No.
Quality journalism leaves out the part about “advancing (pet political) values.”
You’re misrepresenting the statement. The claim is that quality journalism will result in the advancement of progressive values. It’s a statement of faith in the belief that progressive values are inherently superior, and accurate reporting will demonstrate this. Nothing in thinkprogress’ statement suggests support for propaganda, advocacy, or any other distortion of quality journalism. Feel free to provide instances where accurate and thorough reporting presents an inaccurate world view.
Please provide evidence in support of this claim.
That’s a bullcrap way to phrase it. The Supreme court allowed for a minor (fine only) infraction arrest. An improper lane signal is not “reason for arrest” in Texas. I’m sure a dozen people a week get tickets for it without being arrested. In this particular case the cop was only going to issue a warning but decided to affect an arrest when he decided he didn’t like the subject’s attitude.
Bullcrap or not, it’s an accurate way to phrase it*. In Texas, moving violations other than speeding are valid reasons for arrest. Even if neglecting to signal a lane change isn’t in the scope of offenses that the DPS policy allows for, I have also been informed personally that other minor violations (out of date inspection and tags, I was a year and a half out) are within the offenses that they’re allowed to arrest over.
I myself have been taken to the station to pay the fine now, or face jail time. I thankfully had money in the bank to cover it (and yay, got to walk back to my car). It’s how it works sometimes. Now, I’m of the opinion that the trooper should be fired for how they handled this stop, and that the laws pertaining to arrest-able traffic offenses in Texas should be changed. But their statement reflects current practice.
*And I am not generally in agreement with Smapti’s interpretation of law enforcement’s relationship with society: but when you’re right, you’re right.
And I missed the edit window, but I don’t know if she’d have a civil suit against the officer if he hadn’t technically broken the law. He obviously escalated the stop beyond any sense a common person would expect (e.g. calmly explaining his reasoning behind his order to exit the car, and it’s legality would have been appropriate long before drawing the taser, if he was determined to lecture* her in a smoke-free environment).
But I’m really not sure what protections he has against suits in this context.
*IME, a lecture always accompanies the warning, even if you’ve been bitten by ants due to their instructions.
Sorry, he’s not right. Not sure why you would link to some ABC news story about the SC decision when I specifically talked about the Supreme court decision in the post you quoted. I know what they said. They allowed the arrest. I get it. But the fact remains that the vast majority of lane change signal violations do not end in arrest. It’s not a good “reason” for arrest. It’s a good excuse.
No, my issue is that I don’t believe this cop. Ergo, I don’t believe he was kicked and therefore the arrest was not legal. These jackasses do so much damage with impunity they need to be babysat with a camera in order to do the right thing. The camera wasn’t on him when he was allegedly assaulted. These fucking morons will do anything to divert the truth.
The arrest was legal whether he was kicked or not.
Regards,
Shodan
Her record says she was arrested for assault. Not arrested for failure to signal. The whole thing is trumped up. Do you not think this is so?
We’ve gone over this a half-dozen times. The arrest was legal.
Regards,
Shodan
HE doesn’t seem to be addressing the legality so much as pointing out that the cop’s actions instigated the incident for which Bland was arrested.
Yeah, but Andiethewestie is either using the word or concept “legal” improperly in in this context.
That is advocacy, not journalism.
[/QUOTE]
So “journalism” would be inaccurately and selectively reporting on what is happening in America and the world?
I find it sad and ironic, had she been speeding, a more serious violation than not signaling, what he would’ve done would be illegal.
Well, that’s not really the case, either. It’s legal for him to order her from the car even if the original offense was speeding. If she refuses to get out of the car, she’s guilty of not following an officer’s orders, which is an arrest-able offense.
It doesn’t make it any more right to arrest her, it just moves the arrest-able offense to earlier in the stop.
Sandra was arrested for assault. I don’t believe that jackass cop. Wrongful arrest is illegal.
I don’t know where you think you’re going with this. You said
’luc said
In reply you made this claim
You claim that thinkprogress admits to bias and cannot be trusted to provide accurate and thorough reporting. This is clearly not supported by your own cite, in which thinkprogress simply states a high aspirational standard for their reporting and makes no admission of bias. Which I point out to you.
So you double down and repeat the implication of bias in reporting.
I point out to you that thinkprogress simply makes a claim about striving for accuracy. Nothing in that statement suggests an acceptance of bias in reporting. I ask you to back up your assertion of bias with an example.
And now you either want me to do your homework for you, or you really don’t know what you are claiming. You’ve gone full circle.
I think I’ll just leave you to wallow in your own confusion.
People have pointed out that he said “You can step out” not given as an order, and connected it with his “request” about the cigarette. So they are questioning whether the arrest is based on fictions. A scenario which he is cooperating with by not having any rationale behind his actions or explanation that is credible.
Which part of “this is a lawful order” was unclear?