cmon dude. the three dudes who got beat down just got caught shooting at a dude.
allegedly[/b]
Weren't you the dude who was saying we should wait for all the facts and specifics and blah blah ?
true - but people were discussing this incident as if its a matter of fact that the beating stemmed from racism. i'm saying, and nutter said this on msnbc this morning - we know that these 3 guys allegedly were seen shooting at a guy on a drug corner, and then fleeing in a get-away car.
if that scenario is at least on the table as a possibility, than i dont know how we jump to the conclusion that they were beat because they were black - as if all sides confirmed these were just 3 black guys minding their business who were jumped by the cops and taken to an empty parkiing lot.
we all agree that this is police brutality. however, given the alleged circumstances, added to the fact that a cop was murdered on saturday (and basically shot to pieces), i don't see why this couldnt be "violent criminals, in the aftermath of a dead cop, related police brutality".
Are you familiar with the history of Philly cops, dude? REALLY?
yea, and we don't have frank rizzo as a mayor. i don't understand what's controversial about what i'm saying. everyone is innocent until proven guilty...but i'm with the consensus that this is police brutality - regardless of the fact that we have no idea what happened here - other than a bird's eye view with no sound. my only point is that people are categorically calling this an act of racism, and personally, i'm not willing to make that leap yet without more facts. that's all.
By the extension of your logic, it can't really be "police brutality" either since we don't have sufficient facts to make that case either.
So why are you willing to call this "police brutality" with just - as you put it "video with no audio" - but not willing to entertain the notion that race plays a role?
b/w
The LAPD's internal body recently ruled that all 320 complaints of racial profiling[/b] it self-investigated had no merit. Are those the kind of "facts" you consider sufficient?
Your choice of facts are the epitome of why this graemlin exists:
By the extension of your logic, it can't really be "police brutality" either since we don't have sufficient facts to make that case either.
So why are you willing to call this "police brutality" with just - as you put it "video with no audio" - but not willing to entertain the notion that race plays a role?
i said i'm with the consensus that this is police brutality, but i'm not judge or jury, just going along with what i can logically deduce, but not what i would expect a court to solely rely upon in order to convict. the video shows cops kicking and beating them when they are down.
but, imo, you can't use logic to show that, without more facts, this beating is the result of racism. does race have an effect on how these 15 people acted? i'm sure. is it the cause of this attack? that would be complete speculation at this point.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Are you familiar with the history of Philly cops, dude? REALLY?
yea, and we don't have frank rizzo as a mayor. i don't understand what's controversial about what i'm saying. everyone is innocent until proven guilty...but i'm with the consensus that this is police brutality - regardless of the fact that we have no idea what happened here - other than a bird's eye view with no sound. my only point is that people are categorically calling this an act of racism, and personally, i'm not willing to make that leap yet without more facts. that's all.
but, imo, you can't use logic to show that, without more facts, this beating is the result of racism. does race have an effect on how these 15 people acted? i'm sure. is it the cause of this attack? that would be complete speculation at this point.
Yeah, I was about to say this. Acknowledging the fact that there were racist cops in the group airing aggressions by beating up black guys is different than saying the entire fracas was racially motivated from the start. Perhaps it was. Perhaps some of the cops used the "we're pissed about the slain cop" thing as an excuse to beat down some black dudes. As KVH said, we don't know that.
Just because I'm 1) bored and 2) curious...Keith: what you think about the Rodney King verdict?
okayyy, now you sound like Harvey. nothing i have said is the least bit controversial. any lawyer who has ever defended someone would say the same thing, as did our mayor, but he went a step further and just said lets hold off on judgments until we learn more than just a silent video and then, to quote him, "let the chips fall where they may".
apparently, cops are guilty before being proven innocent, not just of the crime, but of what was going on in their head when they committed the crime.
truly ridiculous. i hope a judge or jury has more sense when, god forbid, any of you are implicated by an incriminating (appearing) silent video.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Just because I'm 1) bored and 2) curious...Keith: what you think about the Rodney King verdict?
okayyy, now you sound like Harvey. nothing i have said is the least bit controversial. any lawyer who has ever defended someone would say the same thing, as did our mayor, but he went a step further and just said lets hold off on judgments until we learn more than just a silent video and then, to quote him, "let the chips fall where they may".
apparently, cops are guilty before being proven innocent, not just of the crime, but of what was going on in their head when they committed the crime.
truly ridiculous. i hope a judge or jury has more sense when, god forbid, any of you are implicated by an incriminating (appearing) silent video.
FUCK YOU, THE MAYOR, AND ANY LAWYER WHO ATTEMPTS TO DEFEND THESE COPS AS ANYTHING BUT RACIST PIGS!
FUCK YOU, THE MAYOR, AND ANY LAWYER WHO ATTEMPTS TO DEFEND THESE COPS AS ANYTHING BUT RACIST PIGS!
if the roles were reversed i guarantee you'd be singing a different tune. talkin' about its not just unjust, but racist, to assume not just guilt, but state of mind, based on a silent video taken from a helicopter.
Just because I'm 1) bored and 2) curious...Keith: what you think about the Rodney King verdict?
okayyy, now you sound like Harvey. nothing i have said is the least bit controversial. any lawyer who has ever defended someone would say the same thing, as did our mayor, but he went a step further and just said lets hold off on judgments until we learn more than just a silent video and then, to quote him, "let the chips fall where they may".
apparently, cops are guilty before being proven innocent, not just of the crime, but of what was going on in their head when they committed the crime.
truly ridiculous. i hope a judge or jury has more sense when, god forbid, any of you are implicated by an incriminating (appearing) silent video.
I notice you side-stepped answering the question. And it's a valid question: a jury found those officers not guilty. Does that, in your mind, validate the verdict? You seem to suggest that it's spurious to CAST AN OPINION about anything without sufficient due process (even though, as I've noted, this is a message board and not a judicial body).
In the Rodney King case, one could argue that officially, due process was served and no wrongdoing was found. Does that, in your mind, meet a relevant standard of "facts"?
By everything you've said in this and the previous, NYC thread, the only possible answer that you could give should be "yes".
Just because I'm 1) bored and 2) curious...Keith: what you think about the Rodney King verdict?
okayyy, now you sound like Harvey. nothing i have said is the least bit controversial. any lawyer who has ever defended someone would say the same thing, as did our mayor, but he went a step further and just said lets hold off on judgments until we learn more than just a silent video and then, to quote him, "let the chips fall where they may".
apparently, cops are guilty before being proven innocent, not just of the crime, but of what was going on in their head when they committed the crime.
truly ridiculous. i hope a judge or jury has more sense when, god forbid, any of you are implicated by an incriminating (appearing) silent video.
FUCK YOU, THE MAYOR, AND ANY LAWYER WHO ATTEMPTS TO DEFEND THESE COPS AS ANYTHING BUT RACIST PIGS!
Well, why would you say fuck a lawyer who attempts to defend these cops? They deserve a defense, do they not?
FUCK YOU, THE MAYOR, AND ANY LAWYER WHO ATTEMPTS TO DEFEND THESE COPS AS ANYTHING BUT RACIST PIGS!
if the roles were reversed i guarantee you'd be singing a different tune. talkin' about its not just unjust, but racist, to assume not just guilt, but state of mind, based on a silent video taken from a helicopter.
pathetic.
Roles reversed = three Black men beating up 15, mostly white cops?
What part of 15 cops beat the sh*t out of four people is at all justifiable?
Who here said they were justified in what they did? We are all in agreement that those cops need to burn. Who here is doubting that?
I was under the impression that in America it's not illegal to be racist. Were those cops racist? Probably. Who knows? It really doesn't matter. They beat down three guys for more or less no reason. They're maniacal assholes. Does it make any difference to specify that they're racist maniacal assholes? Either way, they deserve to punished to the fullest extent.
I was under the impression that in America it's not illegal to be racist.
Actually, it is in many situations, especially most things involving the exercise of power by the State but also extends to individual interactions as well, especially as related to housing and health care.
Of course, the actual enforcement of those laws is something else entirely.
You can't legislate how people THINK. But if they act on those prejudices? That's well under the power of the law to deal with.
FUCK YOU, THE MAYOR, AND ANY LAWYER WHO ATTEMPTS TO DEFEND THESE COPS AS ANYTHING BUT RACIST PIGS!
if the roles were reversed i guarantee you'd be singing a different tune. talkin' about its not just unjust, but racist, to assume not just guilt, but state of mind, based on a silent video taken from a helicopter.
pathetic.
wow. KVH what planet are you on?
"If The roles were reversed" shit smells like some real insidious bullshit.
What more do u need to be convinced of a fucked up situation?
Ur Liberalism comes off as silliness.
At least Phillystress just comes out and says his shit straight.
I notice you side-stepped answering the question. And it's a valid question: a jury found those officers not guilty. Does that, in your mind, validate the verdict? You seem to suggest that it's spurious to CAST AN OPINION about anything without sufficient due process (even though, as I've noted, this is a message board and not a judicial body).
In the Rodney King case, one could argue that officially, due process was served and no wrongdoing was found. Does that, in your mind, meet a relevant standard of "facts"?
By everything you've said in this and the previous, NYC thread, the only possible answer that you could give should be "yes".
dude, please. everyone is entitled to due process but not only are there some horrible judges, but "jury of your peers" - i mean, lets think about that- our peers elected george w. bush to 2 terms! of course courts make mistakes...and often.
plus - the rodney king situation is irrelevant to this discussion because, from my recollection, the public was well informed as to the officers defense, and could make the educated judgment that the verdict was unjust. moreover, and more importantly, the officers weren't being tried on whether they were racist -but whether their acts were criminal (he did make some loot on a civil settlement i think).
here - i stipulated that the officers' conduct was criminal, so that makes your question not fit into the discussion.
In that incident, officers were doing surveillance when they saw four individuals get out of a car, approach a group of men and open fire. Police Commissioner Ramsey said one of the four suspects ran, but the other three got in a car and sped away.
"The officers never lost sight of that vehicle," said Ramsey. "That car was the one the officers stopped ??? the one that appears in the video tape."
FUCK YOU, THE MAYOR, AND ANY LAWYER WHO ATTEMPTS TO DEFEND THESE COPS AS ANYTHING BUT RACIST PIGS!
if the roles were reversed i guarantee you'd be singing a different tune. talkin' about its not just unjust, but racist, to assume not just guilt, but state of mind, based on a silent video taken from a helicopter.
pathetic.
Roles reversed = three Black men beating up 15, mostly white cops?
i meant that figuratively since its been argued, and i agree, that black cops could be racially motivated in beating these 3 guys. so immediately, i don't see how there could be a factual role reversal that made any sense.
And yet you thought the Sean Bell case was adjudicated properly.
no, i never said that. i never gave my personal opinion, but if your asking, i think it wasn't. the only thing i said in that thread was that there could be a plausible, legal, explanation for how the judge reached his decision. not that i agreed with it.
Comments
true - but people were discussing this incident as if its a matter of fact that the beating stemmed from racism. i'm saying, and nutter said this on msnbc this morning - we know that these 3 guys allegedly were seen shooting at a guy on a drug corner, and then fleeing in a get-away car.
if that scenario is at least on the table as a possibility, than i dont know how we jump to the conclusion that they were beat because they were black - as if all sides confirmed these were just 3 black guys minding their business who were jumped by the cops and taken to an empty parkiing lot.
we all agree that this is police brutality. however, given the alleged circumstances, added to the fact that a cop was murdered on saturday (and basically shot to pieces), i don't see why this couldnt be "violent criminals, in the aftermath of a dead cop, related police brutality".
yea, and we don't have frank rizzo as a mayor. i don't understand what's controversial about what i'm saying. everyone is innocent until proven guilty...but i'm with the consensus that this is police brutality - regardless of the fact that we have no idea what happened here - other than a bird's eye view with no sound. my only point is that people are categorically calling this an act of racism, and personally, i'm not willing to make that leap yet without more facts. that's all.
So why are you willing to call this "police brutality" with just - as you put it "video with no audio" - but not willing to entertain the notion that race plays a role?
b/w
The LAPD's internal body recently ruled that all 320 complaints of racial profiling[/b] it self-investigated had no merit. Are those the kind of "facts" you consider sufficient?
Your choice of facts are the epitome of why this graemlin exists:
i said i'm with the consensus that this is police brutality, but i'm not judge or jury, just going along with what i can logically deduce, but not what i would expect a court to solely rely upon in order to convict. the video shows cops kicking and beating them when they are down.
but, imo, you can't use logic to show that, without more facts, this beating is the result of racism. does race have an effect on how these 15 people acted? i'm sure. is it the cause of this attack? that would be complete speculation at this point.
ARE YOU WILLING TO FUCK OFF?
Yeah, I was about to say this. Acknowledging the fact that there were racist cops in the group airing aggressions by beating up black guys is different than saying the entire fracas was racially motivated from the start. Perhaps it was. Perhaps some of the cops used the "we're pissed about the slain cop" thing as an excuse to beat down some black dudes. As KVH said, we don't know that.
okayyy, now you sound like Harvey. nothing i have said is the least bit controversial. any lawyer who has ever defended someone would say the same thing, as did our mayor, but he went a step further and just said lets hold off on judgments until we learn more than just a silent video and then, to quote him, "let the chips fall where they may".
apparently, cops are guilty before being proven innocent, not just of the crime, but of what was going on in their head when they committed the crime.
truly ridiculous. i hope a judge or jury has more sense when, god forbid, any of you are implicated by an incriminating (appearing) silent video.
FUCK YOU, THE MAYOR, AND ANY LAWYER WHO ATTEMPTS TO DEFEND THESE COPS AS ANYTHING BUT RACIST PIGS!
What part of 15 cops beat the sh*t out of four people is at all justifiable?
if the roles were reversed i guarantee you'd be singing a different tune. talkin' about its not just unjust, but racist, to assume not just guilt, but state of mind, based on a silent video taken from a helicopter.
pathetic.
I notice you side-stepped answering the question. And it's a valid question: a jury found those officers not guilty. Does that, in your mind, validate the verdict? You seem to suggest that it's spurious to CAST AN OPINION about anything without sufficient due process (even though, as I've noted, this is a message board and not a judicial body).
In the Rodney King case, one could argue that officially, due process was served and no wrongdoing was found. Does that, in your mind, meet a relevant standard of "facts"?
By everything you've said in this and the previous, NYC thread, the only possible answer that you could give should be "yes".
Well, why would you say fuck a lawyer who attempts to defend these cops? They deserve a defense, do they not?
Roles reversed = three Black men beating up 15, mostly white cops?
Who here said they were justified in what they did? We are all in agreement that those cops need to burn. Who here is doubting that?
I was under the impression that in America it's not illegal to be racist. Were those cops racist? Probably. Who knows? It really doesn't matter. They beat down three guys for more or less no reason. They're maniacal assholes. Does it make any difference to specify that they're racist maniacal assholes? Either way, they deserve to punished to the fullest extent.
Actually, it is in many situations, especially most things involving the exercise of power by the State but also extends to individual interactions as well, especially as related to housing and health care.
Of course, the actual enforcement of those laws is something else entirely.
You can't legislate how people THINK. But if they act on those prejudices? That's well under the power of the law to deal with.
wow. KVH what planet are you on?
"If The roles were reversed" shit smells like some real insidious bullshit.
What more do u need to be convinced of a fucked up situation?
Ur Liberalism comes off as silliness.
At least Phillystress just comes out and says his shit straight.
dude, please. everyone is entitled to due process but not only are there some horrible judges, but "jury of your peers" - i mean, lets think about that- our peers elected george w. bush to 2 terms! of course courts make mistakes...and often.
plus - the rodney king situation is irrelevant to this discussion because, from my recollection, the public was well informed as to the officers defense, and could make the educated judgment that the verdict was unjust. moreover, and more importantly, the officers weren't being tried on whether they were racist -but whether their acts were criminal (he did make some loot on a civil settlement i think).
here - i stipulated that the officers' conduct was criminal, so that makes your question not fit into the discussion.
It's still fucked up any way you cut it.
i meant that figuratively since its been argued, and i agree, that black cops could be racially motivated in beating these 3 guys. so immediately, i don't see how there could be a factual role reversal that made any sense.
?
no, i never said that. i never gave my personal opinion, but if your asking, i think it wasn't. the only thing i said in that thread was that there could be a plausible, legal, explanation for how the judge reached his decision. not that i agreed with it.
No. Never.
If you're at the end of it? Unlikely.