Black Lives Matter is an honorable movement and is in no way racist

I didn't say everyone did, but certainly there are those.

Ah man, this is the very same argument people used against Dr.King lol. It's the exact same thing that people said then, that the Black community is always crying on about racism. Also that black on black crime, that too (although White on white crime is a thing too...) King's response was basically "F your feelings and that your tired of talking about race..."

I'm going to refer to Dr.King once again. Because people often bring up what would he think about this entire thing. About the riots and protests...

The important thing to remember also is this. Not all of the civil rights movement was peaceful. The Black Power message and Black Panthers were more bold about it than BLM has ever been.

If you are tired of talking about race, that's fine. Step aside and let those who are willing to talk about it honestly lead the conversation.

 

Of course he has the right to politely ask her to put the cigarette out. She is not required to do so, but he can certainly ask.

As I said, he is being disciplined to appease the mob. He is the sacrificial lamb. At worst he violated a department policy.

There is not a single decision that says an officer during a traffic stop cannot ask a person to put out a cigarette. There is a decision that says they can order a person out of their car. I don't know where you are coming up with these things. Didn't you say or imply that you were a lawyer? Did you not have to take Criminal Procedure? In no court in America would Bland's case have been thrown out based on the actions of that officer.

Absolutely preposterous. Have you never heard the term consensual encounter. A request is not the same thing as an order. Even when a person is detained, there is a difference between a request and an order. A request can be refused. A lawful order cannot.

As he had not yet issued the warning, the detention was not over.

She was acting bizarrely, so he further investigated. I call that good police work. It ended up in a lawful arrest of a person who tested positive for an illegal narcotic who clearly was mentally unstable.

So you think the cops believing your story over his without any evidence is being a good cop, but the cop investigating a crazy woman is a bad cop? Gotcha.

No. I am anti-abuse of power. You are anti-cop in any situation in which a black person ends up dead.

 

So the founders and herds of followers are using these unfair labeling practices as they paint with a broad brush and you want us to see them as not typical?

Think I'll stick with All Lives Matter, thank you!

 

So you don't like the founders and herds of followers using a broad brush, yet you are using a broad brush?

 

A "ask" from a cop is actually an order. He ordered her to put the cig out and when she didn't comply he escalated what should have been a complete stop to an arrest by asking her to step out of the vehicle. He violated her rights. Plain and simple.

Brian Encinia broke the law. He's a racist cop (what can you say about anyone who is a member of the KKK) and lied to his supervisor about what happened. There's a reason he is suspended and hopefully will never work again as a police officer. He is a disgrace. For you to defend the POS is sad.

 

Let me know when you see a herd of police marching down the street advocating injustice and harm upon black lives and I'll consider these two comparable.

With the police, there are isolated incidents. No one is not saying there are no bad cops. Bad cops should be dealt with like any other law breaker.

Michael Brown as the poster child for BLM, c'mon!

 

Are all police bad? No.
Are all BLM supporter bad? No.
Are all bad police bad? Yes.
Are all bad BLM folks bad? Yes.
Are all bad BLM folks painting a broad brush about police? Yes.
Is giddyup painting a broad brush about BLM? Yes.

What does that make giddyup? Giddyup think in the same way as bad BLM folks.

 

Unfortunately for you, the folks in a position to lead like King was aren't having honest conversations when they don't have the integrity to focus on an honest message sans the faux outrage cases that do nothing but devalue the cause.

I'd hope that Dr King would have evolved as racial relations have.

 

Probably one of the biggest lies propagated by right wing racist propaganda machine. So sad to see the gullible lick it up like a starving cat to milk.

 

No, it isn't. I guess you really have never heard of consensual encounters. There are whole areas of 4th Amendment jurisprudence built around the concept so you might want to look into it. If a cop walks up and says, "Can you come over here for a minute?" have you been given an order? What happens if you disobey?

There is no mythical law that says a cop cannot talk to a motorist for 6 minutes. 30 minute traffic stops have been upheld. I don't know what cases you are reading, but they are not the ones courts are relying on to make decisions.

Great. Which rights? Certainly not her 4th Amendment rights.

Which law? Has he been arrested? Indicted?

I didn't see any great discrepancy between his initial report and the video, but it has been a while since I looked at it. What lie did he tell to his supervisor.

There sure is. It is called appeasement. If they suspend him for a while, the BLM morons will go away and then they can stop dealing with that and go back to routine policework.

Just like Brian Wilson, amirite?

For you to represent yourself as a lawyer and think that cop committed a crime is sad.

 

Are you really slow enough to think that a cop doesn't have a "right" to ask someone to put out their cigarette? That's pretty stupid man. It's not a violation of the constitution to ask someone to do something for you. I really hope you know that.

By standing up for herself, do you mean refusing to comply with a lawful order? Because that's why the situation escalated. Go back and watch, there is a marked change in demeanor the second she violates the law by refusing a lawful order. Before that she was just a crazy woman being hostile without cause and it was mostly blown off, after that she was going to jail.

No, and you know better. I've spelled it out for you enough times already to where you know for a fact that is not the case yet somehow you keep spitting the same ignorant BS out.

He's being disciplined for a minor violation of policy, he should have told her why he was telling her to get out of the car and he failed to do so. No law was broken, no rights were violated.

It is very good you are not a lawyer, you are awful at reading the law. Not every request from an officer is actually a lawful order. The request to step out of your car however, is one of those. Putting out a cigarette probably is not....but it's stupid to be discourteous to someone who has the power to give you a ticket rather than a warning. This woman was unbelievably stupid.

So, in your mind the police work was over before a ticket or warning was issued? That's a pretty funny interpretation.

He did his job fairly well actually. One minor mistake in an otherwise flawless stop of a mentally ill overly hostile woman. When you act crazy during a stop, most of the time it's not going to be over quickly because you just gave the officer cause for further investigation.

Congratulations, your first accurate statement.

That may be true, but unfortunately you don't seem to be able to discern what abuse of power actually is so it ends up coming off anti-cop.

 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/CUvvWZdKrBI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

So is he being disciplined to appease "the mob" or is he being disciplined because he violated department policy (which cops can be disciplined for)... Which one is it...??? If he violated department policy _ "the mob" doesn't matter.

Unless you're saying if not for "the mob" he wouldn't be disciplined for violating department policy...

Please clarify.

No wonder you have such a problem with Dr Carson's opinions on homosexuality...

Anyway... What bias system are you talking about...?

 

Traffic stops are different than on the foot. In a traffic stop, the cop has detained you. To detain someone longer than necessary is unconstitutional. You need to read Rodriguez vs. US. A request during a traffic stop is considered an order if it is reasonable.

A cop can not detain someone in a traffic stop longer than is necessary. Once the stop is finished he can not continue. That is why once you get the ticket the cop leaves. As soon as the cop mentioned he was going to give her a warning it shows he is continuing the detention longer than necessary and he has indeed violated the constitution.

 

I already pointed out to you why Rodriguez vs US is irrelevant to the Bland case, but here you are spewing that nonsense still. The cop never at any point issued her the warning, because he never got the chance to do so.

This is an easily verifiable fact....if you can't even get those right, what hope do you have?

 

He is being publicly disciplined to appease the mob. For a violation of department policy (which I have not seen at any law enforcement agency I have come across) he would normally just be told by his training officer or sergeant, hey next time do it this way. I speculate that many cops in that agency have asked people to step out of their car without explanation and have not been disciplined. So he is being disciplined to appease the mob, IMO, and the department is using this policy as a fig leaf.

Is a request to search your vehicle an order? The courts have repeatedly stated that being detained in a traffic stop is not enough by itself to render consent involuntary (see Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (1996)), but I am sure your standard of all requests made during traffic stops constitute orders trumps that. As for Rodriguez, the court specifically upheld Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977). The court said you can't write up a ticket or warning, return all of the documents, and then spend 5-7 extra minutes conducting a dog sniff. Here the officer had not yet returned her documents, had not issued and explained the warning yet, and didn't attempt to extend the encounter to conduct further, unrelated investigations without probable cause. Rodriguez is clearly distinguishable.

The stop had not yet finished. He had not yet issued her the warning, he had not yet returned all of her papers to her. Asking her to step out of the car is not an unreasonable extension of the time needed to complete the stop (per the US Supreme Court). Seems like the Constitution was not violated after all.

 

What no one can explain is why asking her to step out of the car was appropriate after she refused to put out her cig.

 

No one can be sure what Dr.King would say to any of this or other prominent civil rights leaders.

One thing is certain though, Dr.King was a hated figure by white america at the time (until it caught on) and the movement all together and it proves that sometimes others have no idea of the experience and therefore should probably do more listening than shutting down. Also Dr.King boldly talked about race whether it made white people feel uncomfortable or not and so did other prominent civil rights leaders then. So the idea that we should not talk about race because it wears on white people or to go further makes them feel uncomfortable doesn't fly with me.

I really don't care if you get a black person to say the same thing you are saying. I can find a white person saying the same thing. Rand Paul said the same thing I'm saying during the debate and before. Also, Sherman spoke up about policing too so you should quote that as well.

Also saying "Black on black crime" still doesn't solve the issue of policing. For Sherman, maybe he should do more then. It was Jim Brown that helped signed a treaty between Bloods and Crips at the height of LA gang wars, so this idea that people do nothing about Black on Black crime really isn't even true. Plenty of black people talk about it, it being brought up is not some rare thing that is never talked about. Plenty of local community leaders devote their lives to help get young kids out of that cycle. I mean Obama's "My Brother's Keeper" program was bought up earlier and people still contend that nothing is being done about it. You don't protest against gangs though. So it seems people want to see that? I'm not sure? I think people that bring up black on black crime actually DGAF about it at all and are just bringing it up because they heard it before. It's a really poor argument since most murders are intraracial. So anyone can also ask "What about white on white crime?" and they'd have a point too.

Any ways, Black-on-Black crime is a myth. Yes it exists, but so does white on white crime and asian on asian crime, etc etc.

 

As I pointed out to you before on numerous occasions, the supreme court ruled that officers ALWAYS have a legitimate reason to ask ANYONE to step out of their vehicle during a stop. Thus, asking someone to step out of their vehicle when they are lawfully detained in the middle of a traffic stop, which was the case in this instance, is literally never inappropriate.

 

#1 Black on black crime is not a myth, a vast majority of violent crime committed against black folks is by black folks. However that does not mean that crime/wrong doing by the government or police force should not be a concern. If anything there should be a higher expectation from the government/police. So in a sense it is a red herring. There is an element of it being easier to complain about authority figures. Also you are correct, there is a high percentage of white on white crime and other groups.

#2 The problem with Black Lives Matter is that the founders have no credibility, and their associations and statements concerning Shakur and other militants is not a position that a majority of people will support, be they black or white. The narrative is attempting to be changed but other people that are concerned with generalized police/black relations. The problem is that narrative is not fitting the aims of BLM.

#3 What Martin Luther King Jr. would or would not do is entirely irrelevant. He doesn't speak for all people, all black people or even all protesters. He is the most significant figure, but he has been dead for 40 years and does not live in THIS world. Conservatives that do not understand the entire situation love to throw MLK into the discussion. Hell, the founders of BLM believe in anarchy and are not religious by doctrine.

#4 I don't know that MLK was hated by a majority of white people. Certainly segregationists hated him, and right wing organizations attempted to paint him as a socialist. However, a majority of Americans did not live in the deep South and probably were indifferent to King until the hoses were turned on and shown on the news in places like Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles and Houston.