Sandra Bland Dashboard Video Released

[Pipeline 1010]

You honestly can't see a little space between "Would you mind putting out your cigarette" and "We're going to give you a body cavity search on the side of the road"?

Both are not lawful commands. Both are the same in that regard. If you can refuse one, you can refuse the other. Either way you support fucking with someone for refusing to obey an unlawful command. I noticed that you have not expressed disagreement with either instance.

Not if the sheep was picking on him. Then the shepherd and the sheep dog have mutton for dinner and the herd IQ creeps up.

Again this was a stupid analogy. Sheep don't pick on sheep dogs. And you don't get to "eat" a sheep if it picks on you. You sound like a violent asshole who thinks murder is the proper response to being "picked on" aka not being obeyed even when the disobedience is to an unlawful order.

Back in the real world (again), this lady didn't pick on him by refusing an unlawful order to extinguish the cigarette. That's not what "picking on" is. Pulling someone over under threat of violent force for moving out of the way without a blinker fully qualifies as "picking on". It is a chickenshit reason to disrupt someone's life.

Just so you know, cops are not sheep dogs; they are human beings who should be expected to follow the law and be professional even if they are being "picked on". Why? Because they are GETTING PAID. What a dick reason for a "sheep dog" to attack the "sheep": "I was picked on". Grow up.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Both are not lawful commands. Both are the same in that regard. If you can refuse one, you can refuse the other. Either way you support fucking with someone for refusing to obey an unlawful command. I noticed that you have not expressed disagreement with either instance.



Again this was a stupid analogy.

Just so you know, cops are not sheep dogs

Id say this analogy sucks as well. If anything, to be consistent, the cops are sheep too. The idea that wearpossum thinks they are different from regular people is shown in his vain attempt to differentiate a subset of people with extra Rights by calling them sheep dogs that preside over sheep. The truth is we're all sheep (if you truly want to use analogies) and none (in reality) have any more Right to life than the rest of us. The Stanford prison experiments proves the theory that if some believe they are in control of others they will act accordingly. These were just regular people off the street selected just for this social theory. It had to be stopped due to abuse from the fake prison guards on the fake prisoners. If we are unable to deduce from this the human nature at play here, we're doomed to repeat this cycle ad infinitum.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

 

[werepossum]

Both are not lawful commands. Both are the same in that regard. If you can refuse one, you can refuse the other. Either way you support fucking with someone for refusing to obey an unlawful command. I noticed that you have not expressed disagreement with either instance.

Again this was a stupid analogy. Sheep don't pick on sheep dogs. And you don't get to "eat" a sheep if it picks on you. You sound like a violent asshole who thinks murder is the proper response to being "picked on" aka not being obeyed even when the disobedience is to an unlawful order.

Back in the real world (again), this lady didn't pick on him by refusing an unlawful order to extinguish the cigarette. That's not what "picking on" is. Pulling someone over under threat of violent force for moving out of the way without a blinker fully qualifies as "picking on". It is a chickenshit reason to disrupt someone's life.

Just so you know, cops are not sheep dogs; they are human beings who should be expected to follow the law and be professional even if they are being "picked on". Why? Because they are GETTING PAID. What a dick reason for a "sheep dog" to attack the "sheep": "I was picked on". Grow up.

Three points here. First, being asked to extinguish a cigarette is asking for basic human decency, not a command. Sure, you have a right to be an asshole, just don't get all pissy if the cop is an asshole back. Second, there is a very good reason to give a signal when someone is coming up fast behind you. That person may try to go around you; he needs to know your intent, else the two of you may collide. And third, there was no murder, there was a suicide. Huge difference. You may feel you are a special little snowflake, but the world is not responsible for protecting you from you, only for a reasonable level of diligence in case of mental illness. If you decide to kill yourself, that is on you, not on everyone else.

 

[werepossum]

Id say this analogy sucks as well. If anything, to be consistent, the cops are sheep too. The idea that wearpossum thinks they are different from regular people is shown in his vain attempt to differentiate a subset of people with extra Rights by calling them sheep dogs that preside over sheep. The truth is we're all sheep (if you truly want to use analogies) and none (in reality) have any more Right to life than the rest of us. The Stanford prison experiments proves the theory that if some believe they are in control of others they will act accordingly. These were just regular people off the street selected just for this social theory. It had to be stopped due to abuse from the fake prison guards on the fake prisoners. If we are unable to deduce from this the human nature at play here, we're doomed to repeat this cycle ad infinitum.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

But cops do have extra rights; they must have, to do their job. They have the right to detain you and to use force, up to lethal force, with the presumption of legitimacy that no private citizen can have. There is simply no way cops can function on an equal basis with the rest of us. You can rage against that or deny it, but that is simply the reality in which we live. And if you deny that simple truth, you are never going to be able to hold cops to any reasonable level of behavior.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Three points here. First, being asked to extinguish a cigarette is asking for basic human decency, not a command.

Then why did he demand she exit the vehicle for not obeying? It only after failure to obey "put your cigarette out" that he got her out. Hand her the warning and walk away. That's all he had to do. I can't believe you're expending so much effort advocating anything more than that.

Sure, you have a right to be an asshole, just don't get all pissy if the cop is an asshole back.

A cop is on the job getting paid. HE is the professional. HE is the disruptive one, interrupting her life. HE is the one trained for this kind of confrontation. HE is the one who lied, claiming to de-escalate.

When you are an asshole to a cop, he gets his ego bruised. Big deal. Grow up and be a grown ass man in charge of your emotions. When a cop is an asshole to a citizen, the citizen often ends up physically assaulted, in jail for several days, and charged with some crime. The cop has the awesome power and authority. The cop needs to wield it with honor, not like a tantrum throwing toddler who hasn't had his nappy yet.

Second, there is a very good reason to give a signal when someone is coming up fast behind you. That person may try to go around you; he needs to know your intent, else the two of you may collide.

The cop was not coming up fast, he was tailgating her. You can't drive faster than the person you are tailgating or else you hit them. So no, he was not coming up fast behind her, so I'm not sure why you threw that in there.

She moved out of the way for her own safety since tailgating is dangerous. You can argue the legal technicality of why to use a signal; it's still a chickenshit reason to interrupt someone's life.

Tailgating is far more dangerous than changing lanes w/o a blinker. If you are going to go off on how dangerous her move was, why do you ignore the danger caused by the cop? You've gone full on hypocrite.

And third, there was no murder, there was a suicide. Huge difference. You may feel you are a special little snowflake, but the world is not responsible for protecting you from you, only for a reasonable level of diligence in case of mental illness. If you decide to kill yourself, that is on you, not on everyone else.

I don't remember mentioning the suicide, nor was I arguing the suicide was anyone's fault but her own. I'm not sure who you think you're arguing with on this matter; it isn't me. So leave me out of your special snowflake arguments.

 

[Moonbeam]

You've gone full on hypocrite.

He's hot satisfied by the size of the hole he dug.

 

[PokerGuy]

Pulling someone over under threat of violent force for moving out of the way without a blinker fully qualifies as "picking on". It is a chickenshit reason to disrupt someone's life.

Can you please enlighten us what laws are to be enforced and which ones aren't? You know, so we can identify the ones that are "chickenshit reasons" to be pulled over versus "real" reasons? Maybe we could put little asterisks in the law books next to those laws?

Just so you know, cops are not sheep dogs; they are human beings who should be expected to follow the law and be professional even if they are being "picked on". Why? Because they are GETTING PAID.

Agreed, that's their job and I think society (as their employer) should be able to expect professional conduct. They are also human beings, which means sometimes they have bad days, and sometimes having to deal with a lot of scummy people can make them have a nasty attitude. That doesn't excuse unprofessional behavior at all, it's just a reality.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Can you please enlighten us what laws are to be enforced and which ones aren't? You know, so we can identify the ones that are "chickenshit reasons" to be pulled over versus "real" reasons? Maybe we could put little asterisks in the law books next to those laws?

Let's start with tailgating laws. Are you with me? Ticket for the cop!

Cops get to use their discretion when deciding whether to enforce a law or not. The fact that this is what he decided to use that discretion on is...disappointing.

Agreed, that's their job and I think society (as their employer) should be able to expect professional conduct. They are also human beings, which means sometimes they have bad days, and sometimes having to deal with a lot of scummy people can make them have a nasty attitude. That doesn't excuse unprofessional behavior at all, it's just a reality.

If a cop can't control his nasty attitude, then why does society need that man to "protect" them? Shouldn't we rid that person of power and weapons?

Although you claim you aren't, you very much appear to be excusing the behavior...you are blaming the "scummy people". It's not even his own fault in your mind, is it?

 

[BoberFett]

All this talk of dogs and sheep, we should probably keep in mind that when a dog does kill a sheep we put the dog down.

If that's what you're arguing for werepossum, you'll probably get agreement all around.

 

[BoberFett]

But cops do have extra rights; they must have, to do their job. They have the right to detain you and to use force, up to lethal force, with the presumption of legitimacy that no private citizen can have. There is simply no way cops can function on an equal basis with the rest of us. You can rage against that or deny it, but that is simply the reality in which we live. And if you deny that simple truth, you are never going to be able to hold cops to any reasonable level of behavior.

What happened to the mantra that With Rights Comes Responsibility? Why do cops get all rights and no responsibility?

 

[werepossum]

Then why did he demand she exit the vehicle for not obeying? It only after failure to obey "put your cigarette out" that he got her out. Hand her the warning and walk away. That's all he had to do. I can't believe you're expending so much effort advocating anything more than that.

A cop is on the job getting paid. HE is the professional. HE is the disruptive one, interrupting her life. HE is the one trained for this kind of confrontation. HE is the one who lied, claiming to de-escalate.

When you are an asshole to a cop, he gets his ego bruised. Big deal. Grow up and be a grown ass man in charge of your emotions. When a cop is an asshole to a citizen, the citizen often ends up physically assaulted, in jail for several days, and charged with some crime. The cop has the awesome power and authority. The cop needs to wield it with honor, not like a tantrum throwing toddler who hasn't had his nappy yet.

The cop was not coming up fast, he was tailgating her. You can't drive faster than the person you are tailgating or else you hit them. So no, he was not coming up fast behind her, so I'm not sure why you threw that in there.

She moved out of the way for her own safety since tailgating is dangerous. You can argue the legal technicality of why to use a signal; it's still a chickenshit reason to interrupt someone's life.

Tailgating is far more dangerous than changing lanes w/o a blinker. If you are going to go off on how dangerous her move was, why do you ignore the danger caused by the cop? You've gone full on hypocrite.

I don't remember mentioning the suicide, nor was I arguing the suicide was anyone's fault but her own. I'm not sure who you think you're arguing with on this matter; it isn't me. So leave me out of your special snowflake arguments.

Ahem.

Both are not lawful commands. Both are the same in that regard. If you can refuse one, you can refuse the other. Either way you support fucking with someone for refusing to obey an unlawful command. I noticed that you have not expressed disagreement with either instance.

Again this was a stupid analogy. Sheep don't pick on sheep dogs. And you don't get to "eat" a sheep if it picks on you. You sound like a violent asshole who thinks murder is the proper response to being "picked on" aka not being obeyed even when the disobedience is to an unlawful order.

Back in the real world (again), this lady didn't pick on him by refusing an unlawful order to extinguish the cigarette. That's not what "picking on" is. Pulling someone over under threat of violent force for moving out of the way without a blinker fully qualifies as "picking on". It is a chickenshit reason to disrupt someone's life.

Just so you know, cops are not sheep dogs; they are human beings who should be expected to follow the law and be professional even if they are being "picked on". Why? Because they are GETTING PAID. What a dick reason for a "sheep dog" to attack the "sheep": "I was picked on". Grow up.

 

[werepossum]

What happened to the mantra that With Rights Comes Responsibility? Why do cops get all rights and no responsibility?

Cops do have responsibility. Had she taken this to court with a lawyer, she would likely have had it thrown out and might have even gotten a nuisance claim payout.

My point is not that it's all right for cops to be assholes. My point is that it is stupid to be an asshole to a cop because he can be a LOT bigger asshole back. You may feel that isn't fair, but it's reality.

 

[BoberFett]

Cops do have responsibility. Had she taken this to court with a lawyer, she would likely have had it thrown out and might have even gotten a nuisance claim payout.

You said they have responsibility, then went on to explain how things can happen that are not the cops responsibility. She's responsible for going to a lawyer. The city attorney is responsible for defending the city. And the city and taxpayers are responsible for paying the settlement.

Where's the part where the cops have responsibility?

My point is not that it's all right for cops to be assholes. My point is that it is stupid to be an asshole to a cop because he can be a LOT bigger asshole back. You may feel that isn't fair, but it's reality.

How servile of you.

 

[NoStateofMind]

But cops do have extra rights; they must have, to do their job.

Depends on what the situation is. Forcefully pulling someone over for not using a turn signal isn't one, neither is flashing headlights or parking in the wrong spot. The only time it's justified is when the criminal commits an act of violence. Then and only then do they have the Right to use force.

They have the right to detain you and to use force, up to lethal force, with the presumption of legitimacy that no private citizen can have. There is simply no way cops can function on an equal basis with the rest of us.

When attempting to subdue a violent criminal you're right, and I'd support as much. Yet we've seen it time and time again where police interject themselves in a forceful manner where the "criminal" has not caused harm to another human being. Yet it's justified to use force against non-violent offenses? It isn't, no matter how you slice it. The reason is that human nature (as shown above) comes into play and those with power will abuse it. You cannot refute that, it's a fact. With your idea of law enforcement you've created the class racism we're seeing so pervasive in American culture.

You can rage against that or deny it, but that is simply the reality in which we live.

No rage, just reason and evidence. Yes there are plenty, like yourself, who claim that police must use force in most (if not all) situations. The reality is they are people too. They put on their pants the same way I do. Therefore in reality, they have no more Rights than I do. It is imagined and reinforced by those in power to maintain control over the people. In other words, their extra Rights come from the barrel of a gun and not because they walk on water. No different than the mob, gangsters etc.....

And if you deny that simple truth, you are never going to be able to hold cops to any reasonable level of behavior.

You cannot think of any way that police could act differently and still enforce laws? Come'on, I counted your intellect to be of much greater value, surely you can think of some ways to increase accountability and also maintain law. If you can't and the only thing you can think of is the 'same-ole-same' you will continue with what we have now. That's simply not sustainable, Mr. Possum.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Cops do have responsibility. Had she taken this to court with a lawyer, she would likely have had it thrown out and might have even gotten a nuisance claim payout.

You always lose when interacting with law enforcement. Time and money is taken from you which you do not get back. yet the state's mercenary get's paid to mess with you....

The game is rigged against you from top to bottom. Countless times police and politicians walk away from situations that would land us in jail with a moments notice. Check Hillary's email snafu out for example. Who here would still be on the street in that situation? I'm willing to bet no one.

 

[Moonbeam]

Cops do have responsibility. Had she taken this to court with a lawyer, she would likely have had it thrown out and might have even gotten a nuisance claim payout.

My point is not that it's all right for cops to be assholes. My point is that it is stupid to be an asshole to a cop because he can be a LOT bigger asshole back. You may feel that isn't fair, but it's reality.

That's not really the issue. What you say is axiomatic, obvious, and uselessly irrelevant. The point is that you imagine that the fact that every person subjected to authoritarian abuse can be broken by it. The problem is your colossal arrogance, ignorance, and lack of empathy for folk who crack from such shit, your lecturing on crap you would easily fail at yourself?

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Ahem.

Dude! I was quoting you: "Not if the sheep was picking on him. Then the shepherd and the sheep dog have mutton for dinner and the herd IQ creeps up."

You are saying that the sheep dog should MURDER and EAT the sheep if the sheep picks on it. The comment was about your seeming advocacy of murder in response to being picked on, which makes you appear to possibly be a violent asshole. My comment has zero to do with the real life suicide that happened, which was her fault, but you see what you want to see, I guess. Nice try at the game of "gotcha".

 

[cabri]

That's not really the issue. What you say is axiomatic, obvious, and uselessly irrelevant. The point is that you imagine that the fact that every person subjected to authoritarian abuse can be broken by it. The problem is your colossal arrogance, ignorance, and lack of empathy for folk who crack from such shit, your lecturing on crap you would easily fail at yourself?

Amazing how the stuffed arrogant people that condem the law, will shut their mouth when in such a situation. Talk the talk but fail the walk.

Because they know the truth.

Internet tough guys. :thumbsdown:

 

[werepossum]

You said they have responsibility, then went on to explain how things can happen that are not the cops responsibility. She's responsible for going to a lawyer. The city attorney is responsible for defending the city. And the city and taxpayers are responsible for paying the settlement.

Where's the part where the cops have responsibility?

How servile of you.

Can you think of a single functional way that the cop, city or state could be responsible for taking her to an attorney? How about any way that the city and taxpayers aren't responsible for paying the settlement? The cop can be held responsible for his own actions, but not by being an asshole to him.

Depends on what the situation is. Forcefully pulling someone over for not using a turn signal isn't one, neither is flashing headlights or parking in the wrong spot. The only time it's justified is when the criminal commits an act of violence. Then and only then do they have the Right to use force.

When attempting to subdue a violent criminal you're right, and I'd support as much. Yet we've seen it time and time again where police interject themselves in a forceful manner where the "criminal" has not caused harm to another human being. Yet it's justified to use force against non-violent offenses? It isn't, no matter how you slice it. The reason is that human nature (as shown above) comes into play and those with power will abuse it. You cannot refute that, it's a fact. With your idea of law enforcement you've created the class racism we're seeing so pervasive in American culture.

No rage, just reason and evidence. Yes there are plenty, like yourself, who claim that police must use force in most (if not all) situations. The reality is they are people too. They put on their pants the same way I do. Therefore in reality, they have no more Rights than I do. It is imagined and reinforced by those in power to maintain control over the people. In other words, their extra Rights come from the barrel of a gun and not because they walk on water. No different than the mob, gangsters etc.....

You cannot think of any way that police could act differently and still enforce laws? Come'on, I counted your intellect to be of much greater value, surely you can think of some ways to increase accountability and also maintain law. If you can't and the only thing you can think of is the 'same-ole-same' you will continue with what we have now. That's simply not sustainable, Mr. Possum.

I think one big step is to mandate body cams, so that we can see everything that goes on. But if you insist that cops have no more rights than the rest of us, that breaks the system. It simply cannot function that way; there would simply be no point in having cops at all, since any criminal could just calmly drive away from them except perhaps in the very, very rare case where the cop personally witnessed the violent crime. Now, I am fine with anarchy; I am reasonably well-armed and have the means to become better armed. Probably 99% or more of all laws could be revoked and I'd be fine. Just remember - you aren't going to get even as much consideration from me as you do from cops, because if there are no cops and no consequences then I'm taking no chances.

You always lose when interacting with law enforcement. Time and money is taken from you which you do not get back. yet the state's mercenary get's paid to mess with you....

The game is rigged against you from top to bottom. Countless times police and politicians walk away from situations that would land us in jail with a moments notice. Check Hillary's email snafu out for example. Who here would still be on the street in that situation? I'm willing to bet no one.

I don't disagree, but that doesn't make it smart to be an asshole to a cop.

 

[werepossum]

That's not really the issue. What you say is axiomatic, obvious, and uselessly irrelevant. The point is that you imagine that the fact that every person subjected to authoritarian abuse can be broken by it. The problem is your colossal arrogance, ignorance, and lack of empathy for folk who crack from such shit, your lecturing on crap you would easily fail at yourself?

How can you imagine that anyone lives through more than half a century without being in her position? She wasn't waterboarded, she was pulled over for not signalling a lane change and asked to put out a cigarette.

Dude! I was quoting you: "Not if the sheep was picking on him. Then the shepherd and the sheep dog have mutton for dinner and the herd IQ creeps up."

You are saying that the sheep dog should MURDER and EAT the sheep if the sheep picks on it. The comment was about your seeming advocacy of murder in response to being picked on, which makes you appear to possibly be a violent asshole. My comment has zero to do with the real life suicide that happened, which was her fault, but you see what you want to see, I guess. Nice try at the game of "gotcha".

Ah, my bad. I misunderstood, sorry.

I actually meant that the shepherd would kill and eat the sheep that was too stupid to stop biting the dog, but I see I wasn't clear.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Ah, my bad. I misunderstood, sorry.

I actually meant that the shepherd would kill and eat the sheep that was too stupid to stop biting the dog, but I see I wasn't clear.

Well that would make 2 of us who misunderstood, then. Dang, and I said you seem like a violent asshole because I misunderstood you. I apologize more. Anyhow the analogy is misleading and inaccurate...now see what you've done?!?

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Amazing how the stuffed arrogant people that condem the law, will shut their mouth when in such a situation. Talk the talk but fail the walk.

Because they know the truth.

Internet tough guys. :thumbsdown:

Yes, they do know the truth of what a cop can get away with. So they may dislike a law or the enforcement of a law, but when confronted by a violent sociopath who has legal authority to do just about whatever they want to ruin someone's life, they back down. This isn't "internet tough", it's simply smart.

The real fake tough guy is the cop who uses weapons, their badge/costume, and a legal system to ruin lives over things as petty as ego and narcissistic supply. But go ahead and continue to advocate for fake tough guys with weapons, authority, and zero accountability to keep doing their thing. I can't imagine why you would do this. And keep calling the people who don't like this fake internet tough guys. This logic isn't too far different than a grade school bully's mental abilities.

 

[Moonbeam]

How can you imagine that anyone lives through more than half a century without being in her position?

She wasn't waterboarded, she was pulled over for not signalling a lane change and asked to put out a cigarette.

No! This is a ridiculous argument. You have a persecutory personality, a blame the victim condition because you have Stockholm Authoritarianism. You have built your self image on the notion that you are a good person because you obey, but Bober sees who you are when he called you servile.

On the one hand we can see this in your callous lack of insight into your inner condition, the absurd notion that because you have lived over 50 years you know what this woman has experienced, that you are superior to her when in fact you haven't the slightest idea what her life dealt her, what indignities she may have suffered, how close she might have been to the end of her rope. And why are you like this, because you hate yourself and need something to hang on to, to make you feel superior is some stupid way. You live in a fantasy world where you imagine you have walked in somebody else's shoes.

Additionally we can see you tell yourself an imaginary story to justify your position, that the woman was an asshole for not obeying the cop by not putting her cigarette out. She had every right to tell the cop to say no. She wasn't an asshole, she was justified to do what she did. There was no reason whatsoever for her to anticipate the cop would loose his mind. People have every right to expect they will be treated legally and justly, especially by the police. You go around thinking every cop is a potential psychopath. And she has the bad attitude. Jesus.

 

[railer]

They put on their pants the same way I do. Therefore in reality, they have no more Rights than I do.

Kim Jong-un puts his pants on they same way the people of NK do. Therefore in reality, he has no more rights than the NK people.

Pro-tip: How you put your pants on has nothing to do with any rights you may or may not posses.

You wack packers need to let this one go. I'm sure thousands of other crazy people have killed themselves in the many weeks since Sandra Bland killed herself. You all should start complaining about some of them. There's nothing left of this dead horse.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Kim Jong-un puts his pants on they same way the people of NK do. Therefore in reality, he has no more rights than the NK people.

Are you SURE you want to compare cops and their extra rights to evil dictators? Because you're basically making our argument for us.

Pro-tip: How you put your pants on has nothing to do with any rights you may or may not posses.

Ugh...another one of those guys who says "pro-tip". Almost all uses of the phrase "pro-tip" are followed by condescending, douchey statements. You meet and exceed my expectations in this matter.

You wack packers need to let this one go. I'm sure thousands of other crazy people have killed themselves in the many weeks since Sandra Bland killed herself. You all should start complaining about some of them. There's nothing left of this dead horse.

She was arrested over lawfully refusing to obey an unlawful order. That was a dickbag move by someone entrusted to wield authority with honor. People are going to dislike dickbag moves. Maybe you should take your own advice and "let this one go" before you start looking pro-dickbag.