Do a YouTube search. He stirs the racist pot quite often.
Here a couple of his latest comments speaking to the NAACP.
“In too many communities around the country, a gulf of mistrust exists between local residents and law enforcement. Too many young men of color feel targeted by law enforcement,” adding “Guilty of walking while black or driving while black; judged by stereotypes that fuel fear and resentment and hopelessness.”
“We know that statistically, in everything from enforcing drug policy to applying the death penalty to pulling people over there are significant racial disparities, that’s just the statistics.”
There is nothing to back up their case they saw anything. For all we know they made it up.
Don't worry, there's no shortage of people on an ego trip that need a job.
"These cases" might not seem about race but people of color and the poor do seem to be taking the brunt of these low crime laws passed by politicians.
When politicians raise taxes on free market items such as cigarettes so that poor people can't afford a pack it opens an underground market for selling single cigarettes. It's just supply and demand. Unfortunately, more often than not the police response to low level crimes is becoming more akin to military response than it is just giving someone a ticket or a fine.
The question is...why does anyone need to be forcefully taken down to the ground for selling a cigarette in the first place? Would this low level crime have even happened if NY hadn't put a $5 tax on a pack of cigarettes that ultimately ended up taking Eric Gardner's life?
These cases aren't about race.....they're about the low level crime "nanny state" tax laws... that politicians are passing that usually effect and hurt poor people the most.
I agree that the Gardner case makes no sense and needs to be explained better to us all.
But there's no need because Pelosi, Sharpton, etc, along with the media, have already told us it's all about racist police departments and court rooms.
There appears to be a good informal rule-of-thumb to be adopted here.
It's quite simple too.
If an incident such as this occurs and you have to know the race of the protagonists before you decide if you should care, then you can use some self-reflection because your motives aren't pure.
Someone who "resists", then is shown putting his hands up, someone in this case, should not be dead. He did resist in the beginning, then he is shown putting his hands in the air, the police did not have to kill this man (by using a banned police chokehold), they didnt have to kill him period.
What the **** are you talking about?
So are you saying at first; one can resist, attempt to move the officer back from them.....then put his hands up and say cmon now theres no need to do this?
Did you know that some people tell the cops they cannot breathe when cuffs are being put on them? Even after cuffs are put on them?
So let's assume that they did? Even when the suspect has an extensive history of EXACTLY what he was accused of doing?
Look, that kind of disagreement is why there needed to be an investigation and if Garner had allowed that investigation to happen he likely wouldn't have been restrained. It's just that simple. If he REALLY thought that the cops were harassing him all he had to do was let things go, get names of the cops and find a lawyer to help him sue for harassment.
I have watched this video over and over. The cop never tells the guy he's under arrest.
Go back and read.....that's why they say it is fundamental.
Someone who "resists", then is shown putting his hands up, someone in this case, should not be dead. He did resist in the beginning, then he is shown putting his hands in the air, the police did not have to kill this man (by using a banned police chokehold), they didnt have to kill him period.
Not required. If you have any doubt, it is your responsibility to ask. If they lie to you about it or say something that doesn't match their actions, then they can be held responsible, but they have no obligation to say "you are under arrest". Not from what I've learned or found out. They made it clear with their actions.
Can they? No. But that does not deserve to be killed.So are you saying at first; one can resist, attempt to move the officer back from them.....then put his hands up and say cmon now theres no need to do this?
Did they die like this while a cop was using a banned chokehold on them?Did you know that some people tell the cops they cannot breathe when cuffs are being put on them? Even after cuffs are put on them?
The level of his supposed resistance does not equal the level of force used to detain him.
Don't be a criminal and you wont have those type issues. Remember, your reputation precedes you.
The level of his supposed resistance does not equal the level of force used to detain him.
Not required. If you have any doubt, it is your responsibility to ask. If they lie to you about it or say something that doesn't match their actions, then they can be held responsible, but they have no obligation to say "you are under arrest". Not from what I've learned or found out. They made it clear with their actions.
Man, the level of hyperbole with this stuff is unreal. I don't know what's got into the water in this country but the angry/crazy/stupid level is just off the charts.
Not required. If you have any doubt, it is your responsibility to ask. If they lie to you about it or say something that doesn't match their actions, then they can be held responsible, but they have no obligation to say "you are under arrest". Not from what I've learned or found out. They made it clear with their actions.
According to you. What force should have exactly been used to detain him. Be specific, and not negative (example: shouldn't have did this is negative). Asking what should have been used, not what should not have been used. And how likely is it to have worked in this specific instance?
BULL. They are required to inform you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?