chicchorea said:

...what does that even mean?

billpayer said:

no thanks Clint Cuntwood, you right wing fuck nut

messenger said:

Whenever I see a title like, "<someone> arrested for <something>", it's invariably not exactly the case.

Here, he was arrested for refusing to get out of the way of police. Also, when he started filming, the police stole his phone, assaulted him, and lied in an affidavit about what happened. Any of that would also have made a good title. Why not just say what really happened?

I don't think it's legal to use force (which is what a traffic stop is) to have a nice interaction. Even if you're handing out money, it is not proper. But then I believe in the 4th amendment.

newtboy said:

You "claimed" the guy not answering questions is being an asshole. I explained why his actions, while rude in normal society, are not rude but prudent.
You posited a theory about the cop's motives. I explained how his actions proved his ulterior motives, not that your theory was impossible because cops never help others. You got rude and called me a lonely paranoid newt constantly spouting bullshit! Hmmmm......

I'm all for exploring differing theories about how a scenario went down.
I'm not for being insulting to the person that points out that your theory doesn't hold up to scrutiny instead of either realizing the theory was wrong in the first place, or delineating why it's not wrong. THAT'S just ridiculous! ;-)

newtboy said:

When you make ridiculous claims like "he was just being a good guy cop trying to help", I see nothing wrong or argumentative in pointing out where you made your mistake in logic thinking that might be the case.

"Huge dissertations of bullshit arguing into thin air."
Well! If that's not the pot calling the kettle black! LOL!!!!

You must have replied without reading the entire post. My last paragraph illustrated clearly why THIS cop was not 'being a good guy helping' as you wish to think. That does not mean it doesn't happen, or even that it's not the norm, it means it wasn't happening this time. I'm sorry if that's a difficult concept for me to properly illustrate.

It is a cop's job to find crime. They often find it where none exists. In order to protect yourself AND honor your ancestors sacrifices, intelligent and patriotic people exorcize their rights and remain silent. Every time. My grandfather, the successful lawyer, taught me that. It's not paranoid any more than wearing your seat belt is paranoid.

newtboy said:

Not answering questions is not being confrontational or an asshole when the questioner's only motivation is to find a 'problem' he can 'solve' by charging you with a crime. My sense of self preservation demands that I have a lawyer present during any questioning, and that I have written immunity before giving any answers. It's not being rude, it's being safe, EDIT: and it's honoring the enormous sacrifices made by my and other's ancestors in order to create and preserve the right to remain silent, ignoring/foregoing that or any other hard won right is a slap in their faces IMO.

Interactions with the police and normal person to person interactions are governed by a different set of rules.

Once the cop could see that there was absolutely no issue, why did he continue with the stop and demand ID and insurance if he was being a 'good guy cop, just trying to help'? That action denies the 'good guy' premise.

mxxcon said:

anything buzzfeed gets automatic downvote from me.

dag said:

Quote hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Obviously crossed wires, we'll just need to recambulate the oxidisation circuits.