Absolutely Disgusting

reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic

---

Every president since FDR has broken laws. So please, don't go on that train.


Also, America has bigger populations then most low crime nations. So there's nothing against what you said. In fact, you prove my point.

Ugh, this is getting very repetitious. What about all those BIGGER countries with LOWER crime rates. Oops, one sentence and I just shut down your whole argument.

I absolutely will go down that road. You want to talk about bad influence, tell me, what single person in this country has more influence than the commander in chief?

Seriuously....some sort of research....please.....

See, here you go again. You want a government to define "good" and "evil" for you. You want them to see everything you do, so they can protect you.

You dont understand the point of government.

Live a few years passed your teens and you will understand that there is no such thing as "good evil". Not becasue some government tells you so, but because it is the way of this earth. As I said, live a few more years....you'll learn.

It's not US cops - UK police can do similar things.

There was a guy recently arrested for photographing an officer breaking the law. Amongst other things, he was accused of assaulting the police officer by taking a photo through a window!!

The police officer in question should:

* Lose his job
* Lose his pension
* Be sued to hell by the guy he assaulted when he wrongfully arrested him
* Be prosecuted for wrongful arrest
* Be prosecuted for unlawful imprisonment
* Be sent to jail for 10 years for abuse of power

It all started when we stoped giving the police free stuff... Next time you see a cop, go over and give him an apple... like in the 50's 2- 1 odds says he never bothers you again...

reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic

---

Your assuming I want the government watching. Quite contrary. What I've repeatedly said that you lack the common sense to comprehend is that I want the observations in the public domain. I want the people open to see such things. The government should monitor, but what they are monitoring should be available to the public.

maybe I can put it in a simple enough sense: Big Brother should be the masses. Along with the cia, and fbi, the people should be an organization. They should be able to investigate anything the government is. That way, when the government finds something, it can release it, and have the masses decide the verdict.

Is that to hard to understand?

www.disastercenter.com...

law.jrank.org...

www.pittsburghlive.com...

www.officer.com...

A good question is what is the rise in aggression towards Police officers and is that dictating tougher reactions from police forces?

I do think actions, especilly bad the ones, taken by police are heavily scrutinized to "sensationalize" them and get them on the news as quick as possible for ratings? Yes.

Are the so called "bad" cops the majority or the minority of the total law enforcement body?

Are we just getting a lot of fluff from the news there by making it seem like this is a rampaging problem?


I don't know, but, I will read into it more.



[edit on 27-8-2008 by wdkirk]

[edit on 27-8-2008 by wdkirk]

I think this was said tongue in cheek, but I have to say, having to bribe a public officer, even something as simple as an apple, to ensure he does his job correctly, is a sad state of affairs.

Also, being that china and India are the only more bigger nations then the US, I think it's clear. China has low crime for an obvious reasons. But India? I'm not so sure.

So cry about breaking my point all you want, but you cant.

[edit on 27-8-2008 by Gorman91]

[edit on 27-8-2008 by Gorman91]

Too hard to understand? It's the only thing you've said this entire time. But once again, as you seem to not understand, you are living in a dream world. Those that do stand up get made an example of.

Also, the term "big brother" has nothing to do with the public. If anything, it's the opposite of the public. Nice try on flippin that one though.

Yes, the people SHOULD be able to monitor the government. But what you miss is that as long as you give the government the right to monitor all activity (public or private), they have free reign.

Also, how can you just decide to dismantle our 3 branch system and put the power of the judiciary branch in the hands of the public?

What you are talking about is some utopian idea of the way things SHOULD be. Like I said before though, after you get a few years out of your teens and are forced to actually live as an adult in this society, you will start to understand that a utopia this is not.

I didnt read the whole thread ..


But I wanted to show you that this happened in the very next town over from where I live here in Texas ....this town Waxahachie is not a big town ....So this is happening everywhere ...why I dont know ..
This story here is as unbelievable as that 16 year old you mentioned in your post ..

Here it is
Man called 911 for seizure, was hit by stun gun, files suit

07:30 AM CST on Friday, December 21, 2007
By JON NIELSEN / The Dallas Morning News
jnielsen@dallasnews.com

Allen Nelms grew accustomed to dialing 911 for medical help.

But the response the 52-year-old diabetic from Waxahachie received one morning this April was humiliating, discriminatory because of his race and excessive, the man's attorney said.
(Picture at link)

Allen Nelms, 52, says police shot him with a stun gun in April when he suffered a diabetic seizure in his Waxahachie home.

Mr. Nelms said he was twice shocked by a stun gun by police who responded to a diabetic seizure call at his Waxahachie home.

His attorney, Rodney Ramsey, filed a federal lawsuit against the city, the police department and the officers on Mr. Nelms' behalf. No trial date has been set.

The court filing claims that police entered the home in the 700 block of Perry Street in Waxahachie without a search warrant, twice shocked Mr. Nelms with a stun gun, laughed at him and left him on a bedroom floor.

"I have a problem with the fact that you can kick people's doors down without warrant, Tase them, abuse them, laugh about it and leave," Mr. Ramsey said.

Mr. Nelms' fiancée, Josie Edwards, was at the home but not allowed in the bedroom where officers used the stun gun, the suit states.

After the incident, police handcuffed Mr. Nelms until firefighters arrived and checked his blood sugar. The complaint states that Mr. Nelms was not treated for his wounds from the stun gun, nor was he taken to the hospital for further treatment after his seizure.

Mr. Nelms filed a complaint with the Police Department in the days after the incident and received a written statement indicating that officers "were within ... departmental policies regarding the use of less than lethal force option."

Department leaders declined to comment on the suit. The department's policy states that stun guns should not be used to replace verbal problem-solving skills, self-defense techniques or firearms.

"The Taser shall be deployed only in circumstances where it is deemed reasonably necessary to control a dangerous or violent subject," the policy states.

"He's not some strapping criminal," Mr. Ramsey said of his client. "This is the sad part – he's not a big guy. He's 5-9, 5-10, 150 pounds."

The suit states that numerous calls for emergency service have been made from the home in the last 10 years. City officials denied an open records request for details of those calls. An appeal to the Texas attorney general's office is pending.

Mr. Nelms' lawsuit doesn't list specific monetary damages. Mr. Ramsey said he questions the department's policy and the justification officers had for using a stun gun on a medical call.

"We want to make sure this doesn't happen again," he said. "I would hate [for] people [to] call the ambulance and get Tasered. Hopefully we'll get some policies changed.

"And an apology would be really, really nice."
www.dallasnews.com...


They wont even give him an apology ..can you believe that ...



[edit on 27-8-2008 by Simplynoone]

reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic

---

No, there would still be courts. They would be the final decider... It's there profession.

There is no dismantling in what I said, only adding on to.

Also, I do not want the government monitoring everything if the people don't know what it is. You see, to be merging two different things.

I've said it time after time again. The people should know what the government is doing and be able to see it.

This video is an example of what I hate.

www.youtube.com...

Cry? Really? I have absolutely obliterated you in this thread and I'm the one crying?

And once again, by your own admission, you arent doing the research on things you claim as fact. You arent sure about india. You cant give an ACTUAL reason for china.....waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa



[edit on 8/27/2008 by cautiouslypessimistic]

And I've said time and time again....live in reality, not in should, would, coulds.

Isn't that what King George said the your precious founding fathers? It wasn't reality to have men rule themselves? hmm.


Also, by all means, if you can find a nation besides India and China with a bigger population, show me. Last I checked, we're the 3rd most populous in the world.

Case closed for that particular statement, you were wrong... Or rather right, but wrong in there being other nations more populous with lower crime.

More people = more crime.

Wait, you already said China has lower crime rates than america. And you said that you didnt know about india. So tell me again how you have proven your point (or lack thereof?)

Nope. I didn't know. I was assuming you were right. It thought you might be wrong, and if you are indeed saying you are wrong, we come full circle and ALLLL the way back to the original topic: Police brutality isn't new and has always been at the same level, but is higher in America due to a bigger population. The increase in big brother's watchful eye will lower it though, as all misconducts will be seen.

I have said my mind, I remain correct.

Good day sir!

[edit on 27-8-2008 by Gorman91]

[edit on 27-8-2008 by Gorman91]

I guess this is lost on an unformed mind.

I didnt say I was wrong, I simply pointed out that, once again, you are stating things as fact that you havent even researched.

Still, I ask again: If, by your own admission, China has lower crime rates than the U.S., and you dont know if India does or not, how can you possibly state as fact that america has the lowest crimerates of nations its size?

Your own words are betraying you.

Course, here I am trying to explain things to a child, so maybe the jokes on me.

reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic

---

There are factors that include internet and the way of life. these allow messages to move more quickly and influence faster. Lets be honest. since when has America been a stable nation? The founding fathers didn't want stability. They wanted a permanent revolution so that people were always active and "for the revolution".

Americans are simply more aggressive because of our way of life and culture.

And I have no idea about China and India. I was relying on what you said, seeing as you trust yourself as being right so much. I'm glad I had hesitation.

At the end of the day, America will always be a violent nation. Although tolerant of others, it is quick to use violent force. It's just our way of life.

[edit on 27-8-2008 by Gorman91]