AsburySkinsFan Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 It's just another punk liberal college kid that thinks he's above the law. There's a few of them on this very board that could stand to use a tazing or beatdown. :blahblah: Are you planning to add anything to the conversation here or just provoke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Get tazed repeatedly, then you tell me. 50,000 volts, ride the lightning then you tell us. Would you have prefered he got the baton beating that I think he deserved? In my opinion the tazer is too KIND of a response for this sort of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Would you have prefered he got the baton beating that I think he deserved? In my opinion the tazer is too KIND of a response for this sort of thing. No I have repeatedly stated what I think should have happened, and that is that the cops should have hand cuffed him and carried him out. Why is it that violence is the supreme answer to every thing? Why is it that you and others are so eager to inflict violence upon someone else? I just don't get it. It's like I'm back in high school again, and I'm surrounded by Linebackers saying: "Ahhh, he used big words that we didn't understand, beat him up!" But now its "Oh, gee someone's being stupid, let's beat him up! 'Cause that'll fix everything." BTW, I never got beat up by Linebackers, heck our school didn't even have a football team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cdowwe Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Get tazed repeatedly, then you tell me. 50,000 volts, ride the lightning then you tell us. Or I could listen to the Courts who say tazing is NOT torture, but Im sure you are much knowledgable on the subject Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 No I have repeatedly stated what I think should have happened, and that is that the cops should have hand cuffed him and carried him out. Why is it that violence is the supreme answer to every thing? Why is it that you and others are so eager to inflict violence upon someone else? I just don't get it. It's like I'm back in high school again, and I'm surrounded by Linebackers.... Asbury, you want to know why I believe violence is the option so much of the time nowadays... why I'm really starting to believe in vigilantiism more and more.... because the SYSTEM doesn't do it's job at punishing people anymore. The system is now so full of legal BS and mumbo-jumbo that there is NO interest in Justice or Punishment anymore. We're so ****ing concerned with whether or not some clerk typed the address on the search warrant properly that we don't give a **** whether the people being arrested are actually GUILTY of a crime or not. Even on the rare occassion that we DO arrest, convict, and incarcerate somebody, we send them off to a ****ing country club to serve only a very small portion of the time they've been sentenced to. Until the system starts meeting out JUSTICE and PUNISHMENT again, I don't see that there's any point in it. For example, and to use a story that's recently reappeared in the news.... If I were a member of Ronald Goldman's family, a certain former Heisman winner would have paid for his crime, one way or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cdowwe Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 I just had to watch that video again. That guy deserved every shock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Or I could listen to the Courts who say tazing is NOT torture, but Im sure you are much knowledgable on the subject Ever try it? My guess is that after the 5th time, torture would be a pretty good adjective to describe the experience. The courts also say that using a nightstick is not torture, but wait, maybe its not just the use of the instruments, but how they are used that makes them torture. I doubt the courts would say that water is torture, yet the Chinese figured out a way. I will wholly affirm that using a tazer at the appropriate time is not torture (i.e. armed assailant, etc) because it is a much better alternative than leathal force. Yet, as I watch that video, I have to conclude that the level of force used was not necessary, and I believe that when the level of force exceeds the situation then yes it may very well be torture. We shall see what the courts decide in this matter, my guess is at least one of the cops loses his badge for his action. BTW, remember Rodney King, he was tazed and beaten with nightsticks both tools that are allowed by the courts and deemed not torture, my guess is that the implication is "not torture when appropriately used." But, then I guess he had it coming too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiggoReincarnated Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Ever try it? My guess is that after the 5th time, torture would be a pretty good adjective to describe the experience. The courts also say that using a nightstick is not torture, but wait, maybe its not just the use of the instruments, but how they are used that makes them torture. I doubt the courts would say that water is torture, yet the Chinese figured out a way. I will wholly affirm that using a tazer at the appropriate time is not torture (i.e. armed assailant, etc) because it is a much better alternative than leathal force. Yet, as I watch that video, I have to conclude that the level of force used was not necessary, and I believe that when the level of force exceeds the situation then yes it may very well be torture. We shall see what the courts decide in this matter, my guess is at least one of the cops loses his badge for his action.BTW, remember Rodney King, he was tazed and beaten with nightsticks both tools that are allowed by the courts and deemed not torture, my guess is that the implication is "not torture when appropriately used." Rodney King was on drugs and drunk, so the Tazer affected him less then the guy from UCLA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Rodney King was on drugs and drunk, so the Tazer affected him less then the guy from UCLA. You miss the point, the point is that the cops there could have subdued him without beating him to pieces. If I remember that video correctly there were at least 5 cops on the scene are we really supposed to believe that they couldn't have subdued and handcuffed Rodney King without half killing him? I doubt you'll find many who believe that the level of force in either instance was really needed or warranted. Although, there will be a few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cdowwe Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 BTW, remember Rodney King, he was tazed and beaten with nightsticks both tools that are allowed by the courts and deemed not torture, my guess is that the implication is "not torture when appropriately used." But, then I guess he had it coming too. :doh: I was wondering when Mr King would enter the discussion. And yes, he had it coming. Im surprised the cops didnt spin him out then beat him for running for miles at over 100. I guess it would have taken him killing an innocent person for it to be justified though. Lets not let this discussion turn into Rodney King though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Lets not let this discussion turn into Rodney King though. You're right, because the level of force in this instance is MUCH harder to justify and you know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cdowwe Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 You're right, because the level of force in this instance is MUCH harder to justify and you know it. No because Rodney King isnt worth the spit Id wasted on talking about him. The kid in question is what is wrong with the world today. He thinks hes some activist from the 60s and he apparently broke the law. He thinks because he is some liberal worshipping student at UCLA he doesnt have to listen to the cops, and he got tazed. Cry me a river. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 No I have repeatedly stated what I think should have happened, and that is that the cops should have hand cuffed him and carried him out. Dude, you are a complete joke. The guy intentionally disobeyed their orders. The situation got out of control because HE let it get out of control. The whole situation could have been avoided, but the guy had it coming. In my opinion, he got off easy. I would have beat him senseless with a club if I were there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
project myu Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Dude, you are a complete joke. The guy intentionally disobeyed their orders. The situation got out of control because HE let it get out of control. The whole situation could have been avoided, but the guy had it coming. In my opinion, he got off easy. I would have beat him senseless with a club if I were there. Looks like you're the one out of control, LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Looks like you're the one out of control, LOL. Nothing is more important in a civilized society as the rule of law. Without it, there is chaos in the streets. This guy was ASKED to comply and he refused. He suffered the consequences. There is nothing "fascist" about what was done, as some in this thread have said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Nothing is more important in a civilized society as the rule of law. Without it, there is chaos in the streets. This guy was ASKED to comply and he refused. He suffered the consequences. There is nothing "fascist" about what was done, as some in this thread have said. it is better to have your people love the law than it is for them to fear the law. this is now way to gain respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 it is better to have your people love the law than it is for them to fear the law. this is now way to gain respect. No, you need people to RESPECT the law. They don't have to like it or fear it. It's obvious in this particular example that the guy was taking an adversarial stance from the very beginning. It's also obvious that he wasn't very bright either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 No, you need people to RESPECT the law. They don't have to like it or fear it. It's obvious in this particular example that the guy was taking an adversarial stance from the very beginning. It's also obvious that he wasn't very bright either. there are two forms of respect. fear and love. if you make people fear it, then they will revolt. you make people love it, they will cherish it. no matter what you do, there will be bad apples, but going down the path of fear is no way to keep your people. as i said earlier, my principal that ruled as a dictator and over-exerted her powers met a great resistance from the student body. the new one is loved by all. students and teachers alike actually bought t-shirts with his face on it and his slogan "The main thing, is to keep the main thing the main thing" people actually like this principal and don't undermine his authority because they like him. with our old principal, i went out of my way to make sure she suffered. i handed out copies of the school newspaper she cancelled (after getting direct permission from the authors of the articles) and did everything in my legal (not the school's definition of legal) powers to make her life hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RLeVan Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 it is better to have your people love the law than it is for them to fear the law. this is now way to gain respect. People do love the law when it suits them. When the law is on their side, people have nothing but love and praise. When the law determines said person has broken then law, the law quickly becomes an adversary. I can understand that people naturally will try to push the boundaries of the law, it's human nature. It's just that they shouldn't be surprised when the law pushes them back. Videos like these have their shock value, to spurn debate and sometimes distrust of our law enforcement. Others view it as a victory and that the kid should have been dealt with more harshly. It really depends on the context of how each of us relate to the video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 there are two forms of respect. fear and love. if you make people fear it, then they will revolt. you make people love it, they will cherish it. no matter what you do, there will be bad apples, but going down the path of fear is no way to keep your people. as i said earlier, my principal that ruled as a dictator and over-exerted her powers met a great resistance from the student body. the new one is loved by all. students and teachers alike actually bought t-shirts with his face on it and his slogan "The main thing, is to keep the main thing the main thing"people actually like this principal and don't undermine his authority because they like him. with our old principal, i went out of my way to make sure she suffered. i handed out copies of the school newspaper she cancelled (after getting direct permission from the authors of the articles) and did everything in my legal (not the school's definition of legal) powers to make her life hell. Your analogy is not a good one. You are talking about RULES at school and how they are applied by the leader of your school. Don't confuse that with the rule of law in our society. There are many laws that I do not like and never will like. But, I must obey them or suffer the consequences, just like anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Your analogy is not a good one. You are talking about RULES at school and how they are applied by the leader of your school. Don't confuse that with the rule of law in our society. There are many laws that I do not like and never will like. But, I must obey them or suffer the consequences, just like anyone else. they weren't real rules: they were unwritten, unjust, and unconstitutional. the student body rose up. kinda like how america rose up against the british. you want people to respect the law? this isn't how it happens. respect is something you gain gradually through not breaking the the trust people leave in you. its much easier to lose respect than it is to gain. events like this are big events that cause people to lose respect. if they want to gain respect, they have to go as long as they can without causing big scenes such as this. if they just tased him once, cuffed him, and dragged him out, this would be a non-issue (except maybe with that muslim community, but they rise up at everything so there is nothing to be alarmed about.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Let these cops be brought before a court of law...then we'll see what the *******s have to say about the "rule of law" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RLeVan Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Yep, and let the kid be brought before a court of law. Both sides were in the wrong, it's a lose-lose situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Yep, and let the kid be brought before a court of law. Both sides were in the wrong, it's a lose-lose situation. we don't care about the damn kid getting arrested and prosecuted. do it, doesn't bother me like you seem to think. if UCLA chooses to press charges, then charge him. big deal. either way, i want those cops to stand trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Dude, you are a complete joke. The guy intentionally disobeyed their orders. The situation got out of control because HE let it get out of control. I would have beat him senseless with a club if I were there. The situation got out of control because the police let it, they are the peace officers they are in the position of control and responsibility, it is their job to maintain and restore order, not bring about disorder. So you're telling me that you would have beat someone "senseless" because he didn't show an ID and didn't stand up right away? Give me a break, if you think that and would really act that way then you need real help. Otherwise, me thinks you're just acting tough on an internet message board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.