The dumbest person wrote:
get used to it. wrote:The fact he felt the need to videotape it it tells me he wanted to create trouble by being an a$shole just to see what happened so he could cry foul.
He wanted to create trouble, by getting tased and harassed?
You're the dumbest person on LR.
^ This.
And you threw your hat in too, like you didn't need to be told that with your idiotic name. With that name I guess we shouldn't expect an intelligent response.
Stinky McCheesefart wrote:
The dumbest person wrote:He wanted to create trouble, by getting tased and harassed?
You're the dumbest person on LR.
^ This.
get used to it. wrote:
And you threw your hat in too, like you didn't need to be told that with your idiotic name. With that name I guess we shouldn't expect an intelligent response.
Stinky McCheesefart wrote:^ This.
I guess we are having to get used to it there are a lot of dumb posters here who just want to argue;
Granted this fellow wasn't completly in the right by refusing to identify himself - though that's a controversial point whether he HAS to produce ID just because a cop requests it. But unfortunately his attitude didn't help things. However, was he aware he was in an employees only area and how was he asked to move. Politely or rudely? Why were the police called, he hadn't really done anything up to that point.
I don't see why this whole thing warranted his being tasered and hauled off to jail.
Bottom line, IF a uniform asks you to do something, for heaven's sake comply. These guys/gals in uniform are just itching to throw their weight around.
No difference whether U R white, black, brown, yellow - or green.
As a matter of fact, under MN law, he is under no obligation to ID himself to a cop unless and until he is formally detained. By knowing and maintaining his rights under the law, he defended those rights for all. Unfortunately, there are plenty of dopes like you out there who are all too ready to relinquish those rights without even a fight.
Do some research. The facts are out there: He wasn't in a "private area;" the pedestrian walkway is PUBLIC PROPERTY.
Charges were dropped and he subsequently reclaimed the phone with the video. Expect a lawsuit to be filed shortly. Expect him to win.
Stinky McCheesefart wrote:
As a matter of fact, under MN law, he is under no obligation to ID himself to a cop unless and until he is formally detained. By knowing and maintaining his rights under the law, he defended those rights for all. Unfortunately, there are plenty of dopes like you out there who are all too ready to relinquish those rights without even a fight.
Do some research. The facts are out there: He wasn't in a "private area;" the pedestrian walkway is PUBLIC PROPERTY.
Charges were dropped and he subsequently reclaimed the phone with the video. Expect a lawsuit to be filed shortly. Expect him to win.
Thank you.
get used to it. wrote:
All he had to do was co operate. Fail on his part. Well deserved taseing.
Hey, your post looks suspicious to me. Would you please cooperate and go stick your d!ck in a light socket? Thank you for your cooperation.
get used to it. wrote:
Ironically, even with the video, he didn't file a complaint with the police or anyone else.
Newsflash: he's filing a complaint. I hope he gets rich.
Stinky McCheesefart wrote:
As a matter of fact, under MN law, he is under no obligation to ID himself to a cop unless and until he is formally detained. By knowing and maintaining his rights under the law, he defended those rights for all. Unfortunately, there are plenty of dopes like you out there who are all too ready to relinquish those rights without even a fight.
Do some research. The facts are out there: He wasn't in a "private area;" the pedestrian walkway is PUBLIC PROPERTY.
Charges were dropped and he subsequently reclaimed the phone with the video. Expect a lawsuit to be filed shortly. Expect him to win.
this is technically correct.
but I can't get furious about it - not sure if I am too tolerant of cops or what.
but why didn't the guy just stop walking and calmly explain himself? it's not that hard and I don't see it as giving in to a police state.
just sit, stop moving, explain that you are waiting to pick up your kid from school, and all will be fine.
is that really giving up a right? I don't see it that way, but I see the other side too - give cops an inch and they'll take a mile.
***COPS WILL BE COPS***
Do NOT mistake them for human beings--they are COPS.
When there's a Democrat in the White House, conservatives always stoke the fears of a totalitarian state taking away our freedoms, yet they still knee-jerk defend every fascistic police action, even if the victim is not black, but particularly if the victim is black. Where are the libertarians on this website now? You are enabling the police to ride roughshod over our freedoms.
T-Rex wrote:
Bottom line, IF a uniform asks you to do something, for heaven's sake comply. These guys/gals in uniform are just itching to throw their weight around.
No difference whether U R white, black, brown, yellow - or green.
Freedom, American-style.
viva italia wrote:
T-Rex wrote:Bottom line, IF a uniform asks you to do something, for heaven's sake comply. These guys/gals in uniform are just itching to throw their weight around.
No difference whether U R white, black, brown, yellow - or green.
Freedom, American-style.
is it really a deprivation of liberty? really?
I gotta say no - it isn't.
At this point.
This is letsrun.
In any confrontation involving a black man, he is always at fault no matter what happens
agip wrote:
viva italia wrote:Freedom, American-style.
is it really a deprivation of liberty? really?
I gotta say no - it isn't.
At this point.
Freedom, American-style.
whats so hard with following the rules and just moving like 99% of people would do in that situation?
Why go looking for trouble?
Dont feel any sympathy and would expect the same treatment for anyone.
Man was non-compliant. He loses because of his stupidity.
Well deserved wrote:
whats so hard with following the rules and just moving like 99% of people would do in that situation?
you miss the point - he WAS following the rules. He had no obligation legally to id himself.
Show me your papers... How can anyone be OK with police provoking someone in this way?
Somebody just hit the ghetto lottery! It's gonna be rainin Benjamins on his black a$$!
The cops tried to retain him. He asked him to put his hands behind his back. He refused. Hence the taseing. It has nothing to do with freedoms and liberties. Security called the fuzz because he was in an employee only area loitering.
agip wrote:
Well deserved wrote:whats so hard with following the rules and just moving like 99% of people would do in that situation?
you miss the point - he WAS following the rules. He had no obligation legally to id himself.
"tried to retain him"? What the hell does that even mean? If they had probable cause in connection with a crime, they could place him under arrest. If not, he is free to go and is under no obligation whatsoever to tell them anything.