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

[QUOTE=Fort83;46877399]The property owners generally already have a use for that piece of land, it's the reason they purchased it in the first place. Are you talking about land such as the Walmart like in the article or land as in a field or plot of land with nothing on it?[/QUOTE] Exactly. Thats the point of private property in capitalism. That's what I'm trying to state. Dictatorship over people isn't the point. [QUOTE=Smallheart;46877409]No. It shouldn't, because then one person's freedom of speech is trumping another person's rights. At this point you're creating loopholes for people to abuse the tresspassing laws, as well as setting up loopholes for scenarios that could and would result in lawsuits. And if you think that there aren't people who take advantage of any situation in order to get money from a court settlement, you're either unfathomably optimistic or some kind of radical socialist. As for your see above, see above.[/QUOTE] What right? The right to not be offended? Gimme a scenario where that can happen. [editline]7th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Smallheart;46877435]Oh okay I'm done now bye.[/QUOTE] Dont let the door kick you on the way out.

[QUOTE=w00tf1zh;46875355]I think it is very scary when we start justifying obvious excessive force with "no, but he said dont touch me and thats resisting arrest". What qualifies as resisting arrest these days then? If I say that I have done nothing wrong, is that resisting arrest? The dude was peaceful as fuck, just saying "what's the problem" when the officer said that he needed to go to jail. And the guy filming had done absolutely nothing that warranted that response. Neither had really, but hey, that's just my opinion. EDIT: Not to mention he was tased multiple times after obviously surrendering. He was even tased as he was tased.[/QUOTE] The video may come as a shock to somebody who lives in a first world country, like Sweden. But for those of us who live in America, the real surprise here is that the man wasn't executed, beaten to a pulp or had narcotics planted on him. obviously the peace-officer is a rookie, veterans know to take down the cameras and then the suspects

[QUOTE=Suff;46877447]The video may come as a shock to somebody who lives in a first world country, like Sweden. But for those of us who live in America, the real surprise here is that the man wasn't executed, beaten to a pulp or had narcotics planted on him. obviously the peace-officer is a rookie, veterans know to take down the cameras and then the suspects[/QUOTE] Come on man, I disagree with our police too, but this is stretching it.

[QUOTE=Fort83;46877474]But it has nothing to do with dictatorship. These owners spent their money on this land. Don't you think they deserve to have a say in what happens on their land? Don't you think you deserve to have a say in what happens on your property? In your home?[/QUOTE] They deserve a say, but not the ability to censor the public.

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;46877425] I'm an anarcho-communist. I do want to dismantle private property (again, maintaining respect with personal property). If you choose to ignore or berate me for my views, go ahead.[/QUOTE] So what you're saying is you don't have any idea how anything actually works, but you want to have an opinion about it anyway Gotcha Please stop.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;46877492]So what you're saying is you don't have any idea how anything actually works, but you want to have an opinion about it anyway Gotcha Please stop.[/QUOTE] Please enlighten me in your superior capitalist ways.

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;46877425]I don't follow what you are trying to say.[/QUOTE] I am sorry, thought you were trying to make some sort of point about the rights of property owners. Now I see you are just talking random nonsense. Carry on.

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;46877515]Please enlighten me in your superior capitalist ways.[/QUOTE] I own a house on a 1/2 acre corner lot That means I own the house, everything in it, and the lawn up to the road This is MY property. I paid for it with MY money. I may do whatever I please with it short of burning it down to collect the insurance money. My right to this property is called "Property Rights" and is tied in with my right to a private and un-harassed life on that property called "Right to Privacy" If someone trespasses on my property for any reason and they won't leave I can have them arrested If someone breaks into my house, I can shoot them If someone tries to take pictures of the inside of my house, or take pictures of my house while standing on my lawn, I can have them removed from the property and the pictures deleted In your magical fairyland ideal sociopolitical land of wrongness, none of this applies, because apparently using my hard earned money to purchase something of my own gives me no rights. This is wrong You are wrong

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;46877463]Come on man, I disagree with our police too, but this is stretching it.[/QUOTE] Is it? The claim that the Police must be this brutal, That they are '[I]being slaughtered out there[/I]' is incorrect. More Police Officers were killed by falling off ladders than gunfire, last year.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;46877551]I own a house on a 1/2 acre corner lot That means I own the house, everything in it, and the lawn up to the road This is MY property. I paid for it with MY money. I may do whatever I please with it short of burning it down to collect the insurance money. My right to this property is called "Property Rights" and is tied in with my right to a private and un-harassed life on that property called "Right to Privacy" If someone trespasses on my property for any reason and they won't leave I can have them arrested If someone breaks into my house, I can shoot them If someone tries to take pictures of the inside of my house, or take pictures of my house while standing on my lawn, I can have them removed from the property and the pictures deleted In your magical fairyland ideal sociopolitical land of wrongness, none of this applies, because apparently using my hard earned money to purchase something of my own gives me no rights. This is wrong You are wrong[/QUOTE] When did I say that you had no more rights? There are more rights than forcing protesters off your land.

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;46877587]When did I say that you had no more rights? There are more rights than forcing protesters off your land.[/QUOTE] Having someone removed from your land when you don't want them there is one of the most important and most needed rights for property owners. Taking that away from them is wrong.

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;46877438] What right? The right to not be offended? [/QUOTE] like what the hell dude how can you not see how a group of people protesting outside your house is a violation of your privacy? would people yelling and and being disruptive not annoy you at all?

[QUOTE=Suff;46877576]Is it? A few Facebook users made the claim that the Police must be this brutal. That they are '[I]being slaughtered out there[/I]'. More Police Officers were killed by falling off ladders last year than by being shot.[/QUOTE] I mean I think you're overstating the brutality of it. Yes it DOES happen, which is completely fucked, but not usually.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;46877612]Having someone removed from your land when you don't want them there is one of the most important and most needed rights for property owners. Taking that away from them is wrong.[/QUOTE] If its for protest that isn't disrupting personal property, I disagree. Is that hard to understand? [QUOTE=Timebomb575;46877613]like what the hell dude how can you not see how a group of people protesting outside your house is a violation of your privacy? would people yelling and and being disruptive not annoy you at all?[/QUOTE] I dont see it as an invasion of privacy, and yes it would be annoying, but thats kinda the point. [editline]7th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Fort83;46877623]Having a world that allows protestors on private property without permission is taking away the rights of the property owners. In no way is this fair or just.[/QUOTE] Its completely fair and just IMO. Social, legal, and economic issues are extremely important to be heard and emphasized sometimes. Property owners also have the right to protest too.

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;46877624]If its for protest that isn't disrupting personal property, I disagree. Is that hard to understand? I dont see it as an invasion of privacy, and yes it would be annoying, but thats kinda the point.[/QUOTE] Yes, it is hard to understand, because you're not making any goddamn sense. A protest in and of itself is a disruption. They're on your private property and disrupting you and your life. It is a disruption of private property and is thus, unacceptable. There is no scenario, not a single one, and there never will be, where a it's okay for a group of people to plant themselves on your property and protest anything and you can't make them leave. That's the entire point of owning property. It's YOURS. Not theirs. Not your neighbors. Not someone elses, YOURS. YOU decide what does and doesn't go down on it. YOU decide what it gets used for. Next you're gonna tell me you think property owners shouldn't be allowed to have privacy fences because it interferes with someone's ability to protest on their property.

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;46877624] I dont see it as an invasion of privacy, and yes it would be annoying, but thats kinda the point. [/QUOTE] isnt someone being near you/on your property without your permission the actual fuckin' definition of "invasion of privacy"?

Why are we discussing this instead of the cameraman being wrongfully arrested. This current argument is literally a communist and a I don't fucking know arguing about who owns the property.

[QUOTE=Kybalt;46876650]And the guy filming was doing what wrong exactly?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=DaMastez;46876654] Criminal trespass or whatever it was they were arresting the other guy for?[/QUOTE] Is this your answer? Or a question? Because you phrased it with a question mark. Basically the cops started to go after the camera man because they were being filmed abusing their power, there was no charge they could suddenly just throw on him, "Oh, you are trespassing now, but not earlier" The hole thing reeks. [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] This is a great point. [QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;46876822]That dude's hands never left his sides.[/QUOTE] He was non combative and they just swarm attacked / tripped him onto the ground, disgusting.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;46877655]Yes, it is hard to understand, because you're not making any goddamn sense. A protest in and of itself is a disruption. They're on your private property and disrupting you and your life. It is a disruption of private property and is thus, unacceptable. There is no scenario, not a single one, and there never will be, where a it's okay for a group of people to plant themselves on your property and protest anything and you can't make them leave. That's the entire point of owning property. It's YOURS. Not theirs. Not your neighbors. Not someone elses, YOURS. YOU decide what does and doesn't go down on it. YOU decide what it gets used for. Next you're gonna tell me you think property owners shouldn't be allowed to have privacy fences because it interferes with someone's ability to protest on their property.[/QUOTE] Let me draw out a scenario for you: Lets say a Colombian Coca-Cola union leader "mysteriously disappeared" again, but this time, photos were leaked to the public. Would it be morally wrong for the protesters to protest at a CEO's house or workplace?

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;46877688]Why are we discussing this instead of the cameraman being wrongfully arrested. This current argument is literally a communist and a I don't fucking know arguing about who owns the property.[/QUOTE] Because this kid is naive and needs to be learned some learnin' [editline]7th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=soccerskyman;46877699]Let me draw out a scenario for you: Lets say a Colombian Coca-Cola union leader "mysteriously disappeared" again, but this time, photos were leaked to the public. Would it be morally wrong for the protesters to protest at a CEO's house or workplace?[/QUOTE] Yes

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;46877481]They deserve a say, but not the ability to censor the public.[/QUOTE] Good thing nothing that happens on [i]private[/i] property could be considered censoring the [i]public[/i]. How about I hold a protest against housing construction practices in your home and get volunteers to ensure that it's occupied 24/7? You're cool with that right?

snip

[QUOTE=catbarf;46877709] How about I hold a protest against housing construction practices in your home and get volunteers to ensure that it's occupied 24/7? You're cool with that right?[/QUOTE] he's already stated that he is apparently perfectly fine with such a scenario as long as they aren't breaking anything. which I find extremely hard to believe

[QUOTE=opaali;46877721]I agree somewhat, he should have just let go when they said so. But you can't arrest people without proper reason and someone saying "this man needs to go to jail" isn't one of them[/QUOTE] They had proper reason. The property owner (Walmart) trespassed them and they refused to leave, then when instructed to leave by the cops they refused. When the cops attempted to arrest them (100% legit, criminal trespass gets you a night in jail) he resisted arrest, which is a worse crime. Protip: Big box stores like Walmart, Best Buy, Costco, etc, own the parking lot outside their structure, too. [editline]7th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=opaali;46877721] he was already down when they decided to taze him too[/QUOTE] He was still resisting. He was kicking his legs and flailing and wouldn't let the officers cuff him. They needed to relax his muscles, which is what a taser does. Involuntary loss of muscle control.

[QUOTE=Fort83;46877695]No it's not fair. You can just push for the rights of one group while completely disregarding the rights of another.[/QUOTE] The specific right to force protesters off land for no reason other than "I don't like it" is not something I think is justifiable. [QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;46877702]Because this kid is naive and needs to be learned some learnin' [editline]7th January 2015[/editline] Yes[/QUOTE] You've got a strange moral judgement system. [QUOTE=catbarf;46877709]Good thing nothing that happens on [i]private[/i] property could be considered censoring the [i]public[/i]. How about I hold a protest against housing construction practices in your home and get volunteers to ensure that it's occupied 24/7? You're cool with that right?[/QUOTE] Is that why I can jerk it in walmart and not be considered in public? Its private property! Yup.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;46877735]They had proper reason. The property owner (Walmart) trespassed them and they refused to leave, then when instructed to leave by the cops they refused. When the cops attempted to arrest them[/QUOTE] We must be watching different videos. Half of what you say is not in the video. You do NOT see the owner tresspass them, you do NOT see them refuse to leave, you see police surround a man much larger then themselves and try to take him down, he doesn't even fight back, just stands there while they fumble trying to knock him over, eventually one cop bends down behind the man and pulls his leg up while other officers destablize him..... he falls and they begin tazing him after he fell......... My prediction is soon all protesting will be designated to specified areas...... aka protesting illegal.

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;46877741]The specific right to force protesters off land for no reason other than "I don't like it" is not something I think is justifiable. [highlight]If the property owner doesn't want it on his property it's 100% within his rights to have it removed. What YOU think is completely irrelevant. You're wrong and naive[/highlight] You've got a strange moral judgement system. [highlight]No, I don't. I have a normal one. You're the abnormal one here.[/highlight] Is that why I can jerk it in walmart and not be considered in public? Its private property! Yup.[/QUOTE] Actually, a place like Walmart is considered "Common Property" which is basically private property that acts as a public place. All stores are considered "Common property" regardless of how they're owned (by an individual, by a trust, by a board, by shareholders, etc) - Basically, Common Property is private property with public access available either 24/7 or on a certain set schedule. Common Property must have basic amenities for the public, some 100% mandatory (wheelchair accessible) others based on size/volume/type of business (public restrooms) but are protected by the same laws as individually owned private property (i.e. trespass laws, right to privacy, etc)

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;46877741]Is that why I can jerk it in walmart and not be considered in public? Its private property! Yup.[/QUOTE] Wow it's almost like our legal system recognizes the concept of publicly-accessible private property, and furthermore defines some crimes based on public [i]visibility[/i] (eg exposing yourself on private property is illegal if it's readily visible [i]from public property[/i]), even while recognizing that private property is distinct from public property? Like seriously by your definition what does private property even mean if anyone else can do whatever they want to it as long as they insist they're following nebulous definitions of protest?

[QUOTE=Fort83;46877745]Trespassing and resisting arrest are pretty good reasons to arrest someone[/QUOTE] resisting arrest is a good reason to arrest someone? think about that again

[QUOTE=Etschew;46877759]We must be watching different videos. Half of what you say is not in the video. You do NOT see the owner tresspass them, you do NOT see them refuse to leave, you see police surround a man much larger then themselves and try to take him down, he doesn't even fight back, just stands there while they fumble trying to knock him over, eventually one cop bends down behind the man and pulls his leg up while other officers destablize him..... he falls and they begin tazing him after he fell......... Anyone defending these cops is literally trash or just an enemy of freedom that the US stands for. My prediction is soon all protesting will be designated to specified areas...... aka protesting illegal.[/QUOTE] The owner trespassed them earlier, and you do see them refuse to leave because they're standing there arguing with the cops when told to leave. And he did fight back. If you're being arrested, that's it, you're being arrested. If you do not comply with their attempts to arrest you, you're resisting arrest, which is a form of 'fighting back'. It's all in the article if you bothered to read it.