How to stop the police from breaking the law, Arizona style.

[Rigby5]

Because you say so or because you have data to share?

woodwork201

So you want video of bad cops?
You do not remember Selma?
This recent, and any google search will come up with hundreds of abusive police video.

 

[fncceo]

Police DO essentially write the laws, because the legislators work for the same people as the police

The actually don't. Legislators work for the people who elect them on a state or federal level.

Police, work for an appointed administrator on a city, county, or state level.

 

[BrokeLoser]

So you want video of bad cops?
You do not remember Selma?
This recent, and any google search will come up with hundreds of abusive police video.

NOBODY has ever said there are no bad cops….we simply don’t let the .0002 percentile decide our opinions.
I thought you tolerant whacks hate “painting with a broad brush”?

 

[Rigby5]

The text of the law does define police activity so the cop approaching you isn't engaging in the defined activities unless he's claiming you're suspicious. So being 8 feet from the cop actually executing the arrest or questioning should be all that is required. We'll see how that works out over the next months to years.

The point is it gives police more power when clearly they should have less.
For example, it should be illegal for police to edit what they give to the media from body cams.

 

[Rigby5]

The actually don't. Legislators work for the people who elect them on a state or federal level.

Police, work for an appointed administrator on a city, county, or state level.

Wrong.
Legislators are bought and paid for by those who contribute the most money to their campaigns.
Those are the same people who decide who is going to be a cop or not and what the cops are going to be promoted for.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

But, not you, right? I want to see you out their filming every chance you get.

I will be very disappointed in you if I don't see your posted videos.

One must error on the side of citizens’ rights and liberties; government is entitled to no benefit of the doubt – it should be assumed government is acting in bad faith, particularly government administered by Republicans.

 

[fncceo]

it should be illegal for police to edit what they give to the media from body cams.

I've got no problem with that.

However, the next time you, or someone you love, overdoses, or decides to DUI, or get arrested with a transexual hooker, or get pulled over with a passenger in the car that is clearly not your wife. I hope you won't blame police for releasing that footage to the media (in the the spirit of full disclosure).

 

[fncceo]

it should be assumed government is acting in bad faith, particularly government administered by Republicans.

It's very difficult to take anyone seriously when their judgement is so affected by partisan politics that they believe one party is inherently less corrupt than another.

I will just eye-roll and go on my way.

 

[Rigby5]

NOBODY has ever said there are no bad cops….we simply don’t let the .0002 percentile decide our opinions.
I thought you tolerant whacks hate “painting with a broad brush”?

My point is that even if most cops are not violent criminals and want to do good, they are protecting other cops who are bad, and are still not speaking out against illegal legislation, like Prohibition, the War on Drugs, asset forfeiture, mandated sentences, etc.
So even good cops end up being responsible for the bad things happening.
They are complicit, by their silence if nothing else.
In the case of George Floyd, they could easily have prevented his death, which they must have known was happening right in front of them.

 

[Rigby5]

I've got no problem with that.

However, the next time you, or someone you love, overdoses, or decides to DUI, or get arrested with a transexual hooker, or get pulled over with a passenger in the car that is clearly not your wife. I hope you won't blame police for releasing that footage to the media (in the the spirit of full disclosure).

Good point, however that would not be a good excuse if the suspect was killed in the incident.

 

[Rigby5]

It's very difficult to take anyone seriously when their judgement is so affected by partisan politics that they believe one party is inherently less corrupt than another.

I will just eye-roll and go on my way.

View attachment 668358

I agree both parties are pretty much fake and do not represent the people.
But it ultimately is the police who ensure this corrupt system can not change.

 

[BrokeLoser]

My point is that even if most cops are not violent criminals and want to do good, they are protecting other cops who are bad, and are still not speaking out against illegal legislation, like Prohibition, the War on Drugs, asset forfeiture, mandated sentences, etc.
So even good cops end up being responsible for the bad things happening.
They are complicit, by their silence if nothing else.

NOPE….you’re painting with a broad brush and you lefties hate that.

In the case of George Floyd, they could easily have prevented his death, which they must have known was happening right in front of them.

How would the cops have known that Floyd had taken a lethal dose of fentanyl?
I know you lefties hate it…..but think causation

 

[progressive hunter]

 

[Rigby5]

How would the cops have known that Floyd had taken a lethal dose of fentanyl?
I know you lefties hate it…..but think causation

Wrong.
The coroner said that George Floyd had what would normally be considered a lethal dose in some one who had never done fentanyl before, and was normal sized.
But the coroner was clear that fentanyl most definitely did NOT kill George Floyd, that he would never have been killed by the amount he had taken, and that he was murdered by deliberate constriction of the airway in the throat.

 

[woodwork201]

Whoa, whoa…easy there Thomas Jefferson…what does instigating, cameras in the faces of cops and cops beating the asses of degenerate filth have to do with the constitution?

Police brutality violates the 4th, 8th, and 14th Amendments. No one has argued for cameras in the faces of cops.

If I need to explain how police brutality violate the 4th, 8th, and 14th, you should just stay out of legal and constitutional discussions; I suggest a nice kitting forum for you.

knitting forums at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

 

[woodwork201]

My point is that even if most cops are not violent criminals and want to do good, they are protecting other cops who are bad, and are still not speaking out against illegal legislation, like Prohibition, the War on Drugs, asset forfeiture, mandated sentences, etc.
So even good cops end up being responsible for the bad things happening.
They are complicit, by their silence if nothing else.
In the case of George Floyd, they could easily have prevented his death, which they must have known was happening right in front of them.

You nailed it.

Every cop that violates the rights of another, in any way but especially with violence or arrest, violates the Constitution and the law and needs to be charged.

Every cop that witnesses or conspires with the offending cop and states vocally, or writes/types it, into any official report needs to be charged.

Every cop who witnesses and does nothing, says nothing, but didn't falsify a report, oral or written, needs to be fired.

In cases where significant bodily harm or death are possible, then the witness cops should, immediately to stop the threat, arrest the offending cop on the spot.

 

[woodwork201]

I've got no problem with that.

However, the next time you, or someone you love, overdoses, or decides to DUI, or get arrested with a transexual hooker, or get pulled over with a passenger in the car that is clearly not your wife. I hope you won't blame police for releasing that footage to the media (in the the spirit of full disclosure).

Don't overdose. If my family member does overdose then I want it released in the hopes of saving someone else. But medical conditions are protected by law.

The other issues you mention, though, don't hire hookers, of any gender or sex. don't cheat on your wife.

If you are stopped by the police, be polite and respectful. If the interraction goes bad, let it be the cop who turns it bad first. Then you have no worries about your police interactions being released.

 

[woodwork201]

Nope. I explained my reasoning. People who are clearly acting as political agitators, and not reporters, are not reporters, even if they say that magic word.

So undercover investigations by ABC, NBC, CBS, The New York Times, etc., are not the press; they're instigators. Got it, Hillary.

Those who work with websites and youtube channels that specialize in investigating the police and the government are EXACTLY what the 21st century press should look like. That's the reason we have freedom of the press protected in the Constitution - to allow the press to investigate and report on GOVERNMENT.

The local network channels, showing human interest stories all day and reading press releases from local and state government, in effect acting as their agent, is not what the Founders had in mind. Neither CNN, MSNBC, Fox, or even NewsMax are what the Founders had in mind.

USA Today owns 250 local newspapers across the United States. You think your local paper is local, run by neighbors. They're managed to look like that but editorial guidelines come from a single, leftist, source. These are not what the Founders had in mind.

Small-time operators, struggling to make ends meet, risking their fortunes by going against the grain and being obstructed at every turn by the big names in not-the-free-press, such as google ads, facebook ads, etc., is exactly how the Founders envisioned a free press. These reporters recording the police are more legitimate reporters than any of those others I mentioned above.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

In Arizona, Philando Castille's girlfriend would not have been permitted to record the killing by police of her boyfriend in plain site of her and her 4-year-old daughter.

Why wouldn't she?

 

[woodwork201]

Having it pointed out, and acknowledging that I didn't read the law, I do now recognize that the law makes some attempt to protect a person recording their own interaction. If that holds up in reality, then the law is fine. It depends on enforcement and training.

Experience, though, shows us that the cops on the street are, or at least pretend to be, ignorant of the law, making false statements about what is the law and using force or threat of force to get compliance to illegal and unconstitutional directions.

We'll have to see how that works out.