BF2S Forums More police officers from the 'lowing school of martial arts'

Pug wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

I saw 6 criminals in that video Lowing, only 1 got beat up.

I have the same opinion as lowing on this one.

But in response to your comment, you saw six alleged criminals in the video.  It works both ways...running from the cops indicates a possible crime has been broken, beating a suspect indicates a possible crime has been broken.

How is it that we can automatically convict the cops, but when you use the same logic (possible criminal activity is evident but not conclusive as not all the facts are present) with the guy who got beat up it fails?

damn why didn't I come up with that... good point.

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

I saw 6 criminals in that video Lowing, only 1 got beat up.

I have the same opinion as lowing on this one.

But in response to your comment, you saw six alleged criminals in the video.  It works both ways...running from the cops indicates a possible crime has been broken, beating a suspect indicates a possible crime has been broken.

How is it that we can automatically convict the cops, but when you use the same logic (possible criminal activity is evident but not conclusive as not all the facts are present) with the guy who got beat up it fails?

damn why didn't I come up with that... good point.

Because I never argued the contrary. There is a difference though, I can see evidence of the police's crimes, I don't with the other dude. But I gave benefit of the doubt to the cops anyway, even though (and you agree); the police do make mistakes, they do arrest innocent people and innocent people are convicted of crimes they didn't commit.

But criminal or not, what the cops did was inarguably wrong.

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Aussie, for us to continue you really need to accept the fact that I never condoned police brutality.

Yes you did, don't lie when the evidence is plain for all to see.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/condone


It's like you're deliberately stupid, or the best troll on this forum. I can't decide which.

My saying I don't care if the criminal gets killed is not claiming approval of the cops running around town beating people up.

Criminal activity is a dangerous game to be played, and considering ALL other outcomes, the criminal loosing more than anyone else is my favorite, however that might happen

You clearly did not even read the definition. Oh my, how embarrassment.

Is there anyone on here that knows what the fuck this guy is talking about besides him?

Lucien wrote:

because you can fucking see the cops beating that guy up

It's right there in a video in the OP

are you a cop expert?  do you know how much force is required to subdue someone?  was the guy subdued?  are there reasons why they continued to beat the guy that are legitimate?

yes, it's in the video, but is the video the entire story?

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

My saying I don't care if the criminal gets killed is not claiming approval of the cops running around town beating people up.

Criminal activity is a dangerous game to be played, and considering ALL other outcomes, the criminal loosing more than anyone else is my favorite, however that might happen

You clearly did not even read the definition. Oh my, how embarrassment.

Is there anyone on here that knows what the fuck this guy is talking about besides him?

Why do I have to explain the simple things to you?

*yawn*

Condone - to disregard or overlook. To give tacit approval.

"I don't care" is overlooking or giving tacit approval. Therefore, you do in fact condone the police beating a suspect (not a criminal, a suspected criminal) despite stating the contrary, and arguing for it anyway.

But do continue, it's kinda funny to watch you prove yourself wrong.

Last edited by Jaekus (2011-02-10 07:13:30)

Pug wrote:

Basically the same thing I said "probably not reasonable force", except:
-its pretty clear force was required, he was resisting arrest by fleeing
-the guy was not face down on the ground with hands behind his head until the police put him there

No, his arms were already on his head, watch the video again and notice at 1:06
By this stage he was no longer resisting arrest. Sure, the cops were moving in, but they were not in contact with him.
It's also clear that after being handcuffed (ie. arrested) he is still being beaten. So that means that he has been taken into custody and is under arrest by this point (I'm not 100% on the finer points of the law here as to him being in custody here or when he's been read his rights, I've never been arrested nor know many people who have, but for argument's sake I'll continue) and is still being beaten - whilst handcuffed, whilst physically restrained my more than one officer, whilst face down on the ground. Very heavy handed to say the least.

edit: If you meant by "put him there" from when the car clipped him, I get that now.

Last edited by Jaekus (2011-02-10 07:21:49)

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

You clearly did not even read the definition. Oh my, how embarrassment.

Is there anyone on here that knows what the fuck this guy is talking about besides him?

Why do I have to explain the simple things to you?

*yawn*

Condone - to disregard or overlook. To give tacit approval.

"I don't care" is overlooking or giving tacit approval. Therefore, you do in fact condone the police beating a suspect (not a criminal, a suspected criminal) despite stating the contrary, and arguing for it anyway.

But do continue, it's kinda funny to watch you prove yourself wrong.

lol, holy shit.

Jaekus wrote:

Pug wrote:

What I meant:

If you want to edit the video so the only evidence a guy face down, handcuffed and unconscious...then yeah that's not resisting arrest.  He just suddenly materialized in that position and started to get beaten, because its inconvenient to include the start of the video...

That was done for television. I too always take that with a large dose of salt, and I wouldn't be going on like this if the other evidence wasn't in play, like the Mayor condemning the actions of the police, the police themselves being charged after the analysis of the video. Those people would have seen the video in full, unedited, and they're trying to prosecute their own colleagues as a result. I don't think they would do this if the case for police brutality wasn't so strong.

Yeah, the cops are going to jail.  And should...in my opinion.  But there's only a few ways I can think of that would cause the cops get away with this, and I doubt they are present.

And the mayor and the representative are weighing in, because they want to be reelected.  And the cops are required to answer questions in the process of examining the issue.  Again, it's not evidence because the cops talked, or it's being politicized.

this is more civil than a typical dst thread.

*head asplode*

FatherTed wrote:

this is more civil than a typical dst thread.

*head asplode*

That's cause most of the D&ST people are wankers