View Full Version : Police Brutality or Not?
Crazed Rabbit
10-05-2007, 19:18
So a teen girl is out past curfew and an officer sees her and arrests her. Or rather, attempts to arrest her. After putting one handcuff on the girl, he moves her to the front of the car so the dash-cam can view her and turns on a recorder. He then tries unsuccessfully to get her hands behind her back to handcuff her. She actively resists the whole time, and the event takes time only because the officer appears to be trying to be somewhat gentle.
Finally, as he is again trying to get her free arm behind her back, she bites his wrist. He hits her, then pepper sprays her and finally gets her handcuffed.
Here's the video so you can see for yourself:
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/6414.html
Accompanying story:
http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2007/oct/04/dramatic-arrest-caught-camera-fort-pierce/
So- police brutality or not?
Crazed Rabbit
HoreTore
10-05-2007, 19:22
Uhm.... You get arrested for being "out past curfew"...?
I'd say that is government brutality.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
10-05-2007, 19:27
Uhm.... You get arrested for being "out past curfew"...?
I'd say that is government brutality.
Um No..... You follow the rules. That why we have Rules and Laws Hore. She resists.
resists
The Whole time, and the officer did what he did. It was a good thing to do. if I bite a officer and get smack and pepper spary, then I would deserve it.
Yes, but you still don't bite an officer. That he beat her I'd say was a reflex of sorts, the pepper spray might have been overdone but then he had to arrest her somehow, that's his job.
You can complain about the laws to some politician though I'd probably support you against such a curfew law.
HoreTore
10-05-2007, 19:31
Um No..... You follow the rules. That why we have Rules and Laws Hore. She resists.
Against a law like that, I say she should shoot those(ie. the officer) trying to uphold such a moronic law.
Illegal to go out at night? What the :daisy: ?
PanzerJaeger
10-05-2007, 19:48
She got less than she deserved...
Police brutality would be cuffing her, and then beating her up and pepper-spraying/tasering her. She resisted, and bit a cop, not really sure what she expected.
Blodrast
10-05-2007, 20:15
She got what she deserved in this case, I'm afraid.
What I'm really interested in is, curfew ?!
A curfew is a set time that a minor can't be out past.
Blodrast
10-05-2007, 20:21
Erm. I know what a curfew is. But I think the last time I've heard of curfews was in WW2... I've never heard of one (imposed for minors or adults) being in place _anywhere_ I've been, or in any place that I am aware of - for my entire life; with the exception of war zones (e.g., Iraq).
Pretty common around here, I think most are set by the municipal government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curfew#Youth_curfews
It's 10 o'clock, do you know where your kids are? :inquisitive:
rotorgun
10-05-2007, 20:40
If those who break the law would only walk down to the nearest police station and turn themselves in we wouldn't need to have arrests. What is the chance that that's going to happen?
She resisted arrest after many attempts by the police officer to get her to comply. When she didn't, he used an appropriate measure of force to detain her. (IMHO)
Erm. I know what a curfew is. But I think the last time I've heard of curfews was in WW2... I've never heard of one (imposed for minors or adults) being in place _anywhere_ I've been, or in any place that I am aware of - for my entire life; with the exception of war zones (e.g., Iraq).
Yes. Many places in the US enforce curfews for those under 18.
The girl got what she deserved. You don't bite a police officer just because you are getting arrested for curfew.
Edit: After watching the video, I confirm what I just wrote. I believe the guy turned on the camera so there would be no confusion about how he attempted to arrest the girl. He was, in my opinion, being very gentle and calm the entire time. The hitting was probably a relax due to the fact that a large chunk of his arm was bitten. The pepper spray was used to make sure the girl wouldn't do it again.
Like I said, no problem here.
Look, for those who are arguing that the law is stupid, and therefore the girl was correct, let me point something out to you;
The time to dispute the law (or the arrest) is not when the officer is asking you to come along. You do that with a lawyer before a judge. When the police officer asks you to do something reasonable, you do it. And you certainly don't writhe, twist and bite when an officer is just trying to put cuffs on you.
I thought the officer in the video was a model of restraint. He kept repeating, calmly, "Put your hands behind your back," while the teen screamed and writhed. He was doing it by the book, kids. Based on the video evidence alone, he's a very good cop. There are plenty of power-drunk jerks who would have been much, much rougher with that girl.
Again, you don't dispute the arrest at the arrest. That's not how our legal system works. It's really pretty basic, people.
Blodrast
10-05-2007, 21:01
Huh, thanks for the link. But wow, I wasn't aware of any of that stuff - let alone that it's actually enforced. I have relatives in Michigan, and I've been visiting them for some time now. I can't remember how old my cousin was at the time, but I know she was out and about with no worries, and they never mentioned any curfew to me.
I've also been to California recently, and we were driving around at night, and damned if some of those kids didn't look minor to me...
Is it really enforced, or was this a one-in-a-million case ?
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-05-2007, 21:13
Hardly police brutality. The officer was trying to be as gentle as he could under the circumstances, trying to arrest her, and she resisted arrest when she committed an obvious breach of the law. She attacked an officer while resisting arrest, and how he reacted was perfectly justified, and probably even kind, under the circumstances.
it is not police brutality.
it is a moronic law though.
woad&fangs
10-05-2007, 22:23
If it wasn't such a stupid law then I would have said no but the arrest in the first place is enough for me to consider it police brutality.
Boyar Son
10-05-2007, 22:30
She breaks (an EASY law to follow IMO) the law and then she tries to resist like she's noble freedom fighter....
sheesh how dumb can someone be?:drama2:
Sasaki Kojiro
10-05-2007, 22:33
Against a law like that, I say she should shoot those(ie. the officer) trying to uphold such a moronic law.
Illegal to go out at night? What the :daisy: ?
:thumbsdown:
ajaxfetish
10-05-2007, 22:47
I agree with those who say the hit was probably pure reflex and the pepper spray justified. I'm not a fan of curfew laws, but the officer was calm and restrained as far as could be seen in the video.
Ajax
CountArach
10-05-2007, 22:48
IMO it is a bit of a grey area. While she did resits, I do not think that hitting her was necessary. The Pepper Spray was probably warranted. I would say that the violence that the hitting embodies was not necessary.
So I think it deserved some response, but the response it got was too much.
Samurai Waki
10-05-2007, 23:12
She got what she deserved. However, I'd like to point out, it was because of her resisting arrest rather than the Curfew law, which all the Officer would do is put her in the back of the Car, right a report, and drop her off at her Parent's/Legal Guardians Place of Residence. No Tickets. No Fines. (When I was growing up in Denver, I believe the Curfew was set at 11pm for minors (e.g. People under the age of 18) and that the child was given Three Strikes, before a 500$ Fine was issued to the parent. If the Parent couldn't do anything to control the situation, than the child would be referenced to Child Services. However, after the age of 18, the Reports would be nullified for Future Work Related Background Checks.
Alright, I've got a couple things to say on this.
First of all, everyone who is roundly condemning that girl. She's 15 years old, being arrested by a single man while alone in the dark. As some of you well know my opinion, there are quite a few of us who don't exactly view the police as "paragons of virtue and upholding the law", to put it nicely. She probably was scared out of her wits, and for many people go into "fight or flight" mode. By my view, she appeared to be "fighting" passively, probably with the intent to get away. To everyone and anyone who says "It's a cop, so resisting like that is always unreasonable", again I point out the above. It's a completely different situation when you're on the receiving end of it, and fear is a very powerful motivator, esp. when it's for your or your loved one's well being and safety.
Second of all, the force used. Him smacking her was excessive, as he clearly did it after his hand was free of her mouth. As an officer of the law he needs to have more self-control than that, period. Mace... Given the circumstances, I don't want to say it was justified, but nor do I want to say it wasn't. Him being conscious of doing so in front of the camera was the right thing to do, however.
Lastly, I'd like to offer some alternative viewpoints on your comments Lemur, regarding resisting arrest. My immediate reaction to your suggestion is "Yeah, that's probably right.", but after thinking about it I have some severe reservations. Again I must remind people of my outlook, every cop I have ever met in my life has been a complete jackass, full of themselves and the "power" they possess. I've been on the receiving end of intimidation tactics multiple times throughout my youth and adult life. I don't buy it when people say "The majority of cops are good cops," of the dozens if not hundreds I have interacted with, none fit that bill. Now, about resisting arrest. First, consider the fact that there are a good deal of Americans who do not view police in a high regard, nor do they feel safe or 'trust' the officers to only do their jobs and not violate our civil liberties. I've read numerous stories of police violating their positions and abusing/raping/etc people that they've 'arrested' while in their custody. Take the example in this thread, with the 15 year old girl and the cop. It's obviously dark, and there doesn't appear to be anyone around. If she were scared for her safety (as she very well could have been), what would you do? Would you allow the person to rape and possibly kill you, or would you try to fight for your life? Again before anyone jumps in here and tries to say how outlandish that notion is, read my first paragraph. Second, consider the ramifications of just being arrested. This is something that goes on your record, when you are booked. You've now got an anxious waiting period as someone comes to bail you out, and you get to wait until you find out what if anything you are going to be charged with. Not only is it going to be humiliating, it's going to be extremely costly in both money and your time. The most recent example I can use here is the kid who wouldn't let the Bestbuy (or whomever) people search his bags, and was arrested for not "showing his ID". I personally believe that based on his telling, the cop who arrested him did so just out of spite and to 'teach him a lesson', as he clearly identified himself when asked, and according to the law was not required at any time to show his ID, which is what he was arrested for. I believe the cop knew this, and purposefully and malliciously hauled the kid off to court for knowing his rights, and for not bending to the cop's demands, even though they were not legally required. So, the gist is, if a cop wants to, they can ruin your day/week/month/life, just by coming up with some made-up 'probable cause', or through some willful 'misunderstanding or interpretation of the law' if they so feel like it, and not only do YOU have to spend your own time and money to exhonerate yourself, the system today is such that law enforcement will always, always 'protect their own' and never admit wrongdoing, excessive force, etc. I guess my point is, resisting arrest may not be the right idea at all, BUT I think those are some compelling things to think about.
Just some food for thought.
IMO it is a bit of a grey area. While she did resits, I do not think that hitting her was necessary. The Pepper Spray was probably warranted. I would say that the violence that the hitting embodies was not necessary.
So I think it deserved some response, but the response it got was too much.
Frankly I'd rather be hit than take the pepper spray in the face. Just because it doesn't involve physical contact doesn't mean it isn't brutal. I often wonder whether spray and tazers are not overused.
That said the girl in this case was resisting arrest and in todays world it is not surprising that this will get you the pepper spray in the face.
To be honest I'd happily support a curfew where I live, but I'm not so sure on the use of pepper spray in such cases.
Whacker: As Jeff Lebowski would say, "That's just, like, your opinion, man."
I'm not sure I even understand the point you're making. Some cops are power-mad scum, so we should feel free to ... to what, exactly? You're saying that it's dark, and the girl is scared, okay. To me it looks like she may also be in a chemically altered frame of mind, but that's neither here nor there. So you're saying that he might rape her, so she should resist arrest?
Look, nobody argues against the notion that there are bad cops. I strongly disagree with your insinuation that the vast majority of cops are raping, beating, evil goons with a badge. Maybe I'm prejudiced, 'cause many members of my extended family are either military or law enforcement, so I've heard the stories coming the other way as well.
The answer to abuse of police authority is a vigorous IA department and a reasonably uncorrupt court system. Not for every citizen in every arrest to decide whether or not to bite, scratch, punch and generally endanger the officer.
If you're serious about understanding the Police psyche, I'd recommend the masterwork on the subject, Police: Streetcorner Politicians (http://www.amazon.com/Police-Streetcorner-William-Ker-Muir/dp/0226546330/ref=sr_1_1/103-4981431-9162246). I'll do violence to the dignity of the book by summarizing one of its core points:
There are two distinct personality types attracted to police work. One is the personality that really wants to help people and protect them from dangerous predators (angels). The other is the personality that gets off on exercising power over fellow citizens (devils). The trick is to weed out the devils and encourage the angels.
I can tell from your post that you've got a lot of personal experience you're drawing on, but I don't sense any real philosophy. Would you suggest we do away with the police? That police powers be changed in some fundamental way? That different people be hired? What?
Blodrast
10-06-2007, 03:59
Good points, Whacker.
edit: Lemur, I don't think he's saying "do away with the police"; he's saying that since, in his experience, there's plenty of bad cops, the girl's reaction (of being scared of a cop who might be a crooked one, and the possible consequences) can be understandable; people react differently when they're scared witless. So what he's trying to say is that it's not necessarily the case that the girl was just a spoiled brat who tried to go out of her way to be a pain in the butt of the cop.
He's also not proposing a reform of the society, and I'm not sure why you think that he should. He's just saying, "there are bad cops, it's understandable not to trust them, and scared people who don't trust the guy handcuffing or what might happen to them are prone to react ... violently/desperately".
Strike For The South
10-06-2007, 04:41
I cant belive there are places were they enforce curfew laws much less arrest you. The girl was being dumb, I wouldve hit her in the back of the head for yelling like that.
Edit: I wouldve hit her multiple times. She should be glad I dont wear blue
[Whacker is] trying to say is that it's not necessarily the case that the girl was just a spoiled brat who tried to go out of her way to be a pain in the butt of the cop.
I call strawman. I was not suggesting anything about the girl's state of mind except to note that it's a bad idea to struggle and resist when a police officer is trying to restrain you. There's a time and a place to contest an arrest, and it ain't in the heat of the moment. It's a bad idea legally, and it's a bad idea for your personal safety.
Sheesh, what if you really are in the hands of a psycho cop? Do you want to hand him an excuse to mess with you on a silver platter? Give him some lip and then use physical resistance? Does this seem like a good idea?
That girl's parents should have briefed her on how to handle interactions with a cop. Obviously they did not.
He's also not proposing a reform of the society, and I'm not sure why you think that he should. He's just saying, "there are bad cops, it's understandable not to trust them, and scared people who don't trust the guy handcuffing or what might happen to them are prone to react ... violently/desperately".
Well, that puts the police in a pretty awful situation, then, doesn't it? If we all consider it understandable and okay to freak out and resist arrest, how do we expect the police to behave in response? If you were asked to lawfully bring some people to your local Elks club, and most of them went ballistic on you, how would you respond? Besides quitting the job, obviously.
I don't think Whacker needs to present a plan to reform society, but that doesn't stop me from pointing out that his line of reasoning ends with some skid marks, a broken guard rail, and a cliff.
Somebody has to enforce the law. And the whole idea of the modern nation-state is that the State maintains a monopoly on the use of force. Read your Leviathan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book)), man. If Whacker is so displeased and dissatisfied with the state of law enforcement, what does he suggest?
Samurai Waki
10-06-2007, 08:00
It seems sort of funny, that I've had the exact opposite view of Cops in my life. Considering, ya know, all things in perspective that I've had my hide saved more by cops rather than by myself (which I would've taken some severe beatings had the cops NOT been around).
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
10-06-2007, 17:29
Against a law like that, I say she should shoot those(ie. the officer) trying to uphold such a moronic law.
Illegal to go out at night? What the :daisy: ?
you should not be outside late at night if you under 18 unless you with a trusted Adult. Is it that Hard to understand?
Second of all, the force used. Him smacking her was excessive, as he clearly did it after his hand was free of her mouth. As an officer of the law he needs to have more self-control than that, period. Mace... Given the circumstances, I don't want to say it was justified, but nor do I want to say it wasn't. Him being conscious of doing so in front of the camera was the right thing to do, however.
No It Wasn't...... The Girl was being stupid. :inquisitive:
Lord Winter
10-06-2007, 17:41
you should not be outside late at night if you under 18 unless you with a trusted Adult. Is it that Hard to understand?
Well theres a difference to being escorted home and here it goes on your record. But the most redicoulous thing is they can arrest you if your 17 coming home in a car from whatever, a late running date, grandmas house et al... and aresst you then which I think is rediecoulous.
Have to agree with Lemur here though.
HoreTore
10-06-2007, 17:54
Whacker:I'm not sure I even understand the point you're making. Some cops are power-mad scum, so we should feel free to ... to what, exactly? You're saying that it's dark, and the girl is scared, okay. To me it looks like she may also be in a chemically altered frame of mind, but that's neither here nor there. So you're saying that he might rape her, so she should resist arrest?
She should resist arrest because she was arrested for being outside at night, which is her bloody right. I say resist, with violent force if necessary. Preferably armed.
@ Sasaki Kijiro: I won't judge those who fought against the nazi's here in WW2, and I won't judge those who kill members of an oppressive government other places either.
you should not be outside late at night if you under 18 unless you with a trusted Adult. Is it that Hard to understand?
It is my damn right to do so, so no, I do not understand why I shouldn't. For example, if a government tells me that it's illegal to be gay, I won't follow that either.
In short, I don't follow or obey laws that break my rights and/or are moronic.
Crazed Rabbit
10-06-2007, 18:05
Horetore, you were just saying in that other thread how people should rely on the police and not defend themselves, because using guns is uncivilized.
And now you want to start murdering policemen who are competently enforcing laws that are common in several countries? Instead of just maybe getting a ride down to the station you want to murder a person and ruin the rest of your life?
I just don't want to see any more of your smug claims to being civilized when scorning self defense.
CR
HoreTore
10-06-2007, 18:15
Horetore, you were just saying in that other thread how people should rely on the police and not defend themselves, because using guns is uncivilized.
And now you want to start murdering policemen who are competently enforcing laws that are common in several countries? Instead of just maybe getting a ride down to the station you want to murder a person and ruin the rest of your life?
I just don't want to see any more of your smug claims to being civilized when scorning self defense.
This would be called an armed revolution, not self-defense. And that I can support. What, you think I consider those Norwegians who fought the nazi's killers and murderers?
If a member of the resistance killed a police officer who enforced the laws of the oppressive nazi regime, I can't judge them for killing that man. He is the enemy, in a war. I don't judge US soldiers who shoot Iraqi insurgents either.
This would be called an armed revolution, not self-defense. And that I can support..
Pull the other leg, it's got bells on. You're seriously suggesting that a officer of the law should be killed for enforcing a curfew? Sir, please put down the bong and back away slowly ...
Also, I hate to point it out, but you just violated Godwin's Law.
Crazed Rabbit
10-06-2007, 18:18
Well that's nice, but it's disturbing to see you equate enforcing curfew laws with enforcing the Nazi regime.
And really, how many people would get behind a revolution against curfew laws?
Or would they just execute the cop killer?
CR
HoreTore
10-06-2007, 18:23
Well that's nice, but it's disturbing to see you equate enforcing curfew laws with enforcing the Nazi regime.
When was the last time we had curfew laws here? They were gone in 1945...
Pull the other leg, it's got bells on. You're seriously suggesting that a officer of the law should be killed for enforcing a curfew? Sir, please put down the bong and back away slowly ...
If he uses violence to enforce it after you have resisted it initially then yes, he is fair game.
Also, I hate to point it out, but you just violated Godwin's Law.
Not really, I've never called the US nazi's...
If he uses violence to enforce it after you have resisted it initially then yes, he is fair game.
By your reasoning, is it legitimate to respond with lethal force to any officer enforcing a law with which you disagree? Oh, and you're right, I invoked Godwin prematurely.
HoreTore
10-06-2007, 18:38
By your reasoning, is it legitimate to respond with lethal force to any officer enforcing a law with which you disagree?
Yes. Whether I would support it or not depends on whether I support said law or not, of course. If a law takes away your fundamental rights, like a curfew will, for no good reason, then yes, I will support it.
Cops should ideally enforce the law and protect themselves, but it seems many of them instead expect that others simply submit to their will... which is not the same as the former... I'd say more than a few cops act little better than dirty club bouncers when things don't go their "way" (again, see above).
The girl was being dumb, I wouldve hit her in the back of the head for yelling like that.
Edit: I wouldve hit her multiple times. She should be glad I dont wear blue
I like the stories where guys endowed with power act like this and end up getting layed out/humiliated by their target who turns out to be a elite fighter/athlete.
Anyway, as for the story, making a judgement can be somewhat complex because of things like Whacker stated. Biting the cop justified the use of pepper spray, but the hitting was not justified. Keep in mind he's hitting a female minor who, while she's not restrained, is still basically under his control, and who looks pretty frail compared to him.
Usually I tend to take the side of the cop(s) in situations like these, but this one I am divided upon. The cop wasn't justified in striking, but his behavior wasn't all that bad either.
woad&fangs
10-06-2007, 18:39
HoreTore, I was under the impression that you were a commie but you sound like a libertarian/anarchist in this thread.
HoreTore
10-06-2007, 18:44
HoreTore, I was under the impression that you were a commie but you sound like a libertarian/anarchist in this thread.
I'm a commie, just not a Stalinist, leninist or maoist ~;)
Oh and yes, I do have some anarchist blood. It rarely surfaces though...
Crazed Rabbit
10-06-2007, 18:49
Sop if a person disagreed with the idea of wealth distribution via government, it'd be okay to shoot the revenue agents who come to collect? You know, for people who didn't want to give up any money to the government.
CR
HoreTore
10-06-2007, 18:52
Sop if a person disagreed with the idea of wealth distribution via government, it'd be okay to shoot the revenue agents who come to collect? You know, for people who didn't want to give up any money to the government.
If they did it through force, then yes, it's legitimate. But I won't support it, as you know, that guy would be my enemy ~;)
You're definitely advocating Hobbes' nightmare:
The state of men in nature, without civil society, is nothing but a war of all against all; and that in that war, all have a right to all things. [...] the life of this man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
HoreTore
10-06-2007, 19:04
You're definitely advocating Hobbes' nightmare:
The state of men in nature, without civil society, is nothing but a war of all against all; and that in that war, all have a right to all things. [...] the life of this man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
That would be anarchy...
woad&fangs
10-06-2007, 19:10
; and that in that war, all have a right to all things.
unless they harm the rights of others to do all things. In which case they forfeit their right to all things. The girl breaking curfew was not harming others right to do what they want but the officer arresting her definately prevents her from her right to all things. Therefore the officer forfeits his rights and she has the right to do whatever she wants to defend her rights.
HoreTore
10-06-2007, 19:58
unless they harm the rights of others to do all things. In which case they forfeit their right to all things. The girl breaking curfew was not harming others right to do what they want but the officer arresting her definately prevents her from her right to all things. Therefore the officer forfeits his rights and she has the right to do whatever she wants to defend her rights.
QFT.
HoreTore: Yes, it is anarchy. And I truly believe that is what you are advocating.
Waldinger: I think you're missing the point of the Hobbes quote, which is fair, since it's a tiny slice of an important book. Hobbes lived through the English civil wars, and he hated every minute of it. And he especially hated the Romantic notion (largely popularized by Rousseau) that the "natural" man was pure, and everything bad came from repressing man's angelic nature. (Forgive me Lord, for I paraphrase a great philosopher.)
The passages about the "war of all against all" are meant to illustrate what the natural man really is, and the image Hobbes paints is a lot closer to the Road Warrior than Peter Pan. Hobbes argues that men must be protected from each other. When he says that "all have a right to all things," he doesn't mean it as a compliment, since he goes on to explain that the "all things" category includes your possessions, your family, and your life. As in, somebody bigger and better-armed than you can take them.
The reason I keep coming back to Hobbes is that he was the first philosopher to really talk about why we need laws and enforcers of those laws. I think he's spot-on about human nature. Let's say 95% of people will behave perfectly reasonably in the absence of laws and police. That still leaves a massive population willing to rape, murder, steal and generally hook up with the Lord Humungus (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvfbDJingAY) in the absence of commonly accepted rules and standards of behavior. That's more than enough people to turn the world as we know it upside-down.
When I hear people dissing the police indiscriminately, I'm forced to ask questions. What would be a better alternative? How would you fix the problem? These aren't idle bits of rhetoric, and I'm not trying to be a jerk. If you don't like the way we enforce minimums of behavior, what would you suggest?
I think we can all agree that HoreTore's solution of killing any police officer when you decide they're enforcing a law that you believe infringes your rights is a non-starter. I assure you that in such a world, police would regularly be killed for issuing parking tickets.
HoreTore
10-06-2007, 20:09
I think we can all agree that HoreTore's solution of killing any police officer when you decide they're enforcing a law that you believe infringes your rights is a non-starter. I assure you that in such a world, police would regularly be killed for issuing parking tickets.
I'm not advocating killing the officer. I'm advocating a revolution ~;)
Burma is a good example. It would be silly to go around killing police officers there, but if the revolution there turns violent, then there is no doubt that they are legitimate targets.
woad&fangs
10-06-2007, 20:13
Now I'm intrigued, what is the name of the book Hobbes wrote? I would like to read it sometime. As always you are nigh impossible to argue against. You and Seamus take all the fun out of being a contrarian because there is very few holes to poke in your arguments.
Samurai Waki
10-06-2007, 20:15
I don't understand the big deal (and largely agree with Lemur) I mean, yeah, I suppose some Cops act like thugs, and when they get caught, they get smacked with a fine, or outright fired. Which to me, is a fair bit better than them having all the rights of the NKVD, and the Government enforces the Cop's right to be a thug, or to make people "go away". This isn't a police state, and to anyone who says differently, really has never lived here, or is just trying to stir the pot. I have very few times ever had run ins with our police, and if you behave like a gentlemen, or a lady, you'll get the same amount of respect back. It's the people shouting "now you see the inherited violent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" When all the Cop wants to do is issue you a ticket and be on his way. Thats the problem with our Country in general, is everybody believes they are too important to be bothered with the law. I bet this girl has watched too much Paris Hilton or whomever and thinks "Hey, I'm going to be like her." It's unfortunate that these people aren't held to the same standards of the law.
HoreTore
10-06-2007, 20:22
I bet this girl has watched too much Paris Hilton or whomever and thinks "Hey, I'm going to be like her."
Oh yes, she's a real rebel for not wanting to be shut inside her home at night...
Seriously, the law is daft. And yes, curfews are a signature mark of police states.
Crazed Rabbit
10-06-2007, 20:25
Curfews for adults, not minors, which this is.
CR
Sasaki Kojiro
10-06-2007, 20:31
She should resist arrest because she was arrested for being outside at night, which is her bloody right. I say resist, with violent force if necessary. Preferably armed.
The purpose of curfew laws is to cut down on crime. They don't work and should be repealed but they aren't oppression. Minors aren't allowed to drink either. They are allowed out at night if they are doing an errand for their parent. The curfew laws aren't taking away their rights so much as they are recognizing that up to a certain age children are still answerable to their parents. I believe parents are allowed to give their children alcohol as well.
Are people allowed in public parks at night in your country?
@ Sasaki Kijiro: I won't judge those who fought against the nazi's here in WW2, and I won't judge those who kill members of an oppressive government other places either.
They aren't nazi's, and you're advocation murder. That's twisted.
HoreTore
10-06-2007, 20:31
Curfews for adults, not minors, which this is.
I still consider people as human beings even when they are 17 years old.
And yes, 17 year olds DOES have many good reasons for being outside after 11.
HoreTore
10-06-2007, 20:40
The purpose of curfew laws is to cut down on crime. They don't work and should be repealed but they aren't oppression. Minors aren't allowed to drink either. They are allowed out at night if they are doing an errand for their parent. The curfew laws aren't taking away their rights so much as they are recognizing that up to a certain age children are still answerable to their parents. I believe parents are allowed to give their children alcohol as well.
Ridiculous. It's a clear violation of their freedom to move, which is as important as the freedom of speech in my opinion. But I guess that since kids are their parents property, they shouldn't have that either?
For example, when I was 16, I got my first girlfriend(well, the first one to be at least a little serious). And us being horny teenagers, I guess it's obvious what we wanted to do. However, a combination of her parents being strict and us being cowards, we didn't want our parents to know about that. So, that involved quite a bit of sneakin' around, usually at night(during the day there's no real need to be sneaking). I cannot understand why on earth anyone would want that to be illegal and that I should've been arrested. However, with a curfew, that's what would've been happened.
And that's wrong on every level.
Are people allowed in public parks at night in your country?
Yes? Why shouldn't I be?
Sasaki Kojiro
10-06-2007, 20:41
I still consider people as human beings even when they are 17 years old.
And yes, 17 year olds DOES have many good reasons for being outside after 11.
Here's a sample curfew law
It is unlawful for any minor under the age of eighteen (18) to be present in or upon any public street, highway, road, curb area, alley, park, playground, or other public ground, public place, or public building, place of amusement or eating place, vacant lot or unsupervised place between the hours of 10 p.m. on any day and sunrise of the immediately following day; provided, however, that the provisions of this section shall not apply:
a. when the minor is accompanied by his or her parent or parents, legal guardian or other adult person having the lawful care or custody of the minor, or by his or her spouse eighteen years of age or older;
b. when the minor is upon an errand directed by his or her parent or parents or legal guardian or other adult person having the legal care or custody of the minor, or by his or her spouse eighteen years of age or older;
c. when the minor is attending or going to or returning directly home from a public meeting, or a place of public environment, such as a movie, play , sporting event, dance or school activity; or
d. when the presence of such minor in said place or places is connected with or required with respect to a business, trade, profession or occupation in which said minor is lawfully engaged; or
e. when the minor is involved in an emergency such as a fire, natural disaster, automobile accident, a situation requiring immediate action to prevent serious bodily injury or loss of life, or any unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state which calls for immediate action; or
f. when the minor is in a motor vehicle involved in interstate travel; or
when the minor is on a sidewalk abutting the minor’s residence.
If you want to go out at night and your parents say it's ok you can. Parents have the right to have a certain amount of control over their children up until a certain age. Yeah yeah, some parents are too restrictive, laws aren't perfect. The principal is the same as the drinking age laws and compulsory student attendance laws. Do 15 year olds have the "right" to a drivers license? You can disagree about whether individual laws based on this principle are just, and I do, but it's clearly a sound principle and not a tool of an oppressive state.
CR's point was that the comparison to police states which have curfews is invalid since the curfew in question would be useless to a police state.
Yes? Why shouldn't I be?
Interesting. It's illegal here because they'd be hotbeds of crime otherwise.
For example, when I was 16, I got my first girlfriend(well, the first one to be at least a little serious). And us being horny teenagers, I guess it's obvious what we wanted to do. However, a combination of her parents being strict and us being cowards, we didn't want our parents to know about that. So, that involved quite a bit of sneakin' around, usually at night(during the day there's no real need to be sneaking). I cannot understand why on earth anyone would want that to be illegal and that I should've been arrested. However, with a curfew, that's what would've been happened.
Right, but you can't pretend kids don't do anything irresponsible. You may consider minors adults but they aren't. The part of the brain that controls impulsive behavior hasn't fully developed yet. They can't make a law which says "only the minors who aren't going to get into trouble are allowed out at night".
Crazed Rabbit
10-06-2007, 20:43
Really? I can think of reasons a kid would want to be out late at night, but not many of why they'd need to be out.
And the girl here was 15.
Finally, just because you disagree with the law doesn't make police actions enforcing it 'police brutality'.
CR
HoreTore
10-06-2007, 20:45
Finally, just because you disagree with the law doesn't make police actions enforcing it 'police brutality'.
I have never said so.
not many of why they'd need to be out.
Having a social life would be #1.
Samurai Waki
10-06-2007, 20:48
Welcome to Cultural Differences Mate, we're not Norway and we'll never be Norway. We live by different standards than you do, and while I respect the standards and laws by which your people live by, You don't seem to understand that this is an entirely different country than yours both Geopolitically and economically. We have to worry about things like Murder, Rape, and Theft a lot more than you do, and so it's in the Publics own interest to limit the rights of Minors and not by all that much (apparently something you also don't have so much in your country). I'm sure if our Crime Rate was close to Norway's, we wouldn't have to have these Curfews for minors, but as it stands now, we do it, because we feel we have too. I know for a fact, that I won't allow my daughters outside past curfew until they're 18, and when their Responsible Enough to make that decision on their own. It's not like Cop's I'm ever worried about, its the lack thereof.
HoreTore
10-06-2007, 20:51
Welcome to Cultural Differences Mate, we're not Norway and we'll never be Norway. We live by different standards than you do, and while I respect the standards and laws by which your people live by, You don't seem to understand that this is an entirely different country than yours both Geopolitically and economically. We have to worry about things like Murder, Rape, and Theft a lot more than you do, and so it's in the Publics own interest to limit the rights of Minors and not by all that much (apparently something you also don't have so much in your country). I'm sure if our Crime Rate was close to Norway's, we wouldn't have to have these Curfews for minors, but as it stands now, we do it, because we feel we have too. I know for a fact, that I won't allow my daughters outside past curfew until they're 18, and when their Responsible Enough to make that decision on their own. It's not like Cop's I'm ever worried about, its the lack thereof.
Sounds like a defeated society, in my mind. I really don't hope that's the reality.
woad&fangs
10-06-2007, 20:52
We have to worry about things like Murder, Rape, and Theft a lot more than you do, and so it's in the Publics own interest to limit the rights of Minors
Wo Wo Wo Hold ON A Minute
Your afraid I'm going to go around Murdering and Raping people if I'm out past 10 PM because I'm not 18 yet?
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
10-06-2007, 20:59
She should resist arrest because she was arrested for being outside at night, which is her bloody right. I say resist, with violent force if necessary. Preferably armed.
@ Sasaki Kijiro: I won't judge those who fought against the nazi's here in WW2, and I won't judge those who kill members of an oppressive government other places either.
It is my damn right to do so, so no, I do not understand why I shouldn't. For example, if a government tells me that it's illegal to be gay, I won't follow that either.
In short, I don't follow or obey laws that break my rights and/or are moronic.
So She is Resiting a Officer Late at night, When she Breaking the Curfew, and you want her to use violent Force?
You are making No Sense what so ever. If they say you should not be out at a certain time, and they place a curfew, you do what the Hell they tell you Hore. I may not like some of the Laws, But I Follow Them. Don't Cry to .org when you get arrested for not following the laws.
HoreTore
10-06-2007, 21:01
I may not like some of the Laws, But I Follow Them.
I like to fight them instead, hopefully changing them.
Big King Sanctaphrax
10-06-2007, 21:10
I like to fight them instead, hopefully changing them.
I think everyone here wants to fight laws they don't like. However, I live in a functioning democracy-something I'm quite proud of-and I thus fight laws I dislike through democratic processes. What you're advocating, as Lemur has pointed out, is some kind of anarchic free-for-all in which everyone only obeys the laws he chooses.
HoreTore
10-06-2007, 21:15
functioning democracy
In a functioning democracy, curfews wouldn't exist.
Oh, and no, I don't advocate anarchy. I advocate revolution. Randomly killing police officers who do their job isn't what I want, of course. A methodical war against an oppressive government on the other hand...
woad&fangs
10-06-2007, 21:17
Iraq has a democracy and Curfews too. I wonder how that's going for 'em.
Big King Sanctaphrax
10-06-2007, 21:23
In a functioning democracy, curfews wouldn't exist.
Oh, and no, I don't advocate anarchy. I advocate revolution. Randomly killing police officers who do their job isn't what I want, of course. A methodical war against an oppressive government on the other hand...
So a functioning democracy is one where everyone agrees with you?
Iraq has a democracy and Curfews too. I wonder how that's going for 'em.
:huh: Not sure what that has to do with here...
aksel: Curfew is to keep kids off the street, that's it.
HoreTore
10-06-2007, 21:30
So a functioning democracy is one where everyone agrees with you?
I'll give you an example from reality:
in the 60's, Norway was a democracy. And in those days, that democracy launched a campaign to forcibly sterilize the gypsies, taters and similar group. Now you have two choices. Are you going to:
1. Play by the rules of the democracy and wait years for the next election to vote against the ruling party, thereby allowing thousands of people to get sterilized. And if the party gets re-elected, you'd accept that even more people gets sterilized, because, you know, this is a democracy, why should respect the opinions of others.
OR:
2. Take more direct action, and prevent the sterilizations from happing directly.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-06-2007, 22:01
I'll give you an example from reality:
in the 60's, Norway was a democracy. And in those days, that democracy launched a campaign to forcibly sterilize the gypsies, taters and similar group. Now you have two choices. Are you going to:
Nazis and forced sterilization aren't comparable to a curfew for chrissake.
Prudence would dictate that the a goverment should not be changed for light and transient causes. If there were a long train of abuses that indicated a plan to form a despotic government, then it is time for revolution.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
10-06-2007, 23:24
In a functioning democracy, curfews wouldn't exist.
To Keep Kids Off the Street. But you Don't seem to realize that. I'm done arguning here.
Now I'm intrigued, what is the name of the book Hobbes wrote?
The book I keep referring to is called Leviathan. You can read a decent summary here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book)), enjoy the entire text for free here (http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-contents.html), or order it in convenient portable format here (http://www.amazon.com/Leviathan-Penguin-Classics-Thomas-Hobbes/dp/0140431950).
As always you are nigh impossible to argue against. You and Seamus take all the fun out of being a contrarian because there is very few holes to poke in your arguments.
I don't know about Seamus, but I swear on a stack of clubbed baby seals that I don't mean to be a killjoy. And I don't think my arguments are so terribly airtight. Seems like I'm retracting some dumb thing or another that I've written every other thread.
Whew, late coming back in here.
@ Blodrast - Thanks mate, that's more or less exactly what I was trying to say.
@ Lemur - Thanks for the feedback. I do stand by my position, and make no apologies for it. We as individuals are the sum of our views, morals, actions, and experiences, and those are mine. I'm also certainly not "making this up", re: the basis for my position either, not that you or anyone has made this indication as of yet.
Perhaps I rambled a bit too much in my post, guess I am often guilty of that huh. I wouldn't say I'm proposing we "change the world" or "buck the system", but some changes are definitely in order I think. Government and law enforcement leadership needs to completely stop the excuses and BS for heinous and illegal actions, and let the cops who screw up take the heat. And as for cops generally being able to "use whatever force necessary" in their jobs, that definitely needs to change. Without getting to deep into that, these are situations where we as citizens are faced with our reputation, civil rights and liberties, safety, health, and even lives can be destroyed in an instant by one individual either through negligence or willful malice. There's countless arguments I've heard put forth where we need to ensure that our law enforcement doesn't feel "restrained' in doing their jobs. That's 100% the wrong thing, they had damn well better think REAL LONG and hard before doing something, and that often appears to be the opposite of what happens in the training. Tossing someone in irons and hauling them down to the courthouse without knowing exactly what they are being booked for is wrong, yet it's apparently done far more often than naught. I've seen way too many videos where an individual repeated asks what they are being arrested for, and they go unanswered or are told to be quiet or they'll be charged with resisting arrest. Again I call bull, that cop had better be able to quote wrote and verse exactly, to the letter, when tossing someone in the back of the cruiser and taking them downtown. I'm rambling again here. Guess I'll stop.
@ Horetore - Mate, I gotta agree w/BKS and the others. If you want to change the system, anarchy is not the way to go. There are ways and means of affecting change through the existing democratic channels. "Revolution" is something that we reserve for when our government institutions cross lines and boundaries that are completely taboo and considered reprehensible to the populace as a whole. Curfew for kids ain't one of those, in fact it would seem that most all of us are in agreement that in general, if done right and in a reasonable way, it's a good thing.
And in general, I still am roundly condemning everyone who says that the girl "got what she deserved." I didn't see some obnoxious teenager making someone's life hard on purpose, I saw a scared younger girl on TV being manhandled by a cop. As for the cop, I will admit he did appear to act in a reasonable manner, and attempting to do arrest in front of the camera (which was probably more a CYA for him than anything), but him striking her was completely unnecessary, excessive, and uncalled for, period.
Edit - Meh, I guess I'll bare a bit of my soul here to the Org, so please be gentle. In my general response to Lemur's post, I left out something that has stayed with me throughout my adult years. While my opinion on the police is based on a large number of direct and indirect personal experiences, the one that has always stayed with me was the video on the internet of the Tennessee cops arresting that family on the side of the highway, then shooting their dog. I'm sure everyone has one or two of those "things" that they've seen on the Internet that they wish they could completely forget, expunge forever from their minds, this is one of mine. Watching and listening to that family, the father, the children, as the cops are hauling them all out of the car screaming at them, listening as the father is crying desperately to let him try to restrain his dog, then the gunshots, tears at my very soul. I later read how the cops got off scott-free, and was reduced to tears as I read that. This in turn translates into one of my greatest fears in life should I have any future run-ins with cops, while driving with my wife and dog in the car. Again, I will repeat that my views are based on far more than just this, but in terms of my experiences in life with law enforcement, I don't think that my fear is remotely unjustified or uncalled for. This is yet again something that stands out in my mind as an example of an incident that should have been handled far differently, and one of many examples of the problems with law enforcement that needs to be fixed.
HoreTore
10-07-2007, 06:57
Nazis and forced sterilization aren't comparable to a curfew for chrissake.
Nazi's? Where? This was in the 60's, not 40's. No nazi's here then, they left in '45.
It was an example of a case where democracy has completely failed to do it's job. It's now been 40 years or so, and democracy still haven't been able to compensate the gypsies for what we did to them.
Why? Because we don't care about gypsies. They're sub-humans in "our" opinions, so why should we? That's the attitude of our "functioning democracy".
If they would've tried something like that now, even if 80% of the population supported it, I would still bomb the ones responsible. I would definitely not try the "democratic channels" and let people get sterilized in the meantime.
Crazed Rabbit
10-07-2007, 07:39
Horetore - we're not talking about forced sterilization. We're talking about curfews for minors. And you don't seem able to defend your idea to kill cops resisting curfew without going into screeds about forced sterilization and Nazi resistances.
The place to fight laws like this is in the courtroom, like a civilized society.
CR
Samurai Waki
10-07-2007, 08:38
Wo Wo Wo Hold ON A Minute
Your afraid I'm going to go around Murdering and Raping people if I'm out past 10 PM because I'm not 18 yet?
You have yet to prove you're point as to why you should be allowed (in the US) to stay out after Curfew Hours for Minor (there is NO curfew for adults) Your just prattling on like a spoiled teenager who can't get his way. If you have a problem with it, then send a note to you're local Senator. Oh wait. You're in Norway. Good Day.
Ironside
10-07-2007, 11:12
Curfew for kids ain't one of those, in fact it would seem that most all of us are in agreement that in general, if done right and in a reasonable way, it's a good thing.
No it's not a good thing, because its need is a bad thing by itself.
Top compare it with a non-political issue, Having guns is a good thing during a zombie-invasion, but that doesn't change that a zombie-invasion is baad.
So it can only be at most a good move in a bad situation, but this bad situation doesn't need to exist.
I guess we could put it in a culture thingy.
I'm curious if the curfew is there to protect the youngsters from society (the evil men/violent drunks) or the society from the youngsters (youth crime) though?
I mean during the summers it should be perfectly legal to be out when the partygoers comes home according to Sasaki's curfew law example. And it looks aimed at covering for a parental failure, considering that you shouldn't have any problems being out with parental approval (although going for a walk requires you to lie, as I wouldn't call that an errand).
Does this mean that you also consider that the schools should teach manner as well as educating the children? :whip:
You have yet to prove you're point as to why you should be allowed (in the US) to stay out after Curfew Hours for Minor (there is NO curfew for adults) Your just prattling on like a spoiled teenager who can't get his way. If you have a problem with it, then send a note to you're local Senator. Oh wait. You're in Norway. Good Day.
So the in the land of the free, everything that isn't granted by the state is illegal? :laugh4:
The question isn't why you should allow them to be out, is why you need to have a curfew in the first place.
And unless you got some insider information that the rest of us lack, Waldinger isn't from Norway ~;)
I think we have some similar laws here. For example when we celebrated out Abitur, everybody under 18 had to leave at Midnight, minors simply aren't allowed to be out that late without their parents.
Now the reasons for that could be many. The best I can come up with is basically their own protection, some of them may be musclemen or musclewomen but even today there are pedos waiting in bushes or cars or wherever and you cannot decide it on an individual basis. Just imagine the policeman hadn't picked her up and the next day some wanderer found her raped and murdered, her parents would be destroyed and the policeman would probably wouldn't forget this for the rest of his life, being nice is not always the best option.
That said, I have no idea how effective such curfew laws are concerning the protection factor but then the only way to find out would be letting all your minors run around during the night and then count how many came back after a month.:dizzy2:
woad&fangs
10-07-2007, 14:23
You have yet to prove you're point as to why you should be allowed (in the US) to stay out after Curfew Hours for Minor (there is NO curfew for adults) Your just prattling on like a spoiled teenager who can't get his way. If you have a problem with it, then send a note to you're local Senator. Oh wait. You're in Norway. Good Day.
You have yet to prove your point as to why there should be a curfew for minors. By the way, I'm a Wisconsinite.
Craterus
10-07-2007, 14:27
She had it coming...
HoreTore
10-07-2007, 15:57
Horetore - we're not talking about forced sterilization. We're talking about curfews for minors. And you don't seem able to defend your idea to kill cops resisting curfew without going into screeds about forced sterilization and Nazi resistances.
It's not a good thing to mix different points together. And it's also a good thing to read things properly.
The place to fight laws like this is in the courtroom, like a civilized society.
Funny that you also think that when someone is robbing you, the best solution would be to shoot him...
Craterus
10-07-2007, 16:06
In the Land of the Free, you're only allowed to stand up for some beliefs...
HoreTore
10-07-2007, 16:14
In the Land of the Free, you're only allowed to stand up for some beliefs...
It seems that selective freedom is the new version of freedom...
Strike For The South
10-07-2007, 16:36
I would like to point out I break curfew nearly every night and nothing happens. Either Im the luckiest guy in the wrold or the police really dont care.
HoreTore
10-07-2007, 16:46
I would like to point out I break curfew nearly every night and nothing happens. Either Im the luckiest guy in the wrold or the police really dont care.
Then it seems to be a good thing where you live. Those minding their own business is left alone, those causing trouble are shipped home...
That's a good thing.
Strike For The South
10-07-2007, 16:50
Then it seems to be a good thing where you live. Those minding their own business is left alone, those causing trouble are shipped home...
That's a good thing.
Or becuase we have all those nifty little guns you need for your revoultuion!
Honestly though curfew is a non issue here. You dont even get a second glance at any time of the night. The only reason a cop may stop you is becuase you are being drunk and disorderly and even then most conversations go likr this
Cop: Yall keep it down its late
Me: *salutes* yes sir!
Cop: Good deal, stay safe
seireikhaan
10-07-2007, 18:25
Well, I'm not sure what exactly is SFTS's situation exactly, but I have no troubles going around at night in my area at 16 and 17. But the whole issue of violating curfew is rather absurd. Personally, I'm against curfew for the most part. But that's something to be taken up with the courts and/or mayor/and or governor, depending on who's issueing it. Not something you take out on a police officer. If she had obliged with the police officer, I'm 98% positive that this would have been a near-non issue. Probably would have taken her to the station, her legal guardians pick her up, might get a small fine, and everybody moves on. But when you resist arrest and actually BITE a police officer, you deserve some pepper spray if that's what its going to take for the officer to do his job.
Crazed Rabbit
10-07-2007, 19:40
Funny that you also think that when someone is robbing you, the best solution would be to shoot him...
You're saying it's funny to defend yourself from criminals and not want to shoot cops over curfew laws? :inquisitive:
CR
HoreTore
10-07-2007, 20:01
You're saying it's funny to defend yourself from criminals and not want to shoot cops over curfew laws? :inquisitive:
I never said I wanted to shoot cops over curfew laws. I said I wanted to whack the government due to curfew laws...
HoreTore
10-07-2007, 20:08
Or becuase we have all those nifty little guns you need for your revoultuion!
Honestly though curfew is a non issue here. You dont even get a second glance at any time of the night. The only reason a cop may stop you is becuase you are being drunk and disorderly and even then most conversations go likr this
Cop: Yall keep it down its late
Me: *salutes* yes sir!
Cop: Good deal, stay safe
That's how things should be. And it's how things are here too.
For example, the first time I got drunk on absinthe(at 17), I ended up sleeping on my vomit in a snow-covered parking lot... Two officers woke me up, asked how things were going, and then asked if they should drive me home. That's the way the police should behave. They are there to protect and serve, you know...
Crazed Rabbit
10-07-2007, 20:27
I never said I wanted to shoot cops over curfew laws. I said I wanted to whack the government due to curfew laws...
Oh really?
She should resist arrest because she was arrested for being outside at night, which is her bloody right. I say resist, with violent force if necessary. Preferably armed.
Doesn't seem like it.
That's how things should be. And it's how things are here too.
How do you know the cop didn't try and do that but the girl was uncooperative? She resisted actively throughout the encounter - like she thought she didn't have to listen to the police officer.
CR
HoreTore
10-07-2007, 20:34
Doesn't seem like it.
....Which I later explained to be in the context of a revolution ~;)
How do you know the cop didn't try and do that but the girl was uncooperative? She resisted actively throughout the encounter - like she thought she didn't have to listen to the police officer.
If the cop had done that, then there would no reason for the girl to be uncooperative, as the cop wouldn't have tried to get her to cooperate.
IrishArmenian
10-08-2007, 03:14
Yes, but you still don't bite an officer. That he beat her I'd say was a reflex of sorts, the pepper spray might have been overdone but then he had to arrest her somehow, that's his job.
You can complain about the laws to some politician though I'd probably support you against such a curfew law.
Yeah, the pepperspray was out of line, but when the hell did people start getting arrested for being out past curfew?
Yeah, the pepperspray was out of line, but when the hell did people start getting arrested for being out past curfew?
*Sigh*
If you are 18, it's been like that for a long time.
In my opinion, if you get caught, you deserve to be arrested. It isn't hard at all to evade the police at night. (Trust me, I've done it countless times while being under 18).
Spetulhu
10-08-2007, 07:45
No, that's not excessively brutal. The officer is only doing his job and gets a bite for it. Can you say tetanus shot and observation for possible communicable diseases?
But curfew? What kind of messed-up place would legislate curfew for minors and have police enforce it? Doesn't that conflict with the "land of the free" ideal? :inquisitive:
AntiochusIII
10-08-2007, 08:51
But curfew? What kind of messed-up place would legislate curfew for minors and have police enforce it? Doesn't that conflict with the "land of the free" ideal? :inquisitive:It pleases the soccer moms. ~;)
To be honest, though, enforcing such curfews is kind of anal retentive. It's just supposed to be yet another law in the book that no one should care about.
Now of course, if you're caught speeding or drinking and all that while also past curfew, that's kind of your own fault.
Realistically speaking.
So I suppose she asked for it in a way.
On principle I think this is a big pile of state nannyism and "alternative" parenting, and I'm a bloody Leftist. Then again I'm also a teenager, and my opinion don't count.
Disclaimer :dizzy2: -IMO and IMO only.
The cop does not make the law. He is there to uphold it.
The cop is reasonable and gives the girl plenty of oppurtunity to comply.
The girl refuses and suffers the consequences.
End of story.
Uhm.... You get arrested for being "out past curfew"...?
I'd say that is government brutality.
Agreed. Curfews are so fascist.
But the police aren't brutal here, just doing there jobs.
To those who are objecting to the enforcement of the curfew, allow me to point something out: Often wuch laws are only enforced when the cop has reasonable suspicion that something bad is going down, but has no real legal basis for bringing people in. By using a law such as curfew, be is able to at least break up the situation, even if only temporarily.
The girl in the video does not appear to be in full possession of her mental or verbal abilities. At a guess, I'd say alcohol is involved. I don't have a problem with a cop escorting a drunk, combative fifteen-year-old girl back to the station, and thence to her parents.
All of this is speculative, however.
HoreTore
10-08-2007, 16:53
To those who are objecting to the enforcement of the curfew, allow me to point something out: Often wuch laws are only enforced when the cop has reasonable suspicion that something bad is going down, but has no real legal basis for bringing people in. By using a law such as curfew, be is able to at least break up the situation, even if only temporarily.
That sounds all fine and dandy until you start thinking a little bit further, and realize that it could be accomplished by simply watching those who were acting suspicious. No need to arrest them before they are doing something wrong. You do know what we call arresting people before they have done anything wrong, don't you?
Banquo's Ghost
10-08-2007, 17:21
That sounds all fine and dandy until you start thinking a little bit further, and realize that it could be accomplished by simply watching those who were acting suspicious. No need to arrest them before they are doing something wrong. You do know what we call arresting people before they have done anything wrong, don't you?
Yes, it's called preventative action and is a time-honoured method of keeping the peace.
Arrest merely removes the person suspected of behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace to a safer location. If they haven't done anything wrong (ie broken a law) they may well be advised to behave more appropriately and let go. This might be done at the scene or at the station. In most cases it protects the person arrested as much as everyone else.
You gave an example of this yourself vis-a-vis drunkeness. It is how good police work. Arrest does not equal charge and conviction.
HoreTore
10-08-2007, 17:30
You gave an example of this yourself vis-a-vis drunkeness. It is how good police work. Arrest does not equal charge and conviction.
No, that would be the police checking out how things are. They did not arrest me in any way, they merely talked to me. Talking is fine, arresting is not.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-09-2007, 14:14
The young woman involved was a minor -- a person of very limited legal standing under the law.
MINOR - A person who does not have the legal rights of an adult. A minor is usually defined as someone who has not yet reached the age of majority. In most states, a person reaches majority and acquires all of the rights and responsibilities of an adult when he or she turns 18.
It has long been held that minors do NOT possess the full spectrum of rights and duties according a citizen who has attained their majority.
· Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 92 S. Ct. 839 (1972).
“This ordinance is void for vagueness, both in the sense that it ‘fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute,’... and because it encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions” (843).
· Ramos v. Town of Vernon, No. 01-7118 (2d Cir. June 2, 2003). The U.S Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that the Town of Vernon curfew ordinance violates the constitutional rights of juveniles. “The constitutionality of a curfew is determined by balancing the recognized interests the state has in protecting children and fighting crime against the constitutional right of all citizens, including juveniles, to move about freely. Here, Vernon’s curfew interferes with juveniles’ freedom of movement, that is, their right to walk the streets, move about at will, meet in public with friends, and leave their houses when they please. This right to free movement is a vital component of life in an open society, both for juveniles and adults.”
· Ramos v. Town of Vernon, 254 Conn. 799, 762 A.2d 705 (2000).
“This case, which comes to us upon our acceptance of six certified questions from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut …, asks us to consider the facial validity, under the Connecticut constitution, of the nighttime juvenile curfew ordinance of the named defendant, the town of Vernon” (801).
· Ramos v. Town of Vernon, 48 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D.Conn. 1999).
“... the court hereby enters a declaratory judgment that Vernon’s curfew ordinance does not violate the United States Constitution for any of the reasons alleged by the plaintiffs” (188).
Hutchins by Owens v. District of Columbia, 188 F.3d 531 (D.C. Cir, 1999) Curfew law found constitutional; district court’s grant of summary judgment reversed
“That the rights of juveniles are not necessarily coextensive with those of adults is undisputed, and ‘unemancipated minors lack some of the most fundamental rights of self-determination—including even the right of liberty in its narrow sense, i.e., the right to come and go at will.’...” (p. 539)
· Qutb v. Strauss, 11 F.3d 488 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1127 (1994).
“In conclusion, we find that the state has demonstrated that the curfew ordinance furthers a compelling state interest, i.e., protecting juveniles from crime on the streets. We further conclude that the ordinance is narrowly tailored to achieve this compelling state interest. Accordingly, we hold that the nocturnal juvenile curfew ordinance ... is constitutional.” (p. 496)
Such an individual must be accorded what we consider to be basic "human" rights, but is accorded liberties and rights beyond that level only at the sufferenace of the larger community.
Note: drawing on Roman doctrine, the old age of "majority" was considered to be 25. This age of majority has, subsequently, been brought down to 21 or 18 in most communities.
You can make an argument that chronology is a poor (and perhaps arbitrary)measure of maturity, but you would be hard-pressed to make a credible argument that any and all individuals are intellectually capable of functioning as a mature adult. I think it is a reasonable assumption, based on the long lessons of history, that a goodly majority of 15 year olds are not.
Curfew laws are enacted to protect both the minors and the community at large. As Lemur notes, it is often a tool used by police operating in their "keep the peace" mode. To be fair to those hyper-ardent libertarians among us, it should be noted that MOST of the problems people associate with policing crop up on this side of their duties. However, without a "keep the peace" mode, police can only act AFTER the commission of a crime -- which does the victim little good in most instances. A totally reactive police force is probably not a wise choice.
If you disagree with curfews for minors, then petition for them to be rescinded. If you consider this an abrogation of basic rights that truly rises to the level of
a long train of abuses and usurpations, [that] pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
then by all means foment a rebellion that, by force of arms if necessary, throws down such a government.
If it does not rise to such a level, it is an act of petulance, not a crusade for freedom.
I'm glad some of you find my arguments difficult to poke holes through -- but please have a go, that's the fun part. :yes:
atheotes
10-09-2007, 19:16
I voted for grey area...
The girl was not helping herself.. but i dont think the cop had to smack her and then use pepper spray to handcuff her...
Also not sure about the earlier exchanges between the cop and the girl and if the girl was sober...
The cop pretty obviously scared the minor, and should know better than doing what he did.
The cop pretty obviously scared the minor, and should know better than doing what he did.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Scared? AFAIK people behave a bit different when they're really scared.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-10-2007, 01:17
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Scared? AFAIK people behave a bit different when they're really scared.
Absolutely. And the announcer informs you that the enemy king has shamed himself by running away. Usually the rest of the group routs just after. :devilish:
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Scared? AFAIK people behave a bit different when they're really scared.
Now that's a narrow minded view. :dizzy2:
Watchman
10-11-2007, 14:28
Curfews for minors is stupid. (Says the man who hung out at arcades until ten in his early teens.) A civilized society shouldn't need them, but then again the US one often sounds like it quite doesn't qualify for that status anyway.
That said, making trouble for a law enforcement officer just doing his duty, especially if that in the context amounted to about driving you home and some stern words, is just idiotic and creating unnecessary problems for yourself. Doubly so if you take it to the level of physical violence; the law tends not look kindly on assaults on its representatives. The law being enforced may be butt stupid, but that's hardly a good reason to break a few more.
And the arguments about "bad cops" sound to me mostly like the paranoia regarding the authorities that I often suspect US mental culture to suffer from (the "cops are pigs"/"damn feds" phenomenom), as even if I've thus far had little reason to think highly of the police force there I've never heard of them being actually comparable to some third-world tyranny's uniformed thug gang.
Now that's a narrow minded view. :dizzy2:
Yes, most likely. After thinking about it, I always bite mafiosi, big dogs and sharks as well when they scare me. It's perfectly reasonable to bite a police officer who kindly asks you to comply when he is doing his job. :dizzy2:
Yes, most likely. After thinking about it, I always bite mafiosi, big dogs and sharks as well when they scare me. It's perfectly reasonable to bite a police officer who kindly asks you to comply when he is doing his job. :dizzy2:
If the shark catch you up and attempts to eat you, you'd surely try to attack it in some way, LOL.
So friendly policemen are basically like sharks?
So friendly policemen are basically like sharks?
Now you're taking it completely out of context... we were last talking about possible reactions related to fear; not what animal we can compare the policeman to. :inquisitive:
If the policeman had known what to do, he wouldn't have been bit in the first place.
allow me to quote:
I watched the same video and listened to his commands and all I can say with my former service as an MP in the Army, there was no reason to attack and punch her and mace her, it should never have gotten to that level. He should have held her until another officer arrived. I wonder if any female officers were on duty. This is another cover up by the PD overreacting and knowing that a lawsuit is coming. Plus it took so long to come out. Why not release it the next day like most major cities do? What are they hiding? If your sister or someone you knew was in that would you be sayin gnice job. I know cops are stressed and such and the tone of his voice was commanding and trust me without the parental einvolvement and tough love taught in schools these kids are out of control, but it takes a professional and who is the adult here? Why not call for backup? He did what he did that can't be changed but the Chief needs to look in the mirror and figure out what went wrong and come out with a leadership statement that he is going to ensure that this will not happen again. The officer did what he did, I can't fault him, but the Chief needs to be a leader and come out with answers to shy it took so long to come clean and ensure the people that this is not normal and that they are looking at ways to fix these types of balck eyes and you and I both know a lawsuit will be coming and I for one am tired of seeing my tax dollars and payoffs take place. Just look in Phoenix at the airport that lady is dead and this girl could have suffered or been killed, Look at her and how scrawney she is. I do know people on drugs are sometimes much stronger and if she ran she would not out run the motorola so come on fess up and please tell us that our Chief is a professional and is going to step up to the plate and be honest and tell me that was reasonable force? She did bite and that was wrong but why was she pushed over the edge to do that. With proper training it would not have happend.
Ah yeah, he should've called for a SWAT team to restrain a 15 year-old girl, why didn't I think of that before? :dizzy2:
And if he did that to my sister I'd tell her not to bite him and comply next time, I don't value my sister over a policeman if she misbehaves.
Just my opinion of course.
The Policeman's a bit psycho in the video when he punched her, but she was just as crazy. It sounded much less threatening when CR wrote/described it.
And after watching the whole thing, it would have served him better to call for a female officer to come and assist him rather than use mace and brute force.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.