|
http://gawker.com/convicted-killer-on-parole-stabs-woman-to-death-eats-h-1634966515 White guy kills a woman in 1998, gets parole, goes to another woman's house trying to break in, she calls the police who show up and tell him to go home, then come back the next morning to find her stabbed to death and half-eaten, take the suspect into custody and return him to jail What does a white person have to do to get shot by the police in this country?
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 23:52 |
|
|
bassguitarhero posted:What does a white person have to do to get shot by the police in this country? Be a leftist protester.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
bassguitarhero posted:http://gawker.com/convicted-killer-on-parole-stabs-woman-to-death-eats-h-1634966515 Be suicidal, while in a white community. If your parents call the cops because you are suicidal, you may as well kiss the reaper. The cops are going to ensure that you die. A lot of those parents probably thought the cops were good guys and would save their children. None of them expected the cops to kill their kid. Pohl fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
twodot posted:Which of these do you think asking for an ID falls under? I have only spoken to the police requiring a person to show id being illegal, since that is what happened here, and you've repeatedly countered with the statement "Show me where it's illegal for them to ask" which is not what I've been arguing, and it's dishonest for you to keep implying I've said that. They violated both (1) and (2) quote:(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful; quote:(2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful; How is this not clear? bassguitarhero posted:White guy kills a woman in 1998, gets parole, goes to another woman's house trying to break in, she calls the police who show up and tell him to go home, then come back the next morning to find her stabbed to death and half-eaten, take the suspect into custody and return him to jail Having bipolar disorder or schizophrenia and having your family call the hospital for medical help for your condition are both pretty effective ways. Additionally, having neighbours (for a loose definition of neighbours) who may or may not have drugs, and reacting to the no-knock midnight raid by reaching for your weapon to defend yourself against the unknown intruders. Being heavily tattooed definitely helps as well, since it visually identifies you as a deviant that needs to be put down (although not to the extent that being black does!). And finally, being in a car that does or does not in any way look like a suspects car when that suspect has killed some cops. Of course, all of these can be combined with being black, in which case good luck living to old age. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
twodot posted:Yeah, I never said that being legal makes something right. GlyphGryph thinks something is illegal, and I think it is legal, I want to understand why we apparently have conflicting beliefs about reality. What relevance does this post have to anything I've said? I will reply to you as much as I want. Get a loving grip, dude. Stop whining, it is really annoying. Pohl fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I have only spoken to the police requiring a person to show id being illegal, since that is what happened here, and you've repeatedly countered with the statement "Show me where it's illegal for them to ask" which is not what I've been arguing, and it's dishonest for you to keep implying I've said that. I'm pretty sure twodot is irl Chief Justice John Roberts, which is why he is confused that people are saying the cops required ID just because they asked her for it and then cuffed her for not providing it. Which is clearly just asking, because it's only an illegal requirement if the cop says "As an officer of the City of Los Angeles, I am hereby requiring you to provide ID in direct violation of the law of the State of California and if you do not comply with my unlawful command, I will forcefully punish you in various illegal ways including, but not limited to: detainment, arrest, beating, murder, and bullshit charges" and then only if this was transcribed by a court reporter at the scene, signed by two witnesses, and notarized. Otherwise it's just asking, God dummy, are you saying you want the words "Can I see some ID" to be illegal now, God you're dumb.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm pretty sure twodot is irl Chief Justice John Roberts, which is why he is confused that people are saying the cops required ID just because they asked her for it and then cuffed her for not providing it. Which is clearly just asking, because it's only an illegal requirement if the cop says "As an officer of the City of Los Angeles, I am hereby requiring you to provide ID in direct violation of the law of the State of California and if you do not comply with my unlawful command, I will forcefully punish you in various illegal ways including, but not limited to: detainment, arrest, beating, murder, and bullshit charges" and then only if this was transcribed by a court reporter at the scene, signed by two witnesses, and notarized. We can't make cops not lie, that would put them at a distinct disadvantage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Your idea is once again, we have police filmed and that film is somehow safe. That is a false idea. Then what's your solution?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
Pohl posted:And she could have showed her Id and walked away... Solice Kirsk posted:You know, if every gun owning civilian would just shoot one cop in the face we could be rid of the whole mess. Can't get arrested if there are no police! temple fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Then what's your solution? I like the camera on every officer idea, but I'm not going to dismiss the idea that the video will vanish when it is convenient. My idea is we need a national or federal organization to oversee and control the video.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
temple posted:I'm not trying to defend the cops. I'm just pointing out how race, class, and privilege cross. It relates to Mike Brown because he did not have the same privilege of claiming famous when confronted with the police. I love how in all your whingeing about Watts'  Hollywood privilege!!!, all of her supposed special treatment consisted of not even being treated with basic decency or given the simple respect for her rights to which every American is entitled. Pampered Hollywood actresses, lording it over us commoners with their getting targeted for harassment based on their skin color, and getting the privilege of unlawful detainment and causeless public humiliation! She wasn't summarily executed on the street, truly we are all in the grips of a new black Hollywood aristocracy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
bassguitarhero posted:What does a white person have to do to get shot by the police in this country? Well it depends How much does the white person know about Samurai Champloo
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
Pohl posted:I like the camera on every officer idea, but I'm not going to dismiss the idea that the video will vanish when it is convenient. My idea is we need a national or federal organization to oversee and control the video. So you're idea is exactly what I was saying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
bassguitarhero posted:What does a white person have to do to get shot by the police in this country? Are leg shots ok?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Which of my statements has anything to do with this strawman you keep bringing up? edit: Pohl posted:I will reply to you as much as I want. Get a loving grip, dude. Stop whining, it is really annoying. twodot fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:I've gotta say, people need to stop pretending like their rights mean poo poo. Show the cops your drat ID and get on with your day. You're gonna get your rear end kicked if you try and change the world so fuckin quit it. What if you don't have your ID with you? I lose my license on a fairly regular basis because I'm horrifically disorganized. Despite that, cops don't seem to have a problem with me when they pull me over. At worst I get a ticket for not having it. Yet they still manage to do their police work even with my lack of cooperation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
twodot posted:As far as I'm concerned "require" and "ask" are identical here (since the police are physically incapable of compelling me to give an ID, especially if I don't have one), which might explain the confusion. This paragraph implies to me you think it is legal for police to ask for IDs, but not to require them. What's the difference between the police asking and requiring something? Not be Socratic, but I'd guess your answer is "requiring something is asking for something with the threat of doing something else", if that's the case surely it's the "doing something else (detaining someone)" that is illegal and not the asking? So if I 'ask' you to do something and tell you I will punish you if you don't, that's not a requirement? I guess in that case the fifth amendment is meaningless, because even if I beat a confession out of you, I wasn't "compelling" you to be a witness against yourself, just doing some perfectly-legal asking followed by a beating for not complying!  I mean yeah, we should punish the cop for the beating, but since the suspect "volunteered" the confession, then that's all perfectly regular and admissible I guess. And of course if by volunteering he prevented the beating, then surely there's nothing illegal about that!Tell me twodot, short of Jedi mind-control, is requiring someone to do something a physical impossibility then, since all I can do is impose consequences on someone for not complying with my requests, which is Totally Different from requiring something? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
twodot posted:As far as I'm concerned "require" and "ask" are identical here (since the police are physically incapable of compelling me to give an ID, especially if I don't have one), which might explain the confusion. This paragraph implies to me you think it is legal for police to ask for IDs, but not to require them. What's the difference between the police asking and requiring something? Not be Socratic, but I'd guess your answer is "requiring something is asking for something with the threat of doing something else", if that's the case surely it's the "doing something else (detaining someone)" that is illegal and not the asking? Stop making lovely posts, you pedantic fucker.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Stop making lovely posts, you pedantic fucker. Nooooo, I want to hear more. If you think about it, a mugging isn't actually theft, because the guy asked me for my wallet and I gave it to him. If he'd shot me, then that would have been wrong of course, but as long as he asks nicely with only the heavy implication that I'll be shot for refusing, then that's not illegal at all! Just a perfectly voluntary transaction between two capable adults.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
twodot posted:As far as I'm concerned "require" and "ask" are identical here (since the police are physically incapable of compelling me to give an ID, especially if I don't have one), which might explain the confusion. This paragraph implies to me you think it is legal for police to ask for IDs, but not to require them. What's the difference between the police asking and requiring something? Not be Socratic, but I'd guess your answer is "requiring something is asking for something with the threat of doing something else", if that's the case surely it's the "doing something else (detaining someone)" that is illegal and not the asking? If they add requirements to it "let me search your car or I'll arrest you", they have violated really basic legal requirements in the US, though I think this makes anything they find inadmissible in court? I know that's what happens if they search without permission, IANAL, but I'm assuming compelled "consent" does the same thing. Technically, "requiring" just means there are consequences to the request. It is not even close to the same thing as "asking".
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
This is how muggings will be legally performed by "Firearm Entepreneurs" in Libertopia.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:This is exactly the reason that police "ask" if they can search your car instead of telling you "get out of your car while I search it" if they don't have probable cause. quote:Technically, "requiring" just means there are consequences to the request. It is not even close to the same thing as "asking". twodot fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:I've gotta say, people need to stop pretending like their rights mean poo poo. Show the cops your drat ID and get on with your day. You're gonna get your rear end kicked if you try and change the world so fuckin quit it. Talking about rights and trying to trap the police in some sort of superior legalistic logic challenge is one of the whitest things. Cops tell you to do something, do it, or they'll find a reason to bust you. Or shoot you if you're swarthy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Talking about rights and trying to trap the police in some sort of superior legalistic logic challenge is one of the whitest things. Corrected for accuracy. Jokes aside, don't blame the victims for what happens to them. Should a woman just allow an rapist to take her, lest he find a reason to do worse?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Jokes aside, don't blame the victims for what happens to them. Should a woman just allow an rapist to take her, lest he find a reason to do worse? Remember a rapist can't require a woman to give in to him; he's just asking, and if she does it, it's on her.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Corrected for accuracy. No, the cops are at fault here, not the victim. I'm saying cops are raging assholes and will use any excuse to violate your rights and get away with it. Whites just think they have rights that aren't dependent on cops not being horrible because they aren't nearly as heavily targetted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
twodot posted:I think these are distinguishable, because offering your ID to a cop requires your consent, where a cop can search your car/body without your consent. Even if you are going to argue you were coerced into giving your ID to a cop, I would think the exclusionary rule would basically never apply to identity, since it's typically straightforward to establish someone's identity other than asking for their ID. Also if we are talking about a scenario where a cop coerced someone into giving their ID, we should be using the word "coerced" and not "required". Holy poo poo these are the worst loving arguments. The cop asked her for her ID, she refused, cop then detained her for refusing. That's illegal and it's already been pointed out to you very clearly how and why it is. Stop being so loving dense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
It's weird how people suddenly forget that being required to produce identification on demand is a hallmark of nightmare dystopias when a black person is the one being required to produce them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
twodot posted:where a cop can search your car/body without your consent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
Wadjamaloo posted:You should just stop posting, your ignorance is showing. *sniff* *sniff* "What's that? I smell probable cause."
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
And once again we in the realm of what cops can do, and what they get away with doing, but hey we should just submit to everything they ask because we are
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
Los Angeles, 2014: Couple kissing in public White couple: "  "Black couple: " "Interracial couple: "EEK!" *dials 911* "A CRACKWHORE'S loving A JOHN SEND HELLLLLLP" *locks deadbolt*
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
I wish black people would be more courageous and challenge police authority during confrontations because I'm white and have opinions over the internet. I'll watch the live stream of their funeral (only if white girls are reporting).
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
To topic - looks like further stalling is in order. Grand Jury has till Jan 7th now. I know this poo poo takes time but come the gently caress on. Can't help but think they're hoping we'll forget, or at least put off the inevitable until the last possible moment. http://m.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_aa4111fc-2952-54c9-8316-76c4867dea48.html?mobile_touch=true
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
temple posted:I wish black people would be more courageous and challenge police authority during confrontations because I'm white and have opinions over the internet. I'll watch the live stream of their funeral (only if white girls are reporting). Complying only guarantees you don't end up in a body bag if you're white. People of color have no such security. That's why the thread is talking about ways to reduce the police ability to abuse their authority so people don't have to face the choice of complying with illegal requests or raise your chances of getting shot, and no one has said anything like what you're making up. The onus shouldn't be on the victims of brutality to choose between having their rights violated and getting punished more severely. Complying with illegal coercion might be the practical choice in many situations, but the extent to which that choice is forced on people is an indictment of our society and something we should change. But thanks for finally admitting the police treatment of Watts was wrong, I appreciate that you've come around on that 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:34 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
YeahWhatevah posted:To topic - looks like further stalling is in order. Grand Jury has till Jan 7th now. I know this poo poo takes time but come the gently caress on. Can't help but think they're hoping we'll forget, or at least put off the inevitable until the last possible moment. Are there any of the players involved with this case up for reelection in November? Pushing this back could be used to protect those reelection campaigns?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
Disabled Hitler posted:Holy poo poo these are the worst loving arguments. The cop asked her for her ID, she refused, cop then detained her for refusing. That's illegal and it's already been pointed out to you very clearly how and why it is. Stop being so loving dense. Wadjamaloo posted:You should just stop posting, your ignorance is showing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
twodot posted:I think those facts are in dispute. The cops had at least one other factor to consider (the busybody that called the police in the first place), not counting anything else they saw. If those were factors in her detainment, then why wasn't the husband detained as well?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If those were factors in her detainment, then why wasn't the husband detained as well?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 23:52 |
|
|
temple posted:He gave the cop his ID. Right, exactly, because the complaint or other observations before the stop weren't factors in the treatment of Watts during the stop, and it was all an illegal retribution for being uppity and not surrendering the ID she had no legal duty to surrender. Twodot's desire to make the complaint an issue was a red herring, because as you've deftly pointed out, the complaint was not cause for detention and with no cause for detention, refusing to show her ID couldn't have been sufficient cause either. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 03:30
|
|