quote:

ORIGINAL: housebitch777

and to understand how stupid this whole thing is, if this were a black cop shooting a white, it would be a guy doing his job. Taking criminals off the street. We all know black people are incapable of racism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: housebitch777

and to understand how stupid this whole thing is, if this were a black cop shooting a white, it would be a guy doing his job. Taking criminals off the street. We all know black people are incapable of racism.

Do black cops regularly shoot white suspects several times in the back then give them fake resuscitation, then? That's not coming up in a Google search for me, I have to say.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: housebitch777

and to understand how stupid this whole thing is, if this were a black cop shooting a white, it would be a guy doing his job. Taking criminals off the street. We all know black people are incapable of racism.

Do black cops regularly shoot white suspects several times in the back then give them fake resuscitation, then? That's not coming up in a Google search for me, I have to say.

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Your own quote shows that your "headline" is a inaccurate. They can record the police, they just have to stay back when they do it. The recording of this shooting would have been unaffected by that law.

You don't think this might be the first step onto a "slippery slope"?

Any thoughts on the requirement that an armed person keep four times the distance of an unarmed observer?

ETA: Fixed my math. #funwithchemobrain

In a heated confrontation a cop looking up and seeing an armed person could lead to a unfortunate misunderstanding.
Do you even know what the point of this law is?
The current law says that people recording the police can't get it the way, but leaves how far back they have to say to the discretion of the cops. With this the distance is defined so that cops can't make them move as far away as they want to. It reduces the opportunity for the cops to abuse the law.

If, as you say, in a heated confrontation a cop looks up and sees an armed person, then yes, it could lead to an unfortunate misunderstanding. Though, if the weapon is holstered, the "misunderstanding" would be on the part of the officer(s) involved. But the bill doesn't specify weapons in plain view. It specifies all handguns, even those that are concealed. And it does not include long guns. Not that any of that really matters too much. I do have to question, why is it that a person with a legally concealed weapon doesn't have the right to record a close proximity video (25 feet) the same as anyone else? Your explanation of "what if the officer looks up and sees a weapon" scenario doesn't hold up.

Also, if you read the bill, it talks about how "Only representatives of radio or TV organizations that hold an FCC license, newspapers and magazines would have the right to record police." (According to the article linked to by dcnovice.) It seems to be contrary to private citizens having the right to film. In reading the bill myself it all seemed a little ambiguous. But let's say it is limited only to radio, tv, newspaper, and magazine employed reporters. How many of those are actually "on scene" from the very beginning? As a rule they would only get there in time to film or report the aftermath. How convenient would that be for the police? This would go back to Lucy's comment about how this would now appear to have been a "legitimate" shooting, having only the cop's say-so in the matter.

So, do you even know what the point of the law is? It looks to me like it is less about keeping people back a certain distance, and more about keeping them from filming all together. If they want to keep them back a certain distance, then specify that distance. . .for EVERYONE. Period. Leave out any reference to established media personnel. Leave out references to everyone with a handgun. MAYBE specify those with handguns that open carry. What it says is, you can't RECORD if you have a handgun. It DOES NOT say that you have to stay back that distance if you are just standing there watching. . .while carrying a handgun. How is recording while carrying a handgun more dangerous than just standing watching while carrying a handgun?

quote:

ORIGINAL: housebitch777

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: housebitch777

and to understand how stupid this whole thing is, if this were a black cop shooting a white, it would be a guy doing his job. Taking criminals off the street. We all know black people are incapable of racism.

Do black cops regularly shoot white suspects several times in the back then give them fake resuscitation, then? That's not coming up in a Google search for me, I have to say.

you miss the point.....the point is, as we saw with the Kentucky basketball players, racism is only one sided......and if a black cop did? I promise you, you will never see it on the nightly news.

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Your own quote shows that your "headline" is a inaccurate. They can record the police, they just have to stay back when they do it. The recording of this shooting would have been unaffected by that law.

You don't think this might be the first step onto a "slippery slope"?

Any thoughts on the requirement that an armed person keep four times the distance of an unarmed observer?

ETA: Fixed my math. #funwithchemobrain

In a heated confrontation a cop looking up and seeing an armed person could lead to a unfortunate misunderstanding.
Do you even know what the point of this law is?
The current law says that people recording the police can't get it the way, but leaves how far back they have to say to the discretion of the cops. With this the distance is defined so that cops can't make them move as far away as they want to. It reduces the opportunity for the cops to abuse the law.

If, as you say, in a heated confrontation a cop looks up and sees an armed person, then yes, it could lead to an unfortunate misunderstanding. Though, if the weapon is holstered, the "misunderstanding" would be on the part of the officer(s) involved. But the bill doesn't specify weapons in plain view. It specifies all handguns, even those that are concealed. And it does not include long guns. Not that any of that really matters too much. I do have to question, why is it that a person with a legally concealed weapon doesn't have the right to record a close proximity video (25 feet) the same as anyone else? Your explanation of "what if the officer looks up and sees a weapon" scenario doesn't hold up.

Also, if you read the bill, it talks about how "Only representatives of radio or TV organizations that hold an FCC license, newspapers and magazines would have the right to record police." (According to the article linked to by dcnovice.) It seems to be contrary to private citizens having the right to film. In reading the bill myself it all seemed a little ambiguous. But let's say it is limited only to radio, tv, newspaper, and magazine employed reporters. How many of those are actually "on scene" from the very beginning? As a rule they would only get there in time to film or report the aftermath. How convenient would that be for the police? This would go back to Lucy's comment about how this would now appear to have been a "legitimate" shooting, having only the cop's say-so in the matter.

So, do you even know what the point of the law is? It looks to me like it is less about keeping people back a certain distance, and more about keeping them from filming all together. If they want to keep them back a certain distance, then specify that distance. . .for EVERYONE. Period. Leave out any reference to established media personnel. Leave out references to everyone with a handgun. MAYBE specify those with handguns that open carry. What it says is, you can't RECORD if you have a handgun. It DOES NOT say that you have to stay back that distance if you are just standing there watching. . .while carrying a handgun. How is recording while carrying a handgun more dangerous than just standing watching while carrying a handgun?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

that is 80% the normal population, and it does not differentiate between legitimate shootings and ones like this thread is about.

It is all the shootings good and bad...and still safer around police than the general public... that is the point i was trying to make to tj who seems to think the police are just waiting to beat the crap out of everyone then fill poor innocents with bullet holes.

I invite her to come to St Louis and take a walk around the North side day or night... I believe she may have a different take on the police. The 1,000,000 police kill around 400 a year enforcing the law and otherwise throughout the whole country ... while a few thousand citizens, poor abused by police innocents, on the North side of St. Louis kill 200+ men women and children all by themselves in a year...Where is the condemnation…where is the hands up demonstrations...where is the outrage... where are the demands for change?

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: housebitch777

and to understand how stupid this whole thing is, if this were a black cop shooting a white, it would be a guy doing his job. Taking criminals off the street. We all know black people are incapable of racism.

Do black cops regularly shoot white suspects several times in the back then give them fake resuscitation, then? That's not coming up in a Google search for me, I have to say.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: housebitch777

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: housebitch777

and to understand how stupid this whole thing is, if this were a black cop shooting a white, it would be a guy doing his job. Taking criminals off the street. We all know black people are incapable of racism.

Do black cops regularly shoot white suspects several times in the back then give them fake resuscitation, then? That's not coming up in a Google search for me, I have to say.

you miss the point.....the point is, as we saw with the Kentucky basketball players, racism is only one sided......and if a black cop did? I promise you, you will never see it on the nightly news.

Yeah ... no. Fux News would be on it like a bunch of slavering vultures. And, by God, soon after: some old fart of a right wing windbag 'philosopher' who fondly imagines himself to be something of a guru and who is 'above politics' would be starting a thread on the matter here on this forum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: housebitch777

and to understand how stupid this whole thing is, if this were a black cop shooting a white, it would be a guy doing his job. Taking criminals off the street. We all know black people are incapable of racism.

Do black cops regularly shoot white suspects several times in the back then give them fake resuscitation, then? That's not coming up in a Google search for me, I have to say.

No, and white cops don't regularly do it to blacks. This case is an aberration.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

yes of course, never have sex, unless its to procreate, that goes for men too I take it?
god love you
just put the domestic violence, murders and beatings down to men not getting what they want when they want it.

Wow. I really was not trying to create a shit storm with my comments about dead beat dads. I was actually attempting to point out the unintended consequences and discussing whether imprisoning them was a good law. (It seems really similar to debtors' prison to me.) Mike asked what we should do about it instead and my answer was focused on keeping families intact and reducing out of wedlock pregnancy. I did not advocate any particular way of doing that.

Really.

Of course my best ideas on how to do this rely on technology and medical advances we just do not have yet. Dayum you Bujold for putting ideas in my head!

honestly Aylee, my post has nothing to do with deadbeat dads. I dont think imprisoning them helps the kids or the situation...
my post was purely on not having sex unless you are ready to procreate....and how when women deny sex, it puts women in more danger
Im really sorry you thought it was against your post.
it wasnt and isnt....

All the sex and abortion stuff started after Mike and I's exchange. I just wanted to make sure that people knew that it wasn't my intention.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: housebitch777

and to understand how stupid this whole thing is, if this were a black cop shooting a white, it would be a guy doing his job. Taking criminals off the street. We all know black people are incapable of racism.

Do black cops regularly shoot white suspects several times in the back then give them fake resuscitation, then? That's not coming up in a Google search for me, I have to say.

No, and white cops don't regularly do it to blacks. This case is an aberration.

Good. I'm glad to hear it. My dad was a copper in London's Metropolitan Police. He was - and still is - a racist old bastard (love him though I do). Yet he - like most cops - has an understanding of what's fair and what isn't. But, my dad worked in Complaints in the last years of his career (the equivalent of your various Internal Affairs depts, from what I can make out) - and he was *always* kept busy with the number of psycho cops there were out there - racists being the most prolific amongst them. I mean killer-racists: men who *utterly hated* blacks.

There were quite a lot of 'aberrations', Bama. I've no idea if it's the same your side of the pond, but I'd be surprised if it's markedly different. And over there killing a suspect is less likely to attract the nation's attention in the news than it is here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: housebitch777

and to understand how stupid this whole thing is, if this were a black cop shooting a white, it would be a guy doing his job. Taking criminals off the street. We all know black people are incapable of racism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


True enough

Remember Rodney King? Compared to the guy who these California deputies savagely beat the other day, King was nothing.

Except King was a huge news story because of his skin color

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: housebitch777

and to understand how stupid this whole thing is, if this were a black cop shooting a white, it would be a guy doing his job. Taking criminals off the street. We all know black people are incapable of racism.

Wow,the bar just got lowered

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

yes of course, never have sex, unless its to procreate, that goes for men too I take it?
god love you
just put the domestic violence, murders and beatings down to men not getting what they want when they want it.

Wow. I really was not trying to create a shit storm with my comments about dead beat dads. I was actually attempting to point out the unintended consequences and discussing whether imprisoning them was a good law. (It seems really similar to debtors' prison to me.) Mike asked what we should do about it instead and my answer was focused on keeping families intact and reducing out of wedlock pregnancy. I did not advocate any particular way of doing that.

Really.

Of course my best ideas on how to do this rely on technology and medical advances we just do not have yet. Dayum you Bujold for putting ideas in my head!

honestly Aylee, my post has nothing to do with deadbeat dads. I dont think imprisoning them helps the kids or the situation...
my post was purely on not having sex unless you are ready to procreate....and how when women deny sex, it puts women in more danger
Im really sorry you thought it was against your post.
it wasnt and isnt....

All the sex and abortion stuff started after Mike and I's exchange. I just wanted to make sure that people knew that it wasn't my intention.

So than it must be my fault,right ?