Yet More Tensions in the States...

[RichardDunneOwnGoal]

@Bigga you've totally missed my point.

Throwaway comments like 'not all police' just gloss over a problem within many police forces (typically in the U.S. now it seems), in the same way 'not all Muslims' glosses over issues with Islam and some of its followers today.

You've been a proponent of the latter on many occasions, and it doesn't solve anything. Both examples are cop-outs.

Such cop-outs are not conducive to resolution and resolving issues, they don't help us answer the question of 'why?'

 

[BimboBob]

Seems to me he was quite polite until she started acting and talking weird.

Still, never understand the rest. Madness to be threatened to be "lit up" for not indicating when moving out of the way of a police car.

Seems to me there's a fault in both sides, no backing down, stubborn, Police win.

Such a waste of life.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Have you seen police training in the States? They're taught to assume the worst in absolutely every situation. Almost any sudden movement is taught as being life-threatening. And then they're surprised when routine traffic stops regularly escalate into fatal situations and there's no trust between the people and the cops. Add to that the fact that it's legal to carry a gun in the States and you have police officers who are told to fear members of the public, given guns and in some cases military equipment, and told to go out into the city where it's perfectly legal to carry firearms and make judgements about which of the people carrying them (or not as the case may be) constitute a threat. It's basically an impossible job, even if you aren't some sort of power mad racist. And who do they get to do this job? Well some departments actually refuse to hire candidates that score too highly on an IQ test.

And that's before you even start to talk about the fucked up legal system in that country. I mean compare what is said to a suspect in the UK:



to the same speech in the USA:



"May be used against you." The police work for the prosecution from the start. When you're interviewed, the police can only present evidence against you in court. In the UK, your interview can be used in your defence. It's why this lawyer advises everyone in America to never speak to the police.

The main reason people are told not to talk to the police is because the law is difficult to understand and the machinations that are often used to elicit information are usually absolutely not known to a potential defendant. In such cases, a lawyer is your friend, even if it is "only" a public defender. Watching any police procedural in the USA makes this absolutely clear. When you speak to the police immediately after an event, the police are calm and you are usually not. They are trained to elicit incriminating information by being your friend, helping you relieve your burden, etc...

There is a Constitutional Amendment that specifically spells out your right NOT to self incriminate by NOT SPEAKING TO THE POLICE. It is a good thing, as is the simple function of complying with legal demands to comply with law enforcement officer demands. As will be the case in this instance, if the officer has overstepped, he will be made patently aware of it.

However, one note that needs to be made. There is a very big difference between a departmental procedure in how to do something and the underlying statutes that allow or disallow certain actions. As someone who deals with procedures and laws all the time, I'm acutely aware of both and significantly more fearful of running afoul of the law.

If I am ever arrested, I will make no statements to the police. That is what a lawyer is for....and often why the best ones are so expensive!

 

[super_city_si]

President Trump will sort all the shit out. It'll be renamed the United States of Trump. Fans will chant 'UST UST UST' at all international sports gatherings. And everyone will live happily ever after.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

There is a Constitutional Amendment that specifically spells out your right NOT to self incriminate by NOT SPEAKING TO THE POLICE. It is a good thing, as is the simple function of complying with legal demands to comply with law enforcement officer demands. As will be the case in this instance, if the officer has overstepped, he will be made patently aware of it.

In quite a few of the cases I've seen, these things escalate in the first place because of someone's refusal to speak to the police and exercising their constitutional rights. The police are used to people doing what they say, so some get a bit angry when someone (rightly) doesn't recognise them as having any authority in certain situations (no I don't have to answer your questions, no I won't show you my ID, no you can't search my car, etc). They see refusal to cooperate with the police as suspicious behaviour in and of itself, which they have no right to do.

And then add to that the introduction of the taser, which was originally marketed as an alternative to using guns, but has increasingly been used by police forces all over the world against people who merely refuse to follow police instructions. Here's a good video about that one (starts talking about police at 7:00):

 

[ChicagoBlue]

That may be so but the quoted official hasn't left any room for doubt that he has in fact violated arrest procedure.

I presume it was .................. restraining and handcuffing somebody who didn't pose any obvious threat without ever warning them they could be arrested, then failing to inform them that they were under arrest and then violating their rights under the US constitution by failing to read them their rights.

But then again I'm not an American, I can just read.

A procedure is not a law, and your presumption is a whopper! Do you have the name of the man on the grassy knoll, too, or did you just watch an episode of Law and Order on TV last night? As for your reading comprehension, well, I'll leave it alone.

Buh bye.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

In quite a few of the cases I've seen, these things escalate in the first place because of someone's refusal to speak to the police and exercising their constitutional rights. The police are used to people doing what they say, so some get a bit angry when someone (rightly) doesn't recognise them as having any authority in certain situations (no I don't have to answer your questions, no I won't show you my ID, no you can't search my car, etc). They see refusal to cooperate with the police as suspicious behaviour in and of itself, which they have no right to do.

Don't confuse the Fifth Amendment right with other "rights" you may not actually have.

 

[aguero93:20]

A procedure is not a law, and your presumption is a whopper! Do you have the name of the man on the grassy knoll, too, or did you just watch an episode of Law and Order on TV last night? As for your reading comprehension, well, I'll leave it alone.

Buh bye.

Bye bye again? You find these things difficult, don't you?

 

[Malty]

He seemed quite reasonable bloke to me.

Would this get attention if she didn't commit suicide?

 

[Malty]

Failure to use a turn signal is technically an arrestable offense in Texas. LEGAL FACT.

During a traffic stop, a police officer has the right to ask a driver to get out of the car even for a non-arrestable offense, as a way of securing his own safety. The officer has almost complete discretion and the driver is legally obligated to get out when asked. LEGAL FACT.

Use of force against a citizen is allowed when an officer is arresting someone, but it should be proportional to the circumstance. LEGAL FACT.

“While they are forcefully holding her down, I don’t think a judge would see that restraint as disproportionate physical force against Ms. Bland,” Ms. Roth said. (LEGAL OPINION OF A LAW PROFESSOR from the most liberal university in the United States.)

In the arrest affidavit, Trooper Encinia described Ms. Bland as “combative and uncooperative” and said she had begun swinging at him with her elbows after she was removed from the car, handcuffed and forcibly subdued. FACT.

The end.

This.

Dude knows his onions.