>> ^bamdrew:
Just punching at a lady with billyclub in-hand?
I thought U.S. officers had tasers and sprays and other advanced knickknacks to brutalize protesters? This is amateur hour stuff here.


I know this changes from state to state, but Indiana defines tasers as just less than lethal force. Id imagine that other states do as well.

Having recently discussed excessive force with a friend in the Indiana state police office, I can say that refusing to cooperate with police is often seen as a hostile action. When a offending party possibly has a weapon and is confrontational the first response is to remove and reduce the risk to all involved.

As code pick was in a crowd of citizens and officers alike and could possibly have a concealed weapon on her person, the slightest confrontational behavior will result in this type of action.

Sorry if your going to protest, respect those officers responsible for your safety. Its not likely that code pink will face criminal charges (unless she did threaten the officer) but neither will the cop.

TL;DR version: The video leaves to many questions to side with anyone.

>> ^imstellar28:
>> ^Payback:
Wow, this thread sure has people putting their heads up their asses. Jeez, this is a video rating site, not Capitol Hill...

Its a controversial video, in a political channel--what do you expect? If you're anti-intellectual, stick to the big boobs, nut shots, and fluffy bunny videos.



mmmm big boobs....

>> ^imstellar28:
And for the 10th time, SDGundamX, what would be the point of finding out what she said beforehand--are you just curious or something? Because it has no bearing on the argument of excessive force.


10th time? I'd like to have what you're smoking, because this is the first comment I've seen from you addressing me. This video bills itself as showing what happened before the confrontation. It doesn't. So I pointed that out.

And what happened before has EVERYTHING to do with excessive force. There are no rules out there that say "this is excessive, this isn't excessive." It's all relative to the situation. So if you don't know what happened before that hit there can be no determination of whether the force was excessive or not.

But as I pointed out in the other thread, there can be a lot of jumping to conclusions and conjecture, which people still seem to be doing quite well. Does it look bad from the vid? Yeah, it does. But that's why we have a justice system to look into these things, interview witnesses, collect evidence, and ultimately find out what was actually said and done. I see no merit in arguing about whether excessive force was used in the vid or not when a) we don't have all the facts and b) we won't be the ones to decide anyway.

And yes, also, I am just curious about what happened before this as well.

>> ^alien_concept:
^ I'm sorry! I actually thought you were a moron



Alien! How could you??

/snif!

>> ^Shepppard:
Oh, and just a P.S. don't bother quoting me and trying to make yourself seem like a big man. This post is long enough as it is without it being picked apart, also: I don't care about what you have to say in response.


There needs to be a name for this tactic, like there is for Godwin's law. If you compare something to Nazis, you automatically lose the debate. Similarly, if you make a huge rambling post and then finish it off by saying "don't bother replying because I don't care to read your response", you automatically lose. This is the interweb version of taking your ball and going home. You have just admitted you can't win, even if you are actually in the right.

Let's call it Wilder's Internet Debate Corollary Number 7, just for the sake of brevity.

>> ^alien_concept:
>> ^calvados:
>> ^imstellar28:
If someone initiates lethal force on you, irregardless of the circumstances, you have the right to defend yourself with lethal force as well....

I think you mean "unregardless".

Methinks it's just regardless, not even sure that unregardless is a word. I think the original word he may have been looking for is irrespective. Little mash up there. Sorry to be condescending!



Uh, yeah, I was being droll.

LOL?

>> ^calvados:
>> ^imstellar28:
If someone initiates lethal force on you, irregardless of the circumstances, you have the right to defend yourself with lethal force as well....

I think you mean "unregardless".


Methinks it's just regardless, not even sure that unregardless is a word. I think the original word he may have been looking for is irrespective. Little mash up there. Sorry to be condescending!

I'm glad we have Code Pink. I'm too young to remember the hippie war protesters during Vietnam, so it's nice to see idiot retards again in this day and age.

>> ^imstellar28:
If someone initiates lethal force on you, irregardless of the circumstances, you have the right to defend yourself with lethal force as well....


I think you mean "unregardless".

>> ^Shepppard:
And now, I'm going to go get some pie.


What? No sandvich?

>> ^imstellar28:
>> ^Payback:
Wow, this thread sure has people putting their heads up their asses. Jeez, this is a video rating site, not Capitol Hill...

Its a controversial video, in a political channel--what do you expect? If you're anti-intellectual, stick to the big boobs, nut shots, and fluffy bunny videos.


I'm sorry, do you have something to prove here?

From what i've read about your comments, you take things out of context and try to make some form of rebuttal against them.


"You clearly have no understand of the meaning of excessive force. Excessive force is judged, and is applied to the current situation only! It has nothing to do with past actions--it has to do with the current state of the arrestee. No matter how belligerent/criminal they were acting prior, if they are currently passive and cooperating you cannot apply force based on previous actions."

This seems to be a cover-up for the fact that you said that cops aren't allowed to do anything to someone who has been shooting cops.

"She could have shot 10 cops right before this, and they still could not have used that much force to arrest her."

Of which, two things. First, you only furthered their point about "But that doesn't mean that it would be excessive in every situation."

See, what I draw from that is, That much force can be used in certain situations and not be called Excessive, and that seems to be what you're trying to lecture them about.

And the second thing, If you think cops aren't allowed to use lethal force to subdue a target that's been shooting at officers, no matter how innocent they were in the first place, THEY JUST FUCKING SHOT 10 COPS. Lets even take cops out of the picture and replace it. THEY JUST FUCKING SHOT 10 PEOPLE.

There.

>> ^imstellar28:
>> ^anyprophet:
These types of videos always bring out the crazies who think we live in some kind of police state.

What is that, a joke? Rights don't mean anything unless you have them when you need them and in every single case in recent memory when someone actually needed them, they were violated. How is that not a police state?
Examples:
Confiscation of firearms during Katrina
Japanese sent to internment camps after pearl harbor
The American citizen who was sent to Guantanamo bay for several years.
Inability to protest in public (freedom cages)
Un-prosecuted Police Brutality



Ooo, a fun one now. Lets start with.. Oh, The guns, during Katrina. Now, you can keep in mind I'm canadian, and maybe we somehow think differently about these things up here.. But during a state of mass panic of the people, where mass disaster is happening, looting, all that fun stuff, I don't think it's a smart idea to have any form of firearm. All that's going to cause is more potential panic and destruction.

Japanese sent to internment camps? wow, we're really digging here aren't we. You are right for that point, their right to freedom was compromised, but that somehow doesn't fall under the category of "Recent Memory" to me. That more falls under the.. "There was a war going on at the time" category of things where lots of bad shit happened.

>> ^imstellar28:
>> ^Aemaeth:
>> ^charliem:
Its legal to defend yourself against a cop...hell you can kill a cop if they are arresting you and you are innocent.
Happened a few years back, guy got off any charges at all.

Wait, what? You can't be serious. What country is that in?
"I knew I hadn't been speeding, but he kept writing that ticket anyway, so I shot him."

Jesus you're ignorant. What is the difference between a cop and a criminal who approaches you, while you are minding your own business and not breaking any laws, and tries to utilize lethal force against you? Nothing! Unless the cops badge number is 007, he doesn't have a license to kill. If your life is in danger--from cop or criminal--you have a legal right to defend yourself. What country are you living in?


ohh... an attempt at a joke! It really wasn't funny.
Why don't we backtrack here to show the point they were making originally, but YOU were too ignorant to see it.

"She could have shot 10 cops right before this, and they still could not have used that much force to arrest her."

The main quote, by the way, really doesn't have anything backing it up, So far it's just someone saying "I heard once that..." which really has nothing to it. For all WE know, that's exactly what happened.

Other then that, their quote was a joke. That happens on the sift. a lot. They're usually funny... usually.

>> ^imstellar28:
If someone initiates lethal force on you, irregardless of the circumstances, you have the right to defend yourself with lethal force as well....
How hard is it to make a simple argument around here without a bunch of random, irrelevant crap spewed in response?
Yes gwiz665, I understand you would go to trial after killing someone. Yes I also understand shooting a cop who simply arrests you is not a valid self defense argument. Why are you even making these points?
And for the 10th time, SDGundamX, what would be the point of finding out what she said beforehand--are you just curious or something? Because it has no bearing on the argument of excessive force.


Who the fuck are you to stifle curiosity? For all we know she threatened the cop, she could have punched him in the face, she could have been weilding a tazer that miraculously got knocked out of her hands by a big boobed woman carrying a fluffy bunny, and then went on to hit some guy in the nuts. The cop, then seeing his opportunity finally struck back at the woman and saved his life and then went on to cure cancer.

We don't know every single detail of the circumstances surrounding the lethal force. You've taken up an "Innocent until proven guilty" stance, where as the rest of us are actually being optimistic.

Whatever your issue is, being it getting off by trying to correct people over teh interwebs, or thinking you're somehow superior to the rest of the sifters because YOU KNOW HOW TO USE BOLD! just save the asshole routine, and watch the video.

Oh, and just a P.S. don't bother quoting me and trying to make yourself seem like a big man. This post is long enough as it is without it being picked apart, also: I don't care about what you have to say in response.

And now, I'm going to go get some pie.

That was hilarity straight out of a movie script.

In reply to this comment by Aemaeth:

"I knew I hadn't been speeding, but he kept writing that ticket anyway, so I shot him."

>> ^Payback:
Wow, this thread sure has people putting their heads up their asses. Jeez, this is a video rating site, not Capitol Hill...


Its a controversial video, in a political channel--what do you expect? If you're anti-intellectual, stick to the big boobs, nut shots, and fluffy bunny videos.

>> ^gorillaman
Men act according to absolute rational morality.


Swish.

>> ^chilaxe:
Gorillaman, in modern political philosophy, the state has a monopoly on the use of physical force that is non-negotiable. If a party believes an arrest is unjust, there are legal motions that can be started, but it presents obvious problems to say anybody has the right to simply "charge the pigs and take their people back."


I'm familiar with the term. The monopoly on force is the most corrosive lie in our political system. I find it an inherently immoral idea; in fact I believe you are committing a crime by endorsing it.

Discarding modern obfuscations of ethics for a moment, the simple fact of our existence qualifies us, necessarily and automatically, for certain rights, whether they are acknowledged and respected or not. The only way a person can ever lose those rights is voluntarily to give or trade them away. If a government requires a monopoly on the right to defensive and, by extension, punitive force, it must obtain, without coercion, each citizen's informed and deliberate abdication from authority over their own lives.

Law is a tool to be used on children. Men act according to absolute rational morality.