Another Killing Of Police Officers At the Hands of Criminals (1 Viewer)

[General Tso]

It isn't legal. What's the problem?

define acting like an idiot...id like to know what NOT to do when pulled over so i dont get shot in the head while unarmed

Can you understand 'act like a rational human'? This includes not getting out of the car and running, not taking off in the vehicle, etc.

what about the dude that followed the directions and got shot reaching for his wallet? The cop ORDERED HIM TO. He still got shot.

There's your one instance. One. You've gone from that one instance out of millions of interactions to concluding that black people are indiscriminately being murdered by cops. Where I come from they call that extreme prejudice.

You seem not to get the basic point.

Here's some questions for you- do white people ever "resist arrest, flee, assault the cop, or hold a weapon and not follow instructions right away"? I assume you would agree that they do, all the time.

So then why are the victims of police killings so disproportionately black? Even if you claim that it's because black people commit crimes more often than white people per capita (which ignores the impacts of discriminatory policing, which is really the root of the problem), the body count is still out of proportion.

And here's another one- of the 58 shootings of unarmed victims by cops so far this year, why is that only 16 are white while 24 are black? Choose any basis of comparison you like- population numbers, crime rates, police shooting victims overall- and that number is still wildly out of proportion. Why?

That's just it Tobias, black people are not being killed by police at a disproportionate rate. It's a liberal fallacy that just isn't born out in any of the numbers. Let's use your own data, the Washington Post info of police killings in 2015. There have been 141 blacks killed by police in 2015 out of a total of 570. That is 25%. According to the FBI's latest arrest statistics (2013) blacks accounted for 28% of all arrests. The numbers are right where you'd expect them to be.I guess you could make an argument that when it comes to the killing of unarmed blacks the numbers are a bit off, but let's look at that further. Of the 58 police killings in 2015 of unarmed civilians, 24 were black. That is 41%. But we are dealing with obvious small sample size issues here. But more importantly, just because someone is unarmed doesn't mean they are shot unjustly. An altercation may have been going on. The person may not have followed directions and made a threatening movement. Each of these cases needs to be examined individually before any conclusions can be drawn.

I read all 58 of those cases. Clearly there are the high profile cases involving blacks being killed unjustly that we know about it - Walter Scott and Samuel Dubose. But did you also know about the three white cases that are equally suspicious at this point (Johnny Ray Anderson, Derek Cruice, and David Kassick)? Probably not. Why not? Because it doesn't fit the liberal narrative that continues to get rammed down our throats.

Sorry, but when it comes to police use of deadly force the numbers do not show racism. They just don't. And one of the best studies done recently (University of Washington) actually shows that police are less inclined to fire their weapon at black people.

Ironically the only place you'll see clear racism in the crime numbers is in the huge disparity between black on white crime versus white on black. A black is 27 times more likely to attack a white than the other way around. But we don't want to talk about that now do we. http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race-and-violent-crime/

I am all for racial justice, but the focus here is on he wrong area. We need to be looking into why the crime rates are so high in the black communities, and we need to be honest with the answers that come out of that. It's a cop out (no pun intended) to blame it all on racist police. The problems are much more insidious.

Literally nobody does the bolded.

The rest of your post makes some good arguments and some flawed ones. For example, you can't simply ignore the disproportionate number of shootings of unarmed black people by citing the facts with respect to each one, because that ignores the possibility (likelihood?) that the reason the data is so out of whack is that far more white people than black people who behaved similarly did not end up dead.

There's other stuff that we can get into in your post (i.e. that the arrest numbers don't actually reflect the crime rate numbers because of discriminatory policing, intentional or not). But we've done all that stuff before many times, no reason to rehash it.

And yeah, there's a small sample size problem with the numbers on killings of unarmed victims, which I noted up front. I wish that wasn't the case- not because I want to have more data so I can make my argument, but because it's disgraceful that the police have been hiding that data from the public they're supposed to serve for decades. Whether you think there's a racial problem here or not I assume most people can agree about that.

I'll cut right to the chase. Yes we have a problem with police brutality. I don't see any evidence that this is due to racism, and I've studied the issue pretty closely. I think the liberal media is clearly trying to portray it this way. I watched MTP this Sunday and Chuck Todd kept coming back to this ridiculous narrative the entire show, at one point saying that the problem of white Policemen killing blacks was "an epidemic". Meanwhile no mention of the white cop who was just killed by a black man at a routine traffic stop the night before. If you can "On Demand" the show I'd encourage you to do so. It's an amazingly sobering example of the extreme liberal bias that exists in today's mainstream media. And not to mention that the PC Police don't even mention the race of the suspect if he is black. The Memphis Police knew the killer of that cop was black from the moment it happened. They didn't publish that fact, despite him being on the loose and armed and dangerous. This is how race discussions work these days. It was almost a full 24 hours after the cop killing that the race of the suspect was divulged, and the only reason it was is because they posted his picture. But you can bet your ### that if it was a white cop killing a black man those races would be disclosed immediately, and front and center on CNN.People are getting sick and tired of it. I think it explains why so many voters are gravitating to Trump right now.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I'll cut right to the chase. Yes we have a problem with police brutality. I don't see any evidence that this is due to racism, and I've studied the issue pretty closely. I think the liberal media is clearly trying to portray it this way. I watched MTP this Sunday and Chuck Todd kept coming back to this ridiculous narrative the entire show, at one point saying that the problem of white Policemen killing blacks was "an epidemic". Meanwhile no mention of the white cop who was just killed by a black man at a routine traffic stop the night before. If you can "On Demand" the show I'd encourage you to do so. It's an amazingly sobering example of the extreme liberal bias that exists in today's mainstream media. And not to mention that the PC Police don't even mention the race of the suspect if he is black. The Memphis Police knew the killer of that cop was black from the moment it happened. They didn't publish that fact, despite him being on the loose and armed and dangerous. This is how race discussions work these days.People are getting sick and tired of it. I think it explains why so many voters are gravitating to Trump right now.

You are welcome to your opinion on whether there's a racial component to police brutality, but I'm not a fan of the anecdotal evidence to support your claim of a liberal media bias pushing that angle. As I'm sure you know there are plenty of people who accuse the media of doing the exact opposite, and they have plenty of seemingly persuasive anecdotal evidence of their own.

Also no argument that cites Trump voters is going to win me over. But you should definitely check out this writeup of a Trump campaign event for a good laugh!

 

[Donkey Derp]

116 people were killed in Baltimore from May to July.

July set a homicide record with 45 murders - most in 43 years when the city had 200,000 less residents

11 people were already shot the first two days of August (included a "mass" shooting of seven people that didn't make national headlines). 2 of those 11 have died.

189 people have been killed so far through July. There were only 119 at same point last year.

Nonfatal shootings were at 366 through July compared to 200 at same point last year.

People expressed their dislike for the police and it seems like they got exactly what they asked for...

 

[General Tso]

116 people were killed in Baltimore from May to July.

July set a homicide record with 45 murders - most in 43 years when the city had 200,000 less residents

11 people were already shot the first two days of August (included a "mass" shooting of seven people that didn't make national headlines). 2 of those 11 have died.

189 people have been killed so far through July. There were only 119 at same point last year.

Nonfatal shootings were at 366 through July compared to 200 at same point last year.

People expressed their dislike for the police and it seems like they got exactly what they asked for...

Not to mention that Marilyn Mosby just derailed an already commissioned study on current, real-time murder trends in Baltimore. She don't want that stone unturned. Who knows what they might find. I don't know, maybe a conclusion that when the black Mayor and Prosecutor capitulate to the mob it lets the genie out of the bottle from a crime standpoint? http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-homicide-commission-20150801-story.html#page=1

 

[General Tso]

I'll cut right to the chase. Yes we have a problem with police brutality. I don't see any evidence that this is due to racism, and I've studied the issue pretty closely. I think the liberal media is clearly trying to portray it this way. I watched MTP this Sunday and Chuck Todd kept coming back to this ridiculous narrative the entire show, at one point saying that the problem of white Policemen killing blacks was "an epidemic". Meanwhile no mention of the white cop who was just killed by a black man at a routine traffic stop the night before. If you can "On Demand" the show I'd encourage you to do so. It's an amazingly sobering example of the extreme liberal bias that exists in today's mainstream media. And not to mention that the PC Police don't even mention the race of the suspect if he is black. The Memphis Police knew the killer of that cop was black from the moment it happened. They didn't publish that fact, despite him being on the loose and armed and dangerous. This is how race discussions work these days.

People are getting sick and tired of it. I think it explains why so many voters are gravitating to Trump right now.

You are welcome to your opinion on whether there's a racial component to police brutality, but I'm not a fan of the anecdotal evidence to support your claim of a liberal media bias pushing that angle. As I'm sure you know there are plenty of people who accuse the media of doing the exact opposite, and they have plenty of seemingly persuasive anecdotal evidence of their own.

Also no argument that cites Trump voters is going to win me over. But you should definitely check out this writeup of a Trump campaign event for a good laugh!

You're right - the media bias exists on the Right as well with FoxNews being the lone network.But the vast majority of the television media has a left bias. And it is severe. It's not anecdotal, it's fact. And it's to the Left's credit that they have won this battle. The Left owns the media and the colleges. And with that they own the flow of information.

And like I said, I tip my hat to them for it. It was a cultural revolution and they won. But don't deny its existence. That's just downright insulting.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I'll cut right to the chase. Yes we have a problem with police brutality. I don't see any evidence that this is due to racism, and I've studied the issue pretty closely. I think the liberal media is clearly trying to portray it this way. I watched MTP this Sunday and Chuck Todd kept coming back to this ridiculous narrative the entire show, at one point saying that the problem of white Policemen killing blacks was "an epidemic". Meanwhile no mention of the white cop who was just killed by a black man at a routine traffic stop the night before. If you can "On Demand" the show I'd encourage you to do so. It's an amazingly sobering example of the extreme liberal bias that exists in today's mainstream media. And not to mention that the PC Police don't even mention the race of the suspect if he is black. The Memphis Police knew the killer of that cop was black from the moment it happened. They didn't publish that fact, despite him being on the loose and armed and dangerous. This is how race discussions work these days.

People are getting sick and tired of it. I think it explains why so many voters are gravitating to Trump right now.

You are welcome to your opinion on whether there's a racial component to police brutality, but I'm not a fan of the anecdotal evidence to support your claim of a liberal media bias pushing that angle. As I'm sure you know there are plenty of people who accuse the media of doing the exact opposite, and they have plenty of seemingly persuasive anecdotal evidence of their own.

Also no argument that cites Trump voters is going to win me over. But you should definitely check out this writeup of a Trump campaign event for a good laugh!

You're right - the media bias exists on the Right as well with FoxNews being the lone network.But the vast majority of the television media has a left bias. And it is severe. It's not anecdotal, it's fact. And it's to the Left's credit that they have won this battle. The Left owns the media and the colleges. And with that they own the flow of information.

And like I said, I tip my hat to them for it. It was a cultural revolution and they won. But don't deny its existence. That's just downright insulting.

My link showing anecdotal evidence of media pushing the opposite agenda from what you claim they push was from NBC News via twitter. And I linked it not to argue the opposite point, but just to show you that pretty much everyone thinks there's a vast media conspiracy against their perspective, and because the news media is an enormous enterprise they can always find evidence to support their claim.

With that in mind, presenting your opinion as fact- especially an opinion that claims "severe" bias- is where you lose me.

 

[avoiding injuries]

116 people were killed in Baltimore from May to July.

July set a homicide record with 45 murders - most in 43 years when the city had 200,000 less residents

11 people were already shot the first two days of August (included a "mass" shooting of seven people that didn't make national headlines). 2 of those 11 have died.

189 people have been killed so far through July. There were only 119 at same point last year.

Nonfatal shootings were at 366 through July compared to 200 at same point last year.

People expressed their dislike for the police and it seems like they got exactly what they asked for...

I'm not following the connection. Are you saying that police murdering people was previously preventing criminals from murdering people and then cops stopped doing it due to people expressing dislike? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm just trying to figure out what you're saying.

It seems the people of my great city (the parts affected by this) preferred reactive policing to proactive policing. But at least you got your police murdering people line in there.

 

[jonessed]

116 people were killed in Baltimore from May to July.

July set a homicide record with 45 murders - most in 43 years when the city had 200,000 less residents

11 people were already shot the first two days of August (included a "mass" shooting of seven people that didn't make national headlines). 2 of those 11 have died.

189 people have been killed so far through July. There were only 119 at same point last year.

Nonfatal shootings were at 366 through July compared to 200 at same point last year.

People expressed their dislike for the police and it seems like they got exactly what they asked for...

I'm not following the connection. Are you saying that police murdering people was previously preventing criminals from murdering people and then cops stopped doing it due to people expressing dislike? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm just trying to figure out what you're saying.

Asking the police to give the rioters space to loot dozens of pharmacies and methadone clinics led to a drug turf war. That was monumentally stupid.

 

[cheese]

116 people were killed in Baltimore from May to July.

July set a homicide record with 45 murders - most in 43 years when the city had 200,000 less residents

11 people were already shot the first two days of August (included a "mass" shooting of seven people that didn't make national headlines). 2 of those 11 have died.

189 people have been killed so far through July. There were only 119 at same point last year.

Nonfatal shootings were at 366 through July compared to 200 at same point last year.

People expressed their dislike for the police and it seems like they got exactly what they asked for...

I'm not following the connection. Are you saying that police murdering people was previously preventing criminals from murdering people and then cops stopped doing it due to people expressing dislike? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm just trying to figure out what you're saying.

Asking the police to give the rioters space to loot dozens of pharmacies and methadone clinics led to a drug turf war. That was monumentally stupid.

gotcha... that makes sense.

 

[Road Warriors]

When I am stopped I am unfailingly polite, and I always ask permission for any movement I do, or any reach I might make. Even when I decline voluntary cooperation, which is my right and which I have done, I do so politely. I do not try to put the officer in their place, tell them how to do their job, or try to communicate that I know my rights better than do they. The street is not a place for arguing ones rights, we have courts for that.

I recently was stopped in Grand County Colorado. They are notorious up there for stopping traffic. I was well aware of my speed, being well aware of their propensities.

Cop: Do you know how fast you were going?

Me: Good afternoon Officer. Yes I do.

Cop: Do you know what the speed limit is here?

Me: Yes I do.

Cop: why were you speeding then?

Me: I am certain that I was not.

Cop: Are you calling me a liar?

Me: I am saying that I am certain that I was not exceeding the posted speed limit, nothing more.

Cop: I am going to need to see your license and registration.

Me: Certainly. My driver's license is in my wallet, in my back pocket, may I reach for that now?

Cop: Right now.

Me: Here you go Officer.

Me: My registration is in my glove compartment, may I reach for that now?

Cop: Why are you asking? Is there a reason I should be nervous about you reaching in there?

Me: No reason, I just do not want any misunderstandings.

Cop: Get out of the truck.

Me: Yes Sir.

Cop: Turn and face the truck.

Me: Yes sir.

Cop: I am handcuffing you for officer safety. You are not under arrest at this time. Do you understand?

Me: I understand the words you are saying, yes sir.

Cop: Please step around to the passenger side of the vehicle. (I did)

Cop: I am going to search in your glove compartment now for your registration. Hey, the door is locked.

Me: And so is the glove box.

Cop: Where are your keys?

Me: In my right front pants pocket.

Cop: Give them to me.

Me: I cannot, I am handcuffed.

Cop: Are you going to be a problem?

Me: No Officer.

Cop: I'll just give you a pat down and grab your keys.

Me: You have removed me from my vehicle, handcuffed me, moved me from one spot to another, and now you are searching me, not for officer safety but to obtain my keys, are you quite certain I am not under arrest yet?

Cop: Are you some kind of lawyer?

Me: I don't see how that would be relevant to your business right now.

(Cop grabs my keys, he does not do a protective pat down of the rest of my clothing)

Cop: I'll just see about that registration now.

Me: To be clear I have not consented to you searching my vehicle.

(second cop pulls up) (first cop opens the door but can't find the key to the glove box on my key ring. Its in the center counsel along with the key to my gas cap.)

Cop to second cop: I think he has some sort of "Hide" in his glove box, it won't open.

2nd Cop to me: You hiding drugs in there?

Me: I'm not hiding anything. I have not given any permission to search my vehicle. The reason the glove box will not open is that he is using the wrong key. The key to my glove box is not on that key ring.

1st Cop: Then why the hell didn't you say that before?

Me: You did not ask and you do not have my permission to search my vehicle.

Both Cops: We have a right to see your vehicle registration.

Me: And I would be happy to get it out for you if I were not cuffed.

2nd Cop: Time to stop with the games, where is the ####### key?

Me: its in the center counsel on the driver's side on a key ring with two other keys.

2nd Cop: Mind if I get your registration?

Me: if you are asking my permission I do mind. I do not give my permission, not while being detained and handcuffed.

2nd Cop (after finding the registration) There are no drugs or guns in here!

Me: Of course not.

1st Cop: Did you see any in his center counsel?

Me: Officer, Has this turned into a search for drugs, I thought I was stopped for allegedly speeding.

1st Cop: You sit down here in my unit (he called it a unit). ( I complied)

1st Cop: No, feet all the way in, I am just going to shut the door. (I complied)

2nd Cop: I'm sure you won't mind if we search your truck.

Me: I mind very much, you do not have my permission.

2nd Cop: Well we are just going to finish what we started.

Me: I never gave you permission to start in the first place.

1st Cop: We can just call in a dog. He will sniff out whatever you are hiding.

(No response from me)

2nd Cop: #######, do you want us to call in a K-9?

Me: You go ahead and follow your procedures to the best of your understanding and ability.

1st Cop: You will be here a long time, it might take an hour. Why not make it easy on yourself?

Me: Ease went out the window some time ago. You gentlemen go right on ahead and do whatever it is you believe in good faith you have the right to do, understanding that I do not consent to any searches, and that I am now very much under arrest given your actions.

1st Cop: You are an attorney, aren't you?

Me: I do not see how that is relevant.

(Cops huddle up) They talk over their radio. 20 minutes later their Chief pulls up, this is now maybe 40 minutes from the first stop. Their Chief recognizes me. We attended an IACP conference together where he heard me lecture. We had dinner together at that conference along with 6 others. We also met at a party at the home of a prominent local citizen some few weeks before.

Chief: What did these jackasses do?

Me: They treated me like they do any other motorist, at least that is what I have heard from friends and family who live up here.

(Chief huddles with his guys.)

Chief: We apologize for the inconvenience. You are free to go.

Me: (In loud voice shouting over to my brother and a friend, both members of that business community and who were parked across the street watching the whole thing) I'm free to go.

That Chief is now arranging for his officers to attend in service training provided by the State Patrol and the Department for which I work. they need it.

This is a great example, for both sides of the argument.

Cops acted completely unprofessionally, take extreme liberties with your rights and bully and intimidate an innocent citizen. In this particular case, the citizen was an educated, EXTREMELY patient, person fully aware of both police procedures and his rights. He acted in a way that I suspect less than 10% of the population would under such circumstances ( no arguing, getting angry with the police, etc ) and eventually was let go, primarily due to being known to a higher ranking officer.

To expect that this level of patience and submission is how we can safely navigate an encounter with police seems to indicate that there is a problem with how Police interact with the general public.

However, it does also show that you can safely navigate an encounter, though I wonder if you wouldn't have ended in a jailhouse in some form or fashion had the chief not come to the scene and recognized you.

 

[General Tso]

I'll cut right to the chase. Yes we have a problem with police brutality. I don't see any evidence that this is due to racism, and I've studied the issue pretty closely. I think the liberal media is clearly trying to portray it this way. I watched MTP this Sunday and Chuck Todd kept coming back to this ridiculous narrative the entire show, at one point saying that the problem of white Policemen killing blacks was "an epidemic". Meanwhile no mention of the white cop who was just killed by a black man at a routine traffic stop the night before. If you can "On Demand" the show I'd encourage you to do so. It's an amazingly sobering example of the extreme liberal bias that exists in today's mainstream media. And not to mention that the PC Police don't even mention the race of the suspect if he is black. The Memphis Police knew the killer of that cop was black from the moment it happened. They didn't publish that fact, despite him being on the loose and armed and dangerous. This is how race discussions work these days.

People are getting sick and tired of it. I think it explains why so many voters are gravitating to Trump right now.

You are welcome to your opinion on whether there's a racial component to police brutality, but I'm not a fan of the anecdotal evidence to support your claim of a liberal media bias pushing that angle. As I'm sure you know there are plenty of people who accuse the media of doing the exact opposite, and they have plenty of seemingly persuasive anecdotal evidence of their own.

Also no argument that cites Trump voters is going to win me over. But you should definitely check out this writeup of a Trump campaign event for a good laugh!

You're right - the media bias exists on the Right as well with FoxNews being the lone network.But the vast majority of the television media has a left bias. And it is severe. It's not anecdotal, it's fact. And it's to the Left's credit that they have won this battle. The Left owns the media and the colleges. And with that they own the flow of information.

And like I said, I tip my hat to them for it. It was a cultural revolution and they won. But don't deny its existence. That's just downright insulting.

My link showing anecdotal evidence of media pushing the opposite agenda from what you claim they push was from NBC News via twitter. And I linked it not to argue the opposite point, but just to show you that pretty much everyone thinks there's a vast media conspiracy against their perspective, and because the news media is an enormous enterprise they can always find evidence to support their claim.

With that in mind, presenting your opinion as fact- especially an opinion that claims "severe" bias- is where you lose me.

"So many [reporters and editors] share a kind of political and cultural progressivism for lack of a better term that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of the Times. As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in the Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects."- Outgoing public editor Arthur Brisbane in his final New York Times column, August 26, 2012.

"The mainstream press is liberal....Since the civil rights and women's movements, the culture wars and Watergate, the press corps at such institutions as the Washington Post, ABC-NBC-CBS News, the NYT, the Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, etc. is composed in large part of 'new' or 'creative' class members of the liberal elite well-educated men and women who tend to favor abortion rights, women's rights, civil rights, and gay rights. In the main, they find such figures as Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Pat Robertson, or Jerry Falwell beneath contempt....If reporters were the only ones allowed to vote, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry would have won the White House by landslide margins."

- Longtime Washington Post political reporter Thomas Edsall in an October 8, 2009 essay for the Columbia Journalism Review

"I don't know if it's 95 percent...[but] there are enough [liberals] in the old media, not just in ABC, but in old media generally, that it tilts the coverage quite frequently, in many issues, in a liberal direction....It's an endemic problem. And again, it's the reason why for 40 years, conservatives have rightly felt that we did not give them a fair shake."

- ABC News political director Mark Halperin appearing on The Hugh Hewitt Show, October 30, 2006.

"If we wore our politics on our sleeves in here, I have no doubt that in this and in most other mainstream newsrooms in America, the majority of those sleeves would be of the same color: blue. Survey after survey over the years have demonstrated that most of the people who go into this business tend to vote Democratic, at least in national elections. That is not particularly surprising, given how people make career decisions and that social service and activism is a primary driver for many journalists."

- Seattle Times Executive Editor David Boardman in an August 15, 2007 e-mail to his staff, posted by Poynter.org.

"Are reporters biased? There is no doubt that Ive worked at the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and worked here at Politico. If I had to guess, if you put all of the reporters that Ive ever worked with on truth serum, most of them vote Democratic."

- Politico's Jim VandeHei during C-SPAN's coverage of the GOP primaries, March 13, 2012.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I totally agree that the members of the media are left-leaning as compared to the general population.

I don't agree that it shows up to a "severe" degree in the coverage itself, and handful of quotes won't convince me otherwise.

And I know that saying it does show up as "severe bias" is an opinion, not a fact. Just like my saying that it doesn't is an opinion.

 

[General Tso]

Of course you don't see it as severe. They are reporting with the exact same political slant that you have.

I'm going to start a media bias thread where we can start to chronicle all these examples. I think when you see the body of evidence mount up you'll change your tune and see it for what it is.

If you think there is no severe media bias on this issue ask yourself this. Has anyone in here heard of David Kassick? You should have. He was shot in the back and killed by a cop in February while laying face down on the ground. He was unarmed. He should be a household name like Walter Scott, Michael Btown and Freddie Gray - the poster child for the issue of the year in 2015 America - police brutality. Like Walter Scott the Officer involved has been charged with murder.

Didn't hear of him before? Me neither. Reason? He wasn't black. Didn't fit the "black lives matter" narrative. That's a media bias right there. I don't care how anecdotal it is. And that's not opinion, it's fact.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Of course you don't see it as severe. They are reporting with the exact same political slant that you have.

I'm going to start a media bias thread where we can start to chronicle all these examples. I think when you see the body of evidence mount up you'll change your tune and see it for what it is.

If you think there is no severe media bias on this issue ask yourself this. Has anyone in here heard of David Kassick? You should have. He was shot in the back and killed by a cop in February while laying face down on the ground. He was unarmed. He should be a household name like Walter Scott, Michael Btown and Freddie Gray - the poster child for the issue of the year in 2015 America - police brutality. Like Walter Scott the Officer involved has been charged with murder.

Didn't hear of him before? Me neither. Reason? He wasn't black. Didn't fit the "black lives matter" narrative. That's a media bias right there. I don't care how anecdotal it is. And that's not opinion, it's fact.

Sure, whatever you say. The media are the ones driving the "black lives matter" narrative, not the tens of thousands of protestors on the streets of our cities who are a huge part of the story and who have a legitimate beef with discriminatory policing in general, a problem that's been confirmed over and over by countless studies, as well as with police militarization/brutality. And speaking of that subject, the reporting on the looting associated with some of the protests wasn't at all sensationalized by many media outlets in a way that completely contradicts your theory of a media-driven narrative sympathetic to the movement. And of course I'm the one who can't see the truth about the media, but your perspective is unaffected by your own political biases. Sounds like you've got it all figured out.

 

[General Tso]

Of course you don't see it as severe. They are reporting with the exact same political slant that you have.

I'm going to start a media bias thread where we can start to chronicle all these examples. I think when you see the body of evidence mount up you'll change your tune and see it for what it is.

If you think there is no severe media bias on this issue ask yourself this. Has anyone in here heard of David Kassick? You should have. He was shot in the back and killed by a cop in February while laying face down on the ground. He was unarmed. He should be a household name like Walter Scott, Michael Btown and Freddie Gray - the poster child for the issue of the year in 2015 America - police brutality. Like Walter Scott the Officer involved has been charged with murder.

Didn't hear of him before? Me neither. Reason? He wasn't black. Didn't fit the "black lives matter" narrative. That's a media bias right there. I don't care how anecdotal it is. And that's not opinion, it's fact.

Sure, whatever you say. The media are the ones driving the "black lives matter" narrative, not the tens of thousands of protestors on the streets of our cities who are a huge part of the story and who have a legitimate beef with discriminatory policing in general, a problem that's been confirmed over and over by countless studies, as well as with police militarization/brutality. And speaking of that subject, the reporting on the looting associated with some of the protests wasn't at all sensationalized by many media outlets in a way that completely contradicts your theory of a media-driven narrative sympathetic to the movement. And of course I'm the one who can't see the truth about the media, but your perspective is unaffected by your own political biases. Sounds like you've got it all figured out.

Well, fwiw I agree with you on the profiling bit that you alluded to. That practice is lousy, unfair, and should have been disbanded a long time ago. That more than anything else has created this atmosphere of distrust between blacks and the police.

 

[cstu]

There's media bias in this and for good reason:

Media companies exist for the sole purpose of making money (i.e. selling advertising). Dead black people sells right now, dead white people do not (unless of course they are attractive white girls).

I'm tired of hearing about media bias since there's no actual journalism today, only people trying to sell advertising.

 

[General Tso]

Meanwhile, guess who else is pumping the people full of lies about the mythical white on black violence? Here's Louis Farakhan calling on 10,000 black men to rise up and start killing. Unbelievable how this false narrative has taken hold. http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/08/04/unchecked-rhetoric-has-real-life-consequences-farrakhan-wants-10000-men-to-rise-up-and-start-killing/#more-104511

 

[General Tso]

Meanwhile, guess who else is pumping the people full of lies about the mythical white on black violence? Here's Louis Farakhan calling on 10,000 black men to rise up and start killing. Unbelievable how this false narrative has taken hold. http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/08/04/unchecked-rhetoric-has-real-life-consequences-farrakhan-wants-10000-men-to-rise-up-and-start-killing/#more-104511

And Tobias - this is for you - the unbiased reporting of Farakhan's visit to Miami last week. What a ####### joke. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/downtown-miami/article29610016.html

 

[RBM]

Meanwhile, guess who else is pumping the people full of lies about the mythical white on black violence? Here's Louis Farakhan calling on 10,000 black men to rise up and start killing. Unbelievable how this false narrative has taken hold. http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/08/04/unchecked-rhetoric-has-real-life-consequences-farrakhan-wants-10000-men-to-rise-up-and-start-killing/#more-104511

And Tobias - this is for you - the unbiased reporting of Farakhan's visit to Miami last week. What a ####### joke. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/downtown-miami/article29610016.html

Now theres a guy that needs to be prematurely fired on.

 

[Donkey Derp]

And here's another one- of the 58 shootings of unarmed victims by cops so far this year, why is that only 16 are white while 24 are black? Choose any basis of comparison you like- population numbers, crime rates, police shooting victims overall- and that number is still wildly out of proportion. Why?

Here is a video posted today that will support your "stats" of an unarmed black man being shot by those racist white cops in IDAHO:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv8wWGUl1N8 (NSFW)

After you are done watching the video, here is a picture of the man at 2:42/2:43:

http://www.kpvi.com/content/news/local/story/Investigation-Finds-Officers-Justifed-in-Mosley/FreZHJIjyU2HpJRSaSr9VQ.cspx

....or maybe not.

I counted the officers telling him to make his hands visible nearly 20 times over a 1:37 stretch. I read that they tried to deploy a taser, but that did not work. I then see a picture of a man who looks like he is in a shooting stance and the officers have a split second decision to decide if their lives are in immediate danger. They only shoot him in the groin and legs and within seconds of the man hitting the ground, grab an EMS bag to try to save his life.

But all you see is a statistic.

 

[kface]

And here's another one- of the 58 shootings of unarmed victims by cops so far this year, why is that only 16 are white while 24 are black? Choose any basis of comparison you like- population numbers, crime rates, police shooting victims overall- and that number is still wildly out of proportion. Why?

Here is a video posted today that will support your "stats" of an unarmed black man being shot by those racist white cops in IDAHO:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv8wWGUl1N8 (NSFW)

After you are done watching the video, here is a picture of the man at 2:42/2:43:

http://www.kpvi.com/content/news/local/story/Investigation-Finds-Officers-Justifed-in-Mosley/FreZHJIjyU2HpJRSaSr9VQ.cspx

....or maybe not.

I counted the officers telling him to make his hands visible nearly 20 times over a 1:37 stretch. I read that they tried to deploy a taser, but that did not work. I then see a picture of a man who looks like he is in a shooting stance and the officers have a split second decision to decide if their lives are in immediate danger. They only shoot him in the groin and legs and within seconds of the man hitting the ground, grab an EMS bag to try to save his life.

But all you see is a statistic.

I think that man wanted to die

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

When I am stopped I am unfailingly polite, and I always ask permission for any movement I do, or any reach I might make. Even when I decline voluntary cooperation, which is my right and which I have done, I do so politely. I do not try to put the officer in their place, tell them how to do their job, or try to communicate that I know my rights better than do they. The street is not a place for arguing ones rights, we have courts for that.

I recently was stopped in Grand County Colorado. They are notorious up there for stopping traffic. I was well aware of my speed, being well aware of their propensities.

Cop: Do you know how fast you were going?

Me: Good afternoon Officer. Yes I do.

Cop: Do you know what the speed limit is here?

Me: Yes I do.

Cop: why were you speeding then?

Me: I am certain that I was not.

Cop: Are you calling me a liar?

Me: I am saying that I am certain that I was not exceeding the posted speed limit, nothing more.

Cop: I am going to need to see your license and registration.

Me: Certainly. My driver's license is in my wallet, in my back pocket, may I reach for that now?

Cop: Right now.

Me: Here you go Officer.

Me: My registration is in my glove compartment, may I reach for that now?

Cop: Why are you asking? Is there a reason I should be nervous about you reaching in there?

Me: No reason, I just do not want any misunderstandings.

Cop: Get out of the truck.

Me: Yes Sir.

Cop: Turn and face the truck.

Me: Yes sir.

Cop: I am handcuffing you for officer safety. You are not under arrest at this time. Do you understand?

Me: I understand the words you are saying, yes sir.

Cop: Please step around to the passenger side of the vehicle. (I did)

Cop: I am going to search in your glove compartment now for your registration. Hey, the door is locked.

Me: And so is the glove box.

Cop: Where are your keys?

Me: In my right front pants pocket.

Cop: Give them to me.

Me: I cannot, I am handcuffed.

Cop: Are you going to be a problem?

Me: No Officer.

Cop: I'll just give you a pat down and grab your keys.

Me: You have removed me from my vehicle, handcuffed me, moved me from one spot to another, and now you are searching me, not for officer safety but to obtain my keys, are you quite certain I am not under arrest yet?

Cop: Are you some kind of lawyer?

Me: I don't see how that would be relevant to your business right now.

(Cop grabs my keys, he does not do a protective pat down of the rest of my clothing)

Cop: I'll just see about that registration now.

Me: To be clear I have not consented to you searching my vehicle.

(second cop pulls up) (first cop opens the door but can't find the key to the glove box on my key ring. Its in the center counsel along with the key to my gas cap.)

Cop to second cop: I think he has some sort of "Hide" in his glove box, it won't open.

2nd Cop to me: You hiding drugs in there?

Me: I'm not hiding anything. I have not given any permission to search my vehicle. The reason the glove box will not open is that he is using the wrong key. The key to my glove box is not on that key ring.

1st Cop: Then why the hell didn't you say that before?

Me: You did not ask and you do not have my permission to search my vehicle.

Both Cops: We have a right to see your vehicle registration.

Me: And I would be happy to get it out for you if I were not cuffed.

2nd Cop: Time to stop with the games, where is the ####### key?

Me: its in the center counsel on the driver's side on a key ring with two other keys.

2nd Cop: Mind if I get your registration?

Me: if you are asking my permission I do mind. I do not give my permission, not while being detained and handcuffed.

2nd Cop (after finding the registration) There are no drugs or guns in here!

Me: Of course not.

1st Cop: Did you see any in his center counsel?

Me: Officer, Has this turned into a search for drugs, I thought I was stopped for allegedly speeding.

1st Cop: You sit down here in my unit (he called it a unit). ( I complied)

1st Cop: No, feet all the way in, I am just going to shut the door. (I complied)

2nd Cop: I'm sure you won't mind if we search your truck.

Me: I mind very much, you do not have my permission.

2nd Cop: Well we are just going to finish what we started.

Me: I never gave you permission to start in the first place.

1st Cop: We can just call in a dog. He will sniff out whatever you are hiding.

(No response from me)

2nd Cop: #######, do you want us to call in a K-9?

Me: You go ahead and follow your procedures to the best of your understanding and ability.

1st Cop: You will be here a long time, it might take an hour. Why not make it easy on yourself?

Me: Ease went out the window some time ago. You gentlemen go right on ahead and do whatever it is you believe in good faith you have the right to do, understanding that I do not consent to any searches, and that I am now very much under arrest given your actions.

1st Cop: You are an attorney, aren't you?

Me: I do not see how that is relevant.

(Cops huddle up) They talk over their radio. 20 minutes later their Chief pulls up, this is now maybe 40 minutes from the first stop. Their Chief recognizes me. We attended an IACP conference together where he heard me lecture. We had dinner together at that conference along with 6 others. We also met at a party at the home of a prominent local citizen some few weeks before.

Chief: What did these jackasses do?

Me: They treated me like they do any other motorist, at least that is what I have heard from friends and family who live up here.

(Chief huddles with his guys.)

Chief: We apologize for the inconvenience. You are free to go.

Me: (In loud voice shouting over to my brother and a friend, both members of that business community and who were parked across the street watching the whole thing) I'm free to go.

That Chief is now arranging for his officers to attend in service training provided by the State Patrol and the Department for which I work. they need it.

This is a great example, for both sides of the argument.

Cops acted completely unprofessionally, take extreme liberties with your rights and bully and intimidate an innocent citizen. In this particular case, the citizen was an educated, EXTREMELY patient, person fully aware of both police procedures and his rights. He acted in a way that I suspect less than 10% of the population would under such circumstances ( no arguing, getting angry with the police, etc ) and eventually was let go, primarily due to being known to a higher ranking officer.

To expect that this level of patience and submission is how we can safely navigate an encounter with police seems to indicate that there is a problem with how Police interact with the general public.

However, it does also show that you can safely navigate an encounter, though I wonder if you wouldn't have ended in a jailhouse in some form or fashion had the chief not come to the scene and recognized you.

I doubt it. I am white, was respectful, it was broad daylight, and in an area where the cops understand that there are many vacationers of substantial means and connections. they were confused as to what to do with me and my responses, but I believe that confusion would not have lead to any escalation unless I provoked it. They were simply slow-pated. They needed some processing time.

 

[rockaction]

When I am stopped I am unfailingly polite, and I always ask permission for any movement I do, or any reach I might make. Even when I decline voluntary cooperation, which is my right and which I have done, I do so politely. I do not try to put the officer in their place, tell them how to do their job, or try to communicate that I know my rights better than do they. The street is not a place for arguing ones rights, we have courts for that.

I recently was stopped in Grand County Colorado. They are notorious up there for stopping traffic. I was well aware of my speed, being well aware of their propensities.

Cop: Do you know how fast you were going?

Me: Good afternoon Officer. Yes I do.

Cop: Do you know what the speed limit is here?

Me: Yes I do.

Cop: why were you speeding then?

Me: I am certain that I was not.

Cop: Are you calling me a liar?

Me: I am saying that I am certain that I was not exceeding the posted speed limit, nothing more.

Cop: I am going to need to see your license and registration.

Me: Certainly. My driver's license is in my wallet, in my back pocket, may I reach for that now?

Cop: Right now.

Me: Here you go Officer.

Me: My registration is in my glove compartment, may I reach for that now?

Cop: Why are you asking? Is there a reason I should be nervous about you reaching in there?

Me: No reason, I just do not want any misunderstandings.

Cop: Get out of the truck.

Me: Yes Sir.

Cop: Turn and face the truck.

Me: Yes sir.

Cop: I am handcuffing you for officer safety. You are not under arrest at this time. Do you understand?

Me: I understand the words you are saying, yes sir.

Cop: Please step around to the passenger side of the vehicle. (I did)

Cop: I am going to search in your glove compartment now for your registration. Hey, the door is locked.

Me: And so is the glove box.

Cop: Where are your keys?

Me: In my right front pants pocket.

Cop: Give them to me.

Me: I cannot, I am handcuffed.

Cop: Are you going to be a problem?

Me: No Officer.

Cop: I'll just give you a pat down and grab your keys.

Me: You have removed me from my vehicle, handcuffed me, moved me from one spot to another, and now you are searching me, not for officer safety but to obtain my keys, are you quite certain I am not under arrest yet?

Cop: Are you some kind of lawyer?

Me: I don't see how that would be relevant to your business right now.

(Cop grabs my keys, he does not do a protective pat down of the rest of my clothing)

Cop: I'll just see about that registration now.

Me: To be clear I have not consented to you searching my vehicle.

(second cop pulls up) (first cop opens the door but can't find the key to the glove box on my key ring. Its in the center counsel along with the key to my gas cap.)

Cop to second cop: I think he has some sort of "Hide" in his glove box, it won't open.

2nd Cop to me: You hiding drugs in there?

Me: I'm not hiding anything. I have not given any permission to search my vehicle. The reason the glove box will not open is that he is using the wrong key. The key to my glove box is not on that key ring.

1st Cop: Then why the hell didn't you say that before?

Me: You did not ask and you do not have my permission to search my vehicle.

Both Cops: We have a right to see your vehicle registration.

Me: And I would be happy to get it out for you if I were not cuffed.

2nd Cop: Time to stop with the games, where is the ####### key?

Me: its in the center counsel on the driver's side on a key ring with two other keys.

2nd Cop: Mind if I get your registration?

Me: if you are asking my permission I do mind. I do not give my permission, not while being detained and handcuffed.

2nd Cop (after finding the registration) There are no drugs or guns in here!

Me: Of course not.

1st Cop: Did you see any in his center counsel?

Me: Officer, Has this turned into a search for drugs, I thought I was stopped for allegedly speeding.

1st Cop: You sit down here in my unit (he called it a unit). ( I complied)

1st Cop: No, feet all the way in, I am just going to shut the door. (I complied)

2nd Cop: I'm sure you won't mind if we search your truck.

Me: I mind very much, you do not have my permission.

2nd Cop: Well we are just going to finish what we started.

Me: I never gave you permission to start in the first place.

1st Cop: We can just call in a dog. He will sniff out whatever you are hiding.

(No response from me)

2nd Cop: #######, do you want us to call in a K-9?

Me: You go ahead and follow your procedures to the best of your understanding and ability.

1st Cop: You will be here a long time, it might take an hour. Why not make it easy on yourself?

Me: Ease went out the window some time ago. You gentlemen go right on ahead and do whatever it is you believe in good faith you have the right to do, understanding that I do not consent to any searches, and that I am now very much under arrest given your actions.

1st Cop: You are an attorney, aren't you?

Me: I do not see how that is relevant.

(Cops huddle up) They talk over their radio. 20 minutes later their Chief pulls up, this is now maybe 40 minutes from the first stop. Their Chief recognizes me. We attended an IACP conference together where he heard me lecture. We had dinner together at that conference along with 6 others. We also met at a party at the home of a prominent local citizen some few weeks before.

Chief: What did these jackasses do?

Me: They treated me like they do any other motorist, at least that is what I have heard from friends and family who live up here.

(Chief huddles with his guys.)

Chief: We apologize for the inconvenience. You are free to go.

Me: (In loud voice shouting over to my brother and a friend, both members of that business community and who were parked across the street watching the whole thing) I'm free to go.

That Chief is now arranging for his officers to attend in service training provided by the State Patrol and the Department for which I work. they need it.

Unreal.

But you gave him lawyer answers and pissed him off.

A: You never gave him a confession about speeding. They hate that. They know you're a lawyer or are trained. That's why they searched the car, man. If you know that much about evidence, they suspect guilt.

B: Not giving him permission was righteous.

C. The K-9 bit was brilliant in your reticence.

#### all and good for you.

eta* Oh, I wrote before I finished the whole thing. Yeah, they knew you were a lawyer. That's obvious.

 

[Fennis]

When I am stopped I am unfailingly polite, and I always ask permission for any movement I do, or any reach I might make. Even when I decline voluntary cooperation, which is my right and which I have done, I do so politely. I do not try to put the officer in their place, tell them how to do their job, or try to communicate that I know my rights better than do they. The street is not a place for arguing ones rights, we have courts for that.

I recently was stopped in Grand County Colorado. They are notorious up there for stopping traffic. I was well aware of my speed, being well aware of their propensities.

Cop: Do you know how fast you were going?

Me: Good afternoon Officer. Yes I do.

Cop: Do you know what the speed limit is here?

Me: Yes I do.

Cop: why were you speeding then?

Me: I am certain that I was not.

Cop: Are you calling me a liar?

Me: I am saying that I am certain that I was not exceeding the posted speed limit, nothing more.

Cop: I am going to need to see your license and registration.

Me: Certainly. My driver's license is in my wallet, in my back pocket, may I reach for that now?

Cop: Right now.

Me: Here you go Officer.

Me: My registration is in my glove compartment, may I reach for that now?

Cop: Why are you asking? Is there a reason I should be nervous about you reaching in there?

Me: No reason, I just do not want any misunderstandings.

Cop: Get out of the truck.

Me: Yes Sir.

Cop: Turn and face the truck.

Me: Yes sir.

Cop: I am handcuffing you for officer safety. You are not under arrest at this time. Do you understand?

Me: I understand the words you are saying, yes sir.

Cop: Please step around to the passenger side of the vehicle. (I did)

Cop: I am going to search in your glove compartment now for your registration. Hey, the door is locked.

Me: And so is the glove box.

Cop: Where are your keys?

Me: In my right front pants pocket.

Cop: Give them to me.

Me: I cannot, I am handcuffed.

Cop: Are you going to be a problem?

Me: No Officer.

Cop: I'll just give you a pat down and grab your keys.

Me: You have removed me from my vehicle, handcuffed me, moved me from one spot to another, and now you are searching me, not for officer safety but to obtain my keys, are you quite certain I am not under arrest yet?

Cop: Are you some kind of lawyer?

Me: I don't see how that would be relevant to your business right now.

(Cop grabs my keys, he does not do a protective pat down of the rest of my clothing)

Cop: I'll just see about that registration now.

Me: To be clear I have not consented to you searching my vehicle.

(second cop pulls up) (first cop opens the door but can't find the key to the glove box on my key ring. Its in the center counsel along with the key to my gas cap.)

Cop to second cop: I think he has some sort of "Hide" in his glove box, it won't open.

2nd Cop to me: You hiding drugs in there?

Me: I'm not hiding anything. I have not given any permission to search my vehicle. The reason the glove box will not open is that he is using the wrong key. The key to my glove box is not on that key ring.

1st Cop: Then why the hell didn't you say that before?

Me: You did not ask and you do not have my permission to search my vehicle.

Both Cops: We have a right to see your vehicle registration.

Me: And I would be happy to get it out for you if I were not cuffed.

2nd Cop: Time to stop with the games, where is the ####### key?

Me: its in the center counsel on the driver's side on a key ring with two other keys.

2nd Cop: Mind if I get your registration?

Me: if you are asking my permission I do mind. I do not give my permission, not while being detained and handcuffed.

2nd Cop (after finding the registration) There are no drugs or guns in here!

Me: Of course not.

1st Cop: Did you see any in his center counsel?

Me: Officer, Has this turned into a search for drugs, I thought I was stopped for allegedly speeding.

1st Cop: You sit down here in my unit (he called it a unit). ( I complied)

1st Cop: No, feet all the way in, I am just going to shut the door. (I complied)

2nd Cop: I'm sure you won't mind if we search your truck.

Me: I mind very much, you do not have my permission.

2nd Cop: Well we are just going to finish what we started.

Me: I never gave you permission to start in the first place.

1st Cop: We can just call in a dog. He will sniff out whatever you are hiding.

(No response from me)

2nd Cop: #######, do you want us to call in a K-9?

Me: You go ahead and follow your procedures to the best of your understanding and ability.

1st Cop: You will be here a long time, it might take an hour. Why not make it easy on yourself?

Me: Ease went out the window some time ago. You gentlemen go right on ahead and do whatever it is you believe in good faith you have the right to do, understanding that I do not consent to any searches, and that I am now very much under arrest given your actions.

1st Cop: You are an attorney, aren't you?

Me: I do not see how that is relevant.

(Cops huddle up) They talk over their radio. 20 minutes later their Chief pulls up, this is now maybe 40 minutes from the first stop. Their Chief recognizes me. We attended an IACP conference together where he heard me lecture. We had dinner together at that conference along with 6 others. We also met at a party at the home of a prominent local citizen some few weeks before.

Chief: What did these jackasses do?

Me: They treated me like they do any other motorist, at least that is what I have heard from friends and family who live up here.

(Chief huddles with his guys.)

Chief: We apologize for the inconvenience. You are free to go.

Me: (In loud voice shouting over to my brother and a friend, both members of that business community and who were parked across the street watching the whole thing) I'm free to go.

That Chief is now arranging for his officers to attend in service training provided by the State Patrol and the Department for which I work. they need it.

This is a great example, for both sides of the argument.

Cops acted completely unprofessionally, take extreme liberties with your rights and bully and intimidate an innocent citizen. In this particular case, the citizen was an educated, EXTREMELY patient, person fully aware of both police procedures and his rights. He acted in a way that I suspect less than 10% of the population would under such circumstances ( no arguing, getting angry with the police, etc ) and eventually was let go, primarily due to being known to a higher ranking officer.

To expect that this level of patience and submission is how we can safely navigate an encounter with police seems to indicate that there is a problem with how Police interact with the general public.

However, it does also show that you can safely navigate an encounter, though I wonder if you wouldn't have ended in a jailhouse in some form or fashion had the chief not come to the scene and recognized you.

I doubt it. I am white, was respectful, it was broad daylight, and in an area where the cops understand that there are many vacationers of substantial means and connections. they were confused as to what to do with me and my responses, but I believe that confusion would not have lead to any escalation unless I provoked it. They were simply slow-pated. They needed some processing time.

curious on your opinion. If you were a black male teenager, instead of an old white lawyer, but gave the same responses with the same tone would the outcome be any different?

 

[Yenrub]

When I am stopped I am unfailingly polite, and I always ask permission for any movement I do, or any reach I might make. Even when I decline voluntary cooperation, which is my right and which I have done, I do so politely. I do not try to put the officer in their place, tell them how to do their job, or try to communicate that I know my rights better than do they. The street is not a place for arguing ones rights, we have courts for that.

I recently was stopped in Grand County Colorado. They are notorious up there for stopping traffic. I was well aware of my speed, being well aware of their propensities.

Cop: Do you know how fast you were going?

Me: Good afternoon Officer. Yes I do.

Cop: Do you know what the speed limit is here?

Me: Yes I do.

Cop: why were you speeding then?

Me: I am certain that I was not.

Cop: Are you calling me a liar?

Me: I am saying that I am certain that I was not exceeding the posted speed limit, nothing more.

Cop: I am going to need to see your license and registration.

Me: Certainly. My driver's license is in my wallet, in my back pocket, may I reach for that now?

Cop: Right now.

Me: Here you go Officer.

Me: My registration is in my glove compartment, may I reach for that now?

Cop: Why are you asking? Is there a reason I should be nervous about you reaching in there?

Me: No reason, I just do not want any misunderstandings.

Cop: Get out of the truck.

Me: Yes Sir.

Cop: Turn and face the truck.

Me: Yes sir.

Cop: I am handcuffing you for officer safety. You are not under arrest at this time. Do you understand?

Me: I understand the words you are saying, yes sir.

Cop: Please step around to the passenger side of the vehicle. (I did)

Cop: I am going to search in your glove compartment now for your registration. Hey, the door is locked.

Me: And so is the glove box.

Cop: Where are your keys?

Me: In my right front pants pocket.

Cop: Give them to me.

Me: I cannot, I am handcuffed.

Cop: Are you going to be a problem?

Me: No Officer.

Cop: I'll just give you a pat down and grab your keys.

Me: You have removed me from my vehicle, handcuffed me, moved me from one spot to another, and now you are searching me, not for officer safety but to obtain my keys, are you quite certain I am not under arrest yet?

Cop: Are you some kind of lawyer?

Me: I don't see how that would be relevant to your business right now.

(Cop grabs my keys, he does not do a protective pat down of the rest of my clothing)

Cop: I'll just see about that registration now.

Me: To be clear I have not consented to you searching my vehicle.

(second cop pulls up) (first cop opens the door but can't find the key to the glove box on my key ring. Its in the center counsel along with the key to my gas cap.)

Cop to second cop: I think he has some sort of "Hide" in his glove box, it won't open.

2nd Cop to me: You hiding drugs in there?

Me: I'm not hiding anything. I have not given any permission to search my vehicle. The reason the glove box will not open is that he is using the wrong key. The key to my glove box is not on that key ring.

1st Cop: Then why the hell didn't you say that before?

Me: You did not ask and you do not have my permission to search my vehicle.

Both Cops: We have a right to see your vehicle registration.

Me: And I would be happy to get it out for you if I were not cuffed.

2nd Cop: Time to stop with the games, where is the ####### key?

Me: its in the center counsel on the driver's side on a key ring with two other keys.

2nd Cop: Mind if I get your registration?

Me: if you are asking my permission I do mind. I do not give my permission, not while being detained and handcuffed.

2nd Cop (after finding the registration) There are no drugs or guns in here!

Me: Of course not.

1st Cop: Did you see any in his center counsel?

Me: Officer, Has this turned into a search for drugs, I thought I was stopped for allegedly speeding.

1st Cop: You sit down here in my unit (he called it a unit). ( I complied)

1st Cop: No, feet all the way in, I am just going to shut the door. (I complied)

2nd Cop: I'm sure you won't mind if we search your truck.

Me: I mind very much, you do not have my permission.

2nd Cop: Well we are just going to finish what we started.

Me: I never gave you permission to start in the first place.

1st Cop: We can just call in a dog. He will sniff out whatever you are hiding.

(No response from me)

2nd Cop: #######, do you want us to call in a K-9?

Me: You go ahead and follow your procedures to the best of your understanding and ability.

1st Cop: You will be here a long time, it might take an hour. Why not make it easy on yourself?

Me: Ease went out the window some time ago. You gentlemen go right on ahead and do whatever it is you believe in good faith you have the right to do, understanding that I do not consent to any searches, and that I am now very much under arrest given your actions.

1st Cop: You are an attorney, aren't you?

Me: I do not see how that is relevant.

(Cops huddle up) They talk over their radio. 20 minutes later their Chief pulls up, this is now maybe 40 minutes from the first stop. Their Chief recognizes me. We attended an IACP conference together where he heard me lecture. We had dinner together at that conference along with 6 others. We also met at a party at the home of a prominent local citizen some few weeks before.

Chief: What did these jackasses do?

Me: They treated me like they do any other motorist, at least that is what I have heard from friends and family who live up here.

(Chief huddles with his guys.)

Chief: We apologize for the inconvenience. You are free to go.

Me: (In loud voice shouting over to my brother and a friend, both members of that business community and who were parked across the street watching the whole thing) I'm free to go.

That Chief is now arranging for his officers to attend in service training provided by the State Patrol and the Department for which I work. they need it.

This is a great example, for both sides of the argument.

Cops acted completely unprofessionally, take extreme liberties with your rights and bully and intimidate an innocent citizen. In this particular case, the citizen was an educated, EXTREMELY patient, person fully aware of both police procedures and his rights. He acted in a way that I suspect less than 10% of the population would under such circumstances ( no arguing, getting angry with the police, etc ) and eventually was let go, primarily due to being known to a higher ranking officer.

To expect that this level of patience and submission is how we can safely navigate an encounter with police seems to indicate that there is a problem with how Police interact with the general public.

However, it does also show that you can safely navigate an encounter, though I wonder if you wouldn't have ended in a jailhouse in some form or fashion had the chief not come to the scene and recognized you.

Probably helped that he had witnesses across the street the whole time too

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

When I am stopped I am unfailingly polite, and I always ask permission for any movement I do, or any reach I might make. Even when I decline voluntary cooperation, which is my right and which I have done, I do so politely. I do not try to put the officer in their place, tell them how to do their job, or try to communicate that I know my rights better than do they. The street is not a place for arguing ones rights, we have courts for that.

I recently was stopped in Grand County Colorado. They are notorious up there for stopping traffic. I was well aware of my speed, being well aware of their propensities.

Cop: Do you know how fast you were going?

Me: Good afternoon Officer. Yes I do.

Cop: Do you know what the speed limit is here?

Me: Yes I do.

Cop: why were you speeding then?

Me: I am certain that I was not.

Cop: Are you calling me a liar?

Me: I am saying that I am certain that I was not exceeding the posted speed limit, nothing more.

Cop: I am going to need to see your license and registration.

Me: Certainly. My driver's license is in my wallet, in my back pocket, may I reach for that now?

Cop: Right now.

Me: Here you go Officer.

Me: My registration is in my glove compartment, may I reach for that now?

Cop: Why are you asking? Is there a reason I should be nervous about you reaching in there?

Me: No reason, I just do not want any misunderstandings.

Cop: Get out of the truck.

Me: Yes Sir.

Cop: Turn and face the truck.

Me: Yes sir.

Cop: I am handcuffing you for officer safety. You are not under arrest at this time. Do you understand?

Me: I understand the words you are saying, yes sir.

Cop: Please step around to the passenger side of the vehicle. (I did)

Cop: I am going to search in your glove compartment now for your registration. Hey, the door is locked.

Me: And so is the glove box.

Cop: Where are your keys?

Me: In my right front pants pocket.

Cop: Give them to me.

Me: I cannot, I am handcuffed.

Cop: Are you going to be a problem?

Me: No Officer.

Cop: I'll just give you a pat down and grab your keys.

Me: You have removed me from my vehicle, handcuffed me, moved me from one spot to another, and now you are searching me, not for officer safety but to obtain my keys, are you quite certain I am not under arrest yet?

Cop: Are you some kind of lawyer?

Me: I don't see how that would be relevant to your business right now.

(Cop grabs my keys, he does not do a protective pat down of the rest of my clothing)

Cop: I'll just see about that registration now.

Me: To be clear I have not consented to you searching my vehicle.

(second cop pulls up) (first cop opens the door but can't find the key to the glove box on my key ring. Its in the center counsel along with the key to my gas cap.)

Cop to second cop: I think he has some sort of "Hide" in his glove box, it won't open.

2nd Cop to me: You hiding drugs in there?

Me: I'm not hiding anything. I have not given any permission to search my vehicle. The reason the glove box will not open is that he is using the wrong key. The key to my glove box is not on that key ring.

1st Cop: Then why the hell didn't you say that before?

Me: You did not ask and you do not have my permission to search my vehicle.

Both Cops: We have a right to see your vehicle registration.

Me: And I would be happy to get it out for you if I were not cuffed.

2nd Cop: Time to stop with the games, where is the ####### key?

Me: its in the center counsel on the driver's side on a key ring with two other keys.

2nd Cop: Mind if I get your registration?

Me: if you are asking my permission I do mind. I do not give my permission, not while being detained and handcuffed.

2nd Cop (after finding the registration) There are no drugs or guns in here!

Me: Of course not.

1st Cop: Did you see any in his center counsel?

Me: Officer, Has this turned into a search for drugs, I thought I was stopped for allegedly speeding.

1st Cop: You sit down here in my unit (he called it a unit). ( I complied)

1st Cop: No, feet all the way in, I am just going to shut the door. (I complied)

2nd Cop: I'm sure you won't mind if we search your truck.

Me: I mind very much, you do not have my permission.

2nd Cop: Well we are just going to finish what we started.

Me: I never gave you permission to start in the first place.

1st Cop: We can just call in a dog. He will sniff out whatever you are hiding.

(No response from me)

2nd Cop: #######, do you want us to call in a K-9?

Me: You go ahead and follow your procedures to the best of your understanding and ability.

1st Cop: You will be here a long time, it might take an hour. Why not make it easy on yourself?

Me: Ease went out the window some time ago. You gentlemen go right on ahead and do whatever it is you believe in good faith you have the right to do, understanding that I do not consent to any searches, and that I am now very much under arrest given your actions.

1st Cop: You are an attorney, aren't you?

Me: I do not see how that is relevant.

(Cops huddle up) They talk over their radio. 20 minutes later their Chief pulls up, this is now maybe 40 minutes from the first stop. Their Chief recognizes me. We attended an IACP conference together where he heard me lecture. We had dinner together at that conference along with 6 others. We also met at a party at the home of a prominent local citizen some few weeks before.

Chief: What did these jackasses do?

Me: They treated me like they do any other motorist, at least that is what I have heard from friends and family who live up here.

(Chief huddles with his guys.)

Chief: We apologize for the inconvenience. You are free to go.

Me: (In loud voice shouting over to my brother and a friend, both members of that business community and who were parked across the street watching the whole thing) I'm free to go.

That Chief is now arranging for his officers to attend in service training provided by the State Patrol and the Department for which I work. they need it.

This is a great example, for both sides of the argument.

Cops acted completely unprofessionally, take extreme liberties with your rights and bully and intimidate an innocent citizen. In this particular case, the citizen was an educated, EXTREMELY patient, person fully aware of both police procedures and his rights. He acted in a way that I suspect less than 10% of the population would under such circumstances ( no arguing, getting angry with the police, etc ) and eventually was let go, primarily due to being known to a higher ranking officer.

To expect that this level of patience and submission is how we can safely navigate an encounter with police seems to indicate that there is a problem with how Police interact with the general public.

However, it does also show that you can safely navigate an encounter, though I wonder if you wouldn't have ended in a jailhouse in some form or fashion had the chief not come to the scene and recognized you.

I doubt it. I am white, was respectful, it was broad daylight, and in an area where the cops understand that there are many vacationers of substantial means and connections. they were confused as to what to do with me and my responses, but I believe that confusion would not have lead to any escalation unless I provoked it. They were simply slow-pated. They needed some processing time.

curious on your opinion. If you were a black male teenager, instead of an old white lawyer, but gave the same responses with the same tone would the outcome be any different?

In an area with well trained officers or a fairly urban department, say 90% of the departments one might encounter, the result would have been the same. Unfortunately there are departments whose resources do not attract the best and the brightest. Those cops, in that location, a black teen might well have encountered trouble. I also think a white teen would as well, though I admit that were I to bet on which one would more likely have encountered difficulty I would, like Wesley Snipes, always bet on black.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

When I am stopped I am unfailingly polite, and I always ask permission for any movement I do, or any reach I might make. Even when I decline voluntary cooperation, which is my right and which I have done, I do so politely. I do not try to put the officer in their place, tell them how to do their job, or try to communicate that I know my rights better than do they. The street is not a place for arguing ones rights, we have courts for that.

I recently was stopped in Grand County Colorado. They are notorious up there for stopping traffic. I was well aware of my speed, being well aware of their propensities.

Cop: Do you know how fast you were going?

Me: Good afternoon Officer. Yes I do.

Cop: Do you know what the speed limit is here?

Me: Yes I do.

Cop: why were you speeding then?

Me: I am certain that I was not.

Cop: Are you calling me a liar?

Me: I am saying that I am certain that I was not exceeding the posted speed limit, nothing more.

Cop: I am going to need to see your license and registration.

Me: Certainly. My driver's license is in my wallet, in my back pocket, may I reach for that now?

Cop: Right now.

Me: Here you go Officer.

Me: My registration is in my glove compartment, may I reach for that now?

Cop: Why are you asking? Is there a reason I should be nervous about you reaching in there?

Me: No reason, I just do not want any misunderstandings.

Cop: Get out of the truck.

Me: Yes Sir.

Cop: Turn and face the truck.

Me: Yes sir.

Cop: I am handcuffing you for officer safety. You are not under arrest at this time. Do you understand?

Me: I understand the words you are saying, yes sir.

Cop: Please step around to the passenger side of the vehicle. (I did)

Cop: I am going to search in your glove compartment now for your registration. Hey, the door is locked.

Me: And so is the glove box.

Cop: Where are your keys?

Me: In my right front pants pocket.

Cop: Give them to me.

Me: I cannot, I am handcuffed.

Cop: Are you going to be a problem?

Me: No Officer.

Cop: I'll just give you a pat down and grab your keys.

Me: You have removed me from my vehicle, handcuffed me, moved me from one spot to another, and now you are searching me, not for officer safety but to obtain my keys, are you quite certain I am not under arrest yet?

Cop: Are you some kind of lawyer?

Me: I don't see how that would be relevant to your business right now.

(Cop grabs my keys, he does not do a protective pat down of the rest of my clothing)

Cop: I'll just see about that registration now.

Me: To be clear I have not consented to you searching my vehicle.

(second cop pulls up) (first cop opens the door but can't find the key to the glove box on my key ring. Its in the center counsel along with the key to my gas cap.)

Cop to second cop: I think he has some sort of "Hide" in his glove box, it won't open.

2nd Cop to me: You hiding drugs in there?

Me: I'm not hiding anything. I have not given any permission to search my vehicle. The reason the glove box will not open is that he is using the wrong key. The key to my glove box is not on that key ring.

1st Cop: Then why the hell didn't you say that before?

Me: You did not ask and you do not have my permission to search my vehicle.

Both Cops: We have a right to see your vehicle registration.

Me: And I would be happy to get it out for you if I were not cuffed.

2nd Cop: Time to stop with the games, where is the ####### key?

Me: its in the center counsel on the driver's side on a key ring with two other keys.

2nd Cop: Mind if I get your registration?

Me: if you are asking my permission I do mind. I do not give my permission, not while being detained and handcuffed.

2nd Cop (after finding the registration) There are no drugs or guns in here!

Me: Of course not.

1st Cop: Did you see any in his center counsel?

Me: Officer, Has this turned into a search for drugs, I thought I was stopped for allegedly speeding.

1st Cop: You sit down here in my unit (he called it a unit). ( I complied)

1st Cop: No, feet all the way in, I am just going to shut the door. (I complied)

2nd Cop: I'm sure you won't mind if we search your truck.

Me: I mind very much, you do not have my permission.

2nd Cop: Well we are just going to finish what we started.

Me: I never gave you permission to start in the first place.

1st Cop: We can just call in a dog. He will sniff out whatever you are hiding.

(No response from me)

2nd Cop: #######, do you want us to call in a K-9?

Me: You go ahead and follow your procedures to the best of your understanding and ability.

1st Cop: You will be here a long time, it might take an hour. Why not make it easy on yourself?

Me: Ease went out the window some time ago. You gentlemen go right on ahead and do whatever it is you believe in good faith you have the right to do, understanding that I do not consent to any searches, and that I am now very much under arrest given your actions.

1st Cop: You are an attorney, aren't you?

Me: I do not see how that is relevant.

(Cops huddle up) They talk over their radio. 20 minutes later their Chief pulls up, this is now maybe 40 minutes from the first stop. Their Chief recognizes me. We attended an IACP conference together where he heard me lecture. We had dinner together at that conference along with 6 others. We also met at a party at the home of a prominent local citizen some few weeks before.

Chief: What did these jackasses do?

Me: They treated me like they do any other motorist, at least that is what I have heard from friends and family who live up here.

(Chief huddles with his guys.)

Chief: We apologize for the inconvenience. You are free to go.

Me: (In loud voice shouting over to my brother and a friend, both members of that business community and who were parked across the street watching the whole thing) I'm free to go.

That Chief is now arranging for his officers to attend in service training provided by the State Patrol and the Department for which I work. they need it.

This is a great example, for both sides of the argument.

Cops acted completely unprofessionally, take extreme liberties with your rights and bully and intimidate an innocent citizen. In this particular case, the citizen was an educated, EXTREMELY patient, person fully aware of both police procedures and his rights. He acted in a way that I suspect less than 10% of the population would under such circumstances ( no arguing, getting angry with the police, etc ) and eventually was let go, primarily due to being known to a higher ranking officer.

To expect that this level of patience and submission is how we can safely navigate an encounter with police seems to indicate that there is a problem with how Police interact with the general public.

However, it does also show that you can safely navigate an encounter, though I wonder if you wouldn't have ended in a jailhouse in some form or fashion had the chief not come to the scene and recognized you.

Probably helped that he had witnesses across the street the whole time too

I do not believe those two appreciated that fact. My brother pulled over and parked in a parking lot of a restaurant. they were not conspicuous.

 

[Donkey Derp]

Quote from the Memphis police chief really hits home. Something to the effect of these officers have rules of engagement they must follow, though they at any point in a 24 hour day may face those who follow no rules.

So just in case shoot first and figure out the rest later

You're pathetic!

Cops know the rules before they become cops (though many don't follow those rules). They also have bullet proof gear. It sucks for anyone to get shot but cops should rarely fire the first shot.

Whew I am glad the shooter in Tennessee today fired at the officer first. Can you imagine the online backlash from Ramblin had the SWAT team with ALL of their extra protective gear been the one to kill the guy??

They said a gunman entered the building. One officer walked into the theater and confronted the suspect in a projection room.

The man, who has not yet been identified, raised his gun and pulled the trigger, prompting the officer to fire back.

The officer managed to avoid the bullet, but the suspect escaped out one of the back entrances.

When he got outside, he was gunned down by SWAT.

Officers then walked into the theater to search the scene and were forced to wear gas masks because the air was so thick with pepper spray.

 

[Donkey Derp]

http://www.ktbs.com/story/29725517/shreveport-police-mourn-loss-of-officer-thomas-lavalley

 

[BustedKnuckles]

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Rohnert-Park-Police-Officer-Who-Pulled-Gun-on-Man-Placed-on-Paid-Administrative-Leave-320989391.html?hootPostID=7cfc7c998a3642a08f686b495999d398

white on white crime needs to stop

 

[matttyl]

Not sure this goes here, but whatever. Why no outrage over this kid's killing by the police? Also, impressive that this 19 year old kid was dating a 23 year old girl.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/06/an-unarmed-white-teen-was-shot-dead-by-police-his-family-asks-where-is-the-outrage/

 

[whoknew]

Not sure this goes here, but whatever. Why no outrage over this kid's killing by the police? Also, impressive that this 19 year old kid was dating a 23 year old girl.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/06/an-unarmed-white-teen-was-shot-dead-by-police-his-family-asks-where-is-the-outrage/

There's no outrage because its the first we'v heard of it. But if y'all want to come over to the "police, please stop killing unarmed people" side of the debate, there's plenty of room on the bandwagon.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Not sure this goes here, but whatever. Why no outrage over this kid's killing by the police? Also, impressive that this 19 year old kid was dating a 23 year old girl.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/06/an-unarmed-white-teen-was-shot-dead-by-police-his-family-asks-where-is-the-outrage/

What makes you say there's no outrage? I know exactly who you were talking about before clicking the link, and I hadn't read that story before. I've seen him name many times by many people on social media, including many of the same activists who were upset about the killings of Brown, Garner, Rice and others. People are upset about it. And not just the killing but the fact that the cops are running a sting operation for a half-ounce of weed, which is utterly absurd.

Perhaps what you are saying is that there hasn't been the same media coverage of the killing. To which I would say that the media coverage was generally a response to the "Black Lives Matter" protests and anger. For whatever reason nobody seems to care enough about this injustice to take to the streets? I guess when the counter-movement claimed that "all lives matter" what they really meant was "no lives matter."

 

[matttyl]

Not sure this goes here, but whatever. Why no outrage over this kid's killing by the police? Also, impressive that this 19 year old kid was dating a 23 year old girl.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/06/an-unarmed-white-teen-was-shot-dead-by-police-his-family-asks-where-is-the-outrage/

There's no outrage because its the first we'v heard of it. But if y'all want to come over to the "police, please stop killing unarmed people" side of the debate, there's plenty of room on the bandwagon.

That's the point. It was 12 days ago.

 

[matttyl]

Not sure this goes here, but whatever. Why no outrage over this kid's killing by the police? Also, impressive that this 19 year old kid was dating a 23 year old girl.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/06/an-unarmed-white-teen-was-shot-dead-by-police-his-family-asks-where-is-the-outrage/

What makes you say there's no outrage? I know exactly who you were talking about before clicking the link, and I hadn't read that story before. I've seen him name many times by many people on social media, including many of the same activists who were upset about the killings of Brown, Garner, Rice and others. People are upset about it. And not just the killing but the fact that the cops are running a sting operation for a half-ounce of weed, which is utterly absurd.

Perhaps what you are saying is that there hasn't been the same media coverage of the killing. To which I would say that the media coverage was generally a response to the "Black Lives Matter" protests and anger. For whatever reason nobody seems to care enough about this injustice to take to the streets? I guess when the counter-movement claimed that "all lives matter" what they really meant was "no lives matter."

I guess I'm talking about the lack of any media coverage. Today was the first time I heard anything about this situation, and it was due to social media (not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing). I don't watch much, if any news. I have recently only because of the debates and such, but I typically only have a few minutes in the morning to have any news type stuff on while I'm getting ready for work. Hadn't heard a thing about this. I do, for better or worse, get a lot of information about current events and news and the like from here - and you get to typically here both sides of an argument or situation (many times from you and Tso or others). I did a "search" of this kid's name in the pool and nothing came up (but maybe I searched wrong or something).

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Not sure this goes here, but whatever. Why no outrage over this kid's killing by the police? Also, impressive that this 19 year old kid was dating a 23 year old girl.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/06/an-unarmed-white-teen-was-shot-dead-by-police-his-family-asks-where-is-the-outrage/

crazy how stories like this get buried

 

[TobiasFunke]

Not sure this goes here, but whatever. Why no outrage over this kid's killing by the police? Also, impressive that this 19 year old kid was dating a 23 year old girl.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/06/an-unarmed-white-teen-was-shot-dead-by-police-his-family-asks-where-is-the-outrage/

What makes you say there's no outrage? I know exactly who you were talking about before clicking the link, and I hadn't read that story before. I've seen him name many times by many people on social media, including many of the same activists who were upset about the killings of Brown, Garner, Rice and others. People are upset about it. And not just the killing but the fact that the cops are running a sting operation for a half-ounce of weed, which is utterly absurd.

Perhaps what you are saying is that there hasn't been the same media coverage of the killing. To which I would say that the media coverage was generally a response to the "Black Lives Matter" protests and anger. For whatever reason nobody seems to care enough about this injustice to take to the streets? I guess when the counter-movement claimed that "all lives matter" what they really meant was "no lives matter."

Another solid point I read after linking that twitter search results- part of the reason for all the coverage and discussion of shootings like Brown and Garner are because they sparked controversy and conflict with outraged protestors being countered by people who demonized Brown and even Garner by asking why they didn't cooperate with the cops and spreading around photos of them with guns or weed of whatever.

There's none of that here ... quite possibly because this guy is white? I'd love for someone to try to find some conservatives who are demonizing Hammond, searching facebook and instagram for photos that make him look threatening, or arguing that he was a weed-smoking thug who should have just complied with whatever the cops asked of him instead of "driving his car towards the officer." Let me know how that search goes.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Here's the post I read making the point about the differences in reaction to the incident and the lack of conflict for the media to milk. There's some strong wording there, not sure I agree with every point that's made, but the general sentiment is pretty sound IMO.

 

[matttyl]

Not sure this goes here, but whatever. Why no outrage over this kid's killing by the police? Also, impressive that this 19 year old kid was dating a 23 year old girl.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/06/an-unarmed-white-teen-was-shot-dead-by-police-his-family-asks-where-is-the-outrage/

What makes you say there's no outrage? I know exactly who you were talking about before clicking the link, and I hadn't read that story before. I've seen him name many times by many people on social media, including many of the same activists who were upset about the killings of Brown, Garner, Rice and others. People are upset about it. And not just the killing but the fact that the cops are running a sting operation for a half-ounce of weed, which is utterly absurd.

Perhaps what you are saying is that there hasn't been the same media coverage of the killing. To which I would say that the media coverage was generally a response to the "Black Lives Matter" protests and anger. For whatever reason nobody seems to care enough about this injustice to take to the streets? I guess when the counter-movement claimed that "all lives matter" what they really meant was "no lives matter."

Another solid point I read after linking that twitter search results- part of the reason for all the coverage and discussion of shootings like Brown and Garner are because they sparked controversy and conflict with outraged protestors being countered by people who demonized Brown and even Garner by asking why they didn't cooperate with the cops and spreading around photos of them with guns or weed of whatever.

There's none of that here ... quite possibly because this guy is white? I'd love for someone to try to find some conservatives who are demonizing Hammond, searching facebook and instagram for photos that make him look threatening, or arguing that he was a weed-smoking thug who should have just complied with whatever the cops asked of him instead of "driving his car towards the officer." Let me know how that search goes.

Why would they demonize him? If I'm understanding the story correctly, the weed was the girl's, not his.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Not sure this goes here, but whatever. Why no outrage over this kid's killing by the police? Also, impressive that this 19 year old kid was dating a 23 year old girl.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/06/an-unarmed-white-teen-was-shot-dead-by-police-his-family-asks-where-is-the-outrage/

What makes you say there's no outrage? I know exactly who you were talking about before clicking the link, and I hadn't read that story before. I've seen him name many times by many people on social media, including many of the same activists who were upset about the killings of Brown, Garner, Rice and others. People are upset about it. And not just the killing but the fact that the cops are running a sting operation for a half-ounce of weed, which is utterly absurd.

Perhaps what you are saying is that there hasn't been the same media coverage of the killing. To which I would say that the media coverage was generally a response to the "Black Lives Matter" protests and anger. For whatever reason nobody seems to care enough about this injustice to take to the streets? I guess when the counter-movement claimed that "all lives matter" what they really meant was "no lives matter."

Another solid point I read after linking that twitter search results- part of the reason for all the coverage and discussion of shootings like Brown and Garner are because they sparked controversy and conflict with outraged protestors being countered by people who demonized Brown and even Garner by asking why they didn't cooperate with the cops and spreading around photos of them with guns or weed of whatever.

There's none of that here ... quite possibly because this guy is white? I'd love for someone to try to find some conservatives who are demonizing Hammond, searching facebook and instagram for photos that make him look threatening, or arguing that he was a weed-smoking thug who should have just complied with whatever the cops asked of him instead of "driving his car towards the officer." Let me know how that search goes.

Why would they demonize him? If I'm understanding the story correctly, the weed was the girl's, not his.

Why would they demonize any of the victims? With the possible exception of Brown none of them did anything particularly bad when the incidents that led to their deaths occurred. But that didn't stop counter-activists from digging up old pictures that were totally unrelated to the incident, claiming they shouldn't have been breaking the law, coming to the defense of both the shooter and law enforcement in general, etc.

Until the Post ran that article yesterday the only people talking about it were the activists behind the black lives matter movement. Why? Where are the "all lives matter" people? Like I said, apparently what they meant was "no lives matter." And how about "blue lives matter"? I guess they only matter if the blue life in question shot a black person?

You want to know why there isn't more media coverage leading to more widespread outrage? Because the media loves conflict, and there's none here. There's just the activists on one side and silence on the other.

 

[Yenrub]

Not sure this goes here, but whatever. Why no outrage over this kid's killing by the police? Also, impressive that this 19 year old kid was dating a 23 year old girl.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/06/an-unarmed-white-teen-was-shot-dead-by-police-his-family-asks-where-is-the-outrage/

What makes you say there's no outrage? I know exactly who you were talking about before clicking the link, and I hadn't read that story before. I've seen him name many times by many people on social media, including many of the same activists who were upset about the killings of Brown, Garner, Rice and others. People are upset about it. And not just the killing but the fact that the cops are running a sting operation for a half-ounce of weed, which is utterly absurd.

Perhaps what you are saying is that there hasn't been the same media coverage of the killing. To which I would say that the media coverage was generally a response to the "Black Lives Matter" protests and anger. For whatever reason nobody seems to care enough about this injustice to take to the streets? I guess when the counter-movement claimed that "all lives matter" what they really meant was "no lives matter."

Another solid point I read after linking that twitter search results- part of the reason for all the coverage and discussion of shootings like Brown and Garner are because they sparked controversy and conflict with outraged protestors being countered by people who demonized Brown and even Garner by asking why they didn't cooperate with the cops and spreading around photos of them with guns or weed of whatever.

There's none of that here ... quite possibly because this guy is white? I'd love for someone to try to find some conservatives who are demonizing Hammond, searching facebook and instagram for photos that make him look threatening, or arguing that he was a weed-smoking thug who should have just complied with whatever the cops asked of him instead of "driving his car towards the officer." Let me know how that search goes.

I agree with this but it’s also an example of what CTSU said about the media is about making money

Unarmed black kid gets shot by police gets a ratings boost, unarmed white kid gets shot by police not so much

White girl abducted gets a ratings boost, Black girl abducted not so much

 

[jonessed]

Not sure this goes here, but whatever. Why no outrage over this kid's killing by the police? Also, impressive that this 19 year old kid was dating a 23 year old girl.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/06/an-unarmed-white-teen-was-shot-dead-by-police-his-family-asks-where-is-the-outrage/

What makes you say there's no outrage? I know exactly who you were talking about before clicking the link, and I hadn't read that story before. I've seen him name many times by many people on social media, including many of the same activists who were upset about the killings of Brown, Garner, Rice and others. People are upset about it. And not just the killing but the fact that the cops are running a sting operation for a half-ounce of weed, which is utterly absurd.

Perhaps what you are saying is that there hasn't been the same media coverage of the killing. To which I would say that the media coverage was generally a response to the "Black Lives Matter" protests and anger. For whatever reason nobody seems to care enough about this injustice to take to the streets? I guess when the counter-movement claimed that "all lives matter" what they really meant was "no lives matter."

I guess I'm talking about the lack of any media coverage. Today was the first time I heard anything about this situation, and it was due to social media (not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing). I don't watch much, if any news. I have recently only because of the debates and such, but I typically only have a few minutes in the morning to have any news type stuff on while I'm getting ready for work. Hadn't heard a thing about this. I do, for better or worse, get a lot of information about current events and news and the like from here - and you get to typically here both sides of an argument or situation (many times from you and Tso or others). I did a "search" of this kid's name in the pool and nothing came up (but maybe I searched wrong or something).

The money right now is in police killing blacks and illegal immigrants killing whites.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Not sure this goes here, but whatever. Why no outrage over this kid's killing by the police? Also, impressive that this 19 year old kid was dating a 23 year old girl.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/06/an-unarmed-white-teen-was-shot-dead-by-police-his-family-asks-where-is-the-outrage/

What makes you say there's no outrage? I know exactly who you were talking about before clicking the link, and I hadn't read that story before. I've seen him name many times by many people on social media, including many of the same activists who were upset about the killings of Brown, Garner, Rice and others. People are upset about it. And not just the killing but the fact that the cops are running a sting operation for a half-ounce of weed, which is utterly absurd.

Perhaps what you are saying is that there hasn't been the same media coverage of the killing. To which I would say that the media coverage was generally a response to the "Black Lives Matter" protests and anger. For whatever reason nobody seems to care enough about this injustice to take to the streets? I guess when the counter-movement claimed that "all lives matter" what they really meant was "no lives matter."

Another solid point I read after linking that twitter search results- part of the reason for all the coverage and discussion of shootings like Brown and Garner are because they sparked controversy and conflict with outraged protestors being countered by people who demonized Brown and even Garner by asking why they didn't cooperate with the cops and spreading around photos of them with guns or weed of whatever.

There's none of that here ... quite possibly because this guy is white? I'd love for someone to try to find some conservatives who are demonizing Hammond, searching facebook and instagram for photos that make him look threatening, or arguing that he was a weed-smoking thug who should have just complied with whatever the cops asked of him instead of "driving his car towards the officer." Let me know how that search goes.

I agree with this but it’s also an example of what CTSU said about the media is about making money

Unarmed black kid gets shot by police gets a ratings boost, unarmed white kid gets shot by police not so much

White girl abducted gets a ratings boost, Black girl abducted not so much

Sure, I agree with that point. My question is why does a shooting of a black kid gets that ratings boost but the shooting of a white kid does not? Some people will tell you it feeds some sort of liberal agenda to portray blacks as victims or something, but of course your valid point about coverage of abductions contradicts that notion. I think the real reason is that one triggered protests in the community and then counter-activism and the other did not. Protests and controversy make for good TV. The people of Ferguson and NYC and Cleveland and Baltimore were upset about the deaths at the hands of law enforcement in their community, and their passion triggered opposition and debate. The people of South Carolina don't appear to care about this incident.

 

[matttyl]

Not sure this goes here, but whatever. Why no outrage over this kid's killing by the police? Also, impressive that this 19 year old kid was dating a 23 year old girl.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/06/an-unarmed-white-teen-was-shot-dead-by-police-his-family-asks-where-is-the-outrage/

What makes you say there's no outrage? I know exactly who you were talking about before clicking the link, and I hadn't read that story before. I've seen him name many times by many people on social media, including many of the same activists who were upset about the killings of Brown, Garner, Rice and others. People are upset about it. And not just the killing but the fact that the cops are running a sting operation for a half-ounce of weed, which is utterly absurd.

Perhaps what you are saying is that there hasn't been the same media coverage of the killing. To which I would say that the media coverage was generally a response to the "Black Lives Matter" protests and anger. For whatever reason nobody seems to care enough about this injustice to take to the streets? I guess when the counter-movement claimed that "all lives matter" what they really meant was "no lives matter."

Another solid point I read after linking that twitter search results- part of the reason for all the coverage and discussion of shootings like Brown and Garner are because they sparked controversy and conflict with outraged protestors being countered by people who demonized Brown and even Garner by asking why they didn't cooperate with the cops and spreading around photos of them with guns or weed of whatever.

There's none of that here ... quite possibly because this guy is white? I'd love for someone to try to find some conservatives who are demonizing Hammond, searching facebook and instagram for photos that make him look threatening, or arguing that he was a weed-smoking thug who should have just complied with whatever the cops asked of him instead of "driving his car towards the officer." Let me know how that search goes.

Why would they demonize him? If I'm understanding the story correctly, the weed was the girl's, not his.

Why would they demonize any of the victims? With the possible exception of Brown none of them did anything particularly bad when the incidents that led to their deaths occurred. But that didn't stop counter-activists from digging up old pictures that were totally unrelated to the incident, claiming they shouldn't have been breaking the law, coming to the defense of both the shooter and law enforcement in general, etc.

Until the Post ran that article yesterday the only people talking about it were the activists behind the black lives matter movement. Why? Where are the "all lives matter" people? Like I said, apparently what they meant was "no lives matter." And how about "blue lives matter"? I guess they only matter if the blue life in question shot a black person?

You want to know why there isn't more media coverage leading to more widespread outrage? Because the media loves conflict, and there's none here. There's just the activists on one side and silence on the other.

To your first point - so in your eyes two wrongs would make a right in this situation?

To your 3rd (and thus your 2nd) point, aren't you talking about a catch 22 (the bolded two words showing it)? Might there be more outrage/conflict if there was knowledge of the situation from media coverage? Do you think the situations in Baltimore and Fergueson and other places would have been different if not for the coverage in the media? Meaning they reported on the situation, and that "media coverage lead to more widespread outrage" (your words)? How am I, as some guy in Virginia suppose to know about, and thus care about some kid in South Carolina getting shot by a cop if the media doesn't report on it?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Not sure this goes here, but whatever. Why no outrage over this kid's killing by the police? Also, impressive that this 19 year old kid was dating a 23 year old girl.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/06/an-unarmed-white-teen-was-shot-dead-by-police-his-family-asks-where-is-the-outrage/

What makes you say there's no outrage? I know exactly who you were talking about before clicking the link, and I hadn't read that story before. I've seen him name many times by many people on social media, including many of the same activists who were upset about the killings of Brown, Garner, Rice and others. People are upset about it. And not just the killing but the fact that the cops are running a sting operation for a half-ounce of weed, which is utterly absurd.

Perhaps what you are saying is that there hasn't been the same media coverage of the killing. To which I would say that the media coverage was generally a response to the "Black Lives Matter" protests and anger. For whatever reason nobody seems to care enough about this injustice to take to the streets? I guess when the counter-movement claimed that "all lives matter" what they really meant was "no lives matter."

Another solid point I read after linking that twitter search results- part of the reason for all the coverage and discussion of shootings like Brown and Garner are because they sparked controversy and conflict with outraged protestors being countered by people who demonized Brown and even Garner by asking why they didn't cooperate with the cops and spreading around photos of them with guns or weed of whatever.

There's none of that here ... quite possibly because this guy is white? I'd love for someone to try to find some conservatives who are demonizing Hammond, searching facebook and instagram for photos that make him look threatening, or arguing that he was a weed-smoking thug who should have just complied with whatever the cops asked of him instead of "driving his car towards the officer." Let me know how that search goes.

Why would they demonize him? If I'm understanding the story correctly, the weed was the girl's, not his.

Why would they demonize any of the victims? With the possible exception of Brown none of them did anything particularly bad when the incidents that led to their deaths occurred. But that didn't stop counter-activists from digging up old pictures that were totally unrelated to the incident, claiming they shouldn't have been breaking the law, coming to the defense of both the shooter and law enforcement in general, etc.

Until the Post ran that article yesterday the only people talking about it were the activists behind the black lives matter movement. Why? Where are the "all lives matter" people? Like I said, apparently what they meant was "no lives matter." And how about "blue lives matter"? I guess they only matter if the blue life in question shot a black person?

You want to know why there isn't more media coverage leading to more widespread outrage? Because the media loves conflict, and there's none here. There's just the activists on one side and silence on the other.

To your first point - so in your eyes two wrongs would make a right in this situation?

To your 3rd (and thus your 2nd) point, aren't you talking about a catch 22 (the bolded two words showing it)? Might there be more outrage/conflict if there was knowledge of the situation from media coverage? Do you think the situations in Baltimore and Fergueson and other places would have been different if not for the coverage in the media? Meaning they reported on the situation, and that "media coverage lead to more widespread outrage" (your words)? How am I, as some guy in Virginia suppose to know about, and thus care about some kid in South Carolina getting shot by a cop if the media doesn't report on it?

I don't understand the "two wrongs make a right" thing at all. I never said that. It was one wrong- demonizing victims by dredging up negative portrayals in a misguided effort to make people think their deaths were not a tragedy. And the fact that it's not being made a second time exposes the racism behind that wrong. End of story.

As for the rest- you seem to be under the mistaken impression that there was nothing going on in Ferguson and elsewhere until the media decided to cover the story breathlessly. That is wrong. You found out about it because people in the Ferguson community were outraged by the killing and what they saw as decades of police mistreatment and they took to the streets in protest, leading to coverage, leading to "widespread outrage," and then looting and suppression of the media by police and counter-activism and racism and then the whole thing turned into a 500 lb gorilla. But it all started with the local protests, not the media. There's no protests here- whose fault is that? Certainly not the media's, unless you want to blame the local South Carolina media if they buried the story in the local papers I suppose, although I doubt they did.

As for how you can find out about it ... get involved. If you care about these issues, take some responsibility for learning more. I knew about this incident - and the total lack of concern about it from anyone other than activists- because I read blogs and follow people on twitter who are upset about the conduct of law enforcement in this country. It's really not that hard to do in the information age. You can leave it to the media if you want, but then you're basically at the mercy of others who make decisions about what to protest and counter-protest and get angry about, because that's what the media will cater to.

 

[jonessed]

Not sure this goes here, but whatever. Why no outrage over this kid's killing by the police? Also, impressive that this 19 year old kid was dating a 23 year old girl.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/06/an-unarmed-white-teen-was-shot-dead-by-police-his-family-asks-where-is-the-outrage/

What makes you say there's no outrage? I know exactly who you were talking about before clicking the link, and I hadn't read that story before. I've seen him name many times by many people on social media, including many of the same activists who were upset about the killings of Brown, Garner, Rice and others. People are upset about it. And not just the killing but the fact that the cops are running a sting operation for a half-ounce of weed, which is utterly absurd.

Perhaps what you are saying is that there hasn't been the same media coverage of the killing. To which I would say that the media coverage was generally a response to the "Black Lives Matter" protests and anger. For whatever reason nobody seems to care enough about this injustice to take to the streets? I guess when the counter-movement claimed that "all lives matter" what they really meant was "no lives matter."

I guess I'm talking about the lack of any media coverage. Today was the first time I heard anything about this situation, and it was due to social media (not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing). I don't watch much, if any news. I have recently only because of the debates and such, but I typically only have a few minutes in the morning to have any news type stuff on while I'm getting ready for work. Hadn't heard a thing about this. I do, for better or worse, get a lot of information about current events and news and the like from here - and you get to typically here both sides of an argument or situation (many times from you and Tso or others). I did a "search" of this kid's name in the pool and nothing came up (but maybe I searched wrong or something).

Swap out the cop for an illegal immigrant and it's much bigger news.

The money right now is in pushing cops killing black people and illegal immigrants killing white people.

 

[General Tso]

The hypocrisy and racial partisanship here is astounding. And anyone who tries to explain it away is being disingenuous. It is what is is. The BlackLivesNatter movement is - first and foremost - concerned with black lives. It's in their name for crying out loud. They could have used a name like "Coalition Against Police Brutality" but they didn't. It is a partisan movement that is focused on people of color, just like the NAACP. To their credit they have been largely supportive of Zachary Hammond, but let's not kid ourselves. If he was black they'd be raising holy hell.

And of course the liberal news networks are, as usual, not covering the story with anything like the fervor they'd be covering it if Zachary were black. CNN mentioned it on their website for the first time this morning, undoubtedly in response to the WaPo article.

The coverage difference between Hammond and Samuel Dubose (black man killed in Cincinnati in similar circumstances) is extreme. According to Topsy, which collects data on trending Twitter topics, from July 26 to August 4 Dubose's name was included in more than 43,000 tweets. Over that same period (and Hammond was killed on July 26) Hammond's name appeared in 289 tweets.

43,000 versus 289.

 

[matttyl]

As for how you can find out about it ... get involved. If you care about these issues, take some responsibility for learning more. I knew about this incident - and the total lack of concern about it from anyone other than activists- because I read blogs and follow people on twitter who are upset about the conduct of law enforcement in this country. It's really not that hard to do in the information age. You can leave it to the media if you want, but then you're basically at the mercy of others who make decisions about what to protest and counter-protest and get angry about, because that's what the media will cater to.

I guess I don't have the time to get that involved in these issues, but that doesn't mean I don't care about them. I've got a 3 week old at home now (first kid), and finally now coming up for some air from how far behind I was with getting ready for him (he was 5 weeks early and caught us off guard, but all in all a very healthy and happy child for a premi) and the backlog I had at work. I get my "news" from 10-15 minutes of having the morning shows on in the background while I'm getting ready for work, some threads here in the FFA, Facebook (I don't do twitter, sorry), and generally what people are talking about at the office and among my friends and such. With the other situations that you brought up, it was all over every bit of news, all over the limited social media I use, and was really talked about anywhere you went. With this situation, the first I'd heard of it was some post someone made that I saw on FB this morning. I guess it just kinda surprised me that with all the random stories and such that people post about here in the FFA, when I did a search of this kid's name this morning here there wasn't one single hit. Seems that anytime there is even a hint of anything possibly being any kind of racially motivated someone would post something or make a new thread about it (especially when cops are involved). I guess it just surprised me a bit when there wasn't a single hit.

 

[matttyl]

The coverage difference between Hammond and Samuel Dubose (black man killed in Cincinnati in similar circumstances) is extreme. According to Topsy, which collects data on trending Twitter topics, from July 26 to August 4 Dubose's name was included in more than 43,000 tweets. Over that same period (and Hammond was killed on July 26) Hammond's name appeared in 289 tweets.

43,000 versus 289.

Interesting. I'm not as technically minded as others here, but we are looking at a bit of a different timeline for these two individuals. Dubose was killed on the 19th, and Hammond on the 26th.

How many twitter topics were there on Dubose from July 19th to 28th? (So the timelines between the two lineup)

 

[General Tso]

As for how you can find out about it ... get involved. If you care about these issues, take some responsibility for learning more. I knew about this incident - and the total lack of concern about it from anyone other than activists- because I read blogs and follow people on twitter who are upset about the conduct of law enforcement in this country. It's really not that hard to do in the information age. You can leave it to the media if you want, but then you're basically at the mercy of others who make decisions about what to protest and counter-protest and get angry about, because that's what the media will cater to.

I guess I don't have the time to get that involved in these issues, but that doesn't mean I don't care about them. I've got a 3 week old at home now (first kid), and finally now coming up for some air from how far behind I was with getting ready for him (he was 5 weeks early and caught us off guard, but all in all a very healthy and happy child for a premi) and the backlog I had at work. I get my "news" from 10-15 minutes of having the morning shows on in the background while I'm getting ready for work, some threads here in the FFA, Facebook (I don't do twitter, sorry), and generally what people are talking about at the office and among my friends and such. With the other situations that you brought up, it was all over every bit of news, all over the limited social media I use, and was really talked about anywhere you went. With this situation, the first I'd heard of it was some post someone made that I saw on FB this morning. I guess it just kinda surprised me that with all the random stories and such that people post about here in the FFA, when I did a search of this kid's name this morning here there wasn't one single hit. Seems that anytime there is even a hint of anything possibly being any kind of racially motivated someone would post something or make a new thread about it (especially when cops are involved). I guess it just surprised me a bit when there wasn't a single hit.

Of course it wasn't mentioned in here. It doesn't jive with the narrative being put forward by Tobias and the other liberals who continue to pimp their race baiting ideologies. They don't care about white people getting killed by police. They only care when it's a black person, because it reinforces their flawed notion that police are hunting down blacks, when the numbers and the facts clearly show otherwise.Once again, the facts are that 25% of all people killed by police this year were black. And according to the FBI's 2013 arrest statistics blacks account for 28% of all arrests.