Post: #26

(07-19-2015 12:58 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  The reason they are so pissed is because a police protester was arrested for not signaling before a lane change and died (by suicide) in police custody three days later. The wound was still a little fresh and the crowd overreacted in my opinion. Just offering context for the forum.

This sounds a little...unlikely. Not signaling before a lane change is not an arrestable offense in any state I am aware of. Either you are not telling us the whole story, or somebody is snowjobbing you and you are buying it.

Post: #27

(07-19-2015 08:12 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

(07-19-2015 12:58 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  The reason they are so pissed is because a police protester was arrested for not signaling before a lane change and died (by suicide) in police custody three days later. The wound was still a little fresh and the crowd overreacted in my opinion. Just offering context for the forum.

This sounds a little...unlikely. Not signaling before a lane change is not an arrestable offense in any state I am aware of. Either you are not telling us the whole story, or somebody is snowjobbing you and you are buying it.

Any violation of criminal law, including traffic violations and misdemeanors, is an arrestable offense in any state- The police have total discretion- This was upheld by The Supreme Court of the United States, you are now aware.

The article I read was on Reason.com, along with the video of her arrest, and I clearly stated the facts as I read them in the article. Please go to Reason.com, read the article, watch the video, and feel free to draw your own conclusions. Perhaps you can gain a deeper insight, come back here and not tell the whole story, or get a snowjob and buy it.

What is quite likely is you either did not read what I wrote earlier in this post or you did read it and did not understand what I was saying.

Post: #28

(07-19-2015 06:58 PM)Sourcecode Wrote:  You don't walk into a ward full of terminal cancer patients and say "All diseases matter".

No one disagrees on that, but the more pertinent analogy is a medical convention getting interrupted by a group of advocates chanting about how their medical issue deserves all researching attention, then booing a doctor for reiterating that medicine should try to help anyone who suffers from any affliction (aka the Hippocratic Oath).

Quote:No one is actually saying that all lives don't matter.
They are saying, don't come to a front on one issue to try to marginalize it with something else.

Again that's fair but what happened here was the exact opposite...the Black Lives Matter activists were trying to shout down other issues in favor of their own, ranting about the Garifuna (among other irrelevant topics) in the process. In that context (and many others), saying "all lives matter" isn't marginalizing anything, it's the right sentiment to hold, especially for a presidential candidate.

Post: #29

(07-19-2015 08:49 PM)Saga Wrote:  

(07-19-2015 06:58 PM)Sourcecode Wrote:  You don't walk into a ward full of terminal cancer patients and say "All diseases matter".

No one disagrees on that, but the more pertinent analogy is a medical convention getting interrupted by a group of advocates chanting about how their medical issue deserves all researching attention, then booing a doctor for reiterating that medicine should try to help anyone who suffers from any affliction (aka the Hippocratic Oath).

You mean like the gays with AIDS protests?

Post: #30

(07-19-2015 08:47 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

(07-19-2015 08:12 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

(07-19-2015 12:58 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  The reason they are so pissed is because a police protester was arrested for not signaling before a lane change and died (by suicide) in police custody three days later. The wound was still a little fresh and the crowd overreacted in my opinion. Just offering context for the forum.

This sounds a little...unlikely. Not signaling before a lane change is not an arrestable offense in any state I am aware of. Either you are not telling us the whole story, or somebody is snowjobbing you and you are buying it.

Any violation of criminal law, including traffic violations and misdemeanors, is an arrestable offense in any state- The police have total discretion- This was upheld by The Supreme Court of the United States, you are now aware.

I can't be aware of things that are non-factual, and in fact completely off the wall and insane. I've been a cop almost 20 years, and that is not remotely what the law says or what we're allowed to do. There are times I wished I could do the things you're talking about, but it's probably better off for society that we can't.

You're an ideologue that is wildly misinformed on this topic.

Case in point - "Any violation of criminal law, including traffic violations..." - The VAST majority of traffic violations are Civil Infractions and aren't part of the criminal code at all.

Quote:What is quite likely is you either did not read what I wrote earlier in this post or you did read it and did not understand what I was saying.

I read it, it's just that you're just completely out of touch with reality on this topic and you're gibbering nonsense.

Post: #31

Not trying to be cruel or combative, just need to make sure other members don't get hurt by thinking that's the way things actually work. Managing police interactions is as politically charged topic as many SJW topics, and people spread angry ideologies that only make it harder to handle them.

Post: #32

Like most cops you know nothing about Constitutional law. Google Supreme Court , Atwater vs City of Largo Vista. Read the ruling of the majority and then come back here and admit you do not know what the fuck you were talking about before. I am a patent attorney not a criminal attorney , but this constitution case had huge implications on criminal procedure . Like most cops you don't know much about law so I understand you ignorance of major Supreme Court rulings but do some basic research and reading comprehension before you insult me when it is you who are wrong on the facts, misrepresent what I wrote , and ignorant of major constitutional issues germane to your profession.

Post: #33

Post: #34

(07-19-2015 11:11 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  Like most cops you know nothing about Constitutional law. Google Supreme Court , Atwater vs City of Largo Vista. Read the ruling of the majority and then come back here and admit you do not know what the fuck you were talking about before. I am a patent attorney not a criminal attorney , but this constitution case had huge implications on criminal procedure . Like most cops you don't know much about law so I understand you ignorance of major Supreme Court rulings but do some basic research and reading comprehension before you insult me when it is you who are wrong on the facts, misrepresent what I wrote , and ignorant of major constitutional issues germane to your profession.

Atlanta, you're better off sticking to patent law than trying to tell guys their own profession they've done for so many years.

Nobody is misrepresenting anything, you said it, you own it - "Any violation of criminal law, including traffic violations and misdemeanors, is an arrestable offense in any state".

You apparently don't even know what category of law most traffic violations fall in, so the rest of your stuff is suspect already.

Boatloads of non-arrestable misdemeanors in my state too. I don't have the arrogance to pretend to have studied all the laws in every state, but you're making such arrogant sweeping statements, one state is all I need to prove you wrong. You are aware that States can have restrictions on police stronger than the Supreme Court restrictions right? The Supreme Court is the FLOOR for restrictions on police, not the ceiling.

Post: #35

(07-19-2015 11:11 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  Like most cops you know nothing about Constitutional law. Google Supreme Court , Atwater vs City of Largo Vista. Read the ruling of the majority and then come back here and admit you do not know what the fuck you were talking about before.

Wasn't Atwater v Lago Vista dealing specifically with traffic violations considered misdemeanors? If it's just an infraction, it's not covered.

It's been a while since I had a law class but, even in Texas, you can't be arrested for speeding unless you either refuse to sign the ticket or are going fast enough to make it reckless driving.

Post: #36

(07-19-2015 01:35 PM)kosko Wrote:  There are many things that point to what you states in Dr. King. His speeches later in were shifting towards more about class then race and more talk about the hypocrisy of spending millions to carpet bomb countries, but as a nation you can't even house and feed each child.

The establishment was fine with him just toiling in a round about with civil rights and blacks but when he started shifting away and with the influence to steer a national campaign against the war machine they took him out. Hr never wanted to go to Memphis for that march. He was talked into it to do favkurs for some of friends, he was more committed to getting that new message out.

The FBI head Hoover was obsessed with Dr King and though he was a Soviet operative. The moment he got away from race they all assumed he was going to attempt some red wave in America.

In that day Americas establishment was at its weakest. The Republic would of fallen into a revolution if the powers did not put their boot down. America would of been on its second constitution which IMO would of halted the war complex and delayed or stopped the destruction of the dolled which has basically rapidly ruined wealth and is slowly making America ever more poor each decade.

Bingo.

Post: #37

(07-19-2015 11:45 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

(07-19-2015 11:11 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  Like most cops you know nothing about Constitutional law. Google Supreme Court , Atwater vs City of Largo Vista. Read the ruling of the majority and then come back here and admit you do not know what the fuck you were talking about before. I am a patent attorney not a criminal attorney , but this constitution case had huge implications on criminal procedure . Like most cops you don't know much about law so I understand you ignorance of major Supreme Court rulings but do some basic research and reading comprehension before you insult me when it is you who are wrong on the facts, misrepresent what I wrote , and ignorant of major constitutional issues germane to your profession.

Atlanta, you're better off sticking to patent law than trying to tell guys their own profession they've done for so many years.

Nobody is misrepresenting anything, you said it, you own it - "Any violation of criminal law, including traffic violations and misdemeanors, is an arrestable offense in any state".

You apparently don't even know what category of law most traffic violations fall in, so the rest of your stuff is suspect already.

Boatloads of non-arrestable misdemeanors in my state too. I don't have the arrogance to pretend to have studied all the laws in every state, but you're making such arrogant sweeping statements, one state is all I need to prove you wrong. You are aware that States can have restrictions on police stronger than the Supreme Court restrictions right? The Supreme Court is the FLOOR for restrictions on police, not the ceiling.

Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that a person's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the subject is arrested for driving without a seatbelt. The court ruled that such an arrest for a misdemeanor that is punishable only by a fine does not constitute an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
The majority conceded that "If we were to derive a rule exclusively to address the uncontested facts of this case, Atwater might well prevail." The majority also acknowledged specific directness in its actual opinion, "suggesting that courts look with 'disfavor' on such legislative enactments 'as interfering with the constitutional liberties of the subject'." Furthermore, the majority decision concluded that "warrantless misdemeanor arrests [may not] need constitutional attention," and that "It is of course easier to devise a minor-offense limitation by statute than to derive one through the Constitution" Thus, the court rejected adopting a new Constitutional law rule by focusing on administrability concerns.[11] It then held that probable cause was the issue and that that standard had been met.[11]
Police routinely exercise discretion in their work. Requiring the police to decide whether a crime is a fine-only crime, for which he could not arrest the suspect, in the heat of the moment ultimately exposes the police to greater legal consequences—either exclusion of illegally obtained evidence, or personal liability for violating the suspect's constitutional rights. Balancing of Fourth Amendment interests through "probable cause" and "extraordinary" circumstances has been delineated in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Given the choice to abandon or abridge the requirement of probable cause for arrest in the case of fine-only misdemeanors, the Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment imposed the same standard for all crimes: probable cause.
The Court's decision in this case ultimately involved the extent of law-enforcement discretion in exercising their duties. After asking in oral argument, "how bad the problem is out there?" the court admonished Atwater's counsel's failure to provide it with "indications of comparably foolish, warrantless misdemeanor arrests." The majority opinion ultimately emphasized a specific view that "Multiplied many times over, the costs to society of such underenforcement could easily outweigh the costs to defendants of being needlessly arrested and booked.




A question based on this precedent was on the Bar which I passed, read what I posted above and you will see it is quite clear you can be arrested for any violation of any criminal infraction even if the criminal infraction is not punishable by more than a fine. This holds in every state and territory of our United States. Because you are not a lawyer let me break it down for you, the court majority held that basically police discretion in making arrests was more important than people being arrested for minor offences even if those offences ultimately were only punishable by a fine.

That is the Supreme Court precedent, that is the law in our country, based on our Constitution as interpreted by the court. I said it , I own it , and unless you can provide a superseding law or court precedent I just owned you on this discussion of the law.

Furthermore you made this whole discussion adversarial by insinuating that I attempted to mislead the readers of this forum, or was "snow jobbed and bought it" when I clearly stated I was providing context for the forum as to the root of actions of the protesters at the political rally, I also stated that I thought the protesters overreacted.

Lastly I informed the readers of this forum that the story about the arrest and subsequent death in custody of the police protester were on Reason.com along with the video of her arrest. I made it clear that that is where I read the story, and that I was not there so I did not know what happened.

Do not insult me, misconstrue my previous statements, and assume to tell me the law when you do not know it and expect me to bow the fuck down because you were a fucking cop for 20 years. You don't know shit about the constitution, you have not been to law school, you did not pass the bar and have been wrong about ever or willfully untruthful throughout this discussion. Good day sir. I said good day sir!(sarcasm)

Post: #38

(07-20-2015 07:34 AM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

(07-19-2015 11:45 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

(07-19-2015 11:11 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  Like most cops you know nothing about Constitutional law. Google Supreme Court , Atwater vs City of Largo Vista. Read the ruling of the majority and then come back here and admit you do not know what the fuck you were talking about before. I am a patent attorney not a criminal attorney , but this constitution case had huge implications on criminal procedure . Like most cops you don't know much about law so I understand you ignorance of major Supreme Court rulings but do some basic research and reading comprehension before you insult me when it is you who are wrong on the facts, misrepresent what I wrote , and ignorant of major constitutional issues germane to your profession.

Atlanta, you're better off sticking to patent law than trying to tell guys their own profession they've done for so many years.

Nobody is misrepresenting anything, you said it, you own it - "Any violation of criminal law, including traffic violations and misdemeanors, is an arrestable offense in any state".

You apparently don't even know what category of law most traffic violations fall in, so the rest of your stuff is suspect already.

Boatloads of non-arrestable misdemeanors in my state too. I don't have the arrogance to pretend to have studied all the laws in every state, but you're making such arrogant sweeping statements, one state is all I need to prove you wrong. You are aware that States can have restrictions on police stronger than the Supreme Court restrictions right? The Supreme Court is the FLOOR for restrictions on police, not the ceiling.

Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that a person's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the subject is arrested for driving without a seatbelt. The court ruled that such an arrest for a misdemeanor that is punishable only by a fine does not constitute an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
The majority conceded that "If we were to derive a rule exclusively to address the uncontested facts of this case, Atwater might well prevail." The majority also acknowledged specific directness in its actual opinion, "suggesting that courts look with 'disfavor' on such legislative enactments 'as interfering with the constitutional liberties of the subject'." Furthermore, the majority decision concluded that "warrantless misdemeanor arrests [may not] need constitutional attention," and that "It is of course easier to devise a minor-offense limitation by statute than to derive one through the Constitution" Thus, the court rejected adopting a new Constitutional law rule by focusing on administrability concerns.[11] It then held that probable cause was the issue and that that standard had been met.[11]
Police routinely exercise discretion in their work. Requiring the police to decide whether a crime is a fine-only crime, for which he could not arrest the suspect, in the heat of the moment ultimately exposes the police to greater legal consequences—either exclusion of illegally obtained evidence, or personal liability for violating the suspect's constitutional rights. Balancing of Fourth Amendment interests through "probable cause" and "extraordinary" circumstances has been delineated in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Given the choice to abandon or abridge the requirement of probable cause for arrest in the case of fine-only misdemeanors, the Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment imposed the same standard for all crimes: probable cause.
The Court's decision in this case ultimately involved the extent of law-enforcement discretion in exercising their duties. After asking in oral argument, "how bad the problem is out there?" the court admonished Atwater's counsel's failure to provide it with "indications of comparably foolish, warrantless misdemeanor arrests." The majority opinion ultimately emphasized a specific view that "Multiplied many times over, the costs to society of such underenforcement could easily outweigh the costs to defendants of being needlessly arrested and booked.




A question based on this precedent was on the Bar which I passed, read what I posted above and you will see it is quite clear you can be arrested for any violation of any criminal infraction even if the criminal infraction is not punishable by more than a fine. This holds in every state and territory of our United States. Because you are not a lawyer let me break it down for you, the court majority held that basically police discretion in making arrests was more important than people being arrested for minor offences even if those offences ultimately were only punishable by a fine.

That is the Supreme Court precedent, that is the law in our country, based on our Constitution as interpreted by the court. I said it , I own it and unless you can provide a superseding law or court precedent I just owned you on this discussion of the law.

You owned nothing but yourself. As I explained earlier, the Supreme Court is the FLOOR for the restrictions on police, not the ceiling. The individual states can (and DO) give restrictions on police above and beyond restrictions given by the Supreme Court - which makes your whole argument null and void.

Quote:Furthermore you made this whole discussion adversarial by insinuating that I attempted to mislead the readers of this forum, or was "snow jobbed and bought it" when I clearly stated I was providing context for the forum as to the root of actions of the protesters at the political rally, I also stated that I thought the protesters overreacted.

Apparently you DID get snowjobbed and as stated previously, my intent was not to be cruel or combative, but to keep you from spreading misinformation based on your ideology. I'm sure you're probably a pretty good patent lawyer and I don't doubt you probably know more total things about Law than me. But the law is a HUGE field, I happen to have a lot of intensive training and experience in one VERY narrow area of law that my profession uses every day. If I tried to lecture you about patent law, I would sound like a blithering idiot, so I avoid doing it, and stick to the very narrow area of things that I do happen to know about. I would advise you to do the same, for the same reasons.

Post: #39

And I just read the Reason article. The follow up explained that she had actually been arrested for ""assaulting a public servant". So again, nobody was arrested for a turn signal, they were arrested for assaulting the officer that stopped them, probably because they had been indoctrinated with an angry ideology, one full of the the falsehoods that have been repeated here, an ideology that tends to have very poor outcomes in the real world. The place to fight the cops is in court, not the side of the road. They built an entire building for it, use it.

Post: #40

Another reason "All Lives Matter" got booed is because it is a talking point created in opposition to the "#BlackLivesMatter" campaign. People would be upset an unarmed black man was killed by police. They then take to twitter saying #BlackLivesMatter, then people who support the cop would say "#AllLivesMatter" because they felt the cops are reasonably fearful for their lives

Therefore, while the phrase "All Lives Matter" seems great it has been co-opted by people who support the police in their killing of unarmed black people. To go to a liberal political rally, in the wake of another suspicious black death in the presence of cops, and then say the motto of people who support the cops is beyond retarded. He should've expected to get booed.

I would hope they aren't booing the phrase "all lives matter" for its literal meaning, but are in fact booing it because it is the catch phrase for those who support cops killing unarmed black people.

It's a similar situation as to how innocuous terms like "pro-life" and "pro-choice" have been coopted and no longer have their plain meanings associated to them if you say it, it stands for a political position now.

Post: #41

(07-20-2015 10:38 AM)DarkTriad Wrote:  And I just read the Reason article. The follow up explained that she had actually been arrested for ""assaulting a public servant". So again, nobody was arrested for a turn signal, they were arrested for assaulting the officer that stopped them, probably because they had been indoctrinated with an angry ideology, one full of the the falsehoods that have been repeated here, an ideology that tends to have very poor outcomes in the real world. The place to fight the cops is in court, not the side of the road. They built an entire building for it, use it.

You just read the article yet you made the comments before you did, so you you could have prevented this entire discussion by reading the article before commenting about it. You still did not read my earlier comment where I said she was combative,so I will quote myself since you do not like to research: "The police claim she was "combative" so she was arrested up the street from a local HBCU where she applied for a job"

Again I will inform you that you that the Supreme Court does indeed make the arrest of individuals for any violation of law legal. If this is not the case please post the proof not your opinion. I posted the case law which proved my point which was that you can indeed be arrested for the violation of any law even if that law is only punishable by a fine, you cannot prove that point wrong. If you show me case law that has precedence over Atwater v. Lago Vista I will admit I was wrong, I was on Westlaw five minutes ago so I don't think you can. Post the case number, the court it was decided in, and the year-If it has precedence I will admit I was wrong .

Post: #42

(07-20-2015 10:43 AM)Sir Vigorous Wrote:  Therefore, while the phrase "All Lives Matter" seems great it has been co-opted by people who support the police in their killing of unarmed black people.

I'm sorry, but this is fucking stupid, not to mention needlessly inflammatory. Most of the people objecting to the campaign are doing so because of its divisive identity politics, not because they want to see cops killing unarmed black people.

You could argue that they're wrongheaded, and I can see the point some make about "All Lives Matter" being something of a red herring (so I would argue, is the #BlackLivesMatter thing as well), but to come to this conclusion is uncharitable and divisive.

Personally, I've found that most of the people using that campaign really mean "Only I Matter," as Saga alluded to and this incident shows. Hardly surprising when it comes down to left wing identity politics.

Post: #43

(07-19-2015 12:50 PM)teh_skeeze Wrote:  Saying all lives matter takes the victim classes off their pedestal. When I was a tinfoiler, I read something suggesting that Dr. King was getting preparing a "Million Poor Man" march. He had come to the realization that it isn't necessarily race, but socioeconomic status that leads to political disenfranchisement. Hence, he was killed.

I'm not sure how much truth there is to that claim, but let's take a look at recent events. After Eric Garner was killed by NYPD, there were massive protests (Black lives matter). Two cops were killed, and another had his nose broken. The response by the media was that of sympathetic understanding, even if they didn't agree with the violent retaliation. A few years earlier, you had the Occupy movement. A non-violent protest based along class lines. The response by the state was ordering their thugs to pepper spray and crack skulls, and using their 4th branch (the media) to downplay the significance of what the protesters were aiming for.

Now, I'm not suggesting that blacks in America don't hold the short straw, or that Occupy had a point or accomplished anything. What I am saying is the media has successfully divided us along lines that keep the underclass fighting amongst themselves.

You are not far off with that assessment. It probably is true. J Edgar Hoover and the FBI, among others, hated MLK and saw him as a major threat. Not because of the race issues but because of his ties (debatable) to socialism/communism. J Edgar Hoover hated the KKK and eventually used Roy DMeo and the Italian Mafia to destroy them. Why would these racist men (Hoover or the Mob) destroy the KKK? Hoover hated anything he saw as "un-American" or a threat to America herself, more or less. Commies back then were a far greater threat than eating food at the same table or using the same drinking water fountains, in the minds of these powerful men back then. MLK studied Ghandi and was influenced by other known socialist intellectuals at the time. Even after MLK died, stopping anything that gives fuel to socialist ideology was a priority to stop. Race was something more minor. Try explaining concepts like this to your average black, or white person even, and they will dismiss you quickly.

There are hints of this stuff in Malcolm X's murder as well. It's not crazy at all to think MLK would have eventually expanded out to poor whites in the South. He gave out alot of clues to it in his last speeches. Poor whites have voted against their own self interests for decades just like how blacks have voted against their own interests for decades.

TPTB need the divide or the illusion of it in order to maintain the lines of battle that they use to get elected to improve or maintain contracts and power in the hands of the plutocrats on their side. Nowadays it is even worse because you cannot even see much of a team red vs blue anymore. In their own self awareness, they now have an extreme lack of difference in their activates.

Post: #44

(07-20-2015 12:18 PM)Libertas Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 10:43 AM)Sir Vigorous Wrote:  Therefore, while the phrase "All Lives Matter" seems great it has been co-opted by people who support the police in their killing of unarmed black people.

I'm sorry, but this is fucking stupid, not to mention needlessly inflammatory. Most of the people objecting to the campaign are doing so because of its divisive identity politics, not because they want to see cops killing unarmed black people.

You could argue that they're wrongheaded, and I can see the point some make about "All Lives Matter" being something of a red herring (so I would argue, is the #BlackLivesMatter thing as well), but to come to this conclusion is uncharitable and divisive.

I personally read many tweets of "all lives matter" that were making the point that cops were justified in the killing because they were afraid for their lives. Therefore "all lives matter" and the related "cops lives matter". While not all of the proponents of AllLivesMatter take this view, it is a sizable portion.


I didn't phrase it to be divisive and inflammatory, it's just the plain telling of what happened. Unarmed black man dies by cop, people say it was justified. I didn't mean that to say that they "want to see cops killing unarmed black people", but when the cops do, they support them. They believe that the cops are acting justly and protecting their lives and the lives of the peaceful citizenry.

If we want to get technical about it I shouldn't have said "it has been co-opted by people who support the police in their killing of unarmed black people."
But should have said "it has been co-opted by people who support the police when they killed unarmed black people."


Both #livesmatter campaigns have taken on a new meaning in this political age. Many people on either side don't disagree with the plain meaning of the words.

I agree both livesmatter campaigns to be red herrings. They are silly and lead to something as retarded as booing the phrase "All Lives Matter." While I believe there are race issues in this country, I don't think the SJW's or liberals are doing a single useful thing to address it and make it better. They are just making it a divisive campaign issue instead of fixing the problems.

I just posted to point out AllLivesMatter would get booed in that crowd because it's the catchphrase of the opposition. Not because they don't agree with the sentiment. Under either interpretation of AllLivesMatter it's politically stupid to say that in a group full of people who embrace identity politics and don't think the cops were justified in these sensationalized cases.

Post: #45

(07-20-2015 11:30 AM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 10:38 AM)DarkTriad Wrote:  And I just read the Reason article. The follow up explained that she had actually been arrested for ""assaulting a public servant". So again, nobody was arrested for a turn signal, they were arrested for assaulting the officer that stopped them, probably because they had been indoctrinated with an angry ideology, one full of the the falsehoods that have been repeated here, an ideology that tends to have very poor outcomes in the real world. The place to fight the cops is in court, not the side of the road. They built an entire building for it, use it.

You just read the article yet you made the comments before you did, so you you could have prevented this entire discussion by reading the article before commenting about it.

You serious man? If someone tells me the moon is made of green cheese, I don't need to "read an article" and sift through mountains of bullsh!t to point out that he's wrong. You were making outlandish statements that simply aren't true and I called you on them.

If someone wrote "Female outperforms all other Ranger School candidates in PT but is denied entrance due to discrimination" we don't need to read their biased article to know they're wrong, the statement is simply absurd and against everything we know about biology and society. You can just call that one out immediately as based on ideology instead of facts.

Quote:Again I will inform you that you that the Supreme Court does indeed make the arrest of individuals for any violation of law legal. If this is not the case please post the proof not your opinion. I posted the case law which proved my point which was that you can indeed be arrested for the violation of any law even if that law is only punishable by a fine, you cannot prove that point wrong. If you show me case law that has precedence over Atwater v. Lago Vista I will admit I was wrong, I was on Westlaw five minutes ago so I don't think you can. Post the case number, the court it was decided in, and the year-If it has precedence I will admit I was wrong .

I explained it several times already, you don't have to change US Supreme Court precedent for a state to give additional restrictions on their police officers....and they have. I know this because I run into these restrictions every day I go to work.

The Supreme Court is the FLOOR for restrictions on cops, not the ceiling.

Post: #46

(07-20-2015 01:59 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 11:30 AM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 10:38 AM)DarkTriad Wrote:  And I just read the Reason article. The follow up explained that she had actually been arrested for ""assaulting a public servant". So again, nobody was arrested for a turn signal, they were arrested for assaulting the officer that stopped them, probably because they had been indoctrinated with an angry ideology, one full of the the falsehoods that have been repeated here, an ideology that tends to have very poor outcomes in the real world. The place to fight the cops is in court, not the side of the road. They built an entire building for it, use it.

You just read the article yet you made the comments before you did, so you you could have prevented this entire discussion by reading the article before commenting about it.

You serious man? If someone tells me the moon is made of green cheese, I don't need to "read an article" and sift through mountains of bullsh!t to point out that he's wrong. You were making outlandish statements that simply aren't true and I called you on them.

If someone wrote "Female outperforms all other Ranger School candidates in PT but is denied entrance due to discrimination" we don't need to read their biased article to know they're wrong, the statement is simply absurd and against everything we know about biology and society. You can just call that one out immediately as based on ideology instead of facts.

Quote:Again I will inform you that you that the Supreme Court does indeed make the arrest of individuals for any violation of law legal. If this is not the case please post the proof not your opinion. I posted the case law which proved my point which was that you can indeed be arrested for the violation of any law even if that law is only punishable by a fine, you cannot prove that point wrong. If you show me case law that has precedence over Atwater v. Lago Vista I will admit I was wrong, I was on Westlaw five minutes ago so I don't think you can. Post the case number, the court it was decided in, and the year-If it has precedence I will admit I was wrong .

I explained it several times already, you don't have to change US Supreme Court precedent for a state to give additional restrictions on their police officers....and they have. I know this because I run into these restrictions every day I go to work.

The Supreme Court is the FLOOR for restrictions on cops, not the ceiling.

This is a not a productive discussion, so lets just call it a day. I have read your other posts and until this thread I have agreed with most of what you have written previously so I would rather not focus on our disagreements. If your department tells your officers not to arrest people for minor infractions and you personally don't, that is a good thing. If you have been a cop for 20 years you will be near retirement soon, so you are doing better than I am anyway as I will be working until I am 70 -so in the big scheme of things you are winning regardless. Don't judge me solely by this thread, please take the time to read other things I have posted-we have more common ground than differences. Stay up.

Post: #47

The lawyer SHOULD understand what I''m saying but is blinded by ideology. For the laymen I'm bringing out the wiki on the Motor Vehicle Exception as an example of the US Supreme Court ruling it's OK for cops to do something, and a State Supreme Court ruling "Hey, we don't think that's OK, so you can't do it in this state even if the the US Supreme Court says it's OK" -

"The motor vehicle exception was first established by the United States Supreme Court in 1925, in Carroll v. United States.[1] The motor vehicle exception allows an officer to search a vehicle without a search warrant as long as he or she has probable cause to believe that evidence or contraband is located in the vehicle.[2] The exception is based on the idea that there is a lower expectation of privacy in motor vehicles due to the regulations under which they operate. Additionally, the ease of mobility creates an inherent exigency to prevent the removal of evidence and contraband. In Pennsylvania v. Labron the U.S. Supreme Court, stated, “If a car is readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe it contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment permits the police to search the vehicle without more.”[2]

The scope of the search is limited to only what area the officer has probable cause to search. This area can encompass the entire vehicle including the trunk. The motor vehicle exception in addition to allowing officers to search the vehicle also allows officers to search any containers found inside the vehicle that could contain the evidence or contraband being searched for. The objects searched do not need to belong to the owner of the vehicle. In Wyoming v. Houghton, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the ownership of objects searched in the vehicle is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the search.[2]

Some states' constitutions require officers to show there was not enough time to obtain a warrant. With the exception of states with this requirement, an officer is not required to obtain a warrant even if it may be possible to do so."

The last 2 sentences are the most important.

Your state constitution may incorporate the Bill of Rights into it (mine does, but I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert on the laws in all 50 states). Even though it has the exact same words as the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution, the guys in your state's top court may say - "The US Supreme Court was WAY off base with that one, around here we don't think the state should have that much ability to interfere in a citizen's private business, we're going to make limitations on the police based on the 4th Amendment in our State Constitution that go BEYOND what the Supreme Court ruled."

They can't do less....they have to abide by the US Supreme Court, but they can do MORE when it comes to restricting police action. And they do.

Post: #48

(07-20-2015 02:16 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 01:59 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 11:30 AM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 10:38 AM)DarkTriad Wrote:  And I just read the Reason article. The follow up explained that she had actually been arrested for ""assaulting a public servant". So again, nobody was arrested for a turn signal, they were arrested for assaulting the officer that stopped them, probably because they had been indoctrinated with an angry ideology, one full of the the falsehoods that have been repeated here, an ideology that tends to have very poor outcomes in the real world. The place to fight the cops is in court, not the side of the road. They built an entire building for it, use it.

You just read the article yet you made the comments before you did, so you you could have prevented this entire discussion by reading the article before commenting about it.

You serious man? If someone tells me the moon is made of green cheese, I don't need to "read an article" and sift through mountains of bullsh!t to point out that he's wrong. You were making outlandish statements that simply aren't true and I called you on them.

If someone wrote "Female outperforms all other Ranger School candidates in PT but is denied entrance due to discrimination" we don't need to read their biased article to know they're wrong, the statement is simply absurd and against everything we know about biology and society. You can just call that one out immediately as based on ideology instead of facts.

Quote:Again I will inform you that you that the Supreme Court does indeed make the arrest of individuals for any violation of law legal. If this is not the case please post the proof not your opinion. I posted the case law which proved my point which was that you can indeed be arrested for the violation of any law even if that law is only punishable by a fine, you cannot prove that point wrong. If you show me case law that has precedence over Atwater v. Lago Vista I will admit I was wrong, I was on Westlaw five minutes ago so I don't think you can. Post the case number, the court it was decided in, and the year-If it has precedence I will admit I was wrong .

I explained it several times already, you don't have to change US Supreme Court precedent for a state to give additional restrictions on their police officers....and they have. I know this because I run into these restrictions every day I go to work.

The Supreme Court is the FLOOR for restrictions on cops, not the ceiling.

This is a not a productive discussion, so lets just call it a day. I have read your other posts and until this thread I have agreed with most of what you have written previously so I would rather not focus on our disagreements. If your department tells your officers not to arrest people for minor infractions and you personally don't, that is a good thing. If you have been a cop for 20 years you will be near retirement soon, so you are doing better than I am anyway as I will be working until I am 70 -so in the big scheme of things you are winning regardless. Don't judge me solely by this thread, please take the time to read other things I have posted-we have more common ground than differences. Stay up.

Not trying to be acrimonious and I have read other posts of yours that were good and I've gained value from. But we're all full of shit on one topic or another, and I've been called out for being full of shit myself on other issues...and it was the only way I was able to grow and learn, and be slightly less full of shit.

I take a hard line because these ideologies tend to have REALLY bad outcomes in the real world, and some of the guys pushing them don't care how many of their foot soldiers go down. Case in point, the woman in the story -

Smile, take the ticket, fight it in court (not the side of the road), if you have a legit lawsuit about getting singled out because of being involved in a demonstration, use that too...make them pay in the pocket book, while you improve the quality of your own life. Don't give them a license to kick your ass and take you to jail because you decided to get physical in a fight you couldn't possibly win (reducing the quality of your own life).

And if you're in a point in your life where you are so on the edge you might kill yourself after a 3 day jail stint, you might want to avoid high conflict/high risk situations till you're in a stronger headspace and can make better decisions on how to protect yourself. Including protecting yourself from yourself.

If I'm serious about rehabbing my shoulder surgery, I don't go to rowdy bars where I might need to defend myself with my arm in a sling. I don't think it's right for people to start fights with me, but I still shouldn't put myself in a position where I can pop my sutures out. Then I'm out another 6 months with the same problem.

Don't make your own problems worse with inappropriate risks at inappropriate times. I've done it and it cost me, don't let it cost you.

Post: #49

As a former Reason.com commenter, the anti-police attitude there has gotten out of control. I stopped posting when they were going apeshit about every unconfirmed report of police misconduct during the Baltimore Riots.

I'm on board for punishing bad cops and murderous militaristic thugs like the guys who shot down James Boyd in New Mexico and the assholes in one of the Carolinas that tossed a flashbang into that baby's crib, but the #BlackLivesMatter and #HandsUpDontShoot crowd have hijacked the entire police accountability movement.

These people don't want any policing in their neighborhoods whatsoever so they can rob, rape, loot and shoot without consequence.

Post: #50

I was going to post about this on the Trump thread but got distracted.

People, especially the media and commenters on more liberal sites like Raw Story, have been going on and on about how Trump is great for the democrats because he is not electable. I don't know how true this is. Maybe he will end up dividing the republican votes leading to a democrat win...but I kind of doubt it.

One thing I have been thinking about is that with Hillary and Sanders being the forerunners this time around, I don't think the minority vote or even the millennial vote will turn out in force like it did with Obama.

Will blacks turn out to vote for an old white woman or an old white man after having 8 years of the first black president? Add onto that question the fact that racial tension is incredibly high compared to any time I have been alive and I really doubt it.

Then there are other questions with respect to minorities turning out for either Hillary or Sanders. Both candidates will basically, due to gay marriage being legalized so soon, have to stand up and support all the tranny and gay shit. If they don't then they will alienate the progressive element of their base.

The problem is that blacks and latinos are heavily against gay and tranny issues. Look back to the Prop 8 stuff in California. It was Democrat blacks, and to a lesser degree Hispanics, who voted against gay marriage.

I really think that Trump could, at least temporarily, grab some of the Latino or black vote. Or maybe what is more likely is that those minority Democrats simply stay home.

I think this Black Lives Matter will really alienate a lot of liberal whites. If you look at websites like Raw Story where they cover this episode, then you see a lot of white liberals getting upset and anxiously talking around the race element and pointing out how it is unfair due to Sanders having such a track record with Civil Rights.

Either way. This is getting interesting.