AsburySkinsFan Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 This is how you deal with resistence from would be protestors. Just as the policeman's account that Sarge cited above says the police if they wanted to remove him, should have simply removed him. Tazing him was the wrong choice, and those officers will pay for it with their jobs. Look no TAZERS! Furthermore, if UCLA requires all students after 11pm to have ID's to be in the Library then they install ID scanning devices instead of relying upon "guards" to check ID's. If the police would have simply carried out the student then the focus would be on the student, instead now the focus is on the police. *edited for focus comment* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 The poll Larry was suggesting would question whether I'm insane of full of ****. I never said full of #$%@, I simply said full of "it";i.e. baloney (balongna), rubbish; also an indication that your posts may just be a big act. Either way you do add "flavor" to the mix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 We have certain members of this forum that always support the actions of police officers, no matter the circumstances. Whether it is SWAT officers rifle butting girls at RAVES (such as in Neveda), shooting a man multiple times for trying to take out his wallet (case in point, N.Y.C.), or a British citizen trying to catch his train and being shot for it (London, England), certain folks will ALWAYS say that the civilians "had it coming to them" or that the police are immediately justified. There is no relativism for these folks, no bad cops, and no action that may be out of line for the officer. Remember that video of the cops laughing when they rubber bulleted that women at a protest? Remember the footage of cops bashing whoever came into range - even if they were citizens walking to their work and nothing to do with the events - at protests in Washington, D.C., Seattle, and other places? The list is endless, and so are the justifications for such police violence, abuses, and use of force. And, per the norm, at EVERY single of these incidents, folks on this forum said that the police were justified and the citizens were wrong. When are the citizens right, it seems? Are the citizens EVER right, and if this is the case, what does it mean? I have observed enough abuses by officers to know the score - this is indeed a police state with a velvet glove. It isn't Soviet Russia (at least not yet), but if you are at the wrong place at the wrong time, you will most certaintly feel the presence of the law. But, make no mistake about it, this is the early signs of this police state in America. I respect officers, I have had officers in my family, and I comply with the law, as well as officers orders (and with politeness). I do not hate police nor merely think of every one as "pigs." Far from it. And I further see the need for law and order as well as law enforcement. So my attitude isn't merely one of being against the system, especially State and Local cops. I think it is unrealistic to think of a modern system without some type of law enforcement or peace officers. There are a lot of good cops who serve the public, save lives, and manage their jobs with dignity and honor. The worse part is that every incident of abuse of possible abuse merely soils the good cops and citizen's perceptions of law enforcement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 This is how you deal with resistence from would be protestors. Just as the policeman's account that Sarge cited above says the police if they wanted to remove him, should have simply removed him. Tazing him was the wrong choice, and those officers will pay for it with their jobs. No, actually that's not how I deal with them, not how I would deal with them if I was a police officer. Personally, I have on two different occassions physically forced my way through a protest line to get into a facility. My lack of interest in the sort of policing that is in vogue these days is part of the reason why I decided not to persue a career in Law Enforcement. Furthermore, if UCLA requires all students after 11pm to have ID's to be in the Library then they install ID scanning devices instead of relying upon "guards" to check ID's. WOW. So the college should be required to spend money on technology instead of simply using the security resources already available? I get the idea not too many of you would have survived at Johnson & Wales University where I went to college. Something tells me the Zero-Tolerance policies for drugs, alcohol, and smoking inside buildings would have caused problems for many of you. The others would probably have had issues with the mandatory dorm room inspections, or the requirement to have your school ID on you at all times and to show it to ANY staff member who requested to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Air Force Cane Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 that whining and snivelling leftist hippy is just lucky me and Sarge weren't the ones trying to carry him out of the library in the real world of real police and real Americans- if you refuse a direct order from Policemen time after time you expect to have your @ss beat until you comply. only in the university world would a lib expect the police to simply keep asking politely a hundred times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rictus58 Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 We have certain members of this forum that always support the actions of police officers, no matter the circumstances. I have been called the "Blue Wall" before here in the tailgate on more than one occasion. However, these officers were in the wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 that whining and snivelling leftist hippy is just lucky me and Sarge weren't the ones trying to carry him out of the library in the real world of real police and real Americans- if you refuse a direct order from Policemen time after time you expect to have your @ss beat until you comply. only in the university world would a lib expect the police to simply keep asking politely a hundred times. A perfect example of what I meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurrayH81 Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Sorry, but I just watched the video again and laughed my butt off. It's that ridiculous. Could you imagine?Officer: STAND UP. Rosa Parks: ... Officer: STAND UP. Rosa Parks: ... *BZZZT* Quite a difference between a custom enforced by the authorities (colored folks to the back or standing), and someone not obeying the rules of the campus, or complying with the Constitutionally valid request to see ID. I suspect in your revulsion in how the situation turned out, you are trying to completely toss the responsbility for what happened solely on the campus security people. While an excessive use of force is regretable, and I am sure those security people wish they could press the do over button, I doubt the student in question thinks the same way. I hope you can acknowledge that both parties should be ashamed of the way that happened and bear equal fault. My Momma would have said, "nobody made you go and tease that dog did they?" /hail:helmet: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
project myu Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Quite a difference between a custom enforced by the authorities (colored folks to the back or standing), and someone not obeying the rules of the campus, or complying with the Constitutionally valid request to see ID. How is a written rule that colored people have to stand in the back of a bus a custom, but a rule at a college a Constitutional law? I suspect in your revulsion in how the situation turned out, you are trying to completely toss the responsbility for what happened solely on the campus security people. While an excessive use of force is regretable, and I am sure those security people wish they could press the do over button, I doubt the student in question thinks the same way. I hope you can acknowledge that both parties should be ashamed of the way that happened and bear equal fault. My Momma would have said, "nobody made you go and tease that dog did they?" It doesn't matter if the student was in the right or wrong. I'm not defending the student. My point is that the cops went way overboard. And the only reason I am arguing about IDs and their criminal relevance is because somebody suggested that it was okay for the cops to taser a guy because he didn't show an ID. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurrayH81 Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 As usual, we are just talking past each other.Some of us want to talk about whether people can refuse to cooperate with the police. Others want to talk about whether handcuffed people should be tazered over and over while lying on the ground. If anyone mentions the first item, their ideological opponents jump to item 2. If anyone mentions the second item, their ideological opponents jump to item 1. This is the Tailgate in an nutshell. Careful, you can put your eye out with those sharp, on the ball observations. Nice work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Air Force Cane Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 seriously though, how many times did they issue a LEGAL AND LAWFUL directive to the guy: "Stand up"... about forty times. what did the idiot do? not stand up. You generally get a beat down by any law enforcement for that. And if the tasering was so bad- why did he continue to ask for it by not standing up? you would think if the tasering was really that powerful he would have just stood up :laugh: I am not afraid to admit that I was laughing my @ss off everytime he started whining about his "rights".. and just a nice subtext, the Islamic group CAIR is already jumping in to sue the police since the offending student was Muslim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurrayH81 Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 How is a written rule that colored people have to stand in the back of a bus a custom, but a rule at a college a Constitutional law? Because the US Supreme Court said that persons must comply with requests from law enforcement officer to show ID. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
project myu Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 seriously though, how many times did they issue a LEGAL AND LAWFUL directive to the guy: "Stand up"... about forty times. what did the idiot do? not stand up. You generally get a beat down by any law enforcement for that. And if the tasering was so bad- why did he continue to ask for it by not standing up? you would think if the tasering was really that powerful he would have just stood up :laugh: I am not afraid to admit that I was laughing my @ss off everytime he started whining about his "rights".. and just a nice subtext, the Islamic group CAIR is already jumping in to sue the police since the offending student was Muslim Yeah, the guy was initially standing and walking out. Then they taser him, which is used to immobilize people, so of course he falls down. Good thinking there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
project myu Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Because the US Supreme Court said that persons must comply with requests from law enforcement officer to show ID. What case is this? Not doubting you, just want to read about it myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurrayH81 Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 What case is this? Not doubting you, just want to read about it myself. here it is: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/03-5554.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 in the real world of real police and real Americans- if you refuse a direct order from Policemen time after time you expect to have your @ss beat until you comply. Real Americans! LOL, so I'm not a REAL American because I disagree with you. LOL Good Lord man! As for the second part, well, like I said to Mass earlier, I just hope that you never find yourself opposed idolologically with someone using your methodology. Because, you're a 'Skins fan and I'd hate to see another 'Skins fan beaten on the evening news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
project myu Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 here it is: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/03-5554.pdf "A person detained, based on reasonable suspicion of crime, may be required to provide his name to officers." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofAlvinWalton Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 "A person detained, based on reasonable suspicion of crime, may be required to provide his name to officers." Exactly. A person in a campus library who refuses to show his student id. I would have a reasonable suspicion that the person did not have a student id; which is a crime (trespass). . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Air Force Cane Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Why is it that liberals always take the side in arguments AGAINST law enforcement and the military? whenever there has been a thread on this site in the last three years dealing with this kind of issue (Abu Ghraib, Echelon, eavesdropping, Murtha, Gitmo, police arrests etc etc.) the leftists ALWAYS side against taking strong action. and yes, that guy deserved every taser he got. most policemen would have simply smashed him in the face with their night sticks instead of tasering. for all you crying tree huggers- try a little experiment tonight. speed really fast, and then when the cop pulls you over start insulting them and refusing to do what they say. then report back the results for us.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 seriously though, how many times did they issue a LEGAL AND LAWFUL directive to the guy: "Stand up"... about forty times. what did the idiot do? not stand up. If he wouldn't get up, all they had to do was carry him out, just like the ended up doing ANYWAYS, and they would have avoided the whole thing, but no they had to Tazer the kid repeatedly, and then immediately tell him to get up. I can't imagine that one really feels like standing up after having 50,000 volts run through them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
project myu Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Exactly. A person in a campus library who refuses to show his student id. I would have a reasonable suspicion that the person did not have a student id; which is a crime (trespass). . So was he charged with trespassing? No. Then it's not a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Why is it that liberals always take the side in arguments AGAINST law enforcement and the military?whenever there has been a thread on this site in the last three years dealing with this kind of issue (Abu Ghraib, Echelon, eavesdropping, Murtha, Gitmo, police arrests etc etc.) the leftists ALWAYS side against taking strong action. and yes, that guy deserved every taser he got. most policemen would have simply smashed him in the face with their night sticks instead of tasering. for all you crying tree huggers- try a little experiment tonight. speed really fast, and then when the cop pulls you over start insulting them and refusing to do what they say. then report back the results for us.. Goodness, do you even think before you post or is it simply a knee jerk reaction? Tree Huggers-how does this even apply, and how is reckless driving even comparable to this? You're making my head hurt.:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
project myu Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Here are the facts: 1) Student was leaving. 2) Cop touches his arm and he yells "get off me". 3) They taser him. 4) He falls to the ground, EXACTLY WHAT THE TASER WAS INVENTED FOR. 5) They tell him to stand up. 6) He does not so they taser him some more. Tasering is meant to take people down, not make them stand. A bachelor's degree should be required to be a police officer. Won't solve all problems, but will help to filter out people who can't even grasp simple logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Air Force Cane Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 I am not sure that the cops on the scene would agree with your iteration of the "facts".. Clearly, if they were doing something illegal you will be hearing about it in another six months after they are charged and convicted of battery. If not, then that means under the law they complied with their procedures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
project myu Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Goodness, do you even think before you post or is it simply a knee jerk reaction? I rarely post in the Tailgate, let alone in the political threads, but somehow I'm being attacked for supposedly being a "liberal". :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.