-
Features
They All Look Alike
- Thread starter ZiprHead
- Start date
Have we really reached the dysgenetic bottom where we are unable to judge an event by itself, without importing some sort of supernatural agency as an explanation? In the middle ages the Devil or God's punishment was the presumed at-fault interloper. Some seem to have exchanged an invisible god for an invisible power structure. Now it's racism; but only if the victim is black. Yet it's the same anti-intellectualism.
What kind of retarded shit is this?^
I make no such assumption.
I'm saying that people who act like thugs should expect to be treated like thugs.
In case you're forgetting this guy was a criminal.
He acted evasive when the police tried to confirm his identity (most people will have no problem rattling off their name and birthdate, those who have not recently moved will likewise have no problem rattling off their address.) This got them suspicious, now they treated him as a probable suspect rather than merely a possible one. At that point the cops are going to want to check for weapons and this moron resisted. Sorry, but you don't get to do that.
- - - Updated - - -
Yes, it is a reason to be suspicious--and that's a reason to ensure he's not armed.
- - - Updated - - -
You nailed the problem--it sounded faked. At that point they're going to ensure he isn't armed.
No--the problem wasn't sass, but that they were looking for a criminal. When he reacted like that they would suspect they have their man--and the next step is to ensure he's not armed. Cops are allowed to frisk you for weapons!
- - - Updated - - -
Yes, because his resistance was illegal. He wasn't arrested on the warrant that was for the other guy.
FFS, the exact problem is that they made zero attempt to confirm his identity. None.
The mistake they made wasn't some arcane procedural foible - it was a failure to conduct the most basic, routine, and mundane function of police procedure that I can't believe anybody is actually defending them.
The common thread in these sorts of stories is that everyone who fights tooth and nail to back up the police for every transgression seems to forget that regular people don't become (nor should they be expected to be) ice-water blooded automatons. Mumford's status as a criminal, of drug possession by the way - not rape & murder as some other posters have tried to insinuate, actually made him keenly aware of whether there should be a warrant out for him and an attempt to arrest him on a faulty warrant of course would trigger a fight-or-flight response.
When Mumford complied and got out of his car, if the cop was actually interested in doing his duty, simply asking for Mumford's ID could have defused the entire situation. Rather he operated on a faulty assumption that Mumford was indeed the person he was looking for and made no attempt to investigate because of his hunch.
Mumford twice repeating his name was Patrick is not probable cause to conclude a false name was provided. No more than a hypothetical officer accosting you would have in hearing that you're named 'Lauren'. By your token Reince Priebus should land in the pokey with every police interaction because there's no way his parents would have named him that.
Fire, brimstone, and rapists & murderers be damned - this was a failure on the most basic level of policing. It's a strange mentality indeed where the trained professionals are afforded every transgression but untrained laymen none.
On the plus side at least Mumford didn't end up paralyzed like this poor bastard.
What they're not allowed to do is arrest you. Watch the video again - he told Mumford that he was under arrest, not that they were detaining him for investigation and were going pat him down under the auspices of Terry. They clearly were not interested in investigating here because they were operating on a hunch.
RavenSky
The Doctor's Wife
So you don't actually have a reason. Got it.
Different from opening post situation.
Cops in this example were looking for a suspect without photo or knowledge of the suspect's name. Guy they had tried to flee. Their force was excessive. But the initial conditions were different.
Opening post. Police had a photo and a name associated with a warrant. They knew or should have known exactly who they were seeking. They should have checked ID and saved application of force for arrest.
Things went to shit before they had a chance to.
Malintent
Veteran Member
"Mouthy" is an unfair representation. "mouthy" is as far as anyone can get away with (on a "bad day"). This particular person was not really that "mouthy".. he was flat out belligerent. He insisted he had rights that he did not have (like to first see the warrant before answering the cops questions - not how it works). When police are conducting an investigation (seeking to exercise a Warrant), and you obstruct their ability to perform that investigation by making yourself appear to be the suspect they are looking for, by evading questions, and half-answering with belligerent attitude, then you are obstructing justice.
Police can detain a suspect for 24 hours before so much as charging them for a crime. These cops were quite patient with this asshole, despite his belligerence. They could have just walked up to him and said, "you fit a description (black male, x height, x weight) and are physically located in the suspects driveway... and you initially refuse to say your name... then you finally answer with "umm... Patrick?".. like he just fucking made up the name... ya, going to arrest you... no fucking doubt.
Crazy Eddie
Veteran Member
"Look hard enough?" We've ALREADY FOUND the solutions to this problem. Police departments all over the country have long since figured out that if you treat everyone with dignity and respect, if you practice effective communication, de-escalation tactics and encourage officers to value the rights, safety and LIVES of everyone they come into contact with, they STOP KILLING PEOPLE, and the community becomes less combative, less anxious, less nervous, and FAR less dangerous.
In other words, you ACTUALLY live in a fantasy world where there are no solutions and we should just accept the way things are because this is as good as it's gonna get. And that is 100% BULLSHIT. Aside from your usual knee-jerk opposition to CHANGING ANYTHING AT ALL, it is also demonstrably false, and your opposition to even ATTEMPTING to change things is a drastically immoral proposition.
Crazy Eddie
Veteran Member
It very well could be. But I was referencing Will's post suggesting that many police officers in major metropolitan areas are being trained by current and former Israeli commandos. In light of the kind of backlash those tactics usually generate in Israel, the current situation should not really be surprising in that case.They treat black people the way Israelis treat Palestinians and then act all surprised when black people start shooting at them from sniper nests...
Why does this have to be about race? The cops in this instance could probably have handled it differently. Hindsight is always 20/20. But cops are people like the rest of us and at times will screw up like the rest of us. Why isn't this just a screw up?
Crazy Eddie
Veteran Member
Things when to shit BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T BOTHER TO. Again, asking to see his ID would have prevented the entire confrontation.
And again, it is obvious to everyone at this point that the reason you will not accept that VERY simple point is because you maintain it is always -- repeat, ALWAYS -- safe to assume that The Blacks are liars and criminals and that ANY misbehavior is conclusive evidence of guilt.
Will Wiley
Veteran Member
Where was that discovered? I have heard of some instances but can't recall exactly where? Thanks
Will Wiley
Veteran Member
I've noticed over the years that you repeatedly use this term "bad guy" when you get called on things. What is your definition of "bad guy"?
fast
Contributor
Patrick answered the officer's question. I was actually kind of proud of that. He was sitting there chilling and all of a sudden, and taken by surprise (out of the blue), there were officers coming up to him wanting to know his name. <Lights shining, cameras rolling, officers present. No flap, no lip, no running.> He answered! Good for him. I wish I saw behavior like that more often.
It's barely audible, however, and because of that, the officer didn't hear him. These officers know in the back of their mind that if the person before them is who they think he might be, that they would soon be executing a warrant, so they're a bit on edge to begin with, but Patrick doesn't know any of that. He's still clueless about why he was even approached to begin with, and he's not looking for any trouble, but despite not knowing why he is being asked his name, he meekly, almost inaudibly, answered.
Because the officer didn't hear his answer, the officer asked again, and to the officer, it seemed that the request for an answer was being met with silence and lack of cooperation. Here's the thing though, the officer didn't merely ask again but instead added the comment, "I'm not going to ask you again." Patrick knows in his mind that he did in fact answer, so he was perplexed. That explains the, "uh" and hesitation before saying his name again.
The video showed a question mark, "uh ... Patrick?" That is a mischaracterization. An understandable one but a mistake nonetheless. From the officers perspective, he's dealing with a guy who first refused to answer who only after being asked again was met with an "uh" followed by a pause which is in turn followed by a name stated with an inflection. Because of the peculiarity, they did become quite suspicious of deception. And of course, there was no deception at all--just confusion as to why he was being told that he wouldn't be asked again--the very same question he knows that he just answered.
What happened next is not what some of us might expect. Some of us might expect the officer to ask for an ID. Ordinarily, that would be reasonable, but the last thing the officer wants to do is open an avenue for this individual to reach for a gun under the guise of reaching for an ID, so with the belief the officer has possibly located the suspect coupled with what appears to be odd behavior, he decides to postpone any quest for an ID and first search him for weapons...to secure the scene outside of the vehicle before proceeding.
Up to this point, things could have been handled better. Hell, things should have been handled better. But, events unfolded as they did, and that's that.
"Turn around and put your hands on the car." That was said. Not once but twice. From there, things got ugly, but was it because of race? I think the answer to this is very tricky. Had it been a white guy, things probably wouldn't have turned out as it did. A person raised in a more authoritarian atmosphere would more likely have acquiesced with less resistance, and I think that has more to do with this than meets the eye.
Yes, Patrick could have prevented this from happening, just as the police could have prevented this from happening. That's not to say the police aren't responsible for failing to keep the situation from escalating. Hell, they could have calmly explained why they're doing what they're doing and provided reassurance that everything was going to be okay. A little friendly talk can go along way. The police could still be vigilant without increasing the risk of injury to themselves, or anyone else.
Damn right I'm saying the police could have done better, but if race is going to be offered into the mix as an explanation, I feel some latitude should be given to my comment that Patrick could have prevented this from happening--not to deflect responsibility from the police but to show that Patrick's lack of obedience may be attributable to how he was raised.
This might explain why this happens to white people too--a cultural shift due to the times where physical touch in punishment equates to an espousal by liberals and progressives as horrid abuse. If we can better teach people to listen, so much of what we see today could be avoided, and that is despite the arguments these things wouldn't happen if the police were perfect in how they handle situations.
This reminds me of a comedy routine where Williams said, "wanna know why the police are intense? It's because we're intense." If Patrick would have gotten out and put his hands on the car as instructed, he would not have gotten tased. I know it's taboo to say such a thing when the police mishandled the situation, but unlike a few others, my goal isn't to deflect responsibility from where it rightly lies.
Instead, I want to dig down and offer an explanation other than race. There is racism in this world, but to look at that video and think race is a causal factor makes me want to scream no and yes at the same time. The officers actions had nothing to do with race, but if there is a link between declining authoritarianism and race, then well, maybe, just possibly, Patrick didn't listen, not because he's black but because of how he's not taught to listen to an authority figure when he's told to.
It's not an issue of right and wrong, or who is responsible or not. That has forever been the talking points incessantly rehashed. I just think we need to do a better job of delinking race to every instance of irresponsible police behavior. Talking about who is responsible isn't getting us anywhere in calming the escalating emotions from either side.
Here's a plan. Teach children to respect those that haven't earned it. It might be a hard philosophical pill to swallow, but it sure as hell goes down quicker than the lumps in your throats that come from burying the dead.
It's barely audible, however, and because of that, the officer didn't hear him. These officers know in the back of their mind that if the person before them is who they think he might be, that they would soon be executing a warrant, so they're a bit on edge to begin with, but Patrick doesn't know any of that. He's still clueless about why he was even approached to begin with, and he's not looking for any trouble, but despite not knowing why he is being asked his name, he meekly, almost inaudibly, answered.
Because the officer didn't hear his answer, the officer asked again, and to the officer, it seemed that the request for an answer was being met with silence and lack of cooperation. Here's the thing though, the officer didn't merely ask again but instead added the comment, "I'm not going to ask you again." Patrick knows in his mind that he did in fact answer, so he was perplexed. That explains the, "uh" and hesitation before saying his name again.
The video showed a question mark, "uh ... Patrick?" That is a mischaracterization. An understandable one but a mistake nonetheless. From the officers perspective, he's dealing with a guy who first refused to answer who only after being asked again was met with an "uh" followed by a pause which is in turn followed by a name stated with an inflection. Because of the peculiarity, they did become quite suspicious of deception. And of course, there was no deception at all--just confusion as to why he was being told that he wouldn't be asked again--the very same question he knows that he just answered.
What happened next is not what some of us might expect. Some of us might expect the officer to ask for an ID. Ordinarily, that would be reasonable, but the last thing the officer wants to do is open an avenue for this individual to reach for a gun under the guise of reaching for an ID, so with the belief the officer has possibly located the suspect coupled with what appears to be odd behavior, he decides to postpone any quest for an ID and first search him for weapons...to secure the scene outside of the vehicle before proceeding.
Up to this point, things could have been handled better. Hell, things should have been handled better. But, events unfolded as they did, and that's that.
"Turn around and put your hands on the car." That was said. Not once but twice. From there, things got ugly, but was it because of race? I think the answer to this is very tricky. Had it been a white guy, things probably wouldn't have turned out as it did. A person raised in a more authoritarian atmosphere would more likely have acquiesced with less resistance, and I think that has more to do with this than meets the eye.
Yes, Patrick could have prevented this from happening, just as the police could have prevented this from happening. That's not to say the police aren't responsible for failing to keep the situation from escalating. Hell, they could have calmly explained why they're doing what they're doing and provided reassurance that everything was going to be okay. A little friendly talk can go along way. The police could still be vigilant without increasing the risk of injury to themselves, or anyone else.
Damn right I'm saying the police could have done better, but if race is going to be offered into the mix as an explanation, I feel some latitude should be given to my comment that Patrick could have prevented this from happening--not to deflect responsibility from the police but to show that Patrick's lack of obedience may be attributable to how he was raised.
This might explain why this happens to white people too--a cultural shift due to the times where physical touch in punishment equates to an espousal by liberals and progressives as horrid abuse. If we can better teach people to listen, so much of what we see today could be avoided, and that is despite the arguments these things wouldn't happen if the police were perfect in how they handle situations.
This reminds me of a comedy routine where Williams said, "wanna know why the police are intense? It's because we're intense." If Patrick would have gotten out and put his hands on the car as instructed, he would not have gotten tased. I know it's taboo to say such a thing when the police mishandled the situation, but unlike a few others, my goal isn't to deflect responsibility from where it rightly lies.
Instead, I want to dig down and offer an explanation other than race. There is racism in this world, but to look at that video and think race is a causal factor makes me want to scream no and yes at the same time. The officers actions had nothing to do with race, but if there is a link between declining authoritarianism and race, then well, maybe, just possibly, Patrick didn't listen, not because he's black but because of how he's not taught to listen to an authority figure when he's told to.
It's not an issue of right and wrong, or who is responsible or not. That has forever been the talking points incessantly rehashed. I just think we need to do a better job of delinking race to every instance of irresponsible police behavior. Talking about who is responsible isn't getting us anywhere in calming the escalating emotions from either side.
Here's a plan. Teach children to respect those that haven't earned it. It might be a hard philosophical pill to swallow, but it sure as hell goes down quicker than the lumps in your throats that come from burying the dead.
I'm sure with proper nutrition we won't be seeing any more posts like this, it was good for a sardonic laugh though
fast
Contributor
edited out
This really needs some evidence--de-escalation tactics only work when you have time to use them. Most police shootings go down very quickly, no time to talk the guy down.
And when you actually look at the facts most of the controversial shootings turn out to be totally justified, it's just BLM thinks that any police shooting of a black is wrong, period, and the news media plays along because controversy gets eyeballs.