Page 3 of 5
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:37 pm
by Canis
R00k wrote:Nightshade wrote:You don't think those cops are going to be under intense scrutiny for the next couple weeks?
I also think that the LA cops that beat Rodney used excessive force, but that's not my point. Rodney King was a fucking scumbag that attacked those cops after leading them on a 120+mph chase while hopped up on goofballs. MY beef with arguments like this and people like reefsurfer is that they're all so quick to fall for bleeding-heart liberal bullshit when cops lay the smack down on someone.
Well, I also believe Rodney King was a fucking scumbag. And on a personal note, it's very possible that he deserved what he got, because I've known a few people like that who would have deserved it.
But I don't believe that cops should do that sort of thing without the full understanding that they are going to be punished for it exactly like anybody else would.
Hell, I didn't go looting in April 1992. It just looked like another dumbass getting the shit kicked out of him to me. My disagreement started when the police department began sticking up for them, and trying to keep them from being punished. Those guys should have already been expecting some serious assault charges and maybe worse, as far as I'm concerned.
The only thing that stops me personally from kicking some fool wigger's head when he tries to act tough downtown, is the knowledge that I'll probably go to jail if I do. I play by the "Limited Golden Rule" which means that I'll treat you like I want to be treated, right up until the point you prove to me that you're not worth it. And if you try to pick a fight with me, then we'll go rounds.
But if I hit you enough that you stop coming after me (hey, I'm not a great fighter, but it's happened before), then I am not going to keep beating you into a bloody mess right there on the street. If I did that, I would expect to be locked up for it, whether I was wearing a badge or a judge's robe or a fucking halo.
And to be perfectly honest, even if you punch somebody out in complete self-defense, you're still going to get arrested for it if you don't leave the scene. I've seen it happen dozens of times.
So the thought of cops getting away with beating somebody while they're already incapacitated, and not even going to jury trial for it - simply because it's their "job" (not public service) to detain these people, kinda makes me sick.
I dont know if I agree with the way some of the connections you made there, but some of the ideas are reasonable. I do agree with the fact that police should be very aware of their actions, expecting every one to be scrutinized and potentially have them off duty while an investigation ensues. I think the group/gang mentality that cops have needs to be quelled. Sure it's beneficial at times, but when things like this happen, the police system looks bad when they're all in defense of the cops involved and dont approach it objectively.
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:41 pm
by Guest
What a bunch of pussies, 2 cops to take down one old fart? I coulda done it with a hand tied behind my back.
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:43 pm
by Canis
[xeno]Julios wrote:clearly excessive force - it was unnecessarily brutal. Anger and hate lead to these kinds of incidents.
They also punched him in the head while he was on the ground.
If you can't control yourself in those sorts of situations you don't belong in the force.
period.
The results make it so. Granted we dont know exactly what lead up to what we see in the video, and although force is justified in situations like this, taking it to the extent of punching the guy in the head repeatedly isnt justifiable. They usually hit folks on the arms in pressure points to weaken grips and such.
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:44 pm
by Canis
Kracus wrote:What a bunch of pussies, 2 cops to take down one old fart? I coulda done it with a hand tied behind my back.
Fuck off, Kracfuck...
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:48 pm
by +JuggerNaut+
Canis wrote:[xeno]Julios wrote:clearly excessive force - it was unnecessarily brutal. Anger and hate lead to these kinds of incidents.
They also punched him in the head while he was on the ground.
If you can't control yourself in those sorts of situations you don't belong in the force.
period.
The results make it so. Granted we dont know exactly what lead up to what we see in the video, and although force is justified in situations like this, taking it to the extent of punching the guy in the head repeatedly isnt justifiable. They usually hit folks on the arms in pressure points to weaken grips and such.
so how do you explain the roughing up of the camera man?
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:55 pm
by Canis
+JuggerNaut+ wrote:Canis wrote:[xeno]Julios wrote:clearly excessive force - it was unnecessarily brutal. Anger and hate lead to these kinds of incidents.
They also punched him in the head while he was on the ground.
If you can't control yourself in those sorts of situations you don't belong in the force.
period.
The results make it so. Granted we dont know exactly what lead up to what we see in the video, and although force is justified in situations like this, taking it to the extent of punching the guy in the head repeatedly isnt justifiable. They usually hit folks on the arms in pressure points to weaken grips and such.
so how do you explain the roughing up of the camera man?
I dont know if he was a camera man. He just looked like some dude with some credentials around his neck. Regardless, he was walking towards the scene and was stopped, rather roughly, but not hurt in any way. For all I know (to the cop's credit) he could have been warned and disobeyed, which is interference and can get him jailtime. My best guess is he took it upon himself to get involved after being told to stay back, but I dont know what happened. He wasnt just an innocent dude (such as the rest of the onlookers who stayed back) who the cop grabbed for no reason and roughed up.
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:56 pm
by +JuggerNaut+
Canis wrote:+JuggerNaut+ wrote:Canis wrote:
The results make it so. Granted we dont know exactly what lead up to what we see in the video, and although force is justified in situations like this, taking it to the extent of punching the guy in the head repeatedly isnt justifiable. They usually hit folks on the arms in pressure points to weaken grips and such.
so how do you explain the roughing up of the camera man?
I dont know if he was a camera man. He just looked like some dude with some credentials around his neck. Regardless, he was walking towards the scene and was stopped, rather roughly, but not hurt in any way. For all I know (to the cop's credit) he could have been warned and disobeyed, which is interference and can get him jailtime. My best guess is he took it upon himself to get involved after being told to stay back, but I dont know what happened. He wasnt just an innocent dude (such as the rest of the onlookers who stayed back) who the cop grabbed for no reason and roughed up.
not hurt in anyway? all the articles i've read said he was "jabbed" in the stomach.
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:58 pm
by Canis
Whatever man, he wasnt hurt...
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 10:27 pm
by Massive Quasars
Canis is arguing for the other side today? Where's PH?
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 11:05 pm
by Canis
I'm not arguing for them, I'm trying to reduce the one-sided view against them...
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 11:10 pm
by R00k
I read an article by the news agency he works for, but I can't remember which one it was right now.
They said he was there and the cameraman was filming it. When the cops saw them looking on and taping, they asked what they were doing there. The guy said he was with the press and on the clock, and showed his pass, and the cop bent him backwards over the car and punched him in the stomach.
That was their version of events. I'll see if I can find the article again tonight.
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 11:12 pm
by plained
lets talk about what we know for some pages like this.
its so comforting rehashing the old because we know it.
hey look i read it said ey :lol:
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 1:24 am
by +JuggerNaut+
Canis wrote:Whatever man, he wasnt hurt...
so you're saying if a cop punched you in the gut, you wouldn't call that being "hurt"?
interesting.
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 1:25 am
by John^Rocker
thats what you get for botting
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 1:37 am
by tnf
this debate will never end...there are always going to be those who will instantly jump on cops for using force, no matter what...and then there will be those who will say "it looks like they did go too far here, but until we know the ENTIRE STORY we might want to withhold total judgement."
And, again, put yourself in the fucking shoes of a NO police officer for the last 5 weeks and see how much patience you have for just about fucking anything. and once more, that doesn't excuse what they did, but hopefully it will make people realize that sometimes otherwise good people get pushed to a fucking boiling point and snap for a second...problem with cops is that when they do it, people can get hurt. when someone else snaps, they go drink some beers, post about getting drunk on a forum, and then go kill some people in a video game for stress relief.
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 3:47 am
by R00k
tnf wrote:there are always going to be those who will instantly jump on cops for using force, no matter what
there will be those who will say "it looks like they did go too far here, but until we know the ENTIRE STORY we might want to withhold total judgement."
put yourself in the fucking shoes of a NO police officer for the last 5 weeks and see how much patience you have for just about fucking anything.
that doesn't excuse what they did, but hopefully it will make people realize that sometimes otherwise good people get pushed to a fucking boiling point and snap for a second
problem with cops is that when they do it, people can get hurt.
when someone else snaps, they go drink some beers, post about getting drunk on a forum, and then go kill some people in a video game for stress relief.
You're putting people in two categories here: those who believe cops should be persecuted, and those who want to see the situation from all angles.
That sounds a little biased to me - being someone who recognizes the need to know the circumstances, but also someone who wants police to be held accountable for their actions the same way everyone else is.
I don't see how I fit into either of those categories.
edit: I guess I would fit into the second category after all.
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 5:40 am
by tnf
i'm not putting everyone into those categories, but they are the two categories i see here.
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 5:48 am
by [xeno]Julios
nothing happens without reason. It's obvious these cops were under stress.
Nevertheless, their actions led to the unecessary harm of another person. They *shouldn't* have done what they did.
Yes they might not have been able to help themselves - as have so many other people who are put in jail for their actions - but that doesn't mean we should respect those actions.
And if they are the sort of people who are vulnerable to these sorts of stresses, then they shouldn't be on the force.
And if it's not a case of bad apples, but situation/police culture oriented, then those things should be addressed.
Punching someone in the head while they're down on the ground is UNNECESSARILY BRUTAL - plain and simple.
Cops need to use force yes - they don't need to use unnecessary force.
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 6:04 am
by Canis
+JuggerNaut+ wrote:Canis wrote:Whatever man, he wasnt hurt...
so you're saying if a cop punched you in the gut, you wouldn't call that being "hurt"?
interesting.
It would hurt, and I'd be ravingly pissed, but I wouldnt have been "hurt" (non-temporary) by it unless I was physically damaged. It's the same as being winded, and the guy was looking fine after the cop let him go...
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 7:26 am
by +JuggerNaut+
give me a break Canis, that's ridiculous. you still didn't address your opinion of why the officer felt he needed to do that?
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 7:29 am
by Dave
yeah, he looks fine to me:
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 7:30 am
by +JuggerNaut+
Dave wrote:yeah, he looks fine to me:
what the hell? who wrote the this crappy board?
ffs
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 7:32 am
by Dave
+JuggerNaut+ wrote:Dave wrote:yeah, he looks fine to me:
what the hell? who wrote the this crappy board?
ffs
fixed... :/
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 7:33 am
by Canis
+JuggerNaut+ wrote:give me a break Canis, that's ridiculous. you still didn't address your opinion of why the officer felt he needed to do that?
I dont know why he felt he needed to do that, and I'm not being ridiculous. That's how I feel.
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 7:36 am
by +JuggerNaut+
Canis wrote:+JuggerNaut+ wrote:give me a break Canis, that's ridiculous. you still didn't address your opinion of why the officer felt he needed to do that?
I dont know why he felt he needed to do that, and I'm not being ridiculous. That's how I feel.
is that how you feel?