408
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2023
408 points (98.3% liked)
politics
18821 readers
5197 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
My guess is she knew he was a felon before the stop. The "oh yea" feels like a cheer for "getting him." This whole thing feels like preexisting knowledge.
Like a habitual troublemaker that never really gets caught with anything solid, and firearm on parole is the long awaited "gotcha"?
I could see that being the reason for the exuberance actually. That's plausible. Could also explain the taser, frustrated with dealing with dudes shit for so long maybe...
You've added a shadow of a doubt I didn't have before. Good discourse :)
And that right there is why thugs with badges always get acquitted. A cop isn't a judge, jury, or executioner. I don't care what she thought she knew already, there is no excuse for this kind of violent assault against someone who still holds the legal presumption of innocence. She is a criminal and belongs behind bars.
Consider this situation:
She pulls over to ~~check on the disabled motorist~~ see what she can get out of the interaction. She runs his info and sees that he is a felon. This gets her going, as her racism had already decided that her ~~subject~~ victim is guilty of possessing things he legally cannot posses: a gun and drugs. He was minding his own business. She targeted him and successfully used the ~~law~~ crooked set of rules that are meant to further dehumanize people that they deem to be beneath them.
“Habitual” issues do nothing to provide context as to why she tased him when he was clearly complying with her disgusting abuse of power that we pay for.
It’s all rotten. Nothing short of radical sorts of change will stop these sorts of interactions and the events that lead up to them, which starts in childhood for the victims of the state.
Should the law, or anyone for that matter, think of you as guilty of something because of their negative bias about people who look or act like you?