Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-22-2016, 11:33 AM
 
21,884 posts, read 12,964,704 times
Reputation: 36895

Advertisements

Isn't it quite likely the cops ran the plates before ever approaching these cars and thus knew the criminal histories and possibly what to expect?

 
Old 09-22-2016, 11:34 AM
 
Location: Sonoran Desert
39,078 posts, read 51,224,761 times
Reputation: 28324
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimj View Post
While in some instances I can see your point about withholding evidence the question is, at what point or in how many hours/days should they release information and how much should they release?

Should they release all information only if there's a riot going to happen? Should they release all information only in the case of a black person being shot? How about only in the cases where a relative "claims" the officer did wrong even though they weren't there?
Should they release only a small portion? If so how small? If they only release a portion you've got to know that there are people out there (and here) that'd claim by doing that they're hiding something.

Should they allow the family of the deceased to see it before it's all over the TV or, should they see it at the same time as the public so they can see their loved on shot/killed in high-def over and over again?

Or, since no matter what the cops do they are judged to be lying,hiding something etc should they bring in reps from BLM,ACLU,Black Panthers,Al Sharpton etc to view all the evidence and have THEM prejudge whether it goes to trial or is publicly released.

Personally, I think they should be given some time, maybe 7-10 days after the incident to get their stuff together, inform the family and figure out what happened enough to release just enough to show their theory of what happened. If it's really contentious then no release, let the court system handle it just like any other criminal/civil proceeding.
Those are all good points. Things have changed though in the sense that we now live in a video world. People demand to see it and make up their own minds. It will be hard holding back information when something goes viral, as they say. When there a lot of witnesses that contradict police, there is going to be a controversy. Distrust will fuel outrage and outrage will lead to violence. So it has to be a flexible policy. Again, I go back to what Tulsa did versus Charlotte and the different result. Charlotte was not prepared to deal with this, Tulsa was. It shows. I get the sense from the speakers that no one expected this level of racial tension to be under the surface in Charlotte. Tulsa knows better.
 
Old 09-22-2016, 11:36 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,191,640 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post
And what do they have to abide by if there is no permit?

You say you are educated, but keep skirting the question, so I'll ask again.

By law, and from the democratic link I posted, if you don't have a permit, what must you abide by in NC?
You can't block roads or cause damage. The minutia is irrelevant. You do not have to get anyones permission to protest.
 
Old 09-22-2016, 11:37 AM
 
21,884 posts, read 12,964,704 times
Reputation: 36895
All cops should wear body cams wired for not just video but audio, and all film should be made immediately available. However, I don't think the facts, even if exonerating, would interfere with the "protesters'" agenda.
 
Old 09-22-2016, 11:37 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,191,640 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMESMH View Post
Amazing that you've made it to type this with this attitude ^^^^^.

Do you want anarchy? It sounds like it.
You do not know what Anarchy is. Anarchy is the theory of you do your thing, I'll do mine and as long as we do no harm to anyone else, all is good.
 
Old 09-22-2016, 11:38 AM
 
11,411 posts, read 7,805,058 times
Reputation: 21923
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
You can't block roads or cause damage. The minutia is irrelevant. You do not have to get anyones permission to protest.

And yet both were done. Perhaps the protests started legally, but there is no question they turned illegal.
 
Old 09-22-2016, 11:38 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,191,640 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post
Why are laws legally worthless? Because you say and for the 3rd time:
No, because the courts have.
 
Old 09-22-2016, 11:39 AM
 
21,884 posts, read 12,964,704 times
Reputation: 36895
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
You do not know what Anarchy is. Anarchy is the theory of you do your thing, I'll do mine and as long as we do no harm to anyone else, all is good.
an·ar·chy
ˈanərkē/Submit
noun
a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
"he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy"
synonyms: lawlessness, nihilism, mobocracy, revolution, insurrection, disorder, chaos, mayhem, tumult, turmoil
"conditions are dangerously ripe for anarchy"
 
Old 09-22-2016, 11:39 AM
 
46,281 posts, read 27,093,964 times
Reputation: 11126
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
You do not know what Anarchy is. Anarchy is the theory of you do your thing, I'll do mine and as long as we do no harm to anyone else, all is good.
Quote:
  1. a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
    "he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy"
    synonyms:lawlessness, nihilism, mobocracy, revolution, insurrection, disorder, chaos, mayhem, tumult, turmoil "conditions are dangerously ripe for anarchy"



    antonyms:government, order

    • absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.




 
Old 09-22-2016, 11:40 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,191,640 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by DerpyDerp View Post
First of all, his right to carry has not been made clear. At this time, we do not know if he was legally allowed to do so.
That isn't how it works....you are legally permitted to carry until someone proves you can't.

Quote:
As for having a gun under his seat, that would be a concealed weapon and would be illegal unless he had a permit. No such permit has been mentioned so far.
I have no idea what the exact laws in N.C. are. So use....he had it laying on the seat.
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:27 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top