"Prisoners of YouTube"

[Oliwerko]

This reminds me of a big scandal in USA (do not know exactly), when there were 6 officers brutally beating a black man. It was a big scandal, because on the news, they did not show the scene that happened before, when the man was starting a fight again and again and again. They just HAD TO beat him so brutally, because he did not stop.

Don't they have handcuffs and stuff for this purpose? Just curious. I'm having trouble following the logic of any police officer having to beat anyone up. Unless it's a fight to the death or something.

Well, it was a long time ago when I've seen it, but the man had incredible power to stand up and hit again and again. So they have beaten him up until he was calm, then they used the handcuffs.

About that skaters,
I think that the policeman did right. I mean, they were provoking him. They were 6, they had a camera (for what purpose?), they  ran when he said "stop" and so on. If they were calm, and when he said "you are arrested", if they would calmly put their hands on wall or whatever, I think he would not go so far. He had to demonstrate what happens to somebody who runs from the police. So I agree with him, he has done right in my opinion.

[EldKatt]

No you're absolutely right ... being a smartass know-it-all 13 year old should give you the right to break the law.

I call strawman on this. I'm all for people being of different opinions, but GOD DAMN, at least use proper arguments...

Well, it was a long time ago when I've seen it, but the man had incredible power to stand up and hit again and again. So they have beaten him up until he was calm, then they used the handcuffs.

I still don't understand. So these six men were unable to hold him still enough to put on handcuffs without beating him up?

[Oliwerko]

No you're absolutely right ... being a smartass know-it-all 13 year old should give you the right to break the law.

I call strawman on this. I'm all for people being of different opinions, but GOD DAMN, at least use proper arguments...

Well, it was a long time ago when I've seen it, but the man had incredible power to stand up and hit again and again. So they have beaten him up until he was calm, then they used the handcuffs.

I still don't understand. So these six men were unable to hold him still enough to put on handcuffs without beating him up?

It sounds incredible, but when they stopped beating, he just have stand up and started to hit them. I would not believe it if I haven't seen it 

[Nacho]

The thing about police brutality is allways simillar... The "victims" allways claim that "I was innocent", "I was doing nothing wrong" or "When I saw this happening to people claiming its innocence on TV I thoght they were not really innocent, but now that this happened to me, I see that police really acts bad!!!"

But... really... I don' t see that this could happen to "normal" people like you and me, sorry. This never happens to a person 100% innocent, this doesn't happen to someone who is quietly walking down the street whristling "Do you love me?". This happens to someone who is 70% innocent (maybe you threw a chewing gum in the floor, or avoided a red light, or did skate in a place where you can't do skate). Nothing criminal, but nothing good... and they, you are caught... Aaaaaaand, in spite of apologizing, saying "I am sorry agent, it won't  happen again, blah, blah..." you reply, being a smartass.

I' ve been caught, 2 or 3 times, I've apologized, and never get a penalty or something. When I' ve been in America I never felt weird because of the police, because I would never "test" the polices, to see if the cultural differences are actually real also in police business... I don' t like to "force" situations. I understand that if you play, you can lose some bets. But if you go to a Casino to play, you can't  complain if you lose your money. This skaters were playing. Not only for the skate. They were also playing the game of beting how long the patience of the police could arrive. And they lost. Bed luck next time. But don' t come to me crying, I am not going to drop a tear for you, sorry.

[Darth Mandarb]

No you're absolutely right ... being a smartass know-it-all 13 year old should give you the right to break the law.

I call strawman on this. I'm all for people being of different opinions, but GOD DAMN, at least use proper arguments...

Ahhhh ... the [rediculous, pointless, worthless] strawman excuse strikes again!!  I feel if you must resort the strawman, you've already lost the point.  What exactly isn't "proper" about my argument?  Do you really think that being 13 gives somebody the right to break the law?

A scenario:

The judge says, "let them go free!"
Prosecutor, "but your honor... we have it on camera and he admits he shot and killed the cop!"
Judge, "Mr. prosecutor it's okay ... he's 13??!!?"
Prosecutor, "oh you're right, he should go free, I mean .... he's 13"

I don't care if they were 4 years old.  They were breaking the law, they resisted, they suffered the consequences.  The really sad thing I see from this is that now, because of youTube they'll attain some kind of "celebrity" for this.  Now, rather than learning from this incident (as an intelligent person would), they'll continue to think they were in the "right" and remain ignorant punks.

It's awfully convenient how all these people rally against the police without having any real idea what they have to go through on a day-to-day basis.  It's these same people that belly ache against the police who are the first people whining when they need a cop, but can't find one.  Well ... you probably can't find one because he is in court defending himself against one of your fellow complainers who is sueing him for looking at them funny.

Edit
If anybody wishes to continue this debate with me, please send me PMs.  I will not continue to clutter this thread with things unrelated to the actual topic.  And I wish to apologize to Raggit for my tangent.

[Paper Carnival]

yeah, well, a friend of mine uploaded a video with herself pretending to be another friend of mine, in a mocking sort of way. I was mentioned, with my full name (which is fairly unique, I doubt there's anyone else with the same name), as the boyfriend she loves "very very very much".

It was embarrassing enough for me, now if I was included in one of those other videos, where people are really insulted and diminished... That'd be extremely painful for me.

[Becky]

Darth Mandarb: I think the point that Eldkatt is tring to put forward is that the amount of force used against the 13/14 year olds was excessive, not that being a 13 year old should allow you to break the law.

[Raggit]

I tend to agree with Becky and the others, the AMOUNT of force was too much.  Now it's true we didn't see the events before the camera was turned on, but the kids weren't being violent towards the officer. 

The important question to me is what did they do before the camera was rolling.  If all they were doing was skateboarding, then I don't think that merits the kind of treatment he gave them, even if they did run.

Some cops are pigs. Let's face it.

[EldKatt]

Well...



Do you know what a strawman argument is? Would you care to explain your understanding of it, so that I can make sense of your post? Would you also care to explain how pointing out a logical fallacy makes me lose anything?

No, I don't think that being 13 gives somebody the right to break the law. That's why your argument is a strawman argument. It's fallacious because nobody ever claimed that 13-year-olds should be immune to the law. You misrepresented the opposing argument and then refuted it. It's a logical fallacy. That's all I'm saying. I'm not really taking sides in this discussion at all.

[Oliwerko]

I tend to agree with Becky and the others, the AMOUNT of force was too much.  Now it's true we didn't see the events before the camera was turned on, but the kids weren't being violent towards the officer. 

The important question to me is what did they do before the camera was rolling.  If all they were doing was skateboarding, then I don't think that merits the kind of treatment he gave them, even if they did run.

Some cops are pigs. Let's face it.

Well, the skaters just got what they obviously came for. Nacho said it already. They were playing on the policeman's nerves. Provoking. Nothing more. Some of you guys (Becky) say,  that they are criminals, but the amount of force is a bit exagerrated. Shouldn't be every criminal treated like a criminal ? I mean, on one side you say that he they are criminals, on the other that they should be treated better. I say, criminal is a criminal, and treat him like a criminal. If I said to you: "hey, I saw 4 people skateboarding and trying to run from arrest when the cop said -STOP-, and he used force against them." you wouldnt probably say anything like "oh, they should be treated better" if you did not know that they were all 13.

[Raggit]

No you're absolutely right ... being a smartass know-it-all 13 year old should give you the right to break the law.

I call strawman on this. I'm all for people being of different opinions, but GOD DAMN, at least use proper arguments...

Edit
And I wish to apologize to Raggit for my tangent.

Not at all, Darth, I think this is an interesting talk in and of itself.

[Raggit]

I tend to agree with Becky and the others, the AMOUNT of force was too much.  Now it's true we didn't see the events before the camera was turned on, but the kids weren't being violent towards the officer. 

The important question to me is what did they do before the camera was rolling.  If all they were doing was skateboarding, then I don't think that merits the kind of treatment he gave them, even if they did run.

Some cops are pigs. Let's face it.

Well, the skaters just got what they obviously came for. Nacho said it already. They were playing on the policeman's nerves. Provoking. Nothing more. Some of you guys (Becky) say,  that they are criminals, but the amount of force is a bit exagerrated. Shouldn't be every criminal treated like a criminal ? I mean, on one side you say that he they are criminals, on the other that they should be treated better. I say, criminal is a criminal, and treat him like a criminal. If I said to you: "hey, I saw 4 people skateboarding and trying to run from arrest when the cop said -STOP-, and he used force against them." you wouldnt probably say anything like "oh, they should be treated better" if you did not know that they were all 13.

Well, not every criminal is guilty of the same crime.  There are different levels of crime.  If they were murderers, then I'd say the level of force used was appropriate (regardless of age,) because of the potential threat.  What we have here is kids skateboarding on the sidewalk, and a cop getting a little too into it. 

[Becky]

Just because they may have committed a crime isn't an excuse to treat people harshly and beat them.  Just because they are labelled criminals doesn't mean they suddenly aren't people any more.  I think we should stay away from the mentality that someone beating another person is assault, but if it's a law enforcement officer doing the beating, somehow its okay and everything is acceptable.

Obviously, there are different levels of criminal activity, and different requirements are needed to take people who pose a danger to members of the public down.  I'm not saying that no force should be used at all.  Just appropriate force.

[Darth Mandarb]

I tend to agree with Becky and the others, the AMOUNT of force was too much.  Now it's true we didn't see the events before the camera was turned on, but the kids weren't being violent towards the officer. 

The important question to me is what did they do before the camera was rolling.  If all they were doing was skateboarding, then I don't think that merits the kind of treatment he gave them, even if they did run.

Some cops are pigs. Let's face it.

Yes, there are bad cops.  Just as there are "bad" civilians.

I'm going to go out on a limb and take a guess that many of you who argue the cop was too excessive have never been in a situation where you're outnumbered 5 to 1.  I have (well ... it was 4 to 1, but they were a lot bigger).  You can see the whole video (after the fact) and know that these kids didn't get violent.  That doesn't mean they couldn't have.  The cop had no way to know they weren't going to get violent.  He was in the middle of a stressful situation where he was outnumbered and had people shouting and coming at him from all sides.  In my opinion, he showed remarkable reserve in not drawing his weapon or even just his mace.  Police officers are trained (yes trained) that when you commit to using force to detain you don't half-ass it.  You make sure the person(s) you're detaining have the least amount of chance to resist, whether they are 31 or 13 is irrelevant.  This is, to me (and I can't see how anybody with intelligence would see it otherwise), common sense in situations like this.

Now it is possible that this cop is just an asshole who hates kids.  It's possible he just started fuckin' with this kids out of some bitter resentment for his lost youth.  Again, this video only tells 1 small side of the story and we may never know as the first shot we see he's already got the first kid detained.  I'm not really defending this cop, but more police in general.  They do a thankless job and most people don't seem to know, realize, or even care and I find that offensive.

Do you know what a strawman argument is? Would you care to explain your understanding of it, so that I can make sense of your post? Would you also care to explain how pointing out a logical fallacy makes me lose anything?

No, I don't think that being 13 gives somebody the right to break the law. That's why your argument is a strawman argument. It's fallacious because nobody ever claimed that 13-year-olds should be immune to the law. You misrepresented the opposing argument and then refuted it. It's a logical fallacy. That's all I'm saying. I'm not really taking sides in this discussion at all.

Yes I know what the "strawman" argument is.  It's a useless argument tool which people toss out too frequently

Shbaz said:

Plus the general american opinion is that the cop is always right and that cops put up with way too much crap already.

There is little strength and/or point in this statement as it's conjecture.  Most of the people I have talked about this with think the EXACT opposite (and yes, they're Americans)  It seems to me that it must be fun to jump on the "all cops are bad" bandwagon.

And:

So beat up the 13 year olds, choking is better than simple detaining if they give you any crap because you have to show them you're the boss.

I don't see any logic in this statement.  I will go back and watch the video again if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the cop ever threw a punch.  He wasn't "beating them up".  He was simply detaining them.

A choke-hold is one of the single most effective ways to detain somebody.  If the situation is set-off and gets physical the cop is going to use all the training (including choke holds) to detain and difuse the situation.  Arguing that "choking is better than detaining" is then completely illogical.

Thus my counter-argument is perfectly logical.  The fact of their age doesn't come into play (in my opinion).  No strawman there.  Now of course it's simple and easy to counter-argue with your points and throw out Mr. Strawman again.  Which is why I think the strawman argument is worthless as it's simply a matter of opinion

I don't know ... I guess it's just a matter of how each of us looks at the world.  I don't see this video as an example of police brutality (given my experience with police and other things) but I can, of course, see why some people do.  I saw a video on the news last night where a police officer already had one guy detained and another office came running in and starting throwing knees and punches HARD on the guy who was already detained on the ground and wasn't resisting.  THAT is brutality.  This video?  Not so much.

[shbaz]

Uh, FYI I just made another thread for this so the hijacking doesn't continue.

[Raggit]

Uh, FYI I just made another thread for this so the hijacking doesn't continue.

That's good, because I want to continue both of these conversations.

On topic:  Sites like YouTube ARE an important part of free speech.  You can turn on your webcam and rant to the world about issues that you care about.  Like all technology, it gets abused.  But Guybrush offers an interesting perspective:  Does free speech include a freedom to make personal jabs at somebody and mock them before the world?

[Oliwerko]

Uh, FYI I just made another thread for this so the hijacking doesn't continue.

That's good, because I want to continue both of these conversations.

On topic:  Sites like YouTube ARE an important part of free speech.  You can turn on your webcam and rant to the world about issues that you care about.  Like all technology, it gets abused.  But Guybrush offers an interesting perspective:  Does free speech include a freedom to make personal jabs at somebody and mock them before the world?

Well, I think there are laws that say that you can not just catch someone on tape and publish it. You do not have his agreement, etc etc. He could maybe try to solve it through the police/court/...

[Andail]

Oliwerko, there is no possible way a single man can resist 6 (probably trained and experienced) police offers that would warrant such excessive physical abuse. There are ways to subdue a person without using lethal force; if not by just wrestling him down and cuffing him, then by using mace or something similar.
Your version of the story sounds like some sort of propaganda trick conceived by people who want to tell the world that blacks were, and are, not treated unjust by the police. Which I think most people who've researched the subject can testify that they were.

If he did indeed stand up again and again, it was because the police failed to execute a proper take down, but resorted to some punch-and-kick strategy just out of spite.

[Darth Mandarb]

Rodney King is no social hero and/or role-model.  He was a gang-banging drug addict loser.  However, having said that, what happened to him was an example of police brutality and he certainly didn't deserve the level of abuse he received.

From what I could interpret from the video those cops weren't trying to subdue him; they were trying to beat him to death.  They were kicking, night-sticking, and punching him while insanely enraged.  They weren't reaching for handcuffs or straps to detain him, they were just wailin' on the guy.  I would agree 100% that this was brutality.

Though again the video starts rolling after the initial "incident" occured that set that whole thing in motion.  So public perception was based off sensational news coverage making it seem like King was some innocent poor black guy getting beat on needlessly by racist white cops.  While the beating was barbaric and unnecessary the tape doesn't show (and the stories never seem to mention) that King was fucked up on PCP, ran from the cops, was threatening them, was resisting arrest, and fighting back violently (though by the time the camera started rolling he had most of his "fight" beaten out of him already so the tape doesn't show that part).  It's tragic, and the cops went WAY overboard with the force they used.  They had subdued him enough that they could have cuffed him, but they didn't.  They kept wailing away at him over and over again.

The cop in this video never threw a punch, he never kicked, he never pulled his nightstick, gun, or mace.  Which is why I don't interpret this as brutality.  Again, this is just how I see it.  I don't for a second think any of you who see it different will ever change your minds just 'cause I point out my opinion.

Sites like YouTube ARE an important part of free speech.  You can turn on your webcam and rant to the world about issues that you care about.  Like all technology, it gets abused.  But Guybrush offers an interesting perspective:  Does free speech include a freedom to make personal jabs at somebody and mock them before the world?

I could be wrong but I think that if you're out in public you can be video taped without giving permission.  Any "law" people here that can attest to this?  Though please; lawyers only, cops won't be given a fair shake around here (sorry, couldn't resist)

I know that if somebody snuck up to your window and took video of you masterbating in your bedroom to midget porn and then put it on the web you could have him sued for invasion of privacy.  But out in public I don't think the same rule applies.

Now ... just because I can catch somebody' embarrassing moment on video doesn't mean I should share it with the world.  Sadly, there's no way to stop rude and inconsiderate people from doing rude and inconsiderate things if they aren't technically breaking any laws by doing it.

[Oliwerko]

Oh guys,

You got a point, I must admit, these are real arguments. I admit I must agree that there is no way how to resist them, and they were just waiting instead of arresting him. They got carried away, I think. Everyone can. Looking back, they maybe were brutal, but that was not my point in my first post. My point was, that mass media had exageratted it EXTREMELY. They showed only one scene, which was really brutal, not the other ones. To this I referred as to "power of mass media".