This Black WAS abused by cops.. Sandra Bland

[Angel4Truth]

No point in arguing. You are likely younger than I and cannot recall a different police force in America. You also don't adhere to the historical theories I do. I can tell you though, they do pan out. Expect change.

How about this, go out, mount a running video camera in your car aimed at the drivers window so we can see the whole thing, commit a moving violation that gets you pulled over, cop an attitude with the cops (do this till one orders you out) then refuse to get out so we can see him let you go afterward. (or most likely see you get your tail ripped out of your car or worse)

PS huge bonus points if you can pull it off in texas

 

[GFR7]

Here is the kind of story which would make Ortega y Gasset re-affirm that it is better to have no police than invasive police
(although even in his Nazi era the police did not do things such as this):

Cops Sodomize Man for Traffic Stop, Then it Gets Even More Terrifying


David Eckert was shopping at Wal-mart and upon leaving he rolled through a stop sign. He could have never imagined the living nightmare that he was about to experience.

When Eckert got out of his vehicle the police thought that he appeared to be “clenching his buttocks.” What followed was nothing short of torture and rape.

This poor man was driven to the first hospital which refused to do the bidding of the police on grounds of ethics. But the second hospital did not.

According to the report Eckert was x-rayed and nothing was found. Then, doctors anally penetrated Mr. Eckert, nothing was found. For a second time, Mr. Eckert’s anus was penetrated, all the while he is refusing to consent, again nothing was found. After the x-ray and the two penetrations, doctors proceeded to insert an enema into Mr. Eckert’s anus, and he watched in horror and disbelief as doctors searched through his stool.

However, for these sickos, it was still not enough, Eckert was given a second enema, and then a third!! Still, nothing was found. He was then given a second X-ray, nothing was found. He was then prepped for surgery, yes surgery! Mr. Eckert was given a colonoscopy and his intestines were searched. Still, no drugs were found.

Mr. Eckert refused to give consent throughout this entire ordeal, yet the hospital and the police in their sadistic manner, cried for more and more. The Gila Regional Medical Center has even threatened Mr. Eckert for refusing to pay for his own rape!

Every single person involved in the sodomizing and rape of Mr. Eckert deserves to be in prison; the doctors, the police, the nurses, everyone. There is no amount of compensation that will ever repair the damage that something like this can do to a person.

This should spark outrage, simply because they wear a badge, does NOT mean they can treat people worse than animals.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cops-sodomize-man-traffic-stop-terrifying/#PEOE7rqLzeeEKCML.99

 

[Angel4Truth]

Here is the kind of story which would make Ortega y Gasset re-affirm that it is better to have no police than invasive police
(although even in his Nazi era the police did not do things such as this):


http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cops-sodomize-man-traffic-stop-terrifying/#PEOE7rqLzeeEKCML.99

Do tell what that has to do with the price of rice in china?

That was also resolved - $1.6 million settlement for man forced by cops to have enemas, colonoscopy

Got more things totally irrelevant to THIS case?

 

[GFR7]

How about this, go out, mount a running video camera in your car aimed at the drivers window so we can see the whole thing, commit a moving violation that gets you pulled over, cop an attitude with the cops (do this till one orders you out) then refuse to get out so we can see him let you go afterward. (or most likely see you get your tail ripped out of your car or worse)

PS huge bonus points if you can pull it off in texas

I would never step foot in a state like TX. It's full of rednecks and illiterates.

So, what you are essentially saying is this: We do live in a Nazi state. Toe the party line or get killed or maimed.

And you expect me to say OK? I am looking forward to a future democracy and the end of the police state.

 

[GFR7]

Do tell what that has to do with the price of rice in china?

Use the brains the good Lord gave you. Or not. It is relevant to the discussion. Traffic stops. And cops who have no boundaries. But then, he forgot to kiss their feet, silly man.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I would never step foot in a state like TX. It's full of rednecks and illiterates.

So, what you are essentially saying is this: We do live in a Nazi state. Toe the party line or get killed or maimed.

And you expect me to say OK? I am looking forward to a future democracy and the end of the police state.

The supreme court was who ruled that the police can order you out of your car at any time if you have already broken the law, it seems you are illiterate. Getting maimed and killed is the advice you are offering people when you claim they can resist getting out of their car when they have broken the law and that they can resist arrest when they have broken the law.

 

[GFR7]

The supreme court was who ruled that the police can order you out of your car at any time if you have already broken the law, it seems you are illiterate.

So because SCOTUS says so, it's right? :mock:
Happy Gay Marriage !!!!!!:banana:

 

[Angel4Truth]

Use the brains the good Lord gave you. Or not. It is relevant to the discussion. Traffic stops. And cops who have no boundaries. But then, he forgot to kiss their feet, silly man.

I have, by actually looking at the laws and the facts instead of my emotions.

Your wild desires and imaginations have nothing to do with the law.

 

[Angel4Truth]

So because SCOTUS says so, it's right? :mock:
Happy Gay Marriage !!!!!!:banana:

I didn't say it was right, but its still the law.

Any more irrelevant emotional responses?

Still waiting for even one of your videos where a person who broke the law said no to getting out of the car, and the police just let them go.

 

[GFR7]

The supreme court was who ruled that the police can order you out of your car at any time if you have already broken the law, it seems you are illiterate. Getting maimed and killed is the advice you are offering people when you claim they can resist getting out of their car when they have broken the law and that they can resist arrest when they have broken the law.

You are either from a Southern state, or too young to remember back when we used to be a free Constitutional republic. You have obviously bought into the , "Cops will kick your tail" mentality as if these public servants aren't supposed to be bowing to us. We pay their salaries; they are our servants, and nothing more than this.

Further talk is futile.

PS: SCOTUS ain't always right. (gay marriage) So it don't hold truck with me, :cigar:

 

[Angel4Truth]

You are either from a Southern state, or too young to remember back when we used to be a free Constitutional republic. You have obviously bought into the , "Cops will kick your tail" mentality as if these public servants aren't supposed to be bowing to us. We pay their salaries; they are our servants, and nothing more than this.

Further talk is futile.

PS: SCOTUS ain't always right. (gay marriage) So it don't hold truck with me, :cigar:

More (severely this time) emotional rhetoric.

I agree further talk is futile with the uninformed and blind to reality.

 

[GFR7]

More (severely this time) emotional rhetoric.

I agree further talk is futile with the uninformed and blind to reality.

Right. That's exactly how I feel, speaking with you on this topic.

I am speaking about citizen's rights; why we have police forces; who pays them; and why we've reached a saturation point which spells their sure demise. A constitutional republic can have a phase of pretending it's a police state, but it cannot last. ( I am highly educated in historical-political theory, and philosophy of jurisprudence. Call me uninformed if you like, but I do know a thing or two, and was deemed fit to teach at the University level).

You, on the other hand, are beating the

"C*O*P*S, bad boyz, bad boyz,
whatcha gonna do when dey come for you"

mantra, not realizing it is their swan song.

Dey iz goin' bye-bye soon, Angel -it iz written in de historical theory books. :wave2:

END OF DISCUSSION :wave2:

 

[fool]

You are either from a Southern state, or too young to remember back when we used to be a free Constitutional republic. You have obviously bought into the , "Cops will kick your tail" mentality as if these public servants aren't supposed to be bowing to us. We pay their salaries; they are our servants, and nothing more than this.

Further talk is futile.

PS: SCOTUS ain't always right. (gay marriage) So it don't hold truck with me, :cigar:

PUT THAT CIGAR OUT OR YOU GONNA GET TASED!

 

[GFR7]

Exra-credit for the historically-minded:

***What political-historical theory book in 1930 predicted this type of police behavior as the twilight of the fascist stage? :think:

Cop Threatens To Kill Driver For Minor Traffic Mistake

On Sunday -July 26, 2015- in Medford, Massachusetts an off duty detective pulls man over for making a mistake in a turnabout. The tattooed detective wearing the wife beater and driving a pickup truck, Stephen Lebert, immediately gets out of his truck and begins threatening the mans life.

“I will put a hole through your head.”

The man tries pulling away, not realizing that the road rage guy is a police officer, but does pull over when he realizes the crazed man is a police officer. The cop continues making threats and says he plans to confiscate the drivers dash cam after he tells him he is recording the incident.

The two have a discussion and the man who was pulled over tries to explain his driving and actions, while Lebert continues his heavy handed tactics.

While waiting for on duty cops to arrive and issue a minor traffic citation, the man filming speaks with witnesses who are empathetic to his situation. A patrol officer eventually does show up to issue the ticket and speaks with the man in a much calmer manner.

As of Monday morning Det. Lebert has been put on administrative leave, pending an investigation into the incident.

http://www.copblock.org/133824/medford-cop-threatens-driver/

 

[GFR7]

PUT THAT CIGAR OUT OR YOU GONNA GET TASED!

:think: ...................... :mock: :mock: :mock:

 

[fool]

I would never step foot in a state like TX. It's full of rednecks and illiterates.

And steers.
Don't forget them.

So, what you are essentially saying is this: We do live in a Nazi state. Toe the party line or get killed or maimed.

It is what it is.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just trying to explain how it is just in case you want the cheat codes.

And you expect me to say OK?

Or you might say something like AHHHH AHH AAAAAAHHHHH STOP TASEING MEEEEEE!!!!!
If you don't get it.

I am looking forward to a future democracy and the end of the police state.

Let's have a BBQ when we get there.
Until then.................

 

[GFR7]

One really good thing to do, is if you are stopped at night, click on your dome light. It makes it hard for you to see anything outside, but it makes it easy for the cop to see inside. So what? So cops are always edgy in a stop; their worst nightmare is to make a routine traffic stop in which the driver is a wanted and violent criminal. Making it easy for them to see what's inside the vehicle immediately reduces the tension for them, and it also says that the driver is considerate of the justifiable fear police have in such cases.

And yes, I've been stopped several times, and always got warnings.

Yes, this is an act of decency toward the cops.
I have been stopped several times- over the decades, many times.

Luckily for me, it is in my nature to be respectful, kindly, congenial, and deferential. It comes naturally to me to be cooperative and I don't need to think about it. In turn, cops have always been friendly to me in those situations.

I worry, though, about people who are irritable, angry, have had too many bad breaks, etc. They need cops who will be decent to them and not provoke them further. We need more refined and intelligent candidates for police work. Toss the war on drugs kind, and get new, smaller forces for civil and normal people. But this will happen naturally in the fourth turning, we need not worry over it in any event....

 

[GFR7]

And steers.
Don't forget them.


It is what it is.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just trying to explain how it is just in case you want the cheat codes.


Or you might say something like AHHHH AHH AAAAAAHHHHH STOP TASEING MEEEEEE!!!!!
If you don't get it.

Let's have a BBQ when we get there.
Until then.................

Until then, thanks be to God I don't have to deal with the police .:banana::cigar:

 

[Arthur Brain]

It's like they live in a world where the cops just let people walk away if they don't agree with their authority.

No, it's not like that and you're missing the point if so which for you, I honestly find surprising. I for one am not arguing that cops should not have authority or be able to enforce such when applicable. With the personal anecdote I supplied you with beforehand do you think the cop acted appropriately or too leniently with me? If you answer this then explain your answer one way or the other thanks.

 

[rexlunae]

The stop wasn't over.

It should have been. An officer is not allowed to prolong even a lawful seizure to investigate a further crime without cause. I suspect that he's not allowed to prolong a seizure to investigate a non-crime as well, though, admittedly, the court didn't address that specifically.

"Here, the initial seizure of respondent when he was stopped on the highway was based on probable cause, and was concededly lawful. It is nevertheless clear that a seizure that is lawful at its inception can violate the Fourth Amendment if its manner of execution unreasonably infringes interests protected by the Constitution. United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 124 (1984). A seizure that is justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-923.ZO.html

Furthermore, while the officer is permitted to ask questions both related and unrelated to the purpose of the original stop, they are not permitted to use those questions to extend the duration of the stop. Asking Sandra Bland all these questions about being upset is pretty clearly in that category, I would say.
https://casetext.com/case/muehler-v-mena-4#p101

Once the officer decided to go beyond his legal authority to issue a citation, he stepped into Constitutionally suspect waters, so says a sizable majority of the Supreme Court. If you've got a better precedent, lets hear it.

You just said it right there.
You just said it.
You DO realize that he was within the law.
Good.
That's a break thru.

I was taking your (incorrect) perspective as a hypothetical to express a further idea.