters with police have had B+ to F ratings, but all had one common theme; at some point early on in the encounter, they have overstepped their authority. Those oversteps are an ESCALATION of the encounter that is not onerous upon the citizen to comply with. This is a common theme throughout law enforcement and one of the major reasons why people are more and more distrusting of them. And just because you've broken a law, DOES NOT give them a license to smack, punch, choke, taze, and shoot you. Some of the badge blowers around here don't understand that because they drop to their knees and give away their rights. And what's worse is when, like in your example, when they escalate a situation when you haven't broken a law, in the hopes that you will. Fuck the police. |
|
|
|
Post by MF on Jul 17, 2016 10:11:25 GMT -5
Why is that ? ? 100% of the time THEY OVERSTEPPED ttheir authority,, ,
There is one other factor consistent here . That seems like the reason to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Jul 17, 2016 10:44:28 GMT -5
Dude was my niece's instructor at Regent University School of Law. She says he was awesome. |
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Jul 17, 2016 10:54:39 GMT -5
|
|
Baton Rouge chimes in....
Guest
|
Post by Baton Rouge chimes in.... on Jul 17, 2016 11:16:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Jul 17, 2016 13:17:34 GMT -5
Someone signed up for that job.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave's Not Here Man on Jul 17, 2016 13:43:02 GMT -5
|
|
DA
mob associate
Hello? Is this thing on?
Posts: 589 
|
Post by DA on Jul 17, 2016 14:44:07 GMT -5
On your bad encounters, did you get beat up or assaulted? What were the circumstances for the stops? How did you act during the stops? Just wondering because of all the times I have been stopped or been in a car that has been stopped, I've only really had 1 "bad" encounter, and that was at a DUI checkpoint where the cop lied and said he smelled alcohol on me, which was a blatant lie as I had nothing to drink that evening. Even the two times I was put in cuffs, I wasn't treated poorly and was eventually released to go on my way because I hadn't done anything wrong. I was scared but didn't move fast, talk shit, or act like an ass, and wasn't treated like a scumbag because of it. When my friend and I were stopped after leaving a bar in TJ I was really scared! We eventually walked away from that too, and immediately left TJ. Respect is earned, and if one isn't deserving of it, even if they are "paying" their salary, why should they get it? That goes both ways too; if a cop earns my respect, he will get it. The lying cop didn't get or deserve my respect due to his lies. Where you DWB? No, I was DWLH. |
|
|
|
Post by MF on Jul 17, 2016 16:04:56 GMT -5
Happy birthday,,,Gavon... |
|
DA
mob associate
Hello? Is this thing on?
Posts: 589
|
Post by DA on Jul 17, 2016 22:53:50 GMT -5
To what are you playing the BS card? To the assertion that it's the "civilians" who need to de-escalate. And with "respect is earned" comment, that goes both ways as well. In my experience, most people who use that statement are the assholes in the relationship. Getting right down to it, they expect it from you, but you have to earn from them, and rarely will. So now I have a pair of BS cards. For context, my disdain for law enforcement transcends the fact that current and former family members, including my brother, are cops. My multiple encounters with police have had B+ to F ratings, but all had one common theme; at some point early on in the encounter, they have overstepped their authority. Those oversteps are an ESCALATION of the encounter that is not onerous upon the citizen to comply with. This is a common theme throughout law enforcement and one of the major reasons why people are more and more distrusting of them. And just because you've broken a law, DOES NOT give them a license to smack, punch, choke, taze, and shoot you. Some of the badge blowers around here don't understand that because they drop to their knees and give away their rights. And what's worse is when, like in your example, when they escalate a situation when you haven't broken a law, in the hopes that you will. Fuck the police.As for the "respect is earned" comment, I mentioned that it goes both ways in my post. Who are these "most people" of which you speak? General respect isn't what I was talking about, and I should clarify that I agree with Broadcasting that cops should give the citizens the basic respect, while also saying the the citizens should also give basic respect back to the police. Being a decent person is the easiest way and requires the least amount of effort to earn respect. People generally start out in a neutral/positive position on the basic respect'o'meter, and it either raises or lowers depending on the interaction. How did the police overstep their authority? I'm curious because in all of my stops, I can't think of any time where I would have thought that they overstepped it. Even when the cop lied to me at the DUI checkpoint, I can understand why he did it, even though I don't like that he did. I don't like the fact he lied to me, but their job is to get answers and to keep you talking, and by keeping me talking, they could tell if I had alcohol on my breath or not. If a citizen breaks the law, it doesn't give the citizen the right to resist arrest, smack, shoot, or be an asshole to the cop either. I couldn't be a cop, because I couldn't deal with the attitudes. I must have missed the posts from all the people who have said the cops have the right to do what you said they don't have the right to do. There are plenty of things that I think are bogus about what is going on with the police, but I do think that the public could learn from the article I linked. How can the public learning themselves how to deescalate a situation be a bad thing? There was a lot of truth in that article. Listening to so many people who have no clue to what the laws are in videos posted to youtube, or watching shows like COPS, leads me to believe that the general public is clueless about everything the article talked about. |
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Jul 18, 2016 7:05:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Jul 18, 2016 7:18:09 GMT -5
In VA it takes longer to become a hairdresser than it does to be a cop. I had a family member that was a cop and he got 240 hours of training before he put on a badge and was given a weapon. A hairdresser must have 1500 hours of training and 3000 hours of apprenticeship.
Cops need better screening, better pay, and better training......and deescalation needs to be a big part of their training. There are too many cops out there with too much authority and not near enough training.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Jul 18, 2016 7:25:44 GMT -5
And piss testing...no roid ragers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave's Not Here Man on Jul 18, 2016 9:50:36 GMT -5
The "most people" is self explanatory and reflective of 50+ years of life experience.
The vid I posted explains the over-reach that occurs in almost every encounter. They are trained to get you to incriminate yourself. That in itself is a dangerous game with the Fifth Amendment, which some people confuse with only being applicable in court. And worse, some people confuse with being guilty of something when you exercise it.
"So where are you headed" or "where have you been today" has been asked of me in almost every encounter, and in every single traffic stop. Also the request for identification in other situations where there has been no laws broken and there is not even reasonable, articulable, suspicion of a law being broken. So you see, that when a person is unlawfully trained to manipulate you into neglecting your right against self incrimination, then this is an immediate escalation of an encounter, and the average sheep doesn't even realize it.
I don't personally give a fiddler's fuck about respecting the police. I will cooperate only when I've done something wrong and still, that cooperation will meet only minimum requirements not to make things worse. How my attitude about it presents itself absolutely should not change the officer's attitude about my rights and affect his or her professionalism in the situation. It's funny to me how we all expect that cashier at Burger King to get fired for their piss poor attitude, but cops are "respected" from their massive authoritarian superiority complexes.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Jul 18, 2016 9:54:26 GMT -5
|
|
DA
mob associate
Hello? Is this thing on?
Posts: 589
|
Post by DA on Jul 18, 2016 11:00:22 GMT -5
In the VA it takes longer to become a hairdresser than it does to be a cop. I had a family member that was a cop and he got 240 hours of training before he put on a badge and was given a weapon. A hairdresser must have 1500 hours of training and 3000 hours of apprenticeship. Cops need better screening, better pay, and better training......and deescalation needs to be a big part of their training. There are too many cops out there with too much authority and not near enough training. The article I linked had a few paragraphs about the training for some departments, and it included quite a bit more than 240 hours of training. When I live in Torrance I had a family member go through the academy, and it too required a lot more than 240 hours, and after completing the academy, they still had FTO's and much more training after that. I understand that not all places have the same requirements, and I would agree that there should be thorough training requirements to be an officer. I was taught how to act when stopped by police, and that deescalation training I received sure has come in handy. I never had to give up my rights or my life by following what to me are common sense procedures. |
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Jul 18, 2016 11:02:19 GMT -5
Before we can train them to de-escalate, we have to train them that every person is a threat, and any cop that make it home alive tonight is a lucky one. You know, to set the mood.
|
|
DA
mob associate
Hello? Is this thing on?
Posts: 589
|
Post by DA on Jul 18, 2016 11:13:36 GMT -5
The "most people" is self explanatory and reflective of 50+ years of life experience. The vid I posted explains the over-reach that occurs in almost every encounter. They are trained to get you to incriminate yourself. That in itself is a dangerous game with the Fifth Amendment, which some people confuse with only being applicable in court. And worse, some people confuse with being guilty of something when you exercise it. "So where are you headed" or "where have you been today" has been asked of me in almost every encounter, and in every single traffic stop. Also the request for identification in other situations where there has been no laws broken and there is not even reasonable, articulable, suspicion of a law being broken. So you see, that when a person is unlawfully trained to manipulate you into neglecting your right against self incrimination, then this is an immediate escalation of an encounter, and the average sheep doesn't even realize it. I don't personally give a fiddler's fuck about respecting the police. I will cooperate only when I've done something wrong and still, that cooperation will meet only minimum requirements not to make things worse. How my attitude about it presents itself absolutely should not change the officer's attitude about my rights and affect his or her professionalism in the situation. It's funny to me how we all expect that cashier at Burger King to get fired for their piss poor attitude, but cops are "respected" from their massive authoritarian superiority complexes. Your "most people" experience is quite different from mine. While the videos you posted show the unquestionably bad side of the police, what you consider overreach I consider questioning. You always have the right to remain silent. Since I don't know the circumstances behind every one of your stops, I can't accurately say whether I think that there were "no laws broken and there is not even reasonable, articulable, suspicion of a law being broken." Can you please show me the law where it states that it is unlawful to train a person to get you to talk? I really would love to see this. Remember, you have the right to remain silent. If you choose to give up that right, that is on you. The video you posted of the law professor was saved to my HDD years ago when I first saw it. If you think one group (citizens) deserves basic respect, yet another group (officers) doesn't, doesn't that border on hypocrisy? From your comment, I think I can understand why you've had some bad encounters. While having a bad attitude shouldn't change one's legal rights, one doesn't have the right to having the officer being a jolly good fellow when one is an ass to said officer. As I said before, my respect has to be earned. I don't respect a cop for "their massive authoritarian superiority complexes." Once again, I couldn't be a cop because I don't have the patience to put up with the shit that they encounter. I still say that the guy in OP was the cause of his death. I don't think that a cop should have to wait until a gun is fired at them to be able to use deadly force to stop it. This guys death was suicide by cop, and his actions caused his demise. |
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Jul 18, 2016 11:33:31 GMT -5
You do not have the right to remain silent unless you articulate it, and still, maybe not so much. Routine traffic stop being one in which they are fishing for more than they stopped you for. I assume the correct answer to "Do you know why I stopped you?" is "Because you want to play a guessing game?". |
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Jul 18, 2016 11:45:32 GMT -5
They should shoot anyone who won't show their hands? They had no idea what, if anything, was in his hands. They suspected he was taunting. So, blammity blam blam let's resolve our doubts. Fuck that noise. I say they MUST see a weapon before opening fire - their lives are not as important as the lives they claim to protect. So sad, yet true. That's the thing about being a PUBLIC SERVANT.
We should have the right to cops keeping to business at hand, not escalating, not trying to find other things about you, other reasons to mess with your day (including dissing them being license to fuck with your day - disrespect is not a crime, so like Joe T Friesguy, do your business, ignore the annoying person you're dealing with, and get down the road - you see how dude went apeshit on Sandra Bland, for daring to finish her smoke - and she was *originally* pulled over for "failure to signal a lane change" - a crime so rampant and heinous, it's committed by every goddamned cop I see. But cop found a way to escalate it, to fuck with her day, and now she's dead. For a BS "failure to signal a lane change", he had to take her in. And yeah, he's a Bad Cop, but the "good" cops KNOW who the bad actors are, just like the nurses know who the drunk ER doc is.).
|
|
DA
mob associate
Hello? Is this thing on?
Posts: 589
|
Post by DA on Jul 18, 2016 12:41:05 GMT -5
They should shoot anyone who won't show their hands? They had no idea what, if anything, was in his hands. They suspected he was taunting. So, blammity blam blam let's resolve our doubts. Fuck that noise. I say they MUST see a weapon before opening fire - their lives are not as important as the lives they claim to protect. So sad, yet true. That's the thing about being a PUBLIC SERVANT. We should have the right to cops keeping to business at hand, not escalating, not trying to find other things about you, other reasons to mess with your day (including dissing them being license to fuck with your day - disrespect is not a crime, so like Joe T Friesguy, do your business, ignore the annoying person you're dealing with, and get down the road - you see how dude went apeshit on Sandra Bland, for daring to finish her smoke - and she was *originally* pulled over for "failure to signal a lane change" - a crime so rampant and heinous, it's committed by every goddamned cop I see. But cop found a way to escalate it, to fuck with her day, and now she's dead. For a BS "failure to signal a lane change", he had to take her in. And yeah, he's a Bad Cop, but the "good" cops KNOW who the bad actors are, just like the nurses know who the drunk ER doc is.). I never said that they should shoot anyone who won't show their hands. If one doesn't show their hands when ordered, and still approaches the officer while keeping their hands hidden, that is a legitimate threat even if there is no weapon. It doesn't matter that "you" say they "MUST" see a weapon before opening fire, because that is unreasonable. The way it is, is that the one being detained doesn't get to make the rules up as they go, and if they pose a legitimate threat, which the guy did, you have to deal with the consequences. I don't disagree that there are instances where shit went crazy, like the Sandra Bland incident. I'm not defending those instances, nor denying that they happen. While I can acknowledge that there are bad instances like the Sandra Bland one, I can also acknowledge that there are instances where the suspect has caused their own demise, and not fault the police for it, in the case in the OP. |
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Jul 18, 2016 12:56:55 GMT -5
Unarmed is never a legitimate threat. And what makes it unreasonable to require an actual weapon to be present before deciding something is a threat? That means, for the cop, until they frisk them, EVERYONE is armed and a threat. So "train cops to fear and be paranoid", CHECK!
And if Joe Citizen shoots a neighbor because he couldn't see his hands (and so the neighbor was armed and dangerous), he's probably getting charged. Strange how the rules change.
PS It's not reasonable to assume someone is armed if you can't see any weapon.
|
|
DA
mob associate
Hello? Is this thing on?
Posts: 589
|
Post by DA on Jul 18, 2016 13:04:52 GMT -5
You do not have the right to remain silent unless you articulate it, and still, maybe not so much. Routine traffic stop being one in which they are fishing for more than they stopped you for. I assume the correct answer to "Do you know why I stopped you?" is "Because you want to play a guessing game?". In this video, we don't know what she was originally stopped for, or at least I didn't hear it. While the cops stupidly answers yes to her question of "are you detaining me because I refused to speak", as an attorney, she should know that the streets aren't for pleading your case, that happens in court. She doesn't get the luxury of being the person to put her phone away once she is being detained. Had she at the initial encounter stated that she was exercising her right to remain silent, I believe it most likely would have had a different outcome, but I'll never know. At that moment, she wasn't being arrested for refusing to speak, only being detained. Big difference. I've been detained without being arrested, and released because I didn't have a complex like the woman did, trying to use her and her family's influence to get out of trouble. How do you know that they were fishing for more than they stopped her for? It's possible they were stopping her for possible DUI, and wished for her to speak so they could smell her breath. |
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Jul 18, 2016 13:19:14 GMT -5
When they ask "do you know why..." they are fishing. If they wanted to smell her breath, they can ask her her name (to which most states require she answer, IIRC). If they suspect DUI/DWI, they can test - and refusal carries penalties. They don't need a vocal response for that. If they have a real, law enforcement reason, they should deal with it, and be done with the interaction, not fuck around looking for other incriminations. Which is what "do you know why..." is all about.
And weren't you, just a few posts ago, saying we all have the right to remain silent? Just not her. Then. Nor anyone else. Ever. If there's cops around. So rights are for court, not for live interactions with the po-po?
And I am not saying she's the best test case, but the cops basically told her she was being arrested for exercising her right to remain silent, then read to her that she had the right to remain silent. So no, we don't have any rights outside the whim of the officer, until long after the instant encounter is over. That may be too late to get your rights acknowledged.
|
|
DA
mob associate
Hello? Is this thing on?
Posts: 589
|
Post by DA on Jul 18, 2016 13:25:17 GMT -5
Unarmed is never a legitimate threat. And what makes it unreasonable to require an actual weapon to be present before deciding something is a threat? That means, for the cop, until they frisk them, EVERYONE is armed and a threat. So "train cops to fear and be paranoid", CHECK! And if Joe Citizen shoots a neighbor because he couldn't see his hands (and so the neighbor was armed and dangerous), he's probably getting charged. Strange how the rules change. PS It's not reasonable to assume someone is armed if you can't see any weapon. If one doesn't show their hands when directed to do so, one can't ascertain whether one is armed or unarmed. If the suspect still advances when told not to, all the while hiding their hands, that can be considered a valid threat. Your Joe Citizen scenario is quite different than the scenario which played out in the OP. It's reasonable to believe that if someone is advancing on you when told not to, all the while hiding their hands from view, that they are a legitimate threat. |
|
DA
mob associate
Hello? Is this thing on?
Posts: 589
|
Post by DA on Jul 18, 2016 13:35:33 GMT -5
When they ask "do you know why..." they are fishing. If they wanted to smell her breath, they can ask her her name (to which most states require she answer, IIRC). If they suspect DUI/DWI, they can test - and refusal carries penalties. They don't need a vocal response for that. If they have a real, law enforcement reason, they should deal with it, and be done with the interaction, not fuck around looking for other incriminations. Which is what "do you know why..." is all about. And weren't you, just a few posts ago, saying we all have the right to remain silent? Just not her. Then. Nor anyone else. Ever. If there's cops around. So rights are for court, not for live interactions with the po-po? And I am not saying she's the best test case, but the cops basically told her she was being arrested for exercising her right to remain silent, then read to her that she had the right to remain silent. So no, we don't have any rights outside the whim of the officer, until long after the instant encounter is over. That may be too late to get your rights acknowledged. When they ask "do you know why..." they are trying to get you to admit to a wrong doing, basic line of questioning that I see nothing wrong with. When I have been asked, I have replied "no sir." That way it keeps me from admitting to an infraction, while not appearing to be an ass. Yes, I said we all have the right to remain silent. She didn't state that she was invoking that right at the initial encounter. Had she stated that initially, it wouldn't have appeared that she was ignoring the questions. Funny how she started talking about her family connections and decided to give up her right to remain silent after she was removed from her vehicle. The cops said she was being "detained" not "arrested" for refusing to speak, big difference between the two. Do you know why she was originally pulled over? I don't. |
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Jul 18, 2016 13:37:23 GMT -5
The only reasonable conclusions that can be made are things like "well, he isn't carrying a bazooka. Or an aircraft carrier.". No reasonable conclusions can be made about what he MIGHT be carrying. He might have a phone. He might have a pen. He might have a gun. He might have a popsicle. On top of that, he might have hearing issues. He may have a crippled arm. Maybe he's carrying a sidewalk. Or even a deadly pen knife. And in fact, we see plenty of cases where a feeble excuse for a weapon ( like a pen knife) is visible, and they shoot the guy down anyway. Because Jason Bourne. And then the cops lie about it all. Again. So that's the world we "civilians" get to see. If the police want to improve their image, and thus encounters with the public, they need to adjust what they can - their behavior in and with the public. And stop confiscating all the video after bad shoots. It's not our job to fix their image, it's their's, and involves treating the PUBLIC as if the cops work for it. |
|
DA
mob associate
Hello? Is this thing on?
Posts: 589
|
Post by DA on Jul 18, 2016 13:59:30 GMT -5
Knife attacks.The public can also adjust their behavior to make stops less of a threat. The best thing is to not do something which causes you to be pulled over, stopped in the first place. If one is stopped/pulled over, the way one acts can have a direct influence on the encounter. When I have gotten pulled over/stopped, I've always made sure that I didn't give anyone reason to think I was a threat. The two tickets I've gotten weren't because I was obeying the law, but because I broke it. Sure I was pissed that I got caught, but I didn't take it out on the cops. I made the mistake and had to pay the consequences. My mistakes though didn't cause me harm because I wasn't an ass or a threat to the cops.
|
|
