Cop in America doing a bad job, again

Eboue said:


4 of these fecking pig bastards

And what kind of culture exists at the department for these kind of people to remain employed? How do they feel empowered to act like this in broad daylight if they are just bad apples
Click to expand...

That was fecking brutal to watch.
 


Also after getting very depressed reading this last couple of posts, though I would post a reminder why the Black Panthers were great

Now, let me show you how were gonna try to do it in the Black Panther Party here. We just got back from the south side. We went out there. We went out there and we got to arguing with the pigs or the pigs got to arguing-he said, "Well, Chairman Fred, you supposed to be so bad, why dont you go and shoot some of those policemen? You always talking about you got your guns and got this, why dont you go shoot some of them?"

And I've said, "you've just broken a rule. As a matter of fact, even though you have on a uniform it doesn't make any difference. Because I dont care if you got on nine uniforms, and 100 badges. When you step outside the realm of legality and into the realm of illegality, then I feel that you should be arrested." And I told him, "You being what they call the law of entrapment, you tried to make me do something that was wrong, you encouraged me, you tried to incite me to shoot a pig. And that ain't cool, Brother, you know the law, dont you?"

I told that pig that, I told him "You got a gun, pig?" I told him, "You gotta get your hands up against the wall. We're gonna do what they call a citizens arrest." This fool dont know what this is. I said, "Now you be just as calm as you can and don't make too many quick moves, cause we don't wanna have to hit you."

And I told him like he always told us, I told him, "Well, I'm here to protect you. Don't worry about a thing, 'm here for your benefit." So I sent another Brother to call the pigs. You gotta do that in a citizen's arrest. He called the pigs. Here come the pigs with carbines and shotguns, walkin' out there. They came out there talking about how they're gonna arrest Chairman Fred. And I said, "No fool. This is the man you got to arrest. He's the one that broke the law." And what did they do? They bugged their eyes, and they couldn't stand it. You know what they did? They were so mad, they were so angry that they told me to leave.

And what happened? All those people were out there on 63rd Street. What did they do? They were around there laughing and talking with me while I was making the arrest. They looked at me while I was rapping and heard me while I was rapping. So the next time that the pig comes on 63rd Street, because of the thing that our Minister of Defense calls observation and participation, that pig might be arrested by anybody!
Click to expand...
 
Apparently they didn't turn cameras off, they weren't equipped with them, but even putting that bit aside the rest of the story is absolutely disgusting.

And yet any time a cop gives a version of events it'll be taken as gospel in any court room.
 
Man of Leisure said:
Was actually referring to the guy playing armchair lawyer. How do you know the cop was harassing the kid without more context?
Click to expand...
Er.... because he pissed off back to his car when challenged. Anyway I didn't know you where into police officers harassing black kids, learn something new about this forum everyday.
 
Last edited:
Sweet Square said:
Er.... because he pissed off back to his car when challenged. Anyway I didn't know you where into police officers harassing black kids, learn something new about this forum everyday.
Click to expand...
So asking questions is harassment now? Let me ask you this, would you find it annoying if some loudmouth was questioning your every move while you were trying to do your job at work? And I’m not “into police officers harassing black kids” as you’re stating. Just not as quick to judge as you apparently are without more context.
 
Man of Leisure said:
So asking questions is harassment now? Let me ask you this, would you find it annoying if some loudmouth was questioning your every move while you were trying to do your job at work? And I’m not “into police officers harassing black kids” as you’re stating. Just not as quick to judge as you apparently are without more context.
Click to expand...
The officer wasn't doing is job because he had no reason to talk to the kid, if he did have any legitimate reasons to ask questions he wouldn't have let the child simply walk away(The officer literally said the kid is free to go) and again he wouldn't have pissed off to his car when challenged.
 
Sweet Square said:
The officer wasn't doing is job because he had no reason to talk to the kid, if he did have any legitimate reason to ask questions he wouldn't have let the child walk away and again he wouldn't have pissed off to his car when challenged.
Click to expand...
For argument's sake, even if there was a legitimate reason to ask the kid questions, still don't see why the kid couldn't have walked away since he wasn't under arrest? Then again, I'm not a cop or attorney so I could be wrong.
 
Man of Leisure said:
Yup, you've got all the answers. Good for you.
Click to expand...
I haven't got all the answers but what is clear is a officer starting harassing/asking questions to a black child without any legitimate reasoning, when the officer was called out on this he ran away,. Thats what happened. As for your bizarre argument game of coming up with fictional time lines where it turns out the white officer was right and actually it's all the fault of the black child, I really wouldn't for my own sanity and everyones want to do that.

Look if your reaction to seeing that video is to call the guy who is demanding a explanation from the officer a ''annoying cnut''(While also complaining later that the man shouldn't have been such a jerk to officer) then maybe just maybe the fault is on you.
 
Man of Leisure said:
Was actually referring to the guy playing armchair lawyer. How do you know the cop was harassing the kid without more context?
Click to expand...

What further context is needed?

The guy wasn't under arrest, and you're stopping him from going about his day by stopping him and asking for his ID because of a "suspicion".
At the very least it's annoying, which is still defined under harassment, so what more are you looking for?
 
1) at the risk of wasting these few minutes of my time...

2) if you think the cop was assuming that person did something wrong, with the only evidence being that video, then aren’t you doing the same thing to the cop as you think he did to the person he stopped?

3) there is legal justification for stopping people on the street for questioning.
Ex) If the officer has received a call that something has happened, and they see people that match a description of a suspect that has been put out over the radio, they’re supposed to stop them for questioning.

4) to give an international example, the UK goes even further than the questioning that police are allowed to do in the US... in areas with high knife crime rates, they’re allowed to search individuals on the street for “suspicion” of having a knife. I know, obviously, that UK law has no pertinence in the US, but it does show that this isn’t something confined only to the States.

Edited to add an article on the topic written by a UCLA Law professor...
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/stopping-questioning-people-street.html
 
Cloud7 said:
Taxpayers shouldn’t be directly footing the bill for this. It should come out of the pension for these officers, because even if they’re fired they’re just going to get a job as a policeman elsewhere.
Click to expand...
I doubt the pensions for those officers has $10 million in it. They could be called to contribute some of the funds though. If a judge rules the city must foot the bill, seeing as how the police are part of the government, if they lose the case, the government must pay when the government behaves poorly.

Here’s a UCLA Law article that should satisfy your question though better than I can, about how the lawsuit might be paid out.
https://www.uclalawreview.org/how-governments-pay-lawsuits-budgets-and-police-reform/
 
Carolina Red said:
I doubt the pensions for those officers has $10 million in it. If a judge rules the city must foot the bill, seeing as how the police are part of the government, if they lose the case, the government must pay when the government behaves poorly.
Click to expand...

That’s all well and good mate, but the problem is these officers are rarely held accountable for their actions, and even if they are they get re hired as officers elsewhere. There’s no consequence to these officers.
 
Cloud7 said:
That’s all well and good mate, but the problem is these officers are rarely held accountable for their actions, and even if they are they get re hired as officers elsewhere. There’s no consequence to these officers.
Click to expand...
I agree that that is a serious issue that needs to be fixed.

Also, if you’re interested, I edited that post and linked you to a UCLA Law article that goes much more in depth on the topic of how restitution is paid out in these cases.
 
Carolina Red said:
I agree that that is a serious issue that needs to be fixed.

Also, if you’re interested, I edited that post and linked you to a UCLA Law article that goes much more in depth on the topic of how restitution is paid out in these cases.
Click to expand...

Thanks mate, will take a read when I get a chance.
 
I hear that Jay-Z is stepping in to help with lawyers to sue those feckers.
 
@Dante - I do my best.

In all seriousness, in case a video on this topic is posted in the future, police have the right to search your vehicle under the following circumstances:

  1. You have given the officer consent
  2. The officer has probable cause to believe there is evidence of a crime in your vehicle
  3. The officer reasonably believes a search is necessary for their own protection (a hidden weapon, for example)
  4. You have been arrested and the search is related to that arrest (such as a search for illegal drugs)
 
Carolina Red said:
@Dante - I do my best.

In all seriousness, in case a video on this topic is posted in the future, police have the right to search your vehicle under the following circumstances:

  1. You have given the officer consent;
  2. The officer has probable cause to believe there is evidence of a crime in your vehicle;
  3. The officer reasonably believes a search is necessary for their own protection (a hidden weapon, for example); and
  4. You have been arrested and the search is related to that arrest (such as a search for illegal drugs).
Click to expand...
1. I'm not stepping out of shit when all my papers are legit
2. Not if he's solely judging my age, race and because my hat's low
3. I don't have to pass the Bar to know a little bit
4. I won't let anyone illegally search my shit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.