bartshan-83 Posted November 18, 2006 Posted November 18, 2006 Ok, I'm an idiot. What is the answer? Oh and BTW not leaving matters because if he had, none of this would have happened. 840812[/snapback] I didn't say you were an idiot. But I don't think it's too difficult to think of why he did both of those things. 1. He didn't leave because he is a typical cocky (*^*&%^$^#college student who thinks he knows everything about everything and that includes exactly what "rights" he has and what the police (or the man) can and cannot do to him. Somebody tells him to leave and he spouts off with his freedom speech and it goes from there. 2. He mentions the patriot act because he doesn't know what it is about and assumes it has something to do with campus police "infringing on his rights." And the reason none of this matters is because he could have been screaming racist remarks to the cops for all I care...that does not permit excessive force. And tasering a goofy college student who is cuffed IS excessive force, IMO. Even if he is an @sshole.
Dr. K Posted November 18, 2006 Posted November 18, 2006 Yeah, like that has never happened before. Not saying that's what was going on here, but neither you, nor I, know. 840814[/snapback] In logic, this is called the argument from ignorance, and is a common fallacy. Neither you nor I know whether there is a china teapot orbiting the sun in the same orbit as the earth. That is not an argument for the existence of this teapot. Your belief in the teapot does not make it real. Conspiracy theorists love the argument from ignorance.
Chef Jim Posted November 18, 2006 Posted November 18, 2006 In logic, this is called the argument from ignorance, and is a common fallacy. Neither you nor I know whether there is a china teapot orbiting the sun in the same orbit as the earth. That is not an argument for the existence of this teapot. Your belief in the teapot does not make it real. Conspiracy theorists love the argument from ignorance. 840818[/snapback] And you're following that arguement too. You weren't there but because your opinion of cops is that they are usually wrong in these cases you're using that opinion to cloud your perception of this case. What is true however, you !@#$ with the cops you're probably in for a beating.
Chef Jim Posted November 18, 2006 Posted November 18, 2006 I didn't say you were an idiot. 840817[/snapback] No, I called myself an idiot.
bartshan-83 Posted November 18, 2006 Posted November 18, 2006 No, I called myself an idiot. 840828[/snapback] Oh yeah...dumbass. Why argue when there is so much good wine to drink? ~ you should bring that one back.
KD in CA Posted November 18, 2006 Posted November 18, 2006 I didn't say you were an idiot. But I don't think it's too difficult to think of why he did both of those things. 1. He didn't leave because he is a typical cocky (*^*&%^$^#college student who thinks he knows everything about everything and that includes exactly what "rights" he has and what the police (or the man) can and cannot do to him. Somebody tells him to leave and he spouts off with his freedom speech and it goes from there. 2. He mentions the patriot act because he doesn't know what it is about and assumes it has something to do with campus police "infringing on his rights." And the reason none of this matters is because he could have been screaming racist remarks to the cops for all I care...that does not permit excessive force. And tasering a goofy college student who is cuffed IS excessive force, IMO. Even if he is an @sshole. 840817[/snapback] That's absurd. The point is it WASN'T excessive BECAUSE he was doing all those things. Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick; nobody is to be held responsible for their actions no matter what they do??? Under what circumstances exactly would it have been acceptable to tase this assclown?
bartshan-83 Posted November 18, 2006 Posted November 18, 2006 That's absurd. The point is it WASN'T excessive BECAUSE he was doing all those things. Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick; nobody is to be held responsible for their actions no matter what they do??? Under what circumstances exactly would it have been acceptable to tase this assclown? 840835[/snapback] On a popsicle stick? Maybe I went over the top, but I disagree. Could they have beat him with night sticks? You talk about being responsible for your actions but seem to think the police officers should be let off. What circumstances? If he was actually a threat. If he wasn't already cuffed. He should be held responsible for his actions. And the acceptable punishment would have been removal from the library (without being tasered or beaten) and arrested.
daquixers_is_back Posted November 18, 2006 Posted November 18, 2006 To quote him this morning, "We don't give our badge number out to people not involved. We are also not required to give our number out to the person being arrested because all that information will be on the ticket". 840579[/snapback] I wont say that I know more than your friend on most police matters, but this one I have to disagree with. Only because it has been brought to court SEVERAL times and every time the officer was found in fault. Tell your friend to look up Police Department VS Tirado ... spelling? I cant find the case now, but here is another case. Marvin George VS Miami Police Department. From the report: "Allegations1) The MDPD officers searched Mr. George’s vehicle without his consent. 2) Officer Daniel Figueroa and Officer Kevin Thelwell refused to provide the complainant with their names and badge numbers when requested. Recommendations 1) That Officer Daniel Figueroa receive a Record of Counseling for not providing his name and badge number when asked by a citizen." What does your friend have to say about that? Ok. well anyway. how about this. from SanJoseca.gov "The officer refused to provide identification. The citizen is complaining only about the injuries to his wrists. The SJPD policy is that officers provide their name and badge numbers to any citizen requesting identification." Alright. Well how about this article at ACLU The officer responded, “It is time for you to leave.” The ACLU woman again demanded to have the officer’s badge number—which he refused to provide, although legally obligated to do so. ??? or from another website ... requiring that officers show identification and provide their badge numbers to citizens on rquest. Listen. Im not saying that all districts require this but MOST do. I will ask for professor for further information at a later time. I can give you a TON of these cases, most of which went AGAINST the officer. But, HEY! lets not let facts get in the way of what your friend says. He will probably be one of the officers brought to court for not giving his badge number. (joke) If you couldnt tell If you didn't watch the video then stop posting in this thread. No student was ever threatened for asking for a badge number. One student was told to move back or else he would be tased. 840612[/snapback] Good post and your right. I shouldnt have posted without seeing the video ... because apparently because spread information incorrectly (I kept hearing people say through this and other websites that a student asked a policemen for a badge number and the officer threatened to tase him.
KD in CA Posted November 18, 2006 Posted November 18, 2006 And the acceptable punishment would have been removal from the library (without being tasered or beaten) and arrested. 840838[/snapback] And what happens when the 'acceptable punishment' is refused? This asswipe had ample opportunity to leave the library peacefully and instead chose to ignore the orders and make a scene. How else do you remove someone who refuses to budge? Why should the officers be forced to put themselves in harm's way by physically subduing him? Why risk creating further injury to the asswipe or other bystanders by having an unpredictable physical altercation? Isn't this the reason cops are giving tasers, pepper spray and the like? To avoid physical interaction?
bartshan-83 Posted November 18, 2006 Posted November 18, 2006 And what happens when the 'acceptable punishment' is refused? This asswipe had ample opportunity to leave the library peacefully and instead chose to ignore the orders and make a scene. How else do you remove someone who refuses to budge? Why should the officers be forced to put themselves in harm's way by physically subduing him? Why risk creating further injury to the asswipe or other bystanders by having an unpredictable physical altercation? Isn't this the reason cops are giving tasers, pepper spray and the like? To avoid physical interaction? 840853[/snapback] Bro, all I'm saying is that I think it was well within the capacity of the 5+ cops there to remove him from the library without tasering him and without him causing injury. If he was freaking out while they were trying to cuff him and he was a threat, then yes, go ahead and taser him. I just don't find it acceptable to use a taser on someone who is outnumbered and without the use of his arms. And additionally, it's not like he was kicking around and trying to injure the cops when they tasered him. His crime was not getting up and then dragging his feet. Not taser-worthy.
KD in CA Posted November 18, 2006 Posted November 18, 2006 Bro, all I'm saying is that I think it was well within the capacity of the 5+ cops there to remove him from the library without tasering him and without him causing injury. If he was freaking out while they were trying to cuff him and he was a threat, then yes, go ahead and taser him. I just don't find it acceptable to use a taser on someone who is outnumbered and without the use of his arms. And additionally, it's not like he was kicking around and trying to injure the cops when they tasered him. His crime was not getting up and then dragging his feet. Not taser-worthy. 840858[/snapback] Come on, if YOU are the person who has to deal with that situation you're going to tell me he wasn't a potential a threat? He doesn't have to draw a gun to be a threat. "Threat" includes the potential for harm. The guy was totally out of control and gave every indication that he had no intention of cooperating in anyway. What happens if the cops take it easy and the guy pulls out a gun and kills someone? Today you are hammering the cops for failing to handle the situation. Despite his supposed 'incapacity' after being tased, he certainly had plenty of lung capacity to continue to scream obscenities and other nonsense. The cops REPEATED told him to get up and instead he stayed on the ground and escalated the situation verbally. Also, you can't tell from the tape in what position he was in, we just know he wasn't standing upright. It is not a job requirement for cops to get injured dealing with some psycho a-hole. They are supposed to avoid dragging him out on the ground 5 on 1. IMO they gave him ample opportunity to comply after each tasing and he refused. Not only did this guy deserve every volt, but he also deserves to be adequately punished for disturbing the peace and resisting arrest.
Dr. K Posted November 18, 2006 Posted November 18, 2006 And what happens when the 'acceptable punishment' is refused? This asswipe had ample opportunity to leave the library peacefully and instead chose to ignore the orders and make a scene. How else do you remove someone who refuses to budge? Why should the officers be forced to put themselves in harm's way by physically subduing him? Why risk creating further injury to the asswipe or other bystanders by having an unpredictable physical altercation? Isn't this the reason cops are giving tasers, pepper spray and the like? To avoid physical interaction? 840853[/snapback] You keep saying he refused to budge but there is NO EVIDENCE of that. All the resports of witnesses say he was going. On the tape itself he says he is going, and they keep tasing him becasue he can't stand up. Could YOU stand up if you were beeing hit with 30,000 volts every thirty seconds? All this crap about the cops being in harm's way is also just crap. Not one report of this incident ever says the cops were in harm's way. They certainly were not in harm's way when the guy was on the ground, shocke,d and cuffed. You don't care, whatever the cops do is okay with you.
bartshan-83 Posted November 18, 2006 Posted November 18, 2006 Come on, if YOU are the person who has to deal with that situation you're going to tell me he wasn't a potential a threat? He doesn't have to draw a gun to be a threat. "Threat" includes the potential for harm. The guy was totally out of control and gave every indication that he had no intention of cooperating in anyway. What happens if the cops take it easy and the guy pulls out a gun and kills someone? Today you are hammering the cops for failing to handle the situation. Despite his supposed 'incapacity' after being tased, he certainly had plenty of lung capacity to continue to scream obscenities and other nonsense. The cops REPEATED told him to get up and instead he stayed on the ground and escalated the situation verbally. Also, you can't tell from the tape in what position he was in, we just know he wasn't standing upright. It is not a job requirement for cops to get injured dealing with some psycho a-hole. They are supposed to avoid dragging him out on the ground 5 on 1. IMO they gave him ample opportunity to comply after each tasing and he refused. Not only did this guy deserve every volt, but he also deserves to be adequately punished for disturbing the peace and resisting arrest. 840862[/snapback] We're are probably not going to come to agreement. You said "what if they took it easy and he killed someone?" I already said that PRIOR to being cuffed, if he was threatening and they couldn't subdue him, then go ahead and taser him. I see no way for him to be a threat to anyone when he has handcuffs on and is grossly outnumbered. I don't really see what the problem would be with dragging him physically when he refused to walk. You are right about not getting a good look on the video, but I saw/heard no indication that this option was even being attempted. But who knows? But I am rehashing and so are you...we aren't getting anywhere. I actually feel silly about arguing about something with such little information to go on. Especially while these green jerseys are holding us back...
Dr. K Posted November 18, 2006 Posted November 18, 2006 And you're following that arguement too. You weren't there but because your opinion of cops is that they are usually wrong in these cases you're using that opinion to cloud your perception of this case. What is true however, you !@#$ with the cops you're probably in for a beating. 840827[/snapback] Your evidence for a conspiracy by the video maker to embarrass the police is non-existent. I am going by the video and the news reports (which apparently you also see as part of some conspiracy). So all the witnesses who say the cops were out of line were wrong. And the evidence of the video itself is not relevant. "You !@#$ with the cops and you're probably in for a beating" is exactly what's wrong with this whole thing."
OGTEleven Posted November 18, 2006 Posted November 18, 2006 So why do they keep tasing him while he's on the ground and helpless? 840762[/snapback] Because he was of Iranian descent. That's why they tazed him. All the cops are out to get him. Woe is him. If his name was Jones they would have tazed the librarian because they were roaming around campus looking for someone to taze. Why do you think they did it? What are you suggesting? Seriously, why do you think they did it? What should they have done and how long should they have done it for before tazing was the best choice available or at least a reasonable choice?
OGTEleven Posted November 18, 2006 Posted November 18, 2006 Cops should never let their anger, no matter how justified it may be, control their actions. We give them life-or-death power over us with the expectation that they will use it responsibly. Everyone is human, but this is a job that requires the utmost professionalism and good judgment. Cops should behave better than an angry kid in a universtiy library who's pissed off because he thinks he's being racially profiled. 840786[/snapback] What should they have done and for hong long?
OGTEleven Posted November 18, 2006 Posted November 18, 2006 In logic, this is called the argument from ignorance, and is a common fallacy. Neither you nor I know whether there is a china teapot orbiting the sun in the same orbit as the earth. That is not an argument for the existence of this teapot. Your belief in the teapot does not make it real. Conspiracy theorists love the argument from ignorance. 840818[/snapback] Are you the same guy that posted they might have harassed him because he is Iranian and maybe he couldn't move because he was incapacitated by the tazing in this very same thread? How are those things different?
KD in CA Posted November 18, 2006 Posted November 18, 2006 You keep saying he refused to budge but there is NO EVIDENCE of that. All the resports of witnesses say he was going. On the tape itself he says he is going, and they keep tasing him becasue he can't stand up. Could YOU stand up if you were beeing hit with 30,000 volts every thirty seconds? WTF is "he was going" supposed to mean? Either he is walking towards the door or he is sitting on the floor. The camera wasn't moving -- that's your evidence -- so obviously he was not "going". He was staying. Just like he had been staying since he was first told to leave long before the cops arrived. On the tape, the cops repeatedly told him to stand up and get "going" but instead he stayed put and screamed at them. That's why he got zapped, and deservedly so. All this crap about the cops being in harm's way is also just crap. Not one report of this incident ever says the cops were in harm's way. They certainly were not in harm's way when the guy was on the ground, shocke,d and cuffed. No the cops were not in harm’s way because they appropriately subdued the perp before the situation got that far. Once again since you obviously can't understand the concept: cops are not required to put themselves into harm's way. They are allowed to do what is necessary to avoid putting themselves in danger. They are allowed to use judgment based on the perp’s actions which in this case were pretty clear; they were dealing with a volatile person who had no intention of following their directives. You don't care, whatever the cops do is okay with you. You're not going to cry are you?
Dr. K Posted November 18, 2006 Posted November 18, 2006 Because he was of Iranian descent. That's why they tazed him. All the cops are out to get him. Woe is him. If his name was Jones they would have tazed the librarian because they were roaming around campus looking for someone to taze. Why do you think they did it? What are you suggesting? Seriously, why do you think they did it? What should they have done and how long should they have done it for before tazing was the best choice available or at least a reasonable choice? 840870[/snapback] They tazed him becaused they lost their tempers, because he did not do what they wanted as fast as they wanted it, because they represent authority and he is just some brown-skinned !@#$ who didn't have an ID card and was therfore clearly in the wrong. They did it because he shouted out about the Patriot Act and they probably considered that prima facie evidence that he was a terrorist or at least disloyal to the United States or at least somebody they did not have to respect. They did it because after they tazed him the first time, he did not get up on their comands to stand up, not caring whether he was physically capable of standing up and despite his protests that he was going to leave. They did it because by that time the thing was out of control and they could not back down. They did it because the crowd of other students was against them,and they felt themselves outnumberd and did not want to lose face by changing their course and it only made them madder at this !@#$ brown guy for putting them in a situation where they will look bad. Is that enough reasons for you? These are completely human and understandable reasons, and all of them are not enough to justify their behavior, in my opinion. I agree with Bart that we have gotten to a point where we are just talking past each other, so I will stop now. I already said that in 90% of these cases, my sympathies lie with the police, who have a hard job to do. I just wish the U.S. weren't so full of people who think the way you do. I'm sure you feel the same way about me.
OGTEleven Posted November 18, 2006 Posted November 18, 2006 "Who had the camera and why?" You may consider me an idiot, but you are a lunatic. Seen any black helicopters lately? 840809[/snapback] I agree with you here except for calling people lunatics. The video I saw looked like it might have come from some other random kid's cell phone. It can't be a surprise in this age that anything could be filmed.
Recommended Posts