Black Lives Matter

Quote: terapined

How about this
Police are not allowed to pull somebody out of a car for a simple traffic infraction

Yes they absolutely are. This has made the rounds in Court many times.

I am too lazy to look it up now, but it has been ruled on by the Supreme Court decades ago (I think the 80s), Police can ask a driver (and passengers) out of the car during any traffic stop for virtually any reason for the duration of the stop and it does not violate the Fourth Amendment. (They can't search them, but they can demand that they exit the vehicle).

This is long established case law.



I believe there is a similar case (but inverse) that says police can demand drivers stay in the car during a traffic stop (this I am less sure of this off of my head, but since this is standard protocol many places, I am fairly sure that there is).

Quote: Gandler

Yes they absolutely are. This has made the rounds in Court many times.

I am too lazy to look it up now, but it has been ruled on by the Supreme Court decades ago (I think the 80s), Police can ask a driver (and passengers) out of the car during any traffic stop for virtually any reason for the duration of the stop and it does not violate the Fourth Amendment. (They can't search them, but they can demand that they exit the vehicle).

This is long established case law.

I believe there is a similar case (but inverse) that says police can demand drivers stay in the car during a traffic stop (this I am less sure of this off of my head, but since this is standard protocol many places, I am fairly sure that there is).

This isn’t correct. At least not context to the situation and what you quoted.

Yes, they can ask you to exit the vehicle for any reason.

No, they cannot physically rip you out of the car and slam you on the ground for any reason. That is an unreasonable seizure under the 4th amendment.

Quote: gamerfreak

This isn’t correct. At least not context to the situation and what you quoted.

Yes, they can ask you to exit the vehicle for any reason.

No, they cannot physically rip you out of the car and slam you on the ground for any reason. That is an unreasonable seizure under the 4th amendment.

Are they allowed to use ‘reasonable force’ to remove you from a vehicle if you refuse?
Of course they should not use more than is necessary.

Once again, in real life I’ve seen the force needed to restrain patients in the ER when the patients are simply put, out of control. It’s not easy to do without using A LOT of force sometimes. It often starts with a tackle. With the best intentions of those trying to restrain the individual, it always looks bad. But I can’t think of what they can do better.

This conversation is NOT about the 5 cops in Memphis. They beat Tyre to death after he was restrained. I’m saying the initial takedown is harder to analyze for wrongdoing than you think it is.

Quote: SOOPOO

Are they allowed to use ‘reasonable force’ to remove you from a vehicle if you refuse?
Of course they should not use more than is necessary.

I’m saying the initial takedown is harder to analyze for wrongdoing than you think it is.

The legality of the initial takedown would depend on what happened before the video we have starts rolling. For example, if Tyree was weaving in and out of traffic while brandishing a weapon, the initial interaction could have been completely reasonable. But no evidence has been released that anything like that happened.

Here is a hypothetical (however unlikely). Suppose you broke no traffic laws, but a police officer is having a slow day pulls you over for running a red light. They know it’s your word against theirs and they have a quota to meet. You argue with the officer, who verbally escalates and asks you get out, detains you while they write the ticket, and then let you go on your way.

All of that would be within their rights IF there had been probable cause or reasonable suspicion for the initial stop. But because there wasn’t, the entire interaction would be a 4th amendment violation.

The more relevant question is: what if the victim in this case was white? Hard to imagine a group of cops of any race beating a white guy to pulp--and death--under similar circumstances. Ultimately, it is the race of the victim that's beaten to death. Those five black cops who were charged would never have pummeled a white guy like that.

Some black cops are racist against their own race because they work for a racist system.Young black men are racially profiled by police of all races. They've been programmed to see them as a potential threat. Even black cops who don't view themselves as racist, the way policing is done is racially skewed, such as for example targeting high-crime neighborhoods that are predominantly black. They will subconsciously single out black men, especially when they are in a "jump out" unit designed to lower violence crime. It starts with dubious traffic stops of black men, escalating into more serious confrontations and end with arrests of them for drugs and guns. Finding guns or drugs makes up for the made up traffic stop, but most of the time the black guys are clean.

The issue with specialized units is that some cops, especially the inexperienced ones, are unable to distinguish between good and bad black men. They don't know how to de-escalate a situation. They portray young black men as potential drug dealers and gang members. It may reduce crime but it promotes racial profiling and the use of excessive force.

Quote: quadriga

The more relevant question is: what if the victim in this case was white? Hard to imagine a group of cops of any race beating a white guy to pulp--and death--under similar circumstances. Ultimately, it is the race of the victim that's beaten to death. Those five black cops who were charged would never have pummeled a white guy like that.

Some black cops are racist against their own race because they work for a racist system.Young black men are racially profiled by police of all races. They've been programmed to see them as a potential threat. Even black cops who don't view themselves as racist, the way policing is done is racially skewed, such as for example targeting high-crime neighborhoods that are predominantly black. They will subconsciously single out black men, especially when they are in a "jump out" unit designed to lower violence crime. It starts with dubious traffic stops of black men, escalating into more serious confrontations and end with arrests of them for drugs and guns. Finding guns or drugs makes up for the made up traffic stop, but most of the time the black guys are clean.

The issue with specialized units is that some cops, especially the inexperienced ones, are unable to distinguish between good and bad black men. They don't know how to de-escalate a situation. They portray young black men as potential drug dealers and gang members. It may reduce crime but it promotes racial profiling and the use of excessive force.

Let’s assume everything you have said is true. Do you think whatever changes are made will result overall in more, less, or the same number of Black men dying as a result of violence? Or neighborhoods, particularly those inner city ones with large Black populations, being more or less safe after whatever changes are made? I think the changes will save a VERY FEW like Tyre, but will cost countless others whose names we will never know.

How many guns are taken off the streets as a result of these traffic stops? I am NOT disagreeing that if the cop just makes shit up to make the stop that cop needs to be fired.

It also seems to not be just those 5 Black cops who will be going down. A 6th cop and 3 firefighter/EMT people fired/in trouble as well.

Quote: gamerfreak

This isn’t correct. At least not context to the situation and what you quoted.

Yes, they can ask you to exit the vehicle for any reason.

No, they cannot physically rip you out of the car and slam you on the ground for any reason. That is an unreasonable seizure under the 4th amendment.

Yes, if you disobey a lawful order during a traffic stop they can physically detain you. And, being asked to step out is a lawful order, so if he refused (he appears to have), that would be justified.

LOL
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/marjorie-taylor-greene-mocked-for-gushing-over-anti-woke-chris-stapleton-not-realising-he-s-a-blm-activist/ar-AA17xvIe?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=cbca9eb5eb8345ffb23f03dd1e55e755
Marjorie Taylor Greene mocked for gushing over ‘anti-woke’ Chris Stapleton - not realising he’s a BLM activist

Quote: terapined

LOL
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/marjorie-taylor-greene-mocked-for-gushing-over-anti-woke-chris-stapleton-not-realising-he-s-a-blm-activist/ar-AA17xvIe?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=cbca9eb5eb8345ffb23f03dd1e55e755
Marjorie Taylor Greene mocked for gushing over ‘anti-woke’ Chris Stapleton - not realising he’s a BLM activist

Activist? This article could be acting out what I have been complaining about, twisting the obvious truism that black lives matter into the idea that, since that is so, anybody who believes that supports the organization Black Lives Matter. Neither this article or the linked article says that Stapleton supports BLM and these articles do not quote him saying that.

Or perhaps Stapleton supports BLM, rightly is regarded as an activist, but the articles failed to provide that information, being incompetent, or, likely, think we are so %$#^%$# stupid that if someone says “do I think Black lives matter? Absolutely ... I don’t know how you could think they don’t” as Stapleton is quoted as saying, that means they support BLM the organizaton and no more needs be said. Funny, I can be quoted as saying almost exactly the same thing,* and I think you can tell I don't think much of BLM

Or the writer of the MSN.com article and the linked article is actually that stupid, also likely

* I also think to reply "all lives matter", though true, is inappropriate, since it dilutes the message. So there.

I'm Still Standing, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah [it's an old guy chant for me]

Quote: odiousgambit

Activist? This article could be acting out what I have been complaining about, twisting the obvious truism that black lives matter into the idea that, since that is so, anybody who believes that supports the *organization* Black Lives Matter. Neither this article or the linked article says that Stapleton supports BLM and these articles do not quote him saying that.

Or perhaps Stapleton supports BLM, rightly is regarded as an activist, but the articles failed to provide that information, being incompetent, or, likely, think we are so %$#^%$# stupid that if someone says “do I think Black lives matter? Absolutely ... I don’t know how you could think they don’t” as Stapleton is quoted as saying, that means they support BLM the organizaton and no more needs be said. Funny, I can be quoted as saying almost exactly the same thing,* and I think you can tell I don't think much of BLM

Or the writer of the MSN.com article and the linked article is *actually* that stupid, also likely

* I also think to reply "all lives matter", though true, is inappropriate, since it dilutes the message. So there.

I agree using "activist" was wrong
Hes simply a BLM supporter just like me
We both agree that Black Lives Matter :-)
Its like whjat the great Will Rodgers said. "I dont belong to an organized party, I'm a democrat"
I personally dont support any BLM organizations, I simply support BLM from a human standpoint