Man Arrested For Drinking Ice Tea in Parking Lot

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by garbageface

 

Folks who want to look “gangster” are going to be associated with “gangsters”...
Look up the definition of “gangster” and you'll see that its associated with crime by its very definition.

SMH!

Who is the bigger gangster:

The street hustler or CEO?

I have seen more damage done by men in suits then this supposed image of a gangster that you seem to envision.

reply to post by defcon5

Only people claiming race as an issue are those who have a problem with race themselves.
I've seen plenty of White or Spanish people who fit the exact same description.
Its about a “lifestyle” choice as to how someone presents themselves, not their color. There are no color limits on those who want to portray the “gangster” lifestyle, and the “gangster” lifestyle generally is associated with crime.

In my first post in this thread I said this:

I do not think ones who are suspicious of him, and speaking in support of his arrest, are doing this simply because he is black. If he was a black man wearing a suit and speaking grammatically perfect english this whole conversation may have been different. I think he is being vilified here because he is "one of those" blacks. He is not "one of the good ones". He is a rapper, and for lack of a better term he has a "ghetto" vibe about him in his dress and speech. Maybe racism isn't an accurate term for it. I'm not sure what to call it. I do know that it does not justify this arrest.

And you are more or less saying the same thing, except you really do think that it justifies his harassment. It is the same flawed logic that is behind any other prejudice. It is no different than assuming that a person with a thick southern accent is an uneducated cousin-lover. That redneck may be a genius who teaches post-graduate physics but happens to be wearing his old lucky fishing shirt, driving a rusty old pickup, and buying worms and cheap beer at a bait shop. Should I employ the "common sense" that you are advocating and disregard his intelligence or value because his lifestyle correlates with others who happen to be uneducated?

My head is shaved: Am I a neo-nazi?

reply to post by IntrinsicMotivation


Men in suits have crashed entire economies....

But they're all worshiped on this board so..

reply to post by IntrinsicMotivation
While you may disagree with it on a moral level, what they are doing is legal.
If you don't like the laws then lobby to change them...
Until that happens, the law is what it is.

reply to post by Slugworth

Its not any different than a store not wanting homeless people congregating out in front of it.
It does not portray well from a business aspect to have anyone hanging around outside your storefront. Customers get anxious when there are folks just hanging around in front of a store, and for good reason. Usually the folks hanging out in front of a liquor store at night are panhandling, running a con, or just straight out planning on robbing you. They are not generally there for “good” reasons.

reply to post by defcon5


If you found nothing wrong with this then there is not much I can say to you.

I hope you are not a cop, and I hope you never have to deal with this.

The mess started over tea and guess what was left behind at the scene getting all contaminated….

The same tea that made this man throw a fit because he was to proud to admit he was in the wrong.
The man’s face says it all!!!

Why is it that people say they have to see it to believe it, yet when it smacks em dead in their face they are blind to the fact?

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by Slugworth

 

Its not any different than a store not wanting homeless people congregating out in front of it.

It absolutely is different, because the thug, gangster, black, saggy-jean and ballcap wearing, music-listening, loitering, soon-to-be criminals were planning on buying.

Are you seriously so dense?

reply to post by IntrinsicMotivation


As I have already shown, when the police make a “terry stop” the law supports them seizing any suspected contraband in “plain sight”. When an officer asks to examine what you have because he suspects that it contains illegal alcohol (open container), he is not “asking you”, its not an “option”, or a point of “argument”, he is exercising his rights under the law and you are obligated to obey them. If you disagree with the findings of Terry v. Ohio, I recommend that you get a lawyer and fight it to the supreme court.

reply to post by defcon5


I see a man wearing new clothes standing next to a late model luxury car. You lump him in with panhandlers, cons, and robbers.

Got it.

reply to post by Slugworth


Most people loitering outside a liquor store at night are not there to play bingo.
Like hospital emergency rooms, they are trouble magnets.

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by IntrinsicMotivation

 

As I have already shown, when the police make a “terry stop” the law supports them seizing any suspected contraband in “plain sight”. When an officer asks to examine what you have because he suspects that it contains illegal alcohol (open container), he is not “asking you”, its not an “option”, or a point of “argument”, he is exercising his rights under the law and you are obligated to obey them. If you disagree with the findings of Terry v. Ohio, I recommend that you get a lawyer and fight it to the supreme court.

What constitutes the suspicion? Where is the suspicion of alcohol? I don't see him stumbling around or slurring his words, he's not making a scene. A tall can doesn't count as suspicion of alcohol unless it's in a can that is clearly marked as alcohol, which his can isn't. What are you blathering about? Seriously, step away from yourself for a few minutes, you're not making any sense.

reply to post by defcon5


And I can cite many Supreme Court cases that say I do not need a license to travel in my vehicle, seeing that driving is legally defined as an act of commerce. But the police do not respect that, why should we respect this ruling, very hypocritical getting to choose what rulings are respected and upheld.

Originally posted by garbageface

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by Slugworth

 

Its not any different than a store not wanting homeless people congregating out in front of it.

It absolutely is different, because the thug, gangster, black, saggy-jean and ballcap wearing, music-listening, loitering, soon-to-be criminals were planning on buying.

Are you seriously so dense?

Which was never said as the purpose of them waiting there until the handcuffs went on, and it became a convenient excuse to get out of being arrested.

Personally, I think that this was all a setup to get someones music to go “viral”, and I believe that they edited the video.

As I showed above, even the ACLU isn't touching this with a ten foot pole until the rest of the facts come to light.

Originally posted by garbageface
What constitutes the suspicion? Where is the suspicion of alcohol? I don't see him stumbling around or slurring his words, he's not making a scene. A tall can doesn't count as suspicion of alcohol unless it's in a can that is clearly marked as alcohol, which his can isn't. What are you blathering about? Seriously, step away from yourself for a few minutes, you're not making any sense.

If that is a high traffic area for that type of activity, that constitutes “reasonable suspicion” in itself. Again read the news article that I linked, multiple lawyers all stated that if it was a problem area with reports of this type of behavior, then it was reasonable to the officer to react as he did.

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by Slugworth

 

Usually the folks hanging out in front of a liquor store at night are panhandling, running a con, or just straight out planning on robbing you. They are not generally there for “good” reasons.

Man talk about irrational fear...... Poor You!

I bet you discretely reach over and lock your car door when you see a dark skinned person pull up! lol...

"Not generally there for good reasons"? ......ITS A LIQUOR STORE!

Originally posted by IntrinsicMotivation
reply to post by defcon5

 

And I can cite many Supreme Court cases that say I do not need a license to travel in my vehicle, seeing that driving is legally defined as an act of commerce. But the police do not respect that, why should we respect this ruling, very hypocritical getting to choose what rulings are respected and upheld.

You can travel in your vehicle without a license, to your hearts content, to this day...
You cannot OPERATE a motor vehicle without a license though.
The law is picky about little details like that.

Originally posted by defcon5
If that is a high traffic area for that type of activity, that constitutes “reasonable suspicion” in itself.

NO IT DOESN'T.

reply to post by Slugworth


I'm sure there's a pie chart that proves the demographics on any racist sounding remarks.

If this happened in east Tennessee it would have gone down the same. But if the OPs post was all one race,
we wouldn't be dragging race into it.

But demographics are a measurable stat to prove certain claims to be majority fact.

reply to post by ReAwakened

You can just cease with the racists accusations because they are not true.
My car door is locked at all times, I grew up in the murder capital of the world.

reply to post by garbageface
Then please explain why the ACLU and others have brought up the point of wanting to know if this is a “problem area” for this type of activity? Yes, police can profile areas for certain type of activity, and people in them can automatically become reasonably suspicious. This is often done with prostitution stings.