Police State: Man Detained For Walking With Hands In Pockets...

[Asclepias]

Of course you dont see the issue. Youre white.

I'm white and you're a racist who treats whites and cops like you demand blacks not be treated.

You already proved you dont know what detain means. Now you are proving you dont know what racist means. Youre white so your frame of reference is white. Let me know when you grow up as a Black male and can tell me what happens when Black people cross paths with cops.

When cops do wrong they should be held accountable. You want them to be accountable for doing wrong when they are doing their job. You're a bigot.

No I want them to be held accountable when they do wrong. When they are doing their job they should be doing it correctly. Harassing people is not part of their job description.

The standard for that should be a reasonable person, not someone with a stick up their ass.

You dont get to set the standard.

 

[kaz]

You don't know what "detain" means.

You dont have to be in custody to be detained. If an officer is questioning you or telling you not to move from the spot you are detained.

Yes, you do have to be in custody to be detained, that is what it means. Detainment is an official act, it is not talking to someone on the street.

No you dont. You dont know what you are talking about.

It's what the word means, you can't "disagree" about the definition of a word.

Looks like you didnt look at the entire definition. I can detain someone and I am not a cop. You can disagree but you would be wrong.

To detain them, you would have to prevent them from leaving. That didn't happen. A racist like you doesn't give a shit what happened, you've made that clear.

 

[Asclepias]

He has the right to be a dick as much as the cop has a right to question him.

True, and contradicts nothing I said. It's the cops job to talk to dicks, and he did a great job of it.

Where did I say you contradicted yourself? He did a terrible job and thats why this became another example on youtube.

He did his job well and remained calm while being baited by a dick.

He did his job terribly and got defensive and harrassed the guy. The guy was righteously a dick because the cop was a dick.

Translation: The cop was white so he's a racist POS... the guy there to make the film about police harassment was black, so because of his color alone he was being harassed by the cop.

IOW you are a POS racist Troll.

Except I never said the cop was a racist. He probably was but he never said anything that provided proof.

 

[kaz]

I'm white and you're a racist who treats whites and cops like you demand blacks not be treated.

You already proved you dont know what detain means. Now you are proving you dont know what racist means. Youre white so your frame of reference is white. Let me know when you grow up as a Black male and can tell me what happens when Black people cross paths with cops.

When cops do wrong they should be held accountable. You want them to be accountable for doing wrong when they are doing their job. You're a bigot.

No I want them to be held accountable when they do wrong. When they are doing their job they should be doing it correctly. Harassing people is not part of their job description.

The standard for that should be a reasonable person, not someone with a stick up their ass.

You dont get to set the standard.

In my posts I do. Just like you get to set the standard of stick up your ass racist black asshole in yours. However in this case, my standard is the legal one.

 

[Asclepias]

You dont have to be in custody to be detained. If an officer is questioning you or telling you not to move from the spot you are detained.

Yes, you do have to be in custody to be detained, that is what it means. Detainment is an official act, it is not talking to someone on the street.

No you dont. You dont know what you are talking about.

It's what the word means, you can't "disagree" about the definition of a word.

Looks like you didnt look at the entire definition. I can detain someone and I am not a cop. You can disagree but you would be wrong.

To detain them, you would have to prevent them from leaving. That didn't happen. A racist like you doesn't give a shit what happened, you've made that clear.

Yes he did. He stopped him and questioned him. Thats the very act of detaining. Again you are not at liberty to change definitions.

 

[Asclepias]

You already proved you dont know what detain means. Now you are proving you dont know what racist means. Youre white so your frame of reference is white. Let me know when you grow up as a Black male and can tell me what happens when Black people cross paths with cops.

When cops do wrong they should be held accountable. You want them to be accountable for doing wrong when they are doing their job. You're a bigot.

No I want them to be held accountable when they do wrong. When they are doing their job they should be doing it correctly. Harassing people is not part of their job description.

The standard for that should be a reasonable person, not someone with a stick up their ass.

You dont get to set the standard.

In my posts I do. Just like you get to set the standard of stick up your ass racist black asshole in yours. However in this case, my standard is the legal one.

Your posts are retard so they dont count for much in the way of logic.

 

[kaz]

True, and contradicts nothing I said. It's the cops job to talk to dicks, and he did a great job of it.

Where did I say you contradicted yourself? He did a terrible job and thats why this became another example on youtube.

He did his job well and remained calm while being baited by a dick.

He did his job terribly and got defensive and harrassed the guy. The guy was righteously a dick because the cop was a dick.

Translation: The cop was white so he's a racist POS... the guy there to make the film about police harassment was black, so because of his color alone he was being harassed by the cop.

IOW you are a POS racist Troll.

Except I never said the cop was a racist. He probably was but he never said anything that provided proof.

A demonstrated racist black is making a blind accusation that a white cop who was polite to a black dick in a video is a racist. Wow, that's compelling, you're probably right...

 

[kaz]

Yes, you do have to be in custody to be detained, that is what it means. Detainment is an official act, it is not talking to someone on the street.

No you dont. You dont know what you are talking about.

It's what the word means, you can't "disagree" about the definition of a word.

Looks like you didnt look at the entire definition. I can detain someone and I am not a cop. You can disagree but you would be wrong.

To detain them, you would have to prevent them from leaving. That didn't happen. A racist like you doesn't give a shit what happened, you've made that clear.

Yes he did. He stopped him and questioned him. Thats the very act of detaining. Again you are not at liberty to change definitions.

It was only detaining if he prevented him from leaving. At no point in the video did he do that.

 

[Asclepias]

Where did I say you contradicted yourself? He did a terrible job and thats why this became another example on youtube.

He did his job well and remained calm while being baited by a dick.

He did his job terribly and got defensive and harrassed the guy. The guy was righteously a dick because the cop was a dick.

Translation: The cop was white so he's a racist POS... the guy there to make the film about police harassment was black, so because of his color alone he was being harassed by the cop.

IOW you are a POS racist Troll.

Except I never said the cop was a racist. He probably was but he never said anything that provided proof.

A demonstrated racist black is making a blind accusation that a white cop who was polite to a black dick in a video is a racist. Wow, that's compelling, you're probably right...

Where did I say that?

 

[Asclepias]

No you dont. You dont know what you are talking about.

It's what the word means, you can't "disagree" about the definition of a word.

Looks like you didnt look at the entire definition. I can detain someone and I am not a cop. You can disagree but you would be wrong.

To detain them, you would have to prevent them from leaving. That didn't happen. A racist like you doesn't give a shit what happened, you've made that clear.

Yes he did. He stopped him and questioned him. Thats the very act of detaining. Again you are not at liberty to change definitions.

It was only detaining if he prevented him from leaving. At no point in the video did he do that.

Yes he did when he stopped him. Thats what stopped means. Preventing him from moving on. You need a new dictionary.

 

[Nutz]

And what is the matter with cop observing from a distance instead of detaining and interrogating an innocent man? No crime was broken...only white fear.

It's not white fear by the cop. Maybe by the store owner. And, that's the point. The cop want's to find out if it's just white fear. You are suggesting, I think, that the cop could do that just by following the guy. The cop could legally do that, because there's no constitutional right to not be followed. But, practically, there are at least two reasons to stop and talk to the guy. First, why play on some guy's paranoia, esp a black guy who may have real reasons to be afraid? Be upfront, and the cop was. "how's your day, somebody mentioned a crime occurring so I'm just checking out the neighborhood .... yadayadah." Second, there's no doubt the cop has no idea why the guy is walking or what he's up to. For all the cop knows, the guy may just have been held up or had his life otherwise wrecked. All the cop did was .... ask.

I meant fear by the white citizen. There was NO reason for the cop to detain and question the black guy. No crime was committed and the cop had no readon to believe a crime was in the process. His mere presence, if a crime was underway, would have foiled it. So there was no reason for the cop to detain and question the black guy.

I have to do something, but I'll respond. There WAS a reason to talk to the guy. A citizen called in and said a guy walked by my store twice and he may be casing me for another robbery. THAT"S a reason. NOT TO DETAIN. The fear by the white CITZEN may have been rational, maybe not; the cop has no way to know of the citzen called because the guy was black or because previous robberies started with a white guy walking with his hands in his pockets. ... casing the joint, so to speak. The reason to talk to the guy is to ascertain whether the fear was rational. But that is a reason to ask "how's your day going."

The cop can observe without speaking. There was no reason to speak with the guy. The cop can determine whether he is a threat without interaction. (And the cop may have been watching the guy, I don't know)

No offense intended, but I have to say that's just crazy. The NORMAL way of human interaction is through language. A cop following me will scare the piss outta me. Big Brother. A cop wants to know something, just ask. I very rarely have anything to hide, and even then it's not illegal ... just immoral. LOL

You are a cool cat, you can't offend me! But I disagree, if no crime is being committed, there is no reason for a cop to detain and question anyone. In this case, the cop would have a reason to observe the 'suspect', but he had no reason to detain and question. How would you like to live in a world where your neighbor can call the cops on you and have them detain and question you because they don't like you?

As for following a person...maybe that can give you some insight the next time a black person complains about being watched or followed while shopping.

 

[Asclepias]

It's not white fear by the cop. Maybe by the store owner. And, that's the point. The cop want's to find out if it's just white fear. You are suggesting, I think, that the cop could do that just by following the guy. The cop could legally do that, because there's no constitutional right to not be followed. But, practically, there are at least two reasons to stop and talk to the guy. First, why play on some guy's paranoia, esp a black guy who may have real reasons to be afraid? Be upfront, and the cop was. "how's your day, somebody mentioned a crime occurring so I'm just checking out the neighborhood .... yadayadah." Second, there's no doubt the cop has no idea why the guy is walking or what he's up to. For all the cop knows, the guy may just have been held up or had his life otherwise wrecked. All the cop did was .... ask.

I meant fear by the white citizen. There was NO reason for the cop to detain and question the black guy. No crime was committed and the cop had no readon to believe a crime was in the process. His mere presence, if a crime was underway, would have foiled it. So there was no reason for the cop to detain and question the black guy.

I have to do something, but I'll respond. There WAS a reason to talk to the guy. A citizen called in and said a guy walked by my store twice and he may be casing me for another robbery. THAT"S a reason. NOT TO DETAIN. The fear by the white CITZEN may have been rational, maybe not; the cop has no way to know of the citzen called because the guy was black or because previous robberies started with a white guy walking with his hands in his pockets. ... casing the joint, so to speak. The reason to talk to the guy is to ascertain whether the fear was rational. But that is a reason to ask "how's your day going."

The cop can observe without speaking. There was no reason to speak with the guy. The cop can determine whether he is a threat without interaction. (And the cop may have been watching the guy, I don't know)

No offense intended, but I have to say that's just crazy. The NORMAL way of human interaction is through language. A cop following me will scare the piss outta me. Big Brother. A cop wants to know something, just ask. I very rarely have anything to hide, and even then it's not illegal ... just immoral. LOL

You are a cool cat, you can't offend me! But I disagree, if no crime is being committed, there is no reason for a cop to detain and question anyone. In this case, the cop would have a reason to observe the 'suspect', but he had no reason to detain and question. How would you like to live in a world where your neighbor can call the cops on you and have them detain and question you because they don't like you?

As for following a person...maybe that can give you some insight the next time a black person complains about being watched or followed while shopping.

Yeah Bendog doesnt strike me as the dick Kaz is. He may be wrong but I have not problem with disagreeing with someone.

 

[Nutz]

I meant fear by the white citizen. There was NO reason for the cop to detain and question the black guy. No crime was committed and the cop had no readon to believe a crime was in the process. His mere presence, if a crime was underway, would have foiled it. So there was no reason for the cop to detain and question the black guy.

I have to do something, but I'll respond. There WAS a reason to talk to the guy. A citizen called in and said a guy walked by my store twice and he may be casing me for another robbery. THAT"S a reason. NOT TO DETAIN. The fear by the white CITZEN may have been rational, maybe not; the cop has no way to know of the citzen called because the guy was black or because previous robberies started with a white guy walking with his hands in his pockets. ... casing the joint, so to speak. The reason to talk to the guy is to ascertain whether the fear was rational. But that is a reason to ask "how's your day going."

The cop can observe without speaking. There was no reason to speak with the guy. The cop can determine whether he is a threat without interaction. (And the cop may have been watching the guy, I don't know)

No offense intended, but I have to say that's just crazy. The NORMAL way of human interaction is through language. A cop following me will scare the piss outta me. Big Brother. A cop wants to know something, just ask. I very rarely have anything to hide, and even then it's not illegal ... just immoral. LOL

You are a cool cat, you can't offend me! But I disagree, if no crime is being committed, there is no reason for a cop to detain and question anyone. In this case, the cop would have a reason to observe the 'suspect', but he had no reason to detain and question. How would you like to live in a world where your neighbor can call the cops on you and have them detain and question you because they don't like you?

As for following a person...maybe that can give you some insight the next time a black person complains about being watched or followed while shopping.

Yeah Bendog doesnt strike me as the dick Kaz is. He may be wrong but I have not problem with disagreeing with someone.

Thats how you can tell the difference between true Americans and patriots. True Americans accept diversity in thought...anti-American Nazis can only spew vitriol in response to opposition.

 

[kaz]

He did his job well and remained calm while being baited by a dick.

He did his job terribly and got defensive and harrassed the guy. The guy was righteously a dick because the cop was a dick.

Translation: The cop was white so he's a racist POS... the guy there to make the film about police harassment was black, so because of his color alone he was being harassed by the cop.

IOW you are a POS racist Troll.

Except I never said the cop was a racist. He probably was but he never said anything that provided proof.

A demonstrated racist black is making a blind accusation that a white cop who was polite to a black dick in a video is a racist. Wow, that's compelling, you're probably right...

Where did I say that?

"he probably was"

 

[kaz]

I have to do something, but I'll respond. There WAS a reason to talk to the guy. A citizen called in and said a guy walked by my store twice and he may be casing me for another robbery. THAT"S a reason. NOT TO DETAIN. The fear by the white CITZEN may have been rational, maybe not; the cop has no way to know of the citzen called because the guy was black or because previous robberies started with a white guy walking with his hands in his pockets. ... casing the joint, so to speak. The reason to talk to the guy is to ascertain whether the fear was rational. But that is a reason to ask "how's your day going."

The cop can observe without speaking. There was no reason to speak with the guy. The cop can determine whether he is a threat without interaction. (And the cop may have been watching the guy, I don't know)

No offense intended, but I have to say that's just crazy. The NORMAL way of human interaction is through language. A cop following me will scare the piss outta me. Big Brother. A cop wants to know something, just ask. I very rarely have anything to hide, and even then it's not illegal ... just immoral. LOL

You are a cool cat, you can't offend me! But I disagree, if no crime is being committed, there is no reason for a cop to detain and question anyone. In this case, the cop would have a reason to observe the 'suspect', but he had no reason to detain and question. How would you like to live in a world where your neighbor can call the cops on you and have them detain and question you because they don't like you?

As for following a person...maybe that can give you some insight the next time a black person complains about being watched or followed while shopping.

Yeah Bendog doesnt strike me as the dick Kaz is. He may be wrong but I have not problem with disagreeing with someone.

Thats how you can tell the difference between true Americans and patriots. True Americans accept diversity in thought...anti-American Nazis can only spew vitriol in response to opposition.

And you put yourself in the former category, not the latter? Fascinating.

 

[bendog]

Yes, you do have to be in custody to be detained, that is what it means. Detainment is an official act, it is not talking to someone on the street.

No you dont. You dont know what you are talking about.

It's what the word means, you can't "disagree" about the definition of a word.

Looks like you didnt look at the entire definition. I can detain someone and I am not a cop. You can disagree but you would be wrong.

To detain them, you would have to prevent them from leaving. That didn't happen. A racist like you doesn't give a shit what happened, you've made that clear.

Yes he did. He stopped him and questioned him. Thats the very act of detaining. Again you are not at liberty to change definitions.

Simply not true. The citizen had every right to say "I'm not talking to you, goodbye" and walk away. Or just walk away.

 

[Nutz]

The cop can observe without speaking. There was no reason to speak with the guy. The cop can determine whether he is a threat without interaction. (And the cop may have been watching the guy, I don't know)

No offense intended, but I have to say that's just crazy. The NORMAL way of human interaction is through language. A cop following me will scare the piss outta me. Big Brother. A cop wants to know something, just ask. I very rarely have anything to hide, and even then it's not illegal ... just immoral. LOL

You are a cool cat, you can't offend me! But I disagree, if no crime is being committed, there is no reason for a cop to detain and question anyone. In this case, the cop would have a reason to observe the 'suspect', but he had no reason to detain and question. How would you like to live in a world where your neighbor can call the cops on you and have them detain and question you because they don't like you?

As for following a person...maybe that can give you some insight the next time a black person complains about being watched or followed while shopping.

Yeah Bendog doesnt strike me as the dick Kaz is. He may be wrong but I have not problem with disagreeing with someone.

Thats how you can tell the difference between true Americans and patriots. True Americans accept diversity in thought...anti-American Nazis can only spew vitriol in response to opposition.

And you put yourself in the former category, not the latter? Fascinating.

I speak the unhypocritical truth. Do you? Do you believe that police overstep their boundaries or not. You are a teaper, right?

 

[kaz]

Yes he did. He stopped him and questioned him. Thats the very act of detaining. Again you are not at liberty to change definitions.

Simply not true. The citizen had every right to say "I'm not talking to you, goodbye" and walk away. Or just walk away.

Exactly. Had he done that and the cop said he can't leave, then he would have been detained.

 

[Nutz]

No you dont. You dont know what you are talking about.

It's what the word means, you can't "disagree" about the definition of a word.

Looks like you didnt look at the entire definition. I can detain someone and I am not a cop. You can disagree but you would be wrong.

To detain them, you would have to prevent them from leaving. That didn't happen. A racist like you doesn't give a shit what happened, you've made that clear.

Yes he did. He stopped him and questioned him. Thats the very act of detaining. Again you are not at liberty to change definitions.

Simply not true. The citizen had every right to say "I'm not talking to you, goodbye" and walk away. Or just walk away.

Do you really believe that?

 

[Nutz]

Yes he did. He stopped him and questioned him. Thats the very act of detaining. Again you are not at liberty to change definitions.

Simply not true. The citizen had every right to say "I'm not talking to you, goodbye" and walk away. Or just walk away.

Exactly. Had he done that and the cop said he can't leave, then he would have been detained.

So now you are saying that everyone should ignore cops and not cooperate if they ask you questions? Hypocrite defined. How pathetic. Just put on your hood and be proud of it.