Cops brutally taze protester, then turn on the man filming it - Polidicks

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;46876794]Which is not ok in my book. Private property should be fair game for protest (NOTE: Not personal property).[/QUOTE] How do you define private property vs. personal property?

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;46876751]I mean if there was a legitimate reason for it, sure.[/QUOTE] what constitutes a legitimate reason? under what exact circumstances is it ok to protest on private property without consent of the owner?

Here's a hint to the police in this country: If you feel the urge to beat up on or arrest someone for filming you, that probably means you're doing something you shouldn't be doing. Duh. Getting defensive about being filmed is a sure sign that something fishy is going on...like piling on somebody and tazing the shit out of him for entirely passive resistance. That dude's hands never left his sides.

[QUOTE=Apache249;46876803]How do you define private property vs. personal property?[/QUOTE] Well, I would support more legal clarification on the distinction, because its a bit of a grey area in the eyes of the law as of now. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property[/URL] [editline]7th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Fort83;46876814]Private property is personal property.[/QUOTE] see above

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;46876822]Here's a hint to the police in this country: If you feel the urge to beat up on or arrest someone for filming you, that probably means you're doing something you shouldn't be doing. Duh. Getting defensive about being filmed is a sure sign that something fishy is going on...like piling on somebody and tazing the shit out of him for entirely passive resistance. That dude's hands never left his sides.[/QUOTE] It's an assumption that the reason they arrested the other guy was just because he was filming. Also, the guy's hands never leaving his side was the problem; if you're physically resisting, you're physically resisting, and you're also an idiot because the police are going to "win". They aren't going to sit around and wait for you to stop "passively resisting", they are going to arrest you as quickly as possible.

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;46876819]what constitutes a legitimate reason? under what exact circumstances is it ok to protest on private property without consent of the owner?[/QUOTE] Any circumstance where the objective is being made a point of interest I suppose.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;46876822]Here's a hint to the police in this country: If you feel the urge to beat up on or arrest someone for filming you, that probably means you're doing something you shouldn't be doing. Duh. Getting defensive about being filmed is a sure sign that something fishy is going on...like piling on somebody and tazing the shit out of him for entirely passive resistance. That dude's hands never left his sides.[/QUOTE] Is it your opinion that "passive resistance"... isn't a form of resistance?

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;46876837]Well, I would support more legal clarification on the distinction, because its a bit of a grey area in the eyes of the law as of now. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property[/URL] [editline]7th January 2015[/editline] see above[/QUOTE] personal property is stuff, not land, it's not a gray area at all

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;46876857]personal property is stuff, not land, it's not a gray area at all[/QUOTE] Well, under some definitions, stuff that is not of personal use (such as say, a huge supply of items that you are holding not for your use, but for profit) would fall under private property. Thats why I think it needs more clarification in law.

Here in the UK, no (good and professional) officer would say 'This guy has got to go to jail...' Way to escalate a simple arrest, legitimate or not. [QUOTE=Awesomecaek;46875000]Yeah that's pretty horrible, I wonder if anybody gonna defend this as policemen truly doing their job, legally and honestly. I am wondering how much would it take to make an undershirt with a conductive layer, like maybe a fine copper mesh sandwiched in tinfoil, as that should serve as a Faraday cage and protect you from most of the effect of a tazer.[/QUOTE] Tazer's are 50,000 volts, but only about 1250 goes into the individual. The rest is to help it jump into the individual. Might need to try harder than that. It also doesn't hurt. The barbs can hurt when they're removed, but all the voltage going through your body just stops you moving. That's it.

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;46876852]Any circumstance where the objective is being made a point of interest I suppose.[/QUOTE] so basically any protest ever you dont see how it might create problems if people were just allowed to be on your property without your consent to protest?

[QUOTE=Fort83;46876867]I stand corrected then. Doesn't really apply here though. Walmart isn't an object that is moveable. It's a building owned by a company. It's private property. Plus how does one protest on personal property then? Like a shirt?[/QUOTE] nonono, you got it backwards! I think protest on private is ok, not personal.

-snip- Edit lag.

[QUOTE=Apache249;46876853]Is it your opinion that "passive resistance"... isn't a form of resistance?[/QUOTE] It is my opinion that passive resistance does not warrant the same use of force as, say, attacking a police officer. You don't need five guys piling on top of somebody and repeatedly tasing him.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;46875000]Yeah that's pretty horrible, I wonder if anybody gonna defend this as policemen truly doing their job, legally and honestly. I am wondering how much would it take to make an undershirt with a conductive layer, like maybe a fine copper mesh sandwiched in tinfoil, as that should serve as a Faraday cage and protect you from most of the effect of a tazer.[/QUOTE] it'd need to be grounded wouldn't it?

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;46876874]Well, under some definitions, stuff that is not of personal use (such as say, a huge supply of items that you are holding not for your use, but for profit) would fall under private property. Thats why I think it needs more clarification in law.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=soccerskyman;46876883]nonono, you got it backwards! I think protest on private is ok, not personal.[/QUOTE] personal property is not a location though you cant protest on someones personal property (unless you like stand on their car or some shit I guess?), there isnt any distinction bettween the private property owned by a business and the property owned by a person for their house with regards to trespassing

[QUOTE=Megadave;46876092]Have you seen what the fuck is happening recently? They need to be taught what is right and what is wrong, because obviously the Academy doesn't teach these things. They are supposed to protect the citizens, so they need the most criticism of them all. These are people who need to do their job. And if you can argue that they aren't here to protect the public, then what the fuck use are they then? They are right up there with soldier's who need to fucking be trained better. If we had trained cops better, and hired ones with a higher IQ, we wouldn't have these issues. Any strong dumbass can become a cop.[/QUOTE] Is this really the effect the media reporting bias has on you? Christ. [QUOTE=Megadave;46875880]That police officers don't want to do more work than they have to, so they add on more bullshit charges.[B] This is why they are so fat[/B].[/QUOTE] I can't tell if you're serious anymore.

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;46876879]so basically any protest ever you dont see how it might create problems if people were just allowed to be on your property without your consent to protest?[/QUOTE] Yeah, as long as its an actual protest, its cool. If they didn't interfere with personal property, then they should be allowed imo.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;46876888]It is my opinion that passive resistance does not warrant the same use of force as, say, attacking a police officer. You don't need five guys piling on top of somebody and repeatedly tasing him.[/QUOTE] So you're trying to say he didn't need to be subdued based on the fact that he'd been subdued? How would you personally get a passive resister to stop in order to effect and arrest? [editline]7th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=soccerskyman;46876898]Yeah, as long as its an actual protest, its cool. If they didn't interfere with personal property, then they should be allowed imo.[/QUOTE] Why limit the activities to protest then? Can I start running a non-profit volunteer homeless shelter out of your garage? Basically where do you see your rights as a property owner ending? [editline]7th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Memobot;46876875]Here in the UK, no (good and professional) officer would say 'This guy has got to go to jail...' Way to escalate a simple arrest, legitimate or not.[/QUOTE] No way resisting arrest is tolerated in the UK

[QUOTE=Fort83;46876929] little excessive.[/QUOTE] :v: [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Put more effort into your posts" - Blazyd))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Apache249;46876904]So you're trying to say he didn't need to be subdued based on the fact that he'd been subdued? [editline]7th January 2015[/editline] Why limit the activities to protest then? Can I start running a non-profit volunteer homeless shelter out of your garage? [editline]7th January 2015[/editline] No way resisting arrest is tolerated in the UK[/QUOTE] Well personally, I'd agree with that. Encourage it even. However, that moves onto the more broad the system of capitalism, but this isn't what this discussion is about.

[QUOTE=Apache249;46876790]So I need you to agree with my protest to use your property?[/QUOTE] Yes this is how private property works [QUOTE=soccerskyman;46876794]Which is not ok in my book. Private property should be fair game for protest (NOTE: Not personal property).[/QUOTE] It doesn't really matter if it's okay in your book or not. If someone owns property they have every right to dictate what you can and cannot do on it. They paid money for that property, they paid money to build that building there, they pay money for utilities on that property, you pay nothing, so you have no say. [QUOTE=soccerskyman;46876837]Well, I would support more legal clarification on the distinction, because its a bit of a grey area in the eyes of the law as of now. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property[/URL][/QUOTE] There is no grey area. They own it, it's theirs, not yours, you obey their rules or you leave. [QUOTE=soccerskyman;46876883]nonono, you got it backwards! I think protest on private is ok, not personal.[/QUOTE] If the owner of that private property says it's not ok, it's not ok. You're not allowed to determine for someone else if something is ok on THEIR property. [QUOTE=soccerskyman;46876898]Yeah, as long as its an actual protest, its cool. If they didn't interfere with personal property, then they should be allowed imo.[/QUOTE] There is no scenario in which a protest on private property is acceptable if the owner doesn't want it there. If it's a business, the protest interferes with business and hurts sales. It can also create a hazard for pedestrians and drivers. If it's a home, the protest obviously interferes with someone's right to privacy which, on their own property, is absolute In either case it's a disturbance of the peace.

[QUOTE=Fort83;46876929]Yeah I removed it when I realized I had it backwards. Private property is owned by someone/a company. Is it ok to disregard their rights as owners to not want protestors on their property? Yeah the amount of force they used was a little excessive. But they were well within their right to arrest him for resisting arrest and trespassing.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't consider that a right.

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;46876898]Yeah, as long as its an actual protest, its cool. If they didn't interfere with personal property, then they should be allowed imo.[/QUOTE] what defines an "actual protest", or an "interference with personal property"? couldnt a large group of people standing on my lawn, making noise, possibly generating trash and damaging things be defined as an interference with my personal property?

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;46876948]I wouldn't consider that a right.[/QUOTE] It's their job. They are sworn officers of the law. The man they arrested broke a law. It is their duty and their right to perform their job.

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;46876944]Well personally, I'd agree with that. Encourage it even. However, that moves onto the more broad the system of capitalism, but this isn't what this discussion is about.[/QUOTE] I added a bit to the end after you started replying. Basically, in your opinion, where do your rights as a property owner end? How much of a say does one get over his/her land and its use?

[QUOTE=Fort83;46876962]And? Do you still think that just because I, and others, have defended some cops that we defend all cops and think everything they do is ok? Well there's a little thing called property rights.[/QUOTE] What are you talking about? I meant that saying little was laughable, seeing as I believe it was very exaggerated, not just a little exaggerated.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;46876946]Yes this is how private property works It doesn't really matter if it's okay in your book or not. If someone owns property they have every right to dictate what you can and cannot do on it. They paid money for that property, they paid money to build that building there, they pay money for utilities on that property, you pay nothing, so you have no say. There is no grey area. They own it, it's theirs, not yours, you obey their rules or you leave. If the owner of that private property says it's not ok, it's not ok. You're not allowed to determine for someone else if something is ok on THEIR property. There is no scenario in which a protest on private property is acceptable if the owner doesn't want it there. If it's a business, the protest interferes with business and hurts sales. It can also create a hazard for pedestrians and drivers. If it's a home, the protest obviously interferes with someone's right to privacy which, on their own property, is absolute In either case it's a disturbance of the peace.[/QUOTE] Wowowow, you're jumping to a lot of conclusions here. Let me break this down real quick. I know it doesn't matter in the eyes of the law. I am just voicing my opinion on how the state should handle it. The grey area is on the definition of personal vs private property. Not dictatorship over capital. See above If they are creating a hazard, they are breaking a different set of laws.

If people were just allowed to occupy private property, there'd be no legal way for home-owners/land-owners/business-owners to boot tresspassers from their property. It's not right to just allow anyone and everyone unlimited free access to other people's private property.

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;46876957]what defines an "actual protest", or an "interference with personal property"? couldnt a large group of people standing on my lawn, making noise, possibly generating trash and damaging things be defined as an interference with my personal property?[/QUOTE] Like what personal property? [QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;46876958]It's their job. They are sworn officers of the law. The man they arrested broke a law. It is their duty and their right to perform their job.[/QUOTE] "Just doing my job!" is a shitty excuse. I am disagreeing with the law, not the officers with this issue. [QUOTE=Fort83;46876962]Well there's a little thing called property rights.[/QUOTE] There is another little thing called freedom of speech. It's not all black and white like that. [QUOTE=Apache249;46876967]I added a bit to the end after you started replying. Basically, in your opinion, where do your rights as a property owner end? How much of a say does one get over his/her land and its use?[/QUOTE] I don't have exact distinctions as of now. I hope to write a manifesto someday and have exact definitions then.