Black women slammed to the ground and pepper sprayed because she recorded white cops arresting another black person.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,307
136

If there's a department to defend in this country, it's certainly not the LASD.

It's always good to see the freedumb crowd stumble into these threads and espouse some comply or die sentiments, you know....just to show what kind of freedom they support.
The only freedom they support is their own. How else do you think they can actually manage to believe that "govt isn't the answer" when govt doesn't serve their interests and then turn around and demand that everyone else worship what amounts to the corrupt DMV with guns and the legal right to kill people when govt does?
 
Last edited:
Reactions: hal2kilo

mindless1

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2001
8,187
1,492
126
So anyone can call the cops on anyone and accuse them of stealing and the cops take their word for it and automatically assume their guilt? And employ physical violence against them if they do not comply? No investigation, no evidence, just someones word is all it takes?
Yes, if you are accused of stealing and the police come to investigate, you can't just blow them off and leave, have to remain and obey commands, and be detained WHILE they investigate whether there is merit to arrest you.

Yes, you have to comply. Yes, the force used can escalate into violence (or just be called that by someone with an agenda) if someone is too stupid to comply. Happens extremely often. That does not mean, there isn't a point where the force needed becomes excessive. It's not at all about comply-or-die.

Look at it the other way around. Suppose you're in a store, I walk up and take your wallet. You call police, they arrive before I leave, they come up to talk to me, and I just say "Nope, didn't do it", and proceed to leave. You don't think they are empowered to keep me there, that all I have to do is choose not to comply to their orders and they'll just stand there with their thumbs up their ***** and watch me leave?

They'd try to grab me, I resist, they get more aggressive until they have control of the scene.
 
Last edited:

mindless1

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2001
8,187
1,492
126
Are cops allowed to arrest people without any basis? Neither of these people were informed why they were being arrested. That's a basic right, unless you are saying these particular people didn't deserve their rights.
Why should I bother answering that? This was about detaining people WITH basis.

How do we know they were never informed? In fact, in many jurisdictions, you do not have to be informed at the moment of your arrest, rather it's some other time period like 24-48 hours. Having to wait seems unreasonable to me, but it is what it is, not a rights violation, legally.
 
Last edited:

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,307
136
Yes, if you are accused of stealing and the police come to investigate, you can't just blow them off and leave, have to remain and obey commands, and be detained WHILE they investigate whether there is merit to arrest you.

Yes, you have to comply. Yes, the force used can escalate into violence (or just be called that by someone with an agenda) if someone is too stupid to comply. Happens extremely often. That does not mean, there isn't a point where the force needed becomes excessive. It's not at all about comply-or-die.

Look at it the other way around. Suppose you're in a store, I walk up and take your wallet. You call police, they arrive before I leave, they come up to talk to me, and I just say "Nope, didn't do it", and proceed to leave. You don't think they are empowered to keep me there, that all I have to do is choose not to comply to their orders and they'll just stand there with their thumbs up their ***** and watch me leave?

They'd try to grab me, I resist, they get more aggressive until they have control of the scene.
At what point in the video were the individuals attempting to leave?
 
Reactions: amenx and hal2kilo

mindless1

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2001
8,187
1,492
126
^ You don't think that was their goal? Really? They planned to steal a cake and get caught? OKAY THEN! lol
 

amenx

Diamond Member
Dec 17, 2004
4,005
2,275
136
Yes, if you are accused of stealing and the police come to investigate, you can't just blow them off and leave, have to remain and obey commands, and be detained WHILE they investigate whether there is merit to arrest you.

Yes, you have to comply. Yes, the force used can escalate into violence (or just be called that by someone with an agenda) if someone is too stupid to comply. Happens extremely often. That does not mean, there isn't a point where the force needed becomes excessive. It's not at all about comply-or-die.

Look at it the other way around. Suppose you're in a store, I walk up and take your wallet. You call police, they arrive before I leave, they come up to talk to me, and I just say "Nope, didn't do it", and proceed to leave. You don't think they are empowered to keep me there, that all I have to do is choose not to comply to their orders and they'll just stand there with their thumbs up their ***** and watch me leave?

They'd try to grab me, I resist, they get more aggressive until they have control of the scene.
And what if it was a mistaken presumption of guilt without giving the alleged perpetrator a chance to explain?

 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,307
136
^ You don't think that was their goal? Really? They planned to steal a cake and get caught? OKAY THEN! lol
Don't move the goalposts. The individuals were not attempting to leave after the police arrived and detained them, and the video clearly shows that.
So your whole argument that force was required to prevent them from leaving is in bad faith.. at best.
 

APU_Fusion

Senior member
Dec 16, 2013
958
1,461
136
Don't move the goalposts. The individuals were not attempting to leave after the police arrived and detained them, and the video clearly shows that.
So your whole argument that force was required to prevent them from leaving is in bad faith.. at best.
The fact there is any argument about this shows the sad state of affairs in US. Cop physically assaulted someone who was non threatening ratcheting up rather than descanting situation. It was assault. Mind blown. Police are not gods; they need to adhere to the law as well.
 

mindless1

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2001
8,187
1,492
126
Don't move the goalposts. The individuals were not attempting to leave after the police arrived and detained them, and the video clearly shows that.
So your whole argument that force was required to prevent them from leaving is in bad faith.. at best.
Move goalposts? LOL!!!
There is nothing moved.

They were attempting to resist the consequences of their actions.

When you are caught, and you try to involve BS trying to get away with it, double jeopardy.

You can argue all you want and it makes no difference. Double stupidity on someone stealing then not just accepting their fate by complying with the detainment and arrest.

Yes, apply force, only the amount needed to bring criminals to justice.

Yes, prevent potential criminals from leaving, it's ridiculous to pretend that we just let suspects walk away if they don't "feel" like being accountable.

What planet are you living on?

No, no, no.

Force is only required when someone does not comply. Clearly, criminals do not want to comply, as already stated, their plan was not to steal then comply with being caught. Are you missing some chromosomes to not realize the obviousness of this?

Every single thing you have written, is complete nonsense. E V E R Y T H I N G

It's very simple. Don't break the law then try to get away with it after already caught, if you don't want the consequences to get even worse.

Allow me to give you a tiny hint. The vast majority of society, whether white or a minority, never gets into this kind of situation. Why? Because they don't make the BS excuses you do, instead just do what's right in the first place.

How many times have I been accused of stealing a cake? How many guesses will it take till you reach the right answer? I bet only one.
 
Last edited:

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,307
136
Move goalposts? LOL!!!
There is nothing moved.

They were attempting to resist the consequences of their actions.

When you are caught, and you try to involve BS trying to get away with it, double jeopardy.

You can argue all you want and it makes no difference. Double stupidity on someone stealing then not just accepting their fate by complying with the detainment and arrest.

Yes, apply force, only the amount needed to bring criminals to justice.

Yes, prevent potential criminals from leaving, it's ridiculous to pretend that we just let suspects walk away if they don't "feel" like being accountable.

What planet are you living on?

No, no, no.

Force is only required when someone does not comply. Clearly, criminals do not want to comply, as already stated, their plan was not to steal then comply with being caught. Are you missing some chromosomes to not realize the obviousness of this?

Every single thing you have written, is complete nonsense. E V E R Y T H I N G

It's very simple. Don't break the law then try to get away with it after already caught, if you don't want the consequences to get even worse.

Allow me to give you a tiny hint. The vast majority of society, whether white or a minority, never gets into this kind of situation. Why? Because they don't make the BS excuses you do, instead just do what's right in the first place.

How many times have I been accused of stealing a cake? How many guesses will it take till you reach the right answer? I bet only one.
This is just unhinged.

All Americans are guaranteed the right to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Your every argument in this thread has been an attempt to contradict that basic Constitutional right. Clearly because you don't believe it exists.

Which if may say so, if naive and stupid AF. Because without that right, anyone may accuse anyone of anything and, using your logic, the accused should be automatically considered guilty.

As such, I am now accusing you of being a pedophile. You clearly are and should be treated as such. And because not everyone is accused of being a pedophile, therefore you must be one, using your own logic. And if you don't comply when society chooses to inflict this abritrary judgment upon you, then we will just use whatever violent force we deem necessary to punish you for your criminal pedophilia.

Sound absurd? That's literally how stupid you are. Because this is your own argument turned back on you.
 
Last edited:

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,307
136
It's just amazing sometimes to see people who hate freedom and the Constitution so much that they can actually argue ad naseum that just because someone is accused of a crime that they must be guilty. Worse still is to see such blantant disdain for the rule of law masked behind a tough-on-crime stance.
Poe's law is clearly invoked here.
 
Reactions: hal2kilo

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,282
28,141
136
Tamir Rice - not given chance.
John Crawford - not given chance.
Philando Castilo - Complying.
Levar Jones - Complying.
Jamel Roberson - Complying.

All black people killed or injured by police while complying or not given the chance to comply.

The nerve of us black people demanding basic civil rights being informed as to the reason for arrest.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
37,984
18,325
146
Tamir Rice - not given chance.
John Crawford - not given chance.
Philando Castilo - Complying.
Levar Jones - Complying.
Jamel Roberson - Complying.

All black people killed or injured by police while complying or not given the chance to comply.

The nerve of us black people demanding basic civil rights being informed as to the reason for arrest.

Don't forget the countless victims of no-knock warrants and how they're dis-proportionally aimed at minorities.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,307
136
Here's an excellent video explaining how law enforcement in America got weaponized against black people.
Cliff notes: slavery in America did not end after the Civil War with the ratification of the 13a. Instead, as private ownership of slaves was banned, slaveowners twisted the justice system so that govts would be the de facto slaveowners who would lease out the slave labor.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,307
136
Don't forget the countless victims of no-knock warrants and how they're dis-proportionally aimed at minorities.
Conservatives defending the killing of Breonna Taylor was one of the most breathtaking examples of political hypocrisy ever.
She literally did nothing wrong and was killed in her sleep by LEO who just busted down her door with a flimsy warrant that should have never been issued. And the right-winger defense for this blatant govt abuse of power? Her boyfriend shouldn't have exercised his 2a right to defend his home against unknown invaders.
 
Last edited:

mindless1

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2001
8,187
1,492
126
All Americans are guaranteed the right to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Your every argument in this thread has been an attempt to contradict that basic Constitutional right. Clearly because you don't believe it exists.

Not at all. Being innocent until proven guilty, is the state of every criminal too. How are police to apprehend people if they don't have the control to do so? On the contrary, vigorous apprehension of criminals is what keeps the rest of us safe.


Which if may say so, if naive and stupid AF. Because without that right, anyone may accuse anyone of anything and, using your logic, the accused should be automatically considered guilty.

Ridiculous argument. When did I ever state that anyone should be denied a trial? Do you not have any idea how the legal system works?

Besides, guilt has nothing to do with whether someone should be detained using force if they won't comply, nor is it more justifiable to use excessive violence against someone even if it a certainty they are guilty, unless there is imminent danger to others at that moment.

As such, I am now accusing you of being a pedophile. You clearly are and should be treated as such. And because not everyone is accused of being a pedophile, therefore you must be one, using your own logic. And if you don't comply when society chooses to inflict this abritrary judgment upon you, then we will just use whatever violent force we deem necessary to punish you for your criminal pedophilia.


Sound absurd? That's literally how stupid you are. Because this is your own argument turned back on you.

Nope, it's you taking my argument in a direction I didn't, hoping you can then make a counter argument that isn't nonsense, except you're not even doing well at that.

At no point did I offer or suggest to impose any judgement for stealing.

If you are accused, and police come and investigate, you have to comply with their orders, you and everyone else, guilty or not. At the same time, because we have rights, we can't be indefinitely detained, have to be arrested or let free fairly soon. It “must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop…” (US v. Segoviano).

The absurd ideas you have, would effectively keep anyone guilty from being detained, and potentially arrested, if they simply didn't want to be. Someone can just choose not to comply and leave and police can do nothing because it would be "violent excessive force" to stop you, if you continued to resist?

That's not at all how reality or your rights, work. Clearly you are so deep into delusion on this topic that there's no helping you and hopefully you won't pull this nonsense in front of police if they do ever have a cause to detain you. It won't turn out well.

I've wasted enough time on this topic.
 

skyking

Lifer
Nov 21, 2001
22,215
5,075
146
Thank you. You're not improving your position at all.
I see you keep using "detained".
Am I being Arrested or not? If not have a nice day.
Detain is an excuse to do pretty much anything you want to somebody and that's how the police illegally use it.
Here's the clue, was that lady going anywhere? Nope she was just filming. She'd be there as long as she needed to be and could not be accused of fleeing or resisting arrest because hey you didn't arrest her. At least not until you didn't like her attitude.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,282
28,141
136
Here's how I think this case will end.

People like @mindless1 think an accusation against certain kinds of people automatically assumes guilt. That's why he said...
IF you steal a cake then try to resist arrest, it's not going to turn out well.

So the accusation is stealing a cake and resisting arrest. However, there are logic holes in this story.

1. Somehow the store in the time it took walk from the front door to their car concluded theft, called the police and they show up in force. All that would have taken place in <2-3 min. By that time the couple would have been gone.

2. Motive. Let's go to the grocery store and steal a cake. Doesn't make a lot of sense considering the risk effort vs reward. If I was going to steal something from the store I would make it a tenderloin beef roast. Again, doesn't make sense.

3. If they stole a cake and the police show up, they would know why they are being arrested. Both shouted why am I being detained?


My theory, the store and/or police are just wrong or there is something that caused a big misunderstanding. I conclude this not because of the store, or any assumptions of the couple because of who they are. The entire episode just doesn't add up.

Police treatment of them is the second part. An accusation of stealing a cake from the grocery store does not warrant arrest. It does warrant questioning, which is what should have happened. If an attempt to be questioned is rebuffed arrest is reasonable to be on the table.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: APU_Fusion

APU_Fusion

Senior member
Dec 16, 2013
958
1,461
136
The blind defense of police in a free country that we all must be completely subservient to authority even when they are breaking the law themselves is astonishing. The PD as servants to the public good must be held to higher standards; not defending them as they as they violate their own.

I mean why have Miranda rights at all. Just submit good citizen and I will determine your guilt based not on facts or reality but by my mood, prejudices, biases, and/or whether or not your skin color bothers me. Legally videoing me in public and your skin tone irks me. I shall detain you by assaulting you good citizen. And you WILL LIKE IT and thank me for my benevolence. I am officer, I AM KING
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |