SO, did Kaepernick have a legit point?

[POP]

Pop, I understand an argument you come from. That video you posted, I live in Albuquerque where some of those shootings took place. I'll admit the homeless guy situation was over the top, but most police shootings here have shown why cops shoot first. Most of these suspects have shot/killed cops or civilians. I'm hispanic. Not once in my life have I experienced racism. Even at UGA. Mind you if I grow a goatee or beard I can resemble a muslim of all things. I've been pulled over once in ABQ after a run at night. Left my hoodie over my head. APD officer suspected me, I don't blame him. Bad judgement on my part. Majority of the time are criminals failing to comply with proper procedure

I don't disagree with anything you posted. And, although I have never been there, Albuquerque probably has tons of hispanics, hence, they would not really fill a "minority" status in the area. I also don't disagree that the vast majority of cop shootings are legit and warranted. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to end as many bull **** shootings as possible, or, that we shouldn't prosecute every cop that has shot when not reasonable. The fact that only 6 cops have been found guilty of wrongful shootings tells me the entire system is corrupt. I have had cops tell me that no matter what they "support their brothers in blue." And when I asked if they would support their fellow cops even if what they did was criminal or corrupt, they just repeat "I support my brothers in blue" which is admitting that they will lie and act corrupt no matter what their fellow cops do. That is bull **** and corrupt as hell.

So why did the cop just immediately shoot this brother? This is the kind of bull **** I am talking about; ******* Nazi SS cop bull ****.

 

[POP]

This is the response causing you guys to circle jerk over? Not impressed.

If a police officers says, "You are under arrest" for no legitimate reason, then you undergo the arrest and challenge the arrest in court. I quoted California's ******* statute on this issue, and the law does not give the arrestee the option of resisting the arrest if he thinks the arrest is unfounded.

Still missing the entire point. Cops are known for being lower IQ; they search for low IQ candidates. I see a trend.

Further, the fact that you are too stupid to understand the difference between (1) the alleged wrongdoing giving rise to the arrest and (2) the crime of resisting arrest, a completely separate offense, merely underscores your idiocy.

Low IQ to the rescue. Dumb ****, I repeatedly stated that there are cases where no crimes were charged EXCEPT resisting arrest. How can you ONLY have the charge of resisting arrest, since that could not occur unless they were arresting you for something in addition to resisting arrest? You are just slow to grasp things.

Let me try and explain it in a fashion that even a dumbfuck like you can understand.

OK, Mr. shiny shoes.

Cop gets word that a purse snatcher is in the area. Sees a guy fitting the description of the purse snatcher and says, "You are under arrest." The guy is not the purse snatcher, however, and instead is a visiting college professor, so the arrest is bogus.

Can that guy resist the arrest, knowing that he should not be arrested and has committed no crime? No. Fight the underlying charge in court, not in a street scuffle.

This may be news to you, but I am not advocating to struggle physically. I am just saying that in a myriad of cases cops jump on an innocent man, screaming "stop resisting" and then charge them ONLY with resisting arrest. And, no, not every case is as you describe above. Do you want me to show you the videos?

Finally, I appreciate your sage legal analysis, but I cited a ******* statute proving I am right and you are a blithering idiot:

Penal Code, § 834a: "If a person has knowledge, or by the exercise of reasonable care, should have knowledge, that he is being arrested by a peace officer, it is the duty of such person to refrain from using force or any weapon to resist such arrest."

The statute does not reference "legitimate" arrest, does it, asswipe?

So to sum up: (1) Citizens are NOT entitled to resist arrest for any reason, no matter how valid the arrest; (2) you are an idiot and cannot understand basic English; and (3) your purported "knowledge" of the law would not fill a thimble. In terms you may be able to comprehend, here is the status of our debate on this point:

You cite a state statue over citizens not being able to physically scuffle with cops and think you refuted my point? God, they really do seek to hire low IQ shiny shoes.

Since you lack the intelligence to grasp points via the written word, here is my point in cartoon fashion so you have a prayer of understanding it.



Although in an exaggerated model (to make the point), THIS is what I am talking about. Your diarrhea of the fingers never refuted a thing about this trend. All your blather didn't address this. What did you score on the Wonderlic?

 

[Steeltime]

Still missing the entire point. Cops are known for being lower IQ; they search for low IQ candidates. I see a trend.

So you are concerned that cops will target you?

Low IQ to the rescue. Dumb ****, I repeatedly stated that there are cases where no crimes were charged EXCEPT resisting arrest. How can you ONLY have the charge of resisting arrest, since that could not occur unless they were arresting you for something in addition to resisting arrest? You are just slow to grasp things.

Re-read my "purse snatching" example. If the suspect resisted arrest, he would not be charged with the ******* purse snatching, dumbass, but would still be liable for the resisting charge.

Are you really as stupid as you portray in this thread?

You cite a stat statue over citizens not being able to physically scuffle with cops and think you refuted my point? God, they really do seek to hire low IQ shiny shoes.

What did you score on the Wonderlic?

Wife says I score very high ...

 

[POP]

 

[DBS1970]

No. You have it 100% wrong. The point is that nobody can resist arrest by a police officer, for any reason.

That prevents suspects from getting into fights with officers on the theory that "the arrest is bullshit." News alert ... most suspects, including those clearly guilty, believe that the "arrest is bullshit."

The court is where the merits of the arrest play out, not in a street scuffle. If we allow suspects to fight the arresting officer because he thinks the arrest is unfounded, get ready for violence on a massive scale stemming from arrests.

I don't think we would see that at all. I am leery of giving any more power to the state than is absolutely necessary and being able to charge a person with a felony simply for pulling away from a police officer is an unnecessary power. In Indiana they passed a law recently making it justifiable to kill a LEO if they commit battery on a citizen while acting outside their lawful authority, it hasn't resulted in a rash of cop killings.

 

[Steeltime]

I don't think we would see that at all. I am leery of giving any more power to the state than is absolutely necessary and being able to charge a person with a felony simply for pulling away from a police officer is an unnecessary power.

Look, here is the reality of life. You may personally think "x" or "y," but when we pass laws that conflict with your personal beliefs, then your beliefs lose. That is the way it is. That is what we mean, "We are a nation of laws, not of men."

If a suspect thinks the arrest is bunk, then fight it out in court. Win, and the suspect will have a viable claim for wrongful arrest. Those claims are filed and settled every day.

So the suspect is not charged with the underlying crime, asserts his rights, gets paid $$ for the wrongful arrest, and the cop has to answer for costing the taxpayer some money. In those circumstances, the cop is usually disciplined and subject to termination for further wrongdoing. That is the way to fight the issue.

In Indiana they passed a law recently making it justifiable to kill a LEO if they commit battery on a citizen while acting outside their lawful authority, it hasn't resulted in a rash of cop killings.

Yeah, I recall reading about that law. Since that is the law, then it should be enforced, no?

When the law does not allow such response to an arrest, then that law should be enforced, no?

 

[DBS1970]

Look, here is the reality of life. You may personally think "x" or "y," but when we pass laws that conflict with your personal beliefs, then your beliefs lose. That is the way it is. That is what we mean, "We are a nation of laws, not of men."

If a suspect thinks the arrest is bunk, then fight it out in court. Win, and the suspect will have a viable claim for wrongful arrest. Those claims are filed and settled every day.

So the suspect is not charged with the underlying crime, asserts his rights, gets paid $$ for the wrongful arrest, and the cop has to answer for costing the taxpayer some money. In those circumstances, the cop is usually disciplined and subject to termination for further wrongdoing. That is the way to fight the issue.



Yeah, I recall reading about that law. Since that is the law, then it should be enforced, no?

When the law does not allow such response to an arrest, then that law should be enforced, no?

No the judge should summarily dismiss any charge of resisting arrest without a valid underlying charge. We have too many procedural laws that create crimes out of thin air. For that matter we have too many laws all together and too many police officers but that is a discussion for another time.

 

[Steeltime]

No the judge should summarily dismiss any charge of resisting arrest without a valid underlying charge. We have too many procedural laws that create crimes out of thin air. For that matter we have too many laws all together and too many police officers but that is a discussion for another time.

We can discuss laws that don't make sense or are unnecessary, but the myriad of laws precluding resisting arrest are designed to avoid the physical violence that supposedly bothers POOP.

If suspects are allowed to get into physical altercations with police because the suspect believes the charge is bullshit, then I guarantee you that a lot more suspects fight the arrest.

And a lot more get hurt.

And a lot more officers get hurt.

Who the hell thinks that is a good idea?

 

[POP]

So you are concerned that cops will target you?



Re-read my "purse snatching" example. If the suspect resisted arrest, he would not be charged with the ******* purse snatching, dumbass, but would still be liable for the resisting charge.

Are you really as stupid as you portray in this thread?

Wife says I score very high ...

I already addressed every single point and I am not going to repeat myself.

Just watch this in order to grasp the point. You really are slow.

 

[DBS1970]

We can discuss laws that don't make sense or are unnecessary, but the myriad of laws precluding resisting arrest are designed to avoid the physical violence that supposedly bothers POOP.

If suspects are allowed to get into physical altercations with police because the suspect believes the charge is bullshit, then I guarantee you that a lot more suspects fight the arrest.

And a lot more get hurt.

And a lot more officers get hurt.

Who the hell thinks that is a good idea?

It hasn't happened in Indiana. And personally I like the idea of professional, courteous and CAREFUL enforcement agencies.

 

[BAS]

This is the response causing you guys to circle jerk over? Not impressed.



Still missing the entire point. Cops are known for being lower IQ; they search for low IQ candidates. I see a trend.

Bullshit! Police Departments are looking for college graduates. They also encourage higher learning for their officers with 2 year degrees and offer promotions and pay raises as incentives for furthering their education. You are so full of **** you can't think or see straight.

 

[DBS1970]

Bullshit! Police Departments are looking for college graduates. They also encourage higher learning for their officers with 2 year degrees and offer promotions and pay raises as incentives for furthering their education. You are so full of **** you can't think or see straight.

Some departments do. Many major departments have a high end cut off. The official reason is that the more intelligent officers get bored and leave after a few years. Some say its because more intelligent officers can figure out ways to get away with corruption.

 

[MTC]

I don't disagree with anything you posted. And, although I have never been there, Albuquerque probably has tons of hispanics, hence, they would not really fill a "minority" status in the area. I also don't disagree that the vast majority of cop shootings are legit and warranted. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to end as many bull **** shootings as possible, or, that we shouldn't prosecute every cop that has shot when not reasonable. The fact that only 6 cops have been found guilty of wrongful shootings tells me the entire system is corrupt. I have had cops tell me that no matter what they "support their brothers in blue." And when I asked if they would support their fellow cops even if what they did was criminal or corrupt, they just repeat "I support my brothers in blue" which is admitting that they will lie and act corrupt no matter what their fellow cops do. That is bull **** and corrupt as hell.

So why did the cop just immediately shoot this brother? This is the kind of bull **** I am talking about; ******* Nazi SS cop bull ****.

I get it. Cops will defend cops. I don't think they should shoot a citizen not doing anything. Do citizens complying with procedure get shot? Of course, it's just the nature of the job. But I believe that's just a small percantage. Maybe ABQ is a bad example to try to say I don't experience racism, but even in Athens, Atlanata and Rome I've been treated with respect and show the same courtesy. Cops profile/stereotype by what they experience on the job, so even with all these shootings I'm willing to side with law enforcement first even if the msm says otherwise

 

[hamster]

Don't **** with POOP. He knows how to search YouTube.

 

[POP]

Bullshit! Police Departments are looking for college graduates. They also encourage higher learning for their officers with 2 year degrees and offer promotions and pay raises as incentives for furthering their education. You are so full of **** you can't think or see straight.

College graduates mean you are smart? I know plenty of grads who would not be described as such. Here is direct evidence they don't want guys who are too smart or compassionate. They are simply getting what they desire: thugs who enjoy bullying people.

http://filmingcops.com/ex-cia-contr...-ensure-applicants-lack-logic-and-compassion/

http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-court-ruled-you-can-be-too-smart-to-be-a-cop/5420630

 

[Steeltime]

College graduates mean you are smart? I know plenty of grads who would not be described as such. Here is direct evidence they don't want guys who are too smart or compassionate. They are simply getting what they desire: thugs who enjoy bullying people.

http://filmingcops.com/ex-cia-contr...-ensure-applicants-lack-logic-and-compassion/

http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-court-ruled-you-can-be-too-smart-to-be-a-cop/5420630

You are not only stupid, you are lazy. Specifically, you post two articles on the same point, apparently without reading the goddamn articles, stating that the police department in New London, Connecticut (where???) hires police officers who are average to above-average intelligence:

The average score for police officers was a 21-22, or an IQ of 104. New London would only interview candidates who scored between 20 and 27. Jordan sued the city alleging discrimination, but the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld that it wasn’t discrimination. “Why?” you might ask. Because New London Police Department applied the same standard to everyone who applied to be a cop there.

And the theory behind it? “Those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training,” ABC News reported back then. While at least acknowledging the basic fact that such a policy might be “unwise,” the court deemed it had a “rational basis” because it was put in place to lower cop turnover.

Therefore, one police department in New London, Connecticut implemented a policy requiring that new police officers be average intelligence at a minimum to above-average, but not approach Mensa level, on the theory that extremely intelligent cops will be bored by the mundane grunt work of police duties and look for a more challenging career.

You know, the theory of being over-qualified, something recognized and implemented by employers for the past 50 years.

Additionally, your other link was to a cite dubbed, "Filming Cops - Declare War on Police Brutality" and quotes a "former CIA contractor" ... with not one ******* bit of data that the guy ever worked for a police department, knows police practice and procedure, or indeed knows his *** from a hole in the ground. Yeah, reliable source.

So to summarize ... New London, Connecticut would not interview you - an idiot - and will not hire Mensa-level intellectuals, and some butt-knob former "CIA contractor" (whatever the **** that is) supposedly told some ******* site, "See? They won't hire geniuses."

Boooom ... you are knocked the **** out yet again.

 

[Superman]

College graduates mean you are smart?

 

[Superman]

how POP views cops:

 

[BAS]

While Kaepernick may not have a point... he's certainly getting the attention he wanted.

Texas Youth Football Team to Continue Protesting Anthem Despite Death Threats

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/texas-you...m-despite-024900841--abc-news-topstories.html

I honestly don't get the over-the-top reactions of death threats -- lynching? ********.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

While Kaepernick may not have a point... he's certainly getting the attention he wanted.

Texas Youth Football Team to Continue Protesting Anthem Despite Death Threats

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/texas-you...m-despite-024900841--abc-news-topstories.html

I honestly don't get the over-the-top reactions of death threats -- lynching? ********.

Nor do I, but I find it equally as repulsive that these coaches are teaching these kids this is how you solve things.

I was thinking about this last night. I get the protests, I do. There is a problem, albeit excruciatingly small compared to cops killed by blacks, black on black crime and a thousand other things we could address that would save more lives.

The problem is the means.

We are the UNITED States of America. Not the DIVIDED States of America. The Flag is the symbol of our unity that keeps us together. Analogize it to a family. We have seen what the lack of a family unit does to black lives. It's the same for a country. A strong household has two heads that should be instilling values and leading by example; it has rules, and love, and structure, and finances, and facilities and the whole unit works together to survive and succeed. No different than a country, really.

When the parent(s) lose control and the kids no longer look to the leaders of the house as their guide posts and respect them and their values, the unit breaks down. Values vanish. Rule breaking and law breaking occurs. Management stops happening, things begin breaking, money disappears, bills aren't paid.

Children don't always and never will agree with parents. And parents will never always agree with each other. But the structure must remain. So too the values.

The military is this way. Soldiers may disagree with the commands, but you follow them period, end of story. Or people die, isn't that the saying?

I don't agree with everything this country does. I CERTAINLY don't agree with a damn thing this President and Oministration does. But when the anthem is struck and Old Glory is flying, I remove my hat (as I will tomorrow night) and I reverently pause and honor the flag. Why? Because she stands, like so many parents, for the values we all live under - disagree or not - that make this the greatest country on earth. And when the populace begins disrespecting that flag universally, and when we start teaching it to our kids like these ******** have with this youth football team, we are teaching "universal disrespect" of the values and freedoms under which we live. It's a recipe for disaster. Especially these young kids.

I mentioned in the beginning I'm fine with the protest. Find another way though, not one that eats at the fabric of our values. Go to the White House and march. End every press conference with a statement, over and over till it happens - "I'd like to sit down with President Odumbass and discuss police violence one on one and help him build programs to address the problems." Put on a T-shirt.

There are a thousand ways to do it. But not respecting the values and unity of this country? Disrespecting all of her, in front of children?? Teaching them that disrespect is the means to get what you want? What terrible lessons.

It's the wrong way.

 

[POP]

You are not only stupid, you are lazy. Specifically, you post two articles on the same point, apparently without reading the goddamn articles, stating that the police department in New London, Connecticut (where???) hires police officers who are average to above-average intelligence:

The average score for police officers was a 21-22, or an IQ of 104. New London would only interview candidates who scored between 20 and 27. Jordan sued the city alleging discrimination, but the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld that it wasn’t discrimination. “Why?” you might ask. Because New London Police Department applied the same standard to everyone who applied to be a cop there.

And the theory behind it? “Those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training,” ABC News reported back then. While at least acknowledging the basic fact that such a policy might be “unwise,” the court deemed it had a “rational basis” because it was put in place to lower cop turnover.

Therefore, one police department in New London, Connecticut implemented a policy requiring that new police officers be average intelligence at a minimum to above-average, but not approach Mensa level, on the theory that extremely intelligent cops will be bored by the mundane grunt work of police duties and look for a more challenging career.

You know, the theory of being over-qualified, something recognized and implemented by employers for the past 50 years.

Additionally, your other link was to a cite dubbed, "Filming Cops - Declare War on Police Brutality" and quotes a "former CIA contractor" ... with not one ******* bit of data that the guy ever worked for a police department, knows police practice and procedure, or indeed knows his *** from a hole in the ground. Yeah, reliable source.

So to summarize ... New London, Connecticut would not interview you - an idiot - and will not hire Mensa-level intellectuals, and some butt-knob former "CIA contractor" (whatever the **** that is) supposedly told some ******* site, "See? They won't hire geniuses."

Boooom ... you are knocked the **** out yet again.

Mr. Shiny Shoes,

The worst sign that someone is lower IQ is when they don't even realize it. I bring you Mr. Shiny Shoes.

You think of yourself as "witty" with creative banter and you don't even realize you are shallow and boring.

You haven't even realized the oft-repeated main assertions; I mean, you haven't even understood them, not-to-mention refuted them.

Shiny Shoes, you're slow and don't even know it.

 

[POP]

Shiny Shoes, why did these cops shoot and kill these people?

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Shiny Shoes, why did these cops shoot and kill these people?

Probably because he was driving this car, Captain YouTube?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ed4Zj2GCrQ0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Steeltime]

Mr. Shiny Shoes,

The worst sign that someone is lower IQ is when they don't even realize it. I bring you Mr. Shiny Shoes.

You think of yourself as "witty" with creative banter and you don't even realize you are shallow and boring.

You haven't even realized the oft-repeated main assertions; I mean, you haven't even understood them, not-to-mention refuted them.

Shiny Shoes, you're slow and don't even know it.

I answered your demonstrably false claim that "the police want to hire only dumb people." I proved you are a fraud and liar.

No surprise that you are unable to formulate a substantive response. Here is another visual of you trying to make your case, and the end result:

Finally, you stupidly post some YouTube video of police and use of force.

So tell me, genius, what the **** do those videos have to do with one goddamn thing I have written in this thread??? Let me explain it so that you, a retarded ward-of-the-state dimwit, can understand:

• At no time have I ever stated that excessive force by police does not take place.
• I responded to one example you gave of the homeless guy in Los Angeles being shot by cops, because I was familiar with the facts for that matter.
• I showed that you were an imbecile for describing the cops as "murderers."
• You then go on a rant about another SoCal excessive force case. I pointed out that the cops were in fact tried, and found not guilty.
• Once again, you miss the entire point of the discussion and go on another YouTube jagoff, about nothing to do with any ******* issue I raised, ever, at all, in any fashion.
• You attack my intellect when I correctly point out that you are ignorant of the law, and further that the law in nearly every state precludes resisting an arrest because the suspect believes that the underlying charge is not well-founded.
• As expected, you miss the point again, and go on an idiotic rant where you are unable to differentiate the (1) underlying allegation from (2) resisting arrest, a separate offense.
• You then once again accuse me of being simple and dumb, in a sentence fraught (that means "filled with," nitwit) with grammatical and spelling errors. "Irony, POOP on line 1."
• You then falsely claimed that police departments want to hire only idiots.
• I pointed out that the issue involved one police department in New London, Connecticut (wherever the hell that is), and further that your own data showed that the one police department mandated that new-hires have average to above-average intellect - not that the officers be "dumb," as you falsely claimed.
• To nobody's surprise, you once again completely miss the entire point of the discussion and post some ******* YouTube video of ... who gives a ****? It has not one goddamn thing to do with the point of the debate.

Finally, my shoes are indeed quite shiny, mainly from doing this, to you:

 

[POP]

Mr. Shiny Shoes,

Your place in this world is to make it worse. Nice going.