This is what happens when people stop standing up for their rights

[Brad_]

<p>>>> Brad, the issue is freedom. </p>

<p>Really... I had no idea...</p>

<p>>>> You are getting caught up in semantics. Of course America, nor Britain are police states, per se. </p>

<p>No I'm not. People who are unable to separate the difference between occurrences of police abuse and living in a police state seem to be the ones having difficulty with semantics.</p>

<p>>>> A Palestinian can be roused from his house and hauled off, have his house demolished, or be taken out, killed by Israeli forces, for being a terrorist.</p>

<p>We were talking about the US/UK, and more specifically Oakland. And the loss of photographer rights, right?<br>

<br /><br>

<br /></p>

[trex1]

<p>Uh, yes, but you are the one who brought the Nazis into it. You are splitting hairs and throwing out red herrings my good friend. Why is this question of semantics so important to you? The point is that both America and Great Britain are showing signs of police state like behaviour. It's not simple police abuse. </p>

<p>I brought up the example you cited as an example of police states that are not run by Nazis, well not the German variety, anyway.</p>

[trex1]

<p>You know what Brad, I just forgot the biggest elephant in the room. How could I have forgotten...? America has more prisoners than any country in the world, and that is absolute numbers, not as a proportion of its population. POLICE STATE. Loud and Clear. Say it with pride. I LIVE IN A POLICE STATE. The Police lock up more people than any country on the planet, they execute people in public, they can bug my phone without a warrant, and in our British colony, our fellow cops can now arrest you for clicking a shutter, if there is a copper in the viewfinder. Yup, this is not Sweden, no way. By the way, you ought to check out a Norwegian prison, to see what a non police state looks like: </p>

<p>http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/12/michael_moore_4.html you have to watch until about half the way in to see a Norwegian prison. Norwegian prisoners live better than most Americans...</p>

[trex1]

<p>Brad, I enjoy your blog, great photos. I can see though how you and Eric could get into it a little. The tow bike cops look like mannequins, really bizarre. SF looks like a fantastic place to live. Maybe you and Eric should hook up have a coffee and see what comes up.</p>

<p>You are a talented photographer, and you simply happen to have different sympathies politically. No big deal. No point in getting hung up about politics. I think we can all agree that war and killing are evils that should be avoided. In the meantime, what's your take on the UK proposed, or is it enacted law that started the thread?</p>

<p>My take, personally, is that the US is a Law Enforcement State. A Police state is run by an elite that does not need to answer to anyone. The US has laws that are consented to, and Enforced, sometimes with too much zeal. Maybe, we, the people, need to get more involved in the law making process.</p>

<p><br /> Cheers, DJ</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>Brad, i will also give you props for being a great street photographer. you're good at what you do. nothing wrong with taking pictures of cops and handing them out, but one has to wonder, would you have such a great relationship with the boys and girls in blue if your skin was a different shade? unless you can offer evidence to the contrary, i think its safe to assume that you have never been racially profiled by a police officer. if you had, you would likely be considerably less vehement in insisting that a police state is not what we live in.</p>

<p>look, Brad, understanding the intricacies of this subject is not your strong suit. Neither is recognizing when someone else has made a valid point in reference to one of your arguments. that gets a little frustrating. especially when you seem to be in denial of some very basic and well-documented facts, and continue to nitpick and recontextualize other people's words to make them fit your subjective criteria.<br>

<em><br /> </em><br>

<em>"The Police lock up more people than any country on the planet, they execute people in public, they can bug my phone without a warrant, and in our British colony, our fellow cops can now arrest you for clicking a shutter, if there is a copper in the viewfinder."</em></p>

<p>Darius has hit the nail on the head. i would just add to his statement "America has more prisoners than any country in the world" that the incarcerated population is disproportionately represented in terms of color lines. that is why, Brad, you may not think you live in anything resembling a police state, but the guy next to you on the BART is all too painfully aware of that, because it's part of his reality --and his family members, his neighbors, and his neighbors' families.</p>

<p><em>"No doubt if the BART shooting instead occurred in Hayward, Colma, Fremont, Concord, Union City, Millbrae, Orinda, etc (all BART stations and policed by the same BART Police), then the cities of Hayward, Colma, Fremont, Concord, Union City, Millbrae, and Orinda, would be labeled by a few here as </em> police states<em>."</em></p>

<p>(Hmmm...you forgot Richmond, San Francisco, and San Leandro. wonder why?)<em><br /> </em></p>

<p>this statement, besides being entirely speculative and thus not connected to actual events, completely misses the point, because the shooting happened in Oakland, whose police department is already under investigation for corruption, mishandling of evidence, falsifying of warrants, police abuse, etc., etc. The city of Oakland had paid out tens of millions of dollars in civil suits to settle police misconduct cases; imagine if that money had been spent on improving education or creating jobs.<em> </em></p>

<p>Btw, Concord is something like 93% white, so the chances of BART police racially profiling a resident and treating them as they did Grant are statistically very low. That's not to say that Concord isnt a police state, though, because the price you pay for the appearance of a low-crime<em> </em> city is the relative lack of racial and cultural diversity. That doesn't mean crime doesnt exist, just that its been shifted to other, more "urban" areas<em>.</em></p>

<p>However, ask some people of color what its like for them in Concord or Walnut Creek, or Orinda or Alameda, and they will tell you that it is common to be harassed and profiled by police.<em> </em> Since blacks and other ethnicities are more represented in Oakland, those communities have organized against these abuses since the '60s, so there is a long history of social activism and resisting police statification ( http://www.blackpanther.org/legacynew.htm )<em><br /> </em> , despite the ongoing cycles of incarceration and recidivism set off by underemployment and lack of education--the root causes of crime. Racial profiling is just one example of a police state.</p>

<p><em>" So Eric, I don't mean to be obtuse, I looked at the video and put it on large, was hard to see really, but I didn't see anything that Grant did that justified a shooting. Maybe we're not in a police state, just a transit police state??? I couldn't tell if he had been cuffed, there was a bit of movement before the officer pulled his gun."</em></p>

<p>Barry, he wasn't cuffed until <em>after</em> he was shot, as he lay bleeding to death on the ground. Another video has surfaced showing a second officer hitting him in the face and kicking him in the groin/abdomen before the shooting.<br>

<em><br /> </em><br>

<em>"So, assuming that, as it appears, it was an unjustified, execution does not mean that Oakland is a police state any more than a drive by shooting means we are in anarchy. It looks on the surface to be a bad shoot. I haven't heard the officers version."</em></p>

<p>Neither has anyone else, although the defense appears to be attempting to use the "Taser" defense, which is also problematic, since the use of a Taser is not only also not justified in this situation, but Tasers are worn opposite firearms, requiring a cross-hand draw, so it's hard to understand how he could have mistakenly pulled the wrong weapon. Interestingly enough, in the motion for bail, the second cop contradicted himself by saying officer Mehserle--what a Dickensian name--first informed the other officer he was going to Tase Grant, then, after the shooting, reportedly said, i thought he was going for a gun. You see the problem in that? If the officer thought Grant had been reaching for a gun, why would he draw a Taser in response?</p>

<p>"Those officers certainly paid for their illegal use of force. The City paid millions, the officers went to prison."</p>

<p>Well, actually, no. Two of the officers were acquitted (http://www.silvercreek.wclark.k12.in.us/studentwork/WebProjects/WebProjects/trying%20it%20out3/timeline_of_events_in_the_rodney.htm) the city of LA certainly paid for the officers use of excessive force, though.</p>

<p><em>"This Oakland shooting from my take based on the video appears to be an execution and unless they can show that somehow Grant pulled a weapon or put them in danger of great bodily harm, there is no justification for use of deadly force."</em></p>

<p>no argument there. Grant was unarmed by the way. his reported last words were, "don't Tase me, i have a daughter."<br>

<em><br /> </em><br>

<em>"So, were the officers charged?"</em></p>

<p>this is where it gets interesting. Officer Mehserle--the triggerman--was charged with muder by the Alameda County DA--rare in such cases--but only after the Oakland riots. Draw from that what conclusions you will.</p>

<p><em>"But, dude, it doesn't make this a police state."</em></p>

<p>in and of itself, no. but in a greater context, it's part of a larger picture, when you add all the other factors i've tried to explain above.</p>

<p><em>"We still are a nation of laws and the police are subject to it. They may sometimes act beyond, or not know it, but they under it just like everyone else."</em></p>

<p>think about what you just said here. there's a basic contradiction. If police act above the laws, then what good are laws in the first place? just to circle back to photography, citizen journalism and documentary, the existence of indisputable evidence of what happened in both the Grant and King cases is the only tether toward accountability in such cases. if its just a case of your word against the cops (backed by the system), most of the time the police will not be charged, no matter how excessive or forceful they may have been. happens all the time.</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>here's a shot not (directly) connected to the riots/protest/rebellions that i nevertheless found interesting. the symbols on the back are the Ankh (eternal life) and the Uchat (the third eye).</p><div></div>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> nothing wrong with taking pictures of cops and handing them out, but one has to wonder, would you have such a great relationship with the boys and girls in blue if your skin was a different shade?</p>

<p>Sure, why not. I see them talking to all sorts of people of all races. A very friendly bunch You're claiming racism now? And what is YOUR eyewitness accounting of this in SF? What's hilarious, you make a big claim about being "speculative" above, but you indulge in that constantly - like your quote above. Hypocrisy at it's worst...</p>

<p>>>> That's not to say that Concord isnt a police state, though, because the price you pay for the appearance of a low-crime<em > </em>city is the relative lack of racial and cultural diversity. </p>

<p>Well, OK. They must be based on your logic. No doubt like a ton of other cities. Again, do you know what a police state is? Seems it's anything you want it to be. Nice being able to make stuff up...<br>

<br /></p>

<p>>>> if you had, you would likely be considerably less vehement in insisting that a police state is not what we live in</p>

<p>Such bs; that we're living in a police state. You have no idea what that word means. See above.</p>

<p>>>> look, Brad, understanding the intricacies of this subject is not your strong suit. </p>

<p>How about you; with the huge load of bias you bring to the table?<br>

And your vehement claims about the mainstream media not having a coverage of the police getting into it with demonstrators. Yet a 1 minute search produced a bunch which I posted above. Your credibility is zero with respect to your statements; and your photos. You missed a ton that others got. Your photos are not newsworthy.</p>

<p>And you being an eyewitness allowed you to see what actually happened; but you have NO photos in your capacity as citizen journalist demonstrating what the msm missed. Why not? </p>

<p>>>> Neither is recognizing when someone else has made a valid point in reference to one of your arguments. </p>

<p>Such as? </p>

<p>>>> this statement, besides being entirely speculative and thus not connected to actual events, completely misses the point, because the shooting happened in Oakland, whose police department is already under investigation for corruption, mishandling of evidence, falsifying of warrants, police abuse, etc., etc. </p>

<p>Speculative? No, the shooting happened in a BART terminal in Oakland. Which is the responsibility of the BART police. The same cop who shot Grant could just as well done that in Hayward, where Grant lived. It's about BART, not Oakland. You seem to conveniently get the two mixed up.</p>

<p>If the shooting happened in Colma, then by your logic Colma would be a police state.</p>

<p>The city of Oakland and the Oakland Police have ZERO jurisdiction in BART terminals. Shocking that you didn't know that. Or you probably do, but it's convenient to gloss over that.</p>

<p>>>> However, ask some people of color what its like for them in Concord or Walnut Creek, or Orinda or Alameda, and they will tell you that it is common to be harassed and profiled by police.</p>

<p>So now you're saying you've done that. When, where and how many people have you asked that question in those cities? And you talk about being "speculative?" Please...</p>

<p><br /></p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> here's a shot not (directly) connected to the riots/protest/rebellions that i nevertheless found interesting.</p>

<p>And this is germane to the discussion? Or just another photo that doesn't show anything journalistically?</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> >>> nothing wrong with taking pictures of cops and handing them out, but one has to wonder, would you have such a great relationship with the boys and girls in blue if your skin was a different shade?</p>

<p>And furthermore, what does this (me snapping different people on the street, among them cops) have to do with the discussion at hand. Just another red herring. And totally speculative that I "have such a great relationship" - that's like saying I have a great relationship with Chinese-Americans because I shoot in Chinatown.</p>

[Carl Stone]

<p>In any event, what's wrong with having a civil relationship with people on the street, whether they're police, or not? </p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> In any event, what's wrong with having a civil relationship with people on the street, whether they're police, or not?</p>

<p>Exactly. Some apparently think it's a bad thing or highly suspicious on being friendly and engaging people you don't know. Not doubt some kind of weird projection...</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Two of the officers were acquitted in the King case, because after weeks of trial and presenting of evidence and testimony the jury did not think they should be convicted. Yet they convicted others, do you now think the jurors were part of a police state? Do you even really understand what happened in the Rodney King case? Doesn't that suggest that independant judgement was used? <br>

In a real police state, there would have been no real trial, no jury, do you not get the difference?</p>

 

[mjferron]

<p>I have an idea. Why not elect leaders that would get rid of the terrorists instead of encouraging them to chant hate speeches in broad daylight for all to hear. Then you wouldn't have any fears about who's photographing what. What we Westerners are witnessing is the biggest power grab in modern times. Terrorism, global warming, the economy, you name it. All excuses to grab the power, money and control of the masses.</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> (Hmmm...you forgot Richmond, San Francisco, and San Leandro. wonder why?)</p>

<p>Jeeeeeeez...... So when you're out of gas with respect to thoughtful reason and logic, the only thing left for you to do is hurl a Hail-Mary attempt at some kind an insult? Shameful.</p>

<p>OK, you're right Eric. <a href="http://www.bart.gov/stations/index.aspx">All cities that BART passes through</a> are police states... And I'm certain your your citizen photojournalism will yield lots of photographs supporting that notion as the ones you have posted above.</p>

<p>>>> i work in journalism, so i understand the importance of objectivity where applicable.</p>

<p>What *specifically* do you do <i>working in journalism</i>? Who do you work for? I'd like to better understand this <i>importance of </i><i>objectivity</i> with respect to your journalism. And where/when it is <i>applicable, </i>or not. </p>

 

[eric_arnold]

<p>talk about ironic, i just came back from a talk at UCB's Race & Gender Studies, where a PhD candidate was talking about black police officers in Oakland and D.C. who'd been racially profiled themselves by police when they were out of uniform and find that Brad has weighed in yet again with more of his wonderfully baited comments.</p>

<p><em>"You're claiming racism now? And what is YOUR eyewitness accounting of this in SF?"</em></p>

<p>we both know that's not what i said in so many words. Brad, i'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you arent actually that ignorant and/or naive, you're just argumentative to a fault.</p>

<p>what i actually said was, i couldnt help but wonder if you would be so friendly with cops were you a different skin color. its a fair question IMO, but apparently one you dont want to answer. most black people i know dont go out of their way to interact with cops on a regular basis unless they are C.I.s wearing 'snitch jackets.' the abysmal record of the SFPD in keeping people in witness protection programs alive to see trial might have something to do with this. In fact, a guy just got killed in the western addition by gang members not too long ago, just for talking to cops. fortunately, that's unlikely to happen to you for obvious reasons.</p>

<p>anyway, since you went there, i will say that racism isn't some figment of one's imagination, like the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy. it does exist. it's a fact that law enforcement nationwide do engage in racial profiling as an accepted practice.</p>

<p>For instance, "In 2006, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) stopped a half-million pedestrians for suspected criminal involvement. Raw statistics for these encounters suggest large racial disparities — 89 percent of the stops involved nonwhites." http://www.racialprofilinganalysis.neu.edu/</p>

<p>and:<br>

"A survey by the Department of Justice in 1999 revealed that while officers disproportionately focused on African-American and Latino drivers, they found drugs more often when they searched whites (17%) than when they searched African Americans (8%). A similar survey in New Jersey found that although people of color were searched more frequently, state troopers found drugs in vehicles driven by whites 25% of the time, by African Americans 13%, and by Latinos 5%."<br>

http://www.amnestyusa.org/us-human-rights/other/rp-five-facts-about-racial-profiling/page.do?id=1106649</p>

<p>and: </p>

<p>"Since June 2001, more than 334 individuals in the United States have died after being shocked by police Tasers. Most of those individuals were not carrying a weapon."<br>

http://www.amnestyusa.org/us-human-rights/taser-abuse/page.do?id=1021202</p>

<p>here's one on a cop using excessive force on a Latino man during a Giants game:<br>

http://cbs5.com/local/san.francisco.police.2.457863.html</p>

<p>and here's some of my own work, from 2000:<br>

"Until it was forced to disband in March 1997 because of lawsuits and allegations of inappropriate behavior, the SFPD's high-powered CRUSH (Crime Response Unit to Stop Homicide) unit, infamous for high-speed pursuits and an aggressive, overzealous attitude, made Bayview-Hunters Point its major stomping ground."<br>

http://www.sfbg.com/noise/31-01/eric.html</p>

<p>but here's the capper, from the sf chronicle: <br>

"-- In the years 2001 to 2004, San Francisco officers were the subject of more force allegations than officers in San Jose, Oakland, San Diego and Seattle combined.<br>

-- Taxpayers are exposed to high legal costs in defending lawsuits against officers involving force. From 1996 to 2005, the city paid more than $5 million in judgments and legal settlements. For that sum, it could have put 60 new officers on the streets this year.<br>

-- <strong>Public trust in the department is eroded, particularly among the city's black residents, who department records show have been the disproportionate object of police action and force."</strong><br>

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/02/05/MNUFMAIN.DTL<strong><br /> </strong></p>

<p>i could go on, but i think i made my point...</p>

<p>Brad, there are many types of racism. not just obvious, KKK/Jim Crow racism, but structural, institutional, environmental, etc. did you know, Brad, that the highest concentration of asthma and serious health problems in the entire Bay Area are found in Richmond, next to the Chevron refinery, and in Hunters Point, just upwind of the #1 and #2 Superfund sites in the country--the Naval shipyards--and the PG&E plant? maybe you should talk to "survivors" there, as i have.</p>

<p>if you really want to experience a third world country within our borders, try hanging out at West Point and Middlepoint at about 12 midnight. should be some great street photography opportunities for ya. btw, when i wrote a Bay Guardian cover story on HP during the middle of the 1999-2000 turf wars, the white photographer they assigned was too scared to go there except during daylight hours. just giving you fair warning. great views, though.</p>

<p>want more, Brad? an example of structural racism would be the "urban renewal" of the '60s which gentrified the Fillmore district, killing what was once a cultural mecca of black music and forcing a mass exodus of african americans out of the city. did you know the black population in SF has declined 20% in the last 20 years? no other ethnic group has seen such a precipitous decline. the pockets in SF where african americans live today are all high-crime areas filled with project housing (some of it was actually designed as military barracks): western addition, i.e. eddy street projects, bayview/hunters point/lakeview/sunnydale. and, you may not know this, but the SF cop who</p>

<p><em>"what does this (me snapping different people on the street, among them cops) have to do with the discussion at hand. Just another red herring. And totally speculative that I "have such a great relationship" - that's like saying I have a great relationship with Chinese-Americans because I shoot in Chinatown."</em></p>

<p>we weren' t talking about you shooting random street people or chinatown residents, were we? i believe we were discussing the fact that you have a pro-cop bias, which has certainly been borne out by your comments.</p>

<p><em>"The same cop who shot Grant could just as well done that in Hayward, where Grant lived. It's about BART, not Oakland. You seem to conveniently get the two mixed up."</em></p>

<p>actually, it's about police misconduct and the reaction of the community. i'm quite clear on the fact that the riot cops were not at the Hayward BART station (or in your living room--lol), but in downtown Oakland. i'm also well aware that the demonstrations at the courthouse, city hall, and BART's corporate HQ all took place in Oakland, as did the actual shooting of Oscar Grant. You seem to be the confused one here, "silly."</p>

<p><em>"The city of Oakland and the Oakland Police have ZERO jurisdiction in BART terminals. Shocking that you didn't know that."</em></p>

<p>i never said the OPD has jurisdiction over BART--where do you come up with this stuff? it is true, however, that BART police have never been subjected to civilian oversight in their entire history.</p>

<p><em>"If the shooting happened in Colma, then by your logic Colma would be a police state."</em></p>

<p>now you're really stretching it. you do know that Colma has more dead people than actual living residents, right?</p>

<p><em>" Your credibility is zero with respect to your statements"</em></p>

<p>well, i think i have a more credible account than someone who wasn't even there. lol.</p>

<p><em>"And you being an eyewitness allowed you to see what actually happened; but you have NO photos in your capacity as citizen journalist demonstrating what the msm missed. Why not?"</em></p>

<p>i answered this one a few times already. it's been my experience that generally, people who make circular arguments run out of new things to say about a subject.</p>

<p> </p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> Brad, i'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt ... anyway, since you went there, i will say that racism isn't some figment of one's imagination, like the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy. it does exist.</p>

<p>Oh please, get real. Benefit of the doubt? How dishonest. And disingenuous at best. You are taking things way out of context. I was speaking in the context with respect to my snapping SF police; and that (according to you) other photogs of a different skin tone wouldn't be able to because of racism. And you go on and on based on your intentional misunderstanding and lecture on and on about racism; with the intentional tone that I don't believe racism exists. How incredibly dishonest and shameful of you. Pure bs. Jeeez...</p>

<p>>>> well, i think i have a more credible account than someone who wasn't even there. lol.</p>

<p>Well no. You don't. Because you made all these claims that were not supported by your eyewitness photos of "actually being there" and knowing "what really happened." That is hardly circular; it's simply not being able to back up your claims. And now you're bs-ing about that.</p>

<p>>>> we weren' t talking about you shooting random street people or chinatown residents, were we? i believe we were discussing the fact that you have a pro-cop bias, which has certainly been borne out by your comments.</p>

<p>Nice evasion, again. What pro cop-bias? You assume I have one because among all the groups of people I snap, some are cops. Using your logic I have a "pro bias" towards all people that I shoot. Yes, the cops I snap are random. I go up to them and take their picture like anyone else.</p>

<p>From all of your comments above, you have lost all objectivity that you above claimed so important "working in journalism."</p>

<p> </p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> what i actually said was, i couldnt help but wonder if you would be so friendly with cops were you a different skin color. its a fair question IMO, but apparently one you dont want to answer.</p>

<p>Huh, I don't want to answer? What are you talking about? I already answered above. Once more, because you're again intentionally trying to mislead: ***"<strong>Sure, why not. I see them talking to all sorts of people of all races.</strong>"***</p>

<p>Your anti-cop bias is seriously affecting your objectivity on all aspects of this discussion. And your attempts at obfuscation with respect to my snapping police among all the other groups of people I photograph is just more nonsense trying to divert the discussion with respect to your claims that we live in a police state.</p>

<p>Why not focus your discussion on that?</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>sorry, that should have been, "you may not know this, but Paul Lozada, the SF cop who inspired "Nash Bridges," and served as a technical advisor for "Training Day" (a film about a corrupt, violence-prone cop) who was a member of CRUSH, was later charged with numerous violations of police conduct, including excessive force, falsifying police reports, etc.Lozada unsuccessfully sued the department in 2003 after he was taking off active duty following a questionable shooting incident.</p>

<p>as the Bay Guardian wrote, "Lozada has quite a propensity for firing bullets at people – one high-ranking officer circulated a remarkable internal memo suggesting the cop has been embroiled in more than 20 shooting incidents." http://www.sfbg.com/39/09/news_paul_lozada.html</p>

<p>that's more than Vic Mackey in "The Shield."</p>

<p>maybe you have photos, Brad?</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> maybe you have photos, Brad?<br /> <br /><br /> Photos of what? I make no claim of being an "eyewitness" citizen journalist seeing what "really happened" from "actually being there" (and then not pressing the shutter).</p>

<p>Erik, you can go on and on about police abuse which everyone knows occurs. <strong>No one here is denying it happens.</strong> Just more obfuscation. And rather insulting lecturing to those that already know it occurs.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p><em>" that (according to you) other photogs of a different skin tone wouldn't be able to because of racism."</em></p>

<p>your words, not mine. i just dont know any black photographers who routinely kiss up to cops.</p>

<p><em>"you go on and on based on your intentional misunderstanding and lecture on and on about racism; with the intentional tone that I don't believe racism exists. How incredibly dishonest and shameful of you"</em></p>

<p>you got a lecture on racism because you deserved it, Brad.</p>

<p>and, for the record, i have no problem with cops who do their jobs well, and have good relationships with the community, like Deputy Chief Dave Kozicki of OPD, whom i've interviewed before and found to be very insightful and aware of the problems facing Oakland, and the fact that arresting everyone in the 'hood is not the solution.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>"Photos of what?"</p>

<p>i just thought, since you enjoy taking snapshots of cops so much, maybe you have one of Lozada engaged in one of his favorite pastimes--shooting somebody or barging through the wrong door, etc. i mean, that would give you some "credibility" for portraying the real SFPD more than the Disneyland postcard view you seem to like.</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> you got a lecture on racism because you deserved it, Brad.</p>

<p>Oh please. No, it was dishonest because you intentionally misunderstand in the extreme because you ran out of gas on what the discussion (police state) is about. And then you hurl insults... Rather than address the subject at hand.</p>

<p>>>> your words, not mine. i just dont know any black photographers who routinely kiss up to cops.</p>

<p>No. That was your 2:45 pm claim. More obfuscation. Kiss up? Please.... Just more insults...</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> i just thought, since you enjoy taking snapshots of cops so much, maybe you have one of Lozada engaged in one of his favorite pastimes--shooting somebody or barging through the wrong door, etc.</p>

<p>More insults and obfuscation... Your bias and hatred is really coming through strong now...</p>

<p>Again, you're the one making the citizen journalist claim....</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>"bias and hatred"? easy, twinkletoes. i'm just stating well-documented facts. it's not like i'm making any of this up. obviously, we have a different viewpoint where police are concerned, but i think there's a difference between pointing out egregious cases of police misconduct and having a personal vendetta against law enforcement. but you know what they say, cops are the biggest gang in Amerikkka.</p>

<p>btw, you brought up the "R" word, which is entirely relevent in any discussion of the American police state. maybe you feel bad because you cant put the genie back in the bottle, but that's not my problem.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>>>> well, i think i have a more credible account than someone who wasn't even there. lol.<br>

<em>"Well no. You don't."</em></p>

<p>LOL. who made you the arbiter of anything, Brad?</p>

<p><em>"Because you made all these claims that were not supported by your eyewitness photos of "actually being there" and knowing "what really happened."</em></p>

<p>if you're offering to buy me a video camera with a good zoom--canon xl1, please--so i can get shots not possible with a digital still camera, feel free to email me. or just purchase one from B&H and have it sent to me. or you can come to Oakland and deliver it yourself. lol</p>