To Protect and to Serve...

[jp1]

After reading all of that, I guess I was expecting more material that would dispute my claim about cops not being just as zealous about going after doctors, banksters, lawyers, clergymen and politicians. But I didn't see any of that.

Instead of asking for more MRAPs, Iraq weaponry and MMA fighting lessons, maybe they need to spend more time being educated on The Constitution, medical negligence, financial fraud and negligence and other forms of crimes that hurt millions each day.

You still don't get his argument.

 

[volbeast33]

The jails filling up with non-violent offenders is leading most reasonable people to conclude that we enforce too many laws that are not crimes. If we did away with most traffic cops and scaled back on the drug war, we might actually need fewer cops.

So you don't think we need traffic laws either?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

You still don't get his argument.

Maybe you can do a better job of explaining his point than he can.

 

[Cdywolfe]

Wow! Say that isn't so!

And for the record, it was not. If you can't see the idiocy of your posts like "flipping off a cop is standing up for a person's rights!" you are probably beyond help.

Oh, well nevermind then... Here I was thinking that what I personally posted was clearly be misrepresented/taken out of context but since you say it wasn't then that's that.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

So you don't think we need traffic laws either?

Not really... I'm saying they don't have to be as aggressively enforced as they are now. And often times, they are used as ways of generating revenue and little to do with public safety.

 

[Grand Vol]

Maybe you can do a better job of explaining his point than he can.

Maybe you're not smart enough to comprehend "criminally culpable state of mind."

 

[Biopsyman]

Ouch

 

[Dr Dread]

Yeah, that seems to be working:

As killings continue, May becomes city's deadliest month since 1999 - Baltimore Sun

The Benefits of Fewer NYPD Arrests - The Atlantic

Seems to be working quite well in NYC. Because the police felt that the mayor didn't have their back in the Eric Garner killing, they decided to show the city what would happen if they scaled back on over-policing.
Other than a loss of revenue generated by unnecessary citations, the results have been quite positive.
And actually safer for the police as well.

 

[Cdywolfe]

So I'll use this one as an example since GV seems to be so fond of it. This is the post that he claims I "equate flipping someone off to standing up for their rights."

So people who non-violently stand up for the rights and themselves and others should be pepper-sprayed, beaten, and caged even though they've broken no law?

So here's the post with a little context. Now as you read this, keep his commentary regarding the post in mind. This is from the 20th of May if anyone wants to go back (though I can't fathom why anyone would). This video that sparked the discussion can be found at...


VIDEO: Man Pepper-Sprayed, Pulled from Vehicle and Arrested for Flipping the Bird | The Free Thought Project

There were a few post about it before this but they weren't really relevant. Though as I said, feel free to go back and see. The post he quoted was in response to Volbeast.

He is a guy from cop block....really disappointed by the video bc I was hoping the cop would kick the sh&t out of him.

I then respond with the post in question.

So people who non-violently stand up for the rights and themselves and others should be pepper-sprayed, beaten, and caged even though they've broken no law?

You're the only person I know that can equate flipping someone off to standing up for their rights.

My post was referring to cop block members standing up for their rights, not people who flip cops the bird. I suppose that could just be a misunderstanding right?

I was referencing that fact that he said the was from cop block. But... I feel that is absolutely a way one could express his dislike for a government official within the confines of the law.

Except that I immediately clarified what I meant. Then mentioned that one could use it as a form of expressing dislike for LEO. Not one mention of standing up for your rights. And though it would've been quite a stretch, that post would've probably been a far better example to try and make his point.

Then this happened...

There's probably far better, and more mature, ways of expressing his dislike for the police that likely won't garner their ire.

As I said before, when one goes looking for trouble and provoking a situation, they eventually are going to find it.

Couldn't agree more. But pulling the guy over and showing him just how incredibly correct his assumptions were about you is exponentially more immature.

I clarify that I agree that flipping off cops is inappropriate. In fact as the discussion continues I reintegrate that point several times. Even mention how I teach my kids against that behavior.

So no... I teach my kids to treat others like they want to be treated. Also my kids know to defend themselves but know it's wrong to be the aggressor in a violent situation. They certainly won't assault someone for being a part of a group that holds different political views. If they ever do then I will have failed as a parent.

http://youtu.be/IWX308b0Ruw

Not really my style, as I try to avoid cops at all costs, but I like this way more then flipping them off. I've had some major changes in the way I look at life over the last few years and I'm really trying to let go of hate (still struggling from time to time) and embrace love instead. I know that sounds cheesy but that's what I'm trying to embrace and that's what I want to pass on to my kids.

His made up context of many of my other posts are just as laughable (though a few are based in reality). I just used this one cause he keeps bringing it up...

Wow! Say that isn't so!

And for the record, it was not. If you can't see the idiocy of your posts like "flipping off a cop is standing up for a person's rights!" you are probably beyond help.

He even puts that one in quotes as if that's something I've actually said.

Now like I said... I honestly don't care. I just thought I'd point it out. It basically points to one of two things. He's either extremely dishonest or extremely ignorant.

 

[Dr Dread]

So, you're gonna take every Michelle in the USA to civil court until you sue the correct one? What is the difference with this situation and any other situation where something is discovered later, after everyone has left? Step it up a notch.. Say your wife (God forbid) is shot and killed at a crowded bar. The police arrive, but cannot readily identify the shooter. Later someone tells the police that a guy named John shot your wife.. Do you think it would be important for the police to identify everyone inside the crowded bar?

Ridiculous. Quite a reach here.

If your wife is shot and killed at a bar, it's quite obvious that a crime has been committed. The cop at the school stated that no crime had been committed.

As for identifying "Michelle" in the unlikely case that the lady's window develops a crack some 30 minutes later, that wouldn't be nearly as difficult as you are working so hard to make it seem.

Her daughter is a 2nd grade student at the school.
The other lady works at the school.
She can probably find the child's name (if she doesn't already know it), and her teacher's name in about 5 minutes.

Rule of thumb: If you have to create totally outlandish situations to make a point, you probably don't have a point.

 

[Grand Vol]

The Benefits of Fewer NYPD Arrests - The Atlantic

Seems to be working quite well in NYC. Because the police felt that the mayor didn't have their back in the Eric Garner killing, they decided to show the city what would happen if they scaled back on over-policing.
Other than a loss of revenue generated by unnecessary citations, the results have been quite positive.
And actually safer for the police as well.

Yep, but when you look at Baltimore, it's the opposite end of the spectrum.

Neither one of these cases is indicative that fewer police is better. In NYC, it appears to work. In Baltimore, you end up with more dead people.

 

[Grand Vol]

I find it absolutely hilarious that you get 18 shades of butthurt when I point out something you didn't clarify in the beginning. And something I still have doubts as to your veracity of until it was pointed out of how ridiculous it sounded.

You obviously are all sorts of bent out of shape over it to post what you did. And even if it was taken out of context, you had it happen once and you get straight crazy like you're in a court of law making a case to Joe Public. You do it to me all the time and I learned to live with it. Even know it's going to happen. But you have it happen once and you lose your mind. I find that hilarious.

Also, it's kinda childish making the post that way instead of being a man and talking to me about it. But it's your life to live however immature you want to live it.

 

[Cdywolfe]

I find it absolutely hilarious that you get 18 shades of butthurt when I point out something you didn't clarify in the beginning. And something I still have doubts as to your veracity of until it was pointed out of how ridiculous it sounded.

You obviously are all sorts of bent out of shape over it to post what you did. And even if it was taken out of context, you had it happen once and you get straight crazy like you're in a court of law making a case to Joe Public. You do it to me all the time and I learned to live with it. Even know it's going to happen. But you have it happen once and you lose your mind. I find that hilarious.

Also, it's kinda childish making the post that way instead of being a man and talking to me about it. But it's your life to live however immature you want to live it.

Lol... Yeah I'm so upset.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Yep, but when you look at Baltimore, it's the opposite end of the spectrum.

Neither one of these cases is indicative that fewer police is better. In NYC, it appears to work. In Baltimore, you end up with more dead people.

You can add all the cops in Baltimore you want and it still won't stop the killing... police can't be everywhere at all times, nor are police clairvoyant where they can predict when a murder will happen.

The murders in Baltimore have less to do with police presence and enforcement of the law and more to do with the culture of people that live there. Again, shut down the thug factories and you will see crime drop.

 

[FLVOL69]

You can add all the cops in Baltimore you want and it still won't stop the killing... police can't be everywhere at all times, nor are police clairvoyant where they can predict when a murder will happen.

The murders in Baltimore have less to do with police presence and enforcement of the law and more to do with the culture of people that live there. Again, shut down the thug factories and you will see crime drop.

They need a heavy dose of pastor manning , he'd straighten there ass out!😜

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Also, it's kinda childish making the post that way instead of being a man and talking to me about it. But it's your life to live however immature you want to live it.

opcorn:

You respond with jokes everytime you are backed into a corner. Its getting old.

When you are backed into a corner on your LEO duties, do you get sarcastic with the citizen (seatbelt violation or other trumped up charges), or do you give the citizen their due recognition and let them go?

You are the type of person that has to have the last word, so you would probably try to prove your point and arrest them on a bogus charge, imo.

 

[Carl Pickens]

You can add all the cops in Baltimore you want and it still won't stop the killing... police can't be everywhere at all times, nor are police clairvoyant where they can predict when a murder will happen.

The murders in Baltimore have less to do with police presence and enforcement of the law and more to do with the culture of people that live there. Again, shut down the thug factories and you will see crime drop.

Shut down the thug factories? How do you propose accomplishing this? A massive sterilization policy?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Shut down the thug factories? How do you propose accomplishing this? A massive sterilization policy?

Stop incentivizing the have a kid/get a check hustle. That would be a start.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Grand Vol unintentionally opened up a can of worms by going after doctors and politicians. If a citizen makes a charge against their neighbor or peer, the police show up to the scene, interrogate, and then make arrests. At that point, the arrested citizen must go through the system and have their day in court.

But what you heard from Grand was very interesting. He said they don't go after doctors because the DA won't prosecute them. They don't go after politicians that engage in spreading war for some other unknown reason, even though we haven't declared war since Pearl Harbor. Not to mention that banksters like Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein can commit financial crimes against humanity and simply pay billions in fines to get out of jail.

Cops are the bane of the common man. They have no problem making life miserable for us because we are the low hanging fruit. So they harass us with their busted tag lights, rolling stops, corner weed dealer, home poker games, 3 months late on child support, loose cigarette sales, carrying too much cash, running from the cops when no crime has been committed, refusing to give a name when no crime has been committed, kids selling lemonade, feeding the homeless without a license, dark tinted windows, flipping off a cop, and so on and so on.

Yet, apparently, cops know there are doctors killing people (either through negligence or over-prescribing), and they are aware that the Constitution says that before you engage in war, Congress has to declare war, yet these corrupt cops don't do jack squat to stop that.

Grand Vol... I need you feedback...

 

[Dr Dread]

Not at all. I already said the way it went down was not the way it should have gone down. You asked why they didn't ask for the white woman's name. I gave you a reason why they might not have. So stop thinking I'm justifying anything. You don't want an opinion from the other side of things? Don't ask questions or make ignorant remarks like Ras.

Now if you want to have a rational conversation unlike most of the others in this thread, I'll be glad to. But don't accuse me of defending anyone like I already stated before. Or if your reading comprehension is off, go back a few posts and see where I said what went down shouldn't have gone down.



I obviously have to look it up since nobody else was going to since it might blow a hole in the argument...

California law is vague on the subject as you have two court cases that conflict with each other. One that says a person is under no obligation to identify themselves to police (Kolender v. Lawson) and yet another that says police have the right to identify if suspected of a crime (People v. Long).

Two conflicting cases with two different approaches. And it could be argued that there was a suspicion of a crime vis a vis the erratic driving and threats in the parking lot.

Now the question I have for you is why are you trying so hard to justify her actions after the police asked for her name?



I see someone looked up Terry Stop. Now, it could be argued that the patrolmen in the video did suspect something had gone on and the stop went beyond the consensual level to possible detainment where identification would be considered "minimal intrusion" as People v. Long stated. And it might very well have turned out that the white woman in the video could have been completely in the wrong had both sides of the story come out in a rational fashion.

I don't see any contradictions in the two cases you cited. In People v. Long, the police officer had reasonable evidence to believe a crime had been committed by the suspect, and therefore reasonable grounds to detain him. At that point, the suspect is required to identify himself if asked.

In Kolender v. Lawson, there was no such evidence of a crime, and therefore no justification to detain him or require he identify himself.

Given the fact that the officer states clearly that he sees nothing that indicates a crime has been committed, only Kolender v. Lawson applies here.

Even if he believed that by questioning "Michelle", he might obtain enough to show a crime was in fact committed, he does not have enough evidence to legally detain her, and cannot require her to identify herself if she chooses not to.

At any time, police may approach a person and ask questions. The objective may simply be a friendly conversation; however, the police also may suspect involvement in a crime, but lack "specific and articulable facts"[4] that would justify a detention or arrest, and hope to obtain these facts from the questioning. The person approached is not required to identify himself or answer any other questions, and may leave at any time.

As far as my statement that you are trying too hard, so far you've only stated the obviousl. It is clear by watching the video that everyone involved could have handled the situation better; though I wholeheartedly support and agree with "Michelle" lawfully refusing to give her name.

It's your inability to admit that the officer involved was acting outside the law that concerns me.

You are welcome to fact-check or rebut any aspect of the case I've presented, but in the end, I think you'll find that it is solid proof that the officer involved was acting outside the law. The question here is will you be willing to state it.

 

[Grand Vol]

It's your inability to admit that the officer involved was acting outside the law that concerns me.

Did you miss where I stated that quite some time back?

As for arresting her, no, I think that's a bit far and there were certainly other ways of bringing down the situation if I was to Monday morning QB it.

Is there any reason you prefer to ignore what I say and create this perception in your mind that I always take the side of the cops?

 

[Grand Vol]

Lol... Yeah I'm so upset.

Obviously you were insecure about getting called out. Else you wouldn't have gone to the trouble of making a scene the way you did trying to garner attention in that manner. I would hope such insecurities don't get into your professional career as that would certainly not be a good thing. I mean, you are responsible for people's lives and being insecure about the way people perceive you could lead to your lying about a patient's well being if you were at fault if something happened.

But hey, you won't get criminally prosecuted anyway, so no big deal. Right?

 

[Dr Dread]

Yep, but when you look at Baltimore, it's the opposite end of the spectrum.

Neither one of these cases is indicative that fewer police is better. In NYC, it appears to work. In Baltimore, you end up with more dead people.

Agreed. And neither is indicative that more is better.

I posted this in response to your posting of the Baltimore Sun article as though it was giving any real information as to the effectiveness of their policing policies.

I believe both tell us the same thing when looked at without looking at other factors. Absolutely Nothing.

 

[Grand Vol]

Grand Vol... I need you feedback...

Need?

http://www.volnation.com/forum/politics/198609-protect-serve-385.html#post11473895

There you go. Educate thyself.