$125,000 Settlement Given To Man Arrested for Photographing NYPD 231
mpicpp sends word of a $125,000 settlement for a man who was arrested for photographing members of the New York Police Department. On June 14th, 2012, the man was sitting in his car when he saw three African-American youths being stopped and frisked by police officers. He began taking pictures of the encounter, and after the police were done, he advised the youths to get the officers' badge numbers next time. When the officers heard him, they pulled him violently from his car and arrested him under a charge of disorderly conduct. The police allegedly deleted the pictures from his phone (PDF). Rather than go to trial, the city's lawyers decided a settlement was the best course of action.
idgi (Score:5, Interesting)
I get the civil settlement, but did the police not also commit a crime?
Re:idgi (Score:5, Funny)
Some crimes don't get prosecuted if the victim refuses to press charges. This may be because the victim can forgive it, or because without his testimony there would be no case.
On the other hand: Hey everyone, did you know that photographing police officers can be worth over a hundred grand? Everyone could use an extra $125,000, photograph your local policemen today!
Re: idgi (Score:3, Insightful)
Think of how messed up this is for a minute. The police deleted the pictures from his phone. They tampered with evidence by gaining unauthorized access to his phone. The power we allow law enforcement nowadays, we are all at the mercy of moody people with guns who can peer into and modify your personal belongings. Oh also the law is not on your side on this, I'm glad the dude decided to "forgive" them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How difficult would it be for someone to force you to stick your finger on the sensor?
Re: (Score:2)
Best part of the iPhone 5 is that you can't call 911 after I cut your thumbs off
Yeah, but with the iPhone 4 having your thumbs cut off improves antennae performance.
Re: (Score:3)
Some crimes don't get prosecuted if the victim refuses to press charges. This may be because the victim can forgive it, or because without his testimony there would be no case.!
A victim cannot press charges, only the prosecutor can press charges. In most areas the prosecutor goes to bar-be-ques with the cops on weekends. Guess how likely he is to press charges against his drinking buddies.
Re: (Score:2)
There ought to be a law... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And what happens when there is no reasonable probability of conviction? When all there is is suspicion but no evidence? That is why prosecutors have leeway in prosecuting, otherwise we have significant sums of public money wasted on pointless cases.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd need to have a much larger court system to handle the load. There would likely be thousands of new cases in Missouri right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if they don't, the prosecutors depend on the police to help them with their cases. Pressing charges against the police could make evidence in unrelated cases harder to come by, hurting the other cases and the career of the prosecutor.
What we need are special prosecutors recruited from civil rights organizations who aren't in bed with law enforcement and Internal Affairs officers recruited entirely from military police who have never served in civilian law enforcement to do the investigation and arrests. There isn't much chance of that happening though.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you have private prosecutions in the US? Sure, they cost money, but in cases like this there are usually plenty of interested parties willing to chip in.
Re: (Score:2)
No...never heard of such a thing??
Charges here are brought by the government against criminals.
In civil suits, it is private I guess, people suing each other, but not in criminal matters.
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_... [cps.gov.uk]
If the government doesn't act on your behalf you can attempt a private prosecution. It's not easy but it does sometimes happen.
Re: (Score:3)
He was probably given two choices:
Option a: Receive $125000 today, go home, spend it.
Option b: Press charges, spend a fortune on lawyers for several years while they keep appealing (all on the taxpayer's dollar), maybe win, maybe receive some money.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
precedent (Score:5, Informative)
Right, because trial can set precedent and the city *really* doesn't want that.
Re:precedent (Score:5, Informative)
what's missing from the summary is that the cops involved are being sued in six other federal cases... this was not a single case.
These particular cops are used to f.ck you left,right and center and they don't care about your rights.
Re:precedent (Score:5, Funny)
... and they don't care about your rights.
My what?
Re:precedent (Score:5, Insightful)
Rights: You know... your right to remain silent (unless told to "start talking", or forced to talk with torture), your right to attorney (after they get done with you), your right for a fair trial (unless charged with the espionage act, thrown into gitmo, or blown up by drone strike), etc. You have plenty of rights*. You live in the land of the free and home of the brave!
*some exceptions apply. Void where prohibited by law (aka constitutional free zones) or where simply inconvenient (e.g. NSA, TSA, etc).
Re: (Score:2)
unless charged with the espionage act, thrown into gitmo, or blown up by drone strike
You left out the [currently] most relevant:
unless charged and convicted by the media
Re: (Score:2)
... and they don't care about your rights.
My what?
Yes, it's dated. And yes, it's a British band. But yes, it's relevant [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for that link. Now I know my rights (all 3 of them).
My pleasure. Always happy to share.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer beastie boys [youtube.com]
That works. Thanks for the link. Although given the subject matter, The Clash number is a bit more relevant. That said, No Sleep Till Brooklyn! [vevo.com]
Yuck. Sorry. That's what I get for just grabbing the first link on the google search. Here's a better one [youtube.com].
Re:precedent (Score:5, Informative)
Right, because trial can set precedent and the city *really* doesn't want that.
Precedent is only part of the story.
A settlement comes with the clause that they do not admit to any guilt. If the courts get involved, and a guilty verdict comes down, it also comes down with the "under color of law" modifier. That comes with a year in prison at the lowest tier. If there was bodily injury if weapons were used or threat of weapons was used, it jumps to a ten year prison term. The third tier, which triggers if the acts result in death, threat of death, or if they include kidnapping (which false arrests can qualify under), attempt to kidnap, sexual abuse or its attempt, the punishment can grow to life in prison.
It doesn't matter what their original violation was, those are additional bonus punishments of up to a year, a decade, or life in jail.
They will fight in the courts right up until the court decides they are no longer immune. The moment the immunity is broken they will do anything to take a non-guilt settlement.
LEOs (both as individuals and as departments) will do all they can to avoid an actual guilty verdict when their own acts are done under color of law. They will try to get any other deal or settlement they can rather then spend time in the prisons they helped create.
This is a civil case (Score:3)
So guilt does not apply. It is to determine responsibility, not guilt. There is a major legal difference, and trials proceed differently. Hence you can have OJ Simpson found innocent of a murder, but civilly responsible for causing wrongful death of the same individual.
Re:precedent (Score:5, Informative)
There's already binding precedent in the Circuit that covers NYS.
Tunick v. Safir, 228 F.3d 135, 137 (2d Cir. 2000)
loom v. Levy, 159 F.3d 1345 (2d Cir. 1998).
I'm not sure what another case would prove -- the appellate courts are loath to repeat themselves.
how are cops like bank executives? (Score:5, Insightful)
Answer:
When either one does viciously illegal shit, they get away without punishment, and somebody else pays the fine!
Re:how are cops like bank executives? (Score:5, Interesting)
From TFA:
“Now we’re going to give you what you deserve for meddling in our business and when we finish with you, you can sue the city for $5 million and get rich, we don’t care,” Lt. Dennis Ferber said, according to the suit filed in Brooklyn Federal Court.
It appears the police followed exactly your logic. However if that statement is substantiated, Ferber's boss would be seriously derelict in their duty if they didn't fire him for this. He's publicly stated that he doesn't care about knowingly causing a multi-million dollar liability for his employer. IANAL, but I expect that should these cops not get punished and pull a similar stunt again, the city would open themselves up for greater punitive damages, as they'd let employees with a known track record of rights abuse continue working where they were likely to abuse again.
It would be good to see criminal proceedings, but I doubt it will happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Ferber's boss would be seriously derelict in their duty if they didn't fire him for this.
Two words.
Police Union.
There is almost no accountability for law enforcement. That's a part of what draws sociopaths into that field of work.
LK
Re: (Score:2)
And that's the way it should be. Some day the Stockholm Syndrome sufferers will say enough is enough; but while they remain sycophants to the political and praetorian classes; fuck 'em. Make them pay.
Always lock your phone! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Always lock your phone! (Score:4, Funny)
>"It would have been really interesting to hear what the cops told the judge when they sought a warrant to unlock it."
The same thing they tell every judge. "See you on the golf course this Sunday!"
Re: (Score:2)
Probably the $5 wrench solution to unlock the phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations. You've now broken the phone, and the photos are on the cloud.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"The guy dropped it on the ground by accident, we didn't break it."
Thus, the cloud advice. By the time they got to the phone, audio and video is on the way up.
Re: (Score:2)
you mean interesting to hear the cops banter while they pistol whipped the guy until he gave them the password? Hell, here in Chicago the cops beat people for jollies even if they don't need anything.
Re: (Score:3)
There are some apps for Android and iOS that record quietly and in the background and upload to the cloud. They're useful to have on your phone for many reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, wait! Time Out!
OK, I'm ready now.
Yeah, I totally see how that would work.
The three made some mistakes (Score:3, Informative)
1. They should have refused to comply with the search on the grounds of unconstitutionality.
If the police insisted then they would be forced to make an arrest. Then the three should insist on using the legal representation, the representative will ask why they are under suspicion and force the police to obtain a proper warrant etc...
In reality though, as soon as they refuse to submit to the unconstitutional search, the police will either walk away or be forced to commit a serious infringement, which can be dealt with later.
2. They did not start recording the police themselves as soon as the police approached them. That way they have on record their refusal to agree to a warrantless search which renders any search before arrest unconstitutional, and if they make an arrest then they need to have a good reason - which the story implies they did not.
When you start recording you should say to your friend, or the officers if you are alone, "this is being uploaded automatically to my blog, so don't worry if they try to delete the video". If you are smart then your friend will reply "did you press the live upload button" and you will check and say "yeah, it is uploading now" - or something like that. That will put the pressure on the officers to behave themselves.
If you can afford it, then actually do set yourself up to upload the feed automatically, but the threat alone is likely to be enough.
Always remain calm and speak politely. Be nice. Be friendly. Do not use hostile body language. Do not scowl. You cannot scare the police, they are not old women walking down a dark alley. I know that blacks think that they can scare anybody with a dirty look, but honestly, the police LOVE IT when somebody becomes aggressive - because it will give them grounds for arrest. They are trained to deal with your aggression and you play into their hands when you become aggressive. THEY WANT YOU TO BECOME AGGRESSIVE SO THAT THEY CAN ARREST YOU, SO DONT DO IT!
Re:The three made some mistakes (Score:5, Insightful)
And you've also never heard of 'Stop and Frisk'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
As far as the Black/not Black thing....you may think it is deeply offensive/racist. Others may look at it as getting shot or not getting shot.
Re:The three made some mistakes (Score:4, Informative)
As far as the Black/not Black thing....you may think it is deeply offensive/racist. Others may look at it as getting shot or not getting shot.
I agree with this. Some cops are just the bullying sort. That inherent tendency seems to be what draws some people to the professionsion, so there is a much higher percentage of psychopaths among cops than in the general population. But the way they go about harassing different people varies by race. For black people, it tends to be more rampant, more obvious and more physical. Anyone who lives ina large urban area has probably witnessed an incident firsthand. It is reality.
That is not to say that many [probably most] cops are not bullies to other people when they can be. They definitely are. The post above is right when they say cops are often just looking for people to get aggressive and give them an excuse. It is more challenging to them when people are defiant but very polite. And part of that response is cultural.
I have lived in Bed-Stuy for many years. Why I live here is a long story. Suffice to say I like it here. For those who don't know, this is an area of NYC that has historically had a relatively high crime rate. Most of the residents on my block are black. I am white. It gives me an interesting perspective. It is difficult to explain the psychological effects of police profiling to someone who has never witnessed it.
Small example: If I take the subway home, I get off the train, there is an officer there. Watching. You don't see this on the Upper East Side. No big deal, right? This is great. Well, maybe for me. I give a small smile when I walk by. He or she smiles back. This officer doesn't really make me feel safer. If anything, they make me feel more likely to witness an altercation. But, at least I know how not to get a bad reaction out of them.
Most other residents don't smile. What in their knowledge of or history with the police would make them want to smile? They are suspicous of the police. This fear/suspicion/distrust shows on their faces. The response they get from the police: A nasty look that says more than I can explain. It says not to make one wrong move. It says I have complete power over you. Just a couple of years ago, it said it was completely legal for me to stop you and frisk you at any time, and if you resist--and I hope you do--I will throw you against the wall with all the strength I have. If you think a look can't say that, come pay a visit to Bed-Stuy. If police made me feel that way, how would I respond? I don't know.
The police bother and annoy me, too, but in a very different way that is not comparable. At least four or five different times when I was just walking down the street near my apartment, a cop car has pulled up slowly beside me, rolled down his window (it has always been a man, never a woman cop), and asked me what I was doing in the neighborhood. Like I'm a lost puppy or something. Too stupid to know I shouldn't be here. Most cops on this beat know me by now, I guess, but when there's a new guy, this can happen. I explain that I live here. I explain that I'm in a hurry. They proceed to inform me about how dangerous the area is. I nod. Thanks. Appreciate it. See you around. Hold on, they say. They drag on the conversation. This is not about helping me. This is about their power trip mindset.
Now, from all of this, you must think I live in a third world country. This is how cops treat it. But I am a fan of statistics. Some facts: Statistically, Bed-Stuy is only slightly less safe than the Upper East Side. Who would have thought? And in all the years I have lived here, no one has ever, ever given me a hard time about anything--except the police. I walk by, people nod, say hello.
The way policy treat black people is different. The way the police see black neighborhoods is different. That is just the reality.
Re: (Score:3)
You had me agreeing with you right until the "I know that blacks..." line. Yes, there are some people who think they can scare anyone with a dirty look. There are people like that who happen to be African-American and who happen to be Caucasian. The color of your skin doesn't make you give people dirty looks and act aggressive. (Socio-economic status is more at play than race alone.)
I will agree with the "don't be hostile" advice, though. This doesn't mean that you have to roll over and do whatever the
Re: (Score:3)
I know that blacks...
This remark betrays a deeply held racism that you really need to take a good hard (non-agressive) look at. Seriously.
No, you do not 'know' anything about 'blacks' (whatever that term might actually mean? Africans? Ghanians? Nigerians? African-Americans? People who like wearing a lot of black?). You hold prejudices about people who are not white.
Phone Pictures (Score:2)
I'm going to go WAAAAY out on a limb here and speculate that these bullying asshole police officers weren't tech-savvy enough to know how to permanently delete stuff from a cell phone. Most likely, a simple FAT file system undeletion utility could have brought back all those pictures, or at least most of them. Does anyone know if the victim here did anything to try to get those photos undeleted?
It would have been nice if ... (Score:2)
no prison? (Score:2, Insightful)
America will not have faith in big government until cops who do things like this, lose their jobs because of unexcused absenses due to their felony prison sentences. Who is preventing these prosecutions? Are Repubs giving extra criminal powers to police, in order to increase scepticism of govt?
Re: (Score:3)
You are confused, this has nothing to do with "big government". People have no faith in the federal government for other reason, namely being power and money grubbing megacorporate bitches.
Ferguson Should take note (Score:2, Interesting)
Fiscal penalties can work
They're ruined.
Civil rights violations are a federal crime.
Once again!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
From Gen. Alexander's willful and wanton (and unpersecuted) perjury on down to cops killing and chilling there is NO accountability in this country if you're on of "the good guys."
We can use this: (Score:3)
Four easy steps 2 begin to fix broken system (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Nationally require body cameras always rolling while on-duty. Knowing you won't get away with unprofessional behavior = priceless.
2. Total national outlaw of plea deals because coercion is morally indefensible. This is supposed to be the "land of the free" not North Korea.
3. Total ban on performance/incentive structures having effect of perverting justice. This includes linkages between career status/advancement and prosecution rates and officer ticketing/arrest quotas.
4. Total ban on mandatory minimum sentencing.
duh (Score:2)
advising people of their rights is totally disorderly conduct.
Don't want another Ferguson incident (Score:2)
Police should be able to do whatever they damn well please, with no accountability. Right?
Re: (Score:2)
if my watch is aimed in your direction and I'm not acting strange, (hell maybe I'm reading a book at the same time while the watch records) how would they know?
If you are only recording pictures in a public place then you're good (legally). If you surreptitiously record sound then you may run afoul of wiretapping laws. That there are no wires and you're not tapping anything makes no difference. Depends on your jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
What I love is none of this 'terms kept confidential' nonsense that is so typical in court settlements.
The public has a right to know.
You do realize that settlements are basically private contracts right? Are you really saying that I must publicly disclose the terms of any private contract I am a party to, just because the "Public has a right to know"?
No, No, they don't have a right to know. I may allow you to use my intellectual property and by contract disclose it to you for your use, but that doesn't mean everybody in the world is now entitled to see everything.
Re: (Score:3)
The public has the right to know what their government is up to whether you are involved or not. Don't you think so?
I would say that if the public does not have a right to know, then the government or the departments under it do not have the right to settle lawsuits- whether you are involved or not.
Re: (Score:2)
I only need to know in broad terms what they are doing, not the specific details. There are things I am not entitled to know about government and how they interact with other individuals. So I don't agree with your premise.
IF you think you have a right to know, file a Freedom of Information Act request for the information. See what they will give you.
Re: (Score:2)
Any contract the government is involved with needs to be open for public inspection. It is how we know about graft, kickbacks, cronyism and so on.
Or do you think it is proper for my uncle bill, who is also the mayor of our town to insert bonuses and so on into my contract with the city for looking pretty on the sidewalk.
Of course you would be completely clueless of that happening if the contract was hidden and secret
Re: (Score:2)
There are things that need to be kept private too.
I'm not arguing that disclosure of contract terms for building roads, buildings and conducting other city business shouldn't be public, only that there is a subset of that information that needs to be kept private. A court settlement might fall in that category.
Before you go and say *everything* needs to be public, think about what you are saying. There is no way that the city should be compelled to disclose the contents of say it's employee files, or if
Re:NOT CONFIDENTIAL!! YAY!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Then file a freedom of information request. Even government has reasons to keep things private, such settlements included.
Re: (Score:2)
No. When they violate the public trust, they have no right to keep it a secret.
Re:NOT CONFIDENTIAL!! YAY!! (Score:5, Insightful)
What I love is none of this 'terms kept confidential' nonsense that is so typical in court settlements.
The public has a right to know.
You do realize that settlements are basically private contracts right? Are you really saying that I must publicly disclose the terms of any private contract I am a party to, just because the "Public has a right to know"?
No, No, they don't have a right to know. I may allow you to use my intellectual property and by contract disclose it to you for your use, but that doesn't mean everybody in the world is now entitled to see everything.
When a crime is involved (such as unlawful arrest, harassment, theft of property, etc. the cops engaged in), the public has a right to know.
When one of the parties IS the state or one of its many agencies, the public has a right to know.
When the public courts handle a case on the matter, criminal or not, for however long, the public has a right to know regardless of whether the case is settled by the court of by the parties outside of the court.
Re: (Score:2)
Out of court = Not public record
Court ordered Settlement = Public record
File a Freedom of Information request if you think this should be public.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that settlements are basically private contracts right? Are you really saying that I must publicly disclose the terms of any private contract I am a party to, just because the "Public has a right to know"?
No, No, they don't have a right to know. I may allow you to use my intellectual property and by contract disclose it to you for your use, but that doesn't mean everybody in the world is now entitled to see everything.
If one of the entities is a government, the public DOES have the right to know, since it's public funds that are being used to settle.
Re: (Score:2)
" Are you really saying that I must publicly disclose the terms of any private contract I am a party to, just because the "Public has a right to know""
Yes, because court actions are taken as legal precedent that gets studied for generations to come and cited whenever relevant cases arise. If we start keeping legal settlements secret, a huge chunk of case law drops out of the historical record.
Re: (Score:2)
An "out of court" settlement is not a legal precedent, beyond the fact the city settled. No lawyer is going to provide a brief that claims "Well because they settled before, they need to settle with my client too."
Re: (Score:2)
No, No, they don't have a right to know.
I have to disagree. If you do business with the government, you lose some of the privacy that you would have in a private transaction. Secrecy in government is just too tempting to abuse.
Re: (Score:2)
No, No, they don't have a right to know.
I have to disagree. If you do business with the government, you lose some of the privacy that you would have in a private transaction. Secrecy in government is just too tempting to abuse.
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm all for disclosure of contracts let by the city for city business. I'm saying that there are things which are NOT subject to disclosure. City employee discipline records, utility bills, income tax receipts and a whole host of things fall into this category. Out of court settlements where "do not discuss publicly" clauses are in effect seem to be one of those things.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would a government body have any right to privacy at all?
For other cases, I would say the cutoff point is the public courts. If you can come to an agreement privately, fine. But as soon as the courts are involved AT ALL, it becomes a public matter. They are, after all, PUBLIC courts.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would a government body have any right to privacy at all?
Do you *really* mean this? Think about the kinds of things City governments know about you, you want it to all be public information? You want them to publish the names and addresses of everybody who applied for a business license or is behind on their water bills? Filed a police complaint, got put into collections? How about those who live in cities that tax income, you want to make who's paying taxes and their SSN's public data?
I don't think you've thought this all though very far.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no such thing as a "private contract". A contract, by nature, is an agreement that the state will enforce.
That is not even close to being true. If I have a contract with you that I break, it's NOT the state that files the lawsuit to enforce the contract, it's you. The function of the state is to make sure the litigation process is fair, but it's not in their wheel house to do the actual enforcement of contracts between two other parties. They have no standing, no vested interest in such contracts.
Now if I loose in court, then you have the legal right to demand that the judgment be collected, and have the rig
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Spilling over to white people (Score:5, Informative)
By the way, the President of the US is THE top of the Executive branch - meaning HE is in charge of ALL the police around the country - if I remember my high school civics correctly (yeah, I'm that old and it was back when education was about having an educated electorate and not training for McJobs).
Shame on you Obama. And Double shame for being a Black guy and NOT doing something.
Bzzt! Wrong. Thanks for playing. The POTUS is the head of the Executive Branch of the *Federal Government.* He's also the Commander-in-chief of the US armed forces. He is in charge of the Department of Justice (the FBI, the ATF, etc.) and the Army, Navy, etc.
He is not in any chain of command the includes local or state police forces. The closest he *could* come to that is to federalize the National Guard (which is equivalent to a state militia), which has been done from time to time (notably in Arkansas to block the state government from halting enforcement of the Brown v. Board of Education [wikipedia.org] decision).
The POTUS cannot legally give orders to local or state police, which are civilian organizations answerable to the municipal and state governments that raise and fund them, and not the Federal government. The only tools that the Federal government has to affect local police is litigation and withholding federal grants to police organizations [policeone.com]. You'll note that this author of the linked article is decidedly not a fan of Federal power over police.
As such, your appeal to authority [wikipedia.org]:
if I remember my high school civics correctly (yeah, I'm that old and it was back when education was about having an educated electorate and not training for McJobs
falls short. Please try again.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
WTF is with all you idiots bitching about Obama's vacations. Reagan only played eight rounds of golf? Well gee, I guess Obama should be more hard working, like Reagan, right?
Reagan: 335 vacation days in 8 years = 41 days per year
Obama: 129 vacation days in 5.5 years = 23 days per year. (shit...I get more vacation days than that)
Yep, Obama...what a slacker. He also took fewer days than either GW Bush or GHW Bush (but more than Clinton).
Re:Spilling over to white people (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF is with all you idiots bitching about Obama's vacations. Reagan only played eight rounds of golf? Well gee, I guess Obama should be more hard working, like Reagan, right?
Reagan: 335 vacation days in 8 years = 41 days per year Obama: 129 vacation days in 5.5 years = 23 days per year. (shit...I get more vacation days than that)
Yep, Obama...what a slacker. He also took fewer days than either GW Bush or GHW Bush (but more than Clinton).
Don't bother. These guys have learned their lessons from the G.W. Bush Administration [wikipedia.org]:
our friends are very busy out there creating new realities. They don't have time for that "fact" stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't Obama say when he was senator that if he became president, that he wouldnt take any vacations?
I don't know. If it's true, I'm sure you can find some reference to satisfy you. Have fun!
Perhaps it was the same speech where he maybe said that, if elected, he would personally have sex with every child under ten years of age in the US. Or the time he might have explained that he was running for President so he could "make all dem crackers pay for "steppin' on his fly kicks!" Or maybe it was during the speech when he possibly said that he was "going to give the US to the people who deserved it most,
Re: (Score:2)
ISIS beheads US journalist Nick Foley.
UK Prime Minister responds immediately, cancels vacation.
US President Obumbles takes a day to reply, returns to vacation.
GFY, you useless idiot
Thanks for the news update, friend. I'm not sure what that has to do with a "quote" from the G.W. Bush administration from ten years ago, but I guess you needed to stick it (and your incredibly sweet ad hominem) somewhere.
As an aside, I recommend looking up "non-sequitur." Have a great day!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
As such, your appeal to authority [wikipedia.org]:
if I remember my high school civics correctly (yeah, I'm that old and it was back when education was about having an educated electorate and not training for McJobs
falls short. Please try again.
Wow. I have the balls to admit I might be incorrectly remembering something, and you decide to use that to take a pot shot against me? People like you are why some people are incapable of admitting they might be wrong.
You don't know me, so you have no idea what "people like" me are about. You made an outrageously incorrect statement and attempted to bolster your argument by an "appeal to authority" (your civics class back when schools actually taught something). What I said was based on what *you* wrote.
You were completely off-base and didn't even bother to check to see what the truth was before making an argument not only that you were right, but that you were right because some authority taught you better than everyb
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know me, so you have no idea what "people like" me are about.
Would you be happy if he said "People who behave like you just did"?
LK
Absolutely. All I did was call him on his ridiculous assertion and condescending tone. If that's what "people who behave like me" are about, I'm all over it.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue isn't that you disagreed with his assertion, he was obviously incorrect. The issue is that you were an obnoxious twat about it.
When he said "people like you", I read it as "obnoxious twats".
LK
Thanks! That's the nicest thing anyone's said to me all day!
Have a great day and keep up the good work!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree, that the only thing that's new is that the police are now treating middle and upper income white people they they have always treated poor whites and minorities.
The President is the head of the Executive branch of government, he is sometimes called the "Chief Law Enforcement Officer in The United States" but he has no authority to direct local police in any way.
He can instruct the FBI to carry out his directives because they are a part of the Department of Justice which is an Executive Branch agenc
Re:Spilling over to white people (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing much has changed. Cops in the US have been killing about 400 people/year for decades, almost all of them people who attack them, threaten others, or suspects who run away from them. All of those are (generally speaking) legal justifications for the use of deadly force (of course, details matter).
No, we will not, because the majority of people prefer it that way. If you look at polls, people more concerned about being hurt by criminals than they are about being hurt by police.
The president is only head of the federal government. Police is mostly local and state matter, and policies are set at the local and state level. Police operates the way it does either because local communities like it that way, or because local communities are too stupid to change it.
Don't hold your breath for any changes.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why settlements like this need to come directly out of the police budget. That's still the taxpayer's pocket, but taken from an amount already earmarked for police work. Let them be forced to prioritize, denominating the settlement charge in terms of pot busts foregone next year.
Re:That's awesome! Taxpayers get fucked! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Mod points, my kingdom for some mod points.
Re:We need cops to turn their guns (Score:5, Funny)
FUCK MOHAMMAD!!
No thanks. I don't swing that way....
Re:Leave New York (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. Leave New York and go somewhere safe and free and rights are respected. I'd suggest somewhere in the safe Midwest, close to a major city so that you have services and activities that are of interest, but not too close so that you are under the actual jurisdiction of the big city's police department. I hear the St. Louis area is nice and quite. Maybe Ferguson?
It's not a New York City problem or even a big city problem, it's a law enforcement problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Leave the U.S. and move to an actually-free country? ..yeah, I'm out of ideas as to where that might be, but I suspect rural Greenland might be a good option.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course. Because the 2.4% of Muslims in Norway are obviousely all pro-theocracy, and clearly enought critical mass to overtrow the government and the constitution to estabilish Sharia law. /s
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's a problem with particular police forces and particular cities. There are many cities that have neither a problem with police brutality nor with high crime rates.
Re: (Score:2)
History of unfair treatment of African Americans by police.
Recently history: Ferguson, Rodney King, Mark Duggan, Trayvon Martin.
I don't really know. It may be the same things happen to other races, but there is less of a media event made from it.