Arthur gets it right as usual. Cops use extreme force against nonthreatening victims for simply failing to do exactly what they say. They take their cues from our imperial overlords, who invade nonthreatening countries for failing to do exactly what they say.
The public watches, and does nothing.
10 comments:
Well if you don't do anything wrong, then you won't get tasered. Jesus proved this when he used his rubber bullet shotgun on the moneychangers, and then tear gassed the pharisees. Then he drank magical wine with the disciples because they didn't question him. If you would just accept that this is a Christian nation, these things would make sense to you.
I don't know, I don't really have much sympathy for this kid. You resist arrest, you're asking for it. Everyone's seen Cops, and heard its catchy theme song, so he should know better.
that anyone could decide that the comment they want to make on this incident is that the kid deserved it is sick. nothing about what he did justified the use of a brutal and potentially lethal weapon.
What should the cops have done then, Adspar?
The cops should have not tasered him. Not tasering is pretty easy. You just don't use your taser.
So they should've beat him into submission then?
Why do you think it is necessary that they either taser him or beat him? Nothing about his action made the use of violence necessary.
Going back to your original response, I didn't say he deserved did I? I said he was asking for it, not deserving of it. So thanks for your judgment on me.
The fact of the matter is that you just don't resist arrest. If the cops have arrested you for something bogus, then it'll be ironed out in court, but it's idiotic to think that you're not going to end up hurt if you resist arrest. Also, it looks like he had a friend videotape the whole incident, and so possibly wanted to create a scene, which would make me less sympathetic. On further investigation, the kid has a history of videotaping practical jokes, so this obviously isn't far off.
Finally, the alternative to tasering are other more physical methods of submission. Submission was needed because he wasn't complying, however ridiculous it is that he was supposed to comply in the first place.
Should those cops be fired? Yeah, but that kid was fucking stupid for resisting.
I've seen my share of people getting arrested and getting harassed by the police, and the worst thing you can do is resist arrest.
sigh.
i cast judgment on someone who thought he deserved it. if that isn't you then i didn't cast judgment on you. so give up that stupid game.
if you don't have sympathy for a guy who asks a politician reasonable questions and then gets tortured, you're a sick fuck.
but regardless of whether you or anyone else is so desensitized to police violence that you have no sympathy for its victims, what happened was wrong. submission was not needed, nor were violent means of inducing submission.
i just can't fathom how in the face of a moral outrage, someone would feel the need to blame the victim, and repeatedly defend this view, rather than condemning the attack itself. this is exactly the same moral logic as the "she was asking for it" response to rape.
i don't quite understand your position, brice lord. if submission was needed AND the kid was asking for it then what is the reasoning behind supporting the firing of the officers involved?
Post a Comment