There's no shortage of asshole cops or criminal cops - lowing can't seem to grasp it.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
It really is simple, I do not condone the actions of the cop, at the same time I couldn't care less if a criminal gets beat up or killed or both while engaging in criminal behavior, however it may happen. They are 2 separate issues. That criminal coulda got ran over by the ice cream truck for all I would care. He coulda slipped and fell on his gun or knife for all I would care, he coulda tried to hide out in a country bar and got ass raped in the back room for all I would care. They are 2 separate issues. The cops were wrong in their actions, and will be punished for it, however I have no problem watching that criminal get his ass whipped.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
what's weird to me is that you have no problem calling the dude getting beat up a criminal but you don't view the cops using excessive force as a criminal act. This idea of vigilante justice is clearly against the whole concept of a civilized justice system yet you seem to have no qualms about it, in fact champion it. I guess it's just so against my worldview that I cannot even wrap my head around the logic behind the argument.lowing wrote:
one issue, if a criminal gets beat or killed. don't careDilbert_X wrote:
So on balance Police beating a suspect is not a good thing - glad we got there.
the other issue, paying the criminal for it. sucks ass.
If that cop car woulda just smashed his worthless ass into that fence we wouldn't need to be discussing it.
and there are no shortages of asshole criminals that need their asses whipped.Dilbert_X wrote:
There's no shortage of asshole cops or criminal cops - lowing can't seem to grasp it.
Then get a court of law to convict them.lowing wrote:
and there are no shortages of asshole criminals that need their asses whipped.Dilbert_X wrote:
There's no shortage of asshole cops or criminal cops - lowing can't seem to grasp it.
Whopping their assess before a trial can jeopardize that trial - and turn them into the victim.
again that is a separate issue to what my opinion is on all the possibilities that can happen to a criminal while committing his crime. Basically if anything bad is gunna happen, 100% of the time I support it happening to a criminal. How does that not make sense?AussieReaper wrote:
Then get a court of law to convict them.lowing wrote:
and there are no shortages of asshole criminals that need their asses whipped.Dilbert_X wrote:
There's no shortage of asshole cops or criminal cops - lowing can't seem to grasp it.
Whopping their assess before a trial can jeopardize that trial - and turn them into the victim.
Last edited by lowing (2011-02-09 16:50:03)
so you wouldn't have a problem if a bunch of street thugs then beat the shit out of the cops for acting like criminals? Eye for an eye?lowing wrote:
It really is simple, I do not condone the actions of the cop, at the same time I couldn't care less if a criminal gets beat up or killed or both while engaging in criminal behavior, however it may happen. They are 2 separate issues. That criminal coulda got ran over by the ice cream truck for all I would care. He coulda slipped and fell on his gun or knife for all I would care, he coulda tried to hide out in a country bar and got ass raped in the back room for all I would care. They are 2 separate issues. The cops were wrong in their actions, and will be punished for it, however I have no problem watching that criminal get his ass whipped.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
what's weird to me is that you have no problem calling the dude getting beat up a criminal but you don't view the cops using excessive force as a criminal act. This idea of vigilante justice is clearly against the whole concept of a civilized justice system yet you seem to have no qualms about it, in fact champion it. I guess it's just so against my worldview that I cannot even wrap my head around the logic behind the argument.lowing wrote:
one issue, if a criminal gets beat or killed. don't care
the other issue, paying the criminal for it. sucks ass.
If that cop car woulda just smashed his worthless ass into that fence we wouldn't need to be discussing it.
ain't we kinda gettin a little carried away now? However, if that were to happen, I would be rooting for the cops.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
so you wouldn't have a problem if a bunch of street thugs then beat the shit out of the cops for acting like criminals? Eye for an eye?lowing wrote:
It really is simple, I do not condone the actions of the cop, at the same time I couldn't care less if a criminal gets beat up or killed or both while engaging in criminal behavior, however it may happen. They are 2 separate issues. That criminal coulda got ran over by the ice cream truck for all I would care. He coulda slipped and fell on his gun or knife for all I would care, he coulda tried to hide out in a country bar and got ass raped in the back room for all I would care. They are 2 separate issues. The cops were wrong in their actions, and will be punished for it, however I have no problem watching that criminal get his ass whipped.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
what's weird to me is that you have no problem calling the dude getting beat up a criminal but you don't view the cops using excessive force as a criminal act. This idea of vigilante justice is clearly against the whole concept of a civilized justice system yet you seem to have no qualms about it, in fact champion it. I guess it's just so against my worldview that I cannot even wrap my head around the logic behind the argument.
I saw 6 criminals in that video Lowing, only 1 got beat up.
DrunkFace wrote:
I saw 6 criminals in that video Lowing, only 1 got beat up.
Police are basically unaccountable for their actions they like to go around shooting Brazilians on the tube for fun.
... yes.lowing wrote:
Did you really cut off my entire sentence, quote me, and purposely take it out of context to try and prove a point? Did you really just do that?mcminty wrote:
lowing wrote:
strictly going on the assumption that cops don't really spend much time chasing down innocent.lowing wrote:
innocent men go to jail....ya it happens... just because you are found guilty doesn't necessarily mean you did do it.
yes and only one victimized an innocent person. THAT is the guy I couldn't care less about.DrunkFace wrote:
I saw 6 criminals in that video Lowing, only 1 got beat up.
your tactics are questionable, but I can not deny your honesty, which puts you one up on most in this forum. +1mcminty wrote:
... yes.lowing wrote:
Did you really cut off my entire sentence, quote me, and purposely take it out of context to try and prove a point? Did you really just do that?mcminty wrote:
lowing wrote:
strictly going on the assumption that cops don't really spend much time chasing down innocent.
Why? In that case the police would be criminals and the public would have the right to kick the shit out of them - assuming the police have the right to kick the shit out of members of the public they deem to be criminals.lowing wrote:
ain't we kinda gettin a little carried away now? However, if that were to happen, I would be rooting for the cops.
Why is it you think wearing a badge should give people rights over others, and a greater presumption of innocence or honesty?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
because we don't have an epidemic of cops harassing innocent people Dilbert. and I don't give a fuck if a criminal gets "harassed".Dilbert_X wrote:
Why? In that case the police would be criminals and the public would have the right to kick the shit out of them - assuming the police have the right to kick the shit out of members of the public they deem to be criminals.lowing wrote:
ain't we kinda gettin a little carried away now? However, if that were to happen, I would be rooting for the cops.
Why is it you think wearing a badge should give people rights over others, and a greater presumption of innocence or honesty?
You are trying to mesh 2 separate issues into 1 and that isn't going to fly. I already told you you are 100% correct, the cops are guilty. Issue closed.
I also said I do not give a fuck what happens to criminals in their attempts to harm others. be it by victim, cop anvil falling on their head, or hit with a wrecking ball. I don't care and in fact I applaud it.
So you'd be happy if a guy was hit and killed my a cop-car chasing him, but then later on found out to be completely innocent?
You're assuming the Police can tell criminals from non-criminals - they can't, its not their job.lowing wrote:
because we don't have an epidemic of cops harassing innocent people Dilbert. and I don't give a fuck if a criminal gets "harassed".
Even if it were beatings aren't part of the criminal justice system - much as you'd like them to be.
From what I've seen of many police they don't treat the public with the repect they deserve, do you give a fuck if an innocent member of the public gets, "harassed" beaten or killed?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
never saw an innocent person running from the cops....Why would they?FFLink wrote:
So you'd be happy if a guy was hit and killed my a cop-car chasing him, but then later on found out to be completely innocent?
Aussie, for us to continue you really need to accept the fact that I never condoned police brutality. After that, we can continue with some sort of clarity to this discussion.Dilbert_X wrote:
You're assuming the Police can tell criminals from non-criminals - they can't, its not their job.lowing wrote:
because we don't have an epidemic of cops harassing innocent people Dilbert. and I don't give a fuck if a criminal gets "harassed".
Even if it were beatings aren't part of the criminal justice system - much as you'd like them to be.
From what I've seen of many police they don't treat the public with the repect they deserve, do you give a fuck if an innocent member of the public gets, "harassed" beaten or killed?
Last time, I do not condone police brutality, however, if a criminal gets his ass whipped, killed, maimed whatever, I don't give a shit. I can think of no better outcome for criminal activity than a criminal winding up being the one hurt or killed.
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Professional eyes are being judged by other professional eyes for unprofessional crimes. Professionality was already out the window. This shit was committed in public view, so I'd say they forfeited their right to privacy by default. By NOT showing the tape, people would suspect even more and start inventing their own exaggerated scenarios of the noble bandit and an entire police force full of corrupt thugs.
It's simply having respect for the judicial system, allowing them to work on a case without all sorts of (unnecessary) outside interference and pressure on either the jury or judge. The public at large has nothing to do with this. Besides, while I don't know much about how US law works, I'm pretty sure that (video)evidence provided in a criminal trial is usually made public AFTER the case is closed for obvious reasons.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
What do you mean you don't see it? Are you possessed of some sort of clairvoyance in knowing when people are thinking of committing a crime, but suddenly decide not to because of some deterrence factor?
The police department was already cast in a horrible light by keeping that under wraps as long as it did. One way or the other, it needed to get out, and soon.
This wasn't just a case of one cop tazing someone for being mouthy in a traffic stop. This was a group of the guys beating the crap of a guy already on the ground with his hands clearly visible while other guys ignored it.
You know, it sets the department in a bad light mainly because the case isn't done yet. In the public eye this makes it seem as though this sort of behaviour is condoned with the police dep. statement being that they already took 'disciplinary action'.
This was wholly unnecessary.
inane little opines
Yes you did, don't lie when the evidence is plain for all to see.lowing wrote:
Aussie, for us to continue you really need to accept the fact that I never condoned police brutality.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/condonelowing wrote:
one issue, if a criminal gets beat or killed. don't care
If that cop car woulda just smashed his worthless ass into that fence we wouldn't need to be discussing it.
It's like you're deliberately stupid, or the best troll on this forum. I can't decide which.
Last edited by Jaekus (2011-02-10 06:20:10)
I have the same opinion as lowing on this one.DrunkFace wrote:
I saw 6 criminals in that video Lowing, only 1 got beat up.
But in response to your comment, you saw six alleged criminals in the video. It works both ways...running from the cops indicates a possible crime has been broken, beating a suspect indicates a possible crime has been broken.
How is it that we can automatically convict the cops, but when you use the same logic (possible criminal activity is evident but not conclusive as not all the facts are present) with the guy who got beat up it fails?
because you can fucking see the cops beating that guy up
It's right there in a video in the OP
It's right there in a video in the OP
Because the cops do not need to beat up one person. Their job is to apprehend a suspect with REASONABLE force, and bring them into custody. He wasn't resisting arrest, he was allowing himself to be arrested. Even when handcuffed he is still beaten.
Whether or not he broke the law is not the point. The fact is the cops then broke their civic duty to uphold the law by then breaking it themselves. Otherwise the four officers would not have been charged, would they?
Whether or not he broke the law is not the point. The fact is the cops then broke their civic duty to uphold the law by then breaking it themselves. Otherwise the four officers would not have been charged, would they?
Pug wrote:
I have the same opinion as lowing on this one.DrunkFace wrote:
I saw 6 criminals in that video Lowing, only 1 got beat up.
But in response to your comment, you saw six alleged criminals in the video. It works both ways...running from the cops indicates a possible crime has been broken, beating a suspect indicates a possible crime has been broken.
How is it that we can automatically convict the cops, but when you use the same logic (possible criminal activity is evident but not conclusive as not all the facts are present) with the guy who got beat up it fails?
He's right you know.lowing wrote:
a criminal is a criminal when he commits a crime. Not getting caught does not make you innocent.