Jump to content
LOTROCommunity

The Rage Corner


Doro
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

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
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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

 

 

 

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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)

 

Link to comment
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?

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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

Link to comment
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 :) .)

Link to comment
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.

 

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Go to your nearest cancer treating centrum or a hospice and ask about lung cancer. 95% of cases are smokers.   No shit.  Almost everyone with lung cancer is or was a smoker.  Remaining few % of cases are mainly in people that were subject to toxic exposure like tobaco smoke from other people smoking, working with chemicals, etc 

Lung cancer in people that have not smoked or were not exposed to certain enviromental effects i.e. in their work  is very very rare.   Again you don't have to believe some medical papers - just go to nearest cancer/lung hospital/hospice and see for yourself.

 

Lung cancer is not only thing of course there is pleothora of disaeses connected to smoking, many of which general population don't even suspect might be connected to smoking.  Just in lung cancer connection is strongest and most in-your-face.

Believe me I know the topic very well, my father died to lung cancer, I am ex-smoker + me myself was hospitalized in lung hospital + I've talked with several doctors that directly treated smokers.

Oh and btw in Lung disases hospital I was in for diagnostics - 80-90% of patients treated for various lung diseases (not just cancers) were smokers.

Edited by drul
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Who cares about the poor? /sarc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Private optional insurance. Just like paying for your own roof, shelter or clothing (or anything else you want to buy.)

Like I said, this is a whole topic unto itself.

Link to comment
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.

 

You actually believe that smoking may not be a health hazard? Really? Really? That may be the biggest facepalm moment ever on these forums.

That being said, neither I or the doctors have a clue if smoking caused my cancer, I never smoked more than a pack a day and most recently 5 smokes a day during the work week, even less on weekends, I've since quit again. I'm one of the lucky ones, I can quit at the drop of a hat and rarely "jones" for a smoke.

30+ years being radiated on by radars, VHF's, SSB's, etc. working in shipyards around toxic chemicals, and lots and lots of soldering with 60/40 lead/tin solder probably was the cause, but smoking certainly didn't help.

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.

I'll take the UK way minus paying full price for prescriptions. ACA is a step in the right direction, but falls far short of the mark. Single payer all the way.

Go to your nearest cancer treating centrum or a hospice and ask about lung cancer. 95% of cases are smokers.   No shit.  Almost everyone with lung cancer is or was a smoker.  Remaining few % of cases are mainly in people that were subject to toxic exposure like tobaco smoke from other people smoking, working with chemicals, etc 

Lung cancer in people that have not smoked or were not exposed to certain enviromental effects i.e. in their work  is very very rare.   Again you don't have to believe some medical papers - just go to nearest cancer/lung hospital/hospice and see for yourself.

 

Lung cancer is not only thing of course there is pleothora of disaeses connected to smoking, many of which general population don't even suspect might be connected to smoking.  Just in lung cancer connection is strongest and most in-your-face.

Believe me I know the topic very well, my father died to lung cancer, I am ex-smoker + me myself was hospitalized in lung hospital + I've talked with several doctors that directly treated smokers.

Oh and btw in Lung disases hospital I was in for diagnostics - 80-90% of patients treated for various lung diseases (not just cancers) were smokers.

My mother had lung cancer and can count the cigarettes she smoked in her life on one hand. Mesothelioma is the exception to the rule. She also beat the cancer :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to disrupt the current conversations (please continue)... but... I rage!

I rage!

I should've known... I couldn't figure out the new nuclear agreement with Iran.

USA? Well Obama has oft shown his ineptitude in foreign affairs and desires a legacy beyond Benghazi and Syrian chemical weapons "red lines". Russia and China? Well they have long desired to cozy up to Iran. But UK, France and Germany? Couldn't figure why they would go along with this horrid deal. And this article gave the eureka moment...

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/in-wake-of-nuclear-deal-iran-s-rouhani-raises-prospect-of-new-planes-1.2472104

So $20 billion of aircraft sales and that is just one new goodie Iran wants... "The spice must flow"... err... I mean the petro dollars must flow.

Look for a hot time in the Middle East boys and girls... I rage!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to disrupt the current conversations (please continue)... but... I rage!

I rage!

I should've known... I couldn't figure out the new nuclear agreement with Iran.

USA? Well Obama has oft shown his ineptitude in foreign affairs and desires a legacy beyond Benghazi and Syrian chemical weapons "red lines". Russia and China? Well they have long desired to cozy up to Iran. But UK, France and Germany? Couldn't figure why they would go along with this horrid deal. And this article gave the eureka moment...

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/in-wake-of-nuclear-deal-iran-s-rouhani-raises-prospect-of-new-planes-1.2472104

So $20 billion of aircraft sales and that is just one new goodie Iran wants... "The spice must flow"... err... I mean the petro dollars must flow.

Look for a hot time in the Middle East boys and girls... I rage!

Wait, what's the rage for? Did you not want Iran to get into nuclear power?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...