Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hello Ash, hope you are having a good week. I typically don't trust CNN as a source of information. First off, the fact the he was black is irrelevant. The suspect description provided was that of a black man so it's not like they set out and stopped him because of his race, they stopped him based on a suspect description which by the way many people get wrong when they are in crisis.
Secondly, we get to the topic of "bystandard cell phone video". I am would have to see bodycam footage to see if the Police Officers acted appropriately. It is a plausible that a person of color felt he or she is being stopped for no reason, when in fact they fit the description of a crime. That's not profiling, that's responding to a suspect description.
Witness testimony isn't really the greatest from my experience and especially the way CNN wrote that article pointing out race shows me that. There are crimes committed by people of many backgrounds that are stopped, detained and let go. My gut tells me that this guy didn't comply or understand why he was being detained and things escalated and ultimately he got arrested. As stated, I would need to see footage of the whole incident and an unbiased news source before condemning the San Antonio Police. Again "forceful arrest". Comply and it's easy, if you don't then what do you think is going to happen, force has to be used, people struggle, they don't want to be put in handcuffs, etc.
You lost me at “I don’t trust CNN.” That’s like saying I get my news from Breitbart.
It was well documented in SA so you can find multiple accounts.
Austin paid out some of that money to families of criminals who were fighting the cops attempting to arrest or detain them for legitimate reasons.
One guy was wanted for the aggravated assault & robbery of a handicapped person in a wheelchair who was using an ATM. That perp the next evening was sleeping in a car with his homies when the cops showed up on a complaint of shots being fired, then was killed when the cop tried to take his gun away from him.
Another was caught trying to swindle a bank and ran away from an officer on the scene, and was shot dead in an ensuing struggle under a nearby bridge, IIRC.
Those particular criminals brought it on themselves, but the city bought their families off with taxpayers money.
Then there was the mentally ill woman who flipped out and was threatening to stab a housing project neighbor in the parking lot. An officer was trying to deescalate the confrontation when the crazy woman abruptly started to stab the other lady, so he justifiably shot her to prevent it. Afterwards, the dead woman’s family complained it was unfair.
Of course there have been a handful who were unjustly killed by trigger-happy cops and did not deserve to die. at the hands of the Austin police.
Those are the ones whose families have legitimate causes and deserve compensation.
Then there was the teacher who was treated brutally by a cop who had stopped her for a minor traffic violation. The verbal resistance she gave him did not warrant her being roughly thrown to the ground to be cuffed & stuffed. That incident is obviously all too common and those types of officers need better training and an attitude adjustment. Or else a different career.
Not Austin, but in a Hill Country town a few years back a disturbed teenage kid (17 or 18) was shooting a rifle at a reservoir next to a neighborhood. ResidentS called 911, so my cop nephew on duty responded in his police cruiser and pulled up next to a colleague who arrived on scene first. As they both exited from their Vehicles the kid started shooting at them and put some bullet holes in my nephew’s cruiser. Both officers drew their service weapons, but the other one fired a couple of shots that killed the young man.
An unfortunate situation, but neither cop wanted to stand around and get shot. The dead teen‘s family complained that his death was not warranted, but I don’t think their attempt to sue went anywhere. I am very thankful that my nephew was not the one who shot the guy.
You lost me at “I don’t trust CNN.” That’s like saying I get my news from Breitbart.
It was well documented in SA so you can find multiple accounts.
For what its worth just about every news source today has some level of bias in it. I have a general understanding of the SA incident but I personally did not dig deep into it.. CNN tends to skew heavily left and I have seen many instances of them filtering out important details that lead to the occurrences they present. Fox skews heavily right and I don't trust anything they say as far as I can throw an elephant. When it comes to news, I don't immediately jump on the first story I hear but I do alot of research on other stories before I conclude an opinion because of how easy it is to formulate an opinion without knowing the whole story, and also how incredibly dangerous that is as we become easy to steer.
My opinion is, the real problem we're facing is polarization. I don't think I've ever seen a period of time where this nation has been so divided up to this point. I personally feel both sides have valid points but neither side is willing to compromise even the slightest to either party. bipartisanship seems to be long gone. I support neither left or right. I don't like the idea of following too closely to either as either parties ideals tend to become blinding making one oblivious to the faults of either side.. ..and both sides have quite a few of them IMO.
I just linked y’all to the first one I found. I wasn’t portraying an bias. Y’all went there.
I was going to hold this back as I don't wish to cause strife but I will tell you my honest opinion on the SA incident. It is this...
We as Americans do not have as many rights as we think we have. Our rights typically end where either
A.) They impede upon the safety of others
B.) They interfere with the judicial system
C.) They interfere with others rights
D.) They interfere with the rights people have to establish and conduct business
Technically, even protesting requires an agreement between both parties upon a place of establishment, and they also cannot obstruct operations or business otherwise 'lawfully' they can be removed, even with force... ...This doesn't mean that I specifically agree with removing them (especially with force) - but that I understand by law, it technically can be done... The grey area comes in where, if they refused to allow them to establish, would their voices have a chance of being heard...our laws simply put are not perfect.
Much of our conflicts today, is due to lack of understanding of what we are really entitled to and where the line of our boundaries ends.
I will agree with, the ENFORCEMENT of our rights are very unfairly distributed between certain minorities, wealth classes and other social classes, but the laws specifically 'technically' make their actions 'legitimate'.. ..not that I agree with how these situations are handled but.. ..I can't fault the cop as much as I fault to judicial system they work under. The cop is merely just the messenger... and once more our laws specifically are definitely unfairly biased.. ..but technically the 'actions' carried out under them are 'legitimate' in legal frameworks.
Now for the SA incident specifically, technically by law, a cop has the ability to arrest any civilian if he has reason to believe he committed a crime. And unfortunately, they leave a very broad and grey area in the 'reason to believe' section as that is entirely up to the law enforcers discretion. Whether we agree or disagree .. .. it technically was 'lawful' .. and while this was a news breaking event for us, it was most likely another 2pm day for the cop, simply put carrying out his duties.
The problem is deeper than the cop
it is the law itself, to which parties they are carried out upon, and the imperfections within the law...
... I agree that it was extremely unfair .. and I wouldn't have been happy had it happened to me either. I mean, as a black I am very cognitive of the possibilities of excessive force being used upon me should I get pulled over, I typically do my best to 'not' escalate a situation however... Do I believe profiling exists? yes, Do I believe it was unfair for the man? yes.. ..but technically the frameworks for his arrest were perfectly legitimate .. so its more to it than just the cop.
Now the thing is, what happens when you try to rework the whole judicial system, and my opinion is, regardless of how we try to shape it, it would be impossible to please all parties and all classes. There will always be a party in disfavor for various .. .. what scares me about these current reforms isn't so much the need for reform, but how suddenly it was sprung up on us on a national level and how easily something like that can backfire which I personally do not think alot of people are thinking deeply about.
Racism and Profiling, cannot and will never be cured by laws, or even changing them to tailor more toward minorities. If that were possible we would have had a much more peaceful world, ages ago. While I deeply applaud the appreciation of these social imbalances being recognized, it will take alot more than reforming the police to truly end them, in fact such a thing 'could' potentially actually make the problem worse as certain classes will begin to believe certain minorities are being catered towards while their protections were suddenly uprooted, the true result may in fact actually end in a massive political strife between both parties.. and neither will win if that happens.
As for the media, I do believe much of it is biased and very agenda based. I'm not saying all of it is, but especially after the latest riots and protests after digging deeper into certain stories I have found multiple events where major news sources either edited out certain pieces of information, or completely omitted them that were very important in determining fault and liability, and I have a terrible feeling that media is preparing to pit us against each other to fight the right causes, for the wrong reasons and ultimately manipulate us to ultimately serve their agenda... I'm not saying the same for the SA incident, but stating to be careful upon examining a media source and interpreting it as 100% truth, especially right now while there is so much political strife.
Thats my true opinion.
Last edited by Need4Camaro; 10-01-2020 at 11:13 PM..
For what its worth just about every news source today has some level of bias in it. I have a general understanding of the SA incident but I personally did not dig deep into it.. CNN tends to skew heavily left and I have seen many instances of them filtering out important details that lead to the occurrences they present. Fox skews heavily right and I don't trust anything they say as far as I can throw an elephant. When it comes to news, I don't immediately jump on the first story I hear but I do alot of research on other stories before I conclude an opinion because of how easy it is to formulate an opinion without knowing the whole story, and also how incredibly dangerous that is as we become easy to steer.
My opinion is, the real problem we're facing is polarization. I don't think I've ever seen a period of time where this nation has been so divided up to this point. I personally feel both sides have valid points but neither side is willing to compromise even the slightest to either party. bipartisanship seems to be long gone. I support neither left or right. I don't like the idea of following too closely to either as either parties ideals tend to become blinding making one oblivious to the faults of either side.. ..and both sides have quite a few of them IMO.
thats because you are young. The civil rights movement, vietnam, mccarthyism, internment of japanese citizens were much more polarizing.
One big difference is the 24/7 news cycle. The human brain simply cant handle it.
Police respond to the information given to them by the complainant aka the 9-1-1 caller. If someone fits the description of an actor in a violent crime then sometimes Police do take precautions detaining an individual for safety reasons. Is it scary and inconvenient? Yes. Do they sometimes get it wrong and go overboard, yes. But it's not the norm. It's a simple concept, if you are given a lawful order comply. If you have a problem with it afterwords, go to internal fairs to address it, but in the moment is not the time to not follow commands, not complying escalates things.
I understand the "dragnet" approach..whereupon you round up as many people fitting the description and then weed out the ones that obviously don't fit, but it can be very intimidating for people. I can only imagine how it'd be if I was just going to the store and I'm approached by a cop with a gun screaming at me in a harsh manner and giving no explanation. While I come from a generation that believes in respect of authority figures, in today's climate where many are adversarial to police more than ever before, non-compliance is going to become more commonplace and police are going to have to learn how to deal with it beyond resorting to physicality and worse yet deadly force.
I respect the profession. It's a tough job, hard on the officer and his/her family. My grandfather was a beat cop in Harlem who got promoted to dectective. Back then, policemen were pillars of communities. They made people feel safe. They helped give justice to those affected by violent crimes. In 9/11, many risked their lives to save others.
I am concerned about the crop of officers that seem to have forgotten that they are here to "serve and protect". They are not gods and while they are technically enforcers of the law, "enforcer" doesn't mean beating someone or taking someone out. I understand that they are in the minority but this minority is gaining ground thanks to bodycams and cell phones. Kicking a guy is no longer unseen.
Additionally, I am concerned that the public's mistrust of police will result in fewer solved crimes as people will be reluctant to provide info/intel. They'd rather just suck up the death of a loved one than provide any assistance to police. Or deal with cartels. Police still need informants to make a dent in gangs/drugs/etc. and that pool will continue to diminish due to people not wanting to "help the enemy". Sadly, the most affected will be poor minority neighborhoods.
I was going to hold this back as I don't wish to cause strife but I will tell you my honest opinion on the SA incident. It is this...
We as Americans do not have as many rights as we think we have. Our rights typically end where either
A.) They impede upon the safety of others
B.) They interfere with the judicial system
C.) They interfere with others rights
D.) They interfere with the rights people have to establish and conduct business
Technically, even protesting requires an agreement between both parties upon a place of establishment, and they also cannot obstruct operations or business otherwise 'lawfully' they can be removed, even with force... ...This doesn't mean that I specifically agree with removing them (especially with force) - but that I understand by law, it technically can be done... The grey area comes in where, if they refused to allow them to establish, would their voices have a chance of being heard...our laws simply put are not perfect.
Much of our conflicts today, is due to lack of understanding of what we are really entitled to and where the line of our boundaries ends.
Yup, the current notions of left vs. right in the US are really a proxy for population density. The more closely people live and interact together, the more chance there is for something to go awry. It takes a lot more compromise and trust in strangers with different backgrounds to operate effectively, and the only organizations capable of taking on such tasks are typically government entities. This compromise and trust can be cultivated through a combination of standardized vital services (infrastructure, education, healthcare) and judicial frameworks (criminal justice via police and DAs, civil court).
This is why people who live closer to the cores of cities, whether by choice or not, tend to have a different mindset of what freedom means. The separation between our actions and their externalities is much smaller. For city people, freedom seems to be more about freedom from worry that other civilians will negatively impact your life, whereas for less dense populations, freedom seems to be more about freedom from being told how to conduct one's self. At least, that's my young, naive, fourth-generation-west-Texan-but-has-lived-all-over-the-world view.
Quote:
I will agree with, the ENFORCEMENT of our rights are very unfairly distributed between certain minorities, wealth classes and other social classes, but the laws specifically 'technically' make their actions 'legitimate'.. ..not that I agree with how these situations are handled but.. ..I can't fault the cop as much as I fault to judicial system they work under. The cop is merely just the messenger... and once more our laws specifically are definitely unfairly biased.. ..but technically the 'actions' carried out under them are 'legitimate' in legal frameworks.
I wouldn't disagree entirely, but it seems to me that cops and their unions have a lot more bearing on how the judicial system operates than just being "messengers". The prosecutors want a high conviction rate in order to get promoted. The judges are elected and need to be "tough on crime" in order to get reelected.
But what's in it for the cops? That's the question I arrive at. Other than brownie points for punishing "bad guys", there's no external motivation, which means the job itself is the reward. They're the glue that holds the systemic injustices in place. I don't doubt that the majority of cops sincerely think they're making the world a better place, but the indignation they have at any suggestion of reform suggests that they truly believe they're bullies for the good guys and get off on it.
Quote:
Now for the SA incident specifically, technically by law, a cop has the ability to arrest any civilian if he has reason to believe he committed a crime. And unfortunately, they leave a very broad and grey area in the 'reason to believe' section as that is entirely up to the law enforcers discretion. Whether we agree or disagree .. .. it technically was 'lawful' .. and while this was a news breaking event for us, it was most likely another 2pm day for the cop, simply put carrying out his duties.
The problem is deeper than the cop
it is the law itself, to which parties they are carried out upon, and the imperfections within the law...
... I agree that it was extremely unfair .. and I wouldn't have been happy had it happened to me either. I mean, as a black I am very cognitive of the possibilities of excessive force being used upon me should I get pulled over, I typically do my best to 'not' escalate a situation however... Do I believe profiling exists? yes, Do I believe it was unfair for the man? yes.. ..but technically the frameworks for his arrest were perfectly legitimate .. so its more to it than just the cop.
The legal framework is actually that you do not have to provide ID or talk to cops whatsoever. You have a constitutional right to be notified of the crime you are detained for. The Bill of Rights was specifically drafted to prevent incidents like this. Non-compliance with cops' orders and general disrespect aren't against the law. The DAs and judges know this, but they will not prosecute it because the only incentive they have to keep cops on their side is impunity.
The truth is, to get successfully through any interaction with police, you have to have a visible higher standing in society to them and/or be willing to compromise on your constitutional rights.
Quote:
Now the thing is, what happens when you try to rework the whole judicial system, and my opinion is, regardless of how we try to shape it, it would be impossible to please all parties and all classes. There will always be a party in disfavor for various .. .. what scares me about these current reforms isn't so much the need for reform, but how suddenly it was sprung up on us on a national level and how easily something like that can backfire which I personally do not think alot of people are thinking deeply about.
Racism and Profiling, cannot and will never be cured by laws, or even changing them to tailor more toward minorities. If that were possible we would have had a much more peaceful world, ages ago. While I deeply applaud the appreciation of these social imbalances being recognized, it will take alot more than reforming the police to truly end them, in fact such a thing 'could' potentially actually make the problem worse as certain classes will begin to believe certain minorities are being catered towards while their protections were suddenly uprooted, the true result may in fact actually end in a massive political strife between both parties.. and neither will win if that happens..
This hasn't been sudden at all though. With the advent of pocket cameras and social media, it's taken a decade of recorded police misconduct and displays of contempt for the public for the pot to boil. Police are the glue that holds the entire system of injustice in place.
They're the ones who have carte blanche. They're the ones who decide what kind of criminality gets pursued. For instance, APD is infamous for their rape kit backlog and for not even taking statements for robberies with no leads, but you know they'll unconstitutionally strip search a car for illicit substances if the driver is, say, a "30s Hispanic man with a 2000s-era silver Camry" if such a description was reported in a call for a convenience store robbery the day before. If that dude, whose constitutional rights are being violated, has a dime bag of coke from the previous weekend hidden in the glove box just like his clean-shaven white friend driving a 2010s 4Runner, he's now got a target on his back the rest of his life.
That's how these systemic injustices start. In addition to the many historic explanations around the economic disparities, the present paradigm of policing, which has only been around for 40-50 years, is exacerbating these injustices, not because the law permits it, but because police get off on it and the DAs and judges play along.
Quote:
As for the media, I do believe much of it is biased and very agenda based. I'm not saying all of it is, but especially after the latest riots and protests after digging deeper into certain stories I have found multiple events where major news sources either edited out certain pieces of information, or completely omitted them that were very important in determining fault and liability, and I have a terrible feeling that media is preparing to pit us against each other to fight the right causes, for the wrong reasons and ultimately manipulate us to ultimately serve their agenda... I'm not saying the same for the SA incident, but stating to be careful upon examining a media source and interpreting it as 100% truth, especially right now while there is so much political strife.
Thats my true opinion.
You do hit a lot of important points, and the big picture thinking is exactly where voters' minds need to be at.
The heated language I use is really like starting the negotiation with a lowball offer. Unfortunately, with the present two-party politics, hardball is the only thing that gets anything done at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Austin97
thats because you are young. The civil rights movement, vietnam, mccarthyism, internment of japanese citizens were much more polarizing.
One big difference is the 24/7 news cycle. The human brain simply cant handle it.
Yup, despite the current conception of the late 60s in many of younger peoples' minds, those who participated in the social movements weren't popular and were considered radicals. The links between the King assassination riots, LBJ (a Democrat) signing the Civil Rights Act, and the present alignment of Democrat vs. Republican coalitions is closer than most might want to admit.
I'm still in a wait-and-see mode for this election and the subsequent fallout from it, but a project I've been strongly considering taking on is using Colorado's voter initiative to collect signatures to get ranked-choice voting on the 2022 ballot. The voting system allows for more ideas and voices to be heard without strategically sacrificing your vote to candidates you strongly oppose. It's my genuine hope and belief that it will allow more diversity of opinions and less polarizing coalitions to form.
The legal framework is actually that you do not have to provide ID or talk to cops whatsoever. You have a constitutional right to be notified of the crime you are detained for. The Bill of Rights was specifically drafted to prevent incidents like this. Non-compliance with cops' orders and general disrespect aren't against the law. The DAs and judges know this, but they will not prosecute it because the only incentive they have to keep cops on their side is impunity.
The truth is, to get successfully through any interaction with police, you have to have a visible higher standing in society to them and/or be willing to compromise on your constitutional rights.
On a consensual basis this is true, but on a basis where you may through innocence or guilt become suspect with probable cause such as suspiciously matching the identity of the criminal they are seeking, they can still detain / arrest for further questioning even if you do not provide information to them.
This hasn't been sudden at all though. With the advent of pocket cameras and social media, it's taken a decade of recorded police misconduct and displays of contempt for the public for the pot to boil. Police are the glue that holds the entire system of injustice in place.
They're the ones who have carte blanche. They're the ones who decide what kind of criminality gets pursued. For instance, APD is infamous for their rape kit backlog and for not even taking statements for robberies with no leads, but you know they'll unconstitutionally strip search a car for illicit substances if the driver is, say, a "30s Hispanic man with a 2000s-era silver Camry" if such a description was reported in a call for a convenience store robbery the day before. If that dude, whose constitutional rights are being violated, has a dime bag of coke from the previous weekend hidden in the glove box just like his clean-shaven white friend driving a 2010s 4Runner, he's now got a target on his back the rest of his life.
That's how these systemic injustices start. In addition to the many historic explanations around the economic disparities, the present paradigm of policing, which has only been around for 40-50 years, is exacerbating these injustices, not because the law permits it, but because police get off on it and the DAs and judges play along.
I personally haven't done a great deal of digging with the APD specifically and wouldn't be surprised about much of it. injustice in the law system is definitely nothing new. What is new is how all of the sudden every other city is seemingly wanting to defund the police after the riots. I can understand the pent up pressure of society which lead to the riots and ultimately to these decisions, I just feel that while the intentions are good, deploying it so vastly and so quickly can lead to the opposite end of the spectrum of oppression, and neither side are good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westerner92
You do hit a lot of important points, and the big picture thinking is exactly where voters' minds need to be at.
The heated language I use is really like starting the negotiation with a lowball offer. Unfortunately, with the present two-party politics, hardball is the only thing that gets anything done at all.
Yup, despite the current conception of the late 60s in many of younger peoples' minds, those who participated in the social movements weren't popular and were considered radicals. The links between the King assassination riots, LBJ (a Democrat) signing the Civil Rights Act, and the present alignment of Democrat vs. Republican coalitions is closer than most might want to admit.
I'm still in a wait-and-see mode for this election and the subsequent fallout from it, but a project I've been strongly considering taking on is using Colorado's voter initiative to collect signatures to get ranked-choice voting on the 2022 ballot. The voting system allows for more ideas and voices to be heard without strategically sacrificing your vote to candidates you strongly oppose. It's my genuine hope and belief that it will allow more diversity of opinions and less polarizing coalitions to form.
Well, as far as my generation goes.. there was a time I thought the Bush era was bad.. ..I ain't saw nothin yet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
