Young man taunted by policeman wants ...

Young man taunted by policeman wants officer fired

Posted in the Louisville Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“Stand up Against Tyranny”

Since: Aug 07

Louisville

#1 Sep 27, 2007
St. George A young St. Louis man who videotaped a police officer's angry taunts during a traffic stop, and later posting the footage on the Internet where thousands of viewers have watched it, said Tuesday he wants the officer fired...read article here:http://www.stltoday.com/s tltoday/news/special/srlinks.n sf/story/58DCD550F5762E0586257 3540075A253?OpenDocument
think about it

Lexington, KY

#2 Sep 27, 2007
True American123 wrote:
St. George A young St. Louis man who videotaped a police officer's angry taunts during a traffic stop, and later posting the footage on the Internet where thousands of viewers have watched it, said Tuesday he wants the officer fired...read article here:http://www.stltoday.com/s tltoday/news/special/srlinks.n sf/story/58DCD550F5762E0586257 3540075A253?OpenDocument
Well, here is that evidence you wanted. I saw that video and the officer was way out of control. Though I don't really believe that the young man wasn't trying to get something like this on videotape, I still think the officer acted very inappropriately.

“Stand up Against Tyranny”

Since: Aug 07

Louisville

#3 Sep 28, 2007
"Though I don't really believe that the young man wasn't trying to get something like this on videotape", Whether the kid wanted this sort of thing caught on video or not, the point is it was caught on video and it will be used against the cop in regards of him being able to keep his job or any other job in the future when it comes to this cop holding a job with which he has a position of power.
think about it

Lexington, KY

#4 Sep 28, 2007
See, you're a complete idiot. Someone agrees with you and you still find a way to argue. You are the classic troll.

“Stand up Against Tyranny”

Since: Aug 07

Louisville

#5 Sep 28, 2007
I was just voicing my concerns on your statement. I noticed you agreed but also noticed your throw in statement and so I voiced my concerns about it. Why would I be a idiot for pointing to a statement YOU made?
think about it

Lexington, KY

#6 Sep 30, 2007
The reason, among several others proven in other threads, is because I didn't say that the issue regarding whether he intended to get this on video tape or not made any difference as to what should happen to the officer as a result of his behavior. Your response assumed that I did and it's either because you are an idiot or because you don't care what is said as you will twist it to fit your own agenda. Either way you lose!

“Stand up Against Tyranny”

Since: Aug 07

Louisville

#7 Sep 30, 2007
I took what YOU said and voiced my opinion about it. How can I twist YOUR own words? What is my agenda? And how am I loosing?
think about it

Lexington, KY

#8 Oct 1, 2007
By misquoting or paraphrasing as you have in another thread. Or by quoting a statement, such as the one in question in this thread, and then responding as if I had justified the officers actions with it.
Your agenda is to convince people that all police are bad, that there is NEVER a legitimate use of force, and that violence against the police is justified. I think that just about sums it up.
You are losing because you make arguments based on speculation, stereotyping, and subjective reasoning. Therefore, none of your arguments can be substantiated.
If you had simply said that there are instances of excessive force and various forms of corruption on the part of SOME law enforcement officers, and that such actions should be addressed at both a departmental and criminal level, I would have agreed from the outset.
If you had pointed out that the percentage of officers that commit these offenses is very small, maybe 1% of all the LE officers in America, then I'd have never debated the issue with you. But you overgeneralize, stereotype, and make assumptions to such a degree that no one will take you seriously and pretty much dismiss what you have to say. You are an extremist and extremists make great bylines but typically lack anything substantial.

“Stand up Against Tyranny”

Since: Aug 07

Louisville

#9 Oct 2, 2007
"Though I don't really believe that the young man wasn't trying to get something like this on videotape" YOUR statement. "Whether the kid wanted this sort of thing caught on video or not, the point is it was caught on video", MY statement. Where do you get that I was trying to say that you were justifying the cops actions?
"Your agenda is to convince people that all police are bad, that there is NEVER a legitimate use of force, and that violence against the police is justified. I think that just about sums it up."
Apparently you do not read all my post on this kind of subject, because I know and have posted in the past that there ARE great cops that do their jobs with dignity and with respect to others rights. There is a time when deadly force and force to apprehend is needed. And when a cop has crossed the line of what is right and what is wrong then that said cop should be treated in the same manner as what he was dishing out. So what is summed up is, there ARE great cops that do their jobs with dignity and with respect to others rights, There is a time when deadly force and force to apprehend is needed, when a cop has crossed the line of what is right and what is wrong then that said cop should be treated in the same manner as what he was dishing out." If you had pointed out that the percentage of officers that commit these offenses is very small, maybe 1% ", And again, if you have read my post's on this subject I know that there is a small percentage of bad cops in America and I think I went further than you on the percentage and said something like .8% which is LESS than your 1% if you didnt know. So as for the rest of your post," You are losing because you make arguments based on speculation, stereotyping, and subjective reasoning. Therefore, none of your arguments can be substantiated.
If you had simply said that there are instances of excessive force and various forms of corruption on the part of SOME law enforcement officers, and that such actions should be addressed at both a departmental and criminal level, I would have agreed from the outset." and "But you overgeneralize, stereotype, and make assumptions to such a degree that no one will take you seriously and pretty much dismiss what you have to say. You are an extremist and extremists make great bylines but typically lack anything substantial." it is without merit and is regarded as you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to me and what I post and think on this subject.
think about it

Lexington, KY

#10 Oct 2, 2007
True American123 wrote:
There is a time when deadly force and force to apprehend is needed, when a cop has crossed the line of what is right and what is wrong then that said cop should be treated in the same manner as what he was dishing out
Let's look at the first part of this statement. In another thread, when challenged on presuming an officers guilt before they've been convicted, YOU stated that you have no problem doing so inasmuch as this is what officers do when they arrest someone, thus implying that officers are wrong to arrest people. So how does that fit into your theory in THIS thread that there is a time to use deadly force or force to arrest? You can't have it both ways.
Secondly, if we accept the second part of your statement above then we must presume that you believe it's ok for officers to do the same. If an officer is punched/kicked then s/he may punch/kick the offender, even after s/he is handcuffed. Remember, you did post a video advocating the beating of police, even after they were incapacitated. I guess you also think that this is how society should treat people convicted of assault and murder. If they hit someone in the head with a baseball bat then they get the same. If they strangle someone to death, they too are strangled.
Come on smart boy, explain yourself!!

“Stand up Against Tyranny”

Since: Aug 07

Louisville

#11 Oct 2, 2007
"In another thread, when challenged on presuming an officers guilt before they've been convicted, YOU stated that you have no problem doing so in as much as this is what officers do when they arrest someone, thus implying that officers are wrong to arrest people." In Milwaukee, an apparent rogue cop is accused of beating or planting drugs -- or both -- on at least 10 people,
In Baltimore, a Maryland Transportation Authority Police officer was indicted along with her boyfriend on September 21 on charges they dealt crack cocaine from the Curtis Bay home they shared.
In South Bend, Indiana, a former South Bend police officer has pleaded guilty in a case where he stole drugs and money during a traffic stop. This is what I posted. And this is what you posted " In the case of the first two, they are not convicted yet...hell, one is only accused. Are you in favor of pronouncing someone guilty before they've even been tried? Or do you not believe in the ideal of being considered innocent until proven guilty? This is what I posted "Yeh, I believe in it as much as a cop believes in it when a person is charged and handcuffed and locked up, when said person has not been found guilty of anything." All I was pointing out was that there was no differance in the Cops being arrested and a civilian being arrested without being found guilty of anything. If a person is breaking the law then that said person should be arrested BUT should be presumed innocent. Deadly force should be used when protecting life of either the cops or others. NOT when a person is hand cuffed behind their back, running away on foot, or bad mouthing a cop. As for the 3 thug cops in the video I posted that had the guy on the ground and was repetedly hitting the guy in the head the 3 cops are in FULL view of their peers and are found guilty by their peers in the stands for which their peers beat and kicked them. Then after words helped them to the side lines. Sort of like a cop seeing a individual with a gun and watches said person shoot someone and then the cop shooting at the individual. "Presumed", does not play a role for these two scenarios. Guilt is found by watching the occurance with one's own eyes. Presumed plays a role when cop "or anyone else for that matter" comes after said incident has done took place and was NOT witnessed by cop or anyone else showing up after said incident. presumed - to assume as true in the absence of proof to the contrary. Guilt - the fact or state of having committed an offense, crime, violation, or wrong, esp. against moral or penal law; culpability.
As for the second part of you post, this should have covered it.

“Ave Satanas”

Since: Dec 06

Bratislava, Slovakia

#12 Oct 2, 2007
~yawn~

“Stand up Against Tyranny”

Since: Aug 07

Louisville

#13 Oct 2, 2007
LOL the I.Q of triple above. LOL
think about it

Lexington, KY

#14 Oct 3, 2007
True American123 wrote:
As for the 3 thug cops in the video I posted that had the guy on the ground and was repetedly hitting the guy in the head the 3 cops are in FULL view of their peers and are found guilty by their peers in the stands for which their peers beat and kicked them. Then after words helped them to the side lines. Sort of like a cop seeing a individual with a gun and watches said person shoot someone and then the cop shooting at the individual.
"Presumed", does not play a role for these two scenarios. Guilt is found by watching the occurance with one's own eyes.
You are absolutely wrong. In the first place, only one of the cops in the video repeatedly struck the man on the ground and is stopped by one of the other officers. Ironically, the officer that stopped him is the one that is then assaulted and kicked in the head by the rioters while lying on the ground.
Secondly, GUILT is NOT found by watching the occurrence with "ones own eyes". When a person is arrested by an officer, even if the officer watched them commit the offense, they are not being pronounced guilty. That finding can only be made by judge or jury. Besides, videos can be misleading, as proven by your failure to observe how many officers were hitting the suspect AND the one officer telling the other to stop, or by the fact that many are never shown in their entirety which can slant the facts dramatically.

“Stand up Against Tyranny”

Since: Aug 07

Louisville

#15 Oct 4, 2007
"Secondly, GUILT is NOT found by watching the occurrence with "ones own eyes". When a person is arrested by an officer, even if the officer watched them commit the offense, they are not being pronounced guilty." Explain that statement in the context of a cop killing someone legally.

"AND the one officer telling the other to stop", and by your failure to observe that you cant hear what the officer is saying. How do you know what the other cop said?

"only one of the cops in the video repeatedly struck the man on the ground", First of all the cop didn't strike the man on the ground, the cop struck the man on the head while the man was on the ground repeatedly while the other cops held the man down. This would fall under the same situation as a person being in the car while the other person robbed a store, They are both guilty.
think about it

Lexington, KY

#16 Oct 8, 2007
An officer does not pronounce guilt when they take someones life in self-defense. It's not the mens rea of dead person that is in question at that point but rather what the officer reasonably believed based on the actions of the other person.
I never said that the other officer TOLD the officer to stop hitting him (though he very well may have) but you can plainly see him use his hand to halt the actions of that officer.
As to your last statement, which is mostly nonsensical, the officers did hold him down. However, you have no idea where the blows from the one officer fell and, again, he was stopped at some point by the officer who ends us getting assaulted.

“Stand up Against Tyranny”

Since: Aug 07

Louisville

#17 Oct 9, 2007
"An officer does not pronounce guilt when they take someones life in self-defense." Who said self defense? "the officers did hold him down. However, you have no idea where the blows from the one officer fell" Prove he didn't hit the man in the head.
think about it

Lexington, KY

#18 Oct 9, 2007
True American123 wrote:
"An officer does not pronounce guilt when they take someones life in self-defense." Who said self defense? "the officers did hold him down. However, you have no idea where the blows from the one officer fell" Prove he didn't hit the man in the head.
You did, moron. You said, "Explain that statement in the context of a cop killing someone legally". The only way an officer can kill someone legally is in defense of their life or anothers, which equates to self-defense.
Furthermore, I have no need to prove he didn't hit the man in the head. That would be like you saying that you can prove that he did, which of course you can't, which was my point in the first place. The things I CAN prove are these:
1. The man was chased down by police and arrested.
2. One officer was hitting the man somewhere on his body until motioned to stop by another officer (Officer #2)
3. Officer #2 was then assaulted by a player and then by many members of the crowd, even after he was down and unable to defend himself.
All of this is provable by simply watching the video. Any argument you make about people being beaten when handcuffed is rendered moot when you defend the actions of the crowd. Anytime anyone is beaten, especially when they are unable to defend themselves (handcuffed/unconcious), it's wrong no matter who is doing the beating. Remember however, an officer using the amount of force necessary to effect an arrest is not "beating" someone.
**Oh, and before you ask your tired question about how shooting a person who is handcuffed behind their back can be deemed "force necessary to effect an arrest", let me explain how that incident was about self-defense...not arrest.

“Stand up Against Tyranny”

Since: Aug 07

Louisville

#19 Oct 9, 2007
"which equates to self-defense."????????? Self defense means SELF LOL your a morron LOL Does the little boy want a definition of self? LOL

"Officer #2 was then assaulted by a player and then by many members of the crowd, even after he was down and unable to defend himself", Sort of like people that are in hand cuffs.

Please stop because you look absolutely retarded.
The Realist

Utica, KY

#21 Nov 14, 2007
Way to take a good topic and turn it into a bitch fight.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Louisville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Feed Me On the Couch 45 min Daddy 16
song title game 58 min play along 17
Last Post Wins (Mar '11) 3 hr texas pete 9,509
Doris Campagna Wrote Her Book 3 hr Callahan 7
Chriztian h vause at cardinal aluminum 3 hr Sara rijone 1
Chris vause from cardinal aluminum on preston hwy 3 hr Sara rijone 1
Discreet affair 6 hr Anon 5

Louisville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Louisville Mortgages