http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/22/1404727/-CNN-s-Harry-Houck-shows-exactly-what-s-wrong-with-Violent-Cop-Culture?detail=email
Multiple times during this discussion of the Sandra Bland arrest video former NYPD Detective and raging Copagandist Harry J. Houck gets things wrong. Despite others on the program, including a former Federal Prosecutor - a black female whom Harry repeatedly disrespects by talking over - telling him that "there is no law against smoking in your own car" and that there is no requirement to be a good mood when you're being pulled over by police, Harry continues to blame Sandra's "Arrogance" for everything that Officer Encinia does to her, including slamming her head first into the ground when she's already been handcuffed.
“An officer does have the choice to bring anyone out of the vehicle when he stops them for his own safety,” Houck told CNN’s Don Lemon on Tuesday. “The whole thing here is that she was very arrogant from the beginning, very dismissive of the officer, alright?”
Via RawStory.
He didn't ask her to step out of the vehicle for his "safety", she was no threat to him at that point. He's already written the warning, all he had to do was give it to her and have her sign it.
His ego was bruised because she didn't comply with his illegal demand that she put out her cigarette, so he decided to arrest her right then and there. She contested, because it's pretty obvious that arrest would be illegal as well, but Harry fails to admit or understand that. To him it's all Comply Or Die and an Officer's word "Is Law".
we all have opinions that can be different but we cannot all have facts that are different, you know my opinion from earlier post but this video if you can decipher through the shouting and less listening maybe there is something of interest as far as what we may think about the issue of police confrontation and arrest and if there really such a thing in America as freedom of anything and if so who holds the cards??
this appears to becoming about who's on first and who's right's are more important and even if they are considered as rights and with different takes how do we determine who should have to be subservient to the other, law does not mean right neither does perceived freedoms of speech.
i have mixed feelings iof late some of these things though end traguically have opened doors that were closed some padlocked my conundrum is i don't know if it's good or just more of the same i'm leaning more to the former but feel some sort of disrespect of those who are no longer with us by my feeling it a good thing. recognize look at how much more positive discourse and reactions have come about in the wake of recent murders.
