Father OWNS the police
Options
Comments
-
@My_nameaintearl wrote: »perfect example of "just cuz you dont understand him, that dont mean that he nice"
................................ -
If anything its gonna be camera phones that put police in check, not some gibberish about being moorish
-
LMAO @ how the thread went from "yo he sonned the cops" then when someone comes and says "no he didn't ect ect" now the whole thread changes face. COME ON you ? is on some follow the leader ? .
A ? come into the thread and the whole opinion of the thread changes? So who ya'll believe? The man on the video or the ? in the thread?
Because regardless of what a ? say in this thread, regardless of what the ? in this thread know or THINK they know he sonned those police officers. Even if he was speaking complete and utter ? he had enough confidence in his rights or at least enough to talk circles around those piglets to know he was going to get away with it.
The man walked away without an obstruction of justice charge (no matter how trumped the charge he still could've been arrested). The cops there felt ? didn't know or comprehend anything he was saying and really said absolutely nothing except things that amounted to "I know I am but what are you". They basically were happy to be free of that man period. I've seen police arrest people for far less than that.
Most of you ? sittin here at the computer would've been on some "yessah I'ssa waits for my son for howeva longs it takes me sah" type ? .
Sometimes it ain't exactly about what you know it's about what you can make someone else think you know. -
After watching the video, the ? that ? was saying was a whole bunch of garbage.
The cops were shook tho cuz they werent sure what the hell he was talking about. Since he was talking about the constitution and mandates they aint know if he was saying some legitimate ? or just talking out his ass.
He aint really win because they were gonna give him his son regardless, but he didnt lose cuz he got to talk ? without getting arrested. -
LMAO @ how the thread went from "yo he sonned the cops" then when someone comes and says "no he didn't ect ect" now the whole thread changes face. COME ON you ? is on some follow the leader ? .
A ? come into the thread and the whole opinion of the thread changes? So who ya'll believe? The man on the video or the ? in the thread?
Because regardless of what a ? say in this thread, regardless of what the ? in this thread know or THINK they know he sonned those police officers. Even if he was speaking complete and utter ? he had enough confidence in his rights or at least enough to talk circles around those piglets to know he was going to get away with it.
The man walked away without an obstruction of justice charge (no matter how trumped the charge he still could've been arrested). The cops there felt ? didn't know or comprehend anything he was saying and really said absolutely nothing except things that amounted to "I know I am but what are you". They basically were happy to be free of that man period. I've seen police arrest people for far less than that.
Most of you ? sittin here at the computer would've been on some "yessah I'ssa waits for my son for howeva longs it takes me sah" type ? .
Sometimes it ain't exactly about what you know it's about what you can make someone else think you know.
Bruh...you know what. Yeah, you right mane. ? always think they got a torch to bear. -
One Black man. Five white cops.
Said Black man talks ? to five white cops and tells them he can walk where wants and can say whatever he wants in the course of them detaining a young black male. And leaves without a scratch, citation, and with said young, black male.
News Flash:
He owned them crackers. Word to Noble Drew Ali.
It wasn't so much what he said because they had no idea what the ? he was talking about because your average small town cop is ignorant of laws, anyway.
It was the fact that he exhibited no fear. Animals can sense fear and that is why they pounce. But when you show no fear to a beast, the beast tends to exhibit fear. -
LMAO @ how the thread went from "yo he sonned the cops" then when someone comes and says "no he didn't ect ect" now the whole thread changes face. COME ON you ? is on some follow the leader ? .
A ? come into the thread and the whole opinion of the thread changes? So who ya'll believe? The man on the video or the ? in the thread?
Because regardless of what a ? say in this thread, regardless of what the ? in this thread know or THINK they know he sonned those police officers. Even if he was speaking complete and utter ? he had enough confidence in his rights or at least enough to talk circles around those piglets to know he was going to get away with it.
The man walked away without an obstruction of justice charge (no matter how trumped the charge he still could've been arrested). The cops there felt ? didn't know or comprehend anything he was saying and really said absolutely nothing except things that amounted to "I know I am but what are you". They basically were happy to be free of that man period. I've seen police arrest people for far less than that.
Most of you ? sittin here at the computer would've been on some "yessah I'ssa waits for my son for howeva longs it takes me sah" type ? .
Sometimes it ain't exactly about what you know it's about what you can make someone else think you know.
the bolded is so true and its not even sometimes its ALL THE TIME .... u approach somebody with the mindframe of KNOWING WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT and they'll fall back .. i've did it and i've sat back and watched it happen honestly its the way this country works .. -
the bolded is so true and its not even sometimes its ALL THE TIME .... u approach somebody with the mindframe of KNOWING WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT and they'll fall back .. i've did it and i've sat back and watched it happen honestly its the way this country works ..
So you're saying b/c the cops were idiots that ? won?
Well, what if it was a cop that was 'bout ? ? And they just laughed in the ? 's face like I would have? -
Idi Amin Dada wrote: »So you're saying b/c the cops were idiots that ? won?
Well, what if it was a cop that was 'bout ? ? And they just laughed in the ? 's face like I would have?
"what if" doesn't have a role in this play my ? ..... -
Idi Amin Dada wrote: »So you're saying b/c the cops were idiots that ? won?
Well, what if it was a cop that was 'bout ? ? And they just laughed in the ? 's face like I would have?
How does that affect what this thread is about though? You're speaking on a hypothetical that the T/S never mentioned. The title of the thread is "Father OWNS the police". One video one black man and one set of cops you're trying to turn this into a hypothetical situation to prove a point. What if he karate chopped all of the cops then took their guns and shot them in the pinky toes? Doesn't matter so where exactly are you going with this? -
How does that affect what this thread is about though? You're speaking on a hypothetical that the T/S never mentioned. The title of the thread is "Father OWNS the police". One video one black man and one set of cops you're trying to turn this into a hypothetical situation to prove a point. What if he karate chopped all of the cops then took their guns and shot them in the pinky toes? Doesn't matter so where exactly are you going with this?
so the intelligence of the other party has no bearing on the level of ownage? So beating a ? and LeBron in 1-on-1 in the same to y'all ? .
The fact is, those cops just happened to be stupid. It doesn't take away from the fact that that ? wasn't 'bout ? . You can say he got away with talkin' ? like everyone else in this thread is saying I guess, but to say he owned those cops? C'MON, JACK! -
@My_nameaintearl wrote: »perfect example of "just cuz you dont understand him, that dont mean that he nice"
pretty much....I was just wondering why they had that lil ass kid in the back of a cop car....I was expecting it to be a teenager...then he stepped out I was like WTF -
How does that affect what this thread is about though? You're speaking on a hypothetical that the T/S never mentioned. The title of the thread is "Father OWNS the police". One video one black man and one set of cops you're trying to turn this into a hypothetical situation to prove a point. What if he karate chopped all of the cops then took their guns and shot them in the pinky toes? Doesn't matter so where exactly are you going with this?
stopped reading right there.... -
I don't buy that the cops were so intimidated by that dude's forthrightness that they decided to give him and his kid a pass, they probly just figured it wasn't worth the trouble and/or were planning to let the kid go anyway.
-
Idi Amin Dada wrote: »so the intelligence of the other party has no bearing on the level of ownage? So beating a ? and LeBron in 1-on-1 in the same to y'all ? .
The fact is, those cops just happened to be stupid. It doesn't take away from the fact that that ? wasn't 'bout ? . You can say he got away with talkin' ? like everyone else in this thread is saying I guess, but to say he owned those cops? C'MON, JACK!
That would be true had the cops actually been ? but they weren't. They are police officers that are SUPPOSED to know the laws and SUPPOSED to know the confines of human rights yet they do not. Much different than the point you're trying to make. Mentally handicapped people are typically void of normal brain function and comprehension those police officers however are not. And it is their job to enforce laws that they have no clue about wether it be human rights or criminal law or a mix of the two.
If they knew more than just what it takes to arrest someone they would know enough to either call ? or agree however they didn't.
You know what those police would've done had they figured he didn't know what the ? he was talking about? They would've either arrested him for obstruction of justice OR they would've went to grab him and gave him the opportunity to snatch his hand back then tackled him and arrested him for resisting arrest or in some states "obstruction of justice" but he talked all the ? he wanted and they did nothing but run off...what do you call that? He stripped them of their perceived authority without really doing anything but talking ? yeah he owned those cops. -
He used a whole lot of words and didnt say ? . this ? aint educated, he just using big words and them cops dumb as ? . ? , in some jurisdictions it aint even legal to tape the cops.
-
I'm going to get me one of them hats...
my brother i feel what you trying to do but the knowledge comes from the books not the hats lol -
man i love this video so much ? , last week i got stopped by police because i walked up a road and back down a road (ONCE) and they said they had seen me walking up and down the road numerous times acting suspiciously, and they have had a problem recently with drug dealers.........
maaaan i gave them a problem, i spoke to them in an educated way but i was FURIOUS so it kinda came out like i was just that dude switching on police....suffice to say though, i sent them walking with their tails between their legs, ? felt gooooooood. but yeh i think im going to start reading up on law ? hearing that brother speak made me feel good for a minute there -
He used a whole lot of words and didnt say ? . this ? aint educated, he just using big words and them cops dumb as ? . ? , in some jurisdictions it aint even legal to tape the cops.
"Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states also include an exception for recording in public places where "no expectation of privacy exists" (Illinois does not) but in practice this exception is not being recognized."
This is how I always understood it to be. Stemming from conversations after all those ? lawsuits lol -
man i love this video so much ? , last week i got stopped by police because i walked up a road and back down a road (ONCE) and they said they had seen me walking up and down the road numerous times acting suspiciously, and they have had a problem recently with drug dealers.........
maaaan i gave them a problem, i spoke to them in an educated way but i was FURIOUS so it kinda came out like i was just that dude switching on police....suffice to say though, i sent them walking with their tails between their legs, ? felt gooooooood. but yeh i think im going to start reading up on law ? hearing that brother speak made me feel good for a minute there
ok i just read a lot of ure replies and realised he wasnt really talking sense....either way i still wanna understand my rights so next time i get stopped for "walking suspisciously" i can hold my ground....plus he still had them cops shook, by the looks of it, if you just use big words to cops and atleast act like u know what you are talking about then ure pretty much OK -
ok i just read a lot of ure replies and realised he wasnt really talking sense....either way i still wanna understand my rights so next time i get stopped for "walking suspisciously" i can hold my ground....plus he still had them cops shook, by the looks of it, if you just use big words to cops and atleast act like u know what you are talking about then ure pretty much OK
Just so you know if you google some of the things he was saying you can read up on some of it like the delegation of authority for instance. He wasn't COMPLETELY wrong, maybe the application of it in this instance. But you can also find some of what he was saying within immigration law also. But either way it goes law is only good if it can be applied correctly to the situation at hand. For instance at the beginning of the conversation police officers do have to give you some information though it doesn't show on the video what information he's been asking about. Also you DO have to give your name to police officers if they ask which I think he might have said the opposite. But your name or producing an identification is the ONLY thing you have to give to an officer you do not have to give any other information to them.
But honestly even if he didn't know exactly how he should apply his rights or how his rights applied to his situation at that time him knowing a little bit about unimportant law allowed him to say and do what he wanted at that given time. Showing an uninformed person you know a little bit about a little bit is sometimes enough to get your point across. -
that ? was hilarious homie sounded like Busta on look at me now. thank ? for the camera tho they d beat his ass by international law
-
Elzo69Reloaded wrote: »that ? was hilarious homie sounded like Busta on look at me now. thank ? for the camera tho they d beat his ass by international law
Camera or not. They beat that ass they takin the camera too. Lol ya'll thinkin cops don't snatch video up if they know they in the wrong? The cops will take that ? and if they nice they'll tell you they're keeping it for evidence and you can get it at the police department after the case is over so you can go up there and they "can't find it". But they'll just take that ? if they want to. A camera held by the guy they wanna beat down ain't gone stop ? as a matter of fact that's easier for them to deal with than an innocent civilian that has nothing to do with the situation act like ya'll know whats good out there. -
its funny how certain types of people see certain things differently...
I seen plenty of videos and a handful of real life incidents where people started confidently telling the cops what's what with the law rightly or wrongly, and those sommommabitches got arrested.
Of course it isn't clear why the cops did what they did, so we're all making assumptions. -
I don't know what the ? he talkin bout so I guess he did drop knowledge
![[Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4d5f18e60a0c14866b074c72ec2ab49d.svg)
