Jump to content
LOTROCommunity
Doro

The Rage Corner

Recommended Posts

bullshit.  if he hadn't been choked to death by the police he would be alive today. despite his "health problems" he probably would have lived to a ripe old age of 80.  who they fuck knows, we surely don't. they didn't "contribute" to his immediate death, they fucking caused it.  but this line is classic..."only the results turned out to be excessive".  sweet fucking jesus.

1) bullshit.  

2) if he hadn't been choked to death by the police he would be alive today.

3) despite his "health problems" he probably would have lived to a ripe old age of 80.  

4) who they fuck knows, we surely don't. 

5) they didn't "contribute" to his immediate death, they fucking caused it.  

6) but this line is classic..."only the results turned out to be excessive".  sweet fucking jesus.

Which of the things above isn't like the other things above?

As for point 6 I'll try rephrasing... The force used by police wasn't the direct cause of tis mans death. This man weighed 400 freaking pounds! He had health issues! He was resisting arrest which would cause adrenalin to pump and his heart to race and many other physical reactions. The police threw him to the ground causing pain to his 400 pound bulk. The police were on top of him further increasing his difficulty in breathing.

IMO... The force used by police was not excessive and was not the direct cause of death but contributed that death. (can people not recognize that distinction?)

Oh it's getting better. Here are some amazing quotes from the 'Free to Feed' page.

People defending the liar:

"Consider that if she has lied then she's not well, perhaps delusional, or depressed or confused. Let's be a little kinder." She made allegations that security guards in a shop TOOK HER FUCKING BABY FROM HER. That's serious shit, she does not get a free pass.

"Well I find it hard to believe she would just make it up. Could it have been someone posing as a security guard perhaps?" Or maybe it was an alternate dimension where it happened and she somehow ended up in this one. Anything but the chance that she lied!

"I want to know what security company these security guards are from, and I want them to believe the customer at face value... Most of all I want this to not happen ever again." Yup, actually saying that people should just believe her and act on that. Also seems to think it's still true.

"Primark have stated they have no CCTV footage that could well mean the area she was in wasn't covered by a camera at the time in question. If this had happened before CCTV we would be taking her comments as gospel." Literally written beneath a link that shows Primark's statement, which says that they looked at the footage, saw her clearly and nothing happened throughout the duration of her shop. But sure, let's just take what everyone says as true, regardless.

 

In regards to this short-lived movement dragging a company's name through the mud and not apologising for it:

"... [Free to Feed owner] doesn't need to apologise for being human and expressing herself" No, she made a massive mistake and needs to fess up to it with a big apology, considering how fucking arsy she's been with drumming up hate for something that didn't happen.

"I think that Free to feed were right to share the story. We can't seriously expect them to check every single thing anyone says before posting it?" Yeah! Who has time to check shit before they cause trouble these days?

"We have not acted as if there was no doubt as to whether Primark are guilty at all." From Free to Feed themselves! And yet this is their first comment on it:

"This is absolutely disgusting. Primark sort it out!! This woman deserves more than a public apology! I actually feel sick with rage." Oh yeah, no guilt implied at all.

And more from her. The majority are now ripping into them for going along with this shit, and she's getting defensive.

"Have you any idea what it's like to have thousands of people pressuring you for answers?" Oh the poor dear. It wasn't her fault she spread the lie, she was just under so much pressure! She can't be expected to take responsibility for what she posts!

 

Seriously, it's the best trolling opportunity I've had for a while, and it's going really, really well d;)b

ROFL...

I love it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) bullshit.  

2) if he hadn't been choked to death by the police he would be alive today.

3) despite his "health problems" he probably would have lived to a ripe old age of 80.  

4) who they fuck knows, we surely don't. 

5) they didn't "contribute" to his immediate death, they fucking caused it.  

6) but this line is classic..."only the results turned out to be excessive".  sweet fucking jesus.

Which of the things above isn't like the other things above?

As for point 6 I'll try rephrasing... The force used by police wasn't the direct cause of tis mans death. This man weighed 400 freaking pounds! He had health issues! He was resisting arrest which would cause adrenalin to pump and his heart to race and many other physical reactions. The police threw him to the ground causing pain to his 400 pound bulk. The police were on top of him further increasing his difficulty in breathing.

IMO... The force used by police was not excessive and was not the direct cause of death but contributed that death. (can people not recognize that distinction?)

why can't you recognize the fact that if excessive force hadn't been used, he would be alive today?

they choked him.  they applied excessive force. he repeatedly said he couldn't breath until he stopped breathing altogether. he had no weapon of any kind on him. they could clearly see that. he died as a direct result of police abuse.

it's not rocket science, man. 

but as you say...agree to disagree.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warms my heart that you are beginning to accept the wisdom of my posts Spidey! There might just be hope for you yet.

You mentioned taxes charged for those cigarettes, as far as I know Garner had legal cigarettes, he paid the tax, there is no indication that these were illegal cigarettes. In my state cigs go for about 5 bucks a pack, if I choose to sell single smokes to persons of 18 or older for fitty cents a pop to double my money, what law am I breaking besides maybe not having a retail license, hardly a capitol crime. Buying goods and making a profit is the American way!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mentioned taxes charged for those cigarettes, as far as I know Garner had legal cigarettes, he paid the tax, there is no indication that these were illegal cigarettes. In my state cigs go for about 5 bucks a pack, if I choose to sell single smokes to persons of 18 or older for fitty cents a pop to double my money, what law am I breaking besides maybe not having a retail license, hardly a capitol crime. Buying goods and making a profit is the American way!

 

Naw Spidey it was Fundin that was going on about taxation and my reply to him was focused on this guy had a probable customer base consisting of children as IMO they would be the ones more likely to have less money to spend for a full pack and also less access to purchase from a retail store due to laws prohibiting sale to minors.

Cigarettes here in Ontario are over $10 a pack and I did reply to Fundin that there is mob involvement in smuggling USA cigarettes up here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mentioned taxes charged for those cigarettes, as far as I know Garner had legal cigarettes, he paid the tax, there is no indication that these were illegal cigarettes. In my state cigs go for about 5 bucks a pack, if I choose to sell single smokes to persons of 18 or older for fitty cents a pop to double my money, what law am I breaking besides maybe not having a retail license, hardly a capitol crime. Buying goods and making a profit is the American way!

 

He had been arrested before for selling cigarettes without a tax seal on them and was apparently in the process of being arrested for the same thing when he was killed. Government seeking to control our lives leads to regulations that ultimately get enforced at the point of a gun. Get rid of the attempts to control our lives and this guy doesn't die. (Cost of pack in New York is over $12.50 - it ain't just kids who would buy singles - especially if he got them cheap from Virginia, where they're less than $5.50 a pack [or off an Indian Reserve where it's about $2.00/pack or so.])

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO... The force used by police was not excessive and was not the direct cause of death but contributed that death. (can people not recognize that distinction?)

What is this imaginary 'distinction' you are talking about? It is very straightforward: you are doing the direct action -> you are causing the death. "He was pretty bad anyway" is not an argument. It's like saying it's not your fault because you are used to choke only more sturdy people. You may 'contribute' to a death if you watch from aside doing nothing. Morally wrong, self preservation-wise probably correct, and legally indifferent. With your hands on somebody's throat you are not 'contributing' anything, you are doing the thing directly.

If you jump out of a wardrobe, scary a person entering the room and cause his death due to weak heart - you have caused it and you are now responsible for it. Intentional or not is another matter entirely.

The more scandalous element in the story is that it was the police doing it - people supposedly trained for this sort of situations and with better understanding of physical contacts and force exercising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

The distinction is that the police have every right to use acceptable levels of force to detain someone resisting arrest.

If acceptable levels of force were used (and I believe it was acceptable in this case) and the criminal has medical conditions that result in his/her death or injury as a result of this force than the police are not ultimately responsible.

I will add that I give enormous leeway to how police use force in their job. Do we want them to do their job? For me the answer is "yes". Police deal with the absolute scum of the earth. Police have no more desire to go to the hospital with a broken arm or have someone tell their wife and family that will not be coming home again than you or I do... and they will make every effort to avoid this just as I would. So personally I give them the benefit of the doubt when they use force to protect their own life/health as they perform their duties.

Edited by fittybolger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He had been arrested before for selling cigarettes without a tax seal on them and was apparently in the process of being arrested for the same thing when he was killed. Government seeking to control our lives leads to regulations that ultimately get enforced at the point of a gun. Get rid of the attempts to control our lives and this guy doesn't die. (Cost of pack in New York is over $12.50 - it ain't just kids who would buy singles - especially if he got them cheap from Virginia, where they're less than $5.50 a pack [or off an Indian Reserve where it's about $2.00/pack or so.])

I really don't have a problem with taxing smokes, and that's from a more or less lifetime smoker. Smoking puts a huge drain on medical care, and studies show that the poor are more likely to be heavy smokers than the rich.

The distinction is that the police have every right to use acceptable levels of force to detain someone resisting arrest.

If acceptable levels of force were used (and I believe it was acceptable in this case) and the criminal has medical conditions that result in his/her death as a result of this force than the police are not ultimately responsible.

I will add that I give enormous leeway to how police use force in their job. Do we want them to do their job? For me the answer is "yes". Police deal with the absolute scum of the earth. Police have no more desire to go to the hospital with a broken arm or have someone tell their wife and family that will not be coming home again than you or I do... and they will make every effort to avoid this just as I would. So personally I give them the benefit of the doubt when they use force to protect their own life/health as they perform their duties.

This guy was not the scum of the earth, he had no weapons on him, they had more than enough officers to arrest him without choking him to death. He was a big guy, a big, fat, guy with asthma, hardly someone that can get away from that many officers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The distinction is that the police have every right to use acceptable levels of force to detain someone resisting arrest.

If acceptable levels of force were used (and I believe it was acceptable in this case) and the criminal has medical conditions that result in his/her death as a result of this force than the police are not ultimately responsible.

I will add that I give enormous leeway to how police use force in their job. Do we want them to do their job? For me the answer is "yes". Police deal with the absolute scum of the earth. Police have no more desire to go to the hospital with a broken arm or have someone tell their wife and family that will not be coming home again than you or I do... and they will make every effort to avoid this just as I would. So personally I give them the benefit of the doubt when they use force to protect their own life/health as they perform their duties.

This is where it falls down: you believe it was acceptable (even though police choke holds are prohibited in NY). Others don't. So there's no objective distinction. A cop choked out a man who then died because of what they did. They dog-piled a man who wasn't fighting back. They pinned his head to the ground when he was clearly telling them he couldn't breath. It was overkill. They are entirely responsible.

And this police defence argument is bogus. He wasn't violent in resisting, they were violent in their arrest. They initiated the situation. So if they suddenly fear for their own life, then it's their fault. It's like punching a person and then shooting them because they might retaliate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha... well I have a tough sell to all you bleeding hearts as this man was hardly Al Capone. :P

He "wasn't violent in resisting" Doro? Well that is a subjective judgment as well and as I said I give the cops enormous leeway in making their assessment and in the actions they take in enforcing the law. He "did" break the law. He "did" resist arrest. These facts at least are not in question. 

And Spidey... I confess... I don't like criminals. Part of the criminal job description has "The men in blue is gonna be a beatin' on ya". You say "not scum" but he had been arrested 30 times in 34 years. Kinda tells me something about him as I have been arrested zero times in 54 years... speeding tickets count? :P

 

Edited by fittybolger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha... well I have a tough sell to all you bleeding hearts as this man was hardly Al Capone. :P

He "wasn't violent in resisting" Doro? Well that is a subjective judgment as well and as I said I give the cops enormous leeway in making their assessment and in the actions they take in enforcing the law. He "did" break the law. He "did" resist arrest. These facts at least are not in question. 

And Spidey... I confess... I don't like criminals. Part of the criminal job description has "The men in blue is gonna be a beatin' on ya". You say "not scum" but he had been arrested 30 times in 34 years. Kinda tells me something about him as I have been arrested zero times in 54 years... speeding tickets count? :P

It's not subjective at all. He wasn't violent. Video clearly shows that. He broke a petty law, like lots of people do all the time. His form of resisting arrest was just to move his arms out of the way from the cops grabbing him (no contact at all). But the response from the cops was way out of proportion.

But, as you say, you break the law yourself. Speeding is breaking the law. But instead of being arrested, you just get fined for it. Imagine what would happen if you were doing 10km/h over the speed limit and a cop pulls you over. You expect a ticket but they tell you to get of the car and put your hands on the hood. You tell him this is a bit much and not necessary and he takes that as resisting arrest. Next minute he's twisting your arm, because you're now a threat resisting arrest, and it breaks. All within acceptability, right? After all, you're a criminal resisting arrest with multiple prior offences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not subjective at all. He wasn't violent. Video clearly shows that. He broke a petty law, like lots of people do all the time. His form of resisting arrest was just to move his arms out of the way from the cops grabbing him (no contact at all). But the response from the cops was way out of proportion.

But, as you say, you break the law yourself. Speeding is breaking the law. But instead of being arrested, you just get fined for it. Imagine what would happen if you were doing 10km/h over the speed limit and a cop pulls you over. You expect a ticket but they tell you to get of the car and put your hands on the hood. You tell him this is a bit much and not necessary and he takes that as resisting arrest. Next minute he's twisting your arm, because you're now a threat resisting arrest, and it breaks. All within acceptability, right? After all, you're a criminal resisting arrest with multiple prior offences.

Haha...

Well it does come down to police discretion, which is also subjective, and I am indeed more prone to forgive police for using force against others rather than myself for sure. :P

When I have dealt with the cops I did what they said... no more and no less. They wear a gun (in this country) for a reason and with good reason IMO.

Link: The guy who killed these cops was not after individuals but was simply putting bullet holes in uniforms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Moncton_shootings

A few days after the events I linked I was talking to the cops (non criminal matter :P ) and they mentioned this shooting and we talked about it... they know they have a bulls-eye on their chest... it just looks like a badge. Lawyers also see that same bulls-eye but it represents $$$ or SJW motives or both.

Cops are human and not a walking book of police regulations and they react to situations in a human manner. IMO if we want then to do their job in dealing with scum we have to permit them a great deal of latitude in how they perform these duties.

Of course there are bad apples and of course fact they are human also means they can and do go too far at times and of course they can use bad judgment regardless of training... I recognize this and that is why when I am caught speeding I say "Yes officer and No officer" and do as I am told... never been shot or beaten yet. :P

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cops are human and not a walking book of police regulations and they react to situations in a human manner. IMO if we want then to do their job in dealing with scum we have to permit them a great deal of latitude in how they perform these duties.

I'm of the complete opposite opinion. If we're to just accept that cops can act as they wish because they're human and not in-line with regulations, then they are a danger to the public. They need less powers if they're not going to be held accountable for it.

But, if we are going to continue to allow a police force to exist, they need to be held to a higher standard. That means no excusing them for strangling a man to death for selling cigarettes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm of the complete opposite opinion. If we're to just accept that cops can act as they wish because they're human and not in-line with regulations, then they are a danger to the public. They need less powers if they're not going to be held accountable for it.

But, if we are going to continue to allow a police force to exist, they need to be held to a higher standard. That means no excusing them for strangling a man to death for selling cigarettes.

Even more so if you are going to give them a gun.  

Those upholding the law need to follow it or else the whole justice system is a farce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even more so if you are going to give them a gun.  

Those upholding the law need to follow it or else the whole justice system is a farce.

To be honest, it already is a farce. If we were to allow civilians to do the sort of shit that cops do (stop and searches, carrying weapons, arresting people, fining people, assaulting people, etc), they'd be criminals before the day was out. But for some reason we've just accepted cops are above us, as opposed to cops serving us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't have a problem with taxing smokes, and that's from a more or less lifetime smoker. Smoking puts a huge drain on medical care, and studies show that the poor are more likely to be heavy smokers than the rich.

See, this is something I'm not so sure about, the whole "drain on medical care" line doesn't feel right to me. I've been a heavy smoker for nigh on 40yrs and I have never in that time been to the doctor with any issue related to smoking, and neither have the dozens of friends I have who smoke. Makes me wonder how much of the "known" health issues of smoking is bullshit made up to create an excuse for taxation.

But, as you say, you break the law yourself. Speeding is breaking the law.

The difference is the difference between a criminal act and a civil act, driving regulations (they aren't truly laws) are civil acts of parliament (in the UK that is) which cannot be prosecuted in the criminal courts, hence why they only have fines, the only driving violations that can be prosecuted as criminal acts are those involving dangerous driving which is a criminal act. I firmly believe that they need to remove the road traffic act in the UK and replace it with a set of criminal laws so that all the fucktards on the roads can be punished properly for being such total fucktards, too many idiots out there who find it funny to act like arseholes on the road and endanger not only their lives but others as well.

Edited by androclese

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Doro it seems when I say cops should be allowed to act with latitude and with their own discretion you interpret that as my saying "above the law and with a license to kill" it seems.

But I agree that the system works better when people quietly do as the police say and do not resist. (as I would do)

Next time the police want to make an arrest perhaps you will offer to step in to try to calmly convince criminals to accompany you to the police station? This would certainly result in fewer complaints against police. And these criminals aren't really bad people = just misunderstood... they need a hug! (hehe)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference is the difference between a criminal act and a civil act, driving regulations (they aren't truly laws) are civil acts of parliament (in the UK that is) which cannot be prosecuted in the criminal courts, hence why they only have fines, the only driving violations that can be prosecuted as criminal acts are those involving dangerous driving which is a criminal act. I firmly believe that they need to remove the road traffic act in the UK and replace it with a set of criminal laws so that all the fucktards on the roads can be punished properly for being such total fucktards, too many idiots out there who find it funny to act like arseholes on the road and endanger not only their lives but others as well.

I'm fairly sure that it's actually a law in the US. I've seen videos of cops offering the ultimatum of either taking the ticket or being arrested. Surely they couldn't arrest you if it wasn't a crime?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seem, this is something I'm not so sure about, the whole "drain on medical care" line doesn't feel right to me. I've been a heavy smoker for nigh on 40yrs and I have never in that time been to the doctor with any issue related to smoking, and neither have the dozens of friends I have who smoke. Makes me wonder how much of the "known" health issues of smoking is bullshit made up to create an excuse for taxation.

Much of the cost is end of life treatment being earlier than would otherwise be the case, I'd bet. Even so, the excuse falls flat, IMO. Let the smokers pay for their health care and leave the taxes out of it. (And, as Spidey mentions, the tax burden more often falls on poor people so it's just bad all around.)

@Fitty - I'm hardly a bleeding heart and do give benefit of doubt to police most times. However, in this case I find the particular law supposedly broken odious and the actions of the officers beyond reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, this is something I'm not so sure about, the whole "drain on medical care" line doesn't feel right to me. I've been a heavy smoker for nigh on 40yrs and I have never in that time been to the doctor with any issue related to smoking, and neither have the dozens of friends I have who smoke. Makes me wonder how much of the "known" health issues of smoking is bullshit made up to create an excuse for taxation.

 

There is plenty of evidence that smoking increases the chance f getting serious illnesses.  Smokers are 5-10 times more likely to get lung cancer than non smokers.  In the US the average age for a lung cancer diagnosis is 70, with only 10% of cases being in someone under the age of 50.  

You not suffering and no one you know is suffering from smoking is a very small sample.  When you look at society as a whole it is clear that smoking causes many health issues, not just for the person smoking also for others near by epically children

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tobacco taxation has actually little to do with the medical spending on smoking-related diseases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much of the cost is end of life treatment being earlier than would otherwise be the case, I'd bet. Even so, the excuse falls flat, IMO. Let the smokers pay for their health care and leave the taxes out of it. (And, as Spidey mentions, the tax burden more often falls on poor people so it's just bad all around.)

@Fitty - I'm hardly a bleeding heart and do give benefit of doubt to police most times. However, in this case I find the particular law supposedly broken odious and the actions of the officers beyond reasonable.

I agree that smokers should pay the heath costs of their smoking = their choice. Problem is where do you draw the line? Alcohol related illness? Sporting injury? A lot of the injuries/illness we receive are the result of our choices and while I am all for "personal responsibility" it does become difficult when you actually start to draw the lines.

Yup this is a difficult case to argue because selling individual cigarettes isn't exactly 9/11 or 7/7 or Bali bombings or ISIS or... But, to me, I see a 30 time criminal resisting arrest and I see the actions of the cops and I'm siding with the cops. (bleeding hearts was universally applied to all here as I'm "a voice in the wilderness" on this issue and was just a joke :) .)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that smokers should pay the heath costs of their smoking = their choice. Problem is where do you draw the line? Alcohol related illness? Sporting injury? A lot of the injuries/illness we receive are the result of our choices and while I am all for "personal responsibility" it does become difficult when you actually start to draw the lines.

Yup this is a difficult case to argue because selling individual cigarettes isn't exactly 9/11 or 7/7 or Bali bombings or ISIS or... But, to me, I see a 30 time criminal resisting arrest and I see the actions of the cops and I'm siding with the cops. (bleeding hearts was universally applied to all here as I'm "a voice in the wilderness" on this issue and was just a joke :) .)

Line is easy. People should pay for all their own health care. But that's another topic.

I see the "resisting" as totally benign and the take down way over the top in this particular case. Many see it that way but not everyone. Have to agree to disagree on this one I think.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Line is easy. People should pay for all their own health care. But that's another topic.

 

 

What is the best way to have people pay.  

A system like the UK where part of your wages are used to fund the NHS and that it is free at the point of use.  You need treatment you go to your GP and get it, and only in England do people have to pay for prescriptions.  

Or a private system where everyone has to have insurance that is expensive and the poorest people in the country cant afford it.  This leading to many people dying of illness that can easily be treated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×