REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Tase Me Now 2 + 2 = 5: UF Taser Thread, part 2

POSTED BY: HKCAVALIER
UPDATED: Sunday, September 30, 2007 17:27
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2951
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, September 29, 2007 2:13 PM

HKCAVALIER


I know several of you (notably those arguing on the authoritarian side of the discussion) felt that the topic had been done to death in the first thread( http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=30610), but I find the disconnect between what I will call the "authoritarian thinkers" and the "libertarian thinkers" (we can dispute terminology, if you like) in that thread reflective of the larger disconnect we see in nearly every thread in the RWED.

Here's what I've got, in a nut shell: in our discussion of the Meyer tasing, the authoritarian side has focused principally on issues of character and morality, while the libertarian side has focused on behavior and legality.

This is the disconnect: once the authoritarians have decided on Meyer's character (he's a bad egg), they're really done. 'Nough said. He was an asshole and he deserved whatever he got (oh, and what he got wasn't that bad anyway--coulda been a lot worse). When the authoritarian side talks about his behavior or his actions or those of the police, it's an after-thought, really, merely an extension of his unruly character and the polices' presumptive commitment to duty and order.

Really, I think they talk about this stuff just to humor the libertarian minded among us. Finn can't be bothered to get his facts straight about the incident, or at least internally consistent 'cause everything that happened in that auditorium was an inevitable result of Meyer's bad character--the details are truly irrelevant.

When I pointed out that the police report he sited claimed that Meyer repeatedly punched officers and the video showed no evidence of punching, Finn countered that the punching might have happened when Meyer was on the ground, even though the report he quoted claims Meyer "punched" before that--punches that would have landed in plain view of the video cameras. But rather than deal with this, he quibbled with me on the meaning of the word "punch," claiming my contention that punching is something a fist does was "tortured." He further stated that Meyer was on the ground "several times" when he was brought down only the once and never recovered his feet until after getting tased.

I don't think Finn is misrepresenting the situation intentionally or that he's even aware that he is. I think he just doesn't care about the particulars enough to get them consistent because they don't effect his basic premise one way or the other. I presume that my harping on these issues is seen as completely beside "the point," meaningless nit picking and a colossal waste of time. Remember: Meyer's character is the overriding "reality" the authoritarians are concerned with here. And my obsession with specific behavior or Frem's second-by-second blow-by-blow (or lack of blows) is of little importance to them.

(Except, of course, as they reflect on our characters! Frem is evidently a lunatic and I'm clearly not to be trusted. )

I dare say lack of respect for the police (properly appreciating their good character) is far more troubling to the authoritarians than the tasing of some asshole.

To the libertarian thinkers, in contrast, Meyer's personal character is of little or no importance beside the overwhelming force used by the police. Four armed police vs. one doughy college kid with a book in his hand; three officers pinning the boy down to be tased; the student's efforts to escape vs. the officers' inevitable domination. Beside all that behavior, Meyer's personal failings take a distant second place.

So all of us who contributed to the thread are at a standstill. The libertarians think the authoritarians' central focus is irrelevant beside what they see actually happening, and the authoritarians simply don't care about the libertarians' obsession with legality and who-did-what-when once they've made up their minds about right and wrong.

And this little drama plays out over and over again, thread after thread.

The authoritarians have determined what the character of their enemy is, and that's all that matters. The "terrorists," for instance, are simply evil and deserve whatever punishment we meet out, end of story--why are we still talking about this? And whatever we do to them won't be that bad, anyway, 'cause we're the good guys, y'know? Just as the authoritarians are quick to judge the character and motives of the "enemy," so too, are they double quick to assume decency and virtue of the "good guys."

Authoritarians see world politics in terms of "us and them." They can't not. They assume the best of their government and their law enforcement, until they see iron clad proof of malfeasance--and even then, they may doubt it 'cause "hey, none of us were there."

Furthermore, and this gets at why so many authoritarians are also politically conservative, the underlying assumption of the authoritarian is that people in power have earned their power by the simple fact that they were able to achieve it. Rich people are rich because they pulled themselves up by their own boot straps, because they applied themselves, and anyone who complains is just jealous--just as our enemies are "jealous of our freedom." Crucially, their central premise is: authority wouldn't be in authority if it wasn't good.

But this de facto meritocracy is only really true for "us." For "them" all power is illegitimate, gained (no doubt) through evil means by people of evil character climbing the ladders of success in evil systems for nefarious purposes.

The libertarians, however, see all human beings as individuals first, struggling (or not) against various kinds of authority.

You see the problem? The two sides define the central concept, "authority," in near diametrical terms.

"Good and evil"--when the libertarian thinkers even use such words--is entirely a question of behavior. So the people in any society that oppress and dominate and use force are "evil," while the folks that don't, that mind their own business and simply go about their lives not hurting anyone, are "good."

Authoritarian thinkers see whatever peace and prosperity they experience as the direct result of authority's benevolent hand (benevolent to them, of course). So when the libertarian thinkers attack the legitimacy of authority, the authoritarians perceive it by extension as a threat to their own peace and prosperity--and, they hasten to add, to the peace and prosperity of the libertarian thinkers in their midst.

The libertarian thinkers, on the other hand, tend to see their peace and prosperity as existing in spite of authority's controlling and intrusive hand. They see large armies with guns as a threat no matter who commands them.

The libertarian distrust of authority, particularly the authority of the United States Government, drives the authoritarians a little crazy; makes the libertarians look at least a little suspect. So the authoritarians bust out their favorite arguments all based on "us and them" thinking (totally lost on the individual-focused libertarians): how can you criticize Abu Ghraib when Saddam was so much worse? How can you question Bush when he's the only thing standing between Jessica Alba and a burkha? (Okay, that's not one of their favorite arguments, but it is one of mine. ) If you criticize the government, you're supporting the terrorists.

The libertarians counter with laundry lists of behavioral misdeeds which only make the authoritarians that much more certain that the libertarians are in league with evil.

So, okay, what the hell do we do about the disconnect?

I really don't know. I don't know if anything can be done. So, I've tried to name it.

Maybe the authoritarians are right, and there isn't anything more to discuss. I've made some very pleasant connections with other Firefly fans here, learned a WHOLE LOT about how folks I don't agree with think. It's been amazing, really. But, if my analysis is correct, maybe I've learned all I can. Maybe there's no arguing with authoritarians. And maybe it's a total waste of their time trying to wake me up to the truth as they see it.

The number one problem I have with authoritarianism is its perception of force as righteous punishment. Wars are fought not so much to stop someone invading our country, as to punish the evil doers where ever they may hide. For the authoritarian, war is not a last resort. War is the first resort, or should be, when evil rears its head--what more do you need to know?

And wars are fought because of the intent of our enemy, not on his real ability to hurt us. And this stuff is taught in families across the country and across the globe. To the authoritarian, righteous violence is the natural result of its victim's evil intent. Nobody punishes a child because the child poses an actual threat. People punish a child because they believe the child is bad and deserves to be harmed. And so it goes.

The other terrible vulnerability of the authoritarian mindset is that it fudges the data in favor of the powerful. No conspiracy is as powerful as the simple pass authoritarians give to their leaders. "What? The government was running simulated drills of airplanes being flown into the WTC on the very same day hijacked planes actually hit the WTC? Wow, what a coincidence!" "What? Bush flew the entire Bin Laden clan out of the country on the 12th of September? Well, they musta had good reason!" (Here's where I get written off as a conspiracy theorist. FYI: not the point, gentlemen.)

And this fudging doesn't just go on once a story hits the news; it's systemic. The Bush admin. hires people specifically on the grounds of their likelihood to fudge in their favor (fires 'em, too). The really wild thing to consider is: what if Bush is doing the same kind of fudging in his own mind for himself? What if, when he looks at his many failings and vast incompetence he says to himself, "Hot damn, if I didn't know better, I'd think I really screwed the pooch here!"
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
So, Finn has a point. Yes, I'll say it again, Finn has a point. The officers may -truthfully- be interpreting the events as -they perceived them- in their reports. I am willing, in this case, to assume the officers are not lying. I am also willing to state that the the officers statements should be taken as what they are, their perception. I also clearly stated that I do not believe the student -intended- to punch or kick the officers.

...

So, I hope this 'unfloors' you HK; if not, I'd be very interested to know what in the above you feel still floors you.

Hey, leadb, thanks for your thoughtful reply to my last post. I hope you have a better sense of what's so upsetting about all this to me. I just wanted to comment on your paragraph above. I see the cops fudging to make their position look better than it does--I see it as a reflexive habit of the authoritarian mindset; a mindset one must nurture if one is gonna be a cop in the first place. And though I see that you are not wholely commited to an authoritarian world-view, I see you fudging in the cops' favor as well, in a characteristically authoritarian manner--you're really playing up the importance of the cops' intentions, over their actions.

I fear that what we get with your assessment is a level of subjectivity that would, to my mind, render law enforcement realistically impossible on a broad scale. If the cops' perceptions are so very, very fallible; if human beings are by nature so incapable of objectivity, what hope can any of us have of justice?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 29, 2007 3:00 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I don't think Finn is misrepresenting the situation intentionally or that he's even aware that he is. I think he just doesn't care about the particulars enough to get them consistent because they don't effect his basic premise one way or the other. I presume that my harping on these issues is seen as completely beside "the point," meaningless nit picking and a colossal waste of time.
Actually, I do see your post as a colossal waste of time, but not because I don’t care or think the facts unimportant. Rather it’s because you’ve based a huge analysis on a complete misrepresentation of what I said. In all that huge post, you didn’t bother to mention once that my whole premise was the wild and aggressive gesturing. Either you don’t understand what I'm saying or you're misrepresenting it, but either way it does kind of throw your entire analysis into question, doesn't it?

I have to go tonight and sit with my grandmother, but before I go, I would like to offer something to ponder for all those who watched the video and saw what I saw: I was thinking the other day how much the video might have influenced my position on this matter. If I had simply read the news report, would I have come to the same conclusion? Had I not been able to see firsthand the disrespectful polemic and the violent response to police would I have had any more sympathy for this dude? Would I have seen him as being less of a threat? On the other hand, I think the evidence was pretty clear even from the written reports that this kid was making a joke of the whole process, which doesn’t look good for him. In the end though, I don’t know if this will go to trial or not – some are arguing that he may have a case for a suit against UFCP, but I think that when these videos are shown to jurors or to the judges, depending on how this gets tried, it will work very much against Mr. Meyer’s favor.


Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 29, 2007 3:23 PM

KANEMAN


"bother to mention once that my whole premise was the wild and aggressive gesturing."

You are kidding...Right? Since when is gesturing illegal and worthy of a tasering? And should'nt one "gesture" wildly when his rights are being shit on? The real question is...Why did'nt the other people beat the hell out of the police?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 29, 2007 3:25 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Very thoughtful and well written, HKC.

You know, there's been many a time on this board that I am actually happy to be kind of a loose pinball with a somewhat sideways thought process - because there have been many times such a thing has been useful not only in discussion, but in getting other sides of an issue to view it from alternate angles.

I know full and well the uselessness of trying to reason with someone of an authoritarian mindset once they've set it - although if they blink or a crack shows in that concrete facade, their argument is gonna go the way of an egg in a blender, and rapidly.

Still, it is not for them that I argue, it's for those who read, but don't dare post (Hi Dinky!) or rarely ever post cause they don't wanna deal with the blistering assault that usually follows, RWED is a cursed unfriendly place to newbie posters, and banging ones head into authoritarian bedrock isn't exactly a fun thing to do sometimes (and sometimes it is, bwahaha, mine is an evil laugh!), but as you so politely pointed out, imma lunatic.

Others might note that in the other thread I pointed out that hearing even *just ONE voice* decrying the officers behavior woulda done wonders for my faith in humanity, and as I have watched many other discussion boards "drowned out" by the virtue of frustrated folks giving up on all hope of reasoning and leaving - I strive to be that one voice, even if completely alone in my assertions on a topic.

I DO wish we were a little more friendly and forgiving of new posters, or long readers who finally work up the nerve to post, but the authoritarian mindset is such that dissent from the established "line" is something to be crushed and silenced, and even libertarian minded nitpickery is enough to drive a first time poster somewhere else in a hurry.

The rather blatant sock puppetry hasn't helped us in that regard either, cause it adds the unfortunate side effect of new posters being viewed with intense suspicion.

I for one, welcome other viewpoints on a topic even if I do not agree with em, the key is to learn how to, rather than looking at the whole world through the one tiny window of your own mindset and experiences, to view it from the multiple camera angles of all who wish to discuss it, surely you SEE more that way, even if it bothers you to look.

As for intent versus action, imma go back to one of my old saw quotes concerning religion, in fact, cause it's also applicable here.

"I don't care one whit what you believe, I care what you DO, cause what you do, is who you are."

That about sums it up for me, the intent of an action generally matters little to the person on the receiving end of it, at least in practice.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

EDIT: Dear me, that's the second time Kane's said something I agree with, startin to wonder if I haven't gone round the bend for real this time...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 29, 2007 3:26 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Kaneman, I think the question we all want to know is why the police haven’t beat the hell out of you yet.




Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 29, 2007 3:52 PM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
...wild and aggressive gesturing...

I'm sorry, Finn. You've brought this point up a couple times now and I haven't addressed it directly. Your characterization of Meyer's gestures as "wild" and "aggressive" is loaded. I could call the same gestures "attention-seeking" and "hysterical," implying no less activity or energy, but without the implication that he posed a threat to the officers. You imply that this unarmed man posed a threat to four well-armed police officers. And I don't see it. "Ow, he poked me in the eye!" "Better get the taser!"

Plenty of folks have said that the cops had to get rough to avoid anyone getting accidentally injured. (The irony is pretty hilarious: "If there are to be any injuries here, they will be intentional and inflicted by professionals!") That's not what police are for. Accidental injury is simply a hazard of being a cop or a bouncer, or anyone who's job it is to manhandle unwilling folk. If the threat of untintended injury were the issue, every suspect confronted by the police would need to be tased.

The man attempts to avoid capture with the meager means at his disposal, at every turn pulls and shies physically away from the officers except for the two occasions I saw him actually push at them (both instances of pushing followed up by his immediate attempts to get away from the cops, btw--again, not aggressive, not threatening).

So, I would emphatically describe his physical actions as non-aggressive (Just as Rodney King's pushing aside an officer in his attempt to flee wasn't aggressive either). However, his derisive tone of voice, his verbal mocking of the police were very aggressive, but it was the aggression of a smart-ass who thinks he might actually get away before any rough stuff occurs. And sure, he's thinking that he lives in a society with a rule of law that will keep these cops from acting like high school bullies. So, we can add "arrogance" and "foolhardiness" to Meyer's list of descriptives--still doesn't mean he posed a physical threat to the officers, and certainly no threat to Kerry or the rest of the crowd, who felt comfortable enough to crack jokes and applaud when the mood struck them.

It wasn't until they tased Meyer that people in the crowd became visibly and audibly disturbed and fearful. What were they afraid of then, do you think?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 29, 2007 4:23 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Look, there is no way that I can honestly or rationally state that the officer lied or misconstrued events when he said that Meyer's was "punching," because based on what I can see for myself, Meyers was obviously fighting with police and there is no reason to believe that Meyers didn't punch an officer or that one of Meyers' "hysterical" gestures didn't hit an officer, being interpreted as a punch.


Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 29, 2007 4:29 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


I wouldn't mind being between Jessica Alba and a Burkah....

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 29, 2007 4:50 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


This is why we need to learn from our black brothers who are coming up out of the ghetto and pouring out into suburbia in the last decade or two. I hope we can learn from each other, because there are many things about civility and respect of those you share your neighborhood with that many of them could use to learn. But there are certain points of views that many of them have about authority and their lack of respect for authority that I just don't see with white people. (Just like I see absolutely no white unity among the proles either, which is sad).

These traits that they have are not derived from the color of their skin, but from decades of being at the brunt of police brutality and feeding at the bottom of the barrel of a system that's been stacked against them for several centuries.

Lemmie ask you this? You think 4 police would have even walked out of that room alive if they tried that nazi bullshit in an inner-city school? Heh... Not without at least week long vacation in the infirmary.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 29, 2007 6:12 PM

FREMDFIRMA


You know, I do have another point to make, but I'll lay odds I get harsh replies by folks who don't read the entire post before going off.

As far as credibility - ok then, let us try it without the tale of the tape.

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article1.cfm?issue=09-25-07&storyID
=28068
http://www.ktvu.com/news/14195631/detail.html

Does it pass the sniff test, do you find it credible ? why or why not ?

Or how bout this one ?

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=local&id=5677461

When, exactly, DOES it become abuse then, people ?

Would you accept THIS officers word on a police report ?

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1961.asp

Just how MUCH weight should the word of the police carry in respect to that of us peons ?

Again, police are people, and people lie, cheat and steal, it's all a matter of degree - are we to consider them infallible, or somehow more honest, possessing more integrity, than the rest of us just because of the badge ?
Why should we ? why would we ?

I know the "few rotten apples" analogy is comin, so lemme forestall it with THIS thought.

You'd think that if that were indeed the case, those officers who do possess integrity would be at the very forefront of those wanting proven goons booted off the force - but that ain't how it goes, is it ?

Nope, the FOP, police unions, and fellow officers strive to defend even the most indefensible conduct of one of their own, and they do it every single time - closing the ranks, refusing to speak up, providing the lawyers, shilling to the press, exterting untoward influance on judges, even jurors, not to mention appealing to lawmakers with juicy donations.

That is not the conduct of a few rotten apples, that is the conduct of a criminal mafia, to be blunt... the "thin blue line" as it were.

Lemme put it in a slightly different perspective to make the point absolutely clear.

A police officer is, minus the badge, toys and uniform, just another one of us, and we should never accept conduct from them that we would not also accept from one of our neighbors.

Hows about we stop looking at the uniform and start looking at the people, ehe ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 29, 2007 6:53 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


I've said all I need to per the tasing in the other thread. All I got left to say is....

WE TASED THE HELL OUT OF THEM GATORS !

AUBURN 20
UF 17


WAR DAMN EAGLE!!

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 29, 2007 7:04 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I know the "few rotten apples" analogy is comin, so lemme forestall it with THIS thought.

You'd think that if that were indeed the case, those officers who do possess integrity would be at the very forefront of those wanting proven goons booted off the force - but that ain't how it goes, is it ?

Nope, the FOP, police unions, and fellow officers strive to defend even the most indefensible conduct of one of their own, and they do it every single time - closing the ranks, refusing to speak up, providing the lawyers, shilling to the press, exterting untoward influance on judges, even jurors, not to mention appealing to lawmakers with juicy donations.

That is not the conduct of a few rotten apples, that is the conduct of a criminal mafia, to be blunt... the "thin blue line" as it were.


Hmmmmmmm..... Sounds strikingly similar to what the Catholic Church had been doing for years. Wonder why the people don't have the same mistrust in police that they do for the priests today, especially considering they're both state sponsored organizations.

Oh... that's right. This is America. We don't love and trust in God anymore (they're taking "In God We Trust" off the quarter as evidence of that).

Say it with me now..... "We love Big Brother!".

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 29, 2007 7:18 PM

LEADB


Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
[ ... ]
So, okay, what the hell do we do about the disconnect?

I really don't know. I don't know if anything can be done. So, I've tried to name it.
[ ... ]
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
So, Finn has a point. Yes, I'll say it again, Finn has a point. The officers may -truthfully- be interpreting the events as -they perceived them- in their reports. I am willing, in this case, to assume the officers are not lying. I am also willing to state that the the officers statements should be taken as what they are, their perception. I also clearly stated that I do not believe the student -intended- to punch or kick the officers.
...
So, I hope this 'unfloors' you HK; if not, I'd be very interested to know what in the above you feel still floors you.

Hey, leadb, thanks for your thoughtful reply to my last post. I hope you have a better sense of what's so upsetting about all this to me. I just wanted to comment on your paragraph above. I see the cops fudging to make their position look better than it does--I see it as a reflexive habit of the authoritarian mindset; a mindset one must nurture if one is gonna be a cop in the first place. And though I see that you are not wholely commited to an authoritarian world-view, I see you fudging in the cops' favor as well, in a characteristically authoritarian manner--you're really playing up the importance of the cops' intentions, over their actions.

I fear that what we get with your assessment is a level of subjectivity that would, to my mind, render law enforcement realistically impossible on a broad scale. If the cops' perceptions are so very, very fallible; if human beings are by nature so incapable of objectivity, what hope can any of us have of justice?
Great post HK. It very much helps me see where you have been coming from.

I'll agree I see a disconnect. I see a lot of disconnect. I can't count the number of times I've read posts (perhaps from one of the folks you consider 'authoritarian') being clearly 'not understood' (generally by whoever is on the opposite side, thus a 'libertarian' in the instance I'm implicating, it could easily be the reverse) and sometimes they work it out, sometimes they don't and sometimes I'll toss something in the middle to try to bridge the gap (always dangerous, but I've been more successful than not, I hope) (and before anyone claims I'm claiming to 'never' fall in this trap, I concede I do; I just hope less often than the 'average bear'). My biggest flaw in these cases is I sometimes wonder if folks are being deliberately obtuse and / or taking extreme positions to try to get a better 'final compromise' or what I'm not sure. In any case, I'm not sure what to necessarily 'do about it' in all cases either, so, like you, I'm trying to 'name' the problem.

And yes, I have a better sense of what's so upsetting about all this to you.

To address some of the specifics toward the end...
HK 'I see the cops fudging to make their position look better than it does--I see it as a reflexive habit of the authoritarian mindset'
I tend to agree; but I see is as part of the human condition, and little to do with the 'authoritarian mindset'. I see this type of behavior from people of all sorts 'libertarian' or 'authoritarian'. If I read Mr. Meyers' statement of the events, I am confident it would not be entirely consistent with the police version. In fact, if you could get statements from all the folks who were there, I'll bet you'd start wondering if they were all at the same event. Ask a cop 'off the record' how reliable eye witness testimony is, and you might well be surprised at the response. I'd lay even money you can find someone who will say they saw a cop draw a pistol on Mr. Meyers... remember all the discussion we had on that very topic of pistol vs taser. Does this mean the folks who would make such a statement were lying; no, it just means they are wrong (or in fact were lying to try to smear the police). The difference is I would tend to assume the folks were not lying unless I had reason to suspect they were; and even then, unless I felt there was need to, I would not bother 'calling them' on the lie.

HK 'you're really playing up the importance of the cops' intentions, over their actions. '
I'm confused by this comment a bit; so if I'm going off on a tangent, kick me in the shin. Honestly, I'm trying very hard to down play the importance of the officers' statements in this matter; for several reasons.
1) If I envision myself in the cops shoes; I can easily imagine with all the thrashing around I see in the video that it is possible an elbow or something could have come into fairly 'aggressive' contact with an officer.
2) To me, whether a 'punch' is thrown or not, it is clear to me Mr. Meyers was resisting arrest; to me the -key- question was, 'Is the action to remove Mr. Meyers legally initiated or not'. I know others disagree with this point.
3) Human memory is a tricky thing, when one re-thinks an event through, it is very easy to re-color things as one believes them to be, or worse, as one wants them to be.

This third comment is a direct lead in to this observation....
HK 'is a level of subjectivity that would, to my mind, render law enforcement realistically impossible on a broad scale. If the cops' perceptions are so very, very fallible; if human beings are by nature so incapable of objectivity, what hope can any of us have of justice?'
Welcome to 'my world'. I'll be honest, given the unreliability of eye witnesses, when there isn't clear, hard evidence to support it; I am not highly confident in the ability of any system to produce 'true justice.' However I'll risk butchering a quote 'Democracy is a terribly ineffective and problematic form of government; it just happens to be better than all the other known alternatives'. What is the alternative to our justice system as it exists? I don't know; what we have seems to work most of the time. Like making sausages, it can be ugly to look at the process though.

I once sat in a jury; I'm very glad it was a civil and not a criminal case. I got ... 'drafted?' ... as foreman. I went in with a jaundiced eye to both sides' testimony; we compared notes with both sides and what we knew to be 'objectively true' (our observations of the physical evidence presented). In the end, since this was civil, we did not have to have a unanimous decision (though we were told it is 'best' if we could). In the end, there were a few hard facts before us that collectively we could not deny; and while I do not believe we could have called either side a liar, it was clear one side was wrong and the other right; we came to a unanimous decision... and I >believe< justice was done.

My point is not that it is impossible to have justice; but when deciding to believe any eye witness testimony, you cannot assume the person is an objective observer. This is the case whether the observer is a police officer or a student. -Everyone- has an agenda. I have one. I am willing to presume you have one. The trick is knowing what the other persons' agenda is; and (the hard part) being right. I will also worry what you will think when I say the final tricky part is -really- knowing what your own agenda is; more people than you think don't know their own agenda is.

Personally, I think it is silly for the officers to -lie- about the 'punching'. For one thing, I believe if these videos go before a jury, they will see what you and I see; a student struggling to get attention. The fact that the officers use the word 'punch' will be -very- effectively diverted by a defense attorney of any moderate skill level; and it will not surprise me in the least if the defense looks remarkably like my observations above. On the flip side, if I am wrong and the video clips, when all reviewed together, can show there was no 'gap' in the coverage and in fact 'absolutely nothing is present in the video that might be reasonably interpreted by someone in the officers shoes as a "punch" is present', the officers can and will be subjected to significant penalty for falsifying an official record. Flip to that, I have to believe there's 'vigorous motions' which could have landed something that a cop would interpret as a punch, so I honestly don't think that will happen in this case.

So. I'm not sure I've said anything new; but perhaps I've said it differently enough to matter. Or not.

I miss Causal. Much of my discussion points fall into the philosophic realm, and he sometimes is -so- much better about putting these things than I. I've reread the above and I'm still not sure I'm nailing the language just right.

... Edited about 20 minutes later to clean up some atrocious abuses of the English language; no intent to change meaning.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 29, 2007 7:38 PM

LEADB


Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
You know, I do have another point to make, but I'll lay odds I get harsh replies by folks who don't read the entire post before going off.

As far as credibility - ok then, let us try it without the tale of the tape.

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article1.cfm?issue=09-25-07&storyID
=28068
Sloppy writing, or terrible quote. 'Police spokesperson Michael Poirier said a loaded revolver was found on Gonzales.' I believe the intended comment was to say one was found on King.
Excessively emotional 'He could have shot him in his leg' quote is reflective of an opinion of someone who does not understand when a gun should be used; it would be better for the reporter to leave that out since the officer either should not have been shooting at all as an effort to 'shoot him in the leg' is -not- a good idea. If the cop later pleads he was -trying- to shoot King in the leg, go for manslaughter charge at a -minimum-.
The implication the reporter is trying to make is that a gun was planted on King; it would have been better to state that outright. This is the key point (IMHO).
Quote:

http://www.ktvu.com/news/14195631/detail.html

Does it pass the sniff test, do you find it credible ? why or why not ?
2nd article is better.
Sniff test... marginal with a high chance of turning rancid. I hope they spend a lot of time trying to prove the gun on King was a plant, and if so proven, they should charge the officer with murder. The 'problem' will be if they can't prove it; then you get into the whole 'cover up' deal since the system is not necessarily objective, there will be a negative impact.
--
The other two items you reference appear to me to be clear 'bad smell' items.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 29, 2007 9:59 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


http://draves.org/blog/archives/000514.html

September 28, 2007
Oakland cop beats, tasers, then kills.
A tragedy in Oakland. My friend Brad sent the following letter to several newspapers:
Oakland Police: To protect and serve, or to kill?
Gary King, Jr. was murdered on September 20th by Sergeant Pat Gonzales of the Oakland Police Department. According to eyewitnesses, after having complied with an order to approach Gonzales' cruiser, Gary was attacked by Gonzales. Gary attempted to disengage himself from the altercation, but Gonzales beat, stripped, and repeatedly tasered Gary. Gonzales then released Gary, disoriented, hurting, and scared, and pumped two bullets into Gary's back as he fled.

Police claim that a pistol was found in Gary's possession. Whether or not Gary had a pistol, however, is irrelevant — none of the witnesses saw Gary draw a pistol. Gonzales was the only police officer on the scene until after he shot Gary and no witnesses are corroborating his story.

King’s death is not an isolated incident: in 2006, Gonzales shot and paralyzed 17-year-old Ameir Rollins, and in 2002, Gonzales shot and killed 19-year-old Joshua Russell.

Police Chief Tucker acknowledged the abnormality of an officer shooting so many suspects, but isn't questioning Gonzales' claim, universally refuted by witnesses, that Gary was drawing a weapon. OPD wants to protect their own, but Gonzales belongs in prison. Justice must be served.


"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 29, 2007 11:27 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Leadb, you make some very good points, especially concerning eyewitness testimony, one reason it's generally a good idea to get all you can from every eyewitness and see what matches and what don't - and most of it don't, realistically.

As far as disconnect and trying to get a point across, if I don't feel it's getting across, I'll go back and try to refine it till it does, but sometimes the gap is just too wide for comprehension whatsoever.
Example: If you tried to explain to me how and why Adam Sandler or Jerry Lewis was funny, it would never, ever click, you'd wind up with me staring at you blankly like you'd lost a couple marbles... no matter how you tried.

As for agendas, I do not make a secret of mine, while an Anarchist, I am also a Realist and prefer to set realistic and logical goals - sure, I would LIKE to remove police forces from our society, but I know damned well that just ain't gonna happen, and so I will settle for them actually doing the job they are assigned and financed to do, protect and preserve our collective rights while trying to keep the peace by acting as a functional deterrent to those who would otherwise consider acting to harm other people or their property.

In essence, I want them to perform their assigned task efficiently and with an absolute minimum of waste, excess or stupidity, which is how I feel about ANY government agency save those designed to do something utterly impossible in the first place.
(You cannot make an entire nation 100% safe, 100% of the time, it's ludicrous.)

I am completely up front about it, because I want it fully understood where I am coming from on this, personal hatred of em notwithstanding, if the job MUST be done, at least do it right.

Glad your Jury experience was less of a horror than mine, at least in your locality it works like it's supposed to, I guess.

You see, I almost sat on a Jury recently, and it was a somewhat more chilling experience for me - the jury was stacked against the defendant in the first place (the "random" software we were selected under is currently under investigation) and further loaded during the selection process, combined with jury "instructions" from the judge that more or less amounted to threats of contempt charges unless we found the defendant guilty, with a few subtle digs at the entire concept of nullification, followed by a few vague threats should we ponder such a thing... and watching the state select the venue, the evidence that would and would not be presented, who would and would not be allowed to be called as witnesses, and then finally browbeat the jury into being their yesmen after loading it that way offended me, but I kept my silence and my own council until the judge dared ask me directly if I was capable of finding the defendant guilty... and when I remained silent threatened me with contempt and reminded me that I was under oath, and I looked him in the eyes and said "No."
He threw me off the Jury at that point, and I was very thankful he didn't ask why.

We have an obligation to give people a fair trial, and when it's rigged THAT badly, as a Juror your constitutional DUTY at that point, is to ensure the defendant has a fair trial, and thus your ONLY answer to such a thing is "Not Guilty" - not because the defendant is innocent, but because the mockery of stagecraft the state has just produced is not a fair trial, and the constitution guarantees one as a basic right.

Which is kind of a shame, cause the guy was (very likely) guilty as the day is long, but duty required that I stand by the constitution in spite of his guilt or innocence of the crime at hand.

All in all, good stuff, but I did find one thing you stated that I rather disagree with.
"the officers can and will be subjected to significant penalty for falsifying an official record."
While we can all hope so, the general pattern of police misconduct penalties, even in proven cases, does not bear this out, as they are generally penalized significantly lighter than us peons were we convicted of the same offenses - something which has never made much sense to me, as someone who has sworn to uphold the law, then maliciously breaking it, should suffer a greater, not lesser, penalty than someone who never swore to uphold it in the first place.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 29, 2007 11:28 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Jack, my issue of sniff test failure is actually where Gonzales stated that he "Felt a weapon" during the struggle with King - am I to believe that a passing contact with a hard object, during a physical scuffle, that could have been a leatherman, key ring, wallet, cell phone or what-have-you, would then be instantly recognizable to officer Gonzales as a firearm ?

The "reaching for a weapon" thing is standard issue, but "felt a weapon" ?

That's where he really hangs himself - and unless he was making an arrest, what was he doing laying hands on the guy anyway, a question no one seems to have asked, at all.

Also not asked is, if the Taser effectively contained and disabled the suspect, why did officer Gonzales not just quickly cuff the guy, and pat him down when he was neutralised, if for nothing else, his own safety ?

Are we to believe that one or more Taser hits had almost no effect on the guy ?

I know if some cop just randomly called me over to his cruiser and started throwing (murder) accusations at ME without so much as a miranda warning, I would fear for my life and ponder heading for the hills too! - assess the facts of just how MANY convictions, especially for capital crimes, are overturned by DNA evidence, when it can be used and if there is any to be compared, which is comparitively rare, and knowing that, ponder the chances of someone roughly matching the description being tossed in the slam to get it off the unsolved roster.

Remember the BCPD Maxim (and it's in the BOOK, mind you, directly quoted from a BCPD homicide detective)
"We don't care if we got the RIGHT guy, long as we got SOME guy, to take the rap and close the case."

This has "drop gun" written all over it.
EDIT: Also worth asking, are King's fingerprints even ON the weapon ? noticed no one trigged on that one either.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 30, 2007 12:00 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
HK 'I see the cops fudging to make their position look better than it does--I see it as a reflexive habit of the authoritarian mindset'
I tend to agree; but I see is as part of the human condition, and little to do with the 'authoritarian mindset'. I see this type of behavior from people of all sorts 'libertarian' or 'authoritarian'.

Hey leadb, I'm glad you found something worth talking about in my post.

First, I want to be clear that I'm not trying to put people in boxes. Authoritarianism is a way of thinking anyone can adopt in a given circumstance, even though some people let that way of thinking dominate them to the point that it becomes their whole world.

Think about Malcolm Reynolds, he's about as libertarian in his thinking as they come, and yet in his personal life he can be disturbingly authoritarian. I remember one of the first things I read on this site, before the RWED even existed, was someone saying George W. Bush was like Malcolm Reynolds--talk about being floored! lol But Mal is nothing if not self-contradictory.

However, I don't see it as "human nature" so much as a nearly universally experienced facet of "human nurture." We teach authoritarianism to our children whenever we say "'Cause I said so!" Or when we shush their honest questions. And certainly when we physically punish them. It's part of most every organized religion and embedded in our educational systems.

What makes me think it isn't human nature, pervasive as it is, is that I've seen exceptions and I've seen people unlearn their authoritarianism. My own experiences and study of human psychology have shown that this world view is inflicted on us and scars us, but that we can heal.
Quote:
If I read Mr. Meyers' statement of the events, I am confident it would not be entirely consistent with the police version. In fact, if you could get statements from all the folks who were there, I'll bet you'd start wondering if they were all at the same event. Ask a cop 'off the record' how reliable eye witness testimony is, and you might well be surprised at the response. I'd lay even money you can find someone who will say they saw a cop draw a pistol on Mr. Meyers... remember all the discussion we had on that very topic of pistol vs taser.

Interestingly, going over the various officers' statements (what fun ), the one Finn quoted was the only one that spoke of "punching" over and over. I'm well aware that eye witnesses can be unreliable (you ever see Rashomon?) but one would hope that professional police officers would be better eye witnesses than the "average bear."
Quote:
Does this mean the folks who would make such a statement were lying; no, it just means they are wrong (or in fact were lying to try to smear the police). The difference is I would tend to assume the folks were not lying unless I had reason to suspect they were; and even then, unless I felt there was need to, I would not bother 'calling them' on the lie.

This whole lying thing is a real hot button issue for people.

"You lied!"

"They lied!"

"It's all lies, I tell you!!!"

In my experience, conscious and willful deception is much less common than inward lies and denial. I think we're more comfortable with the former, because it presents an image of human agency and control where the second option can feel pretty hopeless. If we're lying and we know it, all we need do is fess up. But if we can be lying without even knowing it, lying to ourselves about things that really matter, what then?

Well, that's where doing the difficult work of getting to know ourselves comes in. That's where psychotherapy comes in. That's where buddhist meditation comes in. Introspection, spiritual growth, the gaining of wisdom.

But, if our psyches are so prone to error, how can we be sure that our wisdom is real and not just some nonsense we dreamed up? The simplest answer is that wisdom and self-knowledge naturally reflect outward to our awareness of other people and the world around us. If we can predict what other people will do, that's a pretty strong indicator of wisdom. For instance, I thought it was horrendously unwise to go to war in Iraq, that it would be a disaster (I even posted on this board to that effect back before the war) and I count that as a sign of my wisdom in that instance; my knowledge of human nature.
Quote:
HK 'you're really playing up the importance of the cops' intentions, over their actions. '
I'm confused by this comment a bit; so if I'm going off on a tangent, kick me in the shin. Honestly, I'm trying very hard to down play the importance of the officers' statements in this matter; for several reasons.
1) If I envision myself in the cops shoes; I can easily imagine with all the thrashing around I see in the video that it is possible an elbow or something could have come into fairly 'aggressive' contact with an officer.
2) To me, whether a 'punch' is thrown or not, it is clear to me Mr. Meyers was resisting arrest; to me the -key- question was, 'Is the action to remove Mr. Meyers legally initiated or not'. I know others disagree with this point.
3) Human memory is a tricky thing, when one re-thinks an event through, it is very easy to re-color things as one believes them to be, or worse, as one wants them to be.

Whenever we talk about someone being "honest" about something, or "lying" about something, we're talking about their intention, aren't we? Their intention either to deceive us or to inform us? Your insistence on at least the plausibility that the police were not lying; your presentation of evidence supporting that what was said in the report could have fit their perception of the scene as it unfolded; your examples 1, 2, and 3 all focus on the honesty and veracity of the cops. This is a character issue and moves the discussion away from what the video tape demonstrated. The video tape cannot tell us anything about how honest the cops were, it can only show us what they actually did. The personal honesty or dishonesty of the police has no influence on the facts.

I'm not objecting to them because I find them dishonest. They may be, and that would suck. I'm objecting to them because they display a wholly inadequate awareness of what happened; of the "threat" posed by Andrew Meyer; of the most effective way to handle the situation and themselves. Police must make split-second decisions about this kind of thing all the time. They need to be good at it; better than the "average bear."

You said you had martial arts training. So have I. In martial arts we have to learn to assess potentiality constantly. If you can't read your opponent in the moments before the fight even happens, you're prolly gonna end up on the ground wondering what hit you, y'know? Every encounter is a test, and as far I can see, these cops flunked this one big time.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 30, 2007 12:14 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


I'm suprised this guy didn't get tazed.....

http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/1868084/

Man Has Cold Encounter With Morrisville Police Officer

Posted: Sep. 27, 2007

MORRISVILLE, N.C. — Morrisville police have charged a man with assault on a government official after an officer said the man coughed into his face during a traffic stop.

Officer Chris Gill said in his report that Kent Kauffman looked into his eyes before "hacking" in his face three times, according to Morrisville spokeswoman Stacie Galloway. Kauffman said he did cough from the window of his minivan but did so toward Gill's waist.

"He says I coughed in his face," Kauffman said. "But that would only work if he had a 4-foot-long face."

Kauffman said he developed a cough after his dog died last week. He said Gill put him in handcuffs and threw him into the side of the patrol car.

Gill pulled Kauffman over Tuesday for not wearing a seat belt. He now faces a misdemeanor charge and, if convicted, could spend up to 60 days in jail.

--------------------

Boy.. that sure sounded a lot more dangerous than a kid pinned on the ground by 4 police officers. I know I feel safer now that Illinois has the "Clickit or Ticket" program so cops can just come up to me and hassle me like this whenever they feel like it. Better keep some coughdrops on me just in case.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 30, 2007 3:43 AM

LEADB


Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Authoritarianism is a way of thinking anyone can adopt in a given circumstance, even though some people let that way of thinking dominate them to the point that it becomes their whole world.
I will concur that some people do this, and I believe that any time a mode like this becomes too heavily relied on by an individual, it's problematic.
Quote:

[ ... ]
However, I don't see it as "human nature" so much as a nearly universally experienced facet of "human nurture." We teach authoritarianism to our children whenever we say "'Cause I said so!" Or when we shush their honest questions. And certainly when we physically punish them. It's part of most every organized religion and embedded in our educational systems.

What makes me think it isn't human nature, pervasive as it is, is that I've seen exceptions and I've seen people unlearn their authoritarianism. My own experiences and study of human psychology have shown that this world view is inflicted on us and scars us, but that we can heal.
I think I found a point of confusion; I was not trying to indicate that authoritarianism is 'human nature', but rather the tendency to 'fudging to make their position look better than it does'. Perhaps your point is that you feel this tendency is part of the 'authoritarian mindset', which even someone who otherwise would not generally be considered 'authoritarian'. I can only say that I don't personally classify it as that, I would call it a 'typical fear response'. I will agree with you, it can be unlearned.
Quote:

Quote:
If I read Mr. Meyers' statement of the events, I am confident it would not be entirely consistent with the police version. In fact, if you could get statements from all the folks who were there, I'll bet you'd start wondering if they were all at the same event. Ask a cop 'off the record' how reliable eye witness testimony is, and you might well be surprised at the response. I'd lay even money you can find someone who will say they saw a cop draw a pistol on Mr. Meyers... remember all the discussion we had on that very topic of pistol vs taser.

Interestingly, going over the various officers' statements (what fun ), the one Finn quoted was the only one that spoke of "punching" over and over. I'm well aware that eye witnesses can be unreliable (you ever see Rashomon?

No, but I just looked it up on Google, sounds interesting
Quote:

) but one would hope that professional police officers would be better eye witnesses than the "average bear."
Hope, yes. Like everything else, this gets into training and/or weeding out. If I were running the investigation, one of the things I would attempt to derive is what training were the officers provided / expected to bring to the job. This would weigh into the assessment.
Quote:

Quote:
Does this mean the folks who would make such a statement were lying; no, it just means they are wrong (or in fact were lying to try to smear the police). The difference is I would tend to assume the folks were not lying unless I had reason to suspect they were; and even then, unless I felt there was need to, I would not bother 'calling them' on the lie.

This whole lying thing is a real hot button issue for people.

"You lied!"

"They lied!"

"It's all lies, I tell you!!!"

In my experience, conscious and willful deception is much less common than inward lies and denial.
Agreed.
Quote:
I think we're more comfortable with the former, because it presents an image of human agency and control where the second option can feel pretty hopeless. If we're lying and we know it, all we need do is fess up. But if we can be lying without even knowing it, lying to ourselves about things that really matter, what then?

Well, that's where doing the difficult work of getting to know ourselves comes in. That's where psychotherapy comes in. That's where buddhist meditation comes in. Introspection, spiritual growth, the gaining of wisdom.
Agreed.
Quote:


But, if our psyches are so prone to error, how can we be sure that our wisdom is real and not just some nonsense we dreamed up? The simplest answer is that wisdom and self-knowledge naturally reflect outward to our awareness of other people and the world around us. If we can predict what other people will do, that's a pretty strong indicator of wisdom. For instance, I thought it was horrendously unwise to go to war in Iraq, that it would be a disaster (I even posted on this board to that effect back before the war) and I count that as a sign of my wisdom in that instance; my knowledge of human nature.
Good call!
Quote:

Quote:
HK 'you're really playing up the importance of the cops' intentions, over their actions. '
I'm confused by this comment a bit; so if I'm going off on a tangent, kick me in the shin. Honestly, I'm trying very hard to down play the importance of the officers' statements in this matter; for several reasons.
1) If I envision myself in the cops shoes; I can easily imagine with all the thrashing around I see in the video that it is possible an elbow or something could have come into fairly 'aggressive' contact with an officer.
2) To me, whether a 'punch' is thrown or not, it is clear to me Mr. Meyers was resisting arrest; to me the -key- question was, 'Is the action to remove Mr. Meyers legally initiated or not'. I know others disagree with this point.
3) Human memory is a tricky thing, when one re-thinks an event through, it is very easy to re-color things as one believes them to be, or worse, as one wants them to be.

Whenever we talk about someone being "honest" about something, or "lying" about something, we're talking about their intention, aren't we? Their intention either to deceive us or to inform us? Your insistence on at least the plausibility that the police were not lying; your presentation of evidence supporting that what was said in the report could have fit their perception of the scene as it unfolded; your examples 1, 2, and 3 all focus on the honesty and veracity of the cops.
Actually, I disagree somewhat here. I consider item 1 to be an attempt to isolate myself from what the police said; put myself in their shoes, and determine if it is possible something happened which could have been interpreted as a 'punch'. This is an attempt to take away from relying on the honesty and veracity of the cops to instead the more objective 'account' I see in the videos.
Item two has nothing to do with the honesty or veracity of the cops, it has to do with assessing the situation, and whether or not the statement is critical (this is followed up later on the question of the need to call folks on their lies).
Item 3 does hit on that somewhat; however, it is an attempt explain why I am not so hung up on the honesty perspective in this issue.
Quote:

This is a character issue and moves the discussion away from what the video tape demonstrated. The video tape cannot tell us anything about how honest the cops were, it can only show us what they actually did. The personal honesty or dishonesty of the police has no influence on the facts.
Interestingly enough, I think I'm back to 'Agreed' here. In fact, you may have said much more simply what I was trying to get to.
Quote:


I'm not objecting to them because I find them dishonest. They may be, and that would suck. I'm objecting to them because they display a wholly inadequate awareness of what happened; of the "threat" posed by Andrew Meyer; of the most effective way to handle the situation and themselves. Police must make split-second decisions about this kind of thing all the time. They need to be good at it; better than the "average bear."
Agreed.
Quote:

You said you had martial arts training. So have I. In martial arts we have to learn to assess potentiality constantly. If you can't read your opponent in the moments before the fight even happens, you're prolly gonna end up on the ground wondering what hit you, y'know?
Agreed.
Quote:
Every encounter is a test, and as far I can see, these cops flunked this one big time.
Agreed. Which brings us back to my remarks above about taking into account training and / or expectations of what an officer should be bringing to the job. I think the only thing I really want to add at this point is, if it is determined that the cops performed 'to their training / expected skill set', then it becomes an issue of asking more systemic questions.

Who was responsible for setting the training / expectation levels?

eg: Was pulling the taser on Mr. Meyers consistent with the training received by the officer who did so?
If 'yes', then based on the discussions in the previous thread, I'd have to say a systemic failure occurred and the training needs to be improved; the officer need not be penalized per se (however, it might be time to penalize the one who -set- the training and / or standards).
If 'no', then the officer should be subject to some penalty.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 30, 2007 4:07 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


FREM: Someone may have already posted this, I'm only a little bit into the thread but
Quote:
Others might note that in the other thread I pointed out that hearing even *just ONE voice* decrying the officers behavior woulda done wonders for my faith in humanity, and as I have watched many other discussion boards "drowned out" by the virtue of frustrated folks giving up on all hope of reasoning and leaving - I strive to be that one voice, even if completely alone in my assertions on a topic.
In the cnn tape you can hear someone cry out WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS???, and someone else in the audience scream. It takes a certain amount of naivete, or a certain amount of balls, to question authority in the midst of their violence.

One of the things I learned first aid training is a truism in crowd behavior: All it takes is ONE PERSON to start an action, and then the rest follow. If the police had continued for any length of time, they might have had an mass action on their hands.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 30, 2007 4:14 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Meyer was "fighting" with the police? With one hand hanging onto paper? Throwing his arms up in the air or out to his side?

Fighting???



---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 30, 2007 4:22 AM

LEADB


Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Leadb, you make some very good points ...


Actually, you strike me as someone who is both clear on your agenda, and as needed state it fairly well and plainly, FWIW.

Quote:
I almost sat on a Jury recently, ...
Yeh, well... you remember I was glad the issue was a 'civil' rather than 'criminal'. I find the jury selection process rather disturbing myself. It is interesting (at least in my case) that they let the pool of jurors listen to the selection questions; excepting the first juror or two, the agendas become remarkably clear, and if someone wants 'out' (and is attentive and reasonably bright) one can easily provide answers that are bound to get one side or the other to eliminate you with a fully honest answer. Likewise, I saw jurors removed who I believe would have been 'fit to serve' but didn't meet some profile of one side or the other; that -was- disturbing.
Quote:

All in all, good stuff, but I did find one thing you stated that I rather disagree with.
"the officers can and will be subjected to significant penalty for falsifying an official record."
While we can all hope so, the general pattern of police misconduct penalties, even in proven cases, does not bear this out, as they are generally penalized significantly lighter than us peons were we convicted of the same offenses - something which has never made much sense to me, as someone who has sworn to uphold the law, then maliciously breaking it, should suffer a greater, not lesser, penalty than someone who never swore to uphold it in the first place.
Ok, I will grant there are 'at least' areas (jurisdictions) where your observation is likely true; and yes, I was definitely speaking to 'hope'.

After I posted last night, I kept thinking about the three situations you posted about. I'm going to call them

King Shooting - http://www.ktvu.com/news/14195631/detail.html

Cake - http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=local&id=5677461

Parking - http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1961.asp

(and add)
UF Taser - item kicking off this thread.

Of these four items, only one is 'resolved' at all to date. In the 'parking' incident, the officer was fired out right. Given what was documented in this case, do you feel the penalty was adequate for the incident documented? Ideally, they should review his past case load with an eye to rectifying an case where he actually followed through on the types of threats he made; not clear if this happened or if it might be on-going. Depending on what would be found, more significant penalties should be incurred... not sure what is actually happening. (Edit to add start) Though as mentioned previously (different thread), it is disturbing that if the 'suspect' had not had the audio recording running, in all likely hood the cop would have run free with this. Still not sure what to do with -that- fact. (End Edit)

I'm going to hit the 'cake' item next; this is just so clear cut, I can only say summary firing of the fellow who broke the girl's wrist is in order; but likely due to union, etc; the firing will have to wait for review processes to complete. I just cannot imagine how anyone can justify laying hands for 'failure to clean up cake.' I have to admit, this one is just beyond words. Assault charges would be appropriate in my opinion. Have to keep an eye on this one.

UF Taser incident. Been hashed out; certain legalities have not been clarified in my opinion (see my last post in the original Taser thread). Hard to say, but so far they are running investigations; we'll have to see what falls out.

King Shooting. Clearly the big issue here. As indicated, if they can show the cop planted the gun, I believe murder chargers would be appropriate. If they don't ... to complicated to comment on, but I suspect I will be suspecting foul play none the less.

So... let's see how these play out.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 30, 2007 4:49 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Wheelchair-Bound Woman Dies After Being Shocked With Taser 10 Times
http://news.yahoo.com/s/wkmg/20070919/lo_wkmg/14147512

Police in Roseland, Indiana, attack a peaceful dissident, and accuse him of battery
www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/015471.html

"Good Samaritan" woman thrown down, arrested trying to pick up her 6 year old from school
http://blog.nj.com/njv_bob_braun/2007/07/arrested_samaritan_has_police
.html
http://suebobsdiary.com/2007/09/09/new-jersey-injustice/

Woman says she didn't deserve Taser treatment
www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/26/tasered.woman/

Autistic Teen Tasered in Calif.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jAP12U4DXyMzcAK5cqW8ftmywJuQ

Chicago's finest under fire for brutality
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/law/09/27/police.complaints/index.html

I came up with dozens of examples of police abusing a person and lying about it afterwards in 2007 alone just by googling "police abuse taser 2007". Police who abuse their power should not JUST be fired, they should be arrested for assault, battery, second degree murder, or whatever charge happens to apply, plus perjury. And that's why every police department needs a civilian review board where complaints go FIRST. Before being filtered and massaged by the police department, the union, and the politicians who would "lose face"

Let me draw a parallel: Doctors. Because they work in life-and-death situations day after day, they get something of a "pass" when somebody dies under their care. It's something of an occupational hazard. But doctors- like police- can become jaded with their profession. Sometimes they are outright predatory. Over time, their training becomes less relevant. And like anyone else, they can screw up.

Doctor's licenses are self-policed: basically, they are held or revoked by the state AMA. It takes a near act-of-God to revoke a doctor's license: malice, negligence, rape. Malpractice doesn't mean "making a mistake", you need (in most cases) to show actual negligence. Being a consistent fuckup... and there are those.... is not enough to get your license revoked. And the unknowing public has no way to review a doctor's history. Consequently there is a small percentage of doctors who are responsible for the majority of lawsuits. Meanwhile, the rest of the doctors stay quiet... it's almost impossible to get one to testify against another (even tho it costs them money in the form of malpractice insurance) ... and they continue to support a self-policing system.

I realize that this is a little off-topic from HK's post (Sorry HK) I just don't trust myself to get into a long-winded description of what I think about Finn, Hero, Auraptor, Geezer et al. I'd prolly go off in a flurry of spittle and invective, so for the moment I'll be sticking with "facts".

For the record, my cousin is an immigration officer, his dad (before he retired) was a local police officer. They're both good people, but they have their off-the-record stories about their colleagues who have raped, robbed, beaten or otherwise abused people in their custody. Much of the rest of my family is involved in medicine in one way or another: doctor, nurse, med tech, optometrist etc. And like my "law enforcement" relative they have their horror stories about incompetence, laziness, drug abuse, and viciousness among medical staff.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 30, 2007 7:39 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Kaneman, I think the question we all want to know is why the police haven’t beat the hell out of you yet.




Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero



Why assume they haven't?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 30, 2007 9:03 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
I think I found a point of confusion; I was not trying to indicate that authoritarianism is 'human nature', but rather the tendency to 'fudging to make their position look better than it does'. Perhaps your point is that you feel this tendency is part of the 'authoritarian mindset', which even someone who otherwise would not generally be considered 'authoritarian'. I can only say that I don't personally classify it as that, I would call it a 'typical fear response'. I will agree with you, it can be unlearned.
Yeah, I see where you're coming from here. I really need to supply a bunch more context.

People have different reactions to authoritarianism, but part of everyone's reaction to authoritarianism is fear. Most specifically, fear of punishment. Fear of punishment is not inborn, but learned. It's a human cultural phenomenon. Just look at any household pet, they aren't born cringing when they misbehave, they learn to anticipate punishment from being punished. Likewise, children. Punishment and reward are fundamentally authoritarian concepts because without an authority, there is no one to do the punishing, no one to do the rewarding. Punishment and reward keep us half-childish, hoping, fearing, waiting.

Hey, I just found a link to an essay by Alice Miller that pretty much sums it all up (I sometimes forget that the Internet has info on things I researched long before it existed--or at least before I had anything to do with it ): http://www.naturalchild.com/alice_miller/adolf_hitler.html

I also highly recommend her book that she mentions, For Your Own Good: Hidden cruelty in Child-Rearing and the Roots of Violence.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 30, 2007 10:24 AM

LEADB


HK;
Ok, now we are cooking with gas. I think I'm clear on what you are meaning from the 'authoritarian' perspective in this context. So... let's revisit the post I was replying to....

For anyone who hasn't necessarily followed the full discussion, I'm going to link back to the original 2+2=5 post:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=30610#543287
and take a quote from there
Quote:

'I might get very philosophical about violence in our culture, but dayum, you don't swing on a cop and expect to be treated kindly.

But, of course, he didn't take any such swing, not while the tape was rolling. But Finn assumes he did. As far as I can tell, Finn manufactures doubt and gives the cops the full benefit there-of. And leadb, thinks Finn makes a good point. And I am floored. Just floored.'

I should probably quote the portion which I thought was a good point
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
See the above comment about the police report which says the kid "punched" the cops. Watch the video again, Finn. Truth hurts but man up to it.
I imagine it does. An honest person would have to conclude after watching the video that this kid, at the very least, was violently gesturing – which could be interpreted as punching if you’re on the receiving end of those gestures. There are several scenes when he’s on the ground and not visible, and given his behavior so far, it’s not a stretch to believe he’s punching the police.

I will now add further qualification (which perhaps might help), I was referencing to was this subsection 'was violently gesturing, which could be interpreted as punching if you’re on the receiving end of those gestures.' This is the part I had in mind when when I was indicating the officer contending he was punched may not have been intentionally lying (perhaps wrong, different problem). And this was the -sole- intention of my 'good point' comment.
I personally would not give credence to any contention that Mr. Meyers ever intentionally punched the police (which I believe I did clarify in a post above); if you felt I was in my post (and re-reading, I can easily see why someone might think I was), I can understand better your reaction to my posting.

I suspect you and I are much closer to being on the same page. I would, for instance, agree that perhaps a driver for an officer (or anyone) to unconsciously 'redefine' in his memory a 'rough contact' as a 'punch' fear of the 'authoritarian mode' of government. But I'll also observe we are getting into deep supposition here.

In any event, I'll have to read that page you linked in depth, it sounds interesting; I scanned it quickly to get the sense of where I think you are driving. I will caution that in using 'authoritarian' and 'libertarian' as we now are is a bit off 'common usage', but off hand I'd be darned to come up with a distinct terms.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 30, 2007 10:54 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


FWIW- Having looked at both videos I would be hard-pressed to characterize the student's gestures as "violent". "Vigorous", maybe. But he spent a lot of his time throwing his hands high up into the air or out from his sides ("What did I do?") while hanging on to his papers.

The largest physical action was from Mr Beefy Cop. Being built somewhat like a fireplug, he firmly took ahold of Meyer's arm, got low, and shoved. That lifted Meyer up a little, causing him to hop as he had to get his feet back under himself while indeed resisting (leaning backwards and trying not to be moved). But "violence"? There was nothing more there than the kind of pushing and shoving we used to do as kids while we were horsing around.


I've been accidentally backhanded while someone gestured, and putting myself in the cop's place I'm fairly certain I'd be able to tell the difference between an unintended contact and an intended one. (Also, as was stated b4, only ONE police report referred to "punching") An unintended contact might piss me off, especially if I was elbowed in the eye, mouth, or nose ("Hey! Be more careful!") but it would take a deliberate decision on my part to interpret that as "punching" (as one cop did) or "violent" and "fighting" as Finn did.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 30, 2007 11:08 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Siggy - I thought that's what I heard, voice sounded female, and I wasn't sure whether she was laying into the protestor or the officers, and it's a damn sad commentary when folks see something they feel is horribly wrong, yet are too afraid to stand up and do something even as minor as verbally protest it because they are afraid of what might happen to THEM for doing so.

A belief unfortunately reinforced by officer conduct, like the teen tasered over failure to produce ID, one of the officers in that incident issued an undeniable threat to the other students, and in the cake incident above, it looked like (again, no audio on the laptop) one of the security folks came after whoever was holding the camera - this is a common practice, up to and including arrest for it in some cases.

We really need to not be afraid of making police accountable, and unless they really ARE a criminal mafia, they need to not be afraid of being filmed - if it's good enough for us peons, it's good enough for them, and if they are really doing the job correctly and following procedure, a video can only HELP their case against the suspect - this is the logic they use when they point cameras at us, and so it should apply equally when those cameras are turned in the other direction, shouldn't it ?

I did forestall an incident myself with one back in 1989, ironically at almost the exact spot where that one couple was arrested for trying to ask directions - the police station in that area is more or less on cherry hill road, and as it's on the border of baltimore city and north anne arundel county, the city cops often pull over folks from the burbs and hassle them, especially women, as they come on shift or are going off.

I was waiting at the bus stop across the street intenting to catch a ride to the convention center if the damn bus ever showed up, when they pulled over some young lady for reasons unknown and started with the hassle/shakedown, dunno why they pulled her over, but once they made her step out of the car and rather blatantly felt her up during the patdown, something in my head just snapped... I was carrying my old concord 110mm camera, but didn't have any film in it, intending to buy some downtown, IF I could even find 110mm anymore, that was, but I had a working flash and fresh batteries in it - and so I started "snapping pics", while moving sideways like I was getting a better angle, in order to draw their attention to the fact that they were being watched.

The atmosphere of that traffic stop changed instantly, and within about 2 minutes one of the officers (there were two) threw what appeared to be the ladys drivers license at her, which she snatched off the ground and then got in her car, taking an immediate right onto the short bit of cherry hill rd between Rte2 north and Rte2 south, where the police station rests, followed by another right onto Rte2 south, headed OUT of the city, back to anne arundel county - guess whatever biz she had in the city wasn't worth the risks presented by it's law enforcement, if not also it's criminal element.

As for what mighta happened then, thankfully a moot point, cause as one of the officers gestured angrily at me and began to cross the street, along comes the MTA 14 northbound, and given the nature of the neighborhood, it doesn't linger at THAT bus stop, I hopped aboard while it was still rocking and the driver gunned it before I made the second step, and my last view of them cops was through the back window dissappearing into the distance - and no way were they gonna stop a freakin city bus, on the hanover street bridge, over something that petty.

Way I see it, if something goes down and you have a camera and are willing to take a little risk - by all means use it, if the police are in the right, you'll help them document the case a little better, and if they're not, you might just convince them to behave.

Funny thing is, y'all have just convinced me to spring for a digital camera once the new mainboard comes in, I gotta bunch of large SD memory cards I use to transfer data, and could easily spare one to keep pictures on.

As I said, perhaps we can turn their own surveillance society back at them, and if nothing else, shame them into behaving - this kinda thing went on long and long before technology allowed us to document it, it's not so much that it's gotten worse, although I suspect that it has for reasons detailed in other posts, as much as the fact that we can finally catch them in the act, subverting the problem of them getting a free pass when there is no evidence against their word alone.

It's a thought.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 30, 2007 11:09 AM

LEADB


Main Entry: vi·o·lent
Pronunciation: -l&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin violentus; akin to Latin vis strength -- more at VIM
1 : marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity (a violent attack)
2 a : notably furious or vehement (a violent denunciation) b : EXTREME, INTENSE (violent pain) (violent colors)
3 : caused by force : not natural (a violent death)
4 a : emotionally agitated to the point of loss of self-control (became violent after an insult) b : prone to commit acts of violence (violent prison inmates)
- vi·o·lent·ly adverb
===
I stand by the 'primary' definition of the word 'violent' above.

This is another thing I think we do to much in these threads is nit the use of words. If it makes you feel better, I also prefer the use of 'vigorously gestured' and that is less easily misunderstood. However, the originally stated version is also acceptable English, and I didn't want to quibble that point.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 30, 2007 11:19 AM

LEADB


Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
...
Way I see it, if something goes down and you have a camera and are willing to take a little risk - by all means use it, if the police are in the right, you'll help them document the case a little better, and if they're not, you might just convince them to behave.
...
Also, carry a small memory card to palm off to the officers when asked for it. They are dirt cheap. You can always provide them a copy of the data later.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 30, 2007 11:34 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I guess I'm reacting to Finns' persistent use of words connoting intentional harm ("fighting", "violent").

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 30, 2007 11:40 AM

FREMDFIRMA


HKC, I wasn't gonna get into that one much, as I didn't feel folks here really had the background or the interest, but yeah, that kind of thing is much of my world and my work, the kind I don't get paid for, but do nonetheless - and what sparked my efforts behind ISAC, Protect, and other fronts dealing with that issue.

If you wanna get really technical with it, and as a few of our folks DO work in scientific fields, I'll share that end of it - the work of Doctor Bruce M Perry, of Baylor U and the CITIVAS initiative relative.
http://www.childtrauma.org/ctamaterials/default.asp#Neglect
I warn you though, much of this stuff is heavily technical and requires a bit of mental heavy-lifting as well as enough scientific and medical background to really comprehend it.

Not only can such treatment alter a developing persons attitudes, at it's extreme, it can alter the physical development and even structure of the brain itself, but at any point can cause significant attachment and authority issues combined with a wide range of sattelite side effects.

People, it's like pounding a nail through a wall - sure you can remove the nail, fill in the hole, and paint it over, but that hole is ALWAYS gonna be there, you cannot make it go away, you cannot make it not have ever happened, all you can do is damage control, one reason I am so pissed about what we DO to kids in the name of making them productive, obediant little corporate drones, ready and willing to serve their upper-echelon masters.

The fallout from it is greater than you can ever imagine, it's like rolling pebbles off the summit of a mountain, sure, not every one is gonna cause an avalance, but sooner or later, you get your Carl Panzrams and suchlike, broken people smart enough to know exactly where the blame lies and retaliate against it's source.
(See Also: Works of Andrew Vachss, Sub-Search "Wesley".)

My interest in this has currently been refocused due to personal issues, and I wonder like hell right now about genetic predisposition, folks like me are not produced in a vaccuum, and one of the things that sent me off to maryland was the increasingly disturbing behavior of one of my nieces - I swear, now I know how Riddic felt about Jack...

Genetics loads the gun, environment pulls the trigger.

The situation, which I will not detail here for many reasons, is like watching a rerun of a well known TV show, same stressful environment, same social pressures - for crying out loud they sent the kid to the same nightmare hell of a school which expelled ME in a supernova of hate and fury on both ends of the deal over their control issues, culminating with an attempt to enforce a ludicrous dress code for no better reason than to display their own control over us - and I get to watch and cringe damn near helplessly, as my niece becomes angry at, and hostile to, all elements of human society, and try to be a helping witness and a guide to maybe living in that society without mental breakdown and self destruct.

I was angry enough at that happening to ME, watching this hostile savagery we call a society tear apart the humanity and morality of a young girl because she doesn't fit their assembly line model has made me psychotic with rage, at this point, I guess you could say now it's REALLY personal.

Take the most horrific event of your own life, the one that by choice you'd see happen to no one else, even your worst enemy, ever - and then imagine being constrained by our laws and society to watch almost helplessly as that society then maliciously and deliberately inflicts it upon your youngest, most vulnerable living relation, and you MIGHT, MAYBE, begin to understand how I feel about those Laws, and this Society.

You wanna know where that anger is coming from, well, now you know.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 30, 2007 12:01 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
This is another thing I think we do to much in these threads is nit the use of words. If it makes you feel better, I also prefer the use of 'vigorously gestured' and that is less easily misunderstood. However, the originally stated version is also acceptable English, and I didn't want to quibble that point.
That’s a never-ending source of frustration and one of the principle reasons why discussions go “bad” on this board. After everyone has stated their case but failed to be persuasive, the discussion then starts to cannibalize definitions in a desperate attempt to sustain itself.


Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 30, 2007 12:13 PM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Main Entry: vi·o·lent
Pronunciation: -l&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin violentus; akin to Latin vis strength -- more at VIM
1 : marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity (a violent attack)
2 a : notably furious or vehement (a violent denunciation) b : EXTREME, INTENSE (violent pain) (violent colors)
3 : caused by force : not natural (a violent death)
4 a : emotionally agitated to the point of loss of self-control (became violent after an insult) b : prone to commit acts of violence (violent prison inmates)
- vi·o·lent·ly adverb
===
I stand by the 'primary' definition of the word 'violent' above.

This is another thing I think we do to much in these threads is nit the use of words. If it makes you feel better, I also prefer the use of 'vigorously gestured' and that is less easily misunderstood. However, the originally stated version is also acceptable English, and I didn't want to quibble that point.
Not exactly sure where you're going with this, leadb, but you've just crystallized for me what I don't like about siting dictionary definitions of words to make an argument. Unless a person is just misusing the word altogether (which has been known to happen), using a dictionary definition to argue the meaning of a word is pretty irrelevant since the meaning of a given word is so completely dependent upon the context of its usage. What makes the #1 definition in the dictionary #1 is not that it's most "correct" but simply that it is most common. Dictionary definitions completely ignore context.

In the context of Andrew Meyer, the "violence" of his gestures is being used to determine whether or not the cops were justified in using "violence" in retaliation. In this context, definition #4a seems the most appropriate to the context and the presumptive intent of the folks using the word. No?

Even so, #1's inclusion of the phrase "extreme force" would seem to remove Mr. Meyer's wriggling and jumping from the category of "violent" as well.

But again, I'm not sure what you're driving at with posting from the dictionary.

(I'm sorry if I sound snippy. I have a really bad attitude about arguing from dictionaries, please, don't take it personally. I'm actually very happy you sited the dictionary in this case as it's helped me to clarify my thoughts. Double plus good, that! )

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 30, 2007 12:14 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Why assume they haven't?
Good point.

Is it because you violently gesture, or just hysterically or vigorously gesture?


Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 30, 2007 12:26 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


The problem Frem is that intimidating kids works well enough on enough kids to make it seem like it works on everyone. And if it works on kids it should work on adults too- all, you need is a bigger club (a taser, an army, unemployment) to get people to do what you want them to do.

But then there are those 15-30%... oppositional, stubborn, retarded, mentally ill, drunk, or drugged... who are not gonna back down. They need a different approach. And the remainder look at them and wonder: why is that person getting coddled? I never was coddled! Beat the hell out of them until they submit. THEY DESERVE IT.

I tried to figure out the difference between Finn (poor Finn, he's so much more open that those silent people who agree with him, he's become a kind of whipping-boy for the topic) and myslef.

My first thought was: Well, Finn is reacting from fear. But hey, I had a "touch" of PTSD that lasted about a year. I know what it's like to be fearful, so that's not it.

Then I thought- Yeah, but Finn doesn't want to do the dirty work himself. He'd rather stand behind the cops, or the military, or the President and let them make the decisions and take the risks for him. But yanno, if I were faced with a hostile person (a criminal perhaps) I'd stand behind a bigger, better-armed person myself. So in that respect we're alike.

And then I thought: The difference between us is that Finn believes that intimidation resolves disagreement. All I can figure is that must have been how he was raised. He became used to violence and intimidation because that's what he was exposed to. It's become such a part of his mental makeup, nothing else seems quite as meaningful.

The funny thing is, even people who have consciously rejected abuse- as my SO has done- are still geared to responding to it more than anything else. Calm reason doesn't seem to sink in as much as a raised voice. Its' only when the threat level goes up that they prick up and pay attention. Its' sad that so many people are conditioned to respond like that, and then pass it on.

BTW, there are interesting programs that help kids trending towards gang life turn themselves around with very little recidivism. And it's not those "drill instruction" - type "reform schools". Its' working with severely disabled kids or other less fortunate. Once thees kids develop a sympathy for others, they develop a sympathy for themselves, and they no longer treat themselves or others so harshly.



---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 30, 2007 12:37 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And then I thought: The difference between us is that Finn believes that intimidation resolves disagreement. All I can figure is that must have been how he was raised. He became used to violence and intimidation because that's what he was exposed to. It's become such a part of his mental makeup, nothing else seems quite as meaningful.
Typical Sygnym strawman. Invent an opinion; attribute it to me; then draw the conclusion that I’m mentally unstable. So what does Signym’s laws of psychiatry say about someone who feels the need to mischaracterize someone’s opinion in an attempt to attack their character? What childhood trauma did you experience that made you so insulting and conceited?


Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 30, 2007 12:47 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


FINN: Sorry Finn, I didn't mean to imply that you were mentally unstable or anything like that. And you prolly learned your attitudes in the same way I learned how to be an insufferable prig: thru childhood experience. I wonder, if we were to take a poll, who felt accepted as a child?.

HK: Interesting link.


---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 30, 2007 1:52 PM

LEADB


Quote:
Sig
I guess I'm reacting to Finns' persistent use of words connoting intentional harm ("fighting", "violent").
I thought you might be. Interestingly enough, if you look back at the original thread, I believe you will I responded back to the 'fighting' phrasing by referring instead to 'resisting', as I did think the word 'fighting' was over the top; at the same time cognizant that Finn may not have meant anything more by using the word fighting than I meant by resisting. This allows me to re-cast and if Finn had taken deep objecting to my re-cast, he could clarify that he really meant -fighting-. In any case, different words will be hot words for different folk.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Main Entry: vi·o·lent
...
- vi·o·lent·ly adverb
===
I stand by the 'primary' definition of the word 'violent' above.

This is another thing I think we do to much in these threads is nit the use of words. If it makes you feel better, I also prefer the use of 'vigorously gestured' and that is less easily misunderstood. However, the originally stated version is also acceptable English, and I didn't want to quibble that point.
Not exactly sure where you're going with this, leadb, but you've just crystallized for me what I don't like about siting dictionary definitions of words to make an argument. Unless a person is just misusing the word altogether (which has been known to happen), using a dictionary definition to argue the meaning of a word is pretty irrelevant since the meaning of a given word is so completely dependent upon the context of its usage. What makes the #1 definition in the dictionary #1 is not that it's most "correct" but simply that it is most common. Dictionary definitions completely ignore context.

In the context of Andrew Meyer, the "violence" of his gestures is being used to determine whether or not the cops were justified in using "violence" in retaliation. In this context, definition #4a seems the most appropriate to the context and the presumptive intent of the folks using the word. No?

Even so, #1's inclusion of the phrase "extreme force" would seem to remove Mr. Meyer's wriggling and jumping from the category of "violent" as well.

But again, I'm not sure what you're driving at with posting from the dictionary.
...
I wasn't driving far with it, that's for sure.
I concede that a lot of times the 'dictionary' arguing is used in a hostile way; Sig didn't seem to take it that way, and I sure didn't mean it. I was just trying to point out that -I- was taking the meaning to be the first definition, and trying to be clear that I wasn't picking some obscure definition of violent.
"extreme force".... I can respect that you perceive that he did not act with 'extreme force'. Some of the 'moves' he makes look to me to carry a lot of muscular exertion... and I'd be willing to wager that at times there was extreme force behind some of his movements. I will also note that I do not believe that at any time, Mr. Meyer intended to direct that force at the officers beyond the intention to slip away; but still feel there was a chance it might have resulted in some unintended contact. If you feel differently, I will respect that.

Any way, I feel a massive repeat coming on; so if anyone wants to know my position, I'd ask they review my last 10 posts or so on the topic. I don't think I have anything more new to say at this time.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 30, 2007 2:21 PM

LEADB


HK,
Finished reading the article you linked to. For the most part it seems consistent with the early childhood development methods I 'picked up' from my wife, who got her degree in elementary ed and masters in special ed. I guess the question gets to be how do you propagate this around to the folks who need it. I think this type of material is pretty available to folks who care enough about being good parents to look at the shelves for modern parenting guides. I guess... I really don't know if there's still seriously bad garbage out there tho. Anyone done the cruise lately for parenting guides?
=========
Frem,
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
...
for crying out loud they sent the kid to the same nightmare hell of a school which expelled ME in a supernova of hate and fury on both ends of the deal over their control issues, culminating with an attempt to enforce a ludicrous dress code for no better reason than to display their own control over us - and I get to watch and cringe damn near helplessly, as my niece becomes angry at, and hostile to, all elements of human society, and try to be a helping witness and a guide to maybe living in that society without mental breakdown and self destruct.
...
-Frem
Ah, that sucks. I know with my adopted daughter, we worked pretty hard to try to find a situation to 'fit' her character. It was a struggle, but I like to think what we were able to make arrangements for at least helped take some of the bumps out. But you are absolutely right, the 'system' is designed for the typical kid; it's pretty hard on the ones who don't fit the mold.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 30, 2007 3:13 PM

HKCAVALIER


Heya Frem,

I've never seen the anger you express in your posts as anything but justified. You're talking about the worst kind of betrayal. That kind of thing teaches us something, though, don't it? The absurd futility of revenge.

Even just mentioning Maryland in the context of childhood trauma gives me a shiver (don't tell me you've had to deal with any of that Rockville shit).

But again, I've always valued what you've had to offer this board. Your voice is one the world really needs to listen to.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 30, 2007 5:27 PM

FREMDFIRMA


"I really don't know if there's still seriously bad garbage out there tho. Anyone done the cruise lately for parenting guides?"

Hell yes, google the phrase "poisonous pedagogy"
Dobson is a monster, and Esso... who reccommends applying those same methods to infants, mind you, has been linked to being the cause of a Failure-to-Thrive condition among them.

No matter what mask it hides behind, the old "break them to your will" style of crushing anything but instant obediance as viciously as possible is still out there and likely always will be, set forth as a straw for desperate parents unable to cope to grab onto as they sink, and that's a tragedy cause of the damage it does - they "market" in much the same fashion exploitive cults do, finding folks in over their head, emotionally distraught, and offering to solve all their problems at a stroke, the folks they hook, they WANT to believe this shit works, and will never even to themselves admit they've been had, you see ?

I won't give locations, HKC, since this may come to legal means and potentially a custody fight, so, no details, but I am infinately familiar with Maryland and it's bullshit, up to and including their hidden "behavioral modification" facilities out in the boonies of linthicum-timonium, which are mostly run by the catholic church, which has it's own stranglehold on the states educational and social systems as well.

And as well more than familiar with RICA, the more horrific end of that particular kind of drastic conditioning, although thankfully never a victim, RICA being run by that same collective of psychos behind Straight, Inc... and Taylor Manor being another one, which came to my attention when I rescued my cousin from it, via blatant and outright threat of force and violence, when he was chucked in there by his parents for the horrific crime of self defense.

And worse, I know about "Phoenix", the supposed 'second-chance' school system within the school system designed to slam those square pegs back into the round holes no matter what it takes, and cull out the more vicious and disturbed of them and set them in the mainline to the local army recruiters office - something that wouldn't make sense to anyone who didn't know of William Archibald Haroths dual paychecks and loyalties.

I know ALL of it, HKC, and my "Revenge" has been dumping sand in their gears and working towards the destruction of thier ability to do this to others, stripping away their veils of secrecy, documenting their darkest deeds and generally being such a pain in the ass that I fear for the safety of my niece if they ever find out she is related to me.

And see, that was my line, the line that shall not be crossed - I was gonna go hands off and not meddle, but I never in my darkest dreams imagined she would find herself staring down the barrels of the same situation, and being that I have eyes-on confirmation, now comes the time for intervention - only, THIS time I am not some mere kid they can lie or retaliate against at whim, they'll be facing an angry adult with file cabinets worth of their darkest dirt, ready to bury them in it if they give me one whit of an excuse.

And yes, she IS one of them that requires a different approach, especially now that all the triggers have been pulled here - you can reason with her, you can ask, but you give orders and she'll just set her feet and stare, and the harder you push, the stronger she stands, and that means nothing good for the typical crush-to-the-mold "education" system of the state of maryland.

I love how they call wanting a simple answer, a mental illness - when someone TELLS a child to do something, and they ask "Why?"... "Cause I said so!" is not, and should not, be a viable answer, ever.
(and that's not just being a prat either, she, like me, really does want an honest answer, if for no other reason than to understand the intended goal of what you just asked her to do, and if given one, will proceed to do what you asked with alacrity and good cheer.)

To be cast as mentally ill, shamed and disparaged, deliberately stigmatised by your school for being a human being, a creature of logic, reason and empathy, instead of an obediant little drone with no thought or will of your own but what the state demands of you ?

What do you think that does to a kid ?

Thanks be to every god of any pantheon that she doesn't show any evidence of the fascination with weapons I did at that age - that could culminate in a serious situation indeed.

I have some legal research before me before I commit to a course of action, but sure as hell imma do something, if naught else be that one single voice of humanity within a roaring crowd of inhumanity.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 21, 2024 14:36 - 7470 posts
Sir Jimmy Savile Knight of the BBC Empire raped children in Satanic rituals in hospitals with LOT'S of dead bodies
Thu, November 21, 2024 13:19 - 7 posts
Matt Gaetz, typical Republican
Thu, November 21, 2024 13:13 - 143 posts
Will Your State Regain It's Representation Next Decade?
Thu, November 21, 2024 12:45 - 112 posts
Fauci gives the vaccinated permission to enjoy Thanksgiving
Thu, November 21, 2024 12:38 - 4 posts
English Common Law legalizes pedophilia in USA
Thu, November 21, 2024 11:42 - 8 posts
The parallel internet is coming
Thu, November 21, 2024 11:28 - 178 posts
Is the United States of America a CHRISTIAN Nation and if Not...then what comes after
Thu, November 21, 2024 10:33 - 21 posts
The Rise and Fall of Western Civilisation
Thu, November 21, 2024 10:12 - 51 posts
Biden* to punish border agents who were found NOT whipping illegal migrants
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:55 - 26 posts
Hip-Hop Artist Lauryn Hill Blames Slavery for Tax Evasion
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:52 - 11 posts
GOP House can't claim to speak for America
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:50 - 12 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL