|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 4:09 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| ChuckECheese wrote: |
Assuming that you have no common sense, I will explain. Acting like an idiot includes thousands of different things. Why don't you try avoid being handcuffed, jerking your body, avoid going to the direction that police want you to go, running away, etc. etc. and see if they won't kick your ass. |
Gee, sorry. I was overwhelmed by your technical jargon. 
Do you think the police should kick the ass of everyone who doesn't obey their orders, to the T? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| corroonb wrote: |
| Who we are is irrelevant, our arguments are the only things that should be examined, not our motives or our personalities. |
Wrong.
First of all, campus police, per policy, I presume, from my interpretation of the evidence as described above, may apply tasers to foce compliance when dealing with combative, noncompliant suspects such as our screamer here -- that is, the guy who started all of this when he almost certainly told campus security something along the lines of "f-off!" when they originally asked to see his ID, which, again, is what the University of California Regents, supported by the library and I wager student govt as well.
I see no issue at all when police apply tasers multiple times on a suspect who continues to defy instructions and refuse compliance in a tactical environment. Start complying = stop the tasers. Same goes for deadly force. I've attended several police tactical firearms courses. The rule is, if it is necessary to apply deadly force, you shoot until the suspect is down and "stopped," which is not one or two shots, but as many as it takes. It could be eight to ten or more shots, like one case study one course I took considered -- where several FBI agents learned this the hard way with respect to a couple of paramilitary-style bank robbers, Platt and Maddox, I believe, in South Florida in the 1980s. And, back to the case at hand, at what moment in the tape does your man unequivocably comply with the officers who are attempting to get him to leave the library?
Secondly, "who you are" is everything in matters like this. It shapes how you are inclined to consider the evidence. Did you read this from the limited perspective of one hostile press account and an unsatisfactory video and jump to the conclusion that this was -- not really sorry for this, Laogaiguk -- a "clear-cut" case of police brutality? Or would you rather lay back, give the police the benefit of the doubt for the moment, but demand to review all reports, all witness accounts -- including the campus security who originally dealt with him! -- and then measure all of this by the campus police's policies and procedures like I would?
In any case, "who you are" is so important that lawyers dismiss jurors like you all the time, especially if you are inherently hostile to the police and believe that they generally "lie." And there are several like that on this thread... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| corroonb wrote: |
| Who we are is irrelevant, our arguments are the only things that should be examined, not our motives or our personalities. |
Wrong.
First of all, campus police, per policy, I presume, from my interpretation of the evidence as described above, may apply tasers to foce compliance when dealing with combative, noncompliant suspects such as our screamer here -- that is, the guy who started all of this when he almost certainly told campus security something along the lines of "f-off!" when they originally asked to see his ID, which, again, is what the University of California Regents, supported by the library and I wager student govt as well.
I see no issue at all when police apply tasers multiple times on a suspect who continues to defy instructions and refuse compliance. Start complying = stop the tasers. And at what moment in the tape does your man unequivocably comply with the officers who are attempting to get him to leave the library?
Secondly, "who you are" is everything in matters like this. It shapes how you are inclined to consider the evidence. Did you read this from the limited perspective of one hostile press account and an unsatisfactory video and jump to the conclusion that this was -- not really sorry for this, Laogaiguk -- a "clear-cut" case of police brutality? Or would you rather lay back, give the police the benefit of the doubt for the moment, but demand to review all reports, all witness accounts -- including the campus security who originally dealt with him! -- and then measure all of this by the campus police's policies and procedures like I would?
In any case, "who you are" is so important that lawyers dismiss jurors like you all the time, especially if you are inherently hostile to the police and believe that they generally "lie." And there are several like that on this thread... |
Yes, but then there are arrogant posters like you who are consistently wrong about people. You labelled me as anti-American, anti-Establishment, an anarchist and someone who only posts "bad news" articles on this forum. I have proved every single one of those wrong. Who the hell knows what extremist group you will put me in next? Maybe the raving feminists out to destroy your concept of manhood. Better watch out, they are going to get you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Has anyone seen that video where a guy is pulled over for a speeding ticket, and the cop is as unemotional as a rock? The guy is cussing constantly and rips up his ticket. The cop, with no emotion, told him to pick it all up or face a ticket for littering. The guy never stops cussing and is pretty hard on (ripping up a ticket too is pretty big). That cop kept his cool and kept the situation under control. He sure didn't feel the need to taser him  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tasers are used to subdue a combative subject. From the evidence on the video, he was non-compliant - not combative.
The police used more force than was necessary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| corroonb wrote: |
| Who we are is irrelevant, our arguments are the only things that should be examined, not our motives or our personalities. |
Wrong.
First of all, campus police, per policy, I presume, from my interpretation of the evidence as described above, may apply tasers to foce compliance when dealing with combative, noncompliant suspects such as our screamer here -- that is, the guy who started all of this when he almost certainly told campus security something along the lines of "f-off!" when they originally asked to see his ID, which, again, is what the University of California Regents, supported by the library and I wager student govt as well.
I see no issue at all when police apply tasers multiple times on a suspect who continues to defy instructions and refuse compliance in a tactical environment. Start complying = stop the tasers. Same goes for deadly force. I've attended several police tactical firearms courses. The rule is, if it is necessary to apply deadly force, you shoot until the suspect is down and "stopped," which is not one or two shots, but as many as it takes. It could be eight to ten or more shots, like one case study one course I took considered -- where several FBI agents learned this the hard way with respect to a couple of paramilitary-style bank robbers, Platt and Maddox, I believe, in South Florida in the 1980s. And, back to the case at hand, at what moment in the tape does your man unequivocably comply with the officers who are attempting to get him to leave the library?
Secondly, "who you are" is everything in matters like this. It shapes how you are inclined to consider the evidence. Did you read this from the limited perspective of one hostile press account and an unsatisfactory video and jump to the conclusion that this was -- not really sorry for this, Laogaiguk -- a "clear-cut" case of police brutality? Or would you rather lay back, give the police the benefit of the doubt for the moment, but demand to review all reports, all witness accounts -- including the campus security who originally dealt with him! -- and then measure all of this by the campus police's policies and procedures like I would?
In any case, "who you are" is so important that lawyers dismiss jurors like you all the time, especially if you are inherently hostile to the police and believe that they generally "lie." And there are several like that on this thread... |
Read the manufacturers spec I posted a few back.
cbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The cops on scene should have taken the perp down forcibly and cuffed him. He should have been hogtied if necessary and put under control. The use of a nearly lethal weapon to subdue a perp of a non-violent offense is inexcusable.
The police introduced violence into a non-violent situation.
The police should never be the ones introducing violence.
cbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
| The cops on scene should have taken the perp down forcibly and cuffed him. |
| cbclark4 wrote: |
| He should have been hogtied if necessary and put under control. |
In other words, the cops should have beat the hell out of him, tied him up, and wrestled him all the way outside.
Then why did you say this? --->
| cbclark4 wrote: |
| The police introduced violence into a non-violent situation. |
Didn't you just say before that the police should have used violence to subdue the man? Last time I checked, forcing someone who was resisting to the ground to be hogtied was a pretty violent exchange.
| cbclark4 wrote: |
| The use of a nearly lethal weapon to subdue a perp of a non-violent offense is inexcusable. |
This is great spin...
Newsflash! "Nearly lethal" = NON-lethal. 
So, your post, if I understand it correctly, says that the cops should have violently subdued and hogtied this man rather than use a non-lethal weapon on him in order to subdue him.
Interesting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
| The cops on scene should have taken the perp down... |
"The perp"? Who are you -- Detective Starsky?
I have referred to him as "the suspect," as an imperfect descriptor only because I wanted to be sure my subjects were clear and because that is how officers refer to people they deal with ("complainants" "suspects" etc.). But I do not believe anyone has accused this "suspect" of actually perpetrating any crime. Rather, he simply violated campus library rules, (probably) responded with utter contempt to campus security, (probably) repeated that contempt with campus police arrived -- all of which would not be on the amatuer video, by the way -- and, finally, he refused to comply with police instructions and even showed signs of combativenes (screaming at the responding officers about the Patriot Act, for example).
And your advocacy of one form of violence over another is still violence. I wish you would make up your mind and take a consistent stand here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChuckECheese
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
| The cops on scene should have taken the perp down forcibly and cuffed him. |
This takes lots of ass kicking and choking (cop's knee pressing down on your neck) while being handcuffed on the ground.
If I had a choice, I prefer zapping than lots of ass kicking and choking.
But I'm smarter and have more common sense. I would just leave before the cops arrive or show my ID. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ChuckECheese wrote: |
| ...lots of ass kicking and choking. |
Just a point of clarification: police are not permitted to use choke-holds in California anymore. Many law-suits provide one of the clues as to why California POST-certified peace officers use tasers today... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChuckECheese
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| ChuckECheese wrote: |
| ...lots of ass kicking and choking. |
Just a point of clarification: police are not permitted to use choke-holds in California anymore. Many law-suits provide one of the clues as to why California POST-certified peace officers use tasers today... |
Not a choke-hold, but cop's knee pressing down on your neck while being handcuffed on the ground. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 2:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| corroonb wrote: |
| Who we are is irrelevant, our arguments are the only things that should be examined, not our motives or our personalities. |
Wrong.
First of all, campus police, per policy, I presume, from my interpretation of the evidence as described above, may apply tasers to foce compliance when dealing with combative, noncompliant suspects such as our screamer here -- |
If the UCLA police are anything like my school's police, they are there mostly for presence (and they had a lot of presence at my school) and quick first response. If any real trouble occurs, the Chicago cops are almost always called in, even though the university police have full police powers and most of the officers are off-duty or retired cops.
Let me quote from one particular file from their Internal Review Committee. A case that is similar to the one we are discussing, but with less severe actions by the officers. Please read the committee's "concerns and position." Which is pretty much in concordance with what the "anti-establishment" side has been saying.
http://oca.uchicago.edu/pdf/irc_annual_report.pdf
| Quote: |
CR 04-11-10
Case Summary:
The case concerns the November 2, 2004 encounter between UCPD officers and the complainant. The officers responded to a call regarding a �suspicious person� in the lobby of the Mott Building. During the encounter, the complainant�an African American University employee�alleged that the officers harassed him, made inappropriate comments to him, yanked
his arm, and handcuffed him.
Committee Concerns and Position:
The Committee believes the incident itself was handled less than optimally. The Committee believes the officers on-site during the initial contact with the complainant and those involved in the investigation at the UCPD Station had ample opportunity to de-escalate the situation, but this
opportunity was not taken. Verifying the complainant�s employment status, the Committee believes, could have been expedited. After learning the complainant was indeed an employee and once applicable information was received from the Chicago Police Department, the complainant should have been promptly released. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SuperFly
Joined: 09 Jul 2003
Location: In the doghouse
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Igoo!
abclocal.go.com/wjrt/story?section=local&id=4757721
| Quote: |
Man who was TASERed at council meeting speaks
Student says he didn't struggle, was exercising rights
WJRT By Terry Camp
SAGINAW (WJRT) - (11/13/06)--The man who was TASERed at last week's Saginaw City Council meeting says he never attacked anyone.
Charles Littleton says he was only standing up for his rights -- rights he says society continues to lose every day.
That is what got 22-year-old Littleton in trouble. He didn't obey a rule inside Saginaw City Council chambers. That rule is that all men must remove their hats.
"It means more than just a hat," Littleton said. "It's like my crown. It's like asking a king to remove his crown."
Littleton had his Los Angeles Dodgers hat on at last week's council meeting.
He was dragged out of the meeting after being TASERed following what was described as scuffle with police, but Littleton says it didn't happen that way.
"I never kicked, punched, swung or anything like that," he said. "They are making it seem like I attacked the officer, then had to be TASERed because I was attacking them. That's not true at all."
The Detroit-area resident and Saginaw Valley State University student has now been charged with two felonies and a misdemeanor because of the incident.
He was attending the meeting to get extra credit for an urban sociology class. He was unaware of the council rule, which calls for all men to remove their hats.
"It's not about them trying to bring order to a meeting because my hat -- not its shape, form or fashion -- disrupted the proceedings," he said.
"They just want to control us and tell us what we can or cannot do. I will not bow down and bow out and follow blindly."
Littleton says he believes the rule discriminates.
"A Jewish man -- would you ask me to remove my Yamika? A Kofee? A turban? Anything like that?" Littleton said.
"But I guess a Los Angeles Dodgers hat is not a religious symbol. That is secular. You respect religion but you don't respect this."
Littleton plans on going to the Saginaw County Courthouse this week to be arraigned on the charges. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 2:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Great video find.
I'd agree that in the end.. way too much tasering occurred.
But at the beginning.. when the guy was just being a non-compliant asshole.. i couldn't help but think 'very spoiled kid turned adult' over and over in my mind. 99.99% of the population would have just left the library when asked to leave the library.
i actually enjoyed the first taser or two.. but it got excessive.. and like others mentioned.. if you've been tasered a couple times.. probably not so easy to just walk away (like what he was originally suppose to do). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
