Criminals being Criminals

[Ivanhoe]

The full bodycam footage, critiqued by Officer Tatum;

 

[Murph]

Of course he lied, he played the race card to win.

[Stargrunt6]

7 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Impressive lyrics, man.

I really believe that no matter how tastless or tacky a work of art is, someone is writing an academic paper on it.

https://hoppingintopuddles.wordpress.com/2008/03/14/a-geographical-mapping-of-rapper-ludacris-hoes/

[rmgill]

Well, you can't see what the guy is doing in the interaction with the window and it's tint. That's a bit hinkey. 

Get out of the car is clear as an order. You want to see what the subject is doing. Failure to do so, yeah....that's going to get you more detained. Is that unreasonable? I don't think so. 

Clearly the police need to respect the authority of the rich and famous as the law doesn't apply to them. 

 

Edited September 13, 2024 by rmgill

[Tim Sielbeck]

How long was it from the last "roll the window down" to "get out of the car" to physically removing him from the car?

[rmgill]

How long should it take? 

Ask
Tell
Force

The reason for asking to get out of the car is to deal with the fact that the guy keeps rolling his window up WHILE the car is still idling AND the officer can't see what the driver is doing. 

Refusal to do so is not ideal from a procedure or safety perspective. 


Imagine speeding on a Military base and not rolling your window down for the SP/MP/AP. What's he going to do? What's going to happen to you? 

 

[Tim Sielbeck]

48 minutes ago, rmgill said:

How long should it take? 

Long enough for a person to react.  
 

If a cop tells someone to do something there is at the very least a moral obligation to give the person being so ordered TIME to react.  If the person being so ordered seems to not understand the command (not saying that’s the case here) there is at least a moral obligation to insure that the person does understand.  Giving a person time to react and making sure they understand comes BEFORE taking physical action on what is at best an infraction so minor it’s not even a misdemeanor.  
 

Cops DO NOT have a right to physically assault someone just because they think they’re not getting the respect they think they are entitled to.  Yes, the driver is obligated to give the cop his driver’s license.  Yes the driver is obligated to roll the window down enough to do so and to communicate (please show me a law in Florida that says it has to be all the way down).  Yes the cop can order you out of your car.  But where, for the love of god, is it written that a cop can tell you to get out, instantly open your door, then immediately physically remove you from your car WITHOUT GIVING YOU A CHANCE TO COMPLY?

And, yes, I have seen the video. 

And you still did not answer my question so I’ll rephrase it;  how long do you have to comply with a cop’s order before he is authorized to manhandle you?  If it’s instantaneous why bother with orders at all?  The results would be the same.

[rmgill]

37 minutes ago, Tim Sielbeck said:

Long enough for a person to react.  
 

Raw video. No voice overs. 

1:33 knocks on window. "
Hill "DONKNOCKONMYWINDOWLIKETHATDONKNOCKONMYWINDOWLIKETHATDONKNOCKONMYWINDOWLIKETHATDONKNOCKONMYWINDOWLIKETHATDONKNOCKONMYWINDOWLIKETHATDONKNOCKONMYWINDOWLIKETHATDONKNOCKONMYWINDOWLIKETHATDONKNOCKONMYWINDOWLIKETHAT"
1:54 Hill rolls window back up.
1:56 Officer knocks and orders "Hey, keep your window down"
Repeats Keep your window down.
2:10 Hill unrolls it part way - "officer states keep your window down or I'm going to get you out of the car"
2:13 "as a matter of fact get out of the car".
2:16 officer "says get out of the car." (The seatbelt is already off, we know that)
2:24 Partner officer opens door
2:25 Pulls Hill out. 
2:28 Hill is finally pulled out of the car. 

 

37 minutes ago, Tim Sielbeck said:

If a cop tells someone to do something there is at the very least a moral obligation to give the person being so ordered TIME to react.  If the person being so ordered seems to not understand the command (not saying that’s the case here) there is at least a moral obligation to insure that the person does understand.  Giving a person time to react and making sure they understand comes BEFORE taking physical action on what is at best an infraction so minor it’s not even a misdemeanor.  

Hill understands. 
Hill also is not incapacitated, frail slow, or otherwise physically impaired. He spends 10 seconds refusing. 

 

37 minutes ago, Tim Sielbeck said:

Cops DO NOT have a right to physically assault someone just because they think they’re not getting the respect they think they are entitled to.  Yes, the driver is obligated to give the cop his driver’s license.  Yes the driver is obligated to roll the window down enough to do so and to communicate (please show me a law in Florida that says it has to be all the way down).

Does window tint play a part? Does the repeated refusal to comply with orders manifest as an issue? 

This isn't the usual behavior of a Libertarian who's doing what he's required to by law. Hill is rolling the window ALL the way up. So assertions about rolled down enough to do so and communicate doesn't enter into it. 

Hill is on the phone. He doesn't have time for the peon officer. That's made clear by Hill. 
 

37 minutes ago, Tim Sielbeck said:

 Yes the cop can order you out of your car.  But where, for the love of god, is it written that a cop can tell you to get out, instantly open your door, then immediately physically remove you from your car WITHOUT GIVING YOU A CHANCE TO COMPLY?

And, yes, I have seen the video. 

How long is it reasonable to refuse to do what an officer orders you to do? 

37 minutes ago, Tim Sielbeck said:

And you still did not answer my question so I’ll rephrase it;  how long do you have to comply with a cop’s order before he is authorized to manhandle you?  If it’s instantaneous why bother with orders at all?  The results would be the same.

Answered above by citation and review of the timeline as I saw it. 

Apparently, if you're a major league wide receiver, 12 seconds is not enough to get out of the car. 

Note, the officer took 12 seconds to turn off the bike, put down the kickstand, set the bike on the kickstand and walk up to Hill's car door. So, how long SHOULD one be allowed to refuse an officer's command absent any physical impairment before one is pulled out of the car? 

When I was pulled over for carrying a rifle slung while riding a bicycle to the range, I did what I was told to do so immediately, but slowly and deliberately ( was very armed). If I felt some aspects of the stop were contrary to law, I didn't refuse, I merely observed that there was no RAS for the stop in the first place. This resulted in an argument YES, but I did NOT refuse or resist commands too do X or Y. When asked for my drivers license and my carry license (neither needed for riding a bike OR carrying a rifle in Ga) I provided both, noting as I gave them that neither was required TO be had while riding a bike or carrying a rifle. I DID note I was carrying a handgun which at the time DID require a license. 

There's a distinct difference between a Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 stop. Speeding is somewhere between a Tier 2 and a Teir 3. You don't get to keep refusing before you're going to be arrested for your trouble. 

The other times riding a motorcycle while carrying (or driving), when the officer realized what was going on I've complied immediately and not resisted the command. I've never been tackled off the bike or even had an officer do anything other than yell the one time I drove past his car at a road incident thinking it was a friend in the accident, but I was doing the moving around on the bike like you see lots of folks do. He flew off the handle thinking I was doing something else, and I complied with everything he yelled, was apologetic and didn't delay in any of my response to commands. I was not arrested or cited. I've even been pulled over in one of my Armored cars with what looks like an M240 mounted. No laying on of hands, even when officers were a bit squirrelly

Hill was speeding in a sports car and felt he was above the law. That was evident in EVERY bit of his demeanor. It stands to reason he's going to have it explained that he didn't have the option of just going because he's special. 
 

Edited September 13, 2024 by rmgill

[Murph]

Beautiful

 

 

[rmgill]

I remember when that happened

 The usual suspects were upset the criminal was shot and killed. Ignoring the knife and the supine victim. 

[Murph]

The Muslim "Martin Luther" convicted of sexual assault.  How odd.

https://pjmedia.com/robert-spencer/2024/09/14/the-muslim-martin-luther-has-been-convicted-of-rape-n4932525

Tariq Ramadan, a Muslim intellectual who has been one of the foremost exponents, at least to non-Muslims in Europe and North America, of Islamic reform, has been convicted of rape.

 

It is impossible to overstate how shocking this is for those who have praised Ramadan to the skies for so very long. For many years, Tariq Ramadan was the darling of the Western intelligentsia. In 2002, Salon hailed him as “the Muslim Martin Luther.” In 2004, Time Magazine listed him as one of the 100 most influential people in the world today. In 2012, Foreign Policy included him on its list of the top 100 global thinkers “for telling us that Islam and democracy can go together — just when it matters.”

Now those accolades, and the many others that Ramadan received, stand as mute witness to the left’s tendency to shower with honors those who tell it what it wants to hear. Agence France-Presse (AFP) reported Tuesday that Ramadan has been “convicted on appeal of rape and sexual coercion by a Geneva court.” This has been a long time coming, as Ramadan has faced numerous accusations in recent years of “masking violence and radicalism behind a mild facade.”

For years, Ramadan dismissed such allegations as “racism” and “Islamophobia.” In a Dec. 2019 video, he claimed that the accusations against him were all an attempt to discredit him and thereby “neutralize the Muslims.” He added: “We have to be clear that there is discrimination, stigmatization, racism that is at stake in the whole issue. And I was a symbol. To destroy me meant, let the people understand: If you want to be vocal you have to face the reality. It happened to Tariq Ramadan now, it could happen to anyone in the future.”

 

Even worse, RFI reported in 2020, after two more women accused him of rape, that “supporters of Ramadan, who is a professor of contemporary Islamic studies at Oxford’s St. Anthony’s College, have called the accusations against him part of a ‘international Zionist plot’ to blacken his name.” Of course!

It couldn’t have been that a cosseted Muslim academic, hailed and feted all over Europe and the United States despite the abject vacuity and sinister disingenuousness of his thought, began to indulge his worst impulses, now, could it? He couldn’t have been tempted to do so when it became clear that, in light of his value to Western authorities as a “moderate Muslim” who seemed to prop up their fantasies about the jihad threat, he would be allowed to get away with virtually anything – could he?

“Virtually anything” is actually an understatement. One of his accusers said he subjected her to “blows to the face and body, forced sodomy, rape with an object and various humiliations, including being dragged by the hair to the bathtub and urinated on.” His sadism appears to have been, if one allegation is true, closely intertwined with his celebrated Islamic piety: another one of his accusers said he told her he was raping her because she didn’t wear a hijab. In a similar vein, as more and more women began to accuse him of rape, one of those accusers has already been beaten and threatened.

His public persona was shot through with duplicity. French journalist Caroline Fourest’s illuminating book "Brother Tariq: The Doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan" states that this much-lionized putative “Muslim Martin Luther” was actually anything but a reformer: in reality, Ramadan was “remaining scrupulously faithful to the strategy mapped out by his grandfather, a strategy of advance stage by stage” toward the imposition of Islamic law in the West. Ramadan is the grandson of Hasan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

     Related: 9/11 Might as Well Have Been a Thousand Years Ago

Fourest was the first to reveal, back in 2017, that Ramadan had at least four other victims besides the first woman who came forward, Henda Ayari. “A request for religious advice turned into a compulsive sexual relationship, sometimes consented to, often violent and very humiliating, before ending in threats.”

Fourest had evidence. “I presented it to a judge. But Tariq Ramadan scared him too much…. I am well-placed to know the violence of the networks of the Muslim Brotherhood when one stands up to ‘brother Tariq.’”

“It was a plot,” Ramadan insisted. “It was a political set up. And this could happen to anyone.” The worst part of this duplicitous whining is that even now that Ramadan has been convicted, there are hordes of deluded leftists who will fall for it.

[rmgill]

Here's an example of the criminal element you see in Baltimore doing what the criminal element does. 

Multiple assaults on people, smashing property as she goes through the airport and no culpability. The arrest is indicative as well. The victims declined to press charges as they were not interested in the difficulty of traveling back to Baltimore to deal with the court. 

Note how demanding she is while being combative and abusive. Her absurd behavior ties down more than 5 officers. Now, imagine this with a larger, stronger male. Does anyone then wonders why you get some incidents of what gets labeled as unjust police abuse. 
 

 

Edited September 25, 2024 by rmgill

[rmgill]

Officer involved shooting in VA.

Suspect charges the officer with a knife and connects with his head and is shot.
 

 

[Mr King]

I am not a huge fan of big brother, but cop cams are a good thing for cops to have. Now if we can just get all politicians and members of the managerial state equipped with them.

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, Mr King said:

I am not a huge fan of big brother, but cop cams are a good thing for cops to have. Now if we can just get all politicians and members of the managerial state equipped with them.

You'd have to deal with more gratuitous gay sex on the senate floor as part of the official record then. 

[bojan]

Sell it on P...hub and fill the budget instead of raising taxes.  

[Ivanhoe]

The whole "feral teenager" thing is getting old;

 

 

[NickM]

Just now, Ivanhoe said:

The whole "feral teenager" thing is getting old;

 

 

Street Sh/ts gotta street sh/t.

[NickM]

Meanwhile in other news,  the feebs just reported that crime has, in fact risen SIGNIFICANTLY in the last couple of years; 

Edited October 17, 2024 by NickM
stupid auto correct!

[rmgill]

Well, they didn't so much as report, rather they sorta kinda stealth edited already posted data with new updated data that contradicts the entire narrative of lowered crime under Biden. 

One wonder if they're trying to avoid the new Trump admin coming in and having an issue with the lies. 

[Ivanhoe]

Well, if the Labor Dept can get away with politicizing unemployment numbers, why can't the Feebies get away with politicizing violent crime numbers?

 

[rmgill]

Here's a good one. Man calls the cops to get assistance retrieving his property, a dirt bike, from property that he apparently lives at. Then proceeds to be utterly foolish, disputatious and combative. Turns out he was on PCP and dies after being taken to the State Police HQ and passes out. 
 

 

Edited November 9, 2024 by rmgill

[rmgill]

California apparently has made certain shoplifting crimes felonies...Proposition 36. 

These 3 girls find out the hard way...

Bitch new laws...

 

Edited December 25, 2024 by rmgill

[X-Files]

Where are TN's usual suspects to defend these poor downtrodden folk and point out how raccis you all are?

Edited December 25, 2024 by X-Files

[JWB]

The 33-year-old illegal migrant who set a stranger on fire on a New York City subway told officers he was drunk at the time and couldn't remember it.

https://x.com/MailOnline/status/1871941316830986751