He left before the cop even came up to him. He approached her and then together they walked away, with her hounding him for his name and he refusing to give it to her.
She hadn’t even talked to the security guard at the scene or surveyed the area where he’d been sitting. Given what little detective work went into her “investigation”, she could have easily been harassing the wrong guy.
And how is it the police’s problem that some of their charges are paranoid and irrational?
Wait, do you think that the police entered privatre property without permission or a warrant to search for Dzokhar Tsarnaev?
You know they had a warrant for his arrest, right?
And the Loving decision was not made on the basis of how many skulls got cracked.
The government has the same responsibility towards a citizen who is screaming and throwing a tantrum during a police stop as a parent has to a two-year-old who is screaming and throwing a tantrum when told he can’t have any candy.
Then why not jsut get rid of teh 4th 5th and 6th amendments. The criminals that manage to stay out of jail because of these rights probably commit a disproportionate number of rapes, murders and crimes in general than the rest of the population. Sure some innocent people end up in jail and our country moves towards a police state but “that is the price we pay for security” right?
i.e., to resist throwing them to the ground, tasing them, shooting them, that kind of thing.
I think thats how our system has worked since at least the Warren court.
How would the cops be able to ascertain that he was lying? They didn’t ask for his ID. They asked for his name. I’m sure there is at least one person in this world named Ham Sandwich.
The guy’s name has as much material value to their “investigation” as his weight or age. If he lied about his age, you think they’d have grounds to charge him for obstruction of justice? The idea that this might seem plausible to you is pretty fascinating.
The reason people think it has something to do withr ace is that the case for prostitution is weak and people suspect that it was because a black woman was with a white man. If the woman had been white, I don’t think the cops would have jumped to prostitution.
The law forbids them from arresting someone for failing to respond to that request in cases like this.
Um, I never said it was. It was born out of the shifting attitudes that civil rights movement (both peaceful and not) gave rise to. Therefore (since missing the point as explicit as possible seems to be the best course here)…
Civil rights movements sometimes involved violence towards the protesters and others involved. This public and over the top mistreatment helped, in part, to sway public attitudes.
Sways in public attitude helped gain support and eventually changed policies (for example, Loving).
These changed attitudes and past precedents was a foundation that other civil rights movements (feminism and gay rights for example) in part built upon.
The existence of those precedents made it easier for SSM and other gay-rights to be won.
Let’s also not forget that suffragettes were also subject to police brutality at the beginning of the previous century. It’s a common theme- sometimes fighting for your rights gets violent. The violence in and of itself does not mean the fight was wrong or mishandled.
Except for the lack of a sign indicating that it is not a public area. Oh, and the presence of the general public walking through and using the chairs, as seen in the bank surveillance video.
From your link:
So is it your contention that if the security guard asserts something enough times it becomes fact?
I can’t help but notice that isn’t an answer to the question you quoted.
The cops didn’t jump to prostitution. That seems to have been dreamed up by the woman’s boyfriend.
I must have missed that part of the video; could you specify the time in the video that Mr. Lollie began screaming at the police officers? Because to the best of my recollection he never did that.
Of course it’s plausible, it actually happens.
I just don’t know if giving a false name all on its own, if you’re just fucking with the cops, is a crime or if it has to be in conjuction with some other purpose like trying to avoid getting picked up on a warrant, like this guy was.
Nope. Rights are rights. Screaming and throwing tantrums does not deprive you of them. And if you truly think so then you really don’t have any respect for the concepts if human rights it legal rights.
The government is not our parents. And even parents aren’t allowed to violently soup press their children for throwing tantrums and screaming.
I might also point out that tasers can kill or gravely injure people, either from the shock of the device itself or from the resulting fall. You’re comfortable with what is essentially a summary execution for throwing a tantrum or screaming?
The Watts incident occurred on a public street, what are you talking about?