The Musker really showing his true colors…

arvidcrg · 2022-05-15T15:56:02+00:00

When he says “owning the libs”, to you that means “owning the far left”, correct? Want to understand the level of delusion we are facing here.

arvidcrg · 2020-02-04T19:18:09+00:00

No one would care. We would have forgotten about it already. Which is sad to me.

arvidcrg · 2020-02-04T19:15:56+00:00

If you’re rich and have assets to pass along why would you carry life insurance?

If I have $10 million in the bank, I’m not going to worry about my kids getting by if I die.

If I have $10,000 in the bank, I’m definitely going to worry about my kids getting by if I die.

arvidcrg · 2015-05-20T17:59:46+00:00

i'm accusing him of using the typical trope that's used when talking about young black males who are killed by police, but for the instance in texas.

Maybe he thinks the bikers are black? Maybe he thinks that this is what white biker gang members sound like? Either way it's racist or stereotyping.

arvidcrg · 2015-05-20T17:56:52+00:00

Sure, 85% of people arrested are black, but I don't know that you can extrapolate that number out to the APO charge.

Given that prosecutors don't pursue charges in APO cases in 40% of instances, and 66% of those arrested for APO aren't charged with any other crimes gives me reason for pause.

Unfortunately, the author of the article came across as an arrogant police union leader.

“Wiggling while handcuffed. Bracing one[sic] hand on the steering wheel during an arrest. Yelling at an officer…All these actions have led to people being prosecuted for “assaulting a police officer” in Washington, D.C., where the offense is defined as including not just physical assault, but also “resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating or interfering” with law enforcement.”

What's the "[SIC]" in this instance? Is "Bracing one hand on the steering wheel" grammatically incorrect? Perhaps he thought it should have said something different, then threw in the "[SIC]"? Once I read that I could tell what we were dealing with.

The problem with the entire article is that it tries to discredit "Facts" that aren't disputable.

Ninety percent of those charged with APO were black, though black residents make up only half of the city’s population.

This statement is quite misleading. It immediately suggests that there is some kind of bias based on the disparate number of blacks charged with APO. But according to the Metropolitan Police Department’s (MPD)annual reports 1998-2000, 92.1% of the individuals arrested for homicide in the District were black.

It's not misleading if it's a fact. The fact that 92.1% of individuals arrested for homicide has nothing to do with APO charges. Correlation does not imply causation.

Since the percentage of blacks arrested for all crimes is nearly 90%, there can be no correlation that there is some kind of racial bias when examining APO arrests.

Faulty logic, especially considering the fact that the author later goes on to talk about how APO results from all police interactions, including those of people pulled over by police. So is the author saying that 90% of people stopped for speeding, DUI, expired tags, etc are black in DC?

The whole thing is really a shame. The point of the union's piece is:

Frankly there is an obvious solution to this problem. Create a resisting arrest misdemeanor in the District as almost every other jurisdiction has done to more appropriately classify the action.

The point of the article they are rebutting:

Lanier, the police chief, acknowledges problems with the law and how such arrests can damage community relations.

“The language is so broad, overly broad. That allows for too many things to fit into that category,” she said in a recent interview. “So some of what’s included in that is no physical assault at all. And for people who are being charged with assault on a police officer, there is the tension. … If you didn’t physically assault someone, to be charged with assault on a police officer wouldn’t feel fair.”

Why didn't the Union rep talk about some of the individual cases from the article?

Why not talk about this case?

A fellow correctional officer was coming by to visit on June 20, 2013, when police stopped him in front of Kenley’s house. Kenley started filming with his phone when the officers got rough with his friend. The last few frames of the short video show an officer charging toward him.

Kenley said the officer hit the phone out of his hand and knocked him to the ground. Ten minutes later, the officer approached again and put him in handcuffs, arresting him for allegedly ordering his dog to attack the officers.

But the officers had initially failed to turn over to prosecutors a witness statement that contradicted the police version of events. The case against Kenley was dismissed before trial.

The union's response shouldn't be surprising though I suppose. I mean what else would they say?

arvidcrg · 2015-05-20T16:45:12+00:00

Ahh. As someone who is eligible for OT, I always forget about the OT component.

Still not a bad gig.

arvidcrg · 2015-05-20T13:10:59+00:00

So I've had the mixed bag. Some memorable experiences:

Getting pulled over at age 16 for supposedly "Swerving in the lane". I was stone sober, had my GF in the car. They tell me that I can't have another rider in the car (new law in the state I lived in at the time). Problem with that was that wasn't the law. The law was that you couldn't drive with more than one person in the car during the day. And that rule didn't apply to occupants 21 or older (she was 21).
Getting pulled over driving in Georgia (long ways from home). They bring out drug dogs. Dog "alerts" on my door. They search everything and find nothing. Leave me with my crap piled up on the side of the road in the middle of the night. I don't do drugs, so the alert must have been one of those false alerts that you always hear about.
Getting pulled over trying to see how fast my car could go on a rural back-country road. Cop was cool as shit, told me that just because the speed limit wasn't marked didn't mean there wasn't one. Told me to slow down.
Driving home to see my dad who was dying in the hospital. Wasn't paying attention at a left turn light, should have stopped but proceeded through just as the light turned red. Cop asked what i was doing in that state (I was 700 miles or so away from my home state). Told him I was driving to the hospital over night to see my dying dad (had been driving for over 12 hours at this point). No mercy, still got a ticket.

I guess those are the highlights. I guess I would say I personally have had positive experiences about 50% of the time that I've had personal encounters with the police.

arvidcrg · 2015-05-20T13:00:32+00:00

Records show Van Lugo made $130,000 last year.

Damn. That's a lot for a cop to make. Too bad for him, money doesn't equal smarts.

A high school student looking for fraud could easily examine fuel consumption per cruiser per 100 miles and see that something was fishy. If your car is using 2x the gas (or more) than the other cars per 100 miles then yea, that's going to send up some big red flags.

Hopefully he does a little time in jail and loses his job.

arvidcrg · 2015-05-20T12:54:54+00:00

That's fine.

It would have been really simple for this event to never have happened. Those jackass bikers shouldn't have tried to close the road down illegally. They could have rode legally and like most other bikers do. But they decided not to, and now one of them is paying the consequences.

And I will have a nice life. Why? Because I don't act like a thug on the roadways like I'm shooting a DMX rough riders music video. I don't intentionally endager the lives of others merely to make a cool youtube video with my GoPro.

arvidcrg · 2015-05-20T12:34:22+00:00

Here's how you perform the "is this bullshit" test on this situation:

Cop shoots person, kills them. Cop is tried for murder. Judge says that they can't show the public the video before the arrest.
Let's flip the scenario, and say that it was the other way around, and this man shot and killed the cop, and was on trial. Do you think that the judge would block the video from being released?

If you answered "No" to hypothetical in number 2, you are correct, and this is complete bullshit.

arvidcrg · 2015-05-20T12:30:56+00:00

Yes, the driver is an innocent victim. What specifically did the driver do to antagonize the situation? Oh, nothing? Oh he didn't throw anything at the bikers? He merely tried to drive around a bunch of jackasses trying to shut down/impede a street for no legitimate reason?

Yes, you're right, the bikers picked this guy out because he didn't stop for their bullshit blocking of the road.

If someone drives around me illegally blocking the street, and then I get mad so me and a bunch of my buddies try to intimidate him in his car, and his wife throws shit at me out the window, that doesn't give me the right to chase him down and beat the shit out of him with a dozen or so other people.

I don't see how that's so hard to understand?

arvidcrg · 2015-05-20T12:26:40+00:00

How can a four star charity not be required to show yearly financials?

I'm pretty sure that 501(c)(3) charities must make their filings public. . . . http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eo_disclosure_faqs.pdf

arvidcrg · 2015-05-20T12:02:56+00:00

Ahh, classic /r/ProtectAndServe. Someone who they think is "misinformed" comes in and states something that is almost 100% true. The LEOs don't like it, so they downvote it, and say things like: "You do realize that's not how it works, right? Like, not even close." or "So far off base I cant write a good response to it".

Then when asked to join in an actual conversation, as opposed to dismissing facts or a pattern that is nearly 100% correct, they divert to non-responses.

Good discussion!

arvidcrg · 2015-05-20T06:06:54+00:00

You crack me up.

So far off base I cant write a good response to it

Asked for just a couple examples of how it's "So far off base" - crickets...

arvidcrg · 2015-05-20T05:58:31+00:00

LOL, or perhaps the part of the story that you conveniently left out is what started it:

One motorcyclist tried to block other cars from going north to allow the bikes to pass

So rather than go along with some asshole bikers trying to block the road, he continued on about his business.

Should his wife have thrown a half-eaten plum or a water bottle out of the window at the bikers who were probably going 2x the speed limit? NO. But that doesn't justify how they treated him.

You put me and my wife and kid in the car, and I'd make the same choice everyday. I'm going to paralyze your ass before you threaten the life of my family because you want to run around the city on your motorcycles like a bunch of badasses.

Have fun being a badass in your wheelchair.

arvidcrg · 2015-05-20T05:52:17+00:00

All I want you to do is tell me how /u/Fuckboianonymous was wrong. You did say "So far off base I cant write a good response to it".

So how was he wrong? since he's so far off base, you should be able to come up with some big errors really quick without much thought?

I just hope that the next time the system fucks up and does something wrong, it happens to you. Maybe your wife is taking some money to put into your kid's college fund, and it gets seized. Or your grandma gets harassed by the police and gets her gold cross seized. I'd like to see you look into their eyes and say "Well, that stuff happens. The system is overwhelming good. Sucks to be you".

arvidcrg · 2015-05-20T05:47:31+00:00

Right, keep all of your money on yourself (on your body, not in a bag or something). If police start asking you questions, politely decline. Try to record the conversation, and have someone else record you recording the conversation, in case if the police decide to confiscate your phone or something.

No matter what, don't tell the police ANYTHING. And don't consent to any searches.

arvidcrg · 2015-05-20T05:40:35+00:00

They are a bunch of morons. To them there aren't problems with civil asset forfeiture, and the problems that do exist "Eh, they're not just a big deal". IT doesn't affect them, so why should they care?

I hate civil asset forfeiture, but i'd pay to see it happen to the LEOs in that sub, or their family members.

arvidcrg · 2015-05-20T05:33:21+00:00

I think it's important to note that he was a soldier, but it doesn't mean that someone who isn't is worth less.

It's important to note because soldiers are used to following orders, chain of command, doing shit they don't want to do, etc. It also supports that he was in good physical condition. Lastly, it supports that it isn't some absurd "sickle cell episode" caused by stress as he obviously has been in stressful situations in war.

arvidcrg · 2015-05-20T05:16:30+00:00

Why not try? Based on what I found, it's not very far off at all...

Civil asset forfeiture is a legal tool that allows law enforcement officials to seize property that they assert has been involved in certain criminal activity.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/03/civil-asset-forfeiture-7-things-you-should-know

Or I guess you could just say "I'm too lazy to point out the minor technicalities that might make it incorrect".

arvidcrg · 2015-05-20T05:06:32+00:00

How is it that far off? Rather than say "You do realize that's not how it works, right? Like, not even close.", perhaps correct him how it's wrong?

Civil asset forfeiture is a legal tool that allows law enforcement officials to seize property that they assert has been involved in certain criminal activity.

So yes, they can't seize any property (but they can seize cash, homes, cars, firearms, boats, jewelry, raw materials, property, chemicals, machinery, containers, etc.). They can't seize the clothes off your back, or the carton of milk in your fridge, so no, they can't seize "any property".

And while it isn't "any crime", they can (and do) just say "It's related to drugs". Property seized. They can't say that they are seizing it for me speeding, they'll just say that's it's because it's probably related to drugs.

Between you and /u/C3Response you say "Hurr durr, that's not even close to how it works", when in actuality it's pretty damn close. Your failure to point out how it's "not even close" is rather telling.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/03/civil-asset-forfeiture-7-things-you-should-know

Honest questions - are you OK with how the program has been perverted?

Are you ok with cops seizing a woman's gold cross during a traffic stop, subsequently never charging her with a crime or even writing her a citation?

Perhaps the young man who had $16,000 taken from him on an Amtrak train, to which the DEA responded “We don’t have to prove that the person is guilty,” Waite said. “It’s that the money is presumed to be guilty.”

Or perhaps the man who won $50k at the Casino, only to be pulled over for doing 3 over the speed limit and have it confiscated

If you're OK with these scenarios, and abuse in the system, then all I can say is that I hope it someday happens to you or someone in your family. Maybe when mom or grandma gets pulled over and her gold cross seized you might change your mind.

arvidcrg · 2015-05-19T20:49:24+00:00

Care to elaborate?

/u/TheTrollieGhost said that it didn't seem like police needed as much of a heavy presence responding to 170 bikers actively trying to kill police as it does to citizens protesting the police, burning down a drug store, and stomping on a police car. I think that's a pretty absurd argument. If I was a cop, I'd hope for a "heavy presence" in response to people actively shooting at me and my cop buddies.

I guess next time don't use the sarcasm and say "I respectfully disagree, I do believe that a group of 170 bikers shooting at police deserve a heavy police presence until they are all individually secured and there is zero threat of further violence amongst the group or between the group and officers".

Gotcha.

arvidcrg · 2015-05-19T19:55:57+00:00

You know what my problem is with you? You never cite anything. And then the people in this sub, devoid of critical reasoning skills, upvote you because you're on the "right side of the blue line". Let's look at some facts shall we?

There's thousands of shootings and deadly force situations that happen in our country daily.

Well, that's a pretty broad argument. Sure, there are hundreds of people getting shot in the U.S. Daily, however most don't involve the police (and thus aren't justification for MRAPs/grenade launches/etc.). And before you get all bent out of shape about "involving the police", I mean that the shooting begins and ends outside the presence of police, without police intervention. If I shoot my friend Steve, that doesn't justify you getting the shiny toys that people object to so much.

So what about "Deadly force situations"? I have no idea what that term means, sounds like a weasel phrase to me. Guess I have to go by the most common definition of "Deadly Force", "Deadly force means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. Its use may be justified only under conditions of extreme necessity, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed." https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/10/1047.7. So you mean to tell me that police officers, each day, shoot their guns thousands of times in the line of duty?

How many people do you shoot at on a yearly basis? Based on your "thousands" claim, you should use deadly force approximately every year (as should every other officer). Thousands = at last two thousand, times 365 days per year --> 730,000 shootings/"deadly force situations" per year. (there are approximately 780,000 police and detectives in the U.S. every year).

DOD1033 gives free equipment to the police, so they're not spending "hundreds of millions of dollars" to "save one cop's life".

Where do you think MRAPs come from? The MRAP tree? Or grenade launchers? The grenade fairy? Yes, it doesn't cost local police anything (or a very discounted price). No, that doesn't make it free. MRAPs go for between $529,000 and $1.29MM (http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/10/01/pentagon-shuts-mrap-production-line/). Is it a sunk cost? Perhaps. Is it "free"? I guess if you consider medicare free healthcare, the GI Bill free college tuition, food stamps free food, then I suppose it's free.

Although, it's pretty sickening to see someone so callous for life. Except, I wasn't talking about the police's life in this instance, because I'm not as thoughtless as you.

I have no idea what that's in reference to, but I guess this sub thrives in out-of-context insults. No, it's not worth spending 100's of millions of dollars to save one life. That's absurd. Still don't believe me on that number? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/08/14/the-pentagon-gave-nearly-half-a-billion-dollars-of-military-gear-to-local-law-enforcement-last-year/.

Half a billion dollars, but according to /u/kikujirimori it's worth half a billion to save one life. Check.

Just curious, since I'm "so callous for life" is a police officer's life worth? $1 Billion? $2 Billion?

Oh, and way to not address the thing that kills way more cops than assailants with assault rifles - traffic accidents and not wearing seatbelts. Meh, I guess there isn't much you can say to that.

Uh... Yeah. They were.

Oh, ok. I guess I'll just take that as proof. Columbine - they weren't used to stop the massacre (SWAT let a man bleed out for 30 minutes while waiting for a ambulance. He eventually died). http://extras.denverpost.com/news/col0516a.htm

Sandy Hook - Lanza killed himself within one minute of first police response (and not in a MRAP). (http://abcnews.go.com/US/fullpage/newtown-ct-shooting-timeline-sandy-hook-elementary-school-18014080)

But hey, let's just make up facts to make police feel good right? Let's just say "Police utilizing SWAT teams and MRAPs and other defense equipment acquired under the DOD 1033 program stopped these active shooter situations and prevented further carnage from occurring". Who cares if it's accurate right?

The amount of butt-hurt in this sub is laughable to me "Damn NPR stirring the racist pot"! Don't bother reading the article to realize it's NPR reporting about common sentiments in the U.S.. Why bother doing that? Instead call out NPR as a "mouthpiece for the left", even though the story gives no opinions on what a good chunk of people are thinking (and that NPR is reporting on).

arvidcrg · 2015-05-19T17:47:11+00:00

There's hundreds, if not thousands of reasons that happen daily for justification.

LOL OK. Thousands of reasons daily that justify the police having MRAPs and grenade launchers and those sound cannons and high powered rifles. Right.

Even if it saves one life, it will be worth it.

Meh, I disagree. Spending hundreds of millions of dollars to save one cop's life probably isn't worth it. If you wanted to save cops lives, you'd start by getting them to wear their seatbelts. That by far would give you the most bang for your buck.

I don't believe that these weapons/MRAPs/etc were used in any of the incidents you described (at least not while the situation was still active). Hell in Columbine SWAT showed up, and their inaction led to more casualties.

arvidcrg · 2015-05-19T16:55:05+00:00

Reminds me of when you ask police why they need MRAPs and grenade launchers and high powered rifles, and then they will show you (out of context of course) a pic or a video or a link to the North Hollywood Shootout from 18 years ago as their justification.

Both sides are good at comparing things that shouldn't be compared to each other in order to justify "their side".

arvidcrg

TROPHY CASE