|
One more "fuck the police" from page 8 and onward is going to have an all expense paid weekend to E-Disneyland. It adds nothing to the discussion and as such please refrain from making such posts in this topic and the boards in general. |
On May 29 2011 23:57 SpeaKEaSY wrote:
You fail at civics. Go look up the role of the executive branch. The executive branch has a check on the legislative branch by choosing whether or not to enforce its laws. Go back to 1st grade social studies class because you've clearly learned nothing there.
It's not a law to begin with without the approval of the executive branch so I don't know what you think it's their job to enforce... You have a pretty distorted view as to how checks and balances actually works.
|
Canada13389 Posts
On May 29 2011 23:42 Arkless wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 23:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2011 23:35 Arkless wrote:On May 29 2011 23:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2011 23:27 Aurious wrote:On May 29 2011 23:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2011 23:18 Arkless wrote:On May 29 2011 23:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2011 23:04 Arkless wrote:On May 29 2011 22:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
1. He was resisting arrest... so your argument is invalid (where is that Nicholas Cage picture...)
2. Why are we talking about Republicans now?
3. Chill. Just because you yell STOP RESISTING doesn't mean he was resisitng. Watch the vid again man, he clearly stated IM NOT RESISTING, followd by the cop yelling again STOP RESISTING. So by your logic the first person to yell something is always in the right. They cannot strangle and close fist strike you. They are allowed to meet force with equal force, but as u see here I don't recall anyone trying to run away or body slam/strangle the cops. Nor was anyone actual resisting arrest, The lady at the beginning resisted more by trying to turn her head then the guy on the ground. Now where is the line, and who got to determine what was dancing? What if buddy in the corner shivered when all this went down and got arrested because "he was dancing" lol Yelling "I'M NOT RESISTING" while resisting doesn't mean you're not resisting. He was purposely keeping his hands up in the air and refusing to put his hands behind his back. He was warned over and over again. He was just being a dick. To get someone as big as Adam (who has military training too) to put his hands behind his back by force- since Adam wasn't doing it voluntarily- they had to put him down and hold him there. I'd like to find a murderer who shot someone while yelling "I'M NOT KILLING YOU" and see you argue for their freedom. Ummmm, I'm not talking about adam. He says nothing WATCH THE VIDEO. The guy before adam who commented on his shoulder............ All right then... the only force done by the officers were to Adam though o.O The force done to the guy with the shoulder problem was caused by the interloper who wasn't a cop. He caused problems. The cry regarding the shoulder was because that random man was interfering. Adam was resisting arrest, and was dealt with accordingly. The shoulder guy was dealt with appropriately as well, despite the fact that someone (another dancer, it looked like) tried interfering with the arrest. A body slam is force which Adam was clearly not using any force other than walking away. As was stated before an officer needs to have a direct reason to use THAT kind of force. He needed to arrest Adam. Adam's huge and a military man. Adam was resisting arrest. Problem? You don't just *walk away* from getting arrested. lol. Try it, see what happens. Adam was purposely keeping his hands up in the air and refusing to put his hands behind his back. He was warned over and over again. He was just being a dick and putting on a show for his camera crew. Do you *really* think he got hurt? lol. He was trolling the cops. You do when he can't tell you what he is arresting you for. "Hey you, sitting in your own home, you're under arrest" "What for?" "I don't know, but sitting is illegal" "Derp......OK....." Fuck that...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_manYou're welcome. Anyways, I need to go. Boy, this was fun. Glad to see there is still a full herd of sheep in this world. Ghandi, AND the founding fathers among others are rolling in their graves
No actually you are misunderstanding the position your debate partner is taking against yours. You are saying it was wrong of the police to arrest Adam. Darkplasmaball is saying it was not wrong to arrest him in the way he was.
Your position lies in the fact that you cant arrest someone the way adam was arrested for what he did.
While I find it ridiculous that Adam was arrested for dancing, I do understand why they arrested him the way they did. If you do not have an understanding of policing or crime or criminology please keep your opinions to yourself unless they are well informed.
Darkplasmaball said nothing about why adam was arrested. He is saying that Adam was resisting the initial arrest (right or wrong he did not take a longstanding position on) and that the reaction of the police was understandable.
The straw man comment was due to your position that the arrest was wrong by analyzing the way he was arrested. This is a straw man argument. The arrest being right or wrong is separate from the way he was arrested. By using the way he is arrested to say his arrest was wrong is a straw man fallacy thats all :/ DPB isnt being a sheep you are making an invalid fallacious argument.
I don't agree with the body slam but adam is a big guy he has a lot of muscles and when they came to arrest him he locked his body up. That is not being passive that is an active way of resisting arrest. You are not letting the police put your hands in handcuffs for the safety of the police officers. Such a big guy, in that stressful and complicated (for the police) situation the police will be worried for themselves and they will try to incapacitate his hands and body in such a way that the threat level to them will be limited. They made an example of Adam as well. I'm not saying its right but thats what happened. They did what the police do which is to try and maintain control to keep control of the situation. These situations breed hyper masculine ideals and when a big muscly guy isnt listening to you as a cop who is steeped in a hyper masculine culture will default to an aggressive and physical action to deal with someone who is huge and not listening whom they are probably afraid of in a fearful situation.
Im just saying that the way they did it can be understood however I may personally disagree with it. If he had let them cuff him easily without holding his arms up and taught then he wouldnt have been dealt with in this way. That's all.
|
You know what would be funny, if Starcraft was banned (like it was in China), all these people would be crying bloody murder. And if someone was bodyslammed for playing it at a cybercafe out of protest and refusing to leave, you'd all have his back.
"lol what a bunch of nerds, you don't have a god given right to play silly computer games, the police have every right to body slam you, they're just doing their job."
|
On May 29 2011 20:07 Megaliskuu wrote:
You kids and your "fuck the police" attitude, oh you kids are funny.
man I'm totally with you! The government can do whatever they want, I just wanna sit in my home and not be bothered I won't resist.
|
On May 29 2011 23:59 LegendaryZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 23:57 SpeaKEaSY wrote:
You fail at civics. Go look up the role of the executive branch. The executive branch has a check on the legislative branch by choosing whether or not to enforce its laws. Go back to 1st grade social studies class because you've clearly learned nothing there. It's not a law to begin with without the approval of the executive branch so I don't know what you think it's their job to enforce... You have a pretty distorted view as to how checks and balances actually works.
DOMA isn't a law? It may not be a good law, but it's still a law, and one that the Obama administration has announced they will nullify by refusing to enforce it.
You have a pretty distorted view as to how checks and balances actually works.
|
On May 29 2011 23:38 mmp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 23:32 Ghostcom wrote:On May 29 2011 23:29 mmp wrote:On May 29 2011 22:50 Navillus wrote:On May 29 2011 22:41 mmp wrote:On May 29 2011 22:27 Navillus wrote:On May 29 2011 22:22 mmp wrote:On May 29 2011 22:14 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
There is one reason and one reason only why they are dancing. This reason is to provoke the cops that are there. Cops who by the way had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of any law.
They are not there because they feel like dancing they are there to troll the police that show up. To see if they can get themselves some footage of being arrested for dancing, or to see whether they can get away with breaking the law while the police watches them do it.
These cops work for a minimum wage, probably had to study hard to pass the cop exam and ended up knowing only 50% of basic law and probably <1% of total law. If you want geniuses in blue who can drill up the lawbook and do everything perfectly then go ahead and pay your cops $300k/year. They were sent there to do their job, which is a) not to allow dancing and b) not to allow provocation.
What you need to be complaining about is who you vote for that makes laws you disagree with. The force is excessive. People are simply accustomed to violence. Where was it excessive? The guy being thrown to the ground? Because how should he have gotten him in handcuffs, asking nicely obviously wasn't working, should he have just grabbed his arms and forced them behind the guys back, because that's about as likely to break the guys arms as do anything productive. Frankly I thought he put him down lighter than he had to. Or are you angry about the 2 guys on the ground, because I seem to recall the one the cops were on top of was the one who physically interfered with an arrest by trying to pull his cooperating friend away from a cop, and that certainly warrants force. So please, where were they excessive? A rational appraisal of the situation would regard the act as hooliganism at worst, public demonstration at best. In either regard, there was sufficient manpower to calmly arrest all of the people involved. The cop that did the drop and choke hold was being macho. There was no immediate need to take the man down alone. The cops roughed up one man (the one complaining about his shoulder) on the ground because they felt like it. The loudest man arrested was pushed around for not shutting up. It is excessive because there was no credible threat posed by the activists, and the cops could have arrested them at their leisure rather than treating them "efficiently." Unfortunately, machoism makes it an embarrassing video for both parties. Ok you talk about a rational appraisal, this is really silly because we can't expect cops to step back every time they're going to make an arrest and contemplate their best course of action. You basically are asking for them to act perfectly without hurting anyone and I don't think that that should be the standard, I think the standard should be that if you don't listen to a cop he get's to do what it takes to put you in handcuffs. People should be afraid of cops and they should have reason to be afraid, more good is done by deterrence than stopping people with the correct amount of force every time. Well I stand by my statement, and I think it simply comes down to professional training, as evidenced by the comments of some Europeans in this thread that this kind of behavior wouldn't fly in their country -- it's simply a matter of a culture's tolerance for violence that dictates what action is proportional. As for respecting authority, I think silly laws ought to be protested. I also think you should be prepared to reject authority when it gets in the way of what you believe are legitimate civil actions. Such is democracy. Silly laws should most definitely be protested against, breaking just isn't the obvious route to take when there are so many other (legal) ways to protest against them.. By refusing to break the law, you consent to the authority that imposed the law. Such is tyranny.
Such is democracy - which you could claim is simply a tyranny by majority, but it is VERY seldom for a tyranny to let you have a direct impact upon the system and it's rules. This has nothing to do with tyranny. If you wanted to change every single rule someone found silly you would end up with anarchy and I don't think it takes a genious to see how terrible that is (examplified by more or less EVERY SINGLE major disaster where law-enforcement is unable to function).
|
On May 29 2011 23:54 Angra wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 23:42 Arkless wrote:On May 29 2011 23:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2011 23:35 Arkless wrote:On May 29 2011 23:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2011 23:27 Aurious wrote:On May 29 2011 23:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2011 23:18 Arkless wrote:On May 29 2011 23:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2011 23:04 Arkless wrote:
[quote]
Just because you yell STOP RESISTING doesn't mean he was resisitng. Watch the vid again man, he clearly stated IM NOT RESISTING, followd by the cop yelling again STOP RESISTING. So by your logic the first person to yell something is always in the right. They cannot strangle and close fist strike you. They are allowed to meet force with equal force, but as u see here I don't recall anyone trying to run away or body slam/strangle the cops. Nor was anyone actual resisting arrest, The lady at the beginning resisted more by trying to turn her head then the guy on the ground. Now where is the line, and who got to determine what was dancing? What if buddy in the corner shivered when all this went down and got arrested because "he was dancing" lol Yelling "I'M NOT RESISTING" while resisting doesn't mean you're not resisting. He was purposely keeping his hands up in the air and refusing to put his hands behind his back. He was warned over and over again. He was just being a dick. To get someone as big as Adam (who has military training too) to put his hands behind his back by force- since Adam wasn't doing it voluntarily- they had to put him down and hold him there. I'd like to find a murderer who shot someone while yelling "I'M NOT KILLING YOU" and see you argue for their freedom. Ummmm, I'm not talking about adam. He says nothing WATCH THE VIDEO. The guy before adam who commented on his shoulder............ All right then... the only force done by the officers were to Adam though o.O The force done to the guy with the shoulder problem was caused by the interloper who wasn't a cop. He caused problems. The cry regarding the shoulder was because that random man was interfering. Adam was resisting arrest, and was dealt with accordingly. The shoulder guy was dealt with appropriately as well, despite the fact that someone (another dancer, it looked like) tried interfering with the arrest. A body slam is force which Adam was clearly not using any force other than walking away. As was stated before an officer needs to have a direct reason to use THAT kind of force. He needed to arrest Adam. Adam's huge and a military man. Adam was resisting arrest. Problem? You don't just *walk away* from getting arrested. lol. Try it, see what happens. Adam was purposely keeping his hands up in the air and refusing to put his hands behind his back. He was warned over and over again. He was just being a dick and putting on a show for his camera crew. Do you *really* think he got hurt? lol. He was trolling the cops. You do when he can't tell you what he is arresting you for. "Hey you, sitting in your own home, you're under arrest" "What for?" "I don't know, but sitting is illegal" "Derp......OK....." Fuck that...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_manYou're welcome. Anyways, I need to go. Boy, this was fun. Glad to see there is still a full herd of sheep in this world. Ghandi, AND the founding fathers among others are rolling in their graves If I were Ghandi and I was being compared to this "Adam" douchebag trying to get attention by intentionally breaking laws he knows exist, I'd be rolling in my grave, too.
Gandhi got attention by intentionally breaking laws he knew existed.
|
On May 30 2011 00:01 SpeaKEaSY wrote:
You know what would be funny, if Starcraft was banned (like it was in China), all these people would be crying bloody murder. And if someone was bodyslammed for playing it at a cybercafe out of protest and refusing to leave, you'd all have his back.
"lol what a bunch of nerds, you don't have a god given right to play silly computer games, the police have every right to body slam you, they're just doing their job."
More slippery slope arguments. Mortal Kombat 9 was banned in Australia for a short period. The citizens didn't repeal the ban by doing anything illegal. They went through due process and made their voices heard through the many channels that were available to them
MK9 is not banned in Australia now.
|
On May 30 2011 00:03 SpeaKEaSY wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 23:59 LegendaryZ wrote:On May 29 2011 23:57 SpeaKEaSY wrote:
You fail at civics. Go look up the role of the executive branch. The executive branch has a check on the legislative branch by choosing whether or not to enforce its laws. Go back to 1st grade social studies class because you've clearly learned nothing there. It's not a law to begin with without the approval of the executive branch so I don't know what you think it's their job to enforce... You have a pretty distorted view as to how checks and balances actually works. DOMA isn't a law? It may not be a good law, but it's still a law, and one that the Obama administration has announced they will nullify by refusing to enforce it. You have a pretty distorted view as to how checks and balances actually works.
They can refuse to enforce it because it's not their job to enforce it... The Legislature makes bills. The President passes them into law (or vetoes it). The Courts apply the law and determine its constitutionality. This really isn't that difficult.
What would the president do to enforce a law anyway? The executive branch is part of policy making, not the enforcement of those policies... -_-
Also if you can't understand how your analogy fundamentally differs from the role of police in law enforcement, I really can't help you.
|
bunch of stupid trolls just egging on a bunch of cops. they should be arrested for being such douches
|
On May 30 2011 00:05 Ocedic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2011 00:01 SpeaKEaSY wrote:
You know what would be funny, if Starcraft was banned (like it was in China), all these people would be crying bloody murder. And if someone was bodyslammed for playing it at a cybercafe out of protest and refusing to leave, you'd all have his back.
"lol what a bunch of nerds, you don't have a god given right to play silly computer games, the police have every right to body slam you, they're just doing their job." More slippery slope arguments. Mortal Kombat 9 was banned in Australia for a short period. The citizens didn't repeal the ban by doing anything illegal. They went through due process and made their voices heard through the many channels that were available to them MK9 is not banned in Australia now.
It'd be way easier to just get an illegal copy. I'll ignore a law when it's bullshit.
|
Reply from Krehlmar who is now banned (Not me, hes a friend)
Here goes:
Not going to contest the ban and it is understandable, this is merely a wish to grand a reply to those whom might be awaiting it and to end the discussion in a civil manner.
If this is by any means wrong then please increase the banlength on my account (Krehlmar that is) as the person posting this is merely a friend and does not deserve being punished for helping me out. I will not have any further replies made like this so please do not ban this account to prevent any.
On May 29 2011 23:08 Ocedic wrote:
Oh god, more comparisons to the civil rights movement. Are you for real? Rosa Parks is spinning in her grave perpetually because of comments like yours.
I've said it twice already: Not every person who breaks the law demonstrating against the government is the next Malcolm X.
Yes. I am absolutely for real, I have family, cousins and an uncle who died in Tunis for the right to not be oppressed, how is this any different? Martin Luther King died for the right to not be treated unjustfully, to not be beaten or handled wrong by an oppressive power.
The people dancing are idiots, but there are people in the world dying for the right to act like these people, you should respect that right. You don't have to respect the idiots dancing, but their right to not be oppressed is unbreakable.
On May 29 2011 23:15 Angra wrote:
And to have people saying it's wrong to have cops arrest someone for something illegal, you might as well be saying that it's wrong to arrest rapists and murderers too for doing illegal things.
See? I can provide ridiculous counterpoints that have no relevance too!
No.
You can seriously not see the bigger picture of police brutality against "the little man"? The fact that it is inexcusable? Infact what are you even arguing about here? That I'm wrong? That police should be allowed to beat people who do not cooperate peacefully? Don't be absurd.
On May 29 2011 23:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
A guy as big as Adam? Yeah, you do have to cuff him. I think someone said he was ex-military or something too. That guy could have taken on a cop one-on-one. It was not a known fact that he wasn't going to turn violent, and cops don't take those chances. Ever. He was resisting arrest, period. He was warned several times, and he wanted to fool around.
And I don't defend lynching black people -.-'
Why? You don't have to, it's up to the cops if they deem it necessary. They don't have to cuff anyone.
If anyone gets violent they got tassers/pepperspray for that, not fists.
On May 29 2011 23:13 LegendaryZ wrote:
That last part is just plain unnecessary.
Yes, but I'm getting tired of people arguing against me in something that I have 100% right in from all perspectives that count in a court, sweden aswell as the USA. I'll eat my own arse if those people won't get a settlement and it's not my state that payes out billions of dollars to mistreated citizens. Christ there's a bigger chance you're killed by a cop in the US than a terrorist. Go figure.
Police are permitted to use appropriate force to apprehend a suspect. Whether you feel the level of force here was appropriate or not is certainly up for argument, but a blanket statement that they cannot use violence is just plain wrong.
If there is a serious suspect of crime yes, I do not know what the standard in the US is but in swedens it's atleast prison before you start manhandeling someone who refuses to cooperate. Point is; You do not start strangeholding a shoplifter that refuses to give you his ID.
Unfortunately while I agree with you that they shouldn't use unnecessary force, that's just not reality. You also have to look at these situations from the side of law enforcement too. They deal with high stress jobs and are constantly dealing with smartasses like this who refuse to obey orders or comply with the law. This entire situation could have just as easily been prevented by these people taking the time to get a permit for their demonstration.
I see you did not read my earlier replies; I've worked as a bouncer. I've been in barfights and all I can tell you is it's a huge myth that police/law enforcements have to use this amount of force. I've been nice and calm, working out things, I've been in 1 fight personally, whilst I'd have to help alot of my coworkers in their fights; Because alot of the fuckers who work as bouncers are people with small dicks and huge egos who love to show of their power: As do alot of cops... that's a truth. Not all, most are good people, but those who are not must never be taken lightly.
I definitely know what it feels like to be the small person in this scenario, but I also know that if you're not an ass and just calmly follow directions, things will go pretty smoothly. The problem comes when people start spouting off their rights and resisting. That's not an argument for the cops. You take the arrest and then go argue it in court afterwards and if you're right, then everything will be fine. Otherwise, you'd just purposely causing a scene for attention which is obviously the point here.
Yes, I agree. As I said before, they're idiots at what they're doing. But it is within their rights to passively resist. Key word is "passive". The guy who is yelling could be considered a threat but I'd still not beat on anyone until they beat at me first, why would I? In that scenario they're like 8 cops all with weapons... do you seriously think they feel threatened?
I didn't know you had to sign a speeding ticket. Every one I've received was just given to me without me having to do anything. I do know that if you take that speeding ticket, crumple it up and throw it at the officer involved, you'll probably get arrested and if you refuse to get out of your car or put your hands behind your back, they'll probably take you down for resisting. Also why does the marble floor come into play here? The guy took him down and arrested him. I really don't see what the big issue here is. I think a lot of you guys are blowing this whole situation out of proportion...
It depends on state in the US I think, here you have to sign them if you want the option to contest them. Actually it's a fellony throwing it a police man, loitering, 800$ last time I heard  But no, it does not warrent an arrest, there is a video on youtube I think of a man doing said thing and the cop lost his job.
I agree that it might get blown of proportion, it's just as a law student I see alot of the decadence of human rights in past years when it comes to certain elements, law enforcement is a huge dangerzone and thus I am always extremely wary of it. As am I aggravated by people who seem to cheer on the cops, two wrongs does not make one right.
Anyway with that I'm giving up this topic, can't be arsed to write anymore! Indeed it seems I'm even banned. Sorry if I offended anyone, didn't mean to, I just really want the cornerstones of a free democratic society to be kept intact even in principle and even when defending stupid dancing idiots.
User was banned for this post.
|
On May 30 2011 00:01 SpeaKEaSY wrote:
You know what would be funny, if Starcraft was banned (like it was in China), all these people would be crying bloody murder. And if someone was bodyslammed for playing it at a cybercafe out of protest and refusing to leave, you'd all have his back.
"lol what a bunch of nerds, you don't have a god given right to play silly computer games, the police have every right to body slam you, they're just doing their job."
lol
These people went and danced at the memorial purely out of spite for the law, HOPING for some kind of confrontation to give them attention. They didn't do it because they enjoyed it previously or anything. If someone started playing Starcraft one day out in public solely out of spite to try and be "rebellious" and get some attention and cause a big confrontation, I'd be totally okay with that person being arrested.
|
On May 30 2011 00:05 Ocedic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2011 00:01 SpeaKEaSY wrote:
You know what would be funny, if Starcraft was banned (like it was in China), all these people would be crying bloody murder. And if someone was bodyslammed for playing it at a cybercafe out of protest and refusing to leave, you'd all have his back.
"lol what a bunch of nerds, you don't have a god given right to play silly computer games, the police have every right to body slam you, they're just doing their job." More slippery slope arguments. Mortal Kombat 9 was banned in Australia for a short period. The citizens didn't repeal the ban by doing anything illegal. They went through due process and made their voices heard through the many channels that were available to them MK9 is not banned in Australia now.
But if the citizens played it illegally, you would have complained that the law was unjust.
I'm not making a slippery slope argument. I'm saying that the logic of "it's a silly activity anyway, these people have no right to do that" suddenly seems to not make any sense when it applies to YOUR activity of choice.
|
On May 30 2011 00:07 LegendaryZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2011 00:03 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On May 29 2011 23:59 LegendaryZ wrote:On May 29 2011 23:57 SpeaKEaSY wrote:
You fail at civics. Go look up the role of the executive branch. The executive branch has a check on the legislative branch by choosing whether or not to enforce its laws. Go back to 1st grade social studies class because you've clearly learned nothing there. It's not a law to begin with without the approval of the executive branch so I don't know what you think it's their job to enforce... You have a pretty distorted view as to how checks and balances actually works. DOMA isn't a law? It may not be a good law, but it's still a law, and one that the Obama administration has announced they will nullify by refusing to enforce it. You have a pretty distorted view as to how checks and balances actually works. They can refuse to enforce it because it's not their job to enforce it... The Legislature makes bills. The President passes them into law (or vetoes it). The Courts apply the law and determine its constitutionality. This really isn't that difficult. What would the president do to enforce a law anyway? The executive branch is part of policy making, not the enforcement of those policies... -_- Also if you can't understand how your analogy fundamentally differs from the role of police in law enforcement, I really can't help you.
Executive power doesn't end at veto... if you don't even know that, I really can't help you.
|
On May 29 2011 23:59 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 23:42 Arkless wrote:On May 29 2011 23:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2011 23:35 Arkless wrote:On May 29 2011 23:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2011 23:27 Aurious wrote:On May 29 2011 23:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2011 23:18 Arkless wrote:On May 29 2011 23:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2011 23:04 Arkless wrote:
[quote]
Just because you yell STOP RESISTING doesn't mean he was resisitng. Watch the vid again man, he clearly stated IM NOT RESISTING, followd by the cop yelling again STOP RESISTING. So by your logic the first person to yell something is always in the right. They cannot strangle and close fist strike you. They are allowed to meet force with equal force, but as u see here I don't recall anyone trying to run away or body slam/strangle the cops. Nor was anyone actual resisting arrest, The lady at the beginning resisted more by trying to turn her head then the guy on the ground. Now where is the line, and who got to determine what was dancing? What if buddy in the corner shivered when all this went down and got arrested because "he was dancing" lol Yelling "I'M NOT RESISTING" while resisting doesn't mean you're not resisting. He was purposely keeping his hands up in the air and refusing to put his hands behind his back. He was warned over and over again. He was just being a dick. To get someone as big as Adam (who has military training too) to put his hands behind his back by force- since Adam wasn't doing it voluntarily- they had to put him down and hold him there. I'd like to find a murderer who shot someone while yelling "I'M NOT KILLING YOU" and see you argue for their freedom. Ummmm, I'm not talking about adam. He says nothing WATCH THE VIDEO. The guy before adam who commented on his shoulder............ All right then... the only force done by the officers were to Adam though o.O The force done to the guy with the shoulder problem was caused by the interloper who wasn't a cop. He caused problems. The cry regarding the shoulder was because that random man was interfering. Adam was resisting arrest, and was dealt with accordingly. The shoulder guy was dealt with appropriately as well, despite the fact that someone (another dancer, it looked like) tried interfering with the arrest. A body slam is force which Adam was clearly not using any force other than walking away. As was stated before an officer needs to have a direct reason to use THAT kind of force. He needed to arrest Adam. Adam's huge and a military man. Adam was resisting arrest. Problem? You don't just *walk away* from getting arrested. lol. Try it, see what happens. Adam was purposely keeping his hands up in the air and refusing to put his hands behind his back. He was warned over and over again. He was just being a dick and putting on a show for his camera crew. Do you *really* think he got hurt? lol. He was trolling the cops. You do when he can't tell you what he is arresting you for. "Hey you, sitting in your own home, you're under arrest" "What for?" "I don't know, but sitting is illegal" "Derp......OK....." Fuck that...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_manYou're welcome. Anyways, I need to go. Boy, this was fun. Glad to see there is still a full herd of sheep in this world. Ghandi, AND the founding fathers among others are rolling in their graves No actually you are misunderstanding the position your debate partner is taking against yours. You are saying it was wrong of the police to arrest Adam. Darkplasmaball is saying it was not wrong to arrest him in the way he was. Your position lies in the fact that you cant arrest someone the way adam was arrested for what he did. While I find it ridiculous that Adam was arrested for dancing, I do understand why they arrested him the way they did. If you do not have an understanding of policing or crime or criminology please keep your opinions to yourself unless they are well informed. Darkplasmaball said nothing about why adam was arrested. He is saying that Adam was resisting the initial arrest (right or wrong he did not take a longstanding position on) and that the reaction of the police was understandable. The straw man comment was due to your position that the arrest was wrong by analyzing the way he was arrested. This is a straw man argument. The arrest being right or wrong is separate from the way he was arrested. By using the way he is arrested to say his arrest was wrong is a straw man fallacy thats all :/ DPB isnt being a sheep you are making an invalid fallacious argument. I don't agree with the body slam but adam is a big guy he has a lot of muscles and when they came to arrest him he locked his body up. That is not being passive that is an active way of resisting arrest. You are not letting the police put your hands in handcuffs for the safety of the police officers. Such a big guy, in that stressful and complicated (for the police) situation the police will be worried for themselves and they will try to incapacitate his hands and body in such a way that the threat level to them will be limited. They made an example of Adam as well. I'm not saying its right but thats what happened. They did what the police do which is to try and maintain control to keep control of the situation. These situations breed hyper masculine ideals and when a big muscly guy isnt listening to you as a cop who is steeped in a hyper masculine culture will default to an aggressive and physical action to deal with someone who is huge and not listening whom they are probably afraid of in a fearful situation. Im just saying that the way they did it can be understood however I may personally disagree with it. If he had let them cuff him easily without holding his arms up and taught then he wouldnt have been dealt with in this way. That's all.
I don't know how many times I have to say i'm not talking about adam, but the guy before him who promptly complied with the police but still got ravaged. ZzzZZzzz Not reading invalidating the 20 mins it probably took you to write that reply.
|
You mean I can't dance in a monument created to honor a founding father?!
Time to move to Europe, this is not acceptable!
|
BTW, the OP title is somewhat misleading...
|
On May 30 2011 00:11 Arkless wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 23:59 ZeromuS wrote:On May 29 2011 23:42 Arkless wrote:On May 29 2011 23:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2011 23:35 Arkless wrote:On May 29 2011 23:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2011 23:27 Aurious wrote:On May 29 2011 23:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2011 23:18 Arkless wrote:On May 29 2011 23:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
lol Yelling "I'M NOT RESISTING" while resisting doesn't mean you're not resisting. He was purposely keeping his hands up in the air and refusing to put his hands behind his back. He was warned over and over again. He was just being a dick. To get someone as big as Adam (who has military training too) to put his hands behind his back by force- since Adam wasn't doing it voluntarily- they had to put him down and hold him there.
I'd like to find a murderer who shot someone while yelling "I'M NOT KILLING YOU" and see you argue for their freedom. Ummmm, I'm not talking about adam. He says nothing WATCH THE VIDEO. The guy before adam who commented on his shoulder............ All right then... the only force done by the officers were to Adam though o.O The force done to the guy with the shoulder problem was caused by the interloper who wasn't a cop. He caused problems. The cry regarding the shoulder was because that random man was interfering. Adam was resisting arrest, and was dealt with accordingly. The shoulder guy was dealt with appropriately as well, despite the fact that someone (another dancer, it looked like) tried interfering with the arrest. A body slam is force which Adam was clearly not using any force other than walking away. As was stated before an officer needs to have a direct reason to use THAT kind of force. He needed to arrest Adam. Adam's huge and a military man. Adam was resisting arrest. Problem? You don't just *walk away* from getting arrested. lol. Try it, see what happens. Adam was purposely keeping his hands up in the air and refusing to put his hands behind his back. He was warned over and over again. He was just being a dick and putting on a show for his camera crew. Do you *really* think he got hurt? lol. He was trolling the cops. You do when he can't tell you what he is arresting you for. "Hey you, sitting in your own home, you're under arrest" "What for?" "I don't know, but sitting is illegal" "Derp......OK....." Fuck that...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_manYou're welcome. Anyways, I need to go. Boy, this was fun. Glad to see there is still a full herd of sheep in this world. Ghandi, AND the founding fathers among others are rolling in their graves No actually you are misunderstanding the position your debate partner is taking against yours. You are saying it was wrong of the police to arrest Adam. Darkplasmaball is saying it was not wrong to arrest him in the way he was. Your position lies in the fact that you cant arrest someone the way adam was arrested for what he did. While I find it ridiculous that Adam was arrested for dancing, I do understand why they arrested him the way they did. If you do not have an understanding of policing or crime or criminology please keep your opinions to yourself unless they are well informed. Darkplasmaball said nothing about why adam was arrested. He is saying that Adam was resisting the initial arrest (right or wrong he did not take a longstanding position on) and that the reaction of the police was understandable. The straw man comment was due to your position that the arrest was wrong by analyzing the way he was arrested. This is a straw man argument. The arrest being right or wrong is separate from the way he was arrested. By using the way he is arrested to say his arrest was wrong is a straw man fallacy thats all :/ DPB isnt being a sheep you are making an invalid fallacious argument. I don't agree with the body slam but adam is a big guy he has a lot of muscles and when they came to arrest him he locked his body up. That is not being passive that is an active way of resisting arrest. You are not letting the police put your hands in handcuffs for the safety of the police officers. Such a big guy, in that stressful and complicated (for the police) situation the police will be worried for themselves and they will try to incapacitate his hands and body in such a way that the threat level to them will be limited. They made an example of Adam as well. I'm not saying its right but thats what happened. They did what the police do which is to try and maintain control to keep control of the situation. These situations breed hyper masculine ideals and when a big muscly guy isnt listening to you as a cop who is steeped in a hyper masculine culture will default to an aggressive and physical action to deal with someone who is huge and not listening whom they are probably afraid of in a fearful situation. Im just saying that the way they did it can be understood however I may personally disagree with it. If he had let them cuff him easily without holding his arms up and taught then he wouldnt have been dealt with in this way. That's all. I don't know how many times I have to say i'm not talking about adam, but the guy before him who promptly complied with the police but still got ravaged. ZzzZZzzz
That guy was just under unfortunate circumstances. It wasn't his fault nor the cop's fault. It was the fault of that other guy who tried to pull him away then cling onto him while the cop was trying to handcuff him. If you noticed the cop was at first peacefully about to put handcuffs on him until the craziness of that other guy attempting to drag him away happened. What else was he supposed to do, just let that guy drag him off and be like "well nothing I can do about that!" ? No, the man was under arrest, the cop isn't going to just let him go regardless of if he's leaving on his own will or someone else's.
But you probably didn't see that part in your anti-government freedom-fighter rage.
|
On May 30 2011 00:10 SpeaKEaSY wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2011 00:05 Ocedic wrote:On May 30 2011 00:01 SpeaKEaSY wrote:
You know what would be funny, if Starcraft was banned (like it was in China), all these people would be crying bloody murder. And if someone was bodyslammed for playing it at a cybercafe out of protest and refusing to leave, you'd all have his back.
"lol what a bunch of nerds, you don't have a god given right to play silly computer games, the police have every right to body slam you, they're just doing their job." More slippery slope arguments. Mortal Kombat 9 was banned in Australia for a short period. The citizens didn't repeal the ban by doing anything illegal. They went through due process and made their voices heard through the many channels that were available to them MK9 is not banned in Australia now. But if the citizens played it illegally, you would have complained that the law was unjust. I'm not making a slippery slope argument. I'm saying that the logic of "it's a silly activity anyway, these people have no right to do that" suddenly seems to not make any sense when it applies to YOUR activity of choice.
Except their activity of choice isn't to dance. They are career activists. It's not like the government shut down a production of Black Swan.
And if the citizens went through the due process and were denied, then sure. But that's adding a hypothetical situation to a real situation that was a counterpoint to your original hypothetical situation.
And you keep talking about rights and fighting for them: do you even know what rights the protesters in the video were actually fighting for? As in, an actual right being denied to people who want that right rather than just protesting for the sake of it?
Because that's a key difference between all these historical heroes you love to throw around and the hypothetical situations you contrive:
Rosa Parks wanted a place to sit, she was tired.
Malcolm X wanted equal rights for blacks.
Ghandi wanted to liberate his country from colonization.
We want to play StarCraft.
Career protesters protest to... protest? (Keeping in mind there are legal ways to protest)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
