Racist cop and hospital staff can't tell the difference between a man and a girl

[Typhoria]

Yes I realise that many places in the US are not very nice, but it is a vicious circle. Cops are afraid in those places and treat the local denizens badly. In return the denizens despise cops and let them know their hatred. This circle needs to be broken and the only ones who can do that are the cops.

True, since they are the authority figures and civil servants. I believe the best way to do this without even changing much would just be a sweeping body and dash cam requirement. If the cam becomes inoperable, barring proven damage during an encounter(video feed up til the point), the officer and the state become liable. Malfunction is not acceptable as daily maintenance + backup cam should be required.

[Mackeyser]

If people started complying with officers more often, officers wouldn't need to resort to violence. They're risking their life on a daily basis and whenever they ask something of you, the best attitude to have isn't to disrespect them.

Show them a bit of respect, not only do they deserve it but because they're also entitled to it.

You assume there are no bad cops who abuse their authority.

Why shouldn't a citizen in a calm manner be able to assert their Constitutional rights at the time of the incident?

We have the 4th Amendment for a reason. We have Miranda for a reason.

I have no problem cooperating with lawful orders from police. That said, citizens have rights. I shouldn't be beaten or killed because I ask an officer if they have a warrant or asserting any other rights granted to every citizen under the Constitution.

The very notion that we must acquiesce to EVERY police demand, however illegal it may be, is ludicrous. Moreover, lack of compliance is NOT a reason for police to engage in gratuitous violence or what amounts to murder.

Have you read the initial Rodney King police reports? Those painted the officers as heroic and Mr. King as fighting back like a madman. There have been thousands of cases of police misconduct including the lying on police reports, hiding evidence and more.

I respect good cops and think the law should come down extra hard on bad cops, not only because they breach the public trust of the power entrusted to them, but also because they endanger the lives of both the good cops and the citizenry they are charged with protecting.

I find it alarming when a simple assertion of one's Constitutional rights is met with disagreement and countered with the notion that in an encounter with any legal authority, fealty and submission must come first and then and only then, may a citizen seek remedy... from a system that biases tremendously in favor of legal authority.

Thankfully, our founding fathers didn't agree with this acquiescence to fascist behavior.

- - - Updated - - -

It's easy to question it without any context at all isn't it? Comparing body size based solely on a weight number is flawed.

- - - Updated - - -



You must know of a unique way to strangle someone effectively that prevents inhaling but allows exhaling...

Um yeah. I roll BJJ and have choked and been choked PLENTY of times.

Even when someone has a particularly nasty choke, like a standing guillotine (my son's favorite move), it's still possible to croak out a "tap" in most cases. There is, however, zero chance of breathing in.

Why? The lungs can expel air with more force than they can draw in. I know that from decades of experience as an asthmatic.

So this is just another case of someone who disagrees with something because he can't understand it.

/shrug Doesn't matter if you don't understand it. It's how it works.

[Cruor]

When will a "certain group" learn to just comply with police? Even if they are wrong, JUST COMPLY AND BE CALM. Then LATER sue or whatever if you were that wronged. Stop fighting them, you are never going to win. Chris Rocks video should honestly be required watching WEEKLY in public schools.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrGP02DCx_Q



- - - Updated - - -

I don't get some of these posts. If it were a guy (because apparently she looks like one), that makes it ok to beat and punch the person?

- - - Updated - - -



People have a right to privacy fyi. You can allow cops to search your bag, car, home, or computer, everyone else is free to decline without a warrant or good reason.

She resisted arrest. Of course in her story she did nothing wrong. Watch the Chris Rock video. If you do as he says you won't be punched.

[I Push Buttons]

People have a right to privacy fyi. You can allow cops to search your bag, car, home, or computer, everyone else is free to decline without a warrant or good reason.

Yes she was well within her rights to deny the search... And the police well within their rights to briefly detain her at that point because it was a manhunt, they were in close proximity to the area of the crime, the suspect was believed to be armed, and she matched the (lackluster) description they had at the time.

If you match the description they can briefly detain you to determine your identity... And if you have no outstanding warrants and they have no further probable cause, they have to release you.

It didn't get that far though because she fucking attacked the officers, something she has absolutely no right to do whatsoever and they defended themselves and used enough force necessary to restrain her... Which was a lot mind you, they even had to lock her in leg cuffs because she was kicking them even when her arms were restrained.

[Allybeboba]

Well spun article. The writer could have worked for Rumpelstiltskin.

[Mackeyser]

No, people dont react well... Normal people will be anxious, nervous, usually comply, have their shit searched and move on with their fucking day.

And if the search is illegal? You're stating that people should willingly abdicate their rights in order to prevent justifiable homicide or assault?

Comply, however lawful or unlawful it may be, or... take the consequences no matter how egregious THEY may be?

Why is it we're a "nation of laws" until a LEO shows up? Then, we're a fascist dictatorship where ANY question regarding the legality of a LEO's actions can justifiably be met with significant force up to and including death.

Why is it so obtuse to expect LEOs to follow the law as well?

[I Push Buttons]

And if the search is illegal? You're stating that people should willingly abdicate their rights in order to prevent justifiable homicide or assault?

Comply, however lawful or unlawful it may be, or... take the consequences no matter how egregious THEY may be?

Why is it we're a "nation of laws" until a LEO shows up? Then, we're a fascist dictatorship where ANY question regarding the legality of a LEO's actions can justifiably be met with significant force up to and including death.

Why is it so obtuse to expect LEOs to follow the law as well?

If they give a lawful order you are legally required to comply. There are no two ways about it, comply or get arrested.

[Typhoria]

Btw, officers don't need a warrant to search a bag in these circumstances.

There are many instances where a search warrant is not required. Common situations in which police are allowed to search without a warrant include:

when they have consent from the person in charge of the premises (although who that person is can be a tricky legal question);
when conducting certain searches connected to a lawful arrest; and
in emergency situations which threaten public safety or the loss of evidence.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal...ble-cause.html

[Mackeyser]

Yes she was well within her rights to deny the search... And the police well within their rights to briefly detain her at that point because it was a manhunt, they were in close proximity to the area of the crime, the suspect was believed to be armed, and she matched the (lackluster) description they had at the time.

If you match the description they can briefly detain you to determine your identity... And if you have no outstanding warrants and they have no further probable cause, they have to release you.

It didn't get that far though because she fucking attacked the officers, something she has absolutely no right to do whatsoever and they defended themselves and used enough force necessary to restrain her... Which was a lot mind you, they even had to lock her in leg cuffs because she was kicking them even when her arms were restrained.

You were fine until you took the officer's side.

The honest answer is we don't know. We don't know if it's about race, general disdain for the public or if this was a righteous arrest and the officers did a good job.

We. Don't. Know.

Asserting she attacked the officers is just as disingenuous as asserting the officers were racist or belligerently violent thugs who overstepped their authority.

[Hell-Nicø]

What does being a man or woman have to do with race?

Well, they are cop, so being racist is a given.

I bet they are sexist and homophobe too, and probably nazi.

[I Push Buttons]

You were fine until you took the officer's side.

The honest answer is we don't know. We don't know if it's about race, general disdain for the public or if this was a righteous arrest and the officers did a good job.

We. Don't. Know.

Asserting she attacked the officers is just as disingenuous as asserting the officers were racist or belligerently violent thugs who overstepped their authority.

I know that one side, the girl's side, has already fucking lied about one thing... Why should I believe anything else they say?

[Mackeyser]

If they give a lawful order you are legally required to comply. There are no two ways about it, comply or get arrested.

To not comply with a lawful order should NOT end up with a de facto, instantaneous death sentence by police without due process except in the event of an imminent threat to the citizenry or police... in that order.

It's why we allow LEOs to use violence to physically detain a person.

The problem in these discussions is that if a person doesn't comply and police do massive damage or cause death, the remedy is?

In a few cases where there are video and an overabundance of evidence, there's usually a large monetary settlement. Without that? Usually nothing. The system doesn't want ANY charges to stand because that will leave everyone open to civil actions and please don't insult anyone's intelligence by asserting that there's not systemic bias in favor of LEOs expressly due in part to the fiscal impact of culpability of the LEO in question.

If a person doesn't comply with a lawful order, the point is that there should be an escalation list like a military rules of engagement where the officers have clear guidance as to what force is allowed by law under various circumstances.

I mean if a person doesn't put their hands behind their back, but is otherwise peaceful and non-threatening, the answer shouldn't be a body slam resulting in broken bones or worse.

Officers don't have to accelerate from A directly to Z if absolute fealty and obedience aren't immediately presented.

[PassingBy]

I don't get why these threads are always about race.

Would it be ok if the police tried to unlawfully search and arrest an innocent white girl?
Or a white man?

Police abusing their power is not about race, I mean officer Vasquez doesn't really sound like a member of the KKK either.

It is about police abusing their power and a lack of leadership and desire to punish the police that abuse this power.
The way that police is mistreating citizens in the US is a joke.

[Mackeyser]

I know that one side, the girl's side, has already fucking lied about one thing... Why should I believe anything else they say?

I dunno. You seem predisposed to believing the officers.

I know I'm incredulous about a 115lb girl not only knocking down a trained LEO, but mounting him. All of that by simply spinning around and hitting him with her shoulder?

Sorry, I roll BJJ and that's just not how it works. I've rolled with people MUCH smaller than me to people MUCH bigger than me and...just no.

Any justification for taking any side at this point is premature and not amount of gaming one argument over another changes that.

What's likely is that she wasn't a complete angel AND the officers overstepped. And these arguments go in circles based on which "camp" one finds themselves aligned with rather than going by the law.

We don't know, yet. We can thank the police for that. Decades of false police reports have meant that the initial report is little more than "the officer's side" rather than an unbiased accounting of the facts.

So, we'll either know when we know or we won't. But as of right now, the only people who know what actually happened aren't giving up the unvarnished version. And so we wait.

[I Push Buttons]

To not comply with a lawful order should NOT end up with a de facto, instantaneous death sentence by police without due process except in the event of an imminent threat to the citizenry or police... in that order.

It's why we allow LEOs to use violence to physically detain a person.

The problem in these discussions is that if a person doesn't comply and police do massive damage or cause death, the remedy is?

In a few cases where there are video and an overabundance of evidence, there's usually a large monetary settlement. Without that? Usually nothing. The system doesn't want ANY charges to stand because that will leave everyone open to civil actions and please don't insult anyone's intelligence by asserting that there's not systemic bias in favor of LEOs expressly due in part to the fiscal impact of culpability of the LEO in question.

If a person doesn't comply with a lawful order, the point is that there should be an escalation list like a military rules of engagement where the officers have clear guidance as to what force is allowed by law under various circumstances.

I mean if a person doesn't put their hands behind their back, but is otherwise peaceful and non-threatening, the answer shouldn't be a body slam resulting in broken bones or worse.

Officers don't have to accelerate from A directly to Z if absolute fealty and obedience aren't immediately presented.

They do, its called a use of force continuum.

And they follow it.

[Mackeyser]

I don't get why these threads are always about race.

Would it be ok if the police tried to unlawfully search and arrest an innocent white girl?
Or a white man?

Police abusing their power is not about race, I mean officer Vasquez doesn't really sound like a member of the KKK either.

It is about police abusing their power and a lack of leadership and desire to punish the police that abuse this power.
The way that police is mistreating citizens in the US is a joke.

It's not always about race.

The problem is that much like how incarceration is slanted, so is enforcement.

So, when an officer, white, black, hispanic, asian or whatever, engages a citizen and violence occurs, that unresolved question is brought up.

And it will continue to be brought up until there is no discrepancy.

[yellowgore]

Time to implement the Trump Doctrine. If you can't tell then grab their pussy to verify. It's a presidented act.

Or you could break out your cigar and implement the Clinton Doctrine, your choice.

[PassingBy]

Or you could break out your cigar and implement the Clinton Doctrine, your choice.

Both a man and a woman can suck your dick, you won't be able to grab a man by his pussy due to a lack of one, so Trump doctrine works better in this case.

[Mackeyser]

They do, its called a use of force continuum.

And they follow it.

That last statement is simply incorrect. They sometimes follow it.

The list of high-profile cases where it wasn't followed is legion.

To assert that "... they follow it" in the absolute sense is either incorrect or disingenuous.

It's sometimes followed. And while we can't know in this case at this time, a looming question is what do we do when it's not followed.

[I Push Buttons]

That last statement is simply incorrect. They sometimes follow it.

The list of high-profile cases where it wasn't followed is legion.

To assert that "... they follow it" in the absolute sense is either incorrect or disingenuous.

It's sometimes followed. And while we can't know in this case at this time, a looming question is what do we do when it's not followed.

You realize that there are hundreds of thousands of police officers in this country who have millions of interactions and tens of thousands of altercations with the public every single day, right? The fact that you can cherry pick a few exceptions to the otherwise amicable relationship police have with the public and use that as an argument against all police is laughable.

And your "they sometimes follow it" bullshit is even more disingenuous than anything I have said...