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

Police State Video

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #33
    humanji
    Registered Users 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?


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #35
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 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.


  • Options
    #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
  • Options
    #37
    humanji
    Registered Users 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?


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #39
    humanji
    Registered Users 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.


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


    Look at this jumped up idiot;

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


  • Options
    #41
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 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
  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #43
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 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.


  • Options
    #44
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 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?


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #47
    humanji
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #49
    humanji
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #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
  • Options
    #52
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    But it's impossible to get away from it. Unless you want to start forcing behaviours on people, which would go against the whole point.


  • Options
    #53
    Eeb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 30 ✭Eeb


    Anyone defending the actions of the cop in that video needs to have their head examined.


  • Options
    #54
    rigormortis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 216 ✭✭rigormortis


    Eeb wrote: »
    Anyone defending the actions of the cop in that video needs to have their head examined.

    Freedom is slavery, right is wrong, left is right.

    Thats what is being promoted these days.


  • Options
    #55
    Dirty Dave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 111 ✭✭Dirty Dave


    Mahatma coat wrote: »

    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


    Really?

    Yep, really. Just because cops overreact doesnt mean we are living in a police state.

    And as for the man acting suspiciously outside a school example - I did not say it was illegal to walk around on the street, nor did I say it should be illegal. I said that I think the police should be able to ask why he is there.

    What if he was there because he was a registered sex offender and he wanted to expose himself to a child? Dont you think it would be better for the police to discover that by asking him who he was and what he was doing outside a school, then by waiting until he actually did it and arresting him afterwards?


  • Options
    #56
    Dirty Dave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 111 ✭✭Dirty Dave


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    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


    Whether begging is illegal or not is irrelevant. Read the section again - If a man who is known to have mugged people as they took money from an ATM is seen hanging around an ATM, dont you think the police should be able to stop him, question him and maybe even search him if he cant explain why he is there?

    Or is someone being robbed at knifepoint or threatened with a beating an acceptable sacrifice to ensure nobody's rights are impinged upon?


  • Options
    #57
    rigormortis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 216 ✭✭rigormortis


    Dirty Dave wrote: »

    What if he was there because he was a registered sex offender and he wanted to expose himself to a child? Dont you think it would be better for the police to discover that by asking him who he was and what he was doing outside a school, then by waiting until he actually did it and arresting him afterwards?

    And where do the boundaries lie? You need to consider this a lot more than you are. This may not be a police state in the same way that the U.S. and Britain are, however it is moving rapidly in that direction. I am trying to raise awareness of this, crime exists, it always has. Accept this and move on.


  • Options
    #58
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    if the man is a registered sex offender I would expect thr police to know this, same as yer Junkie argument, if they are KNOWNoffenders with a history of offence then by all means the police should be doing their job, tat wasnt the point of your initial statement tho, your more a fan of the emotivesensationalism 'wont someone please think of the children' rationalisation


  • Options
    #59
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    eh casey, rather than persistin in arguin howsabout ya learn how to formulate an argument


  • Options
    #60
    Dirty Dave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 111 ✭✭Dirty Dave


    rigormortis wrote: »
    And where do the boundaries lie? You need to consider this a lot more than you are. This may not be a police state in the same way that the U.S. and Britain are, however it is moving rapidly in that direction. I am trying to raise awareness of this, crime exists, it always has. Accept this and move on.

    At what point did I deny crime exists? Why are you putting words in my mouth?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    rigormortis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 216 ✭✭rigormortis


    Dirty Dave wrote: »
    At what point did I deny crime exists? Why are you putting words in my mouth?

    That was my viewpoint, I never attributed it to you. However you seem unwilling to accept this fact.

    When people start referring to pre-crime all sorts of issues are raised, when people accept pre-crime we are all criminals, just waiting for the opportunity to commit crime.


Advertisement