HamSandwhich Posted August 11, 2020 Posted August 11, 2020 9 minutes ago, SWATeam said: We can dismiss individual occurrences as mistakes and argue hypotheticals, or we can step back and notice trends and systemic societal issues. This may or may not have been racially motivated- who knows? But had it happen to me, I'd feel violated. I don’t disagree that he can feel violated, it’s not necessarily due to racism. It’s not systemic, that’s a lie. There are only 1000 deaths by police a year, that cannot be labeled systemic. Most of those are police killing white people. 350 million plus in this country, that’s not systemic. 2 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said: I'm pretty sure of the two of us, it isn't me that's getting forcefed what to believe by cable news. I can tell you that I don’t watch cable news at all but you’ve already made your narrative up in your own mind about me. You know, like CNN likes to do, create a narrative and then fit the story to it!
Augie Posted August 11, 2020 Posted August 11, 2020 I would like to take a moment to thank all the mods who hold this place together. It is mostly a thankless job, I’m sure, but I thank all of you sincerely! 1
BullBuchanan Posted August 11, 2020 Posted August 11, 2020 Just now, HamSandwhich said: I don’t disagree that he can feel violated, it’s not necessarily due to racism. It’s not systemic, that’s a lie. There are only 1000 deaths by police a year, that cannot be labeled systemic. Most of those are police killing white people. 350 million plus in this country, that’s not systemic. What you continually fail to understand are that deaths are the tip of the iceberg, not the base.
HamSandwhich Posted August 11, 2020 Posted August 11, 2020 1 minute ago, BullBuchanan said: What you continually fail to understand are that deaths are the tip of the iceberg, not the base. I already agreed with that point, look back. 1
Andrew Son Posted August 11, 2020 Posted August 11, 2020 2 minutes ago, HamSandwhich said: I can tell you that I don’t watch cable news at all but you’ve already made your narrative up in your own mind about me. You know, like CNN likes to do, create a narrative and then fit the story to it! lol 1 1
LB3 Posted August 11, 2020 Posted August 11, 2020 (edited) 12 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said: Get used to it. We won't. You pansies will get spanked. Edit. Not in this thread. But in life. Edited August 11, 2020 by LB3
Rock'em Sock'em Posted August 11, 2020 Posted August 11, 2020 (edited) What a great interview! https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1DXGyAoWzaVGM I've got a such respect for Ed Oliver for the way he handled this situation. In my book, Ed is ranking right up there with Lorax, Pat Williams, Freddy, Fitzpatrick in terms of favorite Bills players of recent years. Edited August 11, 2020 by Rock'em Sock'em 1
Sherlock Holmes Posted August 11, 2020 Posted August 11, 2020 28 minutes ago, jeremy2020 said: can't tell if you're for real of a caricature of a person Yea, you're right. Like...why would you stand up to people violating your rights. Bend over and take it. If the cops are just going violate your rights and violate the law then you should just give up. 24 minutes ago, HamSandwhich said: I’ll be whatever you want buttercup 13 minutes ago, LB3 said: We won't. You pansies will get spanked. Edit. Not in this thread. But in life. Man you guys are getting me hot and bothered!!! 2
Doc Brown Posted August 11, 2020 Posted August 11, 2020 32 minutes ago, LB3 said: The little Antifa pansies feel very empowered these days. Thankfully they're pansies. 30 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said: Are they pansies or a violent mob today? I forget is it an odds or evens thing? 29 minutes ago, LB3 said: Both. A violent mob until stood up to. It's just easier to deal with pansies 26 minutes ago, HamSandwhich said: They’re a violent mob when they take liberties against a police force who is not trying to start violence but are being thrown rocks/bottles at, spit at, attacked. They become pansies when those cops fight back when a riot is declared. Does that make sense?
BillsPride12 Posted August 11, 2020 Posted August 11, 2020 1 minute ago, Rock'em Sock'em said: What a great interview! I've got a such respect for Ed Oliver for the way he handled this situation. In my book, Ed is ranking right up there with Lorax, Pat Williams, Freddy, Fitzpatrick in terms of favorite Bills players of recent years. He is going to be a fan favorite without a doubt. He has such a cool, down to earth personality and he couldn't have handled this situation any better than he did. Very proud to have him on our squad. On top of being such a cool dude, I really think he is about to have a breakout season and going to help take this defense to the next level.
HappyDays Posted August 11, 2020 Posted August 11, 2020 1 hour ago, HamSandwhich said: No, he was not roughed up or killed, precisely because he acted respectfully. He fought the issue afterward and he did it the right way. Exactly what he should have done and now he can fight back by filing false arrest or suing. Good for him. Oliver's story seems to be that there never was an open alcohol container. It was a made up charge to give the cops an excuse to arrest him. Considering the supposed open container never turned into an actual charge I'm inclined to believe Oliver's version of events. Which would mean he was arrested and booked in jail for a night after doing literally nothing wrong, even after blowing 0.0 at the scene. Does that sit right with you? And if this sort of thing happens to him, what do you think happens when the arrested isn't a millionaire with a good attorney? This is the sort of police abuse people are angry about. No one should have to just accept being thrown in jail for a night with no evidence of anything. That isn't freedom. For some people that could lose them a night of work that they desperately need to feed their family. Maybe they're talked into taking a plea deal because they don't know their rights. You're not seeing the larger problem that this represents. 2
JoshAllenHasBigHands Posted August 11, 2020 Posted August 11, 2020 1 hour ago, BullBuchanan said: Yes, of course I believe that I can say no to the police. Would you let them into your house without a warrant? Would you let them search your trunk without a warrant? You have rights, and as much as they try to act like it, they aren't Kings or deities. If a cop gives you an instruction, you must follow it, right or wrong. Whether the cop has probable cause, or whether its right or wrong, should not be litigated on the streets. If the cop is in the wrong, that will be sorted out after the fact. You should NEVER refuse a clear instruction, no matter what you, an armchair lawyer, THINK the law is. 55 minutes ago, klos63 said: You should be able to say whatever the f you want to a cop and not expect to get killed because of it. Do we have etiquette laws too? Say, sure. Refuse an instruction, no. If you refuse an instruction, you are rightfully the subject of violence. Telling people otherwise is why so many police encounters turn violent. To be clear: there are proportion levels of violence. It can go too far. But when you introduce violence, situations become unpredictable. Every thing that follows is your fault for refusing to comply with instructions. The cop may share comparative fault, but the original blame lies with the person that refused the instruction.
BullBuchanan Posted August 11, 2020 Posted August 11, 2020 8 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said: If a cop gives you an instruction, you must follow it, right or wrong. Whether the cop has probable cause, or whether its right or wrong, should not be litigated on the streets. If the cop is in the wrong, that will be sorted out after the fact. You should NEVER refuse a clear instruction, no matter what you, an armchair lawyer, THINK the law is. Say, sure. Refuse an instruction, no. If you refuse an instruction, you are rightfully the subject of violence. Telling people otherwise is why so many police encounters turn violent. You have gotten some truly terrible legal advice. This is all wrong, top to bottom. Do you realize that if you forfeit your rights in the street, you can wind up forfeiting them in court later? If a police officer demands you to open your trunk and they find something that incriminates you or someone else, it's going to be extremely difficult if not impossible to get evidence dropped after the fact.
FLFan Posted August 11, 2020 Posted August 11, 2020 10 hours ago, Call_Of_Ktulu said: I'm guessing Oliver and Floyds arrest records are the same then. Cops, US Marshals, Military all try to use appropriate force for the situation they are going into or encounter. Unless Oliver has a very bad police record I don't think you can even compare them. Its weird that Oliver said if he didn't say yes sir and no sir or act respectful that things could've gone bad for him. Every time I get pulled over I keep my hands on the wheel until the cop gets to the window then listen to instructions and be respectful as possible. Its my understanding that not listing, being disrespectful, damaging or spiting on the inside of the police car will get you handcuffed and on your face. Feels kinds weird that Oliver is comparing himself to Floyd. Clueless. When you are pulled over and arrested for being black in Texas, let us know how that feels.
BullBuchanan Posted August 11, 2020 Posted August 11, 2020 (edited) 14 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said: If a cop gives you an instruction, you must follow it, right or wrong. Whether the cop has probable cause, or whether its right or wrong, should not be litigated on the streets. If the cop is in the wrong, that will be sorted out after the fact. You should NEVER refuse a clear instruction, no matter what you, an armchair lawyer, THINK the law is. Say, sure. Refuse an instruction, no. If you refuse an instruction, you are rightfully the subject of violence. Telling people otherwise is why so many police encounters turn violent. To be clear: there are proportion levels of violence. It can go too far. But when you introduce violence, situations become unpredictable. Every thing that follows is your fault for refusing to comply with instructions. The cop may share comparative fault, but the original blame lies with the person that refused the instruction. This is the literal definition of fascism. No civilized country in the world operates this way. Not only have you gotten really bad legal advice, but someone criminally failed you in that they allowed you accept this worldview. Edited August 11, 2020 by BullBuchanan
HappyDays Posted August 11, 2020 Posted August 11, 2020 (edited) 15 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said: If a cop gives you an instruction, you must follow it, right or wrong. Whether the cop has probable cause, or whether its right or wrong, should not be litigated on the streets. If the cop is in the wrong, that will be sorted out after the fact. You should NEVER refuse a clear instruction, no matter what you, an armchair lawyer, THINK the law is. I can't get behind this mindset at all. Not to use a cliche, but that is not what the founders intended. They would have hated the idea of armed government forces patrolling the streets and having total control over every interaction they initiate. I don't have to be especially nice or respectful to a cop if I don't want to be. I have nothing against police officers but I won't go out of my way to make them happy. If I'm pulled over or whatever for a legitimate cause then I'll do what I'm asked, but that's about it. If a police officer asks to look in my trunk, that's a no from me. And by law I don't have to follow that instruction. So legally speaking you are not right about that. I just think it's crazy the message here is "as long as you comply and say yes sir no sir, you might end up spending a night in jail but at least you won't be dead." Jail shouldn't be an acceptable consequence of doing nothing at all. Whether it's Ed Oliver or some random poor kid that doesn't know his rights, no one deserves that. I'm kind of sick of people saying just follow instructions and everything will work out just fine in the end. First of all, that is on the face of it not always true. And secondly, why are we not instead trying to change the rules that allow things like that to happen in the first place? Why is it always the arrestee's burden and not the arrestor's? Edited August 11, 2020 by HappyDays 2 1
JoshAllenHasBigHands Posted August 11, 2020 Posted August 11, 2020 3 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said: You have gotten some truly terrible legal advice. This is all wrong, top to bottom. Do you realize that if you forfeit your rights in the street, you can wind up forfeiting them in court later? If a police officer demands you to open your trunk and they find something that incriminates you or someone else, it's going to be extremely difficult if not impossible to get evidence dropped after the fact. Well, I am a lawyer, but sure, you probably know better.
JoshAllenHasBigHands Posted August 11, 2020 Posted August 11, 2020 4 minutes ago, HappyDays said: I can't get behind this mindset at all. Not to use a cliche, but that is not what the founders intended. They would have hated the idea of armed government forces patrolling the streets and having total control over every interaction they initiate. I don't have to be especially nice or respectful to a cop if I don't want to be. I have nothing against police officers but I won't go out of my way to make them happy. If I'm pulled over or whatever for a legitimate cause then I'll do what I'm asked, but that's about it. If a police officer asks to look in my trunk, that's a no from me. And by law I don't have to follow that instruction. So legally speaking you are not right about that. I just think it's crazy the message here is "as long as you comply and say yes sir no sir, you might end up spending a night in jail but at least you won't be dead." Jail shouldn't be an acceptable consequence of doing nothing at all. Whether it's Ed Oliver or some random poor kid that doesn't know his rights, no one deserves that. I'm kind of sick of people saying just follow instructions and everything will work out just fine in the end. First of all, that is on the face of it not always true. And secondly, why are we not instead trying to change the rules that allow things like that to happen in the first place? Why is it always the arrestee's burden and not the arrestor's? There is a difference with agreeing with a request and complying with an instruction. Yes, if they ask if they may see your trunk, you should say no. Thats not what Im talking about though. Im saying if they say you HAVE to open your trunk, you need to comply. I hope you see the distinction.
HappyDays Posted August 11, 2020 Posted August 11, 2020 (edited) 25 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said: There is a difference with agreeing with a request and complying with an instruction. Yes, if they ask if they may see your trunk, you should say no. Thats not what Im talking about though. Im saying if they say you HAVE to open your trunk, you need to comply. I hope you see the distinction. Sure, if the police officer expresses a probable cause I will do what I'm asked and if needed fight the probable cause in court later. I get that. But this conversation started because some posters seem to think that what happened to Oliver is fine. He followed instructions, didn't make a scene, etc. And the result is he was detained on the side of the road and spent a night in jail and paid for attorney fees to fight his case. This is the "happy" ending of complying. My point is that nothing about this situation is okay. They may have had probable cause to pull him over but everything beyond that was a breach of his rights. I mean some posters are saying because he stumbled while walking that was probable cause to arrest him. I for one think that's insane. And again, not everyone has the privileges that Ed Oliver does. Is it that crazy to think the cops would have falsely charged someone else with an open alcohol container if the individual wasn't a professional athlete with a good lawyer on retainer? They apparently lied about it just to arrest him. How much further could that have gone? It is not as simple as "comply and you'll walk away happy." Not even close. Rather than putting the burden of navigating complicated legal encounters on the arrestee, I would rather there be systems and laws in place to make sure this kind of thing never happens at all. The laws that are already there aren't working. Edited August 11, 2020 by HappyDays 4
JoshAllenHasBigHands Posted August 11, 2020 Posted August 11, 2020 3 minutes ago, HappyDays said: Sure, if the police officer expresses a probable cause I will do what I'm asked and if needed fight the probable cause in court later. I get that. But this conversation started because some posters seem to think that what happened to Oliver is fine. He followed instructions, didn't make a scene, etc. And the result is he was detained on the side of the road and spent a night in jail and paid for attorney fees to fight his case. This is the "happy" ending of complying. My point is that nothing about this situation is okay. They may have had probable cause to pull him over but everything beyond that was a breach of his rights. I mean some posters are saying because he stumbled while walking that was probable cause to arrest him. I for one think that's insane. And again, not everyone has the privileges that Ed Oliver does. Is it that crazy to think the cops would have falsely charged someone else with an open alcohol container if the individual wasn't a professional athlete with a good lawyer on retainer? They apparently lied about it just to arrest him. How much further could that have gone? It is not as simple as "comply and you'll walk away happy." Not even close. Rather than putting the burden of navigating complicated legal encounters on the arrestee, I would rather there be systems and laws in place to make sure this kind of thing never happens at all. The laws that are already there aren't working. I understand where you are coming from, and its definitely an imperfect system. We should be investing wayyyy more in our public defender system. That said, Oliver’s arrest was justified. He failed the field sobriety test, which assess both alcohol and substance abuse impairment. A breathalyzer obviously doesn’t test for drugs.
Recommended Posts