here's a police brutality deal for real

PLOlover · #1 09-19-2007, 09:28 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiradcejA6o

from what I can see, the police refused this guy into a public hearing that he was in line for, and assaulted him when he asked why he couldn't go in.

from what I can see in this type of situation, 2 things can happen.
1) you can be "cunningly coerced" , eg, the police could say, I'm sorry sir, a star trek type wormhole has appeared on the other side of this door and if you go in you will be sucked into an alternate universe. (police tell you you can't go in). so you say ok and you don't go in and you leave. This is the same as if the police show up on your front door and say "can we search your house". if you say yes then they can do it. but you can say no.

2) police tell you you cannot go in because the room is full, you point out that you can see that it is not, and while they're telling you it's full the people behind you in line are going in. so you argue with them and say you know they are lying ... boom! you get tackled and arrested. this is the same as if police knock on your door, ask to search your house, you say no, and they arrest you and search (without warrant).

--
so basically you can't win the immediate situation, however, in case 2) you can sue and win. the problem is that if this is policy then the police will always do this, people will sometimes sue and win, and the city/state whatever will just pay out. they will just use your tax dollars and raise your taxes to increase totalitarianism.

zasterguava · #2 09-19-2007, 09:35 AM

I'm guessing it is not police policy to violently attack someone before that person shows any signs of violent itent.

W brad · #3 09-19-2007, 09:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]

and assaulted him when he asked why he couldn't go in.

[/ QUOTE ]

he was arrested only after he used force in an attempt to get past the officers, not for just asking a question. Charging into people is not the same as just asking a question.

So you already have lost your credibility here by deliberately distorting the situation.

PLOlover · #4 09-19-2007, 10:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
he was arrested only after he used force in an attempt to get past the officers, not for just asking a question. Charging into people is not the same as just asking a question.

So you already have lost your credibility here by deliberately distorting the situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

look at the tape. the officers were gently manhandling him and escorting him out, he resisted, and was jumped on. the point being they put their hands on him first, and he tried to get them off of him.

now I point this out because the kid in kerry thing was I guess a semi crazy guy who was being chased around, and then the officers grabbed him. but in this case the guy was doing nothing but standing in line to go in, then when it was his turn to go in, they denied him, he asked why, then they grabbed him(gently), and when he resisted, they tackled him.

do you see the difference?

if you want I can point to the exact time on the video these things happened.

PLOlover · #5 09-19-2007, 10:17 AM

just to clarify, if you put your hands on someone, if you grab someone, that is assault.

also, to be technical, from what I saw, the police took him out of line (trying to coerce), and when he tried to get back in line (refused to be coerced), they tackled him.

qwnu · #6 09-19-2007, 10:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
look at the tape. the officers were gently manhandling him and escorting him out, he resisted, and was jumped on. the point being they put their hands on him first, and he tried to get them off of him.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you understand that the things in blue are generally legal and the things in red are generally not legal? Whether you like it or not, the way it works in our society is that cops have special police powers, and when they put their hands on you, it is not necessarily assault.

What is the alternative in this situation, cops attempt to escort him out, he resists, cops give up and go eat a donut?

PLOlover · #7 09-19-2007, 10:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Do you understand that the things in blue are generally legal and the things in red are generally not legal? Whether you like it or not, the way it works in our society is that cops have special police powers, and when they put their hands on you, it is not necessarily assault.

What is the alternative in this situation, cops attempt to escort him out, he resists, cops give up and go eat a donut?

[/ QUOTE ]

well my main point is that the cops had no reason to escort him out. none.

now if they can coerce him into voluntarily leaving, that is legal. but you do not have to consent to being coerced.

--
let's say the police want to search your house.

1) they come with a search warrant, (if they're nice) they knock and say hey guy, you mind if we search, they produce the warrant, and if you resist, they use force. See, in this case they are allowed to use force.

2) they come with no warrant (fishing expedition), and are nice and knock on the door and say hey guy, mind if we search your house, it's just routine, just for your safety, etc. Now if you refuse to consent, if you resist, if you say screw off, guess what?, the cops have to give up and go eat a donut.

----

what I'm saying is that this incident seems to me be totally in 2), where the police had no authority to use force. where am I wrong?

Money2Burn · #8 09-19-2007, 10:48 AM

Your house is private property.

PLOlover · #9 09-19-2007, 10:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Your house is private property.

[/ QUOTE ]

do you understand the difference between the police asking you (coercing) and telling you (do it or police powers come into force)?

the simple question is, why was he not allowed to enter a public hearing? if there's no reason, then why did the police use force?

Money2Burn · #10 09-19-2007, 11:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your house is private property.

[/ QUOTE ]

do you understand the difference between the police asking you (coercing) and telling you (do it or police powers come into force)?

the simple question is, why was he not allowed to enter a public hearing? if there's no reason, then why did the police use force?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know why he wasn't allowed in, there are numerous valid reasons. Do you know that there wasn't a reason? Did you read this somewhere? If so where?

I do understand the difference, but there is a difference between the two scenerios you set up. Comparing the cops trying to enter your own private property without consent or a warrent is completely different than being restricted access to a public hearing.