TOTALLY GEEKED!

huskerbb · Guru

Well, at least he didn't shoot him, I guess.

Penelope · Newbie

Yeah, and some would say it's his fault for not complying with police orders. I can't imagine what it would feel like to be a black man in this country. So sad.

huskerbb · Guru

Penelope wrote:
Yeah, and some would say it's his fault for not complying with police orders. I can't imagine what it would feel like to be a black man in this country. So sad.

He did comply--but that's ridiculous. It's not a crime to walk down the street with your hands in your pockets. There was ZERO reason for any confrontation here at all.

Since when does one making people "nervous" constitute a reason to stop someone? Especially if they have made no threats, have no visible weapon, and are generally minding their own business?

Penelope · Newbie

I was being sarcastic. I know he didn't do anything wrong, I was just pointing out that some people will side with the police no matter what and somehow make it this man's fault.

I know what to do_sometimes · Frozen Sucks!

Did someone call the police about the guy? If so, I think the police have to check it out.

ETA: It is ridiculous to bother him because of his hands in his pockets.

-- Edited by I know what to do_sometimes on Monday 1st of December 2014 05:26:28 AM

Southern_Belle · Nothing's Impossible

Gee whiz!

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Again. Wasn't there. Going on what is said by the one offended. So I will just take it with a grain of salt.

We don't know what else was going on that made someone call the police.

And once the police are called, they have to see what is going on.

I honestly think some want the police to do nothing, ever. Why even have them? Let's just get rid of all the police. Think of the money that could be saved!

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Oh, Lily, that's GENIUS...not!

"Let's get rid of all the police."

flan

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

You mean it isn't what we should do? Because apparently there is nothing they can do that is right. Everything they do is wrong. They have no idea what they are doing. We don't need them. Let's just get rid of them.

I really hope the sarcasm is dripping from my post. Cause that is what I am going for.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

flan327 wrote:
Oh, Lily, that's GENIUS...not!

"Let's get rid of all the police."

flan

Oh, Flan, do you have anything to actually say or are you just getting your jollies make a dig?

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

lilyofcourse wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Oh, Lily, that's GENIUS...not!

"Let's get rid of all the police."

flan
Oh, Flan, do you have anything to actually say or are you just getting your jollies make a dig?

Do you?

flan

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Oh, Lily, that's GENIUS...not!

"Let's get rid of all the police."

flan
Oh, Flan, do you have anything to actually say or are you just getting your jollies make a dig?

Do you?
flan

I did. My first post was to address the actual OP.

Your first post was to try to be condescending.

So again I ask, do you have anything to actually say? Regarding the OP. Or are you just trying to cause some drama?

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

And, you think saying "Let's just get rid of all the Police" is NOT a condescending remark? So citizens are not allowed to question or criticize Police policies and procedures without that type of remark?

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

That's like people who won't allow you to have a discussion on Welfare fraud. If you want to weed out welfare fraud, then therefore you must be against all help and the social safety net. That's ridiculous. We can weed out fraud. Just like we can read out bad cops and corruption.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
And, you think saying "Let's just get rid of all the Police" is NOT a condescending remark? So citizens are not allowed to question or criticize Police policies and procedures without that type of remark?

flan

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Sometimes the Police are WRONG. I am not sure how that is somehow a diss or slam to Police when wrongdoing is called out??

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

But it's like nothing the police do is ok.

This one shot some one, why cant they use non lethal options?

That one used a stun gun or a rubber bullet, why cant they just watch?

They questioned some one, why are they talking to people?

I really don't know what you want from police.

You being in general.

And again, if you cant see the sarcasm in my post then you are looking for something to be upset about.

Sorry, I don't use emoticons in every post.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
But it's like nothing the police do is ok.

This one shot some one, why cant they use non lethal options?

That one used a stun gun or a rubber bullet, why cant they just watch?

They questioned some one, why are they talking to people?

I really don't know what you want from police.

You being in general.

And again, if you cant see the sarcasm in my post then you are looking for something to be upset about.

Sorry, I don't use emoticons in every post.

So, you have heard ME say that "nothing the police do is OK"? Um, what do I want? I want well thought out Police policy and procedure. I don't see how that is asking for the moon and the stars and their first born. And, please show me where I have ever said "nothing the police do is OK".

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Maybe not in those exact words but it seems to be the attitude.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Sometimes sarcasm works, sometimes it doesn't.

flan

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

flan327 wrote:
Sometimes sarcasm works, sometimes it doesn't.

flan

AnimatedRollingEyesSmiley.gif~c200

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
Maybe not in those exact words but it seems to be the attitude.

Really? I stood behind Ferguson calling out Michael Brown. So, unless I see it YOUR way 100% of the time , then that means I dont' support the police? If a lot of people were dying on the operating room table, wouldn't we call to look at procedures on how to make it safer and look at the medical professionals? Of course we would. Part of "protecting the public" means dealing with suspects in a way that doesn't kill them unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. Sometimes it is. Often times, there are other WAYS and better approaches.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Yeah but you keep saying "why cant they use non lethal methods" and then when they do you want to know why they used that.

And I said you as in general.

And if we don't agree on everything I promise I wont go cry about it. I may even sit here and laugh about it.

I think we need a computer version of rock'em sock'em robots. For times like this.

We are too far apart for jello wrestling.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

lilyofcourse wrote:
Yeah but you keep saying "why cant they use non lethal methods" and then when they do you want to know why they used that.

And I said you as in general.

And if we don't agree on everything I promise I wont go cry about it. I may even sit here and laugh about it.

I think we need a computer version of rock'em sock'em robots. For times like this.

We are too far apart for jello wrestling.

NO ONE wants to see that. Trust me.

flan

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Yes. I will say it again. WHY can't police use more Non lethal methods?

One , two, three, four, I declare a thumb war.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Yeah but you keep saying "why cant they use non lethal methods" and then when they do you want to know why they used that.

And I said you as in general.

And if we don't agree on everything I promise I wont go cry about it. I may even sit here and laugh about it.

I think we need a computer version of rock'em sock'em robots. For times like this.

We are too far apart for jello wrestling.
NO ONE wants to see that. Trust me.
flan

Speak for yourself! My DH might enjoy seeing me jello wrestle! lol

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Jello wrestling HAS to be better than cole slaw wrestling.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Yeah but you keep saying "why cant they use non lethal methods" and then when they do you want to know why they used that.

And I said you as in general.

And if we don't agree on everything I promise I wont go cry about it. I may even sit here and laugh about it.

I think we need a computer version of rock'em sock'em robots. For times like this.

We are too far apart for jello wrestling.
NO ONE wants to see that. Trust me.
flan

Not as far as I could throw you.

huskerbb · Guru

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
Did someone call the police about the guy? If so, I think the police have to check it out.

ETA: It is ridiculous to bother him because of his hands in his pockets.

-- Edited by I know what to do_sometimes on Monday 1st of December 2014 05:26:28 AM

No, see that's the thing--just because someone says "jump", that doesn't mean you "have" to. Or, if you feel you must, then drive by and--that's it.

huskerbb · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
But it's like nothing the police do is ok.

This one shot some one, why cant they use non lethal options?

That one used a stun gun or a rubber bullet, why cant they just watch?

They questioned some one, why are they talking to people?

I really don't know what you want from police.

You being in general.

And again, if you cant see the sarcasm in my post then you are looking for something to be upset about.

Sorry, I don't use emoticons in every post.

They can "watch". That's not what they did here. The officer started an unnecessary confrontation for no reason. The fact that it didn't turn out with a fatality is the standard we are now holding the police to? That's absurd.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

There are a lot of unanswered questions in the OP - like WHERE was he walking? Was it in a neighborhood he doesn't live in? Because that's what neighborhood watch programs are designed to do - report strangers in the neighborhood.

They called the police - they didn't shoot him.

The police asked him a question - they didn't shoot him.

What EXACTLY is the problem, that the police asked him questions? They didn't arrest him, they didn't taze him, they didn't "detain" him - they asked him questions.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
There are a lot of unanswered questions in the OP - like WHERE was he walking? Was it in a neighborhood he doesn't live in? Because that's what neighborhood watch programs are designed to do - report strangers in the neighborhood.

They called the police - they didn't shoot him.

The police asked him a question - they didn't shoot him.

What EXACTLY is the problem, that the police asked him questions? They didn't arrest him, they didn't taze him, they didn't "detain" him - they asked him questions.

And that's BS. We don't live in a police state (or maybe we do). If you are not committing a crime, then they have no reason to bother you. I don't want to have to worry about being stopped by the police for no other reason than I'm walking down the street minding my own business.

It's not illegal to be in a neighborhood you don't live in. What if the answer to that question was "no, I don't live here". Then what? Take him to jail? Shoot him?

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
There are a lot of unanswered questions in the OP - like WHERE was he walking? Was it in a neighborhood he doesn't live in? Because that's what neighborhood watch programs are designed to do - report strangers in the neighborhood.

They called the police - they didn't shoot him.

The police asked him a question - they didn't shoot him.

What EXACTLY is the problem, that the police asked him questions? They didn't arrest him, they didn't taze him, they didn't "detain" him - they asked him questions.

And that's BS. We don't live in a police state (or maybe we do). If you are not committing a crime, then they have no reason to bother you. I don't want to have to worry about being stopped by the police for no other reason than I'm walking down the street minding my own business.

It's not illegal to be in a neighborhood you don't live in. What if the answer to that question was "no, I don't live here". Then what? Take him to jail? Shoot him?

No, of course not. But what you are saying is that police are not even allowed to TALK to people.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
There are a lot of unanswered questions in the OP - like WHERE was he walking? Was it in a neighborhood he doesn't live in? Because that's what neighborhood watch programs are designed to do - report strangers in the neighborhood.

They called the police - they didn't shoot him.

The police asked him a question - they didn't shoot him.

What EXACTLY is the problem, that the police asked him questions? They didn't arrest him, they didn't taze him, they didn't "detain" him - they asked him questions.

And that's BS. We don't live in a police state (or maybe we do). If you are not committing a crime, then they have no reason to bother you. I don't want to have to worry about being stopped by the police for no other reason than I'm walking down the street minding my own business.

It's not illegal to be in a neighborhood you don't live in. What if the answer to that question was "no, I don't live here". Then what? Take him to jail? Shoot him?
No, of course not. But what you are saying is that police are not even allowed to TALK to people.

If they are actually doing something suspicious--of course.

Also, "talking" and "confronting" are two different things.

How's the weather? and Why do you suspiciously have your hands in your pockets when it's cold and that's not suspicious at all? are two VASTLY different questions.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

The police were CALLED. The cop just told him he was making people nervous. If they hadn't questioned him and he DID do something, then THAT would be the police's fault b/c they didn't respond to the call. It's a no win.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
The police were CALLED. The cop just told him he was making people nervous. If they hadn't questioned him and he DID do something, then THAT would be the police's fault b/c they didn't respond to the call. It's a no win.

So effing what? Since when is "making people nervous" a crime?

He could have accomplished the SAME THING by simply observing him for a couple of minutes from his patrol car--without bothering this guy and ruining his day--and yes, being indirectly accused of being a criminal when you have done nothing wrong would ruin most people's day.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

The man over-reacted. If he was watched by the cops for a while, that would be his complaint.

huskerbb · Guru

Most of the general public are dumber than a bag of bricks. It's the job of the police to use their discernment and judgment (to the extent they have any) to decide what merits what action.

This didn't merit anything other than POSSIBLY a short observation from a distance.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
The man over-reacted. If he was watched by the cops for a while, that would be his complaint.

No. The police WAY over-reacted.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Most of the general public are dumber than a bag of bricks. It's the job of the police to use their discernment and judgment (to the extent they have any) to decide what merits what action.

This didn't merit anything other than POSSIBLY a short observation from a distance.

It was faster and more efficient to just talk to the man and go on to the next call. They didn't search him, they didn't do anything but TALK to him.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Most of the general public are dumber than a bag of bricks. It's the job of the police to use their discernment and judgment (to the extent they have any) to decide what merits what action.

This didn't merit anything other than POSSIBLY a short observation from a distance.
It was faster and more efficient to just talk to the man and go on to the next call. They didn't search him, they didn't do anything but TALK to him.

BS. They wouldn't have even had to get out of their car.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Most of the general public are dumber than a bag of bricks. It's the job of the police to use their discernment and judgment (to the extent they have any) to decide what merits what action.

This didn't merit anything other than POSSIBLY a short observation from a distance.
It was faster and more efficient to just talk to the man and go on to the next call. They didn't search him, they didn't do anything but TALK to him.
BS. They wouldn't have even had to get out of their car.

What's BS - that it takes more time to simply "observe" him for a while than talk to him for 2 minutes? That's dumb.

Lexxy · My dog name is Sasha, too!

It does suck that he couldn't just walk down the street without being reported but I don't think the cop handled it wrong. He asked a few questions & let him go on his way.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Most of the general public are dumber than a bag of bricks. It's the job of the police to use their discernment and judgment (to the extent they have any) to decide what merits what action.

This didn't merit anything other than POSSIBLY a short observation from a distance.
It was faster and more efficient to just talk to the man and go on to the next call. They didn't search him, they didn't do anything but TALK to him.
BS. They wouldn't have even had to get out of their car.
What's BS - that it takes more time to simply "observe" him for a while than talk to him for 2 minutes? That's dumb.

It would take FAR less time just to stay in their car and observe for a minute or two.

huskerbb · Guru

I don't think any of you would be very happy if a cop stopped you and asked you a bunch of questions that basically insinuated you were a criminal.

Lexxy · My dog name is Sasha, too!

huskerbb wrote:
I don't think any of you would be very happy if a cop stopped you and asked you a bunch of questions that basically insinuated you were a criminal.

I'm sure I'd be scared but I wouldn't call the media. Later I'd get a kick out of coming here & telling about it. smile

huskerbb · Guru

Lexxy wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
I don't think any of you would be very happy if a cop stopped you and asked you a bunch of questions that basically insinuated you were a criminal.
I'm sure I'd be scared but I wouldn't call the media. Later I'd get a kick out of coming here & telling about it.

How you would react isn't really the point. The point is that is shouldn't happen.

You would be "scared"--and for what? NOTHING.

Lexxy · My dog name is Sasha, too!

I agree it shouldn't have happened but I blame whoever called the police, not the police.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

If someone calls to make a report, then I agree, the Police then have the right to go check out what the call is about. And, once they do and find no issue, then they Police should just say, thank you, sorry to bother you, and go on their way.

Tinydancer · Guru

I think the cop did the right thing. If he got a call about someone suspicious the easiest way to find out what he's up to is to ask. I really don't get why you think the cop should do nothing. It's his job to ask when he's gotten a report of suspicious activity.

TOTALLY GEEKED!

Michigan Cop Stops Black Man for Walking With Hands in His Pockets in Freezing Weather