• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Black Police Chief Urges People dial 911 for Racism , But Burglars Are Free to Rob and Steal

Nickyjo said:
If someone calls a black (or brown) man names, say in public in front of his kids, probable better be calls someone than slugs the jerk.
Click to expand...
Yes, it probably is better to waste police resources on a non-crime than to commit a crime yourself. It's even better to not waste police resources and not commit a crime yourself. In a free country, people have rights. This includes the right to be an ass. Let the ass exercise his right to be an ass and show your kids how to be the bigger man and ignore him.
 
I see a police chief who is going to be unemployed soon.

Wasting police resources because of name-calling? FFS :doh

Yes...racial slurs are bad. But unless violence is involved, the police are not need and should not have their time wasted when they are stretched thin, i.e. helping get a handle on a pandemic AND dealing with real crimes.
 
truthatallcost said:
Hmm. Is this the future of the country? Minorities promoted to positions of power using their office to instruct citizens to report racist words to busy 911 dispatchers? The worst weeks of coronavirus are ahead, and sad to say, but you're on your own people. You cannot count on inept adult-babies like the Chief of Police for Seattle.
Click to expand...

The purpose of 911 is to report emergencies and to elicit a response from fire, medical and law enforcement. A hate crime is committed when the offender commits some crime motivated by their bias including race, religion, disability, etc. Unless the offender has committed some type of crime, (e.g. assault, aggravated assault, property destruction, etc.) racial slurs alone are not a hate crime. Racial slur usage shouldn't necessitate the need to use 911 services, especially when actual crimes and emergencies are happening and/or emergencies are unable to be reported due to high demand of the 911 resources.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
Yes, it probably is better to waste police resources on a non-crime than to commit a crime yourself. It's even better to not waste police resources and not commit a crime yourself. In a free country, people have rights. This includes the right to be an ass. Let the ass exercise his right to be an ass and show your kids how to be the bigger man and ignore him.
Click to expand...

Police resources are not wasted. Illegal assault can include a menacing or threatening statement, though they should not be a high priority compared to much other police work. If a guy is yelling racial insults at me from across the street, that is the sort of thing that can lead to violence. It may be seen as a crime. I might call the police, and they are free to say that they can't get an officer there soon due to other calls. But I have seen plenty of incidents where cops on the beat approach and scatter folks that are yelling at one another or try to calm things down. If they get another call that sounds more serious, I'll understand if they tell us to behave ourselves as they take off.

The concern about what the chief said is much ado about next to nothing.
 
Nickyjo said:
If someone calls a black (or brown) man names, say in public in front of his kids, probable better be calls someone than slugs the jerk. It’s arguably a form of hateful harassment; it’s not like a wolf-whistle. Recent mass shootings put us on notice that we have a problem.
Click to expand...

calling someone a name no matter how vile it is, is not a crime.

there is nothing the police can do.
 
Nickyjo said:
Police resources are not wasted. Illegal assault can include a menacing or threatening statement, though they should not be a high priority compared to much other police work. If a guy is yelling racial insults at me from across the street, that is the sort of thing that can lead to violence. It may be seen as a crime. I might call the police, and they are free to say that they can't get an officer there soon due to other calls. But I have seen plenty of incidents where cops on the beat approach and scatter folks that are yelling at one another or try to calm things down. If they get another call that sounds more serious, I'll understand if they tell us to behave ourselves as they take off.

The concern about what the chief said is much ado about next to nothing.
Click to expand...

violating peoples right is a huge to do.
more so if she can't get her officers there to real crimes.
 
ludin said:
calling someone a name no matter how vile it is, is not a crime.

there is nothing the police can do.
Click to expand...

Look up the law on harassment as I did.
 
ludin said:
violating peoples right is a huge to do.
more so if she can't get her officers there to real crimes.
Click to expand...

So cops at a gathering should say and do nothing when people are yelling epithets at one another? You do realize this often results in fights, don’t you? I remember years ago cops telling me and other guys to break it up when we were hurling insults at one another on a street corner. We moved on. Seems like good police work to me even then.
 
Nickyjo said:
Police resources are not wasted. Illegal assault can include a menacing or threatening statement, though they should not be a high priority compared to much other police work.
Click to expand...
Except we're talking about simple racist statements, not menacing or threatening statements.

If a guy is yelling racial insults at me from across the street, that is the sort of thing that can lead to violence.
Click to expand...
Only if you, or someone else, initiates it. Be the bigger man.

It may be seen as a crime.
Click to expand...
No, it won't.

The concern about what the chief said is much ado about next to nothing.
Click to expand...
Except for the part where she encourages people to call for a police response to non-criminal activity. If she had said people should call the police because someone flipped you off, it would be the same thing.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
Except we're talking about simple racist statements, not menacing or threatening statements.


Only if you, or someone else, initiates it. Be the bigger man.


No, it won't.


Except for the part where she encourages people to call for a police response to non-criminal activity. If she had said people should call the police because someone flipped you off, it would be the same thing.
Click to expand...

I don’t know the ins and outs of the law in that jurisdiction, do you? I assume that in some places it could be criminal. It is apparently a crime to say words that suggest an threat on the president, like the old saying, “Where is Oswald when we need him?,” said in reference to LBJ or Nixon. Someone should ask what the chief meant in this regard.

By the way, that AOC quote has been debunked. She sure does drive conservatives crazy. I think they are in love...
 
Last edited:
Nickyjo said:
I don’t know the ins and outs of the law in that jurisdiction, do you? I assume that in some places it could be criminal.
Click to expand...
I know enough to know that simply calling someone a name, by itself, is not a crime anywhere in the United States. Your assumption is your own problem.

It is apparently a crime to say words that suggest an threat on the president, like the old saying, “Where is Oswald when we need him?,” said in reference to LBJ or Nixon.
Click to expand...
Again, we are talking about simple racist statements, not threats

Someone should ask what the chief meant in this regard.
Click to expand...
I linked to her tweet. Go ahead and ask.

By the way, that AOC quote has been debunked.
Click to expand...
No, it hasn't. It's been backpedaled and hand-waved, but it hasn't been debunked.

She sure does drive conservatives crazy. I think they are in love...
Click to expand...
If criticizing is the criteria for being in love, you must masturbate to images of Donald Trump on an hourly basis.
 
Nickyjo said:
So cops at a gathering should say and do nothing when people are yelling epithets at one another? You do realize this often results in fights, don’t you? I remember years ago cops telling me and other guys to break it up when we were hurling insults at one another on a street corner. We moved on. Seems like good police work to me even then.
Click to expand...

Why do you people add stuff that is not involved with what she said. She said nothing about yelling or anything else.
she said name calling.

Which should be a priority to a cop someone getting assaulted or someone calling you a mean name?
 
Grizzly Adams said:
I know enough to know that simply calling someone a name, by itself, is not a crime anywhere in the United States. Your assumption is your own problem.


Again, we are talking about simple racist statements, not threats

++ Wash State law defines assault as "the putting another person in aprehension of harm, whether or not the actor intends to inflict harm." I don't know that a DA or would consider prosecution or if a jury would convict, but the definition suggests to me that she was on firm ground.


I linked to her tweet. Go ahead and ask.

++ I would believe some sources that knocked her in their reporting if they had a record of denouncing hate crimes.

No, it hasn't. It's been backpedaled and hand-waved, but it hasn't been debunked.

++ I found sources that said this was nothing.


If criticizing is the criteria for being in love, you must masturbate to images of Donald Trump on an hourly basis.
Click to expand...

++ Ewwww... My point has been conservatives hostility to her from the beginning.
 
ludin said:
It is protected by the 1st amendment.
there is nothing the police can do.
Click to expand...

I gather you didn't look up the law... Try the state's definition of assault, or the (unrelated to this case) shouting fire in a crowded theater issue. If the police arrived they would no doubt tell him to shut up and leave that black person alone, and apply whatever statute applies, perhaps assault.
 
ludin said:
Why do you people add stuff that is not involved with what she said. She said nothing about yelling or anything else.
she said name calling.

Which should be a priority to a cop someone getting assaulted or someone calling you a mean name?
Click to expand...

Duh, someone getting assaulted. Look up the state's definition of assault.
 
truthatallcost said:
Hmm. Is this the future of the country? Minorities promoted to positions of power using their office to instruct citizens to report racist words to busy 911 dispatchers? The worst weeks of coronavirus are ahead, and sad to say, but you're on your own people. You cannot count on inept adult-babies like the Chief of Police for Seattle.
Click to expand...

I thought I already replied to this thread. Is this a duplicate?

Anyway, I wonder what the moron chief Carmen would say if a white person called 911 for a black calling them a cracker?
 
Nickyjo said:
Wash State law defines assault as "the putting another person in aprehension of harm, whether or not the actor intends to inflict harm." I don't know that a DA or would consider prosecution or if a jury would convict, but the definition suggests to me that she was on firm ground.
Click to expand...
Using a definition of "aprehension [sic] of harm" as loose as yours allows for any person, no matter how insanely delicate, to file assault charges for any perceived slight. Call someone the n-word? Assault. Call them a dork? Assault. Stare daggers at them? Assault. Look at them cross-eyed? Assault. Walk by them on the street without saying hello? Assault. Walk by them on the street and say hello? Assault. The charge has to be supported by a reasonable fear of harm. Name-calling is not now, nor has it ever been, by itself, sufficient to support such a charge in any jurisdiction in the US. Go ahead and find a conviction that was upheld against a person who called someone else a mean name and there were no other aggravating factors (such as an order of protection).

I would believe some sources that knocked her in their reporting if they had a record of denouncing hate crimes.
Click to expand...
You don't have to believe them. The twit was linked in my last post for you to click on and read with your own eyes.

I found sources that said this was nothing.
Click to expand...
Of course you did. That would be the backpedaling and hand-waving.

Ewwww... My point has been conservatives hostility to her from the beginning.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and? My point stands.

By the way, learn how to properly use the quote function, please. When you use it incorrectly, as you did in your last post it not only makes it very difficult to read and reply to using the reply with quote function, it also is incredibly rude, as it inserts your words into a segment of the post that is allegedly quoting me.
 
Irredentist said:
Yeah, shame on her for encouraging people to report hate crimes...
Click to expand...

....and ignore other serious crimes.

Most people can bear adversity; but if you wish to know what a man really is give him power.
Click to expand...
- Robert Ingersoll
 
Nickyjo said:
I gather you didn't look up the law... Try the state's definition of assault, or the (unrelated to this case) shouting fire in a crowded theater issue. If the police arrived they would no doubt tell him to shut up and leave that black person alone, and apply whatever statute applies, perhaps assault.
Click to expand...

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote - The Atlantic

In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" (emphasis mine).

Today, despite the "crowded theater" quote's legal irrelevance, advocates of censorship have not stopped trotting it out as thefinal word on the lawful limits of the First Amendment. As Rottman wrote, for this reason, it's "worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any unpopular speech."

You don't know what you are talking about. U.S. v. Schenck has been overturned for 40 years and still today the brendburg case still holds precendent.
so your fire in a theater is no longer valid.

I don't need to read anything on assault but assault deals with physical violence. words are not physical violence.
Yes they could tell him to stop yelling that is about it. if he continues to yell and scream then he could be charged for
disorderly conduct or public disturbance.

he cannot be arrested for calling someone a name. also there is no indication that the person is yelling.
she simply said name calling which is not a crime.
 
Nickyjo said:
Duh, someone getting assaulted. Look up the state's definition of assault.
Click to expand...

I have it deals with physical violence as with all assault laws.
words are not physical violence.
 
Lord of Planar said:
No.

Shame on her for saying to use 911 to report name-calling.
Click to expand...

I love this part of her speech... "“Even racist name-calling should be reported to police. If you aren’t sure if a hate crime occurred, call 911.” "

:lol:
 
Irredentist said:
Yeah, shame on her for encouraging people to report hate crimes...
Click to expand...

Report people, like this, "If you aren’t sure if a hate crime occurred, call 911."

What is next... if you suspect a person is thinking about hate crime, report them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom