Calling for dead cops is not peaceful protesting!

[Zaac]

Hey I have an idea, .......Don't resist arrest. Yea that is a good idea.


See you do not get to commit a crime thirty times then resist arrest and then cry foul.

Pure foolishness. That man weighed 350 pounds. If he was resisting arrest, the damage to the officers would be apparent.

It might be a good idea for police officers to start arresting people when they are ACTUALLY committing a crime instead of waiting .

After the incident, city medical examiners concluded that Garner was killed by neck compression, along with "the compression of his chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police".

 

[blackbird]

It might be a good idea for police officers to start arresting people when they are ACTUALLY committing a crime instead of waiting .

So I guess this means that ------ if one is robbing a bank----if the police DO NOT arrest the robber DURING the act-----the robber is free to leave with the loot!! Once the crime has been committed---and he is not caught DURING the act----he cannot be arrested----I see!!!

What a joke!!!

:laugh::laugh:

 

[Zaac]

So I guess this means that ------ if one is robbing a bank----if the police DO NOT arrest the robber DURING the act-----the robber is free to leave with the loot!! Once the crime has been committed---and he is not caught DURING the act----he cannot be arrested----I see!!!

What a joke!!!

:laugh::laugh:

The joke is police procedure. if someone is breaking the law, then arrest them. Running up on somebody when they aren't doing anything does nothing but lead to escalated emotions.

And in case you didn't realize it, there's a difference between using a weapon to commit a felonious act and misdemeanors.:thumbsup:

 

[church mouse guy]

All of this explains why Sharpton is calling for the murder of cops.

 

[PreachTony]

Pure foolishness. That man weighed 350 pounds. If he was resisting arrest, the damage to the officers would be apparent.

You can resist arrest without physically harming a police officer, Zaac. If the police were arresting you, and you kept stepping away from them, or pulling away when they tried to cuff you, or squirming away, that's considered resisting arrest. No harm came to the arresting officer, even though the suspect doing those things was resisting arrest. Do that long enough and the police will eventually resort to some type of force to complete the arrest.

I've said to you that the officer in NY overreacted by putting the man in a choke hold, but I understand the tactic. He was a big man, bigger than the cops that were there. To try and restrain him from the front could be an invitation to injury. Moving in from behind and placing him in a debilitating situation increases the speed at which the arrest is completed. This situation, unfortunately, led to the man's death. Yes, this was avoidable, and yeah, it was probably over-zealous enforcement by the officer. However, if he hadn't resisted to begin with, in the form of moving away and offering noncompliance with the officer's requests, we might not even be talking about this today, because there is a chance no one would've been hurt in any way.

It might be a good idea for police officers to start arresting people when they are ACTUALLY committing a crime instead of waiting .

If the cops have information on someone having committed a crime, why should they wait until he is committing the crime again? It's common practice to arrest a criminal after the crime has been committed. Otherwise, you're basically saying the cops should only be allowed to arrest criminals in the act. If they don't actually see the crime being committed, they shouldn't be allowed to arrest anybody.

The joke is police procedure. if someone is breaking the law, then arrest them. Running up on somebody when they aren't doing anything does nothing but lead to escalated emotions.

See my answer above.

 

[Zaac]

All of this explains why Sharpton is calling for the murder of cops.

You've been watching too much FOX News. It should tell you something about what they are trying to do when something this blatant takes place.

Fox News was caught deceptively editing a chant calling for dead cops into a speech by Rev. Al Sharpton, making it seem as if demonstrators were advocating murder against police officers.

The segment was aired on the morning show Fox & Friends, which showed a clip of some protesters in Manhattan chanting “What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!” The video then immediately cut to Sharpton leading a rally, making it seem as if Sharpton was leading the calls to kill police officers.

“We’re not saying all police are bad. We’re not even saying most are bad,” Sharpton said in the speech. “We’re not anti-police, but we’re anti-brutality. And the federal government must have a threshold to protect that.”

The tricky editing was picked up by many news outlets, which noted that the two clips were taken at different times of day and were clearly not related, despite the efforts by Fox News to tie them together.

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1679111/fo...-with-al-sharpton-speech/#5he8XPX8ikC3TWdT.99

 

[Zaac]

You can resist arrest without physically harming a police officer, Zaac. If the police were arresting you, and you kept stepping away from them, or pulling away when they tried to cuff you, or squirming away, that's considered resisting arrest. No harm came to the arresting officer, even though the suspect doing those things was resisting arrest. Do that long enough and the police will eventually resort to some type of force to complete the arrest.

Thanks for that clarification Tony.:thumbsup:

I've said to you that the officer in NY overreacted by putting the man in a choke hold, but I understand the tactic. He was a big man, bigger than the cops that were there. To try and restrain him from the front could be an invitation to injury. Moving in from behind and placing him in a debilitating situation increases the speed at which the arrest is completed. This situation, unfortunately, led to the man's death. Yes, this was avoidable, and yeah, it was probably over-zealous enforcement by the officer. However, if he hadn't resisted to begin with, in the form of moving away and offering noncompliance with the officer's requests, we might not even be talking about this today, because there is a chance no one would've been hurt in any way.

Perhaps I missed something in the video that's been played again and again. But did they tell the guy he was under arrest or being arrested? the one police officer just started putting his hands on him but it wasn't clear to me if someone had said we're arresting you.

If not, how do you resist arrest if no one tells you that you're under arrest?

If the cops have information on someone having committed a crime, why should they wait until he is committing the crime again? It's common practice to arrest a criminal after the crime has been committed.

It's common practice if you've got evidence of them haven committed a crime to back up your arrest. He wasn't selling anything on that day and cities simply aren't in the business of arresting people without evidence.

Otherwise, you're basically saying the cops should only be allowed to arrest criminals in the act. If they don't actually see the crime being committed, they shouldn't be allowed to arrest anybody.

They can't just arrest someone if there is no evidence of a crime being committed. They don't have to see it. But if you're gonna show up and arrest somebody after the fact for crimes you say they've committed, then there has to be evidence. Anybody produce this evidence?

 

[PreachTony]

You've been watching too much FOX News. It should tell you something about what they are trying to do when something this blatant takes place.

Fox News was caught deceptively editing a chant calling for dead cops into a speech by Rev. Al Sharpton, making it seem as if demonstrators were advocating murder against police officers.

The segment was aired on the morning show Fox & Friends, which showed a clip of some protesters in Manhattan chanting “What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!” The video then immediately cut to Sharpton leading a rally, making it seem as if Sharpton was leading the calls to kill police officers.
<snip>
The tricky editing was picked up by many news outlets, which noted that the two clips were taken at different times of day and were clearly not related, despite the efforts by Fox News to tie them together.

Truthfully, you should take anything you see on major news with a grain of salt. Almost every major outlet has tried at sometime to make more out of an issue than actually existed in the first place. During the Trayvon Martin ordeal a couple years back, NBC edited Zimmerman's phone call to the police to make Zimmerman appear racist. NBC reported Zimmerman to say "This guy looks like he's up to no good … he looks black." When in fact Zimmerman said Martin looked like he was up to no good, and was then questioned by the police about the race of the suspect, to which Zimmerman replied "he looks black."

In 2009, MSNBC used deceptive editing to hide the fact that an armed man at a tea party rally was actually black. They then used the 'fact' that an armed man had shown up to a Tea Party rally to paint the Tea Party as a bunch of racists and left viewers wondering if they might try to assassinate the President.

In somewhat lighter terms, wrestler Mick Foley was interviewed by ABC in the 1990s. He later claimed that ABC deceptively edited his comments to make it appear as though he endorsed kids going in their backyards and beating each other with chairs and cheese-graters.

The media will do whatever it takes to bring in viewers, because that means more sponsorship dollars for them.

 

[Zaac]

The media will do whatever it takes to bring in viewers, because that means more sponsorship dollars for them.

And this right here is why I keep telling people that there is no difference between Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Al Sharpton.

They are all stirring the pot to keep a part of the demographic stirred up which in turn, leads to more viewers,more ad revenue and more dollars in their pockets.

 

[PreachTony]

And this right here is why I keep telling people that there is no difference between Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Al Sharpton.

They are all stirring the pot to keep a part of the demographic stirred up which in turn, leads to more viewers,more ad revenue and more dollars in their pockets.

That, Zaac, is a point in which I will agree with you 100%. Add in Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Mathews, and Anderson Cooper and we may go over 100%. :thumbs:

 

[righteousdude2]

Pure foolishness. That man weighed 350 pounds. If he was resisting arrest, the damage to the officers would be apparent.

Wow!It took a week or more, but you finally admitted what us good old boys have known all along! That man was of good size, he informed those cops he wasn't going to be arrested (that is verbally resisting arrest), he then began swatting at the cops and flailing his body, and those cops recognized that a 350 man was about to turn physical (per his words and initial actions), so they did what they were trained to do .... get the upper hand to keep themselves from being injured and to prevent the suspect from causing himself additional and undue harm.

It was unfortunate that the man died in the struggle, especially over something ad trivial as selling illegal cigarettes. But when you resist arrest and do so in an arrogant, aggressive way, you are as responsible for what happens as much as the cops. After all, he'd been arrested eight times prior to this arrest, you'd think he'd have had enough respect for the cops by this time considering.

Let's say that due to his massive size, during the struggle, he'd fallen on the cop with the neck hold, and killed the cop under the weight of his huge body; do you think anyone would be protesting his murder of the cop? No, you'd say the cops get paid for these types of things. After all its a dangerous job, being a cop. Likewise, being a career criminal (31 previous arrests and prison time does not a choir boy make?), has its dangers too? Don't you think?

Thanks for pointing out the elephant in the room. It is satisfying to hear this coming from the extremist. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Revmitchell]

Demonstrators were advocating the murder of cops. How else do you interpret "What do we want?" "Dead Cops!" "When do we want it?" "Now!"

The murder of cops is exactly what that means.

 

[Zaac]

That, Zaac, is a point in which I will agree with you 100%. Add in Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Mathews, and Anderson Cooper and we may go over 100%. :thumbs:

I concur!:thumbsup::laugh:

 

[Zaac]

Demonstrators were advocating the murder of cops. How else do you interpret "What do we want?" "Dead Cops!" "When do we want it?" "Now!"

The murder of cops is exactly what that means.

All of this explains why Sharpton is calling for the murder of cops.

Al Sharpton hasn't called for the murder of any cops.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

No justice, no peace is his mantra. And he gets to decide what is justice.

 

[Revmitchell]

Al Sharpton hasn't called for the murder of any cops.

So what? Who cares? Black people are calling for the murder of cops.


By the way has shaprton said that the calling of cops by black people is wrong?

 

[Zaac]

So what? Who cares? Black people are calling for the murder of cops.

And white cops are murdering unarmed black men. All around the big circle we go.

By the way has shaprton said that the calling of cops by black people is wrong?

Have Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Bill Oreilly and Mark Levin and Laura Ingraham and Glenn Beck said that the killing of unarmed black men by cops is wrong?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Is it wrong in every case? Is it wrong for black cops to shoot unarmed white people in every case ?

BTW, I already know you can't answer yes or no questions, so I await your accusations of racism, instead.

 

[Revmitchell]

Have Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Bill Oreilly and Mark Levin and Laura Ingraham and Glenn Beck said that the killing of unarmed black men by cops is wrong?

So you think that adding the words "unarmed black men" justifies calling for the murder of cops?

Do you assume that someone being unarmed autoatically means they are not a danger?

Truth is you do not care. You, like sharpton, just want the issue.

 

[Zaac]

Is it wrong in every case?

Is it wrong in every case for black people to call for the killing of cops?

Is it wrong for black cops to shoot unarmed white people in every case ?

Is it right for white cops to shoot unarmed black people in every case?

BTW, I already know you can't answer yes or no questions, so I await your accusations of racism, instead.

There's no room. Your accusations took up all the space.