|
MURICA15980 Posts
On May 01 2005 00:25 maleorderbride wrote:
But, if I was told to beat a man well after he had already been subdued, I would not do it. Would I be fired? Maybe, but perhaps morals are a good thing to have after all...
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. But after years of being told it is the proper way of handling the situation, and after years of training to do it that way, I am left wondering if I would have done the same because "it was by the book." I mean I think I might have been brain washed enough to think it was justified. Because remember, that one officer was ridiculed and called names for not hitting hard enough... that just shows the whole culture of the police system at the time fully encouraged that behavior and thus the little moral nudges we all think they should of had might have been subdued.
|
I didnt bring it up. Head banger did.
And no one is comparing this to war. Instead, we are comparing it to a war crimes trial. there is a difference. In one you kill SOLDIERS, in the other you are held accountable for killing non combatants. That is the difference.
You are right that nazi privates were not tried for war crimes (not to my knowledge also anyways). However, I did not think the exacts of the anaology was what was so important. It was the idea that perhaps people are responsible for their own actions. Remarkable as it may seem to some.
Additionally, I do not think that these police were out of hand. I am sure as what, 40 cops? 50? It would be intimidating as fuck trying to get 200 people to move. And thats the catch, all you are doing is trying to get them to disperse and relocate. You are trying to arrest, subdue or capture anyone. You just want to do the minimum of what is necessary to get people to leave. That is up the officers at the area to decide and make a judgement call on.
19 people were taken into custody and then released, however, the goal was accomplished. No one was permanently injured. Not a single shto was fired, no nerve gas was used. How is that not an accomplishment? Said people were participating in an illegal activity. There were forced to desist with no loss of life, no shots, and no permanent injury. How can it get any better for someone that violates the law?
|
On May 01 2005 00:35 Klogon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2005 00:25 maleorderbride wrote:
But, if I was told to beat a man well after he had already been subdued, I would not do it. Would I be fired? Maybe, but perhaps morals are a good thing to have after all... Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. But after years of being told it is the proper way of handling the situation, and after years of training to do it that way, I am left wondering if I would have done the same because "it was by the book." I mean I think I might have been brain washed enough to think it was justified. Because remember, that one officer was ridiculed and called names for not hitting hard enough... that just shows the whole culture of the police system at the time fully encouraged that behavior and thus the little moral nudges we all think they should of had might have been subdued.
It does not matter what the system is. Integrity and morals are something that an individual either posseses or does not.
|
Good counterpoint, Klogon. But the atrocities I was referencing in regard to Nazi SS were performed in concentration camps, where people were herded to gas chambers like cattle to the slaughter. The war was being fought on fronts, not in the prisoner camps. But yes, rules of war are different. But they also apply as to how to treat a prisoner after he is captured (like me Rodney in handcuffs, and the Jews at Auschwitz).
But I used that example just to illustrate how some rules are universal and transcend written laws of government institution.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
Yeah, I see what you guys mean. The line between what is legal and what is moral is sometimes very gray, indeed.
|
On April 30 2005 22:46 maleorderbride wrote:
Ive been to this school before, several times. I even know people that go there.
THe entire place stinks like dirty hippies everywhere you go. It permeates the miniture campis and has spread to the town. One hippy can cause a stink over 10s of miles. I dotn live there, but I am sure my opinion is more important and knowledgable than anyone that actually DOES, since they are all hippies.
The 19 people were probably just arrested for smelling so bad. Their pungent attacks were more than good enough reasons to arrest them. Duh?
 Unfortunately you are more correct than you realize.
|
ehh hippies piss me off. Especially protesting hippies.
|
Australia3818 Posts
Nothing works better than throwing hippies in an open fire.
|
Norway28836 Posts
what the fucking fuck how are any of you guys supporting police violence!?!?!?
|
On May 01 2005 03:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:
what the fucking fuck how are any of you guys supporting police violence!?!?!?
Same reason people support war.
Their logic: When you ask someone to do something, and they won't, you gotta use force to make them...or let them be and do nothing.
The University, as it appears, didn't want to let the protestors be, however peaceful they were.
|
On May 01 2005 03:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:
what the fucking fuck how are any of you guys supporting police violence!?!?!?
I think it's more a case of disliking hippies
|
This event reminds me of one quote:
"And the policeman holding the student with one hand and beating him with a large stick was thinking how he who had such an empty head was beating such a full head. This simple though made him furious and with that rage, he beated the student even more"
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On May 01 2005 07:59 0x64 wrote:
This event reminds me of one quote:
"And the policeman holding the student with one hand and beating him with a large stick was thinking how he who had such an empty head was beating such a full head. This simple though made him furious and with that rage, he beated the student even more" Haha, where's that one from?
|
Norway28836 Posts
On April 30 2005 16:17 pfff wrote:
ah, threads like these make me so glad im not born in the usa
the scary part really isn't that the police used excessive force. that kind of stuff can happen many places.
the REALLY REALLY REALLY scary part is that a majority of the posters are supporting the police.. I seriously cannot comprehend that.
when you give someone the power to use force legitemately, you should make one hell of an effort to make sure they do not abuse that power. many of you apparently don't mind. that scares me.
nonviolent protesters should never be subject to violence. ever.
|
On May 01 2005 08:18 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Haha, where's that one from?
Not known internationaly. French comedian named Raymond Devos.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On May 01 2005 08:27 0x64 wrote:Not known internationaly. French comedian named Raymond Devos. Thx ;D Needed a name for my ever growing collection of quotes/similiar shit ;p
Is it an exact quote btw =D?
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On May 01 2005 08:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:
nonviolent protesters should never be subject to violence. ever.
What should the police have done instead? They had to remove the students one way or another.
|
a slayer cd would have been the only alternative
|
Norway28836 Posts
they should rather have done nothing. protesting should always be legal.
|
They had to remove the students one way or another.
This is the most rediculous part of the situation to me. The land of the free has "free speech zones" and an 8 o'clock curfew? One incident of police being overly physical is not as dangerous as an entire culture beginning to think "free speech zones" are acceptable. Democracy should not be a single event isolated to an election booth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
