# Are Black People now Above the Law?



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

It started with Rodney King---rioting and looting. Perhaps some justification for protests but never for rioting and looting.

Then Trayvon Martin--Again MAYBE some justification for protests --the shooter did follow the kid, but riots and looting?

Next we have the Brown kid--clearly a thieving thug who punched an officer. In my neck of the woods that would endanger a white Roman Catholic priest in full vestments. So what was the justification for riots, arson and looting?

Now we have the giant fellow in New York City, caught in the act of selling untaxed cigarettes, asked to submit to arrest and defiant of police. Had he simply submitted (as you or I would have to) he would still be alive today. Instead he resisted arrest and died. Riots to follow? 

The justice department recently protested that schools punish more black students than whites, hispanics or asians. As a result, schools are now looking for reasons to punish more whites, hispanics and asians, or reasons to let bad behavior by blacks go unpunished. 

Does this mean blacks are now above the law? Are riots and looting to be the new norm?


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

I'm gonna counter with a question... Are police above the law? Seems so to me. They get away with a heck of a lot we can't, no matter what our color...


----------



## sniper69 (Sep 23, 2007)

Just my opinion - but I think the media is putting this all in our face to convince people that the grand jury system is flawed or that changes need to be made to our judicial system. Just an opinion of course. 

There is always the old adage of while watching the right hand, what is the left hand doing? In other words, while the media is fixated on all of this, what is going on behind the scenes that TPTB don't want us to know about, or not know about yet?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I think 0bama is a pyromaniac...


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

HDRider said:


> I think 0bama is a pyromaniac...


Reminds me of a song by one of my favorite bands... 

Firestarter​
I'm the trouble starter, punkin' instigator. 
I'm the fear addicted, danger illustrated. 
I'm a firestarter, twisted firestarter. 
You're a firestarter, twisted firestarter. 
I'm a firestarter, twisted firestarter. 
I'm the B you hated, filth infatuated. 
Yeah! I'm the pain you tasted, fell intoxicated. 

I'm a firestarter, twisted firestarter. 
You're the firestarter, twisted firestarter. 
I'm the self inflicted, mind detonator. 
Yeah! I'm the one infected, twisted animator. 
I'm a firestarter, twisted firestarter. 
You're the firestarter, twisted firestarter. 
I'm a firestarter, twisted firestarter starter


----------



## ninny (Dec 12, 2005)

HDRider said:


> I think 0bama is a pyromaniac...


Hmmm, that's odd, I always thought of him as an AH...

.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Oxankle said:


> It started with Rodney King---rioting and looting. Perhaps some justification for protests but never for rioting and looting.
> 
> Then Trayvon Martin--Again MAYBE some justification for protests --the shooter did follow the kid, but riots and looting?
> 
> ...


Obama, Holder, Sharpton, etc. are pushing the notion that blacks are somehow being targeted by law enforcement simply because of their color. I guess they want some sort of quota system before cops can stop someone. They simply ignore the fact that blacks commit far more crime than other groups per capita. Blacks commit murder 8 times more than whites per capita and they complain that more blacks are sent to prison. As far as police stopping blacks more, put yourself in a cop's position. The black areas in any city are high crime areas and get more patrols for that reason. Suppose you patrol one of those areas and have learned that any vehicle with multiple young black males driving at 3 AM is 90% likely to have at least one subject with drugs or an illegal gun, what are you going to do?


----------



## arcticow (Oct 8, 2006)

Under this administration, the more outrageous the stunt you pull, the more you are covered by the "justice" department and civil rights watchdogs...


----------



## 1shotwade (Jul 9, 2013)

I think one of the saddest moments in american history was the first episode that the president stuck his nose into.
A police officer gets dispatched to a possible break in. Supposedly 2 black breaking into a residence. First thing he finds is 1 black man. Now, the first thing he is thinking is "This appears to be the owner but there is a big chance that if it is the owner that these 2 guys broke in and has his wife with a gun to her head or He may have a gun on him right now and I just can't see it so I need to get this guy outside so that he can either speak more freely or at least find a way to signal me that there is a problem.(when a LEO arrives on a call like this he is taking on responsibility for your safety. Can you imagine him just saying "OK" and leaving with the chance your life or your wifes life is on the line!)
Now instead of complying with law enforcement, ONE OF THE HIGHEST EDUCATED BLACK MEN IN THE COUNTRY,simply decides he "DOES NOT HAVE TO COMPLY WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT'!
Fast forward to the PRESIDENT WHO THINKS WE NEED TO SIT DOWN AND DISCUSS THIS OVER A BEER! Instead of understanding that the officer was there to help and that you can't be of much help if you can't get any cooperation OUR PRESIDENT basically come right out and told the American public that BLACK PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE TO OBEY LAW ENFORCEMENT ! This is a very sad day for our country!
Years back my work was closed and I was sent to another facility. That facility was ran by almost all black people.The secretary(Which happened to be black and NOT in the chain of command) Had this to say to us as soon as we arrived. "You white M.F.ers is work'n for us'n's now!" Along the same lines people at that job site were wearing t-shirts that read "100% BLACK MALE!"
NOW IF i WERE TO WEAR A SHIRT THAT SAID 100% WHITE MALE,i WOULD BE FIRED BEFORE THE DAY WAS OUT!
Now with these things in mind who do you really think is perpetuating racial tension? There isn't a racist bone in my body but I am more skeptical of people I meet.When such a high percentage of one race seems to feel they do not have to follow the same laws we do it a problem and will remain so until that situation changes.I believe 100% in treating other races equal but I also believe 100% in NOT treating them special!

Wade


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Is anyone supprised. This is Obama, this is his background,his dream,what he has lived for his entire life. Eric Holder, Sharpton, JJ, V.Jarrett and her family, Bill Ayers, the Black Panters, Rev. Wright, Black Lib. Theo. the Weather Underground, Frank Marshell Davis, Percy, Sutton, Malcom X ect. ect. 
I'll even throw in Charlie Manson, just for extra fun.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

The rules


âPower is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.â Power is derived from 2 main sources â money and people. âHave-Notsâ must build power from flesh and blood.
âNever go outside the expertise of your people.â It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
âWhenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.â Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
âMake the enemy live up to its own book of rules.â If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
âRidicule is manâs most potent weapon.â There is no defense. Itâs irrational. Itâs infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
âA good tactic is one your people enjoy.â Theyâll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. Theyâre doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
âA tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.â Donât become old news.
âKeep the pressure on. Never let up.â Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
âThe threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.â Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
âIf you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.â Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
âThe price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.â Never let the enemy score points because youâre caught without a solution to the problem.
âPick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.â Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Oxankle said:


> It started with Rodney King---rioting and looting. Perhaps some justification for protests but never for rioting and looting.
> 
> Then Trayvon Martin--Again MAYBE some justification for protests --the shooter did follow the kid, but riots and looting?
> 
> ...


This is the guy that got off easy.















and you ask if black people are above the law. 
Eric Garner was suspected of selling untaxed cigarettes not explosives. Five armed officers decide that was reason enough to use a prohibited choke hold on him and all jump on to bring him down. Your right in many cases the law doesn't seem to apply when the suspect is black. 
Jim


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

I love all this Monday morning quarterbacking. I am surprised there is even a cop responding to calls. I wouldn't respond to a call until after the crimes are long over and just write up a report.

One day these devoted servants will leave you to your own devices. 

And, if you don't like the laws being enforced, work to repeal them. Seems to me you open the law enforcement to unfair enforcement accusations when they aren't sure which laws the general public wants enforced this week.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Anybody who wants to believe blacks are above the law, visit the nearest prison and I think you'll find the answer.

I think the root of the problem is, the so called "leaders" for blacks in America today are self-serving enablers. They keep feeding them the myth that everything bad that happens to them is simply because they are black and whites have it in for them. And when the POTUS feeds this fantasy like he did in the Trayvon Martin case, why shouldn't they believe it? One of the most privileged people on the planet, feeding the myth, it was the ultimate in irony. It's a standard tactic of brainwashing - tell someone something over and over again, enough times, they believe it!

Until a better class of "black leaders" comes along, or black America decides they don't need to be one united group and splinter into economic and other "classes" more like you see with whites, we are going to have to endure this garbage as a society. Think of it as a 2 year old having a tantrum - the less attention paid to them the sooner they get over it!

As far as the specific cases, I think in the Michael Brown case the protestors are in la la land, he provoked his own death. Anyone other than his momma who can't see that is probably a lost cause. (Or has an agenda!) And the looters and arsonists who used his death to have their fun, they are just about the lowest scum of the land. Hope there is enough video evidence to ID and prosecute as many as possible. That "hands up" pose by the protestors just makes me grit my teeth, that was proven false by the autopsy but still they persist in it. Those are the slow learners I guess!

The Garner case, I do think the police screwed up and should face consequences. The grand jury didn't indict - then let the department take action. Suspend them, fire the one who used the choke hold, retrain them to recognize when someone stops breathing for Pete's sake. Just because the grand jury didn't vote for criminal charges doesn't mean they still can't face consequences for their mistakes.

It's a shame that a lot of times, good cops get dragged thru a knothole due to PC-ness or the assumption of prejudice where there really is none. But anybody who works for the public knows going in they will be held to a higher level of scrutiny than most occupations. The more bad cops who get identified and taken out of service, makes it better for the good ones.


----------



## ksfarmer (Apr 28, 2007)

MO_cows said:


> Anybody who wants to believe blacks are above the law, visit the nearest prison and I think you'll find the answer.
> 
> I think the root of the problem is, the so called "leaders" for blacks in America today are self-serving enablers. They keep feeding them the myth that everything bad that happens to them is simply because they are black and whites have it in for them. And when the POTUS feeds this fantasy like he did in the Trayvon Martin case, why shouldn't they believe it? One of the most privileged people on the planet, feeding the myth, it was the ultimate in irony. It's a standard tactic of brainwashing - tell someone something over and over again, enough times, they believe it!
> 
> ...


Well said and worth repeating. :goodjob:


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

Oxankle said:


> It started with Rodney King---rioting and looting. Perhaps some justification for protests but never for rioting and looting.
> 
> Then Trayvon Martin--Again MAYBE some justification for protests --the shooter did follow the kid, but riots and looting?
> 
> ...


They are not above the law now but they think they should be. That's where the leaders are trying to go with this. It's an affirmative action thing already seen in many schools where black kids get a pass on conduct that gets others disciplined.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

sniper69 said:


> Just my opinion - but I think the media is putting this all in our face to convince people that the grand jury system is flawed or that changes need to be made to our judicial system. Just an opinion of course.
> 
> There is always the old adage of while watching the right hand, what is the left hand doing? In other words, while the media is fixated on all of this, what is going on behind the scenes that TPTB don't want us to know about, or not know about yet?



Here is part of what the other hand is doing..
Yes some of us are watching, not that it matters..They will still do want ever they want to destroy America.

"*Obama told us that our energy bills would necessarily skyrocket and he's following through with his promise. His new EPA regulations are going to drain families like you've never seen before...not to mention the loss of thousanands of jobs. "

Found here, 
http://www.100percentfedup.com/news...increase-utility-bills-50-over-next-few-years
*


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Jim Bunton said:


> This is the guy that got off easy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're building your whole idea on a series of false premises. First, it was not a choke hold used on the guy and second a choke hold is not prohibited in NYC. Third, the cops were responding to complaints by local BLACK business owners that the guy was inhibiting traffic into their stores. Fourth, the officer in charge at the scene was a female BLACK Sargent.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

These people elected their socialist /communist into office, and now they cry about the way they are getting treated.. 
Well the joke is on you, because you brought it upon yourself..Over the years YOU have voted for Bigger Government.
Now the Government that controls everything is here, you want to whine about it, even though you helped put it in place..
Well too bad, deal with the consequences of your actions! You have no reason to whine, you got exactly what you asked for.. 
We warned you, tried to show you the truth. But! you choose to listen to some celeb who is already richer than 100 average Americans combined. You called us racists and many other names. You listened to the lies of the media, even after we showed you the truth.
You told us we were trying to "starve the children" "starve poor old Granny".
Why because we believe in the Constitution and America.
But you fed your peers lies..
Now you are starting to pay the price for your actions..
I have no sympathy for you and your losses anymore. You were told the truth and choose to "beat us down"
So suffer the consequences of your actions..
Maybe, over time you will learn the true meaning of the Constitution. If it isn't too late to save America...


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

beowoulf90 said:


> Here is part of what the other hand is doing..
> Yes some of us are watching, not that it matters..They will still do want ever they want to destroy America.
> 
> "*Obama told us that our energy bills would necessarily skyrocket and he's following through with his promise. His new EPA regulations are going to drain families like you've never seen before...not to mention the loss of thousanands of jobs. "
> ...


Also all the IRS emails that showed up. They don't want people to know about them being blocked from court. 100's worse than anything Nixon did.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

beowoulf90 said:


> These people elected their socialist /communist into office, and now they cry about the way they are getting treated..
> Well the joke is on you, because you brought it upon yourself..Over the years YOU have voted for Bigger Government.
> Now the Government that controls everything is here, you want to whine about it, even though you helped put it in place..
> Well too bad, deal with the consequences of your actions! You have no reason to whine, you got exactly what you asked for..
> ...


Where's TG? ----POTD, from me anyhow!


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

7thswan said:


> Also all the IRS emails that showed up. They don't want people to know about them being blocked from court. 100's worse than anything Nixon did.



That and the fact that the criminal Lois Lerner's hard drive(s) weren't destroyed as they said under oath..

These criminals need to be hanged until dead.. I'm tired of their lawlessness..It's time to start hanging them for their crimes against the Country.

Yes I know all the alphabet agencies will be watching me for the above. yada, yada, yada..

I'll see some of you on the FEMA bus.. :facepalm:


----------



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

The media and blogs never do seem to make any effort to give a balance account if anything. Everything comes down to an opportunity to change society by nagging endlessly. So the people who look for bias in everything (from race to anti-cop sentiments) just get more irrational while the people whose bias is on the other side (it is not race to pro police) start thinking everyone is out to get them. 

If police work in a world where so many criminals are violent, drug ridden, amoral idiots and so many people blame them for both failures to stop crime and for trying to stop crime, and they run around constantly from place to place in vehicles, and disrespect for authority is considered a virtue , and there are people who actually think killing police is patriotic, and the police carry guns, just what do you think is going to happen?


----------



## sniper69 (Sep 23, 2007)

beowoulf90 said:


> Here is part of what the other hand is doing..
> Yes some of us are watching, not that it matters..They will still do want ever they want to destroy America.
> 
> "*Obama told us that our energy bills would necessarily skyrocket and he's following through with his promise. His new EPA regulations are going to drain families like you've never seen before...not to mention the loss of thousanands of jobs. "
> ...


yep, among other things. 

My post was rhetorical in that I want people to think about the whole picture - not just the segment of the picture that TPTB and the media are wanting us to see.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

sniper69 said:


> yep, among other things.
> 
> My post was rhetorical in that I want people to think about the whole picture - not just the segment of the picture that TPTB and the media are wanting us to see.



LOL Forget it! 
Those that need to see, will never see. They are blinded by prejudice (and I'm not talking racial). 

They don't believe in the Constitution or America. They won't do the research to find the truth and even if they do they will run it through some rose colored microscope. Then they will find every fault there is in those who wrote it.. 

Just so they can get back to their original prejudice.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

poppy said:


> You're building your whole idea on a series of false premises. First, it was not a choke hold used on the guy and second a choke hold is not prohibited in NYC. Third, the cops were responding to complaints by local BLACK business owners that the guy was inhibiting traffic into their stores. Fourth, the officer in charge at the scene was a female BLACK Sargent.


 Sure looks like a choke hold to me, and as such it is prohibited by the NYPD due to the risk of death. He sure didn't look like he was presenting an immediate danger that would justify the use of lethal force. Not sure what the gender, and race of the officer in charge has to do with this. 

Jim


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Jim Bunton said:


> Sure looks like a choke hold to me, and as such it is prohibited by the NYPD due to the risk of death. He sure didn't look like he was presenting an immediate danger that would justify the use of lethal force. Not sure what the gender, and race of the officer in charge has to do with this.
> 
> Jim


Not a choke hold. Did he die from that, or something else? (I know the answer)


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

arcticow said:


> Under this administration, the more outrageous the stunt you pull, the more you are covered by the "justice" department and civil rights watchdogs...



Really, what else can you expect with Obama.Holder running everything with their civil rights investigations and Al Sharpton as domestic advisor and Obama's White House advisor?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

beowoulf90 said:


> These people elected their socialist /communist into office, and now they cry about the way they are getting treated..
> Well the joke is on you, because you brought it upon yourself..Over the years YOU have voted for Bigger Government.
> Now the Government that controls everything is here, you want to whine about it, even though you helped put it in place..
> Well too bad, deal with the consequences of your actions! You have no reason to whine, you got exactly what you asked for..
> ...


Post of the day award!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

7thswan said:


> Where's TG? ----POTD, from me anyhow!


Ya beat me to it!
I'm usually not on at nite but its DH's poker nite.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Jim Bunton said:


> Sure looks like a choke hold to me, and as such it is prohibited by the NYPD due to the risk of death. He sure didn't look like he was presenting an immediate danger that would justify the use of lethal force. Not sure what the gender, and race of the officer in charge has to do with this.
> 
> Jim


It looks very bad to me. The man was NOT threatening. However, if it were me, or any of my kids, we woulda got down, shut up & presented wrists for cuffs. I know, as do anyone I've spoken to or who has seen this, you do what the cop says. PERIOD.

If it was a choke hold, the man could NOT be able to speak.
And I think he said eleven times that he could not breathe.
He died of a heart attack en route to the hospital.

It was a terrible thing. But the man would be alive today IF! If he'd obeyed.
Period.


----------



## sherry in Maine (Nov 22, 2007)

well, Obama sets the example- doesn't he? He encourages the looters (known in the media as 'protesters' ) so he can further his other plans while everyone is distracted by media reports/misinformation.

Isn't all of this about power, and who has it? (media included- they are on the side of the ones who are divisive, diverting, distracting)
I'm not arguing with what anyone else has said. Just observing reports from the 'news'...


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Jim Bunton said:


> Sure looks like a choke hold to me, and as such it is prohibited by the NYPD due to the risk of death. He sure didn't look like he was presenting an immediate danger that would justify the use of lethal force. Not sure what the gender, and race of the officer in charge has to do with this.
> 
> Jim


Nope. A choke hold can be used to either deny air or blood to the brain. This was not a choke hold, merely a take down hold. The race of the officers is important is because race has been the big issue in this. The Sargent was black and could have told the officers to back off if she saw anything improper being done. Here's the facts that have come out. Cops were called by local businessmen, many of whom are black, to complain about the guy interrupting business into their stores. Cops arrive (their job) and tell the guy he is going to be arrested. He refused to put his hands behind his back as instructed and they took him down as they are trained. The guy was overweight with severe medical problems and he died as a result. He was no angel either. He had a lengthy rap sheet and was a 2 time felon. Now, what's your answer to this problem? What should the cops do next time. Let a resisting subject just walk away if he is fat? If he was that sick, a taser might have killed him too (it's happened before). The choice is simple. Do we want law enforcement, no law enforcement, or law enforcement for everyone except blacks?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

poppy said:


> ...They simply ignore the fact that blacks commit far more crime than other groups per capita. Blacks commit murder 8 times more than whites per capita and they complain that more blacks are sent to prison. As far as police stopping blacks more, put yourself in a cop's position. The black areas in any city are high crime areas and get more patrols for that reason. Suppose you patrol one of those areas and have learned that any vehicle with multiple young black males driving at 3 AM is 90% likely to have at least one subject with drugs or an illegal gun, what are you going to do?


I don't mean this to take anything away from your statement, which has some obviously valid points in it, but one thought I've had throughout this recent rash of racially-charged events we've been experiencing is: if we change the terms from "white" and "black" to "rich" and "poor", what happens to our understand of the situation?

Where I am in NC, there are LOTS of poor white trash neighborhoods, and they are every bit as dangerous to cops and outsiders as the traditionally "black" neighborhoods. 

I would be interested to see how the metrics change if we were to compare arrest and imprisonment rates of poor white people with poor black people. I have strong hunch that the divide would not be nearly as wide as what we're being told is the case with the races writ-large. 

This is not to say, of course, then, that poor people deserve a break when it comes to compliance with the law. Rather, I'm just saying that we may not have as big of a race discrepancy as we're being told, and more of a financial one. 

If I'm right, why are so many black folks poor? I don't think that's a simple set of reasons, or an easy solution to be found there. But, I think it would be helpful to put the erroneous questioning of racial issues aside, and consider the more relevant question of why poor people commit more crimes, and are imprisoned at higher rates. 

Maybe it's not a puzzle to be solved at all. Maybe it's just something that we've known since the dawn of civilization that the poor are going to commit more crimes, and are going to face more disciplinary response. 

Maybe the powers-that-be find some benefit to their agenda to spin the age-old reality into a racially-defined crisis. 

Maybe we're letting them get away with it.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Not a choke hold. Did he die from that, or something else? (I know the answer)


I can only go by what I saw on the video, and what the officials said.

It looked pretty much like a text book choke hold as he was being taken down to me. 

According to a coroner's report, Eric Garner died due to "compression of neck (chokehold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint" as he was wrestled to the ground by Daniel Pantaleo and fellow New York City police officers.

NYPD commissioner Bill Bratton said, after Garner's death, that the arrest involved what would "appear to have been a chokehold,"
Jim


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

poppy said:


> Nope. A choke hold can be used to either deny air or blood to the brain. This was not a choke hold, merely a take down hold. The race of the officers is important is because race has been the big issue in this. The Sargent was black and could have told the officers to back off if she saw anything improper being done. Here's the facts that have come out. Cops were called by local businessmen, many of whom are black, to complain about the guy interrupting business into their stores. Cops arrive (their job) and tell the guy he is going to be arrested. He refused to put his hands behind his back as instructed and they took him down as they are trained. The guy was overweight with severe medical problems and he died as a result. He was no angel either. He had a lengthy rap sheet and was a 2 time felon. Now, what's your answer to this problem? What should the cops do next time. Let a resisting subject just walk away if he is fat? If he was that sick, a taser might have killed him too (it's happened before). The choice is simple. Do we want law enforcement, no law enforcement, or law enforcement for everyone except blacks?


NYPD commissioner Bill Bratton said, after Garner's death, that the arrest involved what would "appear to have been a chokehold,"

Jim


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> It looks very bad to me. The man was NOT threatening. However, if it were me, or any of my kids, we woulda got down, shut up & presented wrists for cuffs. I know, as do anyone I've spoken to or who has seen this, you do what the cop says. PERIOD.
> 
> If it was a choke hold, the man could NOT be able to speak.
> And I think he said eleven times that he could not breathe.
> ...


I agree that it could have been avoided if he had just obeyed. His not obeying does not give the police reason to ignore department rules and to take actions that caused the man's death. 
Jim


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

For those who have thought the NY guy would be alive if he just submitted easily............ I need to share a story.

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with the thought that things would have gone lovely if the big dude just stuck his arms out, or behind him, whatever they wanted. That very well is possible. 

However..

Guy driving while drinking one night, had a friend with him.

Town so small, there's about 6 cops total, and a couple "auxillary" cops, whatever that means.

"Aux" cop pulls over guy. No fuss, no struggle, "think you been drinkin, come out of the car please" "okay"
Do the standard deal, and put him in the back of the police car (aux guy does have a real police car and everything).

the buddy sees where this is going and takes off on foot. Aux cop calls it in. Aux cop is not allowed to bring an arrest in without calling a full duty cop. So our resident hated, horrible, known all over town for bein a  cop shows up. Yippee. 

Turd cop pulls guy out of the back of the police car, commences to shoving him around and sayin everything he can think of to invite trouble, amongst the pushin and shovin. After bein shoved around several times, and finger jabbed in his chest with "boy this and boy that" he's had enough and gives the fella a shove to the ground. Yeah, turd got exactly what he was wantin.

Well, now it's on. 2 on 1 of course. Smashed his face in gravel and AFTER he's handcuffed, turd cop takes a few more shots. To me, hittin a handcuffed person is equivalent to a man taking full swing at a 80 year old 110 pound granny with her glasses on.

All kinds of cops, just like all kinds of citizens. 

If that was real life happenings with no LEO involved, the turd guy would have been accountable for either gettin his grits whooped, or never starting the fuss with artificially bloated testicles.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

Some on both sides of the equation are the few bad apples risking to spoil the whole cart.

As a teenager and early 20s due to the spectrum of the crowd that I associated within, on about 6 occasions I found myself faced off in encounters with LEOs from outside my home jurisdiction not familiar with me and although taken into custody during 3 of those encounters, none of the officers regardless of their race , handcuffed or rough handled me.

During the same arrests for IPPL and other misdemeanors some of the "perfect for a COPS episode" shirtless ******** and a couple black guys of our hang out group always ended up mouthing off to the LEOs and ended up being rough cuffed and tossed into patrol cars.

I remember one of the black kids trying to spit on a black deputy and calling him an "Uncle Tom " and he "shouldn't be treating a brother like that"

Myself and other friends regardless of our race or the officer's knew not to act threatening to the officers when they approached us and answered their questions. 

If we had been drinking or had booze in our possession we knew we were caught fair and square.

The couple times I was arrested without cause I remained polite with the arresting officer, was transported without being cuffed, passed the blood test as I chose those instead of Breathalyzer and let my attorney handle the case on the one that could have put my drivers license at risk of suspension to get it tossed out.

30 years later I know kids in the same age range dealing with this era of LEO and the attitude of the suspect still dictates the intensity level of the encounter with the officer in most of the situations.

Yes we had a few bad LEOs then and we had jerk citizens. 30 years later those same jerks have given birth to jerks of their own and we still have about the same amount of bad LEOs.

Thankfully in our area the intelligent citizens and good LEOs are more prevelant.


----------



## 1shotwade (Jul 9, 2013)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I don't mean this to take anything away from your statement, which has some obviously valid points in it, but one thought I've had throughout this recent rash of racially-charged events we've been experiencing is: if we change the terms from "white" and "black" to "rich" and "poor", what happens to our understand of the situation?
> 
> Where I am in NC, there are LOTS of poor white trash neighborhoods, and they are every bit as dangerous to cops and outsiders as the traditionally "black" neighborhoods.
> 
> ...




NAILED IT !!! I have actually told a black friend of mine the exact same words. "It's not white america oppressing black america, it's corporate america oppressing poor america."


I always looked up to law enforcement until I was one. They are no different than the general populous. That was one of the reasons I got out as soon as I could lock in the retirement.

The other reason is this. You are always wrong! Doesn't matter what you do or how you do it someone is always willing to let you know you are a total screwup. You roll on a domestic and start cuff'n the clown that just bloodied up his wife and she is kicking you in the head! Now you have to listen to both of them and any lying friends of theirs tell the world you were wrong and try to get you fired.Next it's the sergeant,then the chief,if you get by them it's commis,or town counsel/mayor. Once you have been able to explain your actions to all these party's and have satisfied them you can finally go home to a wife/or neighbors that are more willing to tell you what you did wrong.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

The protestors down here in this part of Dixie did their demonstration with more class than those up north. One news report showed some demonstrators taking selfies with some of the HPD officers protecting their safety while detour traffic around their march route.

http://whnt.com/2014/12/05/shutitdo...d-mean-traffic-headaches-on-university-drive/

Another report said despite the "shutdownhsv" name for the demonstration, protest organizers , 300 to 400 participants and LEOs worked together to minimize traffic gridlock as the marchers did their symbolic die in lay down in the street.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Strange; where I lived in Ok the blacks had more class too. They were descendants of the black slaves of the Creeks, Cherokees, etc, owned land, drove trucks, worked in the local businesses, taught school, served in the military. In short, they behaved just like any ordinary citizen. I always thought it strange that there were so many interracial marriages there. Perhaps it was not so strange at all. 

My black friends had exactly the same concerns as I did--the weather, hay crops, cattle prices, education for their children, inflation, health concerns, the price of gasoline, the state of our roads, taxes---The fellow who bought my last 4-wheeler needed it because some thieving xxx stole his while he was at work. Same concerns as mine.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Jim Bunton said:


> I agree that it could have been avoided if he had just obeyed. His not obeying does not give the police reason to ignore department rules and to take actions that caused the man's death.
> Jim


Again I'll tell you-what 'appeared' is NOT a choke hold. If it were the man could not speak. He spoke. Do you understand? I'm completely agreeing, shoulda not happened at all. Too much force, IMHO. But not a choke hold.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

1shotwade said:


> NAILED IT !!! I have actually told a black friend of mine the exact same words. "It's not white america oppressing black america, it's corporate america oppressing poor america."
> 
> 
> I always looked up to law enforcement until I was one. They are no different than the general populous. That was one of the reasons I got out as soon as I could lock in the retirement.
> ...


Thanks for serving, I'm sure we all have a couple stories of overthetop cops. Generally speaking, they have a very rough go of it.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

A choke hold is meant to do just that, cut off the victim's ability to breathe by compressing his airway. It risks breaking the larynx, which will obstruct breathing. 

What the patrolman did was not technically a choke hold, but in the struggle he may have broken the man's larynx. The autopsy will come out.

Be that as it may, the criminal (and he was, though not a violent one) resisted arrest. Had he complied with the officers' orders he would be back on the streets today, again breaking the law.

When we condone a criminal's behavior and fault the police for enforcing our laws we invite anarchy. Is that what you want? The man's death was accidental. Homicide it may be, but not murder or even involuntary manslaughter. The grand jury got it right.


----------



## ceresone (Oct 7, 2005)

Wade, hope you dont mind my posting your comments elsewhere? I deleted all your info, just copied what you said, cause I thought it needed repeating!


----------



## 1shotwade (Jul 9, 2013)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I don't mean this to take anything away from your statement, which has some obviously valid points in it, but one thought I've had throughout this recent rash of racially-charged events we've been experiencing is: if we change the terms from "white" and "black" to "rich" and "poor", what happens to our understand of the situation?
> 
> Where I am in NC, there are LOTS of poor white trash neighborhoods, and they are every bit as dangerous to cops and outsiders as the traditionally "black" neighborhoods.
> 
> ...





ceresone said:


> Wade, hope you dont mind my posting your comments elsewhere? I deleted all your info, just copied what you said, cause I thought it needed repeating!



Ya,OK, what ever. What did I say?


Wade


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Oxankle said:


> A choke hold is meant to do just that, cut off the victim's ability to breathe by compressing his airway. It risks breaking the larynx, which will obstruct breathing.
> 
> What the patrolman did was not technically a choke hold, but in the struggle he may have broken the man's larynx. The autopsy will come out.
> 
> ...


It seems that Judge Andrew Napolitano believes all they should have done was tell the guy to move on, since his alleged crime wasn't any more serious than Jaywalking. That or given him a ticket.

For what reason should cops be putting their hands on a person for not paying a tax? Why should a person be arrested for selling a cigarette they already paid a tax on?

What needs to happen is we need to get past all this race talk. and attack the real problem. Over bearing politicians creating unjust laws, and take our streets back from overzealous law enforcers..


----------



## bluemoonluck (Oct 28, 2008)

There's a great quote out there that goes "Hate cops? Next time you're in trouble, call a crackhead!"

Not all cops are bad.

Not all blacks are criminals.

Not all whites are racists.


----------



## FireMaker (Apr 3, 2014)

Picture looks like a cop funeral. Not fun. Usually the ones that show up are us. But, we come from ALL over the country to support each other. At the same time we still need to give coverage to the city, grieve later.

Generally, I would say people are decent overall. Makes no difference what occupation, race or social status. Each part of society have jerks(I'll be polite). Cops, preachers, teachers, farmers, POLITICIANS, white, blacks, asians, whatever.the very small minority get the attention and brings negative attention to the positive majority. When was the last time the media wrote positive things about neighborhoods, cops, etc. They sell the negative. We all have bad apples. Sometimes it takes a long time for the worm to get to the surface.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

I don't call the cops... Only one time in my life I have, and the only reason was because I figured they were going to need to pick up the body... The situation was in hand... He was beating my door down, and I had my shotgun. That's the only reason the guy didn't come though the door, but I thought he was going to call me bluffing and end up dead.. It was going to end the second he did come through the door... I don't need cops for that other than to take the body and write the report. For all I could care, I'd leave the body laying.. Call it a deterrent.. 

I take care of my own problems. I don't rely on others... To many have been taught to rely on others... I don't agree with that.. If more people dealt with their own problems I'd bet the world would be a more polite place..

If I do have problems I don't seek revenge.. I call it man made Karma..


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Again I'll tell you-what 'appeared' is NOT a choke hold. If it were the man could not speak. He spoke. Do you understand? I'm completely agreeing, shoulda not happened at all. Too much force, IMHO. But not a choke hold.


 A choke hold is not always fatal. It depends on amount of pressure applied, and duration. The fact that he could talk does not prove it was not a choke hold. 

Jim


----------



## Lookin4GoodLife (Oct 14, 2013)

Shrek said:


> I remember one of the black kids trying to spit on a black deputy and calling him an "Uncle Tom " and he "shouldn't be treating a brother like that"


Something the Ferguson residents should be aware of is that old statement of "be careful of what you wish for, you just might get it." Black cops want to go home to their families just like white cops do. Black cops aren't going to take any more of your bull**** than white cops are. Probably even less. When you get your balls beat off by a black cop, what card are you going to play then? Certainly not the race card.


----------



## Lookin4GoodLife (Oct 14, 2013)

Oxankle said:


> Be that as it may, the criminal (and he was, though not a violent one) resisted arrest.


According to the WSJ article I read, he had 30 arrests including assault and resisting arrest. If he was a "regular" in that area, I'm sure the cops knew who he was and what he was capable of when they rolled up on him. 

I don't know what the NYPD's policy is, but I would have given him 3 verbal commands to turn around and put his hands behind his back. After the non-compliance on the first one, I would have pulled out my taser. After the 3rd non-compliance I would have tasered the snot out of him. I don't know why any cop would put his hands on a suspect these days except to put the cuffs on him and pick his convulsing body off the ground to put him in the car, other than the macho "I like breaking bad" aspect of it. "They say" tasers are safe. If not, let the taser companies defend themselves against the communities, not police departments. If you're going to carry the dang things, use them!


----------



## Lookin4GoodLife (Oct 14, 2013)

simi-steading said:


> For what reason should cops be putting their hands on a person for not paying a tax? Why should a person be arrested for selling a cigarette they already paid a tax on?


Have to agree with that one. Hate to see things like this for something so small. I'm not big on letting folks "get over" but dang....


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Oxankle said:


> When we condone a criminal's behavior and fault the police for enforcing our laws we invite anarchy. Is that what you want? The man's death was accidental. Homicide it may be, but not murder or even involuntary manslaughter. The grand jury got it right.


This case is a textbook example of involuntary manslaughter. 

From Find Law

Three elements must be satisfied in order for someone to be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter:


Someone was killed as a result of act by the defendant.
The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life.
The defendant knew or should have known his or her conduct was a threat to the lives of others.
 - See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimina...nslaughter-overview.html#sthash.fDiy5Fqw.dpuf
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/involuntary-manslaughter-overview.html


Three elements must be satisfied in order for somene to be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
1 someone was killed as a result of act by defendant.
2 The act was either inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life.
3 the defendant knew or should have known his or her conduct was a threat the life of others.

Jim


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Oxankle said:


> A choke hold is meant to do just that, cut off the victim's ability to breathe by compressing his airway. It risks breaking the larynx, which will obstruct breathing.
> 
> What the patrolman did was not technically a choke hold, but in the struggle he may have broken the man's larynx. The autopsy will come out.
> 
> ...


 Yes they got it right. This is over and done. He used what is called reasonable force. And that is what the jury saw and came up with. 
We do not know what else was said in that jury so this Monday morning quarterbacking is going no way and will go no where.
People are going to see what they want to see in that video and no way no how is anybody going to change their mind no matter what.
And as we all know from watching TV and the movies the angle of the camera can FOOL most everyone, but those on site have the TRUE view on what took place. And it was that testimony was told to that jury. Those that have a perception that "The Man" is out to get you will never see things in any different light.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Jim Bunton said:


> A choke hold is not always fatal. It depends on amount of pressure applied, and duration. The fact that he could talk does not prove it was not a choke hold.
> 
> Jim


And where do you get your info? Mine came from reliable sources.


----------



## ninny (Dec 12, 2005)

Lasts remarks I'm gonna make about about this:

First, some on here probably believe I have a bias against LEO, couldn't be further from the truth.

I have a brother that retired from the Alaska State Troopers. Now he could tell some doozy of stories about the Indians/Eskimos when they got drunk they got crazy.

Also have a brother-in-law that is a retired Border Patrol, again some pretty crazy stories.

Wife was a retired I.R.S. field agent and had some pretty crazy stories also. Once went to an auction that she was holding, was auctioning off property she had seized. Armed C.I.D. unit was there because the guy had made threats. I personally knew the guy and he was a little crazy.

As far as the black guy not following the cops orders because the "*cops were just enforcing the law"*, as far as I'm concerned there are only 10 laws that there are no conditions on as to whether they should be followed or not and these laws were not made by man. Even in the military, if we thought an unlawful order had been given, we weren't obligated to follow it an I did just that on several occasions. Didn't sit well with my superiors but I didn't really care. Man made laws are made and revoked all the time. 
As for the cops being there to "protect and serve," that's not the case either. The Supreme Court has ruled that the police "do not have a constitutional duty to protect someone."
"The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that *the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm*, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

For the most part, I respect the law and the LEO but more and more I'm starting to have doubts. When I see what I considered excessive force used, as was my opinion in this case, I want nothing to do with LEO and would really rather handle any situation that I found myself in by myself. LEO, in most instances, would be the last person I would want to get involved.

.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

FireMaker said:


> Picture looks like a cop funeral. Not fun. Usually the ones that show up are us. But, we come from ALL over the country to support each other. At the same time we still need to give coverage to the city, grieve later.
> 
> Generally, I would say people are decent overall. Makes no difference what occupation, race or social status. Each part of society have jerks(I'll be polite). Cops, preachers, teachers, farmers, POLITICIANS, white, blacks, asians, whatever.the very small minority get the attention and brings negative attention to the positive majority. When was the last time the media wrote positive things about neighborhoods, cops, etc. They sell the negative. We all have bad apples. Sometimes it takes a long time for the worm to get to the surface.


I agree with every thing you are saying. The problem is it is the good cops responsibility as law enforcement to protect the people from the bad cops. This seldom happens instead they close ranks and protect the bad ones. I am not saying that the cops involved in the Garner killing were bad, but they stepped over the line and he ended up dead. They should be held accountable just like any one else whose actions caused the death of another. This should have gone to trial. 
Jim


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> And where do you get your info? Mine came from reliable sources.


So your reliable source told you that every time a choke hold is applied it is fatal? 

Jim


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

"For what reason should cops be putting their hands on a person for not paying a tax? Why should a person be arrested for selling a cigarette they already paid a tax on?"

For one think, Garner had NOT paid taxes on those cigarettes. He was selling smuggled cigarettes which cost him perhaps $6 and the price including tax in NYC is around $12. Smuggling low-tax cigarettes into NYC is a big criminal enterprise. Garner's sales were analogous to the small pot dealer's hit. 

Some other things you may not know is that Garner had a long rap sheet (31 entries including assault?) and was out on probation when the attempt to arrest was made. Second, Garner did not die on the street; he had a heart attack in the ambulance--he had a long history of diabetes, heart trouble---and on and on. Third, the video clearly shows him swatting away the police when they tried to arrest him peacefully.

Finally, the police did not tase him because they had no tasers. Even so, the use of a taser on a man with heart disease is not much less dangerous than a physical take down. 

Garner was not killed, the jerk committed suicide. He is not much loss to society.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Oxankle said:


> "For what reason should cops be putting their hands on a person for not paying a tax? Why should a person be arrested for selling a cigarette they already paid a tax on?"
> 
> For one think, Garner had NOT paid taxes on those cigarettes. He was selling smuggled cigarettes which cost him perhaps $6 and the price including tax in NYC is around $12. Smuggling low-tax cigarettes into NYC is a big criminal enterprise. Garner's sales were analogous to the small pot dealer's hit.
> 
> ...


I thought I heard he died of something else. Some would have us believe otherwise! Not sure why or what their agenda is?


----------



## Guest (Dec 6, 2014)

I have been pulled over repeatedly. I have been in contact with LEO without a vehicle MANY TIMES. I have also been handcuffed and taken off to the Pokey.

Assuredly, I was calm, polite, compliant, and possibly even charming. And I have never been thrown to the ground or hit by ANY LEO. And I was in contact with quite a few in my young days. Many. 

The law-breaker, or suspected-law-breaker, almost ALWAYS dictates the level and escalation of the force needed to complete the task at hand.

I have Zero Sympathy for any person who resists arrest. Any misunderstanding or error can be resolved - later. Do whatever is necessary to make sure you arrive at "later," including COMPLY WITH THE OFFICER. End of debate, in my book.

(I always figured, if I was doing something stoopid, why compound it with even more stoopid stuff. Admit you did stoopid, and make smarter choices going forward. Begin the smarter decisions IMMEDIATEDLY.)


----------



## Lookin4GoodLife (Oct 14, 2013)

Oxankle said:


> Finally, the police did not tase him because they had no tasers. Even so, the use of a taser on a man with heart disease is not much less dangerous than a physical take down.


But the liability shift is TREMENDOUS. They could buy a lot of tasers with the $75,000,000 they're going to be paying out not to mention all the commerce these protests are interrupting.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

If Adam Lanza had walked into an elementary school and killed twenty 6-year-olds with names like ShuQueenzia or Marquavious, we probably wouldn't even know about it, and it would only be discussed on racist blogs.

I hope my theory is never tested.

That said, anything that Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton gets involved in is not something to be taken seriously. Otherwise, the answer to the thread title is NO.


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

simi-steading said:


> I'm gonna counter with a question... Are police above the law? Seems so to me. They get away with a heck of a lot we can't, no matter what our color...


 I went through much of the same training and it is a matter of being the Composed Aggressor just to stop Whom Ever, if they don't comply then you are trained to go further to get them to comply. Most time if they don't comply they have no respect for authority which can be dangerous for the LEO.

In other words they don't care and they could kill you if you don't do something fast.

big rockpile


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Authority... Tell me.. Who decides they are the authority, and who makes them king?

OH. that must be us, the stupid voters who put people in charge that can't even run their own lives, yet they believe they know best how to run ours... 

This country has gotten pretty messed up... Well, it's been a mess for centuries, but it sure isn't getting any better......

It's kinda funny out here in this area.. We have this sheriff... I hear he used to be the guy everyone picked on in school... But now he's got the badge, and he seems to like.. Eh.. we'll call it Karma... Is that Authority?... 

What is Authority exactly... Who decided who we need to cowtow to? Why must I bow to a man that feels he has something to prove?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Oh Simi grow up. Just because you feel big and bad enough that you don't need no stinking police, think about little old ladies who live alone and all the other weaker members of society who do need to have someone to call. And some degree of crime is prevented by police patrols. 

Because of the powers we do entrust to the police, we need to make sure they are the best trained and managed we can afford. And any "bad apples" get culled as soon as they come to light.

Nobody needs to cowtow to them, just act like a human being. It's not like the Nazis taking away Jews never to be seen again. Even if you do get detained or arrested you still have rights and odds are you can get bonded out within hours. So don't act like it's life and death when you deal with the police....and odds are it won't be.


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

I believe that is naive. 

I see Simi's view and questions. There aren't real clear answers. 
No sense spending stress on it and obsessing, but for sure, no sense denying the corruption of both the human element, as well as our failure to maintain reasonable laws and guidelines.

And uh, people still disappear at hands of law enforcement, or some arm of gov. Maybe not hundreds at a time like Nazi's, but it happens.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

That's the problem.. I have grown up.. I've learned to think for myself... I've watched this country become a pretty serious police state... I remember when if you got caught with a bag of weed, the cops would make you toss it on the ground and grind it in... Today, they slam your face into the hood of your car, and stick a gun in the back of your head.... and NO, I am not exaggerating. Watch an episode of cops, and you will see just that happening... 

Yes, little old ladies need help... But the problem is, by the time the police get there, usually the only thing to do is fill out the paperwork... 

I have NEVER compared what is happening to Nazi Germany, BUT, I do say take a look at history, and look at the instances that caused changes to happen that caused other populations to lose control to "Authority"

This country is spiraling... For way too long people have been saying wake up... and for far too long, those that haven't been watching, are protecting the regimes that are taking over this country... They keep voting in the same people that keep taking our freedoms one after another. 

We are doomed to repeat history... This country has been pretty lucky, and has stood longer than many others have, but it's only a matter of time before it falls like many other great society's have. If we don't stop, look, and make some serious changes, then we've pretty much fallen prey to those that prey on us, and call their selves "Authorities"


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

MO_cows said:


> Oh Simi grow up. Just because you feel big and bad enough that you don't need no stinking police, think about little old ladies who live alone and all the other weaker members of society who do need to have someone to call. And some degree of crime is prevented by police patrols.
> 
> Because of the powers we do entrust to the police, we need to make sure they are the best trained and managed we can afford. And any "bad apples" get culled as soon as they come to light.
> 
> Nobody needs to cowtow to them, just act like a human being. It's not like the Nazis taking away Jews never to be seen again. Even if you do get detained or arrested you still have rights and odds are you can get bonded out within hours. So don't act like it's life and death when you deal with the police....and odds are it won't be.


You bet. We need officers to protect Americans. I respect cops and always have, I have yet to have a bad experience. Even when I hauled the horse in the back seat of my car all over this country, not once did a officer stop me. And I mean I traveled all over the state of AZ and right down I-10 from Phoenix to Tucson.
All over the state of Iowa and into central MO. Not one stop me.
They have a very hard job, like to see how many on here could handle just one week. ~! I know in Guadalupe, just South of Phoenix they HAVE to go into in pairs~!
Ya it is BAD out there don;t be fooled the scum of the scum they get to see. Not very many could handle that kind of work. Walk a day join their shoes just once and see what is what.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Jim Bunton said:


> So your reliable source told you that every time a choke hold is applied it is fatal?
> 
> Jim


Where did I say that? I believe I've said more than once that if a chokehold is applied, you cannot speak.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

simi-steading said:


> Authority... Tell me.. Who decides they are the authority, and who makes them king?
> 
> OH. that must be us, the stupid voters who put people in charge that can't even run their own lives, yet they believe they know best how to run ours...
> 
> ...


Was he ELECTED? Do not elect him another term then.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

"If Adam Lanza had walked into an elementary school and killed twenty 6-year-olds with names like ShuQueenzia or Marquavious, we probably wouldn't even know about it, and it would only be discussed on racist blogs."

Such Nonsense!!!! Had Lanza done such a thing it would have been all over the news and there would have been riots everywhere. Every politician in the country, white and black, the president, every race-monger in the country, the United Nations and most of our preachers would have been there to console the parents. 

Grief counselors would still be there and we taxpayers would be paying reparations.


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

simi-steading said:


> It seems that Judge Andrew Napolitano believes all they should have done was tell the guy to move on, since his alleged crime wasn't any more serious than Jaywalking. That or given him a ticket.
> 
> For what reason should cops be putting their hands on a person for not paying a tax? Why should a person be arrested for selling a cigarette they already paid a tax on?
> 
> What needs to happen is we need to get past all this race talk. and attack the real problem. Over bearing politicians creating unjust laws, and take our streets back from overzealous law enforcers..


The order came down from on high (ie the NYCPD chief) because these people were *illegally* selling single cigarettes outside of stores that sold cigarettes. If the guy had a liscence and paid the tax that the retailers pay to the state, there would not have been an issue.

FWIW, a pack of smokes on NYC is $15.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBL6AEkvLbk[/ame]


----------



## ninny (Dec 12, 2005)

arabian knight said:


> You bet. *We need officers to protect Americans.* I respect cops and always have, I have yet to have a bad experience. Even when I hauled the horse in the back seat of my car all over this country, not once did a officer stop me. And I mean I traveled all over the state of AZ and right down I-10 from Phoenix to Tucson.
> All over the state of Iowa and into central MO. Not one stop me.
> They have a very hard job, like to see how many on here could handle just one week. ~! I know in Guadalupe, just South of Phoenix they HAVE to go into in pairs~!
> Ya it is BAD out there don;t be fooled the scum of the scum they get to see. Not very many could handle that kind of work. Walk a day join their shoes just once and see what is what.


*WRONG*... The Supreme Court has ruled that the police do not have a constitutional duty to protect someone...that includes YOU...

Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Wow, just wow. 
I watched the whole thing. 
I guess some black people DO think they are above the law.
Why on God's green earth would ANYONE think they could take off from any kind of stop by police? Why? That women had a carload of kids she was putting in danger. Gads.
My only gripe w/cops is the black cop that SHOT AT A CAR FULL OF KIDS!!

And another thing...while car chases are fun to watch, who is idiot enuf to think they'll get away?


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

About the same time as the Brown case there was another killing of an old disabled white man. There were no riots, Obama and Holder did not get involved, and it wasn't nationwide news. I think a white officer killing a black person is really just an excuse to loot and riot. Now the rioters are looked on as victims of society and that sure isn't helping things. 
http://qctimes.com/news/local/man-d...cle_6e26f5f0-2394-11e4-b85a-001a4bcf887a.html


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

wendle said:


> About the same time as the Brown case there was another killing of an old disabled white man. There were no riots, Obama and Holder did not get involved, and it wasn't nationwide news. I think a white officer killing a black person is really just an excuse to loot and riot. Now the rioters are looked on as victims of society and that sure isn't helping things.
> http://qctimes.com/news/local/man-d...cle_6e26f5f0-2394-11e4-b85a-001a4bcf887a.html



Old? Sixty one is not considered old by most folks. The article says he was armed with a knife and came at the two officers. What comparison are you trying to make?


----------



## Farmer Willy (Aug 7, 2005)

poppy said:


> You're building your whole idea on a series of false premises. First, it was not a choke hold used on the guy and second a choke hold is not prohibited in NYC. Third, the cops were responding to complaints by local BLACK business owners that the guy was inhibiting traffic into their stores. Fourth, the officer in charge at the scene was a female BLACK Sargent.


 
Don't be trying to confuse the story with the facts. It must be the cops fault cause Al the 'race baintin revrund' said so, had his bull horn and everything. Grand jury didn't indict, didn't give the verdict that the mob wanted, so it must be wrong.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Wow 5 pages and no one seems to even care why the police were there in the first place..

Yes the local businesses called them.
But what was the reason? For selling cigarettes by the piece? For selling "untaxed" cigarettes?

They will send 6 cops to arrest a man selling "untaxed" cigarettes worth about $15 and yet won't arrest Sharpton (just the latest liberal that hasn't paid their taxes) for $5,000,000 in taxes..

UNTAXED - The question is by whom.. All cigarettes are taxed by the Federal Government before they even leave the manufacturer. So they have been taxed.
Oh wait I forgot that NYC is so important that they have their own taxes (read as corruption run-a-muck)..Even here in PA a pack of cigarettes run about $7, but in NYC they run about $13.72 . All that is taxes! 

Anyway the point is that this man was killed/died because the tyrants of NYC wanted their taxes and were willing to send enforcers to collect it..

That is a sad state of affairs.. But New Yorkers deserve the consequences of their voting actions.. Maybe they will suffer major losses in the future for not paying their taxes...So New Yorkers who whine/protest about this are just idiots who got want they voted for...


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Beowulf is both right and wrong. Wrong, in that all jurisdictions have elected officials, and those elected officials make laws and impose taxes. If the people don't like what they have they vote out the elected officials. Anything else is anarchy or despotism.

He's right in that the New York people have brought this on themselves. They tolerate smuggling cigarettes--Internet says half the cigs sold in NYC are untaxed by the city. Smugglers buy them in low-tax areas or at Indian smoke shops in low-tax states, then haul them into NYC. Garner was selling "loosies", one cigarette at a time.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Oxankle said:


> Beowulf is both right and wrong. Wrong, in that all jurisdictions have elected officials, and those elected officials make laws and impose taxes. If the people don't like what they have they vote out the elected officials. Anything else is anarchy or despotism.
> 
> He's right in that the New York people have brought this on themselves. They tolerate smuggling cigarettes--Internet says half the cigs sold in NYC are untaxed by the city. Smugglers buy them in low-tax areas or at Indian smoke shops in low-tax states, then haul them into NYC. Garner was selling "loosies", one cigarette at a time.



But why was he selling "loosies"?
Because the Governing body in NYC has placed insane taxes on a legal product.. They, in reality have targeted the poor, which is the same class of people the they claim to care about..

New Yorkers can go across the border to the Poconos area and pay $7 ( an estimated guess, since I haven't bought cigarettes in years) a pack versus $13.75 a pack in NYC.. That should give everyone an idea of the taxes on a pack of cigarettes that goes into the city's coffers. (for redistribution to the political class in my cynical opinion).

Anyway the people elected these tyrants or they elected those that put the governing body together... So let them suffer the consequences of the Big Government they wanted. 

Hopefully in the near future I won't have to buy any tobacco from any store. I'm working on growing my own and making my own blend of tobacco. I already roll my own which costs me about $36 a month which averages out to about $1.20 a pack. This is figuring a pack a day for 30 days which would be high estimate, since my "packs" are only 16 and a standard store bought pack are 20.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Beowulf: I'm having a hard time disagreeing with you, but again I think you are both right and wrong. 

The governing body in New York saw both the opportunity to rake in some money and the opportunity to make cigarette-related health costs go away. You'll never get them to admit they targeted the poor. The poor were just collateral damage in the war on cancer, etc. And the taxes don't go to the political class; they go to pay for fire, police, streets and garbage---all that running a city entails. The political class just rakes a bit off the top (see, I can be cynical too). 

As for your roll-your-owns, why only sixteen per pack? Back during WWII when all the cigs were going to the troops my uncles had a roller that made tailor-mades from anything you could roll. Bull Durham, any pipe tobacco, several cut and sold especially for the rollers. It took a bit of skill, but as I recall the uncles made good-looking cigarettes. Dad just rolled his own Bull Durhams one at a time; looked awful but they smoked.


----------



## 1shotwade (Jul 9, 2013)

Just to stir the pot,when I was stationed on a ship we bought a carton of smokes for $10. once our ship went outside the 12 mile limit we were duty free. The same thing we bought yesterday fo $10 was now $1.25.All that in between was federal taxes.Buying on base for $10 was much cheaper that buying off base where the state and county and city got a hunk of tax revenue from the sales. So the actual producer was getting something less than $1.25 per carton and the rest was taxes.

Wade


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

It is about the same with liquor, is it not?


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

Every time I hear of a LEO getting shot I think of this. Les Roark was a family friend. He was wounded, Johnson went in the house drank Glass of Sweet Tea and went back out, finished him off. You never know what is going through a persons mind. I'm sure Les didn't think he was going to get shot as he was walking away.

http://missourideathrow.com/2008/12/johnson_james/

big rockpile


----------



## sniper69 (Sep 23, 2007)

1shotwade said:


> Just to stir the pot,when I was stationed on a ship we bought a carton of smokes for $10. once our ship went outside the 12 mile limit we were duty free. The same thing we bought yesterday fo $10 was now $1.25.All that in between was federal taxes.Buying on base for $10 was much cheaper that buying off base where the state and county and city got a hunk of tax revenue from the sales. So the actual producer was getting something less than $1.25 per carton and the rest was taxes.
> 
> Wade


Not that cheap anymore.  If one smokes, the best place on base for smokes is the commissary by the carton. The bx and other places sell for more money than the commissary



Oxankle said:


> It is about the same with liquor, is it not?


The class 6 has liquor, often at a good price - but not as cheap as it used to be. But still (usually) cheaper than off base.


----------



## trulytricia (Oct 11, 2002)

Two witnesses in the Michael Brown case have now been found dead,

23-year-old Shawn Gray. And DeAndre Joshua, also a young black man,shot dead and his car was torched outside the same neighborhood where Brown was killed.


Little media coverage.

If they died for telling the truth they deserve better than this. What an upside world we have become.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

That is why some of the EYE Witnesses Never went to the media to tell what REALLY happened as they were afraid for they lives. So we NEVER heard the REAL truth as to what happened as what was told inside the court room.
And the media just ate up just one side of the stories, whats new about that? Nothing as they wanted NEWS to happen and it did Burn the town down.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

Wanda said:


> Old? Sixty one is not considered old by most folks. The article says he was armed with a knife and came at the two officers. What comparison are you trying to make?


He had a very hard time getting around(disabled), and used a cane. He was also drunk at the time. I believe the officers had a right to shoot Jennings just as the officer had a right to shoot Brown. The difference is there were more officers during the killing of Jennings and they knew ahead of time what was going on there. They did have some time to prepare themselves with protection/tazers, or whatever. In the case of Brown the officer had to think fast and was on his own.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Oxankle said:


> Beowulf: I'm having a hard time disagreeing with you, but again I think you are both right and wrong.
> 
> The governing body in New York saw both the opportunity to rake in some money and the opportunity to make cigarette-related health costs go away. You'll never get them to admit they targeted the poor. The poor were just collateral damage in the war on cancer, etc. And the taxes don't go to the political class; they go to pay for fire, police, streets and garbage---all that running a city entails. The political class just rakes a bit off the top (see, I can be cynical too).
> 
> As for your roll-your-owns, why only sixteen per pack? Back during WWII when all the cigs were going to the troops my uncles had a roller that made tailor-mades from anything you could roll. Bull Durham, any pipe tobacco, several cut and sold especially for the rollers. It took a bit of skill, but as I recall the uncles made good-looking cigarettes. Dad just rolled his own Bull Durhams one at a time; looked awful but they smoked.



Well to answer why only 16 per pack.. :facepalm:

That is what my fancy metal cases hold.  
So it is what I can base my estimates from.. I rotate cases daily and as such I know that I go through a "pack of 16" in roughly a 24 hour period or more.

We sit down and roll a carton or there about in the evening roughly once a week and then store them in the freezer till needed. 

Now as to the "war on cancer".. That is a freaking joke! 
That is just another excuse to raise more money, just like "it's for the children" or "it's for the elderly" etc...

They banned smoking indoors almost 20 years ago if not longer and yet they still complain and blame 2nd hand smoke for cancer. Now they want to ban it out doors.. All they while they stand in their vehicle exhaust filled cities.

Smokers are just an easy target to tax and vilify...Don't worry though at some point the obese and those that use alcohol will get put on the "naughty" list by the socialist and communist and then taxed for it..

Oh and they will never make it illegal, simply because of all the tax dollars collected.. 


http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0099.pdf

You will see that PA took in 1063.4 (millions) in Revenue in 2013.. So those who believe it is about fighting cancer are so wrong, it's about the money....


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Oxankle said:


> It is about the same with liquor, is it not?



Not quite.. In States other than PA and a few others, there is a semi free market. Here in PA the State controls all liquor sales at what we call State stores. You can't buy beer or wine or liquor at the corner convenience store.. 

The State also sets the prices..
A bar/restaurant has to buy form a State approved distributor.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Fellows, get ready; I saw an article on the news recently that said some employers are considering hiring only non-smoking employees. Health insurance was the reason given.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

Oxankle said:


> "If Adam Lanza had walked into an elementary school and killed twenty 6-year-olds with names like ShuQueenzia or Marquavious, we probably wouldn't even know about it, and it would only be discussed on racist blogs."
> 
> Such Nonsense!!!! Had Lanza done such a thing it would have been all over the news and there would have been riots everywhere. Every politician in the country, white and black, the president, every race-monger in the country, the United Nations and most of our preachers would have been there to console the parents.
> 
> Grief counselors would still be there and we taxpayers would be paying reparations.


And there would be lots of people who would say, "No big loss; 20 fewer kids on welfare who will breed like rats when they hit their teen years, and they're all going to end up in prison anyway."


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

Oxankle said:


> Fellows, get ready; I saw an article on the news recently that said some employers are considering hiring only non-smoking employees. Health insurance was the reason given.


This has been going on for many years - 20 at least. It has NOTHING to do with Obamacare.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Oxankle said:


> Fellows, get ready; I saw an article on the news recently that said some employers are considering hiring only non-smoking employees. Health insurance was the reason given.



Yup, I saw this as well.

It's called legalized discrimination..

The Government says that insurance now has to cover existing conditions.
But! in the same breath says they don't have to cover smokers or allow employers to discriminate those who smoke cigarettes. They also say you can't discriminate against those who smoke legal pot..

I've seen this more on the Corporate level than anything else.. Smaller family owned / locally owned businesses don't seem to be doing this..


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Thesedays: I don't think I said anything about the no-hire of smokers being related to Obamacare, but on reflection I think it may be. 

Since employers now have to insure all and cover preexisting conditions, they may not WANT to have people predisposed to both heart attack and cancers. We all know that smokers are far more likely to be afflicted by heart disease and cancer than are the general population. Makes sense to me.


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

thesedays said:


> This has been going on for many years - 20 at least. It has NOTHING to do with Obamacare.


Ox never said anything about Obamacare, he said *INSURANCE* was the reason and it is true.

A person can smoke at my company but that person will pay 36.00 per pay period as a "smoker" penalty for insurance. In essence, smoking will cost that person 72.00 more per month than not smoking.

It is only a matter of time before obesity will be hit with a "sin" tax. We have a gym at work, a health care professional, and are given weight watchers classes for half price and to top that off, we have access to nutritionists and health care professionals to offer guidance on reducing weight. That is all related to lowering insurance costs. We have the option to have our health care records in a database that is managed by our health care plan..(I refused this option) and that database is accessible by our physician assistant located on our work campus.

Many large companies are going to this in an effort to cut down on insurance rates which by the way, ours went up this year again..sigh. We are given biometric screenings three times a year and healthy checkups for free at work. All these things are standard practice here to keep an eye on people who are going to cost the company more in increased premiums.

If folks don't think obesity isn't going to be the next rung on the ladder of taxes..better wake up. It is coming. Already here in the form of increasing taxes on sugary soft drinks and an added tax in many places on "fast food".


----------



## Lookin4GoodLife (Oct 14, 2013)

beowoulf90 said:


> It's called legalized discrimination..
> 
> The Government says that insurance now has to cover existing conditions.
> But! in the same breath says they don't have to cover smokers or allow employers to discriminate those who smoke cigarettes.


So why don't they just not hire women because they might get pregnant? Or not hire anyone over the age of 50 because we all know they're just a ticking time-bomb. While I understand smokers probably have more health issues than others, if you're going to pass legislation to "cover all", the legislation should "cover all". Not allow businesses to pick and choose who they hire based on something that *might* happen. Or just admit your legislation sucks, it's not the end-all be-all you passed it off to the American public as and move on with something else. Smoking is legal, that's not going to change, so I don't think they should be able to not hire someone because of that. If insurance is supposed to cover everyone and they can't deny because of "existing conditions" why should they be able to even ask if you smoke? What difference does it make? The law either works or it doesn't.

Disclaimer:  No, I'm not a smoker, pregnant or over 50.


----------



## Lookin4GoodLife (Oct 14, 2013)

sidepasser said:


> It is only a matter of time before obesity will be hit with a "sin" tax.


You're probably right. They can cut out sugar, but when they try to cut out bacon, that's when I will take up arms! gre:


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

Private insurance can increase the rates for those who are smokers. No law against it. Free economy and all that. While they can't refuse to insure someone, they sure can make it so expensive that the person will either quit smoking or drop their insurance and go on Ocare. 

BTW - pregnancy is considered a limited physical disability which resolves itself in a few months. Therefore most businesses don't care if one is pregnant as they know the situation will be resolved shortly. Not like heart disease which can literally drain a company's coffers with multiple hospitalizations, medications, possible transplants, etc.

Over 50 has a little to do with health insurance, but much more to do with pay and experience. i.e. companies prefer to hire young, just out of college kids and train them up in their corporate culture for less money and less added expense than a 50 year old.

i.e. mechanical engineers fresh out of college w/o experience might fetch 40,000 on the open market. Same mechanical engineer at age 50 with 25 years of experience will fetch 68-75,000 upwards. Much cheaper to keep a few "old" engineers around to train the new ones than it is to hire older engineers. Plus the new hires don't have a "that's not the way we did it at X" mentality and are readily integrated into corporate culture. 

My company has a slew of interns running amuck here - lol..and also co-ops. Cheaper for the company, we provide experience and training and in exchange we get to have our pick of the brightest kids if they want to come on board after college. Win for us all around.

People sort of forget that corporations are here to make money for stockholders. Hiring older, more expensive salaried personnel that may have health problems is not real conducive to making money. While most corps. try to be "good citizens" - my company included as we have NO retirement limit..you can work here as long as you please and are able and we have some that are in their 70's still working here..the bottom line is not what is good for the individual employee, but what adds value to the bottom line.


----------



## Lookin4GoodLife (Oct 14, 2013)

Uh.... I was just trying to make a point, not arguing. Point being that insurance companies don't want to insure you if you're going to cost them a dime. That's fine, they're out to make a profit, but when legislation is passed saying you HAVE to buy their product or pay a huge tax and then they're going to set the rules about who they'll insure and how you'll live your life..... that's messed up.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Lookin4Good---You just described Obamacare.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Lookin4GoodLife said:


> You're probably right. They can cut out sugar, but when they try to cut out bacon, that's when I will take up arms! gre:


Yer so right!!!


----------



## trulytricia (Oct 11, 2002)

slapping an older man. but these young black men feel it's ok because "he made racial slurs" [of coarse we don't know if he did] but yeah we're above the law and we have an excuse

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/12...ens-slapping-taunting-older-man-on-cta-train/


----------



## Lookin4GoodLife (Oct 14, 2013)

They will slap the wrong old man one of these days.


----------



## hippygirl (Apr 3, 2010)

Oxankle said:


> Thesedays: I don't think I said anything about the no-hire of smokers being related to Obamacare, but on reflection I think it may be.
> 
> Since employers now have to insure all and cover preexisting conditions, they may not WANT to have people predisposed to both heart attack and cancers. We all know that smokers are far more likely to be afflicted by heart disease and cancer than are the general population. Makes sense to me.


Refusing to hire smokers is nothing new...been going on for years.

Back in 1982, I got a job in the mill where DH worked...jumped through all the hoops and such, but when I got to the nurse for a "physical" and I said "yes" when she asked me if I smoked, that was it. She closed my folder and said "then we cannot hire you".

While I realize, in that instance, it was probably more to do with the risk of brown lung or other "mill-related" illness, it was perfectly legal for them to refuse to hire me according to a lawyer.

Now, understand they said/did nothing to all those employees who went to the break area and fired up...they just wouldn't KNOWINGLY "hire" a smoker.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Do you think someone that hates blacks did this?

Or, did someone do it to represent what they perceive as what is happening to blacks?











BERKELEY (CBS/AP) â Three cardboard cutouts of black men were found hanging by nooses on the Berkeley campus of the University of California.
School spokeswoman Amy Hamaoui said police are trying to determine who hanged the effigies that were found at two prominent campus locations Saturday morning. The spokeswoman said the effigies appear to be connected to a noon-time demonstration nearby planned to coincide with a national protest against police brutality dubbed â#blacklivesmatters.â The effigies appear to be life-size photos of lynching victims.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...g-by-nooses-left-on-the-trees-at-uc-berkeley/


----------



## hippygirl (Apr 3, 2010)

HDRider said:


> Do you think someone that hates blacks did this?
> 
> Or, did someone do it to represent what they perceive as what is happening to blacks?
> 
> ...


Context...

Hang it in Berkley during a demonstration about black lives mattering and the message received is one thing, but hang it anywhere down here and it's altogether different.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Yup, I understand this..

Only in Berkley, are you allowed to hang a black man and everyone is glad and happy about it...

A picture is worth a thousand words!


----------



## Lookin4GoodLife (Oct 14, 2013)

I don't know, a lot of black folks out in Cali are getting pissed off. They're saying the white folk are trying to take over "our thing" and that black voices need to be heard, not white voices. An Oakland city councilman was angry because of "young white people out there destroying our city." LOL Something about "you reap what you sow" rings a bell....

http://mediaequalizer.com/brian-maloney/2014/12/hey--------put-down-that-megaphone


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

hippygirl said:


> Context...
> 
> Hang it in Berkley during a demonstration about black lives mattering and the message received is one thing, but hang it anywhere down here and it's altogether different.


Feels very extreme either way.


----------



## sunny225 (Dec 4, 2009)

There will come a day when all of us will run up on a cop who is bent, who believes he is "THE LAW". There are laws passed every day that none of us know about. Those of you who say change the law - how? when we don't even know it IS a law?

Cops are supposed to be upholding the Constitution. There are plenty of laws that contradict the Constitution. And for them to say that they are only doing their jobs - horse hockey! God gave us a brain to be able to comprehend things that are happening in this world. And they should be able to tell right from wrong. Not whether there is a law against whatever they've made a law against lately.

It makes no difference whether the hold those cops used on Garner was a choke hold, illegal or not. They murdered this man, he's dead. That's the cold hard fact here.

One day enough people will say they've had enough bowing & scraping to the 'state' & will rise up against those that the 'state' are using to enforce the tyranny they are growing every day. Cops need to decide now whether they will continue to be used by those who mean harm to our country. actually they should have already decided & done something about it.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Scary.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Sunny; the man was breaking the law. The store owners, all black, asked for police intervention. They told Garner he was under arrest. He refused to go and slapped the police away when they attempted to arrest him. Finally he was taken down. He died in the ambulance, not on the ground. He was talking, he could breathe. He did not die of a choke hold, he died of heart failure, a long-standing disease. 

Had he done what the officers asked he'd be alive today. Had I done what he did, I would have received the same treatment, as you would have. 

Obey the law, do as the police ask and you'll be fine. Be a fighting drunk a scofflaw, a thief, run untaxed whiskey or cigarettes and you'll have trouble anywhere you go.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

sunny225 said:


> There will come a day when all of us will run up on a cop who is bent, who believes he is "THE LAW". There are laws passed every day that none of us know about. Those of you who say change the law - how? when we don't even know it IS a law?
> 
> Cops are supposed to be upholding the Constitution. There are plenty of laws that contradict the Constitution. And for them to say that they are only doing their jobs - horse hockey! God gave us a brain to be able to comprehend things that are happening in this world. And they should be able to tell right from wrong. Not whether there is a law against whatever they've made a law against lately.
> 
> ...



First let me say, I'm not defending or attacking the police..
I think each situation should be handled individually, and not by a prejudiced media with an agenda.. Or prejudiced politicians or so-called reverends or race baiting muslims etc.. Just a side note these media types with an agenda, the race baiting reverends and muslims should be hanged until dead and then left for the vultures. Yes I'm that tired of their hatred of America and our Freedom.

Now to your statement above.

The Police are not there to uphold the Constitution. They are there to uphold the law of their State/local Government PERIOD! The police are not military and are not there to protect the interests of the people. They are there to protect the interests of the State..

The police are not the same as the Sheriffs as in the Constitution.They are completely different entities..

Oh and you can thank the liberals for the laws concerning taxes on cigarettes.. To them it is more important to control the average person then to arrest the hardened criminals. It's more profitable and shows their power to arrest the petty criminals.. Again the police are not there to protect the interests of the people, they are there to protect the interests of the State..

I know that if I walk into just about anyone's home I can find them in violation of some law.. Even having outdated aspirin can be a violation of the law.. So what does that tell you about the laws?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Oxankle said:


> Sunny; the man was breaking the law. The store owners, all black, asked for police intervention. They told Garner he was under arrest. He refused to go and slapped the police away when they attempted to arrest him. Finally he was taken down. He died in the ambulance, not on the ground. He was talking, he could breathe. He did not die of a choke hold, he died of heart failure, a long-standing disease.
> 
> Had he done what the officers asked he'd be alive today. Had I done what he did, I would have received the same treatment, as you would have.
> 
> Obey the law, do as the police ask and you'll be fine. Be a fighting drunk a scofflaw, a thief, run untaxed whiskey or cigarettes and you'll have trouble anywhere you go.


Post of the day award.
While I think it was very sad a man had to die, he coulda avoided it, all on him.


----------

