Political Crossfire Forums

[perdidochas]

micfranklin wrote: The Comrade wrote: micfranklin wrote:
But they didn't have to taser him multiple times, according to the article.


if he wasn't neutralized the first time they would have to do it again.

Did I not say that doing that multiple times could kill him?

But it didn't.

[Random Evil Guy]

there are a lot of near sociapath members of the police force. they are drawn to the power and the almost carte blanche to bully people around. fascist F**K**...

[JohnnyQ]

The Comrade wrote: yanniv wrote:

You can act as a smart ass if you please. The cops still have no right.

You can act superior to an officer if you want to. We the People put that officer there to begin with. We the People have a right not to show ID.

if a cop asks for your ID and you're on private property after hours, you do not have the right to become combative with the cop. this false delusion of yours goes to show how out of touch americans are with the law.

yanniv wrote: What the cops did was absolutely disgusting and pissed me the f**k off.

they tasered a combative person who had no ID, and was trespassing on private property. the person chose the hard way, and the police made the right decision.

UCLA is private property? I don't think so. Last I checked, UCLA was a public school.

The cops have no right to taser the kid. The kid wasn't combative, don't kid yourself.

Police made the wrong decision to taser him multiple times. This isn't a case of security, but rather a power trip from racist cops.

[perdidochas]

yanniv wrote: The Comrade wrote: yanniv wrote:

You can act as a smart ass if you please. The cops still have no right.

You can act superior to an officer if you want to. We the People put that officer there to begin with. We the People have a right not to show ID.

if a cop asks for your ID and you're on private property after hours, you do not have the right to become combative with the cop. this false delusion of yours goes to show how out of touch americans are with the law.

yanniv wrote: What the cops did was absolutely disgusting and pissed me the f**k off.

they tasered a combative person who had no ID, and was trespassing on private property. the person chose the hard way, and the police made the right decision.

UCLA is private property? I don't think so. Last I checked, UCLA was a public school.

But the campus can have restrictions. A federal courthouse is also public, but it has restrictions. A longtime campus rule (from the news article I've read about it) is that the library closes to non-students at 11 pm. The only way to prove you are a student is student ID.

yanniv wrote: The cops have no right to taser the kid. The kid wasn't combative, don't kid yourself.

Of course he was. Cops don't want to fight people if they can get out of it. Everything I've read says that the kid (actually a 23 yr old man) was verbally abusive (i.e. using major profanity). I define that as combative.

yanniv wrote: Police made the wrong decision to taser him multiple times. This isn't a case of security, but rather a power trip from racist cops.

No, it was a case of an out of control person not abiding by simple rules, that are clearly there for public safety. University libraries need to have some control of the people inside them.

[The Grandmaster]

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote:
Not really. Shooting him in the head would have been the "safest" choice. Then he would have been no threat whatsoever. I've never in my life seen a cop use a tazer. But I've seen hundreds arrested. If it's good enough for the hundreds of other identical scenarios, there is no reason it wouldn't be good enough for this one.

you've seen hundreds of cases exactly the same as this?

I haven't seen hundreds of people arrested in a library. But I've seen many, many people arrested. I don't know how many. I would estimate around a 100 perhaps, who knows. The point is the same, they were arresting someone for breaking the law, in a position where they did not know how much of a threat the person was. And in each case, they never had to use the tazer. It was a power trip.

The Comrade wrote: i'm calling bulls**t on that one.

Now since I explained it, you no longer have to call BS.

The Comrade wrote: [secondly, those officers you claim to have seen took a risk. these officers didn't. it's simple grandmaster.

Part of being a cop is taking risks. Don't choose to be a cop of you can't handle risk. No one said being a cop was easy. That's part of it. Remember how much so many people want laws to protect us from ourselves? Part of a cop's job is to restrain a suspect with as little damage as possible to the suspect. Otherwise they could just beat him at will, but they cannot. In this case, they blew it out of proportion.

Remember Rodney King? He broke the law. Hell, they didn't know how dangerous he was. I suppose that was justified as well.

[micfranklin]

The Grandmaster wrote: The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote:

I don't know, in the majority of times the cops put them on the ground and cuff them. It gets the job done just as well, so obviously it works, and the taser wasn't needed, unless this guy was some 400 pound musclebound monster.

the kid had no ID and there was no way to prove he wasn't dangerous. the cops made the safest choice.

Not really. Shooting him in the head would have been the "safest" choice. Then he would have been no threat whatsoever. I've never in my life seen a cop use a tazer. But I've seen hundreds arrested. If it's good enough for the hundreds of other identical scenarios, there is no reason it wouldn't be good enough for this one.

I'm gonna have to side with GM on this one, and once again because I don't think it was that serious that they had to taser the guy.

[wyldejackyl]

Yep, they dug their own hole with the use of weapons when they needed none. Remember, the police are supposedly trained better than your average criminal. :roll:

[The Comrade]

yanniv wrote:

UCLA is private property? I don't think so. Last I checked, UCLA was a public school.

ooh caught on a technicality. such an earth shattering premise for you.

let me amend what i said previously. he was in an area that he wasn't supposed to be in, especially with his no ID.

yanniv wrote: The cops have no right to taser the kid. The kid wasn't combative, don't kid yourself.

resisting the police and screaming at the cops is combative.

yanniv wrote: Police made the wrong decision to taser him multiple times. This isn't a case of security, but rather a power trip from racist cops.

they're racist now?


oh man. call the race card when you have no logical conclusion.

[The Comrade]

The Grandmaster wrote:

I haven't seen hundreds of people arrested in a library. But I've seen many, many people arrested. I don't know how many. I would estimate around a 100 perhaps, who knows. The point is the same, they were arresting someone for breaking the law, in a position where they did not know how much of a threat the person was. And in each case, they never had to use the tazer. It was a power trip.

the officers made a decision based upon the circumstances at the time.

and how do you know it was a power trip? maybe they were scared? maybe he made a threat that wasn't reported? maybe he madea threatening gesture?

you don't know the circumstances grandmaster. what you do know is that the kid, who had no ID at the time, became combative. as an officer you make the decision to possibly risk you, or risk no one. in this case they chose no.

don't bring up the technicality that tazers can kill. i know they do. but it's such a small number compared to the safe uses that it;s irrelevant.


The Grandmaster wrote: Part of being a cop is taking risks.

that doesn't mean you take as many as possible when you can avoid one.

with that said the rest of your post is irrelevant.


The Grandmaster wrote: Remember Rodney King? He broke the law. Hell, they didn't know how dangerous he was. I suppose that was justified as well.


different case, different circumstances, different cops, different suspect.

[wyldejackyl]

He couldn't be at the library? Sure he could. They asked him for ID, and he refused to show it. that's hardly "resisting the police". Screaming at the cops is just that - screaming. I've yelled at my wife before during arguments, and her me. Do we shoot each other with tazers just in case? No!

I don't think the race card is applicable, but I think it's yet another example of cops getting power hungry. If I was in his position, I wouldn't show ID either. I'd just leave and tell them to go f**k themselves. I've had cops stop me and interrogate me on the street for no reason. "I need to see some ID."
"You don't need s**t. What do you want?"
"I need to see your ID."
"Well, I don't carry a walking license. Am I being detained or arrested for something? And if so, what is it?"
"You're not being detained, I just need to see some ID."
"Well, then you have a good evening officer, I'm leaving."

That's all you need to do to them. They don't like it, but bottom line they can't taze you over not showing ID. A tazer is a weapon. Police are allowed one escalation per confrontation, last I looked. So if he comes at you with a fist, you can use an impact weapon or pepper spray. He comes at you with an impact weapon or something sharp and you can use a firearm or a tazer. The only thing is..usually you brandish it first and avoid using it. These people sound like they got tired of him yelling at them, so they zapped his ass. Sounds kinda cool in a Texan sort of way..but other than that, it's wrong.

EDIT: Mr. Comrade, you discussed taking risks. Well, what risk were they taking in trying to arrest this man? He's unarmed. Threatening gesture? Like what..the finger? Keep in mind unless they see otherwise, they have no reason to suspect he's armed. They are, and they outnumber him. What's the risk at trying to restrain him? Woulda shoulda coulda..at the end of the day he got zapped and he didn't need to be. All over this insane obsession with "security" that every numbnuts cop/security officer/government has nowadays. If they are that worried, they can have someone swipe their ID in at the door at all hours, and record guests in a logbook at the front desk. Bam, common sense strikes again!

[JohnnyQ]

The Comrade wrote: yanniv wrote:

UCLA is private property? I don't think so. Last I checked, UCLA was a public school.

ooh caught on a technicality. such an earth shattering premise for you.

let me amend what i said previously. he was in an area that he wasn't supposed to be in, especially with his no ID.

yanniv wrote: The cops have no right to taser the kid. The kid wasn't combative, don't kid yourself.

resisting the police and screaming at the cops is combative.

yanniv wrote: Police made the wrong decision to taser him multiple times. This isn't a case of security, but rather a power trip from racist cops.

they're racist now?


oh man. call the race card when you have no logical conclusion.

I'm not all that technical, but I do like some better detail than just some broad claims.

You can scream at a cop if you want. There is no law that says otherwise. He has a freedom of speech and can do as he pleases, say as he pleases as long as it isn't harming anyone.

I believe their racist as the LAPD has a history. That is my opinion though and conclusion I have come to from reading the report. We can still have opinions right?

Still, what the cops did was clear abuse. They could of just arrested him and moved him out. Anyone who sees this as well deserved for the victim should honestly check themselves.

[The Grandmaster]

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote:
I haven't seen hundreds of people arrested in a library. But I've seen many, many people arrested. I don't know how many. I would estimate around a 100 perhaps, who knows. The point is the same, they were arresting someone for breaking the law, in a position where they did not know how much of a threat the person was. And in each case, they never had to use the tazer. It was a power trip.

the officers made a decision based upon the circumstances at the time.

Clearly, and a ridiculous one.

The Comrade wrote: and how do you know it was a power trip? maybe they were scared?

Then it seems they are not very good cops. If other cops can subdue wild maniacs larger then them, who are actually physically violent, without getting scared enough to go immediately for the tazer, that doesn’t say a whole lot about these cops.

The Comrade wrote: maybe he made a threat that wasn't reported? maybe he madea threatening gesture?

Unless his threatening gesture was getting brandishing some sort of weapon outright, this was unneeded. No mere "gesture" warrents a tazering. Unless we're going to be tazered now for the middle finger, or something of this nature.

The Comrade wrote: you don't know the circumstances grandmaster.

I know the circumstances as well as you, as I have the same information available. If there is enough information to warrant you having an opinion on the matter, there is enough for others as well.

The Comrade wrote: what you do know is that the kid, who had no ID at the time, became combative. as an officer you make the decision to possibly risk you, or risk no one. in this case they chose no.

You made the decision to risk your life as soon as you became a cop. That is the very nature of the job. One cannot justify one doing one’s job poorly because doing it right puts them “at risk.” They do not need to be cops if they cannot handle the pressure of these situations of a daily basis. And as I’ve said before, in countless other cases, in which the fundamental elements are the same, a tazer was not needed. Why? Because the competent cops were able to subdue the suspect safely without need for such drastic measures.

Besides. I would say it is far more dangerous to be shooting live electrical wires around inside of a room with other people in it than it is to put a suspect down and cuff him anyway, so even the argument from safetly doesn't hold up.

The Comrade wrote: don't bring up the technicality that tazers can kill.

You might have be confused with someone else.

The Comrade wrote: i know they do. but it's such a small number compared to the safe uses that it;s irrelevant.

So by your own admission, you say the cops used a potentially lethal method of subduing the suspect, in the absese of a method with is never lethal, and try to call it "safer." What could you possibly be thinking? :wink:

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: Part of being a cop is taking risks.

that doesn't mean you take as many as possible when you can avoid one.

Actually it does. Otherwise, by extension, every suspect would be immediately shot, as it would eliminate all risk. Since this isn't the case, we can conclude that in virtually all cases, a cop assumes some risk when it can actually be avoided.

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: Remember Rodney King? He broke the law. Hell, they didn't know how dangerous he was. I suppose that was justified as well.


different case, different circumstances, different cops, different suspect.

Today is your lucky day. I'm going to personally give you a lesson. It's called the argument from analogy. I'm going to teach you because you have been nice to me.

Here is a 27 page paper on the subject.
http://www.cs.hut.fi/Opinnot/T-93.850/2005/Papers/juthe2005-analogy.pdf
Here is a shorter explaination.
http://www.radford.edu/~kzanelott2/analogy.htm

Basically, an argument from analogy is an argument that Examines two elements together, and concludes that if the elements are fundamentally the same, that is, in all the ways that matter and all the ways that make the elements what they are, despite minor differences in the two that does not have an important bearing, each situation should be treated the same.

For example, the common introductory example when learning about the argument from analogy is that of the dangerous intersection. Suppose there is a town council meeting. There is an intersection at 10th and Main. This intersection is not regulated, has no stop lights, and only one stop sign. There have been multiple wrecks at this intersection. It is voted, that a stop light be put in here. This would solve the problem.

But there is also an intersection downtown at 15th and Earl. Here, there are also wrecks, at this additional unregulated intersection. They discuss putting a light here too. But Comrade is at the town meeting, and says “But the intersections are at different locations. They are different streets, different locations, different people driving on them, and different circumstances, we should treat them differently.”

But this argument is unconvincing. Why? Because the differences are trivial. The fundamental elements are the same. The reasons to treat them differently are not valid reasons. They should be treated the same because, each one is a dangerous intersection, each one is unregulated, and each one is in need.

In our case, each example is a case where the fundamental elements are as follows:
1) A unruly suspect
2) Cops have no knowledge of his threat of ability
3) Suspect as broken the law.

If we are to determine that one case is wrong, for example, the Rodney King one, then by analogy, it doesn’t make sense that the library case is “right.” Both demonstrate examples of over the limit force. Both were not needed.

Analogy also comes into play when we examine all the arrests made without the tazer. We can compare this to all the scenarios were the fundamental elements were the same, yet the cops did not need the use of a weapon such as this, for subduing him and cuffing the suspect was effective. Their was no reason, no overwhelmingly different element of this circumstance that made this situation any different. And so we can justifiably assume this amount of force was not necessary.

In all seriousness, I am happy to teach you anything else you'd like to know. Just ask.

[The Comrade]

wyldejackyl wrote: He couldn't be at the library? Sure he could. They asked him for ID, and he refused to show it. that's hardly "resisting the police". Screaming at the cops is just that - screaming. I've yelled at my wife before during arguments, and her me. Do we shoot each other with tazers just in case? No!

The library was closed.

wyldejackyl wrote: I don't think the race card is applicable, but I think it's yet another example of cops getting power hungry. If I was in his position, I wouldn't show ID either. I'd just leave and tell them to go f**k themselves. I've had cops stop me and interrogate me on the street for no reason. "I need to see some ID."
"You don't need s**t. What do you want?"
"I need to see your ID."
"Well, I don't carry a walking license. Am I being detained or arrested for something? And if so, what is it?"
"You're not being detained, I just need to see some ID."
"Well, then you have a good evening officer, I'm leaving."

you could match the description of a criminal. someone might have said you did something. etc etc etc. there are multiple reasons why they might ask you for ID.

wyldejackyl wrote: EDIT: Mr. Comrade, you discussed taking risks. Well, what risk were they taking in trying to arrest this man?

no ID in a place after hours and you start screaming at the police.

if you tell me that you wouldn't feel threatened, or even suspicious by this person you're lying.


wyldejackyl wrote: He's unarmed.

unkown at the time.


wyldejackyl wrote: Threatening gesture? Like what..the finger?

unkown at this time.


.

[The Comrade]

yanniv wrote:
I'm not all that technical, but I do like some better detail than just some broad claims.

You can scream at a cop if you want. There is no law that says otherwise. He has a freedom of speech and can do as he pleases, say as he pleases as long as it isn't harming anyone.

screaming at a cop while resisting arrest after not showing ID in a building that is closed is not a right you have.


yanniv wrote: I believe their racist as the LAPD has a history. That is my opinion though and conclusion I have come to from reading the report. We can still have opinions right?

are all southerners red necks? all british have bad teeth?

i mean there have been a few media hyped cases of both, so that makes them both true, right?

yanniv wrote: Still, what the cops did was clear abuse. They could of just arrested him and moved him out. Anyone who sees this as well deserved for the victim should honestly check themselves.

and what if they tried that and he just pulled a gun and shot?

you have no idea that the kid wasn't armed. stop using hindsight to argue the point of view of the officers.

[wyldejackyl]

Um..I didn't write that stuff in the last post..
EDIT: No harm done. ;) Thanks for the fix.

[The Comrade]

The Grandmaster wrote:

Clearly, and a ridiculous one.

you can't argue the point of view of the officers using hindsight.

The Grandmaster wrote: Then it seems they are not very good cops. If other cops can subdue wild maniacs larger then them, who are actually physically violent, without getting scared enough to go immediately for the tazer, that doesn’t say a whole lot about these cops.

you weren't there, you don't know.

The Grandmaster wrote: Unless his threatening gesture was getting brandishing some sort of weapon outright, this was unneeded. No mere "gesture" warrents a tazering. Unless we're going to be tazered now for the middle finger, or something of this nature.

a threatening gesture like lunging at a cop, throwing a punch, whatever.

would you put yourself in harms with with an unkown suspect who may or may not be armed?

or would you use a non lethal device to neutralize him?


better yet **** could not be in places after hours.
The Grandmaster wrote: I know the circumstances as well as you, as I have the same information available. If there is enough information to warrant you having an opinion on the matter, there is enough for others as well.

you're using hindsight though, which you can't when arguing the the point of view of the officers.


The Grandmaster wrote: You made the decision to risk your life as soon as you became a cop. That is the very nature of the job. One cannot justify one doing one’s job poorly because doing it right puts them “at risk.” They do not need to be cops if they cannot handle the pressure of these situations of a daily basis. And as I’ve said before, in countless other cases, in which the fundamental elements are the same, a tazer was not needed. Why? Because the competent cops were able to subdue the suspect safely without need for such drastic measures.

they didn't know if he was armed or not. they didn't know who he was. he starts yelling at the police and won't cooperate. they used the tazer to neutralize him.
i find nothing wrong with it. apparently you do, because a cop is only a cop if he takes the most dangerous position on every occasion.


The Grandmaster wrote: Besides. I would say it is far more dangerous to be shooting live electrical wires around inside of a room with other people in it than it is to put a suspect down and cuff him anyway, so even the argument from safetly doesn't hold up.

those wires that are non lethal?



The Grandmaster wrote: So by your own admission, you say the cops used a potentially lethal method of subduing the suspect, in the absese of a method with is never lethal, and try to call it "safer."

you know how cops subdue people? they tackle them. what if that person hit his head and died?

oh noes potentially lethal!


The Grandmaster wrote: Actually it does.

there's a cop that lives next door to me and he would laugh at this. him and his entire department.

The Grandmaster wrote: Otherwise, by extension, every suspect would be immediately shot, as it would eliminate all risk. Since this isn't the case, we can conclude that in virtually all cases, a cop assumes some risk when it can actually be avoided.

dumb hyperbole.

The Grandmaster wrote: Today is your lucky day. I'm going to personally give you a lesson. It's called the argument from analogy. I'm going to teach you because you have been nice to me.

Here is a 27 page paper on the subject.
http://www.cs.hut.fi/Opinnot/T-93.850/2005/Papers/juthe2005-analogy.pdf
Here is a shorter explaination.
http://www.radford.edu/~kzanelott2/analogy.htm

Basically, an argument from analogy is an argument that Examines two elements together, and concludes that if the elements are fundamentally the same, that is, in all the ways that matter and all the ways that make the elements what they are, despite minor differences in the two that does not have an important bearing, each situation should be treated the same.

For example, the common introductory example when learning about the argument from analogy is that of the dangerous intersection. Suppose there is a town council meeting. There is an intersection at 10th and Main. This intersection is not regulated, has no stop lights, and only one stop sign. There have been multiple wrecks at this intersection. It is voted, that a stop light be put in here. This would solve the problem.

But there is also an intersection downtown at 15th and Earl. Here, there are also wrecks, at this additional unregulated intersection. They discuss putting a light here too. But Comrade is at the town meeting, and says “But the intersections are at different locations. They are different streets, different locations, different people driving on them, and different circumstances, we should treat them differently.”

But this argument is unconvincing. Why? Because the differences are trivial. The fundamental elements are the same. The reasons to treat them differently are not valid reasons. They should be treated the same because, each one is a dangerous intersection, each one is unregulated, and each one is in need.

In our case, each example is a case where the fundamental elements are as follows:
1) A unruly suspect
2) Cops have no knowledge of his threat of ability
3) Suspect as broken the law.

If we are to determine that one case is wrong, for example, the Rodney King one, then by analogy, it doesn’t make sense that the library case is “right.” Both demonstrate examples of over the limit force. Both were not needed.

Analogy also comes into play when we examine all the arrests made without the tazer. We can compare this to all the scenarios were the fundamental elements were the same, yet the cops did not need the use of a weapon such as this, for subduing him and cuffing the suspect was effective. Their was no reason, no overwhelmingly different element of this circumstance that made this situation any different. And so we can justifiably assume this amount of force was not necessary.

In all seriousness, I am happy to teach you anything else you'd like to know. Just ask.


fundamental details don't make them the same.


here is the fundamental details of every single arrest
A) cop
B) suspect
C) illegal activity

it's the minor details that make circumstances different and make the points of view of officers differently.

[The Comrade]

wyldejackyl wrote: Um..I didn't write that stuff in the last post..


s**t...


i had your name copied for when i responded to you and i guess it didn't copy the other name either.

[JohnnyQ]

The Comrade wrote: yanniv wrote:
I'm not all that technical, but I do like some better detail than just some broad claims.

You can scream at a cop if you want. There is no law that says otherwise. He has a freedom of speech and can do as he pleases, say as he pleases as long as it isn't harming anyone.

screaming at a cop while resisting arrest after not showing ID in a building that is closed is not a right you have.



yanniv wrote: I believe their racist as the LAPD has a history. That is my opinion though and conclusion I have come to from reading the report. We can still have opinions right?

are all southerners red necks? all british have bad teeth?

i mean there have been a few media hyped cases of both, so that makes them both true, right?

yanniv wrote: Still, what the cops did was clear abuse. They could of just arrested him and moved him out. Anyone who sees this as well deserved for the victim should honestly check themselves.

and what if they tried that and he just pulled a gun and shot?

you have no idea that the kid wasn't armed. stop using hindsight to argue the point of view of the officers.

History and reading the report lead me to my conclusion. I may be wrong, but I'm willing to bet on it. All I'm going to really say is I wouldn't be surprised if some of those cops were racist.

You can scream all you want at a cop. Show me the law where you cannot scream at a cop. You are doing no harm to anyone. Remember, cops work for the people, not the other way around.
We all know kids who speak up against authority are all threatening. :roll:


Heh, we all know kids that are handcuffed can reach and grab a gun. :lol:


I'd say if a situation like that comes up and the kid doesn't comply just simply temporary arrest him and move him. Tell him why he was moved and move on with what you were doing. It's that simple.

Stop acting like this kid was a threat who refused to comply with officers. You trying to justify the use of brute force is just sickening.

[wyldejackyl]

Did you watch the video, Comrade?

"Stand up or you'll get tazed again."
They should know from training that victims of the tazer cannot control their muscles for at LEAST a minute after being used on them.

Did you seriously watch that video? Just listening to it, if I was a bystander, I would have taken the cops on myself and beat the life out of them myself. The student said he would leave, they didnt' even give him a chance..just keep zapping him, and telling him to stand up. That's like cracking you in the knees and telling you to do a tapdance.

If this s**t keeps happening, mark my words, there will be a backlash against law authority..and it won't be pretty. For the sake of the innocent, I hope one day an incident like this leads to a police massacre. How else will they listen?

WATCH THE VIDEO, Comrade, and tell me how much of a threat this guy is. It's 3 against 1. They keep telling him to "stand up" and he keeps saying he can't.

You know who I blame? the students that stood their watching. They should have beaten the hell out of those cops.

[thundertaker]

wyldejackyl wrote:

If this s**t keeps happening, mark my words, there will be a backlash against law authority..and it won't be pretty. For the sake of the innocent, I hope one day an incident like this leads to a police massacre. How else will they listen?

You want police officers to be murdered en masse because a few happen to be dicks?