REVscene - Vancouver Automotive Forum


Welcome to the REVscene Automotive Forum forums.

Registration is Free!You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   REVscene Automotive Forum > Automotive Chat > Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events

Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events The off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-04-2012, 07:13 PM   #26
Throw yo paws in da air!
 
XplicitLuder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: State of Trance
Posts: 5,120
Thanked 2,777 Times in 955 Posts
i knew i shouldn't have taken anything seriously from gridlock lol jk
Advertisement
__________________

Proud member of GRAPE Great Revscene Action Photography Enthusiasts


2008 Infiniti M45X - Y50 (Current)
2000 Honda Prelude SH (Sold)
1995 Dodge Spirit (Sold)
1998 Nissan Maxima SE (Sold)
1996 Honda Prelude SR-V (Sold)
XplicitLuder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2012, 07:16 PM   #27
The Brown Reason
 
BrRsn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Whalley
Posts: 4,607
Thanked 5,863 Times in 1,525 Posts
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcrdukes
fuck this shit, i'm out
BrRsn is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 01-04-2012, 09:46 PM   #28
Banned By Establishment
 
Gridlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New West
Posts: 3,998
Thanked 2,982 Times in 1,135 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhillon09 View Post
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"
Gridlock is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 01-04-2012, 10:41 PM   #29
VLS Moderator
 
Senna4ever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 16,347
Thanked 2,573 Times in 829 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Everymans View Post
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!
__________________
2007 Volvo V50
Taken by ex: 2005 Toyota Prius.
R.I.P. 1997 Lexus ES300.
R.I.P. 1989 Acura Legend Coupe LS.
Senna4ever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 02:15 PM   #30
Banned (ABWS)?
 
AzNightmare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 18,706
Thanked 3,764 Times in 1,571 Posts
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.
__________________
__________________________________________________
Last edited by AzNightmare; Today at 10:09 AM
AzNightmare is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 01-05-2012, 03:17 PM   #31
Hypa owned my ass at least once
 
Noir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Japan
Posts: 6,745
Thanked 1,314 Times in 540 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gridlock View Post
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?
Noir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 07:21 PM   #32
Banned By Establishment
 
Gridlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New West
Posts: 3,998
Thanked 2,982 Times in 1,135 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noir View Post
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.
Gridlock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 07:54 PM   #33
RS.net, helping ugly ppl have sex since 2001
 
Great68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Victoria
Posts: 9,694
Thanked 3,938 Times in 1,392 Posts
__________________
1968 Mustang Coupe
2008.5 Mazdaspeed 3
1997 GMC Sonoma ZR2
2014 F150 5.0L XTR 4x4

A vehicle for all occasions
Great68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 09:52 PM   #34
Hypa owned my ass at least once
 
Noir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Japan
Posts: 6,745
Thanked 1,314 Times in 540 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gridlock View Post
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?
Noir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 10:02 PM   #35
Banned By Establishment
 
Gridlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New West
Posts: 3,998
Thanked 2,982 Times in 1,135 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noir View Post
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.
Gridlock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 08:49 PM   #36
RS controls my life!
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 722
Thanked 599 Times in 165 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redlines_Daily View Post
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.
Everymans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 02:52 AM   #37
JF.
14 dolla balla aint got nothing on me!
 
JF.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Delta
Posts: 647
Thanked 84 Times in 22 Posts

the cop pulls out a bag of coke from his pocket and blames it on the black guy. (1:05)
JF. is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Revscene.net cannot be held accountable for the actions of its members nor does the opinions of the members represent that of Revscene.net