Comments by "Clown Life" (@Clownlife432) on "TheDC Shorts"
channel.
-
214
-
72
-
8
-
7
-
5
-
@charlesking3384 Do you really think name calling helps, or convinces anyone of anything. If you want to convince people, I’d recommend making an argument on the merits. let’s go point by point. Let’s first address bully cops and you. I don’t know anything about your situation, so I have no comment. Apologies if that happened to you. Second, I have been mistreated by police, including having one pull a gun on me when he was trespassing on private property. That being said, I judge police the same way I judge people, as individuals. This individual was not allowed to be in that gym. The officer had clearly told him that he was already trespassed for a year. What does this mean? It means that the owners, or people in charge of the facility said you are not allowed to be here on this property. I do not know why he was trespassed before, but I’m doubtful he was just playing basketball. Usually, when I see people be trespassed and barred from courts it’s either for assault and or battery. That’s being said, what he did prior is irrelevant. The fact he was trespassed means he can not be on that property. If I come to your place of business, and cause a fuss, and you get me trespassed for the next year, I am not entitled to go back to your business tomorrow. It seems from the video that this was on a college campus recreation court. If he disagrees with the year suspension fro maybe premises, he is free to challenge that through the administration, and through the law. He is not permitted to just do what he wants and come back. The cops were doing their job, and did a good job. They offered him the opportunity to leave, he declined. They detained him, and during the process he bucked up and swung and elbow, and then threatened them. They were right to arrest him, and it’s good they did. He should face criminal penalties for threatening officers. The officers bullied no one. Someone called them there. Someone in charge of the gym that said he can’t be here. That’s called trespassing. So how exactly is this bullying? He had the option to leave, he choose to force the escalation. You are allowing your personal experience to blind you from the facts in regards to this matter. So, am I an idiot? I don’t think so, I evaluated the event in its context, and I didn’t allow any personal mistreatment of myself to bias my evaluation. How specifically was he bullied when he was already barred from being there? Do you know why he was barred in the past? Do you think the police just were following him, or do you think they were called? By who? Why? Please, answer those. No need to name call, it only makes you look foolish, and unsure of your position. If you know you’re right, argue on the points. You’re up.
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dmeauxoxo I said low likelihood of warrants. Perhaps I wasn’t clear. We would know if she had warrants, becuase the video would have added that after the fact. Again, ask yourself, do you think someone arguing over a 49 cent piece of cheese would stay to speak with the police is they had a warrant? Not impossible, but unlikely. Most people don’t have warrants, so unlikely in general. He should have told her to leave or be cited. It wasn’t that big of deal, and the officer escalated to a point it didn’t need to go. Do I think she should have just given her name, yes. But the reality is, the officer is the professional in this situation, and he should have weighed the risk vs reward instead of acting like a robot. He brought the temperature of that interaction up with his attitude as well. He could have simply said leave, or you can’t leave until you give ID. At no point did he need to have an attitude and get into a verbal match with a citizen. Instead of what he did do which was get dragged into a childish argument that lead to him punching her. She was being ridiculous, but he should do what an adult does with a kid, say she can’t leave, allow to verbally exhaust herself, then politely ask for her ID again. That would be how to hedge your beats to diffuse the situation if you wanted the ID. But in reality, telling her to leave would have been simple, and easy. His pride got hurt, so he overreacted. This was a prelude to how he would act later, his pride got hurt when he couldn’t handle her, and instead of get control of the situation, he punched her repeatedly. Cops do not need to ID every person they come across, it causes undue friction in the communities they operate. If she was stopped in a traffic incident or for a more serious offense for not showing ID, that would be a different story. But a minor infraction over a hamburger, over what could be argued in court whether it was trespassing was not worth the officers time. With limited resources he should move on and focus on more worth while activists. Further, he would have built a huge rapport if he had conversation with the women about why she wouldn’t show ID, and given her the option to leave. Instead, he made her feel like a trapped animal over a bad customer/employee experience. She was wrong in how she acted. He was also wrong in how he acted, and given the context that he is the professional at work, I expect better.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@delmanglar I find that unlikely. What I find more likely is that they are potentially ratcheting up the tension for little to no gain. It would be easy to say, leave, don’t come back. This woman clearly didn’t have warrants out, or they would have told us. There is no reason to escalate a low level issue to something of this extent. This is just an issue about trade offs. Is what you are saying a possibility, unlikely, but possible. What I am saying is much more likely to happen. It also keeps the cops from taking a position about who was right or wrong, when they weren’t there, and didn’t see what happened. Writing someone a citation when the citizen perceives the other side, the restaurant employees, as getting off will innately make the other person feel like they are getting taken advantage by the employees through the use of law enforcement. That may or may not have been the case. But if you’re a cop, you’re best bet is listen to both sides, and appear neutral barring overwhelming evidence. In something minor like this, listen to both sides, then tell the person to kick rocks, and tell the employees to not treat people inappropriately if they did. Because either way you will notice a trend. Either a trend of this person seeking out confrontation, or an issue with that McDonald’s causing confrontation with customers. They did not need to ratchet this up. Also, someone with warrants, very unlikely to hang around and wait for cops to show up to handle there 49 cent burger dispute.
1
-
@blazinpuffs she may have meant no license on her. He wasn’t citing her for a traffic citation. If he wanted to arrest, and cite her for a traffic citation, he should have said that. He said very clearly he was citing her for trespass. This has nothing to do with driving. Based on what happened, all he had to do was tell her to kick rocks. She didn’t actually steal anything, assault anyone, cause property damage. She got punched in the face after an argument with an employee about 49 cents. Could she have acted better, absolutely. Was it the officers job to deescalate, yes. Did he? No, he escalated. Was it his job to make a gut call about arguing with this woman over 49 cents, yes. Should he have done the smart thing, tell her to bounce, and not come back. Then get back out on the street, and focus on higher level issues. This woman was not a threat to the community, and this whole incident was about an overblown argument over a 49 cent cheeseburger.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@quasicrystal5166 I do know the law friend. If you learn the law, what you well see is that often times cops will falsely claim that when they want to search. So often times that can get thrown out. So in that case, you should always verbally refuse searches where they proceed or not because it protects you in court. Is it possible the cops story holds, yes, but you stack the odds in your favor. Further, I agree that the cop acted kind considering that the guy was acting erratically. I already conceded that I don’t agree with how he acted. But I do not also agree that having a gun makes you criminal. They found a gun, so what? Guns are legal. Maybe he did or didn’t smell weed, but you always stack the odds in your favor by verbally not consenting to searches. I’ve known good cops and bad cops. This guy seems like he’s walking the line of becoming a bad cop. But look into what I said, and you will see that I am correct. If the cops smell gets thrown out he will pivot to that he consented. No consent means it all gets thrown out. So please, you need to learn a bit more before commenting. Also, the cop doesn’t have the right to search. That’s not what rights are. He has probable cause. Again, please learn the law.
1
-
@KilgorSoS 😆 you didn’t read what I said. Instead of reacting, read, and process. First, I never said he there was no ability to search due to smell. I said, quite clearly, do not consent to searches as a citizen. If a search was to be thrown out in the future on whatever pretext the officer used, they would revert to saying but he consented. So it is always wise to never consent to a search. Does this make sense. Further, you should not get arrested for having a gun. I do not care what law they pass, the second amendment supersedes those laws. Knowing the law also means understanding the process, and that means understanding that politicians routinely pass unconstitutional laws that get struck down by the Supreme Court. I think this is one that might go. I as a staunch supporter of the second amendment do not believe that anyone should be arrested ever for merely possessing a firearm. Knowing the law, as you say, means knowing that the second amendment says not to be infringed, and there is a strong case to say you’re infringing on someone’s rights because they are being arrested for having a gun, and it also comes into conflict potentially with the fifth amendment as well. Does that clear things up? An analogy to help, Michigan just passed a law compelling people to use the “correct” pronouns with people. “Knowing the law”, as you would say, I know that will be ruled unconstitutional in alignment with the second amendment. So if you go back and read what I wrote, I never said some politician didn’t put words to paper saying such nonsense. I said a gun is not a crime. Just like I think speech is not a crime. Those statements are full stop. They should be for yo has well if you are a second amendment supporter. You can attack people, you can call names, but that doesn’t make you right. I would suggest a deep dive into the constitution, followed by the federalist papers, followed by what is typical legal advice when dealing with police. Here’s a great place to start. You go ahead and have a great day, chief.
https://constitutioncenter.org/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1