OK police haters why do some blacks act this way?

[pknopp]

Philandro Casitillo was stopped for having a wide spread nose. Look at the stats for Stop and Frisk.

You're looking for justice for someone whose name you can't spell right.

Castile, not Castillo.

He was not stopped, nor shot having "wide spread nose". Check why he was stopped.

You're trying to prove "white racism" and yet, the officer who shot him was Latino.

My argument is and has always been a corrupt system. It does affect minorities more than anyone but it affects everyone.

Dispatch Call Reveals Cop Pulled Philando Castile Over For ‘Wide Set Nose’

You are right, it has been corrupt system, I'll give you that.

What I don't agree with you is that is based on systemic racism, as you're desperately trying, and failing, to prove.

I also don't agree on way to fight the corruption. Re-electing the same people who you claim are corrupt back into office, just validate everything they're doing. Rioting and looting won't fix the corruption, it will just validate the perception you already created about yourself, and will fix nothing. Lashing out on cops, calling them pigs for doing their jobs, and fighting them, will not stop them from arresting you, but it will add few more charges to the arrest report.

You wanna fight the corruption, vote the assholes out, and start fresh.

Who have I re-elected? Did we not just have this discussion a few days ago?

 

[Ame®icano]

Facts don't seem to phase you.

After being forcefully arrested, a Black jogger in San Antonio says he was 'guilty before proven innocent'

Another "jogger"

From your link: "Ometu was seen walking out of an apartment complex as officers arrived in response to a call about a domestic violence assault, according to a police report."

Also, from your link: "The police report said Ometu refused to give his name and date of birth after several requests and his "demeanor became aggressive."

A jogger you say.

He was under NO obligation to give his name. When cops are told no and no is a legal answer they need to learn to accept that.

Correct.

If you think, or know that police overstepped their authority, no argument in the street will prove you're right, or they're wrong.

Once you refuse to talk to them, to give your name out, and chose to stay quiet, you should remain quiet, instead of running your mouth, swearing at them, and fighting them. When they place you under wrongful arrest, you sue their asses off and have them fired. You might even get out some money out, if you're smart.

 

[pknopp]

Facts don't seem to phase you.

After being forcefully arrested, a Black jogger in San Antonio says he was 'guilty before proven innocent'

Another "jogger"

From your link: "Ometu was seen walking out of an apartment complex as officers arrived in response to a call about a domestic violence assault, according to a police report."

Also, from your link: "The police report said Ometu refused to give his name and date of birth after several requests and his "demeanor became aggressive."

A jogger you say.

He was under NO obligation to give his name. When cops are told no and no is a legal answer they need to learn to accept that.

Correct.

If you think, or know that police overstepped their authority, no argument in the street will prove you're right, or they're wrong.

Once you refuse to talk to them, to give your name out, and chose to stay quiet, you should remain quiet, instead of running your mouth, swearing at them, and fighting them. When they place you under wrongful arrest, you sue their asses off and have them fired. You might even get out some money out, if you're smart.

No, they need trained and to know to never violate someone's rights.

 

[Ame®icano]

Who have I re-elected? Did we not just have this discussion a few days ago?

I wasn't here, or part of the discussion, few days ago.

From your postings I see you support Democrats, although you claim you're libertarian.

Well, I am libertarian and constitutionalist, and I can't agree with you on anything, which tells me you're not even close to what you claim to be.

You, meaning "anyone", are who you associate yourself with. From what I've read in your posts, I think I got pretty good idea, "who" and "why" about you.

Cheers.

 

[Ame®icano]

Facts don't seem to phase you.

After being forcefully arrested, a Black jogger in San Antonio says he was 'guilty before proven innocent'

Another "jogger"

From your link: "Ometu was seen walking out of an apartment complex as officers arrived in response to a call about a domestic violence assault, according to a police report."

Also, from your link: "The police report said Ometu refused to give his name and date of birth after several requests and his "demeanor became aggressive."

A jogger you say.

He was under NO obligation to give his name. When cops are told no and no is a legal answer they need to learn to accept that.

Correct.

If you think, or know that police overstepped their authority, no argument in the street will prove you're right, or they're wrong.

Once you refuse to talk to them, to give your name out, and chose to stay quiet, you should remain quiet, instead of running your mouth, swearing at them, and fighting them. When they place you under wrongful arrest, you sue their asses off and have them fired. You might even get out some money out, if you're smart.

No, they need trained and to know to never violate someone's rights.

Most police is trained for just that. I would welcome more training for them too.

If what you state is correct, then you would agree also that blacks need to be trained how to behave when talking to police.

 

[pknopp]

Who have I re-elected? Did we not just have this discussion a few days ago?

I wasn't here, or part of the discussion, few days ago.

From your postings I see you support Democrats, although you claim you're libertarian.

Which Democrats do you see that I support?

Well, I am libertarian and constitutionalist, and I can't agree with you on anything, which tells me you're not even close to what you claim to be.

You, meaning "anyone", are who you associate yourself with. From what I've read in your posts, I think I got pretty good idea, "who" and "why" about you.

Cheers.

You are arguing to just give in to someone violating your civil rights. You have nothing to teach me.

 

[pknopp]

Facts don't seem to phase you.

After being forcefully arrested, a Black jogger in San Antonio says he was 'guilty before proven innocent'

Another "jogger"

From your link: "Ometu was seen walking out of an apartment complex as officers arrived in response to a call about a domestic violence assault, according to a police report."

Also, from your link: "The police report said Ometu refused to give his name and date of birth after several requests and his "demeanor became aggressive."

A jogger you say.

He was under NO obligation to give his name. When cops are told no and no is a legal answer they need to learn to accept that.

Correct.

If you think, or know that police overstepped their authority, no argument in the street will prove you're right, or they're wrong.

Once you refuse to talk to them, to give your name out, and chose to stay quiet, you should remain quiet, instead of running your mouth, swearing at them, and fighting them. When they place you under wrongful arrest, you sue their asses off and have them fired. You might even get out some money out, if you're smart.

No, they need trained and to know to never violate someone's rights.

Most police is trained for just that. I would welcome more training for them too.

If what you state is correct, then you would agree also that blacks need to be trained how to behave when talking to police.

If they do something illegal they have to pay the price. For a long time that didn't apply to the police.

 

[Ame®icano]

Who have I re-elected? Did we not just have this discussion a few days ago?

I wasn't here, or part of the discussion, few days ago.

From your postings I see you support Democrats, although you claim you're libertarian.

Which Democrats do you see that I support?

Well, I am libertarian and constitutionalist, and I can't agree with you on anything, which tells me you're not even close to what you claim to be.

You, meaning "anyone", are who you associate yourself with. From what I've read in your posts, I think I got pretty good idea, "who" and "why" about you.

Cheers.

You are arguing to just give in to someone violating your civil rights. You have nothing to teach me.

That's is not true. It's quite opposite from your claim.

My argument is that you can't argue with a cops in the street, it won't change a thing. You don't have to comply with police unlawful order, what you can do is you can let them know you know your rights, and that you will challenge them in court. That would most likely have stronger effect on how they treat you, than if you yell at them, fight them, call them names. Now, if your rights have been really violated, there will be consequences for those who did it.

 

[pknopp]

Who have I re-elected? Did we not just have this discussion a few days ago?

I wasn't here, or part of the discussion, few days ago.

From your postings I see you support Democrats, although you claim you're libertarian.

Which Democrats do you see that I support?

Well, I am libertarian and constitutionalist, and I can't agree with you on anything, which tells me you're not even close to what you claim to be.

You, meaning "anyone", are who you associate yourself with. From what I've read in your posts, I think I got pretty good idea, "who" and "why" about you.

Cheers.

You are arguing to just give in to someone violating your civil rights. You have nothing to teach me.

That's is not true. It's quite opposite from your claim.

My argument is that you can't argue with a cops in the street, it won't change a thing. You don't have to comply with police unlawful order, what you can do is you can let them know you know your rights, and that you will challenge them in court. That would most likely have stronger effect on how they treat you, than if you yell at them, fight them, call them names. Now, if your rights have been really violated, there will be consequences for those who did it.

Once you state your rights the cops need to know those are your rights and back off. You didn't answer my question though. What Democrats do I support? (this is the same way the previous conversation I mentioned went)

 

[freyasman]

Facts don't seem to phase you.

After being forcefully arrested, a Black jogger in San Antonio says he was 'guilty before proven innocent'

Another "jogger"

From your link: "Ometu was seen walking out of an apartment complex as officers arrived in response to a call about a domestic violence assault, according to a police report."

Also, from your link: "The police report said Ometu refused to give his name and date of birth after several requests and his "demeanor became aggressive."

A jogger you say.

He was under NO obligation to give his name. When cops are told no and no is a legal answer they need to learn to accept that.

I agree; that is what should happen.

I don't think it ever really will though.

 

[freyasman]

Facts don't seem to phase you.

After being forcefully arrested, a Black jogger in San Antonio says he was 'guilty before proven innocent'

Another "jogger"

From your link: "Ometu was seen walking out of an apartment complex as officers arrived in response to a call about a domestic violence assault, according to a police report."

Also, from your link: "The police report said Ometu refused to give his name and date of birth after several requests and his "demeanor became aggressive."

A jogger you say.

He was under NO obligation to give his name. When cops are told no and no is a legal answer they need to learn to accept that.

Correct.

If you think, or know that police overstepped their authority, no argument in the street will prove you're right, or they're wrong.

Once you refuse to talk to them, to give your name out, and chose to stay quiet, you should remain quiet, instead of running your mouth, swearing at them, and fighting them. When they place you under wrongful arrest, you sue their asses off and have them fired. You might even get out some money out, if you're smart.

No, they need trained and to know to never violate someone's rights.

You don't really understand what police training is about, do you?

An Honest Look at Law Enforcement Training • The Havok Journal

An Honest Look at Law Enforcement Training by LT. William Boyd Kiphart II In the post-Ferguson age, post-Cleveland, post-Baltimore, post-North Charleston

havokjournal.com

From the link;

"Let’s start with an uncomfortable moment. Do we truly, honestly, honorably ethically and morally want to teach our officers to perform in the safest manner possible, within the letter of the law and in support of policy and procedure and truly support the mission of your agency in a manner expected by us and our community?

Or, are we interested in building the most convenient and economical paper trail so that when they fail to meet expectations in behavior or performance, we can say we “checked the box” on that training and distance ourselves from the incident while attempting to mitigate our liability? Keep in mind that the most dramatic failures here result in the loss of life, families, and careers; both for our officers and those we are sworn to protect and sometimes apprehend. The stakes here could not be any higher."

 

[freyasman]

Facts don't seem to phase you.

After being forcefully arrested, a Black jogger in San Antonio says he was 'guilty before proven innocent'

Another "jogger"

From your link: "Ometu was seen walking out of an apartment complex as officers arrived in response to a call about a domestic violence assault, according to a police report."

Also, from your link: "The police report said Ometu refused to give his name and date of birth after several requests and his "demeanor became aggressive."

A jogger you say.

He was under NO obligation to give his name. When cops are told no and no is a legal answer they need to learn to accept that.

Correct.

If you think, or know that police overstepped their authority, no argument in the street will prove you're right, or they're wrong.

Once you refuse to talk to them, to give your name out, and chose to stay quiet, you should remain quiet, instead of running your mouth, swearing at them, and fighting them. When they place you under wrongful arrest, you sue their asses off and have them fired. You might even get out some money out, if you're smart.

No, they need trained and to know to never violate someone's rights.

Most police is trained for just that. I would welcome more training for them too.

If what you state is correct, then you would agree also that blacks need to be trained how to behave when talking to police.

If they do something illegal they have to pay the price. For a long time that didn't apply to the police.

Well yeah...... that was the point of becoming a cop, after all.

 

[Ame®icano]

Who have I re-elected? Did we not just have this discussion a few days ago?

I wasn't here, or part of the discussion, few days ago.

From your postings I see you support Democrats, although you claim you're libertarian.

Which Democrats do you see that I support?

Well, I am libertarian and constitutionalist, and I can't agree with you on anything, which tells me you're not even close to what you claim to be.

You, meaning "anyone", are who you associate yourself with. From what I've read in your posts, I think I got pretty good idea, "who" and "why" about you.

Cheers.

You are arguing to just give in to someone violating your civil rights. You have nothing to teach me.

That's is not true. It's quite opposite from your claim.

My argument is that you can't argue with a cops in the street, it won't change a thing. You don't have to comply with police unlawful order, what you can do is you can let them know you know your rights, and that you will challenge them in court. That would most likely have stronger effect on how they treat you, than if you yell at them, fight them, call them names. Now, if your rights have been really violated, there will be consequences for those who did it.

Once you state your rights the cops need to know those are your rights and back off. You didn't answer my question though. What Democrats do I support? (this is the same way the previous conversation I mentioned went)

You support Democrat's notion that system is based on systemic racism and that cops are bad.

That's simply not true.

 

[pknopp]

Who have I re-elected? Did we not just have this discussion a few days ago?

I wasn't here, or part of the discussion, few days ago.

From your postings I see you support Democrats, although you claim you're libertarian.

Which Democrats do you see that I support?

Well, I am libertarian and constitutionalist, and I can't agree with you on anything, which tells me you're not even close to what you claim to be.

You, meaning "anyone", are who you associate yourself with. From what I've read in your posts, I think I got pretty good idea, "who" and "why" about you.

Cheers.

You are arguing to just give in to someone violating your civil rights. You have nothing to teach me.

That's is not true. It's quite opposite from your claim.

My argument is that you can't argue with a cops in the street, it won't change a thing. You don't have to comply with police unlawful order, what you can do is you can let them know you know your rights, and that you will challenge them in court. That would most likely have stronger effect on how they treat you, than if you yell at them, fight them, call them names. Now, if your rights have been really violated, there will be consequences for those who did it.

Once you state your rights the cops need to know those are your rights and back off. You didn't answer my question though. What Democrats do I support? (this is the same way the previous conversation I mentioned went)

You support Democrat's notion that system is based on systemic racism and that cops are bad.

That's simply not true.

What else do you want to accuse me of?

 

[Ame®icano]

Who have I re-elected? Did we not just have this discussion a few days ago?

I wasn't here, or part of the discussion, few days ago.

From your postings I see you support Democrats, although you claim you're libertarian.

Which Democrats do you see that I support?

Well, I am libertarian and constitutionalist, and I can't agree with you on anything, which tells me you're not even close to what you claim to be.

You, meaning "anyone", are who you associate yourself with. From what I've read in your posts, I think I got pretty good idea, "who" and "why" about you.

Cheers.

You are arguing to just give in to someone violating your civil rights. You have nothing to teach me.

That's is not true. It's quite opposite from your claim.

My argument is that you can't argue with a cops in the street, it won't change a thing. You don't have to comply with police unlawful order, what you can do is you can let them know you know your rights, and that you will challenge them in court. That would most likely have stronger effect on how they treat you, than if you yell at them, fight them, call them names. Now, if your rights have been really violated, there will be consequences for those who did it.

Once you state your rights the cops need to know those are your rights and back off. You didn't answer my question though. What Democrats do I support? (this is the same way the previous conversation I mentioned went)

You support Democrat's notion that system is based on systemic racism and that cops are bad.

That's simply not true.

What else do you want to accuse me of?

Huh?

 

[pknopp]

Who have I re-elected? Did we not just have this discussion a few days ago?

I wasn't here, or part of the discussion, few days ago.

From your postings I see you support Democrats, although you claim you're libertarian.

Which Democrats do you see that I support?

Well, I am libertarian and constitutionalist, and I can't agree with you on anything, which tells me you're not even close to what you claim to be.

You, meaning "anyone", are who you associate yourself with. From what I've read in your posts, I think I got pretty good idea, "who" and "why" about you.

Cheers.

You are arguing to just give in to someone violating your civil rights. You have nothing to teach me.

That's is not true. It's quite opposite from your claim.

My argument is that you can't argue with a cops in the street, it won't change a thing. You don't have to comply with police unlawful order, what you can do is you can let them know you know your rights, and that you will challenge them in court. That would most likely have stronger effect on how they treat you, than if you yell at them, fight them, call them names. Now, if your rights have been really violated, there will be consequences for those who did it.

Once you state your rights the cops need to know those are your rights and back off. You didn't answer my question though. What Democrats do I support? (this is the same way the previous conversation I mentioned went)

You support Democrat's notion that system is based on systemic racism and that cops are bad.

That's simply not true.

What else do you want to accuse me of?

Huh?

If you can't follow the conversation..........

 

[Ame®icano]

Who have I re-elected? Did we not just have this discussion a few days ago?

I wasn't here, or part of the discussion, few days ago.

From your postings I see you support Democrats, although you claim you're libertarian.

Which Democrats do you see that I support?

Well, I am libertarian and constitutionalist, and I can't agree with you on anything, which tells me you're not even close to what you claim to be.

You, meaning "anyone", are who you associate yourself with. From what I've read in your posts, I think I got pretty good idea, "who" and "why" about you.

Cheers.

You are arguing to just give in to someone violating your civil rights. You have nothing to teach me.

That's is not true. It's quite opposite from your claim.

My argument is that you can't argue with a cops in the street, it won't change a thing. You don't have to comply with police unlawful order, what you can do is you can let them know you know your rights, and that you will challenge them in court. That would most likely have stronger effect on how they treat you, than if you yell at them, fight them, call them names. Now, if your rights have been really violated, there will be consequences for those who did it.

Once you state your rights the cops need to know those are your rights and back off. You didn't answer my question though. What Democrats do I support? (this is the same way the previous conversation I mentioned went)

You support Democrat's notion that system is based on systemic racism and that cops are bad.

That's simply not true.

What else do you want to accuse me of?

Huh?

If you can't follow the conversation..........

Your question says otherwise.

But, it's forgiven, since you're leftist hack.

 

[danielpalos]

Try being an officer for even one shift.

Try being a black man in this country.

Why, is that something bad?

Black Like Me - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org