3
73

[–] JJEvil 3 points 73 points (+76|-3) ago 

Holy shit. He kept his job..................

16
10

[–] sarkobez 16 points 10 points (+26|-16) ago 

It's Alabama what did you expect.

8
43

[–] AustNerevar 8 points 43 points (+51|-8) ago 

Can we please leave the anti-southern stuff at Reddit? I can assure that this is most definitely not the norm for Alabama, stereotypes or no.

11
-10

21
-21

0
0

[–] InternetTuffGuy 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Of course he did, hes black not a Republican!

24
-24

2
27

[–] Kithsander 2 points 27 points (+29|-2) ago 

Serious question here. Does the ethnicity of either party really matter, ethically? If they were both white, would it be right for him to have been punished more or less? What if they were both black? What is the measuring stick here, and how much of this measurement does each ethnicity get credited? Would it have been more or less acceptable if it was a black officer talking about a mexican?

0
23

[–] Ladderjack 0 points 23 points (+23|-0) ago  (edited ago)

It shouldn't really matter in this context but the historical precedent set for race relations in that region makes it relevant.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 5 points (+7|-2) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] Balrogic 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Murder is murder. Letting people off easy for killing the legally correct ethnicity is just plain racist.

1
1

[–] regularfella 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Shut up with your logic and reason, we are trying to circle-jerk here!

1
1

[–] tehyosh 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

hate crime vs just crime

1
13

[–] 1605500? 1 points 13 points (+14|-1) ago 

I actually think that the concept of "hate crime" violates the equal protection clause in the US. It creates a specially privileged/penalized class.

0
2

[–] Phekka 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Just crime, is that related to just war?

6
23

[–] blazerjacket 6 points 23 points (+29|-6) ago 

Born in Alabama and how I do always love to see my fair home state in the news... daily reminders of why I left.

[–] [deleted] 3 points 6 points (+9|-3) ago 

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 2 points 6 points (+8|-2) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] Oknatora 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Try living in Florida...

6
-6

1
10

[–] JackNHoff 1 points 10 points (+11|-1) ago 

This was a violation of his right to privacy right?

3
10

[–] Upvoats_McGoats 3 points 10 points (+13|-3) ago 

I mean....yes? But that really doesn't matter in the court of public opinion nor should it. Mitt Romney had an expectation that he was speaking to wealthy donors at a fund raising dinner. Yet, someone caught him talking about how he really feels about poor people. The same can be said about racist tirades from various celebs. Behind closed doors is where people are themselves rather than PR-spinning robots.

A cop saying these things should be removed.

[–] [deleted] 4 points 1 points (+5|-4) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] HASTAG_GAY_PORN 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Wait is it even a privacy issue? The cop was on his property saying this shit. Isn't google recording google voice logs a violation of privacy with that logic? Because they own the server they can record anything that happens on the server ESPECIALLY if there are legal implications. Why is this dude's property any different? Honestly I don't know the details of the landmark privacy case(I think it's Conn v something), but I'd assume that he is within his legal boundaries recording a public servant on his own property.

0
0

[–] voat-simulator 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I think this might have been a veiled reference to the recent claim of Santa Ana police that being recorded during their dispensary raid was a violation of their privacy.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
3

[–] JustWonderful 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

But of course. How dare they!?

2
3

[–] Zkv 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

If we value the protection of privacy, we can't discriminate. He's apparently a shitty human being, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be afforded the same protections as the rest of us.

0
2

[–] X____sign_here____ 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Maybe I missed it, but I don't see who recorded the conversation or where it was recorded.

State laws are different on how and when you can record people. Most of them, if I recall, have a stipulation that one person being recorded must be aware of the recording (one party consent). This means I could secretly record a conversation I was involved in. It does not mean I could place a recording device under a park bench and come back later, retrieve it, and see what people talked about on the bench.

But, some places allow recording in public spaces. In that case, the park bench recorder might be legal.

Most places to not allow a recording device to be placed in someones home or private space - one party consent or not. I could secretly record you in my home, but I can't record you in your home.

0
0

[–] AddictedToBadIdeas 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Cops pretend to be military. In martial law privacy is a myth.

Now if cops are actually civilians, which they are suppose to be, then yes this could be a violation of privacy. But that would imply a police officer would be held to the same standards as any other civilian, which the blue wall of nepotism opposes.

0
8

[–] C-Muffin 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Whats with the race bait title? And this is exactly a repost from reddit, with the same title and link.

0
8

[–] 1605408? 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Is speaking hypothetically a crime? Listen to the recording.. It has nothing to do with talking about killing a man because hes black. His words were IF he hit me or threatened my life..

0
1

[–] Typo 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

From reading the article I thought for sure this would be conspiracy to commit murder, which is a crime. But after listening to the audio, no. This was more him planning for the future and not just wanting to kill another person.

However, I don't understand why he was so upset that the man made bail. The recording sounds like he cares about what will happen to the brother in law and other family. Not sure if it was genuine or not.

0
0

[–] Wyandotty 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

You don't always have to break the law to get fired. I think the outrage isn't because he hasn't been charged with a crime, but because he's still policing when his mental/emotional state makes his judgment questionable.

1
8

[–] Ladderjack 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago  (edited ago)

The trend in media lately has me thinking: is this all a planned attempt to guide public opinion and shape the relationship between law enforcement and the general population? Most of the news sources in America are owned by a very small group of media magnates. . .and the news of what law enforcement does in and amongst their own, as well as news of extreme police violence, has been pervasive. I considered if it is just that I am hard-wired to the news. . .but my father, age 74, who only gets his news from one source (given the age, you can probably guess the source), he knows about most of these stories but has no clue what the TPP is.

My concern is this: you can't have a police state if the oppressed and the oppressors see each other as part of the same community. Creating a cultural rift between law enforcement and the general population would be a necessary step in creating a police state.

Does anyone else see this and have the same thoughts?

1
7

[–] revdrmlk 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

It's the oldest trick in the book:

If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them.

-Sun Tzu, The Art of War

0
0

[–] Irony_Dan 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

What there is to be shrunken is first stretched out

What there is to be weakened is first made strong

What there will be withdrawn is first bestowed

What there will be thrown over is first raised up

-KMFDM, Blood

1
2

[–] NegroxRedman 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

The cultural rift between police institutions and the black community has existed since the first PD was placed there. They were not there in the first place to serve and protect them and that has not changed.

0
1

[–] Dadosaurus 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to presume a targeted attempt to breed distrust for police. That may be a sort of acceptable byproduct, but I see the primary motivation to cover these sorts of things as simple distraction.

If your're the power-elite, and you've run amok, what's the issue you want the people to pay attention to? Anything that doesn't threaten your power.

If you're a billionaire banker sitting on a fortune wrung from the death certificates of a million american dreams, do you give a flying fuck about gay marriage? Do you care about immigration, inner city crime, abortion or police plurality? All of these issues do exactly nothing to curb the consolation of power into the domain of the few ultra-wealthy oligarchs who dominate this county's political process.

The funny thing to me is, the only forward-seeking civil rights issue that has gotten much traction is NSA surveilance and the Snowden leaks. As much as I too support privacy, one ought to consider that that surveillance was aimed at everyone. You might be a billionaire, but even the richest people still have to use companies like Verizon and Comcast and google, and they've got a vested interest in keeping their communications secret. Say what you want about the NSA, but they're spying program is, if nothing else, not elitist. So, even seemingly progressive causes almost ubiquitously still follow the theme that they either benifit or distract from the conduct of the oligarchy.

0
0

[–] Ladderjack 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

OH I think that you're spot-on with this post, brother. But I disagree with your assessment that this is a simple distraction. The elites love a win-win, whenever they can have it.

Keep people distracted from acting politically with media and entertainment that they pay for the pleasure of having distract them? Win-win.

Have taxpayer dollars pay for wars in foreign countries that enforce a U.S. foreign policy that supports the interests of private industry? Win-win.

Generate a distraction that has people looking the other way while the U.S. Congress tries to pass CISA and other toxic bills AND destroys accord with the paramilitary class we will eventually use to control the majority of the population? Win-win.

The gain is too sweet. . .you might be right but I think this is contrived.

0
6

[–] Klockwork 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Is thought crime illegal?

0
4

[–] Beers 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

No, but you shouldn't have to literally break the law to lose your police officer job. We trust this guy with weapons and a monopoly on violence...

load more comments ▼ (16 remaining)