|
Post by aboveathletics on Dec 18, 2010 13:48:47 GMT -5
AA: In case you missed it, most of us said that we have trouble believing that dragging a disabled guy from a wheelchair could be justifiable, especially when he's unable to move his chair himself. However, there's a huge difference between saying that you want to hear the other side of the story and instantly taking the police's side. Your state = god rant is way over the top, and the comment about rape victims is just plain uncalled for. No, it's not the same thing, but it creates a certain amount of unwarranted sympathy for these monsters. Are you at all interested in hearing John Wayne Gacy's side of the story? Would you be if he was a cop? I think my state = god rant is completely justified. Fstdt laughs at RR for blindly following the Bible to justify things like slavery and subjugation of women but is perfectly willing to embrace and justify horrific things when they come from the state. As for my comment on rape victims, don't pretend like I said they deserved it. My point was that this blaming the victim mentality that is so disturbingly common with rape seems to go double for victims of the police.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Dec 18, 2010 14:00:50 GMT -5
AA: Yes. I would be interested in hearing John Wayne Gacy's side of the story. Why? Because I want to know how to identify a monster like him so something like what he did doesn't happen in the future. It's called learning from history. You should try it sometime.
Ironbite-FYI there is no world wide conspiracy of police, just lettin' ya know.
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Dec 18, 2010 14:06:06 GMT -5
No, it's not the same thing, but it creates a certain amount of unwarranted sympathy for these monsters. Are you at all interested in hearing John Wayne Gacy's side of the story? Would you be if he was a cop? I think my state = god rant is completely justified. Fstdt laughs at RR for blindly following the Bible to justify things like slavery and subjugation of women but is perfectly willing to embrace and justify horrific things when they come from the state. As for my comment on rape victims, don't pretend like I said they deserved it. My point was that this blaming the victim mentality that is so disturbingly common with rape seems to go double for victims of the police. And YOU always, always, always assume the police have the most sociopathic and cruel motives. You're the guy who said there was not justification for police tazing an elderly woman...who was brandishing a knife while threatening to kill herself and anyone who came near her. I agree that dragging someone out of their wheelchair is taking things several steps too far, but just being in a wheelchair prevent someone from being a threat. There is a difference between wanting to hear the whole story (including the motives of the officers involved) and believing that the police were 100% in the right. The world is shades of gray, not black and white.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Dec 18, 2010 14:28:23 GMT -5
While I agree that a state = god philosophy would be ridiculous (authority figures being human beings and thus quite capable of doing bad things), you know as well as I do that this forum is full of dissenting opinions regarding the government. In any case, the majority opinion here seems to be that yes, there are a lot of cops who are assholes, but that this does not justify throwing away the very concept of law enforcement, or vilifying all police and authority figures.
Wanting to hear the other side of the story isn't always about looking for justification for what they did. I'd say that it's fairly unlikely that the cops can come up with a valid excuse for dragging a disabled guy from a chair, particularly since most of the stuff that would have justified it would have landed this guy in jail (having a weapon, throwing things at the cops, etc.) Thing is, the law does differentiate between unprovoked assault and provoked assault for pretty much the same reasons we separate 1st and 2nd degree murder into two categories -- unprovoked crimes demonstrate a callousness that isn't present in a provoked crime. In both cases, the guilty party is in the wrong, it's just the appropriate punishment that differs. A cop who beats the crap out of an unarmed, non-violent kid on the street is an asshole regardless, but the cop who does it without any provocation is a much bigger asshole.
In other words, it's not blaming the victim, it's about gauging how much of an asshole the perpetrator really is.
In the Gacy case, I'll say this: Hindsight is 20/20. He had his chance to give his side of the story, and nothing he said in any way mitigated his crime. However, he and everyone who is accused of a crime deserves to have a chance to tell their side of the story, regardless of how unlikely it is that they'll be able to justify it. Every person has the right to speak in their own defence.
As far as rape goes, I'd say there's a pretty big fucking difference between someone yelling and egging on the cops (not that I'm saying that this is what happened in this scenario), and a girl walking around in public in a short skirt. Neither individual deserves to be assaulted, but the perpetrator of the rape is a hell of a lot more depraved than the person who losing his or her cool while being taunted.
|
|
|
Post by brandonl337 on Dec 18, 2010 15:33:53 GMT -5
I never said that they didn't have a legitimate grievance, however, picking fights and then running off crying when you get hit are not the way to go about things. Acts of vandalism (like the cretins who defaced the Cenotaph) are not the way to go about things. They are not, in any sense of the word, kidnapping anyone. The technique is called kettling. It's designed to be unpleasant. It keeps protestors (who have comitted violence in the past) in one area until all they want to do is leave. Compare that to other countries where rubber bullets, tear gas and water canon seem the norm, would you prefer that? No, they're not allowed out to get food/water/toilet breaks. That's what makes kettling effective. Nice to see I'm not the only one who thought the little shits got what was coming to them. Dear protesters. Congratulations you have managed to convince me (a student) to support these rises on the principle that you've got it fucking coming. So you think that if someone's middle class then they don't deserve to go to college? and that those protesting this plutocratic bullshit are the bad guys? If the people in power fuck you over then you have the right to demonstrate your displeasure. the thing is though the cops aren't just being assholes in this case, they are assaulting a protestor. Do you really think that they are going to be charged with assault? No because they are "protecting the peace" and the media is happy to repeat that line ad naseum .
|
|
|
Post by aboveathletics on Dec 18, 2010 15:45:41 GMT -5
I agree that dragging someone out of their wheelchair is taking things several steps too far, but just being in a wheelchair prevent someone from being a threat. It absolutely does unless he had a gun of bomb of some kind. If he didn't, there was actually no legitimate reason to touch him.
|
|
|
Post by Damen on Dec 18, 2010 15:49:14 GMT -5
I agree that dragging someone out of their wheelchair is taking things several steps too far, but just being in a wheelchair prevent someone from being a threat. It absolutely does unless he had a gun of bomb of some kind. If he didn't, there was actually no legitimate reason to touch him. Yeeeaaahhh... bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Dec 18, 2010 16:07:36 GMT -5
the thing is though the cops aren't just being assholes in this case, they are assaulting a protestor. Do you really think that they are going to be charged with assault? No because they are "protecting the peace" and the media is happy to repeat that line ad naseum . I never said anything to the contrary.
|
|
|
Post by shadowpanther on Dec 18, 2010 16:08:18 GMT -5
Nice to see I'm not the only one who thought the little shits got what was coming to them. Dear protesters. Congratulations you have managed to convince me (a student) to support these rises on the principle that you've got it fucking coming. So you think that if someone's middle class then they don't deserve to go to college? and that those protesting this plutocratic bullshit are the bad guys? If the people in power fuck you over then you have the right to demonstrate your displeasure. the thing is though the cops aren't just being assholes in this case, they are assaulting a protestor. Do you really think that they are going to be charged with assault? No because they are "protecting the peace" and the media is happy to repeat that line ad naseum . I am middle class. And I agree you have the right to protest but that ends round about the time you start setting fire to the Christmas tree in Trafalgar Square, assaulting the Royal family and pissing on the Cenotaph.
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Dec 18, 2010 16:09:28 GMT -5
I agree that dragging someone out of their wheelchair is taking things several steps too far, but just being in a wheelchair prevent someone from being a threat. It absolutely does unless he had a gun of bomb of some kind. If he didn't, there was actually no legitimate reason to touch him. A man in a wheelchair can't have a knife? Or have studied martial arts? Or be inciting others to violence (you know, like revolutionary leaders do)? The disabled aren't completely helpless, not all of them. Certainly not this guy.
|
|
|
Post by brandonl337 on Dec 18, 2010 16:19:12 GMT -5
I also don't condone lighting up trees. They didn't assault anyone they threw a brick through a window. I imagine the cenotaph gets pissed on dozens of time in a month by drunks and hobos.
All in all I don't see any good reason to try and starve them out. never mind the beating and the fact that medical personnel are not allowed in the kettle.
|
|
|
Post by tiado on Dec 18, 2010 17:04:51 GMT -5
I wonder how the police are going to justify this one?
Oh wait, they don't have to, they're police.
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Dec 18, 2010 19:25:02 GMT -5
I'm disabled, not helpless. Just because a man is in a wheelchair doesn't mean he doesn't have a gun, or a throwing knife, etc.,
I don't know the whole story but it's also not something to go whalkbrabfjb! All cops are evil!
|
|
|
Post by John E on Dec 18, 2010 19:58:38 GMT -5
No, it's not the same thing, but it creates a certain amount of unwarranted sympathy for these monsters. No it doesn't. Only listening to one side of the story creates unwarranted sympathy for one side and unwarranted animosity towards the other. YOU are guilty of this. Wanting to hear both sides before making up your mind is how you get an even and unbiased viewpoint. Yes. That's what a trial is for. Or are you suggesting that we convict people based solely on the word of the arresting officers without hearing the accused's side of the story?Bullshit. That's a strawman and you know it. We criticize the government all the time. This thread is next door neighbor to several threads criticizing actions of the government, as well as threads praising actions of the government. We praise the government when it deserves it and criticize the government when it deserves it. But first we want the whole story. YOU are the one with a dogmatic viewpoint ruled by an outside authority. Being opposed to everything the authority says and does, you are no less a slave to it's will than someone who automatically agrees with everything the authority says and does. Cracked illustrated this concept quite well.P.S. The question in bold is a direct question and I expect an answer as per forum rules.
|
|
|
Post by aboveathletics on Dec 18, 2010 22:24:51 GMT -5
No, it's not the same thing, but it creates a certain amount of unwarranted sympathy for these monsters. No it doesn't. Only listening to one side of the story creates unwarranted sympathy for one side and unwarranted animosity towards the other. YOU are guilty of this. Wanting to hear both sides before making up your mind is how you get an even and unbiased viewpoint. Yes. That's what a trial is for. Or are you suggesting that we convict people based solely on the word of the arresting officers without hearing the accused's side of the story?Bullshit. That's a strawman and you know it. We criticize the government all the time. This thread is next door neighbor to several threads criticizing actions of the government, as well as threads praising actions of the government. We praise the government when it deserves it and criticize the government when it deserves it. But first we want the whole story. YOU are the one with a dogmatic viewpoint ruled by an outside authority. Being opposed to everything the authority says and does, you are no less a slave to it's will than someone who automatically agrees with everything the authority says and does. Cracked illustrated this concept quite well.P.S. The question in bold is a direct question and I expect an answer as per forum rules. We're talking about a court of public opinion, not a court of law. If they were actually on trial (which will never happen), then of course they should be able to defend themselves. However, I can't imagine what they could possibly say to justify it and the "let's hear what they have to say" sounded very much like the cry of the brutality apologist. As to the whole who is more religious thing, you belong to a specific sect of the government religion, namely the Church of Liberalism. Just like RR criticizes Catholics, you criticize devotees of competing government cults such as the Tea Party. And I'm not really much of a non-conformist, or an anarchist in any sense of the word. I'm also not blindly anti-authority. I deeply respect people like Thomas Jefferson and Ron/Rand Paul who were or are in high positions of power and do good things with them. I also deeply respect cops who have the courage to belong to the Oath Keepers.
|
|