# America how racist are your police?!



## fps (Sep 14, 2014)

Extraordinary Daniele Watts: Django Unchained actress detained in Los Angeles after being mistaken for a prostitute - People - News - The Independent

There is institutional racism in US police forces across the country. Simple.


----------



## Mik3D23 (Sep 14, 2014)

I saw this earlier on dailymail

First of all, where's the police report? We're going off of only an actresses' account of things. Secondly, why is everyone so quick to jump to "it's because she's black"?

Before the flaming starts, I'm not saying that I think that it's okay if this happened. 



> There is institutional racism in US police forces across the country. Simple.



Can you please back this up in some way besides a sensationalist news story?


----------



## Alex Kenivel (Sep 14, 2014)

Yeah that sucks and all, but all she needed to do was show her ID and a lot of what happened could've been avoided. 

And it's not that cops are "racist", but _people_ are


----------



## Dana (Sep 14, 2014)

spare us &#8224;hat "America" crap in your title. there are racist people all over the world.
simple.
this doesn't seem like a racist encounter, more of a, "I'm not showing my I.D. I'm a hollywood actress" crap.


----------



## 7stg (Sep 14, 2014)

Yes they are, especially in the south and in Idaho.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Sep 14, 2014)

There's institutional racism all over the world, we're just too busy hiding behind "but I'm not like that!" to notice.


----------



## Watty (Sep 14, 2014)

I had just seen this earlier today and after reading her account of the incident (where she talks about everyone being equal and connecting with the cops in a spiritual way) I think this is just another case of people refusing to comply with the police for the sake of refusing to comply with police. There's already a goddamn epidemic with open carry nuts antagonizing police for no good reason (other than posting a video on youtube) and it seems this has spread to other demographics as well.

Should they have stopped her? Debatable given the time of day and the excuse given.
Is it conceivable that the reason they gave was valid? Yes, to a certain extent.
Should she have given up her ID for a quick check? Yes.

Honestly, I think most folks are becoming more at odds with the cops for no reason and are therefore creating the problems we so often hear about. If a cop tells you to do something....you do it. End of story. It can ONLY work in your favor if you do so. If they did something wrong, you can grill them for it later, but antagonizing them in the heat of the moment is stupid. They don't want to use force. They don't want to argue. They just want to make sure that you're not doing something you shouldn't be doing. If we take this incident to the opposite extreme, what if she really had been a prostitute (and for the sake of argumentation, underage to boot)? Maybe this casual stop would have been the wake up call she needed to get her act together and get out of that situation. Not saying that routinely happens or could have even if that had been the case, but painting the story one way and one way only to make the cops look bad is ridiculous.

All of this could have been avoided if she'd simply said, "I don't appreciate being profiled" while handing them her ID. She would have gotten her point across, and they'd have been able to verify she was who she said she was. She needlessly turned it into an incident far more prolific than it needed to be. Race, profiling, indecent conduct, etc. aside, we live in a society where everyone has inherently agreed that there are people who have the power to question actions and make arrests for the good of everyone involved. While the cops might not have used their better judgement in making initial contact, she seems to have forgotten this fact and was willing to make a scene for the sake of making a scene.

Edit: And while there might be some cops out there who do racially profile, if you did something.....the color of your skin didn't affect your action. I'll completely concede that there is a broken part of the justice system that inappropriately and disproportionately targets people of color when it comes to actual sentencing, but if you did something illegal, the police don't care if you're goddamn purple (unless you're choking).


----------



## 7stg (Sep 14, 2014)

Watty said:


> If they did something wrong, you can grill them for it later



This is legally incorrect. compliance is consent, consenting to search that results in your arrest will result in limited recourse.

This video deals with this specifically at 29:00 also the first segment talks about how to politely assert ones rights and demonstrates how it could go wrong if one simply complies.


----------



## Watty (Sep 14, 2014)

I didn't say anything anything specific, but I guess it's not surprising that you jumped in with corny videos addressing consent. What I meant was that:

If an officer stops you and asks that you place your hands where he can see them....you do it.
If an officer has placed you under arrest and asks that you put your hands behind your back....you do it.
If an officer has detained you and asks that you sit in a given location....you go there and sit.
Repeat ad naseum.

In a bunch of cases where "police brutality" is supposed demonstrated, people are just not complying with police orders. My point was to say that the officers are only going to deal with you better if you comply with their requests, so it is in your best interests to do it. I'm not going to watch all of these videos, but I don't believe they relate very well with what I was trying to say in my comment above.

tl;dr - The cops aren't going to ask you to do the hokey pokey (unless you're drunk off your ass), so do what they say and things will likely (in 99.9% of cases) go more smoothly.

Edit: And to address the first full point you made, they can only arrest you if you are doing something illegal (I use the term arrest loosely as I would not be too bent out of shape if I had to be brought to a police station to clear up a misunderstanding)....so if you're innocent, there's nothing to worry about. And if you're guilty, well you're only going to make it worse by not complying. I suppose my comments were more geared towards those people who are innocent, as she was in the OP. I would imagine, however, that trying to lie to the police in the hopes that you can weasel your way out of a charge is worse than complying if you happen to be caught in the former case.


----------



## Alex Kenivel (Sep 14, 2014)

What is legally correct and what is correct aren't always congruent.


----------



## TheStig1214 (Sep 14, 2014)

People seem to forget America covers more square mileage than all of Europe. We are a big country. Yeah we got our loons, but that isn't 95% of America or the police.

Also, she seems to be the nut in the situation. Connected with the police spiritually? Modern day hippie. She didn't comply, they detained her, that's that.


----------



## flint757 (Sep 14, 2014)

Watty said:


> In a bunch of cases where "police brutality" is supposed demonstrated, people are just not complying with police orders. My point was to say that the officers are only going to deal with you better if you comply with their requests, so it is in your best interests to do it. I'm not going to watch all of these videos, but I don't believe they relate very well with what I was trying to say in my comment above.



I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, but his point was, if I'm assuming correctly, that if for instance you allow them to search you, your house or your car to let things go 'smoothly' you have no grounds to complain about it later in any fashion because legally you gave consent. 

For the trivial things it is usually best to just comply, but I don't think anyone is necessarily in the wrong for feeling like there is little reason they should have to under some circumstances. After all the public didn't decide what the police are allowed to do and even if they did it's majority rule so it isn't like everyone necessarily consented to allowing the police to have the amount of power they do have. We also don't have a say in who gets to be a police officer or even who gets fired. People get killed by the police and they just get a slap on the wrist. The inside network of the police force is like the Vatican in the way it handles its 'internal problems'.



Watty said:


> Edit: And to address the first full point you made, they can only arrest you if you are doing something illegal (I use the term arrest loosely as I would not be too bent out of shape if I had to be brought to a police station to clear up a misunderstanding)....so *if you're innocent, there's nothing to worry about*. And if you're guilty, well you're only going to make it worse by not complying.



I wholeheartedly disagree with this sentiment (mostly the bolded). People do get falsely accused and people have gone down for other peoples crimes before.

Also, not that I approve of doing this, but say for instance you're drinking and driving. It is actually very much in the guilty parties benefit to deny say a breathalyzer or a blood workup if it is within his/her rights to do so. Complying only brings hard evidence to the courtroom.


----------



## 7stg (Sep 14, 2014)

flint757 said:


> if I'm assuming correctly, that if for instance you allow them to search you, your house or your car to let things go 'smoothly' you have no grounds to complain about it later in any fashion because legally you gave consent.



This is exactly what I was saying. Yes, it is important to be polite about it, but politely giving a properly worded statement of non-consent makes it easy later for evidence to be thrown out for illegal search and seizure. What makes the first videos segment so good is that it demonstrates that you can and will be arrested if something is found even if it is not yours if it in your care custody or control regardless if it is in your bag, car, or home.

Also, as the last video covers talking with the police is done at your own peril even if you are innocent. Very rarely can anything good come of it.


----------



## Watty (Sep 14, 2014)

flint757 said:


> I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, but his point was, if I'm assuming correctly, that if for instance you allow them to search you, your house or your car to let things go 'smoothly' you have no grounds to complain about it later in any fashion because legally you gave consent.



Again, the example you list here is slightly outside the scope of my original comment, but I would have to say....in general, yes. Of course there's the chance that a corrupt individual could plant something, but if you're innocent and have nothing to hide, there's literally no reason to not comply. The worst that could happen is that they knock something over and you'd be witness to that fact and could later testify against it if needs be.



flint757 said:


> For the trivial things it is usually best to just comply, but I don't think anyone is necessarily in the wrong for feeling like there is little reason they should have to under some circumstances. After all the public didn't decide what the police are allowed to do and even if they did it's majority rule so it isn't like everyone necessarily consented to allowing the police to have the amount of power they do have. We also don't have a say in who gets to be a police officer or even who gets fired. People get killed by the police and they just get a slap on the rest. The inside network of the police force is like the Vatican in the way it handles its 'internal problems'.



I will agree with this in general, but there are a lot of cases I've seen where the only reason things escalated past being reasonable was because people continually refused to comply with police orders. I think this depends so much on the individual situation that it's almost a moot point to talk about it without hard examples to evaluate.



flint757 said:


> I wholeheartedly disagree with this sentiment (mostly the bolded). People do get falsely accused and people have gone down for other peoples crimes before.



Again, I guess my position was targeted to a more general sense as I know that there are (unfortunately) plenty of examples of false accusations and arrests. To be fair though, there has to be some measure of association with the crime and/or the person who committed it, so the misplaced guilt is not necessarily assigned in a vacuum.



flint757 said:


> Also, not that I approve of doing this, but say for instance you're drinking and driving. It is actually very much in the guilty parties benefit to deny say a breathalyzer or a blood workup if it is within his/her rights to do so. Complying only brings hard evidence to the courtroom.



I know, and it's despicable that people can get off of the charge because their body metabolizes the alcohol before they can be "forced" (legally) to obtain a sample. But again, they'd be guilty in that instance regardless, and therefore my earlier statements were not meant to specifically apply to this sort of crime.



7stg said:


> This is exactly what I was saying. Yes, it is important to be polite about it, but politely giving a properly worded statement of non-consent makes it easy later for evidence to be thrown out for illegal search and seizure. What makes the first videos segment so good is that it demonstrates that you can and will be arrested if something is found even if it is not yours if it in your care custody or control regardless if it is in your bag, car, or home.



Fair point, but again....you guys seem to be taking my original arguments somewhat out of context. If you have absolutely nothing to do with the accusation/crime, and are innocent of anything else they might find while on the premises (provided you gave consent to search it), then I don't see why you shouldn't consent. Of course this sentiment will not apply to a great number of cases as there are so very many people that engage in less than legal behaviors that could be discovered by proxy in this way, but that's beside the point.



7stg said:


> Also, as the last video covers talking with the police is done at your own peril even if you are innocent. Very rarely can anything good come of it.



Yeah, still not watching those informercials....but regardless, I don't see how accurately answering their questions (within reason, of course - i.e. answering "when did you stop beating your wife" is not a good way to engage the cops) can be bad in the slightest.


----------



## Hollowway (Sep 14, 2014)

flint757 said:


> It is actually very much in the guilty parties benefit to deny say a breathalyzer or a blood workup if it is within his/her rights to do so. Complying only brings hard evidence to the courtroom.



Yeah, but doesn't the court look at a denial as basically an admittance that you've been drinking a bunch, and that's why you don't want to do a breathalyzer? Who in their right mind would be sober and deny a test that would prove it? If I were a judge I'd say if the cops noticed the swerving, found that the driver couldn't walk a straight line or touch his nose, then there is little reasonable doubt to prove the person was sober. And denying a breathalyzer would seem to put the nail in the coffin. Is that not how it works?

And slightly off topic, how are you supposed to answer the question, "Do you know how fast you were going?" I've tried every possible answer - "Yes, I was going the speed limit, officer," or, "No, officer, I'm sorry, I wasn't watching the speedometer," or, "Yes officer, I was going 75 mph." Every single time I get a ticket. I'm not sure if the guy is asking because I can talk him out of a ticket, to make sure his side holds up in court, or just because he really wants to know if I was consciously breaking the law.


----------



## flint757 (Sep 14, 2014)

Hollowway said:


> Yeah, but doesn't the court look at a denial as basically an admittance that you've been drinking a bunch, and that's why you don't want to do a breathalyzer? Who in their right mind would be sober and deny a test that would prove it? If I were a judge I'd say if the cops noticed the swerving, found that the driver couldn't walk a straight line or touch his nose, then there is little reasonable doubt to prove the person was sober. And denying a breathalyzer would seem to put the nail in the coffin. Is that not how it works?
> 
> And slightly off topic, how are you supposed to answer the question, "Do you know how fast you were going?" I've tried every possible answer - "Yes, I was going the speed limit, officer," or, "No, officer, I'm sorry, I wasn't watching the speedometer," or, "Yes officer, I was going 75 mph." Every single time I get a ticket. I'm not sure if the guy is asking because I can talk him out of a ticket, to make sure his side holds up in court, or just because he really wants to know if I was consciously breaking the law.



I usually just say I don't know and let them tell me what they are accusing me of. I'll correct them or explain if needed after the fact.

In a way it is an admission of guilt, but it is the lesser of two evils for the guilty party. It's either most likely guilty or absolutely guilty. The prior they at least have a shot of getting off or a lesser sentence (like community service or something). It gives them some reasonable doubt essentially. Through hearsay I've heard it work in practice, but I have nothing definitive. It very well could make little difference at the end of the day. All I know is with traffic violations (speeding, DUI, no seat belt) with a descent lawyer and enough postponing it isn't that hard to get charges dismissed so less evidence works in your favor in such situations.


----------



## Watty (Sep 14, 2014)

Just to be clear here, your argument above is talking about the fact that you've committed a crime and are now trying to get off it. Not to be confused with the OP in which the party was not guilty of anything.

i.e. for anyone replying to the above....


----------



## flint757 (Sep 14, 2014)

Yes, I'm aware of that.

It was a part of a chain of comments. You said it was in the guilty parties best interest to comply and I pointed out reasons why that wouldn't necessarily be true. The chain did not start with me.


----------



## Watty (Sep 14, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Yes, I'm aware of that.
> 
> It was a part of a chain of comments. You said it was in the guilty parties best interest to comply and I pointed out reasons why that wouldn't necessarily be true. The chain did not start with me.



More for others than for you, especially given that now we've moved on to discussing two completely separate issues.

Edit: I was more talking about innocent parties, but extended it to guilty parties....assuming they were upstanding people who'd made a mistake and not repeat DWIs trying to get off, etc.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 14, 2014)

UK how racist are your police?!

Metropolitan police still institutionally racist, say black and Asian officers | UK news | The Guardian

Police face racism scandal after black man records abuse | UK news | The Guardian

Facebooked! UK police post threats, racist comments and ?compromising? images on social media ? RT UK

Let's everybody jump to conclusions!

I await the Captain America neg, AxeHappy .


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Sep 14, 2014)

Generalizations are awesome. This thread title is also not at all sensationalized.


----------



## skeels (Sep 14, 2014)

I come from the city that brought you the curious police adventures involving Jeffery Dahmer, Lawrencia Bembenek and Ernest Lacey. Several of my good friends were police at various times here. I can speak with a fairly high degree of certainty that the MPD is a well ensconced "good ol' boys" network. 

I try to stay away from the police myself.

They have guns.


----------



## Alex Kenivel (Sep 14, 2014)

Cops don't discriminate, they can persecute any race. I've seen it happen to white folk. I've seen cops tease a former felon, knowing that he has an anger problem. It's sick. 

I've been pulled over because I looked suspicious, only because I was driving a brand new car in a poor, high-crime area, which happened to be my hometown. "What are you doing here?" and "do you always drive through here?" and "you know where you are, right?" were among their questions. 6 sheriffs on me for being white


----------



## Shimme (Sep 14, 2014)

I have no idea why people think that cooperating with police is a good idea. Sure it might be more convenient, but with police quotas and pressure to have someone to blame, mixed in with the occasional unethical or simply incompetent cop I don't know of any situation where you can be in a better position for a legal defense by consenting to a search/giving youre side of the story/explaining what's going on. 

That's not to say that you shouldn't go to them if you've been robbed/assaulted or something, but if you're ever involved in a traffic stop, detained, or suspected of a crime, lawyers and police officers the world over will tell you the same thing - keep your mouth shut. There's nothing you can say now that can't be said later with the help of legal council. Cops are not your friends, nor should they be treated like one.

Cops are always discriminating, because people are always discriminating. Difference is, most people don't carry multiple weapons, are considered infallible unless there is direct proof to the contrary, can detain you for whatever reason they want with reasonable safety and have a brotherhood of similar people who will protect them even if they know that one of their own is in the wrong.


----------



## Watty (Sep 15, 2014)

Just heard the audio her boyfriend recorded. I'm even more on the cops side now....he might have been condescending before the recording started, but she went straight for the race accusation and then proceeded to make a big deal out of the fact that she could make a scene and had a publicist.

Edit: And of course she doesn't mention that in the same tone or capacity in the interview that followed the playing of the clip.


----------



## ghostred7 (Sep 15, 2014)

Ya...I just listened to the audio too....she was WAY out of line.

Also, the officers were called. They reacted appropriately and professionally from all of the audio. The rumor mill has it that they were called b/c these 2 were having sex with the door open. She was straddling him and kissing him....no confirmation of actual sex, but it could have appeared to be that way. It was outside of an office building. Not hard to fathom that if she was straddling him to kiss him that from 2+ floors up it could appear they were doing more than "simple making out." So citizens called the law.

The bottom line is that she was being detained that stemmed from a call reporting illegal activity. It doesn't matter if she was "just kissing" or not. The officers were called and they are going to operate under reasonable suspicion of her committing illegal activity and are well within their ROE/rights to ask for ID in this situation. She became combative and could have just as easily have been arrested and taken to jail.

IMO, based on her behavior in the audio clips, she got off easy.


----------



## asher (Sep 15, 2014)

> "There was an indication on the radio call that a male white and female black were involved in a sexual act inside a Mercedes with the vehicle door open," Officer Sally Madera said.



I guess kissing is too risque.

I think I'm just as concerned by what's a noun and what's an adjective in that sentence, as pointed out somewhere else.


----------



## ElRay (Sep 15, 2014)

Alex Kenivel said:


> Yeah that sucks and all, but all she needed to do was show her ID and a lot of what happened could've been avoided.



There's no legal requirement to provide ID just because LE asks for it. That's been decided in the courts over and over and over ...


----------



## ElRay (Sep 15, 2014)

Watty said:


> ...
> If an officer stops you and asks that you place your hands where he can see them....you do it.
> If an officer has placed you under arrest and asks that you put your hands behind your back....you do it.
> If an officer has detained you and asks that you sit in a given location....you go there and sit.
> ...



But if you're not being arrested, and you're not being detained, (there's a difference), you have no legal requirement to provide ID. That said, it could shave gone a whole lot smoother if she had asked if she was being detained or arrested prior to walking away, but again, there's no legal requirement.

Especially if there's zero probable cause. We'll wait for the specifics to come out, but an interracial make-out during daylight hours in an area not known for prostitution is not probable cause.


----------



## Noxon (Sep 15, 2014)

I love how anytime anything even remotely racist or sensationalist--though personally I don't feel this instance is racism--happens here, everyone around the world assumes that we as citizens are all like that. And America gets called arrogant, condescending, and quick to jump to an ignorant conclusion?


----------



## ghostred7 (Sep 15, 2014)

ElRay said:


> Especially if there's zero probable cause. We'll wait for the specifics to come out, but an interracial make-out during daylight hours in an area not known for prostitution is not probable cause.



In this case the police were called by a private citizen. The officers are required to go through the motions when being dispatched for a crime in progress. It was clear on the audio she was being officially detained while they worked the situation out.


----------



## MikeH (Sep 15, 2014)

America: Where every white person is a gun-toting, racist, Christian bigot who wears a badge and shits on every other nation's flag.

Good job for perpetuating the message, OP.

[/sarcasm]


----------



## TheStig1214 (Sep 15, 2014)

Shimme said:


> I have no idea why people think that cooperating with police is a good idea. Sure it might be more convenient, but with police quotas and pressure to have someone to blame, mixed in with the occasional unethical or simply incompetent cop I don't know of any situation where you can be in a better position for a legal defense by consenting to a search/giving youre side of the story/explaining what's going on.
> 
> That's not to say that you shouldn't go to them if you've been robbed/assaulted or something, but if you're ever involved in a traffic stop, detained, or suspected of a crime, lawyers and police officers the world over will tell you the same thing - keep your mouth shut. There's nothing you can say now that can't be said later with the help of legal council. Cops are not your friends, nor should they be treated like one.
> 
> Cops are always discriminating, because people are always discriminating. Difference is, most people don't carry multiple weapons, are considered infallible unless there is direct proof to the contrary, can detain you for whatever reason they want with reasonable safety and have a brotherhood of similar people who will protect them even if they know that one of their own is in the wrong.



Um... quotas? I want proof that any police department has quotas for officers to meet on arrests. I'd imagine if arrests are low, the police are actually doing their damn job pretty well. Police don't arrest people out of the blue 
for no good reason. That's a tone of lawsuits and paperwork to settle in the end that no sane person wants to go through. If you are being arrested for a crime that you committed, then yes, shut the f*ck up. But at a routine traffic stop or anything like that, you should cooperate and do as the officer says. Anything other than full cooperation makes you look suspicious. Yeah there are bad cops, but that's a less than 1% thing and they get theirs eventually. 

I always find people who hate on cops are usually the people always getting pulled over and always getting tickets because they are always speeding and giving cops an attitude or looking suspicious. My friend and I got pulled over this weekend for an out tail light on my friend's car. Cop didn't give him a ticket for it OR his illegal license plate cover and was nice enough to give us directions to where I was going. You know why? We weren't dickheads giving him an attitude and not complying.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 15, 2014)

I've been held up for "fitting a description" in situations where I couldn't have possibly been the culprit and I feel like the police in some of those cases knew it and just wanted to give me a hard time. Maybe to make it look to someone else as though they were doing all they can despite having found absolutely nothing. 

I don't really know if it's necessarily about race so much as it's a "my boss is breathing down my neck and I need *something*" at least some of the time. Other times it does seem fairly obvious that I was simply stopped for having a stunning tan in the winter time, but usually those situations don't go much farther than, "Let me see your ID. Okay you're free to go."

It's annoying but I keep on keepin' on...

Even if every single cop in America *was* racist, there are still ways of dealing with them that don't make you look equally foolish.


----------



## tacotiklah (Sep 15, 2014)

I'd say sexism and to a degree, racism played a role here. But not by the police. I'd say that the person that called it in had some prejudices of their own and played the cops in an effort to assert their sense of moral superiority.

Since we're going off of California law here (laws differ from state to state, for those that don't know how US laws work), let's go ahead and state what the law on IDs is for this state:
- You are not required to show ID if you're just walking down the street and a cop stops you.
- If you are being detained, then cops can detain you until they figure out who you are. They can do this for up to 48 hours.

It was obvious that they were detained because someone had called it in. This wasn't a random stop. So yeah, all she had to do was show her ID. Showing ID =/= admission to guilt. Judging from her own accounts, I'd say that she jumped to conclusions herself based on whatever prejudices her father received. I don't think the police needed to draw blood to make a point here, but then again I'm still hazy on the details as to how that actually happened, so I won't raise a big stink over it either.

Basically, in this instance, cooperating and showing ID would've helped her far more than hurt her. Chances are, they would've ran her name, found out she was a famous actress, then apologized and sent her on her way. The worst thing they'd have asked for was an autograph.

That said, there is a problem with women being assumed as being prostitutes. The thing that worries me here isn't racism, but sexism.


----------



## asher (Sep 15, 2014)

Again, California is not a Stop and Identify state. She had no obligation to show her ID nor should she have stayed cuffed for nearly that long.

Stop and identify statutes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Further,

A) who the hell calls the cops on indecent exposure
B) why was said call not treated with far more skepticism?


----------



## will_shred (Sep 15, 2014)

Mik3D23 said:


> I saw this earlier on dailymail
> 
> 
> 
> Can you please back this up in some way besides a sensationalist news story?



Criminal Justice Fact Sheet | NAACP



> Racial Disparities in Incarceration
> 
> African Americans now constitute nearly 1 million of the total 2.3 million incarcerated population
> African Americans are incarcerated at nearly six times the rate of whites
> ...


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 15, 2014)

asher said:


> Again, California is not a Stop and Identify state. She had no obligation to show her ID nor should she have stayed cuffed for nearly that long.
> 
> Stop and identify statutes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...



I've had the police called on me for being in my own neighborhood after dark and/or greated with people coming to their front doors and saying "CAN I HELP YOU?!" in their bassiest voice upon seeing me walking through--again, MY OWN NEIGHBORHOOD--after dark. That's why that shit isn't treated with more skepticism. People are stupid.


----------



## asher (Sep 15, 2014)

I'm... ahem... confused; that's my point. Wouldn't that be the cause for the cops to treat the call with _more_ skepticism? Because it's usually racist bullshit?

ed: I admit I may be totally misreading your post, I'm having a bit of trouble parsing it (I'm exhausted today)


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 15, 2014)

The same ppl that make up neighborhoods are the folks from whom the police force has to choose. I guess maybe *some* of them harbor similar feelings depending on you region? I really don't know. It may be something as simple as them being required to respond if there's a call no matter what. Perhaps the rules are different in some places than others, but that sort of seems to be the case here--that they simply have to respond. I imagine there could be major problem assuming they just wrote something off as racist BS that ended up really being an issue, ya know?

It's almost like you'd just have to assume that there's a wolf every time somoene cries wolf, ya know? Otheriwse you may end up with a mess on your hands.

Again, I don't know if that's how it is, but that's the only cohesive explanation I can derive.


----------



## Shimme (Sep 15, 2014)

Ticket quotas

My apologies for unclear wording, but police quotas (in the form of tickets, not arrests) are very real. In fact, I have no idea how you could live in NYC and not know about them 

And yes, quotas do exist, although they are generally referred to as a 'productivity goal'. With these quotas, then there is a pressure to issue citations that otherwise would never have been issued. For example, if police decide to get "tough on crime", what usually happens is that misdemeanors that would normally be ignored (riding a bike on a sidewalk instead of the street) will be "cracked down on". 

For example, a friend of mine who frequently travels between her hometown in Minneapolis and Des Moines was from 2010-2011, stopped three times in Clear Lake by a state trooper and issued a speeding citation (which she described as "B*******". Normally, an out of state traveler would just suck up the ticket, but because of her frequent travelling it wasn't too inconvenient to challenge the ticket and make the court date. On each occasion, when she challenged the ticket, the cop, with *video evidence*, would drop the charge.


It's great that you've had only positive interactions with the police officer, but if a cop is only giving you a warning because he thought you were nice, then that's clearly the arbitrary actions of an unfair cop. There would be no difference between him giving a warning because you smiled and said "please and thank you" and him giving a warning to some woman because she has big tits.

I don't have a problem with police officers on an individual level - they're people, and it would be unrealistic of me to expect them to be perfect. But when an institution gets a reputation for being unjust, petty, and discriminatory, and when your experiences and most statistics seem to back that up? Then that points their being some serious issues with that institution.

Also, not giving a government agent more than the bare minimum legally required information isn't being a dickhead, it's knowing your rights. I haven't had any issues with the law, and I never have anything that would get me into trouble, but if an officer wants to search me or my possesions they'd better have a *much* better reason than "because I want to/because you wouldn't let me when I wanted to".

That statement


> Yeah there are bad cops, but that's a less than 1% thing and they get theirs eventually.


 really bugs me. If you've ever followed a story where a cop is found to have broken the law, they usually are suspended or (when things are really bad) will resign their position. Police rarely ever go to jail, or even face the same level of punishment as civilians, and it's not because they're perfect little angels.


----------



## sevenstringj (Sep 15, 2014)

'Django Unchained' Actress -- Cops: After Car Sex She Pulls Race, Fame Card (POLICE AUDIO) | TMZ.com

Wiped herself clean with a tissue.





/EPIC ANTI-AMERICA THREAD FAIL


----------



## asher (Sep 15, 2014)

sevenstringj said:


> 'Django Unchained' Actress -- Cops: After Car Sex She Pulls Race, Fame Card (POLICE AUDIO) | TMZ.com
> 
> Wiped herself clean with a tissue.
> 
> ...



Because celeb gossip site TMZ is such a reliable source


----------



## tedtan (Sep 15, 2014)

TheStig1214 said:


> Um... quotas? I want proof that any police department has quotas for officers to meet on arrests. I'd imagine if arrests are low, the police are actually doing their damn job pretty well. Police don't arrest people out of the blue
> for no good reason. That's a tone of lawsuits and paperwork to settle in the end that no sane person wants to go through. If you are being arrested for a crime that you committed, then yes, shut the f*ck up. But at a routine traffic stop or anything like that, you should cooperate and do as the officer says. Anything other than full cooperation makes you look suspicious. Yeah there are bad cops, but that's a less than 1% thing and they get theirs eventually.
> 
> I always find people who hate on cops are usually the people always getting pulled over and always getting tickets because they are always speeding and giving cops an attitude or looking suspicious. My friend and I got pulled over this weekend for an out tail light on my friend's car. Cop didn't give him a ticket for it OR his illegal license plate cover and was nice enough to give us directions to where I was going. You know why? We weren't dickheads giving him an attitude and not complying.



I've had three separate officers, on three separate occasions, tell me that the best way to conduct yourself when stopped by the police is to comply with basic requests like providing ID, staying in the area they tell you to stay in and so forth, but not to answer any questions. They emphasized that *even if you're innocent*, don't say anything or give permission to search because doing so can work against you down the line. Save your side of the story for later when you have legal representation because the interrogation techniques used by the police are designed to get confessions and even simple questions (like the police asking you if you know how fast you were going when they stop you for speeding) have ramifications (in that case, in many jurisdictions answering yes will require the officer to write the ticket and can prevent lighter sentences like deferred adjudication or a driver's ed class, guaranteeing points against your driving record unless you hire an attorney and fight the ticket, which can cost as much or more than the original ticket).

You're certainly free to disagree with them, but I doubt three separate officers from three separate law enforcement agencies would tell me that unless there was something to it.


----------



## Watty (Sep 15, 2014)

The TMZ audio is even worse. She's having a semi-scripted meltdown...it's like she was waiting to get detained for something and then she could pull out this rant against authority.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 15, 2014)

Fight the power, yo...


----------



## sevenstringj (Sep 15, 2014)

asher said:


> Because celeb gossip site TMZ is such a reliable source



And yet this "celeb gossip site" posted the police audio, while sources that I'd assume you'd consider more respectable are going off an hysterical b-list attention whore and her dumbass boyfriend crying on instagram. Take off your cape. Nothing to see here.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 15, 2014)

Eff the source. This situation is silly regardless.


----------



## Necris (Sep 15, 2014)

asher said:


> Because celeb gossip site TMZ is such a reliable source



If TMZ have posted the police audio unedited (I don't mean to imply that it _has_ been edited to favor one party or the other by saying "if", I'm merely indicating that I haven't actually listened to it) then why does it being hosted by TMZ lessen its relevance?

If we have another window into how the events actually unfolded why throw it away because you don't like the source that revealed it?

Poisoning the well - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Don't do that.


----------



## asher (Sep 15, 2014)

Necris said:


> If TMZ have posted the police audio unedited (I don't mean to imply that it _has_ been edited to favor one party or the other by saying "if", I'm merely indicating that I haven't actually listened to it) then why does it being hosted by TMZ lessen its relevance?
> 
> If we have another window into how the events actually unfolded why throw it away because you don't like the source that revealed it?
> 
> ...



At work, so haven't listened - but I do rather doubt the police audio will corroborate the various apparent eye-witness accounts about them actually having sex in the car and "wiping up". Which is much more par for the course for celeb gossip sources


----------



## Alex Kenivel (Sep 15, 2014)

ElRay said:


> There's no legal requirement to provide ID just because LE asks for it. That's been decided in the courts over and over and over ...



But doing what they ask will most likely make them go away. 

And I'm sure in CA you are required to "have your ID at all times" 

.. Unless that's changed


----------



## asher (Sep 15, 2014)

Alex Kenivel said:


> But doing what they ask will most likely make them go away.
> 
> And I'm sure in CA you are required to "have your ID at all times"
> 
> .. Unless that's changed



Nope.

See previous Wiki link. CA is not a state with a Stop and identify law.


----------



## Alex Kenivel (Sep 15, 2014)

asher said:


> Nope.
> 
> See previous Wiki link. CA is not a state with a Stop and identify law.



There's a difference between having it and showing it. 

Although, I _was_ told this by a cop, and a racist asshole of a cop at that, so meh


----------



## asher (Sep 15, 2014)

But if you can't be forced to produce it, how would you enforce a law mandating you have it at all times?


----------



## flint757 (Sep 15, 2014)

Public indecency laws are retarded in the first place. Even if she was doing the deed who gives a ..... (in before, apparently the person who called it in )

I will say that the act of prostitution is sleeping with someone you essentially don't know for money. Whereas public indecency involves doing something arbitrarily considered obscene in public where others could potentially see you. Shouldn't his first assumption be that she was being indecent in public before jumping to prostitution? (I haven't listened to any of the recordings so maybe he did)




I don't fault the police for having to enforce stupid laws, but prostitution and public indecency laws are retarded. They are laws where someone arbitrarily defines what is acceptable and what isn't. Pay someone cash for sex, go to jail. Buy them a meal/ some drinks and have sex, a-okay. Public indecency is even more arbitrary. Who decided where the line in the sand was? There was a time when wearing a bikini would have gotten you in trouble. Having sex near a window would be considered public indecency and doing something 'lewd' in public can get you incarcerated for up to 12 months. Granted you'd probably just get a slap on the wrist, but these are remnants of our puritan roots.
/end mini rant


----------



## Watty (Sep 15, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Public indecency laws are retarded in the first place. Even if she was doing the deed who gives a ..... (in before, apparently the person who called it in )



Uhhhh.....I do? I doubt anyone really wants to see two people having sex in a parked car (let alone a publicly parked car). Let alone the degree to which people MIGHT be okay with it is probably associated with how attractive the people having sex are, and we all know that most Americans are not......well, let's just say it's something best done behind closed doors.



flint757 said:


> I will say that the act of prostitution is sleeping with someone you essentially don't know for money. Whereas public indecency involves doing something arbitrarily considered obscene in public where others could potentially see you. Shouldn't his first assumption be that she was being indecent in public before jumping to prostitution? (I haven't listened to any of the recordings so maybe he did)



There wasn't any mention of prostitution in the tapes, so either he said it prior to recording or the news outlets used that title to sensationalize it. Given how she reacted on tape and the fact that news outlets are want to do this regardless (and it being a celebrity to boot), I'd wager the latter. Especially given that he made sure to note he hadn't said a goddamn thing about her (or his) race in the recording.



flint757 said:


> I don't fault the police for having to enforce stupid laws, but prostitution and public indecency laws are retarded. They are laws where someone arbitrarily defines what is acceptable and what isn't. Pay someone cash for sex, go to jail. Buy them a meal/ some drinks and have sex, a-okay. Public indecency is even more arbitrary. Who decided where the line in the sand was? There was a time where wearing a bikini would have gotten you in trouble. Having sex near a window would be considered public indecency and doing something 'lewd' in public can get you incarcerated for up to 12 months. Granted you'd probably just get a slap on the wrist, but these are remnants of our puritan roots.
> /end mini rant



Fair points, but I'd say they're less important, especially given that the complaint of the behavior only inspired the police to be dispatched and didn't directly bear of what followed. On tape the officer didn't even say why they'd been called, only that they'd been called. She jumped in with the accusations and refusal pretty early on.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 15, 2014)

Alex Kenivel said:


> I'm sure in CA you are required to "have your ID at all times"
> 
> .. Unless that's changed





Alex Kenivel said:


> Although, I _was_ told this by a cop, and a racist asshole of a cop at that, so meh



I'll be interested in what you find when you do some research to see if that cop, in the state you live in, lied to you. 

You being told that is extremely relevant to police not being aware of the law in the current case, or overreaching, or even lying, in order to throw their weight around. 

Let us know what you find!


----------



## flint757 (Sep 15, 2014)

Watty said:


> Uhhhh.....I do? I doubt anyone really wants to see two people having sex in a parked car (let alone a publicly parked car). Let alone the degree to which people MIGHT be okay with it is probably associated with how attractive the people having sex are, and we all know that most Americans are not......well, let's just say it's something best done behind closed doors.



Look, I'm not condoning people strip down, get on the roof of their cars and start screwing. It was obviously not that obvious what they were doing if the situation was only suspect. Given the information I have been able to look at, while being rather busy, I'd go out on a limb and say if they were screwing they were fully clothed. Does anything indicate otherwise at the moment? If so that's hardly a big enough deal to warrant a call out to the police even if that was what they were doing. 

Our nation is a gigantic oxymoron sometimes (worships sexuality while condemning it at the same time). 

I genuinely don't care how someone looks when doing XYZ. Are you really suggesting we write our laws so that we don't have to see 'ugly' people doing what we are okay with 'pretty' people doing?


----------



## Alex Kenivel (Sep 15, 2014)

Explorer said:


> I'll be interested in what you find when you do some research to see if that cop, in the state you live in, lied to you.
> 
> You being told that is extremely relevant to police not being aware of the law in the current case, or overreaching, or even lying, in order to throw their weight around.
> 
> Let us know what you find!



I'm pretty sure cops lie. I'm also very sure some cops are complete idiots. I neither have the time nor desire to research anything of the sort. A lot of my past experiences with officers give me all I need.


----------



## Watty (Sep 15, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Look, I'm not condoning people strip down, get on the roof of their cars and start screwing. It was obviously not that obvious what they were doing if the situation was only suspect. Given the information I have been able to look at, while being rather busy, I'd go out on a limb and say if they were screwing they were fully clothed. Does anything indicate otherwise at the moment? If so that's hardly a big enough deal to warrant a call out to the police even if that was what they were doing.
> 
> Our nation is a gigantic oxymoron sometimes (worships sexuality while condemning it at the same time).



While I'd generally agree, I'd be pissed if I had a kid who was asking "Daddy, what are those two people doing in that car over there?" And yes, people are double standard ridden when it comes to gender norms and sex.



flint757 said:


> I genuinely don't care how someone looks when doing XYZ. Are you really suggesting we write our laws so that we don't have to see 'ugly' people doing what we are okay with 'pretty' people doing?



I was suggesting precisely the opposite, treat everyone equally and err on the side of keeping things like that behind closed doors. However, I'd imagine people would be less offended if [insert model/athlete/etc here] was kissing [insert supermodel/actress/etc here] than if two people weighing 700 pounds were rolling over each others' stomachs to try and do the same.


----------



## MFB (Sep 15, 2014)

Watty said:


> people weighing 700 pounds were rolling over each others' stomachs to try and do the same.



I think at that point more people would be worried about how what looks like two giant sacks of potatos are rolling around and on top of each other based on sheer kinetic energy/with no outside forces acting on them


----------



## Explorer (Sep 16, 2014)

@Alex Kenivel - Ah. I see. You had been arguing pretty vigorously that she was required to show her ID to the police.

I'm glad that you have retracted that claim.


----------



## Alex Kenivel (Sep 16, 2014)

Never said "required *to show*" at all. Certainly wasn't arguing either.

Like I've said before, do what they say as long as it's reasonable, and hopefully they'll leave you alone if you weren't in the wrong. 

You sure like to nitpick things I say or don't say..

Edit: fixed for nitpickiness.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 16, 2014)

Alex Kenivel said:


> Never said "required" at all.


 
You did, actually:



Alex Kenivel said:


> And I'm sure in CA you are *required* to "have your ID at all times"


 
Emphasis mine .

To be fair, though, you said you thought they're required to _have_ it, not to _show_ it, so it's wrong to say you were "vigorously arguing lol that she was required to show it."


----------



## UnderTheSign (Sep 16, 2014)

I was hoping threads like this, coupled with the posts by Grand Moff Tim and Konfyouzd would cause people to have a critical look at racial profiling, the police force and possibly our attitude towards institutional racism overall but I guess y'all would rather argue prude ness, sensationalism and Explorers nitpicking...


----------



## pushpull7 (Sep 16, 2014)

They are not racist at all. They hate everyone equally.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Sep 16, 2014)

I looked into it, admittedly briefly, and a large chunk of states have it labeled "if there's reasonable suspicion, they can by law ask your ID. As I recall, this was also said on some goofy police state "they're all out to get us" website. 

Fitting the description to me is reasonable suspicion. I mean, racism in cops certainly exists, but I don't think this is one of those cases. Nor do I think the cop acted out of line. (Especially since it was lapd, which is notorious for acting out of line.)

Maybe it's the pacifist in me, or maybe it's the fact I never do anything wrong. But even if I feel I've been racially profiled (and I have,) I just follow the simple demands like showing my ID. Prevent escalation where you can. Stop withholding your god damn ID's if you've done nothing wrong. Seriously, if the cop really is corrupt, then they're not above lying and no amount of compliance or non-compliance will keep them from taking it up a step. 

Again, lots of cases are racially motivated. Kid getting shot in the back, which I just read about is a good example. But a cop responding to a "black woman, white guy were seen doing the nasty, someone called that in," and stopping a black girl/white guy couple is not ....ing racism or out of line. He had reason to expect they committed the crime, and therefore had the right to stop them and identify them. That's pretty much the reason ID's are required by law. (Among a few other reasons.)


----------



## asher (Sep 16, 2014)

chrisharbin said:


> They are not racist at all. They hate everyone equally.



If only. Statistics say otherwise.


----------



## Forrest_H (Sep 16, 2014)

asher said:


> If only. Statistics say otherwise.



I have to agree with you for the most part, but I was actually rough handled by some cops not too long ago (Few weeks ago, if I already mentioned this I'm sorry, I've not been sleeping much lately ).

The whole situation with me was f-cked. I stopped my car, and I guess the officer took me shifting my car into park as me reaching for a gun. He approached my car, and asked how I was doing, and then told me to get the f-ck out. I was confused, and said "I'm sorry?" he said it again, louder, to which I complied. He immediately cuffed me, and threw me into the side of my car, and pulled a gun on me, screaming at me, asking me if I wanted to die. Now, I could have said "Get the .... off of me you crazy bastard," but I think had I not complied, you guys very well may not have heard from me again . I was sat on a police cruiser while I was grilled by officers about my car, where the .... is the weapon, blah blah blah, and meanwhile I'm thinking I'm going to get killed because some crazy bastard is having a bad day. They asked me if they could search my car, and I said yes. Interestingly enough, my dad told me that I should never let them do that, but having common sense... *OF COURSE I WAS GOING TO LET THEM SEARCH MY CAR I HAD A ....ING GUN TO MY HEAD*  they found a bb gun in the trunk, well away from me, and the result of me complying was keeping my life which I might have lost, and a $10 ticket. When it first happened, I was outraged, terrified, and thinking about how I should have just said no and freaked out, but seeing it now, I'm extremely glad I complied. But with the officers who freaked out on me, they were white, and I'm white. Maybe it was because my car was beat up and I have a tattoo, but there wasn't really any racism.

On topic, What this story sounds like was one of those idiots who f-cked up and then tried to hide behind "My rights are being infringed upon!" All of this is subjective, but with what happened to me, I strongly believe that in that situation, the chick should have just showed her ID. 

However, Asher, statistics don't lie. I have to agree with you there.


----------



## asher (Sep 16, 2014)

Yeah, I mean certainly *some* cops are royal douchemachines and hate everyone. Like most of the Oakland PD, apparently


----------



## asher (Sep 16, 2014)

So like this, I guess:

(yeah, yeah, DailyKos):

Another Out Of Control Cop Story, But This Cop May Have Messed With The Wrong Kid


----------



## Rev2010 (Sep 16, 2014)

<Sigh> for the millionth time can't we have the police just wear body cams and be done with all this? This way, people don't get to contort and twist stories to gain public sway and the police don't get to abuse people and claim defense or personal injury. 

I haven't listened to the audio here or seen any type of video, from the news article it seems there's only pics and video, but this reminds me of the below video, which angered me at first till I watched it again and saw how he refused in every way possible to simply cooperate with the first cop and just give the info she asked:



He just kept refusing to cooperate and it led to him being tazed. Was that the right way for the situation to be handled? Probably could've been dealt with better as that white male cop did seem to come off very aggressive, but I'll ask... when someone simply refuses to cooperate in every possible way well wtf do the cops do? Just walk away because "Well gee he's not being aggressive"? 

Seems some people choose to go out of their way to intentionally be as difficult as possible with the police and refuse to cooperate intentionally to provoke them into a situation they can exploit as being police prejudice or harassment. Just because one isn't being aggressive or violent doesn't mean they're just free to walk away and ignore the police. For every instance we need the full story, not some story that comes from the police side only or from the civilian side only because both are likely to be biased to some degree. Let's just get body cams on all police, make any form of tampering a punishable crime to the officer, and take things from there.


Rev.


----------



## pushpull7 (Sep 16, 2014)

Well, I'm white as snow and they've always treated me like scum of the earth (and I've lived all over the US) so I have a unique perspective.


----------



## Xaios (Sep 16, 2014)

I've never had any runins with the police and they've never been anything less than corteous to me personally. However, I do remember one interesting incident which happened when I was in high school.

I had to take public transit in middle and high school because the school district, for reasons that are beyond me, refused to provide school buses for kids in the French Immersion program who had to travel to a different school way the heck across town (the nearby high school had no French program). When I was in high school, the city brought in a couple double-deck buses. A friend of mine that I met riding the bus (we never had any classes together all through high school, but he was one of my best friends by the time we graduated) had a bit of a vandalism streak to him. Nothing terribly destructive, he just tagged the backs of the bus seats with sharpies. And because we were always on the top deck of the bus (which had a piddly camera at the front for surveillance while we always sat near the back), they couldn't see who was doing it.

In the end his punishment from the transit authority was fitting as well, he had to do community service cleaning city buses for a while. However, the police response was a joke. One day we pulled into the transfer point where we had to change buses. The transit folks planted a mole on the bus so that they could point out who was writing on the seats as we exited. I don't have a problem with that. But when we pulled into the bus stop, there were 5 (FIVE!) squad cars waiting. Once they got the signal, without a word they cuffed him and threw him in the back of a cruiser. They were really rough despite the fact that he didn't resist at all, and they didn't read him his rights.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 16, 2014)

Well that doesn't sound very Canadian of them at all!


----------



## Watty (Sep 16, 2014)

Forrest_H said:


> The whole situation with me was f-cked. I stopped my car, and I guess the officer took me shifting my car into park as me reaching for a gun. He approached my car, and asked how I was doing, and then told me to get the f-ck out. I was confused, and said "I'm sorry?" he said it again, louder, to which I complied. He immediately cuffed me, and threw me into the side of my car, and pulled a gun on me, screaming at me, asking me if I wanted to die. Now, I could have said "Get the .... off of me you crazy bastard," but I think had I not complied, you guys very well may not have heard from me again . I was sat on a police cruiser while I was grilled by officers about my car, where the .... is the weapon, blah blah blah, and meanwhile I'm thinking I'm going to get killed because some crazy bastard is having a bad day. They asked me if they could search my car, and I said yes. Interestingly enough, my dad told me that I should never let them do that, but having common sense... *OF COURSE I WAS GOING TO LET THEM SEARCH MY CAR I HAD A ....ING GUN TO MY HEAD*  they found a bb gun in the trunk, well away from me, and the result of me complying was keeping my life which I might have lost, and a $10 ticket. When it first happened, I was outraged, terrified, and thinking about how I should have just said no and freaked out, but seeing it now, I'm extremely glad I complied. But with the officers who freaked out on me, they were white, and I'm white. Maybe it was because my car was beat up and I have a tattoo, but there wasn't really any racism.



Uhhhhhh, I feel like we're missing some details here, let alone the fact that your bolded words lead me to believe you have it out for the police officers (they aren't going to shoot you if you don't give them consent to search the vehicle....that doesn't make any sense. If they were willing to kill you, then what's a paltry charge of not getting the owner's consent?!).

You did have a gun in the car, BB or no. Perhaps someone called it in; you might never have known about it. Cops tend to take weapons charges seriously as they could be killed if they mishandle the situation. I'd fully admit that these are typically situations that could be handled better, but let's not play the "I might have died " card right off the bat. If you want your example to be taken seriously, let's get a better account of everything that happened without "lol" and "blah blah blah" being used to describe the incident.



Rev2010 said:


> <Sigh> for the millionth time can't we have the police just wear body cams and be done with all this? This way, people don't get to contort and twist stories to gain public sway and the police don't get to abuse people and claim defense or personal injury.
> 
> Seems some people choose to go out of their way to intentionally be as difficult as possible with the police and refuse to cooperate intentionally to provoke them into a situation they can exploit as being police prejudice or harassment. Just because one isn't being aggressive or violent doesn't mean they're just free to walk away and ignore the police. For every instance we need the full story, not some story that comes from the police side only or from the civilian side only because both are likely to be biased to some degree. Let's just get body cams on all police, make any form of tampering a punishable crime to the officer, and take things from there.



I completely agree.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 16, 2014)

I don't think American cops are any more racist percentage-wise than other Americans.



Now, do I think that there is a large percentage of Americans who are racist?

I personally believe that this video is genuine, and a document of what attitudes exist int he US. 

If anyone disagrees with the video being accurate, I'd be interested in the reasoning.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Sep 17, 2014)

I have no doubts that a large chunk of the US population are racist. I can't go to the Chinese restaurant without hearing some sort of racist shit. Bathroom walls frequently have the word "......" carved or drawn on them. I overhear people badmouthing blacks, mexicans, Asians, and middle easterners all the time. A lot of the people convince themselves that the racial shit they're spewing is just "an observation."

On the subject of cops, I tend not to fault them 99% of the time. Rarely have they ever done anything out of line in my experience. If they're cranky and rude, I chalk it up to having an 8+ hour shift of dealing with lying druggy thieves. As for being profiled, it's happened and it ....ing sucks, but every time, I just comply and 5 minutes later I'm walking free. If a cop is corrupt and is going to kill you, he's going to be more likely to do it if you don't comply than if you do comply. If you feel you've been mistreated, file a complaint. Take down badge numbers and shit. Don't ever give someone the ability to play the victim if you are in fact the victim.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Sep 17, 2014)

It has come to my attention that the N-bomb is censored. So yeah, at least one of the blanked words in my previous post is the N word. 

Also, sorry for double posting but I'm on my phone which sucks for editing posts.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Sep 17, 2014)

Chokey Chicken said:


> On the subject of cops, I tend not to fault them 99% of the time. Rarely have they ever done anything out of line in my experience. If they're cranky and rude, I chalk it up to having an 8+ hour shift of dealing with lying druggy thieves. As for being profiled, it's happened and it ....ing sucks, but every time, I just comply and 5 minutes later I'm walking free. If a cop is corrupt and is going to kill you, he's going to be more likely to do it if you don't comply than if you do comply. If you feel you've been mistreated, file a complaint. Take down badge numbers and shit. Don't ever give someone the ability to play the victim if you are in fact the victim.


A friend of mine was recently nearly hit on the head and forcefully hit on the hands with a baton, causing a pretty swolen and bruised hand, by an officer riding a horse. When she went to file a complaint she was told "it was a crowded event and you had probably had a drink so it's your own fault". I could probably come up with a dozen more examples of the police not being of any help when filing complaints or reporting something by simply asking around my friends or googling.

I'd love to believe filing complaints works but you just can't assume every cop is a good one. The police taking a complaint against one of their own seriously is as likely as getting a guitar from BRJ at this point.


----------



## will_shred (Sep 17, 2014)

The thing that confuses the hell out of me about American police is that, in my view the police are there to protect you, and protect your rights. However, our police are trained to trick you into surrendering your rights before and after arrest. "Let me search the car" most people know that they do not have to comply with a search, they can say on the record that "i do not consent to a search" and if the cop searches anyway, it can be contested before a judge and if you're lucky the whole case will be thrown out (assuming they did find something during the illegal search). In Interrogation they'll tell you that they'll cut you a deal if you fess up, and there's no need for a lawyer. Both of which are lies.

That's ....ed up.


At the heart of it, IMO police should keep the peace and protect the rights of the people. Instead our police are more of an arm of a prison industrial complex that sucks up tax payer money to keep non-violent drug offenders in jail. I believe that most of the problems with police today are a result of the drug war. Drugs are easy to hide, and a high priority for law enforcement. Therefore making police more search/swat raid happy. It's usually hard to pin someone on drug charges without using deception to obtain the evidence necessary for arrest. Police shouldn't have to use deception to do their jobs, they should be honest and professional.


----------



## Rev2010 (Sep 17, 2014)

will_shred said:


> However, our police are trained to trick you into surrendering your rights before and after arrest.



Lawyers/Law makers (same sh*i*t) cause this to happen.



will_shred said:


> most people know that they do not have to comply with a search, they can say on the record that "i do not consent to a search" and if the cop searches anyway, it can be contested before a judge and if you're lucky the whole case will be thrown out



Lawyers/Law makers (same sh*i*t) also cause this to happen.



will_shred said:


> In Interrogation they'll tell you that they'll cut you a deal if you fess up, and there's no need for a lawyer. Both of which are lies.



Lawyers/Law makers (same sh*i*t) also cause this to happen as well.



will_shred said:


> Instead our police are more of an arm of a prison industrial complex that sucks up tax payer money to keep non-violent drug offenders in jail. I believe that most of the problems with police today are a result of the drug war.



What's that I've been saying?  Oh yeah... Lawyers/Law makers (same sh*i*t) cause this to happen.



will_shred said:


> Police shouldn't have to use deception to do their jobs, they should be honest and professional.



<Sigh> Lawyers/Law makers (same sh*i*t) cause this shit to operate this way based on the duality of our legal system.

It's sad but true. Maybe we should look at the people making the laws first?


Rev.


----------

