Deputies make 2 arrests for walking while black, no other explanation.
As my Son entered 12th grade, we became more like “Roomates” than a Father Son relationship. One morning I get up at 0430 for work and he’s coming through the door with headphones,and sweats on after running.
I had to explain to him that the quickest way to get shot in Texas is to
Be Black.
Not respond to commands (headphones).
And to be as big as a Horse.
I think he got the point.
Stupid bait.
Deputy is looking for armed robbery suspects. Description is two males. Not much but not nothing.
Sees two males walking briskly in the area. Asks them to talk / answer questions. They refuse and try to continue on thier way.
If you’re the cop & let them walk when you have at least reasonable suspicion like this you’re a terrible cop and the armed robbery victims & your supervisors would like to speak with you.
But what makes your suspicion “Reasonable?”
Because I don’t see anything reasonable as written.
1 Like
-
they were over a mile from where the armed robbery was reported.
-
@10:55 there are 2 males who stroll past and the cop doesn’t go screw with them
-
the cop advises he knows they didn’t have anything to do with the robbery while wrestling with the first one he attacks
-
the report was for an armed robber. ALL of the cops nonchalantly turn their backs on the 2 guys they want to claim are armed robbers
-
the 2 guys walked the whole time, but the cop feels the need to lie to increase the implied urgency/danger by claiming they were running.
The no duty to protect thing protects cops from failing to protect despite the blatanty false PR campaign. That really should change and put individual le and agencies on the hook criminally/civilly when a crime occurs.
OR
nix the special priveleges “needed” to “protect”.
I didn’t see the portion of the cop telling the kid he knew they weren’t involved.
It was telling the way they ignored the smller guy, as if they assumed he was no threat.
I know you’re not involved, I just wanna wrestle a little bit and cuff you for…?
1 Like
At roughly 3:10
Victim: “I didn’t do nothin”
Perp: “You’re right, you didn’t”
But keeps on with the arrest before getting upset the other one is filming him and starts in on him too.
1 Like
Ah.
I think they’re going to be getting some money from the town / county.
[quote=“jsbhike, post:5, topic:485147”]
put individual le and agencies on the hook criminally/civilly when a crime occurs.[/quote]
Individual officers can be and are charged criminally if they commit a crime. Please explain to me how allowing them to be personally sued in civil court would improve the quality of policing.
Not what I was getting at, but I will respond to that one first.
A cop getting charged criminally is a rare occurrence, unfortunately cops committing crimes are not. That lack of enforcement was where gaining the ability to sue cops came from with The Enforcement Act of 1871 to act as a deterrent against rights violations. Unfortunately, the creation of Qualified Immunity has largely eliminated the deterrent of facing civil suits with cops being granted QI under such claims as not being trained that stealing is a violation of rights.
https://www.cato.org/publications/legal-briefs/jessop-v-city-fresno-scotus
And even when QI is denied, le agencies will typically pick up the bill for the offending officer.
I would much prefer criminal charges being pursued since that would act as a deterrent to committing rights violations. As is, there is practically nothing being done to prevent rights violations as seen in this video.
What i was referring to is agencies and officers. should be facing criminal and civil penalties for failing to stop crimes from happening after claiming they are there to protect the public then immediately hiding behind “no duty to protect” when they fail to meet advertised claims.
Not seeing it quite as much these days, but “you don’t need to be armed, the police are there to protect you” used to be a frequent outright lie told to muster support for violating the 2A.
The current “we’re here to protect you” false advertising tends to be more vague such as requesting more money(iirc, Uvalde le were @1/3 of the city budget), more exemptions from laws, more cops, more authority, fewer rights for citizens, and so on.
The claiming “we’re here to protect”(and all of the special priveleges and largesse gained from the claim) should be treated as fraud and offenders criminally charged and open to civil suits.
1 Like