What do you want, extreme close-ups and full penetration?
This is a trick question, right?? 
Oh come on - having the cops ask for ID when you roll off your boyfriend in broad daylight in a public place is pretty much the equivalent of Kristalnacht. Wake up, sheeple.
Regards,
Shodan
Lollie never asserted that the *cops *were racist, rather that the bank’s security schmoe likely confronted him and called the cops because of it. In the vids, anyway.
Which tends to be supported by the evidence : the bank’s video shows a number of people taking advantage of the seating… but only the black guy gets a talk from Security. Whether or not it was overt, deliberate racism on his part; or unconscious “uh oh, looks like trouble” non-analyzed racism on the part of the rentacop, it really **does **seem like Lollie was singled out for being black and sort of working-class-looking.
Furthermore, one surmises that the 'tude of cop #2 in Lollie’s video, who comes off immediately and absent any previous interaction with Lollie whatsoever as very hostile and downright Rambo-ish (“you’re going to jail !”, “turn around and put your hands behind your back ! Do as I say !”) might not have been the same had Lollie not been a slightly (but politely until tazed) argumentative black guy going over and over again about his (legit) rights, what he actually did (i.e. sitting quietly & alone) and why.
IOW, some uppity nigger who won’t obey barked orders.
Since you didn’t specify a time, I have to assume that “Shodan’s Rule” means “I’ll ignore the request because I can’t find any time in the video where Mr. Lollie was screaming at the police”.
I watched that video, and I never heard Mr. Lollie screaming at the police officers. It either didn’t happen or we are interpreting the same thing differently. Could you please specify where (the actual time, please, in minutes and seconds) in the video you linked to that, in your opinion, Mr. Lollie was “screaming at” the officers?
Of course it is. I am juxtaposing your claim that following the Constitution to free a murderer could result in Hentor’s daughter being murdered to a claim that we could do away with teh constitution and get more criminals behind bars while at the same time getting more innocent people behind bars.
Its the classic question of how many innocent men are you willing to put behind bars to avoid letting a hundred guilty men go free. Every justice system is going to put SOME innocent men behind bars from time to time. Our constitutional scheme errs on the side of keeping innocent men free rather than putting guilty men behind bars.
So, according to you, racism isn’t present until someone calls it racism? Or something like that? So I can hassle black people all day long, and not hassle white people, and as long as a cop doesn’t say anything about a person’s skin color, it isn’t racist? Is that what you think?
If they’re tasked with enforcing the law, and authorized with lethal force to do so, then they had better be given a very good and thorough training in the one and outs of the law.
Lawyers and courts are there to resolve matters in dispute and complex and borderline cases, but when it comes to a cop know “how much force am I legally allowed to use to make someone comply with my request” then I believe that it is entirely reasonable to put a large share if the burden on the cop on the street.
These are not esoteric issues beyond his comprehension. They are directly related to the issue if “what am I allowed to do when I am out here”? If we are going to have a civil society governed by the rule if law then the burden HAS to be in the cop on the street to have a very good idea of the limits.
I think we as a country have been way too forgiving of overreaches on the part if cops and ridiculously reluctant to set limits in these cases. You make the cops sound like bumbling buffoons who couldn’t possibly know that tazing and arresting someone in the St. Paul cases was a moronically ridiculous overreaction.
Here’s where applying your own experience should be put on hold when people tell you that this is simply not true for other people talk to any group of black men and you will get a very different view of the world. Your personal experience is dimply not adequate to base your assumptions on.
No, no, no. This is simply wrong. If it’s impossible for a cop to have a solid understanding if the law, then we cannot trust cops to enforce the law, because then they will never know what the law is that they are enforcing.
And if you can’t expect a cop to keep up with how courts rule on these issues then there is no such thing as setting them straight. Because setting someone straight requires that it is possible for a cop to understand what the law is and you’re saying that that is an unreasonable expectation.
Which still isn’t an answer.
There are pictures. They are wearing clothes in those pictures. The woman is wearing pants. Its hard to have sex with pants on. So regardless of what the anonymous callers reported the cops saw nothing, the pictures show nothing.
They’re fully clothed. How does a man and woman wearing pants engage in sex? Is she wearing crotchless pants? Or is the allegation that is was oral or digital sex?
I think this is a legitimately complicated question. There are plenty of rights that you have that are absolutely positively rights, but where the boundary of that right is a complicated one. You have the right to free speech. That doesn’t mean you can stand right in the door of a Starbucks and scream through a megaphone at the customers inside. It does (I believe) mean that you can stand on the public sidewalk outside and pass out literature to potential Starbucks patrons. Somewhere in between those two is the boundary line. If you’re near that boundary line, and a cop comes and asks you to stop, and he thinks, based on his cop training, that you are violating the right, and he asks you to stop, and you don’t, and he eventually arrests you because he honestly believes you are acting in an illegal fashion; and a later thorough legal review decides that in fact you WERE in fact legally within your rights; what all does that mean. DID you have that right? Well, you did, legally, but the cop, acting in good faith, didn’t realize it. Was he acting incorrectly? Clearly. But is it an outrage, the slippery slope down to fascism with the proverbial jack-booted thugs? Or is it an example of someone making an honest mistake? (And frankly, there are a LOT of things I’d like our cops to improve and learn better before they get to “really precise and exhaustive legal understanding of when protests outside a Starbucks are or are not legal”).
At the same time, we obviously don’t just want to get into a pattern of always excusing or ignoring legal overstepping by cops. So “it was an honest mistake” can’t be an excuse that allows cops to do anything they want.
The same way you get to Carnegie Hall, kid.
So do you guys have one of those zoom-in-and-enhance machines? I can’t make out shit in those photos, clothing or nudity or otherwise.
There is no-one named “Lollie” nor any bank directly involved in the Watts incident.
Pretty damn easy. I have done it.
All alleged. I notice that we haven’t seen photos of her with bare breasts or her shirt off, nor havce we seen video of the car rocking, etc. Kinda curious that this was something that an entire office building and pedestrians (as seen in some of the TMZ photos) could see, yet no one has yet posted a pic of a topless Miss Watts or shown us video of the car rocking.
The office person went down and asked a couple in the middle of coitus to stop? And has no pictures or video to prove it? So that’s alleged then; we can’t call that a fact either. I mean, we don’t even know who it supposedly was; perhaps we could send the LAPD to demand some ID from all the office workers in order to determine who it was.
[QUOTE=Acsenray]
If they’re tasked with enforcing the law, and authorized with lethal force to do so, then they had better be given a very good and thorough training in the one and outs of the law.
[/QUOTE]
As well as training in lethal and non-lethal weapons use, basic training in crowd control, basic forensics training, psychological training, investigations training AND training in the finer points of the law such that they will know instantly the answer to whether or not they can reasonably ask/demand ID in any and all situations such that Monday morning quarterbacks like CNN, who has a legal staff (consultants being those lawyer type guys) got it wrong as well? And we’ll pay these guys with all of this vast training something like $30-50k a year and expect all of this out of them!! Yeah, that’s realistic.
Why have courts and lawyers then? I mean, if you are putting all of that on the cops and training them in everything concerning the law, then why even bother with courts, judges and lawyers?? Of course, that’s a silly question…we have courts, judges and lawyers BECAUSE cops aren’t infallible machines of law enforcement and make those mistake thingies. The law is a complex and convoluted as well as a living system, and it’s simply unrealistic to demand that cops know every little detail, especially since it’s situational in the cases we are discussing in this thread. There are times cops CAN demand ID and detain someone who refuses, and times they can’t, and it’s not nearly as black and white/cut and dried as you are making it out to be. And it’s silly to expect a cop to know all of the permutations and be able to make an infallible call on when s/he can or can’t demand ID and detain if it’s not provided.
Horse shit. I’m not black, but I am Hispanic and I grew up in the 60’s and 70’s in the South West, as well as spent time in places like the South and Texas where Mexicans aren’t exactly well loved either. There are plenty of Hispanics from my old neighborhood who would react exactly the same way when confronted with the police…and there are instances of people who did so being shot down in my old neighborhood. So don’t tell me that my experience isn’t valid on this. I CHOOSE not to be confrontational with the police because I know that bad things can happen if I do. I’m more a product of my time wrt my attitude on this, so if you want to say that some 20 something person today would feel radically different and I’m too old to have a valid opinion with these modern times then THAT might be a valid claim, but don’t trot out this 'your own experience should be put on hold when people tell you that this is simply not true for other people talk to any group of black men ’ bullshit.
And I say again, horseshit. YOU are wrong. That’s why we have courts of law and lawyers, to judge the finer points of the law. You simply can’t have every cop on the street be an expert on every aspect and permutation of the law…and if you did, then you wouldn’t need judges, courts and lawyers.
It’s unreasonable to expect beat cops to know every situational permutation of the law. And if that is your expectations then you are sadly uninformed. I work for the state, and we deal with cops all the time. They are like anyone else, they know some things and not others, and they make mistakes. Also, they aren’t exactly at the top of the pay scale…I make more than probably 95% of the various police forces we support. The only ones who make more are either the elected officials in the police force or the very top ranks.
YES, I expect a police officer to know the laws and regulations concerning how he does his job.
Here; let’s see if you think your sentiment is still valid when we apply it to a different profession: “You seriously expect an electrician with a year or two of training (mostly in electrical INSTALLATION techniques) to know all of the ins and outs of our electrical system?”
Yes, I do expect him to know enough to do his job properly, without burning down even a part of the building he is working on.
And I expect a cop to know enough to do their job properly, without injuring or killing even a part of the public he is serving. And police serve EVERYONE, even those that have committed crimes. ETA: Or are suspected of having committed crimes.
As repeatedly noted previously (by me and others) this is not at all a clear-cut legal issue, despite what various posters here have claimed, and all sorts of people whose legal credentials far surpass that of the posters here maintain that the cops were within their rights. I’ve posted one example above.
Expecting cops to be experts on the law in such murky situations is not reasonable, 6 month police training course notwithstanding.