WhatTrees

You make a great point. I can see why cops would be on edge and would rather risk taking someone into custody unnecessarily rather than putting their life at risk. Based on your reasoning they would probably be hyper vigilant for signs a stop might go wrong. Given an employers responsibility to provide a safe workplace, they are probably trained to err on the side of caution, right?

No. Absolutely not. “Officer safety” isn’t a blank check. Officer’s first duty is to the law and the constitution, even before their own safety. You don’t get to violate someone’s right because you were scared, especially when the officers never once mention a safety threat. The only thing they say when they pull out the driver is “when we tell you to do something, you do it.” You can keep imagining that this is about safety, but it’s transparently not. It’s about an officer who got butt-hurt when someone didn’t suck his dick hard enough.

A rather obvious diss and strawman argument, but I see your point. What you are ignoring though is the reasonable person who is employed as a cop.

You are not a cop I assume, which is why I said person. The legal standard is “reasonable officer”. The point still stands, nothing he did was objectively reasonable by the legal standard.

If you had that job, how much would you be willing to risk death on a daily basis to give people the benefit of the doubt?

If I was a cop, I would recognize that I volunteered for a dangerous job where my primary responsibility is to the rights of the citizens I supposedly protect. I would not violate someone’s rights just because I had a completely unjustified fear. Are we just going to brush past the fact that this unjustified fear just happened to be directed towards a black man? That must just be coincidence, right?

So sue the fuck out of him! That’s what the courts are for. That’s a separate issue from whether the cop decided he was non-cooperative at a level that warranted intervention.

Well, no it’s not. The courts determine what is reasonable and legal. The cop doesn’t get to violate rights or laws even if he thinks the situation warranted intervention. He must have an objectively reasonable and legal reason for that intervention. Short of that, what he did was unreasonable and illegal. That’s the whole point. And again, you haven’t pointed to a single thing he did as showing non-cooperation, especially not enough to warrant all that followed in a legal way. As I’ve outlined numerous times now, he didn’t refuse any order given. The only one he didn’t comply with fast enough for the officer was the order to exit in which the officer gave him 7 seconds before resorting to violence.

That’s the whole point of qualified immunity. Cops are the ones willing to wade into the shit on a daily basis. They put their lives on the line, so they get the discretion to decide they are going to cuff you for the rest of the interaction if they feel unsafe.

It’s shocking how little you understand about how this all works. QI gives them legal protection for things that are not well established at the time of the interaction. It gives them cover for interpreting a law in the grey. Pulling someone out without reasonable suspicion they are armed and dangerous is not a grey area, it was decided by the Supreme Court decades ago. Not using excessive force is per-se well established (meaning QI does not apply when using unreasonable and unjustified force, like say punching a handcuffed suspect). I’ll gloss over your completely insane framing of officers as “putting their lives on the line” and “willing to wade into this shit” and just say, do yourself a favor and look up the Castle Rock case and Uvalde before trying to suck them off next time.

If they break the law, sue them. If policy is bad, lobby for change. People wrote the laws, people set the culture, people can change it. But just whining online that some sports guy you like wasn’t treated as politely as you would have liked is like having a quick wank, it makes you feel good, but won’t change anything.

I don’t give a shit about sports ball or this guy in the slightest. I had never even heard his name until this news broke. This isn’t about “not being polite enough”. The driver was treated in an illegal manner by a power-tripping cop because he didn’t act as nicely and apologetically as this officer thought he was entitled to. That officer can get fucked. And the fact that the police union stated their full support of him before the video even came out should tell you something.

What exactly would you suggest to make things better? This kind of talk online led to the largest protests in American history just a few years ago and after months that led to nothing. And you aren’t here advocating for change, you’ve been defending the officer and presuming he is right about everything this whole conversation.

If you think you can do better, go apply for a job with the force, show us what the police could be. If you are going to let someone else do it so you don’t have to take the risk and can sit safely at home whining about it. Sure you can get some attention, but you aren’t going to be taken very seriously.

Oh yes, the classic “our job is so hard, why don’t you try it”. Got any more stereotypical cop defense lines you wanna throw out? Maybe a “he should have just complied” in there? No thanks, I have too much self-respect to be a pig. That being said, I don’t have to be a quarterback to know when a footballer makes a bad play. I don’t have to be a doctor to know not to listen to a quack. I don’t have to be a cop to know a power-tripping tyrant when I see one.

You’re implying here that he failed to comply with lawful orders, which ones exactly did he fail to comply with? As I outlined before he was ordered to not roll his window back up again and he did not (even if he had, that alone is not a lawful order as no case law or Florida law allows an officer to order someone to roll it all the way down and keep it down for the duration of the stop). He was ordered out of the car (a lawful order as outlined by case law if the officer has reasonable suspicion that he is armed and dangerous. The officer makes no claim to the driver being armed and dangerous, much less having reasonable suspicion of such. This was not an armed robbery stop) and within 7 seconds was dragged out of the car. The driver never said no and was not given time to comply. While you must exit when ordered (again, if the officer has what he needs to make that order lawful), it is not reasonable to drag someone out after only 7 seconds.

If he had failed to follow lawful orders, why didn’t they charge him with that?

Having distain or reluctance are not illegal acts and are not grounds for reasonable suspicion that someone is armed and dangerous. While a person intent on hurting officers would likely have distain, they would be more likely to act cool and calm until they pull out their gun as to keep the officer from sensing a threat and reacting to it. There are also far more people who have distain for officers and do not which them harm. It is not objectively reasonable for an officer to believe that every person who does not show them sufficient deference is a safety concern, especially not a sufficient concern to justify physical violence against them.

If he had wanted to, why wouldn’t he have already done it? Why didn’t he pull out a gun (there is no indication by him or the officers that a gun was involved)? Why wouldn’t he have tried harming them as they pulled him out? Again, your what-ifs are not relevant to a discussion about the reasonableness of the officer’s actions. An officer doesn’t get to do whatever he feels like as long as he can imagine a possible harm.

Take a look at all of the officer’s actions and attempt to see them from a reasonable person’s perspective. He pulled over a guy for speeding, not armed robbery. He got upset only after the driver rolled the window up as he was walking away. He gave the driver only 7 seconds to respond before using physical violence. He punched the driver while he was handcuffed. He lied about a 25ft law and then expanded it beyond what the made-up law would allow. After 18 minutes of having him in handcuffs, he only started to write the citations, the whole reason for the stop, when a supervisor asked him if they were already done. Officers can only hold a personal as long as it would reasonably take to accomplish the goal of the stop, in this case to write the tickets. Every step of the way, the officer acting unreasonably. I don’t care if you can imagine a different scenario where he might have been justified. In this case he was not.

You’re arguing that we should defer to the officers because of a million imaginary what-ifs. That’s not how this works.

Oh definitely, and the way we get that change is by instinctively supporting the officer’s decisions because of a thousand imagined what-ifs. Of course that officer had to shoot Sonya Massey because she might have thrown the water at them while cowering with her hands up. She might have had a wmd under her night dress! /s

Police don’t get to act on every imaginable what-if, they must act reasonably based on the specifics of the case in front of them. Watch the video again and pay attention to the time in the body cams.

The officer knocks on the window and the driver rolls it down and hands him his paperwork while complaining about the knocking. As the officer goes to walk away the driver rolls the window back up. The officer tells him to roll it back down, the driver opens it some. The officer tells him not to roll it up again or he would be taken out of the car. Within 7 seconds the officer changed his mind, ordered him out, and then dragged him out.

Important notes here. 1) not rolling the window all the way down or rolling it back up while the officer walks away are not illegal acts. There is no case law saying you must roll it all the way down and leave it down. 2) while it’s down the officer could see inside and did not note any obvious safety concerns. 3) he wanted the window down while he was walking away and couldn’t see inside anyway. 4) the driver never refused exiting the car and was not given a reasonable amount of time to comply. He said something like “just a moment” when asked once and was dragged out within 7 seconds. 5) the officers don’t later say that they had a safety concern, they say “when we tell you to do something you have to do it” in reference to the window, which again is not an order backed up by case law unlike the order to exit which again was not refused and not given reasonable time for the driver to comply.

You could always imagine a what-if that lets the cops off, but that’s not the way the courts do or the public should view these cases. The primary officer was unreasonable at almost every point. Later in the video he points to a 25ft law that isn’t in effect yet and then says that he has suddenly changed it to 50ft. He was on a power trip because the driver didn’t immediately show him proper deference.

You also have a right to collect Nazi memorabilia if you want, doesn’t mean I’m not going to call you weird.

Do you think there might be anything different between collecting swords and collecting guns? Do you think most people who live in urban environments have a need for a semi-auto military style, magazine-fed rifle? What about multiple of them? What about machine guns?

This isn’t ground news, it is MBFC. They don’t use AI for their ratings, and they aren’t vc funded. Literally both of those are next to each other on their about page if you cared to look.

Once again, the bot is giving you free information about the media source in the bot with more info linked on their site for free. You are free to ignore or block it. I just don’t understand throwing a fit about the existence of a bot designed to help users understand media bias for free.

If the mere existence of free and helpful information makes you so upset, just block it and walk away.

Media Bias Fact Check, the source for the info the bot gives is not ground news. It’s one of ground news’ sources. They are not connected in any meaningful sense.

Also, it’s not an ad, it gives you all the information right in the bot for free and links to the site with more info for free. They aren’t encouraging you or even suggesting donating to or buying ground news or mbfc.

Lastly, just block the account if you don’t want to see it. I have no idea why people are so upset at a bot for giving them free, helpful information they can choose to ignore or block.

It’s both because there is more than one kind of road.

America really likes stroads which give the impression that you can safely travel at speeds that are actually dangerous. We do that often in neighborhoods where we should be going 20-25 max but the design of the roads encourages us to drive faster. Since the speed limit is often actually at a safe speed, the issue of speeding is about the design of the road and not the speed limit.

Larger roads like highways, freeways, and expressways are designed for high-speed travel but often have speed limits that are low for the sake of revenue generation. If you’ve ever driven through a small town where the highway design doesn’t change but the speed suddenly drops from 65 to 35 you know what I mean. In those cases the problem is with the arbitrarily low speed limit as some states have raised the cap up to 80 and have not seen a substantial increase in accident-related injuries and deaths.

Connector roads often suffer from one or the other problem listed above. They are either designed to make you feel like you can go 60 when you should be going 40 or are set at 30 when you could safely go 40. The road design needs to match the safe speed by making drivers feel unsafe when they exceed that speed and not unnecessarily penalize them by not putting the limit lower than that speed.

Both of those result in speeding but have different causes.

Our roads are designed to make us think we can go faster than we should and localities have an incentive to keep speed limits arbitrarily low to increase fines from speeders.

Yes. Without the courts ability to determine if something is unconstitutional then it would always be up to Congress / the executive to decide what is constitutional and what is not. That presents an obvious separation of powers problem and could easily be misused by a Congress or executive branch that are hostile to certain rights.

Or, better yet, increase the number of justices to at least the number of circuits we have. I would say take that number and multiply it by three so that there are 3 from each that can form a small panel to deal with smaller issues and form a larger, randomly selected, 9-11 judge panel to deal with bigger issues. It would also dramatically limit the power any one justice holds. Mandate a strict code of ethics and disclosure and put in term limits.

I totally agree! Just saying you could make that exact same argument but for three per district and it opens up a bunch more possibilities.

If you triple instead of double that you could have a three judge panel (like federal districts do) that could rule on smaller cases that come out of that circuit. Then, if needed, they could call a full 9 - 11 judge panel if it’s a larger topic. This would also allow them to hear many more cases than they currently do, which has been a problem for decades.

He’d be dead before the sentencing anyway. Take one for the team Joe!

I’d pick the one that polls the highest against Trump whether I like them or not. That was the only reason I was supporting Biden in the past. If I could go back in time and do a real primary and pick someone based on who would run the country the best it could be a million people (Bernie, AOC, Buttigieg, etc), but the thing that matters to me most is who stands the best chance against Trump. A milquetoast do-nothing dem is a mile ahead of Trump 2.0 + P2025.

Also, I’m gonna say it, I’d love to vote for a gay man. I’d love to see the GOP desperately try to bite their tongue knowing that the overwhelming majority of Americans wouldn’t support them saying “don’t vote for the f*****” which we all know they’d want to say so damn hard. You know they’d end up slipping up and showing their true colors which could help turn people away.

Was a computer repair tech until a few months ago. About 6 months ago this older guy brought in his laptop because he had been hacked and they had changed his password. Was able to change the password to something new using some fancy tools but upon getting in all his files were still missing. Turns out OneDrive was on and ALL of his important files were only on OneDrive and not the computer. Well, Microsoft had changed his password when the hackers changed his computer password so he was locked out and Microsoft didn’t believe he owned the account anymore since he didn’t know the password. After weeks of calls he just gave up trying to get his stuff back.

Fuck OneDrive.

It’s the second half of your claim you’d have to support with evidence. Of course we help fund them, but it’s not so clear that they “benefit Hamas”".

If you read something like this article here, you’d note that of the 19 alleged ties to Hamas (of 34,000 workers btw) none have been found to be supported by evidence. Some of them are still going, and maybe they will show some kind of connection, but A) the time to believe that is when evidence is provided, not when the claim is made and B) I don’t really think cutting funding for an agency that does legitimate help to people currently starving and dying is justified just because 0.05% of employees have ties to Hamas. Would you be Ok condemning and demanding we cut funding to the IDF if we found 0.05% of their personnel had ties to radical Zionist movements calling for the eradication of Palestinians? Something tells me you wouldn’t.

Well, it happened in 2008 and 2020, so all we gotta do is wait for the economic crash in 2032 and we’ll be set!

Sorry for the confusion, the battery part of my reply was related to forcibly ending someone else’s pregnancy, which would have to involve some kind of battery unless it’s like poison or something, not related to the embryos in the freezer. There is no battery to those since they are not people.