Police abuse of power, brutality and harassment

So what is your point?

My point is it is quite obvious there is much more to this than what was captured on video, and Wingate admits that something went on previously beyond using the club as a cane. 

I am not saying the cop handled it correctly or Wingate is a criminal.  I am saying it is not what many people are trying to say it is, a racist white cop harassing an elderly black veteran minding his own business standing on a street corner.

At this point it is pretty obvious you don't want to accept that.  I wonder, do you think O.J. got framed too?

You are arguing just be to be difficult and contrary  

You liked that, huh?

Are you willing to admit when taking into acount the video, the articles you linked, and his own statements to the other officer, that something likely went on between Wingate and Whitlatch involving that cane previous to him standing on a street corner as Whitlatch pulls up (as shown in the video)?  Are you capable of that, or should we give up on you being at all reasonable?

Oh dude you are just blind, good luck with your bets

I am going to admit that I  would not like you to be a juror If I was accused of anything   

I KNOW!!!

That is all I am trying to say!  That there is more to it than a cop pulling up to a guy on the street corner! 

If I were a juror, I would not convict Wingate, because you are correct there is no evidence.  I am not saying he for sure did these things. 

What I am saying is when you take into account his statement (taken from the article you provided the link for) that he did something with his cane that was "maybe" dangerous or threatening, and the accusations of Whitlatch, there is much more to this than a stirring liberal lemming story of a poor black war veteran standing on a corner with his golf club cane (which he would never use as anything but a walking aid) out of the blue getting harassed by a racist white cop.

Ok well if there was no previous event or interaction, how does she pull right up to him without the golf club being visible and know he has a golf club?  What is he admitting to when he says he maybe did something threatening with the golf club, which of course wasn't shown on the video?  How can you rationalize knowing these things
and maintain what is shown on video is their first interaction?

*golf club NOT being visible

You wouldn't want me on the jury when i told you I would find him innocent for lack of evidence?

I am not trying to convict Wingate here!!!  Why is that not getting through?  I am saying there is more to the story than what is shown on the video!  Before you quote pieces of an article you should have posted all of, and before you repeat things I have already agreed with you about, read the sentence in bold again please!

Also, will you please quit avoiding the quote in the article YOU linked in which Wingate admits to the other officer he did some things with his club that were maybe threatening?

“I didn’t charge Obstructing because the defendant is 69 years old, uses the golf club as a cane, and was not brandishing it or threatening the officer at the time of the obstructing,” Mason wrote in the email. “I felt we would have problems proving he was refusing ‘to cease an activity or behavior that creates a risk of injury to any person.’?”

Check the stop sign for scratch, dent .. or any damage

The alleged obstruction took place during the video on the corner when he was not doing anything with the club.  It was separate from whatever may or may not have happened around a stop sign

So you want to check the sign for scratches?  So are you telling me if there was no video evidence but some scratches were found on a stop sign you would be convinced he hit the sign with the club and you wouldn't still be stubbornly defending him no matter what?  I highly doubt many downtown Seattle stop signs are free of an assortment of scratches and dents anyway, so what's the use?

Ilsp,

He's up a creek with a paddle.

He admits there are so many unanswered questions, and, with the burden of proof on the officer, answers most of the question in favor of the officer! Surprise, surprise.

Why? He can't go back now! So, like Fox News and their ridiculous stances on everything from calling Obama a Muslim trying to destroy the country to joking about rape, he just runs with it.

A truly embarrassing display if I ever saw one, especially in light of the fact this guy is near 70 years old and was providing no threat to anyone.

You see, Centaur is 'that guy' who demands COMPLETE compliance with anything and everything a renegade cop says at all times, ESPECIALLY if you are a minority (and his OJ comment said it all with his views on minorities), guilty or innocent. This of course because cops simply aren't in his community to any real degree. But he'll tell YOU how to act at all times, whether you're 7 or 70. Don't question anything. Put your nose face first on the ground and listen to all commands. Move an inch? Pay the price.

If you don't comply with any and every order? Be prepared for major consequences.

And in his view, all this just results in a shoulder shrug and he goes back to watching his cheerleader panties.

See this made the news rounds because her actions border on lunacy and the cop needed to be outed. But Centaur? Nah. There must be good reason for the beloved cops that protect him from these senior citizen golf club swinging criminals!

Centaur, you truly are 'that guy' and that is the antithesis of what anyone here should ever find themselves to be.

Keep paddling up that river.

 

 

 

Scatabrane it really is amusing you spent as much time as you did on this previous post when you said nothing new, continue to ignore the evidence that this is not the liberal lemming wet dream that you want it to be, and simply resort to the same old go to accusations of being a racist, a mean person, etc.

You choose to ignore that I have criticized the cop and said it could have been handled better.  You want and need so bad that proverbial "guy" you can hurl these insults at so you can feel so enlightened and noble.  It's very transparent, tired, but common these days.

You have apparently ignored that I said I would find him innocent of anything as there is no evidence, because that wouldn't fit the profile of the monster you so desperately want me to be.

People like you love to talk in abstracts, call people racists, bring up FOX news.

I watch the video and see people on here saying how the cop is lying, the poor guy was just standing there with a cane, she was looking for a black guy to harass, and so on.  At first that is what it seems to be, but things didn't add up and questions had to be asked.  What happened before that video that the cop knew to drive right up to him and knew he had a golf club without it being visible on the video?  Why would a guy use a golf club for a cane when it doesn't function well as such? 

It turns out he admitted to the other officer he used it in a "maybe" threatening manner, and it turns out the officer wasn't talking about him swinging it on the corner in the video, she was referring to something that happened previously.  You Scatabrane and the other liberal lemmings on here have yet to address those 2 very important discrepancies to your wet dream version you continue to stick to.  Instead of discussing and theorizing what happened from the video and other articles which have been published and linked, you stubbornly stick to your scenario which any logical person can now deduce is very questionable.

You keep hanging out in your ivory tower of delusion and talking about how unworthy and racist everyone is who questions your blind, self-serving view of the world.  The world needs fools like you too I guess.

One more chance, no name calling, no attacks on character.  Will you please address just these two issues?

-You and some of your friends on here are outraged I question the use of a golf club as strictly a cane, but the cop accuses him of hitting a stop sign with it and swinging it at her in a menacing manner.  Yes, she could have completely made this up along with making up the address where it happened, but Wingate also admits he used it in a "maybe" threatening way.  Just an old guy using a the golf club strictly as a cane?

-Some posters want to say the cop harassed him unprovoked, but she pulls right up to him in the video without the club being visible, and asks first thing once she exits for him to put down the club, which is still not visible.  This would suggest there was a prior event between the two, would it not?

I realize it's uncomfortable for you to question your version and much easier to just attack the character of anyone who threatens your liberal dogma.  Thankfully there are reasonable people who are more interested in truth than pushing agendas and coddling their self-righteousness

You choose to ignore that I have criticized the cop and said it could have been handled better. 

 

You just take ONE line from the incoherent babble this guy puts on the page and you have to laugh heartily.

Yes, yes, it could have been handled better...better in that she doesn't have to turn a corner and think that some 70 year old war veteran who knows only she is a cop, wildly swings a golf club as a 'threat' so much so she feels the need to basically treat him like he is a predator on the loose with a murder weapon, and then arrest him (full compliance people).

Again, there isn't a SINGLE person, even the most unreasonable in this forum (and there are FAR, FAR worse than you), who support you.

Ivory tower of delusion and transparent and tired...and on and on and on.

And yet, what have you proven in this thread with your stance? You've simply made excuses for this cop and provided nothing with regard as to why those excuses are relevant or even plausible. Remember, the burden of proof is on YOU if you take that stance, as well as the cop, not us and not the senior citizen.

So it baffles me you are even still typing.

To your questions and all your digging, now the ONLY thing you have is a fellow officer of the blue saying that Wingate said 'maybe' to what 'striking fear in the officer'.

What? He's continually denied swinging the club which is the basis of her complaint and he has continually denied doing that:

I didn't do nothin'. And I'm still confused. Really I am, I'm very confused because here I am standing on the corner minding my own business just like I'm standing right now and a police officer come from nowhere accusing me of swinging at the car. I've never seen this woman before in my life.

I had no altercation with this woman...and here she comes saying...and I can't understand why. I've never done anything to this woman. I had no reason to swing a golf club at her. So this is...this is just bad."

 

So now if the officer has 'fear' as she turns a street corner because a 70 year old is holding a golf club that is basis for a 'drop the weapon' stance and a subsequent arrest???

 

To your second question:

Very poor argumentation. I'm not even sure what you are alluding to. First you made up a now disproven 'response to a call' (Calling all cars, Calling all cars! Guy with golf club in the street!!!) and now you are trying to pin all the cops actions on a prior altercation.

The 'prior altercation' was a cop looking in her rearview mirror as Ilsp already pointed out!

Yes, yes, it could have been handled better...better in that she doesn't have to turn a corner and think that some 70 year old war veteran who knows only she is a cop, wildly swings a golf club as a 'threat' so much so she feels the need to basically treat him like he is a predator on the loose with a murder weapon, and then arrest him (full compliance people).

     I know logic and facts are difficult for you to handle, but he was arrested for obstruction, NOT for swinging the club.  It really is baffling to any reasonable person that you would maintain some guy walking around with a golf club swinging it at stop signs and people he doesn't like shouldn't be at least investigated by law enforcement.  I hope people notice though how you've changed your tune from ridiculing me for suggesting the golf club may not only be used as a cane, to yeah he was wildly swinging it around but he shouldn't have been arrested (even though that's not what he was arrested for).

And yet, what have you proven in this thread with your stance? You've simply made excuses for this cop and provided nothing with regard as to why those excuses are relevant or even plausible. Remember, the burden of proof is on YOU if you take that stance, as well as the cop, not us and not the senior citizen.

Burden of proof?  Once again you non comprehending troll, I am not attempting to indict this guy for anything.  My intentions are to destroy this fictitious liberal wet dream you and some others on here are clinging to that a cop just rolled up and randomly harassed some black veteran because he was holding a golf club.  Read the previous sentence several times so that sinks in.

So now if the officer has 'fear' as she turns a street corner because a 70 year old is holding a golf club that is basis for a 'drop the weapon' stance and a subsequent arrest???

It is not about the officer being in fear as she turns the corner and you know it. It is about the threatening she accuses him of doing at the other location.  Yes, he continually denies he did anything in interviews later, but he also admits to doing some things with the club that were threatening.  That is inconsistent.   Yes, if as a police officer she thinks a suspect just hit a stop sign with a golf club in anger, and swung it threateningly towards him/her, that is a basis for asking him to first drop the freaking golf club.  Why is that complicated?

Very poor argumentation. I'm not even sure what you are alluding to. First you made up a now disproven 'response to a call' (Calling all cars, Calling all cars! Guy with golf club in the street!!!) and now you are trying to pin all the cops actions on a prior altercation.

The 'prior altercation' was a cop looking in her rearview mirror as Ilsp already pointed out!

Why thank you for grading my arguing technique Man you think highly of yourself, don't you?

First of all, don't make up things I said or even worse, put quotes around them like I said them.  I never referred to what may have happened previously as an "altercation".  An altercation would be a noisy argument or disagreement in public which no one ever said it was.  It's an important difference.   Talk about poor argumentation!  You just lie about what people have said.

     With the responding theory, I was attempting to explain the obvious discrepancy between you liberal lemmings crying she pulled up out of the blue to harass a black veteran, and the video evidence that she already knew who he was and that he had a golf club even though it wasn't visible.  It turns out that theory was wrong, but the assertion that she wasn't just randomly harassing some guy she'd never seen before was not.  Are you able to admit you were wrong about that?  That it wasn't random harassment for walking around with a golf club?  Probably not, you would rather insult posters and critique their arguing techniques.


To summarize:

Throughout this thread you have ridiculed me for questioning a golf club being used as a cane and for theorizing there was some reason the cop stopped to question him (I thought it might be as a response to a complaint, turns out it was her observing some type of behavior earlier) and it wasn't just random harassment.

Now you realize your stance has eroded, so you resort to calling names and insulting argumentation technique.  Carry on then

LOL Scatabrane

Says my responses are "very poor argumentation", but resorts to making up things that I said, and then has the nerve to actually put quotes around those made up things!

Well if that's how you want to play it

wow this thread got weird