The Black Lives Matters thread.

[LioraVox]

If she was following his orders and there was no logical reason for him to be raising his voice, yes, I totally get it. But when you are knowingly and purposely totally ignoring the orders of of law enforcement during a traffic stop, I think it is ridiculous to act as if the officer is the one at fault for raising his voice..

Could he have handled it differently. Of course. SHE could have handled it differently as well. But it is 100% her fault she was arrested. Period.

I watched the unedited video before I made judgements. You made judgements on the cop having the nerve to raise his voice to her in the first place. I assume prior to seeing the video form the beginning.

I think it is crazy that now cops are not allowed to raise their voices if someone is not complying during a traffic stop or they are "not handling it" properly. They are the police. They are meant to be authoritative. If they have tried numerous times to get you to comply, and you refuse, then that is on you. People are supposed to fear the consequences of breaking the law. They are not supposed to be treated with kids gloves because the consequences make them uncomfortable.

I am sorry that you put such a broad stroke on my comments and turned them into:

"any person who thinks it's crazy/ridiculous/etc for a civilian to be afraid of a cop is asinine"

when it was clear I was commenting on this particular situation.

We have different opinions on this. I doesn't make you asinine.

The officer can raise his voice & assert his position, but the moment a civilian says "you are making me afraid" or calls for other cops to come because this cop is making them afraid. IT IS that cops responsibility to assess and gain control over the situation. My point is just because a person is in a position where they can assert power doesn't mean they have to remain at a certain level to assert that power. Nothing she did changed between him standing there while she was on the phone with the operator - to him arresting her while she was still on the phone with the operator. Aside for his patience, and that's on him. She didn't curse at him, she didn't gesture at him like she was going to harm him. That escalation is on him. I'm not even saying she shouldn't have been arrested. I'm saying that the point that he decided to arrest her - is on him. He didn't arrest her when she got out of her car the second time so.. he could've waited for other officers to show up to arrest her.

Regardless if you're in an authoritative position, it's not "babying" to step back and recognize that your actions are coming off as harsh or threatening especially if that's not your intention. You can be authoritative without being threatening, and regardless of how we interpret the situation she saw this officer as being a potential threat to her safety. So saying that its ridiculous for her to feel that way is asinine. She felt what she felt, and how you interpret it isn't going to change that moment of her life.

I just chose to word is this way, because I didn't want you to take it as a personal "she thinks i am foolish". The statement "She felt unsafe because he was raising his voice because she refused to get back in the car? Really? C'mon." dismisses any other causes she could have to an inherent fear of an officer. She could be afraid of men, and it's a male officer who's raising his voice at her. She could have a fear of cops because of how she's seen/heard other peoples experiences with cops & how it goes wrong. We don't know, but how you worded your statement says that you think its crazy/ridiculous for her to be afraid of him - period.

 

[Ms_Diane]

I think it is really hard to see the other side, no matter what way you are looking at it. I think you are both right in different ways. Makes me think that part of improving the relationship between the police and the public should be not only for police to make changes to their training and how they interact with the public but for us to also see all the bs that cops have to put up with. I don't doubt that cops feel unsafe sometimes, but it is also kind of effed up that people feel unsafe around cops when they are being pulled over for a traffic violation. I don't know how to talk about one side of things without invalidating the other side.

When I was in high school we had a cop come talk to us on a career day, and she told us that the thing that surprised her the most about her job when she first started was how much she had to learn in terms of dealing with people. That the number one thing you need to be a cop is people skills. So being a cop is a super tough gig with very real stakes, but there is also the very real widespread issues of police violence and racism in so many police departments. So part of the reason this woman in the video reacted the way she did is because she is freaked out by how people of colour are so often treated by the police. The police need to address this. But the police still need to be able to do their jobs. No one is winning.

@Camgirl I really appreciate your point of view and am glad you voiced your opinions and perspective. I hope you won't leave the conversation, but I understand if you do of course.

 

[LioraVox]

Yes, I believe when he was raising his voice telling her to get back in her vehicle as he was walking towards her he had a right to feel uncertain and unsafe on what was going to transpire in that moment. Many cops have been shot as a suspect is getting out of their vehicle. I assume he no longer felt unsafe when he put his cuffs back in his pocket as they were both standing at her car. Which is why I mentioned that in my previous post.


I probably shouldn't even post about law enforcement on here. My opinions will not be popular, and I have a very vested interest considering the man I love and many of my close friends are LEOs. And considering I have seen first hand the pain caused by the loss of two very wonderful men, who happened to be LEOS who were shot and murdered at gunpoint during a traffic stop, I can empathise with a cop being cautious during a traffic stop and wanting someone to stay in their vehicle.

I like your opinion in this thread because it shows a side that isn't widely expressed. And after your paragraph, I can see that that's definitely where you're speaking from. Tbh, we're both speaking from the same place just different sides. Because I can empathise with someone being afraid of an officer.

For me, the issue is that a lot of the time, people who empathise with police put blinders onto the other person in the situation because they always give the LEO the benefit of the doubt, "you had to do what you had to do". And often times, I find s/o's or friends, family to LEOs rarely ever question their actions. Often times, these people are always trying to justify the LEO's actions instead of acknowledging the other side's argument or position of opinion and that's where I understood your post to be- absolving the officer for his part and putting most of the blame on the woman.

I know that if a cop uses force, in situation where they aren't in danger/they aren't using force to prevent the person from getting away, I will probably always side with the "criminal" because, to me, the use of force is never justifiable unless either of this instances are happening. I will always feel that if there's room to criticise how a cop reacted there's room to address it so that situation doesn't happen again. Not saying they need to be perfect, but there's an unsaid expectation that comes with the job, that doesn't apply to a civilian because the civilian didn't swear an oath of protecting and serving. So while a civilian isn't "obeying their orders" the officers job is still to protect them & you can't protect someone while simultaneously harming them with force.

 

[Camgirl]

Regardless if you're in an authoritative position, it's not "babying" to step back and recognize that your actions are coming off as harsh or threatening especially if that's not your intention.

Ok, I hear you. But at what point should she have recognized her own part in what happened? Why was she fearful to listen to the officer and get back in her vehicle, where she would have been much safer and there would have been a barrier between her and the Officer. He didn;t say GET ON THE GROUND! PUT YOUR HANDS UP!!"

From the perspective of a LEO, I am sure it appeared like this woman was trying to do whatever she could to get out of a ticket, including suggesting the officer was being brutal with her, which, raising your voice is not police brutality. She really just appeared to me like a woman who was ready, from the moment she was getting pulled over, to create a scene and disobey the police. People who intend to cooperate do not jump out of their car and walk towards police when getting stopped, and then refuse to get back in their car.

that's where I understood your post to be- absolving the officer for his part and putting most of the blame on the woman.

You are correct though. I do place most of the blame on her. Not all, but most. I do think he should have handled it differently, but I do not think the outcome should have been much different. I think she deserved to be put in handcuffs when she displayed that she was not going to get back in her car. Handcuffs do not = arrest.He had not yet run her license. For all he knew she could have had warrants out. In her car or in handcuffs, she is contained until he runs her ID. That is the goal. Her staying put in one place. Officers will ask a person to step out of their vehicle after they have run their license, usually to arrest them. Likely, she would have gotten a ticket and never even had to get out of her car.

But from the start, she was having none of it. Period. She knew from the start she was not going to comply. Had she just got back in her vehicle - a totally reasonable and expected thing to request - this would not have escalated. This is not a situation where she was doing what she was supposed to and then being treated poorly. She was literally breaking the law - on tape. He should have not let it go on as long as he did, but why should she be excused from the consequences of breaking the law because she fears the police? I mean, she is on video breaking the law and the expectation is she is not in the wrong. I feel like you might be having blinders as well.

I am buzzed.

ETA: Do you feel because of her fear she should not have had to get back in her car as requested? Maybe I am unclear.

 

[Bocefish]

she could have to an inherent fear of an officer. She could be afraid of men, and it's a male officer who's raising his voice at her. She could have a fear of cops because of how she's seen/heard other peoples experiences with cops & how it goes wrong. We don't know

Ya, but it's pretty obvious she was just another white pants suit drama queen trying to abuse the system for her advantage.

 

[LioraVox]

Ok, I hear you. But at what point should she have recognized her own part in what happened? Why was she fearful to listen to the officer and get back in her vehicle, where she would have been much safer and there would have been a barrier between her and the Officer. He didn;t say GET ON THE GROUND! PUT YOUR HANDS UP!!"

From the perspective of a LEO, I am sure it appeared like this woman was trying to do whatever she could to get out of a ticket, including suggesting the officer was being brutal with her, which, raising your voice is not police brutality. She really just appeared to me like a woman who was ready, from the moment she was getting pulled over, to create a scene and disobey the police. People who intend to cooperate do not jump out of their car and walk towards police when getting stopped, and then refuse to get back in their car.



You are correct though. I do place most of the blame on her. Not all, but most. I do think he should have handled it differently, but I do not think the outcome should have been much different. I think she deserved to be put in hand cuffs when she displayed that she was not going to comply. Handcuffs do not arrest. But from the start, she was having none of being pulled over. Period. She new from the start she was not going to comply. Had she just got back in her vehicle - a totally reasonable and expected thing to request - this would not have escalated. This is not a situation where she was doing what she was supposed to and then being treated poorly. She was literally breaking the law - on tape. He should have not let it go on as long as he did, but why should she be excused from the consequences of breaking the law because she fears the police? I mean, she is on video breaking the law and the expectation is she is not in the wrong. I feel like you might be having blinders as well.

I am buzzed.

I agree with you, and definitely, can acknowledge her part in her arrest. I never said it wasn't deserved as an end result. My whole point of posting the video was to create a discussion about where the line is between a) a civilian protecting themselves and b) disrespecting an officer by resisting or protesting arrest and what's the difference between the two. Where is this special moment that changed things from A to B. Making that difference known helps. Like, you saying "she should've stayed in the car when he said to get in the car/exaggerated the threat of the officer" explains how her actions are seen as disrespectful towards the officer. While looking at it from her side, calling for backup and then pulling away from an officer,she has claimed to be afraid of, while they are trying to subdue her of can be seen as her protecting herself from his actions.

What makes this situation one thing & not the other? Is it possible for a person to not be disrespectful towards a cop while also trying to protect themselves from force?

 

[Camgirl]

While looking at it from her side, calling for backup and then pulling away from an officer,she has claimed to be afraid of, while they are trying to subdue her of can be seen as her protecting herself from his actions.

I understand what you are saying and the thinking behind it, but I think in THIS CASE it is called resisting an officer. IN THEORY, it does not become forceful until there resistance. This isn't really a respect thing. This is a you are breaking the law and now you are being detained, and by law (not respect) you should not resist.

What makes this situation one thing & not the other? Is it possible for a person to not be disrespectful towards a cop while also trying to protect themselves from force?

I think the actions that led up to it all (her getting out of the car, refusing to comply, etc) make this one and not the other.

I do understand, acknowledge, and know that this is not always the case though, especially recently. This particular video gets under my skin because there are serious problems regarding police brutality and racism out there, and I truly feel like this was not one of them. I do not feel like anything that happening in this video has to do with race. I feel like this video shows someone who was using the current climate of LEO relations to get out of a ticket she didn't feel like she deserved, and it blew up in both of their faces.

 

[Nordling]

Ya, but it's pretty obvious she was just another white pants suit drama queen trying to abuse the system for her advantage.

Have to agree. This cop was very polite, and gave her tons of time to do her weird scene.

 

[Osmia]

I was doing some googling for guidance on how to behave when pulled over by police for a traffic violation.

This one seems very helpful, detailed and balanced:
http://woai.iheart.com/articles/local-news-119078/your-rights-and-responsibilities-in-a-13792457/

Same here, from the ACLU (obviously not "pro police").
https://aclu-wa.org/what-do-if-youre-stopped-police

Here are the driver's responsibilities, according to the ACLU:

• Be polite and respectful.
• Stay calm and in control of your words, body language, and emotions.
• Don't get into an argument with the police.
• Remember, anything you say or do can be used against you.
• Keep your hands where the police can see them.
• Don't run. Don't touch any police officer.
• Don't resist even if you believe you are innocent.
• Don't complain on the scene; you can do this later.

I think a large part of the difficulty this woman had at the traffic stop was because she was driving a car. Legally, driving a car is considered a privilege, not a right, so a driver is legally obligated to show ID, proof of insurance, vehicle registration if applicable, without complaint or resistance.

 

[Osmia]

Good article in the New Yorker about Bryan Stevenson, a civil rights activist and an attorney dedicated to getting people off death row. I hadn't heard of him before; he's quite an interesting guy.

His activism focuses on helping today's Americans confront and remember the practice of lynching of black Americans (lynching "...took the form of hangings, shootings, beatings, and other acts of murder, [and] were often public events, urged on by thousands, but by the nineteen-thirties the behavior of the crowds had begun to draw criticism in the North").

Here are a few excerpts. In this first one, he explains his theory that the end of legal segregation soon transitioned into overzealous legal prosecution and punishment by the criminal justice system:

Stevenson believes that too little attention has been paid to the hostility of whites to the civil-rights movement. “Where did all of those people go?” he said. “They had power in 1965. They voted against the Voting Rights Act, they voted against the Civil Rights Act, they were still here in 1970 and 1975 and 1980. And there was never a time when people said, ‘Oh, you know that thing about segregation forever? Oh, we were wrong. We made a mistake. That was not good.’ They never said that. And it just shifted. So they stopped saying ‘Segregation forever,’ and they said, ‘Lock them up and throw away the key.’ ”

That point is elaborated by a law professor at a conference on the topic, who said, “In one sense, the death penalty is clearly a substitute for lynching. One of the main justifications for the use of the death penalty, especially in the South, was that it served to avoid lynching. The number of people executed rises tremendously at the end of the lynching era. And there’s still incredible overlap between places that had lynching and places that continue to use the death penalty.”

During the controversy, Stevenson visited the University of Texas Law School, in Austin, for a conference on the relationship between the death penalty and lynching. Jordan Steiker, the professor who convened the meeting . . . and his sister Carol, a professor at Harvard Law School, have written a forthcoming book, “Courting Death: The Supreme Court and Capital Punishment,” which explores the links between lynching and state-sponsored executions. The Steikers write, “The practice of lynching constituted ‘a form of unofficial capital punishment’ that in its heyday was even more common than the official kind.”

. . . . “The only reason lynchings stopped in the American South was that the spectacle of the crowds cheering these murders was becoming problematic,” Stevenson told me. “Local law enforcement was powerless to stop the mob, even if it wanted to. So people in the North started to say that the federal government needed to send in federal troops to protect black people from these acts of terror. No one in power in the South wanted that—so they moved the lynchings indoors, in the form of executions. They guaranteed swift, sure, certain death after the trial, rather than before the trial.”

Another of Stevenson's projects is a large memorial to lynching victims. There will be one column, with victims' names, for each county (anywhere) where documented lynchings took place. The twist is that Stevenson wants those counties to claim their respective columns and take them back for display locally, so that the ones that are left will, essentially, shame and pressure those counties to act by their continued presence at the memorial. The local city government supports it based on the likelihood that it will bring in a lot of tourist dollars. Others oppose it, or at least have concerns about it, because it's seen as dredging up the unpleasant past (of course, that's what memorials are often designed to do, to make us remember).

The soil-collection project is part of a plan to erect the first national memorial to lynching victims, to be built on six acres of vacant land in downtown Montgomery. The project will cost twenty million dollars, and will include a museum at E.J.I. headquarters. It will transform the look, and perhaps the reputation, of Montgomery. A key part of the plan is a dare to the communities in which the lynchings took place. “We’re going to name thousands of people who were the victims of lynchings,” Stevenson told the group before they received their trowels and jars. “We’re going to create a space where you can walk and spend time and go through that represents these lynchings. But, more than that, we’re going to challenge every county in this country where a lynching took place to come and claim a memorial piece—and to erect it in their county.”

From a distance, the lynching memorial, designed by Michael Murphy and a team from the Design Group, of Boston, will look like a long, low colonnade. Once visitors enter the structure and follow the path downhill, they will see that the columns are hanging in the air, as if from trees. Each column is six feet tall. The current plans call for the soil collected by volunteers to be used in coloring their exteriors. There will be eight hundred and one columns, one for each county and state in which a lynching took place. The names of the victims and the dates of the lynchings will be inscribed on the columns.

The memorial also has a more provocative component. Adjacent to the colonnade will be another eight hundred and one columns, exact duplicates. Each county in which a lynching took place will be invited to remove its memorial column and display it in its own community. The columns that remain in Montgomery will stand in mute rebuke to the places that refuse to acknowledge their history of lynching. “For us, it’s the kind of activism that has clarity, purpose, and a goal,” Stevenson told me. “Sometimes the goals aren’t very clear or very well articulated, and you don’t know whether you’re getting closer or not. This will give us a way of measuring that. We’ll know the places that are resisting, and it should build pressure on those communities, and the people in those communities, that are either not doing enough or need to do more.”

 

[justjoinedtopost]

"The bad guy is the bad guy no matter what color he is (and he is black)"

This destroys stereotypes I had of Maine.

 

[Oliver]

Loving the responses! I hate the catalyst but apparently society needed a push to get out of this comfort zone we snuggled into in regards to race relations. I hate all the conflict but for the first time in forever I can feel progress. Not complaining but people actually getting up and doing something about it. I of course think there could be more done. I saw one specific idea here

http://mobmental.org/post/148091460688/the-safeguard-coalition

We need more viable solutions while we still have the public's fleeting attention. What can we do as individuals? Collectively? I say lets start asking everybody these questions no matter the race

 

[MikeTO]

Having worked closely with police as a public librarian I can say... most the cops I've met are incredibly racist. They'd purposefully escalate situations with non-white passing people. Situations that I'd have been able to handle nonviolently and without much verbal confrontation either.

.

It really nothing to do with racism. it has to do with getting as man people in prision. Blacks at least in the poor areas tend to be loud and aggressive. The city's goal is to get as much income as they can. Look at some how of these low life blacks behave. I used to work in a poor white area and it's nothing like the black areas.
Black people are getting shot not because of racism it's because they don't follow orders. Now due to the BLM cops are less likely to arrest black criminals because they fear label as racists. Thanks to BLM more and more black will get away with crime.


George Soros a billionaire funded BLM to cause a race war.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ots-provide-unique-opportunity-reform-police/

 

[mynameisbob84]

It really nothing to do with racism. it has to do with getting as man people in prision. Blacks at least in the poor areas tend to be loud and aggressive. The city's goal is to get as much income as they can. Look at some how of these low life blacks behave. I used to work in a poor white area and it's nothing like the black areas.
Black people are getting shot not because of racism it's because they don't follow orders. Now due to the BLM cops are less likely to arrest black criminals because they fear label as racists. Thanks to BLM more and more black will get away with crime.


George Soros a billionaire funded BLM to cause a race war.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ots-provide-unique-opportunity-reform-police/

Oh, is that what it is? I thought the issue might be a little more complex than "black people are naughty" but you seem to have a handle on the situation, so I guess that's that.

 

[MikeTO]

I guess Asian lives don't matter, right? A rapper promoting in his song to break into Asian homes. We all know this is dangerous because these criminals tend to have guns.

Rapper YG’s Song ‘Meet the Flockers’ Sparks Protests, Accusations of Targeting Asian Americans

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-a...sparks-protests-accusations-targeting-n666426

 

[EspiKvlt]

I guess Asian lives don't matter, right? A rapper promoting in his song to break into Asian homes. We all know this is dangerous because these criminals tend to have guns.

Rapper YG’s Song ‘Meet the Flockers’ Sparks Protests, Accusations of Targeting Asian Americans

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-a...sparks-protests-accusations-targeting-n666426

Pretty sure everyone agrees that's fucked up. And you posted a link to a top news channel, so clearly it got attention.

People being racist towards your ethnicity doesn't make racism towards black people suddenly meaningless.

 

[MikeTO]

Oh, is that what it is? I thought the issue might be a little more complex than "black people are naughty" but you seem to have a handle on the situation, so I guess that's that.

Well it is more complicated than that but I don't have time right now and most people will not bother researching into it. I have been the black community over 6 months. Listening to both sides and home these black criminals are created.
I'll make it short for you. Single mothers are breeding these black criminals. Other races of women will breed them too but it all started in the black community. The black community is the test community for anything they want to test and if works with the black community they push it world wide.

 

[EspiKvlt]

The black community is the test community for anything they want to test and if works with the black community they push it world wide.[/QUOTE

Why did no one tell me humans are lab rats? Who Is "they"? The aliens? Are they experimenting on us? Dear god.

 

[MikeTO]

Pretty sure everyone agrees that's fucked up. And you posted a link to a top news channel, so clearly it got attention.

People being racist towards your ethnicity doesn't make racism towards black people suddenly meaningless.

I never said that you're creating a straw man. We are talking about black people getting killed right?

 

[EspiKvlt]

I never said that you're creating a straw man. We are talking about black people getting killed right?

We were, yes. You're talking about eugenics and aliens.

 

[MikeTO]

Why did no one tell me humans are lab rats? Who Is "they"? The aliens? Are they experimenting on us? Dear god.

It's called social engineering formerly aka as eugenics.

 

[EspiKvlt]

It's called social engineering formerly aka as eugenics.

Yes, I have a minor in anthropology, I am well aware.

Learn to joke.

 

[MikeTO]

Yes, I have a minor in anthropology, I am well aware.

Learn to joke.

Learn how to debate, you think people getting kiled is funny? Now because you don't agree with my views you label me as a troll?

 

[JoleneBrody]

Today's mass grave digging is brought to you by cocaine?

 

[mynameisbob84]

Well it is more complicated than that but I don't have time right now and most people will not bother researching into it. I have been the black community over 6 months. Listening to both sides and home these black criminals are created.
I'll make it short for you. Single mothers are breeding these black criminals. Other races of women will breed them too but it all started in the black community. The black community is the test community for anything they want to test and if works with the black community they push it world wide.

So am I to infer from your posts here and... given your recent prolonged exposure to the black community (that may have facilitated some of these tests inadvertently effecting you in addition to the intended black test subjects) that "they" are currently conducting tests to lower intelligence and promote ignorance?

 

[EspiKvlt]

Learn how to debate, you think people getting kiled is funny? Now because you don't agree with my views you label me as a troll?

At first your post just said "Learn to debate."

Quite the leap there, buckaroo.

 

[MikeTO]

Today's mass grave digging is brought to you by cocaine?

I do not do drugs and you're using personal attacks instead of discussing the issue. It is clear, that you people are low life that can't think for yourselves.

 

[MikeTO]

So am I to infer from your posts here and... given your recent prolonged exposure to the black community (that may have facilitated some of these tests inadvertently effecting you in addition to the intended black test subjects) that "they" are currently conducting tests to lower intelligence and promote ignorance?

black men are saying the same shit I'm saying and I have researched it. I didn't pull it out of my ass like some people on here.

 

[JoleneBrody]

I do not do drugs and you're using personal attacks instead of discussing the issue. It is clear, that you people are low life that can't think for yourselves.

Poking fun at you for grave digging a thread that hasn't been posted in for months in such a bizarre way was the only purpose of me posting at all. I'm not trying to make a point about the issue at hand... I'm literally just poking fun at you.

 

[BlairLuxe]

Well it is more complicated than that but I don't have time right now and most people will not bother researching into it. I have been the black community over 6 months. Listening to both sides and home these black criminals are created.
I'll make it short for you. Single mothers are breeding these black criminals. Other races of women will breed them too but it all started in the black community. The black community is the test community for anything they want to test and if works with the black community they push it world wide.

By your theory, black people are being used as test subjects by the great and powerful "they", so that must mean that black people are the most subjugated and least powerful among us, yeah? Maybe you should redirect your energy from racism into legitimate social change if you think that "they" are doing that to black people.