Jarmak posted:

Not really, if anything he can cite her belligerent and uncooperative behavior as an additional reason to be concerned about his safety.

Randbrick posted:

If it's "belligerent" to contest a loving traffic ticket at this point, then I don't even know anymore.

If the cops accuse you of something and you don't say anything, they can try to use your silence as a form of admission in court, for gently caress's sake. If you contest the charge, you're belligerent and deserve (?) to be arrested for whatever the hell.

Near as I can tell ,the Right Thing to do when accused of a crime or issued or a ticket or looked at suspiciously by a cop is to recite your innocence in the King's English, using all the vocal fry and uptalk you can muster to soften the blow, preferably while wearing a t-shirt from the last Patrolmen's Benevolent Society community picnic and funrun, and doing a non-threatening, complimentary dance.

He can "cite" that, sure. But he's arguing against a video tape.

VitalSigns posted:

Keep loving that chicken and defending behavior that even the chief of DPS has condemned for Encinio having "violated department policy, behaved rudely and failed to de-escalate a confrontational situation that ended in Ms. Bland’s arrest". Why are you going to bat for policy violations that even the department refuses to tolerate?

Genocide Tendency posted:

Look at how wrong you are!

Randbrick posted:

If the cops accuse you of something and you don't say anything, they can try to use your silence as a form of admission in court, for gently caress's sake. If you contest the charge, you're belligerent and deserve (?) to be arrested for whatever the hell.

Jarmak posted:

Or you know, you could just contest it without being belligerent and confrontational, which the tape pretty clearly shows her being write from the outset.

Lemming posted:

How was it her being lovely? She was understandably frustrated due to the stop, and only told the cop why she was upset after he specifically asked her to tell him how she was feeling.

The real question is why does hearing a black woman say what she's thinking instead of masking it behind a smile for a man automatically make you think "belligerent"?

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

Being lovely isn't being belligerent.

VitalSigns posted:

Why does being testy and annoyed justify getting ordered out of the car after the stop is complete, again? Those aren't threats, those aren't crimes, and the only infraction she did commit (not signaling) he had already written a ticket for so that's not the reason he ordered her out of the car or he would have done it at the outset, not waited until after she refused to put out her cigarette.

Radbot posted:

Haha that poo poo about Hispanic people being considered white isn't even true, every demographic/census form I've ever seen as a "non-Hispanic white/non-Hispanic caucasian" as an option, or if it's not, there's a "Are you Hispanic?" question elsewhere.

Genocide Tendency posted:

This is where I point out he can tell her to get out of the car because he wants to.

VitalSigns posted:

And this is where I point out that it's legal for me to flip off my boss and call his mom a filthy whore if I want to, but if I don't want to be criticized or sanctioned for it I should probably have a really good reason, what was Encinio's?

Jarmak posted:

Or you know, you could just contest it without being belligerent and confrontational, which the tape pretty clearly shows her being right from the outset.

quote:

He doesn't need a reason. The Supreme Court said so.

Genocide Tendency posted:

Genocide Tendency posted:

I'm not going to bother explaining this because its obvious.

She was rude and belligerent with him. And he failed to handle it properly.

Genocide Tendency posted:

Yes it is.

Dr Pepper posted:

Which of course means "Darkie McRetard" deserved to die, got it.

Radbot posted:

I thought you were wrong, but then I found out about Salinas v. Texas.

What the gently caress is the point of our shitrag of a Constitution when it can be interpreted like that?

VitalSigns posted:

If I violate my company's policy, I wouldn't be taken seriously if I say "but that guy took such an impertinent tone with me!", but I guess that's because my workplace has standards of behavior, and I can't imagine why you don't think cops should have to follow their workplace standards (yes I can)

Toasticle posted:

The 2010 form question 8 (Yes I remember it because I had to listen to people bitch about it so much) was if you were of hispanic origin and if so, cuban, mexican, puerto rican or somewhere else. Question 9 was Race. The fact that it was a separate question from race pissed off white people something fierce.

Edit: Even trying to explain you could be say both hispanic and black wouldn't shut them up. 'spics was a race loving wasted government money blah blah blah

Genocide Tendency posted:

White is race.

Hispanic is ethnicity.

Hispanic with out the presence of Asian, African or some other race is classified as white.

Edit 1:
Click here for

Edit 2:
There was/is a dispute about this and at one point they were considering making hispanic/latino/spanish decent a separate race, but officially they are still considered an ethnicity.

Genocide Tendency posted:

He doesn't need a reason. The Supreme Court said so.

ActusRhesus posted:

Literally no one is defending an obvious troll's use of the phrase "darkie mcretatd." Can you stop using it as some sort of moral superiority cudgel?

ElCondemn posted:

The point is to have a force that can and does protect the white and wealthy from the minorities and the poor.

Randbrick posted:

Oh, please. You seem like a guy who's seen the inside of a traffic courtroom at some point. That was hardly belligerent behavior by traffic stop -> arrest standards.

And, if you're in the line of work I suspect you are, you also know that the cop's recourse to people being mean to him at traffic stops is to make a little note about it and make sure if she contests the ticket and gets convicted that Judge Soanso knows she was mean to him.

VitalSigns posted:

If I violate my company's policy, I wouldn't be taken seriously if I say "but that guy took such an impertinent tone with me!", but I guess that's because my workplace has standards of behavior, and I can't imagine why you don't think cops should have to follow their workplace standards (yes I can)

Radbot posted:

I believe Salinas is white, no?

ElCondemn posted:

Yeah, you don't agree with him when he's saying "Darkie McRetard" but all the other stuff he's saying is cool.

Jarmak posted:

we're talking about whether the actions violated the constitution, not whether they violated policy or were objectively correct

Jarmak posted:

Or you know, you could just contest it without being belligerent and confrontational, which the tape pretty clearly shows her being right from the outset.

Radbot posted:

I thought you were wrong, but then I found out about Salinas v. Texas.

What the gently caress is the point of our shitrag of a Constitution when it can be interpreted like that?

Jarmak posted:

He doesn't need to justify pulling her out of the care using her behavior, he only needs to clear the bar of having a reason why the behavior triggered the response besides it being retaliatory. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, arguing that her behavior wasn't actually objectionable weakens the argument that the action was unlawful more then it strengthens it. You can't retaliate against someone who hasn't done anything.

nm posted:

The problem with this racist/ not racist argument is that at least some parties have a very narrow view of what racist is.
Everyone is racist. Everyone has percieved biases about persons of other and even thier own races. Those that act the least racist are those who percieve their biases, realize the problem, and attempt to compensate it. A racist is not just someone who spews racial epithets and the like. Whike there is a small number of people like Roof who are actively racist, the most harm actually comes from the person who is unconciously racist. This person believes they are non racist and pciks up on things like dog wistles because while they don't think "goddamn darkies" they do view the welfare queen as an angry black woman who scares them. These people may legitmately have good friends who are of the race they fear because thier brain makes the "one of the good ones," even if they never thought that themselves. These people believe that because they don't call people names and don't lynch people and don't actively think that other races are evil that they are not racist. If you have to frequently defend youself against accustaions of racism and don't think you are racist, this is probably you.
This officer probably didn't wake up that morning and think, hey "time to arrest some ni. . .s!" When he saw sandra bland, he didn't think "a black person, in my town? We need to check this out. Those people are all criminals." When he got in the dispute he wasn't thinking "I'm gonna show this negress that she's lower than me." However, it is possible that he pulled her over because she "didn't look right" (aka black). He likely thought that she was unduely angry, in large part because of the stereotype of the angry black woman. He felt more challenged by her tone and words because of this. And perhaps because of that stereotype he thought shr must always act this way and needs to be taught a lesson.
It is extremely likely race played an important role here and it is equally likely that during and after the incident the officer didn't think race was a factor at all.
Racism is sneaky and pervasive. It is not just lynchings and the n-word. It is about deepseated biases that pervade how we interact with the world and that is dangerious.

ActusRhesus posted:

This is the exact definition of the ad hominem logical fallacy.

He can be the biggest racist shithead on the planet. That doesn't mean your arguments are valid by default.

Radbot posted:

I thought you were wrong, but then I found out about Salinas v. Texas.

What the gently caress is the point of our shitrag of a Constitution when it can be interpreted like that?

nm posted:

This is a completely overbroad interpretation of Salinas because the media sucks at reporting. This was a bad decision, but the facts were
Suspect makes a pre-miranda statement in a non-custodial setting (lets assume that is true). He is answering question after question. He is asked if some shells will match, does not answer and looks down at the floor, he then answers a host ofbother questions.
The main opinion made a very narrow rulingvthat is basically limited to this exact scenario. If you refuse to talk at all, that is probably covered. If you actually invoke, that is covered. If you are in a custodial interogation, that is covered.

ElCondemn posted:

You're right, Hitler did have some good ideas.

Edit: you can agree with whoever you want, but if you're palling around with bigots and abusers people might suspect you're one of them.

ElCondemn posted:

You're right, Hitler did have some good ideas.

Edit: you can agree with whoever you want, but if you're palling around with bigots and abusers people might suspect you're one of them.

ActusRhesus posted:

A. Is Godwin's law still a thing?
B. since when does "posting on message board under pseudonyms and occasionally agreeing" make people bffs?
C. So...is your position that you can judge someone based on who they associate with? Think carefully before you answer.

Radbot posted:

Sounds like this situation could happen at a traffic stop then, considering that is pre-Miranda and pre-custody then? If I answer a question like "How is your day going?" and then refuse to answer subsequent questions, is that covered? If not, why not?

ElCondemn posted:

A. it's called a joke, sorry I'm not very funny
B. If I agree with racists on a message board it's safe to assume I too am a racist, not that I'm calling anyone on this forum out as a racist, just making a point.
C. Yes, I can form opinions about people based on the company they keep.

ActusRhesus posted:

So would it be fair then, for a police officer who, via Facebook, knows that a young person hangs out with known gang members involved in drug sales, to focus on that person and look for reasons to conduct pretext stops?

ActusRhesus posted:

So would it be fair then, for a police officer who, via Facebook, knows that a young person hangs out with known gang members involved in drug sales, to focus on that person and look for reasons to conduct pretext stops?

ActusRhesus posted:

A. Is Godwin's law still a thing?
B. since when does "posting on message board under pseudonyms and occasionally agreeing" make people bffs?
C. So...is your position that you can judge someone based on who they associate with? Think carefully before you answer.

Genocide Tendency posted:

No. Because when the cops do it, its racist.
Because...
Reasons.

Genocide Tendency posted:

No. Because when the cops do it, its racist.

Because...

Reasons.