In terms of killing prisoners? Sure. They've been a little hit or miss here lately but for the most part they get the job done.
The ones that deal with the ones convicted of a crime by a jury of their peers or confession of their guilt :)
I guess as long as they watch a YouTube video and wash up, have at it. What are they gonna mess up and accidentally kill the baby?
Yes, it is accurate. Pro-abortion just doesn't sound good, especially in Reagan's America. So they had to dress it up.
Pro-choice means you are for a woman's right to choose whether or not she has an abortion. Pro-abortion means you favor abortions over people having babies.
Back to cops possibly being bad, has this been discussed? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...40e4b0c9fdc75dfda3?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063
Asking where #alllivesmatter is at least equally as passively trollish as people claim the #alllivesmatter movement to be. I prefer we wait until all the evidence comes out before we rage but that form doesn't play well to twitter and our instant reaction/decision society
not sure if this belongs here or not, but http://truthvoice.com/2015/08/anonymous-is-the-new-kkk-say-black-lives-matter-leaders/
What a fucking gay article. "Members of Anonymous tried to contact BLM", like Anonymous is an actual fucking group with memberships and shit.
I mean I get what he's saying. He's right. The kid's personal life won't be dug through and he won't be labeled a thug... but that's bc the media simply doesn't care at all bc he's white and they can't make it a race issue. So yea, I guess you can say it's white privilege that he won't be blamed for his own death but that's only bc it won't be talked about much at all. Today's media infuriates me. They don't care about reporting the news. They only care about ratings and clicks so they only report something if it can be controversial. Police brutality is a serious issue that involves all races and needs to be treated as such, not dramatized by the media.
isn't a "thug" a street-wise black person, a gangsta, gang banger, etc? Webster's may have a more traditional definition, but don't we all think the same thing when we hear the word today? I never got the outrage over not calling white kids thugs. I mean...
all black males are thugs? no...just the ones who act like thugs, I'd say. And you raise a good point, why doesn't the media ever label black women thugs?? Sharkeisha was undoubtedly a thug, no? Why does it always have to be a male thing? Is there a white equivalent of thug? trailer trash? I dunno. I'm not aware of any white media figures glamorizing a particular way of life, like black rappers and thug life. Kid Rock? ICP? Maybe a Juggalo is a white thug.
I don't know why that's presented as a fact. I think it's morphed into a highly racially significant word, in that thug life was glamorized by black rappers. Tupac being the prime example. It's now become sort of a joke, when white kids try to act like that, which seems to supports my point.
thug THəɡ/ noun noun: thug; plural noun: thugs; noun: Thug 1. a violent person, especially a criminal. Anyone that associates "thug" with a young black male is simply a racist for thinking all young black males are violent criminals. There's no other explanation. Tupac's THUG LIFE: The Hate U Gave Little Infants Fucks Everyone Seriously, it's obvious you are quite ignorant on this subject. Just stop posting.
I don't think Eminem or Paul Wall are thugs. I think both try to portray that, though. Hell same goes for Tupac. Tupac went to the Baltimore School of Performing Arts with Jada Pinkett. He wasn't a thug. He just played that up to sell records.
ha! that's funny: "Webster's may have a more traditional definition" proceeds to quote Websters.... How do you make the jump from - young black criminals imitating the lifestyle perpetuated by black rappers = thugs to ALL black men are violent criminals????
The fact that you think young black criminals imitate the lifestyle of black rappers is hilarious. It's actually the other way around. Rappers just shed light on what's going on in the streets. Look, this is what started it all: Being a thug has nothing to do with race. Take "black" out and you'd be correct.
Dude videoing this is annoying but Christ that cop is out of line. Pulled his gun to intimidate the guy for videotaping in his front yard. Unbelievably believable.
Most gangster/thug rappers were just acting. They realized putting up an act made them more money. It's like saying heavy metal artist actually worshiped the devil. Guys it's an act for entertainment purposes.
chicken or the egg doesn't affect my argument that a young black male criminal = thug, and young black male criminals have at least to some degree perpetuated that stereotype. I don't think a 58 year old black criminal = thug. it's not just race. or a female. it's not just gender. Or a white (asian, latino, pacific islander, etc.). it's not just race.
Dude videotaping was trying to elicit a reaction here. Gun is never drawn if the civilian here does not get irrationally agitated at the request to remove his hand from his pocket.
A police officer shouldn't give in to said reaction when the guy is on his own yard breaking no laws. Gun should never be drawn in this situation regardless of what the citizen is doing if they're abiding by the law. Clearly there were prior implications as well.
Why do I get the feeling that removing his hand from his pocket would have gotten him shot? We are at the point in society where having your hand in your pocket is a reasonable cause to (threaten to) shoot you?
Removing his hand with a gun in it aimed at the cop would probably have gotten him shot. The cop asked him to pull his hand out of his pocket and the guy went coronary over the request. Cop got his firearm into position to keep himself save. Why the fuck does the guy have a coronary over his hand coming out of his pocket? That is not allowed to be a red flag for the cop. Not just a declination, but an absolute loss of composure? pointing and screaming? Wouldn't compliance to a simple request be a more reasonable reaction?
You don't have a problem with a cop pulling a gun on a guy in his yard doing nothing? There is no escalation if the cop doesn't pull out his weapon. While nothing ended poorly here, these are the small abuses of power than can turn into something much larger and tragic. You're either trolling or stupid. I don't care which one.
it is not reasonable to assume that a guy standing in his driveway with his hand in his pocket is in any way a threat to anyone, let alone *might* have a gun. If what you are saying were true, cops would be busy around the clock responding to these brazen citizens with their hands in their pockets all the time. Let's be honest, how do I know you don't have a bomb tapped to your chest right now? It's reasonable for a cop to ask you to remove your shirt to verify that there is no bomb. And what's with these pants manufacturers, making pockets in pants, so easy to conceal god knows what that might be used to harm innocents or officers, right?
By this logic, a cop can drive past you on the sidewalk holding a camera in one hand and if your other hand is in your pocket then they're within reason to pull over and demand you remove your hand from your pocket. That's absurd.
Really not tying to Troll, so since we don't share the same opinion, I must be stupid. This citizen is in an escalated state prior to the cop even getting out of the vehicle. Asking him to take his hand out of his pocket just put him over the top. If this guy were chilled in a lawn chair, complied with the request to see his hands, and then the cop pulled the gun, yea I would say that is an abuse of power. He says into the radio that he is "at the address" so could be that he was there for a call. Is it unreasonable for him to try to ensure that the guy is not just waiting for an opportunity to pull a gun and shoot him? All he asked before pulling his sidearm was to take his hand out of his pocket? But I guess I'm just stupid. Why is it that instant name calling is the go to for a difference of opinion?
"Excuse me, ma'am. I'm Officer Bonaventure with the (your city here) unofficial Bomb Squad. Please show me your chest." And after being shown you can follow up with "Well, you don't have any explosives but you've definitely got some serious bombs." Spoiler
I don't see the need all these guys have to video tape cops. What's the point? So many assholes. Cops, civilians.
"Ma'am, if I wanted any lip from you I'd unzip my pants now please remove your shirt and bra so I may evaluate the potential threat and act accordingly."
It's not a need IMO. More so a way to hold the police accountable. Without a recording of the incident or any witnesses (which I saw none of in that video but there could have been), the cop could do something entirely out of line and it would come down to a his word vs. civilian's word. And as we all know that tends to go the way of the LEO the vast majority of the time. To me, it's just a way to provide a somewhat objective account of what is occurring or might occur. No doubt it's someone annoying doing it most of the time but that doesn't make them doing it any less important.
I'm good with the video'ing, and the camera's on the cops. But if there is some type of involvement with the police, (in this case it appeared to be a response for a call)and the officer asks to see your hands, ( a good bit more common to have a gun or knife in your pocket than a bomb on the chest) why is it absurd to comply with the request to take your hand out of your pocket at the time of an interaction with a cop.