Why are the negro killing cop protesters allowed to interrupt traffic and lay across highways

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corrigan

As for that "too perfect" story about the black guy stealing a white protestor's phone while right in front of the cops:


http://imagemacros.files.wordpress.c...1/bullshit.jpg

---

I had to look it up as it was told to me from my brother. I was slightly off in the wording because I got it second hand.

http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/


From an anonymous blog written by 3 Chicago cops (contributions come from officers all over the city, and the mayor and police chief have been trying to shut it down for quite a while). Scroll down to Dec 6.


SATURDAY, DECEMBER 06, 2014

::Snicker::
Irony at its finest:
I was out there tonight on Lake Shore drive while the white Protestors. And a few Black Protestors were filming us and yelling. I seen a White Girl with her camera phone filming us. She was holding the camera in the air. Then some black guy grabbed the girls phone and took off into the crowd. The girl then approached the cop next to me and stated that this black guy just grabbed her cell phone. The cop next to me raised his arms up and stated 'Don't call the police'. I started laughing and she turned to me and asked why I was laughing.I stated you don't like or want the police around so you go chase that black guy. She stated that's your job to protect me and my Property. I stated you are protesting me from doing my job. She walked away crying
Point #1 - One copper isn't going to chase this guy into an obviously hostile crowd.

Point #2 - The cops had orders to try to keep the protestors on the sidewalk. The priority wasn't to apprehend phone snatchers. In a volatile situation like that, property crimes take a backseat to the overall picture. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

Point #3 - As we said here a few days ago, fuck the police until you need the police. Do you understand now ma'am?




You may sniff my groin when ready

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DRK Star

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corrigan

As for that "too perfect" story about the black guy stealing a white protestor's phone while right in front of the cops:


http://imagemacros.files.wordpress.c...1/bullshit.jpg

---

I had to look it up as it was told to me from my brother. I was slightly off in the wording because I got it second hand.

http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/


From an anonymous blog written by 3 Chicago cops (contributions come from officers all over the city, and the mayor and police chief have been trying to shut it down for quite a while). Scroll down to Dec 6.


SATURDAY, DECEMBER 06, 2014

::Snicker::
Irony at its finest:
I was out there tonight on Lake Shore drive while the white Protestors. And a few Black Protestors were filming us and yelling. I seen a White Girl with her camera phone filming us. She was holding the camera in the air. Then some black guy grabbed the girls phone and took off into the crowd. The girl then approached the cop next to me and stated that this black guy just grabbed her cell phone. The cop next to me raised his arms up and stated 'Don't call the police'. I started laughing and she turned to me and asked why I was laughing.I stated you don't like or want the police around so you go chase that black guy. She stated that's your job to protect me and my Property. I stated you are protesting me from doing my job. She walked away crying
Point #1 - One copper isn't going to chase this guy into an obviously hostile crowd.

Point #2 - The cops had orders to try to keep the protestors on the sidewalk. The priority wasn't to apprehend phone snatchers. In a volatile situation like that, property crimes take a backseat to the overall picture. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

Point #3 - As we said here a few days ago, fuck the police until you need the police. Do you understand now ma'am?




You may sniff my groin when ready

---

HOF

So, we're just supposed to believe, without reservation, something written anonymously by police on a police blog as fact when............

The official police report also stated that they took Eric Garner down because he took a fighting stance & they felt threatened & that was a bold-faced lie & a police report is supposed to be factual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_tale

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hockey Guy

So, we're just supposed to believe, without reservation, something written anonymously by police on a police blog as fact when............

The official police report also stated that they took Eric Garner down because he took a fighting stance & they felt threatened & that was a bold-faced lie & a police report is supposed to be factual.

---

That police blog was about a protest in Chicago.....what does that have to do with the official police report about Eric Garner, who was killed in New York? You seem very confused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muck Ficon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hockey Guy

So, we're just supposed to believe, without reservation, something written anonymously by police on a police blog as fact when............

The official police report also stated that they took Eric Garner down because he took a fighting stance & they felt threatened & that was a bold-faced lie & a police report is supposed to be factual.

---

That police blog was about a protest in Chicago.....what does that have to do with the official police report about Eric Garner, who was killed in New York? You seem very confused.

---

You seriously don't get it?

The point is he told this Chicago story as a fact then when told that it sounds made up uses an anonymously written police blog as the proof that it's a factual story but I'm pointing out that police write non-factual things in documentation that is supposed to be factual all the time & used the example of Eric Garner because that's what's being discussed in the thread & there's direct video evidence to contradict what they reported & these police officers put their name on it.

If the police are willing to lie on official documentation & put their name on it, why would we just blindly believe an anonymous blog account where they don't/won't even put their name on it?

Im starting to wonder why Im wasting my time typing. If you want to debate whether or not that story is real or not, what can I fucking tell you? That is a blog where cops post stories that happen all over the city. Do you need me to provide you with some type of video evidence to support the story? The cops cant put their real names down on that, so if you want to say that EEEVVERRYYTHING on there is bullshit, go ahead. Im going to believe a very large percentage of the stories that are told on there. If you are going to argue whether something is true or not because its anonymous, there isnt anything else to say. Determine if there is any reason for someone to benefit from a lie and use your judgment.

Put it this way guys; if you are going to argue anything that happened in NYC, think your thought process through. Know the facts and know the laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hockey Guy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muck Ficon

That police blog was about a protest in Chicago.....what does that have to do with the official police report about Eric Garner, who was killed in New York? You seem very confused.

---

You seriously don't get it?

The point is he told this Chicago story as a fact then when told that it sounds made up uses an anonymously written police blog as the proof that it's a factual story but I'm pointing out that police write non-factual things in documentation that is supposed to be factual all the time & used the example of Eric Garner because that's what's being discussed in the thread & there's direct video evidence to contradict what they reported & these police officers put their name on it.

If the police are willing to lie on official documentation & put their name on it, why would we just blindly believe an anonymous blog account where they don't/won't even put their name on it?

---

So police attacked an innocent black man simply because he was black. Police stereotype all blacks as criminals. Then they lie about it. You know this because some cops in Chicago lied. So all police must be liars......Think about that for a minute......

from the comments section regarding the second city cop post...

I must confess said...

Point #4 - I confess that this story, while entirely believeable, was concocted by myself to lighten the mood. Too many of us have been over stressing this crap. Hope it brought a smile to your face. Judging by the responses in the other thread, it achieved the desired results.

Happy Holidays to my brothers and sisters in blue. Stay safe, stay strong and stay able to laugh.

...was also originally posted under the label "rumors" (that would be the second clue that it was BS, first being that it's a basic too good to be true/wishful thinking type of a story)

http://www.vice.com/read/what-anonym...ource=vicefbus

vice just posted this

Watch video then read the article.


"Open season on killing black men"


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...icer/19878931/


Oh, so was that black man just minding his own business?.......OR.......yeah.......

My last post in this thread. I think this is a part of the issue.

The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law is an idiomatic antithesis. When one obeys the letter of the law but not the spirit, one is obeying the literal interpretation of the words (the "letter") of the law, but not the intent of those who wrote the law. Conversely, when one obeys the spirit of the law but not the letter, one is doing what the authors of the law intended, though not necessarily adhering to the literal wording.
​http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lette...rit_of_the_law

"The quality of mercy is not strain'd, It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest: It blesseth him that gives and him that takes."
Willian Shakespeare

But guys if cops didn't choke out these evil cigarette salesman drks chicago hood would be literally full of people selling stuff

you guys cant be serious. this is a level, correct? gotta be.

Im sure Garner was a model citizen, who was just standing there doing nothing



oh, wait....


http://www.silive.com/northshore/ind...in_police.html



Eric Garner had run afoul of the law several times for allegedly selling untaxed cigarettes before his fatal confrontation with police on Thursday, court records show.

I think it's pretty clear he was selling the cigarettes, which while not a major crime, is still a crime and the police are required to stop him if they know about it.

I think it's also pretty clear that he was mouthing off and waiving his arms, and had the appearance of an uncooperative (and possibly dangerous) suspect.

Did the police jump the gun with pouncing on him?

Yes.

Was the chokehold inappropriate?

Yes.

Should the police face consequences from this?

Yes.

Was this a racist attack on a black man because they feel black lives don't matter?

No. It would have happened with any large suspect acting the same way.

DRK Star: would be funny if true...but he isnt the original author, is he?

The "original" author most likely came up with the first version in the 50's. The guy that left the comment in the wall may or may not be the person that came up with this variation of the story that is referred to in the blog. The story itself is just a very basic tall tale.

Do us a favour DRK Star and remove that odious little prick from your avatar.


Even if your intention is one of dislike towards the self centered ballbag... Just looking at his picture makes me want to kill babies.

Les and Varys

Read this article and see what they have to say about the "broken window" policies.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...r-s-death.html

Last January, the city passed stronger penalties for selling loosies and other illegal cigarettes and in early July, reports the Daily News. The NYPD’s Chief of Department, Philip Banks, specifically called for crackdowns on loosie sales in Staten Island. “Among the specific public complaints of illegal activity in that area included the sale of untaxed cigarettes as well as open (alcohol) container and marijuana use and sale offenses,” an NYPD spokesman told the News.

Police Commissioner William Bratton introduced broken windows policing to the NYPD when he was first hired by then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani in 1993, and he is continuing its use while serving under current Mayor Bill de Blasio. But just as the response to Ferguson protests raised questions about the sagacity of outfitting local cops with military grade weapons and gear, the death of Garner and other non-violent suspects is forcing a debate over broken windows. “I don’t think it’s a necessary police tactic,” City Councilman Andy King told the News. Councilwoman Inez Barron argued that “such enforcement ‘leads to confrontations like this [one].’”

As in most cases involving social science and broad cultural trends, supporters and critics of broken windows policing can marshal seemingly irrefutable evidence in favor of their position. There’s little question that New Yorkers support arrests for low-level offenses. A Quinnipiac Poll of New Yorkers in August found that 60 percent of respondents agreed that “when a cop enforces some low-level offense…it improve[s] quality of life.” Only 34 percent said it increased neighborhood tensions, with “very little difference among black and white voters.”


One thing interesting to note is that this article indicates that the chokehold the officer applied IS PROHIBITED BUT NOT ILLEGAL.
http://observer.com/2014/09/bratton-...nt-support-it/

Nevermind - misclicked my way to blocking it myself.