I wanted to create this thread to generate discussion around police interactions with the public and whether or not amendment rights are being violated or not. 

https://youtu.be/rH3puMC23B4

---

https://youtu.be/eNCjwTDjLA4

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

I don't have time to watch both, but I've never understood why some cops get so upset with filming.

Obviously, filming in public isn't illegal, but if the complaint is that he's filming the inside of the building from the outside, then the officer has reasonable suspicion to detain and identity. That dude won't talk, and it sounds like she already knows who he is, so you'll probably have to just cut him loose otherwise.

---

I don't have time to watch both, but I've never understood why some cops get so upset with filming.

Obviously, filming in public isn't illegal, but if the complaint is that he's filming the inside of the building from the outside, then the officer has reasonable suspicion to detain and identity. That dude won't talk, and it sounds like she already knows who he is, so you'll probably have to just cut him loose otherwise.

IMO I think some cops get upset being filmed from an egotistical standpoint. 

I just think officers should be more educated on public photography and understand anything that can be seen from a public view is worthy of being filmed. The expectation of privacy is controlled within the confines of someone’s interior dwelling. 

At the end of the video the second officer educated the responding officer on his rights and the civilian is let go with no warning. I just think when it comes to police reform, education about our Amendment rights should be at the lot of the list.

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

Completely agree with that.

---

I don't have time to watch both, but I've never understood why some cops get so upset with filming.

Obviously, filming in public isn't illegal, but if the complaint is that he's filming the inside of the building from the outside, then the officer has reasonable suspicion to detain and identity. That dude won't talk, and it sounds like she already knows who he is, so you'll probably have to just cut him loose otherwise.

IMO I think some cops get upset being filmed from an egotistical standpoint. 

I just think officers should be more educated on public photography and understand anything that can be seen from a public view is worthy of being filmed. The expectation of privacy is controlled within the confines of someone’s interior dwelling. 

At the end of the video the second officer educated the responding officer on his rights and the civilian is let go with no warning. I just think when it comes to police reform, education about our Amendment rights should be at the lot of the list.

It's a little bit stupid and a lot of ego. They're absolutely trained on public use of cameras and recording. These usually only happen with stupid cops or those with egos big enough to risk the downside of stopping someone. Either way, I've never personally seen one stop someone, and I don't believe it happens as often as people think.

---

Yeah, this is the law of numbers. In a nation this big, we're bound to find examples of almost anything, good or bad, with relative frequency.

---

Yeah, this is the law of numbers. In a nation this big, we're bound to find examples of almost anything, good or bad, with relative frequency.

+1

Also, the plain reality is that every police officer walking a beat is both a.) the most dangerous expression of coercive state power and b.) generally the least well versed in constitutional and statutory law of any official chain in the justice system.  The Prosecutor, Judge, appellate judges etc. all went to law school.  Cops don't.  That's not to excuse un-constitutional behavior by police officers, its just to state a general fact.  That's why i fully subscribe to the "comply with all orders, challenge them later" doctrine. 

In the first video i was actually a little disturbed.  The Officer was basically reaching into the car opening the door dragging the guy out and with no announcement that "hey, i am going to search you or your car".  At that point I would have been weirded out and that's a good way to precipitate someone resisting your commands and needlessly escalating an incident.  

In general I am pro-law enforcement, because i understand both the importance and the rigors of the duties they perform.  That being said, I am also a libertarian/conservative.  The primary job of law enforcement is to protect the rights of citizens.  I think that in the case of Mr. Lee and aggressive policing i can accept a doctrine of "Pull everyone over, if you SEE Drugs or Weapons confiscate them and arrest.  or if you have REASONABLE SUSPICION, ask to search and possibly go to a Terry Frisk, but even within that paradigm I don't think someone having a bad attitude about being pulled over constitutes reasonable suspicion of violent criminal activity.  

As to racial bias, this is where we can't divorce black crime from police activity.  Black males between 18 to 39 commit the majority of violent crimes.  Black people make up the majority of victims of violent crimes.  So even if you aggressively police the population of black males, are you doing that because you want to protect the 6 year old black girl on a porch from getting hit by a drive by or because you went to a klan meeting and hate black men?  Facts nad context matter.

---

Yeah, this is the law of numbers. In a nation this big, we're bound to find examples of almost anything, good or bad, with relative frequency.

+1

Also, the plain reality is that every police officer walking a beat is both a.) the most dangerous expression of coercive state power and b.) generally the least well versed in constitutional and statutory law of any official chain in the justice system.  The Prosecutor, Judge, appellate judges etc. all went to law school.  Cops don't.  That's not to excuse un-constitutional behavior by police officers, its just to state a general fact.  That's why i fully subscribe to the "comply with all orders, challenge them later" doctrine. 

In the first video i was actually a little disturbed.  The Officer was basically reaching into the car opening the door dragging the guy out and with no announcement that "hey, i am going to search you or your car".  At that point I would have been weirded out and that's a good way to precipitate someone resisting your commands and needlessly escalating an incident.  

In general I am pro-law enforcement, because i understand both the importance and the rigors of the duties they perform.  That being said, I am also a libertarian/conservative.  The primary job of law enforcement is to protect the rights of citizens.  I think that in the case of Mr. Lee and aggressive policing i can accept a doctrine of "Pull everyone over, if you SEE Drugs or Weapons confiscate them and arrest.  or if you have REASONABLE SUSPICION, ask to search and possibly go to a Terry Frisk, but even within that paradigm I don't think someone having a bad attitude about being pulled over constitutes reasonable suspicion of violent criminal activity.  

As to racial bias, this is where we can't divorce black crime from police activity.  Black males between 18 to 39 commit the majority of violent crimes.  Black people make up the majority of victims of violent crimes.  So even if you aggressively police the population of black males, are you doing that because you want to protect the 6 year old black girl on a porch from getting hit by a drive by or because you went to a klan meeting and hate black men?  Facts nad context matter.

I agree with your point in regards to the first video where the officer did not explain the reasoning why he was opening the driver's door. Plus, he circumvented around the warrant-less search of the vehicle and his person(s) for drugs, weapons, etc. During a traffic stop you must identify yourself but anything else I can remain silent on, ie asking where im going, whereabouts, etc. From experience, if I give an officer more information than necessary or irrelevant to the interaction at hand, then that leads to giving them a broader scope of authority than necessary.

IMO too many people rely on the latter part of comply then challenge later sentiment. As we see now many complaints that are filed against officers, whether is planting drugs, bogus charges, violating rights, etc all gets swept under the rug. In some cases it could get expensive for citizens to escalate a complaint to a lawsuit, or they may fear retribution from a PD with future harassing traffic stops. With that said I am not anti police but support police reform. 

Black on black crime is not an excuse for poor police tactics, nor should be excused in regards to police corruption. If you have officers that are severely undertrained, who lack basic de-escalation skills or display unethical behaviors that has no relationship to black on black crime. That's a Police department problem.

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

"I don't answer questions."

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Just to be clear, I don't think people are using the black on black crime argument to justify police brutality. The argument is that, at a national level, black lives only seem to matter when a white man (or person that can be portrayed as white) kills a black man. We can have the discussion about reform, but that is not the narrative that is really being created.

Black Lives Matter is an accusation. Inherent in the name is the accusation that black lives don't matter. Most people don't believe that. There is an accusation in the narrative that white people murder blacks indiscriminately. That isn't true, and why you get the black on black crime rebuttal. There is an accusation that a black man has a higher chance of being shot than a white man by the police. That is not true, either. There is no evidence to support this narrative.

I believe there is evidence that suggests blacks are incarcerated at a higher rate, and bias almost certainly plays a role there. There is evidence that police hand cuff or shove blacks more frequently than their white counterparts, and some bias probably plays a role there.

---

Yeah, this is the law of numbers. In a nation this big, we're bound to find examples of almost anything, good or bad, with relative frequency.

Also, the plain reality is that every police officer walking a beat is both a.) the most dangerous expression of coercive state power and b.) generally the least well versed in constitutional and statutory law of any official chain in the justice system.  The Prosecutor, Judge, appellate judges etc. all went to law school.  Cops don't.  That's not to excuse un-constitutional behavior by police officers, its just to state a general fact.  That's why i fully subscribe to the "comply with all orders, challenge them later" doctrine. 

I don't necessarily disagree as a whole, but you'd be surprised how little many lawyers know about criminal law. From my experience, most public defenders don't know the elements needed to charge someone for most of the crimes officers typically arrest people for. That probably contributes to the success rate of prosecutors.

---

Just to be clear, I don't think people are using the black on black crime argument to justify police brutality. The argument is that, at a national level, black lives only seem to matter when a white man (or person that can be portrayed as white) kills a black man. We can have the discussion about reform, but that is not the narrative that is really being created.

Black Lives Matter is an accusation. Inherent in the name is the accusation that black lives don't matter. Most people don't believe that. There is an accusation in the narrative that white people murder blacks indiscriminately. That isn't true, and why you get the black on black crime rebuttal. There is an accusation that a black man has a higher chance of being shot than a white man by the police. That is not true, either. There is no evidence to support this narrative.

I believe there is evidence that suggests blacks are incarcerated at a higher rate, and bias almost certainly plays a role there. There is evidence that police hand cuff or shove blacks more frequently than their white counterparts, and some bias probably plays a role there.

Are there bad people within the BLM movement who's intent is to cause more damage than good? Yes and that is clear without doubt. 

For the record, there is internal strife, conflict within the Black community in regards to our responsibilities. That includes government dependence, accountability, in-fighting, killing, mental stability, etc. I, along with many others have boots on the ground voicing this message in the community and have held hundreds of workshops addressing said issues.  

The reason BLM exists in the first place is to address inequality not just with law enforcement, but also the criminal justice system, housing, health care, education, income inequality, independent business, etc. When pulling up obesity, and other health care data, African Americans and Latinos leads in deaths from Covid-19, High blood pressure, diabetes, prostate cancer and many more. People then say eating habits and poor exercise is something Black people can control....I tend to say yes, but Black people do not have extra income to spend on more expensive healthy food and participate in health clubs, etc. Those are not excuses those are reality. 

Using black on black crime has a defense to denounce BLM, and everything else I just mentioned above is a poor rebuttal to open dialog. Many African Americans acknowledge it.

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

Totally agree. If you and I sat down together, we would agree on so much stuff. Most of us would.

Personally, I try to avoid the emphasis on the black on black crime, because it's a talking point that is addressing the wrong issue. Whites don't see the discussions in the black communities, because it's not a part of the NATIONAL narrative. When is the last time you saw, on MSM, two black leaders addressing this issue? It doesn't happen. Why not? Shouldn't they want everyone to see these discussions? Don't yo

Let me be clear that I am referring to conservative whites, not liberal ones. Neither is really seeing this information discussed in black communities, but it doesn't matter to the liberal, since they already see it as their duty to pander to blacks. Not in actual deed, but lip service, because they know their goals can only be achieved with the help of the black vote. This is made worse by their politicians that actively exploit the black community to maintain power. BLM is evidence of this. If you click 'donate' on the BLM website, you are rerouted to ACTBLUE, which basically serves as a democratic fundraiser. Every issue that is exploited nationally raises money for democrats. So, when you feel like conservatives are pushing back against that exploitation, it's not because they want to do blacks harm, but to try to oppose their political rival.

Conservatives, on the other hand, don't care about the black community or problems until they rise to national prominence. The national media, acting as an extension of the democrats, takes any injustice committed against blacks, no matter how controversial, and pushes it into the public eye. They don't have a reasonable discussion about the issue, but rather use it to rail against the "system." This is not because they believe that the system is broken, but because they are the ones offering promises that will change the system (even though most of the time, democrats have had complete control in these areas for years). I get frustrated with those who take the bait. This includes the talking heads at Fox that fixate on arguments like black on black crime, which then get parroted by the whites who watch. This is then trotted out by the MSM as more evidence of racism and out come the calls to "vote."  

I love Malcom X. When I was a boy, I can remember my dad thinking he was an agitator, but when I got old enough to start reading and hearing what he actually said, I realized he was a brilliant man that actually had significant insight into the world around him. He was a rare individual that could go against the grain, while also continuing to grow as a human being. This is quote that I find particularly relevant to this discussion:

“The white liberal is the worst enemy to America, and the worst enemy to the black man. Let me explain what I mean by the white liberal. In America there is no such thing as Democrat or Republican anymore. In America you have liberals and conservatives. The only people living in the past who think in terms of I’m a Democrat or Republican, is the American Negro. He’s the one that runs around bragging about party affiliation. He’s the one that sticks to the Democrat or sticks to the Republican.

But white people are divided into two groups, liberals and conservative. The Democrats who are conservative, vote with the Republicans who are conservative. The Democrats who are liberal vote with the Republicans that are liberal. The white liberal aren’t white people who are for independence, who are moral and ethical in their thinking. They are just a faction of white people that are jockeying for power. The same as the white conservative is a faction of white people that are jockeying for power.

They are fighting each other for power and prestige, and the one that is the football in the game is the Negro, 20 million black people. A political football, a political pawn, an economic football, and economic pawn. A social football, a social pawn. The liberal elements of whites are those who have perfected the art of selling themselves to the Negro as a friend of the Negro. Getting sympathy of the Negro, getting the allegiance of the Negro, and getting the mind of the Negro. Then the Negro sides with the white liberal, and the white liberal use the Negro against the white conservative. So that anything that the Negro does is never for his own good, never for his own advancement, never for his own progress, he’s only a pawn in the hands of the white liberal.

The worst enemy that the Negro have is this white man that runs around here drooling at the mouth professing to love Negros, and calling himself a liberal, and it is following these white liberals that has perpetuated problems that Negros have. If the Negro wasn’t taken, tricked, or deceived by the white liberal then Negros would get together and solve our own problems. I only cite these things to show you that in America the history of the white liberal has been nothing but a series of trickery designed to make Negros think that the white liberal was going to solve our problems.

Our problems will never be solved by the white man. The only way that our problem will be solved is when the black man wakes up, clean himself up, stand on his own feet and stop begging the white man, and take immediate steps to do for ourselves the things that we have been waiting on the white man to do for us. Once we do for self then we will be able to solve our own problems.

"The white conservatives aren't friends of the Negro either, but they at least don't try to hide it. They are like wolves; they show their teeth in a snarl that keeps the Negro always aware of where he stands with them. But the white liberals are foxes, who also show their teeth to the Negro but pretend that they are smiling. The white liberals are more dangerous than the conservatives; they lure the Negro, and as the Negro runs from the growling wolf, he flees into the open jaws of the "smiling" fox. One is the wolf, the other is a fox. No matter what, they’ll both eat you.”

Now, I think some things have changed in our nation since then, and I could nitpick a bunch of little things in that quote that I think are no longer applicable. However, one thing that has not changed in my opinion is how blacks are used by democrats for their agenda. I know blacks are having these discussions in their communities, but that's only because I have friends in these communities and talk with them frequently. However, most white folks don't. The simple truth is that most conservatives are fighting the progressives, and the arguments you hear them having are directed at progressives. Progressives then take those arguments, give them to the blacks and say, "see how they hate you," because they need your power, not to help you, but to help themselves.

---