# Advice for drivers getting pulled over by a Police Officer



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

This is from country singer, Coffey Anderson and makes perfect sense! I learned this from watching COPS TV show!!




__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10154201872210993



*Coffey Anderson*· 
What do you actually do when you get pulled over by the police? Here is a video that helps diffuse tension at traffic stop, it gives solid steps into ways of staying safe, and getting home. SHARE this. It's a must for all to see and show to your loved ones.
​


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

What one absolutely should *not* do, if one is a black person in Minnesota, is reach for identification from one's inside pocket, especially if one has already told the policeman that one has a legally owned and licensed firearm in the car......


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> What one absolutely should *not* do, if one is a black person in Minnesota, is reach for identification from one's inside pocket, especially if one has already told the policeman that one has a legally owned and licensed firearm in the car......


One should also hold off on speculation bordering on the idiotic until one is in possession of all the facts


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> One should also hold off on speculation bordering on the idiotic until one is in possession of all the facts


Agreed.

What most people don't understand, or just completely do not care is that in the video when the girlfriend is saying please don't tell me you just killed him, hes licensed to carry sir. The officer clearly states "I told him not to reach and put his hands on the wheel" Unfortunately he did not do that.

I imagine if the gentlemen that was shot had listened the officer would have had him step out of his vehicle with his hands in plain sight and removed the weapon himself and then gone about his business as usual.

Here is a video that will give you an idea of what a police office has to face in reaction time when being shot at.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

That seems to be the case and as tragic as all of this was, my guess is that the officer told him to keep his hands on the wheel and this guy reached for something.

The officer knowing what he knew, felt at risk.

Here's a good example of what can happen to a cop on any given day:


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Turn interior lights on at night. 
Unless you are hoping for a downgrade, keep the seatbelt fastened. 
I'd suggest taking the keys out of the ignition and stuffed in a pocket. If asked to exit vehicle, lock it behind you.
Pre-emptively ask why you were pulled over before they can fish for a confession. Allow no searches without a warrant. 
The other good ACLU one is to keep asking "Am I free to go?"


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

The reason I never pursued police work (well, one of the many) was that I know the first time I pulled someone over, I would have just shot them. Purely out of fear! Maybe not even gotten out of the patrol car!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Tempest said:


> Turn interior lights on at night.
> Unless you are hoping for a downgrade, keep the seatbelt fastened.
> I'd suggest taking the keys out of the ignition and stuffed in a pocket. If asked to exit vehicle, lock it behind you.
> Pre-emptively ask why you were pulled over before they can fish for a confession. Allow no searches without a warrant.
> The other good *ACLU one is to keep asking "Am I free to go?"*


There's a great "This American Life" segment on people defying the border patrol checkpoints dotting I10 in Arizona and other border states.

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/540/a-front


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Oh, I've seen gobs of the poor but righteous drivers mocking the charade that is baseless check point stops.
I must say that when they have some unconstitutional DUI "awareness" roadblock and ask if you've had anything to drink today, the response "not recently" is enough to get them to drop it and wave you through. Saying "yeah I had a glass or two a few hours ago but I'm fine now" opens a door that you don't want opened. Really, you should just refuse to answer any questions.


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

How about doing one's utmost to obey traffic laws and therefore police intervention requiring detainment by ' pulling over ' won't be as necessary. Pay attention and what's the hurry , after all ? Or in other words is speeding trad ? :biggrin:


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

I am 41. I have been pulled over twice. When I was 16. In the same week.

Keep your hands on the wheel. Keep your mouth shut. It's quite simple really.


----------



## LordSmoke (Dec 25, 2012)

Andy said:


> The reason I never pursued police work (well, one of the many) was that I know the first time I pulled someone over, I would have just shot them. Purely out of fear! Maybe not even gotten out of the patrol car!


:beer:


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

This will do the job, Andy.


This sheriff dufus pulled a shady looking character over. Sees this huge knife beside him. Asked for his drivers license. The guy reaches the way of the knife. But the cop waited. The hand went past the knife to the wallet. He said his heart was pounding. But, he didn't jump to conclusions. It was late at night, and no back up. (Went to a rangers meeting one night. Rangers are boys that ride with sheriffs and are involved in rescues. An introduction to law enforcement.)

Jumping to conclusions is dangerous for us. I've been told from them to only do what they ask me do when they asked me to, and nothing else. It didn't used to be this way. When you see them reaching for their gun you know they are serious, and it's surprising, because I've never been a threat. Can't pull out the race card, because I'm white.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ That sounds all great and dandy in retrospect and in the comfort of one's couch when recalling it, but imagine being the cop on the scene and seeing it happen. 

Everyone loves to talk about what police officers should do and how they should act without having a clue as to what it's like being a cop.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Country singer Coffey Anderson in his video (linked in the OP) on how to conduct oneself during a traffic stop, offers some excellent advice on the topic. The advice offered or suggested by a few follow-on respondents to said OP verges on being crackpot and could prove counterproductive! :crazy:


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

I've found, on the three occasions that I've been stopped, once for going the wrong way down a one-way street, twice for speeding, that the best response is to say "I'm terribly sorry constable, but I'm afraid that I didn't see the "No Entry" sign." Or, "I'm terribly sorry constable, but I didn't see the sign that indicated that the speed was now 40, as I was concerned about a vehicle pulling out in front of me." And, finally, "I'm terribly sorry constable.". These responses seem to work. 
I've never been worried about a policeman "jumping to conclusions" as I've reached for my driving licence, as I'm not going to be shot by an unarmed policeman.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ That sounds all great and dandy in retrospect and in the comfort of one's couch when recalling it, but imagine being the cop on the scene and seeing it happen.
> 
> Everyone loves to talk about what police officers should do and how they should act without having a clue as to what it's like being a cop.


My niece's husband is a policeman in County Durham; he has never worried about the driver going for a weapon, nor would he, as a British policeman, be likely to jump to conclusions and shoot.....


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I invite your niece's husband to come patrol the west side or south side of Chicago for a month. 

There are plenty of cities and communities in this country too where a police officer can serve for 20-30 years without ever unholstering his weapon. I'm sure there are neighborhoods and areas in your country where the police see more activity as well.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Last time in Seattle I found myself driving down three one-way streets in a row, the wrong way! They hadn't been one-way before. Figured my luck wouldn't hold, so I left. 

Seattle news, recently, one reporter asked the sheriffs department what to do when pulled over. She said, with more details, only do what you are told to, and nothing else.


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

So far in 2016, 56 US law enforcement officers have died in the line of duty, 26 of whom were killed by gunfire, according to data from the Officer Down Memorial Page. So far in the UK 0.
Likewise the figures for citizens shot by the police are similar. 

You may not like it but gun control saves lives.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> ... "I'm terribly sorry constable.". These responses seem to work.
> ...


Just don't prefix it with "I've been celebrating."


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

culverwood said:


> So far in 2016, 56 US law enforcement officers have died in the line of duty, 26 of whom were killed by gunfire, according to data from the Officer Down Memorial Page. So far in the UK 0.
> Likewise the figures for citizens shot by the police are similar.
> 
> You may not like it but gun control saves lives.


And I'm sure a police state would furthermore decrease crime as such.

I'm not suggesting I agree with every aspect of the NRA's position, but we do have a second amendment right in this country.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

We might have lost officer Darren Wilson were he carrying a whistle and a nightstick.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Tempest said:


> We might have lost officer Darren Wilson were he carrying a whistle and a nightstick.


This is an excellent case study in how he media lemmings can't even bring themselves to examine facts when reporting stories.

The entire BLM movement with its "hands up, don't shoot" meme has been thoroughly debunked. The entire premise for the movement is based on a lie yet to watch the news one would scarcely know what happened.

That poor officer was beaten physically in the execution of his duties and now he's out of a job.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> And I'm sure a police state would furthermore decrease crime as such.
> 
> I'm not suggesting I agree with every aspect of the NRA's position, but we do have a second amendment right in this country.


By which you mean, I suppose, a state where the police are an armed para-military organisation, rather than an entirely civilian organisation, where policing is by consent, and where the policemen are not armed?


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

SG_67 said:


> I'm not suggesting I agree with every aspect of the NRA's position, but we do have a second amendment right in this country.


And you pay heavily for it.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
and you are mixing apples and oranges, culverwood.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

I must applaud the maker of the video for actually presenting useful information that a person can use to increase their odds and take accountability in a situation. Actually cooperating instead of being adversarial is a more effective technique, and I mean this in the socio-political sense. Promoting a skewed myth that the police are just rampantly killing minorities because they feel like it, and demanding that high-crime areas not be heavily policed or that "the community" gets to choose it's own watchers is ineffective.
The parallel in wrongheadedness in more "privileged" classes is the feminist tropes of rape, where they pretend that co-eds are constantly getting gang-raped at parties and all men need to be brow-beaten with guilt and "education and awareness" instead of conceding that maybe women need reminding that getting drunk while dressed in revealing clothing and going off alone to make out with somebody might not be the wisest course of action. 
Trying to impose your will on a large, mostly innocent, group while denying the existence of contributive personal actions is insanity.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

culverwood said:


> And you pay heavily for it.


That's a statement without merit.

Also, you cited stats for 2016, but it's not as though police officers haven't been shot in the line of duty in the UK, so cherry picking stats based on a selected timeline doesn't tell the whole picture.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Far greater numbers die at the hands of drunk and distracted drivers each year than as a result of traffic stops and predators shooting police officers. Why is our outrage over the former so much less that it is as a result of the later categories of deaths? Our apparent champions of injustice seem so fickle! When we take the guns away, perhaps we should also take away the cars and/or the booze and cellphones...yes, no? :icon_scratch:


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> By which you mean, I suppose, a state where the police are an armed para-military organisation, rather than an entirely civilian organisation, where policing is by consent, and where the policemen are not armed?


I'm sure you find comfort in that statement. Tell me something, Who are these folks?

https://www.eliteukforces.info/police/

Or what might this be:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/aug/09/london-riots-police-armoured-vehicles

Or how about how this band of merry party goers were handled:






We certainly have our issues here but please spare us the lectures.


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

SG_67 said:


> That's a statement without merit.


Are you so committed to universal ownership of any form of gun that you simply put your head in the sand and ignore facts. The statistics for this year are similar to every other year.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

culverwood said:


> Are you so committed to universal ownership of any form of gun that you simply put your head in the sand and ignore facts. The statistics for this year are similar to every other year.


For law abiding citizens, yes. Without question.

By the way, we don't have "universal ownership" here in this country. There are whole classes of people that are excluded. So again, a statement without merit.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Tempest said:


> I must applaud the maker of the video for actually presenting useful information that a person can use to increase their odds and take accountability in a situation. Actually cooperating instead of being adversarial is a more effective technique, and I mean this in the socio-political sense. Promoting a skewed myth that the police are just rampantly killing minorities because they feel like it, and demanding that high-crime areas not be heavily policed or that "the community" gets to choose it's own watchers is ineffective.
> The parallel in wrongheadedness in more "privileged" classes is the feminist tropes of rape, where they pretend that co-eds are constantly getting gang-raped at parties and all men need to be brow-beaten with guilt and "education and awareness" instead of conceding that *maybe women need reminding that getting drunk while dressed in revealing clothing and going off alone to make out with somebody might not be the wisest course of action.*
> Trying to impose your will on a large, mostly innocent, group while denying the existence of contributive personal actions is insanity.


And yet the slutwalking special snowflakes believe it to be their right to make these ludicrously ill-informed choices whilst others must, of course, be expected to practice superhuman restraint.


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

Well as you have admitted that you are prepared to ignore the facts and live with your head in the sand there is no point in my trying to present an lucid argument and I will leave you in peace.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

culverwood said:


> Well as you have admitted that you are prepared to ignore the facts and live with your head in the sand there is no point in my trying to present an lucid argument and I will leave you in peace.


The straw man and I thank you for your consideration. Good day.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

The media is interested in profits. Ethics sure doesn't matter. The bigger the wag the larger the profits. They spent thirty years working at turning public opinion around on homosexual problems with any lie. Now we have rainbow sidewalks and crazy looking people who are unnatural in public. Is the US a better place? The problems grow bigger and bigger with the media claiming they know what is best, and anybody who disagrees is a terrible person. It seems all tv news reporters are against gun ownership and are working on removing all guns from private ownership. People who are saved from criminal harm because of a gun when does the sleazy media report these stories? The media doesn't bring hope nor sanity.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

For those who lack the wit to discern the manner in which English celebratarian culture shapes the opinions of the whole world then I recommend the ultra low budget documentary 'star suckers'. Watch it and weep.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

culverwood said:


> So far in 2016, 56 US law enforcement officers have died in the line of duty, 26 of whom were killed by gunfire, according to data from the Officer Down Memorial Page. So far in the UK 0.
> Likewise the figures for citizens shot by the police are similar.
> 
> You may not like it but gun control saves lives.


Many American cities have incredibly stringent gun controls - New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., for instance - yet gun murders occur routinely. Tha vast majority are committed by criminals with illegal guns. More gun control laws will have no effect.

This issue is far more complex than I can discuss now (in Europe with limited internet access), but perhaps I'll try when I return home...


----------



## 215339 (Nov 20, 2012)

Tempest said:


> I must applaud the maker of the video for actually presenting useful information that a person can use to increase their odds and take accountability in a situation. Actually cooperating instead of being adversarial is a more effective technique, and I mean this in the socio-political sense. Promoting a skewed myth that the police are just rampantly killing minorities because they feel like it, and demanding that high-crime areas not be heavily policed or that "the community" gets to choose it's own watchers is ineffective.
> The parallel in wrongheadedness in more "privileged" classes is the feminist tropes of rape, where they pretend that co-eds are constantly getting gang-raped at parties and all men need to be brow-beaten with guilt and "education and awareness" instead of conceding that maybe women need reminding that *getting drunk while dressed in revealing clothing and going off alone to make out with somebody might not be the wisest course of action. *
> Trying to impose your will on a large, mostly innocent, group while denying the existence of contributive personal actions is insanity.


Things get murky with intoxication. I've been at parties where one guy said he had lots of fun making out with a girl. The girl later told my friend she felt uncomfortable so she just rolled with it.

Was one side mistaken? Was the other? Was it regret and lies? Who knows, nothing was consistent because everyone was piss drunk that night. I'm glad that's as far as that situation got though, wasn't anything too serious.

The point feminists try and make is that you SHOULD be able to walk out alone whilst drunk and have fun, and not have your life ruined, but that's not the case in reality. I can definitely go out alone, get drunk, make out with someone, with absolutely no repercussions.

You're right that it's not a wise course of action, but it's still unfortunate.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

If the above scenario happened between a 40 year old man and woman who met at a bar it wouldn't be considered rape. 

On a college campus however, that's exactly what it is.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

How so?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ colleges have taken it upon themselves to redefine rape. The university of California's "ongoing consent" for example. 

If two 40 year olds met at a bar, got tipsy and went outside to grope and makeout it would be fine. 

On a college campus however, the woman may regret the incident and make the claim tithe administration that she was drunk and therefore could not consent. The university would treat it as sexual assault. 

Meanwhile, should the same evidence the presented to the police, there would likely be no charges.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> ^ colleges have taken it upon themselves to redefine rape. The university of California's "ongoing consent" for example.
> 
> If two 40 year olds met at a bar, got tipsy and went outside to grope and makeout it would be fine.
> 
> ...


Ah, I see.

In which case, when you stated 'that's exactly what it is' it would have been more accurate to say 'that's exactly what certain muddle-headed clots will pretend it is'?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

To claim that university administrators, at least here, are muddle headed clots would be redundant, but I see your point.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> To claim that university administrators, at least here, are muddle headed clots would be redundant, but I see your point.


I see what you did there. Naughty boy.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Shaver said:


> I see what you did there. Naughty boy.


Present company excluded. As I said....here stateside.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

The way I see it, both BLM and the extreme feminists are in total war mode, putting all onus on some complete capitulation from their perceived enemy instead of something resembling a mature negotiation where some concessions of their own are made.

This blame-shifting is destructive in the way that marked crosswalks lead to this false sense of pedestrian safety that leads to inattention, irresponsibility, and a higher accident rate. People need to look out for themselves and it is harmful to let people believe otherwise.


----------



## 215339 (Nov 20, 2012)

Tempest said:


> The way I see it, both BLM and the extreme feminists are in total war mode, putting all onus on some complete capitulation from their perceived enemy instead of* something resembling a mature negotiation where some concessions of their own are made.*
> 
> This blame-shifting is destructive in the way that marked crosswalks lead to this false sense of pedestrian safety that leads to inattention, irresponsibility, and a higher accident rate. People need to look out for themselves and it is harmful to let people believe otherwise.


Here you are! Great video I found. Some people say it's scripted, but I don't think it takes away from the message


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Some "interesting" views.... The fact remains that, if I were to be stopped by the filth whilst in my car, I would have no fear whatsoever that anything untoward might occur. None. 
The only concern that I might have would be, if I had been doing something that I shouldn't have been, whilst driving, that I might get a fine/endorsement/charge for whatever I was doing.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Some "interesting" views.... The fact remains that, if I were to be stopped by the filth whilst in my car, I would have no fear whatsoever that anything untoward might occur. None.
> The only concern that I might have would be, if I had been doing something that I shouldn't have been, whilst driving, that I might get a fine/endorsement/charge for whatever I was doing.


Is your implication that we are cowering in our boots over here? Despite the sensationalism over the extremely rare cases, most people are not paranoid about such things.
Basically, if you are in a high crime area, look and/or act a lot like a criminal, and respond very poorly to the stop, you might have reason for fear of things turning out poorly. Otherwise, not so much.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tempest said:


> Is your implication that we are cowering in our boots over here? Despite the sensationalism over the extremely rare cases, most people are not paranoid about such things.
> Basically, if you are in a high crime area, look and/or act a lot like a criminal, and respond very poorly to the stop, you might have reason for fear of things turning out poorly. Otherwise, not so much.


Hardly *my* implication! The impression given by several of the US based members who have posted on this thread is that being stopped by the filth whilst driving is an event that would be a cause for concern! If I was in a "high crime" area in the UK (wherever that might be) I still wouldn't be worried for my personal safety. If I looked like a criminal, whatever that means, I still wouldn't be concerned for my personal safety. If I responded poorly to a stop, I *still* wouldn't be concerned for my safety. I might be concerned about how I might be spoken to, or whether the policeman might be less than sympathetic towards my misdemenour because of my attitude, but I would have no worries about the chance of my being shot by a policeman, no matter how I behaved!
I could reach into my inside pocket, reach into my glove compartment, reach under my seat, or reach into a bag, and run no risk of an over-wrought policeman shooting me; would you not find that reassuring?


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

My opinion is that all this racial demagoguery and focus on "man bites dog" stories is a combination of divide/conquer and distraction techniques. In a more perfect world, the populace would be uniting to ask why the local police have all this paramilitary equipment and if the drug war is worth, or why exactly Chicago is murder central. 
But instead we're focusing on the BLM terrorist cells and the rare cases of inept policing that almost never ends up having any of the alleged racism existing.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Hardly *my* implication! The impression given by several of the US based members who have posted on this thread is that being stopped by the filth whilst driving is an event that would be a cause for concern! If I was in a "high crime" area in the UK (wherever that might be) I still wouldn't be worried for my personal safety. If I looked like a criminal, whatever that means, I still wouldn't be concerned for my personal safety. If I responded poorly to a stop, I *still* wouldn't be concerned for my safety. I might be concerned about how I might be spoken to, or whether the policeman might be less than sympathetic towards my misdemenour because of my attitude, but I would have no worries about the chance of my being shot by a policeman, no matter how I behaved!
> I could reach into my inside pocket, reach into my glove compartment, reach under my seat, or reach into a bag, and run no risk of an over-wrought policeman shooting me; would you not find that reassuring?


I think one should bear in mind that the policing situation is quite different to that of the UK in almost any country you care to mention, Chouan. Go anywhere in Europe and all the police carry guns. Also their attitude is rather combative if not downright rude. The same may be true of the States.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> I think one should bear in mind that the policing situation is quite different to that of the UK in almost any country you care to mention, Chouan. *Go anywhere in Europe and all the police carry guns. Also their attitude is rather combative if not downright rude. The same may be true of the States.*


I'm sure that it is, which is why I explained earlier the concept of policing by consent and that our constabularies are civilian, whereas most European, and most American police forces are not. You'd agree, I hope, that one doesn't have the fear in Britain of being mistakenly shot by a policeman who has pulled one over for a motoring offence? On the other hand, I doubt that one would run much of a chance of being shot by a member of the Gendarmerie, the Guardia Civil or the Carabinieri, for example, if one reached for identification from an inside pocket, which seems to be a concern to those in the US.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> I'm sure that it is, which is why I explained earlier the concept of policing by consent and that our constabularies are civilian, whereas most European, and most American police forces are not. You'd agree, I hope, that one doesn't have the fear in Britain of being mistakenly shot by a policeman who has pulled one over for a motoring offence? On the other hand, I doubt that one would run much of a chance of being shot by a member of the Gendarmerie, the Guardia Civil or the Carabinieri, for example, if one reached for identification from an inside pocket, which seems to be a concern to those in the US.


Long may that remain the case but I think we are just fortunate for the time being. On the Continent security is clearly beginning to get a little out of hand and it may only be a matter of time before they adopt a shoot first approach.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

When a police officer informs you to keep your hands visible and you start to reach for something, whatever that thing is, then you leave the officer little choice. 

A police officer was shot and killed today in Kanas City responding to a call. Say whatever you want about gun control and that argument aside, policing is a dangerous job.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> When a police officer informs you to keep your hands visible and you start to reach for something, whatever that thing is, then you leave the officer little choice.


Yet an instruction to keep one's hands visible is categorically not an instruction that one would receive in the UK if one has been stopped for a motoring offence. Categorically. In the US, of course, different conditions obtain. My point has been, consistently, that the possibility, in the UK, of being shot by a policeman in the course of his duties as a traffic officer is non-existent. Not virtually non-existent, or unlikely, but absolutely non-existent.



SG_67 said:


> A police officer was shot and killed today in Kanas City responding to a call. Say whatever you want about gun control and that argument aside, policing is a dangerous job.


It is indeed, especially when firearms are so freely available.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ but the early reports are that the departed also fit the description for someone wanted in a robbery. Hence the order to keep ones hand visible.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> Some "interesting" views.... The fact remains that, if I were to be stopped by the filth whilst in my car, I would have no fear whatsoever that anything untoward might occur. None.
> The only concern that I might have would be, if I had been doing something that I shouldn't have been, whilst driving, that I might get a fine/endorsement/charge for whatever I was doing.


Can you please tell us precisely who are the "filth" to whom you refer?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Tiger said:


> Can you please tell us precisely who are the "filth" to whom you refer?


English colloquial terminology for the police force, cf rozzers, pigs, fuzz, old bill, bobby, copper, plod etc.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I've always liked five-o.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> Yet an instruction to keep one's hands visible is categorically not an instruction that one would receive in the UK if one has been stopped for a motoring offence. Categorically. In the US, of course, different conditions obtain...It is indeed, especially when firearms are so freely available.


It is these "different conditions" that must be discussed in order to have a fruitful dialogue; to ignore the demographics of crime in the United States is folly.

The vast majority of violent crime committed in the U.S. is by repeat offenders using illegally obtained firearms. Believing that additional - and clearly ineffectual - laws to prohibit gun ownership will solve this problem is absurd. (Please refer to the American "War on Drugs" as an example of the inefficacy of nonsensical legislation.) Such laws merely serve to disarm law-abiding citizens, while making criminals virtually omnipotent.

Many American cities have incredibly stringent gun control laws; that hasn't stopped the plethora of murders in those cities. Too many posters here presume to know about what occurs in the U.S., when in fact they are stunningly clueless...


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Thank you, Shaver!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tiger said:


> It is these "different conditions" that must be discussed in order to have a fruitful dialogue; to ignore the demographics of crime in the United States is folly.
> 
> The vast majority of violent crime committed in the U.S. is by repeat offenders using illegally obtained firearms. Believing that additional - and clearly ineffectual - laws to prohibit gun ownership will solve this problem is absurd. (Please refer to the American "War on Drugs" as an example of the inefficacy of nonsensical legislation.) Such laws merely serve to disarm law-abiding citizens, while making criminals virtually omnipotent.
> 
> Many American cities have incredibly stringent gun control laws; that hasn't stopped the plethora of murders in those cities. Too many posters here presume to know about what occurs in the U.S., when in fact they are stunningly clueless...


I rely on information from this forum, to a great extent, certainly for social and cultural comment, so my views are, to a great extent formulated from the views of members resident in the US. Are they so consistently wrong in their views such as to render my view entirely wrong?


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> I rely on information from this forum, to a great extent, certainly for social and cultural comment, so my views are, to a great extent formulated from the views of members resident in the US. Are they so consistently wrong in their views such as to render my view entirely wrong?


The combination of politicized viewpoints mixed with an absence of factual information makes effective discussion difficult. Much of what you've written, Chouan, emanates from your political beliefs, not from what others have posted here, in my opinion.

When I arrive home next week, perhaps I'll elaborate on this thread's topic. Anyone viewing the topic from a strictly "Black Lives Matter" perspective is grossly distorting the context in which the underlying events are taking place.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tiger said:


> The combination of politicized viewpoints mixed with an absence of factual information makes effective discussion difficult. Much of what you've written, Chouan, emanates from your political beliefs, not from what others have posted here, in my opinion.


Indeed. In your opinion..... 
I would suggest that you look at the originating post, and the advice therein, and then think again about my responses. You might also look at my posts and take the time to read them; you might learn something.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Chouan said:


> Some "interesting" views.... The fact remains that, if I were to be stopped by the filth whilst in my car, I would have no fear whatsoever that anything untoward might occur. None.
> The only concern that I might have would be, if I had been doing something that I shouldn't have been, whilst driving, that I might get a fine/endorsement/charge for whatever I was doing.





Tiger said:


> Can you please tell us precisely who are the "filth" to whom you refer?





Shaver said:


> English colloquial terminology for the police force, cf rozzers, pigs, fuzz, old bill, bobby, copper, plod etc.





Tiger said:


> Thank you, Shaver!


Not intending to ascribe any judgement(s) upon those explaining the tern"filth" to us , but I am absolutely shocked to learn that the Brits seem to have so little respect or assess such minimum value for their policing/law enforcement authorities. Why-oh-why don't some of these well intended Brits get out there and put their butts on the line to serve and protect their fellow citizens if the incumbents in such lines of work leave so much to be desired?.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

I suspect much of the usage, for chaps my age at least, is but a whimsy, a knowing nod of the head to popular gritty crime dramas broadcast in the early 70's. Particularly (my own favourite) 'The Sweeney'. Sweeney Todd = Flying Squad, a branch of New Scotland yard.

"Guv'nor, the wrong un's wot pulled the bank blag are 'oled up dahn the docks"


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> Not intending to ascribe any judgement(s) upon those explaining the tern"filth" to us , but I am absolutely shocked to learn that the Brits seem to have so little respect or assess such minimum value for their policing/law enforcement authorities. Why-oh-why don't some of these well intended Brits get out there and put their butts on the line to serve and protect their fellow citizens if the incumbents in such lines of work leave so much to be desired?.


There is an interesting organisation in most of the Constabularies the UK, members of which are called "Special Constables", or "Specials" for short. It is very heavily over-subscribed. https://www.policespecials.com/ 
On the other hand, there is a tendency for some people in the UK to rather think that a person who wishes to be a policeman has a desire to tell others what to do; that being a policeman would enable that desire for petty authority. There is, I'm inclined to think, a grain of truth in that. As Stephen King remarked in "The Stand", wishing to be a policeman should render one unsuitable to be a policeman! 
There is also a marked anti-authoritarianism in British society, and an objection to being told what to do, which is why, so often, people under the influence of drink have a tendency to not respond well to the presence of policemen. 
Until recently, British people had a distrust of people in uniform, in general, especially of the Army, seeing them as a force of repression. As George Orwell suggested, the policeman is the natural enemy of the working class.
As far as allotting value to the Plods, they *are* valued, but as a necessary evil only. When the Met was first established, as the first police force, it was very carefully organised as a civilian organisation, with no more legitimate powers than those of an ordinary civilian. Hence the power of arrest is a power than all citizens have, though very rarely used, as is the right to use proportionate force in self defence, and these same powers are vested in the police.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, my niece's husband is a Plod, yet despite that he seems to be a very pleasant young man. He has his problems, of course, and at least one major character defect, but, with time, he may come to the true path, especially with my brother's helpful guidance. Although we try not to mention it, in the family, I suppose that in the anonymity of this forum I can reveal his dreadful problem. He supports Newcastle United. There, I've said it!


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> Indeed. In your opinion.....
> I would suggest that you look at the originating post, and the advice therein, and then think again about my responses. You might also look at my posts and take the time to read them; you might learn something.


I've read every post, and comprehend them fully. The only thing I've learned from you is that you are the most tendentious and manipulative poster on the Interchange. I've proven that several times in various threads, including a couple of weeks ago (and naturally, you crawled away to raise mischief in yet another thread). You have once again lied and distorted in this thread; it seems to be your specialty.

Again, you may wish to actually learn something about topics such as the one in this thread, before spouting your ignorance. It is amazing that some screwball in the UK pretends to know the situation in the U.S., and proceeds to spew nonsensical and laughable leftist jargon. Your ignorance is exceeded only by your audacity...


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Tiger, my friend, I wonder, given the vastness of the U.S is it not possible that a fellow from elsewhere might be cognisant of the broader situation - at least as properly as is obtainable in the ability of a citizen from Alaska to appreciate the sentiment in Texas?

I muse idly, of course.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tiger said:


> I've read every post, and comprehend them fully. The only thing I've learned from you is that you are the most tendentious and manipulative poster on the Interchange. I've proven that several times in various threads, including a couple of weeks ago (and naturally, you crawled away to raise mischief in yet another thread). _*You have once again lied and distorted in this thread; it seems to be your specialty.*_


Indeed? Such a serious accusation requires proof. Where is your proof that I have lied?



Tiger said:


> Again, you may wish to actually learn something about topics such as the one in this thread, before spouting your ignorance. It is amazing that some screwball in the UK pretends to know the situation in the U.S., and proceeds to spew nonsensical and laughable leftist jargon. Your ignorance is exceeded only by your audacity...


Why? Where do the Forum Rules state that American issues are not open to non-Americans? Where, in this thread, does it say that posts are only welcome from Americans and about America? Let me remind you, as you may have had something of a memory lapse, the thread is entitled "Advice for drivers getting pulled over by a Police Officer", and the originating post makes no mention of the thread being exclusively about the US. Apart from my opening comment, which made perfect sense, given the occurrence in Minnesota, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/07/fatal-shooting-of-black-man-by-police-during-traffic-stop-in-min/ I have been relying on the views of members from the US who seem to believe that being stopped by the police in America is a potentially dangerous and worrying situation. My other posts are about what obtains in the UK. Are you suggesting that I am lying about that as well?
That you don't like what you perceive to be my political views is clear, could it be that your perception of my political views is, to an extent, distorting your view of my posts? Surely not!


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

Chouan said:


> As I've mentioned elsewhere, my niece's husband is a Plod, yet despite that he seems to be a very pleasant young man. He has his problems, of course, and at least one major character defect, but, with time, he may come to the true path, especially with my brother's helpful guidance. Although we try not to mention it, in the family, I suppose that in the anonymity of this forum I can reveal his dreadful problem. He supports Newcastle United. There, I've said it!


I fear your niece's husband may be beyond recovering to the true path but remember there are many paths to the Premier league champion and mine is with Spurs. Unfortunately your niece's husband's path will be via Cardiff, Derby, Reading and other such outposts for the next year or more.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Shaver said:


> Tiger, my friend, I wonder, given the vastness of the U.S is it not possible that a fellow from elsewhere might be cognisant of the broader situation - at least as properly as is obtainable in the ability of a citizen from Alaska to appreciate the sentiment in Texas?
> 
> I muse idly, of course.


Yes, of course, Shaver. My point (to Culverwood and Chouan in particular) was that it is in the highly weapons-regulated cities and states in the U.S. that the vast majority of gun violence occurs, making their arguments moot.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> Indeed? Such a serious accusation requires proof. Where is your proof that I have lied?
> 
> Why? Where do the Forum Rules state that American issues are not open to non-Americans? Where, in this thread, does it say that posts are only welcome from Americans and about America? Let me remind you, as you may have had something of a memory lapse, the thread is entitled "Advice for drivers getting pulled over by a Police Officer", and the originating post makes no mention of the thread being exclusively about the US. Apart from my opening comment, which made perfect sense, given the occurrence in Minnesota, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/07/fatal-shooting-of-black-man-by-police-during-traffic-stop-in-min/ I have been relying on the views of members from the US who seem to believe that being stopped by the police in America is a potentially dangerous and worrying situation. My other posts are about what obtains in the UK. Are you suggesting that I am lying about that as well?
> That you don't like what you perceive to be my political views is clear, could it be that your perception of my political views is, to an extent, distorting your view of my posts? Surely not!


You're too easy to refute, mostly because you're so blinded by your ideology that you actually don't realize how tendentious you really are!

In post #52, you claim that your opinions are based on the experiences of other posters in this thread. Not only do those other posts not coincide with your expressed opinions, but in post #2, you offered an opinion - long before anyone else provided the information you claim helped you to formulate your views! Thus, you lied, and distorted. (SG 67 rightly scolded you immediately for your inane comments.)

You are free to comment on anything you wish - to pretend I said otherwise is just one more Chouanian distortion of the truth. My actual, non-distorted point was that one should ideally have an inkling about the topic before spewing nonsensical, politically-fueled left wing assininities, as it would make discussion fruitful.

Feel free to post as you wish, Chouan, but don't be surprised that the legion of posters here who have dismissed your inanities continue to do so, primarily because you venture to discuss topics of which you know little or nothing.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tiger said:


> Yes, of course, Shaver. My point (to Culverwood and Chouan in particular) was that it is in the highly weapons-regulated cities and states in the U.S. that the vast majority of gun violence occurs, making their arguments moot.


Yet, as I have pointed out many times, here in the UK there is no chance at all, none, that I might be shot by a policeman who has called upon me to stop whilst driving. American members, here in this thread, have stressed the importance of how a policeman is responded to in order to minimise such risk, such as keeping one's hands in the Plod's sight. Not my observation, but theirs. Are they wrong? Are they lying? Are they being deliberately misleading? Or are they stating the truth as they've experienced it?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

culverwood said:


> I fear your niece's husband may be beyond recovering to the true path but remember there are many paths to the Premier league champion and mine is with Spurs. Unfortunately your niece's husband's path will be via Cardiff, Derby, Reading and other such outposts for the next year or more.


My two sons and my brother-in-law are Spurs supporters (I secretly quite like them as well) whereas I support the Boro, and am looking forward to mid-table obscurity this season!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tiger said:


> You're too easy to refute, mostly because you're so blinded by your ideology that you actually don't realize how tendentious you really are!


I think that you're confusing your ability to refute with your ability to contradict. No refutation of yours have I seen so far. No evidence for the lying that you accuse me of either!



Tiger said:


> In post #52, you claim that your opinions are based on the experiences of other posters in this thread. Not only do those other posts not coincide with your expressed opinions, but in post #2, you offered an opinion - long before anyone else provided the information you claim helped you to formulate your views! Thus, you lied, and distorted. (SG 67 rightly scolded you immediately for your inane comments.)


I offered an opinion based on the news reports that I provided a link to. Is this report not true?



Tiger said:


> You are free to comment on anything you wish - to pretend I said otherwise is just one more Chouanian distortion of the truth. My actual, non-distorted point was that one should ideally have an inkling about the topic before spewing nonsensical, politically-fueled left wing assininities, as it would make discussion fruitful.


Oh, again it is your perception of my political stance that you take exception to, rather than the content of my posts. Again, what have I posted here, or elsewhere that is a lie?



Tiger said:


> Feel free to post as you wish, Chouan, but don't be surprised that the legion of posters here who have dismissed your inanities continue to do so,


By legion, I think that you are referring to about 5 members.......



Tiger said:


> primarily because you venture to discuss topics of which you know little or nothing.


Are you suggesting here that I know nothing of being stopped by a Plod? Or are you once again suggesting a American-centric view of police activities, which invalidates my experiences, and knowledge of what obtains in the UK and Europe? If not, just what is it that I am posting that is grossly inaccurate?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Chouan said:


> .........
> ............
> By legion, I think that you are referring to about 5 members.......
> 
> Are you suggesting here that I know nothing of being stopped by a Plod? Or are you once again suggesting a American-centric view of police activities, which invalidates my experiences, and knowledge of what obtains in the UK and Europe? If not, just what is it that I am posting that is grossly inaccurate?


Chouan: In response to the first statement, while I will not get into specific numbers or reveal any names of those reporting frustration with your posting style, I will tell you you are underestimating the level of disenchantment by a large measure.

In response to your referring to police officers (as a group) as "plods", "filth" or any other derogatory and or insulting stereotypes, that ends now...for you and every other member posting herein. I will infract any and all who do so! Just as we are not allowed to wantonly disparage any other group, we will not do so with our police officers.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> Chouan: In response to the first statement, while I will not get into specific numbers or reveal any names of those reporting frustration with your posting style, I will tell you you are underestimating the level of disenchantment by a large measure.


There is a big difference between frustration with my posting style and the opinion of the legion that Tiger refers to, I would hope. If not, then I'm disappointed in the attitude of those members who have contacted you. Have you noticed the political slant to many of the hostile posts, where my view is condemned as being "left wing", as if that makes what I post somehow untrue! 
By the way, do you approve of members being called a liar? Especially when no lies have been posted?



eagle2250 said:


> In response to your referring to police officers (as a group) as "plods", "filth" or any other derogatory and or insulting stereotypes, that ends now...for you and every other member posting herein. I will infract any and all who do so! Just as we are not allowed to wantonly disparage any other group, we will not do so with our police officers.


As Shaver has pointed out, these are familiar expressions, colloquialisms; they aren't expressions of abuse, anymore than my being called a matelot would be considered, by me, to be a disparaging term, or a term of abuse, even if used by a pongo or a crab. Perhaps America is a society or culture that is more deferential and hierarchical than that in the UK, which leads to your requirement that people should be referred to in such a deferential way. Nevertheless, I will adhere to your requirement, even if it is culturally alien to do so.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> Yet, as I have pointed out many times, here in the UK there is no chance at all, none, that I might be shot by a policeman who has called upon me to stop whilst driving. American members, here in this thread, have stressed the importance of how a policeman is responded to in order to minimise such risk, such as keeping one's hands in the Plod's sight. Not my observation, but theirs. Are they wrong? Are they lying? Are they being deliberately misleading? Or are they stating the truth as they've experienced it?


You are distorting again!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tiger said:


> You are distorting again!


Where? You seem to find it very easy to make accusations, but you appear to be unable to support these accusations with any evidence!
Again, where have I lied, and where are the distortions? Where are the refutations that you claim are so easy to make? I have yet to see one. Plenty of accusations of lying, but not one refutation, or any evidence at all to support your accusations of lying.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Chouan: 

I couldn't care less about your posting style or politics. I do care about your penchant to distort, dissemble, and pretend to know about things of which you clearly do not, simply because you saw a two minute clip on the BBC.

I have pointed this out multiple times on various threads, including this one. Your post #2 pretty much sums up what you believe - and it was inane and a distortion. Several posters on this thread did not point out concern about being stopped by the police, they wrote about how a normal person should react. You distorted their remarks, and were dishonest in doing so.

I mentioned nothing about about police in the UK, despite your attempt to shift gears (as usual). Unlike you, I don't post about things of which I am unfamiliar.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tiger said:


> Chouan:
> 
> I couldn't care less about your posting style or politics. I do care about your penchant to distort, dissemble, and pretend to know about things of which you clearly do not, simply because you saw a two minute clip on the BBC.
> 
> ...


Again, accusations, but no evidence. I'm not bothered by your hostility, or your reason for it, but I do find your unsupported accusations of dishonesty offensive. Still no evidence of my lying, despite your repeated, offensive, assertions. Still no refutations, just more accusations. 
If you *really* couldn't care less about my politics, why do you keep referring to what you perceive to be my political view point? I've never referred to it, yet you feel the need to! Sad really.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> Again, accusations, but no evidence. I'm not bothered by your hostility, or your reason for it, but I do find your unsupported accusations of dishonesty offensive. Still no evidence of my lying, despite your repeated, offensive, assertions. Still no refutations, just more accusations.
> If you *really* couldn't care less about my politics, why do you keep referring to what you perceive to be my political view point? I've never referred to it, yet you feel the need to! Sad really.


Two separate posts in this thread adduce the evidence. Your inability to accept the obvious does not mean evidence was not provided.

But it this is old hat for you. Two weeks ago, in a different thread, you did the same thing. After painstakingly pointing out your dishonesty and distortions, you disappeared from the thread, to haunt some other one.

I've referred to your political bent because you are so relentlessly ideologically driven, facts be damned. What you believe is of no consequence or concern to me; the fact that you distort so readily to support your perspective does indeed bother me, because it makes honest discussion impossible, as it does violence to the truth, which I believe is the basis of productive discourse.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> There is a big difference between frustration with my posting style and the opinion of the legion that Tiger refers to, I would hope. If not, then I'm disappointed in the attitude of those members who have contacted you. Have you noticed the political slant to many of the hostile posts, where my view is condemned as being "left wing", as if that makes what I post somehow untrue!
> By the way, do you approve of members being called a liar? Especially when no lies have been posted?
> 
> As Shaver has pointed out, these are familiar expressions, colloquialisms; they aren't expressions of abuse, anymore than my being called a matelot would be considered, by me, to be a disparaging term, or a term of abuse, even if used by a pongo or a crab. Perhaps America is a society or culture that is more deferential and hierarchical than that in the UK, which leads to your requirement that people should be referred to in such a deferential way. Nevertheless, I will adhere to your requirement, even if it is culturally alien to do so.


Lies were posted by you, as demonstrated. Your protestations and denials are bordering on the psychopathic...

The problem some of us have with usage of the term "filth" to describe police should be obvious to you. Americans do not recognize the colloquialism, and in any case it sounds quite disparaging. But you knew that, didn't you? Yet, you purposely chose that little bit of slang while making your, um, "point." You could have chosen a different sobriquet, but why miss the chance at being incendiary?

Perhaps one day I'll introduce you to a New York "colloquialism" to describe people who do what you do so incessantly. You will, of course, recognize that it is merely an expression devoid of abuse, and you won't be insulted because you, Chouan, are not culturally "deferential" or "hierarchical" in the least.

I have the perfect one in mind for you...


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Should these words be considered unacceptable then I would, at least, appreciate a PM to explain :

"From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!"


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I was wondering about this filth business and figured it was no more than a colloquialism. 

I did a quick google search and it appears that it is from a novel by the same name written by a Scottish writer. Reading through the plot it sounds a lot like the 1992 Abel Ferrara film, Bad Lieutenant. 

I think we need to settle down a bit and realize that those from other countries, though sharing in the same language, have their own customs and colloquialisms. 

Not every thing need be a cause for taking up rhetorical arms. 

This in no way takes away from the fact that Chouan is wrong of course...;-).


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Certainly no objections from me, Shaver!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Gentlemen, several of you are coming very close to debating moderation in the open forum. That is a violation of our rules for user participation. Knock it off or expect to face the consequences. If you wish to further discuss it, do so through PM.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

SG_67 said:


> I was wondering about this filth business and figured it was no more than a colloquialism.
> 
> I did a quick google search and it appears that it is from a novel by the same name written by a Scottish writer. Reading through the plot it sounds a lot like the 1992 Abel Ferrara film, Bad Lieutenant.
> 
> ...


Agreed, but the word was incendiary when used in this context, by that poster, and with a common meaning that is never benevolent. That's why I asked Chouan to clarify (he didn't), and why Eagle expressed concern. Fortunately, Shaver added the necessary clarity.

As mentioned earlier, I'm ready to introduce some New York "slang" to Chouan, but despite his supposed linguistic liberality, he will wail and gnash his teeth, and I'll get suspended!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> I was wondering about this filth business and figured it was no more than a colloquialism.
> 
> I did a quick google search and it appears that it is from a novel by the same name written by a Scottish writer. Reading through the plot it sounds a lot like the 1992 Abel Ferrara film, Bad Lieutenant.
> 
> ...


The novel refers to the phrase. As with all of Welsh's titles there is duality of meaning in expression . Have you a spare moment I urge you to read 'filth' a powerful piece- amongst my favourites of his corpus. At least watch the movie, which is a half decent adaptation although discarding the integral subplots.

Ferrara's 'addiction' is the every best vampire movie of recent years, a genuinely intelligent exploration of the mythos, and by curious coincidence closely related in theme to Welsh .


----------



## Joseph Peter (Mar 26, 2012)

Mr. Keitel was certainly out there in the film. Abel always has interesting films. I didnt bother with Cage's remake simply because it was Cage.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Joseph you are correct- Abel is super cool and Harvey invariably plays a blinder. Cage has his moments though - wild at heart most notably.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I didn't even know there was a remake! I guess that explains a lot.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tiger said:


> Lies were posted by you, as demonstrated. Your protestations and denials are bordering on the psychopathic...


You have yet to demonstrate anything! You have still not even attempted to offer evidence of my lying. I repeat, where have I lied?



Tiger said:


> The problem some of us have with usage of the term "filth" to describe police should be obvious to you. Americans do not recognize the colloquialism, and in any case it sounds quite disparaging. But you knew that, didn't you? Yet, you purposely chose that little bit of slang while making your, um, "point." You could have chosen a different sobriquet, but why miss the chance at being incendiary?


Why should it be obvious to me? The expression is a commonplace; why would I assume that it would be perceived as offensive to an American?



Tiger said:


> Perhaps one day I'll introduce you to a New York "colloquialism" to describe people who do what you do so incessantly. You will, of course, recognize that it is merely an expression devoid of abuse, and you won't be insulted because *you, Chouan, are not culturally "deferential" or "hierarchical" in the least.*


Indeed. I am generally polite to people, whoever they are, and respectful to those worthy of respect, but I am certainly not deferential.



Tiger said:


> I have the perfect one in mind for you...


No doubt.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tiger said:


> Agreed, but the word was incendiary when used in this context, by that poster, and with a common meaning that is never benevolent. _*That's why I asked Chouan to clarify (he didn't)*_, and why Eagle expressed concern. Fortunately, Shaver added the necessary clarity.


Do you imagine that I am sat at my computer constantly reading this forum, so that I can respond immediately? As Shaver had already responded to your question before I had even seen it, why would I need to answer it as well?



Tiger said:


> As mentioned earlier, I'm ready to introduce some New York "slang" to Chouan, but despite his supposed linguistic liberality, he will wail and gnash his teeth, and I'll get suspended!


Send it in a private message, then you won't be suspended, if it is so important to you to use such language. I think that you'll find that I'm used to hearing industrial language; my previous career exposed me to plenty of it!


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> You have yet to demonstrate anything! You have still not even attempted to offer evidence of my lying. I repeat, where have I lied?
> 
> Why should it be obvious to me? The expression is a commonplace; why would I assume that it would be perceived as offensive to an American?
> 
> ...


Demonstrated multiple times in multiple threads. I cannot convince the delusional, it appears.

The term "filth" is not used in the United States with reference to the police. When it is used, it is a pejorative that means dirty and/or disgusting. Decent people do not refer to the entire body of police officers in this manner.

You define "polite" differently than I do.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I was wondering about this filth business and figured it was no more than a colloquialism.
> 
> I did a quick google search and it appears that it is from a novel by the same name written by a Scottish writer. Reading through the plot it sounds a lot like the 1992 Abel Ferrara film, Bad Lieutenant.
> 
> ...


Actually, the expression in question has been used, to my certain knowledge, since at least the 1960's.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Actually, the expression in question has been used, to my certain knowledge, since at least the 1960's.


My answer was based on a Google search so I'm sure there are some inaccuracies.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> My answer was based on a Google search so I'm sure there are some inaccuracies.


No personal criticism was intended. It can often be difficult to find out about stuff from a different cultural context.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Gentlemen, given the ongoing tenor of the conversation(s) in this thread, I suggest that we all reread the AAAC user rules for participation in the forum and the memo on civil discourse, posted at the top of the Interchange index page. Make the points you feel necessary to include in your posts, but address the issues rather that attacking another member! Just food for thought...that is all.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tiger said:


> Demonstrated multiple times in multiple threads. I cannot convince the delusional, it appears.


Still no evidence. Simply repeating yourself, repeating your accusations, without offering any evidence, to support them is meaningless as well as offensive.



Tiger said:


> The term "filth" is not used in the United States with reference to the police. When it is used, it is a pejorative that means dirty and/or disgusting. Decent people do not refer to the entire body of police officers in this manner.


How interesting, the US and the UK use different colloquialisms....... Your point is? Are you suggesting that I write differently and use different expressions because you are American? Or that societal norms that apply in the US should be applied to me in the UK? That is cultural imperialism that is quite breathtaking in it's arrogance!



Tiger said:


> You define "polite" differently than I do.


You grammar is different to mine as well. I think that you'll find that my definition of polite is the correct one, if your definition and mine differ.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> Still no evidence. Simply repeating yourself, repeating your accusations, without offering any evidence, to support them is meaningless as well as offensive.
> 
> How interesting, the US and the UK use different colloquialisms....... Your point is? Are you suggesting that I write differently and use different expressions because you are American? Or that societal norms that apply in the US should be applied to me in the UK? That is cultural imperialism that is quite breathtaking in it's arrogance!
> 
> You grammar is different to mine as well. I think that you'll find that my definition of polite is the correct one, if your definition and mine differ.


Please stop this - evidence was adduced earlier in the thread. What is offensive is your inability to see anything other than your own perspective or posts, for that matter.

You can write any way you wish. However, a thread about the American police that is entered by UK posters using slang that is a) unfamiliar to Americans and b) possesses a meaning that is offensive to Americans is bad judgment on your part. That is why it aroused ire. (Had you added an addendum about the colloquialism, all of this would have been avoided.) That you purposely used an incendiary term was par for the course, however. Not only was that impolite, so is your attempt above to make this into some sort of "cultural imperialism" episode. Clearly, you just can't help yourself. Your disdain for Americans and the United States has been made manifest - do you really need to do this incessantly? Don't you realize how impolite, arrogant, and instigative it is?

Chouan, feel free to attack anything and anyone you wish; I've enough experience dealing with hyper politicized agitators. But your relentless distorting, dishonesty, obfuscations, and delusional denials and truth-twisting is irksome. Stand by your words, and knock off the verbal contortions. Be a man of principle; you might find it becoming.


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

Everyone - pull over to the curb, raise your hands (you can't post now ), exit the vehicle, walk backwards toward my voice!

Case and thread closed.


----------

