Ahmaud Arbery Shooting

[baddog]

11 minutes ago, ladybug33 said:

I was not trying to hijack this thread period!!  Here is a video that explains some of the complaints, or mis-leading facts that are linked to this case.

 

 

 

They have been arrested for murder. What else can be done? What are you looking for?

[ladybug33]

"Justice"

[CardinalBacker]

4 hours ago, PAMFAM10 said:

It’s dehumanizing. Blacks  or more violent so you can see why I shot him. We’ve been having break ins so you should understand. He might be a teen but he was bigger and stronger. He looked out of place. He smoked weed once he had a criminal record. IF HE WOULD OF JUST LET ME DEHUMANIZE HIM WITHOUT REACTION HE’LL STILL BE ALIVE.

Why can’t anybody just admit the obvious? 

“It’s dehumanizing.”  
 

You know what’s dehumanizing? When hundreds of black kids get killed over bandanas, tennis shoes, and weed deals and there own people can’t even admit that it’s a problem. When the internet is flooded with videos of assaults, beat downs, and fights, but everybody just wants to pretend it doesn’t exist.  If Mr Arbery’s shooters had been black, the only difference would be that the cameraman would have yelled “Worldstar” and nobody would have  cared.  No protest, no celebrities, no news coverage.  

Let’s leave race out if it. Should one group of people who make up 13% of the population be committing 50% of the violent crimes in the US? 

 

[baddog]

3 hours ago, ladybug33 said:

"Justice"

That was my question. To you, what would be justice in this case?

[baddog]

3 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

Why can’t anybody just admit the obvious? 

“It’s dehumanizing.”  
 

You know what’s dehumanizing? When hundreds of black kids get killed over bandanas, tennis shoes, and weed deals and there own people can’t even admit that it’s a problem. When the internet is flooded with videos of assaults, beat downs, and fights, but everybody just wants to pretend it doesn’t exist.  If Mr Arbery’s shooters had been black, the only difference would be that the cameraman would have yelled “Worldstar” and nobody would have  cared.  No protest, no celebrities, no news coverage.  

Let’s leave race out if it. Should one group of people who make up 13% of the population be committing 50% of the violent crimes in the US? 

 

Man, don’t argue with facts on your side. Agendas have to be met here. That only requires opinion. 

[SmashMouth]

Ok, so I have a question to pose with the intent of getting honest straight answers. Pretty much a yes or no should suffice. That’s not really fair coming from me, who usually finds it almost impossible to give a short answer (usually flavored with a hint of smart ssa and a lot of sarcasm).  I would especially like to hear from:

tvc184

stevenash 

cardbacker

baddog

With what facts have been presented to date that you have seen, was Arbery targeted (profiled) due to his ethnicity, whatsoever?
I’m not asking if he had any fault at all one way or the other, just the question above. 

[CardinalBacker]

1 hour ago, SmashMouth said:

Ok, so I have a question to pose with the intent of getting honest straight answers. Pretty much a yes or no should suffice. That’s not really fair coming from me, who usually finds it almost impossible to give a short answer (usually flavored with a hint of smart ssa and a lot of sarcasm).  I would especially like to hear from:

tvc184

stevenash 

cardbacker

baddog

With what facts have been presented to date that you have seen, was Arbery targeted (profiled) due to his ethnicity, whatsoever?
I’m not asking if he had any fault at all one way or the other, just the question above. 

I haven’t seen anything that would make me believe that Mr Arbery was targeted because of his race. I would have no trouble identifying this incident as racial if there was some evidence of such... past social media posts, memberships in supremacist groups, etc.  When people complain that the victim is being dehumanized by exposing his past, I’d argue that those past behaviors on the part of the two shooters are also completely relevant in establishing their character and predispositions.

BUT.... if you’ve been conditioned to believe that the majority of police in America are inherently racist, the the fact that the Father is former LEO is all of the evidence a prejudiced person would need to identify this incident as a work of racism. 

I live on a dead end road with a couple of other houses. I know when somebody is in here that “doesn’t belong.” I’m going to guess that Mr Arbery stuck out in that neighborhood, and I’d be curious how “diverse” the area actually is. I’d like to point out that a person’s skin color CAN indicate that a person is up to no good. If you see a white dude slow-rolling around on Simmons Drive in Orange in the middle of the night, you can bet he’s there for drugs or a whore. 
 

Both the father and son called 911 during that incident that day. If they’d set out to “hunt down and murder” Mr Arbery, I doubt they’d have contacted law first... the father was literally on the line with 911 when the shooting occurred. 
 

There are legitimate cases where people single out others for purely racial reasons. James Byrd, Jr comes to mind, and that kid that shot up the black church in SC.  Hate crimes, plain and simple. Throw the book at them. Unfortunately most aren’t so cut and dried. 

[tvc184]

8 hours ago, baddog said:

Seen a lot of episodes of “Cops” where people were told they were not under arrest but that the cuffs were for the officer’s protection until they could sort things out. How confusing. I don’t agree with cops arresting people for Covid non-conformance, but this one made the news for the racial impact. Just another day in the life had he been white.

And many of those detentions are not lawful. Saying magic words like you aren’t under arrest but this is for my protection is not legal. The lawful reasons to handcuff are probable cause of a crime or a situation bad enough to justify the intrusion such as a felony traffic stop of a suspected armed robbery suspect. If it was lawful to handcuff someone by just saying the words you are not under arrest, then everyone the cops talk to could be handcuffed. 

[tvc184]

3 hours ago, SmashMouth said:

Ok, so I have a question to pose with the intent of getting honest straight answers. Pretty much a yes or no should suffice. That’s not really fair coming from me, who usually finds it almost impossible to give a short answer (usually flavored with a hint of smart ssa and a lot of sarcasm).  I would especially like to hear from:

tvc184

stevenash 

cardbacker

baddog

With what facts have been presented to date that you have seen, was Arbery targeted (profiled) due to his ethnicity, whatsoever?
I’m not asking if he had any fault at all one way or the other, just the question above. 

One word answer: maybe

 Explanation: There simply isn’t enough public information. Profiling in itself is not illegal even by the police. In fact the police get paid to profile. 

 Racial profiling is unlawful as a reason to detain someone. 

[CardinalBacker]

4 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

One word answer: maybe

 Explanation: There simply isn’t enough public information. Profiling in itself is not illegal even by the police. In fact the police get paid to profile. 

 Racial profiling is unlawful as a reason to detain someone. 

What did you think about “stop and frisk?” 
 

 

[SmashMouth]

37 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

One word answer: maybe

 Explanation: There simply isn’t enough public information. Profiling in itself is not illegal even by the police. In fact the police get paid to profile. 

 Racial profiling is unlawful as a reason to detain someone. 

Yep. I totally understand and agree. 

[SmashMouth]

32 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

What did you think about “stop and frisk?” 
 

 

I don’t personally have a big problem with it depending upon the circumstances. 

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

What did you think about “stop and frisk?” 
 

 

From what I read about stop and frisk, it was completely legal. Officers can detain someone for reasonable suspicion. It has to be linked to a specific crime. That came from SCOTUS in Terry v. Ohio. Detectives McFadden saw what he thought was 4 guys casing a store in order to rob it. They took turns walking back and forth, looked into the store to see how many customers, etc. When they all started walking toward the store together, McFadden moved in thinking it was about to happen. He pushed the guys against the wall and patted them down and I think 3 had guns. 

Now such a contract is called a Terry stop or a Terry frisk 

it is still the standard to justify a detention by law enforcement. All that NYPD did was tell the patrol officers to get off their butts, out of their patrol cars and start stopping suspicious people. They did. 

 The problem with this and such programs is the belief by some police administrations to use traffic stops and Terry stops as a measure of success or performance. That is a folly in my opinion. When you start rewarding officers for contacts, they may start stretching the reason for the contact. 

Stop and frisk is what cops get paid to do. I don’t think there should be any reward at al for doing your job however. The laziest cop who stops no one, might all of a sudden find hundreds of “criminals” in his midst if he thinks it might get him that job in detectives and off of patrol. 

 Officers should be commended for the quality of their cases, not quantity. 

in my opinion 

[baddog]

13 hours ago, tvc184 said:

And many of those detentions are not lawful. Saying magic words like you aren’t under arrest but this is for my protection is not legal. The lawful reasons to handcuff are probable cause of a crime or a situation bad enough to justify the intrusion such as a felony traffic stop of a suspected armed robbery suspect. If it was lawful to handcuff someone by just saying the words you are not under arrest, then everyone the cops talk to could be handcuffed. 

I am quite sure that the pullovers had probable cause, just hadn’t searched the vehicle for evidence. If that is illegal then how can they broadcast that garbage with self-incriminating evidence? 
All the car thieves and bank robbers I have seen are thrown down on and made to exit the vehicle, walk backwards towards the cops, then lie spread eagle on the pavement.

I should have known that the cops show was Hollywooded up.

[tvc184]

5 hours ago, baddog said:

I am quite sure that the pullovers had probable cause, just hadn’t searched the vehicle for evidence. If that is illegal then how can they broadcast that garbage with self-incriminating evidence? 
All the car thieves and bank robbers I have seen are thrown down on and made to exit the vehicle, walk backwards towards the cops, then lie spread eagle on the pavement.

I should have known that the cops show was Hollywooded up.

I answered that a few posts ago. There is huge difference between a routine traffic stop and one where the officer it stopping a suspected armed felon. 

 When grandma is stopped for speeding, the cops count pull guns and put her on the ground. 

 Don’t try and confuse the issues. If you want SCOTUS law, I will be glad to provide it with at least 3 unanimous rulings. 

[baddog]

39 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

I answered that a few posts ago. There is huge difference between a routine traffic stop and one where the officer it stopping a suspected armed felon. 

 When grandma is stopped for speeding, the cops count pull guns and put her on the ground. 

 Don’t try and confuse the issues. If you want SCOTUS law, I will be glad to provide it with at least 3 unanimous rulings. 

Wow, who crapped in your Cheerios?

[Rez]

21 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

I haven’t seen anything that would make me believe that Mr Arbery was targeted because of his race. I would have no trouble identifying this incident as racial if there was some evidence of such... past social media posts, memberships in supremacist groups, etc.  When people complain that the victim is being dehumanized by exposing his past, I’d argue that those past behaviors on the part of the two shooters are also completely relevant in establishing their character and predispositions.

BUT.... if you’ve been conditioned to believe that the majority of police in America are inherently racist, the the fact that the Father is former LEO is all of the evidence a prejudiced person would need to identify this incident as a work of racism. 

I live on a dead end road with a couple of other houses. I know when somebody is in here that “doesn’t belong.” I’m going to guess that Mr Arbery stuck out in that neighborhood, and I’d be curious how “diverse” the area actually is. I’d like to point out that a person’s skin color CAN indicate that a person is up to no good. If you see a white dude slow-rolling around on Simmons Drive in Orange in the middle of the night, you can bet he’s there for drugs or a whore. 
 

Both the father and son called 911 during that incident that day. If they’d set out to “hunt down and murder” Mr Arbery, I doubt they’d have contacted law first... the father was literally on the line with 911 when the shooting occurred. 
 

There are legitimate cases where people single out others for purely racial reasons. James Byrd, Jr comes to mind, and that kid that shot up the black church in SC.  Hate crimes, plain and simple. Throw the book at them. Unfortunately most aren’t so cut and dried. 

I agree with your sentiment that we should look for solid evidence of a person's background an intentions before drawing conclusions about their motivations.

My disagreement is in the highlighted portion above.

I can't think of a single scenario where a person's skin color, all other things being equal, is sufficient indication that a person is up to no good. The example you provide applies equally to any skin color. If you see anyone slow rolling in an area known to be a place to replenish one's supply of drugs and prostitutes, it is reasonable to assume they might be there for such things, but they might also be lost, or particularly interested in the scenery, or having a heart attack, or a million other things that might cause someone to drive slowly. I know I'm splitting hairs, but your statement requires hair-splitting. The fact that would make you think someone is looking for illegal activities by slow rolling is that they are slow rolling in that specific place, not the skin color of the person slow rolling. Unless Simmons Dr in Orange is closed to non-whites? 

[tvc184]

21 minutes ago, baddog said:

Wow, who crapped in your Cheerios?

Not sure what you are complaining about. I just answered the questions you put out there. 

[baddog]

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

I answered that a few posts ago. There is huge difference between a routine traffic stop and one where the officer it stopping a suspected armed felon. 

 When grandma is stopped for speeding, the cops count pull guns and put her on the ground. 

 Don’t try and confuse the issues. If you want SCOTUS law, I will be glad to provide it with at least 3 unanimous rulings. 

Yes, you said it was illegal detainment. How can a show exist if this is true? The felony stops are done with pistols drawn. The suspicious stops are done until searches can be done. The lone officer will cuff for his protection, especially if there are numerous people in the vehicle. I have no problem with that. Grandma?????
 

I couldn't get all the facts from the video ( what was said or anything like that). Maybe he thought he was armed. I still don’t see the problem. I also know not all cops follow protocol. The way they have been “HUNTED and EXECUTED” lately, I give them a little leeway with their stops.....but that’s just me.

[Rez]

On 5/22/2020 at 11:59 AM, tvc184 said:

That isn’t correct for the gas salesman unless he knew that they were going to commit a crime with it. It is intent. 

 The video guy took intentional action as part of the incident. He wasn’t a guy on the porch who happened to catch the action. In the example I gave it was two guys breaking into cars and one guy selling it to a third who knew the property was stolen. They all knowingly took part in crimes. 

 The guy selling gas had no clue. 

Zimmerman complied with the dispatcher (who has no authority to give him an order). Legally it wouldn’t have mattered but Zimmerman complied. 

i don’t think the state is reaching however without actually knowing the evidence, it is a complete guess. Let’s play what if.....  what if 3 guys see Arbery prowling around. It is suspicious but not a crime. So the three get together and say, let’s teach this guy a lesson. Or perhaps they say, we don’t know what he is up to but maybe he is the guy that has been committing crimes in this area. In either case they have no probable cause to arrest. I read the GA citizen arrest law and it says witnesses a crime, not suspects a crime and can detain like an officer. So the video guy in either case says, great and I will video and tell you where he runs. 

 Under that scenario, video guy is directly involved in the outcome. If so, it sure isn’t reaching. If “all” the guy did was video and took no part in the attempted detention, it is a reach. 

Some thoughts:

The video guy is "involved," but he did not, by taking the video alone, participate in furtherance of a crime. Taking a video of anything, as you know, is protected free speech, unless there is some statute saying you can't do so (such as in areas that contain sensitive national security information). If there was evidence that the video guy had entered into a conspiracy with the other two there would be a reason to indict him (as you have noted). But the video by itself does not evince his intention to further a crime. All of the evidence made available to the public indicates that he and the other two thought they were in the process of a lawful citizen's arrest. The video is only evidence of his intention to record the event. 

I'm worried that charging this guy will discourage private citizens from taking videos of crimes. The video he took is crucial, valuable evidence, without which the world would have to rely on only the testimony of the shooter. In other words, there would have been no charges without the video. So we are charging a guy for providing the only evidence upon which the state's case is based, evidence which he voluntarily turned over. I'm not trying to paint him as a saint. But I am arguing for an extremely liberal approach to the right to film public events. We need people to do so. My gut feeling is that the fewer videos that are taken of events like this, the more it benefits either one of two groups to the detriment of the public: (1) criminals and (2) public officials who wish to hide things. We should encourage people to take such videos.

All of that aside, I think he is being charged, not for taking the video, but for "moving" his car in a way that blocked Arbery. I have some concerns with that. If the citizen's arrest law was triggered, moving the car in a way to block Arbery to further that arrest was arguably a lawful action. However, even if the arrest law was not triggered, it is extremely difficult to tell from the video that he did anything at all, so I think the prosecution is grasping at straws. My guess is they are using this charge to get the video guy to spill on the other two in exchange for leniency. 

Also, on a somewhat unrelated note, the Georgia citizen's arrest law does not require that the citizen doing the arrest "witness" the crime. See Ga. Code 17-4-60. It is sufficient if the crime occur within the citizen's immediate knowledge. The question then becomes what qualifies as a "crime" within "immediate knowledge?" In this case, there had been multiple reports of trespassing (and apparently reports of theft) and Arbery was seen sprinting out of the house (as well as being caught on video multiple times). Importantly, if the suspected crime is a felony, the citizen doesn't even need to have "immediate knowledge." Where the crime is a felony, it is sufficient only to have "reasonable and probable grounds for suspicion." Burglary is a felony in Georgia. The important thing is that the citizen doesn't need to know that the person suspected of the crime has committed a felony. So when citizens see a guy sprinting out of a home that was not his, and had been caught on video multiple times in that dwelling that was not his, it was at a minimum reasonable for the neighbors to suspect that the felony of burglary had been committed, thus triggering a citizen's arrest under Georgia law. And, even if burglary were not the crime, trespassing is a crime, and they had "immediate knowledge" of it. Under both types of crime presented in the statute, the citizen's arrest law was triggered, or it is at least reasonable to argue that it was. 

That being said, I think the Georgia citizen's arrest law is stupid. Citizen's arrest laws in general are mind-numbingly stupid. They should only exist as a protection against a charge of kidnapping or false imprisonment in cases where citizens seize a person out of necessity where the crime is grave and has been committed in their presence, to protect life, or in other serious circumstances where the urgency of the moment requires private citizens to take action by holding another person. They should not exist as a proactive open door to citizens to take the law into their own hands, particularly where there is no immediate threat or urgency, as was the case in Georgia. Citizens arrest laws as written invite the profound stupidity we've witnessed in Georgia, where any dummy thinks the law allows him to turn into Batman. The problem is, the law actually says you can be Batman, without providing any guidance or limitation as to how such action should be taken (For example: Can you use a gun? How long can you hold the person? What force is appropriate?). So among the people we should blame are stupid legislators writing stupid laws, the effects of which will never accrue to them but cause untold damage down the road. 

[Rez]

15 minutes ago, baddog said:

Yes, you said it was illegal detainment. How can a show exist if this is true? The felony stops are done with pistols drawn. The suspicious stops are done until searches can be done. The lone officer will cuff for his protection, especially if there are numerous people in the vehicle. I have no problem with that. Grandma?????
 

I couldn't get all the facts from the video ( what was said or anything like that). Maybe he thought he was armed. I still don’t see the problem. I also know not all cops follow protocol. The way they have been “HUNTED and EXECUTED” lately, I give them a little leeway with their stops.....but that’s just me.

I don't give cops any leeway. The Constitution always trumps their feelings. In any official interaction between law enforcement and a citizen, the cop has a gun to your head, whether the gun is drawn or not. They don't get to abuse my rights simply because they get nervous or angry. We, as citizens, trade a little bit of our freedom to law enforcement in the name of safety and protection. In exchange, law enforcement is permitted to use force to secure its objectives, including and especially deadly force. I can't use deadly force against cops, and it would be extremely hard to prove to a jury that a person was using deadly force against a cop in self-defense. So cops have all the power in relation to the person they are stopping. In a routine traffic stop, you might find yourself billy clubbed , or killed, over a cop's misunderstanding. There are plenty of video-recorded examples of citizens being gunned down for absolutely no reason, simply because the cop got scared. I don't care if they get scared, at least as far as my attitude toward them not murdering people goes. So I don't give them any leeway at all, and none of us should. They are to be held to a far higher standard than the rest of us, because their failure to rise to that standard is often deadly. If that is too stressful or too difficult, or too Constitutionally limited, they need to choose a different career. That being said, I am a strong supporter of law enforcement in general, and fully respect many of those who choose to pursue it -- It is an honorable profession. However, I reject any tendency to treat them as if they are above the law because their job is hard. A lot of jobs are hard, but that doesn't mean they get to be trigger-happy over it. 

[tvc184]

41 minutes ago, Rez Ipsa said:

Some thoughts:

The video guy is "involved," but he did not, by taking the video alone, participate in furtherance of a crime. Taking a video of anything, as you know, is protected free speech, unless there is some statute saying you can't do so (such as in areas that contain sensitive national security information). If there was evidence that the video guy had entered into a conspiracy with the other two there would be a reason to indict him (as you have noted). But the video by itself does not evince his intention to further a crime. All of the evidence made available to the public indicates that he and the other two thought they were in the process of a lawful citizen's arrest. The video is only evidence of his intention to record the event. 

I'm worried that charging this guy will discourage private citizens from taking videos of crimes. The video he took is crucial, valuable evidence, without which the world would have to rely on only the testimony of the shooter. In other words, there would have been no charges without the video. So we are charging a guy for providing the only evidence upon which the state's case is based, evidence which he voluntarily turned over. I'm not trying to paint him as a saint. But I am arguing for an extremely liberal approach to the right to film public events. We need people to do so. My gut feeling is that the fewer videos that are taken of events like this, the more it benefits either one of two groups to the detriment of the public: (1) criminals and (2) public officials who wish to hide things. We should encourage people to take such videos.

All of that aside, I think he is being charged, not for taking the video, but for "moving" his car in a way that blocked Arbery. I have some concerns with that. If the citizen's arrest law was triggered, moving the car in a way to block Arbery to further that arrest was arguably a lawful action. However, even if the arrest law was not triggered, it is extremely difficult to tell from the video that he did anything at all, so I think the prosecution is grasping at straws. My guess is they are using this charge to get the video guy to spill on the other two in exchange for leniency. 

Also, on a somewhat unrelated note, the Georgia citizen's arrest law does not require that the citizen doing the arrest "witness" the crime. See Ga. Code 17-4-60. It is sufficient if the crime occur within the citizen's immediate knowledge. The question then becomes what qualifies as a "crime" within "immediate knowledge?" In this case, there had been multiple reports of trespassing (and apparently reports of theft) and Arbery was seen sprinting out of the house (as well as being caught on video multiple times). Importantly, if the suspected crime is a felony, the citizen doesn't even need to have "immediate knowledge." Where the crime is a felony, it is sufficient only to have "reasonable and probable grounds for suspicion." Burglary is a felony in Georgia. The important thing is that the citizen doesn't need to know that the person suspected of the crime has committed a felony. So when citizens see a guy sprinting out of a home that was not his, and had been caught on video multiple times in that dwelling that was not his, it was at a minimum reasonable for the neighbors to suspect that the felony of burglary had been committed, thus triggering a citizen's arrest under Georgia law. And, even if burglary were not the crime, trespassing is a crime, and they had "immediate knowledge" of it. Under both types of crime presented in the statute, the citizen's arrest law was triggered, or it is at least reasonable to argue that it was. 

That being said, I think the Georgia citizen's arrest law is stupid. Citizen's arrest laws in general are mind-numbingly stupid. They should only exist as a protection against a charge of kidnapping or false imprisonment in cases where citizens seize a person out of necessity where the crime is grave and has been committed in their presence, to protect life, or in other serious circumstances where the urgency of the moment requires private citizens to take action by holding another person. They should not exist as a proactive open door to citizens to take the law into their own hands, particularly where there is no immediate threat or urgency, as was the case in Georgia. Citizens arrest laws as written invite the profound stupidity we've witnessed in Georgia, where any dummy thinks the law allows him to turn into Batman. The problem is, the law actually says you can be Batman, without providing any guidance or limitation as to how such action should be taken (For example: Can you use a gun? How long can you hold the person? What force is appropriate?). So among the people we should blame are stupid legislators writing stupid laws, the effects of which will never accrue to them but cause untold damage down the road. 

I agree completely on video. I have intervened when I have seen officers trying to drop someone from making a video. The only issue is if the person gets too far into a scene. When a person is so close as to interfere with an officer, that isn’t legal but not because of the video. 

 I think it was earlier in this thread or maybe even another forum but I said that the video guy was reported to have take post in the attempted apprehension of Arbery. It was not from taking video. The three men were reported to have been all together in trying to arrest Arbery. Of course that is just from reports that I read which isn’t evidence 

In what GA calls immediate knowledge, I think Texas calls “in his presence”. Texas law says an arrest can be made if within his presence or view. Obviously within view is to actually witness the crime but I think in his presence means close enough to know it is happening right now. Like a person hears glass break and turns a corner and sees a man standing next to a broken window and a hammer is on the ground. The crime wasn’t within view but it was within the person’s “presence”. I think that the GA law is similar. Immediate knowledge means you are close enough to know that a crime has been committed. If aneighbor calls you 5 minutes later about a possible crime, is that immediate? I think not but I don’t feel like looking up GA case law. 

[WOSdrummer99]

14 hours ago, Rez Ipsa said:

Unless Simmons Dr in Orange is closed to non-whites? 

Like all streets in our great nation, it is open to all races. In fact, Simmons drive is host to boat races, fishing tournaments, and many local celebrations. The area is not the above mentioned "track" that some still insist.

[CardinalBacker]

1 hour ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

Like all streets in our great nation, it is open to all races. In fact, Simmons drive is host to boat races, fishing tournaments, and many local celebrations. The area is not the above mentioned "track" that some still insist.

You been there, huh?

How many of those boat races, fishing tournaments, and local celebrations happen in the middle of the night? You get what I’m saying though. Sometimes, whether we like it or not, we are conspicuous by only our presence. You can debate whether that’s right or wrong all you want, but it is the way it is. 

Simple question for you that nobody else will answer. Do you feel like there’s a violence problem in the black community?

[baddog]

16 hours ago, Rez Ipsa said:

I don't give cops any leeway. The Constitution always trumps their feelings. In any official interaction between law enforcement and a citizen, the cop has a gun to your head, whether the gun is drawn or not. They don't get to abuse my rights simply because they get nervous or angry. We, as citizens, trade a little bit of our freedom to law enforcement in the name of safety and protection. In exchange, law enforcement is permitted to use force to secure its objectives, including and especially deadly force. I can't use deadly force against cops, and it would be extremely hard to prove to a jury that a person was using deadly force against a cop in self-defense. So cops have all the power in relation to the person they are stopping. In a routine traffic stop, you might find yourself billy clubbed , or killed, over a cop's misunderstanding. There are plenty of video-recorded examples of citizens being gunned down for absolutely no reason, simply because the cop got scared. I don't care if they get scared, at least as far as my attitude toward them not murdering people goes. So I don't give them any leeway at all, and none of us should. They are to be held to a far higher standard than the rest of us, because their failure to rise to that standard is often deadly. If that is too stressful or too difficult, or too Constitutionally limited, they need to choose a different career. That being said, I am a strong supporter of law enforcement in general, and fully respect many of those who choose to pursue it -- It is an honorable profession. However, I reject any tendency to treat them as if they are above the law because their job is hard. A lot of jobs are hard, but that doesn't mean they get to be trigger-happy over it. 

Didn’t I say, “that’s just me”?