Slashdot Mirror
Youtube Video Prompts FBI Probe of LAPD
PachecoJ writes "The AP has a story of a Youtube video showing police brutality that has sparked an FBI probe of the LAPD. A group called 'Cop Watch LA' placed the video online to draw attention to the actions by officers. The officers pictured in the video are now being defended by police defense attorney John Barnett, who defended the officers in the 'Rodney King' trial of 1991." From the article: "A search on YouTube for the terms 'police brutality' found more than 500 videos, including ones that claim to show police violence in the U.S. and as far away as Egypt and Hungary. A search of Google's video site also yielded hundreds of videos. In response to the surge in amateur videos, some law enforcement agencies have installed cameras in squad cars to protect officers against false allegations."
We are all human, and there are days where people get out of control. This is a tough job, with a lot of high stress. I'm not surprised at all that there are hundreds of instances where an officer may have overstepped justified force. But, again, I would also easily believe that there are lots of cases where it was justified. We are not just robots that can 'reset' ourselves after a highly dangerous situation, so some people might overreact when in another siutation so soon after a stressful one.
:)
Anyway, that's my two cents
In response to the surge in amateur videos, some law enforcement agencies have installed cameras in squad cars to protect officers against false allegations.
Why exactly would amateur videos help create the false allegations? Are people doing a little post-production work on them before they go up online to show a closed fist hitting not once, but twice? If anything, I'd think that video in squad cars would reduce the possibility of police brutality, since the cops know that they are being recorded on video, and an allegedly beaten person can get that video.
Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
In Egypt, a muslim country, police brutality is government policy, not some idiot running out of line, like it is in the US.
x ual-assault-in-downtown-cairo.html
i _Arabia
And Egypt is the second most moderate muslim country there is.
Read how the police responds in a moderate muslim country :
http://forsoothsayer.blogspot.com/2006/10/mass-se
Read how the police responds in a reasonably muslim country :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saud
Do I really need to provide a link to what happens in a really muslim country, like palestine or afghanistan or pakistan ? Do you want to see ?
Why does this happen ? Here's one opinion :
http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge.htm
In Soviet USA, you watch Big Brother!
....
In democratic UK, Big Brother... err... wait... hang on
We have it pretty good in the USA, you should see the other places in the world
Doesn't matter what he did. I saw the video, and punching the guy several times in the face went far beyond reasonably force, especially as he was already adequately restrained, and in any case it is not the job of the police to hand out punishment.
Yeah, sometimes the suspect is black. Sometimes they dont have the 'right attitude'. Sometimes you get a cop who had a bad day and abused their power to feel better about themselves. And sometimes you deserve it.
Stop resisting arrest and I bet he'd stop punching you in the face. Roll over and get cuffed like he wants, he's not interested in your asthma, he's worried about you pulling a concealed weapon.
Here in the home of Kerry and Kennedy, a couple of people tried to record their interaction with police. They were prosecuted under the state's privacy laws. And the police were full of righteous indignation about the "invasion of their privacy." As were we all ...
A little background regarding this incident that I can recall (covered days ago on other places, can't remember where);
1. Offender is a known "Gordon Street" gang banger in Los Angeles.
2. Offender had a warrant out for his arrest for accepting stolen goods.
3. Offender was running from the police officers before they had tackled them.
4. In the video, you can see the offender grabbing the officer's inner thigh before the officer started to punch the offender.
In my opinion, although this offender did get what he deserve regarding the first set of punches, I believe the officer went a little overboard on the second set of punches (first set is to let go of his inner thigh, the second set was to get him to submit to a roll-over for handcuffing).
Thats just my thoughts, please excersize your independant thinking!
I've witnessed police brutality first hand before. An officer handcuffed a college kid when he tried to walk away from a speeding ticket, then the officer pushed him agaisnt the hood of the cop car (burning the kids cheek) and then pepper sprayed the kid right to the eyes (after handcuffing him and inflicting 2nd degree burns to the kids face). That was the third incident in a year for that officer and he didn't even get suspended. I was a witness in the civil case against the station, the kid's family won $150,000. I thought that was an exorbinant amount for a pinched nerve, burnt cheek, and stinging eyes but whatever.
/. who have ever dealt with the police for more than a speeding ticket. I think most people who don't deal with the police very much have a negative view towards them (as brutal or power tripping or whatever) and that is messed up because you are the people the police are protecting. Sooo, support the boys in blue!
Anyway, the video on youtube is a little brutal but I don't think either officer should be fired. Maybe a short suspension for the guy punching the perp in the face, because that is not a move that helps get the suspect into custody. We also have no idea what that guy did before the video starts. He might have just shot a little girl, spit in the cop's face, or jay walked. We have no idea what the context was, so it's hard to pass judgement. Either way, that wasn't all that brutal, at least he wasn't hitting the dude with his mag-light.
I have had a few bad experiences with the police (like the one mentioned above) and believe that it is always better not to get them involved. However, I have also had police save me from a machete weilding maniac that had me pinned in my bedroom (adn believe me, I wanted them to kick the crap outta him). They are necessary, and I think we should all try to keep open minds. Besides, I'm a rarity, a nerd who parties and gets involved with shady people. THeir probably aren't very many people on
I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand. -Confucius
Repeatedly punching someone in the face is not normal police procedure. Pepper spray, compliance holds, and baton strikes to the arms and legs are normal police procedure.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
1. Offender is a known "Gordon Street" gang banger in Los Angeles.
Correction: The cops SAY he is a gang member.
3. Offender was running from the police officers before they had tackled them.
Um, if THIS is what they do to people, is it any wonder people run from them??
4. In the video, you can see the offender grabbing the officer's inner thigh before the officer started to punch the offender.
You forgot to mention the cop was KNEELING ON THE GUYS NECK.
It's kind of hard to roll over when someone is kneeling on your neck.
If anyone was kneeling on my neck I'd probably grab an inner thigh or whatever I could so that I could start breathing again too.
Ice-T did Cop Killer with Body Count. It was NWA that did Fuck Tha Police.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
If the subject is adequately restrained, it doesn't really matter what was happening up until that point.
What do you propose he should have done ?
Let go of the suspect so he could grab his pepper spray ?
Too many people give theese guys a hard time for trying to defend themselves.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
It doesn't f'ing matter that you may deserve it. Otherwise we might just as well start water-boarding kidnapper suspects and murder suspects because it could save lives. And I "pity the fool" of a cop who thinks he's right about this attitude when the civil suit of an innocently-accused man lands on his doorstep.... and god-forbid, wrongful death suit...
Haha. Don't I wish that it was really black people that are the ones that are discriminated against in this country. It would sure make things easier for an average joe white guy like me if our society wasn't completely discriminatory against me and people like me.
1) Cops who are corrupt
2) Cops who are not corrupt, but ignore the corruption of others
3) Cops too stupid to know what's going on around them
I know plenty of cops that fit into varying categories above. Personally, I don't give a shit if some guy dealing drugs to kids (note to kids) or some guy abusing his wife gets an extra knock to the skull. At the same time, cops are typically dicks to people for no reason. They spend 90% of their time raising taxes (writing tickets) or playing cleanup after some dumbass.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
Some points...
1: The guy clearly was breathing. It can be seen and heard.
2: Scum will lie through their teeth in order to gain an advantage. You can't believe a word they utter. e.g. "Got the time mate", "Excuse me miss I'm lost could you help", "Do what I say and you won't get hurt".
3: Where's the rest of the video? Why was it cut off? Could it be that the suspect wouldn't be seen in quite the same light? Not an innocent victim but a violent attacker?
I'm not a big fan of the police but this is a bullshit video. It's propaganda designed to manipulate me. Show me the whole video and let me make my own decision.
Deleted
Glad you included that last one.
Keep in mind that proof, or even a strong indication that an officer committed any of the first 3 will get him fired and off the streets.
In My Humble Opinion:
1. It was obvious to me that the guy was resisting arrest. It was clearly obvious to me, even in that short clip, that the officers were trying to control the man's hands so they could cuff him, and he was struggling against being cuffed.
2. It was obvious to me that the video was edited to only show the officers actions, and not those of the person being arrested. This furthers the cause of Cop Watch LA through the use of a dramatic impression on the watcher's emotions, but not on a substantive argument of right versus wrong.
In other words, if the guy did not deserve to be punched, they would have shown everything that happened for five minutes before and five minutes after he was punched in order to emphasize his innocence. On the other-hand, if the guy reasonably deserved to be hit, they would edit out whatever he did to deserve it in order to make the cops look all the worse.
Did I really need to say all this? Is that not obvious to everyone else?
What's so unreasonable about that? Sometimes people need a good punch in the face (or three), and who better than the police to do it? It helps to stop people from being whiny, cowardly worms.
The guy was resisting arrest. He would not let them handcuff him. They may have already pepper sprayed him, but we don't know because we don't see the entire incident. You're not gonna be gentle and polite to someone who could potentially hurt you. This is nothing like the Rodney King incident, where you see him getting pulled out of the vehicle and beaten. I can't believe this garbage is gathering so much attention. All we need are violent criminals getting away or cops getting killed because they are scared of someone portraying them as brutal when they are trying to do a very difficult and dangerous job.
Similes are like metaphors
You're saying that there are no bad apples among cops. I know some cops. Most of them are decent folk at least when off the job. There are, however, a few power hungry bastards who ruin the image of cops in everyone's eyes and for the sake of respect for the law would be better off being taken out back and shot.
-b.
How am I supposed to determine anything with 30 seconds of footage? Why am I only being shown what somebody else wants me to see?
He obviously was not adequately restrained because they couldn't get the cuffs on him. And despite his claims that he "could not breathe" the fact that he had enough breath to speak proves him a liar.
I see no brutality here. I see two cops in a difficult situation doing their best to cuff a dangerous criminal. What do you think they should have done, got off him and asked him pretty please to put his hands behind his back? Gave him a foot massage while feeding him grapes? I have no sympathy for the criminal here. When two cops are sitting on you and are repeatedly saying "put your arms down" you do NOT fight them. You do as you are told.
One officer has his knee on the guys neck, they both have his arms. While the officer on the left is calling it in, the officer on the right begins punching the guy while he is saying he can't breathe, It does not look to me like the guy is continuing to struggle at that point. They should be completing the handcuffing, but instead the other officer punches him several times in the face. I think you are just trolling. Go look at it again if you aren't.
Is there heaven? Is there Hell? Is that a Tuna Melt I smell?-Primus
If there was he wouldn't have been capable of speaking. He wouldn't have been breathing and he would have blacked out within 10 - 15 seconds. He was clearly speaking, breathing and still struggling.
Deleted
I'm sure the guy deserved it, that's not the point. The point is that if he deserved it he should have been arrested in a professional manner, given a fair trial and THEN punished. The courts are there to hand out punishment, not the police, the police are for grabbing suspects, gathering evidence and using force only to control current, dangerous situations, not as agents of retribution. What's the point of having fair courts if your punished before your put before them?
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
He was unable to prevent being punched in the face, that is a pretty clear sign that he was well restrained.
If that's true, then claiming that 50.000 $ should not be hard at all. Go for it.
...)
... islamic) local law and belief system (so for example, jews in america should rest on sunday and not on sabbath, unless specifically allowed in the american legal system)
The fact that you claim to know more about islam than thousands of ex-muslims is very telling. Have you ever seen a koran ? Ever read some part of it ?
"9:5, But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Infidels wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem."
Infidel ? that's probably you.
Being a muslim implies that you follow this rule TO THE LETTER (ask any imam), or read online an imam's advice :
http://islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=15522
And before you say it NO the bible is NOT the same. Compare :
The structure of islamic law run :
1. the sayings and doings of islam's paedophile mass-murdering "prophet" (koran and hadith)
2. islamic law (including killing women on her husband's say-so, beating women, advocating rape in marriages,
3. jewish law (I'm not joking about this) including for example the ten commandments, also stoning unfaithful people (though only women, men are to pay a small amount)
4. "inborn morality"
The structure of christian law, including to the new testament :
1. "inborn morality" "do onto others as you would have done onto yourself"
2. jewish law
The structure of jewish law :
1. (in the diaspora) respect the (secular, or even
2. jewish law
So being a muslim, by definition, means you advocate killing any and all non-muslims. If you do not advocate this, you violate sharia, and, by definition, cease to be a muslim. You want to know what's scary ?
http://islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=15522
As a teenager I worked at an electronics company that built, among other things, circuit boards for in-car cameras for police cars. When I first got the job, the cameras were on if the flashing lights were on. That was it. Easy-peasy. A week into the job, we changed the design per the requests of the customers--the police departments wanted a way to leave the flashing lights on, but turn the camera off. Even at that tender age, I thought "Why would they want to turn off the camera?" Why, indeed. I still have never heard a remotely convincing argument why a police officer would not want to film his or her interaction with the public. Since they're so frequently accused of impropriety or even brutality, wouldn't a tape help them? Well, it would, unless they weren't innocent. The only time a cop would want the option of turning off the camera would be if they wanted the option of doing something they don't want a record of. I'm just amazed that more people aren't skeptical.
He should not have run away from the police or put up a fight to begin with. Police officers are only human, and they don't want to get hurt any more than anyone else does. You run away and try to fight them, and you are asking for trouble.
Clever signature text goes here.
He was in no position to inflict any harm on either of the police officers, defend himself or escape. That is adequate restraint. The penalty for resisting arrest is not a punch in the face and a police officer has no right to deal out that punishment either.
That is where we see the stuntmen dress up as cops and robbers and, plan the scene - Because there is no other situation that whould exuse what we see in the video.
FRA: STFU GTFO
How could he speak if he couldn't breathe? Watch the video. He's both breathing and speaking. Not only that, before the officer punches him he tries to get a grip on the officers upper thigh or groin with his right hand. Watch the video. 15 seconds in. Given the proximity to the officer's groin I'm not surprised he got hit.
There are a number of "vital points" on the human body which will end a fight damned near instantly. The big three are eyes, throat and groin, if you let someone anywhere near any of them you're in big trouble. Perhaps the officer was more cognizant of the potential danger than you are.
Deleted
You're right - between the foot massage/grape option and the 'repeatedly punching subdued suspect in the face' option, there is no middle ground.
I think you're underestimating the survival reflex here. As an asthmatic, I know (like thousands of other asthmatics) the terror of not being able to breath, and the panic it causes. If the suspect genuinely was unable to breath, it may have been all he could manage to do to just wave his arms around and croak "I can't breathe" now and then, rather than trying to punch the officers and struggle like hell. When you can't breathe, I'm guessing a lot of people would fight like hell until they can. If I was in his situation, and actually unable to breathe, I'm not sure I'd be able to put my arms calmly by my side and wait for the officer to stop suffocating me.
And the point that if he can't breathe, then he can't say that he can't breathe is just stupid. Believe me, someone fighting for breath will vocalise their distress if they think it will help.
I'm not trying to patronise you re: being in the position of not being able to breathe easily, but I think you're underestimating (or just not remembering) the panic it can cause.
(btw, I offer no opinion as to whether the suspect involved is a scumbag or not.)
But, again, I would also easily believe that there are lots of cases where it was justified.
Sorry, it is never justified when the police do it.
Police officers are also civilians and have to abide by the laws. Having a badge doesn't exempt the carrier of the badge from obeying the law regardless how pissed off they are what whomever. It would be damn hypocritical for those who uphold the law to not follow the same law.
YOU can't be more or less muslim, but a country can, in describing the number of muslim residents it has and the extent to which conditions within it are influenced by that number.
Sure, they are humans and they make mistakes, and that's what we see in this video...
uh, being a muslim does *not* automatically mean you follow sharia. any more than being jewish means you automatically follow levitical law.
you seem to be from a planet where there are no such things as moderate muslims. me, in NY, i'm surrounded by them.
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
How could he speak if he couldn't breathe? Watch the video. He's both breathing and speaking.
Answered elsewhere, by myself and others.
Not only that, before the officer punches him he tries to get a grip on the officers upper thigh or groin with his right hand. Watch the video. 15 seconds in. Given the proximity to the officer's groin I'm not surprised he got hit.
You left out the fact that the officer WAS KNEELING ON THE GUYS NECK. I'd be 'trying to get a grip' on the leg that was kneeling on my neck, too.
I'm regularly in situations where I can't breathe or speak. If he could speak he could breathe. It's why wrestlers, ju jitsu and karate practitioners "tap out". If you can speak, your windpipe isn't closed and unless there's pressure on your chest/diaphragm, you can breathe. He was in discomfort but could both breathe and speak.
If the pressure was significant on the side of his neck his carotid would have been closed, starving his brain of blood and he would have blacked out within seconds.
Deleted
When you have to find the worst possible to compare yourselt to, in order to seem good?
FRA: STFU GTFO
First a blatant display of ignorance, then you try to lecture us about unarmed combat.
*taps out, since the irony is killing me*
(IANAL)
If police officers recorded their actions for full public view, it would give every situation oversight and the potential for review. Yes people reviewing tense crazy situations after the fact are more likely on a witch hunt, but if the officer themselves would know that their actions are being recorded they would be less likely to do anything outside of limits, and it would also make the subject of any potential incident have less chance of trying to waste everyones time on things. Police are public servants, they serve the people, people should have oversight of what they do.
If he had a hand free to punch the suspect, he could have used that same hand to grab his pepper spray and spray the suspect in the face.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
The "assaulting an officer" charges were later dropped.
I have video of police here (Ireland) beating the shit out of people at a peaceful protest as well as verbally abusing anyone who even looked at them. Probably the worst clip is the one with 4 or 5 of them in a doorway pounding their trunchoens into the corner. When they disperse one girl appears with blood pouring down her face. I'm sure I missed the earlier clip where she took them all on...
I don't know how it is in LA but here the police are a bunch of angry people who've never lived in a city, they have their heads pumped with all sorts of BS about the nature of society and then are turned loose on the streets waiting for that junkie to inject a needle full of cotton into their jugular or whatever it is they're so on edge about. I don't go to town at night any more - it's not because of the gangs of drunken thugs looking for a fight, it's because of the gangs of legally sanctioned thugs looking for lives to screw with.
They will just beat you for no reason... You have the wrong haircut today or you're the wrong type of non-caucasian or you're on your own and don't look all that wealthy... Reason enough for them.
"without seeing the part where that person drew a gun and threatened the cop"
In reality a persons weapon does NOT magically disappear the moment they are shot. Only if the person being shot already has lost hin gun; when he is shot, will it seem that the officer is doing something shady.. And in that case he actually is!
FRA: STFU GTFO
I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong. As I've said elsewhere, If his head was to the side and the pressure was that severe he'd have been unconscious, the carotid is even easier to close than the windpipe, it has little structural rigidity of it's own.
No, that's self evident. He was still struggling against restraint and the officer was prudent to keep hitting him. If I was in a fight, had someone just about restrained and then felt them going after my groin, I'd do exactly the same thing. Actually I'd probably be far more vicious about it and go for his eyes.
I suspect, fredklein that you are a victim waiting to happen.
Deleted
Well, he certainly had a free hand to grab the pepper spray with...
"Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
It does matter what he did and what he's doing.
As the grandparent pointed out: He wasnt jaywalking was he?
Police dont go around punching everyone do they? The guy must have pissed them off a lot to recieve a few punches.
If someone is annoying a cop that much then they deserve what they get.
Also risking loosing his partner if the wind caught the pepperspray or the suspect jerked while his the officers hand was spraying it.
Punching the guy in the face was the only thing he could do, apparently the guy was shocked that he just got punched in the face by a cop & kept resisting, so the officer reminded him, "yes I just punched you in the face, if you stop resisting I'll quit doing it".
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
If you cant breathe then you usually have great difficulty talking too.
The police werent going to suffocate him.
I disagree. He is still squirming around with the two police on him.
Also his arms are above his sholders which means cuffing him would be difficult.
What the hell? How the hell else are you supposed to tell someone you're suffocating - wait until you black out or asphyxiate?
I just have one question. Are you a retard or a moron? Because I honestly can't tell at this point.
He was trying to avoid being punched in the face, by grabbing the offending officers arm. That is why it looks like the other cop was trying to restrain his partner. He was really trying to get the perps hand off the cop that was throwing the punches. I don't think it was OK, but I want to see the rest of the footage. If that guy put other innocent peoples' lives in danger, I have no problem with the cops getting in a few cheap shots. I don't care what a bunch of /.er's think "the law says this..." or "the law say that...", our court system doens't work and I support a little vigialnte justice.
Of course we have no idea what the context was because the person who put up this clip up obviously has an agenda. We know they have an agenda because they are doing everything possible to avoid explaining the circumstances. The clip is very short, nobody is interviewed after the incident (cops or suspect), and their is a bunch of text introduscing the clip as police brutality before the footage and explainging that the perp was saying "I can't breathe...I can't breathe...". The cutting, editing, and presentation of this clip does nothing but take away from the validity of the presenters argument. I always have a tendency to resist when presented with spin like this.
I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand. -Confucius
Well, since Cops are nothing more than civilians, we may as well take this one step further. Anyone annoying anyone deserves anything that they get.
After all, being a dickhead SHOULD get you a few shots to the face. Especially if you're a dickhead cop. (note: not all cops are dickheads. it's just the ones that are are generally 1000 times worse than your average non police-officer-dickhead)
I'm just wondering what you'll say when one of those cops goes ape-shit on you. Oh, I forgot - stuff like that only happens to other people, because you're a good, patriotic American.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
True, but I think the chorus to Copkilla was 'Fuck the police!'.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
I'm not interested in defending the law, you, or in fact anyone else but my friends, family and myself. I'll do that with the utmost ferocity with every tool at my disposal.
It's very clear to me that the video being shown is propaganda given the way it's edited. Even with that, it's not clear that the officer used excessive force and if I was on a jury with just that video as evidence, I'd happily clear him. Which btw, makes it well within the law.
Deleted
Wrong on both counts. You can, however, be a hypocrite. Many claim to be muslims who in fact, are not (in fact that's probably 95% of all muslims, just read a saudi blog for example, or notice the idiotic hypocrisy in a palestinian terrorist throwing a molotov cocktail in a BEER BOTTLE to an Israeli soldier). Problem is that they do believe in applying that law.
5 0910.htm
A muslim recites the basic tenet of islam, which implies following the koran and surah.
And then you have these muslims :
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Testimonials/Sunshine
And there's tons of them.
Also...
5. LAPD have a long history of brutality.
"There is a significant number of officers in the LAPD who repetitively use excessive force against the public and persistently ignore the written guidelines of the department regarding force" -- Christopher Commission report, p. iii and p. 31.
A little background regarding this incident that I can recall (covered days ago on other places, can't remember where);
...
1. Offender is a known "Gordon Street" gang banger in Los Angeles.
2. Offender had a warrant out for his arrest for accepting stolen goods.
3. Offender was running from the police officers before they had tackled them.
So
1. He belongs to a gang like his father, and brother, and sister, and probably everyone else in his family and neighbourhood.
2. He has a history of engaging in property crimes to make money.
3. He's learned to be afraid of the police.
Sounds fairly ordinary.
4. In the video, you can see the offender grabbing the officer's inner thigh before the officer started to punch the offender.
I suspect I'd instinctively grab onto whatever I could before I got pushed to the ground by a couple of 200 lb. fully armed, angry droids and punched in the face.
That said, I'm left wondering WTF kind of training police officers get these days.
Watch the video, 15 seconds in, the suspect goes for the officer's upper thigh or groin. Or at the very least it's entirely possible to interpret it that way. It's only after that point that the officer punches him.
How would you interpret such an act from someone you've just had a fight with and who you're still holding down? Would you wait and see what he was doing with his hand?
btw, if you answered yes to that last question, you're a walking victim, it's just a matter of time before something nasty happens to you completely unexpectedly.
Deleted
I thought by now pretty much all police cars had them, they are invaluable in court.
And while i dont condone unwarranted violence, try walking in their shoes for a night: Being attacked, perhaps killed at any turn. Everyone you meet is trying to get away with something. Can things get out of hand unintentionally in that environment? Sure.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Being a Black man who as a youth(16 yrs. old)was taken into custody and brutalized by police for the simple fact that I looked like the criminal they were after. It's hard for me to justify using this type of force. For those of us who have take any type of basic self defense course we know that there are way too many ways to subdue a person without punching them in the face. Especially if there are two of you doing the subduing. (I think that's a word LOL). Peace, DREi2Deuce
You didn't watch the video. He only pounds the guy's face after he grabs hold.
Deleted
So someone who signed up to serve their country and got hurt (whether mentally or physically) in the line of duty is deserving of a beating? Those vets that you speak of were normal Americans tryin to do their duty before they saw something that changed them for life. Get a clue, dude - your current attitude is hatefull and disgusting.
-b.
The guy was clearly struggling. For all you know, they were just desperately to finally get him cuffed and under control, because as long as he's struggling he's a threat. The police doesn't want to die any more than anyone else.
Clever signature text goes here.
I'd prefer not to give them a reason to go apeshit on me. If the police was coming for me I would try to cooperate fully to avoid getting into even more trouble.
Clever signature text goes here.
Do they ever do it? Almost never, and if they did they would lose their job as the absolutely best-case scenario. More likely, they get fired, get sued, never work again, and have to spend the rest of their life giving handjobs to support their crack addiction. What makes cops think they're above that? Firing cops who abuse their power is the very least that should happen to them.
It's arguably closer to treason, since they're abusing a sacred trust that has been placed in them. The power to use violence is a very serious one, and it is not casually that we've waived the right to claim our own justice with vigilanteism and lynch-mobs. The whole point is for police officers to be better than vigilantes and mobs -- otherwise, how are they worth the tremedous price? Why entrusting them with anything if we can't actually trust them?
You need to go and find that book written by the former LAPD cop whose home was blasted and family threatened by masked motorcycling cops because he was threatening to expose corruption.
He wrote about how Darrel Gates (former LAPD chief) misdirected funding for the nearly secret, but windowless version of the LAPDs own CIA. The LAPD had NO business amassing an CIA-type quality to it, where they tapped phones in LAX, spied on Mother Theresa, Michael Jackson, and numerous celebrities who used pay phones in the airport. Such people were followed.
He wrote the book because the LAPD threatened to kill him or behaved in such a manner after he was deemed to much a threat.
You say cops won't beat you without a reason? That author was (IIRC-- it's been years since I read my copy of the book) dispatched to a location where he ended up in a shootout that was staged, and NO backup arrived. That's when he decided to blow the whistle via his book.
You cay the cops won't beat you for no reason? You know how the LAPD gets people to on amateur video appear to be resisting arrest: they wear a ring with a thumbtac on it. When KNOW they are being filmed, and still want to beat your ass, they grip you with the ring. What happens next? Well, natural instinctual reflexes dictate you mind grows enraged while your body jerks or pulls away. NOW, you appear to be resisting arrest. When they try to "restrain" you, you keep getting jabbed, and you resist, FOR REAL. Now, your ass is getting beaten. On film. The civilian review board cannot SEE the ring, so there is little they can do except let the bad ones back on the street.
I won't go into the few little episodes ***I*** had with some cops, except this one:
I passed thru what I found out minutes later was a murder scene. I'd dropped off a friend a mile or so away, and I for some STUPID reason was attracted to the blue and red lights and the crowd that was near a house that was near my home address. Not much ever happened in my neighborhood, so I made a second pass. When I couldn't see anything, I turned around to go home. Thinking I was a suspect, the lit up my car with their flashlights and then chased after me, by which time I had already been pulling over since I knew NOW that I'd fucked up by passing that crime scene when I should have taken my ill ass to bed instead. They ordered me out of my car, checked it, and found NOTHING. I wasn't in any WAY connected to the evens, yet they kept interrogating me and demanded information about a person named (first name withheld) and were INSISTING that I knew the suspect they were after. Despite my having meds in my car and a prescription and an obviousness that I was trembling and in ill health and should not have been in cold weather and such, the cop/s wouldn't let me sit in my car or in the back of THEIR car so I could keep warm. I offered the fucker BOTH sets of my car keys, pleaded for my health, and by that time came up CLEAN on their computer check of my DMV/DL records. No go. When he saw my hands moving from the pushbar to the warm hood, he didn't like that, probably since he must have felt I was playing dumb with him. I even RESPECTFULLY asked to be allowed to put my hands on the warm hood of his car so I could not shiver and shake so much. He ordered KEEP YOUR HANDS ON THE PUSHBARS.
I was never physically assaulted by him/them, but I wonder how the report would look had I gone into a seizure or collapsed and hit my head on something...
And, this wasn't in some ass-backwards part of the US. This was in San Jose, CA, SILLY CON-JOB ALLEY.
You, I think, need to read more about police officers. Even that bad one or 3 in every 500 is too much to be allowed contact with the populace. They need to be under cover or DEEP cover and tagged to make sure their cover is not a cover for acting an ass.
No Karma Bonus taken for this post.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
I don't think he was adequately restrained, that's the problem. He wasn't letting the cops put the cuffs on him. I think the one cop started hitting him so he would become dazed enough to stop resisting so they could get the cuffs on.
Several years ago, I was a volunteer for an organisation called The Legal Defence and Monitoring Group here in the UK. We were often invited to monitor the police during public demonstrations (marches and the like). Most of us had legal training of some sort, and an interest in public order legislation and its reform following a string of draconian laws passed under the Thatcher government during the 1980s.
Our aim was to observe the actions of the police and record what they did during the demonstration, be that behaviour good, bad or indifferent. We used written notes and (later) dictaphones for this. We did not use cameras (still or video) because we knew that photographic evidence was very problematic in court. It was too easy to challenge on points of detail. It was instead far easier to secure a conviction of police brutality by having detailed (and consistent) written observations of three or four individuals given as evidence by the prosecution. Having evidence that nothing happened at a specific time was useful if the police said that there was an incident, so we used to take notes at 5-minute intervals whether or not there was anything to observe.
When riots happend (and they usually did), I remember you needed a bottle of water to stop your mouth running dry as you had to constantly describe the events around you.
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
Is this new technology? If so, where did they get all that footage for the cop video shows I watch on FX when I'm bored before now?
I guess surveillance goes both ways.
I can well understand why corrupt police would dislike it when they are caught behaving like the jackbooted thugs that many of them are. It is well known how corrupt police tend to have an attitude of exceptionalism; they think that the law does not or should not apply to them, and that they should be able to get away with doing whatever they like.
I also don't know how that demoniac Barnett is able to sleep at night...I saw the footage of what they did to Rodney King myself. Makes me think that there must be some substance to some of the negative stereotypes about lawyers as well, after all.
Enjoy a taste of your own medicine, guys. Suddenly surveillance cameras watching anything and everything doesn't seem like such an attractive idea when you're the target of them, does it?
If the cop has the guys hand, then why the hell is he pounding the guys face? Sounds like retribution, not self defense at that point.
This guy is innocent until a court says otherwise. Police applying unnecessary violence is harming the innocent. This isn't some stupid loophole it's a cornerstone of the justice system, if they cannot adhere to the rule of law they should get the hell out of the industry. If you want to do your own vigilante justice go right ahead but don't cry to me when you end up in prison with those you enact your justice on. Personally I hold criminals with badges in the same regard as criminals without them.
Well you're right in theory, but in practice if their is an overuse of force, circustances can and should mitigate (or not) the severity of the offense. As a civilian, it's not my right to dispense punishment either. But, I think we can all agree that it's reasonable that I would be treated differently if I hit punched someone after they hit my daughter than if I punched them after they called me an asshole. It doesn't mean I didn't commit a crime, same with the officer, but it does mean I get a far smaller sentence.
Relax I just want some peanuts.
Wrong on both counts. You can, however, be a hypocrite. Many claim to be muslims who in fact, are not (in fact that's probably 95% of all muslims, just read a saudi blog for example, or notice the idiotic hypocrisy in a palestinian terrorist throwing a molotov cocktail in a BEER BOTTLE to an Israeli soldier). Problem is that they do believe in applying that law.
A muslim recites the basic tenet of islam, which implies following the koran and surah.
Recites? I don't think that words means what you think it means. While you are at it, Suras ARE the Quran, not some separate set of documents.
Are you an islamic scholar? An imam? Even a muslim for chrissakes? No. Then who the Gehenna are you to be lecturing on who is and who is not a muslim? Are going to start telling us that Mohammed was a pedophile, too?
There are 5 requirements to be a muslim. Anything beyond those is subject to interpretation. Following the instructions of the quran follows from the first requirement - believing that mohammed was a true prophet, but just like any other religious text it is subject to enormous amounts of interpretation - even if the words itself, unlike the bible, are not. Just ask a Sufi what he thinks about it versus what a Sunni versus a Shia versus the hundreds of subsects of each.
As for the hypocrisy of throwing a beer bottle molotov cocktail? Presumably you are referring to the common practice of not drinking alcohol. I don't think you understand the concept of molotov cocktails - they are not a russian beverage that you actually drink.
Nothing about using a bottle requires that one drink the contents. In many places, beer is cheaper than water - for example Switzerland has a law on the books that requires restaurants to provide water for less than the cheapest beer they carry because they were not doing it on their own. Considering just how messed up the economy is palestine, not to mention the relative scarcity of potable water, it ain't hard to believe the same pricing inversion has happened there too.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
that's also why what, 70% of all inmates are blacks, and the rest is mexican. this obviously isn't because they're biased, but because caucasians in the US, other than in the rest of the world, are actually paragons of virtue, whereas the black and mexican populations have to compensate for all that goodness.
He doesn't have control of the guy's hand. Which makes the rest of your comment irrelevant.
Watch the video, watch the suspect's right hand at 15 seconds into the video.
Deleted
I said unable to avoid being punched as in he couldn't protect himself. Even boxers who get punched in the face a lot try to protect their faces it's a natural reaction for one to attempt to protect themselves. The suspect trying unsuccessfully to protect himself does not distract from the fact that he was restrained and at no time in the immediate time in which the punches were thrown was any officers life in danger from him.
Until he was handcuffed and in custody, the officers were in danger. The fact that he was continuing to resist despite having two cops holding him down means the officers were still in danger. The fact that his arms were clearly not fully under their control and that he was actively resisting being cuffed means the officers were still in danger. The fact that it took two officers to bring and keep him down suggests that he is quite capable of putting up a fight. Until he was completely subdued, he was a danger. In that situation the cops had the following choices:
1) Allow him to keep struggling until he hurt himself
2) Allow him to keep struggling until he hurt someone else
3) Allow him to keep struggling until he passed out (assuming he really couldn't breathe which I doubt)
or
4) Subdue him
Every minute his arms are free or no completely restrained (as they clearly are not in this video) he is a threat to everyone in the area. Failure to try and subdue him as quickly as possible will result in someone getting hurt or dying.
It's also quite clear that these are calculated strikes as it's 3 hits and only 3 each time. He's not pummling the shit out of him, he's trying to get him to stop fighting.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Is that same generosity of spirit applied to people who get labelled "criminals?"
And if someone is punching you in the face and choking you and causing you to suffocate, you're supposed to just lie there and let someone murder you?
Perhaps you aren't fully considering just how far people will go to defend themselves against death?
i am a soviet space shuttle
It's not the job of a patrol cop to punish. Their job is to secure and arrest. If the suspect has tried to resist arrest, they're charged with that and tried via due process. Not beaten up -- which results in suits against the police, and damages paid as a result of the unnecesary brutality.
Punching someone in the face is not necessary to restrain them especially when the person being punched is unable to breathe and as a result will die. That's not arrest, that's murder.
i am a soviet space shuttle
And how do you know he wasn't trying to get free with his arms. The reason he can't breathe is because he didn't want to get handcuffed in the first place. I don't have any sympathy for these individuals. If an office wants to handcuff you, you oblige him and then settle things in court. You do not fight with the officers.
"violence only begets more violence"
Yeah, um... maybe you should have told that to the kids who stole pizza from me and broke my jaw last Thursday. And, no, I didn't lay a finger on any of them, but things might have gone better for me if I were able to.
There are savage people out there. Not all violent acts are savage. e. g. the proper way for police to subdue a resistant suspect is often violent but should never be savage. Simply forsaking all violence without qualifiers denies yourself the proper tool for some jobs, especially when dealing with savages.
How about a camera which tracks the cop himself?
Let's mount the lens on the roof of the car, pointing forwards by default (where the cop is approaching/chasing). If the cop gets out of the car, the camera tracks the cop, including extending upwards to keep a proper vantage point and maintain a view, so that if the cop gets into ... trouble, someone back at base can immediately send more backup.
And to the trolls, go to church and get some morals. You apparently didn't get them in your critical thinking course.
groupthink: It's good for self-esteem.
So you'd let the guy perform his ball-crush attack just so that you could get a couple licks in yourself?
Look at the relative position of the cop and suspect. With the guy on his back, all the officer has to do is grab the suspect's arm and put weight on it, and the suspect wouldn't have had the leverage to do anything, much less get a death grip on his balls. Maybe you don't know anything about grappling, but I know the cops do. If he was really worried about a deadly groin attack he would have protected his groin by restraining the arm, not thrown a series of punches to the face.
But let's check the assumption that you're describing it accurately. What really happens is that the suspect moves his right hand near the officers thigh (above the suspects head, with an improbably arm bend necessary to get at the groin), then stops, his hand doesn't move for several seconds. The cop then grabs the suspects left hand with both hands in order to switch his grip and free up his right hand, which he then uses to punch the suspect repeatedly.
The idea that the officer punched the suspect -- after a five second delay involving switching hands on the suspect's other hand -- as a self-defense response to the world's slowest groin attack is simple laughable.
The enemies of Democracy are
Wait, wait, I can tell you how this is going to go down.
The LAPD is discovered to be corrupt. Officers from Rampart Division are dipping into the dope stash in the evidence room, or some officers are engaging in "monkey slapping time". There's an outcry. Something Must Be Done. The Christopher Commission or its like is convened. Anti-corruption measures are proposed. Memory fades, and they never really get implemented. Lather, rinse, repeat.
You can go back to 1902 with this shit.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Riiight. In a country in which Habeus Corpus has been indefinately suspended? I'm sorry, but at this point relying on "your day in court" to right wrongs committed against you is plain foolish. Sure it doesn't happen that often (But at the same time how many US citizens or legal US residents are held captive without trial? Oh that's right, we don't KNOW), but the reality is that in America today anyone can be arrested and secreted off to Guantanamo Bay, or any of a hundred other secret US prisons around the globe. A "They'll never take me alive!" attitude is perfectly justified.
Some of these replies are so fucking ignorant that I don't even know where to begin. ...OK, I'm taking a deep breath here. I promise the rest will not be a rant or a troll-fest.
Some are saying things to effect of "The guy was breaking the law, so he deserved it!" What about the fact that the officers who behave as such, meting out their own justice whenever it suits them? Are they obeying the law, or are they breaking it also? Why is one any better than the other? Should I, seeing an officer behaving badly, beat the living shit out of him, or should I record him acting badly and report him to his authorities?
By the way, I have seen this argument from both sides. I have been thrown on many hoods of many cruisers for no good reason. I have been harassed by police officers who later claimed "they were just bored". Also, 3 of my uncles are cops, and every one of them is crooked. Then again, when I was falsely accused, one particularly stand-up cop was my strongest advocate, and the charges were dropped. So what I'm saying here is that cops require no special modicum of trust outside of that which we afford them in their commission as an officer of the law.
Working in a DevOps shop is like playing in a band made up entirely of keytarists.
There is, of course, a great way to keep people from distrusting police. In cases of police brutality, you don't rationalize away the action, even if the criminal was Bin Laden himself. You go after the cop, and you make an example of him, because it's situations like that - where we rationalize away anything from a single unnecessary strike to a permanent disfigurements- that gives people a reason to fight arrest in the first place.
No doubt there would still be nuts who fight arrest, but if we routinely brush off brutality as mere "resisting arrest," then we can't separate those who are nuts from those who have had their rights violated. Defending cops who break the oath they make to the public doesn't help real cops- ones who would never commit crimes in the course of their jobs.
groupthink: It's good for self-esteem.
while your points are vaild, and it is probable that the suspect in question was, in fact, an antagonist prior to the events shown on the video, it must be said that these points are close to irrelevant in the situation. It's in the public eye now, and the opinions of the public are fickle.
Also, if punching a prone (position) suspect in the face is considered a vaild tactical method, it's no wonder that people get upset. I can think of a dozen methods that would be more effective, less obvious, and far less controversial than the 3 'calculated strikes'. One of them involves the 2nd officer putting the cuffs on the suspect, while the first restrained him. That, i believe, is the textbook method, and probably would have been sufficient given the circumstances.
http://www.xkcd.com/354/
In response to the surge in amateur videos, some law enforcement agencies have installed cameras in squad cars to protect officers against false allegations.
I think this is a good idea anyhow. There have been too many he-said-she-said accusations and they consume too much court time and officer down-time, and fuel suspicions of the disenfranchised.
Table-ized A.I.
Look at what these guys did to that fax machine:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=J_dHJYyQDJk
Table-ized A.I.
After the entire rodney king video was put out there, it was clear that he earned his beating. he struck first, twice
Rodney King lunged at the cops, but he did not hit them. He earned himself a jolt with a taser, but not a 57 strike beating.
If you know your rights and don't break laws, cops will not treat you badly.
This is simply not true. I have personally been the subject of bad treatment and verbal abuse from cops.
Tazers are making that job much more humane. A quick jolt to burn off all the energy in the violent suspect saves beating like this.
I submit that, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
okay hows about this choke begins ----> you get a string of breaths (and happen to also say "i can't breath!!)-----choke continues repeat cycle as needed (or until you black out )
a choke is not absolute (think D&D saving throw during each turn V Dex/Con of the person choking you) so unless you get a terminator grade crushed windpipe you might be able to get a few last words out (and if you do get a crushed windpipe its TOD/COD)
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Being gentle with that kinda criminal is ony gonna get the arressting officers killed.
if he deserved it he should have been arrested in a professional manner
Just out of curiosity, have you ever personally tried to subdue a large angry person who doesn't want you to subdue him? Have you ever held someone down while trying to put handcuffs on them as they put up a fight and grab at your leg, right next to where you keep your metal baton and your sidearm?
Which professional manner where you thinking about, exactly? A comic-book style magic net-thrower with immobilizing sneeze powder? Or perhaps you were thinking of just politely asking the career criminal to step into your police cruiser, all professional-like? Or perhaps you were thinking that after you've put your hands on the bad guy who is refusing arrest, that he'd say... "Ah! You got me. My career in repeat crimes is at an end, and I'll just come along with you polite, professional men, now."
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The most critical background to any LAPD abuse story is that LA has never had enough police officers. Apparently, the ratio of police to citizens is (at least historically) one of the smallest among major American cities. For decades there has been an unspoken agreement that LA won't hire enough cops, so those that we have use more force.
It is an idea our current police chief is trying to change.
a war on terrorism? How can we end a war on a method?
One of them involves the 2nd officer putting the cuffs on the suspect, while the first restrained him. That, i believe, is the textbook method, and probably would have been sufficient given the circumstances.
Looking at the video, that's exactly what they were trying to do. You'll note they have one cuff on (which by the way, makes him more dangerous than if he had no cuffs) and they're trying to get his arms under control. That's when he grabs the one officer. The strikes were calculated to do 3 things:
1) Subdue him (he's grabbing at an officer)
2) Distract him (if someone is hitting your face, you're probably going to stop what you're trying to do, in this case, grab the officer)
and
3) Losen his resistance (which it succeeded in doing as you'll note they manage to bring his arms together at the end of the video and get him further under control)
In the end, I would rather the guy have a bloody nose (those weren't very hard strikes) than have a dead perp or dead officer which is a possible senario when your perp is grabbing at the officer. Idealy as an officer, you don't want to have a perps hands anywhere near your body except to handcuff him.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Again, there are better places to do this and ways to do it. Especially when someone is filming you in the process.
I don't disagree with you, btw, and i've already said i believe that the suspect was likely an antagonist prior to the events shown on the video. However, I do think that the officers might have considered the legal implications of being shown striking the man's face on video.
http://www.xkcd.com/354/
But that is for a judge and jury to decide, not a pissed off cop.
Where's the rest of the video? Not enough context in this video to decide if this is police brutality or not.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Its a thin line on who and how to operate. I work at a juvenile detention center and there are basically two types of staff members. Type A personality, agressive people, and the more laid back (like myself). The more, laid back people take different approaches to descilating incidents than the type A people. Type A tend to try to take control of the situation. The type A step past the rules we are bound to more often, but at the same time, the people we are dealing with (murders, rapist, armed robbers, etc.) have no bounds at all. We are bound up by design (especially because we work with juveniles). My personality style can deal effectively with 95% of issues, but its the other 5% I'm worried about. That's when I need the help of those type A people. The problem lies in the fact that these people are also the ones that tend to lose control when they are threatened. I see the only possible solution to this issue is psych tests and pairing of people based on this. An aggressive and a laid back person. Yes, it is unrealistic goal, and one that won't solve every situation, but all aggressive or all laid back people will not solve any issues either...
My problem is, I don't think it should matter whether it was on video or off video, and I certainly don't think officers in the field need to be concerned with any legal implications other than "is the force being applied legal and neccessary" anything else is distracting and can get someone killed.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Are we talking morally, legally, tactically, etc? How about principles, or specifics?
In general, I agree that there is (and should be) a justified amount of force avaliable to police, based on the specifics of the situation. The police are allowed to respond with equal force to what they believe the suspect has avaliable to them. For example, If the suspect is able-bodied and has a weapon of (almost) any description, the officers are justified in using their own.
The problem here is that the suspect didn't appear to pose a significant threat to anyone's life. If he had some kind of weapon, that might have been quite different.
And, no, i'm not sure that a handcuff counts, since the suspect was clearly overwhelmed.
http://www.xkcd.com/354/
On /. these days, I see way too much OMG POLICE BRUTALITY!!1 and not enough OMG THEY ARE ONLY T3H HUM4NZ!!!11
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Shouldn't it be say:
Rodney King "trial"
instead of:
"Rodney King" trial
in the blurb?
I'll be your candy shop of infinite deliciousity if you'll be my discotheque of endless rump-shaking.
A much more widespread problem. However, I think the problem is circular. If the public were a bit more polite to the police, in general, the police would be a bit more polite to the public. Still, I think police should make the first move in rectifying the situation.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
The post I was replying to claimed the cop had ahold of the guy's hand. I also used a nice little qualifying word, you might have heard of it. The word is "if" -- sounds like you might need to look it up.
Reading comprehension is important.
One winter back in the 1990s in Manitoba, there were some cops who picked up a local teenager, drove him to the outskirts of town, and left him there. It's important to note at this point that during a Manitoba winter, the temperature gets down to -30 celsius and the wind chill can easily bring it further down to -50. Unsurprisingly, the kid froze to death and died. Guess who covered it up? Every single cop in the entire city. No heroes, no whistleblowers, just a blue wall of evil, evil people.
Then it turned out that they did this regularly with anyone who was homeless, perceived as a troublemaker, or "First Nations". It took an extensive public inquiry to determine what happened and collect enough evidence to make a case. A good, decent, honourable cop would have spearheaded the investigation and crucified his colleagues for committing such a heinous act in inhumanity. A shitty evil cop would avoid doing an investigation because he doesn't give even the slightest thought to justice, the law, or even Human life.
Stonechild Scandal.
So what was the final outcome? The officers responsible were suspended WITH PAY, and the family got an apology from the current police chief. That's what a Human life is worth to the police: early retirement and some hollow words from someone who has nothing to do with the situation whatsoever.
Have you actually seen the video mate? One officer had his right arm completely secure, another officer had him pinned by his neck with his knee and was holding the man's left hand away from his face to allow his face to be punched repeatedly. What I saw wasn't restraint but brutal physical punishment. At that point they were not attempting to restrain the man for any reason but to hit him, no handcuffs in sight. Your sarcastic rhetoric is juvenile and simply proves that you have no comprehension of what this discussion was about. If I was American, or moreso a Californian I'd be really embarrassed by that footage, after watching it on the news down here I'm just amazed that anyone on Slashdot could possibly try to justify it, hell, this is the place where researching bombmaking is considered a civil right. It's just like with that Rodney King dude, sure the King is an ultra looser that needs to be locked up, but bashing up unarmed people on the street is barbaric and it just doesn't happen in civilized places, if cops were caught doing that here they'd be fired within a week.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
If you don't want to get punched in the face, dont fight the police!
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
Yes I'm going to tell you that prophet was
... well that will be an easy 50 grand for you : http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge.htm
1. a pedophile : he fucked a girl called "aisha" when she was 7 year old
2. a person who murdered hundreds of people in cold blood, when they were no threat to him : khaybar, the rounded up all the men there, had them dig their own grave in the center of medina, and had them beheaded before his eyes one by one. Then he ordered muslims to rape their women.
Why don't you start by checking if these facts are true. If they're not
About the pricing inversion, no I don't believe it. Obviously. Even the presence of the bottles would be a clear violation of palestine's law (not beating your wife regularly would be another violation). That's islam. The "religion of peace" ( http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ then why does "islam" mean submission, opression in arabic ?)
Chuck D. said it best
a) has no members that commit crimes or abuse their power --
or
b) doesn't try to cover up the crimes of its members, and invites independent public inquiry to eliminate corruption because they actually respect laws and justice --
and I'll respect its members. In fact, show me a whistle-blower cop, and I'll respect him or her. They exist ... they're just an extremely rare breed. I'm sure there are a few neonazis out there that respect other races. There are at least one or two Christians in the world who actually respect the freedoms and rights of others. Anything is possible. And I respect those people. But they're hideously rare. The local cops? They protect each other. No whistleblowers. Not a single one of them has a spine. I'm not generalizing -- I'm referring to precisely those cops that either commit crimes or protect those that commit crimes. Covering up a crime is itself a crime -- and you know that. So you also know that every single cop who turns a blind eye to corruption is also a criminal.
I'm not suggesting we get rid of the police. I'm suggesting complete and independent oversight of their actions by the public, and that any cop who commits a crime (including abetting the crimes of others) while on duty be tried for treason. Any cop who doesn't want to obey the law should quit. Abdicate their responsibility?! Good, if they throw in the towel on their own, so much the better. If they didn't it would have to be stripped from them by force.
Do you really think that it would be bad if criminals were removed from the police force? Of course you don't. No one wants to give criminals guns and body armor and a license to kill at will. Just keep in mind that abetting a crime is itself a crime. Conspiracy is a crime. And so most cops are in every legal sense criminals.
So are you saying those inmates are innocent ? Just because there is a difference, there necessarily is racism involved ? Maybe it simply is true what every statistic keeps repeating : immigrants commit many more crimes than natives. 20 or 30 times more. This is statistic is not isolated to america. Les than 30% of people in the belgian prisons are belgians. 4% of muslims in the UK perpetrate 72% of reported antisemitic attacks.
w s/news.html?in_article_id=412697&in_page_id=1770
f change.net/pics/2006/r3443127481_o.jpg&usg=__G3_28 -sYXxU2Lu5snXpe9BxqMsc=
... why don't you check how blacks are treated in the rest of the world. Why don't you check how muslims treat blacks ? It's been in the news so much lately in sudan. Also note that muslims have no word for "a black person" only one single word denotes blacks in the muslim word. You know which one ? "slave".
... check your facts.
islam teaches muslims to kill infidel males, and rape infidel females. The statistic on rapes in brussels, unfortunately, confirms this is exactly what's happening. There are maybe 5% muslims, but they do nearly 60% of rapes. That's racism right there for you. Also note that in many muslim countries, it is either explicitly or de-facto legal to do so.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/ne
Or look at the case of ait oud. He's a muslim who raped and killed 2 children. Then he dumped them in the sewer. Traces of his jacket and his hair were found on the victim, including the areas where they really, REALLY shouldn't have been found. His entire mosque agrees : he didn't do it, and even if he did do it, he did nothing wrong, and he's being accused because of racism. The papers reported this small detail once, and now they shut up about any of his relatives or other muslims. Coincidence ?
http://images.google.be/url?q=http://watch.windso
And
But as always
Or, and this one is particularly good, my Dad's affair; the woman's husband was a high-ranking, highly-decorated detective. When they both decided to divorce their current partners, this pinnacle of the community, this man of honour and justice, came to kill my dad. Fortunately my father and his bride-to-be had made haste out of town, because they were pretty sure that he would do exactly that. Funny how a man so willing to commit murder would rise so high in the police... he later took custody of his children illegally, and spent the next decade convincing them that their mother was pure evil. And of course, being a cop, he was never held accountable for any of it and was able to have the custody made official (judges hate cheating women; oddly enough, cheating men seem to do just fine in court :roll: ).
Suffice to say, no cops have ever stood up for me or my rights. They shut down parties that I go to. They've ignored me the few times I've needed to call the police for thefts at my store. They spend 90% of their time hunting down grow-ops -- and then they auction off the siezed hyrdoponics equipment to line their pockets, putting it back in the hands of drug producers. Then they do nothing about the heroin dealers who operate in the open on Main and Hastings. Everyone knows they are there, you can watch deals go down as you drive past. You'll step on needles as you walk through the area if you're not careful (not to mention tripping over the junkies sprawled everywhere). The cops do nothing, other than to lobby the government to shut down treatment programs. Yes, you read that right. They lobby the government to shut down treatment programs. These are evil, evil men and women.
I could go on and on... examples of police corruption shouldn't be this easy to find! They should be rare aberrations! Not the status quo.
There is a difference.
These cops were trying to enforce the law but the guy was being very stupid.
Come on guys, I don't see the problem at all. If arrested, LA cops will treat you like a King!
or else!
Sorry, no sale. Cops are evil, stupid, bullies. The ones who don't hurt people cover for the ones who do. They'll hurt you for nearly any reason, legitimate or otherwise.
Clever signature text goes here.
Islamofreaks like you just love the pedo meme, probably because you are a closet pedo yourself looking to project your feelings of guilt on to someone else and away from your own perverted cravings. You love it so much that whenever anyone even hints at the Aisha debate, you can't resist going all whacko and self-identifying as a total loon. Just look at how rambling and ignorant the rest of your post gets:
Cite the statute. Come on, its so "clear" surely you can do it?
Well, you can't because it is not illegal to have alcohol in palestine, much less bottles. See this story about a successful microbrewery in palestine. What a piss-poor attempt at back-tracking on your part - as if breaking a law, that doesn't even exist, would somehow equate to "idiotic hypocrisy."
After that, I don't think it would be possible for you to say anything that would make you appear more stupid than you just did.
More ignorant ramblings. I think you meant to say that in Arabic "islam" means NAMBLA didn't you?. The idea that "islam" means 'oppression' is random islamofreak circle-jerking. Islam means submission to God - which is pretty much the definition of any other monotheistic religion, and most polytheistic ones too.
Yeah, whatever freakazoid. You are clearly a product of the american public school system where critical thinking has long since ceased to be a taught skill, replaced with multiple choice tests and feeling good about yourself. Sure must be nice to have an irrational hatred you can share with all your buddies, it just kinda makes you feel special don't it?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
No sorry, not even that does it. In that case the police report should say "He fondled my nuts rather hard." NOT "The suspect sustained severe facial injuries while repeatedly bashing his face against my fist."
FRA: STFU GTFO
italian men also rape women who wear tight jeans, because they are "provoking them by flaunting their bodies".. is this so different from the reasons arab men give for why women shouldn't wear western clothing? i realise it's hip to bash islam, but really, you seem to be somewhat biased.
"4% of muslims in the UK commit 72% of all antisemitic attacks in the uk"
again, marvellous figures. who invented antisemitism again? islam? right, let's move on
try to remember.. police officers are people, who bring their own taught biases to their work with them. i could probably also pull figures either out of my ass or from some report that tell you minorities are far more likely to be fined or taken in for crimes committed than 'majority' members of the population.
also try to remember how well pro bono lawyers do their work [i'm sure you can find multiple cases reported where the lawyers either fall asleep during trial or show up drunk], and look up the definition of "class justice".. i'm sure you'll find the notion shocking.
sure, people who have few good job opportunities will commit more crimes than those who have many, but i don't think you're trying to cast doubt on that.
i think you actually believe that somehow, race or religion is indicative of whether or not people will commit crimes at all [insert shocked face here], rather than economic prospects being the primary motivation. yes, there are countries where women have fewer rights than men, but it's not like we haven't had the same thing happen here at some time in the past (and not even that far off, too)
"but as always, check your facts" -- sure. but as always, try to be unbiased. far more important
You're confusing analysis of the recently videotaped event with the notion that "arresting people in a professional manner" doesn't have to sometimes involve the heavy application of force. Sometimes in a way that would, out of context or missing the big picture, seem brutal. It's a very, very tough job (dealing with just plain mean, frequently boorishly drunk or drug addled, sometimes large, powerful people who may decide to try to hurt you). I'm talking about the prevailing presumptions, here, that a) all cops are evil, b) they all delight in beating people, c) all people that they physically deal with are saints who can be asked to put down their [weapon/stolen vehicle/hostage/tin-foil hat/killer attitude] with a reasonable expectation that they'll smile and do the right thing since the nice officer asked them to.
I'd dare the average Cops-Are-Evil poster here to spend a week on a ride-along in a typical urban area, dealing with domestic violence calls, obnoxious drunks smashing things because it's fun, really broken minds that see passers-by as deadly threats to which they react, well, crazily... cops see, disporportionately, the worst and most dangerous people and circumstances. And when they're pursuing a known criminal, say, in a stolen car, who resists arrest and - as a 6-plus-foot, 280-pounder - starts throwing punches and kicking and appears completely immune to a stun gun... you have nothing for it but to use force. Cops have to be prepared for that, every day. Some of them bring that readiness to bear on situations that don't quite rise to that level, and they means they need to do something else for a living. But that doesn't make all of them nazi sadists, and it doesn't change the fact that there will still always be people that do need (literally) a thump in the head so that two much smaller officers can get them under control and in restraints before someone (or more people) get hurt by said crazy (or just assholish) guy.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I've never seen a single one of these videos where the guy gets pulled over, gets out of the car calmly, abidingly put his hands behind his back to get cuffed, and THEN gets beat for absolutely no reason.
If a pair of civilians were to hold down a person with a knee on his throat while punching him in the face, they would not be suspended from their jobs, they would be charged under the criminal law and spend some time in prison (not to mention have a criminal record).
Policemen (or any other authority figures) should face at least the same consequences. Probably even more serious because the temptation to use that excessive force is quite high.
what, i don't live in NY? the moderate muslims i know are secretly something else, because you yourself define who is and isn't a muslim?
get a grip.
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
"87%" hmm, - if you're going to be as definite as that, quote your reference.
I'll take no response as you acknowledging you made it up.
Yes, only some cops commit crimes. But the rest protect them and hide their crimes. That works out to a grand total of zero good cops. Well, there are always a few who do act as whistleblowers. They come along about once in a generation, so the percentage of cops sufficiently good as to not warrant hanging is still just slightly over 0%.
All cops would need to do to have my respect is this: fire and then arrest ANY cop who commits ANY crime whatsoever. Period. That's it. But it doesn't happen. Until it does, they're all scum; some of them are criminal scum, some of them are the scum that protects the criminal scum.
It's a combination of the uniform and the attitude that garners respect. If I pass a police officer, in most cases I'll usually be polite enough to tip my hat and say hi. If a few officers in life for a coffee, I might be obliged to let them ahead since they have an important job to do.
Now if I run into an officer who is being a dick, or breaking the law, then he doesn't deserve my respect any more than any other jerk does. I think that's what's being discussed here, rather than disrespecting good people doing their job and a service to the community.
Scentcone, I'm afraid that you are the one who is confusing discussion of a particular incident (please go back and look at the first couple of comments in this thread, and read them please) with discussion of cops and arrests as a whole. I've read several of the threads on this article, and not many people think that all cops are evil, nor that they all delight in beating people, nor that everyone will just lay down their weapons and say "it's a fair cop, guv'nor!". However, in THIS PARTICULAR INCIDENT, the amount of force was not justified, the police should be punished, and things like that should be prevented in the future. In other incidents, a similar amount of force has been and will be justified. Even deadly force is occasionally justified on the part of the police. I realize that. Other people realize that. Hitting someone in the head (not the face, as you can knock someone out just as easily by hitting them in the back of the head as in the face, while being less brutal) in order to subdue him so you can put him in handcuffs in one thing. That is sometimes justified. Holding down someone's arms who is already subdued so that you can repeatedly punch him in the face is not justified, ever. If the intention was to cuff the man and put him in the police car, IN THIS PARTICULAR INCIDENT, then that could have been accomplished without hitting him in the face. He was restrained sufficiently to be cuffed. However, the officers in question were not putting handcuffs on him. They were taking the opportunity to repeatedly strike him in the face. This is not justified. This is police brutality.
Now, please understand, I like cops. They are good people for the most part, and I do have a great deal of respect for them. Let me repeat, in case you didn't get it at the first reading. I like cops. They are good people for the most part, and I do have a great deal of respect for them. They do a difficult job that I wouldn't want to do. They have to make decisions that I wouldn't want to make. Sometimes, in an attempt to prevent a great evil, they do too much and commit a small evil. That is not good, but it is understandable. Some cops, however, commit evils which would in no way aid them in their job. This is far worse. Excess zeal to do one's job is one thing, but excess zeal to cause injury which does not forward one's job is an entirely different ballgame. Now, just in case you didn't understand: I think cops are good people for the most part! I do not claim that all cops are evil. Nor do most people on slashdot!
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
> Just out of curiosity, have you ever personally tried to subdue a large angry person who doesn't want you to subdue him? Have you ever held someone down while trying to put handcuffs on them as they put up a fight and grab at your leg, right next to where you keep your metal baton and your sidearm?
... he'd discover just how fast a strangulation hold worked (unlike a choke hold, which cuts off the air, a strangle hold cuts off the blood supply; when properly done, the victim goes unconscious within seconds). All of this my friend would do without breaking a sweat!
...I believe this thread was about the police, not the samurai -- so go and put away your strawman.
As a matter of fact, my Army-vet buddy is a former LAPD cop who frequently had to subdue and apprehend suspects. He learned grappling techniques and submission holds from Bob Koga, and made it a point to *never* use violence when carefully applied force would do the job. As Mr. Koga himself explained, "If you have to beat up the suspect to arrest him, you've already lost control of the situation. Besides, why knock yourself out when you can use these techniques with much less effort?"
The basic problem with police situations is that the emotions and adrenaline run so high that it's easy for the cops to get carried away. However, the cops *can't* afford to get carried away because it interferes with their judgement, which means they can no longer do their job in a professional manner. As my friend often puts it, a cop has to be able to "step outside of himself" and view the situation as though he were someone else, otherwise his mind will be clouded with too much emotion.
Too few of his fellow officers understood and practiced this, however. Typically when they brought a violent, struggling suspect into the station, the cops were all sweaty and out of breath from trying to subdue and handcuff the guy. If my friend was in the station at the time and saw them come in, he'd shake his head and yell, "You dumb sons of bitches, don't you know how to arrest someone without wearing yourselves out?"
Then he'd take over and haul the suspect to holding -- and demonstrate to the other cops how it's done. If the suspect tried anything, my friend would simply apply a finger lock, an arm lock, or a pain grip to keep the suspect under control. And if the suspect was *really* uncooperative
> Which professional manner where you thinking about, exactly? A comic-book style magic net-thrower with immobilizing sneeze powder? Or perhaps you were thinking of just politely asking the career criminal to step into your police cruiser, all professional-like? Or perhaps you were thinking that after you've put your hands on the bad guy who is refusing arrest, that he'd say... "Ah! You got me. My career in repeat crimes is at an end, and I'll just come along with you polite, professional men, now."
Ahem
"All hands, BRACE FOR IMPACT!"
> Come on, I think cops are a pain in the ass as much as the next guy, but they don't just beat you for no reason.
...wait.
1 66/
> What did the guy do to get himself into that position ?
> I'm willing to bet it wasn't jaywalking.
Of course! The police *never* arrest anyone who doesn't deserve it! And the police would *never* lie to us if it weren't so! Right?
Oh
http://www.ocweekly.com/news/news/training-day/26
> With a horrified suspect watching, Huntington Beach police planted evidence --- a loaded revolver --- in the man's car during a DUI accident investigation in January, the Weekly has learned.
>
> The controversial revelation is not now in dispute although cops, prosecutors and city bureaucrats attempted to keep the incident a secret by sealing records and stalling discovery of related documents.
>
> Despite those efforts, the gun incident became an issue during an obscure misdemeanor trial last week at Orange County's West Court in Westminster. Police officers were forced to admit under oath that a snub-nosed handgun had been tossed like a Frisbee about four feet into the trunk of a Hyundai belonging to Tom Cox, the suspect. The loaded gun bounced twice and slammed up against the driver's side of the car's trunk. No bullets were discharged.
Seriously, Joebert, get a clue.
"All hands, BRACE FOR IMPACT!"
GP nutjob has officially been Owned!
While I agree with the spirit of your argument, I see two major problems with it. Its not that people would never pass the law, its that:
1. Noone would ever willingly become a law enforcement officer
2. A large number of "false positive" accusations will occur when guilty people try to smear the reputation of an arresting officer.
I agree. My adult daughter says that everyone she meets automatically gets "10 points of respect" from her as a "good will" gesture, after that it is up to them to increase/decrease their "respect score" by their deeds.
A uniform shows people you have some sort of authority, it doesn't teach you how to use that authority wisely.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
My planned career is to be in the sciences. The code of conduct there? Don't falsify data. That's pretty much it. Somehow I think I'll manage to do those things. And exposing scientists who violate those rules is a VITAL aspect of science. That's the whole point of peer review and repeating the experiments of others -- to expose those who falsify data. So there again, anyone who violates the rules needs to be fucked over as hard as possible.
I'm not suggesting that cops be fired for violating their own silly little rules. I'm suggesting they be fired and jailed (and maybe hung) for BREAKING THE LAW THAT THEY SWORE TO UPHOLD. Why is having to obey the law considered so difficult for cops? Should I be able to get away with flagrantly breaking the law, just because I'm human and imperfect? No one gets in a fuss when lawyers are disbarred for even the slightest breech of their professional code of conduct. No gets in a fuss that doctors lose their license to practice medicine for violating their oaths. But when it's a cop, everyone is up and arms and defends their right to rape and assault people and then cover it up. Well fuck them. The fact that cops are held to a lower standard of behaviour than lawyers is frightening.
Every time a cop is held accountable for anything, it was because someone outside of the police force fought like a rabid weasel to make it happen. It almost always requires enormous media attention, enough so that the people at the top come to believe that their jobs may be on the line. It often takes years or decades to get any action taken at all. The police never take compaints against their officers seriously. I never suggested that cops always get away with things; they don't. But it takes outside action.
Troll. Wish I had mod points. Go watch the video. "Desperately"? Pah.
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
You conveniently ignore the fact that the guy was still resisting arrest. But hey, since when did trolls such as yourself start caring about facts?
Clever signature text goes here.
Yes, we're a nation of laws, but the cops need to do their jobs and not get themselves beat up or killed because they're afraid of being sued by the crooks. And a punch in the face is really not such a big deal when you deserve it. The judge and jury have decision over the person's future, but the constable on patrol is also empowered by the State to exercise his own judgement and apply necessary force to bring the situation to a resolution. The duty is on the police departments to train the cops to use such force to incapacitate unruly citizens without causing them permanent injury.
You're right, and there's good and bad in most professions, but I think the attention should be a bit less on the cops and more on their supervisors who fail to stop the bad apples.
Even boxers who get punched in the face a lot try to protect their faces it's a natural reaction for one to attempt to protect themselves.
Umm, duh. I would hope a boxer was trying to protect themselves.
if they cannot adhere to the rule of law they should get the hell out of the industry.
Haha, you are funny dude. The police force is not an "industry" like the software industry or the auto industry. Believe it or not, law breakers (drunk drivers, murderers, wife beaters etc...) usually don't bother with OSHA standards or worry about whether or not the cop is going to have to work overtime. Police protect their own for a reason, nobody else is there to protect them, regardless of what the law says.
People with your mentality are the reason I posted. You just don't understand. Applying black and white legalalities to a very gray reality is not always reasonable.
That video is a political tool (to what ends, I don't know) and you are being used by it. Congratulations, you have been duped by someone elses agenda.
I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand. -Confucius
You know nothing about me and tell me I don't understand. You are going to have to try something better then that.
What a weak excuse. It came from someone with an agenda... So what? It certainly doesn't make it wrong. At least I have some evidence to base my opinion on. That is a heck of a lot more then you got. I really don't care what you think of me but removing police brutality in addition to many things I don't like IS my agenda.
You know nothing about me
I know that you are willing to jump to a conclusion based on 12 seconds of video. If you can condemn the officer based on that clip; then no, you do not know what you are talking about.
removing police brutality in addition to many things I don't like IS my agenda.
I made a mistake when I said it was someone else's agenda, I should have said somebody else's depiction of the facts which follow an agenda (which you may or may not agree with). Perhaps your agenda, or the many things you don't like, have been influenced by other people's stories and biased depicitons of events in the past. Or perhaps, you yourself are only capable of seeing something from a particular angle based upon personal biases that have been influenced by god know what. I really don't know what your problem is, but it has made you into the kind of person that is unwilling to pursue possibilities that lie outrside your initial gut reaction. I am just trying to get you to understand that 12 seconds of shoddy edited video is not enough to condemn a man from his career.
As for the rest of your previous post, I don't care to try and explain anymore. This is not a personal attack on you, please don't take it that way. I'm actually not really arguing with you, I'm trying to get you to see the big picture here. However, I don't think you are understanding and you keep thinking I support police beating the crap out of people.
We don't live in a legal utopia, where everything we do, every action we take, is guided by the law. I actually happen to like the fact that from time to time I can perform an act without having to look up penal codes or worry if Big Brother is looking over my shoulder.
We are continually losing freedoms in thie country and it is not from the police. It is from people who disregard the big stuff (like the right to property, liberty, and justice)to try and fix smaller stuff with laws that infringe on the afformentioned fundamentals. These FUNdamental rights are slowly slipping away from us while we run around trying to fight wars against terror, poverty, drugs, internet piracy, racism, and yes even violence.
I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand. -Confucius
Does the video say what what the guy did wrong to get the cop's attention? Does it say if he was hurt? Does it show anything other than the cop throwing a few cheap shots?
If you answered no to any of these questions, then it is impossible to understand the context of the abuse. Therefore, it is also impossible to come to any sort of conclusion about whether this is "bullshit" or not. The context is very important, and should not be just disregarded.
FYI, the suspect was not in hand cuffs yet, you coward!
I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand. -Confucius
Yes, it must be just an amazing coincidence that there isn't a single Islamic country in existence that isn't more or less fucked, and it must also be a coincidence that Islamic countries are curiously similiar to each other.
Curiously enough, you don't actually deny that Mohammed's wife was nine years old. And why would you, when it's true? I guess it's only wrong to say it if you're an infidel.
You don't deny this one either. And again, you shouldn't, because it's true. You simply hope that throwing ad hominems will distract everyone long enough not to notice anything. It's also strange that you accuse the American school system, when it doesn't even teach anything negative or "offensive" about Islam. There's also nothing "irrational" about his "hatred," since he has clear reasons.
I didn't bother to refute them because there is plenty of evidence available to anyone who knows how to read with a critical eye. The reason I mentioned the Aisha debate in the first place to hook the islamofreaks, not to indulge them.
It's also strange that you accuse the American school system, when it doesn't even teach anything negative or "offensive" about Islam.
More islamofreak self-identification through obvious misinterpretation.
I criticized the american school system for focusing on tests and self-love rather than teaching the invaluable skill of critical thinking. Something you have evidently failed to learn too.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
What evidence would that be?
Why would you want to "hook" them? You make it sound like they're not supposed to object to pedophilia.
The random ad hominems continue. It's hilarious! You are incapable of even barebones basic argumentation, much like almost everyone else who follows or defends Islam.