04-19-2021, 12:49 PM
(04-19-2021, 12:21 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: "Out for blood" is a common phrase usually used for people who are not in control of their emotions, specifically when that lack of control manifests in violent or manic outbursts, as with the 2nd officer. I won't use that particular phrase to describe actions such as those of the 2nd officer to prevent this misunderstanding in the future.
I appreciate it, as the phrase isn't a good one to use given the view of many that LEO's are just looking for any excuse to kill anyone who isn't white.
Quote:Because his hands were out and was speaking calmly. If he reached back in to the vehicle and reached for something without announcing it, that is a hostile action. Saying "I don't feel safe leaving my car [due to the behaviors you are exhibiting]" is not hostile and shouldn't be treated as such.
Except he didn't just say that, he also refused to exit the care because he "didn't have to". You can't have it both ways here. He continually debated with the officers about what he would and would not do, in fact his statement of fear came about midway through the confrontation. Saying you're afraid of a confrontation you significantly contributed towards escalating is not a valid excuse.
Quote:You've mentioned how dangerous traffic stops are for cops multiple times now. If they are this dangerous, then I would think there'd be a movement to cut down on them except in extreme cases (like drunk driving, aggressive speeding and weaving in traffic etc) just for the police officers' safety. No one is dying from this guy having tinted windows and having a temporary tag, as is my understanding with this scenario (or, in other cases, having an air freshener in their car).
Not to mention how dangerous and stress inducing they are to the people being pulled over. It sounds like they're just wholly a negative sum game, so why even do them when no one is in danger from the driver's actions?
At some point people on your side of the fence are going to have to make up their minds. I can't tell you how many times I have heard from the usual suspects on this board statements along the line of, "if you can't do the job then quit". You want traffic stops to decrease because of uncommon incidents such as this, fine. Just own it when you get a spike in traffic fatalities caused by an increase in speeding (not aggressive speeding whatever that is). Why even bother paying for your registration or getting license plates if the police won't stop you for it?
Quote:Maybe law enforcement communities should be less concerned with defending people like the 2nd officer then maybe it would be less exasperating having to explain why their uncalled for violence actually isn't uncalled for. I "get to" say it's non-violent non-compliance because it objectively is. Violence is a word that has a meaning and "maybe, possibly, per chance, he may do something violent if we don't mace him right now" is not in that list of definitions.
Maybe if the anti-law enforcement side of this argument didn't lump all LEO's into one group and make statements like policing is racist then it would be easier for the pro law enforcement community to actually have a rational discussion. Extreme rhetoric only makes people dig in their heels. The number of people, of any color, who are killed by police that shouldn't have been is, at the extreme high end, around 200, and I honestly think it's sub 100. Every one of those mistakes is tragic, especially for those directly affected. It is not a national crisis and it is not an epidemic. Medical doctors kill 100,000's of people a year by making mistakes, yet there is zero outrage or news coverage of that. While I get that the "state sanctioned" part of a wrongful police killing, it clearly shows that people's lives are not the real concern here, it's an agenda. It's no different than wanting to ban "assault weapons" even though the kill only around a 100 or so people a year.
Quote:Throughout this conversation you have mentioned my "bias" multiple times. From bringing up "anti-cop propaganda," to me, apparently, being a slave to the media narrative that cops are bad (I'd dispute whether or not that media narrative is as holistic as you seem to think, but that's a different topic). I would suggest that you take a critical view of what you're saying and consider that maybe you are projecting your bias on to me. It's obvious that you have a pro-police bias (for obvious reasons) and will defend them in many circumstances where they don't deserve defense, whereas I have no reason to be biased against police other than their actions being wrong.
I wouldn't say a slave, you are certainly making an honest effort to actually debate the topic, which is far more than most do. But you do repeat a lot of points that get hammered repeatedly by the media. As for my defending them when they don't deserve it, simply point one such instance out. If you're going to cite this one, I already acknowledged wrong doing on the part of one officer. If you're suggesting that the initial officer was objectively wrong, and there can be no discussion on that, then I'd say your position would be the extreme one, not mine.
I can cite numerous times in which I flat out called the officer's actions wrong; the Tamir Rice shooting, the Philando Castile shooting, the Daniel Shaver shooting (the most egregious example I've ever seen but got very little attention from the media for some reason), the way in which the officer arrested Sandra Bland (she absolutely should have been arrested, but he should have waited for back up to make the arrest less violent), etc. So please don't make it out that I knee jerk defend law enforcement, because that's simply not true. In fact, I've stated for years in this forum that many agencies back east are undertrained, a problem that will not be helped by "defunding the police".
Quote:And I'm not even saying all the police are bad in this scenario. Just the one specific police officer.
Which is exactly what I said in the third post I made in this thread.
Quote:Like I said with my olive branch, the first cop was mostly fine, other than not attempting to control the aggressive cop, which I think is, if not reasonable, at least understandable since they share a community (of police) and all that. So if I'm biased against police, why would I ever give that one a pass? Your narrative doesn't really add up in a variety of ways, not in the actual behaviors of the police and the man nor in your claims of my bias in evaluating the situation.
I think I've already addressed your "bias", or rather my perception of some of your statements. As for "controlling" the second officer, you don't know if that officer was senior, which makes "controlling" him rather problematic, and in any event, he did try to defuse the situation several times, but neither the Lt. or the second officer were interested in taking him up on that.
