Lawsuit: Virginia police officers threatened man during stop

[Brownshoe]

(04-12-2021, 04:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The officer drew his gun on a license plate violation before there was any non-compliance.

I've only seen the video from the 2nd officers body cam, where is the video of the whole incident. I'm assuming that something happened before the second officer got there. Police shouldn't be drawing their gun immediately, unless under some kind of crazy circumstances 

[TheUberHuber]

(04-12-2021, 12:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, no way it could be that, after all, it's not like there are currently riots in other cities over a police involved shooting.  Enjoy reaping what you sow here guys, the skyrocketing crime rates as criminals conduct themselves in ever more brazen manners, given that they have near total support from large swathes of our community without any condition.

See GM, you actually came out on top here.  

I certainly hope you are not insinuating retribution by police for being held accountable to do their jobs correctly.

[TheUberHuber]

(04-10-2021, 06:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm off to take my father out for his birthday, but I wanted to leave off with this.  This is not for OP, who actively dislikes law enforcement and has zero intention of being fair or objective when it comes to this subject, but for anyone else reading this thread.  The officers, or rather one of them, did two things wrong.  The "you should be" and the "ride the lightning" comments were uncalled for and will likely end up with a reprimand.  However, they came after consistent and constant non-compliance from the subject to lawfully given orders.  The initial officer was actually doing a pretty good job of trying to defuse it, but the officer who made the above comments didn't help in that regard.  Still, these two comments do not justify, mitigate, or excuse the (in)actions of the subject both prior to, and after, they were uttered.

I'll close with this.  If that was me in that video, refusing commands, spouting off that I'm a sworn peace officer and resisting I'd be looking at a lengthy suspension in the 20-30 day range.  Possibly termination, and I've got 20 years of distinguished service under my belt.  In a just world this guy would catch hell from his superiors for his conduct in this video, but under Biden, and given the current atmosphere, I doubt anything happens to him.  He doesn't deserve a damned penny though, much less on million dollars.  I certainly hope he obeys orders better in the Army then he does here.

Well hopefully you are not as incompetent as these officers and know when, and when not to, pull someone over. 

Let's be clear here, the cops initial incompetence resulted in him pulling someone over he never should have. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-12-2021, 10:28 PM)TheUberHuber Wrote: I certainly hope you are not insinuating retribution by police for being held accountable to do their jobs correctly.

I'm not even sure how a rational person could even infer that.

(04-12-2021, 10:37 PM)TheUberHuber Wrote: Well hopefully you are not as incompetent as these officers and know when, and when not to, pull someone over.

 

Let's be clear here, the cops initial incompetence resulted in him pulling someone over he never should have. 

This is incorrect, but I'm honestly tired AF trying to explain things to people who have their minds already made up.

[TheUberHuber]

(04-12-2021, 11:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm not even sure how a rational person could even infer that.



This is incorrect, but I'm honestly tired AF trying to explain things to people who have their minds already made up.

It is incorrect? So they pulled him over for what exactly?

[Au165]

(04-12-2021, 11:34 PM)TheUberHuber Wrote: It is incorrect? So they pulled him over for what exactly?

Window tint and non-visible license plate. The plate was a temp tag taped inside a tinted window so it wouldn't have been visible at night at first glance, but once they were in the well lit gas station you could see it in the upper right-hand corner. It was a legitimate reason to initiate a stop, my issue was with the reaction after the stop was made. 

[TheUberHuber]

(04-13-2021, 08:16 AM)Au165 Wrote: Window tint and non-visible license plate. The plate was a temp tag taped inside a tinted window so it wouldn't have been visible at night at first glance, but once they were in the well lit gas station you could see it in the upper right-hand corner. It was a legitimate reason to initiate a stop, my issue was with the reaction after the stop was made. 

Oh, I forgot about the window tint. I find it hard to believe they were unable to see it until he stopped though, as their lights would have lit up his rear window.. And yeah, I am not sure how you could watch that and not think it was unnecessarily escalated by the cops. 

[Au165]

(04-13-2021, 10:32 AM)TheUberHuber Wrote: Oh, I forgot about the window tint. I find it hard to believe they were unable to see it until he stopped though, as their lights would have lit up his rear window.. And yeah, I am not sure how you could watch that and not think it was unnecessarily escalated by the cops. 

It's pretty tough, even in the video once they get in the gas station it is difficult to see and there is no way they could have read it while driving to see it was a valid tag. In most places, not sure VA's laws, but that display isn't a legal display of a tag because most states require the tag to be illuminated for just that reason. 

[Benton]

(04-13-2021, 10:32 AM)TheUberHuber Wrote: Oh, I forgot about the window tint. I find it hard to believe they were unable to see it until he stopped though, as their lights would have lit up his rear window.. And yeah, I am not sure how you could watch that and not think it was unnecessarily escalated by the cops. 

(04-13-2021, 10:40 AM)Au165 Wrote: It's pretty tough, even in the video once they get in the gas station it is difficult to see and there is no way they could have read it while driving to see it was a valid tag. In most places, not sure VA's laws, but that display isn't a legal display of a tag because most states require the tag to be illuminated for just that reason. 

The crappy part about this is the police seemed to have justified pointing loaded firearms (which implies deadly force) over A- having tinted windows and B- having a temporary plate that was obscured because of A. I'm not familiar with state law there, but I'm assuming these are misdemeanors. If even a crime at all.

There's a huge problem with officers implying the use of force over traffic violations.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-15-2021, 12:46 AM)Benton Wrote: The crappy part about this is the police seemed to have justified pointing loaded firearms (which implies deadly force) over A- having tinted windows and B- having a temporary plate that was obscured because of A. I'm not familiar with state law there, but I'm assuming these are misdemeanors. If even a crime at all.

There's a huge problem with officers implying the use of force over traffic violations.

At the risk of wasting my time I'm going to point out a few things.  A large number of felony arrests occur due to routine traffic stops.  Traffic stops are inherently unpredictable, you never know what the person driving the car is doing, has been doing, has warrants, etc.  It is not unheard of for traffic stops to lead to ambushes, especially of late.  I'm not these officers, I don't have all the details (like everyone else here), but I cannot automatically condemn their initiating a high risk stop like so many here have done.

I'll make one last point about "conflicting commands".  It is absolutely possible to have both hands outside your window and still open the car door.  It is also possible to inform an officer that you will be slowly moving one hand to disconnect your seatbelt and unlocking the door, before again placing both hands outside the car before opening the door.  It is also imminently possible to comply with officer's instruction as much as possible, and verbalize your attempts to do so.  But I fear I am shouting into the void on this one.

[fredtoast]

(04-15-2021, 01:43 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I cannot automatically condemn their initiating a high risk stop like so many here have done.

And the only reason you can't is that you are a biased LEO.

This incident has been full investigated and widely reported.  There has not been one shred of evidence that would support this officer conducting a "high risk felony stop", but instead of criticizing them for acting the way they did you insist that there must be some reason to excuse their behavior.

On the other hand what if these officers had been threatening this guy on the road before?  what if they had brandished their weapons or attempted to run him off the road before this night?  All of those are details that would justify his fear of exiting the vehicle.  Since you "don't know all of the details" why do you automatically condemn what the driver did in this case?

Instead you take the position that it is impossible for an LEO to do anything wrong and there must be some reason out there to excuse their behavior but for some reason both them and the department are keeping it a big secret.  To you, a fellow LEO, that makes more sense than admitting that these guys were acting crazy.

[Au165]

(04-15-2021, 01:43 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: At the risk of wasting my time I'm going to point out a few things.  A large number of felony arrests occur due to routine traffic stops.  Traffic stops are inherently unpredictable, you never know what the person driving the car is doing, has been doing, has warrants, etc.  It is not unheard of for traffic stops to lead to ambushes, especially of late.  I'm not these officers, I don't have all the details (like everyone else here), but I cannot automatically condemn their initiating a high risk stop like so many here have done.

I'll make one last point about "conflicting commands".  It is absolutely possible to have both hands outside your window and still open the car door.  It is also possible to inform an officer that you will be slowly moving one hand to disconnect your seatbelt and unlocking the door, before again placing both hands outside the car before opening the door.  It is also imminently possible to comply with officer's instruction as much as possible, and verbalize your attempts to do so.  But I fear I am shouting into the void on this one.

Ironically enough the idea of "risk vs threat" came up in the Floyd trial the other day and I'll use a portion of the discussion around the standards. There is a vast difference between the risk of violence and the threat of violence, the risk of violence NEVER constitutes the use of force, or escalating response, only the real threat of violence does. Police work is inherently risky and so using the perceived risk of a sketchy stop to automatically escalate situations is inappropriate and against standard training. Officers who can't de-escalate a tense or risky situation have no business being an officer.

I stated earlier, they NEVER indicated any sort of threat via radio communication to them or the public before the stop occurred. Any such threat SHOULD have been relayed over the radio before the stop occurred. The officer did however determine it was a "high-risk stop" without identifying what factors would make it such. Simply put, they decided a potential "eluding" charge that never was filed made it "high risk". That isn't acceptable, the use of force was found to be unacceptable as a whole by IA, the escalation of the situation via the verbal conduct by one of the officers was unacceptable. You can keep talking about all the info we don't know, but those who do know have not defended any of the actions by the officers. Hell, one of the officers involved even defended the guy for not pulling over right away. 

[fredtoast]

(04-15-2021, 08:16 AM)Au165 Wrote: the risk of violence NEVER constitutes the use of force, or escalating response, only the real threat of violence does. Police work is inherently risky and so using the perceived risk of a sketchy stop to automatically escalate situations is inappropriate and against standard training. Officers who can't de-escalate a tense or risky situation have no business being an officer.

Big Rep.

Excellent point.

[CJD]

(04-11-2021, 08:28 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: It’s a profession you really can’t let your guard down or you wind up dead.

If I put myself in their shoes, I initiate a stop and the person doesn’t stop right away so the situation has quickly escalated and now my adrenaline is going. This is an uncontrollable bodily response. Now I’m on edge and amped up. Now they decide to stop where they wanted to. Why? Windows tinted black, is there someone in the vehicle with a weapon pointed at me? Person won’t obey simple commands. Are they wasted out of their mind? Plotting on me? Getting ready to flee? Is this guy pulling one of those Nashville Christmas bombings and I interrupted? I have no idea.

I can’t say I blame any non white person for fearing a LEO. But damn it man. Follow the simple instructions and de-escalate the situation.

Why is it the untrained citizen's job to de-escalate a situation where their life is in danger?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-15-2021, 08:16 AM)Au165 Wrote: Ironically enough the idea of "risk vs threat" came up in the Floyd trial the other day and I'll use a portion of the discussion around the standards. There is a vast difference between the risk of violence and the threat of violence, the risk of violence NEVER constitutes the use of force, or escalating response, only the real threat of violence does. Police work is inherently risky and so using the perceived risk of a sketchy stop to automatically escalate situations is inappropriate and against standard training. Officers who can't de-escalate a tense or risky situation have no business being an officer.

I stated earlier, they NEVER indicated any sort of threat via radio communication to them or the public before the stop occurred. Any such threat SHOULD have been relayed over the radio before the stop occurred. The officer did however determine it was a "high-risk stop" without identifying what factors would make it such. Simply put, they decided a potential "eluding" charge that never was filed made it "high risk". That isn't acceptable, the use of force was found to be unacceptable as a whole by IA, the escalation of the situation via the verbal conduct by one of the officers was unacceptable. You can keep talking about all the info we don't know, but those who do know have not defended any of the actions by the officers. Hell, one of the officers involved even defended the guy for not pulling over right away. 

You put a lot of definitive statements into something that is inherently subjective.  The Monday morning QB mentality of large swathes of our populace leads to a lot of "should of's" from people who have no functional understanding of the job.  I've already stated that discipline has become highly politicized, so I'm sorry if I don't use the IA findings as definitive proof.  Regardless, all of this ignores one simple fact, if the Lt. had actually complied with lawful instructions none of the following would have occurred.  Maybe they were wrong to initiate a high risk stop initially, but once the Lt. decided he knew the law and what he could and could not do, erroneously I might add, he justified their position.  Is it a chicken or egg scenario, maybe?  Like much of police work it's not an exact science, as much as many people want to pretend that it is.

(04-15-2021, 10:34 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Why is it the untrained citizen's job to de-escalate a situation where their life is in danger?

It's not his job, it's just intelligent.  But, if by de-escalate you mean actually follow instructions, then yes, that is his "job" under the law.  The interesting thing about this scenario is that the Lt. is objectively wrong under the law.  The two LEO's are subjectively wrong based on your opinion of the facts.  So, for the sake of argument, let's say all parties are in the wrong.  Why do the LEO's get the sole blame for the whole scenario from those inclined to fault them?

I suppose we can also fault the media for fomenting the insane fiction that LEO's are constantly on the prowl looking to kill "people of color".  Never mind that unjustified shootings make up around 1%, if that, of the around 1,200 LEO fatal shooting per year.  But I suppose highlighting the ones that do occur, endlessly, instead of honestly reporting on how rare they are does breed a climate of anger, fear and distrust.  Here we see the partial fruits of that.

[CJD]

(04-15-2021, 10:47 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's not his job, it's just intelligent.  But, if by de-escalate you mean actually follow instructions, then yes, that is his "job" under the law.  The interesting thing about this scenario is that the Lt. is objectively wrong under the law.  The two LEO's are subjectively wrong based on your opinion of the facts.  So, for the sake of argument, let's say all parties are in the wrong.  Why do the LEO's get the sole blame for the whole scenario from those inclined to fault them?

I suppose we can also fault the media for fomenting the insane fiction that LEO's are constantly on the prowl looking to kill "people of color".  Never mind that unjustified shootings make up around 1%, if that, of the around 1,200 LEO fatal shooting per year.  But I suppose highlighting the ones that do occur, endlessly, instead of honestly reporting on how rare they are does breed a climate of anger, fear and distrust.  Here we see the partial fruits of that.

The LEOs get the sole blame for the whole scenario because they were the ones who escalated it. As far as him not following their commands, the first thing we see in the video is the cop yelling at him to put his hands out of the car, gun drawn. We don't see what the man was doing because our view is just the cop's arm. I don't know if the first cop approached the car at first and the man did something that made the cop retreat to his car, pull his firearm and begin screaming, but I...doubt that happened. It seems to me that the police pulled him over (after he drove to a well lit area, it seems, as I've seen suggested when you're being pulled over at night), got out of their cars and immediately drew their weapon and began yelling.

And once that began, obviously the man was scared for his life, as he said once they actually approached the car, at which point the cop openly threatened him. "You should be [afraid to get out of your car]." That's about as blatant a threat as there can possibly exist. He may as well have said "I have the ability and will to murder you."

If I were in that position, I'd be scared. So they then demand that he get out of the car. He has his hands out of the window. He already is scared and he already thinks, justifiably, that these cops are unhinged and ready to kill him due to their apparent approach (yelling, guns drawn before even interacting with him). If I were in his position I would NOT open that door. I am not moving my hands at all. They can see my hands and that I do not have a gun, I am not moving those hands until the guns come down. That is almost certainly what the man was thinking as well.

Now, you can say that I would also be "non-compliant" but I see it as survival instincts. If a person is threatening to murder you if you move in any way that they don't approve of (which is what holding a gun on someone is implying) and are already at the top of their voice to the point where they come off as unhinged and crazy, I am not giving them a SINGLE REASON to shoot me. I am not reaching for the door, I am not reaching for my seat belt, I am not reaching for my driver's license. Nothing. I am not moving until they calm the **** down and stop threatening my life.

This is a natural reaction and the fact that you're painting it as some sort of hostile action by the man does not ring true to me in any way. The person who is in danger of losing their life if they upset these two cops is not the person who needs to de-escalate when they weren't the ones who escalated. The cops came in at 100 and remained at 100 throughout the stop and then try and blame the man for not doing everything they bark at him wildly?

I'm not buying that defense of the police at all.

I am not even getting into the race part, which I think is relevant in how they responded to him (not consciously, per se, but I think there is a higher level of fear of black people in this country for socio-economic reasons and that will obviously bleed into a cop's profession as well), I am just looking at the approach, the escalation, the responses by the man and, when I put myself in his shoes, I just don't see anything he did as unreasonable given the circumstances he was put in by these two officers.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-15-2021, 11:05 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The LEOs get the sole blame for the whole scenario because they were the ones who escalated it. As far as him not following their commands, the first thing we see in the video is the cop yelling at him to put his hands out of the car, gun drawn. We don't see what the man was doing because our view is just the cop's arm. I don't know if the first cop approached the car at first and the man did something that made the cop retreat to his car, pull his firearm and begin screaming, but I...doubt that happened. It seems to me that the police pulled him over (after he drove to a well lit area, it seems, as I've seen suggested when you're being pulled over at night), got out of their cars and immediately drew their weapon and began yelling.

It may the first thing you see, but the first thing you hear is the initial officer ordering him to show his hands around ten times.  He's not reissuing the command because the Lt. is complying.  So, before you "see" anything you have two repeated acts of non-compliance, failing to pull over (which we have addressed) and repeatedly failing to follow instructions to show his hands.  If the initial officer wasn't justified in thinking the stop was high risk initially the repeated non-compliance subsequent would rather justify his thinking, at least in the moment.

Quote:And once that began, obviously the man was scared for his life, as he said once they actually approached the car, at which point the cop openly threatened him. "You should be [afraid to get out of your car]." That's about as blatant a threat as there can possibly exist. He may as well have said "I have the ability and will to murder you."

As stated, this was wrong, but it comes after repeated non-compliance with lawful orders.  Let's not pretend that this was the first thing that happened, because it wasn't.  Not even close.

Quote:If I were in that position, I'd be scared. So they then demand that he get out of the car. He has his hands out of the window. He already is scared and he already thinks, justifiably, that these cops are unhinged and ready to kill him due to their apparent approach (yelling, guns drawn before even interacting with him). If I were in his position I would NOT open that door. I am not moving my hands at all. They can see my hands and that I do not have a gun, I am not moving those hands until the guns come down. That is almost certainly what the man was thinking as well.

I'd like to think you wouldn't be in that position to begin with because you'd have complied with initial instructions.  You're also ignoring his refusal to leave the car because, as he stated, he "doesn't have to".  This is false.

Quote:Now, you can say that I would also be "non-compliant" but I see it as survival instincts. If a person is threatening to murder you if you move in any way that they don't approve of (which is what holding a gun on someone is implying) and are already at the top of their voice to the point where they come off as unhinged and crazy, I am not giving them a SINGLE REASON to shoot me. I am not reaching for the door, I am not reaching for my seat belt, I am not reaching for my driver's license. Nothing. I am not moving until they calm the **** down and stop threatening my life.

Again, you ignore the undeniable fact that this "threat" came well after repeated non-compliance.

Quote:This is a natural reaction and the fact that you're painting it as some sort of hostile action by the man does not ring true to me in any way. The person who is in danger of losing their life if they upset these two cops is not the person who needs to de-escalate when they weren't the ones who escalated. The cops came in at 100 and remained at 100 throughout the stop and then try and blame the man for not doing everything they bark at him wildly?

Again, you ignore the undeniable fact that he was repeatedly non-compliant well before the "threat" was made.  He tried to argue and debate with the officers over what he would and would not do.  I've acknowledged wrong doing by one of the officers.  None of you on the other side of this argument have acknowledged any wrongdoing by the Lt., or how he greatly contributed to this scenario.  If you think the police were initially wrong to initiate a high risk stop, fine.  But the Lt's actions subsequent would have gone a hell of a long way towards justifying their initial impression of the situation.

Quote:I'm not buying that defense of the police at all.

Given the relentless anti law enforcement propaganda you hear on most news channels I'm not shocked.

Quote:I am not even getting into the race part, which I think is relevant in how they responded to him (not consciously, per se, but I think there is a higher level of fear of black people in this country for socio-economic reasons and that will obviously bleed into a cop's profession as well), I am just looking at the approach, the escalation, the responses by the man and, when I put myself in his shoes, I just don't see anything he did as unreasonable given the circumstances he was put in by these two officers.

Not following initial instruction is unreasonable.  Let's go with your position in full, that the Lt. was in fear for his life from the very beginning, well before a "threat" was made.  If you're worried about being shot by police, why would you ignore around ten commands to put your hands out the window of your car?  You yourself stated you would make your hands visible and then not move them at all, for any reason.  While I understand the logic of that position if you are legitimately in fear for your life your whole position falls apart for the Lt. when he initially refuses to even show his hands.  What would you, as an LEO, think about someone who refuses to show their hands, what are they doing with them?  What are they preparing to do with the hands they refuse to show you despite being ordered to do so numerous times?  Your argument about being in fear falls apart from the very beginning because refusing to show your hands is not the action of a person who is afraid of being shot.

[Au165]

(04-15-2021, 10:47 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You put a lot of definitive statements into something that is inherently subjective.  The Monday morning QB mentality of large swathes of our populace leads to a lot of "should of's" from people who have no functional understanding of the job.  I've already stated that discipline has become highly politicized, so I'm sorry if I don't use the IA findings as definitive proof.  Regardless, all of this ignores one simple fact, if the Lt. had actually complied with lawful instructions none of the following would have occurred.  Maybe they were wrong to initiate a high risk stop initially, but once the Lt. decided he knew the law and what he could and could not do, erroneously I might add, he justified their position.  Is it a chicken or egg scenario, maybe?  Like much of police work it's not an exact science, as much as many people want to pretend that it is.

You are saying he justified their position with his actions, but that sure seems like an inherently subjective matter to make such a definitive statement, especially considering IA and the chief both disagree with you.

If you reject IA here simply because you have decided that discipline is "highly publicized" you have essentially decided that you reject anyone who has all the info in favor of your own opinion. IA action was taken a month after the incident and 4 months before anyone in the general public knew anything about this situation. IA, the only people who know the facts that you keep demanding people should know before judging, ruled that they violated the department's use of force guidelines. That's it, there is no more discussion about it, your belief on the subject is wrong. If the officers had an issue with the IA findings they would have properly appealed through the union as is standard practice, considering one was fired I am SURE the union reviewed the matter.  

I want to come back to something because I think it is pretty apparent in this thread your pro-cop bias here is pushing a narrative that doesn't exist. Earlier you said crime was skyrocketing, I asked you to provide the stats that you are using to make such a baseless claim and you simply skipped responding to that post. For someone who wants to constantly talk about fact-based comments, I would like you to show me where crime as a whole is skyrocketing? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-15-2021, 12:12 PM)Au165 Wrote: You are saying he justified their position with his actions, but that sure seems like an inherently subjective matter to make such a defenitive statement.

I'm saying his actions could certainly have justified their initial impression.  Are you stating otherwise?

Quote:If you refuse to believe anyone on the topic but yourself that is your prerogative, however, you can save the armchair QB comments and such. I have trained officers from all over the country in the past at ILEETA and IACP in pursuit techniques as well as the development of pursuit policies. We talk about what they should and shouldn't do all the time, no officer is above their department's policies no matter how right they think they are in their actions. When people think they are beyond reproach that is when people die, and that goes for officers, suspects, and civilians. While I am not an expert in this specific issue, I have been around enough trainers who do work in this specific area to know that if you are scared of your shadow and need to draw your gun for everything you are in the wrong line of business. 

I don't believe the armchair QB comment was directed at you, or anyone specifically.  You're also putting a lot of extras on my position that I have never argued.

Quote:If you reject IA here simply because you have decided that discipline is "highly publicized" you have essentially decided that you reject anyone who has all the info in favor of your own opinion. IA action was taken a month after the incident and 4 months before anyone in the general public knew anything about this situation. IA, the only people who know the facts that you keep demanding people should know before judging, ruled that they violated the department's use of force guidelines. That's it, there is no more discussion about it, your belief on the subject is wrong. If the officers had an issue with the IA findings they would have properly appealed through the union as is standard practice. 

Are you saying they didn't appeal?  You do know that process is not open to the public, right?  I am also not saying IA is automatically wrong.  What I am saying is that the current political climate has certainly skewed internal investigations against the officers.  I can state this as I have seen it first hand.  Many of my colleagues in other departments report the same thing.  The chief of a department is a political position.  Many of their decisions will be made in that vein.  Again, I'm not privy to all information on this case, like everyone else here.  I can state that the chief came out to the scene and decided that night that the officers were in the wrong.  How many minutes did he review facts before coming to that conclusion?  You don't think that influenced any subsequent investigation?  Seems like the outcome was a fait accompli at that point.

Quote:As much as you like to play the cop victim card all the time, your severe bias here is obvious and unproductive to any sort of real discussion.

Oooh, this is quite the declarative statement.  Not exactly one conducive to any "real discussion" to be sure.

Quote:Earlier you said crime was skyrocketing, this is a false narrative not backed up by any actual statistics, but often parrotted by the uber pro law enforcement folks. I asked you to provide the stats that you are using to make such a baseless claim and you simply skipped responding to that post. 

Dear god, this is a fact.

https://www.vox.com/2020/8/3/21334149/murders-crime-shootings-protests-riots-trump-biden

“Homicide rates increased by 42% during the summer and 34% in the fall over the summer and fall of 2019.” Other data, from crime analyst Jeff Asher, found murder is up 36 percent throughout the year so far, compared to the same period in 2019, in a sample of 51 US cities. A preliminary FBI report also found murders up 15 percent nationwide in the first half of 2020.



https://www.npr.org/2021/01/06/953254623/massive-1-year-rise-in-homicide-rates-collided-with-the-pandemic-in-2020



At the end of 2020, Chicago police reported more than 750 murders, a jump of more than 50% compared with 2019. By mid-December, Los Angeles saw a 30% increase over the previous year with 322 homicides. There were 437 homicides in New York City by Dec. 20, nearly 40% more than the previous year.



https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/03/us/us-crime-rate-rise-2020/index.html



Sixty-three of the 66 largest police jurisdictions saw increases in at least one category of violent crimes in 2020, which include homicide, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, according to a report produced by the Major Cities Chiefs Association. Baltimore City, Baltimore County and Raleigh, North Carolina, did not report increases in any of the violent crime categories.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/02/11/were-facing-massive-spike-violent-crime-democrats-cant-take-it-lightly/



Crime statistics paint an alarming picture. Murders skyrocketed in many major U.S. cities in 2020, increasing by nearly 37 percent over 2019’s total in a collection of 57 large jurisdictions. The rise was much larger in some places, such as Seattle (74 percent) and Chicago (56 percent). New York, long the national symbol for how crime rates plummeted in the 1990s, saw a nearly 45 percent hike in murders and a 97 percent increase in shootings.




Now, I'm sure you'll blame Covid and the lockdown, because that's easier for you to explain away.  It is certainly a factor, but it doesn't explain it away entirely and it's not going to go away after Covid.  I suppose we'll see, but for you to claim this is a "false narrative" is patently absurd.  Certainly not conducive to a "real discussion".

[Wes Mantooth]

(04-10-2021, 07:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: SSF get the win.  I quit.

I'm out.

I'm sure this won't be received well, but I'll share it anyway.

You taking a break from this forum in general is probably a good thing.  It's not healthy to spend this amount of time hyperfocused on political debate.  Especially when you're not at least getting paid do it.

Whether you're far left (I think it's more than fair to say you're FAR left), or far right, engaging in this type of discourse day after day just isn't the way to go through life.  Scouring the internet for anything that attacks the "other side" and sharing link after link, story after story, post after post... what exactly are you trying to accomplish?

Even though you feel attacked in this thread maybe the time off will serve you well.  Maybe pick up a new hobby or something.