Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Police State Video

«13

Comments

  • #2
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Shock horror people can be assholes - even the Police, what's the world coming to.


  • #3
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    I particularly like the "non-biased" narrator for the youtube video.


  • #4
    rigormortis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 216 ✭✭rigormortis


    meglome wrote: »
    Shock horror people can be assholes - even the Police, what's the world coming to.

    The first videos showed sustained attacks on peaceful protesters, by hundreds of police. This can hardly be referred to as individual "bad eggs", so to speak.


    These videos were taken from police cameras? So I assume the bias is on their part. I would hate to see what they have not released.


  • #5
    rigormortis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 216 ✭✭rigormortis


    humanji wrote: »
    I particularly like the "non-biased" narrator for the youtube video.

    Ignore the narrator and concentrate on the dialogue between the officer and the female victim. How can you possibly defend this?


  • #6
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    The first is about a woman (one woman) who was hit with rubber bullets. It then showed some police laughing about it, which was in bad taste on their part. The woman was an agitator and was dealt with severely and with a hell of an over-reaction. It should of been dealt with a lot better. This does not show a Police State, though.

    The second video is more of a Police State. But considering that 20-30 years ago, any protesters and their families would have simply disappeared, then this is an improvement. The Georgian police definitely have to learn to handle these things differently.

    And the third video shows a woman refusing an officers request for identification, which, if I was an officer, would make me very wary of someone. What didn't help was the horrifically overly dramatic and viciously biased narrator claiming that this is proof of a totalitarian state.

    As Meglome said, people can be assholes. It doesn't mean we live in a police state.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    rigormortis wrote: »
    The first videos showed sustained attacks on peaceful protesters, by hundreds of police. This can hardly be referred to as individual "bad eggs", so to speak.

    These videos were taken from police cameras? So I assume the bias is on their part. I would hate to see what they have not released.

    The first video showed police approaching demonstrators and one woman being hit by two rubber bullets. So we know that potentially two of these 'hundreds' of police officers fired off a rubber bullet.


  • #8
    rigormortis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 216 ✭✭rigormortis


    humanji wrote: »
    The first is about a woman (one woman) who was hit with rubber bullets. It then showed some police laughing about it, which was in bad taste on their part. The woman was an agitator and was dealt with severely and with a hell of an over-reaction. It should of been dealt with a lot better. This does not show a Police State, though.

    So peaceful protest is not allowed. Those who protest are attacked by mobs of police. Of course of you do what you are told you will not get attacked. But why would you do as you are told? I am constantly hearing people proclaiming freedom, clearly they do not understand the term. "freedom to do as you are told" That is todays freedom.
    humanji wrote: »
    The second video is more of a Police State. But considering that 20-30 years ago, any protesters and their families would have simply disappeared, then this is an improvement. The Georgian police definitely have to learn to handle these things differently.

    So squads of balaclavaed thugs can attacks innocents, spray tear gas and use electronic weapons. As for the comparisons to 30 years ago? What has that got to do with anything. It was wrong then, it is wrong now and it always will be wrong.
    humanji wrote: »
    And the third video shows a woman refusing an officers request for identification, which, if I was an officer, would make me very wary of someone. What didn't help was the horrifically overly dramatic and viciously biased narrator claiming that this is proof of a totalitarian state.

    As Meglome said, people can be assholes. It doesn't mean we live in a police state.

    You have every right to refuse to identify yourself. As for your of their waryness of someone, I could not give a dam. You need evidence of wrongdoing before a "peace officer" should interfere.

    As for police state, your interpretation of the term is a long way off from mine. I like to live as I chose, so long as I dont affect the life liberty and property of others.


  • #9
    rigormortis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 216 ✭✭rigormortis


    meglome wrote: »
    The first video showed police approaching demonstrators and one woman being hit by two rubber bullets. So we know that potentially two of these 'hundreds' of police officers fired off a rubber bullet.

    Well were they all not armed. The man said that they did not know who fired, this would indicate that it was a free for all.


  • #10
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    rigormortis wrote: »
    So peaceful protest is not allowed. Those who protest are attacked by mobs of police. Of course of you do what you are told you will not get attacked. But why would you do as you are told? I am constantly hearing people proclaiming freedom, clearly they do not understand the term. "freedom to do as you are told" That is todays freedom.

    1) How do you know it was peaceful, we only got to see a glimpse of it (unless, you're telling us now that we should believe what we see in the media?). It may well have been, but all we have is a bit of video footage.
    2) Was everyone who protested attacked? And by mobs? Or was one woman fired upon by between 1 and 3 people (or does 3 people constitute a mob to you?).

    Nobody has ever had freedom, otherwise we would have anarchy. You claim we have totalitariansim. There is a middle ground that we live in. That is our freedom. How do you propose that we become more free?

    The police were wrong to fire on the woman. But this doesn't mean that freedom doesn't exist. It means someone got pissed off with a woman waving a placard and shouting abuse at him.
    rigormortis wrote: »
    So squads of balaclavaed thugs can attacks innocents, spray tear gas and use electronic weapons. As for the comparisons to 30 years ago? What has that got to do with anything. It was wrong then, it is wrong now and it always will be wrong.
    I never said it was a good thing. I pointed out that it's an improvement on what used to happen. Did you honestly expect that with the fall of the Berlin Wall all the members of the soviet union would run through sunny meadows holding hands?

    Also, it's not like those ex-soviet countries have never made mistakes in their policing methods.
    rigormortis wrote: »
    You have every right to refuse to identify yourself. As for your of their waryness of someone, I could not give a dam. You need evidence of wrongdoing before a "peace officer" should interfere.

    All was well in the Us until someone flew planes into several buildings. Now paranoia rears it's ugly head and everyone is suspicious of everyone. The funny thing is, if the woman had simply told her name to the cops then she's go off on her way. But she decided to be a crusader and just pissed off the cops. So they arrested her. It happens all the time in any country. It doesn't mean it's a totalitarian state, it means people are assholes!

    And you don't actually need evidence of wrongdoing, you need suspicion of wrongdoing. It's not fair by any stretch of the imagination, but it's the way it is.
    rigormortis wrote: »
    As for police state, your interpretation of the term is a long way off from mine. I like to live as I chose, so long as I dont affect the life liberty and property of others.

    So you like to live as you choose? so how far should this stretch? I don't want to work, and I'm sure many others feel the same. Civilisation would collapse if everyone took this attidude and sat on their asses all day.

    And should everyone live the way you want to? Who are you to infringe on someone elses choice to affect other peoples liberties and properties? Should your views be forced onto others? It's a double edged sword. You can't have it your way, but that's no reason to assume you have no freedom because of it.
    rigormortis wrote: »
    Well were they all not armed. The man said that they did not know who fired, this would indicate that it was a free for all.

    No, this would indicate that the person who fired knew they would get in trouble and so kept quiet.


  • #11
    rigormortis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 216 ✭✭rigormortis


    humanji wrote: »
    1) How do you know it was peaceful, we only got to see a glimpse of it (unless, you're telling us now that we should believe what we see in the media?). It may well have been, but all we have is a bit of video footage.
    2) Was everyone who protested attacked? And by mobs? Or was one woman fired upon by between 1 and 3 people (or does 3 people constitute a mob to you?).

    Was the attack predicated by a visible event. No. For example if I hit someone a box, would they debate the thing or get stuck in? The woman appeared to be at least 70 feet from the "police" when they fired.
    humanji wrote: »
    Nobody has ever had freedom, otherwise we would have anarchy. You claim we have totalitariansim. There is a middle ground that we live in. That is our freedom. How do you propose that we become more free?

    I agree with this, however that middle ground you refer to is nowhere near the middle.
    humanji wrote: »
    The police were wrong to fire on the woman. But this doesn't mean that freedom doesn't exist. It means someone got pissed off with a woman waving a placard and shouting abuse at him.

    Thats their job, they are supposed to be trained professionals.
    humanji wrote: »
    All was well in the Us until someone flew planes into several buildings. Now paranoia rears it's ugly head and everyone is suspicious of everyone. The funny thing is, if the woman had simply told her name to the cops then she's go off on her way. But she decided to be a crusader and just pissed off the cops. So they arrested her. It happens all the time in any country. It doesn't mean it's a totalitarian state, it means people are assholes!

    The woman done nothing wrong, I only seen one asshole in the video, it was not her. Standing up for your rights is not crusading.

    "Your papers please". Thats whats coming.
    humanji wrote: »
    No, this would indicate that the person who fired knew they would get in trouble and so kept quiet.

    Did the man not say that he would love to find out who done it? Was the atmosphere not jovial. He probably would have been promoted.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    rigormortis wrote: »
    Was the attack predicated by a visible event. No. For example if I hit someone a box, would they debate the thing or get stuck in? The woman appeared to be at least 70 feet from the "police" when they fired.

    But she wasn't for the whole thing. She was continually protesting and a cop(s) lost the rag and fired on her. I can understand why the cop(s) would fire, but I don't condone it at all.

    But again, this doesn't prove a police state, it just proves that there are people with no discipline in the police force. There are people like this in every aspect of life. That's no reason to paint everyone in that light.
    rigormortis wrote: »
    That's their job, they are supposed to be trained professionals.

    But they're human. They're not machines who obey every order without question. They are as fallible the rest of us.

    rigormortis wrote: »
    The woman done nothing wrong, I only seen one asshole in the video, it was not her. Standing up for your rights is not crusading.

    Ignoring the fact that we don't know what happened before the video clip, or the reasons she was pulled over, why was she refusing to ID herself? There was no reason for her not to, other than her wanting to make a statement that she had the right to. As a result of this, she exasperated the situation that ended in her arrest.
    rigormortis wrote: »
    Did the man not say that he would love to find out who done it? Was the atmosphere not jovial. He probably would have been promoted.

    I seriously doubt that. It was a scene of guys blowing off steam after a tense situation and making light of it. It's good for moral. It's not in good taste, but that's humans for you.


  • #13
    rigormortis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 216 ✭✭rigormortis


    humanji wrote: »
    Ignoring the fact that we don't know what happened before the video clip, or the reasons she was pulled over, why was she refusing to ID herself? There was no reason for her not to, other than her wanting to make a statement that she had the right to. As a result of this, she exasberated the situation that ended in her arrest. .

    The officer could not provide a reason as to why she was pulled over, when asked. She was exercising her right to refuse. I thought police were supposed to enforce laws, not break them.

    He then reached inside the car, she told him to stop. He ignored this request, he then forcibly removed here from the car and arrested her. Maybe you overlooked this. It was a disgrace. What had the woman done wrong? What right had he to arrest her? What was she arrested for in your opinion?


  • #14
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    As I said before, we don't know why he stopped her. She could be a murder suspect for all we know. She was told to get out of the car, she refused and he pulled her out. Not very professional at all, but it happened. I don't know why she was arrested, because I wasn't there, I've no idea what happened before the clip and I've no idea what happened after.

    I'm not saying that it was right, I'm saying that it was unnecessarily brought to a head by both parties. And it still doesn't prove it's a police state.


  • #15
    rigormortis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 216 ✭✭rigormortis


    humanji wrote: »
    As I said before, we don't know why he stopped her. She could be a murder suspect for all we know. She was told to get out of the car, she refused and he pulled her out. Not very professional at all, but it happened. I don't know why she was arrested, because I wasn't there, I've no idea what happened before the clip and I've no idea what happened after.

    I'm not saying that it was right, I'm saying that it was unnecessarily brought to a head by both parties. And it still doesn't prove it's a police state.

    Here are a few facts for you. There are no terrorists and secondly murder rates are incredibly low. Sure you hear of so called "gang land hits", let them at it as far as I'm concerned.

    Anybody could be anything, and I don't have to justify myself to any jumped up cop. As for what happened before or after, deal with things as you see them. Was the woman aggressive, rude, no, she merely refused to give a name. She asked why she was pulled over, the copper could not respond. Those are the facts.

    As for the US, it is a police state, no question.


  • #16
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    How are there no terrorists? What happened on 9/11? You think the government were behind this? Well, then they are the terrorists. Murder rates are low, compared to what?

    There's no point dealing with what's shown in the video as it's edited to point out the agenda of the editor. And the cop didn't give a reason for pulling her over. That's different to not having a reason.

    And as for it being a police state, that's your opinion and that of a few others on the internet. God forbid you ever get put into an actual one.


  • #17
    rigormortis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 216 ✭✭rigormortis


    humanji wrote: »
    How are there no terrorists? What happened on 9/11? You think the government were behind this? Well, then they are the terrorists. Murder rates are low, compared to what?.

    There are planned terrorist attacks, false flag operations. Look at the sinking of the lusitania, pearl harbour, Reichstag fire, Gulf of tonkin. As for people in caves, I dont think so. Murder rates are low, compared to anything you choose. You would think it was the wild west according to the media.

    humanji wrote: »
    There's no point dealing with what's shown in the video as it's edited to point out the agenda of the editor. And the cop didn't give a reason for pulling her over. That's different to not having a reason..

    I think if you are arrested you have the right to know why. Is this asking to much? The officer is hardly going to say "because I'm jumped up on my supposed power"
    humanji wrote: »
    And as for it being a police state, that's your opinion and that of a few others on the internet. God forbid you ever get put into an actual one.

    Unfortunately that looks like a greater reality with every day that passes. Do you not feel in any way harassed by the excessive security measures at every turn?

    Unfortunately with all this crying wolf, eventually other incidents have to be brought into existance as justification for these totalitarian measures.


  • #18
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,831 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    rigormortis wrote: »
    The officer could not provide a reason as to why she was pulled over, when asked. She was exercising her right to refuse. I thought police were supposed to enforce laws, not break them.
    As I understand it, you are required to produce ID when asked to do so by a police officer in the US. You have no right to refuse. Feel free to prove me wrong.
    rigormortis wrote: »
    There are no terrorists...
    I bet you wouldn't have the balls to say that to the face of a victim of terrorism.
    rigormortis wrote: »
    Anybody could be anything, and I don't have to justify myself to any jumped up cop.
    And yet, you expect the police to act professionally towards you.


  • #19
    rigormortis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 216 ✭✭rigormortis


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    As I understand it, you are required to produce ID when asked to do so by a police officer in the US.

    As far as I am aware this is not the case. Maybe GW signed another house resolution? Seems to be signing away a lot of rights lately.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You have no right to refuse. Feel free to prove me wrong. I bet you wouldn't have the balls to say that to the face of a victim of terrorism.
    I know all about terrorism and I know plenty of victims. As for balls, stating things as they are should not offend anyone.

    As for rights you have fundamental rights as a human being. You need to research the difference between rights and privileges.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    And yet, you expect the police to act professionally towards you.
    Your dam right they should. I personally keep as far away as possible.


  • #20
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,831 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    rigormortis wrote: »
    As far as I am aware this is not the case. Maybe GW signed another house resolution? Seems to be signing away a lot of rights lately.
    When I spent several weeks in the US in 1997 I was required to carry ID with me at all times when driving. I don't think Dubya had anything to do with that.

    But that's beside the point: you've asserted that someone driving in the US has a right to refuse to identify herself to the police. Please back up that assertion.
    rigormortis wrote: »
    I know all about terrorism and I know plenty of victims. As for balls, stating things as they are should not offend anyone.
    You know all about terrorism, but there are no terrorists, and telling a family member of someone murdered in the Omagh bombing that there are no terrorists shouldn't offend them?

    Forgive me for disagreeing.
    rigormortis wrote: »
    As for rights you have fundamental rights as a human being. You need to research the difference between rights and privileges.
    Oh look, another vintage casey212 throwaway remark masquerading as a contribution to the discussion.
    rigormortis wrote: »
    Your dam right they should. I personally keep as far away as possible.
    Respect is earned. If you don't have respect for the police (which you should, considering their role in society), you shouldn't be too surprised if they have no respect for you.


  • #21
    rigormortis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 216 ✭✭rigormortis


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    When I spent several weeks in the US in 1997 I was required to carry ID with me at all times when driving. I don't think Dubya had anything to do with that.But that's beside the point: you've asserted that someone driving in the US has a right to refuse to identify herself to the police. Please back up that assertion.
    That assertion comes after the copper stopped her in the first place, for no reason that he was willing to provide. As for the law, there are different states with different laws.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You know all about terrorism, but there are no terrorists, and telling a family member of someone murdered in the Omagh bombing that there are no terrorists shouldn't offend them?

    There are no terrorists. There are government operations. As for the families involved, i know one personally and they are in no way pleased with the subsequent investigation.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Respect is earned.
    ? You could not have been further from the mark. I dont live my life to please anyone. I dont live to satisfy the rules and be a good boy. As for respect anyone coming at me without justification better look out.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    If you don't have respect for the police (which you should, considering their role in society), you shouldn't be too surprised if they have no respect for you.

    Revenue generation is applaudable? As for me, I have no dealing with the boys in blue, and I intend to keep it that way.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,831 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    rigormortis wrote: »
    That assertion comes after the copper stopped her in the first place, for no reason that he was willing to provide. As for the law, there are different states with different laws.
    Cool, we're getting somewhere. Now all you have to do is demonstrate that this happened in a state where you are not required to produce ID on demand.
    rigormortis wrote: »
    There are no terrorists. There are government operations.
    Which government committed mass murder in Omagh?
    rigormortis wrote: »
    As for the families involved, i know one personally and they are in no way pleased with the subsequent investigation.
    Have you told them it was a government operation?
    rigormortis wrote: »
    ? You could not have been further from the mark. I dont live my life to please anyone. I dont live to satisfy the rules and be a good boy. As for respect anyone coming at me without justification better look out.
    Do you think there should be police? If so, do you think they should have to actually wait until a crime has been committed before they can act at all?
    rigormortis wrote: »
    Revenue generation is applaudable? As for me, I have no dealing with the boys in blue, and I intend to keep it that way.
    I am sometimes tempted to think that there should be a register of people with your attitude, so that if you're ever the victim of a crime, the police will know not to get involved and to leave you to your own devices.


  • #23
    Eero New
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31 ✭Eero New


    Look at all the goons sitting around having a laugh.

    Shooting a woman in the back, big men alright.


  • #24
    rigormortis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 216 ✭✭rigormortis


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Cool, we're getting somewhere. Now all you have to do is demonstrate that this happened in a state where you are not required to produce ID on demand.
    No, again look at the sequence of events. Why was she stopped in the first place?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Which government committed mass murder in Omagh?
    The british
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Have you told them it was a government operation?
    They know my opinions.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Do you think there should be police?
    Of course there should be "peace officers".
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I am sometimes tempted to think that there should be a register of people with your attitude, so that if you're ever the victim of a crime, the police will know not to get involved and to leave you to your own devices.

    I do not have any attitude. I have a will that forces me to stand up for my rights and the rights of others who have had injustice forced upon them.

    How you can carry on defending these actions seems incredible.


  • #25
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,831 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    rigormortis wrote: »
    No, again look at the sequence of events. Why was she stopped in the first place?
    Irrelevant; you claimed the police officer broke the law, and now you're refusing to back up that assertion.
    rigormortis wrote: »
    The british
    I'd be tempted to laugh this off, but it's disgusting and despicable to excuse the actions of the scum that actually did perpetrate this atrocity by deflecting the blame elsewhere.

    But, let's play it your way. What evidence do you have that the British Government were behind the Omagh bombing? Straight answer, please.
    rigormortis wrote: »
    They know my opinions.
    Do they agree?
    rigormortis wrote: »
    Of course there should be "peace officers".
    You neatly skipped the rest of the question.
    rigormortis wrote: »
    I do not have any attitude. I have a will that forces me to stand up for my rights and the rights of others who have had injustice forced upon them.

    How you can carry on defending these actions seems incredible.
    I'm not defending anything; I'm asking you to justify your assertions. You seem remarkably reluctant to do so, for such a hero of the people.


  • #26
    rigormortis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 216 ✭✭rigormortis


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Irrelevant; you claimed the police officer broke the law, and now you're refusing to back up that assertion..
    Its not irrelevant, its the basis of the whole case.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'd be tempted to laugh this off, but it's disgusting and despicable to excuse the actions of the scum that actually did perpetrate this atrocity by deflecting the blame elsewhere.

    I'm no defender of the IRA. A pack of filth. Look into the allegations of Martin Ingram
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Do they agree?

    Some of the outer circle are in agreement. They convinced me.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    . I'm not defending anything; I'm asking you to justify your assertions. You seem remarkably reluctant to do so, for such a hero of the people.

    Thats right, you never gave you opinion at all. What are your opinions on the overall situation?


  • #27
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,831 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    rigormortis wrote: »
    Its not irrelevant, its the basis of the whole case.
    What law did the policeman break?
    rigormortis wrote: »
    I'm no defender of the IRA. A pack of filth. Look into the allegations of Martin Ingram
    To lay blame for Omagh at the British government's door is effectively to absolve the scum who perpetrated it.

    On what basis do you believe Ingram (not his real name, btw)?
    rigormortis wrote: »
    Some of the outer circle are in agreement. They convinced me.
    Who did?
    rigormortis wrote: »
    Thats right, you never gave you opinion at all. What are your opinions on the overall situation?
    My opinion is that you're throwing accusations around that you're not prepared to back up.


  • #28
    rigormortis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 216 ✭✭rigormortis


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    What law did the policeman break?
    Assault, unlawful arrest, unwarranted obstruction of a citizen.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    To lay blame for Omagh at the British government's door is effectively to absolve the scum who perpetrated it.

    Not its not. The bombing was carried out by the IRA with the go ahead of MI5.

    oscarBravo wrote: »
    On what basis do you believe Ingram (not his real name, btw)?
    Its not his real name. There have also been many informants raising their heads. Also I have a good knowledge of the intelligence gathering process. Spycatcher by Wright was a good book explaining the process as well as Inside the KGB by [SIZE=-1]Vladimir Kuzichkin. You cannot have any sort of organisation without getting infiltrated. A lot of hard core republicans now realise that they were useful idiots, puppets for a larger plan.[/SIZE]
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Who did?
    One of the family members involved.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    My opinion is that you're throwing accusations around that you're not prepared to back up.

    Easy to say for someone who does not have the neck to at least acknowledge an obvious abuse of power.


  • #29
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,831 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    rigormortis wrote: »
    Assault, unlawful arrest, unwarranted obstruction of a citizen.
    How do you know it was an unlawful arrest? Straight answer, now. I've repeatedly asked you to demonstrate that the woman in question was legally entitled to refuse to show her ID, and you've repeatedly scurried away from the question.
    rigormortis wrote: »
    Not its not. The bombing was carried out by the IRA with the go ahead of MI5.
    Bullshit.
    rigormortis wrote: »
    Its not his real name. There have also been many informants raising their heads. Also I have a good knowledge of the intelligence gathering process.
    Do they teach that as part of an International Finance PhD?
    rigormortis wrote: »
    One of the family members involved.
    Which one?
    rigormortis wrote: »
    Easy to say for someone who does not have the neck to at least acknowledge an obvious abuse of power.
    "Obvious" because you desperately want to believe it? Heaven forbid you'd actually produce any evidence.


  • #30
    rigormortis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 216 ✭✭rigormortis


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    How do you know it was an unlawful arrest? Straight answer, now. I've repeatedly asked you to demonstrate that the woman in question was legally entitled to refuse to show her ID, and you've repeatedly scurried away from the question.

    You have repeatedly refused to answer whether the police officer has any right to stop the woman n the first place. I am no lawyer. How could a person possibly know even 1% of the laws in this country, never mind all the laws of the U.S
    Lets throw away all laws here. Was what he done morally right?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Bullshit.
    Time will prove me right.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Do they teach that as part of an International Finance PhD?
    They dont teach much in any Phd, masters or degree course. I am a big believer in self unregulated education. Read the Undergroun history of education by Gatto. I believe you can get it free online.

    oscarBravo wrote: »
    "Obvious" because you desperately want to believe it? Heaven forbid you'd actually produce any evidence.

    The evidence is there in the form of a video. You seem to be all questions and no answers.I have no problem with people making a wrong evaluation, so long as they at least make some decision.

    From a moral viewpoint I believe that this case was a disgrace. You will not even defend what happened, you are reduced to attacking someone who makes a stand. You know yourself that the arrest was totally out of order and yet you will not admit it.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    oscarbravo wrote:
    Do you think there should be police? If so, do you think they should have to actually wait until a crime has been committed before they can act at all?

    I'm gonna have to pull you up on this one, Hell yeah they have to wait till there is an actual crime being comitted before they act.

    what would you suggest, 'that fella looks dodgy, lets arest him and lock him up in case he might do something wrong'?

    there is still something out there called due process aint there?

    as for the ID thing, if you're drivin a car then you have to have a drivin licence, the cops are entitled to ask to see this, if yer walkin down the street mindin yer own business then they cant stop you and ask you to identify yerself without first givin clear and valid reasns for doing so.


  • #32
    Dirty Dave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 111 ✭✭Dirty Dave


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    I'm gonna have to pull you up on this one, Hell yeah they have to wait till there is an actual crime being comitted before they act.

    what would you suggest, 'that fella looks dodgy, lets arest him and lock him up in case he might do something wrong'?

    I don't think its appropriate to arrest people who look dodgy, but I think it is appropriate to stop and question them.

    If somebody reported a man acting suspiciously outside your childs school, would you want the police to ask him who he was and what he was doing or would you rather they wait until he did something illegal? I'm not saying that he should be arrested just for hanging around outside a school - he may be waiting to pick up his own child - but I think police should have the right to ask what he is doing there, no?

    What about a junkie hanging around beside an ATM? True he might just be begging, but what if he is waiting for someone to go to the ATM on their own so he can rob them? Should the police wait for that to happen or should they ask him what he is doing? What if this particular person has a history of robbing people at ATM's?

    I agree that the police were totally out of line in shooting that woman with rubber bullets and obviously the Georgian police are totally OTT but in the case of the woman stopped by the police in America, I cant really make a judgement as I don't know the full circumstances of why the road block was there, but I think the woman overreacted and was asking to get in trouble.

    Either way, I dont see any evidence that we are living in a police state.


  • #33
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Mahatma coat wrote:
    I'm gonna have to pull you up on this one, Hell yeah they have to wait till there is an actual crime being comitted before they act.

    what would you suggest, 'that fella looks dodgy, lets arest him and lock him up in case he might do something wrong'?

    there is still something out there called due process aint there?
    So if the police new all about 9/11 (ignoring the conspirasies for a moment), they should let the terrorists kill all those people rather than save their lives by preventing it?


  • #34
    rigormortis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 216 ✭✭rigormortis


    humanji wrote: »
    So if the police new all about 9/11 (ignoring the conspirasies for a moment), they should let the terrorists kill all those people rather than save their lives by preventing it?

    What this has to do with Mahatma's statement I have no idea. I would assume if they knew, then they have evidence, then they would be justified in arresting the people. I thought that was a simple concept.


  • #35
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,831 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    rigormortis wrote: »
    You have repeatedly refused to answer whether the police officer has any right to stop the woman n the first place.
    I don't know, and neither do you. On balance of probability, I'm prepared to accept that the fact that he did so implies that he had the right to do so, absent evidence to the contrary, which you haven't provided.
    rigormortis wrote: »
    I am no lawyer. How could a person possibly know even 1% of the laws in this country, never mind all the laws of the U.S
    And yet, you've confidently proclaimed that he broke several laws.

    Are you sure your PhD isn't in jumping to irrational conclusions? It's the one thing you have proven yourself remarkably adept at.
    rigormortis wrote: »
    Lets throw away all laws here. Was what he done morally right?
    There isn't enough context for either of us to judge. The difference between us is that I'm not making that call, and you are.
    rigormortis wrote: »
    They dont teach much in any Phd, masters or degree course. I am a big believer in self unregulated education. Read the Undergroun history of education by Gatto. I believe you can get it free online.
    What's "self unregulated education"?
    rigormortis wrote: »
    The evidence is there in the form of a video. You seem to be all questions and no answers.
    rigormortis wrote: »
    I said I did not have the answers, i do have questions.
    Irony much?
    rigormortis wrote: »
    I have no problem with people making a wrong evaluation, so long as they at least make some decision.
    That's a manifesto for idiocy.
    rigormortis wrote: »
    From a moral viewpoint I believe that this case was a disgrace.
    But you can't quite say why.
    rigormortis wrote: »
    You will not even defend what happened, you are reduced to attacking someone who makes a stand.
    I haven't attacked anyone; I've asked you to explain what the problem is here, and all I've seen is a lot of arm-waving. You have yet to demonstrate that the woman in question had any right to refuse to show ID.
    rigormortis wrote: »
    You know yourself that the arrest was totally out of order and yet you will not admit it.
    You're reading my mind now? Helpful hint for you: you're not doing very well.
    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    I'm gonna have to pull you up on this one, Hell yeah they have to wait till there is an actual crime being comitted before they act.
    Do you really believe that the police should be completely denied any role in crime prevention, and confined completely to detection? Do you really think that would make for a safer society?
    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    as for the ID thing, if you're drivin a car then you have to have a drivin licence, the cops are entitled to ask to see this, if yer walkin down the street mindin yer own business then they cant stop you and ask you to identify yerself without first givin clear and valid reasns for doing so.
    The woman at the centre of this discussion was driving.


  • #36
    rigormortis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 216 ✭✭rigormortis


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    On balance of probability, I'm prepared to accept that the fact that he did so implies that he had the right to do so, absent evidence to the contrary, which you haven't provided.
    What are you talking about? Who is the victim? He could not provide a reason for the stop when asked. That proves my point.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    What's "self unregulated education"?
    Educating yourself in many areas, without supervision and as you choose. As many people are aware this is the only path to real knowledge. The next thing you will be proclaiming the usefulness of the education system.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Irony much?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    That's a manifesto for idiocy.
    What is this, have you not done just what you have accused me of doing? What a joke.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    But you can't quite say why.
    I have said many times, it was a disgrace. Pulled over for no reason, assaulted for no reason, arrested for no reason and a search of private property carried for no reason. Hows that for a start?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You're reading my mind now? Helpful hint for you: you're not doing very well.

    Probably right, I cant see things with a willing slave mentality.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    rigormortis wrote: »
    What are you talking about? Who is the victim? He could not provide a reason for the stop when asked. That proves my point.

    It proves nothing You saw an edited video made by a guy with an agenda against authority. And you refuse to even question it, choosing to take it as gospel instead. And then you have the cheek to accuse others of slave mentality because they question things instead of believing what they are poon fed?


  • #38
    rigormortis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 216 ✭✭rigormortis


    humanji wrote: »
    It proves nothing You saw an edited video made by a guy with an agenda against authority. And you refuse to even question it, choosing to take it as gospel instead. And then you have the cheek to accuse others of slave mentality because they question things instead of believing what they are poon fed?

    Where was the editing? The whole thing was shown. He could not provide a reason for the stop when caught. The woman was not aggressive, she was assaulted and dragged from her car and then arrested. What other evidence could change these facts? Fair enough it he provided a valid reason when asked, he could not.


  • #39
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    It starts off after she has been pulled over, the sounds is drowned out by the absurd narration, it cuts to the editors opinions on the state and then cuts back to the footage much later, when it's dark. That's the editing I was talking about.

    And again HE DIDN'T PROVIDE A VALID REASON DURING THE VIDEO. That doesn't mean he didn't have one. You're assuming that just because you didn't see it, that it didn't exist. Ironic considering you didn't see the British government backing the IRA, yet you assume it is happening.


  • #40
    rigormortis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 216 ✭✭rigormortis


    Look at this jumped up idiot;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GgWrV8TcUc


  • #41
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,831 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    rigormortis wrote: »
    He could not provide a reason for the stop when asked. That proves my point.
    Could not, or did not?

    Your standard of proof is incredibly low when it comes to people you believe.
    rigormortis wrote: »
    Educating yourself in many areas, without supervision and as you choose. As many people are aware this is the only path to real knowledge.
    Ah, I see. So your PhD was awarded by the University of Casey212?
    rigormortis wrote: »
    I have said many times, it was a disgrace. Pulled over for no reason...
    How do you know?
    rigormortis wrote: »
    ....assaulted for no reason...
    She wasn't assaulted, she was arrested.
    rigormortis wrote: »
    ...arrested for no reason...
    She was arrested for obstruction of justice, which he clearly stated. Then she resisted arrest, and he added that to the charge.

    Prove that she wasn't required by law to produce ID when asked by the policeman, and I'll concede the entire point.
    rigormortis wrote: »
    ...and a search of private property carried for no reason.
    Her refusal to identify herself constitutes probable cause.
    rigormortis wrote: »
    Where was the editing? The whole thing was shown.
    Untrue. The video clip starts after his conversation with the woman starts.
    rigormortis wrote: »
    He could not provide a reason for the stop when caught.
    He wasn't "caught", and you've yet to show that (a) he didn't give her a reason before the clip starts, and (b) that he's required to do so anyway.
    rigormortis wrote: »
    The woman was not aggressive...
    Untrue. She was verbally aggressive throughout.
    rigormortis wrote: »
    ...she was assaulted...
    She wasn't assaulted; she was arrested and resisted arrest.
    rigormortis wrote: »
    ...and dragged from her car and then arrested.
    You've got your sequence wrong. She was arrested and refused to leave the car (that's resisting arrest), and was then removed from it.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    rigormortis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 216 ✭✭rigormortis


    oscarBravo55137039 wrote:
    Could not, or did not?
    Could not
    oscarBravo55137039 wrote:
    She wasn't assaulted, she was arrested.
    You place your hands on someone without their consent, thats assault. Try it on a police officer some time if you want proof.
    oscarBravo55137039 wrote:
    She was arrested for obstruction of justice, which he clearly stated. Then she resisted arrest, and he added that to the charge.
    What justice? What had she done wrong. He should have been done for abuse of power.
    oscarBravo55137039 wrote:
    Her refusal to identify herself constitutes probably cause.
    Probable cause because you refuse to identify yourself. Where are we, in Stalin's Russia.
    oscarBravo55137039 wrote:
    . He wasn't "caught", and you've yet to show that (a) he didn't give her a reason before the clip starts, and (b) that he's required to do so anyway. Untrue. She was verbally aggressive throughout.
    Why would she ask if the reason had already been provided? Verbally aggressive, are you serious? If thats verbal aggression, what you are effectively saying is that you cannot question a copper. "Yes sire"
    oscarBravo55137039 wrote:
    She wasn't assaulted; she was arrested and resisted arrest. You've got your sequence wrong. She was arrested and refused to leave the car (that's resisting arrest), and was then removed from it

    No, we have already seen that he has abused his power. As for the arrest, he placed his hands on her and she objected, just like anybody with any guts would.

    He was a jumped up cop on a power trip.End of story.


  • #43
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,831 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    rigormortis wrote: »
    Could not
    Prove it.
    rigormortis wrote: »
    You place your hands on someone without their consent, thats assault. Try it on a police officer some time if you want proof.
    Police officers are allowed to place their hands on someone without their consent, in the course of an arrest. It's kind of the point of the exercise.
    rigormortis wrote: »
    What justice? What had she done wrong. He should have been done for abuse of power.
    Ah, a fight the powah rant. Not exactly consistent with logic.
    rigormortis wrote: »
    Probable cause because you refuse to identify yourself. Where are we, in Stalin's Russia.
    If you're required by law to identify yourself (and you've yet to establish that she wasn't), then refusal to do so suggests (but doesn't prove) that you have something to hide.
    rigormortis wrote: »
    Why would she ask if the reason had already been provided?
    She asked what law she had broken. The officer said he hadn't accused her of breaking a law. Maybe I misheard (the audio is terrible in the clip) but I didn't hear her asking why she was stopped.
    rigormortis wrote: »
    No, we have already seen that he has abused his power.
    I haven't.
    rigormortis wrote: »
    As for the arrest, he placed his hands on her and she objected, just like anybody with any guts would.
    He asked her to step out of the car. She refused. That's resisting arrest. What do you think a policeman should do when someone resists arrest - apologise?
    rigormortis wrote: »
    He was a jumped up cop on a power trip.End of story.
    All she had to do was show her ID, but she fought the law and the law won. End of story.


  • #44
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,831 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    rigormortis wrote: »
    Verbally aggressive, are you serious? If thats verbal aggression, what you are effectively saying is that you cannot question a copper. "Yes sire"
    I've often questioned police officers. The trick is to do so politely, and to recognise that they are within their rights to uphold the law.

    She went off on a "fight the powah" rant, and it got her arrested. Why didn't she show him her ID?


  • #45
    rigormortis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 216 ✭✭rigormortis


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    If you're required by law to identify yourself (and you've yet to establish that she wasn't), then refusal to do so suggests (but doesn't prove) that you have something to hide.
    It suggested that you have not yet had a full lobotomy.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    He asked her to step out of the car. She refused. That's resisting arrest. What do you think a policeman should do when someone resists arrest - apologise?

    He should never have gotten into this position in the first place. Problem solved. This the point. He had no reason to stop her, not one that he was willing to repeat anyway. Maybe its just me who believes that you have a right to know why you are being arrested.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    All she had to do was show her ID, but she fought the law and the law won. End of story.

    I think we both know that the law did not win. Look at the coverage this got.

    Having a badge does not mean that you can walk over others, when and as you choose.


  • #46
    rigormortis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 216 ✭✭rigormortis


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I've often questioned police officers. The trick is to do so politely, and to recognise that they are within their rights to uphold the law.

    She went off on a "fight the powah" rant, and it got her arrested. Why didn't she show him her ID?

    I thought the woman was very gracious. Never a raised word before the assault took place. As for questioning police, there is a world of difference between a serious question and a bit of banter.


  • #47
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    rigormortis wrote: »
    He was a jumped up cop on a power trip.End of story.

    Hmmm, and there was me thinking that the point of this thread was that it's a police state. But you were just pointing out that there are a few bad eggs in the police force. But I thought that was a given.


  • #48
    Eero New
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31 ✭Eero New


    rigormortis wrote: »
    Look at this jumped up idiot;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GgWrV8TcUc


    Good to see they always go for tough targets. :rolleyes:

    Took the goon over 3 minutes to realise he was being filmed.


  • #49
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Is your sole purpose here to backup Casey, or are you Casey?

    As I said in another thread, check out the videos of the police who are killed or wounded in the line of duty. All jerks are people, but not all people are jerks.


  • #50
    rigormortis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 216 ✭✭rigormortis


    humanji wrote: »
    I
    As I said in another thread, check out the videos of the police who are killed or wounded in the line of duty. All jerks are people, but not all people are jerks.

    Fully agreed. However I only have a tolerance for so much of this behaviour.


  • #51
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    Dirty Dave wrote: »
    I don't think its appropriate to arrest people who look dodgy, but I think it is appropriate to stop and question them.
    I have long hair and a beard, I dress in what could reasonably be referred to as rags I dont think it appropriate that some idiot in a uniform with shiny buttons should be allowed to stop nd harras me as I go about my business because I look 'Dodgy'
    If somebody reported a man acting suspiciously outside your childs school, would you want the police to ask him who he was and what he was doing or would you rather they wait until he did something illegal? I'm not saying that he should be arrested just for hanging around outside a school - he may be waiting to pick up his own child - but I think police should have the right to ask what he is doing there, no?
    he may have a multitude of valid reasons for being there, as long as he is not breakin the law he is entitled to be there, show me where it has become illegal to walk around on the street
    What about a junkie hanging around beside an ATM? True he might just be begging, but what if he is waiting for someone to go to the ATM on their own so he can rob them? Should the police wait for that to happen or should they ask him what he is doing? What if this particular person has a history of robbing people at ATM's?
    I thought beggin was illegal, so I'll give ya that
    I agree that the police were totally out of line in shooting that woman with rubber bullets and obviously the Georgian police are totally OTT
    yep & YEP
    but in the case of the woman stopped by the police in America, I cant really make a judgement as I don't know the full circumstances of why the road block was there, but I think the woman overreacted and was asking to get in trouble.
    I dont think the woman overeacted, she was arrested for resistin arrest, if you cant see a problem with that then theres no point in tryin to discuss the next bit of yer statement[/quote]
    Either way, I dont see any evidence that we are living in a police state.
    Really?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement