By Golly Linda.....can you say Commissioner May....gosh that seaoat is always wrong

Joanimaroni wrote:

Vikingwoman wrote:WTF do any of these stories have to do w/ this case? WTH is wrong w/ you people? The video shows he wasn't pulled over because he was black. YOU COULDN'T EVEN SEE WHO WAS DRIVING! Friggin idiots!

I know right? Can you believe these two can walk and talk at the same time? I'm laughing right now but I'll remember this every time I read one of their "critical thinking" posts.

I'm laughing right now but I'll remember this every time I read one of their "critical thinking" posts.

Just like you laughed at my comments on Sandra ridiculing my opinions and predictions as those of a crazy person. Who laughed last in that situation, and last time I checked Commissioner May is doing just fine, despite the racist mob.

Yes, just like your wrong predictions on Sandra Bland, Trayvon Martin and Commissioner May. Nothing beats a video for the truth.

Yes, just like your wrong predictions on Sandra Bland

This is better than game of thrones in regard to entertainment. Most of the time I just think it is an intelligence thing, but then you just outright lie about something it is very entertaining. The best part is you have not figured out the obvious yet......and that only confirms what I have been saying that this is an intelligence thing.

Yeah right Oatie. It's an intelligence thing when you watch a video that shows blacked out windows and no way to see the driver and you say it was a racial stop. Pretty brilliant. LOL!

You still can not conceptualize. It is like talking to a four year old about an amortization schedule on a mortgage, they feign comprehension and think you are crazy:

One of hundreds of empirical studies that say drivers in black neighborhoods get pulled over more......

Using data collected by the Richmond, Virginia Police Department, this article applies conflict theory to police
traffic stop practices. In particular, it explores whether police traffic stop, search, and arrest practices differ
according to racial or socioeconomic factors among neighborhoods. Three principal findings emanate from this
research. First, the total number of stops by Richmond police was determined solely by the crime rate of the
neighborhood. Second, the percentage of stops that resulted in a search was determined by the percentage of
Black population. Third, when examining the percentage of stops that ended in an arrest/summons, the analyses
suggest that both the percentage of Black population and the area crime rate served to decrease the percentage of
police stops that ended in an arrest/summons. Implications for conflict theory and police decision-making are
addressed.


https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6e8b/fcf5c14e5a5c800d24a9c4c44d9beeb4eb93.pdf

the New York Attorney General’s
Office (1999)
analyzed more than 181,000 field
interrogation cards completed by NYPD officers from
1998 to 1999 and found that although Blacks com-
prised only 25.6 percent of New York City’s popu-
lation, they accounted for 50.6 percent of all persons
stopped by the NYPD. Hispanics were also over-
represented among persons stopped, while Whites
were significantly underrepresented.

Yep, the May stop was about not seeing who was in the car, and not about the officer's conduct......I get it.....everybody in NYC has tinted windows and it is just bad luck being pulled over.

Under existing research findings, the disparities in
searches among minorities and Whites cannot be
explained by a difference in the probability that
minorities will be found in possession of contraband
or illegal weapons. For example, in his study of the
stop and search practices of the Maryland State
Police,
Lamberth (1997)
found that although only
17.5 percent of speeders along the I-95 corridor
through Maryland were Black (January 1995 through
September 1996), 72.9 percent of persons searched
were Black. Once searched, however, Blacks were no
more likely than Whites to be in possession of
contraband.
Likewise,
Zingraff et al. (2000)

gosh and that idea that a neighborhood is a factor in a stop, making the tinted window entirely moot:

In sub-sequent analyses, Smith observed a significant
interaction between the suspect’s race and the racial
composition of the neighborhood in which coercive
confrontations occurred such that police were more
likely to exercise coercive authority toward Black
offenders in primarily Black neighborhoods. In fact,
Black suspects in White neighborhoods were
handled less coercively by police compared to
Black suspects in Black neighborhoods. In sum,
Smith concluded that police responded differently
depending on the type of neighborhood in which
encounters occurred such that police respond to
both ‘‘places and people.’’


same link as the first.

Higher level conceptualization and knowledge allow a four year old coming into mommy and daddy's room and declaring "why are you wrestling". Sometimes it is better not to correct a child like view of the world and find humor in the same.

The desperation of Oatie. LOL!

The desperation of Oatie. LOL!


Yep, 850 views and you keep coming back.......sir can I have some more.

I'm sure those 850 folks find it funny as I do to read your knucklehead responses and desperate attempts to prove yourself right.Can you post some more stats? I mean that really proves every time a black person is stopped it's racist. LOL!

I mean that really proves every time a black person is stopped it's racist. LOL!

The empirical evidence speaks for itself. It takes conceptual skills to understand the studies, but they do NOT mean every police stop is racist. They simply point out that overwhelmingly statistical evidence which shows police stop more black drivers in black neighborhoods than drivers in white and socioeconomically higher level neighborhoods as a percentage of all drivers. This empirical evidence makes NO statement as to the police officer actually knowing the race of the motorist until the stop, just that about twice as many blacks are stopped in these neighborhoods. The tinted windows does not change those statistics or do the numerous empirical studies vary much across the nation. If you are a black citizen driving in your neighborhood, you will be stopped almost at twice the rate as a white person. Nothing real complicated. More blacks are stopped on the interstates at a 2-1 ratio to whites and those stops produce no more crime than the mean white stops.

Ok no argument the police stop more blacks than whites. By your logic anytime the police enter a black neighborhood they know they will encounter a black person and by stopping them it will be racist. Jesus Christ!

No, my logic is that Commissioner May on the video talked about how many times he has been stopped. He immediately asked for a supervisor and NEVER used the commissioner card, yet the arresting officer escalated the stop which the empirical studies confirm the same, especially in low income and predominately black neighborhoods. A well trained police officer who made a mistake on the license, and the tinted glass if trained would have said, "sir, I will return to my squad and call my supervisor, please stay in your car"

A professional would have given a citizen the respect that they have a right to call a supervisor. Even meter maids are trained, to take abuse and tell an angry ticketed person that they have called their supervisor and they can talk to the supervisor. They do not argue or try impose power on a law abiding citizen who has asked for a supervisor when that behavior could escalate and get citizens or police officers hurt.

I am very appreciative of how the Commissioner conducted himself when standing up for his constitutional rights under the fourth amendment. When calmer heads arrived the whole bad stop was quickly resolved, even though this angry officer was still trying to have a citation for tinted windows which were found to be in compliance. The enablers in the newspaper were racist and a mob. I made no apologies then or now defending the commissioner who is a United States citizen and should be accorded respect. The officer lost all my respect when she argued and did not stay in her squad until the supervisor arrived. I am very happy nobody got shot, like the female officer in OK who shot a man because she escalated a stop because he was walking to his vehicle.....her excuse.....I was afraid for my life. Some people should not be police officers. Nothing more or less.

You're crazy... but you been told that before.

January 2016 posts:

Oh wait a minute now! What the trooper was indicted for had nothing to do w/ what you said,Oatie. You need to cease patting yourself on the back.


Dreams:

He's not going to lose his job.

I haven't even read the article but I can tell you now the prosecutor is not assigned because of the officer.

You didn't get it, Oatie. You're friggin delusional.

all this BS Oatie is saying just goes to show he knows squat about what's legal and not legal. Posting case law that has nothing to to w/ this case is absurd.

WTF are you talking about?

Do you understand that you're a friggin idiot who can't understand rulings? It doesn't have to be officer safety,duncehead.

I just know bullshit when I see it and see somebody who is woefully incompetent in deciphering the law.The gall of you to think you are more knowledgeable than actual lawyers. It's actually funny.



Seaoat:

He will be prosecuted for lying on a police report. He lied to cover up an unlawful arrest. .

this officer will lose his job

it matters little what I think, the officer lied to cover up the same, and he will have criminal charges brought against him, and because his acts were intentional he will NOT be able to hide in the civil suit behind the shield of sovereign immunity and his personal assets will be at risk.......justice

Why do you persist in being stupid. Do you agree the officer verbally told his supervisor that he was asking the driver to leave the vehicle to sign the citation? Do you understand that this explanation forecloses your irrelevant attempts to make this about officer safety which can be a reasonable exception to the fourth amendment protections. Do you understand that the very purpose of Gant was to tell this so called scholars that officers no longer have carte blanche use of officer safety exception to avoid citizen protections under the fourth amendment and goes so far as to explicitly state what is being taught by law enforcement is incorrect and they were correcting these misconceptions. Apply the facts and the law in a logical and correct manner and you might be able to carry on an intelligent conversation, but you simply are not well read, and I think the petulant child who is having a tantrum is exactly what happens when your misconceptions are corrected.

August 14 2015
Dreams:

Nobody in Bland's family would bond her out of jail which is why she probably hung herself but yet here they are trying to cash in on her death. They won't get a dime.

I personally don't know what their procedures were and I can bet you don't either so to say this woman's family will win a verdict is your usual BS w/o any evidence. Please don't waste your time telling me something you don't know. It gets old.

Actually I was instrumental in changing booking procedures and suicide protocols in the State of Illinois in 1984, but you think my predictions are luck and they get old.

No civil case here,Oatie. He asked her to get out of the car and she refused. She escalated it just like May did. A good video on how not to act on a traffic stop. BTW,you have no clue whether the jail followed proper protocol.


Just a lucky guess, me not knowing anything about the subject matter and being crazy.

He's not going to lose his job. I don't know when people decided it was ok to treat the police like shit? Many are just doing their job. Act like an adult and you won't get yourself in these situations. There are plenty of cops who do abuse citizens.It's just not necessary to antagonize the police.

Well he did, and the plea bargain on his perjury charges resulted in him never working in law enforcement again.....so my comment that he will bag groceries and not work in law enforcement again was just lucky.....the talk of a crazy person.

You then go on to insult T who impressed the hell out of me quoting Gant in this case. You said:
This was totally a waste of time.

I do miss T. He had high level conceptual skills even though I loved to drive him crazy:

How in the hell is Gant related to this case? We're not talking about an illegal search and seizure.

You will probably not be able to comprehend why T did such a good job citing Gant, but start by reading the case in its entirety. I did immediately when the Supreme Court made the ruling and have read it since as it has become the centerpiece of the attack on warrantless arrests and searches under the fourth amendment. If you want me to extend to you the respect I do any other areas, please read it and then post why you do not understand the trend to limit exceptions to the fourth amendment. An intelligent conversation cannot be between those who have read and understand Supreme Court cases, and those who have not read the case and seek to cut and paste. Read all the dissents, and then when you are done we might actually have an intelligent informed conversation, but I have little use for ignorance and foolishness. Read the case.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-542.ZO.html

T understood....Dreams did not. She could still learn as she said she wanted to go to law school, but her continued calling T, myself, and tex crazy does not fill her lack of understanding of Sandra's case.