Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Why do they bother with all the sobriety tests?
Even sober WITH a valid licence that car would have been seized and she would have been down the Nick no messing about.
Life in these United States...
- Thread starter Seattle
- Start date
Even sober WITH a valid licence that car would have been seized and she would have been down the Nick no messing about.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
On the race thing, one way to counter the two way negativity is to employ and deploy black cops in black areas and get them in schools.
Talk to the kids, scare them a bit show them some nasty stuff.
Show them good stuff too, saving lives, emergency medical attention, finding missing people, during a terror attack they will not be running for cover, they will be looking to protect you.
The drunk lady asked, why not go after real criminals.
They should have said "Because I have to deal with you right now!"
A lot of crime, poverty and racial tensions where I work.
A very white old school racist population and a very Islamic population.
However the town still works and having a lot of Asian cops probably helps.
Where I live is similar just not as big.
It also helps if the area is alive, shops open, pubs busy, people working the community mixing.
Talk to the kids, scare them a bit show them some nasty stuff.
Show them good stuff too, saving lives, emergency medical attention, finding missing people, during a terror attack they will not be running for cover, they will be looking to protect you.
The drunk lady asked, why not go after real criminals.
They should have said "Because I have to deal with you right now!"
A lot of crime, poverty and racial tensions where I work.
A very white old school racist population and a very Islamic population.
However the town still works and having a lot of Asian cops probably helps.
Where I live is similar just not as big.
It also helps if the area is alive, shops open, pubs busy, people working the community mixing.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Those field tests aren't valid in court anyway so you should never take one. You do have to either take the breathalyzer test or request a blood test at your expense (they will take you to the ER) or the legal presumption is that you are drunk.
I have a friend who is a criminal defense attorney and he passed along that wisdom.
But, yes, you are right, that would have been careless and reckless driving and you would go to jail.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
When I was in high school we had a cop that taught a civics class part-time and also brought in other PR type cops for the reasons that you just mentioned.
In many urban areas where a lot of crime takes place they do have a lot of black cops, if the area is predominately black but they still often fall into the "code blue" mentality of their fellow officers. This happens even where there is a black mayor, black cops, etc. In large part that's because being a cop, especially in those areas, is very dangerous and the laws still favor the cops so they shoot first and ask questions later and then they get to go home to their family every night.
It turns out, even there, most "racism" isn't racism but is more about abusing their authority and about not being willing to gamble with their live. Very few cops shoot people who are compliant.
However, the only solution is as you've stated...more community outreach.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Yes just the quick breath test would have done it.
I am not certain how they do it here now but I have seen people arrested put in a van. Not in the back of car behind the driver like a taxi.
She spat on him, that kind of stuff is avoided.
Bottom line is if you do not comply with the police then prepare for bad stuff to happen.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
If the area is broken then it is far more difficult.
Like I said not a job I would want or could do.
I have seen enough footage of bad behaviours to know that.
Seattle:
My thoughts are that the police have a difficult job to do. As I said, they often have to deal with people who are drunk, on drugs or who are mentally unbalanced for one reason or another. I think it's important that they recognise that those people are human beings with problems, and not nameless scum to be harassed or treated as objects of ridicule or fun. I think that where there is an obvious power imbalance in an encounter between human beings, it is incumbent upon the person with the greater power to take care not to harm the other party and to treat them with common decency.
I think it is important that police are clear in their interactions with people. They should inform those people clearly why it is that the police are questioning them or why the police have stopped them. I think it is important that when police decide to arrest somebody they tell them in clear terms why they are being detained and what their rights are. It can also help to tell people in clear terms when their behaviours are likely to lead to further charges.
I think it is very important that police are trained not just on how to "enforce the law" but also in how to de-escalate charged situations, like the ones we have seen in these videos. Clear and unambiguous communication is part of that, and so is recognising the human being on the other end of the interaction.
Regarding the three videos above, I think the police officers involved did a reasonable job in dealing with the situations, although there is room for a few criticisms. We could speculate, for instance, about whether things would have gone the same way with the guy in the gas station if the police officer had just let him buy his Red Bull before talking to him about his broken tail light.
On the question of whether the laws are too lax, as they apply to these particular situations, I am not the best position to comment, since I don't know which jurisdictions they all occurred in or what the local laws are. I also don't know what the standard police procedures are there.
You seem to believe that the people involved were not sufficiently punished for their crimes in these videos, such as they were. There were various penalties for the three of them. Those penalties seem proportionate to the offences that we saw in the videos, as far as I can tell. But, as I said previously, sentencing is more than just "do the crime; do the time". It is a somewhat more nuanced process than that. It considers the perpetrator's background and criminal history. It considers the specific circumstances that led to the charges, of course. It considers various extenuating factors, including mental health issues, drug use and so on.
Since I'm still not sure what you perceive to be "the problem" here, I'm not sure what solutions to offer you. To me, it looks like the police officers did their jobs and did not use disproportionate force in doing them. It looks to me like the offenders all got penalised for their behaviours. Nobody got off. The criminals didn't get to run the city, or anything like that.
If you ever find yourself on the receiving end of a police stop or something, maybe you'll come out of it with a better appreciation of why it isn't a great idea to allow police to beat you up if they feel like they want to in order to control you. I think that if it's good enough for you to expect not to be beaten up by the cops, it ought to be good enough for the people in the videos, too.
Now, can we get your thoughts on all this? After all, it's your thread. You're the one with the complaints, who says there is a "problem" that you think needs solving, even though you say you don't have any solutions yet. So, where are you at in your thinking? How far have you got?
Who got arrested? Who went to court? Who received punishment for the events in these videos? Hint: it wasn't the police officers.
If you support cameras but still want the police to be able to rough up their detainees, you'll probably need to push for changes to the relevant laws to give police the powers you want them to have. Of course, your particular approach has been tried in the past, and lawmakers decided to change it to the current system. Maybe there was a good reason for that, other than "politics".
Perhaps you'd like to see greater police immunity for failing to call for medical attention for arrested people? Because that has never caused problems before, has it?
I still don't understand why you think there's a problem.
It doesn't matter. I was just curious. But I already told you that.
I doubt you would be.
Neither are you, it seems.
Now you're interested in my thoughts? Okay. Great.
My thoughts are that the police have a difficult job to do. As I said, they often have to deal with people who are drunk, on drugs or who are mentally unbalanced for one reason or another. I think it's important that they recognise that those people are human beings with problems, and not nameless scum to be harassed or treated as objects of ridicule or fun. I think that where there is an obvious power imbalance in an encounter between human beings, it is incumbent upon the person with the greater power to take care not to harm the other party and to treat them with common decency.
I think it is important that police are clear in their interactions with people. They should inform those people clearly why it is that the police are questioning them or why the police have stopped them. I think it is important that when police decide to arrest somebody they tell them in clear terms why they are being detained and what their rights are. It can also help to tell people in clear terms when their behaviours are likely to lead to further charges.
I think it is very important that police are trained not just on how to "enforce the law" but also in how to de-escalate charged situations, like the ones we have seen in these videos. Clear and unambiguous communication is part of that, and so is recognising the human being on the other end of the interaction.
Regarding the three videos above, I think the police officers involved did a reasonable job in dealing with the situations, although there is room for a few criticisms. We could speculate, for instance, about whether things would have gone the same way with the guy in the gas station if the police officer had just let him buy his Red Bull before talking to him about his broken tail light.
On the question of whether the laws are too lax, as they apply to these particular situations, I am not the best position to comment, since I don't know which jurisdictions they all occurred in or what the local laws are. I also don't know what the standard police procedures are there.
You seem to believe that the people involved were not sufficiently punished for their crimes in these videos, such as they were. There were various penalties for the three of them. Those penalties seem proportionate to the offences that we saw in the videos, as far as I can tell. But, as I said previously, sentencing is more than just "do the crime; do the time". It is a somewhat more nuanced process than that. It considers the perpetrator's background and criminal history. It considers the specific circumstances that led to the charges, of course. It considers various extenuating factors, including mental health issues, drug use and so on.
Since I'm still not sure what you perceive to be "the problem" here, I'm not sure what solutions to offer you. To me, it looks like the police officers did their jobs and did not use disproportionate force in doing them. It looks to me like the offenders all got penalised for their behaviours. Nobody got off. The criminals didn't get to run the city, or anything like that.
If you ever find yourself on the receiving end of a police stop or something, maybe you'll come out of it with a better appreciation of why it isn't a great idea to allow police to beat you up if they feel like they want to in order to control you. I think that if it's good enough for you to expect not to be beaten up by the cops, it ought to be good enough for the people in the videos, too.
Now, can we get your thoughts on all this? After all, it's your thread. You're the one with the complaints, who says there is a "problem" that you think needs solving, even though you say you don't have any solutions yet. So, where are you at in your thinking? How far have you got?
Then the solutions will probably be political too.
One way to eliminate crime by the homeless is to reduce homelessness. But that's probably too anti-capitalist for your tastes. Better to give the police big sticks and riot shields, perhaps?
It is true that some of your compatriots seems to agree with some of your views on this. That doesn't necessarily mean they are right to support your position. Maybe they haven't thought it through, either.
I assume you think that these three videos demonstrate criminals getting the one-up on police officers. Is that what you think?
Who got arrested? Who went to court? Who received punishment for the events in these videos? Hint: it wasn't the police officers.
Good. But that's a little inconsistent with your previously bemoaning the introduction of cameras on the grounds that they don't allow police to beat up their prisoners to the extent you'd prefer.
No. I totally agree with you that body cameras are a good idea for police, both to hold them accountable in the exercise of their powers and as a useful record of evidence.
If you support cameras but still want the police to be able to rough up their detainees, you'll probably need to push for changes to the relevant laws to give police the powers you want them to have. Of course, your particular approach has been tried in the past, and lawmakers decided to change it to the current system. Maybe there was a good reason for that, other than "politics".
What gave you that idea? Oh, but you're not serious, are you? Either that, or you need to learn how to spot illustrative exaggeration. I'm glad that, at least, I got you to think it through some more.
So how much force is allowed if she doesn't want to comply? Would proportional force be sufficient? Reasonable force, perhaps? Or are you pushing for extra powers for the police to rough up the detainees?
Usually, somebody saying "my shoulder hurts" is evidence that their shoulder hurts. Sure, you might not believe them. You might believe the evidence is low quality in all the circumstances. But if you're a police officer, what if you're wrong? Maybe not such a big deal for a sore shoulder, but it can be a rather big deal if you get "I can't breathe" wrong, as we have seen.
Perhaps you'd like to see greater police immunity for failing to call for medical attention for arrested people? Because that has never caused problems before, has it?
When a cop is on trial, the jury or judge gets to view all of the relevant evidence, including these kinds of videos. You are viewing them simply as entertainment, as far as I can tell. I think it's because you think you're better than the homeless woman or the black man and you enjoy seeing them in trouble with the law. But maybe I'm wrong.
It's not a problem, with all those videos available now, though, is it? The more people filming it on their cell phones, the better for the police. If they are not at fault, that will be clear from the many video records.
I still don't understand why you think there's a problem.
It's not quite like that. In the situation in which a person is confronted by 5 or 6 police officers who are armed with various weapons and backed by a law enforcement apparatus, there is a clear power imbalance. See my previous comments on that.
I look forward to reading your detailed comments, following my addressing of your post.
Last edited:
You are trying to mislead your readers. You started this thread. You posted an uncommented video without raising any question or point of discussion, in the Politics subforum, for some reason. You're lucky I didn't just close and cesspool it, but instead chose to allow you some Free Thoughts by moving the post to a more appropriate subforum. Perhaps you should review our site posting guidelines before starting any more threads. There's some good advice in their regarding opening posts.Seattle said:
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
No, I'm not.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I agree including the de-escalation part.
I don't think it's reasonable for a cop to tell someone to stop and then be expected to let him go into the store to get his Red Bull while the cop just waits.
I'm all for cops having cameras that are turned on all the time. No issues there. I am not for cops beating up people (your red herring constantly repeated here).
I don't think I'm better than a homeless woman or a black man (as you put it). You mention that maybe you are wrong. You always are, aren't you?
Again, for some reason you rarely just address the post as everyone else has done. No one else has mentioned me in a personal manner at all and have just given their opinions on this topic. You do you however, which seems to be an attempt to limit discussion. Every post has to be moved, personalized by you and the poster argued with rather than just contributing to a discussion as is the case with everyone else. There is a reason there is so little discussion here.
I think, in the case of these videos, that it shows what cops have to deal with. It rarely has anything to do with racism or excessive violence. When potentially excessive violence (not in these videos) comes in it is usually when there is a potential violent felony involved, the cop tells the person to stop and they run or make other sudden movements. That's when they get shot.
In these particular videos they got what they deserved in general. If you are drunk, driving without a wheel, resisting arrest, that's what you get. A lot of time is wasted in these videos having to give excessive credence to drunken nonsense.
The courts are a problem to the extent that these people get convicted, put back immediately on the streets and they commit more crimes so the court system isn't being effective. The communities aren't really being made safer. That's why I say the criminals are running the neighborhoods.
The later comment is more directed to the situation in downtown Seattle (and in many other cities). This is due to safety concerns but it's also due to non-enforcement of shoplifting. It's also why stores are leaving those areas.
These are facts so that's why most people are just giving their acknowledgement and their own personal views of the situation. You are the only one focused on me, insisting the absurd notion that I'm for police brutality although I suppose now you will claim that I don't understand your "illustrative exaggeration"? You take every statement that I make as literal but yours are to be taken a illustrative exaggeration? OK.
This is ultimately a post about reduced police funding, fewer people wanting to be a cop, the changes this has had in the urban environment including homeless encampments, public drug use, the resulting crimes and violence that entails. It doesn't go away by ignoring it or arguing in an insincere way.
It's a balance that has gone too far in one direction. No one is for police brutality or any specific abuses of the past. No one thinks they are better than anyone else. Unless we consider your (typical) comments that everyone else may be wrong and that you alone have just thought about it more deeply and therefore you are "right".
No red herrings are necessary. This is a nuanced problem and it deserves discussion as such rather than claiming that one side is brutal, better than the others, uncaring and other such divisive nonsense.
Seattle:
Compare that to what actually happened here. If you're concerned about the amount of police time spent in total on this, maybe think about the alternative.
I am glad to hear that I was wrong in this instance, however. It would be so sad if you turned out to be a common bigot. But you're better than that, so it's all good.
I am sorry if you're sensitive to criticism or questioning of your opinions. Nevertheless, I think you need to realise that these things often happen in a discussion; you should expect them and try not to get your hackles up every time somebody disagrees with or questions your position on something.
If you don't feel comfortable in posting here for any reason, such as you feel overly criticised or you feel that you aren't free enough to speak your mind, please recognise that you are not obliged to post here. There are many other friendly places on the internet which will no doubt be thrilled to hear from you on many topics. Consider exploring other avenues for self-expression, if you want to. You needn't feel bound to this place.
As for police shootings, it comes down, once again, to questions of reasonableness and proportionality and justification. Shooting a man in the back as he runs away is rarely justifiable, for example.
Either I misunderstood your earlier posts, or you've recalibrated your opinions following our discussion. Either way, you and I appear to be closer to a consensus on this than we were before, which means that this has been a positive discussion. Do you agree?
Drunk people are generally less inhibited than usual and they can be more prone to violence. They are also less amenable to reason and less capable of taking in information while drunk. Drunk people sometimes act in ways they wouldn't if they were sober. The upshot of all this is that police should not expect a drunk person to behave like a sober person; the police need to allow for the drunkenness and adapt appropriately to the situation.
Can you give an example of the "excessive credence" you mention? Where was "excessive credence" in the videos? Are you thinking of the guy who said his shoulder hurt, who kept changing his mind about whether he needed an ambulance? How would you recommend the police deal with that sort of thing, if you disapprove of how they actually dealt with that guy?
Again, I don't know what it is you would like to see. Driving without a licence means mandatory jail time on the first offence, perhaps? Or second? Or third? Refusing to follow a police officer's instruction not to go into a shop = jail? What?
You clearly believe that current sentencing practices are too lax. Have you opinions regarding specific penalties for specific offences, or is this just a general sense of disgruntlement on your part, based on a perception you have from media?
Good to know.
Well, let's see. Suppose the cop had let the guy buy his Red Bull, while the cop waited outside. While the guy is inside picking a drink, the cop writes out his ticket for the broken taillight on the guy's car. Five minutes later, the guy comes out with his drink. The cop gives him the ticket and calmly explains why he was stopped and why he is being fined. The guy then gets in his car, the cop gets in his car, and they go their separate ways. The cop continues his highway patrol or whatever.
Compare that to what actually happened here. If you're concerned about the amount of police time spent in total on this, maybe think about the alternative.
Okay. I'm still a little puzzled as to why you were complaining about the number of cops needed to get a woman out of a car, etc. It looked to me like you thought that fewer cops with greater use of force would have been a better solution, for your liking. And you made some comments about cameras. Oh well.
Oh no. I'm very often right about things, I assure you. You make yourself look a bit silly when you make claims you can't support that use words like "always". Try to avoid that in future, maybe.
I am glad to hear that I was wrong in this instance, however. It would be so sad if you turned out to be a common bigot. But you're better than that, so it's all good.
I like to offer a different perspective, sometimes, rather than just following the crowd. I have not attempted to limit discussion. Nobody has been censored or prevented from speaking his mind, least of all you. I moved your post for the reasons I explained in post #28 - and also in a separate direct notification I sent to you when I moved it.
I am sorry if you're sensitive to criticism or questioning of your opinions. Nevertheless, I think you need to realise that these things often happen in a discussion; you should expect them and try not to get your hackles up every time somebody disagrees with or questions your position on something.
If you don't feel comfortable in posting here for any reason, such as you feel overly criticised or you feel that you aren't free enough to speak your mind, please recognise that you are not obliged to post here. There are many other friendly places on the internet which will no doubt be thrilled to hear from you on many topics. Consider exploring other avenues for self-expression, if you want to. You needn't feel bound to this place.
You say "rarely". That is true, I'm sure, but clearly in some cases there is racism and excessive violence from police. You remember the whole "black lives matter" thing, I'm sure. That wasn't /isn't a big fuss over nothing.
As for police shootings, it comes down, once again, to questions of reasonableness and proportionality and justification. Shooting a man in the back as he runs away is rarely justifiable, for example.
Again, good to know. I was under the impression you thought that these people got less than what they deserved and that you were complaining about that.
Either I misunderstood your earlier posts, or you've recalibrated your opinions following our discussion. Either way, you and I appear to be closer to a consensus on this than we were before, which means that this has been a positive discussion. Do you agree?
I'm still puzzled as to what you think the alternative is - what you'd like to see happen instead, I mean.
Drunk people are generally less inhibited than usual and they can be more prone to violence. They are also less amenable to reason and less capable of taking in information while drunk. Drunk people sometimes act in ways they wouldn't if they were sober. The upshot of all this is that police should not expect a drunk person to behave like a sober person; the police need to allow for the drunkenness and adapt appropriately to the situation.
Can you give an example of the "excessive credence" you mention? Where was "excessive credence" in the videos? Are you thinking of the guy who said his shoulder hurt, who kept changing his mind about whether he needed an ambulance? How would you recommend the police deal with that sort of thing, if you disapprove of how they actually dealt with that guy?
In fact, the United States has a massive rate of incarceration, compared to many similar countries.
Again, I don't know what it is you would like to see. Driving without a licence means mandatory jail time on the first offence, perhaps? Or second? Or third? Refusing to follow a police officer's instruction not to go into a shop = jail? What?
You clearly believe that current sentencing practices are too lax. Have you opinions regarding specific penalties for specific offences, or is this just a general sense of disgruntlement on your part, based on a perception you have from media?
(continued...)
Will you be providing some statistical data soon?
Now, it seems that you and I agree that maybe there isn't really such a big "problem" here, like you suggested there was previously. We seem to agree that the police are doing an okay job. You believe the ultimate sentencing of offenders by the courts is too lax, either because the laws are too lax or the courts are too forgiving, or for both reasons. And there's something about "non-enforcement" that needs a bit more explaining. But other than that, we're on the same page, more or less. Right?
I'm not sure who you think I should focus on. You started this thread. I assumed you wanted some discussion on the topic you chose to post. Or did you just want to see what kinds of reactions your video provoked, while you stood apart and watched?
Do you think it's reasonable for you to be upset when somebody chooses to engage with you on a topic you chose to start a discussion about? Does inviting you to discuss your own topic put too much of a focus on you for your liking?
Why are you posting on a discussion forum if you don't want to discuss?
Do you think it might have been more helpful if you had posted what you wanted to discuss in post #1, rather than waiting until post #30?
Should we start again and talk about police funding, say?
I don't know anything about the non-enforcement of shoplifting in Seattle. It seems very strange to me if police/the courts have stopped prosecuting people for shoplifting in Seattle. Why have they done that? Or is that not what you mean?
Pardon me, but despite your mention of "facts", I have seen very little in terms of hard data from you on this, so far. I have seen various "personal views" on the general state of policing on certain matters, but you haven't given me any reason to assume those views are well informed by "facts", so far.
Will you be providing some statistical data soon?
I thought the context of my previous posts was clear. Yes, I was making a "slippery slope" argument, based on my understanding of what you wrote.
Now, it seems that you and I agree that maybe there isn't really such a big "problem" here, like you suggested there was previously. We seem to agree that the police are doing an okay job. You believe the ultimate sentencing of offenders by the courts is too lax, either because the laws are too lax or the courts are too forgiving, or for both reasons. And there's something about "non-enforcement" that needs a bit more explaining. But other than that, we're on the same page, more or less. Right?
I'm not sure who you think I should focus on. You started this thread. I assumed you wanted some discussion on the topic you chose to post. Or did you just want to see what kinds of reactions your video provoked, while you stood apart and watched?
Do you think it's reasonable for you to be upset when somebody chooses to engage with you on a topic you chose to start a discussion about? Does inviting you to discuss your own topic put too much of a focus on you for your liking?
Why are you posting on a discussion forum if you don't want to discuss?
Thanks for that. But I don't see how the video in post #1 addressed the matters of police funding, fewer people wanting to be a cop, the changes this has had on the urban environment etc.
Do you think it might have been more helpful if you had posted what you wanted to discuss in post #1, rather than waiting until post #30?
Should we start again and talk about police funding, say?
I'm sure you'll agree that it's possible that any of us could be wrong in our opinions, regardless of how deeply we have thought about them. Right?
I agree. None of us should be jumping to ill-informed conclusions on this nuanced problem.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
He does that to me too. Long rambling posts about how I am a troll or an idiot or delusional in response my mere mention of a uap sighting. It's an incessant attempt to make it personal and to essentially project all his hatred for the masses onto one person for the way he used to believe. I guess it's sort of like therapy for him, bolstering the sense that he is all beyond the silly beliefs of his yesteryears and is now a competent expert in science and logic. He actually enjoys putting people down and dissecting their characters, which is why his posts are so long and tedious. He is on a mission to rid the world of the superstitious and the idealistic. It is really a religious faith with him, that the truths of science will answer all our problems if we'd just bow before its omniscient authority in explaining our mysterious reality.
Last edited:
Gee, thanks for the unsolicited, off-topic personal feedback, Magical Realist.
What a fantastic human being you are.
If you feel you must lash at at me because you don't like me telling you that you believe in aliens for bad reasons, can't you at least do it in your UFO thread (or, better, by personal messaging or in About the Members or Site Feedback subforums)? Must you pollute an unrelated thread with your personal baggage?
What a fantastic human being you are.
If you feel you must lash at at me because you don't like me telling you that you believe in aliens for bad reasons, can't you at least do it in your UFO thread (or, better, by personal messaging or in About the Members or Site Feedback subforums)? Must you pollute an unrelated thread with your personal baggage?
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
I disagree here James.
The police say stop you stop.
This is something that should be understood by the law abiding community.
If you are a law abiding citizen why be provocative?
Why deliberately cause trouble and act like a spoilt brat having a tantrum?
Pinball1970:
In the case of the particular man in the video in the opening post, I think this is where the issue of race might have some relevance.
It seems to me that, rightly or wrongly, many people of colour in the United States have the perception that white police officers target them disproportionately, sometimes without good reason, for police action. That includes things such as traffic violations, vehicle checks, personal searches for concealed weapons, loitering, and more.
We don't know that particular guy's history of prior interactions with the police. Even if, in the case presented in the video here, the traffic stop was entirely legitimate and indiscriminate on the part of the police, the man's prior experiences or prejudices about the police might well have made him suspicious that he was being unfairly singled out for police attention.
When the police officer started giving him directions about not entering the store and so on, maybe that raised the guy's level of annoyance and/or anger at being targeted by the police, as he perhaps saw it.
I'm by no means trying to excuse this man's subsequent behaviour. Clearly, he didn't do himself any favours by refusing to cooperate with the police. I do not think he made good choices in how he behaved. In fact, ultimately, the choices he made were self-defeating.
From watching the video, I think there was a rather small window of opportunity for the police officer to try to defuse the situation that was developing with the man. Once that window closed, the man was emotionally aroused and not able to think very clearly about his actions or their likely consequences.
I have no reason to assume that, had the man being white, things would have gone any differently in this particular case, all else being equal.
In the second video, with the shoplifting suspect woman, the woman also made bad choices.$^*$ I think that in that case the police could have communicated with her a little better. In particular, I don't recall anybody explicitly telling her she was under arrest, throughout the interaction.
In the third video, the woman was very intoxicated. I can't really fault how the police handled that one. I thought that, in general, they were very polite and respectful towards her. Where I live, police don't do subjective sobriety tests. They would administer a breath test in the first instance and act based on the results of that - no mucking around with making people walk in a straight line or following a pencil with their eyes. Driving without a licence would mean you wouldn't be allowed to operate the car after that, and you would have to face court.
---
$^*$ I think that, actually, poor decision making tends to be a prominent element in many forms of criminality. The worse the decision making by the criminal, the worse the penalties for his crimes, in most cases.
In the case of the particular man in the video in the opening post, I think this is where the issue of race might have some relevance.
It seems to me that, rightly or wrongly, many people of colour in the United States have the perception that white police officers target them disproportionately, sometimes without good reason, for police action. That includes things such as traffic violations, vehicle checks, personal searches for concealed weapons, loitering, and more.
We don't know that particular guy's history of prior interactions with the police. Even if, in the case presented in the video here, the traffic stop was entirely legitimate and indiscriminate on the part of the police, the man's prior experiences or prejudices about the police might well have made him suspicious that he was being unfairly singled out for police attention.
When the police officer started giving him directions about not entering the store and so on, maybe that raised the guy's level of annoyance and/or anger at being targeted by the police, as he perhaps saw it.
I'm by no means trying to excuse this man's subsequent behaviour. Clearly, he didn't do himself any favours by refusing to cooperate with the police. I do not think he made good choices in how he behaved. In fact, ultimately, the choices he made were self-defeating.
From watching the video, I think there was a rather small window of opportunity for the police officer to try to defuse the situation that was developing with the man. Once that window closed, the man was emotionally aroused and not able to think very clearly about his actions or their likely consequences.
I have no reason to assume that, had the man being white, things would have gone any differently in this particular case, all else being equal.
In the second video, with the shoplifting suspect woman, the woman also made bad choices.$^*$ I think that in that case the police could have communicated with her a little better. In particular, I don't recall anybody explicitly telling her she was under arrest, throughout the interaction.
In the third video, the woman was very intoxicated. I can't really fault how the police handled that one. I thought that, in general, they were very polite and respectful towards her. Where I live, police don't do subjective sobriety tests. They would administer a breath test in the first instance and act based on the results of that - no mucking around with making people walk in a straight line or following a pencil with their eyes. Driving without a licence would mean you wouldn't be allowed to operate the car after that, and you would have to face court.
---
$^*$ I think that, actually, poor decision making tends to be a prominent element in many forms of criminality. The worse the decision making by the criminal, the worse the penalties for his crimes, in most cases.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Oh OK, although I'm not sure who is the one who looks silly here. Regarding the use of "always", you should understand the use of "illustrative exaggeration" but that seems to be applied selectively in your case. Oh well.
I may be better than that but it appears that you may not be?
Thanks, the same applies to you. If you are easily upset by the posts here you don't have to stay. The forum would go on nicely. If you went to another forum where you were not the moderator, it's likely that it would have more traffic at least, so there's that.
We'd love to have you stay, just to be clear.
That's certainly true although it's beside the point. No one is arguing that minor crimes should result in prison time. Some jail time would do. Even those are overcrowded because new ones are rarely built and we do have a lot of crime.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
We are in agreement here.
Feel free to talk about anything loosely related to this topic. You don't need my prior agreement to post. This isn't a debate.
Seattle:
Clearly, when you wrote "always", I should have realised you actually meant "seldom". But you exaggerated, for effect, and you caught me out. Well done, you. Congratulations, once again.
Did you just accuse me of being a bigot?
I need you to be clear on this. If, in fact, you are accusing me of that, please explain why you are making that accusation.
Thanks.
I do enjoy our chats. Don't you?
Perhaps you got so carried away in your enthusiasm over the prospect of many happy future conversations with me, that in your excitement you temporarily lost sight of what you wanted to talk about regarding the video you posted.
Okay. You're not sure.
Ooh! You sure got me there, Seattle. Well done. What a hypocrite I am!
Clearly, when you wrote "always", I should have realised you actually meant "seldom". But you exaggerated, for effect, and you caught me out. Well done, you. Congratulations, once again.
Excuse me?
Did you just accuse me of being a bigot?
I need you to be clear on this. If, in fact, you are accusing me of that, please explain why you are making that accusation.
Thanks.
I'm not easily upset by posts here. Don't worry about me.
I think you might be surprised.
It's fun to speculate, isn't it?
You're speaking for other people? Who? Or are you really just illustratively exaggerating how much you, personally, would love me to stick around?
I do enjoy our chats. Don't you?
What was your point, again? Remind me.
Well, what did you think about the on-topic points I raised in my previous reply to you? After all, I did ask you some direct on-topic questions, which you haven't answered. Why is that?
Perhaps you got so carried away in your enthusiasm over the prospect of many happy future conversations with me, that in your excitement you temporarily lost sight of what you wanted to talk about regarding the video you posted.
Last edited:
I think it’s ridiculous that this cop started all this commotion over a defective brake light. These situations always turn into “resisting arrest.” If he’s a fugitive, if there’s a warrant out for his arrest, okay. But…based on this scenario, it’s excessive. And then the cops go on about how they thought the guy was going to swing at them.
The guy is upset - who knows what kind of day he’s having? I get that there’s a protocol to follow when cops pull people over but this was excessive and unnecessary. I do think police have a tough job but it’s alwayyyys their word against whomever they’re stopping and in this case, it seems excessive.
Now, this guy is going to lose his job and go to jail? For what???
Last edited: