Should This Pig Be Charged With Assault?

[thegreekdog]

My definition is "everyone should be free to do whatever as long as it causes no harm to others or impede their respective freedoms".

But hey, I guess you know what I think better than I? After all, you have so much more experience being me than I do...

I'm not really sure that's your definition.

Oh, ok! So you do know what my definitions are better than me. How fascinating! Do tell me, how long have you been me? 30 years? 31?

I'm just going by the general tenor of your posts in the forum. You seem to be rather judgmental of others, regardless of whether their doing whatever does not cause other people to be harmed.

I'm only judgemental of actions and attitudes which go against said principle.

And regardless of that, my statement of personal opinion about any certain activity does not count as trying to impede on other people's freedom. My freedom of expression does not impede on other people's freedom to whatever, ergo I am allowed to criticize ideas and concepts, as long as I'm not doing it in a derogatory, dehumanizing or silencing/marginalizing way.

But as always, good luck providing some evidence for your claims.

Ah, you're not impeding others by being judgmental. I get it. I think Phatscotty is also allowed to criticize ideas and concepts, as long as he's not doing it in a derogatory, dehumanizing, or silencing/marginalizing way too.

I suppose some could read your posts (and mine and Phatscotty's) as derogatory or marginalizing. Which, frankly, doesn't impede anyone from posting their beliefs or opinion, but, seem to fall under your definition of impeding. In sum, I'm not sure how Phatscotty's posts are any different than yours in the way they criticize or opine on current events with respect to whether they impede or don't impede someone's point of view. Phatscotty offers a point of view. You offer a point of view. I offer a point of view. Phatscotty's point of view does not impede your ability (or anyone else's) to do or say anything, just like your point of view does not impede Phatscotty's ability to do or say anything.

Example - Your idea of equal rights for women may be very different from my idea of equal rights for women. Does that mean your idea of equal rights for women is "people should be free to do the things I think people should do?"
Example - Your idea of freedom of religion may be very different than my idea of freedom of religion. Does that mean your idea of freedom of religion is "people should be free to do the things I think people should do?"

Oh, so your argument is basically the good old "if you're intolerant of intolerance, then you're just as bad as the intolerant people"... gotcha.

When the person who is being intolerant of intolerance is also the one defining intolerance, then yes.

[Phatscotty]

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest tossed,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

And then have some cops who're drunk on power and authority beat them to death.

Oops, I forget the last line on the Statue of Liberty.

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest tossed,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
No, I will not follow your orders
Start punchin pig

fixed

[Phatscotty]

show: Phatsotty nonsense

Soo... are you serious? A guy mouths off slightly (remember this guy is schizophrenic), and this in your mind justifies the initiation of force against him by an authority? This is arrest worthy? I'm seriously confused as to what you consider freedom when we can't even talk freely without fear of violence against us. In his situation, he should've been able to tell the cops to f*ck off. They hassled him because he was homeless and crazy.

Does your grade school mentality towards petty words extend to us regular folks? Are you justified in killing a person for calling you the douche you are?

I posted the photo so you could see what you're supporting, that if a schizophrenic homeless man dares to stand up for himself he should be killed. Off with his head, huh? If you think that makes it an appeal to emotion, then you've got some issues.

Get real, Phatty. The pigs went that far because he didn't want to deal with their shit, and let me tell you from experience there's nothing worse that cops can't stand- disrespect. There is absolutely no excuse for what happened.

Like I said, you have a warped sense of freedom. Maybe one day you'll see the pigs for what they really are. I hope for your sake that you aren't on the wrong end of a nightstick.

And PS - I don't understand how you can be supportive of this type of thing and call yourself a Libertarian or Ron Paul supporter or small government conservative. This is exactly the kind of thing that you should be railing against.

Precisely. Here he is, complaining in another thread about how Obama is supporting a nanny state gov't that will decide everything for you, and yet he supports killer cops.

-TG

Remember, cops don't know people are schizophrenic upon the first 2 minutes of confronting him. Can you please stop putting the 20/20 hinsight as magically supposed to have been known by the police....talk about nonsense....check your own premise pal

[Phatscotty]

This guy should have been receiving some kind of assistance.

You mean government handouts / entitlements?

Le gasp!

We take care of the mentally ill. That has been decided since our founding. It goes along with things we all agree is a primary function of government, such as defense and a courts system.


Le gasp! dork

Oh, but shouldn't those mentally ill people just be taken care of by their relatives or some charities or such?

Obviously, the more options, the better. sad I have to point out something so simple to you.

[Phatscotty]

My definition is "everyone should be free to do whatever as long as it causes no harm to others or impede their respective freedoms".

But hey, I guess you know what I think better than I? After all, you have so much more experience being me than I do...

I'm not really sure that's your definition.

Oh, ok! So you do know what my definitions are better than me. How fascinating! Do tell me, how long have you been me? 30 years? 31?

I'm just going by the general tenor of your posts in the forum. You seem to be rather judgmental of others, regardless of whether their doing whatever does not cause other people to be harmed.

I'm only judgemental of actions and attitudes which go against said principle.

And regardless of that, my statement of personal opinion about any certain activity does not count as trying to impede on other people's freedom. My freedom of expression does not impede on other people's freedom to whatever, ergo I am allowed to criticize ideas and concepts, as long as I'm not doing it in a derogatory, dehumanizing or silencing/marginalizing way.

But as always, good luck providing some evidence for your claims.

Ah, you're not impeding others by being judgmental. I get it. I think Phatscotty is also allowed to criticize ideas and concepts, as long as he's not doing it in a derogatory, dehumanizing, or silencing/marginalizing way too.

I suppose some could read your posts (and mine and Phatscotty's) as derogatory or marginalizing. Which, frankly, doesn't impede anyone from posting their beliefs or opinion, but, seem to fall under your definition of impeding. In sum, I'm not sure how Phatscotty's posts are any different than yours in the way they criticize or opine on current events with respect to whether they impede or don't impede someone's point of view. Phatscotty offers a point of view. You offer a point of view. I offer a point of view. Phatscotty's point of view does not impede your ability (or anyone else's) to do or say anything, just like your point of view does not impede Phatscotty's ability to do or say anything.

Example - Your idea of equal rights for women may be very different from my idea of equal rights for women. Does that mean your idea of equal rights for women is "people should be free to do the things I think people should do?"
Example - Your idea of freedom of religion may be very different than my idea of freedom of religion. Does that mean your idea of freedom of religion is "people should be free to do the things I think people should do?"

Oh, so your argument is basically the good old "if you're intolerant of intolerance, then you're just as bad as the intolerant people"... gotcha.

you might try ceasing to whine. You might even try using your head to think about stuff rather than just constantly attack people and call them names and bully them and try to hurt their feelings or make them look stupid. If you have an opinion that you want heard or a point to make, please, I beg you, go for it. If you just want to act like a grade school bully, save it.

[Phatscotty]

I believe that's your definition as well (to be fair).

My definition is "everyone should be free to do whatever as long as it causes no harm to others or impede their respective freedoms".

But hey, I guess you know what I think better than I? After all, you have so much more experience being me than I do...

I'm not really sure that's your definition.

Oh, ok! So you do know what my definitions are better than me. How fascinating! Do tell me, how long have you been me? 30 years? 31?

I'm just going by the general tenor of your posts in the forum. You seem to be rather judgmental of others, regardless of whether their doing whatever does not cause other people to be harmed.

I'm only judgemental of actions and attitudes which go against said principle.

And regardless of that, my statement of personal opinion about any certain activity does not count as trying to impede on other people's freedom. My freedom of expression does not impede on other people's freedom to whatever, ergo I am allowed to criticize ideas and concepts, as long as I'm not doing it in a derogatory, dehumanizing or silencing/marginalizing way.

But as always, good luck providing some evidence for your claims.

Ah, you're not impeding others by being judgmental. I get it. I think Phatscotty is also allowed to criticize ideas and concepts, as long as he's not doing it in a derogatory, dehumanizing, or silencing/marginalizing way too.

Yet, Natty, Symmetry, Pimpdave, and a few others, seem to only be able to criticize in such ways. They even have other liberals cheering them on.

[natty dread]

I'm not really sure that's your definition.

Oh, ok! So you do know what my definitions are better than me. How fascinating! Do tell me, how long have you been me? 30 years? 31?

I'm just going by the general tenor of your posts in the forum. You seem to be rather judgmental of others, regardless of whether their doing whatever does not cause other people to be harmed.

I'm only judgemental of actions and attitudes which go against said principle.

And regardless of that, my statement of personal opinion about any certain activity does not count as trying to impede on other people's freedom. My freedom of expression does not impede on other people's freedom to whatever, ergo I am allowed to criticize ideas and concepts, as long as I'm not doing it in a derogatory, dehumanizing or silencing/marginalizing way.

But as always, good luck providing some evidence for your claims.

Ah, you're not impeding others by being judgmental. I get it. I think Phatscotty is also allowed to criticize ideas and concepts, as long as he's not doing it in a derogatory, dehumanizing, or silencing/marginalizing way too.

I suppose some could read your posts (and mine and Phatscotty's) as derogatory or marginalizing. Which, frankly, doesn't impede anyone from posting their beliefs or opinion, but, seem to fall under your definition of impeding. In sum, I'm not sure how Phatscotty's posts are any different than yours in the way they criticize or opine on current events with respect to whether they impede or don't impede someone's point of view. Phatscotty offers a point of view. You offer a point of view. I offer a point of view. Phatscotty's point of view does not impede your ability (or anyone else's) to do or say anything, just like your point of view does not impede Phatscotty's ability to do or say anything.

Example - Your idea of equal rights for women may be very different from my idea of equal rights for women. Does that mean your idea of equal rights for women is "people should be free to do the things I think people should do?"
Example - Your idea of freedom of religion may be very different than my idea of freedom of religion. Does that mean your idea of freedom of religion is "people should be free to do the things I think people should do?"

Oh, so your argument is basically the good old "if you're intolerant of intolerance, then you're just as bad as the intolerant people"... gotcha.

When the person who is being intolerant of intolerance is also the one defining intolerance, then yes.

So you're basically saying, that neo-nazis have a point when they claim "people should allow us to spread our racist propaganda and hate speech because otherwise they're intolerant of our racism"?

And if those same neo-nazis disagree with our definition of intolerance, we can't call them intolerant?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Remember, cops don't know people are schizophrenic upon the first 2 minutes of confronting him. Can you please stop putting the 20/20 hinsight as magically supposed to have been known by the police....talk about nonsense....check your own premise pal

I fail to see the relevance, really. My point is that just because you mouth of to a pig he shouldn't kill you or even be able to arrest you. If he can, that is not freedom. And for the record, they visited him almost daily to hassle him (listen to the vid, the fat one says something along the lines of "aren't you getting tired of us coming out here?"). So they knew he was mentally disabled in some way.

-TG

[thegreekdog]

So you're basically saying, that neo-nazis have a point when they claim "people should allow us to spread our racist propaganda and hate speech because otherwise they're intolerant of our racism"?

And if those same neo-nazis disagree with our definition of intolerance, we can't call them intolerant?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....

You can call them intolerant. I have no problem with that at all.

[/]

If we make it a standard that the police have no right to automatically pass judgment on the people, then I believe they deserve the same benefit of doubt, all humans are subject to imperfection. Provocation is an issue, weather it involves private citizens or the police, just look at Australian laws where provocation can be used as an excuse for pretty much any type of assault.

And if the mental state of every person should be taken into account, so should the mental state of each officer, the police forces are much more susceptible to stress related mental and physical disorders than the average citizen.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 105029.htm

And unfortunately, like the general populace, the officers themselves often show a level distrust to authority that could help them, counselors, internal affairs, and superior officers.
So it's usually not a cut and dry case of "us versus them", or "good cop/bad cop", there needs to be a more developed way to evaluate such problems before everything snaps on either end. Accountability needs to increase, but so does help. So yes, if the actions warrant it, officers should be charged, the same way as any citizen, with justice.

[Phatscotty]

Remember, cops don't know people are schizophrenic upon the first 2 minutes of confronting him. Can you please stop putting the 20/20 hinsight as magically supposed to have been known by the police....talk about nonsense....check your own premise pal

I fail to see the relevance, really. My point is that just because you mouth of to a pig he shouldn't kill you or even be able to arrest you. If he can, that is not freedom. And for the record, they visited him almost daily to hassle him (listen to the vid, the fat one says something along the lines of "aren't you getting tired of us coming out here?"). So they knew he was mentally disabled in some way.

-TG

and.... my only point has been that mouthing off to a pig increases the chances that something bad will happen.

[MeDeFe]

Remember, cops don't know people are schizophrenic upon the first 2 minutes of confronting him. Can you please stop putting the 20/20 hinsight as magically supposed to have been known by the police....talk about nonsense....check your own premise pal

I fail to see the relevance, really. My point is that just because you mouth of to a pig he shouldn't kill you or even be able to arrest you. If he can, that is not freedom. And for the record, they visited him almost daily to hassle him (listen to the vid, the fat one says something along the lines of "aren't you getting tired of us coming out here?"). So they knew he was mentally disabled in some way.

-TG

and.... my only point has been that mouthing off to a pig increases the chances that something bad will happen.

Do you think this is a more of a bad thing or a good thing?

[Phatscotty]

Remember, cops don't know people are schizophrenic upon the first 2 minutes of confronting him. Can you please stop putting the 20/20 hinsight as magically supposed to have been known by the police....talk about nonsense....check your own premise pal

I fail to see the relevance, really. My point is that just because you mouth of to a pig he shouldn't kill you or even be able to arrest you. If he can, that is not freedom. And for the record, they visited him almost daily to hassle him (listen to the vid, the fat one says something along the lines of "aren't you getting tired of us coming out here?"). So they knew he was mentally disabled in some way.

-TG

and.... my only point has been that mouthing off to a pig increases the chances that something bad will happen.

Do you think this is a more of a bad thing or a good thing?

I think mouthing off to a cop is a bad thing. I think a cop responding to mouthing off with force is a bad thing.

I think when a police officer tells you to put your hands out in front of you and not hold them behind you back, and you listen, it's much more likely bad things won't happen.

[MeDeFe]

Remember, cops don't know people are schizophrenic upon the first 2 minutes of confronting him. Can you please stop putting the 20/20 hinsight as magically supposed to have been known by the police....talk about nonsense....check your own premise pal

I fail to see the relevance, really. My point is that just because you mouth of to a pig he shouldn't kill you or even be able to arrest you. If he can, that is not freedom. And for the record, they visited him almost daily to hassle him (listen to the vid, the fat one says something along the lines of "aren't you getting tired of us coming out here?"). So they knew he was mentally disabled in some way.

-TG

and.... my only point has been that mouthing off to a pig increases the chances that something bad will happen.

Do you think this is a more of a bad thing or a good thing?

I think a cop responding to mouthing off with force is a bad thing.

Thank you.

Would you also agree that a cop responding with lethal force to someone mouthing off is a very bad thing?

[Phatscotty]

I fail to see the relevance, really. My point is that just because you mouth of to a pig he shouldn't kill you or even be able to arrest you. If he can, that is not freedom. And for the record, they visited him almost daily to hassle him (listen to the vid, the fat one says something along the lines of "aren't you getting tired of us coming out here?"). So they knew he was mentally disabled in some way.

-TG

and.... my only point has been that mouthing off to a pig increases the chances that something bad will happen.

Do you think this is a more of a bad thing or a good thing?

I think a cop responding to mouthing off with force is a bad thing. I think a cop responding to mouthing off with force is a bad thing.

I think when a police officer tells you to put your hands out in front of you and not hold them behind you back, and you listen, it's much more likely bad things won't happen.

Thank you.

Would you also agree that a cop responding with lethal force to someone mouthing off is a very bad thing?

I think the cops were trying to do something like this


I also think the victim might have been high on drugs. I think if they were to respond with lethal force, they would have went the "He's got a gun!" route, and shoot him. It's obvious the cops went too far and the little game you are playing is dumb.

I am not excusing the cops. Many here are excusing the man who did not put his hands in front of him and told the cops to start punching, and some might say started it by not complying to some simple basic verbal commands that are clearly in the name of safety (not holding your hands behind your back)

I read the entire story, and it's designed to get an emotional response. I am coming from a real world angle, with full understanding of the importance of the cop's orders.

[Symmetry]

ITT- Phatscotty, wannabe cop turned wannabe vigilante, explains his secret methods for detecting crime.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

and.... my only point has been that mouthing off to a pig increases the chances that something bad will happen.

Do you think this is a more of a bad thing or a good thing?

I think a cop responding to mouthing off with force is a bad thing. I think a cop responding to mouthing off with force is a bad thing.

I think when a police officer tells you to put your hands out in front of you and not hold them behind you back, and you listen, it's much more likely bad things won't happen.

Thank you.

Would you also agree that a cop responding with lethal force to someone mouthing off is a very bad thing?

I think the cops were trying to do something like this


I also think the victim might have been high on drugs. I think if they were to respond with lethal force, they would have went the "He's got a gun!" route, and shoot him. It's obvious the cops went too far and the little game you are playing is dumb.

I am not excusing the cops. Many here are excusing the man who did not put his hands in front of him and told the cops to start punching, and some might say started it by not complying to some simple basic verbal commands that are clearly in the name of safety (not holding your hands behind your back)

I read the entire story, and it's designed to get an emotional response. I am coming from a real world angle, with full understanding of the importance of the cop's orders.

That's a load of bullshit. The man broke no laws, and your blithe assumption that he was high is indicative of your attitude toward the dregs of society. Again, how many times must it be stated before you understand... Kelley was hassled. Do you also support searches without warrants?

-TG

[TA1LGUNN3R]

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/18241221/man-loses-22000-in-new-policing-for-profit-case

-TG

[Phatscotty]

Do you think this is a more of a bad thing or a good thing?

I think a cop responding to mouthing off with force is a bad thing. I think a cop responding to mouthing off with force is a bad thing.

I think when a police officer tells you to put your hands out in front of you and not hold them behind you back, and you listen, it's much more likely bad things won't happen.

Thank you.

Would you also agree that a cop responding with lethal force to someone mouthing off is a very bad thing?

I think the cops were trying to do something like this


I also think the victim might have been high on drugs. I think if they were to respond with lethal force, they would have went the "He's got a gun!" route, and shoot him. It's obvious the cops went too far and the little game you are playing is dumb.

I am not excusing the cops. Many here are excusing the man who did not put his hands in front of him and told the cops to start punching, and some might say started it by not complying to some simple basic verbal commands that are clearly in the name of safety (not holding your hands behind your back)

I read the entire story, and it's designed to get an emotional response. I am coming from a real world angle, with full understanding of the importance of the cop's orders.

That's a load of bullshit. The man broke no laws, and your blithe assumption that he was high is indicative of your attitude toward the dregs of society. Again, how many times must it be stated before you understand... Kelley was hassled. Do you also support searches without warrants?

-TG

It was a guess, not an assumption. Perhaps the man did break no laws. I don't know. How do you?

[TA1LGUNN3R]

It was a guess, not an assumption. Perhaps the man did break no laws. I don't know. How do you?

Because I read the article instead of just assuming that a crazy homeless man was breaking laws. The cops responded to a different call; they came upon Kelley and started talking to him. They had talked to him several times (as per what fatty in the video says) over the course of days/weeks.

-TG

[Woodruff]

I read the entire story, and it's designed to get an emotional response. I am coming from a real world angle, with full understanding of the importance of the cop's orders.

That's a load of bullshit. The man broke no laws, and your blithe assumption that he was high is indicative of your attitude toward the dregs of society. Again, how many times must it be stated before you understand... Kelley was hassled. Do you also support searches without warrants?

Of course he does, for those nasty poor people! He probably thinks that they deserve it!

[Phatscotty]

It was a guess, not an assumption. Perhaps the man did break no laws. I don't know. How do you?

Because I read the article instead of just assuming that a crazy homeless man was breaking laws. The cops responded to a different call; they came upon Kelley and started talking to him. They had talked to him several times (as per what fatty in the video says) over the course of days/weeks.

-TG

I read the article too.

The cops came and started talking to him....and he let the police know that we was ready for a fight. Then, a fight happened.

Shocker!

[TA1LGUNN3R]

It was a guess, not an assumption. Perhaps the man did break no laws. I don't know. How do you?

Because I read the article instead of just assuming that a crazy homeless man was breaking laws. The cops responded to a different call; they came upon Kelley and started talking to him. They had talked to him several times (as per what fatty in the video says) over the course of days/weeks.

-TG

I read the article too.

The cops came and started talking to him....and he let the police know that we was ready for a fight. Then, a fight happened.

Shocker!

You mean after approximately 15 minutes of being hassled and ridiculed, he didn't want to put his hands behind his back? After being wrongfully and illegally detained, he failed to show the necessary submissive action? What a terror! I think you're onto something here, old chap. It's clear that this homeless, probably malnourished man was an obvious menace to the small moon with a gun. In fact, I think there was an implied threat just from the man's greasy hair. And since s.o.p is to beat them into submission, then everything's a-okay.

But super serial now, I'm really done. I don't know why I continued to engage an obvious hypocrite. Maybe one day you'll ask yourself why nobody takes you seriously, Scott. That's why. You prattle on about causes, and yet when it comes down to brass tax, you throw the defining actions by wayside. So, while you pretend to support freedom, it's clear to just about everybody else that it's an affectation of a cause to justify your otherwise untenable positions.

I hope you know that it's actions and words such as yours that are probably most destructive to the cause of libertarianism. I mean, who wants to vote for Ron Paul when his most ardent supporters are hypocritical nut-jobs.

-TG

[BigBallinStalin]

TG, Phatscotty is just trolling. Let it go, he's not worth it.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

TG, Phatscotty is just trolling. Let it go, he's not worth it.

Yeah, I'm done. Wanna make out?

-TG