Jump to content

#occupywallstreet Or Bourbonstreet Or Sesamestreet


Recommended Posts

You have argued multiple times cops should be allowed to use unnecessary and excessive violence at their own discretion.
You are a terrible reader.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 386
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You are a terrible reader.
Seems to me that what you said was "If the police tell you to do something and you don't do it, then you should expect to receive pain". Is that correct?Assuming this is the case, I think it would be important to examine exactly what the legality of the officer(s)'s order is. If you are exercising one of your amendment rights and not actually breaking any laws, does the order still stand and does the officer still have a right to inflict pain? From the officer's perspective, it comes down to things like "What is the extent of my mandate and how do I successfully enforce it?", "Who gave me the order and how do I best create a scenario in which I can achieve success". I am sceptical of the notion that "best interests of all involved" exist within the mandate of the police. They receive their orders and may or may not apply certain amounts of latitude to their actions and, in the end, it boils down to an individual level, in which we begin to see things like the pepper spray thing or some Occupy-guy accidentally setting his tent on fire because he lit a candle for warmth.I'm just asking questions, not judging.
Link to post
Share on other sites

"If the police tell you to do something and you don't do it, then you should expect to receive pain" = "cops should be allowed to use unnecessary and excessive violence at their own discretion."

Link to post
Share on other sites
"If the police tell you to do something and you don't do it, then you should expect to receive pain" = "cops should be allowed to use unnecessary and excessive violence at their own discretion."
Not far off. In the quote, you do not indicate that they are doing something wrong, or acting in a threatening manner, or that the amount of violence is reasonable to subdue the threat. (In both situations I'll refer to, we can agree that the subjects are doing something wrong, even if the wrongness of the protest is questionable.)You know, like suggesting that non-violent protestors, who are legally standing somewhere and not acting threateningly, should have expected to have violence inflicted on them, including forcibly and unnecessarily pepper sprayed.I'm not saying that's what did happen - we don't know what happened at that rally, and it is way too easy to pretend a bunch of people were standing around picking poseys until the big mean police showed up. But that was the premise we were using.Similarly, you argued in the past that the 15-year old drug smuggling illegal immigrant deserved the legally excessive violence the Border Patrol inflicted because...he was an illegal drug smuggler? Not because he was a threat, and even though the violence was deemed excessive and illegal.So...maybe you're just a bad writer?
Link to post
Share on other sites
You know, like suggesting that non-violent protestors, who are legally standing somewhere and not acting threateningly, should have expected to have violence inflicted on them, including forcibly and unnecessarily pepper sprayed.
Who said this?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Except, you know, completely different.
I google-imaged "Street Fighter Tie" to try to find a funny picture. I got this instead:Street-Tie-Fighter-II.jpg
Who said this?
I looked for a picture of a circle to post here. Well, I didn't, because I was tired after searching for a picture of a Street Fighter Tie. Use your imagination for a circle.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of finding funny pictures, you should just admit that you don't read good. And along with not reading, didn't even think through what it actually said, and like to jump to an incredible amount of conclusions that weren't even being implied. Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cops clearly have the right to arrest people who are breaking the law. They do not get to arrest people who are disobeying an order that does not involve breaking the law. For example, they can't order you to stop filming them and arrest you for it -- they will lose in court and probably have to pay a settlement.
Police arrest people for filming all the time, just because the charges are usually eventually dropped that doesn't mean there will be any kind of settlement and most people will be out serious cash defending themselves.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Police arrest people for filming all the time, just because the charges are usually eventually dropped that doesn't mean there will be any kind of settlement and most people will be out serious cash defending themselves.
Yeah, the cops generally drop it before court, and the defendant doesn't even need a lawyer. If it goes to court, most cases I've seen there has been a settlement -- but it doesn't happen very often because the cops and DA know they have zero chance of winning.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...