But tell you what, follow his suggestions and get on his anger bandwagon when you are stopped by the police -then see what happens

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/02/memphis-police-officer-shot-and-killed-during-traffic-stop/

On the other had, do we really fight fire with fire or with water? Do we really want a war against law enforcement? Are we prepared for such a war? And who is likely to win? Finally, aren’t there other ways just as impacting?

In The Untouchables, Sean Connery says, speaking of taking down Al Capone “he sends one of yours to the hospital, you send two of his to the morgue”. But I have to ask where will this end. We must fight back but using wisdom, strategy and do so politically, legislatively, economically (boycotts), socially (protests, rallies, marches), spiritually and physically (at the right time in self defense).

Our people must learn the Art of War instead of charging at the enemy with a rock when he has a machine gun.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=keppra+rage

For Their Own Safety, Police Can Order People Out of Cars in Routine Stops, Court Rules
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: February 20, 1997

WASHINGTON, Feb. 19— The Supreme Court ruled today that police officers may order passengers out of the cars they stop for routine traffic violations, even in the absence of any reason to suspect that the passenger has committed a crime or presents a threat to the officer’s safety.
The 7-to-2 decision, adopting a position long advocated by police organizations, was an extension of a 1977 Supreme Court decision permitting police officers to order the driver out of the car in a routine traffic stop.

”On the public interest side of the balance, the same weighty interest in officer safety is present regardless of whether the occupant of the stopped car is a driver or passenger,” Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said in the majority opinion today.

The two dissenting Justices, John Paul Stevens and Anthony M. Kennedy, objected that the decision marked a substantial contraction of the Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures.
”The Court takes the unprecedented step of authorizing seizures that are unsupported by any individualized suspicion whatsoever,” Justice Stevens said. Justice Kennedy said the result would be to place ”tens of millions of passengers at risk of arbitrary control by the police.”

The decision overturned a 1995 ruling by a state appeals court in Maryland. State courts around the country had been split on the question. Thirty-eight states joined Maryland in asking the Justices to overturn the Maryland ruling, and the Clinton Administration showed its support by having Attorney General Janet Reno, in her first Supreme Court appearance, argue on behalf of Maryland when the case was heard two months ago.

The Maryland court, ruling that the police need ”some individualized or particularized suspicion” before ordering a passenger out of a car, refused to permit the prosecution to introduce the crack cocaine that had fallen to the ground when a passenger, Jerry Lee Wilson, obeyed a state trooper’s order to get out of a car that was stopped for speeding on Interstate 95 near Baltimore.

In his opinion today, Maryland v. Wilson, No. 95-1268, Chief Justice Rehnquist said that ”in one sense” a passenger has a stronger case than a driver for not being ordered out of the car: it is the driver, and not the passenger, who has committed a traffic offense.
But there is little difference ”as a practical matter,” the Chief Justice said, because all occupants of the car have already been stopped ”by virtue of the stop of the vehicle.” If there is evidence inside the vehicle of a more serious crime, he said, ”the motivation of a passenger to employ violence to prevent apprehension of such a crime is every bit as great as that of the driver.”

Chief Justice Rehnquist cited Federal statistics showing that in 1994, 5,762 police officers were assaulted and 11 were killed during traffic pursuits and stops.

Justice Stevens, in dissent, objected that these statistics gave no indication of how many of the incidents involved passengers; whether the passengers were inside or outside of the cars; or whether the violence would have been prevented had the passengers been ordered out.
In response, Chief Justice Rehnquist said, ”It is, indeed, regrettable that the empirical data on a subject such as this are sparse, but we need not ignore the data which do exist simply because further refinement would be even more helpful.”

When the case was argued in December, the Maryland Attorney General, J. Joseph Curran, appeared to startle most of the Justices by making the sweeping argument that not only could police officers order passengers out of the car, but they could also prevent passengers not suspected of any crime from leaving the scene — to hail a taxi, for example. Chief Justice Rehnquist said today that this issue ”is not presented by this case, and we express no opinion upon it.”

Wake up people. If you go head to head with the opposition when they have the huge advantage, even if you are right, you may lose the encounter. YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT IS NOT HOWTO BATTLE. Ask any military trained person. WAKE UP!

If you disagree, try Levar’s way and see what happens

Tomorrow my partner and I will host an all day seminar on How To Interact With Law Enforcement and Knowing Your Rights. Police representatives from 5 departments have agreed to come and over 80 people have registered to attend.

Making real change. What are you guys doing?

Bobbi is the perfect example of how those who are racists want us to act and think. Walking in denial so we will never fix the problems in our community – male and female. Going through life always blaming someone else instead of taking personal responsibility for one’s actions. Venting by confronting the facts and going head to head with anyone who realizes the facts are accurate.

There is a deep seated anger displayed by Bobbi because of what Bobbi has gone through. This causes Bobbi to stereotype people, ignore facts and believe whatever quenches or allows the venting of that anger. That is why Bobbi keeps responding with nonsense.

Bobbi, like Sandra Bland, wants to fight wrongs that he/she has encountered. But neither person knew how and reactions without intellect or wisdom make for a very dangerous loose canon. And we cannot afford to battle without wisdom, take actions that make things harder on ourselves, open the door to those who want to attack us then walk in denial that we opened those doors.

I say fight injustice but fight with wisdom instead of fighting the facts and each other. If you don’t like the law, find a way to change it. But you cannot change it from the inside of a jail cell or a morgue. undertake battles you are likely to win in ways you are like to win, not just any battle.

YOU DON’T ARGUE WITH A COP IF YOU BELIEVE HE/SHE IS CRAZY OR RACIST
At that moment, its not about rights, its about survival so you can deal with him legally later. But if you open the door to a battle you are likely to lose, YOU WILL LOSE.