Cop Beating - Page 22 - PhillyBlog

coldblooded36 · #**211** (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhillyRunner

I'm just bumping this post because I think it sums up well the opinions of most of the people who are defending the police.

As for the final question: what more do people want? They want to eliminate the power dynamic that exists between any two people. Whether that power dynamic results from race, gender, income, employment. They want no one individual to have any power over another, demanding equality above all else. They want to live in the world of Harrison Bergeron. Okay, that's a slight exaggeration; but only slight.

I will note one point that amazes me. Perhaps I'm just lumping too many people into a single group, but it seems to me that the same people who bemoan purported abuses of power by police also believe that the solutions to society's problems -- poverty, health care, housing -- is to give the government more power in these varied areas, as though a government bureaucrat is any less likely to abuse his/her position of authority than a police officer. It's almost like a libertarian's dystopia: empower the government to do everything except the one thing that it's supposed to do -- secure private citizens in their person and their property.

yawn

you're about as boring and irrelevant as Ron Paul

nuleader · #**212** (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by random

Quote:

The suspects resisted and were subdued by the police. Complying with instructions while you're being arrested isn't optional.

If you resist, force will be used against you. That's the law. The police may use any force reasonably necessary to effect the arrest. If they have to punch, strike and kick you to make you comply, well you get punched, hit and kicked. Don't want to get beat on, don't resist. Simple as that.

I looked at the footage carefully and while it's hard to see, to the best I can see striking the suspects stopped even before the cuffs were on, and there were no strikes once the cuffs were on and the people secured. That's not bad. It's actually pretty good. Seems to me they did what they had to to make the thugs comply and then stopped the application of force when it was no longer necessary. What more do people want?

Well, it's my opinion that the above is the typical knee jerk reaction from people not impacted by police abuse of authority and/or power. It also ignores the fact that the police do not have the right to break the law, even if you did or are.

There are rules of engagement. Similar to what we find in war. There are things you can and cannot do. To follow your argument, you're suggesting that one does whatever one feels should be done during a time of war, regardless of the law. But, the great reality is that you cannot. Any civilized society has to live by rules and boundaries. Moreover, you don't 'win' when you decide that they do not apply to you, given some mitigating circumstance. Lastly, I , personally, hold cops to a higer standard. I don't know, it's got something to do with a badge, a gun, handcuffs, liberty, privacy, etc...

PhillyRunner · #**213** (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nuleader

Well, it's my opinion that the above is the typical knee jerk reaction from people not impacted by police abuse of authority and/or power. It also ignores the fact that the police do not have the right to break the law, even if you did or are.

Let's start from the beginning: what law did they break? Are police officers not permitted to use force to subdue a suspect who resists arrest?

PhillyRunner · #**214** (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coldblooded36

yawn

you're about as boring and irrelevant as Ron Paul

Thanks for the contribution. You've once again made PB a more erudite place for discussion.

nuleader · #**215** (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhillyRunner

Let's start from the beginning: what law did they break? Are police officers not permitted to use force to subdue a suspect who resists arrest?

From the beginning: Obviously, they can utilize force. However, there are rules of engagement. It's not as though because they have a badge and a gun, anything goes. There's also such a thing as excessive use of force, even if a supsect resists arrest. This isn't WWE Smackdown....there are boundaries and limits.

random · #**216** (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nuleader

Originally Posted by random

Well, it's my opinion that the above is the typical knee jerk reaction from people not impacted by police abuse of authority and/or power. It also ignores the fact that the police do not have the right to break the law, even if you did or are.

There are rules of engagement. Similar to what we find in war. There are things you can and cannot do. To follow your argument, you're suggesting that one does whatever one feels should be done during a time of war, regardless of the law. But, the great reality is that you cannot. Any civilized society has to live by rules and boundaries. Moreover, you don't 'win' when you decide that they do not apply to you, given some mitigating circumstance. Lastly, I , personally, hold cops to a higer standard. I don't know, it's got something to do with a badge, a gun, handcuffs, liberty, privacy, etc...

You squawk alot about laws broken here as if that's a foregone conclusion. In your view, what law, exactly applies and what facts, exactly form the basis for your conclusion that it was violated.

I conclude the amount of force used was reasonable because if I had to subdue a resisting suspect that I believed was likely dangerous, I've already said I would stomp and beat them until they submitted. They did what I would have done so I concluded it was reasonable. I've since learned there are better ways to secure people -- but better doesn't mean that the way used was illegal.

If I were being arrested and the police suspected I had weapons (which I likely would) I would not be inclined to flee or resist and if I did I would expect to be stomped and beaten or worse until I complied. Thus, even from that angle (of put yourself in the suspects' shoes) I conclude what police did was reasonable.

What "rules of engagement" exist in your utopian paradise? Treat dangerous resisting criminals gently?

I don't how much you know, but from here you don't have a clue.

PhillyRunner · #**217** (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nuleader

From the beginning: Obviously, they can utilize force. However, there are rules of engagement. It's not as though because they have a badge and a gun, anything goes. There's also such a thing as excessive use of force, even if a supsect resists arrest. This isn't WWE Smackdown....there are boundaries and limits.

So, on what basis are you suggesting that the police violated the law? Can you cite any statutory authority or judicial precedent to support this conclusion, or are you just floating your opinion?

nuleader · #**218** (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by random

You squawk alot about laws broken here as if that's a foregone conclusion. In your view, what law, exactly applies and what facts, exactly form the basis for your conclusion that it was violated.

I conclude the amount of force used was reasonable because if I had to subdue a resisting suspect that I believed was likely dangerous, I've already said I would stomp and beat them until they submitted. They did what I would have done so I concluded it was reasonable. I've since learned there are better ways to secure people -- but better doesn't mean that the way used was illegal.

If I were being arrested and the police suspected I had weapons (which I likely would) I would not be inclined to flee or resist and if I did I would expect to be stomped and beaten or worse until I complied. Thus, even from that angle (of put yourself in the suspects' shoes) I conclude what police did was reasonable.

What "rules of engagement" exist in your utopian paradise? Treat dangerous resisting criminals gently?

I don't how much you know, but from here you don't have a clue.

Ahhh! Where to begin. This is too funny. People on this blog do not want to hear opinions other than their own. If that is the case just talk to yourselves. My guess is you come to a site, such as pb, to hear an opinion different than your own.

Also, you're coming across as an expert of some sort. I am not. I'm just offering my informed opinion, buttressed by my concern for civil liberties. Obviously, the PPD feels that there is something awary, given the actions they've taken thus far, along with the PDAO.

But, I will not continue, given that it's obvious that you wish to only hear YOUR opinion...

You know what would be better, record your own opinion and then hit play as many times as you'd like

BTW: Democracy is not a "utopian paradise."

nuleader · #**219** (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhillyRunner

So, on what basis are you suggesting that the police violated the law? Can you cite any statutory authority or judicial precedent to support this conclusion, or are you just floating your opinion?

We have not established that a law has or HAS NOT been broken. However, I take issue with those who falsely assume that any type of force utilized by a police officer is necessary and/or appropriate. Moreover, I take issue with those who promulgate the idea that if you're enforcing the law, do what you must; particularly, as it relates to dealing with 'bad guys'.

It's that kind of thinking which led us into this war of convenience. It's that kind of thinking which led to the rise of the Third Reich...it's a slippery slope my friend.

Any society must have rules and boundaries, which become uber important (no pun intended) for those vested with special authority and/or powers.

Oh! Just listen to me bleed....

random · #**220** (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nuleader

Ahhh! Where to begin. This is too funny. People on this blog do not want to hear opinions other than their own. If that is the case just talk to yourselves. My guess is you come to a site, such as pb, to hear an opinion different than your own.

Also, you're coming across as an expert of some sort. I am not. I'm just offering my informed opinion, buttressed by my concern for civil liberties. Obviously, the PPD feels that there is something awary, given the actions they've taken thus far, along with the PDAO.

But, I will not continue, given that it's obvious that you wish to only hear YOUR opinion...

You know what would be better, record your own opinion and then hit play as many times as you'd like

BTW: Democracy is not a "utopian paradise."

Translation. You don't know. You like to hear yourself talk with no basis in fact.

I could be wrong. I could be right. You don't have a clue as to either.

Before you go back off to your private utopia, here's the law related to non-deadly force:

(a) Peace officer's use of force in making arrest.--

(1) A peace officer, or any person whom he has summoned or directed to assist him, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. He is justified in the use of any force which he believes to be necessary to effect the arrest and of any force which he believes to be necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest.

Those are the rules of engagement under the law.