I'll have to agree with the reviewer on OS X stability. I've never been happier and I've only been forced to do a hard reboot once in 2 1/2 years. I've had a few apps freeze and I simply shut them down and restart them and all is well. I use OS X at home and in my personal business (video production) and I am forced to use Windows at work. I never realized how terrible Windows was until I got my Mac for my home business. It was like discovering there is a whole new world out there where my computer just worked all the time.
My personal opinion is Vista is the beginning of the end for MS. The increased hardware costs to meet minimum requirements means prices are even closer, malware will still run free on Vista, and the Mac is accelerating it's gains for each of the last 3 years. I have no beef with Linux, but I don't think it is ready for consumers yet. Between Mac and Linux advantages, and Microsoft's increasing blunders, the Windows dynasty is slowly starting to fade.
Born and raised here (not proud of it, just a fact of life). Yes, you miss out on some things that other parts of the country have, but then again we don't have cross dressing gender confused animal rights activists who get married for only a month at a time and name their kids Scout or Apple.
I understand the stupid stereotypes to a degree, but that would be like me saying only criminals come from New York. We're not envious of people from other states, but we usually are surprised at how narrow minded they can be at times.
Exactly. No one would tolerate this licensing crap with their car. They bought the laws they wanted to MAINTAIN CONTROL. The laws are wrong, were corruptly attained, and I have no sympathy for the RIAA/MPAA.
The artists deserve compensation, and luckily we're in a brave new world where they could bypass the RIAA/MPAA and still be compensated. The RIAA/MPAA simply want control so they can exploit those artists for as much money as they can. I'm tired of their bullying and their fake sob stories about them protecting the artists. They'll get nothing more from me.
I think you might be missing the point as well. The RIAA sues anybody and everybody it can. Not in the hope of a judgement, but rather a settlement. Why? Because a judgement could very well go against them and set a precedent that harms their goals. There are plenty of examples of the RIAA getting it wrong and suing people who obviously did NOT steal music, and yet those people are pretty much forced to pay the RIAA tax because mounting a legal defense, even if winnable, would financially ruin them. Paying the settlement becomes the lesser of two evils.
I won't argue that stealing is definitely wrong, but the RIAA's poor methods of detection coupled with their heavy handed tactics make me root for the little guy. If the RIAA suddenly grew up and grew a conscience then I'd think of swinging their way, but the laws they are supposedly enforcing are the same laws they bought with corrupt political bribery. If I was rich enough I could probably buy the laws I wanted too. Maybe one that said you have to work 3 jobs and give me all your money. It would be a law. . . but it would be wrong.
I think the people are wrong who think the phrase "reign of terror" somehow trivializes other people's suffering. If using that phrase actually trivializes their suffering then their suffering probably wasn't that bad. I think the same common sense you're asking for should be used in reading these posts. Aglassis was simply making the point that the RIAA will stop at nothing to get the power they want. In that respect I would agree that the RIAA is on a reign of terror. They are hoping to terrorize (or scare) people into compliance.
Considering what I've seen from the RIAA in the past few years I wouldn't put it past them to gas someone just to protect their business model. They don't seem to have a sense of proportion in their response to filesharing (the penalties grossly outweigh the actual damages) and they don't seem to have an ounce of common sense with respect to the new reality in the digital world.
Their reign of terror definitely differs in scale and severity, but it IS designed to be a reign of terror to scare people into complying with what they want.
Heck, I'll concede the kid was an idiot. Still, he was handcuffed when the used the taser. I think that is definitely over the line. I guess what really annoys me is cops will blindly stand by while another cop is doing something wrong and support him/her rather than do the right thing. I wonder if they're capable of independent thought.
I disagree that those indicators don't provide information. As I said before, the largest threat group at this time would probably be the Islamic terrorists. You're putting an all inclusive loop around terrorists, but I think for the purposes of the argument in this day and age most people would agree that the biggest threat is Islamic based terrorism. Al Quaeda is a well funded and smart group. The groups you've mentioned really pose no threat to the US in comparison.
If you throw that wide loop around terrorism, then obviously there is no point in checking anyone because anyone could be a terrorist. But common sense dictates that radical Islamic terrorism is our primary worry when referring to terrorism right now. When you narrow it to that then profiling starts to offer some benefits when you look at the criteria of gender, geographic location, faith. Combining these criteria obviously does reduce the number of suspects since I now don't belong in all three of those categories. The pool of suspects who match all three criteria has now been reduced by one and obviously it reduces it much further than that, I simply used myself as an example. And yes, it does emphasize those who match all criteria! That is exactly what you want a profile to do!
I disagree, an increase in odds is always preferable. If race is included it had better be because it IS a common thread in the incidents in question. If that is the case then I think it is acceptable. I understand that you want it to be a non-factor and want people to stop discussing it, but why? If all the people you're looking for come from the same geographic region, then there is a higher probability that they are all the same race. I think it would be more accurate to look for those coming from the same region in the scenario we're talking about. In fact, I think that is more likely what happens. When law enforcement looks for someone who is "Arab", I doubt that they are using that as a racial description, but rather a poorly worded geographic description.
Do I think a person's race makes them more likely to be a terrorist? In other words, if they are born black, or white, are they more or less likely to be a terrorist based purely on the genetics of their race? . . No. I think the problem occurs when someone describes a demographic poorly as I mentioned above. If I say Arab someone may think race, while I am thinking "someone who comes from that region of the world." The problem these days is that people are so over-sensitive to anything that could be even misinterpreted as racial that they shy away from any useful description that may have a slightly negative connotation. Throw in someone reactionary who flies off the handle when anything even resembling race is mentioned and you have a politically correct powder keg. I just think too much is made of this issue. It definitely CAN be an explosive issue, but I think this issue has more to do with poorly worded descriptions and too much volatility in this day and age.
I would agree that all Muslims do not equal terrorists. I would also agree that it would be nice to find better indicators than simply Muslim. That is why a combination of factors are used, not just being Muslim. Geographic origin. Male. Muslim. etc. When you start to add more to the matrix it narrows it down more. Again, none of this means that anyone meeting these criteria is a terrorist, but the odds are better that you would snare someone using this criteria than simply relying on random chance.
I think you're focused on race alone, and if that were the ONLY criteria then it might be relevant, but profiling on multiple characteristics (where race just happens to be one of them) definitely will increase your odds. You're right that the increase in odds may be small, but increasing your chances is increasing your chances.
With that being said, it doesn't mean you search based ONLY on those criteria. You continue a general search too, but to ignore common characteristics in a profile just because it doesn't statistically increase your odds to a 1 in 2 or 1 in 3 chance is ignoring the fact that any increase in odds is preferable.
Nor do I think you understand common sense. If a profile increases your odds of finding a match, then it is an obvious tool to use. Finding commmon threads to build that profile will increase the odds of finding a match. And no, just because you found a single case where profiling wouldn't have worked does not mean you have disproved anything. Profiling will still yield a higher than average chance of finding a match.
So, nice try, and thanks for demonstrating you don't understand how to search for something.
No, terrorism is not solely a middle eastern problem. That is not what profiling says. It does not say that because you fit this profile you are a terrorist. In the scenarios that law enforcement might need to deal with, religious based Islamic terrorism is probably a higher risk than say the Sri Lankan Tamil Tigers. Last I heard they had not rammed the Cole, flew planes into the WTC, flew planes into the Pentagon, flew another plane into the ground in PA, blew up embassies in Africa, etc. But, Islamic terrorists have. So, does that mean that all Muslims are terrorists? No. But, if you're trying to thwart Islamic terrorism then it might be smart to look for the MOST COMMON characteristics that they have shared. First, Male. Second, Muslim. Third, middle eastern. Since those have been overwhelmingly common threads then your odds WILL be increased of detecting a terrorist if you put more focus on those with those characteristics.
Now, does this make it "race based". No. One could just as easily say geographically based. Or gender based. Or faith based. But race based is much more inflammatory isn't it? It conjures images of hatred, prejudice, and racism. Never mind that race may only be one of many characteristics listed, it's much more fun to yell race based and watch people scramble to cover their arse.
Sorry, but profiling does give a greater than average chance of scoring a hit when searching for something. If race happens to be in the profile because it appears in every related incident then that doesn't make it race based.
Profiling is simply finding as many common threads as possible and using those common threads to build a picture of what characteristics to look for. It does not mean a certain match. It means that in the past the incidents have had these common characteristics and so there is a slightly greater chance that someone having those common threads may be involved in the incident.
Your arguments don't make sense. From your argument it seems that no one could ever be described to a police officer or a border agent because it would be wrong to include anyone from a certain subset or group unless everyone from that group fit the description. That is poor logic. In that world law enforcement could never apprehend anyone because no description would ever be allowed.
You're focusing too much on the race part and not enough on the common thread part. Going back to the bandanna argument for second, yes, there may be people who wear bandannas who have nothing to do with an incident, but if a string of incidents happen where all involved people are wearing bandannas then it IS logical to assume you have a higher than average chance of capturing the culprits if you look closer at people with bandannas.
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see this. If you're looking for a duck then look for the characteristics that ducks have in common. If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, then there's a greater than average probability you're looking at a duck. That is undeniable. By looking for something that has those common characteristics you have increased your odds of finding a duck when you find a match. That is the point of profiling, increasing your odds of finding what you are looking for, and that is why profiling is an effective tool.
So, to sum up, purely race based profiling is garbage if it's based simply on a fear or prejudice of that race, but profiling where race is but one of many characteristics is not garbage. It is common sense. As for social workers being more qualified to build some sort of profile, I don't see how they are more qualified than anyone else.
Hahahaha!!! So I kicked your sorry a$$ with common sense and you revert back to word definitions? Way to admit defeat. The last refuge of the illogical!!
Fine, how about apply electric shock. Jeez, if this is the extent of your argument then your argument is pretty thin.
"My advice: next time you get pulled over, at least try not to call him a fascist pig and cry about rights being violated when he asks for your license."
You're not too smart are you? The argument was not about being asked to show ID. I think it was ridiculous to have him show ID if he wasn't doing anything wrong at the time, but it has never been about that and you know it. It's about the excessive use of force, police brutality, torture (why don't you look that word up dictionary boy!), and the abuse of power. Again you demonstrate you can't accurately interpret information.
Now, I'll sit back and eagerly await your next foray into Websters. Maybe you'll find a mispelled word this time and THAT will prove that tasering a handcuffed person 5 times is right? Oh no, what if you find an error in syntax, maybe THAT will prove the police should have shot that student?
I never said anything about a minority student you fool. Nor did I say he had a right to do anything he wants. Nor did I say his rights were violated by being asked to produce ID. Not only can you not watch a video and accurately portray the contents, you can't even read a person's post and accurately refute it.
My whole problem, and one you can't seem to grasp with your sheep mentality, is they had no right to use a taser on a handcuffed person. There were several cops there, there were other options that did not involve electrocution. I don't give a crap if a cop is in charge, electrocuting a handcuffed prisoner is wrong.
Again it's not paranoia pal. The video clearly shows cops electrocuting someone who was no longer a threat. It was wrong. As are you.
I'm not talking about trespassing charges. You want to charge him with that, fine, I have no problem. The 99% are the people who are pissed that he was electrocuted AFTER he was in custody and handcuffed. That is the issue throughout this discussion, not trespass charges. The police used excessive force.
It's not a paranoid fantasy world pal. The video is on Youtube and it shows the cops unnecessarily shocking this handcuffed person with a taser. It's not paranoid if it's really happening.
I guess when I use the word Nazi I am simply referring to someone who is acting in a manner that I would consider a violation of basic human rights. Admittedly I've used that same moniker for an ex-girlfriend too, but Nazi to me is simply the slang equivalent of extreme a$$hole, but on a grander scale.
I propose the police should have arrested him, cuffed him, and when he collapsed on the floor they should have carried him out as I've seen done countless times on television. The outrage is that they instead seemed more intent on forcing him to respect them and to stand up, so they shocked him with a taser. They could have just carried him out in the first place. That's what they ended up doing in the end anyway. They abused their power and they should be tried like any civilian would be in the same circumstance. Instead they will walk away from this with not even a slap on the hand.
I know hindsight is 20/20, but I also base my reaction on how the students at the scene reacted. They obviously saw something wrong, and since I came to the same conclusion they just reinforce my opinion.
I guess I have a problem with them asking for ID if he wasn't doing anything wrong. I'd be upset too and I don't like this "show me your papers" society we seem to be heading towards. If he was causing some problem, refused to present ID, refused to leave when asked, then I don't have a problem with him being arrested. My problem the whole time was that the taser incidents that I saw were unnecessary. The cops will get away with it because they are cops. It's like a license to abuse people.
So a guy in Indiana kills himself and this guy is tasered? Come on, you position makes no sense. He was cuffed and offering passive resistance. If you argument is he could still have had a gun then the police should have searched him (which they can do on the ground I might add), NOT taser him. If you argument is he could have had a gun then ALL people should be tasered the minute officers arrive on scene.
I'm not using knowledge of the future, I'm using what I saw in the video (the same thing the cops saw when they were there, coupled with the outraged reactions of countless other students (who were there at the time, not retroactively evaluating) to build a picture. What I saw of the cops and student showed me he was doing nothing threatening. What I saw of the students reaction to the cops actions showed me that I was not only not alone in my reaction, but in the overwhelming majority.
You're pulling mythical arguments out of thin air to justify the police tasering this kid. If you use that logic on police encounters then the police would have carte blanche to do anything at any time to anyone simply based on what MIGHT happen. They are supposed to be trained to evaluate a situation and respond with the minimum appropriate force. These officers did not do that. Period.
Where I can point to a myriad of examples based on the video as to why I am outraged you can't seem to supply any examples based on the video that show why a handcuffed student needed to be electrocuted. And before you even say it, the student shouting is not enough reason to taser him when he is handcuffed.
As for your loaded gun argument, it is flawed in many ways. The student was not pointing a loaded gun, he was handcuffed and lying on the floor. So how is your argument relevant? He not only did not physically threaten them with a weapon, I never heard him once verbally threaten them, even during their brutality. Face it, he wasn't a threat. They were pissed he didn't instantly kiss their ass and do as they wanted. When he fell to the ground to passively resist they got mad and used a taser for no reason.
If you simply base a profile off race because you're a racist then I would agree. But, if people work together to commit acts of terrorism on many different occasions and a common thread is race, religion, geographic origins, etc. then I think it is justifiable to base a description of possible suspects based on those common traits. In the case of terrorism that we're dealing with in the last 5 years you would be a fool to come to the conclusion that only those with the common traits described above are possible terrorists. You would also be a fool if you weren't prudent and watched people with those common traits a little more carefully.
It's no different than repeated crimes being committed by people who all wear at certain color of bandanna. Who wouldn't keep a wary eye on people with that color bandanna. I'm not advocating throwing the people who fit the profile in jail or harassing them just because they fit the profile. Yet, to not be a little more observant of people who obviously DO fit the profile simply because you're afraid of offending them is also a bit ludicrous.
There is a difference between profiling purely on race and profiling based on race AND country of origin AND a common religious thread, etc.
I understand your point to a degree, but I think you ignore the obvious point that as an official charged with protecting the public you have to try and create a description of a possible threat based on common threads. Otherwise you would have no way of creating a selection criteria. It's just unfortunate that at this time race is such a hot button issue that including race as one of MANY aspects of a profile suddenly turns the profile into race based.
Soooooo, he broke the rules by not showing an ID and he was electrocuted? That's your stance? I hope you don't jaywalk and end up electrocuted. Maybe a parking violation and they can attach some electrodes to your genitals? Where does it end? When will you introduce some common sense into your argument?
The objection was not to the fact that he was arrested. The object is to the fact that he was tasered when he was handcuffed. He posed no threat. The taser is supposed to be used in self defense and to force a suspect to comply to the point that he/she is in custody (i.e. handcuffed). He was already in custody. Why was he electrocuted after that point?
Your argument is riduculous. How much abuse would you be willing to put up with before you wake up and quit sucking on the police state teat? You are confused in many ways. Your position is unjustifiable considering the student was not a threat at the time the police applied the taser.
Again, mob, potential mob, it's all semantics. This never would have happened if the police hadn't abused their power and tortured someone. What happened was not law enforcement. It was police brutality. Learn the difference.
And the posts on this board saying that the police should have been attacked are correct. This abuse of power was definitely cause for civil rebellion on the part of onlookers.
The police did NOT respond appropriately. It is not appropriate to electrocute someone in handcuffs. It's not necessary. There was no danger to the public from ANY of the accounts so your argument there is wrong too.
What part of unnecessary force, police brutality, torture and abuse of power is difficult for you to understand? Your position on this is unjustifiable.
I understand what you're saying, but how could he be menacing at all after he was handcuffed? The abuses I saw all happened after he was handcuffed. He wasn't a threat at that point.
As for the cops getting off on this, yes, the most punishment they'll receive will be worry lines for a few days. After that they'll be exonerated by their superiors. And yes, wearable video cameras would be nice, but we've all seen that cops are let off the hook even when there is overwhelming video evidence against them. I guess the one good thing that video would do is to get the public upset enough to start resisting. Our government is out of control. I never used to think this way, but the last 5 years have gotten progressively worse. If the public doesn't wise up and regain some measure of power in their lives then it will soon be too late. I fear it already is.
What the video DOES prove is that a large group of students became outraged by the actions of the police. So where the video falls short in some places, the overwhelming sense of injustice by the collected students does not. What happened was wrong.
As for your screaming maniac, that's hardly a reason to torture someone with electric shock. Let's try and be serious here. The cops went way over the line. A loud voice does not merit being tortured.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll have to agree with the reviewer on OS X stability. I've never been happier and I've only been forced to do a hard reboot once in 2 1/2 years. I've had a few apps freeze and I simply shut them down and restart them and all is well. I use OS X at home and in my personal business (video production) and I am forced to use Windows at work. I never realized how terrible Windows was until I got my Mac for my home business. It was like discovering there is a whole new world out there where my computer just worked all the time. My personal opinion is Vista is the beginning of the end for MS. The increased hardware costs to meet minimum requirements means prices are even closer, malware will still run free on Vista, and the Mac is accelerating it's gains for each of the last 3 years. I have no beef with Linux, but I don't think it is ready for consumers yet. Between Mac and Linux advantages, and Microsoft's increasing blunders, the Windows dynasty is slowly starting to fade.
YEAH! TESTIFY MY BROTHER! (sister, whatever . . . . )
Born and raised here (not proud of it, just a fact of life). Yes, you miss out on some things that other parts of the country have, but then again we don't have cross dressing gender confused animal rights activists who get married for only a month at a time and name their kids Scout or Apple.
I understand the stupid stereotypes to a degree, but that would be like me saying only criminals come from New York. We're not envious of people from other states, but we usually are surprised at how narrow minded they can be at times.
Exactly. No one would tolerate this licensing crap with their car. They bought the laws they wanted to MAINTAIN CONTROL. The laws are wrong, were corruptly attained, and I have no sympathy for the RIAA/MPAA.
The artists deserve compensation, and luckily we're in a brave new world where they could bypass the RIAA/MPAA and still be compensated. The RIAA/MPAA simply want control so they can exploit those artists for as much money as they can. I'm tired of their bullying and their fake sob stories about them protecting the artists. They'll get nothing more from me.
I think you might be missing the point as well. The RIAA sues anybody and everybody it can. Not in the hope of a judgement, but rather a settlement. Why? Because a judgement could very well go against them and set a precedent that harms their goals. There are plenty of examples of the RIAA getting it wrong and suing people who obviously did NOT steal music, and yet those people are pretty much forced to pay the RIAA tax because mounting a legal defense, even if winnable, would financially ruin them. Paying the settlement becomes the lesser of two evils.
I won't argue that stealing is definitely wrong, but the RIAA's poor methods of detection coupled with their heavy handed tactics make me root for the little guy. If the RIAA suddenly grew up and grew a conscience then I'd think of swinging their way, but the laws they are supposedly enforcing are the same laws they bought with corrupt political bribery. If I was rich enough I could probably buy the laws I wanted too. Maybe one that said you have to work 3 jobs and give me all your money. It would be a law. . . but it would be wrong.
I think the people are wrong who think the phrase "reign of terror" somehow trivializes other people's suffering. If using that phrase actually trivializes their suffering then their suffering probably wasn't that bad. I think the same common sense you're asking for should be used in reading these posts. Aglassis was simply making the point that the RIAA will stop at nothing to get the power they want. In that respect I would agree that the RIAA is on a reign of terror. They are hoping to terrorize (or scare) people into compliance.
Considering what I've seen from the RIAA in the past few years I wouldn't put it past them to gas someone just to protect their business model. They don't seem to have a sense of proportion in their response to filesharing (the penalties grossly outweigh the actual damages) and they don't seem to have an ounce of common sense with respect to the new reality in the digital world.
Their reign of terror definitely differs in scale and severity, but it IS designed to be a reign of terror to scare people into complying with what they want.
What same thing? Apple does not give money to the RIAA based on iPod hardware sales.
Heck, I'll concede the kid was an idiot. Still, he was handcuffed when the used the taser. I think that is definitely over the line. I guess what really annoys me is cops will blindly stand by while another cop is doing something wrong and support him/her rather than do the right thing. I wonder if they're capable of independent thought.
If you throw that wide loop around terrorism, then obviously there is no point in checking anyone because anyone could be a terrorist. But common sense dictates that radical Islamic terrorism is our primary worry when referring to terrorism right now. When you narrow it to that then profiling starts to offer some benefits when you look at the criteria of gender, geographic location, faith. Combining these criteria obviously does reduce the number of suspects since I now don't belong in all three of those categories. The pool of suspects who match all three criteria has now been reduced by one and obviously it reduces it much further than that, I simply used myself as an example. And yes, it does emphasize those who match all criteria! That is exactly what you want a profile to do!
Do I think a person's race makes them more likely to be a terrorist? In other words, if they are born black, or white, are they more or less likely to be a terrorist based purely on the genetics of their race? . . No. I think the problem occurs when someone describes a demographic poorly as I mentioned above. If I say Arab someone may think race, while I am thinking "someone who comes from that region of the world." The problem these days is that people are so over-sensitive to anything that could be even misinterpreted as racial that they shy away from any useful description that may have a slightly negative connotation. Throw in someone reactionary who flies off the handle when anything even resembling race is mentioned and you have a politically correct powder keg. I just think too much is made of this issue. It definitely CAN be an explosive issue, but I think this issue has more to do with poorly worded descriptions and too much volatility in this day and age.
I think you're focused on race alone, and if that were the ONLY criteria then it might be relevant, but profiling on multiple characteristics (where race just happens to be one of them) definitely will increase your odds. You're right that the increase in odds may be small, but increasing your chances is increasing your chances.
With that being said, it doesn't mean you search based ONLY on those criteria. You continue a general search too, but to ignore common characteristics in a profile just because it doesn't statistically increase your odds to a 1 in 2 or 1 in 3 chance is ignoring the fact that any increase in odds is preferable.
So, nice try, and thanks for demonstrating you don't understand how to search for something.
Now, does this make it "race based". No. One could just as easily say geographically based. Or gender based. Or faith based. But race based is much more inflammatory isn't it? It conjures images of hatred, prejudice, and racism. Never mind that race may only be one of many characteristics listed, it's much more fun to yell race based and watch people scramble to cover their arse.
Sorry, but profiling does give a greater than average chance of scoring a hit when searching for something. If race happens to be in the profile because it appears in every related incident then that doesn't make it race based.
Your arguments don't make sense. From your argument it seems that no one could ever be described to a police officer or a border agent because it would be wrong to include anyone from a certain subset or group unless everyone from that group fit the description. That is poor logic. In that world law enforcement could never apprehend anyone because no description would ever be allowed.
You're focusing too much on the race part and not enough on the common thread part. Going back to the bandanna argument for second, yes, there may be people who wear bandannas who have nothing to do with an incident, but if a string of incidents happen where all involved people are wearing bandannas then it IS logical to assume you have a higher than average chance of capturing the culprits if you look closer at people with bandannas.
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see this. If you're looking for a duck then look for the characteristics that ducks have in common. If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, then there's a greater than average probability you're looking at a duck. That is undeniable. By looking for something that has those common characteristics you have increased your odds of finding a duck when you find a match. That is the point of profiling, increasing your odds of finding what you are looking for, and that is why profiling is an effective tool.
So, to sum up, purely race based profiling is garbage if it's based simply on a fear or prejudice of that race, but profiling where race is but one of many characteristics is not garbage. It is common sense. As for social workers being more qualified to build some sort of profile, I don't see how they are more qualified than anyone else.
Fine, how about apply electric shock. Jeez, if this is the extent of your argument then your argument is pretty thin.
"My advice: next time you get pulled over, at least try not to call him a fascist pig and cry about rights being violated when he asks for your license."
You're not too smart are you? The argument was not about being asked to show ID. I think it was ridiculous to have him show ID if he wasn't doing anything wrong at the time, but it has never been about that and you know it. It's about the excessive use of force, police brutality, torture (why don't you look that word up dictionary boy!), and the abuse of power. Again you demonstrate you can't accurately interpret information.
Now, I'll sit back and eagerly await your next foray into Websters. Maybe you'll find a mispelled word this time and THAT will prove that tasering a handcuffed person 5 times is right? Oh no, what if you find an error in syntax, maybe THAT will prove the police should have shot that student?
You've already lost.
My whole problem, and one you can't seem to grasp with your sheep mentality, is they had no right to use a taser on a handcuffed person. There were several cops there, there were other options that did not involve electrocution. I don't give a crap if a cop is in charge, electrocuting a handcuffed prisoner is wrong.
Again it's not paranoia pal. The video clearly shows cops electrocuting someone who was no longer a threat. It was wrong. As are you.
It seems like most cops are just bullies who had the good sense to join a police force when they grew up so they can continue to push people around.
I'm not talking about trespassing charges. You want to charge him with that, fine, I have no problem. The 99% are the people who are pissed that he was electrocuted AFTER he was in custody and handcuffed. That is the issue throughout this discussion, not trespass charges. The police used excessive force.
It's not a paranoid fantasy world pal. The video is on Youtube and it shows the cops unnecessarily shocking this handcuffed person with a taser. It's not paranoid if it's really happening.
I propose the police should have arrested him, cuffed him, and when he collapsed on the floor they should have carried him out as I've seen done countless times on television. The outrage is that they instead seemed more intent on forcing him to respect them and to stand up, so they shocked him with a taser. They could have just carried him out in the first place. That's what they ended up doing in the end anyway. They abused their power and they should be tried like any civilian would be in the same circumstance. Instead they will walk away from this with not even a slap on the hand.
I know hindsight is 20/20, but I also base my reaction on how the students at the scene reacted. They obviously saw something wrong, and since I came to the same conclusion they just reinforce my opinion.
I guess I have a problem with them asking for ID if he wasn't doing anything wrong. I'd be upset too and I don't like this "show me your papers" society we seem to be heading towards. If he was causing some problem, refused to present ID, refused to leave when asked, then I don't have a problem with him being arrested. My problem the whole time was that the taser incidents that I saw were unnecessary. The cops will get away with it because they are cops. It's like a license to abuse people.
I'm not using knowledge of the future, I'm using what I saw in the video (the same thing the cops saw when they were there, coupled with the outraged reactions of countless other students (who were there at the time, not retroactively evaluating) to build a picture. What I saw of the cops and student showed me he was doing nothing threatening. What I saw of the students reaction to the cops actions showed me that I was not only not alone in my reaction, but in the overwhelming majority.
You're pulling mythical arguments out of thin air to justify the police tasering this kid. If you use that logic on police encounters then the police would have carte blanche to do anything at any time to anyone simply based on what MIGHT happen. They are supposed to be trained to evaluate a situation and respond with the minimum appropriate force. These officers did not do that. Period.
Where I can point to a myriad of examples based on the video as to why I am outraged you can't seem to supply any examples based on the video that show why a handcuffed student needed to be electrocuted. And before you even say it, the student shouting is not enough reason to taser him when he is handcuffed.
As for your loaded gun argument, it is flawed in many ways. The student was not pointing a loaded gun, he was handcuffed and lying on the floor. So how is your argument relevant? He not only did not physically threaten them with a weapon, I never heard him once verbally threaten them, even during their brutality. Face it, he wasn't a threat. They were pissed he didn't instantly kiss their ass and do as they wanted. When he fell to the ground to passively resist they got mad and used a taser for no reason.
It's no different than repeated crimes being committed by people who all wear at certain color of bandanna. Who wouldn't keep a wary eye on people with that color bandanna. I'm not advocating throwing the people who fit the profile in jail or harassing them just because they fit the profile. Yet, to not be a little more observant of people who obviously DO fit the profile simply because you're afraid of offending them is also a bit ludicrous.
There is a difference between profiling purely on race and profiling based on race AND country of origin AND a common religious thread, etc.
I understand your point to a degree, but I think you ignore the obvious point that as an official charged with protecting the public you have to try and create a description of a possible threat based on common threads. Otherwise you would have no way of creating a selection criteria. It's just unfortunate that at this time race is such a hot button issue that including race as one of MANY aspects of a profile suddenly turns the profile into race based.
The objection was not to the fact that he was arrested. The object is to the fact that he was tasered when he was handcuffed. He posed no threat. The taser is supposed to be used in self defense and to force a suspect to comply to the point that he/she is in custody (i.e. handcuffed). He was already in custody. Why was he electrocuted after that point?
Your argument is riduculous. How much abuse would you be willing to put up with before you wake up and quit sucking on the police state teat? You are confused in many ways. Your position is unjustifiable considering the student was not a threat at the time the police applied the taser.
And the posts on this board saying that the police should have been attacked are correct. This abuse of power was definitely cause for civil rebellion on the part of onlookers.
The police did NOT respond appropriately. It is not appropriate to electrocute someone in handcuffs. It's not necessary. There was no danger to the public from ANY of the accounts so your argument there is wrong too.
What part of unnecessary force, police brutality, torture and abuse of power is difficult for you to understand? Your position on this is unjustifiable.
As for the cops getting off on this, yes, the most punishment they'll receive will be worry lines for a few days. After that they'll be exonerated by their superiors. And yes, wearable video cameras would be nice, but we've all seen that cops are let off the hook even when there is overwhelming video evidence against them. I guess the one good thing that video would do is to get the public upset enough to start resisting. Our government is out of control. I never used to think this way, but the last 5 years have gotten progressively worse. If the public doesn't wise up and regain some measure of power in their lives then it will soon be too late. I fear it already is.
As for your screaming maniac, that's hardly a reason to torture someone with electric shock. Let's try and be serious here. The cops went way over the line. A loud voice does not merit being tortured.