Moderator: Community Team
Yes, I think there was indication. I think the cops were dicks and lookin for a fight. I think they went way WAYYY too far.2dimes wrote:So there was no indication that violence may have been about to occur until the guy said, "start punching."?
why wouldn't asking a cop to punch ya be a factor in a cop punching ya????2dimes wrote:Well, I'm not them and wasn't even there but from the transcript. I think they were intending to beat the guy at least as bad as they did.
Maybe pretty dumb to challenge them but I don't think it was a factor.
Because of what the cop said and did just before he said it.Phatscotty wrote:why wouldn't asking a cop to punch ya be a factor in a cop punching ya????
Sure and I'll even agree that this was one of the worst places in the world to do so. I don't know how far away but that's the region where Rodney King became famous.Gotta at least admit it did not help, and if anything it showed the cop the soon to be victim was looking for violence and not listening to authority. Obviously, not respecting authority either.
What I speculate.... the guy was high on something.
I'm not really sure that's your definition. I'm just going by the general tenor of your posts in the forum. You seem to be rather judgmental of others, regardless of whether their doing whatever does not cause other people to be harmed.natty dread wrote:My definition is "everyone should be free to do whatever as long as it causes no harm to others or impede their respective freedoms".thegreekdog wrote:I believe that's your definition as well (to be fair).natty dread wrote:Come on, everyone knows PhatStrike's definition of "freedom" is "people should be free to do the things i think people should do"
But hey, I guess you know what I think better than I? After all, you have so much more experience being me than I do...
This abject fear that most americans seem to have towards the police is very interesting to me.Phatscotty wrote: Well, I think you are the idiot. When you tell a cop to start punching, there is a good chance the cop is going to start punching. Anyone who does not understand that is an idiot and going to get punched.
It's not just fear, it's also respect. Some believe the police take great personal risk, more than anyone else, to keep the community safe and bring justice to criminals. Some appreciate that even.Haggis_McMutton wrote:This abject fear that most americans seem to have towards the police is very interesting to me.Phatscotty wrote: Well, I think you are the idiot. When you tell a cop to start punching, there is a good chance the cop is going to start punching. Anyone who does not understand that is an idiot and going to get punched.
The people who shout loudest for personal freedom, gun posession and so on have absolutely no issue with behaving like a shy 5 year old that just broke something expensive when in the presence of one of the people you pay to serve and protect.
Indeed the behaviour around police, even if you've done nothing wrong, seems to be in the mindset of appeasing and flattering the bully as much as possible in the hopes that he'll be satisfied and leave without stealing your lunch money.
Oh, ok! So you do know what my definitions are better than me. How fascinating! Do tell me, how long have you been me? 30 years? 31?thegreekdog wrote:I'm not really sure that's your definition.natty dread wrote:My definition is "everyone should be free to do whatever as long as it causes no harm to others or impede their respective freedoms".thegreekdog wrote:I believe that's your definition as well (to be fair).natty dread wrote:Come on, everyone knows PhatStrike's definition of "freedom" is "people should be free to do the things i think people should do"
But hey, I guess you know what I think better than I? After all, you have so much more experience being me than I do...
I'm only judgemental of actions and attitudes which go against said principle.I'm just going by the general tenor of your posts in the forum. You seem to be rather judgmental of others, regardless of whether their doing whatever does not cause other people to be harmed.
All I'm saying is, if he wouldn't a said "start punchin" it is more likely he would not have been punched. He did comply with the officers order to hold his hands out....at the last second. He seems a little more efficient than we would be led to believe.BigBallinStalin wrote:PS, the guy that was beaten was mentally deficient, i.e. he had something wrong with his brain.
I don't see how your "it's just common sense; don't be stupid" reasoning applies to this situation because the guy can't exercise "common sense" or refrain from being "stupid"...
You mean government handouts / entitlements?Phatscotty wrote: This guy should have been receiving some kind of assistance.
We take care of the mentally ill. That has been decided since our founding. It goes along with things we all agree is a primary function of government, such as defense and a courts system.natty dread wrote:You mean government handouts / entitlements?Phatscotty wrote: This guy should have been receiving some kind of assistance.
Le gasp!
Phatscotty wrote:Yes, I think there was indication. I think the cops were dicks and lookin for a fight. I think they went way WAYYY too far.2dimes wrote:So there was no indication that violence may have been about to occur until the guy said, "start punching."?
That does not change the reality that the victim egged them on, and was literally asking for it.
Phatscotty wrote:why wouldn't asking a cop to punch ya be a factor in a cop punching ya????2dimes wrote:Well, I'm not them and wasn't even there but from the transcript. I think they were intending to beat the guy at least as bad as they did.
Maybe pretty dumb to challenge them but I don't think it was a factor.
Gotta at least admit it did not help, and if anything it showed the cop the soon to be victim was looking for violence and not listening to authority. Obviously, not respecting authority either.
What I speculate.... the guy was high on something.
Phatscotty wrote:It's not just fear, it's also respect. Some believe the police take great personal risk, more than anyone else, to keep the community safe and bring justice to criminals. Some appreciate that even.Haggis_McMutton wrote:This abject fear that most americans seem to have towards the police is very interesting to me.Phatscotty wrote: Well, I think you are the idiot. When you tell a cop to start punching, there is a good chance the cop is going to start punching. Anyone who does not understand that is an idiot and going to get punched.
The people who shout loudest for personal freedom, gun posession and so on have absolutely no issue with behaving like a shy 5 year old that just broke something expensive when in the presence of one of the people you pay to serve and protect.
Indeed the behaviour around police, even if you've done nothing wrong, seems to be in the mindset of appeasing and flattering the bully as much as possible in the hopes that he'll be satisfied and leave without stealing your lunch money.
You rant about how I feel about every other issue except the one we are talking about. Yes, I can shout loud for freedom, and also have the opinion that lipping off to a police officer is a stupid idea. Yes, I can shout loud in support of the 2nd Amendment, while I am also able to have the opinion that telling a police officer to start punching you is a stupid idea.
It's just common sense. don't be stupid. Your whole post misses the incredibly simple point.
Phatscotty wrote:TA1LGUNN3R wrote:You're a fucking idiot. I hope that someday you never have to see what the pigs will do just because they can. Let's see how tough you act when a fucking truculent authoritarian who is above the law and has a gun is sitting on you, smashing your face in. The guy was homeless and schizophrenic, he obviously wasn't all there. Not only was the whole ordeal completely unnecessary, it was over the top. They could've cuffed him and let him tire himself out. Instead they had to taze him and crush his throat. There are tons of ways to restrain somebody without killing them.Phatscotty wrote:Interesting how a guy can go from "start punching pig" and "I'm done playin with you" to "I'M SORRY!!!!!! "I'M SORRRRYYYYYY!!!!!!!"
And you claim to be an advocate for freedom, waving your "don't tread on me" flag around. What a whitebread motherfucker you are.
-TG
Well, I think you are the idiot. When you tell a cop to start punching, there is a good chance the cop is going to start punching. Anyone who does not understand that is an idiot and going to get punched.
I knew you would tout the guys photo in front of me. That does not grab my emotions and make me lose my common sense though, as you hoped it would. The entire article is biased, and written to be as effective on influencing your emotions as possible. Take emotion out of it, for once...
Tool
Precisely. Here he is, complaining in another thread about how Obama is supporting a nanny state gov't that will decide everything for you, and yet he supports killer cops.greekdog wrote:And PS - I don't understand how you can be supportive of this type of thing and call yourself a Libertarian or Ron Paul supporter or small government conservative. This is exactly the kind of thing that you should be railing against.
Oh, but shouldn't those mentally ill people just be taken care of by their relatives or some charities or such?Phatscotty wrote:We take care of the mentally ill. That has been decided since our founding. It goes along with things we all agree is a primary function of government, such as defense and a courts system.natty dread wrote:You mean government handouts / entitlements?Phatscotty wrote: This guy should have been receiving some kind of assistance.
Le gasp!
Le gasp! dork
What part of "they beat the shit out of him" don't you understand? Here's the situation - the victim (for lack of a better term) is mouthing off to the cops and/or throwing punches. The police could do one of three things: (1) Walk away; (2) Subdue and arrest him; or (3) Beat the living shit out of him. If the police had done (2) I would have no problem. They didn't do (2), they did (3). Why would you defend those actions? What possible reason could you have to defend those actions when the alternative is (2)?Phatscotty wrote:All I'm saying is, if he wouldn't a said "start punchin" it is more likely he would not have been punched. He did comply with the officers order to hold his hands out....at the last second. He seems a little more efficient than we would be led to believe.BigBallinStalin wrote:PS, the guy that was beaten was mentally deficient, i.e. he had something wrong with his brain.
I don't see how your "it's just common sense; don't be stupid" reasoning applies to this situation because the guy can't exercise "common sense" or refrain from being "stupid"...
My heart goes out to people who have mental problems. I think every person has someone in their family with something. This guy should have been receiving some kind of assistance. But I do wonder if perhaps he did not care about his life or possibly wanted to die, but I don't have to wonder too much about the cops and if they were looking for a fight, it's seems like they were, at least the first guy. The fact that he was not receiving any assistance shows either their is a problem with the government system, while it is also possible this guy ruined his chances at his halfway home or got kicked out of the facility he was at before or was judged high enough functioning to not need hospitalization, or perhaps he simply missed his meds for a few weeks. I'm sure there is a lot to the story we will never know.
Ah, you're not impeding others by being judgmental. I get it. I think Phatscotty is also allowed to criticize ideas and concepts, as long as he's not doing it in a derogatory, dehumanizing, or silencing/marginalizing way too.natty dread wrote:Oh, ok! So you do know what my definitions are better than me. How fascinating! Do tell me, how long have you been me? 30 years? 31?thegreekdog wrote:I'm not really sure that's your definition.natty dread wrote:My definition is "everyone should be free to do whatever as long as it causes no harm to others or impede their respective freedoms".thegreekdog wrote:I believe that's your definition as well (to be fair).natty dread wrote:Come on, everyone knows PhatStrike's definition of "freedom" is "people should be free to do the things i think people should do"
But hey, I guess you know what I think better than I? After all, you have so much more experience being me than I do...
I'm only judgemental of actions and attitudes which go against said principle.I'm just going by the general tenor of your posts in the forum. You seem to be rather judgmental of others, regardless of whether their doing whatever does not cause other people to be harmed.
And regardless of that, my statement of personal opinion about any certain activity does not count as trying to impede on other people's freedom. My freedom of expression does not impede on other people's freedom to whatever, ergo I am allowed to criticize ideas and concepts, as long as I'm not doing it in a derogatory, dehumanizing or silencing/marginalizing way.
But as always, good luck providing some evidence for your claims.
Well put, consrvatism shouldn't be about automatically siding with the police, and liberals too often automatically side with the victim.thegreekdog wrote:What part of "they beat the shit out of him" don't you understand? Here's the situation - the victim (for lack of a better term) is mouthing off to the cops and/or throwing punches. The police could do one of three things: (1) Walk away; (2) Subdue and arrest him; or (3) Beat the living shit out of him. If the police had done (2) I would have no problem. They didn't do (2), they did (3). Why would you defend those actions? What possible reason could you have to defend those actions when the alternative is (2)?Phatscotty wrote:All I'm saying is, if he wouldn't a said "start punchin" it is more likely he would not have been punched. He did comply with the officers order to hold his hands out....at the last second. He seems a little more efficient than we would be led to believe.BigBallinStalin wrote:PS, the guy that was beaten was mentally deficient, i.e. he had something wrong with his brain.
I don't see how your "it's just common sense; don't be stupid" reasoning applies to this situation because the guy can't exercise "common sense" or refrain from being "stupid"...
My heart goes out to people who have mental problems. I think every person has someone in their family with something. This guy should have been receiving some kind of assistance. But I do wonder if perhaps he did not care about his life or possibly wanted to die, but I don't have to wonder too much about the cops and if they were looking for a fight, it's seems like they were, at least the first guy. The fact that he was not receiving any assistance shows either their is a problem with the government system, while it is also possible this guy ruined his chances at his halfway home or got kicked out of the facility he was at before or was judged high enough functioning to not need hospitalization, or perhaps he simply missed his meds for a few weeks. I'm sure there is a lot to the story we will never know.
I've seen videos where a bully or group of bullies beats the shit out of someone. They make me angry. This is a group of bullies (the police) beating the shit out of someone. I'm angry. It should make you and everyone else similarly angry. If it doesn't, you have major problems.
Oh, so your argument is basically the good old "if you're intolerant of intolerance, then you're just as bad as the intolerant people"... gotcha.thegreekdog wrote:Ah, you're not impeding others by being judgmental. I get it. I think Phatscotty is also allowed to criticize ideas and concepts, as long as he's not doing it in a derogatory, dehumanizing, or silencing/marginalizing way too.natty dread wrote:Oh, ok! So you do know what my definitions are better than me. How fascinating! Do tell me, how long have you been me? 30 years? 31?thegreekdog wrote:I'm not really sure that's your definition.natty dread wrote:
My definition is "everyone should be free to do whatever as long as it causes no harm to others or impede their respective freedoms".
But hey, I guess you know what I think better than I? After all, you have so much more experience being me than I do...
I'm only judgemental of actions and attitudes which go against said principle.I'm just going by the general tenor of your posts in the forum. You seem to be rather judgmental of others, regardless of whether their doing whatever does not cause other people to be harmed.
And regardless of that, my statement of personal opinion about any certain activity does not count as trying to impede on other people's freedom. My freedom of expression does not impede on other people's freedom to whatever, ergo I am allowed to criticize ideas and concepts, as long as I'm not doing it in a derogatory, dehumanizing or silencing/marginalizing way.
But as always, good luck providing some evidence for your claims.
I suppose some could read your posts (and mine and Phatscotty's) as derogatory or marginalizing. Which, frankly, doesn't impede anyone from posting their beliefs or opinion, but, seem to fall under your definition of impeding. In sum, I'm not sure how Phatscotty's posts are any different than yours in the way they criticize or opine on current events with respect to whether they impede or don't impede someone's point of view. Phatscotty offers a point of view. You offer a point of view. I offer a point of view. Phatscotty's point of view does not impede your ability (or anyone else's) to do or say anything, just like your point of view does not impede Phatscotty's ability to do or say anything.
Example - Your idea of equal rights for women may be very different from my idea of equal rights for women. Does that mean your idea of equal rights for women is "people should be free to do the things I think people should do?"
Example - Your idea of freedom of religion may be very different than my idea of freedom of religion. Does that mean your idea of freedom of religion is "people should be free to do the things I think people should do?"
But it's not in the constitution!!!!!!#$@#%$#%Phatscotty wrote:We take care of the mentally ill. That has been decided since our founding. It goes along with things we all agree is a primary function of government, such as defense and a courts system.natty dread wrote:You mean government handouts / entitlements?Phatscotty wrote: This guy should have been receiving some kind of assistance.
Le gasp!
Le gasp! dork
I call BULLSHIT. America only takes care of the mentally ill if there is money involved. Why did the state of New york release hundreds of mentally ill patients on to the streets?Phatscotty wrote:We take care of the mentally ill. That has been decided since our founding. It goes along with things we all agree is a primary function of government, such as defense and a courts system.natty dread wrote:You mean government handouts / entitlements?Phatscotty wrote: This guy should have been receiving some kind of assistance.
Le gasp!
Le gasp! dork
Because New York is a liberal state and can't manage their taxpayers money properly?notyou2 wrote:I call BULLSHIT. America only takes care of the mentally ill if there is money involved. Why did the state of New york release hundreds of mentally ill patients on to the streets?Phatscotty wrote:We take care of the mentally ill. That has been decided since our founding. It goes along with things we all agree is a primary function of government, such as defense and a courts system.natty dread wrote:You mean government handouts / entitlements?Phatscotty wrote: This guy should have been receiving some kind of assistance.
Le gasp!
Le gasp! dork
Back peddaling much Phatty?Phatscotty wrote:Because New York is a liberal state and can't manage their taxpayers money properly?notyou2 wrote:I call BULLSHIT. America only takes care of the mentally ill if there is money involved. Why did the state of New york release hundreds of mentally ill patients on to the streets?Phatscotty wrote:We take care of the mentally ill. That has been decided since our founding. It goes along with things we all agree is a primary function of government, such as defense and a courts system.natty dread wrote:You mean government handouts / entitlements?Phatscotty wrote: This guy should have been receiving some kind of assistance.
Le gasp!
Le gasp! dork
Besides, I wasn't even talking about a state program...
And then have some cops who're drunk on power and authority beat them to death.Phatscotty wrote:Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest tossed,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
