Should This Pig Be Charged With Assault?

[Phatscotty]

So there was no indication that violence may have been about to occur until the guy said, "start punching."?

Yes, I think there was indication. I think the cops were dicks and lookin for a fight. I think they went way WAYYY too far.

That does not change the reality that the victim egged them on, and was literally asking for it.

[2dimes]

Well, I'm not them and wasn't even there but from the transcript. I think they were intending to beat the guy at least as bad as they did.

Maybe pretty dumb to challenge them but I don't think it was a factor.

[Phatscotty]

Well, I'm not them and wasn't even there but from the transcript. I think they were intending to beat the guy at least as bad as they did.

Maybe pretty dumb to challenge them but I don't think it was a factor.

why wouldn't asking a cop to punch ya be a factor in a cop punching ya????

Gotta at least admit it did not help, and if anything it showed the cop the soon to be victim was looking for violence and not listening to authority. Obviously, not respecting authority either.

What I speculate.... the guy was high on something.

[2dimes]

why wouldn't asking a cop to punch ya be a factor in a cop punching ya????

Because of what the cop said and did just before he said it.

Gotta at least admit it did not help, and if anything it showed the cop the soon to be victim was looking for violence and not listening to authority. Obviously, not respecting authority either.

What I speculate.... the guy was high on something.

Sure and I'll even agree that this was one of the worst places in the world to do so. I don't know how far away but that's the region where Rodney King became famous.

[thegreekdog]

Come on, everyone knows PhatStrike's definition of "freedom" is "people should be free to do the things i think people should do"

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. 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.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Well, I think you are the idiot. When you tell a cop to start punching, there is a good chance the cop is going to start punching. Anyone who does not understand that is an idiot and going to get punched.

This abject fear that most americans seem to have towards the police is very interesting to me.

The people who shout loudest for personal freedom, gun posession and so on have absolutely no issue with behaving like a shy 5 year old that just broke something expensive when in the presence of one of the people you pay to serve and protect.

Indeed the behaviour around police, even if you've done nothing wrong, seems to be in the mindset of appeasing and flattering the bully as much as possible in the hopes that he'll be satisfied and leave without stealing your lunch money.

[Phatscotty]

Well, I think you are the idiot. When you tell a cop to start punching, there is a good chance the cop is going to start punching. Anyone who does not understand that is an idiot and going to get punched.

This abject fear that most americans seem to have towards the police is very interesting to me.

The people who shout loudest for personal freedom, gun posession and so on have absolutely no issue with behaving like a shy 5 year old that just broke something expensive when in the presence of one of the people you pay to serve and protect.

Indeed the behaviour around police, even if you've done nothing wrong, seems to be in the mindset of appeasing and flattering the bully as much as possible in the hopes that he'll be satisfied and leave without stealing your lunch money.

It's not just fear, it's also respect. Some believe the police take great personal risk, more than anyone else, to keep the community safe and bring justice to criminals. Some appreciate that even.

You rant about how I feel about every other issue except the one we are talking about. Yes, I can shout loud for freedom, and also have the opinion that lipping off to a police officer is a stupid idea. Yes, I can shout loud in support of the 2nd Amendment, while I am also able to have the opinion that telling a police officer to start punching you is a stupid idea.

It's just common sense. don't be stupid. Your whole post misses the incredibly simple point.

[BigBallinStalin]

PS, the guy that was beaten was mentally deficient, i.e. he had something wrong with his brain.

I don't see how your "it's just common sense; don't be stupid" reasoning applies to this situation because the guy can't exercise "common sense" or refrain from being "stupid"...

[natty dread]

Come on, everyone knows PhatStrike's definition of "freedom" is "people should be free to do the things i think people should do"

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.

[Phatscotty]

PS, the guy that was beaten was mentally deficient, i.e. he had something wrong with his brain.

I don't see how your "it's just common sense; don't be stupid" reasoning applies to this situation because the guy can't exercise "common sense" or refrain from being "stupid"...

All I'm saying is, if he wouldn't a said "start punchin" it is more likely he would not have been punched. He did comply with the officers order to hold his hands out....at the last second. He seems a little more efficient than we would be led to believe.

My heart goes out to people who have mental problems. I think every person has someone in their family with something. This guy should have been receiving some kind of assistance. But I do wonder if perhaps he did not care about his life or possibly wanted to die, but I don't have to wonder too much about the cops and if they were looking for a fight, it's seems like they were, at least the first guy. The fact that he was not receiving any assistance shows either their is a problem with the government system, while it is also possible this guy ruined his chances at his halfway home or got kicked out of the facility he was at before or was judged high enough functioning to not need hospitalization, or perhaps he simply missed his meds for a few weeks. I'm sure there is a lot to the story we will never know.

[natty dread]

This guy should have been receiving some kind of assistance.

You mean government handouts / entitlements?

Le gasp!

[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

[TA1LGUNN3R]

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

[natty dread]

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?

[thegreekdog]

PS, the guy that was beaten was mentally deficient, i.e. he had something wrong with his brain.

I don't see how your "it's just common sense; don't be stupid" reasoning applies to this situation because the guy can't exercise "common sense" or refrain from being "stupid"...

All I'm saying is, if he wouldn't a said "start punchin" it is more likely he would not have been punched. He did comply with the officers order to hold his hands out....at the last second. He seems a little more efficient than we would be led to believe.

My heart goes out to people who have mental problems. I think every person has someone in their family with something. This guy should have been receiving some kind of assistance. But I do wonder if perhaps he did not care about his life or possibly wanted to die, but I don't have to wonder too much about the cops and if they were looking for a fight, it's seems like they were, at least the first guy. The fact that he was not receiving any assistance shows either their is a problem with the government system, while it is also possible this guy ruined his chances at his halfway home or got kicked out of the facility he was at before or was judged high enough functioning to not need hospitalization, or perhaps he simply missed his meds for a few weeks. I'm sure there is a lot to the story we will never know.

What part of "they beat the shit out of him" don't you understand? Here's the situation - the victim (for lack of a better term) is mouthing off to the cops and/or throwing punches. The police could do one of three things: (1) Walk away; (2) Subdue and arrest him; or (3) Beat the living shit out of him. If the police had done (2) I would have no problem. They didn't do (2), they did (3). Why would you defend those actions? What possible reason could you have to defend those actions when the alternative is (2)?

I've seen videos where a bully or group of bullies beats the shit out of someone. They make me angry. This is a group of bullies (the police) beating the shit out of someone. I'm angry. It should make you and everyone else similarly angry. If it doesn't, you have major problems.

[thegreekdog]

Come on, everyone knows PhatStrike's definition of "freedom" is "people should be free to do the things i think people should do"

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.

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?"

[Symmetry]

PS, the guy that was beaten was mentally deficient, i.e. he had something wrong with his brain.

I don't see how your "it's just common sense; don't be stupid" reasoning applies to this situation because the guy can't exercise "common sense" or refrain from being "stupid"...

All I'm saying is, if he wouldn't a said "start punchin" it is more likely he would not have been punched. He did comply with the officers order to hold his hands out....at the last second. He seems a little more efficient than we would be led to believe.

My heart goes out to people who have mental problems. I think every person has someone in their family with something. This guy should have been receiving some kind of assistance. But I do wonder if perhaps he did not care about his life or possibly wanted to die, but I don't have to wonder too much about the cops and if they were looking for a fight, it's seems like they were, at least the first guy. The fact that he was not receiving any assistance shows either their is a problem with the government system, while it is also possible this guy ruined his chances at his halfway home or got kicked out of the facility he was at before or was judged high enough functioning to not need hospitalization, or perhaps he simply missed his meds for a few weeks. I'm sure there is a lot to the story we will never know.

What part of "they beat the shit out of him" don't you understand? Here's the situation - the victim (for lack of a better term) is mouthing off to the cops and/or throwing punches. The police could do one of three things: (1) Walk away; (2) Subdue and arrest him; or (3) Beat the living shit out of him. If the police had done (2) I would have no problem. They didn't do (2), they did (3). Why would you defend those actions? What possible reason could you have to defend those actions when the alternative is (2)?

I've seen videos where a bully or group of bullies beats the shit out of someone. They make me angry. This is a group of bullies (the police) beating the shit out of someone. I'm angry. It should make you and everyone else similarly angry. If it doesn't, you have major problems.

Well put, consrvatism shouldn't be about automatically siding with the police, and liberals too often automatically side with the victim.

In this case it's neither conservative or liberal to call out policemen on a violent assault. Just common sense.

[jonesthecurl]

Hmm. To go back to the original topic:
Yes, he should. It is clear that there is a question to be settled here, preferably by due process of law.
Whould he be convicted? I don't know.
Should he be convicted? I don't know.
That's what the trial is for,.
But I certainly think there is enough evidence to charge him.

[natty dread]

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.

[rdsrds2120]

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

But it's not in the constitution!!!!!!#$@#%$#%

-rd

[notyou2]

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

I call BULLSHIT. America only takes care of the mentally ill if there is money involved. Why did the state of New york release hundreds of mentally ill patients on to the streets?

This person was a deputy sheriff's son. He was a schizophrenic. He did not think clearly like a normal person. His response cannot be construed as permission to beat him to death. This is police brutality at it's simplest and most vulgar form. The officers should all be incarcerated, but sadly they will most likely be pensioned off and get off with a slap on the wrist.

[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

I call BULLSHIT. America only takes care of the mentally ill if there is money involved. Why did the state of New york release hundreds of mentally ill patients on to the streets?

Because New York is a liberal state and can't manage their taxpayers money properly?

Besides, I wasn't even talking about a state program...

[notyou2]

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

I call BULLSHIT. America only takes care of the mentally ill if there is money involved. Why did the state of New york release hundreds of mentally ill patients on to the streets?

Because New York is a liberal state and can't manage their taxpayers money properly?

Besides, I wasn't even talking about a state program...

Back peddaling much Phatty?

[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.

[MeDeFe]

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.