Another incident with black men getting shot by police

[Valsuelm]

Huh, I didn't know they needed a warrant to give you a pat down. Or do you mean something else by "search you"?

 

In the U.S., police need a warrant or reasonable suspicion you've been involved in a crime to legally pat you down.

 

What 'reasonable suspicion' is, is of course somewhat ambiguous. It's a fairly simple concept however that can get complex given various scenarios.

 

You really should read the U.S. Constitution. The 4th amendment is pretty clear in what it states.

 

Note that many consider the 'reasonable suspicion' bar to be too low and a violation of the 4th amendment. Legally however, since 1968, that's all the police need. But again, it's an ambiguous threshold, so it's something that's open to abuse, as well as something that might be used by a defense attorney to lambast an officer on the stand should the case go to trial.

[Amentep]

 

 

Question authority.

And we're back to sticking it to the man.

 

 

No or not necessarily in regards to anything you're saying above. As I've said a few times now, what to do, why to do it, and any given scenario is entirely situational. Sometimes they're simple scenarios, but often they are not.

 

I'm not taking this conversation further with you as you keep imagining things that were never stated and are not true, such as equating questioning authority to 'sticking it to the man'. They are certainly not one and the same, and this has now been repeatedly mentioned. If you truly think that, then my sentiments toward you are as they are towards anyone who thinks 2+2=5.

 

That's fine, as I mentioned before I didn't think that there was to be a productive dialgue, but I do appreciate your attempts to explain your position even if, ultimately, I cannot fathom it.

 

However, regarding "Question Authority", I will admit that the phrase sticks in my craw; perhaps I'm projecting an incorrect analysis on your words, but my experience with people who use that phrase is that they are the kind of people who are anti-government conspiracy theorists, the kind who believe that the police are an fascist army ready to take their personal liberties away who must be defied at all turns lest any freedom (real or perceived) be lost.

 

EDIT: This perhaps makes it hard for me to be neutral and understanding in the discussion.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Amentep

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

Question authority.

And we're back to sticking it to the man.

 

 

No or not necessarily in regards to anything you're saying above. As I've said a few times now, what to do, why to do it, and any given scenario is entirely situational. Sometimes they're simple scenarios, but often they are not.

 

I'm not taking this conversation further with you as you keep imagining things that were never stated and are not true, such as equating questioning authority to 'sticking it to the man'. They are certainly not one and the same, and this has now been repeatedly mentioned. If you truly think that, then my sentiments toward you are as they are towards anyone who thinks 2+2=5.

 

That's fine, as I mentioned before I didn't think that there was to be a productive dialgue, but I do appreciate your attempts to explain your position even if, ultimately, I cannot fathom it.

 

However, regarding "Question Authority", I will admit that the phrase sticks in my craw; perhaps I'm projecting an incorrect analysis on your words, but my experience with people who use that phrase is that they are the kind of people who are anti-government conspiracy theorists, the kind who believe that the police are an fascist army ready to take their personal liberties away who must be defied at all turns lest any freedom (real or perceived) be lost.

 

EDIT: This perhaps makes it hard for me to be neutral and understanding in the discussion.

 

am a personal advocate o' civil disobedience. heck, given our occupation, we is always fighting the State. that being said, civil disobedience has become a twisted and ugly thing compared to how Thoreau, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and others used the term.  'course even the more aggressive but ultimately vindicated advocates o' civil disobedience had a purpose when risking their lives and freedom. am admitting confusion when we read val posts. am not certain how civil disobedience became an end rather than a means. Question Authority is a good thing, but challenge authority carries risks. one should first educate themselves regarding those risks. once educated, one must make a choice regarding whether or not challenging authority is a proper course o' action.  conscience is what makes "proper," but one necessarily is taking risks when challenging authority.  

 

 

Gahndi and Martin Luther king Jr.specifically directed folks to avoid insults and physical confrontations with authority. we believes that those in this thread who suggest that those who do not "Question Authority"  is being "slaves," is insulting to the memory o' such men.  folks can question authority and fight injustice without eating a face full of glass or getting shot by police.  w/o context, slavish devotion to an ultimately meaningless phrase is stoopid and wrong. 

 

 

HA! Good Fun! 

Edited February 9, 2015 by Gromnir

[Hurlshort]

 

 

 

Question authority.

And we're back to sticking it to the man.

 

 

No or not necessarily in regards to anything you're saying above. As I've said a few times now, what to do, why to do it, and any given scenario is entirely situational. Sometimes they're simple scenarios, but often they are not.

 

I'm not taking this conversation further with you as you keep imagining things that were never stated and are not true, such as equating questioning authority to 'sticking it to the man'. They are certainly not one and the same, and this has now been repeatedly mentioned. If you truly think that, then my sentiments toward you are as they are towards anyone who thinks 2+2=5.

 

That's fine, as I mentioned before I didn't think that there was to be a productive dialgue, but I do appreciate your attempts to explain your position even if, ultimately, I cannot fathom it.

 

However, regarding "Question Authority", I will admit that the phrase sticks in my craw; perhaps I'm projecting an incorrect analysis on your words, but my experience with people who use that phrase is that they are the kind of people who are anti-government conspiracy theorists, the kind who believe that the police are an fascist army ready to take their personal liberties away who must be defied at all turns lest any freedom (real or perceived) be lost.

 

EDIT: This perhaps makes it hard for me to be neutral and understanding in the discussion.

 

 

I tell my students to question authority regularly, but I hardly think I come across as a conspiracy theorist.  Val, however, has lambasted enough posters about brainwashing that his general tone seems patronizing.  It hardly makes him the only know it all on the forums, but it is hard to relate to.  Sometimes we get a glimpse of the real person behind the persona (just like when Gromnir starts sharing his personal stories) and I start to like Val.  

[Gromnir]

"In the U.S., police need a warrant or reasonable suspicion you've been involved in a crime to legally pat you down."

 

this is wrong.  reasonable suspicion that you have been "involved in a crime" is not enough for police to pat you down.  

 

when val talks law, just ignore.  am not kidding.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Amentep]

I tell my students to question authority regularly, but I hardly think I come across as a conspiracy theorist.

Questioning authority is fine; its reasonable to use critical thinking skills to try to understand what is legitimate and illegitimate authority (or uses thereof).

 

But again, my experience has been (not talking about Val here, but with people outside the internet) if they bring up "Question Authority" repeatedly in discussions about the government, the military, police, large corporations, education or several other institutions they're not talking about critical analysis but about conspiracy theories about institutions controlling the individual and stealing their rights/guns/precious fluids.*

 

 

*Which maybe they are and I'm too brainwashed to see - never side with certainty 100%.

[Valsuelm]

I tell my students to question authority regularly, but I hardly think I come across as a conspiracy theorist.  Val, however, has lambasted enough posters about brainwashing that his general tone seems patronizing.  It hardly makes him the only know it all on the forums, but it is hard to relate to.  Sometimes we get a glimpse of the real person behind the persona (just like when Gromnir starts sharing his personal stories) and I start to like Val.  

 

 

Don't confuse someone who knows what they are talking about with a know-it-all. There's plenty I don't know. Unlike many others though, I generally don't converse or opine about things I don't know (on rare occasion I will make this mistake, but if I do, I'll openly acknowledge it). Rather, I listen (or read), and/or go research whatever it is if it's something I think is worthy of spending time learning about (note this doesn't mean just reading a wiki entry, which seems to be the extent what oh so many consider research around here). Of the things I do know about, I tend to know more than most as I generally spend a lot more time than most learning about whatever.

 

There is no persona here. I don't ever pretend to be someone or something I am not, unless the very purpose of the conversation is to pretend. While it's hard to know for certain with any given individual you meet on an internet forum, I like to think that most of the people here are not as deluded as Gromnir (the only person in my history of interwebbing that I've ever found cause enough to set to ignore). If I thought otherwise, I wouldn't spend time on this forum.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Gromnir]

 

I tell my students to question authority regularly, but I hardly think I come across as a conspiracy theorist.  Val, however, has lambasted enough posters about brainwashing that his general tone seems patronizing.  It hardly makes him the only know it all on the forums, but it is hard to relate to.  Sometimes we get a glimpse of the real person behind the persona (just like when Gromnir starts sharing his personal stories) and I start to like Val.  

 

 

Don't confuse someone who knows what they are talking about with a know-it-all. [...] Of the things I do know about, I tend to know more than most as I generally spend a lot more time than most learning about whatever.

 

 

*chuckle*

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited February 11, 2015 by Gromnir

[BruceVC]

 

I tell my students to question authority regularly, but I hardly think I come across as a conspiracy theorist.  Val, however, has lambasted enough posters about brainwashing that his general tone seems patronizing.  It hardly makes him the only know it all on the forums, but it is hard to relate to.  Sometimes we get a glimpse of the real person behind the persona (just like when Gromnir starts sharing his personal stories) and I start to like Val.  

 

 

Don't confuse someone who knows what they are talking about with a know-it-all. There's plenty I don't know. Unlike many others though, I generally don't converse or opine about things I don't know (on rare occasion I will make this mistake, but if I do, I'll openly acknowledge it). Rather, I listen (or read), and/or go research whatever it is if it's something I think is worthy of spending time learning about (note this doesn't mean just reading a wiki entry, which seems to be the extent what oh so many consider research around here). Of the things I do know about, I tend to know more than most as I generally spend a lot more time than most learning about whatever.

 

There is no persona here. I don't ever pretend to be someone or something I am not, unless the very purpose of the conversation is to pretend. While it's hard to know for certain with any given individual you meet on an internet forum, I like to think that most of the people here are not as deluded as Gromnir (the only person in my history of interwebbing that I've ever found cause enough to set to ignore). If I thought otherwise, I wouldn't spend time on this forum.

 

 

Vals both you and Gromnir offer good insights on topics. My advice is don't ignore\block his comments because he often has pertinent things to say, that doesn't mean you have to agree with him. So you may be denying yourself an interesting and valid perspective if you ignore\block his views?

Edited February 12, 2015 by BruceVC

[Volourn]

"Vals both you and Gromnir offer good insights on topics. My advice is don't ignore\block his comments because he often has pertinent things to say, that doesn't mean you have to agree with him. So you may be denying yourself an interesting and valid perspective if you ignore\block his views?"\

 

\L0L

[Malcador]

http://news.yahoo.com/video-shows-los-angeles-police-shooting-homeless-man-060031475.html

 

More drama with cops again.

[BruceVC]

http://news.yahoo.com/video-shows-los-angeles-police-shooting-homeless-man-060031475.html

 

More drama with cops again.

 

I'm not sure if this is another accusation of police brutality as the homeless man was trying to grab the officer's gun. I'll wait for the final report before commenting properly 

[Volourn]

I blame the cops because they mishandled the situation. The man was likely scared and reacted in self defense from the psychos who assaulted him. It's just as plausible as the 'police are never wrong' theories.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Volourn

[BruceVC]

I blame the cops because they mishandled the situation. The man was likely scared and reacted in self defense from the psychos who assaulted him. It's just as plausible as the 'police are never wrong' theories.

Volo its probably not a good idea to jump to conclusions until we see more evidence and the final report ?

[Valsuelm]

The chances of the police implicating themselves of brutality or murder in the final report is lower than the chance of rain tomorrow in the Sahara.

[Zoraptor]

I'm not sure if this is another accusation of police brutality as the homeless man was trying to grab the officer's gun.

 

Ooookay.

 

Volo its probably not a good idea to jump to conclusions until we see more evidence and the final report ?

roflcopters

 

(better effort overall, still too obvious though)

[Malcador]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-is-charged-with-murder-in-black-mans-death.html

 

Thank goodness for the video.

[Tort]

[..]so I can't understand that they would be that threatened. Can't read this as anything else but an extreme overreaction by cops whose paranoia and fear (whether racially motivated or not, though pretending race wasn't a factor is just denial) caused the death of a man for running a stop sign. At worst a horrific sign for equality in the US, at best a warning sign for US cops' obviously declining mental health.

According to the article, that guy had previously served time for shooting at State Police officer, and recently arrested by those officers for obstruction and drug possession... with the situation escalating only when they seen that there is at least one weapon in the car. It was also during the night and within the confines of a car.

 

Sorry, but to me your description of the situation isn't normal. And your auto assumptions about the cops skin color and actions, seems like the action of the worst kind of racist.

 

A taser could have been fine. Can't fire a gun if your muscles can't move.

A stun gun isn't an all round magic tool, especially in the close confines and limited visibility of a car, with glass and metal doors around you...

 

 

Regardless, as Sean Bean would put it: One does not simply go around shooting unarmed people because they might do something or other.

Great last words although I agree with your previous comment about unknown unresolved issues that can't be seen from that poor video, which why I prefer the court of law to judge of the court of PR, especily when articles start with click bait titles like "Police Shoot Unarmed Black Man" (pure gold)

[Valsuelm]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-is-charged-with-murder-in-black-mans-death.html

 

Thank goodness for the video.

 

Thank goodness for a DA that isn't corrupt to the point they won't ever prosecute cops for murder, no matter how much evidence there is.

[BruceVC]

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-is-charged-with-murder-in-black-mans-death.html

 

Thank goodness for the video.

 

Thank goodness for a DA that isn't corrupt to the point they won't ever prosecute cops for murder, no matter how much evidence there is.

 

Yeah this does seem like a real case of a policeman abusing his power and committing a crime, its good that there were legal consequences 

[Malcador]

Thank goodness for a DA that isn't corrupt to the point they won't ever prosecute cops for murder, no matter how much evidence there is.

That as well, I suppose, the video gives very little wriggle room as loosing eight shots at a guy who's running away unarmed is pretty damn hard to justify. The cop will get off with a light sentence, I am guessing, though.

[Valsuelm]

 

Thank goodness for a DA that isn't corrupt to the point they won't ever prosecute cops for murder, no matter how much evidence there is.

That as well, I suppose, the video gives very little wriggle room as loosing eight shots at a guy who's running away unarmed is pretty damn hard to justify. The cop will get off with a light sentence, I am guessing, though.

 

 

A relatively light sentence if he's convicted is likely.

 

1st hurdle: A DA that will actually prosecute cops of crimes. (most cases die here)

2nd hurdle: A jury that will convict. (juries have been known to let cops get away with the most heinous of crimes even when there's overwhelming evidence. ie: Kelly Thomas, Rodney King)

3rd hurdle: A fair judge. (This actually is probably the smallest hurdle.)

 

Of course It's possible the cop will agree to a plea bargain, and it never goes to trial.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Valsuelm

[BruceVC]

I have just watched the live press  interview on Sky  with the North Charleston Police  Chief about this incident 

 

He said he was sickened at what he saw but he kept getting interrupted by people screaming at him...the whole issue of the Police abusing there power and targeting minorities in USA has really become a volatile situation. People obviously assume that there will be no justice when these types of events occur  

[Valsuelm]

I have just watched the live press  interview on Sky  with the North Charleston Police  Chief about this incident 

 

He said he was sickened at what he saw but he kept getting interrupted by people screaming at him...the whole issue of the Police abusing there power and targeting minorities in USA has really become a volatile situation. People obviously assume that there will be no justice when these types of events occur  

 

Link?

 

I saw the press conference and no one was screaming at anyone.

 

For a change, the mayor and police chief should be commended. Far too often, when stuff like this happens the mayor and police chief try and justify murder, if not help cover up the incident.

[Malcador]

They would if the video wasn't on Youtube