• The upgrade to XenForo 2.3.7 has now been completed. Please report any issues to our administrators.

Riots in Missouri - Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Who made that argument? I haven't seen anyone in this thread make that claim.
It's not really worth getting into anymore, but apparently when white skinned people are discriminated against and oppressed it's not because of their skin color, but other factors. When black people are discriminated against and oppressed, it's because of their skin color

Garner didn't resist.
If he wasn't resisting he would have been handcuffed and put in the car without incident. It took several men to bring him down(which would not have been necessary if he wasn't resisting arrest).

Resisting arrest shouldn't be punishable by death, either.
It wasn't a punishment for resisting arrest. It was an accident that shouldn't have happened. Again, I think the officer should be charged with something, but definitely not murder.

You think it happens more often to white people?
Statistically it does just due to sheer population numbers.

I'll say this, too. I don't think that saying black lives matter means white lives don't.
I don't have time to look for the link again, but tell that to the University professor who was reprimanded for saying "All lives matter," instead of just "black lives matter."
It's really just semantics, but I agree that saying black lives matter does not mean white lives mean less. But focusing on one or the other really isn't helping progress race relations. I'd argue it's making it worse.

We are all one, should be the message, inclusion from everyone. What's happening now is very divisive.
 
sorry if this was posted already, but, really?

http://www.ibtimes.com/illinois-passes-bill-makes-it-illegal-record-police-1744724

An amendment to a Senate bill in Illinois has been overwhelmingly passed to ensure that recording police officers and government officials is now a felony.

The Amendment to Senate Bill 1342 was stealthily introduced on the back of an unrelated piece of legislation last week. It essentially reestablishes a completely unconstitutional eavesdropping law that was previously overturned by The Supreme Court in March for being too draconian.

The amendment has stripped away safeguards to free speech rights from the original legislation and instituted a blanket ban on recording officials in public. It was passed by both the Illinois House and the Senate, with huge majorities, within two days of its introduction.

A post at watchdog website IllinoisPolicy.org notes that the bill is designed to prevent people from documenting interactions with cops on their cell phones by making it a class 3 felony to “eavesdrop” on city and state officials including police officers, police, an attorney general, an assistant attorney general, a state’s attorney, an assistant state’s attorney or a judge.

The new amendment legislates its way around the ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ standard in law by refraining from defining it, and merely states that recording any “oral communication between 2 or more persons” is now illegal.

A class 3 felony is punishable by a prison sentence of two to four years. The bill also outlines that it is now a class 4 felony to record a private citizen in such circumstances. The crime is punishable by one to three years in prison.

The vaguely worded legislation states:

(a) Eavesdropping, for a first offense, is a Class 4 felony (from Ch. 38, par. 14-4) and, for a second or subsequent offense, is a Class 3 felony.

(b) The eavesdropping of an oral conversation or an electronic communication of any
law enforcement officer, State’s Attorney, Assistant State’s Attorney, the Attorney General, Assistant Attorney General, or a judge, while in the performance of his or her official duties, if not authorized by this Article or proper court order, is a Class 3 felony, and for a second or subsequent offenses, is a Class 2 felony

Jacob Huebert, Senior Attorney at Liberty Justice Center, notes “There’s only one apparent reason for imposing a higher penalty on people who record police in particular: to make people especially afraid to record police.”

Huebert also notes that the legislation could impact the widely proposed move to implement body cameras for all police officers

“Police may argue that using body cameras to record encounters with citizens outside of “public” places would violate the law, as citizens have not consented to being recorded.” he writes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,262
Messages
22,074,084
Members
45,875
Latest member
2ShedsJakcson
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"