This is seriously troubling

[jms62]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/nicolasmedin...e-a#.hrNgNgygV


1. Resisting arrest is whatever the cops want it to be
2. Having to defend yourself against a felony would be an expensive nightmare
3. Conviction on a felony opens up a whole other realm of nightmares for the rest of your life (Obtaining a Job, Guns, Voting)

[ateamstupid]

Don't tell that to the "Libertarians" on here who suddenly morph into big government shills whenever cops are involved.

First the NYPD cops with machine guns who are assigned to counter-terrorism/protest handling, as if those two are comparable, now this. This is going to get ugly.

[Rupert Pupkin]

This is outrageous. I can't believe they want harsher penalties for people who assault police officers. If I am at a rally or protest, I should be allowed to assault a police officer without fear of being charged with a felony.

Nowhere in the article did it say anything about the definition of resisting arrest being changed. Nice way to totally mischaracterize the facts. If you are at a protest and you lay down and let your body go limp, that is not resisting arrest. If you strike an officer, that is resisting arrest. I don't think there is too much confusion there.

I am not a person who think cops can do no wrong. If there is misconduct on the part of a policeman, he needs to be held accountable. I think police should actually be held to an even higher standard than civilians. That being said, I'm not going to second-guess every split second decision a police officer makes. I will give them the benefit of the doubt on a close call. But there are plenty of times where there is misconduct where it is not a close call. In those cases, I will be the first person to call for the officer to be fired and maybe even charged with a crime if applicable.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

This is outrageous. I can't believe they want harsher penalties for people who assault police officers. If I am at a rally or protest, I should be allowed to assault a police officer without fear of being charged with a felony.

Nowhere in the article did it say anything about the definition of resisting arrest being changed. Nice way to totally mischaracterize the facts. If you are at a protest and you lay down and let your body go limp, that is not resisting arrest. If you strike an officer, that is resisting arrest. I don't think there is too much confusion there.

I am not a person who think cops can do no wrong. If there is misconduct on the part of a policeman, he needs to be held accountable. I think police should actually be held to an even higher standard than civilians. That being said, I'm not going to second-guess every split second decision a police officer makes. I will give them the benefit of the doubt on a close call. But there are plenty of times where there is misconduct where it is not a close call. In those cases, I will be the first person to call for the officer to be fired and maybe even charged with a crime if applicable.

I just love it when you rail against a point that wasn't made. If you assaulted a police officer you would be charged with ASSAULT Rupe. ASSUALT <> Resisting Arrest. Ateam NAILED IT. Resisting arrest is basically anything the cops want it to be. You mouth off to them and they rough you up well you were resisting arrest. Why were they trying to arrest you in the first place? Try the catch all "impeding pedestrian traffic" which again is anything they want it to be.

http://www.thefutureorganization.com...inking-cap.gif

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

I just love it when you rail against a point that wasn't made. If you assaulted a police officer you would be charged with ASSAULT Rupe. ASSUALT <> Resisting Arrest. Ateam NAILED IT. Resisting arrest is basically anything the cops want it to be. You mouth off to them and they rough you up well you were resisting arrest. Why were they trying to arrest you in the first place? Try the catch all "impeding pedestrian traffic" which again is anything they want it to be.

http://www.thefutureorganization.com...inking-cap.gif

I will quote from the article. It says, "Police Commissioner Bill Bratton and top union official Pat Lynch called for harsher penalties for people who resist arrest and assault cops at public assemblies."

My take on the article was obviously different from your take. I don't think there is any confusion about what the definition is of "resisting arrest". When you are placed under arrest, if you put up a physical fight, that is "resisting arrest". It would probably be "assaulting a police officer" too. I don't know for sure. I'm not a lawyer.

Anyway, I don't think they're looking to charge people with any type of "resisting arrest", let alone "felony resisting arrest", for simple civil disobedience. What they want to address is the people who were physically fighting with the officers when they were being arrested. There was way too much of that going on during the recent protests.

With regard to people blocking traffic (whether pedestrian traffic or automobile traffic), there is no excuse for that. I would love to see how sympathetic you would be if you were stuck in your car, not moving for 2 hours, because some idiots were laying in the street, protesting. In that situation I bet you would be the first person to want those people arrested. When the police order people to disperse, they need to disperse. If they want to file a complaint later on, that is their right. As big of jerks as cops can be sometimes, I will still follow their order, if they give me an order. I may question it, but if they get belligerent, I'm going to comply. If I don't like it, I will complain later. How can we have a civil society if people think they can just ignore police orders? In a civilized society, we have to respect the authority of the police. If they misbehave, we can file a complaint, we can contact our city leaders, etc. But in the heat of a civil disturbance, we need to comply with police orders, unless we want to live in anarchy.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I will quote from the article. It says, "Police Commissioner Bill Bratton and top union official Pat Lynch called for harsher penalties for people who resist arrest and assault cops at public assemblies."

My take on the article was obviously different from your take. I don't think there is any confusion about what the definition is of "resisting arrest". When you are placed under arrest, if you put up a physical fight, that is "resisting arrest". It would probably be "assaulting a police officer" too. I don't know for sure. I'm not a lawyer.

Anyway, I don't think they're looking to charge people with any type of "resisting arrest", let alone "felony resisting arrest", for simple civil disobedience. What they want to address is the people who were physically fighting with the officers when they were being arrested. There was way too much of that going on during the recent protests.

With regard to people blocking traffic (whether pedestrian traffic or automobile traffic), there is no excuse for that. I would love to see how sympathetic you would be if you were stuck in your car, not moving for 2 hours, because some idiots were laying in the street, protesting. In that situation I bet you would be the first person to want those people arrested. When the police order people to disperse, they need to disperse. If they want to file a complaint later on, that is their right. As big of jerks as cops can be sometimes, I will still follow their order, if they give me an order. I may question it, but if they get belligerent, I'm going to comply. If I don't like it, I will complain later. How can we have a civil society if people think they can just ignore police orders? In a civilized society, we have to respect the authority of the police. If they misbehave, we can file a complaint, we can contact our city leaders, etc. But in the heat of a civil disturbance, we need to comply with police orders, unless we want to live in anarchy.

BUT THEY CAN IF THE LAW IS CHANGED.

And then you have to DEFEND yourself against a FELONY which if convicted of will change your life forever in a negative way. If Obama proposed such a law you would be the first one POUNDING the TABLE screaming about loss of civil rights and us as a country moving closer to a Police state.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

BUT THEY CAN IF THE LAW IS CHANGED.

And then you have to DEFEND yourself against a FELONY which if convicted of will change your life forever in a negative way. If Obama proposed such a law you would be the first one POUNDING the TABLE screaming about loss of civil rights and us as a country moving closer to a Police state.

That is not true. The law will not change the definition of resisting arrest. You are acting like this law will make it easier for the police to charge people with resisting arrest and that police will now be able to charge people with resisting arrest for almost anything. This law will not make it any easier for the police to charge a person with resisting arrest. The only thing this law will do is increase the penalty for resisting arrest.

This article doesn't go into too much detail, so I don't know what the exact criteria will be in deciding whether a person will be charged with a felony rather than a misdemeanor. But common sense tells me that there will be specific guidelines. In the end, it will be up to the DA to decide on each individual case. They're not going to be charging people with a felony who did nothing. That's not what the law is going to allow and that's not what the DA would do.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

That is not true. The law will not change the definition of resisting arrest. You are acting like this law will make it easier for the police to charge people with resisting arrest and that police will now be able to charge people with resisting arrest for almost anything. This law will not make it any easier for the police to charge a person with resisting arrest. The only thing this law will do is increase the penalty for resisting arrest.

This article doesn't go into too much detail, so I don't know what the exact criteria will be in deciding whether a person will be charged with a felony rather than a misdemeanor. But common sense tells me that there will be specific guidelines. In the end, it will be up to the DA to decide on each individual case. They're not going to be charging people with a felony who did nothing. That's not what the law is going to allow and that's not what the DA would do.

For someone not knowing the criteria you have no problem stating in certainty what the DA will do. The fact is this CAN BE ABUSED and you can't tell me that at some point it won't be in at least 1 case. Your whole entire argument is based upon what a reasonable person SHOULD do. Note to Rupe there are unreasonable people out there who think nothing of convicting someone of a felony if it will enhance their future.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by jms62

For someone not knowing the criteria you have no problem stating in certainty what the DA will do. The fact is this CAN BE ABUSED and you can't tell me that at some point it won't be in at least 1 case. Your whole entire argument is based upon what a reasonable person SHOULD do. Note to Rupe there are unreasonable people out there who think nothing of convicting someone of a felony if it will enhance their future.

It must be nice living in Rupert's fantasy world where cops aren't rapidly devolving into an unaccountable paramilitary force and Tiger Woods is still a threat to win majors.

[Pants II]

This is to protect the kids. What if that group of liberal protestors aren't vaccinated?

Then what?

Save us GUBMINT!

[bigrun]

Just saw this


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/...ist/ar-AA91vgE

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

It must be nice living in Rupert's fantasy world where cops aren't rapidly devolving into an unaccountable paramilitary force and Tiger Woods is still a threat to win majors.

In an ideal world, we wouldn't need police. There would be no murder, no robberies, no assaults, no riots, etc. Unfortunately that is not the world we live in. There is a serious amount of crime, including violent crime in this country. We need the police. They aren't perfect but they do alot more good than bad. You are the one living in the fantasy world if you think the police are more of a threat to you than all the criminals.

With regards to Tiger, I still think there is an excellent chance he will win majors again. I'm not saying it's a sure thing. Some guys never recover after going into slumps. Daviid Duval never recovered. He was #2 in the world and he can hardly make a cut nowadays. There are plenty of good players that that has happened to. But there are also plenty of good players who went into bad slumps for several years and ended up coming back as good as ever. There is no way to tell for sure. But if there is anyone who I would think could come back, it would be Tiger.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Just saw this


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/...ist/ar-AA91vgE

If I was on the jury the second cop would be guilty just for having that haircut

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

In an ideal world, we wouldn't need police. There would be no murder, no robberies, no assaults, no riots, etc. Unfortunately that is not the world we live in. There is a serious amount of crime, including violent crime in this country. We need the police. They aren't perfect but they do alot more good than bad. You are the one living in the fantasy world if you think the police are more of a threat to you than all the criminals.

More straw-man arguments against things nobody said.

Don't talk to me like I'm five years old. Obviously we need the police and there are more good cops than bad ones. But the bad ones are doing more and more damage as time goes on because they are almost never held accountable when they harm and kill innocent people. Not to mention the increased firepower they're getting from all of our surplus Iraq/Afghanistan military toys. It's a very bad combination.

It sounds like you live in a bubble where you never have any interactions with hostile police, which is great, but for the rest of us out here, news like the story Jim posted is troubling as hell.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

http://www.buzzfeed.com/nicolasmedin...e-a#.hrNgNgygV


1. Resisting arrest is whatever the cops want it to be
2. Having to defend yourself against a felony would be an expensive nightmare
3. Conviction on a felony opens up a whole other realm of nightmares for the rest of your life (Obtaining a Job, Guns, Voting)

Scary. To read things like this, you would think crime is higher than ever, when it is actually the opposite. The first thing that leapt to my mind was the pic of the cop spraying sitting, orderly protesters in the façe with pepper spray.
And sure....have cops investigate cops instead of indies..its worked great up til now.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

More straw-man arguments against things nobody said.

Don't talk to me like I'm five years old. Obviously we need the police and there are more good cops than bad ones. But the bad ones are doing more and more damage as time goes on because they are almost never held accountable when they harm and kill innocent people. Not to mention the increased firepower they're getting from all of our surplus Iraq/Afghanistan military toys. It's a very bad combination.

It sounds like you live in a bubble where you never have any interactions with hostile police, which is great, but for the rest of us out here, news like the story Jim posted is troubling as hell.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

More straw-man arguments against things nobody said.

Don't talk to me like I'm five years old. Obviously we need the police and there are more good cops than bad ones. But the bad ones are doing more and more damage as time goes on because they are almost never held accountable when they harm and kill innocent people. Not to mention the increased firepower they're getting from all of our surplus Iraq/Afghanistan military toys. It's a very bad combination.

It sounds like you live in a bubble where you never have any interactions with hostile police, which is great, but for the rest of us out here, news like the story Jim posted is troubling as hell.

Your exact quote was that "cops are rapidly devolving into an unaccountable paramilitary force". I think that is absurd. From the events we have had lately, I think it shows that the police need to be heavily armed and need to use more force, not less force. You saw the rioters burn down half of Ferguson. The police used way too much restraint there and they used way too much restraint here in Los Angeles. There weren't any buildings burned down here in Los Angeles but you had a small group of protesters running into traffic and shutting down freeways and inconveniencing a lot of people. Those protesters need to be arrested. They have the right to have a bonehead opinion but they have no right to inconvenience the rest of us (who also have an opinion on the case).

There are always going to be some bad cops. That is expected. There are bad doctors, bad lawyers, bad firemen, etc. That is reality. But just because there are some bad cops that hardly makes them "an unaccountable paramilitary force". Do you have any evidence that the police are using more force than they used to or that there is more police misconduct now than there was 20 years ago?

By the way, just because Al Sharpton says a cop acted improperly, doesn't make it so. Was there "no accountability in Ferguson"? Maybe according to you and Al Sharpton. But the vast amount of people in this country who heard the facts of the case thought there was total transparency and accountability. There was a full investigation and the vast majority of people including the DA, the FBI, and the grand jury found no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Officer Wilson. I don't know if that case is one of your examples of police acting out of control. It it is, then your definition is different than the vast majorities of Americans. That doesn't mean that you are necessarily wrong and everybody else is right, but it means that there are different opinions out there and most people would disagree with your characterization of the police being out of control. You are certainly entitled to your opinion but you shouldn't expect me to agree with you.

[ateamstupid]

Ah yes, Al Sharpton. No argument with a right-wing airhead is complete without a mention of their boogeyman shoehorned into it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25BBGnd-JkE

Look at that. That was the 2nd night of protests and an American police force's response to (at that point) peaceful protesters. If you don't think that's a paramilitary force and a terrifying look into what the future of American policing could look like, I don't know what to say. They were firing tear gas canisters at people standing in their own back yards for God's sake. How can you possibly defend this?

Damn near every single police shooting in 2014 in America was deemed justified. SWAT teams used to be deployed a few thousand times a year, now they're used a thousand times a week, often for low-level crimes. Countless people have been brutalized, traumatized and killed by cops with zero accountability and they're only getting more heavily armed and aggressive despite crime being at record lows. You have a lot of nerve saying the police need to be using more force, not less, but again, that's what happens when you live a completely insulated life from any kind of interaction with the increasingly militarized police in this country. You get to sit in your bubble and use every possible explanation for why the cops are always right and the people whose lives they ruin are always the bad guys. It's ignorant, juvenile and pathetic.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Ah yes, Al Sharpton. No argument with a right-wing airhead is complete without a mention of their boogeyman shoehorned into it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25BBGnd-JkE

Look at that. That was the 2nd night of protests and an American police force's response to (at that point) peaceful protesters. If you don't think that's a paramilitary force and a terrifying look into what the future of American policing could look like, I don't know what to say. They were firing tear gas canisters at people standing in their own back yards for God's sake. How can you possibly defend this?

Damn near every single police shooting in 2014 in America was deemed justified. SWAT teams used to be deployed a few thousand times a year, now they're used a thousand times a week, often for low-level crimes. Countless people have been brutalized, traumatized and killed by cops with zero accountability and they're only getting more heavily armed and aggressive despite crime being at record lows. You have a lot of nerve saying the police need to be using more force, not less, but again, that's what happens when you live a completely insulated life from any kind of interaction with the increasingly militarized police in this country. You get to sit in your bubble and use every possible explanation for why the cops are always right and the people whose lives they ruin are always the bad guys. It's ignorant, juvenile and pathetic.

http://justice.gawker.com/nypd-has-a...nto-1684017767

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Ah yes, Al Sharpton. No argument with a right-wing airhead is complete without a mention of their boogeyman shoehorned into it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25BBGnd-JkE

Look at that. That was the 2nd night of protests and an American police force's response to (at that point) peaceful protesters. If you don't think that's a paramilitary force and a terrifying look into what the future of American policing could look like, I don't know what to say. They were firing tear gas canisters at people standing in their own back yards for God's sake. How can you possibly defend this?

Damn near every single police shooting in 2014 in America was deemed justified. SWAT teams used to be deployed a few thousand times a year, now they're used a thousand times a week, often for low-level crimes. Countless people have been brutalized, traumatized and killed by cops with zero accountability and they're only getting more heavily armed and aggressive despite crime being at record lows. You have a lot of nerve saying the police need to be using more force, not less, but again, that's what happens when you live a completely insulated life from any kind of interaction with the increasingly militarized police in this country. You get to sit in your bubble and use every possible explanation for why the cops are always right and the people whose lives they ruin are always the bad guys. It's ignorant, juvenile and pathetic.

That video proves a lot. Talk about being an airhead. You truly are if you think that video proves anything. There is absolutely zero context. We have no idea what occurred before that. Why would you believe the protest was peaceful? After the grand jury decision, CNN was saying the protest was peaceful as buildings were being burned down. You may think throwing rocks, bottles, and molotov cocktails is peaceful. That's not my definition of peaceful.

You say that nearly every single police shooting in 2014 was deemed justified. I have some shocking news for you. Practically every one of them was justified. I'm sure there were a few that weren't and those cops were prosecuted when there was evidence. I hate to break this news to you but there has to be evidence to prosecute. Cops are entitled due process just like everyone else. We don't lock cops up just because mindless left-wing airheads like you and Al Sharpton say that a crime was committed. You guys want due process for your criminal idols but not for the police. I want due process for everyone.

By no means do I favor the use of heavily armed police (whether local or federal) for trivial and non-violent offenses. If you remember, I was outraged when some heavily armed government agency raided that animal rescue place (I think it was in Ohio) because they were fostering a baby deer.

I have no idea where you come up with the characterization of "zero accountability". There is always accountability. The definition of accountability is having to answer for your actions. The police always have to answer for their actions. If there is an officer involved shooting, there is always accountability. There is always an investigation, many times by outside agencies. There was accountability with regards to the case in Ferguson. The officer had to answer for his actions. Just because he wasn't convicted of anything, that doesn't mean there was no accountability. We only convict people based on evidence, not on your opinion, Al Sharpton's opinion, or the lynch mobs' opinion.

I think you must be the one living in the bubble. The vast majority of Americans don't have interactions with "hostile police" all the time as you do. The vast majority of Americans have an overall positive opinion of the police. You are acting like I am in the minority, when in fact most people would agree with me. I live in a big city and I occasionally have interactions with the police. Some of them are jerks, but there are jerks in every occupation. The percentage may be slightly higher in law enforcement, but what can you do? What is the solution? The system isn't perfect. By the way, ever since I left the bloods, the police have stopped harassing me.

I will use your words and say that it is ignorant, juvenile, and pathetic for you to think the police are always wrong and are always the bad guy. You may not have said that, but you accused me of saying that the police are always right and are never the bad guy (even though I never said that).

By the way, I'd like to see your source that documents SWAT teams now being used a thousand times a week instead of a few thousand times a year.

With regard to your characterization that crime is at record lows, what bubble are you living in? In Los Angeles, violent crime was up 14% last year.

"By far, the most dramatic rise was in aggravated assaults — serious attacks that typically involve a weapon or serious injury — which rose 24.2% compared with 2013."

How big of an airhead would a guy have to be to be more concerned with a few cases of police misconduct than with the tens of thousands of violent assaults and murders that occurred last year across this country?

http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/l...231-story.html