Police State Video

Dirty Dave · 14-02-2008 2:26pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

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

Dont make assumptions about me or what I'm a fan of.

And how are the police to know they are KNOWN offenders without questioning them?

Does a Garda who works in Cork know the name, face and personal details of a man who was convicted of mugging someone at an ATM in Dublin?

Does a Garda confronting a man outside a school on Donegal know he was convicted of rape 15 years previously in Wexford?

Or in both cases, would the Garda not have to stop the people in question and ask them their name first?

Dirty Dave · 14-02-2008 2:33pm

rigormortis wrote: »

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.

To be honest, I'm not going to bother arguing with you any more. Never in all your multiple-incarnations have I seen you make a statement that makes any logical sense, answer a direct question or supply evidence of anything you claim.
I think that you and I are as different as water and oil. I just dont understand how you function on a day to day basis.

TJJP · 14-02-2008 2:50pm

rigormortis wrote: »

Another example of the police state. I think this is a disgrace.

http://www.infowars.com/?p=196

http://www.infowars.com/?p=174

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOHJfY2hQ2c

I don't see any biased reporting here.

So who is going to be the first to defend these practices?

Sorry, what state would that be, and what would it have to do with me.... Last time I checked I had no vote in the US. Can't see the point of this TBH.

Mahatma coat · 14-02-2008 3:06pm

Dirty Dave wrote: »

Dont make assumptions about me or what I'm a fan of.

more of anobservation than an assumption

And how are the police to know they are KNOWN offenders without questioning them?

Does a Garda who works in Cork know the name, face and personal details of a man who was convicted of mugging someone at an ATM in Dublin?

Does a Garda confronting a man outside a school on Donegal know he was convicted of rape 15 years previously in Wexford?

Or in both cases, would the Garda not have to stop the people in question and ask them their name first?

the technology exists for the police office in that situation to be able to access a database with the photos of registered offenders, its one of the 'benefits' of a closely monitored police state

humanji · 14-02-2008 3:30pm

But not if a policeman is walking down the road and sees someone acting suspiciously. They can't run over, take a picture, run back to the station run it through the computer and if it is a know offender, to run back to the guy and ask them for Id. It's not feasible.

Diogenes · 14-02-2008 4:44pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

more of anobservation than an assumption

the technology exists for the police office in that situation to be able to access a database with the photos of registered offenders, its one of the 'benefits' of a closely monitored police state

No this technology does not exist.

Honestly, I sometimes feel CSI: insert large american city here, should be broadcast with a flashing title card coming up every few seconds saying;

"THIS IS FICTION"

oscarBravo · 14-02-2008 6:18pm

rigormortis wrote: »

I thought the woman was very gracious. Never a raised word before the assault took place.

She was in full-on rant mode from the opening second of the video. Your blinkers are showing.

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

The straw men are out in force today.

Nobody is suggesting that it should be acceptable to arrest someone for hanging around a school looking dodgy. The question is: is it acceptable that the police should be able to ask someone behaving suspiciously who they are?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

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

She was arrested for obstructing justice. When she refused to step out of the car as instructed, the charge of resisting arrest was added.

Eero New · 14-02-2008 6:20pm

Diogenes wrote: »

No this technology does not exist.

Honestly, I sometimes feel CSI: insert large american city here, should be broadcast with a flashing title card coming up every few seconds saying;

"THIS IS FICTION"

It is more than 'fiction', what is it is 'predictive programming'

humanji · 14-02-2008 9:32pm

Eero New wrote: »

It is more than 'fiction', what is it is 'predictive programming'

Not always. Sometimes you only find out who the killer is at the very end. It comes right out of left field.

Eero New · 14-02-2008 9:46pm

humanji wrote: »

Not always. Sometimes you only find out who the killer is at the very end. It comes right out of left field.

I think you have misunderstood me.

What I meant was that shows like CSI are put out there to show us all sorts of 'new' technologies, which when they are implemented in reality, will not be a shock to us due to the fact we have seen them in action 'doing good' on TV.

humanji · 14-02-2008 9:55pm

No, I got what you said. I was just making a joke to kind of lighten the mood. IT kind of backfired, but if it's any consolation, it made me smile thinking it up.

Mahatma coat · 15-02-2008 7:39am

humanji wrote: »

But not if a policeman is walking down the road and sees someone acting suspiciously. They can't run over, take a picture, run back to the station run it through the computer and if it is a know offender, to run back to the guy and ask them for Id. It's not feasible.

see thats just ridiculous, but heres a scenario,

Policeman walkin down city street, sees someone 'actin suspicious', radios station, station check out person on CCTV, run through computers, give police officer answer over radio. that any more feasible?

humanji · 15-02-2008 10:40am

What if there is no cctv? Does he ask the guy to go find one and stand in front of it?

Dirty Dave · 15-02-2008 10:45am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

see thats just ridiculous, but heres a scenario,

Policeman walkin down city street, sees someone 'actin suspicious', radios station, station check out person on CCTV, run through computers, give police officer answer over radio. that any more feasible?

What if there isnt any CCTV around? Can he ask him who he is then? There are PLENTY of places where there are no CCTV's.

Edit: What if there was a CCTV but the guy was wearing a balaclava? Surely that's not illegal? Everyone is well within their rights to stand outside a school or hang around an ATM wearing a balaclava without being stopped and questioned surely???

Mahatma coat · 15-02-2008 10:54am

anyone got a cameraphone?

AFAIK its not illegal to walk around wearin a balaclava, ill advised, but not illegal

Jocksereire · 17-02-2008 5:22pm

This is What A Police State Looks Like

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19347.htm

Turner · 17-02-2008 5:53pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

anyone got a cameraphone?

AFAIK its not illegal to walk around wearin a balaclava, ill advised, but not illegal

It is. Hard to prove though.

Possesion of an article that could be used in the course of an offence under the theft act.

Eg Robbery, Burglary or stealing a car.

humanji · 17-02-2008 10:23pm

Jocksereire wrote: »

This is What A Police State Looks Like

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19347.htm

Thank god that's not biased!

Mahatma coat · 18-02-2008 9:57am

humanji wrote: »

Thank god that's not biased!

are you seriously gonna try and defend actions of the Portland police in that video?

humanji · 18-02-2008 11:36am

No, but you can't say that it's not a one sided video when it starts of with a camparison to the Nazis. It's another video showing people doing bad things and claiming all police are bad as a result.

Mahatma coat · 18-02-2008 12:10pm

Obviously its a one sided video, its one persons experience of police brutality, and as such its gonna reflect very deeply that persons viewpoint on the situation.

this does not change the fact that the police acted out of hand in the video.

remember our own Mayday riots a few years ago?

Diogenes · 18-02-2008 12:29pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Obviously its a one sided video, its one persons experience of police brutality, and as such its gonna reflect very deeply that persons viewpoint on the situation.

this does not change the fact that the police acted out of hand in the video.

remember our own Mayday riots a few years ago?

Yes and as I recall several police officers were charged over it, and dozens of protesters won substantial compensation.

Gosh its like living in a fascist police state.

Mahatma coat · 18-02-2008 12:45pm

yes and the Nazis were tried at Nuremberg and the Jews got a country out of it, didnt change what they did at the time tho did it

Diogenes · 18-02-2008 12:50pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

yes and the Nazis were tried at Nuremberg and the Jews got a country out of it, didnt change what they did at the time tho did it

Thats incredibly specious reasoning. Also, Godwin's law.

Were the Nazi's tried by themselves, and convicted, under their own legal system?

No.

On mayday, the irish state reacted using its own legal system to redress the matter, arguing that "mayday" proves that we live in a police state, is frankly farcical.

Mahatma coat · 18-02-2008 1:02pm

waaaaay too late to call Godwins on this one, you obviously werent payin attention at the start of Jockser's video.

I'm not questionin the fact that people were tried for these things, what I'm sayin is that at the time of the events these police officers were of the opinion that they could do whatever they wanted to 'uphold the law' and it was only after they were caught by independant parties that they had to face the consequences

Diogenes · 18-02-2008 1:50pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

waaaaay too late to call Godwins on this one, you obviously werent payin attention at the start of Jockser's video.

I'm not questionin the fact that people were tried for these things, what I'm sayin is that at the time of the events these police officers were of the opinion that they could do whatever they wanted to 'uphold the law' and it was only after they were caught by independant parties that they had to face the consequences

Mahatma you seem like a bright guy, and I cannot believe I need to spell this out for you.

They weren't caught by independent parties, they were caught and punished by the very state that controlled them.

By your own submission, the fact that there were consequences to their actions means, that this isn't a police state. Because when police act of order and use unnecessary force, the state itself intervenes to reprimand the police and compensate the victim. Something that doesn't happen in genuine fascist police states.

I'd suggest you spend some time in North Korea before you decry Ireland as a police state.

tunaman · 19-02-2008 3:48am

humanji wrote: »

Thank god that's not biased!

Don't forget to turn on your TV for all your unbiased needs.

I know you find it impossible to believe that all the TV is controlled, but you should check out this documentary on the subject.

Orwell Rolls In His Grave

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4467655342219448521

This hasn't just happened overnight, instead it has been very gradual over decades, which has resulted in 5 huge corporations owning most of the media in the western world.

Mahatma coat · 19-02-2008 12:28pm

Diogenes wrote: »

Mahatma you seem like a bright guy, and I cannot believe I need to spell this out for you.

condescend much?

They weren't caught by independent parties, they were caught and punished by the very state that controlled them.

By your own submission, the fact that there were consequences to their actions means, that this isn't a police state. Because when police act of order and use unnecessary force, the state itself intervenes to reprimand the police and compensate the victim. Something that doesn't happen in genuine fascist police states.

I'd suggest you spend some time in North Korea before you decry Ireland as a police state.

what I was saying,and I now regret using the Mayday example as I seems to have been misinterpreted, is that these cops acted as they did on the day safe in the knowledge that the most they'd get was a public slap on the wrist later and congrats quietly from the powers that be for keeping the dissidents in tow.

one or two scapegoats are presented to the general public as 'bad eggs' later however it seems that there are general standin orders on the day to use 'whatever force deemed nescessary' to quell the 'riots'

Diogenes · 19-02-2008 1:44pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

condescend much?

You think we're being sterlised by drugs emptied into the air from airplanes, and the only cure is purple powerade. Riiiiiggghhhhtttt....

what I was saying,and I now regret using the Mayday example as I seems to have been misinterpreted, is that these cops acted as they did on the day safe in the knowledge that the most they'd get was a public slap on the wrist later and congrats quietly from the powers that be for keeping the dissidents in tow.

And you have evidence of this?

Seven police officers were charged with various degrees of assault and tried by a jury, facing possible jail time.

How in any definition could that be deemed as a "slap on the wrist". Or indeed how is it, that 7 officers faced the full force of the law, for acting in an unacceptable manner is "proof" of a "police state" in this country.

one or two scapegoats are presented to the general public as 'bad eggs' later however it seems that there are general standin orders on the day to use 'whatever force deemed nescessary' to quell the 'riots'

Again you seem awfully knowledgeable, care to elaborate on these "general standing orders?"

Mahatma coat · 19-02-2008 2:00pm

right, first of the powerade thing was was me being facetious, turn on yer sarkometer.

although 7 officers in the maydayriots were brought to book you may find that more who were not subject to video sctutiny faced no consequences.

I base this on what you would refer to as 'Biased' opinion from those who were present at the event

Police State Video

Comments