Hah. You mean this cop out?

"It's okay to vertically body slam a happy sober man into concrete, but goddamnit it is NEVER acceptable to horizontally body slam a sad drunk woman into concrete!"

You're clearly full of shit old lady.

And another prime example of how we humans compartmentalize the most awful shit in order to justify our indefensible positions.

..santorum stain..

>> ^bmacs27:

As for Jefferson, if people flash mobbed his bed chambers, he'd most certainly ask them to leave. It's manners. If they refused, as these kids did, by yelling "you hate freedom, you hate the constitution" at him, you better believe there would be some Jeffersonian body-slams.

he'd probably shoot em actually. he was infamous for dueling.

*EDIT* sorry, confused him with jackson

^cosmovitelli:If you can't see how letting people get body slammed for abstract localised unspecifiable silent body movements can't lead to getting dragged off to jail for dropping gum then you need to start hiding your gum.




*sigh* again, no one was getting slammed for dancing. The cops werent running around saying "hey, that dude is dancing, crossface chicken wing that motherfucker! ya! DX for life!! SUCK IT" and then slamming their crossed arms on their crotch.

the only "bodyslam" that took place (in the video at least, the rest is speculation) was on kokesh (pretty sure it was him). If you can objectively watch that video and then with a straight face insist he was slammed for dancing you are out of your fucking mind. He was being placed under arrest and then repeatedly and forcefully resisted arrest. THAT is what he was taken down for. The arresting officer gave him two "last" warnings before the takedown but all you saw was the bodyslam huh?

if you can objectively watch the video and then with a straight face insist that those arrested were not disturbing the peace and were acting civilly then you are out of your fucking mind.

their first warning even was "if you demonstrate by dancing" but all you heard was dancing huh?

officer calmly and politely explains to them they are in violation of the demonstration ordinance and gave them ample warning to knock it off. what do they do? argue the semantics of dancing with them? continue to demonstrate and then act outraged that they got arrested? MLK would be proud

the fact that everyone keeps latching on to the dancing aspect and willfully ignores the fact that they were demonstrating shows a certain selectiveness of what we are seeing here. Ive been trying to be as objective as possible in viewing both of these videos. but we see what we wanna see huh?

The validity of the law classifying memorials as "nonpublic" is potentially a legitimate question. However, there are legitimate ways to question it (say through representation) and illegitimate (say by picking fights with cops). If people showed up at the WH, in numbers, at midnight, you better damn well believe they'll get what's coming to them. You have to understand the nerves of a law enforcement official (particularly in DC). They can't know your intentions. There are times and places that other constitutional mandates, such as to provide for national security, trump the first amendment. If you don't believe me, see my sift here. Also, please don't shoot back with "deserve neither." Like you point out, it's more complicated than simple aphorisms.

That's why we have courts. The courts have repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of the law in question. Frankly, that the arrests were so physical had more to do with the attitude of the demonstrators than the cops. Refusing a lawful order repeatedly won't end well for you. They asked the demonstrators to leave nicely. The kids refused. When you disobey the law, as it is currently written, especially after being peacefully warned, reasonable states employ physical force. Saying that arrest is "violence" again over simplifies law enforcement. Those protesters knew what they were doing the whole time. Frankly, the force employed was the minimal force necessary to enforce the law. No weapons were used. Oscar Grant this wasn't.

As for Jefferson, if people flash mobbed his bed chambers, he'd most certainly ask them to leave. It's manners. If they refused, as these kids did, by yelling "you hate freedom, you hate the constitution" at him, you better believe there would be some Jeffersonian body-slams.
>> ^cosmovitelli:

Understood. The question is whether there should be such a law, and what a reasonable state would do if it were challenged. Presumably the same thing applies to thousands of spots, like the front of the White house. What if a couple of dozen people turned up there and silently flash mobbed it with a little peaceful jigging for 10 minutes? Do you want to see them violently attacked and arrested? Do you think the white house PR staff would ever dream of letting that happen? This is not as cut and dried as you guys would like to think. As for respecting Jefferson, does anyone really think the dude would have said anything other than let them get on with it?

>> ^smooman:

>> ^cosmovitelli:
Smooman you should live in Singapore you'd love it. The government don't like people making a mess with gum so if they catch you with any they put you in jail for year.
Needless to say, their streets are spotless and their memorials are peaceful. And their people are repressed and want their gum back.

if jailtime for chewing gum anywhere and being arrested and consequently released with no charges for dancing in one particular spot is the same thing to you, then perhaps a lobotomy is in order because you are certifiable


If you can't see how letting people get body slammed for abstract localised unspecifiable silent body movements can't lead to getting dragged off to jail for dropping gum then you need to start hiding your gum.

>> ^bmacs27:

There is a law against organized demonstration in the memorial.. ..You just aren't allowed to co-opt that space for political purposes, period.


Understood. The question is whether there should be such a law, and what a reasonable state would do if it were challenged. Presumably the same thing applies to thousands of spots, like the front of the White house. What if a couple of dozen people turned up there and silently flash mobbed it with a little peaceful jigging for 10 minutes? Do you want to see them violently attacked and arrested? Do you think the white house PR staff would ever dream of letting that happen? This is not as cut and dried as you guys would like to think. As for respecting Jefferson, does anyone really think the dude would have said anything other than let them get on with it?

Btw I think the gist of this thread has become about how normal it is to be physically corralled and violently attacked by the state when you 'break the law'.

On one hand we've got people who think a swift blow to the temple is in order for walking on the grass (yes everyone likes nice lawns) while others think that even if you are an asshole for walking on the grass (whatever your motivation) violently subduing people is far worse and more damaging and should be done only when absolutely necessary to protect others or the functioning of the infrastructure of the state (and even then it's only a short-term self destructive 'solution').

A nation is like a marriage, it works if the people involved want it to work, and it fails disastrously if they don't. Try body slamming your wife because she didn't do what you told her and see how long the family stays together.

EDIT- not literally bareboards, opus. I TOLD YOU NO DANCING BITCH! *crunch*

"body slams", gwiz, should've gone with "body slams".

>> ^MaxWilder:

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:
We see a man sitting in a chair for 4 seconds before he is immobilized by the police. How exactly did you determine that he has mobility issues? For all we know, he could have just thrown the owner of the wheelchair to the ground and ridden his chair down the block. And let me kick start your imagination regarding reasons to body slam him: He was armed with a knife, or a stun gun, or an extending baton, or a gun, or brass knuckles, or just his own knuckles. He was assaulting the officers, or bystanders, or family members, or children. He was resisting arrest for an extended period of time, or trying to evade the officers. Again, we have HALF THE STORY at best.

He has mobility issues. Clue number 1: HE NEVER MOVES HIS LEGS.


1:49

I dunno, you can see his feet twitch around at about :45...>> ^MaxWilder:

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:
We see a man sitting in a chair for 4 seconds before he is immobilized by the police. How exactly did you determine that he has mobility issues? For all we know, he could have just thrown the owner of the wheelchair to the ground and ridden his chair down the block. And let me kick start your imagination regarding reasons to body slam him: He was armed with a knife, or a stun gun, or an extending baton, or a gun, or brass knuckles, or just his own knuckles. He was assaulting the officers, or bystanders, or family members, or children. He was resisting arrest for an extended period of time, or trying to evade the officers. Again, we have HALF THE STORY at best.

He has mobility issues. Clue number 1: HE NEVER MOVES HIS LEGS.
Like I said, I don't like choosing a side when we have only half the story, but common sense leads me to side against the two officers body-slamming a skinny old dude. If he had just thrown somebody from the scooter, where is that person? If he had a weapon, why are the officers not seen putting an object into evidence?
The reaction of the crowd and the behavior of the officers after the take-down indicates that the worst thing that the guy could have done was mouth off and maybe take a weak-ass swing at one of them.
I'm certainly open to other possibilities, but you gotta come up with something realistic. I was the one throwing out possibilities for the video where a cop tackles a teenage girl, but this crosses even my line of acceptable police precaution.

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:

We see a man sitting in a chair for 4 seconds before he is immobilized by the police. How exactly did you determine that he has mobility issues? For all we know, he could have just thrown the owner of the wheelchair to the ground and ridden his chair down the block. And let me kick start your imagination regarding reasons to body slam him: He was armed with a knife, or a stun gun, or an extending baton, or a gun, or brass knuckles, or just his own knuckles. He was assaulting the officers, or bystanders, or family members, or children. He was resisting arrest for an extended period of time, or trying to evade the officers. Again, we have HALF THE STORY at best.


He has mobility issues. Clue number 1: HE NEVER MOVES HIS LEGS.

Like I said, I don't like choosing a side when we have only half the story, but common sense leads me to side against the two officers body-slamming a skinny old dude. If he had just thrown somebody from the scooter, where is that person? If he had a weapon, why are the officers not seen putting an object into evidence?

The reaction of the crowd and the behavior of the officers after the take-down indicates that the worst thing that the guy could have done was mouth off and maybe take a weak-ass swing at one of them.

I'm certainly open to other possibilities, but you gotta come up with something realistic. I was the one throwing out possibilities for the video where a cop tackles a teenage girl, but this crosses even my line of acceptable police precaution.

We see a man sitting in a chair for 4 seconds before he is immobilized by the police. How exactly did you determine that he has mobility issues? For all we know, he could have just thrown the owner of the wheelchair to the ground and ridden his chair down the block. And let me kick start your imagination regarding reasons to body slam him: He was armed with a knife, or a stun gun, or an extending baton, or a gun, or brass knuckles, or just his own knuckles. He was assaulting the officers, or bystanders, or family members, or children. He was resisting arrest for an extended period of time, or trying to evade the officers. Again, we have HALF THE STORY at best.

Though I would usually say "We don't know what happened before the video started," I find it hard to imagine anything that warranted a body-slam to a man with obvious mobility issues. This one is indefensible, and I'm glad it was caught on video.

>> ^sme4r:

Who cares, the bitch had it coming. She had already struck the other woman, she is now a danger to herself and others. I have seen far worse examples of police brutality, and this hardly justifies this kind of anger. No one can dispute that Cops can be excessive, but come on. Judging by the Scenario, the girl that she was fighting looked to be a Loss Prevention Agent, the girl who got "booshed" prolly stole some shit first. Can you imagine how terrible crime would be if Cops didn't flex their muscles every now and then? Citizens want to commit crimes and still want all their rights respected. Stupid.
Don't start no shit, wont be no shit.


And here's the real story, but nice try with your "scenario":

The 15-year-old and her family have not been identified. The three-minute-long video starts with the girl having a fight in public with a woman who police identified as her mother. The mother has her daughter pinned to the ground in the parking lot of Charter East, part of the Ombudsman Charter Schools in Phoenix. The girl was reportedly intoxicated and sharing alcohol at the school, ABC Affiliate KNXV reported.

The charter school works with at-risk students.

The girl, wearing denim shorts and a T-shirt, fights her mother's hold, eventually getting up. The mother keeps trying to grab the girl, nearly pulling her shirt off.

When the police arrive, the girl is walking away from her mother.

Officer Larrison can be seen on camera trying to catch up with the girl. He picks up speed. As she turns around to see him, he body-slams her, sending her to the ground.

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/arizona-police-officer-body-slams-drunk-teen-girl/story?id=13545127

>> ^Januari:

>> ^ravioli:
Cop was suspended... at least. yay

It's a very small step... but probably didn't even lose any pay. Is there another profession on the PLANET where you wouldn't immediately be fire let alone have the police called and be arrested for if you did this?... i mean... ok Professional Wrestler... Professional Hockey Player... but what about the other 99.9% of us... NO WAY... we're already in jail if thats us.... Oh yeah... thats right... and f'n cop!


Suspended = pay loss. So I am not sure how you question whether it means no pay loss? Now, if you meant salary reduction, that's different.

And other professions? Hundreds, just for your info. Let's go over just a few shall we? Tow Truck driver, athletes of all kinds, movie stars, Broadway actors, music stars, repo-men, politicians, Soldiers, Marines, Air Men, Sea Men, farm hands, truck drivers, fishermen, etc.

Additionally, jobs like Walmart, Sears, Target, Sheets, etc. don't really fire you because you can just quit, and by next week you can have another job at any other low paying job (For example, you get fired from Walmart, just go to work for McDonald's.)

>> ^ravioli:

Cop was suspended... at least. yay


It's a very small step... but probably didn't even lose any pay. Is there another profession on the PLANET where you wouldn't immediately be fire let alone have the police called and be arrested for if you did this?... i mean... ok Professional Wrestler... Professional Hockey Player... but what about the other 99.9% of us... NO WAY... we're already in jail if thats us.... Oh yeah... thats right... and f'n cop!