Video........If you wonder why blacks hate cops

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Suspect32 wrote:http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-38-02.html

It's a law. He was detained and gave false birthdate/age. If he'd kept his

mouth shut the officer had nothing. Because he did this when there was a fugitive warrant out for him it will be a harsher punishment.

You and I may not like the law. We may not like the cop's approach. But in Texas it's the law. Know the law when you verbally spar with law enforcement.

How was he detained? Did this officer have reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in or about to be engaged in a crime?

Everything about this video screams consensual encounter, not detention.

Mr obvious you are a dumb liberal

Crawl back into you're hole and ask for pics

Yeah, I won't be digging through old studies to be right on the internet. The citation in the study linked used the metric 'have you smoked in the last 12 months' as an indicator of smoking frequency. It is deceptively and perhaps (my guess is it is) intentionally misleading.

Let me ask you this, if they had hard data that showed smoking frequency down to the number of times smoked in the last 12 months for black vs white, and that data showed that black and white truly smoked at the same frequency, do you think they would state in their analysis regarding smoking frequency:

a) Whether the population smoked at all in the last 12 months?

or

b) The actual smoking frequency of each population?

These are the tells of someone baking a case. And it's why I can never read anything on any news site that leans too far in either direction. You rarely find satisfying data.

Go toot somewhere else wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

How was he detained? Did this officer have reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in or about to be engaged in a crime?

Everything about this video screams consensual encounter, not detention.

Mr obvious you are a dumb liberal

Crawl back into you're hole and ask for pics

Haters gonna hate.

Do you have any data to support any other thesis?Substituting your own beliefs and preconceived notions for actual data is not a scientifically or statistically sound procedure. Speculating on what data they may or may not have is not a scientifically sound procedure.

Dude, I have the exact level of detail of data that the analysis shows me, what have you missed here?

-They define smoking frequency as a binary response to have you smoked in the last 12 months.

-They define income level by the median income level of their county.

I'm asking you, if they actually had harder, more specific data that came to the same conclusion, do you still think they would opt to word it in the same way? I'm really curious to hear your response on this, I'm not asking rhetorically. If they don't have additional granularity in their data, does the data truly mean anything?

And I'm not inserting my personal beliefs here. I have actual numbers on violent crime, I doubt anyone disputes that. I don't have the actual data on marijuana usage, I'll give you that, but I'm not trying to make an argument that blacks smoke more. I'm making an argument against the methodology of the analysis. Their means of portraying the data highly suggests that it's either not granular enough to paint an actual picture, or it is granular enough but needs to be massaged to tell the story they want.

You can pick nits with each individual statistic, and you will probably accurately point out some methodological flaws, but the amount of evidence on racial disparities in police stops, arrests, and shootings of blacks vs whites is pretty substantial.

Here's a long list of studies:

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/07/data-police-racial-bias

)( wrote:

You can pick nits with each individual statistic, and you will probably accurately point out some methodological flaws, but the amount of evidence on racial disparities in police stops, arrests, and shootings of blacks vs whites is pretty substantial.

Here's a long list of studies:

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/07/data-police-racial-bias

Stop pestering him with facts.

He isn't interested.

.triggered wrote:

Well now I've seen it. Proof that all cops are terrible and should be killed. Thanks for the insight, really changed my worldview there.

I don't think you need a lot of proof.

This stuff goes on, and in at least 550 times this year alone a cop has shot an innocent. (That means someone who has never seen the inside of a court room to defend what ever the cop thought was the problem. Innocent - not convicted of anything)

Now I wonder when people who are pulled over will start shooting when they fear for their life in a traffic stop. That seems to be an acceptable excuse for police during a stop. i

() wrote:

Long Trigger Ranger wrote:

I do not have stats. But I believe that someone posting above gave the correct answer (without any means of proving it).

The right metric would not be per person but rather per person interaction or per minutes of interaction. With that metric I believe that cops kill black people at a rate that is many, many times higher than the rate at which black people kill black people.

Again, admittedly with no stats/links to back it up.

I put this in another reply, but interaction time is not the way to measure this. Cops aren't called in to play XBox and chill with the population. They get called in when something needs addressing. By the nature of what they do they are automatically far, far more likely to be involved in confrontations and violence than the average person.

Fair point.

Perhaps there is no reasonable, useful and obtainable metric

No matter how you feel about this story, I think we can all agree that all pigs are lowlife cowards.

Seriously? So if folks are not dressing according to your tastes then they deserve to be harassed by cops? If they don't drive what you consider to be a "normal" car then they deserve to be harassed by cops? Do you have any idea how unAmercan that is?

Oh, and by the way, the folks in the video were at work.

If he would have given the officer his correct information, name address, blah, blah, and ditched the attitude, he wouldn't have the cuffs on.

I am guessing that someone reported a suspicious individual going door to door. As someone pointed out the vehicle is pointed in the wrong direction on the street - illegal in my neighborhood. Did Mr. Attitude have a business license? Perfectly fine to request some information.

Educational video on how to avoid gettin' an a$$ whoopin'.

https://youtu.be/OEvMc-K8XHY

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Stop pestering him with facts.

He isn't interested.

I get it that you're trying to be cute and I hope that works out for you in life. But I think it's pretty GD obvious that I'm only interested in facts. By the way, why are you refusing to answer my question? Cause it really seems that they're drumming up useless statistics as measures.

If they had hard data that showed smoking frequency down to the number of times smoked in the last 12 months for black vs white, and that data showed that black and white truly smoked at the same frequency, do you think they would state in their analysis regarding smoking frequency:

a) Whether the population smoked at all in the last 12 months?

or

b) The actual smoking frequency of each population?

Digressing like crazy, I don't even care about marijuana stats, this is more an issue of violent crime. But this is the playbook of today's media. Get the data to say what you want it to say by any means necessary to get clicks on your crappy webpage. Oh, and heighten race tensions while you're at it.

Here is what you have missed. This is one study that shows blacks and whites smoke marijuana at roughly equal rates. It may (as you contend) not have the best measure of that.There are lots and lots of others studies. Peer-reviewed, published, studies. All of them come to similar conclusions. It is really not that difficult and not at all impressive.I am sure you could poke some sort of methodological hole in each and every one of those studies. I'm sure I could too. However when there is an overwhelming body of research evidence which supports a conclusion, it is not enough to poke methodological holes in individual studies. At some point you either have to point to some sort of contrary evidence or you are ignoring it because it points to a conclusion that you don't want to believe. You have said you aren't even willing to look at the underlying studies or any additional studies.

In this case, these individuals were not smoking marijuana and they were not involved in violent crime (or any crime at all).There were harassed purely because they were working while black. Then the officer tried to arrest him because the officer did not want to give his name and/or badge number.

() wrote:

Digressing like crazy, I don't even care about marijuana stats, this is more an issue of violent crime. But this is the playbook of today's media. Get the data to say what you want it to say by any means necessary to get clicks on your crappy webpage. Oh, and heighten race tensions while you're at it.

If there's going to be law and order, those in charge have to follow it, period. As someone correctly mentioned, if he deemed something suspicious and ran the guy's plate and found out the owner had a warrant, then although it's still a very fine line, he'd have gotten away with it. To confront them because they are going door to door with business cards and he even sees the lawn equipment?????, NOPE, it's not right. Sorry, but it'll be a slippery slope to go down if they can just ask for ID without a justifiable cause and have no repercussions. He asked them, mainly, because they are black.

Slippery Slope Stan wrote:

If there's going to be law and order, those in charge have to follow it, period. As someone correctly mentioned, if he deemed something suspicious and ran the guy's plate and found out the owner had a warrant, then although it's still a very fine line, he'd have gotten away with it. To confront them because they are going door to door with business cards and he even sees the lawn equipment?????, NOPE, it's not right. Sorry, but it'll be a slippery slope to go down if they can just ask for ID without a justifiable cause and have no repercussions. He asked them, mainly, because they are black.

I think they were targeted because they were black and young, but targeted by a neighbor calling the police

I think the police officer walked into an attitude from the one guy and the officer let it get to him and handled it poorly.

I think the attempted arrest on the street is because the guy gave false info instead of shutting his mouth.

I think the arrest with dogs etc at the house later is because they got a warrant to get the guy from the house based on the outstanding warrant and the fact that his sibling stuck around and identified/ratted out his brother.

Moral of story: the police are not your friend but try not to make them your enemy.

Go to Copwatch.com or Copblock.com. Those sites have videos and stories depicting police brutality and abuse EVERY DAY.

The pansy pig defenders on this site would be singing a different tune if lowlife cops took liberties with them or a loved one.

So it comes out that the kid had an outstanding warrant. That's why he didn't want to give out his name.

CBS wrote:

Constable administrator Alen Rosen said Gipson left because of an outstanding misdemeanor assault warrant.

"So when originally stopped and questioned by the officer, that was why he really didn't want to say who we was," Rosen said.

Constables came to his house later that day. Gipson recorded that, too. He said constables broke down his door, tased him and sicced a K-9 on him that left bite marks on his arm.

"I can't even lift certain stuff no more," Gipson told us. "My arm is still numb in certain spots. I can barely lift it up."

But Rosen says his officers did nothing wrong.

"We gave Mr. Gipson, before the police dog went upstairs, we told him four different times, we even yelled, 'police dog, police dog come out,'" Rosen explained.

My main complaint with cops is they are overly militarized. Why do they need to taser the kid? But then again, if people aren't going to obey your commands, what the hell are they supposed to do?

It would be A LOT simpler if people respected cops.