NationStates Jolt Archive

Shit man I never claimed that it was, just 'they do that when searching you'

Good point. That clarifies the situation a little bit. I would not be surprised to find that the police officers engaged in standard, but not legal, behaviour when they partially stripped her.

..so we have a crew of people filming back. Boy does it ever piss the cops off.
Sure does! *simles happily*

So then there's a lot of over-reacting involved in that claim, you would say?

On that note, did the woman herself claim prejudice?

I'd say so, my first thought upon seeing her wouldn't be that she's black. Hell I had a friend in school who was darker than that and he just looks like he's got a good tan.

Don't want to get beaten down?

Don't break the fu**ing law.

Simple.

Mwhahaha yeah ohh gosh, that's pricless.

Anywho, break's ending. Sorry about not providing an arguement when I entered, but it was nice anyways. Take care!

And please, stay away from the peanut butter.

There doesn't need to be racial motivation. She could be white and it would still be fucking absurd. I hope this guy loses his badge and everything he owns in a civil trial over this.

Don't see it happening really, our cops look after eash other and sometimes using force is necessary.

Since when did they have badges,or anything worth taking?

True, though I haven't seen the footage, I've read that the officer punched her in the arm to give her a dead arm. Unfortunately, that's about the most I got, so could you explain to me what the officer did just to paint me a better picture?

well what i got from the footage, which was not mentioned in the article, was that instead of them both falling down the stairs at the start, the woman was in fact propelled down the stairs closely followed by the police officer who then obviously overbalanced and fell on her. the next thing that is shown is three policemen crouching around an immobile figure lying on the floor while one of them punches the figure very hard.
i agree with kadgar that the editing between first being pinned to the ground and then bing punched is suspect and may hide any struggling she did do while on the ground. but then there is also the fact that she claims to be epileptic ehich would go some way to explaining reports of her struggle, and it doesn't change the fact that the punching was done when she was no longer moving.

Hence the need for an investigation. Can you at least agree on that point?

Sure, why not? We can spend all kinds of money investigating every single arrest made by police.

By the way...what exactly was the point you were making with your editing? I must have missed it.

The point was that Arthais kept using tems like "perception" (or something along those lines), when what it really amounted to was prejudice "(I don't trust cops"), pure and simple.

I have no prejudice for or against police. Some suck, and some don't. But when someone is violently resisting arrest, police have every right to subdue them, which is what they did in this case. We're not talking Rodney King here. We're talking typical police action. It happens everyday. Police try to arrest someone. The person they're attempting to arrest gets violent, and that person has to be banged down. Sure, it'd be nice if police officers could say "you're under arrest" and have the person just comply, but that's not how it happens in the real world.

Sure, why not? We can spend all kinds of money investigating every single arrest made by police. The way it works in the real world is, when a complaint is made, an investigation ensues. So no, we don't need to investigate every single arrest.



The point was that Arthais kept using tems like "perception" (or something along those lines), when what it really amounted to was prejudice "(I don't trust cops"), pure and simple.

I have no prejudice for or against police. Some suck, and some don't. But when someone is violently resisting arrest, police have every right to subdue them, which is what they did in this case. We're not talking Rodney King here. We're talking typical police action. It happens everyday. Police try to arrest someone. The person they're attempting to arrest gets violent, and that person has to be banged down. Sure, it'd be nice if police officers could say "you're under arrest" and have the person just comply, but that's not how it happens in the real world.

Why can't you actually make your case when he's online? Instead of just sniping?

Serious wood. :p

well what i got from the footage, which was not mentioned in the article, was that instead of them both falling down the stairs at the start, the woman was in fact propelled down the stairs closely followed by the police officer who then obviously overbalanced and fell on her. the next thing that is shown is three policemen crouching around an immobile figure lying on the floor while one of them punches the figure very hard.

What I can see, is well not much. I only got to view it once real quick while I had a moment alone in here. For my money I thought she stumbled down the stairs and the cop was holding on to her to keep her from falling down them. Not real successfully.

Though from the camera angle, the made lighting, and the horrid video quality he could of smacked her with a baseball bat and we couldn't tell.

Why can't you actually make your case when he's online? Instead of just sniping?

Serious wood. :p

Despite your looney idea that I've got a hard-on over Arthais, I don't check to see if he's online when I post something.


BOI-OI-OI-OI-OI-OINGGGGGGGG!!!

Whoops!

:p

Sure, why not? We can spend all kinds of money investigating every single arrest made by police.



The point was that Arthais kept using tems like "perception" (or something along those lines), when what it really amounted to was prejudice "(I don't trust cops"), pure and simple.

I have no prejudice for or against police. Some suck, and some don't. But when someone is violently resisting arrest, police have every right to subdue them, which is what they did in this case. We're not talking Rodney King here. We're talking typical police action. It happens everyday. Police try to arrest someone. The person they're attempting to arrest gets violent, and that person has to be banged down. Sure, it'd be nice if police officers could say "you're under arrest" and have the person just comply, but that's not how it happens in the real world.


My presumption in most situations is against cops. Is it a prejudice? Absolutly. One firmly grounded in experience.

BOI-OI-OI-OI-OI-OINGGGGGGGG!!!

Whoops!

:p

See! You've got a built in Arthais sensor!

My presumption in most situations is against cops. Is it a prejudice? Absolutly. One firmly grounded in experience.

And I'm sure KKK members say the same thing about their "experience" with blacks. :rolleyes:

See! You've got a built in Arthais sensor!

You're evil.

I like it! :D

And I'm sure KKK members say the same thing about their "experience" with blacks. :rolleyes:

Nice.

Did you avoid saying "Nazi" just so no one could accuse you of pulling a Godwin?

You're evil.

I like it! :D

Stop that. Last time you started liking me, you stalked me through every thread for the rest of the day. No. For the last time, I don't want the pictures of you slathered in peanut butter.

And I'm sure KKK members say the same thing about their "experience" with blacks. :rolleyes:

Yes yes, because that's EXACTLY the same thing.

You shoudn't use that emote so much, makes you look ugly.

Stop that. Last time you started liking me, you stalked me through every thread for the rest of the day. No. For the last time, I don't want the pictures of you slathered in peanut butter.

OL' GREG'S GOT A MANGINA!

Yes yes, because that's EXACTLY the same thing.

You shoudn't use that emote so much, makes you look ugly.

Actually... it does seem to be about the same, a generalization based on personal experience.

I'd have to say I take the cop's side on this, given the knowledge we have.

She doesn't seem to contend that she wasn't resisting arrest, and as far as the epilepsy claim goes, doesnt really matter, I dont think the cop is going to check to make sure youre not epileptic before he tries to subdue you. So what we have is a cop saying she was trying to attack his genitals and him defending himself. We can assume she didnt and there was no reason for him to hit her, but theres no logical reason to do so. I do however support an investigation because a complaint was filed however givent hat the woman doesnt seem to remember anything and the footage is horrible, theres nothing to say the cop did any wrong. I'm all for keeping an eye on the police, but I sitll believe in innocent until proven guilty.

Edit: As for the racist claim, which no1 seems to be contending anyway but, clearly boloney, I like others was surprised when I saw the girl that they considered her black at all...

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/6428865.stm)
Remember kids, if something's done to a non-white person, it's probably racist. Unless it's hiring them based on their skin color, that's called progress.
When somebody says or implies that when 1 of 3 men sitting on a woman actually needs to belt them 5 times to subdue them, thats called a "racist fuck".


Oh, now he can't use force because she's a woman? She was resisting arrest..

O look, its the usual suspects coming out to play....

Firstly, and no, I haven't read every post to check whether this has been raised, the police officer was not simply punching the poor little darling. My father is a police officer, and informs me that the blows were aimed at the shoulder, so as to incapacitate the arm of the suspect to allow for handcuffing. Thus, cries of "Police brutality" are fallacious.

Equally, given that the testimony of the police officer demonstrates that the suspect was resisting arrest, whilst assualting the officer himself, any contention that the response was unjustified is equally fallacious.

Finally, why should it matter whether the degenerate was black, white, female, male or Martian? They quyite manifestly transgressed in damaging the car, then resisted arrest, assualted a police officer, and then bemoan their treatment in an interview whilst demonstrating no contrition whatsoever.

Tool 0
Police 1

:D

TooL always wins.

Not to be the pedant, but the CCTV footage suggests otherwise....:D

Firstly, and no, I haven't read every post to check whether this has been raised, the police officer was not simply punching the poor little darling. My father is a police officer, and informs me that the blows were aimed at the shoulder, so as to incapacitate the arm of the suspect to allow for handcuffing. Thus, cries of "Police brutality" are fallacious.

Equally, given that the testimony of the police officer demonstrates that the suspect was resisting arrest, whilst assualting the officer himself, any contention that the response was unjustified is equally fallacious.

Finally, why should it matter whether the degenerate was black, white, female, male or Martian? They quyite manifestly transgressed in damaging the car, then resisted arrest, assualted a police officer, and then bemoan their treatment in an interview whilst demonstrating no contrition whatsoever.

Tool 0
Police 1

:D

TooL always wins.

Ok folks, from someone that has spend over 25 years in emergency services (police/fire/ems/9-1-1), there is a huge difference between having a seizure and resisting arrest. Every officer is trained in the basics of first aid, and can recognize when a person is having a seizure.

Officers are trained to escalate the use of force depending on the other person. The more you would resist arrest, the more I would escalate my use of force to affect the arrest. Now, when you want to hit me in the family jewels, you better believe that all bets are off!!!

I have also seen the video of that incident on TV, and it is very difficult to see what was really going on.

Oh, but he was fighting a woman half his size.....folks, I have worked with women that meet that criteria, and look very feminine, and will stomp your ass in a heart beat.

And for those of you that just love to bash on the cops, how about putting your balls on the line? Just join the next police academy and become an officer. Then, you can get out there in the real concrete jungle and take care of the problems like you like to post in here;and you will realize what the reality of the streets are. Be sure that I am not justifying any unnecessar force or any type of police brutality; but when you resist arrest then you are the one that is deciding just how much force will be used on you.

'Til then, y'all be safe out there.

Vic

Not to be the pedant, but the CCTV footage suggests otherwise....:D

you mean the video that shows her being punched while she was on the ground?

Firstly, and no, I haven't read every post to check whether this has been raised, the police officer was not simply punching the poor little darling. My father is a police officer, and informs me that the blows were aimed at the shoulder, so as to incapacitate the arm of the suspect to allow for handcuffing. Thus, cries of "Police brutality" are fallacious.
Your father was not there, so he has no idea if the police officer was hitting her in the shoulder or somewhere else. Thus, dismissing cries of police brutality as fallacious is not logical.

Equally, given that the testimony of the police officer demonstrates that the suspect was resisting arrest, whilst assualting the officer himself, any contention that the response was unjustified is equally fallacious.

This only makes sense if we assume that the officer was telling the truth. His claims may be lies to protect himself. The video footage does not show the suspect resisting arrest, in my opinion.

Finally, why should it matter whether the degenerate was black, white, female, male or Martian? They quyite manifestly transgressed in damaging the car, then resisted arrest, assualted a police officer, and then bemoan their treatment in an interview whilst demonstrating no contrition whatsoever.

She did damage a car. The rest is speculation on your part.

And for those of you that just love to bash on the cops, how about putting your balls on the line?

No. I would make a horrible cop. That's why I am not one.

Be sure that I am not justifying any unnecessar force or any type of police brutality; but when you resist arrest then you are the one that is deciding just how much force will be used on you.

No, the law and police procedure decides how much force will be used. The police don't get to beat someone up because he pissed them off.

I expect better from the police than I do the people they arrest. The moment we allow "well he did it first" as a reasonable defense is the moment we allow our law enforcement to become criminals themselves.

Excuse me if I have a bit higher demands on society than that.

Firstly, and no, I haven't read every post to check whether this has been raised, the police officer was not simply punching the poor little darling. My father is a police officer, and informs me that the blows were aimed at the shoulder, so as to incapacitate the arm of the suspect to allow for handcuffing. Thus, cries of "Police brutality" are fallacious.

Equally, given that the testimony of the police officer demonstrates that the suspect was resisting arrest, whilst assualting the officer himself, any contention that the response was unjustified is equally fallacious.

Finally, why should it matter whether the degenerate was black, white, female, male or Martian? They quyite manifestly transgressed in damaging the car, then resisted arrest, assualted a police officer, and then bemoan their treatment in an interview whilst demonstrating no contrition whatsoever.

Tool 0
Police 1

:D

"my daddy is a police man" is not an argument. shit, i remember that tactic being used in primary school: "oh yeh? well my dad's in the army and my mum's a kung fu warrior, so there!"

My father is a police officer, and informs me that the blows were aimed at the shoulder, so as to incapacitate the arm of the suspect to allow for handcuffing.

I'm sure your father would also inform you, if you ask, that a bullet to the head is aimed there to kill someone with an assault rifle threatening a school filled with children.

Certain acts are appropriate in certain situations. It doesn't mean that act is appropriate, or acceptable, in ALL situations.

Your father was not there, so he has no idea if the police officer was hitting her in the shoulder or somewhere else. Thus, dismissing cries of police brutality as fallacious is not logical.



This only makes sense if we assume that the officer was telling the truth. His claims may be lies to protect himself. The video footage does not show the suspect resisting arrest, in my opinion.



She did damage a car. The rest is speculation on your part.

I concede, it does depend upon whether one is prepared to believe the testimony of an officer of the law, or a degenerate drunk with no respect for private property. However, law enforcement experts asked, and a police officer with commendations and three decades experiance, namely, my father, are adamant that the testimony given by the police officer was correct. Equally, one might note that none of the officers upon the scene have contradicted him either.

"my daddy is a police man" is not an argument. shit, i remember that tactic being used in primary school: "oh yeh? well my dad's in the army and my mum's a kung fu warrior, so there!"

I quite agree, however, I am simply stating one source for my information, not, as you very logically state, suggesting any concomitant superiority.

I concede, it does depend upon whether one is prepared to believe the testimony of an officer of the law, or a degenerate drunk with no respect for private property.

Well the officer in question does coke and beats his wife.

See, I can construct logical fallacies too..

Or if you wish, please find me one instance of demonstrated police brutality when the officer admitted it when asked the first time.

However, law enforcement experts asked, and a police officer with commendations and three decades experiance, namely, my father, are adamant that the testimony given by the police officer was correct. Equally, one might note that none of the officers upon the scene have contradicted him either.

Your father knows these people? He is familiar with the facts of the event? He has seen evidence we have not?

Good for your father, his opinion is no more relevant to the circumstances than anyone elses here.

I'm sure your father would also inform you, if you ask, that a bullet to the head is aimed there to kill someone with an assault rifle threatening a school filled with children.

Certain acts are appropriate in certain situations. It doesn't mean that act is appropriate, or acceptable, in ALL situations.

However, given that she has not denied resisting arrest, or assualting the police officer, one might surmise that she did as much, hence, the act was necessary to make a correct arrest.

Your father was not there, so he has no idea if the police officer was hitting her in the shoulder or somewhere else. Thus, dismissing cries of police brutality as fallacious is not logical.



This only makes sense if we assume that the officer was telling the truth. His claims may be lies to protect himself. The video footage does not show the suspect resisting arrest, in my opinion.



She did damage a car. The rest is speculation on your part.

The video had a timeskip, which throws all questions into the air - as well as you not even being able to see much of what goes on.

However, given that she has not denied resisting arrest, or assualting the police officer...

You did READ the article correct?

The footage then shows Ms Comer writhing around on the ground, which she says was due to an epileptic fit. Police say she was trying to resist arrest.

That does seem like she's denying it to me.

In fact, reading further:

On Wednesday, at Sheffield Magistrates' Court, Ms Comer admitted criminal damage to a car, which she said happened after she was ejected from the nightclub, where she had been drinking brandy and had become aggressive. She was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay £250 to the vehicle's owner.

She was charged with, and admitted to, damaging a car. It does not appear she ever admitted, or indeed was ever even charged with, resisting arrest.

I could state a few. However I'll keep it to the facts as accessible by all for the moment. You don't see the other two cops struggling to hold her arms/legs etc, do you?

I always like it when a reaction to a quote actually relates to the quote....

I concede, it does depend upon whether one is prepared to believe the testimony of an officer of the law, or a degenerate drunk with no respect for private property. However, law enforcement experts asked, and a police officer with commendations and three decades experiance, namely, my father, are adamant that the testimony given by the police officer was correct. Equally, one might note that none of the officers upon the scene have contradicted him either.

Your father wasn't there. I don't care what he said or what he believes.

And I am not surprised to find out that the other police offficers are supporting his story, as they would also be punished if it turned out to be police brutality.

Do you have anything useful to add to the debate?

You did READ the article correct?



That does seem like she's denying it to me.

That's no epileptic fit. She's simply exploiting an extant condition to disguise her having assualted a police officer.

I quite agree, however, I am simply stating one source for my information, not, as you very logically state, suggesting any concomitant superiority.

I could state a few. However I'll keep it to the facts as accessible by all for the moment. You don't see the other two cops struggling to hold her arms/legs etc, do you?

Your father wasn't there. I don't care what he said or what he believes.

And I am not surprised to find out that the other police offficers are supporting his story, as they would also be punished if it turned out to be police brutality.

Do you have anything useful to add to the debate?

However, as a policeman trained in public order, fuckwit, I might presuppose he has some familiarity with the techniques employed to stop those struggling.

Actually, fuck you. Could you try to be more condascending, insulting, or subjective, if you tried?

That's no epileptic fit. She's simply exploiting an extant condition to disguise her having assualted a police officer.

so first you say she never denied it, then when it is pointed out to you that she IS denying it, you dismiss her denial.

Must be nice living in the reality that somehow, miraculously, you're always right.

Your father wasn't there. I don't care what he said or what he believes.

And I am not surprised to find out that the other police offficers are supporting his story, as they would also be punished if it turned out to be police brutality.

Do you have anything useful to add to the debate?

It doesn't sound as if there is proof either way. Maybe she was resisting in which case I don't see what the officer did was wrong. Or she is telling the truth and the officer is at fault. I suppose it depends on your opinion on police which I'm sure many view as negative. Those people don't want the police around after all. Until they need them anyway.

Actually, fuck you. Could you try to be more condascending, insulting, or subjective, if you tried?

I'm sure he could. Maybe next time you'll think better about trying to use the line of argument of "my daddy said so, even though he wasn't there and doesn't know anything more about the facts of this incident than the rest of us"

I always like it when a reaction to a quote actually relates to the quote....

Yep. You're fucking brilliant. Now that we've cleared that up, why the laid back attitude of the two others?

Call me a super-nazi-klansman-racist fuck if your heart so desires, but I'm going to have to side with the officers instead of what's either a white woman or Micheal Jackson after a sex job. She was punched, yes. She wasn't "beaten up". She was punched in the arm. Many of you make it seem like he was punching her in the face.

Innocent-until-proven-guilty is an important part of justice. If it was the other way around, we'd all be guilty of JFK's assasination because we didn't prove we weren't.

Policemen aren't ninjas with decades of kung-fu and a black belt in super-karate. They aren't supermen. It can be hard restraining an unruly person weaker than you are, especially if that person's endurance and pain-resistance is boosted by adreneline and booze. I often have a hard time restraining my younger sister. She's merely two years younger, not an infant or toddler. When she gets her teeth into your flesh, it takes a few punches and a maracle to get her off. No telling what a kick in the balls would do.

Sums it up rather nicely I think

Call me a super-nazi-klansman-racist fuck if your heart so desires, but I'm going to have to side with the officers instead of what's either a white woman or Micheal Jackson after a sex job. She was punched, yes. She wasn't "beaten up". She was punched in the arm. Many of you make it seem like he was punching her in the face.

Innocent-until-proven-guilty is an important part of justice. If it was the other way around, we'd all be guilty of JFK's assasination because we didn't prove we weren't.

Policemen aren't ninjas with decades of kung-fu and a black belt in super-karate. They aren't supermen. It can be hard restraining an unruly person weaker than you are, especially if that person's endurance and pain-resistance is boosted by adreneline and booze. I often have a hard time restraining my younger sister. She's merely two years younger, not an infant or toddler. When she gets her teeth into your flesh, it takes a few punches and a maracle to get her off. No telling what a kick in the balls would do.

Innocent-until-proven-guilty is an important part of justice. If it was the other way around, we'd all be guilty of JFK's assasination because we didn't prove we weren't.

And once again this forum isn't a court room, this thread isn't a trial, we are not on a jury and our opinions don't matter.

They are not on trial here. I need not proport myself to the rules of evidence to form my personal opinion. It is just that, my personal opinion. I need not convince myself that they are guildty beyond reasonable doubt, only that it's likely that they are. That's good enough for me.

Is it good enough for a justice system? No, of course not. But again, I'm not a juror (though I am, I suppose, a jurist), and my opinion doesn't carry with it the force of law.

However, as a policeman trained in public order, fuckwit, I might presuppose he has some familiarity with the techniques employed to stop those struggling.

Actually, fuck you. Could you try to be more condascending, insulting, or subjective, if you tried?

Settle down. If I was trying to insult you, I would use words like "fuckwit" and "fuck you". But I won't. I will merely point out, again, that you are basing your entire argument on the testimony of the person who has the most to gain by lying about what was happening, i.e. the police officer involved.

We have no factual evidence that she was resisting arrest or attacking the police officer, just the police officer's claims.

We have no factual evidence that he hit her only on the shoulder, just the police officer's claims.

I often have a hard time restraining my younger sister. She's merely two years younger, not an infant or toddler. When she gets her teeth into your flesh, it takes a few punches and a maracle to get her off. No telling what a kick in the balls would do.

Don't worry, she'd have to find them first. By the way whats all this about?
I'm going to have to side with the officers instead of what's either a white woman or Micheal Jackson after a sex job.

It doesn't sound as if there is proof either way. Maybe she was resisting in which case I don't see what the officer did was wrong. Or she is telling the truth and the officer is at fault. I suppose it depends on your opinion on police which I'm sure many view as negative. Those people don't want the police around after all. Until they need them anyway.

I agree. There are not enough facts to resolve this debate, and most people are choosing sides depending on their relationship, or prejudices, with police in general.

If you are going to use this argument than I can say that we have no evidence that she WASN'T resisting arrest or attacking the police officer. Just her claims.

We have no factual evidence that he hit her anywhere but the shoulder. Just her claims.

surely, and since we are in an internet forum, and not a court of law, we may analyse the evidence we have, and determine, for ourselves, which claim we find more credible.

We have no factual evidence that she was resisting arrest or attacking the police officer, just the police officer's claims.

We have no factual evidence that he hit her only on the shoulder, just the police officer's claims.

If you are going to use this argument than I can say that we have no evidence that she WASN'T resisting arrest or attacking the police officer. Just her claims.

We have no factual evidence that he hit her anywhere but the shoulder. Just her claims.

We really don't know what happened as of yet, simply hysterical people who think all police officers are jackbooted monsters, beating on civilians for kicks. But then again who knows? Maybe in this case the officer was wrong in his actions. We just don't know.

If you are going to use this argument than I can say that we have no evidence that she WASN'T resisting arrest or attacking the police officer. Just her claims.

We have no factual evidence that he hit her anywhere but the shoulder. Just her claims.

This brings us to the whole burden of proof thing. If we assume she is innocent until proven guilty, then we have to assume she wasn't resisting arrest, and therefore we need to assume the police officer was using unnecessary force.

On the other hand, if we assume the police officer is innocent until proven guilty, then we have to assume he was using the necessary amount of force and that she must have been resisting arrest.

I have no solution for this quandary. If we assume innocence for one of them, we must assume guilt for the other.

Innocent-until-proven-guilty is an important part of justice.

Here's your problem. We know one thing for certain, she was struck. Multiple times. That is not in dispute.

If she were resisting arrest, the acts of the police may have been justified.

If she was not resisting arrest, it was brutality.

Because we KNOW she was struck, the only question we must ask is if striking her was justified. The only way it would be justified, is if she were resisting arrest.

Therefore, to assume the police are innocent of brutality is to assume she is guilty of resisting arrest.

If we assume she is innocent of resisting arrest, then the police MUST be guilty of brutality.

And yet here we have the snarky too cute by half posts with all the necessary eye rolling emotes yelling "oh, I guess you don't believe in innocent until proven guilty, huh?" without recognizing one very crucial fact.

To assume the innocenct of the police, you MUST assume her guilt. Which is the problem. Everyone defending the police with the rhetoric of "innocent until proven guilty!" ignores the one simple fact that one party must be innocent, and one party must be guilty. To support one party, one must by definition disbelieve the other.

Thus any everyone, EVERYONE who has come out in favor of one party makes the assumption that the other party was guilty. To assume the actions of the police were brutality, and assume they are guilty is to assume that she did not commit an act that required it (IE to assume their guilt assumes her innocence)

But conversly, to assume they are justified in doing what they did makes the unavoidable assumption that she is guilty of resisting arrest.

To take one side in this is to make the fundamental presumption that the other side is guilty. To say you support the police because they are innocent until proven guilty denies her the same privlidge. Either way, the assumption is made, so drop the pretense of "I support the police because they are innocent until proven guilty". Believing that essentially means you believe she is guilty of resisting arrest. Either side makes an assumption. At least be honest about it.

Why do you assume I'm male?

averages *shrug*

Why do you assume I'm a "you"?

When there is no proof either way, I see no choice but to side with the officer. One has to trust the one who is protecting the people against criminals than the criminal him/herself.


Then surely, that's simply your prejudice speaking out then. We all have our prejudices, and those prejudices lead us to certain conclusions. I admit to having a bias against the police. That bias leads to me support her.

You might have a bias against her, and that leaves you to support the police. OK, like I said, we all have it. But it's pure intellectual dishonesty to pick one side over the other and claim no bias.

Either be honest, and pick a side, and admit that your own personal bias is influencing that decision, or fence sit, and claim the inability to decide based on lack of evidence either way. But don't try to have your cake and eat it too.

:rolleyes: well the officer had every right to punch her lights out!
Oh, now he can't use force because she's a woman? :rolleyes: She was resisting arrest.

I'm sure he could. Maybe next time you'll think better about trying to use the line of argument of "my daddy said so, even though he wasn't there and doesn't know anything more about the facts of this incident than the rest of us"

Why do you assume I'm male?

surely, and since we are in an internet forum, and not a court of law, we may analyse the evidence we have, and determine, for ourselves, which claim we find more credible.

When there is no proof either way, I see no choice but to side with the officer. One has to trust the one who is protecting the people against criminals than the criminal him/herself.

This brings us to the whole burden of proof thing. If we assume she is innocent until proven guilty, then we have to assume she wasn't resisting arrest, and therefore we need to assume the police officer was using unnecessary force.

On the other hand, if we assume the police officer is innocent until proven guilty, then we have to assume he was using the necessary amount of force and that she must have been resisting arrest.

I have no solution for this quandary. If we assume innocence for one of them, we must assume guilt for the other.

Like I said above, with no proof either way you trust the officer. Otherwise everyone arrested would claim they were assaulted and expect to get a pass. So if nothing turns up that supports the claims of this woman than the officer should be cleared and her suit thrown out.

Its exactly the same problem that occurs in many cases like this, and is also seen in so many other incidents in the past 2 wars we have participated in. someone takes an action, and then, after the event, everyone comes out with a rational approach to what happened. i think u should all get the hell off these guys, whatever they do wrong. if someone was attacking me, id personally do something about it. surely if the officer in question has resolved the dispute without any casualties, then he is doing his job, independent of the victims class/gender/race. the law should treat all ppl eaqually, that is what it is there for. just get off the guy's back and let him do his job. and if one was to take a pragmatic approach, the police constable should be the one to come out of this dissagreement without any physical damadge, because, if he had been injured, he would be unable to carry out his law enforcement duties which would be detrimental to the community as a whole, whereas a teenager probably does not have such an important job in the community.

Like I said above, with no proof either way you trust the officer. Otherwise everyone arrested would claim they were assaulted and expect to get a pass. So if nothing turns up that supports the claims of this woman than the officer should be cleared and her suit thrown out.

Doesn't always work like that. I worked in a town where the solicitors urged every criminal arrested by a certain officer to allege he assaulted them. He got moved purely because of these unfounded allegations.

averages *shrug*

Why do you assume I'm a "you"?

Touché.;)

surely if the officer in question has resolved the dispute without any casualties, then he is doing his job,

She thinks of herself as a casualty, surely.


and if one was to take a pragmatic approach, the police constable should be the one to come out of this dissagreement without any physical damadge, because, if he had been injured, he would be unable to carry out his law enforcement duties which would be detrimental to the community as a whole.

If one were to take a pragmatic approach one would realize that the police willingly took the job where their safety is at risk in the first place.

Touché.;)

so, you're a chick huh?

So....how YOU doin?

...

KIDDING, kidding.

And yet here we have the snarky too cute by half posts with all the necessary eye rolling emotes yelling "oh, I guess you don't believe in innocent until proven guilty, huh?" without recognizing one very crucial fact.

To assume the innocenct of the police, you MUST assume her guilt. Which is the problem. Everyone defending the police with the rhetoric of "innocent until proven guilty!" ignores the one simple fact that one party must be innocent, and one party must be guilty. To support one party, one must by definition disbelieve the other.

Can I get an 'Amen'?

Awww, and you didn't even leave enough spelling errors for Cluich to focus on when his argument of 'you can't be a lawyer because you're assuming guilt bleh bleh' goes flushing down the toilet.

Why do you assume I'm male?

Because only a man would name himself Gift-of-God?:p

Because only a man would name himself Gift-of-God?:p

most women assume I'm a gift from god because I have a giant....erm, nm.

most women assume I'm a gift from god because I have a giant....erm, nm.

Ego?

most women assume I'm a gift from god because I have a giant....erm, nm.

Talk is cheap. I demand pictures of the nevermind!

Ego?

pretty much

Talk is cheap. I demand pictures of the nevermind!

Don't you already? Feh, stupid emails never get through.

Don't you already? Feh, stupid emails never get through.

Nope, no emails.

Using forum logic, I must therefore conclude that you indeed do not possess a nevermind. Na na na na na.

Then surely, that's simply your prejudice speaking out then. We all have our prejudices, and those prejudices lead us to certain conclusions. I admit to having a bias against the police. That bias leads to me support her.

You might have a bias against her, and that leaves you to support the police. OK, like I said, we all have it. But it's pure intellectual dishonesty to pick one side over the other and claim no bias.

Either be honest, and pick a side, and admit that your own personal bias is influencing that decision, or fence sit, and claim the inability to decide based on lack of evidence either way. But don't try to have your cake and eat it too.

If one is supposed to accept that we need to distrust everything that an officer says than what exactly is the point in having an armed force protecting us? Since they are all liars and thugs than clearly the justice system is pointless since victims will never get justice with all cops being evil incarnate.

Unless there is evidence to the contrary or a record to suggest excessive force I have no problem trusting the officer. People who resist arrest love suing as juries often have cop-haters on them and will award money to criminals to vent spleen. But hey, if there is bruises on this particular criminal's face or some other evidence of an act that shouldn't have been done by the officer, than by all means discipline him. But when there is no proof, just an accusation, I would distrust a person trying to save their own skin.

If one is supposed to accept that we need to distrust everything that an officer says than what exactly is the point in having an armed force protecting us? Since they are all liars and thugs than clearly the justice system is pointless since victims will never get justice with all cops being evil incarnate.

Which is why we have constitutional law and judges and juries that enforce it.

I would distrust a person trying to save their own skin.

You distrust the person arrested because he's trying to just save his own skin but believe the officer's version of the story when facing a claim of assault?

Do you not see the inherent lunacy in this? Let's not believe the criminal, because the criminal would obviously lie to appear innocent, but the cop facing an assault charge is telling the truth.

Yes, people lie to cover their own asses. Which is why I'm not particularly inclined to believe the cop in this instance.

Remember kids, if something's done to a non-white person, it's probably racist. Unless it's hiring them based on their skin color, that's called progress.

QFFT.

QFFT.

QFFT? You queefed?

QFFT? You queefed?


Kinda hypocritical for someone who complains about other's nitpickyness. It's one typo...

Anyway, I'm done, you can all get back to your flamebates and flames.

Anyway, I'm done

you're done? I don't even know you well enough to believe you've started.

you can all get back to your flamebates and flames

Thank you for your input, person I have never seen before.

Kinda hypocritical for someone who complains about other's nitpickyness. It's one typo... I'm clarifying, I'm not always hip to the forum acronym lingo you know. And if someone wants us to recognise that they in fact queefed, I think it is only right and proper that said recognition be given.

Sheesh!

Nice.

Did you avoid saying "Nazi" just so no one could accuse you of pulling a Godwin?

Honestly, I went with the first thing that popped to mind.

Stop that. Last time you started liking me, you stalked me through every thread for the rest of the day. No. For the last time, I don't want the pictures of you slathered in peanut butter.

My, don't you have a severe overestimation of your wiles.

But, that said, I do have a very nice pic of myself "en Skippy." ;)

Actually, fuck you. Could you try to be more condascending, insulting, or subjective, if you tried?

He could. He could be Arthais.

Can I get an 'Amen'?

Awww, and you didn't even leave enough spelling errors for Cluich to focus on when his argument of 'you can't be a lawyer because you're assuming guilt bleh bleh' goes flushing down the toilet.

Oh, he can be a lawyer alright, but an extremely ignorant one.

QFFT? You queefed?

I'm gonna guess the extra "F" was for "fucking."

Nope. Quoted for fucking truth.

this is true. The OP did give a good fucking to the truth.

Nope. Quoted for fucking truth.

AHA!

I always though QFT (never seen QFFT) meant 'Quite Fucking True' or something similar.

But now I'm disappointed. I wanted to discuss mangina queefs.

this is true. The OP did give a good fucking to the truth.

OH! That's what it means?

Shades and nuances...I'm overwhelmed!

QFFT? You queefed?


Nope. Quoted for fucking truth.

And maybe I did queef. But that's personal, mmkay?

Which becomes meaningless if we decide to distrust the police. With that, juries have their reasonable doubt every time.

Which is why police have rules and procedures that keep them honest. Chain of custody for example. Preserve the evidence in such a way that its veracity is virtually unquestionable. Break the chain, evidence becomes garbage.

Why? It keeps em honest.


This case seems to be an example of this, the woman making baseless accusations as police can be easy targets.

And how do you know it's baseless? You simply make an assumption about the temerity of the claim based on the character of what you presume the person is like.

How is that any different than what I do?

I'm clarifying, I'm not always hip to the forum acronym lingo you know. And if someone wants us to recognise that they in fact queefed, I think it is only right and proper that said recognition be given.

Sheesh!

I propose a new acronym: IJFQ (I Just Fucking Queefed). :p

Which is why we have constitutional law and judges and juries that enforce it.

Which becomes meaningless if we decide to distrust the police. With that, juries have their reasonable doubt every time.

You distrust the person arrested because he's trying to just save his own skin but believe the officer's version of the story when facing a claim of assault?

Do you not see the inherent lunacy in this? Let's not believe the criminal, because the criminal would obviously lie to appear innocent, but the cop facing an assault charge is telling the truth.

Yes, people lie to cover their own asses. Which is why I'm not particularly inclined to believe the cop in this instance.

We will just have to see what happens. You know that if the officer is indeed at fault there will be massive press coverage. If it is evident the criminal is a liar than there will be virtually no mention of it. Which is always the way it is I guess.

But I can understand that what I said was much to general. Putting on a defense in court to try to prove your innocence is certainly something that is reasonable and can be believed if it seems plausable. But the "he beat me!" claim is something that just makes me roll my eyes when there is no evidence of it. Just the claim so they can escape punishment and maybe get rich from a civil suit. I find it disgusting. This case seems to be an example of this, the woman making baseless accusations as police can be easy targets.

Oh, he can be a lawyer alright, but an extremely ignorant one.

Oh, ignorant how? Go on, hit me. This is gonna be fun.

*snip*Wait now...I'm getting a clearer picture of your interest...you're not just obsessed with Arthais, or with me...you are obsessed with the two of us together...him to insult, and me to leer at and say, 'hey babe, like that?'

I propose a new acronym: IJFQ (I Just Fucking Queefed). :p

Damn it, you just caused me to snigger in my Constitutional law class.

Wait now...I'm getting a clearer picture of your interest...you're not just obsessed with Arthais, or with me...you are obsessed with the two of us together...him to insult, and me to leer at and say, 'hey babe, like that?'

Now that's just plain weird... :eek:

As much as I'd love to stick around and play some more, I've gotta get ready to go to dinner with the in-laws. Have a g'night, all!

And have pleasant dreams about peanut butter, Sin. :p

Damn it, you just caused me to snigger in my Constitutional law class.

I do my best. ;)

Out for real now. Toodles, all!

But the "he beat me!" claim is something that just makes me roll my eyes when there is no evidence of it. Just the claim so they can escape punishment

See, here's where you get stupid. Escape WHAT punishment? Get out of WHAT crime?

Read the god damned article. She ALREADY PLED GUILTY TO THE CRIME. She confessed. There is no crime to get out of. she already confessed.

Out for real now. Toodles, all!

At some point you'd better come back and defend your accusation that Arthais is an ignorant lawyer. I bought popcorn and everything.

the police are there to protect you and I am not going to view them with suspicion every time they have an encounter with a suspect who chooses to resist.

I am. Know why? Because when you grant someone extraordinary authority, you must also monitor them with extraordinary vigilance.

And how do you know it's baseless? You simply make an assumption about the temerity of the claim based on the character of what you presume the person is like.

How is that any different than what I do?

Which is why I said "seems". Perhaps it wasn't a strong enough qualifier? Still, I have no problem repeating that with no evidence to the contrary, I'd believe the officer. And so far there is no evidence to support the woman. Despite the news loving to talk about dirty cops the police are there to protect you and I am not going to view them with suspicion every time they have an encounter with a suspect who chooses to resist.

See, here's where you get stupid. Escape WHAT punishment? Get out of WHAT crime?

Read the god damned article. She ALREADY PLED GUILTY TO THE CRIME. She confessed. There is no crime to get out of. she already confessed.

Alright, than instead of escaping punishment and getting rich she simply wants to get rich. So she claims assault and sues and hopes to get money out of committing her criminal act and getting caught.

I am. Know why? Because when you grant someone extraordinary authority, you must also monitor them with extraordinary vigilance.

Well hopefully a bump on the head won't get an officer in trouble. It would be tragic if police couldn't do their job properly because they are afraid of their suspect getting a bruise somewhere.

Well hopefully a bump on the head won't get an officer in trouble. It would be tragic if police couldn't do their job properly because they are afraid of their suspect getting a bruise somewhere.

Ever seen Demolition Man? Where the cops ask you politely to stop breaking the law, and if you don't they ask you a little less politely, and by golly if you keep it up they just can't do much of anything.


That's what Arthais wants, in a perfect world where people listen to and respect police it could in theory work, if pigs could fly. In the real world sometimes you have to forcibly subdue someone.

Ever seen Demolition Man? Where the cops ask you politely to stop breaking the law, and if you don't they ask you a little less politely, and by golly if you keep it up they just can't do much of anything.


That's what Arthais wants, in a perfect world where people listen to and respect police it could in theory work, if pigs could fly. In the real world sometimes you have to forcibly subdue someone.

I love that movie! :)

Yep. It seems that people think that when the police subdue someone it is going to be some kind of Rodney King deal. It is not either a polite arrest or massive beating. Cop-haters should realize this.

Ever seen Demolition Man? Where the cops ask you politely to stop breaking the law, and if you don't they ask you a little less politely, and by golly if you keep it up they just can't do much of anything.


That's what Arthais wants, in a perfect world where people listen to and respect police it could in theory work, if pigs could fly. In the real world sometimes you have to forcibly subdue someone.

Wow.

You're pretty stupid aren't you? When you sum up the mental energy to make an intelligent post I'll respond, until then I'll just mock you.

I see no reason to doubt the policeman's account that he was punching her in the arm to deaden it to all him to cuff her.

Firstly despite his claim that he was using his full force, the woman suffered nothing but cuts and bruises. No broken noses, chipped teeth cracked ribs etc. as you'd expect if he'd just been wildly punching her with this much force out of agggravation, but entirely consistent with the punches being delivered to the muscle of an arm.

Secondly, if you look at a close up of the video on the BBC website about 29 seconds in
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6430000/newsid_6430000/6430071.stm?bw=bb&mp=rm
you can see that he's using the base of his fist, not the knuckles to subdue the girl. Again entirely consistent with trying to deaden an arm not cause damage.

thirdly, and i don't know if that has been addressed earlier on the thread as I only manged to get 14 pages in, sayingthat the officers removed the girl's trousers for some reason is the height of stupidity. As they're standing the girl up (about 32 seconds in on the video) and as they walk her to the van you can see her trousers gradually fall down.

I see no reason to doubt the policeman's account that he was punching her in the arm to deaden it to all him to cuff her.

Firstly despite his claim that he was using his full force, the woman suffered nothing but cuts and bruises. No broken noses, chipped teeth cracked ribs etc. as you'd expect if he'd just been wildly punching her with this much force out of agggravation, but entirely consistent with the punches being delivered to the muscle of an arm.

Secondly, if you look at a close up of the video on the BBC website about 29 seconds in
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6430000/newsid_6430000/6430071.stm?bw=bb&mp=rm
you can see that he's using the base of his fist, not the knuckles to subdue the girl. Again entirely consistent with trying to deaden an arm not cause damage.

thirdly, and i don't know if that has been addressed earlier on the thread as I only manged to get 14 pages in, sayingthat the officers removed the girl's trousers for some reason is the height of stupidity. As they're standing the girl up (about 32 seconds in on the video) and as they walk her to the van you can see her trousers gradually fall down.

You're letting facts get in the way of anti-police propoganda. As far as many of these "geniouses" are concerned, this is the officer's way of oppressing a race and gender and possibly religion and nationality.

This is the internet. People don't expect the internet to be factual. Hell, I could be lying right now and the internet could be nothing but truth. Oh god, a cycle. If it's true, it's false. If it's false, it's true. My mind is melting.