|
Forums >
Off-Topic Discussion >
Public Trust
" A Black man who was detained by police during an early morning walk in a quiet community northwest of Detroit says the white officer who threw him against a squad car, cuffed him and accused him of planning to break into a car also told a significant lie. Brian Chaney says he asked for a supervisor during his arrest in Keego Harbor, Michigan, and Police Officer Richard Lindquist told him that another officer present was in charge. The problem: That second officer was not a supervisor or even a member of the Keego Harbor Police Department. Lindquist was never disciplined and his chief says that while a suspect has the right to request a supervisor, what the officer did was OK. “An officer can lie in the field when he’s not under oath,” Keego Harbor Police Chief John Fitzgerald said in a deposition in Chaney's $10 million wrongful detention lawsuit." https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states … ficers-lie The police chief claims that the police have a right to lie. That is true and has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, to a point. The police chief is also correct that the detainee has a right to request a supervisor. However, does the police officer have the right to lie to a person detained for the purpose of violating his rights by denying the person of the right to request a supervisor to be present? It seems like a stretch of logic and law. After reading the Miranda rights to a suspect, can the police present another office, lie to the suspect that the officer is his lawyer so that the suspect waives his rights? Recently: "An Ohio elected official's constitutional rights were violated when her colleagues on a county board of commissioners had her arrested for criticizing the sheriff during a public meeting, a federal judge ruled Tuesday. Niki Frenchko, the lone Republican on the three-member Trumbull County Board of Commissioners, was placed in handcuffs by sheriff's deputies at the commissioners’ meeting on July 7, 2022, and charged under an Ohio law that makes it a misdemeanor to “prevent or disrupt a lawful meeting.” The law prohibits obstructive conduct or speech that “outrages the sensibilities of the group.” The charge was later dropped, Frenchko — who livestreamed her arrest on Facebook — subsequently filed a federal civil rights lawsuit, saying she was ordered to leave the meeting and placed under arrest for exercising her First Amendment right to free speech, and that the sheriff's department lacked probable cause to charge her. U.S. District Judge J. Philip Calabrese agreed. “Here in America, we do not arrest our political opponents,” the judge wrote. “This case tests that longstanding norm as well as our Constitution’s robust protections for free speech that allow us to criticize our representatives and public officials.” Calabrese ruled that the sheriff, two deputies, and both county commissioners named in the suit — one of whom has since left the board — are personally liable for damages. At one point, Cantalamessa told Frenchko: “You are talking about the chief law enforcement officer in Trumbull County; it’s unacceptable," according to a transcript cited by the judge. Fuda then called for a sergeant in the back of the room, telling Frenchko, “You got a choice, you wanna apologize to the Sheriff, fine; if you don’t, we’re going to move on." Frenchko plowed on. That's when a sergeant went up to the dais, pulled Frenchko's chair back and ordered her to stand up and leave the meeting. She was put in handcuffs outside of the meeting room. Calabrese, in Tuesday's ruling, said the evidence showed that Frencko's “speech caused her arrest.” The defendants are not entitled to immunity from damages, he wrote, because the law has “long recognized that any reasonable official would know that the First Amendment does not countenance the arrest of a person for engaging in protected speech.” https://chroniclet.com/news/378243/an-o … udge-says/ In the second example, the people involved failed to protect the free speech rights of the arrested board member. Therefore, the judge agreed that their qualified immunity was null. The police officer(s) in the first example should also face the consequences of his/their actions without immunity and the chief should be encouraged to find another line of work without letting the door hit him in the ass on the way out. Jan 28 24 11:28 am Link Hunter GWPB wrote: This is really not hot news. Jan 28 24 12:19 pm Link Thank you for your insight and contribution, but hot news is not a prerequisite for a new thread and your selection of the phrase which you opted to highlight is also not the tidbit that puts the first story into a nutshell. "In Colorado and most states, the short answer is [the cops can lie]. They can’t lie in every instance, and they can’t fabricate evidence (Florida v. Cayward, 1989), but most of the time it’s completely legal for them to lie so it’s important to remember this if you are ever interrogated. The Supreme Court ruled in Frazier v. Cupo (1969) that police officers can lie during an investigation as long as it does not “shock the conscience of the court or the community.” For instance, they can’t tell someone that they will lose custody of their children if they don’t confess (Lynumn v. Illinois, 372 US 528 (1963). But they most certainly can lie about a lot of things that can intimidate people into confessing to crimes they didn’t commit. And as long as the court determines that a confession was voluntary and not obtained through violence, the court could allow it." https://www.rightslitigation.com/2022/1 … confess%20(Lynumn%20v. Does it shock your conscience that an officer of the law, sworn to uphold the Constitution, would lie to deprive someone of what the police confirm is one of the rights people have? It shocks mine. Is the police behavior discussed in the OP something which would be worthy of public trust? Please feel free to comment in greater depth. Jan 28 24 03:57 pm Link Hunter GWPB wrote: Thank you. Hunter GWPB wrote: Not any more. Jan 28 24 07:32 pm Link This is a question that should be asked of a lawyer. Why are you asking a bunch of photographers and models whether or not a law was violated. Or is it just an attempt to stir up some controversy. We all know there are incidents of the misuse power on all sides of nearly every issue. No one and no institution is perfect. Your time would be better spent directing your indignation toward those who can make a difference. Jan 28 24 07:36 pm Link Weldphoto wrote: - Jan 28 24 10:49 pm Link "The German American Bund, led by Fritz Kuhn, was formed in 1935 and lasted until America formally entered World War II in 1941. The Bund existed with the goal of a united America under ethnic German rule and following Nazi ideology. It proclaimed communism as their main enemy and expressed anti-Semitic attitudes." It's not just about police lying to detainees. We have a former President with tens of millions of followers who talks just like Herr Kuhn. Who knows? The U.S. in 2025 could end up just like Deutschland in 1933. Your topic is definitely worth discussing. Jan 29 24 07:36 am Link You need to step back and do a reality check. The laws are the myth that you are supposed to believe, They are there to keep you in line and prevent bad behaviour. However, the events that you highlighted are the reality. When law enforcement is willing corrupt and has no problem to set the law aside, you are living in an untamed society. Look at the politicians that want to apply inequity to women. Look at politicians that accept graft, are grifters and are unduly willing to compromise the security and economy of the country and line their pockets with foreign capital. What about the executives and industrialists that pay their employees sub-living wages, break unions, do stock buy-backs with citizen money, pollute the land and send jobs overseas? If you think the word is fair, you are living in the Matrix. What would you take, the red pill or the blue pill. Jan 29 24 08:38 am Link The studies used by the Texas antiabortion judge who made the dubious ruling to ban mifepristone from distribution relied on studies that are "being exposed for having relied on pseudoscientific conclusions," that have been retracted by Sage Publications because they lacked "experts identified fundamental problems with the study design and methodology, unjustified or incorrect factual assumptions, material errors in the authors’ analysis of the data, and misleading presentations of the data that, in their opinions, demonstrate a lack of scientific rigor and invalidate the authors’ conclusions in whole or in part," or similar reasoning depending on which of three studies is being referenced. Sage ruled that [Judge] Kacsmaryk’s findings essentially amounted to conservative propaganda. "Sage found, for example, that with a 2021 study cited by Kacsmaryk, all but one of the eight authors were affiliated with an anti-abortion advocacy organization “despite having declared they had no conflicts of interest.” The investigation also discovered that a peer reviewer who initially reviewed that study had been affiliated with one of those groups — the Charlotte Lozier Institute — as well. (The lead author of the three articles, James Studnicki, told Retraction Watch that the retractions were “a blatant attempt to discredit excellent research which is incongruent with a preferred abortion narrative.”)" https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reido … rcna137612 None of this is likely to matter to the activist judges on the Supreme Court. Feb 08 24 10:31 am Link Dorola wrote: - Feb 08 24 10:36 am Link
Post hidden on Feb 15, 2024 09:31 pm
Reason: inflammatory Comments: MM is no place for racism. Feb 15 24 06:45 pm Link
Post hidden on Feb 15, 2024 09:31 pm
Reason: other Comments: Quotes above post. Feb 15 24 06:46 pm Link
Post hidden on Feb 15, 2024 09:32 pm
Reason: other Comments: Quotes above post. Feb 15 24 07:52 pm Link Deleted Feb 15 24 08:05 pm Link ...thankfully, I sometimes have the time to invest into reading the close-minded Internet lawyer SJW anti-law enforcement threads. Hunter GWPB wrote: "Hunter GWPB wrote: 1. Where, in what Constitution is the "RIGHT" to request a supervisor written? Feb 16 24 06:28 am Link Where in the constitution is it written that the only rights an American has are those written in the Constitution and that no other rights shall be allowed by laws duly passed by legislatures and signed into law or provided by court rulings? I doubt you bothered to read the article. "A Black man who was detained by police during an early morning walk in a quiet community northwest of Detroit says the white officer who threw him against a squad car, cuffed him and accused him of planning to break into a car also told a significant lie." [1] Maybe you could tell us where in the Constitution the police are given the authority to cuff, rough up and detain someone for what the cop perceives a person is planning? "[H]is chief says that while a suspect has the right to request a supervisor, what the officer did was OK."[1] Okay? Okay. So why lie to the guy? Why not simply tell him, "No?" Because you think the best way to build trust is to lie? Because you think that the law enforcement arms of our government should be lying to the people? Because you think no harm comes from lying to the people? Do you think that it is not important for the citizens to trust LE? The only evidence that the man who was detained did anything wrong, was completely in the mind of the cop. That you write this off as being ant-law enforcement on my part, is about as close minded as you can get. Would you expect the government engineer to lie about the structural integrity of a bridge? Would you expect a government official to lie to you about how to complete a task? You accept government officials lying to you about how elections were stolen? (Probably, yes.) But you will accept dishonesty from a cop? Or only when the dishonesty is directed at a minority? I did not say that it is our right, I reiterated what the police chief acknowledged. No indication was made that it is a nationwide right in what I wrote. To you, it is not their right because it is not ensconced in the Constitution. You seem to fail to understand that the Constitution is the foundation of our laws, not the limit of them. It seems you think because the guy asked for a supervisor, that his right was settled. Did the man have to ask permission to ask for a supervisor? No. He just did. You said, the cop didn't "choke, tase, mace or shoot Mr. Chaney for doing so. He doesn't beat him with a baton." So, "by your absolutely one sided, biased post" his rights aren't violated, but you draw the line where it is convenient to you. Was he violently pushed up against a car during an illegal arrest? Why do you get to decide what limits of violence are appropriate in your opinion as an internet lawyer? You said, "His rights, in the context of asking for a supervisor, have not been violated." (That is a legal conclusion.) But, your comment was very specific and didn't address the question. You simply narrowed your consideration to fit your agenda as part of "your absolutely one sided, biased post." You imply that you feel the cop does have a right to lie to violate someone's rights. I hope it happens to you. You were petulant enough to make the post. You will be back. For a guy that laments someone for internet lawyering, because I shared an article, you were damn quick to offer a legal opinion about a man's rights not being violated. [1] see citation in first post Feb 16 24 07:09 am Link Weeks ago, and thanks to a previous poster, I have been considering the ramifications of his slur- I wasn't familiar with the acronym and had to look it up. I thought, at first, he intended to write WSJ. My bad. Live and learn. Turns out, that the SJW comment is a term based on racism. Who knew- except those that use that term, I guess. While I wrote this weeks ago and didn't post it, I feel motivated because of the racism directed at the women's basketball team in Idaho. Yeah, it was only a couple of low life creeps that performed in their clown show that night, but a couple of creeps are representative of a whole lot of creeps. The following post doesn't address the previous poster, per se, just the use of the term and the general hateful attitude of the right. The thing is, I am arguing against racism. I am not using pejoratives, imprecations or dog whistle slurs that have long been associated with racism and hate without regard to the offense that could be taken by other members as other posters have felt free to do. I make this post in the hope of attenuating the hostilities shown by others who are consciously opting to use offensive language and to engage in offensive ideology. I find it hard to understand how anyone can be offended by concepts regarding equal justice for all. Those who equate actions that have the appearance of impropriety without criminality, those with decades of corruption and those who have committed overt criminal actions in office should demand equal justice for all- but it seems they want only selective justice. Of course, they are the ones to demand lenancy or for people to look the other way, when they have a history of calling for the death penalty to be applied against innocent men. Anyway, how I intended to start this post was by asking, “What is the antonym of SJW?” First we need to know what is a SJW (Social Justice Warrior)? "A person who is seen as overly enthusiastic about issues of fairness in the treatment of matters of race, gender, or identity." By definition, it is a subjective term and the person using it is revealing their bias against people who are of other races, gender or identity. It is also a sardonic comment and one that also reveals things about the user of the term. To start a post that way is to wave a red flag declaring “I am biased,” and it takes some balls to dismiss the other person as biased when (unconsciously?) declaring their own bias. The person that enters a conversation using the term SJW is not interested in having a civil conversation. Like many conversations with people on the right, it isn't about talking. Their narrow minded minds- no, their closed minded minds- are already made up. With no consideration of reality, they are left with only the ability to mock and dismiss others, while trying to display an obviously faux superiority. So, what is the antonym of SJW? What describes a person who is not concerned about racial or gender biases that hinder the health and happiness of a large segment of our society? Are they people that feast at the trough of white grievance? If I had edited the news story first mentioned in the OP to be about a white man, disguising the news story regarding to whom the events had occurred, would the reaction have been different? No? If not, I am sure it would have because there is little doubt the close minded would have not bothered to read the story. After all, as it is now, they get their news from face book and rightist blogs where the authors openly lie. If one’s opinion was outrage if the man falsely arrested was white, but not outrage if he was black, then what kind of a man isn't outraged by injustices laid upon other people regardless of race? We can easily label those who see no value in being engaged against the negative and different treatment of minorities as racists. Those that care little about the injustices against women as misogynists. Those that relish injustices against other gender/sexual orientations as homophobes- and other terms. Those that accept injustices against anyone for some characteristic of birth or philosophy may not have a demeaning term ascribed to them, but they fit the more general and existing terms of (an appropriate expletive) and (an appropriate expletive). The further right on the political spectrum one is, all of those terms- racist, misogynist, homophobe, and (appropriate expletives) are known attributes of conservatives these days. Are those people identifying as conservatives the opposite of the definition of SJW, anything other than white supremacists/white nationalists? Is the term conservative the antonym of SJW then? No. There was a time when conservatives were not such ugly people as racists, misogynists and homophobes, at least publicly, and despite the party being hijacked by people with strong attributes of racism, misogyny, and homophobia, with their willingness to display and support those attributes, the hatred that fills those people goes go much deeper. They hate everyone- even their own kind when their own kind don’t adopt the policies of the fully evil people. I was in a church basement meeting room on one Thursday night when Tony wrote one of his post. I was looking at the bulletin board space set aside for the Boy Scout troop which is sponsored by the church. Later, I was considering my years in scouting after reading the racist comments and low browed comments shared in this thread that night and the following morning by conservatives among us. I struggled to remember The Scout Oath: "On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.” And The Scout Law: A Scout is: TRUSTWORTHY, LOYAL, HELPFUL, FRIENDLY, COURTEOUS. KIND, OBEDIENT, CHEERFUL, THRIFTY, BRAVE, CLEAN, and REVERENT. When I was growing up, these ideals were taught, not just in scouts, but through out life. None of those qualities are represented in the modern conservative movement. None of the qualities associated with Christianity apply. As MTG demonstrated, it is all about telling someone to "Kiss [her] ass." An attitude which fulfills Republican policies. Realizing a life of the scout oath or the law was something I obtained. I couldn’t measure up then or now. Much like living a sin free Christian life, it isn’t possible. But as adults who claim to be moral, as morality goes, do we abandon those things we believe when politics demands we vilify people for political expediency? It does means that on the right these days. Or, it means they never believed in “do unto your neighbor as you would have them do unto you.” What is the antonym of SJW? trumpism? Cold, mean, hateful and intellectually devoid? I recently thought of an old Patty loveless song and how it relates to trumps and the Republican Party. ’You don't know right from wrong; Well, the love we had is gone; So blame it on your lying, cheating; Cold, dead beatin, two timing, double dealing; Mean, mistreatin, lovin' heart”. It is trump to a t.[/i] Funny how when the right lobs one of those terms they use to insult other people, and instead they compliment them, because, let's face it, the racist, misogynistic, homophobic people who obviously aren't woke and aren't concerned about justice for all people, are bereft of morality, empathy, and common decency- things that had always been a positive in society before they were abandoned because a black man had the audacity to win the presidency. Before social justice: ””And she just would not answer the judge until he called her 'Miss Hamilton.' And he [the judge] refused. So he [the judge] found her in contempt of court," Michaels says. So Mary Hamilton was thrown in jail and fined $50. The NAACP took the case that eventually appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled the following year in Hamilton's favor. In other words, the ruling decided that everyone in court deserves titles of courtesy, regardless of race or ethnicity. Michaels says Hamilton was immensely proud of the case.” [1]. (In 1963, a $50 fine was hefty. Minimum wage was supposed to be $1.25 an hour, but a 1961 amendment lowered it to $1.00 and it didn’t return to the unattended rate until 1967 at $1.40- but then there were other amendments, which you know were directed at people of color and the poor to keep them poor. [3] “Congress explicitly extended FLSA coverage to "domestic service" workers in 1974, amending the Act to apply to employees performing household services in a private home. …domestic service workers employed to provide "companionship services" to elderly persons or persons with illnesses, injuries, or disabilities are not required to be paid the minimum wage or overtime pay.” Said exemptions persisting until 2015. [4]). Mary Hamilton was fined more than a week's gross pay because she wanted to be treated with equal respect and a racist judge refused her that courtesy. But, I digress. I am going to guess that Mary Hamilton would be proud if some scum sucking white supremacists called her a Social Justice Warrior in an attempt to demean her. Her case shows how much things have changed, but demeaning someone for being a SJW shows how much they have stayed the same. Does the person who fits the antonym of a Social Justice Warrior want to see such a simple thing such as the use of titles of courtesy applied to all in court, unwound because of faux white grievance? [i]“Segregated waiting rooms in bus and train stations were required, as well as water fountains, restrooms, building entrances, elevators, cemeteries, even amusement-park cashier windows. Laws forbade African Americans from living in white neighborhoods. Segregation was enforced for public pools, phone booths, hospitals, asylums, jails and residential homes for the elderly and handicapped. Some states required separate textbooks for Black and white students. New Orleans mandated the segregation of prostitutes according to race. In Atlanta, African Americans in court were given a different Bible from white people to swear on. Marriage and cohabitation between white and Black people was strictly forbidden in most Southern states. [T]he 1920s saw a significant migration of educated Black people out of the South, spurred on by publications like The Chicago Defender, which encouraged Black Americans to move north. Read by millions of Southern Black people, white people attempted to ban the newspaper and threatened violence against any caught reading or distributing it.” [2] What about these examples? Were there any violations of the precious Constitution and the first 10 amendments in those examples? Like the First? Did lynching violate the Fifth? Was the Fourth Amendment violated in the example where a man was arrested because the cop believed he was thinking about breaking into a car? BTW, the subsequent amendments to the Constitution are every bit as valid as the first ten. The Fourteenth says ”No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” ”Della Simpson Maynor was a teenager who pushed herself to the front of a protest in the small town of Marion, Alabama, and was terrified when police clubbed a pastor who was kneeling to pray. Police later struck her with a club as she tried to get away, and she would hear the gunshot from a state trooper that fatally wounded a young church deacon, Jimmie Lee Jackson. His death prompted a march starting in Selma, which would lead to one of the most violent days of the Civil Rights Movement, Bloody Sunday, when police beat protesters trying to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge: “Without Bloody Sunday, there would have been no voting rights. But without Jimmie Lee Jackson, there would have been no Bloody Sunday.””[5] Social Justice activists gave their lives to be free. Why, 60 years later, are people still fighting for the vote and the right to retain the vote? Yet the people opposed to social justice do not recognize the need for social justice. Why? The problems persist to anyone with an open mind. Maybe no one that decries today’s social justice activism wants to return to Jim Crow laws or to be able to treat other races as lesser people in court. Maybe the lines we have now are just fine. Lines like it not being okay for a cop to beat an innocent man with a baton, tase, him or mace him, but we should still let the cop throw him up against the car, arrest him, and let the DA and courts work it out later? The word that is the antonym of the Social Justice Warrior defines a kind of person. I don’t have a word that would slur the person opposed to social justice or those who demean those that work for social justice that adequately describes their depths of depravity, but we know the characteristics of them: Racist; misogynists; homophobes; without compassion, empathy or a sense of fairness. Simply put, there is nothing about such a person that is worth the air it takes to keep them breathing. It is not hard to imagine some people in today's society as the same as the people who created and enforced Jim Crow laws. Their vitriol against social justice aligns them squarely with our abysmal past. It is one thing for people to think life isn’t fair when the law should be fair. It is another thing for them to sabotage whole groups of people to assure that life is unfair in the law and many other areas. As the poor will always be with us, unfortunately, so will the (appropriate expletive) racists. We know what those who oppose Social Justice are, but, unlike the right, we don’t have a neat little term to use derogatorily to highlight their character. Nor are we forced to accept their racist views. Once again, I thank the guy that brought this up and allowed me to consider it, despite his intended disrespect. I understand if you found this post to be too long. It is hard for closed minded people to read a point of view which you are opposed too. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch … y-hamilton [2] https://www.history.com/topics/early-20 … -crow-laws [3] https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/minimu … tory/chart [4] https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/direct … te%20home. [5] https://apnews.com/article/voting-right … ec6439a53b Mar 27 24 06:02 pm Link Too long. Please condense this post down to one sentence. Thanks in advance Mar 27 24 06:13 pm Link Studio NSFW wrote: Nope. Mar 27 24 06:15 pm Link Studio NSFW wrote: It took you three sentences to ask for a single sentence? Mar 27 24 07:54 pm Link |
