its not about white and black people.
b-b-but I need an excuse to say "cac" a lot
its not about white and black people.
b-b-but I need an excuse to say "cac" a lot
quote me saying cac in another thread
You said I needed an excuse to say it a lot. Which implied that my opinion in this thread was manufactured for the sole purpose of saying the word.why do I have to look elsewhere when you use it in this thread? was this issue 'the straw that broke the camel's back'?
You said I needed an excuse to say it a lot. Which implied that my opinion in this thread was manufactured for the sole purpose of saying the word.
You shouldn't make claims unless you have evidence, or at least a good explanation, cause otherwise you just make yourself look like a fool.
What rights did they violate?
you didn't have to use the word. but they say after you make your bed, you gotta lay in it
my comment wasn't even about just you or that particular word. it was a response to what Kool G Trap said
the 4th Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures
they look like stage 2 meth addicts
those cops probably prevented a car crash that night with that cavity search
good job
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You were responding to Kool G's response to ME. Don't backpedal now, they say after you make your bed you gotta lay in it.
backpedal on what? you used the word. you seem to be the one that's backpedaling, like the frequency at which you use the word matters
but my comments were also directed at those talking about "meth addicts" (and saying "good job" when the cops didn't even find anything), the "other community", etc
Why was it unreasonable? They smelled drugs and they searched for them. It's my understanding that women should search women, and they complied with that. So where's the violation?
None of that is proof that any law was broken. If they smelled smoke in the car and they saw the women throwing things out of the window, then they had every right to search.first of all, it's easy to say "we smell drugs" and proceed to search someone. I've had personal experience with that when I didn't have any weed anywhere around me. it's the 'go to' excuse to search someone. and it becomes particularly dubious when they don't find anything. the cops are later heard attributing it to the fact that someone is a daily smoker in the car (meaning they're saying they confused the smell of heavy cigarette smoke with marijuana). they were ultimately given a 'warning' for littering. the ladies also claim they were threatened that if they filed a complaint, they would be charged with "lying". I don't think there's anyway to prove that, but if it's true it seems to be an admission of wrong-doing
No i didn't say any of that. It's my opinion that if they didn't penetrate them(which hasn't been proven) then the cops did nothing wrong. They smelled drugs and they tried to find them.
As for improving police behavior torwards black men, this case or any other one for that matter won't achive that goal, so I admit I feel a little selfish pleasure when white folks get a dose of their own medicine, especially when they act all entitled and outraged, knowing they didn't give a fukk when tyrone was beat on the side of the road for talking back to the cops.
not wearing a seatbelt is the excuse law enforcement use to violate 4th amendment rights..,it is an unreasonable seizure with the possibility of an unreasonable search...