http://www.radaronline.com/from-the-magazine/2007/02/prisonersofyoutube.php
It's almost impossible that you haven't seen at least ONE or two of the videos listed throughout this thought-provoking article.
I read this at the beginning of this year, and recently found it again, and re-read it. It's chilling to stop and think about how closely monitored we are, and how hundreds of millions of people across the globe could relive one of our embarrassing moments over and over again, at all hours of the day and thousands of new hits every minute. It could be captured on a security camera or be shot on a cellphone. It could happen on the street, on a bus, or in your own living room.
Cameras are everywhere, and millions of people are waiting for the next big viral video to watch, forward, spoof, reference, and comment on. Think about it: You could be the next big fucking dumbass faggot loser to get caught on camera getting pwned.
Creepy stuff. This is why I don't surf the "funny" videos anymore. I eventually decided that this mass-voyeurism wasn't for me. After all, how would I like it if somebody caught me on tape during an off day? Granted, the people who intentionally got up before crowds and made fools of themselves aren't deserving of a whole lot of sympathy. But the people who were minding their own business but were at the wrong place at the wrong time don't deserve the global humilation that they've gotten.
So that's my take. What do you think?
I was born in 1984, so I am forced to accept it, I think ;)
I'd be quite proud of my famous misfortune video. Especially if it featured a voice over by Sheriff John Bunell ;)
At the end of the day these clips are so anonymous I really don't think it matters. I would never be able to identify anyone in any of these "funny" videos, unless they were particularly midget or had two heads or something. I think they get off quite lightly still. And I'm sure many of them now bask in their glory of seeing themselves on trash tv shows, and youtube ;)
CCTV is creepy, hell yes, but CCTV misfortune is just misfortune, and likely most people will get a laugh from it.
Interesting read. I'm glad you posted it because one of my unfinished term papers is about this topic. :) Thanks!
Youtube, for all its faults and all of the absolutely pointless mind-numbing crap that is on there, brings the power of the press to the individual for the first time EVER. Sure, anyone can make a zine, and has been able to since the 80's or so when printers and computers were cheap enough.
But now, if you screw up and it's on video, it doesn't matter who you are, you're going down.
Particularly police brutality/ridiculousness in the US comes to mind, here's one I saw today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH6AYVn2yw4
Normally what happens is the guys buddies in the PD don't give him any crap, the city doesn't fire or harass cops for stuff they do unless there's overwhelming bad publicity, and the mass media doesn't do anything unless it's a hate crime or something absolutely outrageous. So things like this get let go, because lets face it, the kid was skateboarding and he tried to run so the cop had to apprehend him right? But when you see a 13 year old kid getting tackled and choked, and you realize that he was JUST SKATEBOARDING... (the cop makes no mention of anything other than, you were skateboarding, I tried to stop you, you ran)
So. What's the name of the famous Star Wars kid? I have no idea, and chances are neither do you. Would I recognize the Star Wars kid if I saw him? No, I would not.
Honestly, I think much of this is pretty harmless. And the advantages pointed out by shbaz are worth it, in my book.
Eldkatt, the Star Wars kid's name is Ghyslain Raza, he is a French Canadian and was fourteen at the time the video was made.
My point is not so much about whether you or I can recognize him on the street, but the way the release of the video affected his life and relationship to his family and friends. In some cases, people who KNOW people who were humilated on YouTube get harrassed about it. Ghyslain Raza may have to change his name if he ever wants to move up in the world, because people WILL find out who he is.
It's the same with the so-called "Afroninja." He's a Hollywood stuntman whose career was, more or less, destroyed by an audition tape of him failing a backflip and stumbling off frame when he tries to get back up. I downloaded this clip to my personal collection when it first surfaced, and only recently learned that he WAS a professional and had doubled for Chris Tucker in the first two Rush Hour movies. But after the YouTube release, directors and producers began to recognize him as "Afroninja" and distanced their movies from him.
That said, I agree th YouTube IS a powerful force for free speech; perhaps the ONLY avenue left to truly speak your mind. It's unfortunate that the technology, as usual, is overrun by dweebs and morons more interested in watching people be humilated than speaking out on important issues.
Quote from: shbaz on Wed 05/12/2007 06:23:59http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH6AYVn2yw4
I can't speak for anybody else ... but I was rootin' for the cop. If these little kid's attitudes, when the camera showed up, are any indication the first kid on the ground probably did something stupid and then the rest jumped in with their 13 year old "wisdom" and thinking they know what's right. The camera doesn't show the original take-down or the events leading to it.
If there is a city ordinance that you're not allowed to ride your skateboards in town, a "national ride your skateboard day" doesn't make it okay. They broke the law, period.
Granted the cop did get a bit physical, however, those 5 or 6 kids could easily over-power him (and kill him). The cop's only choice was a brutal show of force to convince them not to resist. Which they, idiotically, still did. I say they got what they had coming to them.
I've read through the article and watched all the videos that came with it. I must say I've never seen any of the videos before. And it's very clear to me why. I don't find them enjoyable in anyway. I really don't see how anyone with a bit of brain can find those funny. I also don't understand that the person who wrote the articles included the clips. Ok then you can see what it's all about but cmon. Isn't like 90 million viewers not enough? I think it would have been better if the videos weren't included. Now more people will see them.
Quote from: Raggit on Wed 05/12/2007 13:29:24
Eldkatt, the Star Wars kid's name is Ghyslain Raza, he is a French Canadian and was fourteen at the time the video was made.
My point is not so much about whether you or I can recognize him on the street, but the way the release of the video affected his life and relationship to his family and friends. In some cases, people who KNOW people who were humilated on YouTube get harrassed about it. Ghyslain Raza may have to change his name if he ever wants to move up in the world, because people WILL find out who he is.
I'm very much aware that his name is known to those who wish to find it out, my point is more that nobody really cares. Nobody that matters. And call me a cynic, but I don't think Raza was the alpha male of his school even before the video. I don't think the YouTube phenomenon alone is responsible for whatever might have made his life suck. And call me overly optimistic, but I don't really think the video will prevent him from moving up in the world. This is just schoolyard bullying taken to a new venue, and in real life, the geeks tend to end up as the bosses of the jocks.
Mark Hicks (IMDB link (http://imdb.com/name/nm0382911/)), the Afroninja, is a good example of the possible effects, though. To me, though, it's mostly an example of what can happen when the masses misinterpret something fairly ordinary in a field that they haven't a clue about. Kind of like a more sinister version of the phenomenon when Ig Nobel Prize (http://improbable.com/ig/) laureates are first approached and respond with genuine surprise: "What? My research is
funny?"
The thing is that even the most seasoned professionals make mistakes, really stupid ones, now and then. The general public is blissfully aware of this for the most time, and when they see a little glimpse of the truth, they occasionally jump to conclusions. In this particular case, the little-known continuation of the story is that Mark got up from his failed backflip, did another one, and
got the part he was auditioning for. And if some idiot (I'll get to why I use this word) hadn't leaked the video, his reputation wouldn't have been marred in the slightest, because everyone involved knows that these things happen.
What above all shocks me about this instance is that it's a fundamental violation of the ethics that I feel are involved in this business: What happens at an audition
stays there. The jury will discuss it amongst themselves afterwards, but when they're done,
that's it, and they do not talk about it with
anyone. I think this is a principle of some gravity, and whoever put this on YouTube completely raped it. I really think this is the crux of the matter for me. The Afroninja video shocks me a great deal more than any number of Star Wars kids, because it's a violation of
audition ethics.
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Wed 05/12/2007 13:35:48
Quote from: shbaz on Wed 05/12/2007 06:23:59http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH6AYVn2yw4
I can't speak for anybody else ... but I was rootin' for the cop. If these little kid's attitudes, when the camera showed up, are any indication the first kid on the ground probably did something stupid and then the rest jumped in with their 13 year old "wisdom" and thinking they know what's right. The camera doesn't show the original take-down or the events leading to it.
If there is a city ordinance that you're not allowed to ride your skateboards in town, a "national ride your skateboard day" doesn't make it okay. They broke the law, period.
Granted the cop did get a bit physical, however, those 5 or 6 kids could easily over-power him (and kill him). The cop's only choice was a brutal show of force to convince them not to resist. Which they, idiotically, still did. I say they got what they had coming to them.
Exactly.
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. But on the news, they just said "6 police officers brutally atack a black man", showed only a bit of that camera take and thus made the 6 officers btutal racists. This is the so called "power of mass media".
how could you forget a name like rodney king.
I find it pretty weird that people get obsessed about people being obsessed with videos like these. I personally don't see much harm in them as long as they don't jeopardize someone's career or personal life. I'm not really embarrassed about anything I do, so I don't think I'd really mind if a video of me surfaced. And I don't really surround myself with people who'd want to hurt me, anyhow, so there's really no worry of being hounded by people I know. On the other hand, labeling is hardly ever a good thing, and if you get labeled by something you've done (negative or positive) it can have a great impact on your self-worth, saying I'm only important due to this single thing. Also, if the case is that you get constantly hounded by strangers, than that's not very good at all. However, I think it largely comes down to self-confidence and how well you can laugh at yourself, to the degree that it doesn't wreck your life or future.
[off-topic alt="personal v. social responsibility" src=myhead value=none (unless interested :))]The topic is clearly quite sensationalist, and it bears some resemblance to the controversy surrounding Dateline's
To Catch A Predator show. Should we retain the personal privacy of (alleged) pedophiles? Are there degrees in the severity of child abuse, and the 'right of scorn' attached to it? Where exactly does the show fare on a scale between societal responsibility and downright perverse opportunistic exploitation? I'm mainly just referring to this case to emphasize that most issues are not as black and white as some may think.
I'd like to remind everyone that we don't really have any innate laws as humans, apart from perhaps empathy (and incest, if you wanna keep thinking positively :D). The way we act and think are a result of the community or society that surrounds us, as are laws. So I would say: judge by society, not by laws. Again, there are degrees to everything, which brings me to another point:
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Wed 05/12/2007 13:35:48Granted the cop did get a bit physical, however, those 5 or 6 kids could easily over-power him (and kill him). The cop's only choice was a brutal show of force to convince them not to resist. Which they, idiotically, still did. I say they got what they had coming to them.
This to me feels like a very american way of thinking. Yes, they broke the law and they should face consequences for what they did. But for a person with the authority and responsibility for maintaining peace, to choke, tackle and cuff 13-year-olds, goes a bit far with me. To give off a presence of authority is of course important, but do you really have to man-handle children to communicate the severity of their actions. Maybe it's different in a country where it's emphasized that children can also be dangerous, but it's a pretty irresponsible statement to suggest that those 5-6 kids could have killed the cop. Yes, it's probably possible, but is it really, i mean really really? It's also entirely possible that the innocent granny walking by is on her way to do some old-fashioned serial-killing. It may also be possible that Iran might be able to get the knowledge to develop nuclear energy into weapons and essentially blow up the whole world. But then again, so could any country if you stretch it far enough, and so could a room full of monkeys with typewriters if you give them enough time.
So, it's again about degrees. How should one assess the threat level of a loiterer (also illegal in many areas) against that of an armed robber? I think the cop snapped and just took it way too far. At least in Finland this would be considered over-use and/or abuse of power, and it would be a disaster for the values that we have in our society. But then again, we don't consider our children dangerous by default (which shouldn't change due to a single assbag - the one who shall not be named), we don't put them in jail with adult charges and we don't kill people in the name of justice.
Quote from: Oliwerko on Wed 05/12/2007 15:50:17Exactly.
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. But on the news, they just said "6 police officers brutally atack a black man", showed only a bit of that camera take and thus made the 6 officers btutal racists. This is the so called "power of mass media".
There was a case a little similar to this in Finland recently. These two security guards got caught on tape beating this innocent man to a pulp. Everyone was shocked and disgusted. Later it turned out that the man who was being beated had been fighting and had, among other things, kicked another woman in the face. This lessened the shock a tad, but didn't change the fact that he was treated unjustly by the security guards. Rightly so, they were fired and will probably face some abuse charges. So, unless that guy was the black superman, I'm guessing 6 cops would be way enough to overpower and detain one person, without the batons ever leaving their holsters. I wouldn't jump to calling them racist, but I think they definately got a little too carried away.
[/off-topic]Sorry to go so off-topic, but I couldn't stop :D.
ildu:
13-14 year olds over here in the uk, smoke various stuff and generally can be rather dangerous at times. If they were 10, yes, but 13-14 is rather different.
And this video is a bit hazzy at times, as Darth says, it's not really from the begining so we have no idea what really happened. It does appear really ugly for the cop, that's a fact for me, but not the truth in what really happened before the video.
Youtube is nice. Will read the article later on. [/off topic again]
Quote from: Oliwerko on Wed 05/12/2007 15:50:17
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.
Quote from: Nikolas on Wed 05/12/2007 18:01:2613-14 year olds over here in the uk, smoke various stuff and generally can be rather dangerous at times. If they were 10, yes, but 13-14 is rather different.
And this video is a bit hazzy at times, as Darth says, it's not really from the begining so we have no idea what really happened. It does appear really ugly for the cop, that's a fact for me, but not the truth in what really happened before the video.
Yah, I understand. We don't really know what happened at all, so a statement like "the kids had it coming" is exactly the same as "the cop went too far". My assessment, though, is to believe the latter, simply because to me it seems more probable and the only piece of evidence that we have (be it biased or not) suggests so. And for kids in general, that's completely dependent on the area and surroundings. If I lived in the UK, I'd be scared of chavs too :D.
But they weren't just loitering. They were riding their skateboards in direct violation of city ordinance. Just because it's "ride your skateboard day" doesn't mean that law just goes away. I'd be willing to bet you that these kids had been told by that cop several times to stop. These little punks, thinking they know best, decided not to. The cop steps up, they get loud, so he takes one of them down. Then they all start yelling at him from all angles and there he is by himself outnumbered more than 5 to 1. In my opinion, the cop actually kept his head pretty damn well. He answered every question they asked him and even said, "calm down or I'm gonna spray you" which he never resorted to doing.
He told the girl, who was clearly sticking her nose in the way when he was trying to manage the cuffed kid, that she was under arrest for interfering and obstructing and she ran. He should have tazed her punk-ass. She's lucky all she got was a little head-lock action. What? He should have been "gentle" just 'cause she's a girl? A girl can pull a knife just as easily as a guy. You do not get in the way when a cop is arresting somebody ... no matter how much you think he's wrong, you do not interfere. She is a moron.
I think there's a bigger issue at play here than "police brutality" ... I think it's a larger issue of kids/people thinking they don't have to worry about consequences for not obeying the law. I download mp3, if the cops come knocking one day I certainly am not going to resist arrest (even though I would vehemently disagree with it).
Meh ... I dunno. I know a lot of cops and I hear a lot of stories about the shit they have to put up with. In my opinion, if you "step up" to a law officer the way these kids did ... they got what they had comin' to 'em, and maybe not even what they deserved.
I thought we had reached the conclusion that we simply don't know exactly what happened, but I seem to have been mistaken.
Quote from: EldKatt on Wed 05/12/2007 21:06:58
I thought we had reached the conclusion that we simply don't know exactly what happened, but I seem to have been mistaken.
Darth just has to be right. He's not satishfied with a tie :=
Plus the general american opinion is that the cop is always right and that cops put up with way too much crap already.
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.
Quote from: shbaz on Wed 05/12/2007 23:37:39
Plus the general american opinion is that the cop is always right and that cops put up with way too much crap already.
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.
No you're absolutely right ... being a smartass know-it-all 13 year old should give you the right to break the law.
And cops should let you roll all over them 'cause, as we all know, 13 year olds know a lot more than the cops as to who should do what with the law.
My bad.
Quote from: EldKatt on Wed 05/12/2007 18:07:37
Quote from: Oliwerko on Wed 05/12/2007 15:50:17
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.
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Wed 05/12/2007 23:50:53
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...
Quote from: Oliwerko on Thu 06/12/2007 06:13:45
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?
Quote from: EldKatt on Thu 06/12/2007 09:16:45
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Wed 05/12/2007 23:50:53
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...
Quote from: Oliwerko on Thu 06/12/2007 06:13:45
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 ;D
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.
Quote from: EldKatt on Thu 06/12/2007 09:16:45
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Wed 05/12/2007 23:50:53
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.
EditIf 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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
Quote from: Raggit on Thu 06/12/2007 14:50:39
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.
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Thu 06/12/2007 13:10:13
Quote from: EldKatt on Thu 06/12/2007 09:16:45
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Wed 05/12/2007 23:50:53
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.
Quote from: Oliwerko on Thu 06/12/2007 15:34:47
Quote from: Raggit on Thu 06/12/2007 14:50:39
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.
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.
Quote from: Raggit on Thu 06/12/2007 14:50:39
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.
Quote from: EldKatt on Thu 06/12/2007 14:57:53Do 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:
QuotePlus 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:
QuoteSo 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.
Uh, FYI I just made another thread for this so the hijacking doesn't continue.
Quote from: shbaz on Thu 06/12/2007 16:05:27
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?
Quote from: Raggit on Thu 06/12/2007 16:27:32
Quote from: shbaz on Thu 06/12/2007 16:05:27
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/...
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.
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.
Quote from: Raggit on Thu 06/12/2007 16:27:32Sites 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.
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".