Watch this video: police at the house

[SteelCitySouth]

(11-10-2015, 12:57 PM)GMDino Wrote: And not getting beaten and then  "filing a complaint"?

Rights are there in the event you are....I'm not sure I understand your disconnect.

[GMDino]

(11-10-2015, 12:57 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Wouldn't a peaceful protest had been not opening the door, without a warrant,  In the first place ?

Then if they break down the door?

Peaceful is opening the door, turning down whatever the loud noise was, saying thank you and closing the door.

[GMDino]

(11-10-2015, 12:59 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Rights are there in the event you are....I'm not sure I understand your disconnect.

I guess I want the rights respected BEFORE I have to hope they are recognized afterwards.

[SteelCitySouth]

(11-10-2015, 01:00 PM)GMDino Wrote: I guess I want the rights respected BEFORE I have to hope they are recognized afterwards.

We would all like that as well...I still do not understand your disconnect though as to how they are applied.  

[Belsnickel]

(11-10-2015, 12:51 PM)GMDino Wrote: Let me know when they are found guilty of anything.  

What's the point of having rights and knowing them if you're told your best bet is be quite let the officer do whatever and then "file a complaint"?

NOTE: I am not suggesting resisting or being violent toward the officers.  I'm ASKING if you know your rights why ALLOW them to violated if you can protest in a peaceful manner?

Why does taking action after the fact negate the point of having rights? If we follow the lawful recourse then corrective action can be taken and lessons can be learned. Resisting is not going to do any good. Peaceful protestors that have been most effective in our history have gone to jail. They complied, they did not resist.

[GMDino]

(11-10-2015, 01:02 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: We would all like that as well...I still do not understand your disconnect though as to how they are applied.  

I understand you can try and have something done after because you had the rights.  I'm saying what you agreed we would all like:  Have those rights respected BEFORE.  That's all.

Respect goes both ways in those situations.

[GMDino]

(11-10-2015, 01:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Why does taking action after the fact negate the point of having rights? If we follow the lawful recourse then corrective action can be taken and lessons can be learned. Resisting is not going to do any good. Peaceful protestors that have been most effective in our history have gone to jail. They complied, they did not resist.

I don't believe I said it negates anything.  I'd rather the rights be respected before having to go an complain about it.

Saves money and time.

[Belsnickel]

(11-10-2015, 01:08 PM)GMDino Wrote: I don't believe I said it negates anything.  I'd rather the rights be respected before having to go an complain about it.

Saves money and time.

My apologies, when I see someone type or hear someone say "what's the point of having...?" I tend to infer that the sentiment is that the thing they are referring to having is being negated in their view. That's the typical implication I have encountered.

I also, like SCS, believe that everyone would like our rights to be respected from the start. However, resisting, even peacefully, will not create the desired effect. At the point you are resisting your rights would have already been violated (if they, in fact, were) so you are doing nothing but escalating the situation and exacerbating the problem.

[SteelCitySouth]

(11-10-2015, 01:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: I understand you can try and have something done after because you had the rights.  I'm saying what you agreed we would all like:  Have those rights respected BEFORE.  That's all.

Respect goes both ways in those situations.

Right, but when we point out how you should utilize those rights, you get perturbed and argumentative.  To me it seems that you are asking for country wide perfection and fail to realize that your rights are there to protect your from the fact that perfection does not exist.  Walking through life expecting that every encounter with every person police or civilian will be conducted in a perfect manner is kinda high school.  An adult recognizes when hi/her rights are being violated and responds accordingly.  Whether or not the office is correct in his or her detention of the individual is a separate issue to resisting arrest.  They will be handled separately in the end as well.  Think on that.  The officers actions do not excuse yours.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-10-2015, 01:15 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Right, but when we point out how you should utilize those rights, you get perturbed and argumentative.  To me it seems that you are asking for country wide perfection and fail to realize that your rights are there to protect your from the fact that perfection does not exist.  Walking through life expecting that every encounter with every person police or civilian will be conducted in a perfect manner is kinda high school.  An adult recognizes when hi/her rights are being violated and responds accordingly.  Whether or not the office is correct in his or her detention of the individual is a separate issue to resisting arrest.  They will be handled separately in the end as well.  Think on that.  The officers actions do not excuse yours.

One of the best posts I've read in this forum.  I'll also add that while you may feel your rights are being violated the officer arresting you may know more about the law or the situation than you do.  While there is certainly overreach it is not nearly as common or pervasive as the current climate would lead you to believe.  The bottom line is that if you keep calm and comply you will win 90% of the time, probably more.  If an officer does violate your civil rights then prepare yourself for a nice payday, just don't assume you're automatically correct about what your rights are under the current situation because you watched a video on youtube once.

[GMDino]

(11-10-2015, 01:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: My apologies, when I see someone type or hear someone say "what's the point of having...?" I tend to infer that the sentiment is that the thing they are referring to having is being negated in their view. That's the typical implication I have encountered.

I also, like SCS, believe that everyone would like our rights to be respected from the start. However, resisting, even peacefully, will not create the desired effect. At the point you are resisting your rights would have already been violated (if they, in fact, were) so you are doing nothing but escalating the situation and exacerbating the problem.

(11-10-2015, 01:15 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Right, but when we point out how you should utilize those rights, you get perturbed and argumentative.  To me it seems that you are asking for country wide perfection and fail to realize that your rights are there to protect your from the fact that perfection does not exist.  Walking through life expecting that every encounter with every person police or civilian will be conducted in a perfect manner is kinda high school.  An adult recognizes when hi/her rights are being violated and responds accordingly.  Whether or not the office is correct in his or her detention of the individual is a separate issue to resisting arrest.  They will be handled separately in the end as well.  Think on that.  The officers actions do not excuse yours.

(11-10-2015, 01:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: One of the best posts I've read in this forum.  I'll also add that while you may feel your rights are being violated the officer arresting you may know more about the law or the situation than you do.  While there is certainly overreach it is not nearly as common or pervasive as the current climate would lead you to believe.  The bottom line is that if you keep calm and comply you will win 90% of the time, probably more.  If an officer does violate your civil rights then prepare yourself for a nice payday, just don't assume you're automatically correct about what your rights are under the current situation because you watched a video on youtube once.

Got it.  Expecting rights to be respected by those you know the law is being naive.  And because we can sue its ok if your rights are violated because you can (hope) that they will be recognized on the back end...with a payday.  

Guess I'm just too idealistic for the real world. 

[SteelCitySouth]

(11-10-2015, 01:35 PM)GMDino Wrote: Got it.  Expecting rights to be respected by those you know the law is being naive.  And because we can sue its ok if your rights are violated because you can (hope) that they will be recognized on the back end...with a payday.  

Guess I'm just too idealistic for the real world. 

Now you are really acting like a high schooler.  Dude the world will never be perfect.  We create systems to give one recourse for when they are not.  No one said it was Okay for rights to be violated that is you pitching a fit like a child.

Maybe you are to idealistic for the real world, I don't know.  Right now though you are being to childish for this conversation.

[GMDino]

(11-10-2015, 01:38 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Now you are really acting like a high schooler.  Dude the world will never be perfect.  We create systems to give one recourse for when they are not.  No one said it was Okay for rights to be violated that is you pitching a fit like a child.

Maybe you are to idealistic for the real world, I don't know.  Right now though you are being to childish for this conversation.

Absolutely not.  I never denied you can't try and retroactively have your rights recognized.  I said, and you and Matt agreed, that it would be better (nice) if we didn't have to do that because they were recognized before.  Everyone else is accepting of it not happening...I have a problem with it.  I don't think that's "pitching a fit" or acting "childish".  Its trying to get my point across while being disagreed with over the nuances of how often it rights are / should be recognized.

[SteelCitySouth]

(11-10-2015, 01:47 PM)GMDino Wrote: Absolutely not.  I never denied you can't try and retroactively have your rights recognized.  I said, and you and Matt agreed, that it would be better (nice) if we didn't have to do that because they were recognized before.  Everyone else is accepting of it not happening...I have a problem with it.  I don't think that's "pitching a fit" or acting "childish".  Its trying to get my point across while being disagreed with over the nuances of how often it rights are / should be recognized.

Everyone would like it to never happen.  I have a problem with it happening.  It is without a doubt that it will happen again for the rest of eternity.  We have protections is place when it does.  

Without a doubt you were pitching a fit in that last post.  

[GMDino]

(11-10-2015, 01:50 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Everyone would like it to never happen.  I have a problem with it happening.  It is without a doubt that it will happen again for the rest of eternity.  We have protections is place when it does.  

Without a doubt you were pitching a fit in that last post.  

Nope.  Being sarcastic.

Next time we can skype...you'll get my tone then.

[Belsnickel]

(11-10-2015, 01:47 PM)GMDino Wrote: Absolutely not.  I never denied you can't try and retroactively have your rights recognized.  I said, and you and Matt agreed, that it would be better (nice) if we didn't have to do that because they were recognized before.  Everyone else is accepting of it not happening...I have a problem with it.  I don't think that's "pitching a fit" or acting "childish".  Its trying to get my point across while being disagreed with over the nuances of how often it rights are / should be recognized.

[GMDino]

(11-10-2015, 02:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:

OK...MORE accepting than I am.  Better?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-10-2015, 01:47 PM)GMDino Wrote: Absolutely not.  I never denied you can't try and retroactively have your rights recognized.  I said, and you and Matt agreed, that it would be better (nice) if we didn't have to do that because they were recognized before.  Everyone else is accepting of it not happening...I have a problem with it.  I don't think that's "pitching a fit" or acting "childish".  Its trying to get my point across while being disagreed with over the nuances of how often it rights are / should be recognized.

Accepting something as ok is not synonymous with realizing your best recourse is to comply and fight the good fight later.  An adult realizes when they're in a no win situation and acts accordingly.  A child throws a tantrum.  if your insurer refuses to pay on a claim you believe to be legitimate do you throw a fit or do you ask to speak to a supervisor?  When that supervisor also denies the claim to you throw a tantrum or do you take legal action?  You want LEO's to be perfect and never make a mistake, we get it.  I do consider it an odd stance for you to take considering how often you lambaste the profession but fine.  I also feel compelled to break the news that LEO's are human beings, they will make mistakes.  An adult caught up in one of those mistakes acknowledges the situation and the fact that their best recourse to resolution in their favor is not to throw a tantrum.  If you feel differently that's fine, my four year old nephew didn't understand why I wouldn't let him have candy for dinner this past weekend.  I'm confident he'll get it at a later date.

[Belsnickel]

(11-10-2015, 02:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: OK...MORE accepting than I am.  Better?

Still a misrepresentation of what is being said. No one is saying they are in the least bit accepting of an infringement of rights. The difference of opinion is entirely about what should happen once the infringement of rights occurs.

[StLucieBengal]

Being a cop is a tough job. That being said if you expect respect from them and for them to be calm. Probably not a good idea to yell at them and have everyone filming them.

Maybe if these people put down their phones and had a chat at a normal volume this could have been avoided. Instead everyone wants to record everything and post it on social media.