I agree, its like they want to get people killed or harmed.
This Black WAS abused by cops.. Sandra Bland
- Thread starter republicanchick
- Start date
I agree, its like they want to get people killed or harmed.
GFR7
New member
I know, fool. I agree :mock:
It's like they live in a world where the cops just let people walk away if they don't agree with their authority.
GFR7
New member
No, it's more like we are anticipating more litigation against arresting officers, the retraining of cops, and the sharp reduction of many city and municipal police forces across the nation, in the not-so-distant future.
And yet, you failed to recognize the limits that the ruling itself placed on that authority. And no, it isn't an authorization for cops to arbitrarily order people out of their cars or to resort to any amount of force.
Cops have to deal with people who aren't necessarily well-prepared to deal with them. They have to be the cool heads in those situations. If they aren't, a lot of people are going to get hurt no matter what I or anyone else says.
Or, we'd like to hold cops to a high standard of conduct that protects everyone's safety. You act as if that authority is or should be beyond question. I think that's a recipe for fascism.
No, you fail to understand the ruling, it wasnt over untill she received her warning, it never came to that, and she had been guilty of a traffic violation, your scenerio, would only be applicable if she did nothing to get pulled over for.
Yes, once you have violated the law, they can order you out, and in the state of texas, they can plain out arrest you for failure to use a turn signal and completely ignore your demands to know why you are being detained.
Irrelevant to him having the right to order her out of her car.
You just dont get it.
That's definitely coming, mostly owing to the fact that everyone has
a video camera in their pocket now, as well as apps that will save it to a cloud if a cop "accidentally" erases it.
Especially in reference to the above mentioned filming, the internet is full of videos of cops seizing peoples phones or telling them to stop recording when they're clearly no where near interfering.
I don't think that's gonna happen.
The time to question what happened, is after it all via a real attorney, not what talking heads think, or youtubers claim.
GFR7
New member
Plenty do, if they're white---check out youtube....
GFR7
New member
It will take place. It is inevitable. Check back in 15 years. It will be wholly so.
The only reason he never gave her the warning is that he got sidetracked with the cigarette and the attitude. And an officer cannot legally prolong detention needlessly. In the time he was asking her to put out her cigarette, he could have handed her the warning and said "Try to be a little more careful." Done, walk away, everyone lives, no one goes to jail. But he didn't do that, because his ego got tweaked. And that is the point, the very moment, that his actions went from a legitimate exercise of lawful authority to settling a personal snit with a woman he thought was being disrespectful.
Right. But he clearly wasn't going to arrest her for the turn signal. He arrested her because he didn't like her attitude. That violates the spirit, and likely the letter of the law.
It is relevant to the purpose of having cops on the street. We don't give people badges and guns so they can cruise around exercising whatever force they feel is right, for whatever reason they deem appropriate.
"Put your cigarette out" is fascism?
Look Rex these conversations are a lot more productive if we talk about how it is in regard to a particular case rather than how you think it should be.
Start a thread on how you think it should be if you want to talk about that. But this thread is about this case and under Texas Law he could have instantly taken her out of the car, frisked and cuffed her, taken to jail, where the nice lady cops would give her a cavity search, and kept her there until her bail hearing.
Maybe she didn't know that and you and GFR7 don't seem to know that but you need to know that so that you aren't arguing from ignorance.
I do all the time because I don't hassle the cop if I'm doing something wrong.
Funny, I was going by the text of the Supreme Court decision you posted, as well as other legal precedent and a general understanding of the reason that we have police in the first place.
GFR7
New member
Many legal experts do not agree with you. These are Ivy League educated attorneys and jurisprudence experts, and they challenge your assertions. Why did the TX department of public safety say that the officer violated procedure. Yes, it is fascist to say, "Do as I say, or you might get hurt - you might get killed" - that is Nazi -state talk. Maybe if you've robbed a bank or done a home invasion- but not at a traffic stop.
:thumb: Just the facts
Pity them.
Oh my, I'm shaking.
I'm amazed they know of my existence.
Not the law, If he had violated the law he'd be...........
he'd be.............?
Anyone?
Anyone?
Arrested.
Arrested is the answer.
Again with how you'd like it to be versus how it is.
GFR7
New member
No, I meant that plenty on youtube say, "I refuse to let you search my car" or, "I refuse to answer your questions" , etc.
I've seen cops say, "OK, good night, sir" and leave. If you don't believe me, look it up on Youtube.