Bad Boys II

[SunsetBengal]

(05-14-2018, 07:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So your suggestion is to never try to get away from or defend yourself against a deadly snake?

I didn't say any of that.  Stop putting words into people's mouths.

Re-read the post.

[fredtoast]

(05-14-2018, 07:41 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I didn't say any of that.  Stop putting words into people's mouths.

Re-read the post.

I re-read it.  I don't get the point.  It seems like you are claiming that people who get bitten by snakes bring it on themselves just like people who get beaten up by police.

What did you mean to say?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-14-2018, 07:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I re-read it.  I don't get the point.  It seems like you are claiming that people who get bitten by snakes bring it on themselves just like people who get beaten up by police.

What did you mean to say?

He was clearly stating that an LEO will tailor their response based on the perceived threat.  A 70 old man will be treated differently than a 20 year old dude in similar circumstances.  Also, that training and experience inform these decisions.  His point is not a complicated one.

[SunsetBengal]

(05-14-2018, 07:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I re-read it.  I don't get the point.  It seems like you are claiming that people who get bitten by snakes bring it on themselves just like people who get beaten up by police.

What did you mean to say?

I'm saying, let's see what transpired with the young man in the video, prior to the officer getting physical with him, before we go making judgements and accusations of profiling.  

I feel confident that the young man had more than one opportunity to leave the situation gracefully, before it became ugly.

[*bfine32*]

There damn sure is no shortage of experts in this forum that knows the proper way to control a suspect that refuses to cooperate.

Before anyone thinks they have a point. His lack of cooperation is evident in the video.

[fredtoast]

(05-14-2018, 07:54 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I'm saying, let's see what transpired with the young man in the video, prior to the officer getting physical with him, before we go making judgements and accusations of profiling.  

I feel confident that the young man had more than one opportunity to leave the situation gracefully, before it became ugly.

So basically...

"Don't make any judgements without knowing more facts unless you are going to be like me and claim the officer did nothing wrong without knowing more facts."

[fredtoast]

(05-14-2018, 08:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There damn sure is no shortage of experts in this forum that knows the proper way to control a suspect that refuses to cooperate.

So far SSF is the only one who said it was okay to grab him by the throat.

Was that the right answer?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-14-2018, 08:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So far SSF is the only one who said it was okay to grab him by the throat.

Was that the right answer?

Except I didn't say that.  But don't let facts get in the way of your lies parade.  Seriously, you lie more than GA9.  You're making Dill very sad right now.

[*bfine32*]

(05-14-2018, 08:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So far SSF is the only one who said it was okay to grab him by the throat.

Was that the right answer?

If you watch the video you will see that the Leo's hand went to his throat in the mist of a scuffle when dude was trying to break free. If grabbing him by the throat was the best/only way to keep him under control the Yes it is the right answer. 

What do you feel is the right answer? Surrender control? 

[SunsetBengal]

(05-14-2018, 08:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So basically...

"Don't make any judgements without knowing more facts unless you are going to be like me and claim the officer did nothing wrong without knowing more facts."

No, and once again, don't put words in my mouth.  I'm saying that folks like YOU shouldn't go rushing to judgement, based upon a few seconds of video.  You don't know what led up to that moment.

I've got a question for you.  Are we supposed to excuse this young man from following directives either from the restaurant staff or the police, simply because of his race or sexual persuasion?  Isn't the basic premise of equality that the same rules apply to all?  There are no exceptions, simply because one person feels more "special" than the next.

[*PhilHos*]

(05-14-2018, 07:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And that is the problem in a nutshell.

Every year there are multiple cases where police are convicted of excessive force and flat out police brutality.  Many of them even get posted here.  Yet every time the issue comes up certain people refuse to believe that a police officer would do anything in appropriate.  And even when they use excessive force and then lie to cover it up some people here still try to blame the victim.

And even though it has been proven (and even admitted) that police have been known to treat white people differently when they use "racial profiling" many white people here refuse to ever consider that a police officer would ever do anything racist.

Honest question, fred, why, when someone makes a comment on this particular instance, you extrapolate that opinion to be the same for every other similar instance?

Just because Sunset thinks what he does in THIS particular instance doesn't mean he will in EVERY instance.

Sent from my LGLS775 using Tapatalk

[GMDino]

(05-14-2018, 08:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There damn sure is no shortage of experts in this forum that knows the proper way to control a suspect that refuses to cooperate.

Before anyone thinks they have a point. His lack of cooperation is evident in the video.

Oh!  So that is evident but we don't know what the officer did before that to try and calmly handle the situation. 

If you say so.

[*bfine32*]

(05-14-2018, 10:31 PM)GMDino Wrote: Oh!  So that is evident but we don't know what the officer did before that to try and calmly handle the situation. 

If you say so.

We sure don't know what the officer did before that to try and calmly handle the situation by the video provided. Nor do we know what meal the kids ordered at Waffle House or when the Leo's last bowl movement was. But yes it is evident in the clip provided that the young man was not cooperative. 

Of course we can make assumptions if we choose to do so. 

As to the "if you say so" retort: Imitation is the best form of flattery. Unfortunately for you. You don't know when to use it.

[GMDino]

(05-14-2018, 10:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We sure don't know what the officer did before that to try and calmly handle the situation by the video provided. Nor do we know what meal the kids ordered at Waffle House or when the Leo's last bowl movement was. But yes it is evident in the clip provided that the young man was not cooperative. 

Of course we can make assumptions if we choose to do so. 

Nor do we know what the officer did before he had the citizen up against the wall about to choke him. We don't know if the citizen was mistreated and dared to speak up and "obey orders" which lead the officer to consider him "resisting". But apparently we CAN see his lack of cooperation is "evident".

Some can assume while telling others not too apparently.

(05-14-2018, 10:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to the "if you say so" retort: Imitation is the best form of flattery. 

I have no idea what you mean. You're funny.

[*bfine32*]

(05-14-2018, 10:46 PM)GMDino Wrote: Nor do we know what the officer did before he had the citizen up against the wall about to choke him. We don't know if the citizen was mistreated and dared to speak up and "obey orders" which lead the officer to consider him "resisting".  But apparently we CAN see his lack of cooperation is "evident".

Some can assume while telling others not too apparently.  


I have no idea what you mean.  You're funny.

I am unclear as to what assumption I am making. I'm simply going on what I see in the video. 

As to the rest: Don't worry; you're protected. 

[GMDino]

I agree with the people who figured this was already covered by a law a long time ago....


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/new-law-kansas-cops-cant-have-sex-during-traffic-stops/ar-AAx85cA

Quote:A new Kansas law makes it a crime for police to have sex with people they pull over for traffic violations or detain in criminal investigations.


The new law bans sexual relations "during the course of a traffic stop, a custodial interrogation, an interview in connection with an investigation, or while the law enforcement officer has such person detained."

Now, you may be asking, wasn't that illegal already?

Kansas was one of 33 states where consensual sex between police and people in their custody wasn't a crime.
That came as a surprise to members of the House Judiciary Committee, who got the new law passed in a bundled bill with several other law-enforcement measures. Gov. Jeff Colyer signed it into law Thursday.
Rep. Cindy Holscher, D-Olathe, introduced the bill.

She said it spun off the case of Lamonte Murray, a Kansas City, Kan., man released last year after spending 23 years in prison for a double murder he didn't commit.

The investigation in that case led to multiple affidavits alleging that the detective who made the arrest, Roger Golubski, had a long history of coercing sex from women in Kansas City's black community by threatening to arrest them or their relatives if they didn't comply.

Holscher said she was also moved by a case in New York where a teenager claimed she had been raped by two police officers in the back of their van, but no charges were filed because the officers claimed the sex was consensual and therefore legal.

Kansas law previously said "there shouldn't be sexual relations between police and persons in jail, but it didn't say anything about if they had been stopped on the streets or were in their custody," Holscher said.

"This helps the person who was detained in their neighborhood or stopped for a ticket, that type of thing," she said.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle embraced the change, saying it was long overdue.

"Those of us who have been there for a few years thought it was something that had already been taken care of in the law," said Rep. John Carmichael, D-Wichita, an attorney and member of the Judiciary Committee.

He credited Holscher, who took office last year, for bringing a new perspective that uncovered the loophole.

"She called me about this. I said, 'You mean it's not against the law?' She said, 'No, it's not,'" Carmichael said. 

"I checked with the revisor (of statutes) and it was not specifically against the law in Kansas."

Getting away with sex on the job would be a lot harder for police officers now, because most stops are recorded on body cameras, said Rep. John Whitmer, R-Wichita, and also a member of the Judiciary Committee.

But he said it could happen and it's good to have a law in place if it does.

"Most officers are great guys and women who are working hard, but there's always the one," he said.

[fredtoast]

(05-14-2018, 08:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except I didn't say that.  But don't let facts get in the way of your lies parade.  Seriously, you lie more than GA9.  You're making Dill very sad right now.

Sorry.  I asked a question and I thought you answered it when you said you could grab a person by the throat without choking them.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-15-2018, 12:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Sorry.

Haha, no you're not.


 

Quote:I asked a question and I thought you answered it when you said you could grab a person by the throat without choking them.

I did.  Now explain to the class how stating it is possible to grab someone by the throat without choking them is the same as saying it is OK to grab someone by the throat.  Dig deep for those law school skills, Fred!

Twist, lie and obfuscate.  Without those three tactics you'd have nothing.

[fredtoast]

(05-15-2018, 01:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I did.  Now explain to the class how stating it is possible to grab someone by the throat without choking them is the same as saying it is OK to grab someone by the throat.  Dig deep for those law school skills, Fred!

Twist, lie and obfuscate.  Without those three tactics you'd have nothing.

When I ask someone a question and he responds with a qualifier I assume he is answering my question with that qualification.  That is the way it works in normal conversation.

But since I misunderstood you I apologize.

So was this choking action by the officer correct?  Is that what they are trained to do?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-15-2018, 01:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: When I ask someone a question and he responds with a qualifier I assume he is answering my question with that qualification.  That is the way it works in normal conversation.

But since I misunderstood you I apologize.

So was this choking action by the officer correct?  Is that what they are trained to do?

I answered this question in the post you deliberately misconstrued.