Reply With Quote
The way you contradict yourself so quickly is amazing. You should really learn to read what you write.
Admitted I am wrong...not quite...Thanks for admitting that the cops used completely excessive force, and that you're 100% wrong.Good that you finally saw the light.
what I DID say was that
ALL of the facts are not known---by you or by me.
and the police officers will be proven right--without a doubt
any rational person can see that clearly.
The way you contradict yourself so quickly is amazing. You should really learn to read what you write.
OK
The way you contradict yourself so quickly is amazing. You should really learn to read what you write.
Point out just ONE contradiction from me.
Before you go spouting off from your ass again-read the thread.
From the very beginning I said---and I maintained it all the way
is that from ONLY watching that video--that there was NOT enough information to completely say either side was wrong or right.
I believe---from the only information we have here---that video...
that the police acted reasonably and will be exonerated eventually
I ALSO said----FROM THE START
that -------IF--------
the full evidence ends up proving that the officers had NO LEGAL RIGHT TO BE THERE-----
then I said that they should be fired/sued/castrated---whatever----
but I am waiting for you to point out where I contradicted myself ....
just one!
"We don't know any details, so you can't make any assumptions, but I am absolutely right about everything in this thread!"
I am not contradicting anything.
I said that whatever I stated in this thread---
that it is correct and I stand by it.
Not a contradiction.
I love the defense of the excessive use of tasers. Thats hilarious.
I read a few lines down but I'm not reading all that BS. Police must use reasonable force in apprehension or detaining someone. They did not.
What you don't understand is just because you break the law, police do not have the right to use any and all means for arrest/detainment. Their use of force must be reasonable under the cir stances.
If you still don't believe me, here you go:
"Police brutality is a civil rights violation that occurs when a police officer acts with excessive force by using an amount of force with regards to a civilian that is more than necessary. Excessive force by a law enforcement officers is a violation of a person's rights. Excessive force is not subject to a precise definition, but it is generally beyond the force a reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer would use under the cir stances. Force should be used in only the minimum amount needed to achieve a legitimate purpose. Police brutality is a direct violation of the laws within the police force. The use of excessive force is also a direct violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S Cons ution regarding cruelty and protection of the laws."
If you don't get it, you don't get it. Only one of us is right and it isn't you.
So you're a cop?
Well,
you can believe you are right if you want to ---as a matter of fact---the next time that a police officer tells you ---that you are under arrest and tells you to place your hands behind your back---
tell him you...
then come talk to me...
the paragraph you posted is more proof that I am right...
if a suspect has cooperated and is handcuffed and subdued---
OK
that is where you can begin to talk about police brutality
if a suspect has cooperated and is handcuffed and subdued---and then an arresting officer starts tasing and/or beating him
YES
that would be unreasonable and/or police brutality
but when a suspect refuses to cooperate and refuses to stop resisting...then a police officer can use ANY force necessary to complete the arrest...
look...if a suspect is resisting and he is fighting---then a police officer can use INTERMEDIATE weapons...such as a taser or a police baton....
if a suspect is resisting---and then he pulls out a gun, a baseball bat, a tire iron...then a police officer can draw his weapon and shoot---very simple...
a taser is an intermediate weapon and it is very reasonable to use a taser when someone is resisting arrest...
why is that so hard to understand????
a taser---is NOT deadly force---so it cannot be police brutality...
again---
the ONLY way that this would have been UNREASONABLE---OR POLICE BRUTALITY
is if the old man had ALREADY been subdued AND handcuffed
and THEN the police officer would have kept tasing him---WHILE HE WAS IN HANDCUFFS
C'MON PEOPLE
STOP BEING BLINDED BY HATRED AND SEE HOW PREJUDICED YOU ARE BEING AGAINST POLICE OFFICERS JUST DOING THEIR JOB!!!!!!!
lol owned.
and i think the hallucinogenic in question is lsd.
all silver needs is some of that...he already has the bat crazy part down.
I just watched the whole video...
it is at: abc7news.com
if I knew how to post it here --I would
it is in' hilarious
You cop haters should watch this so you can see what cop hatred does to your judgement and how ALL of you jumped to conclusions and had your strings pulled by an old - just out trying to get paid by suing the sheriff's dept...
here are some highlights of the 36+ minute video;
#1) the old pricks wife---called the paramedics---and ASKED them to help her because her husband stated that he was going to put a gun to his head and blow his in' brains out
----so there goes your theory that the cops had no business there..
I told you this before---the paramedics are bound by law to render aid---so they had NO CHOICE ---but to call the cops...
police had NO CHOICE ---but to take the old prick to the hospital...
#2) for a loooong long time --the cops were as polite and as patient as they could be ---even calling the old prick by his first name....``Peter, please let us take you to the hospital---you won't be under arrest---you WON'T go to jail---it will only be to see someone who can determine if you are a danger to yourself---if you tell them you won't hurt yourself--then they will let you go---c'mon Peter,please???''
and the old prick would just say--- you, you prick you---I won't go you in assholes!
you---you in monkeys
#3) the deputy said on tape---``we respond to ALL emergency medical calls''
again---for you diks that kept saying they had no reason to be at the old pricks house
#4) again the deputy---telling the old prick---it will just be a CIVIL DETENTION---just to make sure you don't hurt yourself---
I am no expert---but that is PROBABLY why the Judge dismissed the resisting arrest charge---because--the cops---in an effort to help and convince the old prick to COOPERATE---mentioned that he would not go to jail----
but that is just a guess...
#5) the old prick telling the firemen,`` thanks a lot , you in assholes, i asked you to HELP ME---you called these in pricks--- you''
(again---for you morons that cried and cried that the police should have got the out of the old pricks house---he is admitting on tape that HE CALLED FOR HELP---HE CRIED TO THE FIREMEN---then didn't like the HELP he received!!!!
#6) the old prick screaming like a little ---``take these in handcuffs off----I NEVER---EVER ---WAS UNCOOPERATIVE''
#7) the old prick screaming as they placed him in a restraint chair---``ahhhh--I got chest pains....ahhhhh...
#8) the PATIENCE of these firemen and police officers to remain professional---throughout all this verbal abuse---and the absolute PATIENCE of the officer holding the taser----to NOT tase the old who would NOT shut the up...
finally
IF this old prick had any DECENCY---
HE would drop this bogus lawsuit and APOLOGIZE to the firemen and the arresting officers for all the bull he made them go through---
because the old in pussy couldn't MAN UP and shut his in hole and blurt out that he was going to kill himself---
if anything---he should have MANNED up for his wife---to NOT worry the old in the first place....
very entertaining video and very interesting to see that ---once you see the entire thing---
it changes everything and reveals the ty journalism that is todays news teams
the media
all the media did from the beginning is TRY to stir up and make the old prick to be some kind of helpless victim...
I saw the same video.
They tased him for standing up. They tased him again for writhing in pain.
And they tased him one the last time while he was in cuffs while he was laying on his back.
Sounds reasonable considering the harsh language those cops had to endure.
He told the paramedics he wanted a gun to kill himself
That's why the police went in. You can't say things like that because doctors and police officers are forced to take your statements seriously or risk something terrible happening, not just to the old man, but to his family and the community around him.
They have a perfectly legitimate reason for being in his house.
Also, while old man was using up police resources for 36 minutes plus all the paperwork bull, what other crimes were taking place that the cops could have been useful for?
Old guy threatened to blow himself up with gun, got it numb nutts?
Police were duty bound to respond.
I would have rather have seem them wrestle old guy to the floor, sure. Then again, where was the gun that he said he had?
...oh yeah... I forgot...
while he was on the floor...cursing everyone..
he was stupid enough to take a KICK....a kick...
at the officer who tasered him....
and he got zapped again....
THAT --- might have been excessive....I don't know...the suspect DID
attempt to assault a police officer...
but I am pretty sure that---that last shot----
was just for fun!!!!
Ftfy.
By the way, the method with which you type is quickly going to elevate you to being one of the worst posters on Spurstalk. No one cares if you've programmed a lot, the fact that you won't take 10 seconds to edit your post into a readable format shows just how much time you're spending actually thinking about the points you're making, which is to say, none.
Facts in this thread:
1. Lots of people think the police used incredibly excessive force.
2. The one person that is defending them cannot form or type coherent sentences/thoughts.
See how that makes you the losing side in this argument? Because everyone else does. I know a LOT of programmers, many of whom are fluent in several computer languages and operating systems, and none of them type nearly as poorly as you do. In fact, many are very solid with grammar and punctuation, because their familiarity with the keyboard lends them to typing extremely fast, so it's not a big deal for them to actually, you know, not come across as idiotic when they type a post that's more than a sentence long.
Miami---
why are you the ONLY one who can actually see something---OTHER --
than police brutality?
It is there for all to see---from the beginning.
Everyone has cop hater glasses on in here.
Hey Grammar Nazi---who the said ANYTHING about programming?
WTF are you going on about?
I distinctly agreed with you---that i suck at typing---and punctuation...
what part of that did you miss?
Just because I suck at typing and punctuation---has nothing to do with how fast or slow i formulate opinions, thoughts or responses.
I am just not motivated enough to CARE what grammar nazi's like you think of my posts.
This is a fun --spurs board--I am a spurs fan just having fun...chiming in here whenever i see something I find interesting to talk about.
If I have some knowledge ---in some field---
and i see some people who say really inaccurate stuff---like in THIS thread...
well I guess it really appeals to me to invest a little time discussing and debating it.
To be fair-----JUST FOR PRICKS LIKE YOU.....
I will try to mind my P's and Q's ---just a little better...
(after this post)
I will try.
Now---get that knot out of your panties.
So you're raging at me for being a grammar Nazi, then admitting that I have a point and that you'll try harder to be a good little poster?
It's not about sucking at punctuation. There's a huge difference between:
sum1 who tipes like this
---
and
---
some
#@@#$
one#@!!!!%%^
---- who ----
TYP
(((
ES
))))))))))
------------------------ like
THIS========
------------------------------------
I couldn't really care less how accurate you are with spelling and grammar. But if it hurts my eyes or it's a struggle to read, I'm not going to bother. If the person making the post made so little effort to think, "Hey, it might be a good idea to make this readable", I'm going to (correctly) assume they're not worth reading. It's one thing to misspell words or leave out punctuation, it's another to add them in mass quan ies where they don't need to be like some 14 year old who has ADD and 3 gallons of Red Bull in their system and is only taking time to post between matches of Halo.
You said you were a hack writer. I took that to mean hacker, since no writer would ever type the way you do.
You do have the option to not read my posts.
So you're raging at me for being a grammar Nazi, then admitting that I have a point and that you'll try harder to be a good little poster?
It's not about sucking at punctuation. There's a huge difference between:
sum1 who tipes like this
---
and
---
some
#@@#$
one#@!!!!%%^
---- who ----
TYP
(((
ES
))))))))))
------------------------ like
THIS========
------------------------------------
I couldn't really care less how accurate you are with spelling and grammar. But if it hurts my eyes or it's a struggle to read, I'm not going to bother. If the person making the post made so little effort to think, "Hey, it might be a good idea to make this readable", I'm going to (correctly) assume they're not worth reading. It's one thing to misspell words or leave out punctuation, it's another to add them in mass quan ies where they don't need to be like some 14 year old who has ADD and 3 gallons of Red Bull in their system and is only taking time to post between matches of Halo.
You said you were a hack writer. I took that to mean hacker, since no writer would ever type the way you do.
Yes, I did say that I would try harder and you made it out to be some kinda joke or a weakness on my part. I don't know if that means that you have a point but if the way I type bothers you so much and it bothers you so much that you would focus on that instead of my argument, then I guess it would behoove all of us to try to be a bit more readable.
The reason I never edited is because I always felt that this was just a fun board and no-one would care about grammar and punctuation. If I was turning in a paper for a grade somewhere I would probably be more careful
Thanks for the help.
I never implied I was some hacker. I said hack writer.
To me that is just someone who tried to be some kind of writer but realized he was just a hack with no writing talent. Hey, not everyone has the talent to be a
professional writer, but funny that I did get a publishing deal in another field.
You win some you lose some.
I am already beginning to like trying to improve my posts, even though I am sure you will find more inconsistencies in my writing.
Thanks again.
Please don't try to twist this post into something it is not again as I am being very sincere.
I've personally known three cops - two civilian and one military. Two are great guys and great cops - fair, honest, decent people just trying to live their lives and make things better for the rest of us. The third is a power-crazy asshole (to be fair, he was a power-crazy asshole before he became a cop). Which cops you get when you make the call makes all the difference.
Meh, for the most part the cops I've met and known have been kind, considerate individuals. I can honestly say I've had far more positive interactions with cops than negative ones.
The problem is that police are given too much power with not much to check it. An officer who does something wrong will often have an entire department covering for him, even if his offense was grievous.
I have an honest question for you regarding your last sentence/statement.
Is it possible that you are confusing the interpretation of the law and the feelings you get when you see what looks like an injustice?
You mentioned that cops have too much power and that departments will cover for them, but couldn't it also be that when you see something like a tasering or a violent arrest you are seeing it through the eyes of a civilian and are giving an opinion based on that.
Sometimes what may appear to be unjust law enforcement could just be a matter of looking at the whole picture and dissecting it from both points of view and then looking closely at what the law says-before rushing to judgement.
No, there isn't.
Because as I've said, most cops have been nice to me. However, earlier this year I was also in a situation where a couple of officers blatantly abused their authority for no reason what-so-ever. I know this because I was standing right next to a law student and a paralegal who were telling the officers in question that they were violating civil rights and that they had no authority to attempt to do what they were doing.
The officers didn't even pay attention. They continued ranting, raving, and attempting to bully my small group into making a stupid mistake so they could run us in, until they realized that we were a lot smarter than they were, and they had no ability to control the situation. They made a bunch of blustering threats about watching us (funny because we were just in town for the weekend) and left.
It was a pathetic situation and both officers were just absolutely stupid, pig-headed cops that give every other good cop a bad name. All the while 4-5 other officers were sitting back not saying a word. They knew it was a stupid situation and just wanted to end it peacefully, but they wouldn't dare countermand a fellow officer while on duty, no matter how wrong he was. It was disgusting. Some of the things I heard the main guy say I swear I've seen on Reno 911 before, it was that level of absurdity.
Last edited by Cry Havoc; 09-07-2010 at 12:59 PM.
Bump.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
