# Are we finding racism where non exists?



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Read an article this morning about a poster in a mechanic's shop.
According to the article, the poster


> " proclaims to picture the most useful cellphone to have with you â a handgun that has a cellphone keypad in its handle. It then names the cities where this might be useful, naming cities that are primarily African-American. "


As far as I can tell, the poster doesn't mention any race, just the names of cities.
Some cities are high in crime, You'd have to look up the stats to see who is committing the crime.
Is this racist, or are they grasping at racist straws to marginalize gun ownership?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Everyone seems to grasp at straws to see only what they want to see, no matter how loudly they proclaim their desire for the truth.

I'd like to see the actual poster


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

I thought the Charleston shootings pretty much settled that question.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I thought the Charleston shootings pretty much settled that question.


There's no doubt they were caused by Roof's racism.

The difference in Charleston is people didn't use it as an excuse to be stupid.

If they hadn't found him so soon, things might have been different


----------



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

Id like to see this poster ...


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nevada said:


> I thought the Charleston shootings pretty much settled that question.


What exactly do you think one bigoted evil murderer settled? 

Are you saying all whites are represented by him? All men? All white men?


----------



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

no luck on my google search ... I don't think I want to spend my day on this .Someone give a shout out if the poster is found.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

If the cities mentioned, were Ferguson, Baltimore, New York, I'd say, "probably".

I can't pretend that racism does not exist - on some level, nearly everywhere and that's fine with me.

People should just acknowledged it exists and then move on. But, of course, the do not move on.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

DEKE01 said:


> What exactly do you think one bigoted evil murderer settled?
> 
> Are you saying all whites are represented by him? All men? All white men?


I'm saying that racism still exists in America.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I'm saying that racism still exists in America.


Well duh. But what you'll probably never admit is that there is plenty of racism towards whites too.

But in spite of all this, people of all stripes go to school and work together every day. Live together in a lot of places. Marry each other at a higher rate than ever before. We have made a lot of progress and continue to make progress. But beating up a whole group of people for the actions of a few or just one, isn't productive to that progress at all.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

I've been thinking a lot on this right now due to an interview that I caught on NPR. In the part I caught a man was saying that he was very lucky because there are so many ways a black man can get trapped on a bad path as had happened to many of his friends. The interview asked for an example. So he said he and two friends were walking to a party when a man offered them a ride. They piled in, even though they barely knew the driver, who was acting very 'gangster" (the speaker's words) but soon got stopped by a policeman. They were all worried because they 'were three black young men in a car with someone who might be in serious trouble and the police would not care what the goals and aspirations of these young men or that he was a straight a student." 
But the driver suddenly became "all respectful and stopped acting all gangsta", the policeman let him off with a warning about his broken tail light. And thus he was lucky.
I thought how different the ideas that the speaker came away with than mine. My idea was that I would have learned that I judged the driver wrong as he turned out not to be so tough after all, that I should be careful about who I associate with in the first place, that being respectful was more useful than posturing and that my idea about the racist policeman was wrong. His was that he was lucky that the driver changed his attitude and did not drag them into a conflict with unquestioned racist policeman, where upon the world would have inevitably treated him unfairly because he was black. 

There is no common language there.

And the same applies to the sign- it might not occur to me that it is other than making a joke about unusally violent places- ie it would not occur to me that they are mostly black communities. While someone looking for race in everything would not think it meant anything else.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nevada said:


> I'm saying that racism still exists in America.


Thank you for that insightful nugget of deep thinking gold. I'm sure we are all better off for you having the wisdom and intelligence to bring this to our attention.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> Well duh. But what you'll probably never admit is that there is plenty of racism towards whites too.
> 
> But in spite of all this, people of all stripes go to school and work together every day. Live together in a lot of places. Marry each other at a higher rate than ever before. We have made a lot of progress and continue to make progress. But beating up a whole group of people for the actions of a few or just one, isn't productive to that progress at all.


Ah, MO, doncha know we're not gonna get the racists till we cure the 'white supremacy' thing that we all know we're founded on & are a part of...


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no doubt they were caused by Roof's racism.
> 
> The difference in Charleston is people didn't use it as an excuse to be stupid.
> 
> If they hadn't found him so soon, things might have been different


I think too that a big part of what happened or did not happen was that the victims' families immediately forgave the shooter. 
They were certainly Godly people. They were broken hearted but they knew that their loved ones died while talking to God and even inviting the murderer to pray with them. There is no doubt in their hearts where their relatives are today. 

Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Soros' rent a protesters and looters were not needed at all.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Tricky Grama said:


> Ah, MO, doncha know we're not gonna get the racists till we cure the 'white supremacy' thing that we all know we're founded on & are a part of...


It just goes on and on until we have no history left. Like it or not, it is all a part of the history of our great nation. It just goes to show how far the South has come. Now if some of the criticizers would clean up their own backyards up in Chicago, Washington, Cincinnati, Detroit, NYC. Maybe the North could start moving along with their racial problems.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

Nevada said:


> I'm saying that racism still exists in America.


Yep, and it still exists in Germany, France, Britain. I bet it still exist in Japan, China, India, Africa. I ask again what is the difference when people in New York city look down on us country bumpkins, or Republicans look down on Democrats? Or Chinese looking down on Japanese? Isn't the real problem man looking down on his fellow man regardless of group identification? One group has always looked down on another whether it be race, religion, or political affiliation. The whole focus on race is just a political agenda. It seems to me there are those that want division.

On other points, I can't abide people who look to be insulted, Who examine every word, every facial expression, every slight tone change in voice, trying to find an insult. They are the ones who have a problem. This makes me prejudiced against them, regardless of race, religion, or political affiliation.

This quote applies to many peoples, and not just about race either. Booker T Washington just happened to see it in some of the people he knew. You could eliminate the italicized words and it is still true of some people regardless of group affiliation. 



> "There is a class of _ colored_ people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs and the hardships _of the ***** race_ before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs â partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want _the *****_ to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs."
> â Booker T. Washington


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I'm saying that racism still exists in America.


Racism has existed since the beginning of human (and pre-human) history, and will exist until there is only one race with no visible differences left.

It's human nature


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Racism has existed since the beginning of human (and pre-human) history, and will exist until there is only one race with no visible differences left.
> 
> It's human nature


At which time class distinction will take its place in order to give every one a reason to hate each other.....


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> At which time class distinction will take its place in order to give every one a reason to hate each other.....


Exactly.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> I'm saying that racism still exists in America.


Obama proves it every day


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Racism has existed since the beginning of human (and pre-human) history, and will exist until there is only one race with no visible differences left.
> 
> It's human nature


A point made my Garrett Morris in a 1977 SNL skit called "Black Perspective". With Julian Bond, then state senator from GA, and future head of the NAACP. 

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8QEIaATPis"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8QEIaATPis[/ame]


----------



## dizzy (Jun 25, 2013)

There is only one race-the human race. I know that I have German, English, Irish, Scottish, Jewish and Canadian ancestors-my mom is from Canada. I am often asked if I'm Native American, I honestly don't know.

My kids have Italian thrown into the mixture-my late FIL's parents were from Italy. And, my SIL is Puerto Rican.

I have cousin's that are half Japanese American. I have 2 nieces that are adopted from India. To me all of these people are family. We don't all have the same skin tone, but we're all part of the same race, the human race.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Obama has stirred up a hornets nest. We were much better off with race relations before he was elected. The first thing he did was to interfere with the police and Professor Gates. The Beer Summit, what did it accomplish? Nothing! From then til now he has caused more divisiveness and strife in the USA than any other president ever as far as race relations. He has taken us backwards 50 years.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"I'm saying that racism still exists in America."

Of course it does. Obama's election showed it.:facepalm:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

dizzy said:


> I know that I have German, English, Irish, Scottish, Jewish and Canadian ancestors-my mom is from Canada.


WOW..... I had heard those Canadian women get around!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

FourDeuce said:


> "I'm saying that racism still exists in America."
> 
> Of course it does. Obama's election showed it.:facepalm:


Strange. Previously I pointed out that racist people I knew in the 50s & 60s were still alive today, but conservatives said I was living in the past.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Strange. Previously I pointed out that racist people I knew in the 50s & 60s were still alive today, but conservatives said I was living in the past.


I don't think you are living in the past. But you just might be living in a place called Happy Acres, or perhaps somewhere agricultural with the main crop being pistachios, almonds, or pecans.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by dizzy View Post
> I know that I have German, English, Irish, Scottish, Jewish and Canadian ancestors-my mom is from Canada.


Those are mostly nationalities. (and one religion)
They have little to do with "race", which is determined by genetics, not geography


----------



## dizzy (Jun 25, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Those are mostly nationalities. (and one religion)
> They have little to do with "race", which is determined by genetics, not geography


But look at what they are and the fighting that goes on between all of those nationalities. That is just as bad as racism. And how about how the Irish were treated in parts of this country and England? 
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~UG03/omara-alwala/IrishKennedys.html As far as I'm concerned, that's racism.

Look at how Italians are still being portrayed in commercials, TV shows, etc. My BIL told me that someone told him that many people in this area considered marrying an Italian to be as bad as marrying a black. 

Racism isn't just based on color. It can also be based on nationality, religion, or both.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I thought the Charleston shootings pretty much settled that question.





Nevada said:


> I'm saying that racism still exists in America.


The question was not whether racism still exists in America. It was whether racism is being seen in a specific instance where it is not really present. Racism can simultaneously exist in some places and not in others.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Nevada is stuck in the 50's tonight. No disrespect intended, Nevada but you really don't know how change has come about because you have not lived it. You live in Nevada where you probably never have had much racism. You don't have much of a black population. You have a lot larger foreign popluation than black. I don't know why you are so hung up on racism but people and circumstances can change over a lifetime.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

dizzy said:


> But look at what they are and the fighting that goes on between all of those nationalities. That is just as bad as racism. And how about how the Irish were treated in parts of this country and England?


http://www.raceandhistory.com/cgi-bin/forum/webbbs_config.pl?md=read;id=1638



> If Queen Elizabeth I had lived in the 20th Century. she would have been viewed with the same horror as Hitler and Stalin. Her policy of Irish genocide was pursued with such evil zest it boggles the mind of modern men. But Elizabeth was only setting the stage for the even more savage program that was to follow her, directed specifically to exterminate the Irish. James II and Charles I continued Elizabeth&#65533;s campaign, but Cromwell almost perfected it.





> Although African ******* were better suited to work in the semi-tropical climates of the Caribbean, they had to be purchased, while the Irish were free for the catching, so to speak. It is not surprising that Ireland became the biggest source of livestock for the English slave trade.





> Subsequently some 52,000 Irish, mostly women and sturdy boys and girls, were sold to Barbados and Virginia alone. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were taken prisoners and ordered transported and sold as slaves. In 1656, Cromwell&#65533;s Council of State ordered that 1000 Irish girls and 1000 Irish boys be rounded up and taken to Jamaica to be sold as slaves to English planters. As horrendous as these numbers sound, it only reflects a small part of the evil program, as most of the slaving activity was not recorded.





> Although the Africans and Irish were housed together and were the property of the planter owners, the Africans received much better treatment,


You never hear of the Irish slave trade.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Thanks BlackFeather. None of that, in any way, excuses the USA for its role in slavery. But so many seem to think we hold a unique place in history. The truth is there is evil in humans everywhere. Man has only begun to take the first few steps out of the dark ages.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

I remember my Grandfather talking about how the Irish were treated when they came into Virginia, the stories had been handed down to him through his father and grandfather. They were treated horribly, like the lowest kind of trashy people. That is mainly why they came further south. They were paid the very lowest of wages even though they came into the country with highly skilled trades.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Nevada said:


> I'm saying that racism still exists in America.


Yeah and to me black racism towards whites is much more prevalent than the other way around.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

mnn2501 said:


> Yeah and to me black racism towards whites is much more prevalent than the other way around.


It is. I find it mostly in the younger people in their 30's and 40's. People of all colors around my age are very friendly towards each other. Living here where the whites are the minority, I don't see much prejudice in older people. Usually we can smile at each other and find something to say to each other like "how are you today" or we talk about the terrible heat right now. :sing:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Racism isn't just based on color. It can also be based on nationality, religion, or both.


You're confusing bigotry and prejudice with racism
Racism is about race, and nationality makes no difference to a racist


----------



## dizzy (Jun 25, 2013)

Forget it. It's not worth it.


----------



## hippygirl (Apr 3, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> At which time class distinction will take its place in order to give every one a reason to hate each other.....


...and "society" comes full circle!


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

It makes me think of the "boy who cried wolf" story. We have become numb to "racism" because it has been so over-used. 

It stands to reason there is going to be racism from blacks or other ethnic groups towards whites. They were suppressed for many years, and now that they feel free and confident enough to express it, let it out. This too shall pass, let them blow off the built up steam and they will come around, just like whites have done since the civil rights actions were passed. Always gonna be a few whose minds are set in stone but the majority of people *want* to get along.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

MO_cows said:


> It makes me think of the "boy who cried wolf" story. We have become numb to "racism" because it has been so over-used.
> 
> It stands to reason there is going to be racism from blacks or other ethnic groups towards whites. They were suppressed for many years, and now that they feel free and confident enough to express it, let it out. This too shall pass, let them blow off the built up steam and they will come around, just like whites have done since the civil rights actions were passed. Always gonna be a few whose minds are set in stone but the majority of people *want* to get along.


I thought this for awhile but I noticed that the practice of hate feeds on itself, egging itself down to lower and lower levels. The only cure for it is to stop hating or at least act as if the hating has stopped. Then sooner or later THAT becomes the standard applied- that what they apply to themselves is what they apply to all others.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *The only cure for it is to stop hating or at least act as if the hating has stopped.* Then sooner or later THAT becomes the standard applied- that what they apply to themselves is what they apply to all others.


Don't you find it ironic that one of the most contentious threads lately was one that was started with that same suggestion?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

There exists within each person, two wolves. An evil wolf and a good wolf. They are at battle. If you wonder which wolf within you will win the battle, it is obvious. It is always the wolf you feed.

To believe that society must endure racist Blacks and bow to their every demand as a way to undo what has been done in the recent and distant past, shows a lack of understanding of human nature. 

Racism is the evil wolf. Many Blacks are feeding their evil wolf. So far, the more they feed it, the more they gain. I see no interest in creating a level playing field. Perhaps a couple hundred years of Black domination over Whites and they'll give up talk about reparations. Perhaps.

Europeans that came to this continent did some evil things. But the government, economic design, work ethic and social standard that was brought here proved to be the most successful plan this world has ever seen. Would you prefer the African model, where tribal wars, starvation and genocide are common? 

At this point in World history, it might not be the time to hand control of this country over to Blacks out of a sense of fairness.

If a bully is punching you in the nose and taking your lunch money, at what point does the bully feel he has taken enough? If we continue to create unearned advantages to Blacks and abandon the social model that built this country, when will these aggressors be appeased?

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fg6J1Skptbs[/ame]


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> Read an article this morning about a poster in a mechanic's shop.
> According to the article, the poster
> As far as I can tell, the poster doesn't mention any race, just the names of cities.
> Some cities are high in crime, You'd have to look up the stats to see who is committing the crime.
> Is this racist, or are they grasping at racist straws to marginalize gun ownership?


Based on what you posted it appears to be a case of grasping.


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

Might be true or notâ¦who knowsâ¦.

http://nypost.com/2015/07/18/obama-has-been-collecting-personal-data-for-a-secret-race-database/

So civil-rights attorneys and urban activist groups will be able to exploit them to show patterns of âracial disparitiesâ and âsegregation,â even if no other evidence of discrimination exists.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

[ame]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u2TNrlIv2bY[/ame]

Maxine Walter confirms the Obama plan for a non-profit of his to do seek out data to control the future of society


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

For many years, I have been trying to find out what exactly constitutes racism - or what others perceive it to be.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Trixie said:


> For many years, I have been trying to find out what exactly constitutes racism - or what others perceive it to be.


It's like pornography. Hard to define exactly but you know it when you see it!


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Or when new needs a pass or excuse,or advantage or political manipulation.

And rarely when it is is true. Due to the number of false claims true claims may fall on silent ears.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

It is called the race card. In any situation where you feel you are not being offered the superior position, you can pull out the race card and get what you want, without question.
Recently a Black woman was sarcastic with a Cop. The situation got out of hand and she ended up going to jail. Was this because she was Black? I don't know. I've never tested the situation. Perhaps if half of the White people got argumentative with Cops, we could compare that to the number of Black that show Cops no respect and see if there is an up tick in arrests resulting in an initial inconsequential traffic stop.

Stop calling refusal to comply with Cop's reasonable directions racism.

In every case I've seen on the news where there is alleged police brutality, it starts out with an out of control person that refuses to cooperate with the Cops. When Blacks, as a definable group, have a far greater disrespect for Cops, encounter Cops and feel they have no obligation to show respect, there will be an ignition of emotion and arrests will result. During an arrest of a resisting person, injuries are likely.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

haypoint said:


> It is called the race card. In any situation where you feel you are not being offered the superior position, you can pull out the race card and get what you want, without question.
> Recently a Black woman was sarcastic with a Cop. The situation got out of hand and she ended up going to jail. Was this because she was Black? I don't know. I've never tested the situation. Perhaps if half of the White people got argumentative with Cops, we could compare that to the number of Black that show Cops no respect and see if there is an up tick in arrests resulting in an initial inconsequential traffic stop.
> 
> Stop calling refusal to comply with Cop's reasonable directions racism.
> ...


I don't know if it was motivated by racism or not, but what I saw of that video, the woman didn't behave well but the officer also had an "I must win" complex. He could have just wrote her a ticket and told his buddies what a witch she was later, but no, he had to show her who was boss. Totally unnecessary for a minor traffic violation. 

If she was an armed robbery suspect or something, sure, do whatever it takes, there is a known threat. But to drag a lady motorist out of the car and physically subdue her, arrest her, over a blinker or some such? Sorry, that's way too heavy handed for me. Again, we simply don't know if the cop's attitude was due to race or if he's that big a jerkhole to everybody. 

I'm not excusing her behavior either, it is NEVER the smartest plan of action to mouth off to a cop and be uncooperative, but running her mouth did not warrant the "takedown" he put on her. 

I have seen video where an irate (white male) motorist chews out the cop, tears up the ticket and drives away. The cop shakes his head and gets on with his day. That motorist would have a warrant issued if they don't respond to the ticket, the cop knows there will be justice, just delayed, and doesn't get all fired up about it. That's a much better attitude for a minor traffic infraction.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I'm not excusing her behavior either, it is NEVER the smartest plan of action to mouth off to a cop and be uncooperative, but running her mouth did not warrant the "takedown" he put on her.


The "takedown" came after she struggled with him by jerking away, and he says she also kicked him.

If she hadn't started with an attitude, he would have written a ticket and let her go.

He asked her more than once to put out her cigarette and step out of the vehicle, and she kept telling him she didn't have to do anything he said.

I don't think it had anything at all to do with "race"


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The "takedown" came after she struggled with him by jerking away, and he says she also kicked him.
> 
> If she hadn't started with an attitude, he would have written a ticket and let her go.
> 
> ...


Thanks to Obama and his race baiting hate squad, some people are stupid enough to believe they don't have to do what the cops tell them to do.
Morons.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The "takedown" came after she struggled with him by jerking away, and he says she also kicked him.
> 
> If she hadn't started with an attitude, he would have written a ticket and let her go.
> 
> ...


If I was going to pass judgement on him over the race aspect, I would want to review his other dash cam files and see if I could find an uncooperative white woman for comparison.

I'm passing judgement on him for being too zealous or aggressive for a minor traffic stop. Why did she need to get out of the car to write her a ticket? I've had lots of tickets in the past, still get pulled over from time to time, even traveling out of state, and I don't remember ever being asked to step out of the car. Usually, they ask you to stay in your car, for your own safety. Smoking is legal, why did she need to put out her cigarette? If he would have treated her outburst more like you would a 2 year old having a tantrum, instead of America's Most Wanted, there could have been a much better outcome, doncha think? I expect the better behavior, the "bigger person" to be the cop. They are supposed to be trained for it.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Situations like this do not elevate, they escalate. One step at a time.

Recent situation: Detroit, 3AM, Cadillac pulls out of seedy hotel. Driver fails to stop at stop sign. Minor offence. Cops put on the lights, bump the siren. Driver continues for several blocks. Cops emotions rise. Eventually, car pulls over. Cops approach. Since he came from a place known to deal drugs, Cops are on high alert.
Suddenly, the car door swings open. That is what people do when they want to shoot Cops. Cops pull their guns, order the guy to close the door. Driver refuses. Driver begins fumbling with something under the seat. Cops order driver to put hands on steering wheel. Driver refuses. Driver yells something about wanting to kill a Cop. Cop pulls the door open the rest of the way and pulls driver away from whatever he has under the seat. Out of the car, two Cops call for backup and try to get cuffs on the driver. Driver resists. Cop starts punching driver in the temple while holding the driver down with his other arm around the head. 
Eventually, bleeding from the head, driver is brought into custody. Driver had license revoked, so driving on revoked license, ran a stop sign, refused to stop, cocaine was found under the car's seat. 
End result? Cop fired, charges against driver dropped and City settled by paying the driver $100,000.

This was an escalation, small steps until it was out of control. Everyone wants to criticize the Cop for slugging the guy for running a stop sign in the middle of the night. 
Just as they are doing now with the gal that didn't use her signal. Escalation by her orchestration and her distain for Cops or perhaps White people in general.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> If I was going to pass judgement on him over the race aspect, I would want to review his other dash cam files and see if I could find an uncooperative white woman for comparison.
> 
> I'm passing judgement on him for being too zealous or aggressive for a minor traffic stop. Why did she need to get out of the car to write her a ticket? I've had lots of tickets in the past, still get pulled over from time to time, even traveling out of state, and I don't remember ever being asked to step out of the car. Usually, they ask you to stay in your car, for your own safety. Smoking is legal, why did she need to put out her cigarette? If he would have treated her outburst more like you would a 2 year old having a tantrum, instead of America's Most Wanted, there could have been a much better outcome, doncha think? I expect the better behavior, the "bigger person" to be the cop. They are supposed to be trained for it.


Let's assume there was a reason the Cop asked her to put out the cigarette. Ever see the bad guy in a movie blow smoke in the face of the person they want to show dominance over? Let's entertain the possibility that she blew smoke in his face. Putting out the cigarette is reasonable, no one has to put up with smoke in their face. So she refuses. What's the next step? Why is it you are polite to Cops? It shows respect? Sure. But also, I don't want to give them any excuse to place me under closer scrutiny. She didn't display any respect for the badge. In fact she showed distain. So, within his authority, he orders her out of the car. So, to escalate matters, she refuses. What does he do now? Accept her refusal? Why would someone refuse, unless they were hiding something. If the Cop has a reasonable suspicion and she refuses his order, can he use what is considered non-deadly force, like a tazer? Yup. Another step in the escalation. No way am I getting into a "push comes to shove" verbal with a cop. She does and takes it another few steps of escalation with an actual push comes to shove incident. 

Bond is normally 10%. She couldn't come up with $5000. So her bond was $50,000? Wow. The judge must have seen her before.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

haypoint said:


> Situations like this do not elevate, they escalate. One step at a time.
> 
> Recent situation: Detroit, 3AM, Cadillac pulls out of seedy hotel. Driver fails to stop at stop sign. Minor offence. Cops put on the lights, bump the siren. Driver continues for several blocks. Cops emotions rise. Eventually, car pulls over. Cops approach. Since he came from a place known to deal drugs, Cops are on high alert.
> Suddenly, the car door swings open. That is what people do when they want to shoot Cops. Cops pull their guns, order the guy to close the door. Driver refuses. Driver begins fumbling with something under the seat. Cops order driver to put hands on steering wheel. Driver refuses. Driver yells something about wanting to kill a Cop. Cop pulls the door open the rest of the way and pulls driver away from whatever he has under the seat. Out of the car, two Cops call for backup and try to get cuffs on the driver. Driver resists. Cop starts punching driver in the temple while holding the driver down with his other arm around the head.
> ...


what a load of BS trying to equate these two situation. And I don't know anything of your Detroit story except your words and you don't see a problem with what the cop did? You don't see where he crossed a line? There are two cops there and they can't get a guy under control without resorting to potentially deadly force? 

People like you making excuses for cops like that is why we have problem cops today.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> what a load of BS trying to equate these two situation. And I don't know anything of your Detroit story except your words and you don't see a problem with what the cop did? You don't see where he crossed a line? There are two cops there and they can't get a guy under control without resorting to potentially deadly force?
> 
> People like you making excuses for cops like that is why we have problem cops today.


1.If the driver had complied, it wouldn't have escalated.
2. You have never put cuffs on a resisting person in your life.

Cop was wrong, emotions flared. But if people can get the Cop's adrenalin into the stratosphere and provoke a situation and collect 100 Gs and dropped charges, all day long, suckers, all day long.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

haypoint said:


> 1.If the driver had complied, it wouldn't have escalated.
> 2. You have never put cuffs on a resisting person in your life.
> 
> *Cop was wrong, emotions flared*. But if people can get the Cop's adrenalin into the stratosphere and provoke a situation and collect 100 Gs and dropped charges, all day long, suckers, all day long.


Hey, lookie there, we agree after all. 

Of course people are going to bait cops. Get them to rough you up and then "settle" for more money than you've ever seen before in your life. Feature a case like that on tv one time and then a whole class of "recruits" think, shoot, that looks like a good line of work. The cops are supposed to be trained for stuff like that, and taught to control their emotions better than the average Joe. They don't have to "win" every confrontation, just the ones where someone is in danger if they don't. Just like how they call off chases for safety reasons and let people go, unless they know they are chasing a dangerous person.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

MO_cows said:


> Hey, lookie there, we agree after all.
> 
> Of course people are going to bait cops. Get them to rough you up and then "settle" for more money than you've ever seen before in your life. Feature a case like that on tv one time and then a whole class of "recruits" think, shoot, that looks like a good line of work. The cops are supposed to be trained for stuff like that, and taught to control their emotions better than the average Joe. They don't have to "win" every confrontation, just the ones where someone is in danger if they don't. Just like how they call off chases for safety reasons and let people go, unless they know they are chasing a dangerous person.


I can't even believe you think this. So it comes down to screaming, yelling , spitting, etc at a cop and off you go without penalty. The worse you behave, the better the result for you. 
Like Baltimore, the penalty for that is death but not by cop. It's death of community by gang rule.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

where I want to said:


> I can't even believe you think this. So it comes down to screaming, yelling , spitting, etc at a cop and off you go without penalty. The worse you behave, the better the result for you.
> Like Baltimore, the penalty for that is death but not by cop. It's death of community by gang rule.


I don't think you took it the way I meant it. Or do you have such faith in your fellow man you don't think they would intentionally try to get some bruises and then a payoff?

And I never said without penalty. If you refuse to sign a ticket, or tear it up and leave it behind, it still goes in the computer. When you don't answer the charge a warrant is issued. Usually they don't go around and pick people up for traffic warrants, it just sits in the computer until you get pulled over again. And you will. Now you are under arrest and any necessary force will be used to bring you in. So you might think you got away with being nasty to a cop, but you really didn't. You'll pay later and worse. 

The chases, heck yes I don't think they should be chasing around at high speed over a minor infraction and putting the public at risk. There have been some tragic deaths as a result of chases.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

haypoint said:


> It is called the race card. In any situation where you feel you are not being offered the superior position, you can pull out the race card and get what you want, without question.
> Recently a Black woman was sarcastic with a Cop. The situation got out of hand and she ended up going to jail. Was this because she was Black? I don't know. I've never tested the situation. Perhaps if half of the White people got argumentative with Cops, we could compare that to the number of Black that show Cops no respect and see if there is an up tick in arrests resulting in an initial inconsequential traffic stop.
> 
> Stop calling refusal to comply with Cop's reasonable directions racism.
> ...


Post of the day award.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

haypoint said:


> 1.If the driver had complied, it wouldn't have escalated.
> 2. You have never put cuffs on a resisting person in your life.
> 
> Cop was wrong, emotions flared. But if people can get the Cop's adrenalin into the stratosphere and provoke a situation and collect 100 Gs and dropped charges, all day long, suckers, all day long.


so the city needs to learn to better hire and train cops not to let adrenaline get the best of them. How much is the city going to have to pay till they learn that lesson? When will they learn to screen out people who think cops have a right to make citizens submit to the cops? That was the Texas problem. 

And do you equally justify a husband beating up his wife because she doesn't behave according to his wishes? If she nags him long enough, won't keep the house clean, or looks at other men, do you think it is OK or understandable that he is going to have to bop her once in a while to maintain proper order in the house? Or, short of the wife physically attacking the husband, do you expect the husband to never hit the wife no matter how mad she makes him? As a society we have changed over the last 50 years and now expect the husband to not beat the wife. Why can't a trained police force act at least as well? 

In your Detroit case, with two cops there, the cops can usually back off and wait for reinforcements. I'm no fan of tasers, but that's just what they are made for. Needlessly getting into hand to hand combat can not have a good outcome; someone is going to lose and get hurt.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

where I want to said:


> I can't even believe you think this. So it comes down to screaming, yelling , spitting, etc at a cop and off you go without penalty. The worse you behave, the better the result for you.
> Like Baltimore, the penalty for that is death but not by cop. It's death of community by gang rule.


no spitting. I'm not sure how that crime is classified, but that is some form of assault or battery. As for the screaming and yelling, yeah, people have the freedom to say all sorts of bad things to gov't officials, but the cop may be able to arrest them for some sort of public disorder if it is bad enough or if the cop is unable to carry out his investigation for the driving vioolation. A woman smoking a cig in her car is not public disorder.

I don't know the specifics of the dead TX woman except that on the radio they are saying she committed suicide. So I'm not defending her or the cop in this case, I'm just speaking in generalities.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Her tox screen showed high levels of THC in her system, so it's possible she was high and that contributed to her attitude.

It really doesn't matter "why" he *asked* her to put out the cigarette.
Maybe he's allergic to the smoke

What matters is she said "*I don't have to do anything you say"*

Then he *asked* her to step out of the car, to which she gave the same reply.

Are cops supposed to just say "OK" and walk away?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

MO_cows said:


> I don't think you took it the way I meant it. Or do you have such faith in your fellow man you don't think they would intentionally try to get some bruises and then a payoff?
> 
> And I never said without penalty. If you refuse to sign a ticket, or tear it up and leave it behind, it still goes in the computer. When you don't answer the charge a warrant is issued. Usually they don't go around and pick people up for traffic warrants, it just sits in the computer until you get pulled over again. And you will. Now you are under arrest and any necessary force will be used to bring you in. So you might think you got away with being nasty to a cop, but you really didn't. You'll pay later and worse.
> 
> The chases, heck yes I don't think they should be chasing around at high speed over a minor infraction and putting the public at risk. There have been some tragic deaths as a result of chases.


Right after they've sobered up, got rid of the weapon, changed clothes and cut hair (I was asked to identify a hit and run driver they caight later), cleaned the blood from the car, dumped the drugs, etc etc etc. 
You're thinking only of the people who are idiots and protecting them from their idiocy. But that is not the majority of cases police have where their are altercations- the majority of those who run or fight are doing it because they have a reason for it and don't want to be caught.
The reason for stopping car chases is to protect the piblic from the criminal who doesn't care who they kill. The reason for your suggestion is to protect the criminal from themselves.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

where I want to said:


> Right after they've sobered up, got rid of the weapon, changed clothes and cut hair (I was asked to identify a hit and run driver they caight later), cleaned the blood from the car, dumped the drugs, etc etc etc.
> Your thinking only of the people who are idiots and protecting them from their idiocy. But that is not the majority of cases police have where their are altercations- the majority of those who run or fight are doing it because they have a reason for it and don't want to be caught.
> The reason for stopping car chases is to protect the piblic from the criminal who does care whobthey kill. The reason for your suggestion is to protect the criminal from themselves.


I was talking about a minor traffic infraction like the woman who died in jail was stopped for. No weapons, no blood in the car, etc. You keep adding drama where there should be none.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Her tox screen showed high levels of THC in her system, so it's possible she was high and that contributed to her attitude.
> 
> It really doesn't matter "why" he *asked* her to put out the cigarette.
> Maybe he's allergic to the smoke
> ...


It does matter why. What he is supposed to do is conduct the traffic stop in a professional manner. I've been stopped too many times to count and I've never been asked to step out of the car except when once when I had fallen asleep and the cop wanted to give me a drunk test and twice when I've told the cop I was armed. 

The cop got his man berries pinched because he didn't feel respected, so he wanted to show he could push her around.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

MO_cows said:


> I was talking about a minor traffic infraction like the woman who died in jail was stopped for. No weapons, no blood in the car, etc. You keep adding drama where there should be none.


That is frankly the way most criminal activity comes to light. Through the police running into it by accident (or even as an excuse.) Only on TV is there endless money, time and resources to track down crime.
A police presence is the closer reality to dealing with crime than otherwise.
I'm not adding drama. It's part of a policeman's life. They never know when the drama will start. But I can guarantee that having a policy of letting everyone choose when to be arrested will result in few arrests. Especially among those who are really doing something worthy of arrest.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

DEKE01 said:


> It does matter why. What he is supposed to do is conduct the traffic stop in a professional manner. I've been stopped too many times to count and I've never been asked to step out of the car except when once when I had fallen asleep and the cop wanted to give me a drunk test and twice when I've told the cop I was armed.
> 
> The cop got his man berries pinched because he didn't feel respected, so he wanted to show he could push her around.


Could it be he though she was intoxicated?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> I was talking about a minor traffic infraction like the woman who died in jail was stopped for. No weapons, no blood in the car, etc. You keep adding drama where there should be none.


This is armchair quarterbacking at its finest. The woman did not die due to a minor traffic violation. A whole string of events occurred that she could have prevented. 
If I had time, I wish I could create a flow chart, with choices/actions detailing each step, showing that when she had a choice, she chose the wrong box. That led to the next set of choices, bad choices and so forth. Each time the Cop remained within his authority. Refusal to comply with a Cop's reasonable order is a reason for suspicion. Each successive refusal isn't an affront to the Cop's ego, it is an increased suspicion of a crime.


To put it into a simpler form, I know a mother that observed her 3 year old son walking around with a closed fist. She asked him what he had in his hand. He quickly put his hand behind his back and stated, "Nothing." Mom asked to see his open hand. Son refused. Mom attempted to take his arm and open his little fist. But he bolted away. Mom grabbed for him, but he ran outside. Mom didn't know what he had, could be pills, something sharp or even the goldfish. She chased him down in the back yard and grabbed him and forced his hand open. His hand was empty, he just didn't want to submit to the inspection. Mom had gone way overboard over what turned out to be nothing. See the similarities with that and the antagonistic woman at a routine traffic stop? 

I'll admit there is a bit of what came first, chicken or the egg. Many Blacks hate Cops. They don't trust them. They don't respect them. This comes from a long history of past injustices. So today, and generally for the past 40 years, there is an expectation of injustice where none exists. But the lack of respect lingers. Showing no respect for Cops manifests itself in ways that end badly for Blacks. Trying to outrun the Cops escalates the situation. Resisting arrest escalates the situation. Threatening to kill the Cops escalates the situation. Trying to take the Cop's gun escalates the situation. Refusal to put down the gun, even if it is a plastic replica, escalates the situation. Refusal to stop the car escalates the situation. I could go on and on. But much of these actions are a reflection of a total lack of respect for society in general and Cops specifically. At each step in the escalation process the threat of injury to the Cop and to the violator increases. If you don't want trouble, simply stop acting like you are the ex-wife on the Jerry Springer Show. 

Last year 330 Blacks were killed by other Blacks in Detroit. The problem isn't White Cops picking on Black people.

I may not have made myself clear. Here is a Black man that does a good job of explaining it:
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR465HoCWFQ[/ame]


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

where I want to said:


> Could it be he though she was intoxicated?


has the cop said that? I really don't know.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> It does matter why. *What he is supposed to do is conduct the traffic stop in a professional manner.* I've been stopped too many times to count and I've never been asked to step out of the car except when once when I had fallen asleep and the cop wanted to give me a drunk test and twice when I've told the cop I was armed.
> 
> The cop got his man berries pinched because he didn't feel respected, so he wanted to show he could push her around.


Your past has nothing to do with this

He said "Would you mind putting out your cigarette for me PLEASE"?

That's about as professional as one can be

She was belligerent and uncooperative from the beginning, and resisted even more when told she was under arrest.

The autopsy showed high levels of THC, and "30-40 cuts on the left wrist, consistent with self inflicted wounds" done over the past 2 weeks.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Your past has nothing to do with this
> 
> He said "Would you mind putting out your cigarette for me PLEASE"?
> 
> ...


and when asked, she had every right to tell him to bugger off. It's more than stupid to do so in that situation, but she has the right. And the cop has no more right to force her to put it out than I do when people are smoking in their car. 

You keep going on about the autopsy. Why is that? Did the cop have the autopsy results available when he pulled her out of the car?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> and when asked, *she had every right to tell him to bugger off.* It's more than stupid to do so in that situation, but she has the right. And the cop has no more right to force her to put it out than I do when people are smoking in their car.
> 
> *You keep going on about the autopsy. Why is that?*


No, she had no right to refuse a reasonable request, politely given

The autopsy shows she may have been under the influence which could have contributed to her attitude. The scars on the wrist show she may have been suicidal



> Did the cop have the autopsy results available when he pulled her out of the car?


Sorry, I mistook you for someone wanting to have a serious discussion.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Love that Chris Rock video!

Obviously there are some here who are going to defend the cops right up until it's them face down on the side of the road. I'm not anti cop, I just think due to the authority we give them they need to be held to a high standard and this guy failed the test. He had to win, and a woman who already had problems is now dead. There could have been a much different outcome if he wrote her up for the actual infraction and sent her on her way.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> It does matter why. What he is supposed to do is conduct the traffic stop in a professional manner. I've been stopped too many times to count and I've never been asked to step out of the car except when once when I had fallen asleep and the cop wanted to give me a drunk test and twice when I've told the cop I was armed.
> 
> The cop got his man berries pinched because he didn't feel respected, so he wanted to show he could push her around.


You sound like a good candidate. Since you claim to get stopped by Cops more times than you can count, you might be able to shed some light on this racist issue. Let's assume you have been stopped 20 times and it all went well. The Cop was polite and you were respectful. Right? 

Now, for the next 20 times you get pulled over, I'd like you to do some acting. Don't pull over right away, go at least 3 blocks first. Swear at the Cop. Refuse to show your driver's license. Put your hands where the Cop can't see them. Get out of the car and get loud. Whatever the Cops says, refuse and swear. When he wants you out of the car, resist. Kick him. When he tries to put cuffs on you, resist. Go for his gun. If you can, break away and run. Make the Cop chase you.

Then, document the differences in those 20 stops from the previous 20 stops. I think you'll see that it isn't the color of a person's skin that determines what turns routine traffic stops into a major deal. It is your behavior.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> Love that Chris Rock video!
> 
> Obviously there are some here who are going to defend the cops right up until it's them face down on the side of the road. I'm not anti cop, I just think due to the authority we give them they need to be held to a high standard and this guy failed the test. He had to win, and a woman who already had problems is now dead. There could have been a much different outcome if he wrote her up for the actual infraction and sent her on her way.


You and I share something. You and I cannot know if she would be alive today if the traffic stop had gone well. She had attempted to slit her wrists prior to her arrest. She may have hung herself at home, or not. 

I don't think it was about the Cop needing to "win" anything. Sure, Police work attracts, perhaps fosters, what you call ego. Lots of folks shy away from confrontation. Cops cannot. If you are not able to step into a dangerous situation, don't become a Cop, or Fireman, or join the Armed Services. 

If you simply skip over the five or six steps that escalated this event, believing that this was a minor traffic stop that because of the Cop resulted in the woman's death, it is excessive. But when you take each step, one at a time, the blame shifts dramatically. Easy to look over the chain of events, see the beginning and see each step and the result. You can go back in time and say, "He could have done this." You can hold the Cop to any high standard you want, but I don't hear any threshold of guilt required of the woman. Why? Would it be different if it were a guy that assaulted the Cop? You think women are weak and tender and can be excused for kicking a cop? That's not racism, that's sexism.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, she had no right to refuse a reasonable request, politely given
> 
> The autopsy shows she may have been under the influence which could have contributed to her attitude. The scars on the wrist show she may have been suicidal
> 
> ...


On what do you base your opinion that she has no right to refuse his request? Why did you give gov't such authority? 

And why do you keep bring up the autopsy report? It is not a part of a cops reasonable suspicion. Did the cop ever say he suspected drugs?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> On what do you base your opinion that she has no right to refuse his request? Why did you give gov't such authority?
> 
> And why do you keep bring up the autopsy report? It is not a part of a cops reasonable suspicion. Did the cop ever say he suspected drugs?


You're just repeating yourself now, and it's obvious you made up your mind before ever posting

If you can't remember asking those questions before, there's little point in trying to explain anything


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

haypoint said:


> You sound like a good candidate. Since you claim to get stopped by Cops more times than you can count, you might be able to shed some light on this racist issue. Let's assume you have been stopped 20 times and it all went well. The Cop was polite and you were respectful. Right?
> 
> Now, for the next 20 times you get pulled over, I'd like you to do some acting. Don't pull over right away, go at least 3 blocks first. Swear at the Cop. Refuse to show your driver's license. Put your hands where the Cop can't see them. Get out of the car and get loud. Whatever the Cops says, refuse and swear. When he wants you out of the car, resist. Kick him. When he tries to put cuffs on you, resist. Go for his gun. If you can, break away and run. Make the Cop chase you.
> 
> Then, document the differences in those 20 stops from the previous 20 stops. I think you'll see that it isn't the color of a person's skin that determines what turns routine traffic stops into a major deal. It is your behavior.


I think for the most part, my days of getting stopped by cops are behind me. No, the cop wasn't always polite and respectful. My last stop the cop was a 100% jerk until he wrongly believed I was an Afghan vet, then he was 100% friendly and gave me 6 warnings but no citations. BTW - I didn't try to mislead him about being an Afghan vet, I just answered one of his direct Qs, which he repeated 3 times in ever angrier and harsher tones and he misinterpreted my answer. I did satcom work in support of the troops but I was never in theatre. 

Because I am armed these days, I do show the cop empty hands anytime I encounter one. I know I don't have to, but it just seems like a good safety measure for all concerned. 

Yeah, some people behave stupidly and I hate having to defend their stupidly, but that is their right. A lot of cops, a minority but still a lot, behave stupidly as well. I'm far more worried about stupid cops than stupid citizens. 

Are their racist cops, surely this is true. Do I think it is institutional? No. And I'm far more worried about racist cops than jerks who place the race card only in an attempt to gain some sympathy. One of them kills people, the othe4r annoys people. Big diff.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're just repeating yourself now, and it's obvious you made up your mind before ever posting
> 
> If you can't remember asking those questions before, there's little point in trying to explain anything


It sounds like you're the one with your mind made up. And you want to give authority and powers to the cops that SCOTUS and the CONS do not authorize. 

You made an assertion. Back it up. Why does the lady have to comply with a cop request that does not involve safety or a crime? 

And what does the autopsy have to do with with the traffic stop? Did the cop claim reasonable suspicion of a crime or did he just want to show her who was boss? I haven't made up my mind because I all facts are not in evidence, especially to me. You sound like you are an authority in this case. So tell us what you know?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> So tell us what you know?


I know you didn't read and understand my last post, because you asked the same questions again:



> If you can't remember asking those questions before, there's little point in trying to explain anything


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I know you didn't read and understand my last post, because you asked the same questions again:


Ok, maybe I missed a post or maybe you think you said something you didn't say. Whatever. You don't seem to be able to defend your assertions. You just want cops to have lots of authority to do whatever and the people to acquiesce. 

You've asserted the cops directs must be followed but have no case law to back up the claim. You're shooting blanks.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You've asserted the cops directs must be followed but have no case law to back up the claim. You're shooting blanks.


It's a "lawful order" to ask a driver to step out of the vehicle during a traffic stop.
She refused


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

u


MO_cows said:


> It's like pornography. Hard to define exactly but you know it when you see it!


That doesn't answer the question. That says,

"Racism is in the eye, or mind, of the beholder? So we all get to label, insult, perhaps persecute someone because of our own undefinable definition or feelings.'

So, once again, what exactly is racism?

This is a serious question to me.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's a "lawful order" to ask a driver to step out of the vehicle during a traffic stop.
> She refused


What about the cig? You keep avoiding the issue of the cop's apparent anger. Did he ask her to step outside because he was mad about her cig? That is nto a lawful order. He still needs to show cause, which SCOTUS has made fairly easy to do.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> What about the cig? * You keep avoiding* the issue of the cop's apparent anger. Did he ask her to step outside because he was mad about her cig? That is nto a lawful order. He still needs to show cause, which SCOTUS has made fairly easy to do.


You keep avoiding the fact he had every right to tell her what to do

He doesn't have to "show cause" since she had already committed a violation for which she could be arrested

Telling her to put out the cigarette was most likely a prelude to getting her out of the vehicle and into handcuffs


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You keep avoiding the fact he had every right to tell her what to do
> 
> He doesn't have to "show cause" since she had already committed a violation for which she could be arrested
> 
> Telling her to put out the cigarette was most likely a prelude to getting her out of the vehicle and into handcuffs


I asked you to show where he has the right to tell her what to do and you keep avoiding answering. What violation did she commit that she could be arrested for?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I asked you to show where he has the right to tell her what to do and *you keep avoiding answering*. *What violation *did she commit that she could be arrested for?


You keep repeating yourself when I've been giving you answers the whole time

Her violations were running a stop sign and changing lanes without giving a signal, both of which are violations that can lead to an arrest in TX.

You'd know that if you had spent some time looking for real answers.

There's about 58 minutes of video that show the traffic stop before her, and all the events about hers, but you won't find it hanging around in here claiming I'm not telling you anything.

Google is your friend, and if I can find all that information with my crappy dial up, you should be able to do the same


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You keep repeating yourself when I've been giving you answers the whole time
> 
> Her violations were running a stop sign and changing lanes without giving a signal, both of which are violations that can lead to an arrest in TX.
> 
> ...


no, you haven't been giving me answers the whole time. But now you gave me some info. thanks. was that so hard? 

running a stop sign and changing lanes can lead to an arrest? Wow, I'm :shocked: I had no idea. I'll take your word for it but it doesn't sound right. Since those things usually result in a ticket, does the cop get to arrest you just because he doesn't like you? Doesn't like your cig? Doesn't like your attitude?

But you still haven't explained why you think he has every right to tell her what to do. Even when making a legit arrest, his powers are limited.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> no, you haven't been giving me answers the whole time.


Of course I have, and you just ignored them all



> But you still haven't explained why you think he has every right to tell her what to do. Even when making a legit arrest, his powers are limited.


Again you're asking questions I already answered.
I don't "think" he has the right to tell her what to do.

I know he does because it's a "lawful order" like I said several posts back.

Now go do your own research if you want to know more.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Her tox screen showed high levels of THC in her system, so it's possible she was high and that contributed to her attitude.
> 
> It really doesn't matter "why" he *asked* her to put out the cigarette.
> Maybe he's allergic to the smoke
> ...




Since you asked..........

http://www.texasstandard.org/shows/...a-bland-traffic-stop-every-texan-should-know/


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Since you asked..........
> 
> http://www.texasstandard.org/shows/c...n-should-know/


That's the *opinion* of a "civil rights" group.
I asked a cop from TX who has seen the entire video and got the truth


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's the *opinion* of a "civil rights" group.
> I asked a cop from TX who has seen the entire video and got the truth


And that would be?

I don't want to put words in your mouth.
It was his opinion that putting out the cigarette was a lawful order?
When being given a warning ticket (the conclusion of the traffic stop) the officer still has the legal right to arrest you?
That he can demand you step out of the car, a lawful order, without giving a reason?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's the *opinion* of a "civil rights" group.
> I asked a cop from TX who has seen the entire video and got the truth


LOL - 

I agree is was one person's perspective. It remains to be seen how this will work out with full scale legal review. Citing a cops opinion as fact is just absurd. There's a reason why cops have cases thrown out. 

Don't ya just hate those namby pamby people who care about the rights of citizens?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> LOL -
> 
> I agree is was one person's perspective. It remains to be seen how this will work out with full scale legal review.
> 
> ...


I cited his knowledge of TX law as fact.

You've been repeating nothing but your own opinions, and wanting me to provide you with all the facts.


farmrbrown:


> It was his opinion that putting out the cigarette was a lawful order?
> When being given a warning ticket (*the conclusion of the traffic stop*) the officer still has the legal right to arrest you?
> That he can demand you step out of the car, a lawful order, without giving a reason?


He can do all those things, and the stop is "concluded" when he decides to let her leave, or he takes her into custody.

Putting out the cigarette is for safety, and to make it easier to handcuff her.

You two can carry on about this as long as you like.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Would the Texas Dept of Public Safety's opinion count for anything?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...s-jailed-woman-suicide-sandra-bland/30284367/


HEMPSTEAD, Texas &#8212; A trooper who pulled over and later arrested a woman found dead in her jail cell was put on desk duty Friday for violating procedures, the Texas Department of Public Safety said.

Sandra Bland, 28, was arrested July 10, and after spending the weekend in the Waller County jail, she was found hanged in her cell Monday. Harris County's medical examiner said the death was a suicide, but Bland's family disputes the finding.

The FBI has joined the Texas Rangers in investigating the circumstances surrounding her death. The state Public Safety Department and Waller County district attorney have requested that the FBI conduct a forensic analysis on video footage from the incident.

In arresting Bland, the trooper "violated the department's procedures regarding traffic stops and the department's courtesy policy," state public safety officials said Friday without specifying what procedures the trooper, whose name has not been released, had violated.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> *I cited his knowledge of TX law as fact.*
> 
> You've been repeating nothing but your own opinions, and wanting me to provide you with all the facts.
> 
> ...




Man, I'm glad to know that I still know more about the law than some of the cops out there, lol.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Would the Texas Dept of Public Safety's opinion count for anything?


Not to me

I don't care about an anonymous "official's" opinion (according to some reporter) or their PR spin, and I really don't have that much interest in the case to begin with



> Man, I'm glad to know that *I still know more about the law* than some of the cops out there, lol.


Good.

You can answer all Deke's questions


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

That's what I call irony.
If you get a chance, ask your Texas friend *who* the Texas Dept. of Public Safety employs................:huh:


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

thanks farmrbrown. 

some are interested in truly petty bickering and make assertions they can't or won't defend. You, OTOH, have provided some good info. 

In another thread, the petty bickering has been led by the same guy with some really juvenile posts. I'm not playing his game any longer. He'll be along shortly to prove me right about the pettiness.


----------

