Dr. Dre Handcuffed

[JoeKing]

Don't sign up for the job if ya aint got the stones to treat people w/o presumed guilt. Citizens pay their salaries...

Blue lives matter. If you can't cooperate with law enforcement then you don't deserve it's protection. Who pays their salary is irrelevant.

 

[zrinkill]

Who pays their salary is irrelevant.

Wow.

 

[joseephuss]

And potentally get shot in the process? No thank you. Take charge of the scene with guns drawn and cuff everyone. Then and only then, questions can be asked and answered. Once you have discerned what's actually going on you can take the cuffs off of who ever is not a threat.

Did they cuff everyone?

 

[Manwiththeplan]

Did they cuff everyone?

was just about to ask that.

 

[JoeKing]

Did they cuff everyone?

No, they screwed up.

 

[zrinkill]

Did they cuff everyone?

Yea but uhhhhhh that is different ..... you know ..... reasons and such.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

Blue lives matter. If you can't cooperate with law enforcement then you don't deserve it's protection. Who pays their salary is irrelevant.

If police officers are going to pick and choose who to protect, then those officers need to hang it up. Not talking about this case specifically, but going back to the police officers who walked out of the Minnesota Lynx game in protest. Despite how they felt about the shirts, there were people there who paid for tickets who did not have anything to do with the shirts, do they not deserve protection? Even the players, all they did was wear a shirt, a shirt that wasn't even critical of police, just saying that things need to change, how can one reasonable defend police officers walking out because of that?

 

[Manwiththeplan]

No, they screwed up.

yea, that's kinda the point. how the screw ups seem a bit one sided.

but you are right, had they cuffed everyone, that would have been fine. it was a serious claim and officers need to be able to protect themselves, however, only one guy was viewed as a threat...and it was the guy on his own property. pretty sure, you'd be livid in that situation.

 

[gambit187]

My point is that you can end up wearing handcuffs (even if briefly) having done nothing wrong and being on your own property, based on the accusations of a stranger.

I'm not sure how your response changes that.

The idea that the police can show up on my property and put handcuffs on me in front of my family because some stranger made a phone call is not a reassuring thought.

Also the use of common sense has to come into play. A man worth almost a billion dollars is not likely to do something stupid like shoot a cop. For all they know that guy could have made a false call just to have the cops come question Dr Dre a black man and the guy that made the call could have been setting up the cops for something more horrible. I'm pissed how they did Dre, but I would have like it if both men were restrained in the same fashion.

 

[TheCount]

He didn't "end up" wearing handcuffs. Do you not understand the meaning of the words I am putting in quotation marks? Do you think being on your own property shields you from the rule of law? The police were doing their job investgating a potenially very dangerous situation. Being on your own property does not shield you from this.

Honestly, I have no idea what you're even talking about.

You say he didn't "end up" with cuffs on, but the distinction you're making is in your own head.

At no point have I suggested anyone is exempt from the law, but clearly something I said has struck a cord.

 

[JoeKing]

yea, that's kinda the point. how the screw ups seem a bit one sided.

but you are right, had they cuffed everyone, that would have been fine. it was a serious claim and officers need to be able to protect themselves, however, only one guy was viewed as a threat...and it was the guy on his own property. pretty sure, you'd be livid in that situation.

You are diagnoising the situation after the fact. This is an advantage the police did not have as they rolled up on the scene. The correct action is to secure the scene and then discern the threat.

 

[dargonking999]

No, they screwed up.

And there is the problem.

if you're telling me that the police can come on my property, handcuff me, and search me and my vehicle, because some stranger blocks my driveway and is harassing me (which is a crime BTW) called and said I had a gun, then thats just BS. Safety? Fine Then everyone needs to be in handcuffs sat down and out of the way while the police search and do there job. then when its obvious that the moron who called the police was being a prick, he should be then thrown into the back of the police car, ticketed and put in jail for the day for not only wasting police resources and time, but also causing a major safety issue by claiming someone is threatening them with a gun, when they clearly weren't.

While All lives do matter, that doesn't mean that its okay to treat certain lives worse than others. Police need to treat everyone the same until the evidence comes to light.

 

[dargonking999]

You are diagnoising the situation after the fact. This is an advantage the police did not have as they rolled up on the scene. The correct action is to secure the scene and then discern the threat.

No one is questioning the choice to secure the scene, the question is how unfairly they secured the scene.

 

[Denim Chicken]

Blue lives matter. If you can't cooperate with law enforcement then you don't deserve it's protection. Who pays their salary is irrelevant.

Cooperate with or submit to? This is not **** Germany, you cannot just detain people w/o cause bc you're scared.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

He didn't "end up" in cuffs. It was only a temporary measure while the police investigated a potentially very serious accusation. In a matter of only a few minutes the cuffs were removed.

and its also illegal.

 

[JoeKing]

Honestly, I have no idea what you're even talking about.

You say he didn't "end up" with cuffs on, but the distinction you're making is in your own head.

At no point have I suggested anyone is exempt from the law, but clearly something I said has struck a cord.

The distinction is paramount. "End up" in hand cuffs means the end result was the cuffs were on him but that was not the end result. There is more to the story that you are conveniently leaving out.

 

[JoeKing]

And there is the problem.

if you're telling me that the police can come on my property, handcuff me, and search me and my vehicle, because some stranger blocks my driveway and is harassing me (which is a crime BTW) called and said I had a gun, then thats just BS. Safety? Fine Then everyone needs to be in handcuffs sat down and out of the way while the police search and do there job. then when its obvious that the moron who called the police was being a prick, he should be then thrown into the back of the police car, ticketed and put in jail for the day for not only wasting police resources and time, but also causing a major safety issue by claiming someone is threatening them with a gun, when they clearly weren't.

While All lives do matter, that doesn't mean that its okay to treat certain lives worse than others. Police need to treat everyone the same until the evidence comes to light.

The police don't know you from anyone else. If they are responding to an active shooter situation and it spills out to your property and come across you, you will get apprehended until they can positively identify you.

 

[JoeKing]

and its also illegal.

what are you saying is illegal?

 

[Manwiththeplan]

You are diagnoising the situation after the fact. This is an advantage the police did not have as they rolled up on the scene. The correct action is to secure the scene and then discern the threat.

I agree, hindsight is 20/20, but I am also not surprised at who was viewed as the threat.

 

[jobberone]

Cooperate with or submit to? This is not **** Germany, you cannot just detain people w/o cause bc you're scared.

and its also illegal.

The police are allowed to lawfully detain (in cuffs or not) anyone they suspect (you can read not sure yet who is suspect in that as well as clearly suspect) might be a danger to the public of which the police are a subset. You must obey an officers orders under these circumstances because that is the law. If you're told to lie on the ground with hands behind your head you are required to do so whether you feel/think it is just or not. So yes you are required to 'submit' although that's not the legal term. It's cooperate. If they are found to have made an unlawful detention then you are very likely to win a settlement or suit. Same thing for an unlawful arrest.

This is a huge problem with the public. If you're told to do something and don't then the amount of force (verbal becoming physical) will escalate until it is complied with either voluntarily or involuntarily. This 'oh hell no you ain't doing that to me' is the cause of a lot of conflict between the police and the public and it is unnecessary.

OTOH, police shooting unarmed people who are complying with their orders are the worse and should and almost always are dealt with harshly; as it should be.