WTF are you talking about now? Every black man is a suspect or a criminal until they prove it to a cop? Besides being black he DID NOT fit the description of the bank robber in any way shape or form. Was he thin? No. Was he wearing a hoodie? No. Was he wearing black shorts? No. You 'people' are too stupid and racist to live. He was an innocent civilian that they had no 'right' to detain and absolutely no right to search his personal belongings. It's ignorant 'people' like you and a few other DB's on this site that allowed the Nazi's to come to power. Please keep enlightening all of us with your wonderful 'opinions'.........I'd love to meet some of you 'people' to see who you really are and see if there are really people this stupid running amok....You and Melrose, etc. are simply amazing........
Oh Jesus, really?????????????????? (see duplicate thread soon to be posted)
- Thread starter Joshbrown
- Start date
Well, that's because it was your wife's money and not the banks. They could give a shit about 'your' money
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
At least know what you are talking about. Even Faith says he fit the description, from his own facebook post:
From the police officers point of view, all they knew was that a bank had just been robbed less than ten minutes ago. The suspect was a large black male, wearing all black, with something on top of his head and the suspect is armed. As they drive past an Iowa City park that was less than 3 minutes away from the bank that was just robbed, they notice a large black man, dressed in all black, with black goggles on his head.
So is Faith "too stupid and racist to live" as well? He sees it just exactly like 100% of the people without some BS agenda that you have.
That is NOT the description the cops were given, einstein. That is the description they LIED about to Faith to justify their incompetence.....and racism.....Read the 911 transcripts of the 'descriptions' of the suspect, BillyBobBubbaJoe (or maybe in your case, have someone read it to you)....And if 'cops' can't tell the difference between an 'innocent civilian' walking in a park playing Pokemon in broad daylight (these Pokeman players are EASY to identify) and the behavior of someone who just robbed a bank, then they need to find a new career....You're a waste of my time, and a waste of life, from what I can gather reading your thought provoking posts....P.S.- When you make statements like 100%, you REALLY show what an idiot you are. You and 3 rednecks on this site constitutes 100%??? Lol. I am in the majority, JoeBobBillyFrank, and the FACT that I get 'likes' on my posts expressing the 'reality' of this situation clearly shows that your '100%' comment is a feeble attempt to justify your ignorance and racist attitude. Now run off to your Trump rally or your next Aryan brotherhood meeting and quit embarrassing yourself...CletusBodeanBobbyRay.........
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
Saying that you are right on this becuase you get "likes" on HN, is that serious? Do your middle school teachers and parents know you post here? Just because your grade school ass is scared now to play Pokeman, doesn't mean you should be lashing out like you are.
As far as Trump or Hillary, that is your deal. I don't even follow politics any longer they are the real waste. The fact that you are all wrapped up in Hillary, and the left wing is the real joke. Maybe when you grow up you will realize both parties are in it for themselves, you are just a sheep that is led along (pretty well too it seems). Don't hate on me becuase I am smart enough to see the parties for what they are.
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
Well, this sure took a turn. I happen to support the idea that the police made a gross mistake in this. But you really screw up by making the leap to Trump and White Brotherhood. A lot of persons are pretty uniformed and inexperienced when it comes to racial attitudes and stereotypes. Police officers are included along with everyday masses. Some of it comes from many Iowa counties being among the lowest minority populated (especially black) in the nation.
It would be helpful if you posted a link to the 911 transcript you refer about. Btw, not a Trumpeter or a Clintonite. Btw, DV does like to insult those that he disagrees with. Why use the same tactics? Puts you in the same pile.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
What does a 911 call prove anyway? The cops that stopped Faith don't answer the 911 calls. Watch the video they weren't even totally clear on the description, but you could hear they FELT they were looking for a black male in all black clothing so something on his head.
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
Reread your post. You just stated the answer. Where did the officers receive their information? Secret code from Cracker Jacks? Pokemon? If they didn't get clarification when it was provided, that is a huge error. Also, they should have asked for clarification. Again, if the suspect where a white female wearing black with something on their head, are they going to stop all white females within a short distance of the bank?
If you are stopped, I hope the officer doesn't FEEL you are about to shoot them.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
We disagree then. I don't think those cops just stopped any random black male. If Faith didn't have on all black clothing he doesn't get stopped.
As I said we see it differently. If the description was a white male with a blue ball cap and white shorts, They wouldn't be doing their jobs if they didn't stop CJ if he had on white shorts and a blue ball cap minutes after a robbery in the vicinity of that robbery.
Last edited:
In a prodominitally black area, you could say the same thing against white people. It's an odds thing, not a race thing. If I was in a room with one other white guy and 100 black guys, I would have no problem being detained because they knew a white guy just robbed a bank and it was either me or the one other guy. I would be pretty selfish if I screamed racism and made the cops let me and the bad guy go. You simply have to profile in a situation like that. Whether it's race, gender, or hair color.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
That isn't even "profiling". That is just questioning someone who fits the description of a suspect.
If there were 5 black males with all black on and something on their heads, I would have hoped the cops questioned all of them. I would have a problem if they questioned a black male that was wearing all white with a shaved head.
This wasn't just a rando stop, it was in the vacinity of a crime, minutes after said crime, and they simply questioned someone they felt fit the description. If the sole purpose of those cops was to harass a black man just because he was black, it certainly wouldn't have gone down like it did.
I agree with you. People call it profiling because he was black. I call it common sense.
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
You are being theoretical in a non theoretical world. Racism exists in the world. In most of the US it doesn't happen the way you describe. It is described from the wold where there are few blacks. You would have no problem because in general the white person isn't going to be faced with a history of racism. It is spoken from a state that is 92% white and only 3.5 % black. I attend a mixed race church. A question was asked once how many people in the service had been discriminated against (treated poorly on how it was asked) because of race. There were over 1000 in attendance. No whites stood. 99% of the blacks stood up. Peer pressure? Maybe. Living in world of different experience than whites? Likely. My own wife (and we aren't that old) grew up in a town that had separate schools and was forcibly integrated. That isn't that long ago. Even 100 years ago isn't that long. Racism is alive and well in the US, though hopefully much improved.
My point is that if you were in the situation you described, you certainly wouldn't have this heritage influencing you and those questioning you. If I were in the situation whether black or white as what happened in IC, you'd better believe I'd be screaming long and loud about how the police handled it. I particularly would be pissed at the chubby officer trying to hid his gun behind his back. Trust him because he is an officer? Not a chance. Being ticked at what happened doesn't necessarily imply the race card either.
I'd be really ticked if I found out the description wasn't properly stated as noted. I'd be really ticked if an officer put his fingers in front of the camera. I'd also be ticked if the camera didn't roll right away.
My point is that if you were in the situation you described, you certainly wouldn't have this heritage influencing you and those questioning you. If I were in the situation whether black or white as what happened in IC, you'd better believe I'd be screaming long and loud about how the police handled it. I particularly would be pissed at the chubby officer trying to hid his gun behind his back. Trust him because he is an officer? Not a chance. Being ticked at what happened doesn't necessarily imply the race card either.
I'd be really ticked if I found out the description wasn't properly stated as noted. I'd be really ticked if an officer put his fingers in front of the camera. I'd also be ticked if the camera didn't roll right away.
If the discription was a 7 foot white guy and they questioned Woody, no one would have thought anything of it even tho you can say they were profiling tall guys. But when race is involved in any way, people lose their minds. Its too bad too because calling everyone a racist really takes away from the people who are truly racist. Those people should be singled out and made to feel alone. Instead they are blended in with anyone who chuckles at a race joke. It really takes away from how bad truly racist people are.
I know it's easier said than done, but the people that are still outraged about what happened 100 years ago are really hurting the chances of letting racism die.
And what's wrong with hiding the gun behind his back? An innocent person (which the cops knew was more than likely the case) doesn't need to see a gun pointed at his face. If he does happen to be the bad guy, the cop has the advantage of already having his gun in his hand.
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
A lot of stuff isn't 100 years ago. Maybe you are selective about which videos you watch of real stuff. Put the gun behind the back in different perspective. You grow up threw no choice of your own in a violent neighborhood (I do volunteer work in E St Louis). You've seen violence and deception. That officer wasn't fooling anyone. If he was going to have it un-holstered, then bring it out. It would create a lot more anxiety than looking like the ridiculous fool he was looking like. The whole thing was just ugly and not well done. The police can do better without being robocops. As a citizen, I also take some offense that those officers were almost all pretty obese. When you are obese you can't move as well which also results in the more lazy option of drawing the gun early. I've seen IC officers. Must have been the luck of the draw as they aren't all that obese. Maybe there were irritated at how uncomfortable their vests were.
Joshbrown
Well-Known Member
I get what you're saying and those were actually my first thoughts as well. The more I thought about it the more I changed my mind. If I turned around, I would rather see a cop looking like he had something behind his back than see a gun pointed at my face. It would give me a second to adapt to what was going on. It also eliminates the chances of accidentally shooting him if your gun isn't pointed at him.
If you're approaching a possible armed bank robber, you have to have your gun ready. To what extent is debatable. If I were a cop, I would want it drawn but I wouldn't want to scare the hell out of an innocent man. The best way to do that is to put it behind your back.
Chickenlounge
Well-Known Member
Can't believe this thread is still going...
