Guilty of being black so of course some one calls the cops on her. Look at the video. She looks truly threatening.
…but, but, but… she had a accomplices! Her eight year old daughter and 71 year old mother.
Gang activity, clearly.
I had a game night this weekend, which means there were cars in front of my house. What this mean is when a couple of teens, oh they looked 13-15 walked by they had opportunity to check out my lil sister’s car. They actually stopped and looked into the car not really realizing we could see and were watching them. They moved on.
Those kids might have been casing for cars. I took a mental note in case something happened but I did not call 911. Sometimes a locked door is enough to keep an honest person honest. And that was way more suspicious than a woman canvasing during a known political season.
Don’t look at cops, but don’t NOT look either
At the risk of inflaming the thread, there is a massive difference between glaring at a person, and having shifty non eye contact.
And it seems ever so slightly disingenous to label it thus:
Don’t look at cops, but don’t NOT look either
Now I’m not saying this justifies police brutality etc, but the way it’s presented in your post @sillhouette strikes me as a bit odd.
about eye contact, well it’s all situational. No hard rules.
If in a confrontational situation, as seems to be what is happening in the first picture, then aggressive eye contact is likely to inflame the situation.
And look at the facial expressions of the 2 involved. Not happy people.
I have no idea what happened in the 2nd photo, so will refrain from comment, but given the apparent pattern of blacks being disproportionately targeted, I’m not inclined to give the cop the benefit of the doubt here, whereas I am in the 1st picture.
The only way I can see the defence in #2 being at all possible is if the defendant is an acknowledged body language expert, like this FBI agent and he can credibly state that there were several factors, lack of eye contact in a context where it would be expected being one, that led him to suspect something was awry.
But if that’s your defence…well even then it is flimsy. There’d usually need to be:
he avoided looking at me, and reached for a knife.
he didn’t look at me.
tldr: 1st photo = aggression, probably not a good stance to be taking.
2nd photo = flimsy excuse.
1st photo a community peacibly demonstrating their anger with the police culture that murdered one of their own with no consequences.
When the police use their authority to kill someone and look to be able to use their power to avoid even a legitimate investigation at the time, what reaction do you expect. CPD has a reputation, and this was on the heels of an expose on their ‘black sites’ where they abused their authority and the people they were supposed to protect, with impunity. Literally using straight up intimidation and violence in off the books facilities to achieve their desires.
So tell me how that look isn’t a good idea?
Like I said, i don’t know the back story, but it is pretty much always provocative to square up to someone like those 2 in the first photo.
Regardless of the justification, squaring up like that means getting ready for aggression, so will likely be met by aggression.
If the police can’t handle someone glaring at them, in anger, without trying to return that aggression, then they shouldn’t be officers of the law. Glaring is not illegal nor it is a crime punishable by beating or death.
Some folks is more equal than others.
That isn’t how freedom works. I can walk up to that guy that’s “glaring” and literally say almost anything and if he touches me he’ll go to jail. You’re telling me cops should get to kill people for looking at them wrong? Fuck that.
I don’t think @BloodyBattleBrain is talking about legality (is it legal) or morality (is it wrong) but just basic human reaction. Just like certain types of behavior might incite road rage in people against me, even though it is illegal and wrong for them to react that way, I still try to avoid it.
Of course, a professional like a Police Officer should be better trained to overcome his anger instincts.
Did I say that?
Or are you maybe putting words in my mouth so you can shout me down?😑
I was commenting on the body language.
If you strike such a posture then you’re likely to get a certain reaction.
No right or wrong.
Nothing to argue really.
Whether or not you are entitled to or ought to strike a posture because x, y or z happened or you’re exercising your rights or whatever, or such and such isn’t fair because of such and such, is far beyond what I wrote, and is just not a productive conversation, or one I feel like engaging in because, as I said earlier, I don’t know the context and all I have is the photos shown above.
If you’re taking that to mean I support police brutality, then have fun!
Simply put, eye contact is highly contextual and when taken together with the rest of your body language, is likely to communicate certain messages.
You should be aware of those before engaging in such body language.
I know several border policemen and they specifically look for people who can’t meet their eye contact in the airports, or who seem nervous.
It’s called forming situational awareness.
And it provides just one of many clues they use to build it up.
Your very own border police stopped me in the airport and took me away for a chat because I was exhausted and not looking them in the eye (because just hadn’t even registered their existence. 2 hrs sleep in 2 days combined with a horrible 10 hr flight will do that to you) and I was alone and I was carrying 2 suitcases and a backpack and because I’m not white (I assume that last. Can’t prove it.)
So that’s 4 clues or things that stood out to the observing guard.
Now had I been eyeballing the cop and been in his face, I imagine that situation would not have ended well for me.
As it happened, they were really hostile then friendly once they figured out I wasn’t a terrorist or a drug smuggler and I was genuinely carrying 2 suitcases full of quality street. And then they escorted me to my plane and we jumped the queue. That was VIP treatment.😁
@Rock8man ninja’d me and put it better.
And yes you’d hope policemen would know how to keep cool.
Tough job though.
Oh, well that settles it then.
If ‘respond to possible police brutality by acting subservient to police officers’ doesn’t support police brutality, then nothing does.
Because that’s exactly what I wrote?
I’ve explained myself well enough.
If you see fit to anger yourself over this, up to you.
Hope it makes you feel better.
He’s not saying that’s what you wrote. The reason he’s in that pose is because he’s protesting police brutality. If he was acting subservient, it would mean that he didn’t provoke the officer’s anger, but it also means you aren’t really standing up to someone either.
I was watching some of John Lewis’ speech in Selma before they walked across the bridge. And then the way the police attacked them when they crossed that bridge. That shit took some real courage, and was scary as hell.
But if they glared first it wouldn’t be? I just don’t think a non-violent glare should change anything whatsoever. Heck if they are shouting and screaming anything non-violent, the police should simply not act. If they can’t do that, go find a job that isn’t so tough. They’re not entitled to demand respect or to have that job.
Yes. Considering the fucking topic, yes, you did. You don’t get to pretend the discussion doesn’t exist in a discussion. That would be dumb and pointless.
If you think Customs and Border Patrol handling foreigners at port of entry should handle things the same as local police officers handle protesting well, I guess we’re done here. Those two things aren’t remotely the same.
Walking into an airport strips someone of damned near all of their rights, especially in the boarding area.
I’m pretty sure that kid isn’t about to board an airplane.
No, I was just saying it took some real courage, and I think glaring at the officer also took real courage. I was equating the two, explaining Scott’s comment about not being subservient.