|
Cole posted:Assaulting a police officer. Flat out incorrect. The officer informs he she is under arrest before she even exits the vehicle. They upgrade her contempt of cop to assaulting a peace officer once she's off camera.
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:10 |
|
Genocide Tendency posted:Nope. See, you can use that excuse the first time you get pulled over. After that? Yes, you're a lovely driver.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:See, you can use that excuse the first time you get pulled over. After that? Yes, you're a lovely driver. not signaling when changing lanes is to driving what having a small amount of weed on you is to being a dangerous criminal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
Cole posted:not signaling when changing lanes is to driving what having a small amount of weed on you is to being a dangerous criminal. an excuse to lock up black kids while letting white kids go home with a citation and a stern warning? how shockingly observant of you, cole
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
Cole posted:not signaling when changing lanes is to driving what having a small amount of weed on you is to being a dangerous criminal. The Society for Automotive Engineers have conducted studies; failure to signal is one of the leading causes of car accidents.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
Cole posted:Assaulting a police officer. That's entirely incorrect and you know exactly why. I'm not playing games. I'm just trying to understand GT's full perspective. I will admit to some hostility in my previous posts, but I'm pushing that aside right now and keeping my questions short so that we can try to understand each other one step at a time. We wanted a discussion, yes? If that's that case, a 9 word response isn't going to get us anywhere and all it's going to do is make me ask a question similar to my initial one so that hopefully we can actually, well, discuss.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
C2C - 2.0 posted:The Society for Automotive Engineers have conducted studies; failure to signal is one of the leading causes of car accidents. Not to mention it's also basic safety signaling equipment on every vehicle. Pretending you 'didn't know' you needed to use it is rock-solid evidence of lovely driving habits.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Cole posted:not signaling when changing lanes is to driving what having a small amount of weed on you is to being a dangerous criminal. Yeah gently caress that, if there's a few traffic laws I wish cops would actually enforce with an iron fist that would be near the top.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yeah gently caress that, if there's a few traffic laws I wish cops would actually enforce with an iron fist that would be near the top. That plus aggressive tailgating should be actively enforced and you'd see the rate of traffic accidents nosedive. They're far more dangerous on Motorways (Interstates I think you'd call them?) than people going 10mph faster than the speed liimit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
C2C - 2.0 posted:The Society for Automotive Engineers have conducted studies; failure to signal is one of the leading causes of car accidents. Ban BMWs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
Senf posted:So why did Bland end up in a jail cell? Because: Cole posted:Assaulting a police officer. Senf posted:That's entirely incorrect and you know exactly why. Why is it incorrect? And what discussion is there? Bland hung herself in a jail cell. I didn't. There isn't a discussion here. Armyman25 posted:See, you can use that excuse the first time you get pulled over. After that? Yes, you're a lovely driver. Not if it wasn't a law in other states! You still don't get that laws are different from state to state. As is driving instructing courses. But keep being an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:
No, actually I have to take their side on this, I don't care if its required by law, gently caress you if you don't signal when you change lanes
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:No, actually I have to take their side on this, I don't care if its required by law, gently caress you if you don't signal when you change lanes "Officer, I don't know what this stalk is that is literally on every car ever made!  "
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
DARPA posted:Flat out incorrect. The officer informs he she is under arrest before she even exits the vehicle. They upgrade her contempt of cop to assaulting a peace officer once she's off camera. treasured8elief fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:"Officer, I don't know what this stalk is that is literally on every car ever made! Look whose never driven a pre-80s French car. (I don't actually know how they were activated, but I'm sure it was some weird incantation instead of a stalk).
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:Because: The point that you're missing, probably on purpose, is that the cop arrested her for no reason. She did something illegal, sure, but the cop had no reason to arrest her for it as well. Watching the video, it's clear that he does it because he was upset that she didn't put out her cigarette when he told her to. It's pretty reasonably to suggest that part of the reason why he acted like he did was because she was black. The cops admitted he violated their standards of conduct for the arrest in that he was a complete rear end in a top hat for no reason.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:Why is it incorrect? Because: DARPA posted:The officer informs he[r] she is under arrest before she even exits the vehicle. They upgrade her contempt of cop to assaulting a peace officer once she's off camera. I believe that the evidence of her assault of Officer Encinia is extremely weak. Can you point to the concrete evidence that she actually assaulted him? Because I sure as hell can't, even though I can point to the exact moment that he escalated the situation far beyond where it ever had to go. Was he in the right to remove her from her vehicle? Hell, was he even in the right to request that she put her cigarette out? Should it have ever gotten to that point? The whole situation is absurd and that you fail to see how this incident was escalated for no reason while you were merely ticketed (on three separate occasions) and dismissed... well, hell man. edit: I was beaten but I don't care.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
"If a police officer orders you to dance like a monkey, you deserve to go to jail if you refuse." ~Apologists
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Lemming posted:The point that you're missing, probably on purpose, is that the cop arrested her for no reason. She did something illegal, sure, but the cop had no reason to arrest her for it as well. LoL She broke the law and assaulted a cop, BUT HE HAD NO RIGHT TO ARREST HER. LoL Senf posted:Because: Can you point to where she didn't assault him? quote:Was he in the right to remove her from her vehicle? Hell, was he even in the right to request that she put her cigarette out? Should it have ever gotten to that point? The whole situation is absurd and that you fail to see how this incident was escalated for no reason while you were merely ticketed (on three separate occasions) and dismissed... well, hell man. She was asked to get out of the car, she disobeyed. He told her to get out or he would remove her. Thats called a lawful order. Disobeying a lawful order is actually a crime. But hey we have already established that violating laws is no justification for an officer to do their job.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:LoL Yes, and we've established that legally, he could arrest her, but he had no good reason to do it. He did it because he didn't like her and her attitude. He's a bully. You can see the moment he switches gears after he orders her to put out the cigarette and she refuses. Even before the alleged assault (which conveniently takes place off camera), she was being arrested. What did she do that made her deserve to get arrested, at the point when the cop decided to arrest her?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
I just hope that you use your signals now when changing lanes. It's the right thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:She broke the law and assaulted a cop, BUT HE HAD NO RIGHT TO ARREST HER. According to the cop. There's no evidence this actually happened. Genocide Tendency posted:Can you point to where she didn't assault him? Yeah, it doesn't work that way. We only have his word for it, and he was shown to be lying about other aspects of the stop.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:Can you point to where she didn't assault him? Yeah, how about the entire video that was released to the public? Hell, he even explicitly tells her that she's under arrest before the alleged assault even took place. For what reason was she under arrest the first time then? Does that not at all strike you as strange? Suspicious, even? The point is that his "lawful order" was absolute bullshit. Why was Bland even told that she was under arrest and later ordered out of her vehicle in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Lemming posted:She did something illegal, sure, but the cop had no reason to arrest her for it what does this even mean?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
Cole posted:what does this even mean? Changing lanes without a signal and sassing a cop are not arrestable offenses.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
Cole posted:what does this even mean? That she changed lanes without signaling, which is illegal but not so illegal as to justify an arrest (except that in Texas you can arrest for a traffic violation.) AreWeDrunkYet posted:Changing lanes without a signal and sassing a cop are not arrestable offenses. In Texas the first one is. (7C543.001) Kalman fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
Kalman posted:That she changed lanes without signaling, which is illegal but not so illegal as to justify an arrest (except that in Texas you can arrest for a traffic violation.) AreWeDrunkYet posted:Changing lanes without a signal and sassing a cop are not arrestable offenses. Then what did this poster mean? Lemming posted:Yes, and we've established that legally, he could arrest her
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Changing lanes without a signal and sassing a cop are not arrestable offenses. Apparently they legally can in Texas, which I think is stupid bullshit, but there's still no reason to do it. Cole posted:Then what did this poster mean? I can read your lovely posts, but there's no reason to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Changing lanes without a signal and sassing a cop are not arrestable offenses. Get ready to have the bandwagon come down on you. Both of those are technically arrestable offenses, haha you lose the police win!
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
tentative8e8op posted:To add on to your point about her arrest, she was going to be pulled over whether she signalled or not. The officer saw her while passing and u-turned so he could speed up right behind her, of course she's going to try to quickly move out of his way. If a cop wants to pull you over they will follow you till you do something close enough to wrong, then they hit the lights. (or some of them just pull you over cause they want to) They are fishing for warrants, or drugs/alcohol. The type of car, your age, appearance, and mostly the part of town you are in, are all factors. The cops are targeting certain things (profiling), because they find stuff when they do this. as long as they keep finding stuff they will keep doing it. It's a vicious cycle. There is a reason there is always a cop at that spot where the speed limit goes from 75 to 55. Cops profile, they just do. So if you happen to be in one of those categories, they are going to pull you over. It's bullshit, but it's loving life and it's not always fair.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
Cole posted:Then what did this poster mean? Are you serious? One of the people you just quoted even said that the traffic violation is an arrestable offence in Texas. The other poster was misinformed. The officer needlessly escalated the situation when Bland called him a loving pussy which, while also extremely unnecessary, should not have have led to the officer threatening to "light her up." Perhaps things would have been different if he had instead just given her the citation and told her go on her way. You know, like he said he tried to do. edit: phone posting Senf fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:If you can't tell the difference between obvious trolls and people who are just simply pointing out that certain facts are incorrect perhaps you need to take a step back? Are Genocide Tendency and Cole trolls or do they really feel this way?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Are Genocide Tendency and Cole trolls or do they really feel this way? we are trolls simply because we don't agree
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
Its an arrestable offense but as the video clearly shows it was not the reason he was arresting her, it was refusing to get out of the car after she hurt his feelings by not putting her cigarette out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
Mavric posted:Its an arrestable offense but as the video clearly shows it was not the reason he was arresting her, it was refusing to get out of the car after she hurt his feelings by not putting her cigarette out. I may very well be wrong here - the info isn't that fresh right now and I'm on my phone - but isn't it that the words have to be able to provoke a physical altercation? A frustrated woman calling an officer a "loving pussy" are hardly words that should provoke a fight between the two. Though, well, it obviously kind of loving did provoke the officer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
Is there a way to criminalize the use of authority to retaliate against free speech without destroying America? That is, if you use your say...use your police authority to say...arrest someone for making a statement clearly protected by the first amendment that you will have committed a crime. Could that be a crime?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:According to the cop. There's no evidence this actually happened. So let me get this straight. I have to provide evidence that it did, and you don't have to provide evidence that it didn't. Care to explain how that works? Senf posted:Yeah, how about the entire video that was released to the public? He tells her to get out of the car. She refuses. Thats disobeying a lawful order. Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaW09Ymr2BA Here is the law (which in Texas is disorderly conduct): http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.42.htm He doesn't say she is under arrest until after he informs her she is disobeying a lawful order, and tells her again to get out of the car. The booking charge was Assaulting a public servant. And by the by. Police can actually order you, lawfully, to get out of your car. There was some discussion locally about requiring everyone pulled over after dusk to get out of their car at one point for officer safety. But they decided to just require two officers be present before approaching a vehicle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
For self defense it has to be an imminent threat of physical harm, it was however legal for him to order her out for any reason because texas is a hell hole. There was no such threat, she was just sassing him, which is protected free speech. Honestly it kinda seems like a civil rights violation but maybe thats a bit too extreme.
Mavric fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
Cole posted:a moot question I'm saying you're not trolls, I think you are saying what you believe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:10 |
|
|
And again, he had no reason to tell her to get out the car. He did it because he's a bully and his ego was hurt because she didn't put the cigarette out when he told her to. I am forced to assume that you are being willfully dense because there's no way you couldn't understand this point by now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 01:10
|
|