stonerblue
Well-Known Member
Do they have free legal aid in the US?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
George Floyd murder / Derek Chauvin guilty of murder
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
Do they have free legal aid in the US?
If they did you can bet the GOP defunded it years ago
stonerblue
Well-Known Member
Of all the bollox i've read on here regarding blm this has to be top of the pile.Yes! Be a good boy and live. If they mistreat you. You can sue the fuck out of them and make easy money. There are lawyers who specialize in suing the NYPD. Feel free to hit me up and I can send you a few good ones of you ever know anyone who needs one.
For the life of me I don't understand those of you who don't understand the heirarchy of decision making when it comes to the cops. Be a realist. Survive your mistreatment then sue.
I've seen this video about 20 times now.
1. The cop was acting suspicious. If we are to believe the narrators story.
2. Yes, a cop knowing the person he just stopped is armed will put any cop on the edge.
The guy that was pulled over acted appropriately. Like I've detailed in past posts about solutions as opposed to complaining: Mandatory Bodycam turned on for officers when they interact with the public is A MUST!
And a lot of City's are beginning to implement this. It's simple. If your bodycam is off, the burden of proof falls on you. Dimples!
I've been preaching that from.the start. By the way, there was bodycam footage on the George Floyd killing. That has now been released. This is how accountability should work.
You want someone, anyone, of any colour to live in a world where they can get treated like shit off the cops so they can sue them? Is this your masterplan for a harmonious neighbourhood, city or country, an end to police brutality and a way to build trust and respect within communities?
And i've not even mentioned race..
Bigga
Well-Known Member
Is policing changing...?
Bigga
Well-Known Member
I thought I'd post something interesting on the thing that started this whole BLM affair over George Floyd.
I'd found this on the net after I heard Tim Black offer up a remark and realised nobody on this forum, especially our US friends, had even bothered to offer this scenario as far as I'm aware:
So, the other question becomes, why did the cops attend and did the cops even realise this could be the case on what was possibly/ probably still legal tender...?
I'd found this on the net after I heard Tim Black offer up a remark and realised nobody on this forum, especially our US friends, had even bothered to offer this scenario as far as I'm aware:
FWIW, in most cases where someone is suspected of passing a single counterfeit $20 bill, if the merchant who received the alleged counterfeit calls police, he’s advised to contact the Secret Service, which handles counterfeiting investigations. The owner of the store where George Floyd was alleged to have tried to pass a counterfeit bill said that they’d called police before for similar issues and the police had never responded by coming to the store before.
The teenage kid who called police cannot possibly have had any expertise in detecting counterfeits.
Further, because the $20 has undergone extensive redesign in recent years (to thwart counterfeiting, ironically), there are older-issue $20 bills that are quite legal and legitimate that occasionally show up in circulation that don’t look anything like current $20 bills. I’d bet dollars against a stale donut that what Floyd was spending was not a counterfeit bill. It was probably an old-issue $20 that the kid at the convenience store didn’t recognize (and that the marking pens and other “bill-testers” that work on current $20’s don’t recognize).
So, the other question becomes, why did the cops attend and did the cops even realise this could be the case on what was possibly/ probably still legal tender...?
idahoblues
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2009
- Messages
- 21,603
YesDo they have free legal aid in the US?
YesDo they have free legal aid in the US?
Exactly! You seem to easily get what @stonerblue seems to be struggling with. The best way to stay alive is to comply and not resist. Most of the suspects who have died during a police interaction, over 95% were not complying with police instructions.It's very hard to sue if you've been killed.
Like anything else, there are exceptions... But by and large failure to comply is often an issit
So we teach comply, survive and sue Iater if you've been mistreated.
1) Yes I know the black guy was also a cop. I believe he said so.You know that the cop that was pulled over was a cop as well, right? So, which one was "acting suspicious" since you seem to question the narrator's story...?
Therefore your answer as "2" is all the more confusing!
2) In their interaction the cop was the guy who made the stop. The narrator is self evident.
3) Thus, the guy who is NOT the narrator 'was acting suspiciously.'
4) Im not questioning the narrators story, just noting that we only have his impressions of the exchange.
The narrator was worried. I'd like to note that nothing actually happened here. He was stopped at night by a frazzled cop who now realizes the guy he stopped is packing (has a gun.)If the Black cop is complying and feeling threatened at the same time, whilst having the knowledge of previous interactions of other (Black) deceased citizens with the (White) police, how the fuck is an ordinary (Black) citizen supposed to know how to comply, especially in an area where Black life is ended by police at a high rate...??
As for the rest of your rhetoric, I tend not to be moved by such. Last year the Police killed 15 unarmed black men and about 50 unarmed people in the country. 15 blacks, 25 whites, and 10 others.
Now some of those killings that were unjustified and should be reviewed and the culprits punished. However, there is no spate of white police officers killing black people. I know the numbers and the have read the studies
The loss of any innocent life is tragic and should be punished
Yes, Philando Castile is on of those rear examples of a police shooting of a complying suspect. The other 3 examples I know of are actually of white people. But unfortunately, that doesn't fit the narrative.I cite Philando Castille as a good example of being compliant, like the Black cop, except one lived and one died. In the case of the Black cop, that was a good night for him cos things could have gone sideways for not following 'orders'.
These are rare. But rather than acknowledge it was a rare tragedy and strive to never happen again. It gets repeated In every discussion as if it's the norm. When in fact it's anything but.
Well, 2 points. 1) there were over 20 officers eventually at the scene. But at the point of entry there were only 6 officers. And only 3 were inside the door.As for the Body Cam thing, over 20 officers were on the site of Breonna Taylor's murder and only 3 have been picked up. How many body cams were on and why hasn't this been looked at in more detail?
2) None of those 3 had cams on.
But yes, mandatory Body cam is a must.
stonerblue
Well-Known Member
I'm not 'struggling' with anything apart from your notion that a cop can be as a big a twat as they like and should expect to be abused, and in a lot of cases murdered if they don't 'comply'Exactly! You seem to easily get what @stonerblue seems to be struggling with. The best way to stay alive is to comply and not resist. Most of the suspects who have died during a police interaction, over 95% were not complying with police instructions.
Like anything else, there are exceptions... But by and large failure to comply is often an issit
So we teach comply, survive and sue Iater if you've been mistreated.
Bigga
Well-Known Member
1) Yes I know the black guy was also a cop. I believe he said so.
2) In their interaction the cop was the guy who made the stop. The narrator is self evident.
3) Thus, the guy who is NOT the narrator 'was acting suspiciously.'
4) Im not questioning the narrators story, just noting that we only have his impressions of the exchange.
The narrator was worried. I'd like to note that nothing actually happened here. He was stopped at night by a frazzled cop who now realizes the guy he stopped is packing (has a gun.)
As for the rest of your rhetoric, I tend not to be moved by such. Last year the Police killed 15 unarmed black men and about 50 unarmed people in the country. 15 blacks, 25 whites, and 10 others.
Now some of those killings that were unjustified and should be reviewed and the culprits punished. However, there is no spate of white police officers killing black people. I know the numbers and the have read the studies
The loss of any innocent life is tragic and should be punished
Yes, Philando Castile is on of those rear examples of a police shooting of a complying suspect. The other 3 examples I know of are actually of white people. But unfortunately, that doesn't fit the narrative.
These are rare. But rather than acknowledge it was a rare tragedy and strive to never happen again. It gets repeated In every discussion as if it's the norm. When in fact it's anything but.
Well, 2 points. 1) there were over 20 officers eventually at the scene. But at the point of entry there were only 6 officers. And only 3 were inside the door.
2) None of those 3 had cams on.
But yes, mandatory Body cam is a must.
Your attempt at deconstructing my response is interesting considering your original points were firmly unclear on delivery. You should read, again, how you delivered your post and understand where how there was no clarity of it. You did not make clear the understanding that both people were cops and in doing so, you did not make clear which cop was "suspicious" due to your unwillingness to identify any differences between the cops.
This is something I note with you.
I understand the hesitancy of identifying demographic by race as we're all Human, but for the purposes of distinction between identities, it makes sense to clarify and separate persons.
In your response to me you CLEARLY wrote "if we are to believe the narrator's story" which castigates room for doubt in your mind. Again, this is something else you do; to give yourself room to believe that the potential victim had done wrong in some capacity. And whilst there is nothing wrong in doing that, you're never very clear in expressing a curiosity about the whole affair, but lean towards something a victim might have done rather than question anything else. There's a whole different way to think on the subject.
And, by extension, if you question a victim, who in this case happens to a Black cop, when you tend to believe cops and compliance, how does this affect your thinking on things?
You cite a study on the amount of unarmed people killed by cops without context of pct of demographic in the country, which would have underlined credence to other studies cited of 'disproportionate' killings, which even Pres #45 understands! Nevertheless your point shows that these situations were handled extremely poorly by police and not that "some of those killings that were unjustified and should be reviewed..."!
No unarmed citizen should be killed if any police are trained in the correct way of de-escalation and/ or restraint.
As for your extremely childish barb of White death not 'fitting the narrative' I, myself, was the first to raise the unfortunate and unjustified killing of Daniel Shaver. If your point on "narrative" is other than that, let me point out to you the continued protests on the streets by ALL demographics, mothers, fathers and war vets against police behaviour!!
The evidence cannot be more stark.
And my question on the Breonna taylor murder; 3 out of 6 of those officers are unlikely to admit to pulling the trigger that killed Miss Taylor, when it's likely more than one person opened fire. Should they all be cited with murder/ attempted murder by their actions or do you think they had justification for it?
Lastly, as a round circle response to your final words, an ordinary citizen is not going to know what to look for or how to act when it comes to body cams, so essentially, they will not know how to protect their own rights and actions under duress and a body cam off will always end up with a cops word against the victim, dead or not. And that's not to say that the cop can't say the cam was faulty.
I heard that one before a fair few times...
I think you misunderstood where I was coming from. Your implication is that if you don't comply entirely with the police then it's an acceptable risk that the police will kill you. That isn't a police force, that's a hit squad killing citizens who aren't instantly complying. The number of instances where black people have done everything by the book (all american kids are taught to yes sir no sir the police over there because of their violence, black kids also have to worry about their racism) and still get killed is beyond disgusting. And where did you get that 95% figure from? Is that something off the internet, the american police, your mate Kevin down the pub?Exactly! You seem to easily get what @stonerblue seems to be struggling with. The best way to stay alive is to comply and not resist. Most of the suspects who have died during a police interaction, over 95% were not complying with police instructions.
Like anything else, there are exceptions... But by and large failure to comply is often an issit
So we teach comply, survive and sue Iater if you've been mistreated.
It's not intelligent to infer the above from my statement.I'm not 'struggling' with anything apart from your notion that a cop can be as a big a twat as they like and should expect to be abused, and in a lot of cases murdered if they don't 'comply'
Again, I live in the real world. Not in a make believe world. Reality suggests there are assholes in all Professions. Including the Police.
In so far as we know that there are some in the police force, my advice to anyone who has been stopped is to comply with instructions. This is true regardless of if the cop is an asshole. Comply and then ask questions.
In the event that the cop acts like a testy twat, do not act out. Wait till you are strong (i.e with a lawyer and the news media behind you) and then respond.
There is nothing controversial about that. But somehow you seem to think otherwise. Strange.
The reader is the arbiter of what's clear. So if it wasn't clear to you, I'd take your word. But my response was to make clear what you said wasn't.Your attempt at deconstructing my response is interesting considering your original points were firmly unclear on delivery. You should read, again, how you delivered your post and understand where how there was no clarity of it. You did not make clear the understanding that both people were cops and in doing so, you did not make clear which cop was "suspicious" due to your unwillingness to identify any differences between the cops.
The Black guy (since you think I have an issue with identifying by race, I don't) who was the only one on the video was the narrator. Some white guy, who stopped the black guy on some trumped up offense was the 'suspicious cop'.
In truth, I was working on my attempts at brevity. Suppose I need more work.
Yes, hence Cop and Narrator. 2 characters only one seen and the other described. But hey, black guy talking, and white guy he talked about perhaps would have been clearer. I'd note that for our next discussion.This is something I note with you.
I understand the hesitancy of identifying demographic by race as we're all Human, but for the purposes of distinction between identities, it makes sense to clarify and separate persons.
No. I do it to note this is one side of the story. Just like when I read a police report. I don't assume I'm reading all the facts. I'm reading their impression of it. Unfortunately, here there is only one side. So I am noting that.In your response to me you CLEARLY wrote "if we are to believe the narrator's story" which castigates room for doubt in your mind. Again, this is something else you do; to give yourself room to believe that the potential victim had done wrong in some capacity. And whilst there is nothing wrong in doing that, you're never very clear in expressing a curiosity about the whole affair, but lean towards something a victim might have done rather than question anything else. There's a whole different way to think on the subject.
I don't believe cops either. I take it as their side of the story. Again, another reason why I'm an adamant supporter of Body Cams. I like independent evidence. And I know it's in here somewhere, but I've proposed that all cops MUST have their cams on when interacting with the public. And failure to do so should shift the burden of proof to police. So if you don't have your bodycam on, well we'll believe the potential victim If a complaint were to be filed.And, by extension, if you question a victim, who in this case happens to a Black cop, when you tend to believe cops and compliance, how does this affect your thinking on things?
I've said this many times.
1. The study doesn't show that there was disproportionate killings.You cite a study on the amount of unarmed people killed by cops without context of pct of demographic in the country, which would have underlined credence to other studies cited of 'disproportionate' killings, which even Pres #45 understands! Nevertheless your point shows that these situations were handled extremely poorly by police and not that "some of those killings that were unjustified and should be reviewed..."!
2. There have been 4 peer reviewed studies. And none showed disproportionate killing of black people.
Again, In an Utopian world, this would be true. But In reality there are mistakes and there are bad cops, there are evil cops, and there are bad intentioned citizens.No unarmed citizen should be killed if any police are trained in the correct way of de-escalation and/ or restraint.
That said, I am a supporter of improved training and continuous training while on the force. Which would suggest more money for the police and not less. #Nodefunding
I don't know why you'd call it a childish barb. You in your last response cited the spate of White cops killing black people. Since this is not true as a matter of statistics, it can only be the case that the highlighting and national coverage of when a white police officer kills a black person while little or no coverage is given when the officer is either not White or the victim is white, suggests a purposeful narrative being pushed.As for your extremely childish barb of White death not 'fitting the narrative' I, myself, was the first to raise the unfortunate and unjustified killing of Daniel Shaver. If your point on "narrative" is other than that, let me point out to you the continued protests on the streets by ALL demographics, mothers, fathers and war vets against police behaviour!!
And you clearly agree with the narrative in spite of facts that contradicts it.
I mean a whole World wide protest has ensued partly on the basis of this.
The evidence that most buy the narrative? Yes I agree. It cannot be more stark.The evidence cannot be more stark.
I believe, she was hit by multiple bullets. My sense is all 3 officers discharged their weapons. So they are all liable. I'm not sure even they can tell you which ones definitely hit her and who didn't.And my question on the Breonna taylor murder; 3 out of 6 of those officers are unlikely to admit to pulling the trigger that killed Miss Taylor, when it's likely more than one person opened fire. Should they all be cited with murder/ attempted murder by their actions or do you think they had justification for it?
But the issue here is whether the police announced their presence or not. According to the reports I've seen. The guy inside the house fired first. As he believed they were robbers, apparently because they didn't announce themselves. If that's the case, the officers can be charged with causing Ms. Taylor's death. If they can prove they did announce, then it would be a tougher case.
Another issue is with the ease of access to "No knock warrants." This I believe needs to be banned under almost all circumstances.
I think I have dealt with this previously.Lastly, as a round circle response to your final words, an ordinary citizen is not going to know what to look for or how to act when it comes to body cams, so essentially, they will not know how to protect their own rights and actions under duress and a body cam off will always end up with a cops word against the victim, dead or not. And that's not to say that the cop can't say the cam was faulty.
I heard that one before a fair few times...
Cam On is a MUST. Failure to have it on will shift the burden of proof to the police. What this means is that the Can is the police's evidence. It protects them against false claims.
Thus, not having the Cam on will be detrimental to the police.
Bigga
Well-Known Member
It's not intelligent to infer the above from my statement.
Again, I live in the real world. Not in a make believe world. Reality suggests there are assholes in all Professions. Including the Police.
In so far as we know that there are some in the police force, my advice to anyone who has been stopped is to comply with instructions. This is true regardless of if the cop is an asshole. Comply and then ask questions.
In the event that the cop acts like a testy twat, do not act out. Wait till you are strong (i.e with a lawyer and the news media behind you) and then respond.
There is nothing controversial about that. But somehow you seem to think otherwise. Strange.
You do know that civil compliance to the police is not a national order, right?
I think you misunderstood where I was coming from. Your implication is that if you don't comply entirely with the police then it's an acceptable risk that the police will kill you.
That's a ridiculous inference to draw. You should comply with the police because they are the police. Most interactions run smoothly when citizens do.
In the event that you are mistreated, it is smarter to not to get into a tussle with the police. Rather wait and sue them.
The first point is to comply. Second is to not escalate a situation in which a gun is present.
I mean almost everyone faced by a criminal illegally apprehending them, say in a bank robbery, knows to comply. The reason being there is a gun present. Why are we now pretending not understand this in a cop situation. The cop has a rational fear that someone not complying is liable to attempting to disarm them. Or themselves be armed.
1. The police seldom kill people who aren't instantly complying. Has this happened before? Yes, but it's a rarity. Yet you potray it as the norm.That isn't a police force, that's a hit squad killing citizens who aren't instantly complying. The number of instances where black people have done everything by the book (all american kids are taught to yes sir no sir the police over there because of their violence, black kids also have to worry about their racism) and still get killed is beyond disgusting. And where did you get that 95% figure from? Is that something off the internet, the american police, your mate Kevin down the pub?
2. Can you quantify the bolded? I am familiar with the numbers. So far, I'm only aware of the above on 2 occasions.
One was the horrific killing of Philando Castile and the other gentleman survived. But he was shot in the stomach while complying. If you know of others feel free to give them. I'm sure there are others but I don't know if them.
3. As to the 95% assumption. It is a guestimate based on the number of armed suspect to none armed suspects killed. Average #nof people killed a year is 1000. Average # unarmed 50. Even if we assume every single person who was unarmed was complying (which isn't the case), that's still leaves us with about 95% not complying.
I was being conservative in my estimate. As Ives seen the recorded descriptions of the evens of the 52 people killed last year. A high number of them weren't complying. And those are just the unarmed.
Thank you for confirming the 95% is a guess, i suspected it was.That's a ridiculous inference to draw. You should comply with the police because they are the police. Most interactions run smoothly when citizens do.
In the event that you are mistreated, it is smarter to not to get into a tussle with the police. Rather wait and sue them.
The first point is to comply. Second is to not escalate a situation in which a gun is present.
I mean almost everyone faced by a criminal illegally apprehending them, say in a bank robbery, knows to comply. The reason being there is a gun present. Why are we now pretending not understand this in a cop situation. The cop has a rational fear that someone not complying is liable to attempting to disarm them. Or themselves be armed.
1. The police seldom kill people who aren't instantly complying. Has this happened before? Yes, but it's a rarity. Yet you potray it as the norm.
2. Can you quantify the bolded? I am familiar with the numbers. So far, I'm only aware of the above on 2 occasions.
One was the horrific killing of Philando Castile and the other gentleman survived. But he was shot in the stomach while complying. If you know of others feel free to give them. I'm sure there are others but I don't know if them.
3. As to the 95% assumption. It is a guestimate based on the number of armed suspect to none armed suspects killed. Average #nof people killed a year is 1000. Average # unarmed 50. Even if we assume every single person who was unarmed was complying (which isn't the case), that's still leaves us with about 95% not complying.
I was being conservative in my estimate. As Ives seen the recorded descriptions of the evens of the 52 people killed last year. A high number of them weren't complying. And those are just the unarmed.
And as for the bit you asked me to quantify, go look at the news and read what's been going in the past 400 years. This shit with the US police and black people is not something new. Read into the black men accused of raping white women and were either lynched or killed by the police (or by the courts). I lived in the deep south, I've seen and heard the bullshit over there first hand and it's grim.
I'm not sure how this is relevant. Can you expand? I have not claimed you should comply because it's a national order. So I don't see the relevance of this point.You do know that civil compliance to the police is not a national order, right?
Bigga
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure how this is relevant. Can you expand? I have not claimed you should comply because it's a national order. So I don't see the relevance of this point.
You have used a blanket term of compliance and not made it plain that compliance is State dependent. In States where a police officer stops a civilian on foot or comes to their property, they must have REASONABLE suspicion of a crime for where they stop an individual.
It is State dependent on whether the individual gives any name or contact details to the police or reasoning as to what they're doing or where they're going.
You should confirm the State you're indicating when talking about compliance as it should not be considered a blanket statement.
As for your response to my reply, I will address that a little later as this is a quick retort.
Oh my bad. I didn't realize you were simply rehashing history. I suppose we have different agendas and purposes here. Mine is to attempt to profer possible solutions that may reduce the present day possibility of frictions and possible harm. Based on facts and common sense. Yours is to regale us with historical context, regardless of if it has any present day value.Thank you for confirming the 95% is a guess, i suspected it was.
And as for the bit you asked me to quantify, go look at the news and read what's been going in the past 400 years. This shit with the US police and black people is not something new. Read into the black men accused of raping white women and were either lynched or killed by the police (or by the courts). I lived in the deep south, I've seen and heard the bullshit over there first hand and it's grim.
I'm happy we cleared that up.
Last edited: