Police Brutality?

[kenc51]

Also, did you all see pics of him today? He's wearing a neck brace and using a cane. I don't doubt he was bruised up pretty badly, but a neck brace and cane? C'mon...

Latest Story

That could just be money grabbing lawyers
They could be hoping if he looks more like a victim they he will get off and mayby sue the city!

I hope he gets charged for his crimes, but more improtantly the officials take all this seriously......Joining high-speed chases is nearly always pointless....not to mention police brutality

[-mogwai]

i think he needed the neck brace and cane. he was heavily sedated whenever i saw him on tv and i could tell that he had a problem walking.

[Tim Burton]

Also if you allow some "extra punches" slide then what happens when a cop arrests someone who is innocent?

An innocent man wouldn't run and endanger hundreds of lives. Even if a person did run who was innocent, he no longer becomes innocent when he RISKS hundreds of LIVES.

[kenc51]

Also if you allow some "extra punches" slide then what happens when a cop arrests someone who is innocent?

An innocent man wouldn't run and endanger hundreds of lives. Even if a person did run who was innocent, he no longer becomes innocent when he RISKS hundreds of LIVES.

I'd run from the police if they treat people like that!!!
He endangered lives because the police was chasing him!!
The police risked lives by chasing him over nothing....It wasn't like they knew he was armed and dangerous, or he had a hostage....he was on his own...he would have run out of gas soon or stopped @ a red light sometime..
The police have a thing called "the stinger". ALL police forces have them. they spread it accross the road and when someone drives over it, it will gradually let the air out of the tyres....this makes sure the suspect comes to a stop safely!!!

[Tim Burton]

Besides, even though someone may be bad to the atom, we still give them a fair trial (Saddam Hussein, anyone?) It's the price of democracy. Winston Churchill once said "Democracy is the worst form of government, after all the others."

A little history lesson. Trials were never used in matters of international politics. The person was just executed. Crimes against humanity and such "trials" were only created after WWII. All of a sudden the Allies decided it was the best thing to have a trial. So they decided to have a trial, now for some strange reason, we have decided that EVERYONE deserves a trial. This is patently unjustifiable.

During the talks at Yalta, Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin (the man who murdered 20 million people and made Hitler look like an amatuer) met. They discussed what they were going to do to the high ranking Nazis after the war.

One leader said, "We should just line them up and shoot them."

Another leader responded, "In my Country, we always give criminals trials!"

Roosevelt decided that trials were good and voted for the trials.

Who wanted the Trials and who was against them? Churchill or Stalin?















Churchill, the Lion of Democracy wanted to just execute the Nazis. Stalin wanted a trial.

Roosevelt eventually chose to support the War Department's plan. Other Allied leaders had their own ideas, however. Churchill reportedly told Stalin that he favored execution of captured Nazi leaders. Stalin answered, "In the Soviet Union, we never execute anyone without a trial." Churchill agreed saying, "Of course, of course. We should give them a trial first."

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project ... COUNT.html

What the rest of that quote doesn't say is that Churchill finished it, "Of course, of course. We should give them a trial first. Even if it is a show trial."

Because of the fear of a diplomatic SNAFU, the interpreter left that second part of the sentence out.

The idea that democracy demands a trial is foolish and not based in the slightest on history. The only modern society that believed in the absolute of trials is Communists, but even then the NEVER believed in fair trials.



Even reading a history of Nuremberg will reveal that those trials were show trials. Judges bargained with each other about who was guilty and who was not. Judges also bargained with each other about who would get executed and who would get life. One German general, who by all accounts was very moral in his fight on the Eastern Front was executed, because the Russian Judge DEMANDED his death. By all accounts he never committed a war crime, but because he kicked the Russians @$$ all over everytime he met them, the Russian judged demanded his death. As a trade off, the Western Judges decided to compromise, if the Russian would vote for life imprisonment for Speer (who employeed Slave labor) they would vote for the execution of the General. The General was executed for nothing more than fighting a good war.

And to think that Saddam is going to get a fair trial. Every time I watch the trial it is more and more like a Kangaroo Court than any court of law. Besides, he is being tried for crimes that were LEGAL under his rule. So we are violating a very accepted rule in democracy "ex post facto", and yet you call for the justification of a trial as being democratic.

The lack of a grasp on history by people is amazing.....

[Tim Burton]

Few more things:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_ ... _the_court

If Nuremberg wasn't a show trial then why:

The main Soviet judge, Nikitchenko, had taken part in Stalin's show trials of 1936-1938, something which in later years has damaged the credibility of the trials in some circles.

Basically, the guy who made mockeries of justice was a judge.

While Karl Dönitz was found guilty of raging unrestricted submarine warfare allied officers were not tried in spite of their acknowledgment that they had used the same practice.

So Dönitz committed a War Crime, but Allies didn't for the same exact actions? Can anyone say, "Hypocrisy"?

The trials were conducted under their own rules of evidence; the indictments were created ex post facto and were not based on any nation's law; the tu quoque defense was removed;

So they admitted in the trial, that they made up the laws AFTER the fact. Which is against democracy, so much for your position that it is the democratic way.

Even worse, is that the trials admitted that they were removing "at the person, you too" In other words, the defendants would NOT be allowed to say, "You did the same exact thing, so if we are tried, so should you."

Ironic isn't it?

and the entire spirit of the assembly was "victor's justice". Article 19 of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal Charter reads as follows:

"The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and nontechnical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which it deems to be of probative value."

Basically, this rule said that they could admit any evidence if they felt they needed to. They didn't give this same right to defense.

The same thing is going to happen to Saddam. A travesty of justice. Justice isn't a trial. Justice would have been to pump the guy for as much intelligence as possible, and film him being executed.

[Tim Burton]

I'd run from the police if they treat people like that!!!
He endangered lives because the police was chasing him!!

So going up and asking a few questions of a guy who looks suspicious means that he has the right to run? Get real. Then you have the audacity to blame the cops for "chasing" him Last time I looked at my logic book, it took someone running to have someone chase them. Cause>Effect

If someone runs, then others following after are chasing him.

Yup, simple if then statement.

The police risked lives by chasing him over nothing....It wasn't like they knew he was armed and dangerous, or he had a hostage....he was on his own...he would have run out of gas soon or stopped @ a red light sometime..

Or, he could have grabbed a gun and stopped at a store and took hostages. At that time, you don't know either way. If someone runs, it is only logical to assume the worse.

The police have a thing called "the stinger". ALL police forces have them. they spread it accross the road and when someone drives over it, it will gradually let the air out of the tyres....this makes sure the suspect comes to a stop safely!!!

Yes, I know what they are, but they aren't a magical item. You have to be infront of the criminal. Not easy when you don't know where he is going. You then have to set them out just before he gets past you, otherwise he can dodge them, which puts you at risk for being hit.

[-mogwai]

Also if you allow some "extra punches" slide then what happens when a cop arrests someone who is innocent?

An innocent man wouldn't run and endanger hundreds of lives. Even if a person did run who was innocent, he no longer becomes innocent when he RISKS hundreds of LIVES.

doesn't mean he deserves an ass-whooping from a gang of cops with clubs. that's not their job.

[Tim Burton]

doesn't mean he deserves an ass-whooping from a gang of cops with clubs. that's not their job.

He didn't get his ass kicked. He got hit a couple of times. There is a difference.

[kenc51]

History is 1 thing....We live in the present!!!
We should learn from history....that's the main reason to study it and learn it.....It doesn't mean because it was right then that it's right now!

Sadam is just a scapegoat.....He's just an engineered excuse.....!

You mention federalist.com in your sig....I checked the site out for 3mins....It keeps quoting Lincoln etc. Are these not the guys who wrote your Constitution? (I know very little of US history)

Article III.The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Why would your founding fathers put this into the constitution? Because they knew it's everyones right to have a fair trial....
This was written with a view to the future....they knew it would take some years for it to permeate into society.

Police and Govt. are in a position of power. They represent the people and the Law. It's the basis of Democracy that the people dictate how a country is run and therefore how the police is run. This was the reason behind the constitution / bill of rights etc. I know this is off-topic a bit, but it all links together. How a Govt. acts and how a cop acts.....The Govt. represents the people and a cop represents the law.....both should show a bit of integrity and respect to everyone they come in contact with, no matter who they are dealing with and for what reason.........

The history of WW2 is important......to remember not to let it happen again.....learn from the mistakes


Big rant i know........

[Amy]

doesn't mean he deserves an ass-whooping from a gang of cops with clubs. that's not their job.

He didn't get his ass kicked. He got hit a couple of times. There is a difference.

Sorry...I had to stop you on this one. A coupe of times? Let's see, according to dictionary.com:

cou·ple
n.
1. Two items of the same kind; a pair.
2. Something that joins or connects two things together; a link.
3. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
a. Two people united, as by betrothal or marriage.
b. Two people together.
4. Informal. A few; several: a couple of days.
5. Physics. A pair of forces of equal magnitude acting in parallel but opposite directions, capable of causing rotation but not translation.

I was unable to watch the video and count how many times each officer hit and kicked the man, but I can guarantee it was more than "a couple." He got his proverbial ass whooped. 3 officers were punching and kicking him before a 4th joined in kicking. Also, the idea in America is to receive justice in court, and not out in the field as police see fit. Their job is to uphold the law, the courts' job is to make judgment. The question is, did the police go beyond what was necessary to subdue him? That is what the investigation is about (and whether they should have gone on the chase at all). I do not think the police are justified in letting adreniline, testosterone, aggression, whatever you want to call it take over, if that is the case.

BTW, on KMOV.com, they said that they approached the supicious vehicle at a QT Gas station, and then he rammed a police car as he tried to get away. They had video of the police car on the website.

Also, I have to agree with Ken that we are to learn from history, and not live by it. Times, people, and laws change. That's how it is. Because someone famous made a statement doesn't make it right.

Also, Ken, Lincoln was our 16th president who got us through the Civil War. He was born in 1809, and the constitution was signed in 1787.

[kenc51]

Also, Ken, Lincoln was our 16th president who got us through the Civil War. He was born in 1809, and the constitution was signed in 1787.

Ok...George Washington then ;)

I come to a Pc forum and learn US history......nice

[-mogwai]

doesn't mean he deserves an ass-whooping from a gang of cops with clubs. that's not their job.

He didn't get his ass kicked. He got hit a couple of times. There is a difference.

HAHAHA

i'd hate to be your son.

[-mogwai]

constitution went into effect in 1789, though.

[Tim Burton]

Why would your founding fathers put this into the constitution? Because they knew it's everyones right to have a fair trial....
This was written with a view to the future....they knew it would take some years for it to permeate into society.

I am sorry, but that doesn't apply to States. Again, I am right, you are wrong.

While we deny that Congress have a right to controul the freedom of the press, we have ever asserted the rights of the states, and their exclusive right, to do so. -T. Jefferson in a letter to Abigail Adams, September 11, 1804

The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act.

That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a MAJORITY of the people of the Union, nor from that of a MAJORITY of the States.

In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.

Madison in Federalist Paper 39
http://patriotpost.us/fedpapers/fed_39.html

So he is saying that the Constitution only applies to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, not the States.

But Madison was concerned he said, "[T]he State governments are as liable to attack these invaluable privileges as the General Government is, and therefore ought to be as cautiously guarded against."

Source: Berger, Government by Judiciary 155 (1997).

So with this fear in mind, Madison wrote this Amendment:

No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases.

It died in the Senate.

Oops, so much for you quoting the Constitution for a State matter.

Even more telling is that in Hurtado v. People of State of California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884). the Supreme Court said that Hurtado did NOT have the right to a Jury trial and that the matter was a state issue and the Constitution didn't apply to the States. Therefore no jury trial was a right.

A little later, in Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581 (1900). Maxwell sued, because he wasn't indicted by a Grand Jury. The Supreme Court AGAIN said that the 5th Amendment DID NOT apply to the States.

So to quote the Constitution as a document that applies to the States is wrong.

Now, if your State Constitution says you have the right to a jury trial, that is fine, but the fact is that this is NOT all encompassing.

There is no right that you get a trial under all circumstances. I can personally think of two times that the right to a trial is tossed out by the majority (if not all) of states.

1. During times of Martial Law, a Law Enforcement office has the right to be judge, jury and executioner.

2. During the act of a violent crime. If you have in your posession a deadly weapon and you commit a criminal act, it is legal and moral to absolve you of a jury trial. Example: You pull out a knife less than 20 feet from me, in AZ and in most states in the US I have the right to sentence you to death right there by pulling out a gun and shooting you.

It is the same respect that a person with a 2000 pound bullet gives up his right to a jury trial when speeding throughout a city attempting (intentionally or unintentionally) to murder people. If you are driving like a killer, the police have the right and duty to stop with with the maximum amount of force.

[Tim Burton]

I was unable to watch the video and count how many times each officer hit and kicked the man, but I can guarantee it was more than "a couple."

And how many of those times was he still resisting? As long as you are fighting or defiant (not submitting to the handcuffs) you are fair game.

Also, I have to agree with Ken that we are to learn from history, and not live by it. Times, people, and laws change. That's how it is. Because someone famous made a statement doesn't make it right.

Problem is that the intent of the Founding Fathers do not change nor the worldview that we are founded on. If the worldview changes, we are not the same society and do not represent what the FF stood for.

The piont still stands:

1. When your actions are immediately posing a risk to society you have absolved yourself of any right to a trial, because you have just placed society at immediate risk.

2. If you resist arrest in a physical fashion, you can expect to get physical force used to restrain you.

3. If you have just resisted arrest and attacked law enforcement officers, then you can expect that cops being human will not immediately realize that you have stopped resisting arrest and submitted and continue to use force.

4. If you are willing to risk the death of innocent people in society by being involved in a high speed chase, then you should risk (and face) police trying to use deadly force to stop you in order to protect you from harming innocent people in society.

[kenc51]

The piont still stands:

1. When your actions are immediately posing a risk to society you have absolved yourself of any right to a trial, because you have just placed society at immediate risk.

2. If you resist arrest in a physical fashion, you can expect to get physical force used to restrain you.

3. If you have just resisted arrest and attacked law enforcement officers, then you can expect that cops being human will not immediately realize that you have stopped resisting arrest and submitted and continue to use force.

4. If you are willing to risk the death of innocent people in society by being involved in a high speed chase, then you should risk (and face) police trying to use deadly force to stop you in order to protect you from harming innocent people in society.

1. This guy placed the cops and people in real risk only after he was chased....yeah he hit the car, but that's not reason to engage in a high speed chase....a car is a lethal weapon....so the cops were endangering people too.....

2. Yep if you resist you will know about it....but reasonable force!!! This means the minimum amount of force required....

3. Your point about cops being human is true, but as mentioed earlier...cops are trained to show restraint....this whole incident just proves the cops either were not trainned enough or should not have being working...

4. As mentioned again B4 the guy was moving @ high speed because the cops kept up with him.....they should have kept back and let another car take care of him.....


As I said my US history is non-existent.....But are you saying that there's no equivilent law in this State???

What happened to "To Protect and to Serve"
Now the stuff I quoted may not apply specificly to this State, but I'm certain Cops in any state are not allowed to abuse a suspect

I can accept your point, but If he had say a slight black eye or something very basic then I'd say there is no case for him. 4 cops to restrain 1 guy who was already restained????

[Tim Burton]

1. This guy placed the cops and people in real risk only after he was chased....yeah he hit the car, but that's not reason to engage in a high speed chase....a car is a lethal weapon....so the cops were endangering people too.....

That is assuming he posed no risk outside of running. Hindsight is 20/20. Also, most states have laws that allow and encourage cops to pursuit runners because they logically are afraid that the next time, the person may have a gun or do something even more violent by trying to escape.

2. Yep if you resist you will know about it....but reasonable force!!! This means the minimum amount of force required....

Very subjective. Is a gun the minimum amount of force in response to a knife? No, but it is acceptable why? Because the risk and responsiblity is placed upon to criminal.

3. Your point about cops being human is true, but as mentioed earlier...cops are trained to show restraint....this whole incident just proves the cops either were not trainned enough or should not have being working...

They did. Hell, if I was in that situation, I would have shot him for risking all those lives. So again, the idea of restraint is very subjective in the heat of the moment. The person to blame is the criminal. It reminds me of the guy who grabs the ass of some chick. Sure, the guy who beats the crap out of him for doing it is wrong, but the guy who grabbed the butt deserves it. So again the responsiblity falls on the criminal/purpetrator (spelling).

4. As mentioned again B4 the guy was moving @ high speed because the cops kept up with him.....they should have kept back and let another car take care of him.....

As I have said, I agree that is it best to give the guy room and then get him, but the fact is that sometimes that is not an option. A few years ago a guy in Phoenix was in a high speed chase. He crashed a couple of times and each time he would steal another car at gun point. At one point the guy shot someone and killed them. In Phoenix people were asking where the cops were and why didn't the get the guy earlier. So it is better to give the benefit of the doubt, than to judge in a hard situation like that that the criminal created himself.

As I said my US history is non-existent.....But are you saying that there's no equivilent law in this State???

No, the Constitution is a Federal Document. It binds the Federal Government, not the States. Recently, Courts have been placing the Bill or Rights on the States too, but that issue is still in debate and with the Court Swinging toward Judges who are members of the Federalist Society, that is a point that is going to be very much in debate.

What happened to "To Protect and to Serve"
Now the stuff I quoted may not apply specificly to this State, but I'm certain Cops in any state are not allowed to abuse a suspect

They were protecting and serving the public by getting this guy. Why they didn't back up or such is unknown. Either the state law requires that they chase the person, or they must have felt it a risk and chased the person so to protect the public.

The hitting? Well, give the cops some benefit of the doubt. I remember kicking a guys ass who was 6'3, because he sucker punched my brother who was 6'1 and I'm only 5'10. In the heat of the moment, I put the guy down and hit him a couple more times. So I have experienced that heat of the moment reaction, we are all human, and so leyway needs to be given in a high adreniline moment. Had they put the guy in the car and then beat the crap out of him, I would definately be on yourside.

I can accept your point, but If he had say a slight black eye or something very basic then I'd say there is no case for him. 4 cops to restrain 1 guy who was already restained????

Let's find out how much of those braces and such are for show and how much are real.

[kenc51]

minimum amout of force is just that.......minimum amount...
There was 4 cops and 1 suspect......how come it takes 4 cops to take down 1 suspect....he wasn't aremed with a knife or anything....even if they suspected he had a knife, they would have drawn the guns and none of this would have happend.......So your point regarding minimum force is mute!

Responsibility Falls on the Criminal???? We are talking about a specific case....In this case it took 4 cops to subdue this guy......All it required in this case was the cops to have a level head and it would have being sorted without any risk to others......this is my point

I don't see your point regarding high speed chases....that case is Phoenix.....How many cases a year happen like that? Compaired to "standard" criminal cases.......I'd happily risk another Phoenix incident as it would mean alot less endangered lives!!!

I'm sorry I mentioned the law or lack of it......

I also mentioned @ the top of the page

That could just be money grabbing lawyers
They could be hoping if he looks more like a victim they he will get off and mayby sue the city!

I'm not suggesting this guy is an angel......All I'm saying is everyone should be treated with respect and given a fair trial.....it may not be the law, but everyone should be innocent until proven guilty.........

This is a law that all countries should adhere to

1.Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence

Don't tell me America doesn't follow the Human rights charter..... (@ least in part!)

This is basic common sense (not so comon anymore!)

I do understand the "human equation" -> where people will get fustrated and lash out......but this is the point.....Bio mentioned it in 1 of the first posts......Cops get anger managment training, they; like guys in the armed forces are trainned and expected to show a bit of decorum and integrity. Training makes them learn they are not representing themselves but the organisation to which they belong to.......

Believe me, I do see your point.........I just don't agree

man I didn't expect this when I posted in this thread.....Amy look @ what you done LOL

[infinitevalence]

ken i have some bad news, but the United States does not recognize the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

We are 1 of like 12 countryies that dont, along with China, Iran, Saudi Arabia...