Barstow cops are fucked!

[EverCurious]

Unions are like a political movement that forgot to disappear when they got what they wanted... We now have laws that support what the "good" unions /used/ to fight for.

Right now, in spite of the dramatic reduction in union activity in recent years, there is sufficient influence remaining in the union movement to maintain the salary and benefit status quo. This is because the bosses in non-union businesses do not want the existing unions encroaching on them.

But if the union movement is successfully defeated we will see a rapid decline and the ultimate end of the American Middle Class and a return to the Gilded Age social order.

Today unions are just as greedy and unreason
able as the bad companies they sprung up to fight. They force decent businesses into impossible financial positions that are completely unsustainable, and won't let the business fire anyone, lower wages, or do anything about the fiscal problems the business has except go bankrupt (which they also try to stop.) That is ultimately just as bad for the American worker as lacking those "benefits" was when Unions were needed.

My son-in-law started working for UPS sorting packages on the 12-8 shift. Today he drives an eighteen-wheeler on 4-12 airport runs. He loves the job, which has given him a beautiful house on Long Island. My daughter has her own car and their kids are very well cared for. UPS is totally Teamsters, its members are fiercely loyal, and UPS is one of the most lucrative businesses in America.

And there are many other highly successful, fully unionized corporations and companies. So you really shouldn't allow yourself to be deceived about the value and necessity of unions.

In case you (or others) are interested in learning the facts, here is a list of good union books I highly recommend to you:

There is Power in a Union: The Epic Story of Labor in America
by Philip Dray

Triangle: The Fire That Changed America
by David von Drehle

Growing Up in Coal Country
by Susan Campbell Bartoletti

Trade Unions Under Capitalism
by Tom Clarke

Sweat and Blood: A History of U.S. Labor Unions
by Gloria Skurzynski

Power and Privilege: Labor Unions in America
by Morgan O. Reynolds

Why Unions Matter
by Michael D. Yates

Strike: Mother Jones and the Colorado Coal Field War
by Lois Ruby

Which Side Are You On?: The Story of a Song
by George Ella Lyon

Ah yes, the highly corrupt and criminal associated Teamsters... such a great "role model" of "workers rights" and unions... They are a political operation from top to bottom, raiding "enemy" unions in order to control everything, and they heavily participated in organized crime from at least the 1950's until what 2006? (what's been "found out" anyway) They /might/ have straightened up their organized crime roots, but they've turned instead to using the federal government to hold back their competition - (Buried Bailout Brown Bailout

Unions have immunity to US Antitrust Laws, they tried to get immunities in NAFTA and failing that decided to campaign against it, and currently they're pushing to be immune from the $15/h minimum wage (that they're extensive democratic political contributions helped get.) Unions drove businesses from the north to the south (and even out of the country) through unreasonable wage fixing (by force and threat of expensive strikes), and they continuously lock businesses and the government into unsustainable pensions and other benefits. They refuse to be flexible due to clear economic downturn considerations, which is a big part of why they are falling out of favor with Republicans in recent years - I suppose smartly, they have instead picked up the Democratic socialist support because without that... They make it pretty much impossible for a person to work certain fields without joining their union (in violation of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 imo) then basically steal union dues to fund more political power, they won't let an individual worker make an employer/employee deal on their own, and in the end they attempt to control businesses for their own agenda's with no consideration for that agenda's after-affects.

Lets start with this: from 2001 Teachers Hit WEA Union with Statewide Class-Action Suit to Reclaim 200 000 in Dues Seized for Politics National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

• "National Right to Work Foundation attorneys are filing a class-action lawsuit against the Washington Education Association (WEA) union seeking to reclaim money illegally seized from the paychecks of more than 4,200 teachers to advance the union's political agenda. Foundation attorneys filed the class-action lawsuit, Davenport v. WEA, in the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of Thurston on behalf of teachers who are not union members (but who must still pay agency fees) after WEA union officials illegally seized fees without authorization in violation of Washington's so-called "paycheck protection" law (Initiative 134). Since the non-member teachers had not exercised their right to reclaim about $175 (per teacher per year) under a recent Foundation-won court settlement against the WEA union, they are only entitled to reclaim about $10 (per year over five years) attributed to "political activities" under the narrow definition in the mis-named "paycheck protection" law. The suit asks that about $200,000 in illegally seized fees be returned to the teachers."
• "Initiative 134 was intended to prevent union officials from spending government workers' money for politics without prior authorization. After passage of that law, union officials easily sidestepped the law's narrow and toothless requirements. Last September, Washington's Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) determined that WEA union officials had not secured authorization from nonmembers for the forced union dues spent on the tiny fraction of union political activity actually regulated by the law. Washington's Attorney General now seeks unspecified sanctions against the WEA union, but is seeking absolutely no damages for the teachers whose rights were violated."

How about Wisconsin 2011??

Unions refused to compromise on their demands even when their members faced imminent job loss due to government budget deficit's. In fact, teachers in the Hartland-Lakeside School District agreed to switch health insurance providers to save the district $690,000, but the executive committee of a union that represents the teachers blocked the change (why? oh because the union owned the fucking insurance company...) The Milwaukee Teachers Education Association said "no deal" to a proposal that would have them make concessions similar to those called for under the budget repair law. The union said that it has already made all the concessions that it will make. The proposed Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) budget would cut 989 full-time positions through attrition and layoffs. On June 29, the same day the budget repair law became effective, MPS Superintendent Gregory Thornton announced that 519 layoff notices would be issued for next school year, including 354 teachers. Most members pay about $1,000 per year in dues.

2011-Union officials in central Wisconsin voted to ban Republican politicians from the Labor Day parade held in Wausau, Wisconsin. In a statement from the union council website, council president Randy Radtke said that politicians are welcome at the festivities only if they have demonstrated support for workers' rights. Mayor Jim Ripple of Wausau responded that the city would not help with the cost of the parade unless a decision to ban Republican politicians was reversed. The union later reversed its decision to exclude Republican politicians.

In 2012 -Governor Walker took issue with the teachers' union WEAC not releasing its annual surveys measuring layoffs and school conditions. There was a survey of superintendents by the Department of Public Instruction and the Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators (WASDA) in the fall of 2011 which the governor used to compare the performance of his reforms to the previous administration. The WASDA survey results compare favorable to those that have been released by WEAC from prior years. Governor Walker indicates that it is evidence that the efforts associated with the implemented reforms under Act 10 are successful. WEAC responded that drawing attention to this was political in nature. Walker posted WEAC's previous surveys on the governor's website and compared previous survey results to current trends which shows improvements in the following four areas: teacher layoffs, class size, student fees, and extracurricular programs. The data compares 2011–2012 (Act 10) to the school years 2002–2003 through 2008–2009. Walker requested that the survey results be made available and asked why previous surveys had been removed from their website.

Union Politics:

• Solidarity was the watchword throughout the 2011 protests, beginning very soon after Governor Walker proposed his collective bargaining changes on February 11. Public and private unions alike, including the largest police and fire unions whose members were exempt under the Governor's bill, met on February 14 to declare their opposition to the Governor's "union-busting measures."

• An ad created by advisers to the national AFL-CIO, SEIU and AFSCME unions and paid for by the Wisconsin AFL-CIO was launched. The ad featured "Racine firefighter Mike DeGarmo proclaiming solidarity between firefighters (who, like police officers, are exempt from Walker's proposal) and other public employees.... A spokesman for the national AFL-CIO, Eddie Vale, says [the ad]'s supported by a 'significant statewide buy'".

• Stu Betts, the former president of the West DePere Educational Association (WDPEA) teachers union, sent a letter to the union membership indicating that he resigned under pressure from the WDPEA executive committee. He claims that the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) is about making sure union dues are mandatory, not about teachers' rights. He did not endorse the demonstrations at the capital but did state he wrote letters to the governor expressing concerns regarding the proposed legislation.

• Harold Schaitberger, the president of the International Association of Firefighters, said that they will quit donating to federal candidates this year because members of Congress are not doing enough to support organized labor. He says there is a more urgent need to spend money defending anti-union measures sweeping GOP-controlled statehouses across the country and that members of Congress should be doing more to speak out against efforts in states to take away collective bargaining rights and weaken union clout. The union is among the most influential and biggest-spending lobbying groups on Capitol Hill.

After effects of Act 10 for Wisconsin Schools?
In Kaukauna, school officials put in place new policies they estimate will turn a $400,000 deficit into a $1.5 million surplus. In April 2011, the union had offered healthcare and pension concessions as well as a wage freeze, which it projected would save $1.8 million, but the offer was rejected by the school board. "The monetary part of it is not the entire issue," said board President Todd Arnoldussen. "It was in the collective bargaining agreement that we could only negotiate with them," said Arnoldussen referring to the past, when Kaukauna's agreement with the teachers union required the school district to purchase health insurance coverage from WEA Trust – a company created by the Wisconsin teachers union. This year, the trust told Kaukauna that it would face a significant increase in premiums. With the collective bargaining agreement gone, the school district is free to shop around for coverage. Kaukauna can reduce the size of its classes – from 31 students to 26 students in high school and from 26 students to 23 students in elementary school. In addition, there will be more teacher time for one-on-one sessions with troubled students. Those changes would not have been possible without the changes in collective bargaining. The money saved will be used to hire a few more teachers and institute merit pay.

The city of Milwaukee projects it will save at least $25 million a year and possibly as much as $36 million in 2012 from health care benefit changes due to not having to negotiate with unions. This is offset by about $14 million in cuts in state aid.

Racine County estimates it will save over $1.5 million in employee pension contributions that resulted from recent state collective bargaining changes. In addition, county employees will be more limited on how much comp time they can accrue, will need to pay more for name-brand prescription drugs and will not be able to receive overtime unless they work more than 40 hours. Racine County Executive Jim Ladwig, who proposed the changes, estimated the changes will save the county several hundred thousand dollars per year.

Other examples of district savings include Oshkosh school board, which will save over $3.7 million over the next three years. Menomonee Falls school board will save $2.4 million by changing health providers, Hudson school district will save over $1 million by changing health providers, Shorewood school district will save $537,000 by changing health providers, Ashland school district will save $378,000 by changing health providers, and Wauwatosa school board which would have faced a choice of laying off more than 100 teachers and other employees, yet were able to prevent that outcome by implementing pay freezes and employees accepting higher pension payments and higher deductible health care plans as well as the property tax levy projected to decrease.

The Milwaukee School Board asked its teachers union for a side agreement requiring teachers to contribute 5.8% of their pay toward pensions, as the teachers union contract extends through 2013. The pension contribution would have saved about $20 million and 200 jobs, however the union rejected the concession.

Side note: 2012, 45 Wisconsin School districts sued WEA Trust (union health insurance) for withholding district funds after collective bargaining contracts with WEAC concluded, and to reclaim funds from the Early Retirement Reinsurance Program. WEA Trust counter-sued against 14 School Districts, announcing they would drop litigation if the School Districts dropped their litigation. ~ Area school districts jump into WEA lawsuit

• "Each school district contends that it is still entitled to that money because it covers districts that were members during the 2010-11 school year, when WEA applied for and received the funds from the federal government. WEA, meanwhile, argues that it followed federal law and that the money can only be paid out to current plan participants. Hartland-Lakeside Superintendent Glenn Schilling indicated that as many as 30 school districts statewide have expressed interest in pursuing legal action. In the case of Hartland-Lakeside, the district asked that the money be paid directly to the district when it informed the carrier it would be leaving for another insurer. WEA instead offered to apply the money to the 2011-12 plan year, but the district already had plans to use other insurers for that year."

What did we find about the various teachers union during the aftermath?

Since teachers' unions are no longer able to automatically deduct dues from all teachers' paychecks because of the new budget repair law, unions are using a variety of methods including using a combination of meetings, emails, phone calls and home visits to get teachers signed up for dues collection. Some school districts are primarily signing members up for electronic funds transfers so they can deduct money monthly. The latest IRS filing available shows that WEAC collected about $23.5 million in membership dues in fiscal year 2009 from its approximately 98,000 members. Most of the membership dues go to pay salaries and benefits. The organization employed 151 people and paid them $14,382,812, which is an average compensation total of $95,250 per [union] employee. This figure includes not only professional staff but also lost wages paid to union bargaining team members, officers, and delegates to conventions. (Those 151 union people cost their 98,000 members $1,000 a month... Not abusive at all...)

The Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC), announced they would lay off about 40% of its workforce (aka 60 people.) The layoffs and budget cuts are based on a projected loss of revenue as a result of the budget repair legislation (aka they can't just automatically take a grand a month from all teachers in the state.)

For the affected unions, Act 10 prohibited collective bargaining agreements from covering any topic other than base wages, with any raises prohibited from exceeding the cost of inflation. Furthermore it required the unions to hold an election every year where 51% of all employees (not simply 51% of those choosing to vote) had to vote Yes in order to continue collective bargaining in the coming year. Given these constraints, a number of unions declined to participate in the annual election, and thus were "decertified"—no longer recognized as a collective bargaining agent by the state of Wisconsin.

In December 2011, many local teachers unions (177 of 206) voted to re-certify. A majority of those teachers unions that held elections voted to re-certify and a majority of those that failed to re-certify did so due to rules in the new law treating a non-vote the same as a vote against recertification. For example, in one election the teachers' union was de-certified when the vote to re-certify was 31 in favor of recertification and 1 against. However, since the union was listed as having 64 members, the union was decertified because a majority of total members (33) is required to re-certify, not a majority of votes cast. (AKA those teacher members pretty much said Meh, I don't want to be involved in your union.)

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I believe the scandal here is in the way the officer approached both women. He obviously treated the white woman with a level of respect not shown to the other woman.
Also it can't be the policy of the department to put a pregnant woman down on her belly to cuff her.

The first women is the one who called the police.
Cops always initially side with the person who called for obvious reasons.
The second women obviously has warrants or she would have cooperated with the police

" Obviously" not a fact in eveidence.
Obviously your own bias speaking for you.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Fuck you, you racist fucking pricks!





Fuck Barstow cops!

This country is becoming Nazi Germany.

I like how they automatically believed the white woman. Typical.

And automatically ascribe a higher degree of nefarity to the actions and intentions of the black folks.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Terry vs. Ohio. The cops can place you into investigative detention to investigate any possible crime. Reckless driving? Punching a window? Disturbing schools? All possible. Cop even said he didnt think there was a crime.

BUT...his job is to find out.

And by Terry vs Ohio...he can. And you must comply. They can use force to get compliance.

You cant just say the cop isnt investigating what I was just involved in and walk away.

When will people realize this???

But the cop did not say he was placing her in detention. And he only said she was under arrest after she was handcuffed. How can you resist arrest (or detention) if it is not being made clear?

The woman asked several times what the officers were doing. They did not respond.

 

[Billo_Really]

No, he has a signature from a Duke Ellington song. Shut your cake flap, people won't realize how stupid you are quite as quickly.

Are you telling me the Devine Ms. M, never sang that song?

And for the record, this is about as swing as I get...

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

No, he has a signature from a Duke Ellington song. Shut your cake flap, people won't realize how stupid you are quite as quickly.

Are you telling me the Devine Ms. M, never sang that song?

And for the record, this is about as swing as I get...

Yes, try to make us believe that you didn't think that wind-beneath-my-wings wasn't the first to sing that song. Your stupidity has already been disclosed.

 

[EverCurious]

Terry vs. Ohio. The cops can place you into investigative detention to investigate any possible crime. Reckless driving? Punching a window? Disturbing schools? All possible. Cop even said he didnt think there was a crime.

BUT...his job is to find out.

And by Terry vs Ohio...he can. And you must comply. They can use force to get compliance.

You cant just say the cop isnt investigating what I was just involved in and walk away.

When will people realize this???

But the cop did not say he was placing her in detention. And he only said she was under arrest after she was handcuffed. How can you resist arrest (or detention) if it is not being made clear?

The woman asked several times what the officers were doing. They did not respond.

How many times should they have to tell her? He said flat out that she needed to give him her full name at least twice. Then after she tried to walk away, they told her at least three times to stop resisting /before/ taking her to the ground, then they told her at least three times to get in the car, before dragging her ass into the seat. It wouldn't have mattered what they said anyway, she wasn't listening...

She started the conversation, yelling about the incident from across the parking lot before the officer even got there to ask her shit, then when the officer made a SIMPLE request for her fucking name, she turned around and decided that the police were "harassing" her. Its absolutely ridiculous...

Bottom line: she lost it in a school parking lot, driving around like a maniac, endangering a bunch of kids, and scaring the shit out of another adult who told her to slow the fuck down - and in front of her child no less.


Sorry, I have zero sympathy, though I will admit I'm a bit biased. I've gone off on people for driving like idiots like that in school parking lots myself, although most of the ones I bitched at were at least ashamed of their behavior. I frankly don't give a rats ass how bad a day one is having, how late one got up, OR that one might have other shit to do - those kids deserve my, and everyone else's, protection, even if they are /not/ mine (or their own children.) I personally cannot just stand by and say nothing when some self-important bitch/asshole endangers what should be a safe area for children. There is a reason my son's elementary schools now have 10mph posted speed limits, I also convinced the school board to completely redesign the parking lot specifically to help protect kids from parents who were "in a hurry" and speeding through the parking lots or dodging in and out of the (courtesy) pickup/drop off lines. (I had actually argued to take out the courtesy pick up lanes entirely and make all those self-important fucks walk to the playground area by the school doors to get their kids, but the rest of the parents said they'd get their shit under control so we were able to compromise with two bottle necks to force everyone into a single lane before entering the 3 lane wide drop-off/pick-up area.)

 

[Billo_Really]

Yes, try to make us believe that you didn't think that wind-beneath-my-wings wasn't the first to sing that song. Your stupidity has already been disclosed.

WTF are you talking about?

When you were a kid, did you have to wear hockey equipment, but you weren't on a team?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Yes, try to make us believe that you didn't think that wind-beneath-my-wings wasn't the first to sing that song. Your stupidity has already been disclosed.

WTF are you talking about?

When you were a kid, did you have to wear hockey equipment, but you weren't on a team?

Ad hominem won't conceal your stupidity. We all know you thought Bette Midler was the first to sing that song.

 

[Billo_Really]

How many times should they have to tell her? He said flat out that she needed to give him her full name at least twice. Then after she tried to walk away, they told her at least three times to stop resisting /before/ taking her to the ground, then they told her at least three times to get in the car, before dragging her ass into the seat. It wouldn't have mattered what they said anyway, she wasn't listening...

She started the conversation, yelling about the incident from across the parking lot before the officer even got there to ask her shit, then when the officer made a SIMPLE request for her fucking name, she turned around and decided that the police were "harassing" her. Its absolutely ridiculous...

Bottom line: she lost it in a school parking lot, driving around like a maniac, endangering a bunch of kids, and scaring the shit out of another adult who told her to slow the fuck down - and in front of her child no less.


Sorry, I have zero sympathy, though I will admit I'm a bit biased. I've gone off on people for driving like idiots like that in school parking lots myself, although most of the ones I bitched at were at least ashamed of their behavior. I frankly don't give a rats ass how bad a day one is having, how late one got up, OR that one might have other shit to do - those kids deserve my, and everyone else's, protection, even if they are /not/ mine (or their own children.) I personally cannot just stand by and say nothing when some self-important bitch/asshole endangers what should be a safe area for children. There is a reason my son's elementary schools now have 10mph posted speed limits, I also convinced the school board to completely redesign the parking lot specifically to help protect kids from parents who were "in a hurry" and speeding through the parking lots or dodging in and out of the (courtesy) pickup/drop off lines. (I had actually argued to take out the courtesy pick up lanes entirely and make all those self-important fucks walk to the playground area by the school doors to get their kids, but the rest of the parents said they'd get their shit under control so we were able to compromise with two bottle necks to force everyone into a single lane before entering the 3 lane wide drop-off/pick-up area.)

First off, it was illegal for the cop to ask her for her name. Second, the cop told her she had 2 minutes to make her phone call and only gave her 20 seconds. Third, she was the victim from the assault by the crazy white woman and the cop treated her like she was the perpetrator. And fourth, his "SIMPLE request", was against the fuckin' law!

If you choose not to embrace American values, then get the fuck out of the country!

 

[Billo_Really]

Ad hominem won't conceal your stupidity. We all know you thought Bette Midler was the first to sing that song.

I asked you a question. What makes you think I thought that about Bette?

And WTF does that other song have to do with me?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Ad hominem won't conceal your stupidity. We all know you thought Bette Midler was the first to sing that song.

I asked you a question. What makes you think I thought that about Bette?

And WTF does that other song have to do with me?

You said it was a Bette Midler song. It isn't.

You dumbass.

 

[Katzndogz]

When people go ape shit in public the cops usually want to get to the bottom of it. Reckless driving in a school parking lot,attempted assault come to mind.

So who wrote a Complaint that there was "Reckless Driving" or "Attempted Assault"? No one.

Cops can only act on Actual Lawful Complaints and Breaches of the Law.

What I saw was a woman resisting an Unlawful Arrest.

The Cop said "You're under arrest for obstruction" which is interesting because THERE WAS NO LAW BROKEN AND NO REASON TO ARREST THEREFORE NO OBSTRUCTION WAS COMMITED!

One would think so. That's why Martha Stewart went to prison. No crime was committed, yet she was convicted of obstruction of justice.

 

[Billo_Really]

Both Stalin and Hitler had ten of millions in their camps and tens of millions died, how many are in American prisons again?

"Tens of millions", over what period of time?

The most prisoners at one time in Stalin's Russia was a little over 1.7 million, in 1953.

According with some estimates, the total population of the camps varied from 510,307 in 1934 to 1,727,970 in 1953

Hitler's Germany had 3.5 million over the span of 12 years.

Between 1933 and the fall of Nazi Germany in 1945, more than 3.5 million Germans were forced to spend time in concentration camps and prisons for political reasons

We currently have over 2.3 million behind bars.

Imprisonment of America's 2.3 million prisoners, costing $24,000 per inmate per year, and $5.1 billion in new prison construction, consumes $60.3 billion in budget expenditures.

Back to you...

Your comparison is ridiculous and insensitive to the suffering of people in both the USSR and Nazi Germany.

Why is it ridiculous?

 

[EverCurious]

First off, it was illegal for the cop to ask her for her name. Second, the cop told her she had 2 minutes to make her phone call and only gave her 20 seconds. Third, she was the victim from the assault by the crazy white woman and the cop treated her like she was the perpetrator. And fourth, his "SIMPLE request", was against the fuckin' law!

If you choose not to embrace American values, then get the fuck out of the country!

First off, my post #34 goes into depth about why she was indeed legally obligated to give her name; but hell lets just go with she was DRIVING.

Second, she tried to walk away, which is why the officer put her in cuffs.

Third, apparently you watched a different video than I did in determining who was crazy...

The white woman assaulted her? Because she asked the woman to slow the fuck down in a school parking lot? That's a new definition of "assault" in my book. My neighbors put out signs that say "SLOW - children at play" when their grandkids are visiting. Is that assault too? How about when my kids were younger and played hockey in our driveway, I'd stand at the end of the driveway with a huge red flag to slow down people coming around the blind corner. Is that assault too? Or does it only qualify as assault when I yelled at them that the speed limit was 25mph not 50mph?

Sounds like you've lost sight of what America stands for, and what that officer was there to do to me. Why should the first woman (who works with/for those kids) keep her mouth shut about someone driving like a maniac around them? Is that "freedom" in your book? Ignore common sense and endanger kids to "prove a point" in what appears to be a personal disagreement aka road rage situation? Then tell the police to fuck off because you feel like it's your right to put a bunch of innocent uninvolved children at risk?

Maybe you need to evaluate the context of the "American Values" you are actually supporting here...

 

[thereisnospoon]

No crime was commited, the officer admitted this fact, therefore the woman was within her rights to refuse giving her full details.

This is a universal problem and is not confined to the U.S.A.

It really depends on the state one is in. 22 states require a person to produce identification or name and address when asked for said info by a law enforcement officer.

Evidently it is not required in California, and as such the officer overstepped his authority. This whole episode was being handled well by the officer until the word "white" was used. This seemed to me, to outrage the officer, and lead to his overreaction.

California law cant supercede federal law.

And under federal SCOTUS ruling Terry v. Ohio...a person must identify themselves if they are part of an investigation of a "POSSIBLE" but not yet confirmed crime.

Did a crime POSSIBLY occur? Yes. She may have attempted to vandalize the womans car. She may have committed a violation of laws governing school property behavior.

Was the crime confirmed? Well...the cop was trying to by INVESTIGATING it. It looked like his hunch was there wouldnt be charges.

If anything. ..his investigation was going to simply confirm no crime occurred.

But that bitch had to "Keep It Real" and act like ghetto trash.

Yes the woman did overreact as well, but the officer could have defused the encounter with a more moderate approach.

We cannot have a civilized society where it is ok to simply refuse the requests of law enforcement while conducting their lawful duties.
What's worse, the line dividing civilized and anarchist blurs when citizens are excused when they use physical force to interfere or resist a legal and proper police investigation..

 

[thereisnospoon]

Both Stalin and Hitler had ten of millions in their camps and tens of millions died, how many are in American prisons again?

"Tens of millions", over what period of time?

The most prisoners at one time in Stalin's Russia was a little over 1.7 million, in 1953.

According with some estimates, the total population of the camps varied from 510,307 in 1934 to 1,727,970 in 1953

Hitler's Germany had 3.5 million over the span of 12 years.

Between 1933 and the fall of Nazi Germany in 1945, more than 3.5 million Germans were forced to spend time in concentration camps and prisons for political reasons

We currently have over 2.3 million behind bars.

Imprisonment of America's 2.3 million prisoners, costing $24,000 per inmate per year, and $5.1 billion in new prison construction, consumes $60.3 billion in budget expenditures.

Back to you...

Your comparison is ridiculous and insensitive to the suffering of people in both the USSR and Nazi Germany.

Why is it ridiculous?

What's your point?
If we lose our ability to punish those who knowingly and blatantly violate our laws, we lose any ties to civility.
Simply put, one cannot "do whatever they want".....If a person violates the community, they can expect sanctions for doing so.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I believe the scandal here is in the way the officer approached both women. He obviously treated the white woman with a level of respect not shown to the other woman.
Also it can't be the policy of the department to put a pregnant woman down on her belly to cuff her.

The first women is the one who called the police.
Cops always initially side with the person who called for obvious reasons.
The second women obviously has warrants or she would have cooperated with the police

" Obviously" not a fact in eveidence.
Obviously your own bias speaking for you.

So whats your theory on why she didnt want to be identified by the police?

 

[Billo_Really]

You said it was a Bette Midler song. It isn't.

You dumbass.

All I know, is she sang that song, that's what I was referring to. Is it wrong for me to say, "I like The Who's Summertime Blues song", because Eddie Cochran happened to write it?

 

[Billo_Really]

What's your point?
If we lose our ability to punish those who knowingly and blatantly violate our laws, we lose any ties to civility.
Simply put, one cannot "do whatever they want".....If a person violates the community, they can expect sanctions for doing so.

Think about it. We have a "for-profit" prison industry. That means they must have a certain level of inmates to make a profit for their investment. That stands in stark contrast to a country based on the rule of law.