Can we please talk about police training? Black man tased in front of kids.

am1x90xnike

am1x90xnike

Banned
3,035
1,217
Joined
May 21, 2013


Like, wtf.

This esculated quickly. Of course we don't know what actually happened, but, in most jurisdictions, there is a presumption that you have a legal right to be on businesses property, unless there are signs posted to the contrary. The fact they had a bench there is a sign they wanted people there and if other people sat there and he wasn't doing any more or any less than the law was being applied arbritrarily, the security officer was acting as an agent for the police, and he should have a title nine claim.

But, most importantly, he was being respectful, leaving and they still arrested him.

Like, what type of training is that?

Full story.
 
 This esculated quickly. Of course we don't know what actually happened, but, in most jurisdictions, there is a presumption that you have a legal right to be on businesses property, unless there are signs posted to the contrary. The fact they had a bench there is a sign they wanted people there and if other people sat there and he wasn't doing any more or any less than the law was being applied arbritrarily, the security officer was acting as an agent for the police, and he should have a title nine claim.
Click to expand...
I would prefer to have a discussion about what type of training could be done in order that black kids stop getting shot, that police officers stop arresting people for sitting on benches. Like, in this particular instant, he was leaving, not being hostile and still got tased. I do like that he got tased instead of shot, but, in a judgement call like that, should he have been arrested? Theres a reason no charges were filed against him, he would have a case any second year law student could argue.

I feel like there was a lack of discretion, what type of training could help with that? what should/shouldn't these officers be learning which would aid with their discretion?
 
am1x90xnike said:
 
 This esculated quickly. Of course we don't know what actually happened, but, in most jurisdictions, there is a presumption that you have a legal right to be on businesses property, unless there are signs posted to the contrary. The fact they had a bench there is a sign they wanted people there and if other people sat there and he wasn't doing any more or any less than the law was being applied arbritrarily, the security officer was acting as an agent for the police, and he should have a title nine claim.
Click to expand...
I would prefer to have a discussion about what type of training could be done in order that black kids stop getting shot, that police officers stop arresting people for sitting on benches. Like, in this particular instant, he was leaving, not being hostile and still got tased. I do like that he got tased instead of shot, but, in a judgement call like that, should he have been arrested? Theres a reason no charges were filed against him, he would have a case any second year law student could argue.

I feel like there was a lack of discretion, what type of training could help with that? what should/shouldn't these officers be learning which would aid with their discretion?
Click to expand...
hey i think you forgot to switch screen names because you quoted yourself. 
 
No, that was on purpose because he quoted a piece of the article which I had already addressed. I only have one screen name man, no need to have extra screen names to strength my stances.
 
ok... then what the hell are you incoherently babbling on about.

what the hell does title ix have to do with anything in this. 
 
Last edited:
Do you really have to say "incoherently babbling about" it's actually a pretty solid legal argument and you pretty much understood what I was saying, thus making it an effective communication,  however, you must attempt to discredit me at ever turn.

I posted title ix in a rush, I meant title VII equal protection under the forth amendment, but it's a 1983 claim in legal circles. He would have to prove that the security guard was A) acting as an agent for the government B) the security guard allowed other people to sit there without incident.
 
Last edited:
That **** was scary yo...

:frown:

How would they arrest him and say he wouldn't leave, when he's leaving on the tape?
 
am1x90xnike said:
 
Do you really have to say "incoherently babbling about" it's actually a pretty solid legal argument and you pretty much understood what I was saying, thus making it an effective communication,  however, you must attempt to discredit me at ever turn.

I posted title ix in a rush, I meant title VII equal protection under the forth amendment, but it's a 1983 claim in legal circles. He would have to prove that the security guard was A) acting as an agent for the government B) the security guard allowed other people to sit there without incident.
Click to expand...
yes because that is an accurate description of how you type.

your posts are littered with constant typos, run-ons, and misinformation-- making them difficult to understand.
 
When you listen to the second portion of the vid you get more of an idea of the guy's charactter/personality. He seems like the type who likes confrontation but then turns around n acts like a punk bithch victim. And i think when he pointed at a random kid and claimed them as his child lol
 
offbad said:
yes because that is an accurate description of how you type.

your posts are littered with constant typos, run-ons, and misinformation-- making them difficult to understand.
[/quote
Did you understand it? Which would mean its coherent right? Y'all kill me.
Click to expand...
 
am1x90xnike said:
 
offbad said:
yes because that is an accurate description of how you type.

your posts are littered with constant typos, run-ons, and misinformation-- making them difficult to understand.
[/quote
Did you understand it? Which would mean its coherent right? Y'all kill me.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
no i still don't understand what you even are trying to say.

all you've managed to do is ramble and pretend that you're making sense so according to you, it is effective.

you typed out "nine" which is pretty hard to confuse with "seven" yet you somehow believe you're an efficient communicator. 

your argument is not solid at all as you claim.

there's still no connection to be made between title vii and the 4th amendment. 

in fact-- it sounds like you just discovered the internet and you're having a hard time getting your brain-to-typing skills under control. 
 
Last edited:
Hmm article four of the constitution, the equal protection clause through privileges and immunities, it must be incorporated to the states through the fourteenth, but the language is the same...fourth amendment is about search and seizure, and I mistyped again, as I'm walking around.

Where's the flaw in my argument?

The respondent would argue that the security guard was not acting as an agent of the police , and because he didn't acquiesce fo his authority, they may succeed, but, in general security guards carry a gun and wear a badge, so there's always the argument, judge dependent.

Why do you have to be 'smarter' than me...like my argument is a solid legal argument, just because you don't know the concepts doesn't mean it's less valid. Look up 1983 claim, look up Art. Four, privileges and immunities, fourteenth amendment...then tell me where I'm wrong.

Homie, in real life I'm on my last leg of law school and this case is a simple one, which is why the police didn't press charges. His claim is hard also because I didn't read any damages.

Also, title ix is an equal protection claim, however, I was referring to the 1983 rocket fuel that gets us in federal court
 
Last edited:
you mistype things and then you say that you make good arguments.

it's not that anyone is "smarter" than you it's just that you're not very good at communication and thus depend on others to decipher your cryptic comments. 

you claim you're on the "last leg" of law school yet you still cannot correctly reference nor cite relevant precedent.

solid logic, hope you do well in life.
 
You do realize this is an internet forum right? Free flow of ideas, mostly from memory, mostly while I'm at work...but, whatever, you take NT far more seriously than I do.
 
am1x90xnike said:
 
You do realize this is an internet forum right? Free flow of ideas, mostly from memory, mostly while I'm at work...but, whatever, you take NT far more seriously than I do.
Click to expand...
It's interesting that you're telling someone else that they take NT more seriously than you do.

http://niketalk.com/t/605111/son-comes-out-of-the-closet-to-his-religous-parents

That topic has you proclaiming how flawless your logic is and calling other NT members pseudo intellectuals. 
 
All part of the game my friend. If you reread the posts you'd see I told dudes I harbor no ill will, and should they ever need help I got em w/the NT discount.

Old dude was on a business property, which is technically private property but, there is the expectation that people will patronize a business so the trespass rules are different, there is a lower standard.
 
Last edited:
I mean if hes really on private property then security can tell him to move along and he should cough up the ID when the cops show up.  

I think these cops are not very experienced and do need better training in all likelihood... They should have explained from the jump that he's on private property and his argument about signage would be shot down.

Cops attitudes need to change as well as many peoples attitude towards cops needs to change, generally speaking.
 
I'm in Italy, at the Venice Train Station, Carabinieri ask me for my credentials... I show them

Cop asks me what WTAPS is........... I tell them

I'm in the Train station in LA, Cops ask for my Train Pass.... I show them
................

What the cop didn't know was that I was about to get Drunk as heck, Go to Supreme thinking Lady Gaga's gonna' be on the box tee for SS 11' & Stay the night in a youth hostel on Fairfax. Where the hostess lets me know there's a bus that takes you all over LA + Hollywood, the only catch.......... FREE TACOS & BEERS!!!!!

Let's just say I was very mad to find out there was no Lady Gaga box logo tees, so I bought an Orange KAWS box logo tee, some nunchucks, a deck & DIPPED OUT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Black woman calls cops only to be killed by cops.
Replies
11
Views
2K
1995
1995

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom