|
And the penalty is death, no trial.
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 09:09 |
|
|
You know that you can respond to incorrect statements about the legality of his actions, even if you think it is abhorent the cop killed him. Allowing the misinformation regarding people's rights to stand helps no one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:And the penalty is death, no trial. Yes, that's totally the natural implication of my correcting someone regarding their mistaken impression that the guy has a right not to show id when stopped while driving.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
I'm sure it's some crazy freeman thing, but when did people start trying to use "am I being detained" as some kind of trump card at the start of a traffic stop?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Sure buddy people are less likely to kill people they know in any sense, as backed up by evidence you are supplying like: Because murder is totally the same thing as killing in self-defense/defense of another. Congratulations on working out that its in fact easier to kill someone who you want to kill. edit: Kalman posted:Yes, that's totally the natural implication of my correcting someone regarding their mistaken impression that the guy has a right not to show id when stopped while driving. You must be new here Jarmak fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Jun 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:And the penalty is death, no trial.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Yes, that's totally the natural implication of my correcting someone regarding their mistaken impression that the guy has a right not to show id when stopped while driving. That kid didn't even show his license: he was no angel. What the gently caress does it matter whether the kid was sassy to the cop. When do we ever treat other victims of murder this way, should we point out that that cop's ex-wife must have been breaking a traffic law to hit that parked car too? People are going to be sassy to cops sometimes, if they are ending up dead because of it, then that's a problem with a dangerous system that repays minor human error with needless death. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Jun 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That kid didn't even show his license: he was no angel. See, this is exercising a constitutional right - the right to free (even when moronic) speech. Refusing to show a cop your driver's license, on the other hand, is not exercising a constitutional right, and people who aren't you should be aware of that so they don't get unjustifiably shot when they get stopped.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
I know that he was actually under some asinine legal obligation. That's not the point. The response to a 17 year old making a mistake about the arcana of the 4th amendment is not tasing them. Kneejerk legalism is really unbecoming.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
Kalman posted:See, this is exercising a constitutional right - the right to free (even when moronic) speech. People are going to sass cops sometimes, that's just going to happen. Shrugging and saying "well, no one would die if everyone just doesn't make a mistake ever" is just asinine apologetics for a dangerous and broken system. When people die in a plane crash, we don't go "welp, that's just what happens when pilots make errors, guess that pilot won't make that error again, heh." If minor human errors are resulting in dead bodies, the system is hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
Dazzling Addar posted:I know that he was actually under some asinine legal obligation. That's not the point. The response to a 17 year old making a mistake about the arcana of the 4th amendment is not tasing them. Kneejerk legalism is really unbecoming. Does your car have a gold fringe?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
Dazzling Addar posted:I know that he was actually under some asinine legal obligation. That's not the point. The response to a 17 year old making a mistake about the arcana of the 4th amendment is not tasing them. Kneejerk legalism is really unbecoming. The response to someone else posting that he had a constitutional right to do so is to correct them so that they themselves don't try the same thing and get themselves tased or worse. I mean, it's so arcane that it's right up front when the ACLU explains what rights people have. VitalSigns posted:People are going to sass cops sometimes, that's just going to happen. Shrugging and saying "well, no one would die if everyone just doesn't make a mistake ever" is just asinine apologetics for a dangerous and broken system. That's not what I said. In response to someone saying "its totally okay to point the plane at the ground and push the throttle!" After a news story about someone doing exactly that, I pointed out that it is, in fact, not okay. (It's a bad analogy, though.) As nm said, I can disagree with what both the cop and the kid did. Even with my 'joke' about wishing you would, I would rather not hear about people getting shot for making a dumb mistake. One way to do that is to correct people who are under the incorrect impression that they have a right to do so, and hope that they will similarly educate others. Kalman fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Jun 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:The requirement to have a drivers license is an "asinine legal obligation" and "arcana of the 4th amendment" now? Do you actually have anything to say or do you just like being obstinate? The error the driver made was not "I don't need to have a driver's license", it was "I do not need to show this police officer my driver's license for being stopped for a courtesy flash." I would expect an adult person to maybe know that, but there is a lot of common sense wisdom that dictates you do not show anything to the cops if you can avoid it. The issue here is the response the police officer gave to the driver, which was unwarranted violence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I'm sure it's some crazy freeman thing, but when did people start trying to use "am I being detained" as some kind of trump card at the start of a traffic stop? It's not that it's a "trump card", but it came about due to the greater awareness of police brutality in the United States. It's common to find "guides" that explain how your rights and how detaining and arresting work in the United States to help people avoid self-incrimination and minimize the chance of being abused. The reason is that there's legal differences between different levels of stopping and detaining that police can perform. A police officer has to have suspicion of a crime to legally detain someone they've stopped, so if you're stopped by an officer with no suspicion of a crime you can technically walk away at any given time with no reason given (I say "technically" because, as we've seen with these incidents, your actual legal rights in practice tend to be a little more flexible depending on how much abuse the cop is planning to dish out). People repeatedly ask officers if they're being detained because if the officer doesn't say "Yes", they can just leave without another word. If an officer says that you're being detained but can't actually say what crime you're suspected of committing, there's a good chance that stopping you wasn't legal. Likewise, an arrest can't be made unless there's probable cause of a crime having been committed. "Probable cause" is different from "suspicion" because there's actually a level of evidence needed to have it; if you ask a guy if he's got a bag of weed in his pockets and he says no, and there's no smell or visible marijuana or anything like that, you don't have probable cause to make an arrest. On the other hand, visible illegal items or certain things (like smelling alcohol on a driver's breath) give probable cause for an arrest. This also extends to searches. Unless they have a warrant, police can't legally search and seize your property while you're detained unless you give permission or they have probable cause; it is legal via a Supreme Court ruling for them to search you if you've been arrested, however. Like I said, this is all quite flexible in practice due to police abuse. If your rights end up "suspended" by a particularly dickish cop, it's often your word against theirs in court and officers have had their word placed above even video recordings in court.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
Dazzling Addar posted:Do you actually have anything to say or do you just like being obstinate? The error the driver made was not "I don't need to have a driver's license", it was "I do not need to show this police officer my driver's license for being stopped for a courtesy flash." I would expect an adult person to maybe know that, but there is a lot of common sense wisdom that dictates you do not show anything to the cops if you can avoid it. The issue here is the response the police officer gave to the driver, which was unwarranted violence. He didn't tase him for not handing over his license, he tased him when he resisted being cuffed Also a point that seems to be being missed here is that he was driving without a license as well and that probably has more to do with his refusing to hand over paperwork edit: chitoryu12 posted:It's not that it's a "trump card", but it came about due to the greater awareness of police brutality in the United States. It's common to find "guides" that explain how your rights and how detaining and arresting work in the United States to help people avoid self-incrimination and minimize the chance of being abused. Its still pretty dumb to ask during at a traffic stop though, because the act of pulling someone over satisfies the conditions for being "detained". Jarmak fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Jun 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
It's a good thing this dangerous child was stopped permanently before he got in front of some liberal judge who might let him out to sass another cop.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
Dazzling Addar posted:Do you actually have anything to say or do you just like being obstinate? The error the driver made was not "I don't need to have a driver's license", it was "I do not need to show this police officer my driver's license for being stopped for a courtesy flash." I would expect an adult person to maybe know that, but there is a lot of common sense wisdom that dictates you do not show anything to the cops if you can avoid it. The issue here is the response the police officer gave to the driver, which was unwarranted violence. In that case why did he even bother to pull over? I mean, if he knew it was just a "courtesy flash" and the cop had no authority to stop him. No sense in stopping in the first place right? Because if you do how will you avoid showing the cop your drivers license. And if you refuse, how will you avoid his lawful order for you to exit the car, and so on... Speaking of being obstinate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
Any time you interact with a cop, you should think to yourself, "Am I giving this person an excuse to shoot me?" because if a cop makes a good-faith error, you can get killed. This guy watched too many of the youtube "Know your rights" videos, and thought that if he said the magic words, the cop wouldn't find out he was driving without a license. And apparently took it too far when the cop was trying to cuff him, and gave the cop the excuse he was looking for. Now the guy is dead. Treat cops like the potential murderers they are, and you'll make it home safe. God bless.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
Ima Grip And Sip posted:In that case why did he even bother to pull over? I mean, if he knew it was just a "courtesy flash" and the cop had no authority to stop him. No sense in stopping in the first place right? Because if you do how will you avoid showing the cop your drivers license. And if you refuse, how will you avoid his lawful order for you to exit the car, and so on... Speaking of being obstinate. Haha, yes clearly the dangerously obstinate one here was the teenager who talked back to a cop, and not the cop who murdered him to get the best of him and show that kid who's boss.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's a good thing this dangerous child was stopped permanently before he got in front of some liberal judge who might let him out to sass another cop. I highly recommend you go do the same thing. I mean, it's your constitutional right, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I highly recommend you go do the same thing. I mean, it's your constitutional right, right? This goes back to my point that you don't want to address: that a system which deals out death for minor and common human foibles is a dangerous and irresponsible one. VitalSigns posted:People are going to sass cops sometimes, that's just going to happen. Shrugging and saying "well, no one would die if everyone just doesn't make a mistake ever" is just asinine apologetics for a dangerous and broken system. We should be talking about the problems in policing that let this situation and others like it get totally out of hand and kill someone, rather than saying "welp all teens: never talk back ever, I'm sure that's realistic: problem solved"
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This goes back to my point that you don't want to address: that a system which deals out death for minor and common human foibles is a dangerous and irresponsible one. I don't disagree with you on that point. Does it make you happier if i say (again) that the cop shouldn't have shot him? But since you clearly agree with me that what he did wasn't his constitutional right, I'm sure you're happy to admit that one way to make sure that people don't repeat his mistake is to educate them about what their rights actually are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's a good thing this dangerous child was stopped permanently before he got in front of some liberal judge who might let him out to sass another cop. Its perfectly reasonable to question why the cop needed his gun to defend himself against an unarmed 17 year old, but the kid loving attacked him, this "man the cop just executed him for sassing him/flashing his brights/whatever" is really loving stupid and disingenuous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Haha, yes clearly the dangerously obstinate one here was the teenager who talked back to a cop, and not the cop who murdered him to get the best of him and show that kid who's boss. Oh, what your saying is that in this case he was shot for not providing his drivers license? As if nothing else even happened. We know you run a gimmick, but answering every situation presented with something like "THIS ~THING~ IS NOT A DEATH SENTENCE" and completely glossing over the rest of anything that happened does nothing to further the cause of this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
Ima Grip And Sip posted:Oh, what your saying is that in this case he was shot for not providing his drivers license? As if nothing else even happened. The cop is the one with the power to de-escalate the situation, avoiding the use of lethal force, and failed to do so. It's a systemic problem, not an isolated one, that many people refuse to acknowledge as a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
I want it to be clear that I don't think that the driver should not have faced any legal repercussions for driving without a license. However, the point that I am so desperately trying to make is that when a 17 year old breaks the law in a fairly minor way (he was certainly not murdering his wife in cold blood, for instance), tasers should not even come into the equation. It's not like the officer had some sort of sixth sense informing him that the driver did not actually have a license. He started the confrontation for petty reasons and escalated it to a lethal shooting. The legal hows and whys here are less important to the issue that a child got shot to death in a confrontation a police officer instigated because of bright flashing. I apologize for misrepresenting any facts about the incident. I just don't think that this is an acceptable outcome to that situation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
Devor posted:The cop is the one with the power to de-escalate the situation, avoiding the use of lethal force, and failed to do so. It's a systemic problem, not an isolated one, that many people refuse to acknowledge as a problem. At which point are you talking about? He tried to use non-lethal force and it failed. Or are we going toward a "well when the kid really didn't want to get out of the car her should have just gave up on it" argument?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I don't disagree with you on that point. Does it make you happier if i say (again) that the cop shouldn't have shot him? You can't "make sure" people don't repeat his mistake, you can make it less likely (although just telling a few people on a forum not to sass cops isn't exactly widely effective), but unless you make people into not-people, that mistake is going to happen, and our system should be robust enough to deal with that. Let's just start with the attitude of the cop: here we have an officer driving at night, and three people flash their headlights at him to let him now his lights are blinding them. Instead of thinking "hey, that's a lot of people telling me they can't see, maybe my car is creating a dangerous situation here and I should inspect it or tell the police force", he rages out and decides to pull someone over and write them a nuisance ticket for courteously trying to alert him to a dangerous situation his vehicle was causing. This is indicative of the hostile and authoritarian culture unfortunately common in American police departments, and we see the results of letting someone with this type of personality be in a position of authority with the tools of life and death in his hands. Is it any wonder that someone who had a totally unreasonable reaction to a couple of courtesy flashes was also unable to maintain control of himself, a teenager, and the situation without letting it escalate to violence, ending in a kid with seven bulletholes in him?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Its still pretty dumb to ask during at a traffic stop though, because the act of pulling someone over satisfies the conditions for being "detained". Not necessarily. There are times (albeit not common ones) where a traffic stop occurs without real suspicion of a crime. Traffic stops are the most common detainments, I think, because virtually no officer will make one without at least being able to bullshit a legitimate-sounding reason, but there's no absolute requirement that they have it to stop someone as far as I know.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
Devor posted:Treat cops like the potential murderers they are, and you'll make it home safe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
Dazzling Addar posted:I want it to be clear that I don't think that the driver should not have faced any legal repercussions for driving without a license. However, the point that I am so desperately trying to make is that when a 17 year old breaks the law in a fairly minor way (he was certainly not murdering his wife in cold blood, for instance), tasers should not even come into the equation. It's not like the officer had some sort of sixth sense informing him that the driver did not actually have a license. He started the confrontation for petty reasons and escalated it to a lethal shooting. I don't think anyone thinks it was an acceptable outcome. VitalSigns posted:You can't "make sure" people don't repeat his mistake, you can make it less likely (although just telling a few people on a forum not to sass cops isn't exactly widely effective), but unless you make people into not-people, that mistake is going to happen, and our system should be robust enough to deal with that. That's, uh, not even close to what happened. Did you actually watch the video?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
Dazzling Addar posted:I want it to be clear that I don't think that the driver should not have faced any legal repercussions for driving without a license. However, the point that I am so desperately trying to make is that when a 17 year old breaks the law in a fairly minor way (he was certainly not murdering his wife in cold blood, for instance), tasers should not even come into the equation. It's not like the officer had some sort of sixth sense informing him that the driver did not actually have a license. He started the confrontation for petty reasons and escalated it to a lethal shooting. Actually the kid tells him he doesn't have a license on him after he finally threatens to arrest him for not giving it to him
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
Kalman posted:That's, uh, not even close to what happened. Did you actually watch the video? I'm talking about what happened before the video even took place: rather than responding to people flashing the cop in a reasonable way "oh geez, I must be blinding people, that's dangerous" he decides to nuisance ticket them for alerting him. The kid even said in the video "your lights were so bright I couldn't see". This officer was more interested in preserving his sense of authority than in public safety from the beginning, and that's a serious problem with policing in America. And you're ignoring the point: people are going to sass cops, if they're getting killed for it, that's a problem with the criminal justice system, not an excuse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Not necessarily. There are times (albeit not common ones) where a traffic stop occurs without real suspicion of a crime. Traffic stops are the most common detainments, I think, because virtually no officer will make one without at least being able to bullshit a legitimate-sounding reason, but there's no absolute requirement that they have it to stop someone as far as I know. yes but "detained" means that either by show of authority, physical force, or verbal command a reasonable person does not feel free to leave, the act of pulling someone over pretty much necessitates this. edit: My point is that the reason you ask "am I being detained" is to get the cop to either admit he has no reason to prevent you from leaving and/or allow you argue later that the detention was unlawful without them trying to claim it wasn't a detention. When you get pulled over in a traffic stop this isn't in question, you're being detained. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Jun 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm talking about what happened before the video even took place: rather than responding to people flashing the cop in a reasonable way "oh geez, I must be blinding people, that's dangerous" he decides to nuisance ticket them for alerting him. The kid even said in the video "your lights were so bright I couldn't see". This officer was more interested in preserving his sense of authority than in public safety from the beginning, and that's a serious problem with policing in America. He didn't ticket any of the drivers he pulled over, and the kid was the one who escalated the situation to the point where the taser coming out was actually a pretty reasonable response. HTH.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
Kalman posted:He didn't ticket any of the drivers he pulled over, and the kid was the one who escalated the situation to the point where the taser coming out was actually a pretty reasonable response. HTH. Finally went back and listened to the full audio of the conversation that occurs before he orders him out of the car, cop was actually being very reasonable and patient with the kid, who was being a total rear end in a top hat and idiot. I'm not sure where this power tripping bit is coming from at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
Kalman posted:He didn't ticket any of the drivers he pulled over Yeah true, nuisance stop then. This doesn't change the fact that the cop was more interested in asserting his authority over people who were warning him that his lights were blinding them then in the dangerous situation his lights were creating for other cars on the road Kalman posted:, and the kid was the one who escalated the situation to the point where the taser coming out was actually a pretty reasonable response. HTH. Oh yeah how silly of me, this kid was just tased and released alive and well, I'm not sure what the problem was. You're still ignoring the main point: dumb kids are going to act like dumb kids. That's a reason policing should be reformed to deal with that without killing them, not an excuse to kill teens until the day teens stop talking back to authority.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm talking about what happened before the video even took place: rather than responding to people flashing the cop in a reasonable way "oh geez, I must be blinding people, that's dangerous" he decides to nuisance ticket them for alerting him. The kid even said in the video "your lights were so bright I couldn't see". This officer was more interested in preserving his sense of authority than in public safety from the beginning, and that's a serious problem with policing in America.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
tentative8e8op posted:I dont think he was writing tickets for the courtesy flashes, and i dont feel like he really planned to; he explained so while re-asking for a license. Right, because he was more interested in asserting authority over people who were warning him that his lights were blinding them than he was concerned with the safety of the other cars on the road. This kind of hyper-legalism is worthless. Officers are charged with protecting public safety. Prizing legalism above human life leads to unnecessary deaths. We shouldn't have cops like that. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 05:24 on Jun 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 09:09 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Right, because he was more interested in asserting authority over people who were warning him that his lights were blinding them than he was concerned with the safety of the other cars on the road. Yes I'm sure that the kid was trying to do the cop a favor by warning him of a potential hazard and not as an expression of "gently caress you turn your brights off" like literally everyone who flashes their brights at people, the way he was aggressively bitching at the cop about having his brights on evidences how he was simply being a concerned citizen. Also how loving stupid do you have to be to flash your brights at a cop when you're driving without a license.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 05:24
|
|