Police Brutality Backfires

[XplicitLuder]

i knew i shouldn't have taken anything seriously from gridlock lol jk

[BrRsn]

Who cares the idiot wouldn't have been subjected to police brutality anyhow had he decided not to be an attention whore and go running on the field.

[Gridlock]

Originally Posted by dhillon09

Who cares the idiot wouldn't have been subjected to police brutality anyhow had he decided not to be an attention whore and go running on the field.

And that is the single most damaging attitude to general freedoms the world over.

"Who cares if you get randomly searched by police? You have nothing to hide"

[Senna4ever]

Originally Posted by Everymans

Actually, if the prick is resisting arrest then why aren't they allowed to use brutal force? That's like saying if a gunmen isn't putting down his gun they you shouldn't shoot him? If you have 4 cops on you, just give up, if you don't, then expect a beatdown. You can argue your case in court or after your handcuffs. I've watched enough episodes of COPS to understand what doesn't fly when dealing with cops. Trust me, I'm an expert.

Oh, hey, I've watched all of the Karate Kid movies! That means I'm an expert in karate! Sweet!

[AzNightmare]

How about not be a dumbass and stay off the field if you're not a player.

Some people simply deserve to get beat for just being dumbasses.

[Noir]

Originally Posted by Gridlock

And that is the single most damaging attitude to general freedoms the world over.

"Who cares if you get randomly searched by police? You have nothing to hide"

Do you mind the inconvenience of random roadside checks for drunk drivers? or do you only mind when you're drunk?

[Gridlock]

Originally Posted by Noir

Do you mind the inconvenience of random roadside checks for drunk drivers? or do you only mind when you're drunk?

We are not free. We never were free, and we will never be free. Pure freedom is pure chaos.

So we restrict freedoms in ways for the benefit of all. I am not free to go and shoot Taylor(lol jk)

When I posted that, I accept that we are not currently "free" in the purest sense of the word. We accept that with minimal intrusion in our lives, freedoms that we don't need are lost.

So it becomes a statement of what level of intrusion are we willing to accept?

And that is what concerns me. When people feel that they are willing to accept more and more intrusion in the name of protecting society, under the ideal, that "this freedom I have lost does not matter, because I have nothing to hide, or that intrusion isn't so bad"

We accept that stopping to be checked for alcohol while driving is acceptable. Why? Well, we don't have a right to drive. It is a privilege within the grounds of the laws that have been passed.

What I wouldn't accept is the idea that we could stop so many more drunk drivers if we put everyone through a breathalyzer at the roadside checks.

"But Griddy, you aren't drinking, so what does it matter?"

It's an intrusion in my private life. You have no reason to suspect I'm drinking, so I should be left to go on my way.

I think that we should have the minimum amount of laws on a subject, not the maximum. I think personal freedom within societal protection should be the litmus test.

Much like its better to let 10 guilty men go free, than convict one innocent man, it should also be, "let 10 guilty go free, than to infringe upon the innocent to catch them"

That's an idealist statement, and not practical in usage, but should be a thought in the process that may prevent warrantless wiretapping.

But, this post has taken this thread waaaaay OT.

[Great68]

[Noir]

Originally Posted by Gridlock

We are not free. We never were free, and we will never be free. Pure freedom is pure chaos.

So we restrict freedoms in ways for the benefit of all. I am not free to go and shoot Taylor(lol jk)

When I posted that, I accept that we are not currently "free" in the purest sense of the word. We accept that with minimal intrusion in our lives, freedoms that we don't need are lost.

So it becomes a statement of what level of intrusion are we willing to accept?

And that is what concerns me. When people feel that they are willing to accept more and more intrusion in the name of protecting society, under the ideal, that "this freedom I have lost does not matter, because I have nothing to hide, or that intrusion isn't so bad"

We accept that stopping to be checked for alcohol while driving is acceptable. Why? Well, we don't have a right to drive. It is a privilege within the grounds of the laws that have been passed.

What I wouldn't accept is the idea that we could stop so many more drunk drivers if we put everyone through a breathalyzer at the roadside checks.

"But Griddy, you aren't drinking, so what does it matter?"

It's an intrusion in my private life. You have no reason to suspect I'm drinking, so I should be left to go on my way.

I think that we should have the minimum amount of laws on a subject, not the maximum. I think personal freedom within societal protection should be the litmus test.

Much like its better to let 10 guilty men go free, than convict one innocent man, it should also be, "let 10 guilty go free, than to infringe upon the innocent to catch them"

That's an idealist statement, and not practical in usage, but should be a thought in the process that may prevent warrantless wiretapping.

But, this post has taken this thread waaaaay OT.

Nice write-up, but your entire argument hinges on one very crucial factor, and that is what's bolded. You're right, what if there's no reason? However, what if there IS a reason?

What if an individual thinks its within his rights for disorderly conducts and ruin a soccer game for everyone?

What if an individual thinks its within his rights to resist arrest?

[Gridlock]

Originally Posted by Noir

Nice write-up, but your entire argument hinges on one very crucial factor, and that is what's bolded. You're right, what if there's no reason? However, what if there IS a reason?

What if an individual thinks its within his rights for disorderly conducts and ruin a soccer game for everyone?

What if an individual thinks its within his rights to resist arrest?

I totally agree with you. But the point that I was addressing on my tangent had nothing to do with that. It was:

"Who cares the idiot wouldn't have been subjected to police brutality anyhow had he decided not to be an attention whore and go running on the field."

So, the attitude is, fuck it! he wouldn't have been beaten in the first place if he wasn't there.

Get enough people with that attitude, and we're fucked!

No, I don't support police brutality for people that are in the wrong. Their job is not to give a few extra whacks before the courts get him. Their job is to investigate, detain and hand over to the courts.

Yes, I'm aware I'm taking this thread in an unexpected tangent.

All of the points you made are valid. This dipshit should not have the 'right' to disrupt the game.

What I'm saying is the attitude of not caring about the end result is dangerous. Whether it be:

1. warrant-less wiretapping and surveillance
2. Having everyone line up for a breathalyzer without probable cause
3. 100,000 other examples I could conjure up.

[Everymans]

Originally Posted by Redlines_Daily

No, its not the same at all. A gunman poses a threat to hurt people around him.

Most people don't think clearly when they are being beaten and adrenaline is pumping. Most people have a natural instinct to resist against someone who is hurting them. Police are trained professionals, there is no excuse to use force beyond what is required by the situation. I'm quite sure the 4 large men could have gotten the runners arms behind his back and cuffed without hitting him, if they only took another 30 seconds.

There are some circumstances where force may be called for if the suspect is a risk to the officers, but in most cases its just a pathetic display of dominance. We don't need cops like this..these guys that use any chance they get to beat on someone, they are cowards and have no business being cops.

But on the other hand, when someone is intoxicated and doesn't want to be apprehended then they tend to be more violent when being detained. Which could cause the officers harm. In some cases, it is appropriate to beat a guy when he refuses to cooperate, especially if he is in a physical state where he believes he can break free or fight the cops or he is just a naturally violent and abrasive individual who is not willing to give in. I seen this all over the place during the riot, cops try and apprehend a guy for throwing a beer bottle, guy punches cop, cop busts his ass down, guy flails and yells, manages to punch cop again, another officer joins and they use a baton to finally nail the message across. This video is a good example of taking it over the line, the guy was streaking, possibly drunk. He didn't throw a punch at the cops and they could have easily gotten him detained.

I was also joking with my first comment, hence the "I'm an expert" line... Although cops has taught me a lot about how to deal with police and law enforcement.

[JF.]

Video: Caught On Tape: Utica,NY Cops Plants Cocaine On Innocent Man!?

the cop pulls out a bag of coke from his pocket and blames it on the black guy. (1:05)