Charleston police officer shoots man in back

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

I just didn't know the exact term to use as I don't have or ever claimed to have knowledge of law making or whatever but I read up on it and know what I'm talking about. So instead of saying passing a bill I should have said proposed. My bad you're the man lol

Nah you the man. With the entire opinion/possibility lecture lol even though it meant the same in context earlier.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Officers don't go by that raptor.

Ft Sill, Lawton OK area. I saw a kid pulled over, 4 squad cars, 8 police around his vehicle... I pulled out my phone to tape (no real reason, I was young and found it interesting) an officer comes up to me, and with one hand on his side arm tells me I better put away my phone if i know what's good for me.

No "back up some" no "give 25ft" (which I was likely 30-40ft away)

The stop btw was on a 15 year old kid driving his parents car without permission and only with a learners permit... also DWB I guess.

FIrst off ---- Ike Eagles #1.

Second ---- White kids can't take a date to Waynes for a cherry vanilla DP without cops harassing them in Lawton. They loved harassing teenagers. Friend of the family was a lawyer and fixed those tickets though.

Third ------- MP's are bigger dicks to kids than Lawton Police. They will pull you out of car and not even let you lean up against even if your standing there with a knee on ice. Except when they found out you were with the base commanders kid. Then they changed tune.

[alexava 6,973]

Officers don't go by that raptor.

Ft Sill, Lawton OK area. I saw a kid pulled over, 4 squad cars, 8 police around his vehicle... I pulled out my phone to tape (no real reason, I was young and found it interesting) an officer comes up to me, and with one hand on his side arm tells me I better put away my phone if i know what's good for me.

No "back up some" no "give 25ft" (which I was likely 30-40ft away)

The stop btw was on a 15 year old kid driving his parents car without permission and only with a learners permit... also DWB I guess.

FIrst off ---- Ike Eagles #1.

Second ---- White kids can't take a date to Waynes for a cherry vanilla DP without cops harassing them in Lawton. They loved harassing teenagers. Friend of the family was a lawyer and fixed those tickets though.

Third ------- MP's are bigger dicks to kids than Lawton Police. They will pull you out of car and not even let you lean up against even if your standing there with a knee on ice. Except when they found out you were with the base commanders kid. Then they changed tune.

my fishing buddy is retired army 20+ years. MP when not in Iraq/afganistan. said he cited hundreds of people, arrested dozens but was never rude to a single individual. but he said the rookies where almost all full of piss and vinegar. i have also heard stories of people wandering onto Redstone Arsenal and say those guys are total dicks and it dont matter what race, age, gender, or anything else.

[Mims44 1,869]

Officers don't go by that raptor.

Ft Sill, Lawton OK area. I saw a kid pulled over, 4 squad cars, 8 police around his vehicle... I pulled out my phone to tape (no real reason, I was young and found it interesting) an officer comes up to me, and with one hand on his side arm tells me I better put away my phone if i know what's good for me.

No "back up some" no "give 25ft" (which I was likely 30-40ft away)

The stop btw was on a 15 year old kid driving his parents car without permission and only with a learners permit... also DWB I guess.

FIrst off ---- Ike Eagles #1.

Second ---- White kids can't take a date to Waynes for a cherry vanilla DP without cops harassing them in Lawton. They loved harassing teenagers. Friend of the family was a lawyer and fixed those tickets though.

Third ------- MP's are bigger dicks to kids than Lawton Police. They will pull you out of car and not even let you lean up against even if your standing there with a knee on ice. Except when they found out you were with the base commanders kid. Then they changed tune.

I was in the Army when it happened, I didn't mess with the Lawton PD. They all seemed to just be waiting for their chance to screw up a soldiers career.

As for MPs, I only ever had one problem... and I brought it on myself. I told him his wifes lipstick was still on my....... member.

He was an MP, and therefore deserved it though

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Officers don't go by that raptor.

Ft Sill, Lawton OK area. I saw a kid pulled over, 4 squad cars, 8 police around his vehicle... I pulled out my phone to tape (no real reason, I was young and found it interesting) an officer comes up to me, and with one hand on his side arm tells me I better put away my phone if i know what's good for me.

No "back up some" no "give 25ft" (which I was likely 30-40ft away)

The stop btw was on a 15 year old kid driving his parents car without permission and only with a learners permit... also DWB I guess.

FIrst off ---- Ike Eagles #1.

Second ---- White kids can't take a date to Waynes for a cherry vanilla DP without cops harassing them in Lawton. They loved harassing teenagers. Friend of the family was a lawyer and fixed those tickets though.

Third ------- MP's are bigger dicks to kids than Lawton Police. They will pull you out of car and not even let you lean up against even if your standing there with a knee on ice. Except when they found out you were with the base commanders kid. Then they changed tune.

I was in the Army when it happened, I didn't mess with the Lawton PD. They all seemed to just be waiting for their chance to screw up a soldiers career.

As for MPs, I only ever had one problem... and I brought it on myself. I told him his wifes lipstick was still on my....... member.

He was an MP, and therefore deserved it though

Teenagers and soldiers for the LPD. Civi's and teenagers for the MP's.

[cole256 17,077]

To me it's not about anything other than having some loopholes. How many vids have you seen where you're like damn that's too close? But with this traffic stops it would be illegal to record them...Why create a law where it hasn't even been a major problem?

Just sit back and wait for the case to happen where the video can't be used in court and the guilty officer get off because of inadmissible evidence and you guys say it was thrown out it's a non issue

i have many times seen police making an arrest and repeatedly ordering onlookers to back up. most of this was before everyone had a video camera in their pocket. not just arrests, hell a car wreck, people come nosing in on a crash site and have to be moved back. sometimes with the yellow tape. i think you are over suspicious on this one.

And when they said back up what happened? Why no law back then on staying 25 ft away during any situation? Why no law now? Police has been getting owned since social media and cell cameras and now a proposed law? If you can't see the issues with that I think you're being too casual making excuses for them.

[alexava 6,973]

To me it's not about anything other than having some loopholes. How many vids have you seen where you're like damn that's too close? But with this traffic stops it would be illegal to record them...Why create a law where it hasn't even been a major problem?

Just sit back and wait for the case to happen where the video can't be used in court and the guilty officer get off because of inadmissible evidence and you guys say it was thrown out it's a non issue

i have many times seen police making an arrest and repeatedly ordering onlookers to back up. most of this was before everyone had a video camera in their pocket. not just arrests, hell a car wreck, people come nosing in on a crash site and have to be moved back. sometimes with the yellow tape. i think you are over suspicious on this one.

And when they said back up what happened? Why no law back then on staying 25 ft away during any situation? Why no law now? Police has been getting owned since social media and cell cameras and now a proposed law? If you can't see the issues with that I think you're being too casual making excuses for them.

the difference is now with cell phones they are more eager to get in the damn way. 25' is enough.

[AURaptor 1,123]

So cole, what vile things do you think I'm ok with ? Can you list them ?

Or just one ?

Thanks

[cole256 17,077]

To me it's not about anything other than having some loopholes. How many vids have you seen where you're like damn that's too close? But with this traffic stops it would be illegal to record them...Why create a law where it hasn't even been a major problem?

Just sit back and wait for the case to happen where the video can't be used in court and the guilty officer get off because of inadmissible evidence and you guys say it was thrown out it's a non issue

i have many times seen police making an arrest and repeatedly ordering onlookers to back up. most of this was before everyone had a video camera in their pocket. not just arrests, hell a car wreck, people come nosing in on a crash site and have to be moved back. sometimes with the yellow tape. i think you are over suspicious on this one.

And when they said back up what happened? Why no law back then on staying 25 ft away during any situation? Why no law now? Police has been getting owned since social media and cell cameras and now a proposed law? If you can't see the issues with that I think you're being too casual making excuses for them.

the difference is now with cell phones they are more eager to get in the damn way. 25' is enough.

Can't say I agree with that. I think the same amount of people that would try to see an arrest or car wreck from now to when there weren't any camera phones. Only difference now instead of getting to work talking about the wreck on they saw they now show it. So what do you think will happen on the traffic stops when people want to record the interactions of a traffic stop? Which is actually the majority of police videos....

[alexava 6,973]

Sigh.... Before camera phones you tell people to get back, make them get back. Now they get in the way record you telling them to get back and say " there is no law saying I must move back" so to nip this in the bud we create a law requiring 25' because people do not respect them enough to get out of the way. Both sides win. Are you even familiar with standard units of measure to know how short of a distance 25' is.

[AURaptor 1,123]

25' is well within shouting/ taunting distance.

[cole256 17,077]

Sigh I wish you were familiar with the standard units of measure because how many tickets have you seen given from 25 feet away? I'm in engineering so yes I know them very well. And are your saying that before camera phones they didn't say there is no law telling us to get back? There hasn't been anybody hurt before the law so what's the purpose of the law? Also let's not forget there is no relative number of these incidents we are talking about, we are going off of hypothetical incidents you are making up...

[JoeBags7277 734]

They can already arrest people for interfering, if they're actually close enough to do so. Problem is, when the heroes are armed with cellphones, they can't just claim they're "obstructing" and place them under arrest. Why make another law, if they can address actual problems with what's already on the books? I see it as a precursor to clamping down on the recording of public officials operating in their official capacities.

[AURaptor 1,123]

Guess no examples are comin , as I expected.

Manning up was too much to ask for, clearly.

[AUDub 11,148]

They can already arrest people for interfering, if they're actually close enough to do so. Problem is, when the heroes are armed with cellphones, they can't just claim they're "obstructing" and place them under arrest. Why make another law, if they can address actual problems with what's already on the books? I see it as a precursor to clamping down on the recording of public officials operating in their official capacities.

Weagle nailed it here.

[cole256 17,077]

They can already arrest people for interfering, if they're actually close enough to do so. Problem is, when the heroes are armed with cellphones, they can't just claim they're "obstructing" and place them under arrest. Why make another law, if they can address actual problems with what's already on the books? I see it as a precursor to clamping down on the recording of public officials operating in their official capacities.

I don't see how anyone couldn't see it

[alexava 6,973]

They can already arrest people for interfering, if they're actually close enough to do so. Problem is, when the heroes are armed with cellphones, they can't just claim they're "obstructing" and place them under arrest. Why make another law, if they can address actual problems with what's already on the books? I see it as a precursor to clamping down on the recording of public officials operating in their official capacities.

weagle didnt nail anything. the second half of his first sentence makes my point. Now we know how close is close enough.

.obstructing is a relative term and you can claim you are not obstructing and stand on top of the suspect. 25 feet gives you something to work with. hell it might be more beneficial to the person recording to have this law than LEOs. we are talking about 8yards + about the length of a football. that is pretty damn close to have your nose/camera stuck in a contested arrest. you might catch a tazer probe or some pepper spray even at that distance.

[alexava 6,973]

Sigh I wish you were familiar with the standard units of measure because how many tickets have you seen given from 25 feet away? I'm in engineering so yes I know them very well. And are your saying that before camera phones they didn't say there is no law telling us to get back? There hasn't been anybody hurt before the law so what's the purpose of the law? Also let's not forget there is no relative number of these incidents we are talking about, we are going off of hypothetical incidents you are making up...

i am not making a damn thing up. and no ticket is given from 25 '. the person getting the ticket can record if he pleases. we are talking about bystanders.

[cole256 17,077]

I didn't see the clause in the law that said only bystanders......

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Look this is the problem in Texas. I will show the one that involves no language. A black female officer is working a routine traffic stop. This group tracks down the stop (as you will hear they have a police radio). There are 10 individuals there with cameras. As you will hear she calls them in cause one of them is carrying a pistol and two of them have AK-47's. At the end of the video you will see the guy with the pistol holstered, they carry a predated pistol to skirt the rules on open carry with handguns. Her stop just went from a routine one on one situation to one where she is surrounded, outnumbered, and outgunned.

The second cop on the scene requests that they put their weapons away and they can film all they want no problem. The group responds in turn by being smart asses and saying long as you put your weapons away. Which no officer on the scene even has a weapon drawn.

This one you can see where when asked to move they want. Which again they are armed. Then spend the rest of the time taunting the officers. Discuss plans to track the female one for the rest of the night in an attempt to incite her into action.

This is why they wanted a 25ft rule for bystanders filming and 100ft away if the individual is armed.

[alexava 6,973]

Look this is the problem in Texas. I will show the one that involves no language. A black female officer is working a routine traffic stop. This group tracks down the stop (as you will hear they have a police radio). There are 10 individuals there with cameras. As you will hear she calls them in cause one of them is carrying a pistol and two of them have AK-47's. At the end of the video you will see the guy with the pistol holstered, they carry a predated pistol to skirt the rules on open carry with handguns. Her stop just went from a routine one on one situation to one where she is surrounded, outnumbered, and outgunned.

The second cop on the scene requests that they put their weapons away and they can film all they want no problem. The group responds in turn by being smart asses and saying long as you put your weapons away. Which no officer on the scene even has a weapon drawn.

This one you can see where when asked to move they want. Which again they are armed. Then spend the rest of the time taunting the officers. Discuss plans to track the female one for the rest of the night in an attempt to incite her into action.

This is why they wanted a 25ft rule for bystanders filming and 100ft away if the individual is armed.

thx. Not a fan of open carry.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

I didn't see the clause in the law that said only bystanders......

Media exemptions

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/billtext/pdf/HB02918I.pdf#navpanes=0

[AUFAN78 3,895]

I am curious if anyone opposed to this law is willing to reconsider after viewing the video's?

[cole256 17,077]

What about the hundreds of videos where people recorded and there was no problem? Like I said I can point at two cases where police shot and killed men they said they were trying to tase, so now we can make laws saying police can't use weapons when they are within ten feet of an individual?

And yeah I see the clown with camera acting a fool. This is one guy we talking about and let's be real if anybody ends up hurt it will probably be him but are you really worried a policeman will lose his life? Have there been a multitude of cases where cell phones have caused injuries to policemen?

[cole256 17,077]

I didn't see the clause in the law that said only bystanders......

Media exemptions

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/billtext/pdf/HB02918I.pdf#navpanes=0

Right we were speaking on citizens driving their cars....