MovieChat Forums > einsteinfountain > Replies
einsteinfountain's Replies
I know we do not know what the cop was thinking of what relevance is this to your point? We do not know what either of them were thinking now do we?
Good I would not either. I do not believe in giving up your rights for security.
The cop was in the wrong and if we weighed it out legally the cop is going to be in far more trouble than the photographer. The point is even if you want to fault the photographer the cop is far more in the wrong.
First off you do not know how old I am, second simply because you are older than a person does not mean you are more mature than them. The cop confronted him and he was giving the silent treatment, so you are saying if he had said nothing the cop wouldn't have done anything? Highly doubtful. He was giving orders which is what made the photographer tell him they were cameras and get into a verbal discussion.
You are acting as if I am not admitting the guy was baiting him. Cop baiters exist but you know the best way to deal with them do not give them what they want. My cop friend said it best they are looking for a confrontation if you give them nothing to film they will go away. When the ego kicks in it will not allow certain cops to do this. Which is what occurred here. You did copy that and I asked you what law was broken and you could not provide one broken by the photographer. Complying is a request not a law. Just because I do not wish to comply does not mean it gives the cop a right to escalate a situation. I already stated he should have not baited and been cordial but in the end the cop needs to be dealt with and he has no business being a cop.
In certain states no but do you know the state this occurred in? So because of paranoia it trumps deescalating? The cop did not think he was in danger he was on a power trip. The photographer wouldn't do what he wanted him to do therefore he escalated the situation. You are leaving out the fact that he pointed it at him. You realize no law was broken by the photographer right? All the illegal activity happened on the cops end. The only time a cop can get identification from somebody in many states is if you have evidence of a crime or you suspect someone of committing a crime. Otherwise they can not id or search who they please it does not work that way. I can scream profanity at the police all day and they could not do a thing legally so long as I do not threaten. Thing is no the permit makes no difference but the cop did not suspect the guy of having a weapon he was angry that the guy did not immediately tell him what he was doing. Notice how you pivot to this and trail off because you have nothing to retort the other stuff I said about the debate. Had the guy gotten belligerent off the get go of the cop him asking questions then you would have a case. He only got irate once the cop placed his hands on his weapon.
You seem to be the type of this mentality let them search your house I mean if you have nothing to hide no big deal right? I have refused searches or even identification not because I have anything to hide but because it is the principle of the matter. Hold anyone accountable for being in the wrong whether it be cops or criminals. Period. The cop was in the wrong, is the photographer a saint oh hell no but in the end that cop messed up. You literally can't make yourself admit I was right on this issue. You are not mature enough. I can admit that perhaps bringing up the permit was irrelevant. You however think you are right all the time.
As a cop you are supposed to be able to assess a situation. They are supposed to deescalate a situation not escalate. Someone holding a camera is not a threat, if they believe it is they have no business being a cop.
You are allowed to have a weapon on you so long as you have a permit for it. The guy began becoming irate when the cop placed his hands on his weapon. He started behaving that way once the cop did that before he was just not talking much. He was giving the silent treatment until the cop told him to put the camera down. Could he have been more cordial? Yes but there is no law stating you need to explain to the cops what you are doing when it is a legal activity. I did see the backup do that but their case was different from the first cop. All they could see was someone yelling and their officer pointing a gun at someone. The first cop had time to assess and he pointed a gun at someone for screaming!
There was no interference he filmed and the cop did not like it. How did he interfere? Did he walk up in the cops personal space? No the cop confronted him. You are allowed to film in public when there is a crime seen they will tape it off. If you go into the restricted area that is illegal that was not the case here. So what you are saying is that everyone is a suspect because there are criminals out there? I understand go and assess a situation, if there is no illegal activity you move on to another area.
Doing that is not the same. Someone filming the police then being questioned and not answering does not make it okay to unholster the weapon. Had he just placed his hands on his weapon that would still be suspect but to point it at someone is utterly ridiculous. I do not care if the photographer is a screaming idiot or not. The cop broke the law not the photographer.
Did they point their guns at you? That is not even remotely close to the same situation. The cop knew those were cameras he said what are you filming for sir? Photographer no answer, he then said again what are you filming for sir? Photographer no answer. He then said sir I don't like things be held up to me like that can you put it down please? Photographer these are cameras you know they are. He then said okay I don't know what that is but lower it, photographer it is a camera no I will not. He then placed his hands on his weapon. If you can't tell the difference between a gun and a camera you should not be in uniform. The photographer became irate and foul mouthed. Do I think the photographer handled it poorly yes but you do not place your hands on your weapon let alone point it at someone unless you are in danger. He did not just place his hands on it he unholstered and pointed it at the photographer. With your alarm situation, they did not know whether there was immediate danger or not. I know how cops are trained I have a friend who is one.
No what rule was broken when the cop showed up? Cite the law he was breaking if you would. You are allowed to film police, you do not need their consent. His hand should not have went on his weapon period. The only time you place your hand on it is when you feel there is a threat or serious danger. The cop knew that was a camera, notice how he lied and said I did not know what that was. If that was the case why did he ask him what he was filming for?
I wanted people to say that was wrong what the cop did. It was an experiment to see whether people can call out a simple wrongdoing. I did another experiment a while back calling out a criminal when the police were nothing but polite and cordial. Sure enough there were those like you that came to the criminal's defense even though he was blatantly in the wrong and it was caught on video. You came to cop's defense by saying well both were in the wrong. No who is more at fault here? This is similar to people attempting to say well Floyd was a trash human so meh it was ok. No wrong is wrong.
When the video started the only time the photographer got upset was when the cop placed his hands on his gun. Do I like the photographer? Nope but the cop was in the wrong and the fact that you fail to see that makes you part of the problem. Blindly defend cops.
He let him know he was being filmed by saying these are cameras you know they are. By saying these are cameras you know they are, there was no profanity used, only after the cop escalated the situation did the photographer use foul language. Nice try close but no cigar. So this follows the guideline. Care to continue making yourself look foolish or do you want to bury yourself deeper?
You said blame the police as always! That was your first response to my thread off of simply posting a video. What does that imply? I did call you out and that is why I struck a nerve. I attacked you because you made a baseless assumption. I do not care if people give a different answer I care if they defend something blatantly wrong or make a baseless assumption. You did both. Just like you get irate when people defend black lives matter rioting and looting.
Way to prove my point. In that same thread I provided a video where I supported the cop 100%. I thought the cop was professional and patient. I was happy the lady that tried to belittle him got fired from her job. Yeah I just am such a cop hater... Now though you realize you got called out, therefore what do you decide to do? The very thing you get so irate about the left for doing. Deny, dismiss, deflect and or dumbfound. You are dismissed, today was education day and I am the teacher. I was glad to straighten you out. Have a good day.
At the start of the video the cop pulls up. He says what are you filming for sir? He says sir can you put that down I don't like things pointed at me. The photographer says these are cameras you know they are. He says lower that right now the photographer responds no I will not. The cop then places his hands on his weapon. Had the photographer called the cop names, gotten belligerent and in his face that would be tossing an egg on the cop. Did he bait him? Sure but that type of bait a cop should be well above. That is so easy to avoid. The photographer said nothing to the cop, the cop came up and confronted him. Do I like the photographer nope but if we are gaging fault % it would go 90% to the cop and 10% to the photographer. My friend is a cop you know what he said on the video? All you have to do to avoid baiters is drum roll say nothing to them. That is all he had to do say nothing.
I said the cop was in the wrong and yes I did disagree and cite the 1st amendment on that issue. To me there is no siding with the cop on that. That is clear cut that the cop is the one who is mostly at fault. Funny thing is if it is the other way around you guys get irate when people side with a person blatantly in the wrong when the cop acts accordingly. If a cop is blatantly in the wrong I will say it, if a criminal is in the wrong I will say it. So what should he say officer can you please not point that gun at me? That was my point though you immediately jumped to he hates cops. Don't you get annoyed when people make assumptions about you? When you simply post facts or a video?
You post threads all the time and do not like people's thoughts so we are not going that route. It goes beyond disliking thoughts, this is about people not being able to see right and wrong. Some things are black and white.
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/6000e2279ac56d54b6a0b41f/Thoughts-on-this-video
That is where you made a baseless assumption. Look at the end of your response. I simply asked what people's thoughts were on the video. You said sorry I am not giving you what you want blame the police as always! Which shows you have a biased and preconceived notion people hate cops just because someone shows a cop misbehaving.
All I can go off is what you post on here. No I do not know you personally but you also do not know me personally. You deflected to Russia when I said nothing about Russia. That is something you belittle the left side for doing. Deny, dismiss, deflect and or dumbfound. Bringing up Russia was a hypocritical move from you.
No actually that is an assumption you made. Our first interaction you also made a baseless assumption that I was a cop hater. I argue with you because your points of view are so far right I do not even think you truly believe some of the stuff you spout. You do the exact thing you constantly bash the left for doing. So no I call out hypocrisy when I see it.
When you say he will not be adding to the gene pool, that only fans the flame for people who think him being a bad guy is justification for Chauvin doing what he did. People like to divert to Floyd's past to downplay what Chauvin did. Now as I have stated here earlier do I believe he is some hero or saint heavens no but Chauvin committed police brutality.
I see you attempt to defend him an awful lot.
The same reason you brought up Russia. Annoying when someone does what are your words again? Deny, dismiss, deflect and or dumbfound. Bringing up Russia was a deflection.
Yes I will. Here is a question though why are you on here? You seem to not like opposition, therefore are you simply looking for validation? I am asking honestly. Honest discussion here I do not want to offend. I am sorry if I came across like that.
I do not deny the hypocrisy of the left, you however seem to deny the hypocrisy of the right. Every time I see someone defending Chauvin their defense is Floyd was a trash human and criminal he deserved it. What does Floyd's past have to do with what took place? I agree he was not a good guy but that does not excuse Chauvin of his crime. Even if you think the world is better without him, that is fine but that does not mean Chauvin gets a free pass.
That 13 year old kid was in the wrong. Notice how I call out wrongdoings no matter the side? I will admit when a black person does wrong, because I do not see race. I however do not always think a killing by cop is always justified. Also since you hate hypocrites so much why do you support Trump so staunchly? Remember the guy who claimed voter fraud lost him the election? That is a hypocritical thing by the right. Had Trump won we would not hear one peep out of them about voter fraud. Since he lost it is voter fraud. Nice logic huh? If you lose it is a voter fraud but if you win it is fair and square. What a great message to teach people.
Why reply to me with an aim at the collective? If you want to aim at the collective start a thread doing that. The fact that you replied with that shows you are doing the very thing you hate the left for doing. Deny, Dismiss, Deflect, and/or Dumbfound. Lots on the left have tried to excuse rioting, looting and wrongdoings, but lots on the right have done the same thing for the capitol riot. You claiming to have not seen people saying Chauvin was innocent of any crime I honestly could not believe. Just like how if I were to say well I do not believe anyone has attempted to justify the wrongdoings of looting and rioting by blm would you believe me? I sincerely doubt it.
Same here. I do not shill for anybody.
See this type of logic goes both ways. With Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck people immediately want to say well Floyd was a trash human. Okay but that is irrelevant and does not excuse what the officer did. Do I think Floyd is some Marder that should be looked up to? Nope just because someone dies does not make them a good person. However none of that is relevant to Chauvin. People can't simply say what that officer did was wrong. Not once did I ever go the race route. I saw an officer committing a crime. No matter what color the person was he did that to I would have been just as upset.
I do not believe all cops are evil but I am also not in the camp of cops can do no wrong. There exist both types of people rather than examining it in a case by case basis. People want to generalize. Some people absolutely did hate Trump but I find it funny that the right gets so upset about people hating Trump but they had no issue when people spread lies or hated Obama. Am I some Obama lover? No but in the end I do not like Trump myself. I found him to be a loud mouth bigot that was a hypocrite.
The other thing is people want to deny that certain privilege's for certain people exist.
I am going to use a quote you told me earlier. You dig your heels in when it comes to politics so how come you get upset when others do the same? In your words you said you have every right to. Well then others on the other end of the spectrum have the right to dig their heels in as well.
Yeah exactly. I openly criticize any side that is in the wrong. Whoever said that is flat out lying.
Yeah you did. I can post your quote again but I already did it before and have a feeling it wouldn't sink into your skull. So I will save myself some time.
You also claimed the officer committed no crime. Which shows you will defend a cop even if they are in the wrong.
Where did I say that? Care to have a discussion or do you want to project what others have said onto me? I have confronted you on the basis on what you have said not others. I would appreciate if you would do the same. Not once have I ever mentioned Russia. What were you words again that you always pivot to?
Deny, Dismiss, Deflect, and/or Dumbfound. Pot meet kettle.