Tonight you should ask Mrs. Gersen what she thinks of consensual tea-bagging.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tonight you should ask Mrs. Gersen what she thinks of consensual tea-bagging.
Well, I'm sure as hell not gonna do it while she's asleep!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many dirty thoughts I'll keep to myself because they probably aren't appropriate due to: a) the family-friendly nature of this website (starts laughing internally); and b) sexual assault isn't funny. Even if it's just tea-bagging.
So in a similar vein I think while we're on the topic of sexual deviance...
I was watching youtube and ran accross a video of a woman speaking to her 13 year old daughter's rapist and murderer. The convicted defndants name is Gardener. He was convicted of raping and murdering 2 13 year old girls. He had a prior, where he was convicted of molesting a 13 year old girl. I assume he did hid time, got out, could not fight the temptation, struck again, but because he did not want to face jail time again, he murdered them to cover it up.
Now, before he killed those other two girls to cover up his rape, he had 'paid his debt to society' and was let go.
In retrospect was this justice? Could two furhter rapes and murders have been prevented had the original crime had a more severe punishment?
How can we better legislate and enforce this stuff better without stepping on due process and the defendant's civil rights? How far is too far?
Wow ghost post...
|
Wanna know why some people think the answer to everything is to punish the "bad guys?" Here is your answer.Really? It's just the right? There's no left wing authoritarianism?
It is only that evil authoritarianism when it's not your favorite flavor. People like their own brand of bad things, just not the other guy's
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is only that evil authoritarianism when it's not your favorite flavor. People like their own brand of bad things, just not the other guy's
First of all, the "right-wing" in right-wing authoritarianism doesn't mean what you apparently think it does.
Second, all authoritarianism is bad. Unlike those who rush to string up the accused, I don't have a "favorite flavor."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All sexual assault =/= sexual abuse =/= rape, any more than every time I touch someone, I murder someone.
For all we know, that may be the case.
Or this| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If your dog says it, I'll listen.
*points at Andrew R*
*whimpers*
That is an excellent avatar.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meatrace wins teh Interwebz
|
|
Another reason why our legislators should actually read the laws they intend to pass.
Well, sometimes you gotta pass it to read it. THAT is the biggest reason obamacare should have failed to pass even the most worthlessly partisan vote
Nope, they're just preparing for the dystopian future with 94% unemployment. Its a signs! YOu haaaave beeeen waaarrned! What do they know that we don't?!?!?
94% unemploymet seems like a Utopia. We just have robots to do everything.
They claim he was reaching for a weapon after fleeing police, which doesn't really explain why or how he was killed by a gunshot to the back of the head.
Police are trained to fire until the suspect drops, because not doing so may result in the suspect still being a threat. It is not unheard of for somebody to get spun around when shot, and when police are firing repeatedly, as they are trained to do, it is quite possible for the suspect to be shot in the back of the head. It has happened in more than one police shootout, and it does not in and of itself suggest an unjustified shooting. Furthermore, he was apparently running at the time. That makes such a hit more likely, as he didn't need to be spun around first.
As for him being unarmed, in a situation like this it is extremely difficult to know for sure. Things move too quickly, it's too difficult to see clearly, and there is too little time for police to consider their actions. When people have to make life or death decisions with no time to consider the facts or consequences, bad things will happen some of the time. As for the riots, it should be considered that they were getting rocks and bottles thrown at them, and they had ordered the crowd to disperse several times because they saw a riot waiting to happen.
Those last two articles are from different police departments, and therefore have no bearing or relevance on this case, as they establish no pattern of behavior for the Anaheim PD. They should be ignored completely when discussing this case.
Now, this does not exonerate the police. I have no opinion as to their guilt or innocence in this particular case. I'm just pointing out a few things that should be considered in any discussion of this case. All too often only one side gets considered, and it turns into a pile on. Cops get that s*+~ WAY too much. That's not fair. Sure, they may well be in the wrong here. It's still only right for both sides to be considered.
Police are trained to fire until the suspect drops, because not doing so may result in the suspect still being a threat. It is not unheard of for somebody to get spun around when shot, and when police are firing repeatedly, as they are trained to do, it is quite possible for the suspect to be shot in the back of the head. It has happened in more than one police shootout, and it does not in and of itself suggest an unjustified shooting. Furthermore, he was apparently running at the time. That makes such a hit more likely, as he didn't need to be spun around first.He had dropped. He was shot twice, once in the back, then once in the head. His sister apparently claimed that he was shot in the head after he was down, but I can't find any less flakey source for this.
With the speed of the typical shootout, it's quite pissible to take every one of those bullets before hitting the ground.
As for him being unarmed, in a situation like this it is extremely difficult to know for sure. Things move too quickly, it's too difficult to see clearly, and there is too little time for police to consider their actions. When people have to make life or death decisions with no time to consider the facts or consequences, bad things will happen some of the time.Okay. So how do we tell those cases from abuses? Who's going to investigate it when an unarmed kid gets shot down in the street? Who holds the shooter accountable? This wasn't a life-or-death situation for the police; it was an unarmed kid fleeing as fast as he could, shot twice in the back.
I never said not to investigate. I pointed out the police point of view. As for being unarmed, they had no way to know that. It's extremely difficult to know for sure if someone is or is not in possession of or reaching for a weapon during a situation like a police chase, and if you wait to become sure it might be the last decision you ever make.
As for the riots, it should be considered that they were getting rocks and bottles thrown at them, and they had ordered the crowd to disperse several times because they saw a riot waiting to happen.You're confusing two riots. The first "riot" was in the neighborhood where he was shot, and has the police firing on people standing on their own lawns. They did order people to disperse, and they didn't because they were angry that the police had just shot down an unarmed kid. Besides, disperse where? This is where they lived. That the police ordered people to disperse doesn't justify firing into a crowd of people at their own homes, nor does it justify releasing a police dog to attack a child.
I never said the cops were justified in their actions. I explained what was going through their heads when they did what they did, which is something that, in the interest of fairness, should be discussed.
Now, this does not exonerate the police. I have no opinion as to their guilt or innocence in this particular case. I'm just pointing out a few things that should be considered in any discussion of this case. All too often only one side gets considered, and it turns into a pile on. Cops get that s&*% WAY too much. That's not fair. Sure, they may well be in the wrong here. It's still only right for both sides to be considered.Before you post these mealymouthed "things that should be considered,"
Do not disrespect me like that again. I'm not talking to you like that, and I expect the same in return.
consider this: if the police were completely corrupt and abusive in this case, would your arguments still apply? If the answer is yes (and in this case, it is), then you should seriously reconsider your justifications. What isn't sufficient justification for you when police kill an unarmed guy and release attack dogs on people who are unhappy about it?
I didn't provide any justifications. I provided the other side of the incident. Explaining why the cops would do something does not justify them doing it. Perhaps they in fact did know that he was unarmed dispite my point about how they may not have. I don't know. It should still be taken into account that it was a possibility for them not to know. If we don't consider what the cops were thinking at the time, how can they be judged fairly? In the right or in the wrong, they still have that right.
Suspect? Diaz wasn't wanted for a crime. The police saw him talking, and chased him down when he ran. He wasn't committing a crime, he wasn't suspected of committing a crime, and he wasn't wanted for a crime. He wasn't suspected of anything, and his greatest crime was running when he saw the police. Why did he need to be shot at until he dropped?
Running probably made him look like he was doing something illegal. At that point, he became a suspect.
As for the shooting, the police claim they thought he was armed, which is theoretically possible.
e: The Orange County Register:
"A 17-year-old who lives in the neighborhood said she saw the shooting from about 20 feet away. She said Diaz had his back to the officer and was shot in the buttocks area. Diaz went down on his knees, and she said he was struck by another bullet in the head. The other officer handcuffed Diaz, who by then was on the ground and not moving, she added."
Bonus insanity from that link!
"Police reportedly tried to buy any video taken by witnesses on their cellphones, residents said."
That may or may not be evidence of a bad shooting. Having his back to the cops does not mean it didn't look like he was going for a gun. It all depends on the angle he was standing at. If he has straight in front of the cops, it looks pretty fishy. If he was twisted at an angle, it seems more reasonable for the cops.
As for him falling to his knees and then getting shot again, how quickly did the second shot hit? If it was in quick succession, it backs the cops' story. If there was a longer interval, it looks more like a bad shooting.
As for the child who got attacked, the police claim that the dog escaped from a police vehicle, and was not released into the crowd. They also claim they regained control of the dog after the stroller was toppled and before the dog was able to bite the child. Dogs are never allowed to be used in a riot control unless on a teather at all times specifically because of incidents like these, so I find this credible.
With the speed of the typical shootout, it's quite pissible to take every one of those bullets before hitting the ground.Not according to witnesses.
I haven't seen anystatements that suggest either justification or misconduct yet. If he fell to his knees and took the round in the head within quick suggestion, that suggests something different that if he fell to his knees, and then sat there before being shot again. The first doesn't suggest much. The second suggests misconduct.
I never said not to investigate. I pointed out the police point of view. As for being unarmed, they had no way to know that. It's extremely difficult to know for sure if someone is or is not in possession of or reaching for a weapon during a situation like a police chase, and if you wait to become sure it might be the last decision you ever make.Yeah, he might run away those police officers to death.
But you didn't answer my question. Who's going to investigate? Think about that question, and you might understand why people are angry.
IAB investigates. Whether this is good or bad is a seperate debate I am not up for. I understand full well why people were pissed, and I don't blame them for being pissed.
Do not disrespect me like that again. I'm not talking to you like that, and I expect the same in return.For one, your arguments are mealymouthed. They're weak justifications that would apply just as well if the police were actually corrupt. I'm sure you're a perfectly nice person but you're making awful arguments that justify incompetence that got a kid killed at best.
So the meanest thing I said about you is that you're a person who makes mealymouthed arguments. That's pretty damn polite for a discussion where you're defending police who shot unarmed people and sicced attack dogs on children. The tone trolling isn't going to garner any respect either.
CHILL. THE. HELL. OUT. I didn't justify anything, and I am not defending the cops. I am fully open to the idea that the police were fully in the wrong here. I'm trying to be fair and look at this from their side, not explain their behavior away as perfectly okay. Anybody accused of a crime deserves that.
Explaining why the cops would do something does not justify them doing it. Perhaps they in fact did know that he was unarmed dispite my point about how they may not have. I don't know. It should still be taken into account that it was a possibility for them not to know. If we don't consider what the cops were thinking at the time, how can they be judged fairly? In the right or in the wrong, they still have that right.No, you didn't describe why the cops would shoot down someone who wasn't suspected of a crime. In fact, you even called him a suspect. Why were the police chasing him down at all?
He ran when he saw them. That suggested to the cops that he was doing something illegal.
No, you didn't describe why the cops would shoot down someone who wasn't suspected of a crime. In fact, you even called him a suspect. Why were the police chasing him down at all? I love the circular logic here... he's a suspect because he fled, and the police were there investigating him because he's a suspect! It's foolproof.
The fact that they shot him at all is a bad shooting. Talking to people isn't a crime. Running from the police isn't a crime in Anaheim or California. Why did Diaz need to be stopped in the first place?
You can be stopped and questioned on suspicion, and the cops felt they had suspicion. If you refuse to stop, you can be chased.
K-9 police in Anaheim are equipped with muzzles, and police dogs don't attack without being ordered. That's as specious as claiming that the shots fired by the police escaped from their guns. If it wasn't intentional, it was grossly negligent, and this is the government folly thread.
Also, you're a little overfocused on the dog. Those police were firing into a crowd with multiple children, including a one-year-old.
I'm offering up the explanation I heard for the dog. That's not being over-focused. You brought it up first, after all. Sure, the explanation suggests that somebody in the force was being an idiot. That's really not that far fetched, though. There are some pretty stupid cops out there.
I would appreciate it if you ceased accusing me of defending or justifying the police. I find it highly offensive. I am offering their point of view and explanations, not supporting them. I haven't taken sides in this incident.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The police see known gang members hanging out. The gang members run. The police shoot 'em dead.
It's like a certain crypto-fascist's wet dream.
I ain't no lawyer, but conversations that I have had with my friends with more legal grounding about the NYC Search and Frisk program lead me to believe that running from a police officer is legal grounds for reasonable suspicion.
Now, granted, that may not be same thing as license to blow somebody away, but, since the cops are adamant that they thought they saw him reaching for something in his waistband, I foresee this ending in nothing harsher for the police officers than suspension with pay.
Which doesn't mean that I believe the cops for a second, or that I don't sympathize with the rioters, but that's how I see this playing out.
[...] that's how I see this playing out.And if that's how it's supposed to work, then there's something f*#@ed up about how it's working now.
Please don't take it as criticism (cuz its not) when I say if you expect anything more, you're not cynical enough for these messageboards.
The riots are pretty sobering.
Has anyone seen the story about the guy shot dead in Florida for 'trespassing'? It's not a gov't folly thing, but it is gun-related. Someone should start a thread or something...
then there's something f%!&ed up about how it's working now.
No shiznit.
More NYPD folly.
There's some articles somewhere about how the NYPD set up a "spy on the whole city" committee with the security divisions of the big financial corporations. I can't remember where I posted them before (here? Occupy Wall Street? I don't remember) but maybe I'll find them later.
Moreover, he had dropped. He was shot twice, once in the back, then once in the head. His sister apparently claimed that he was shot in the head after he was down, but I can't find any less flakey source for this.
And, oh yeah:
I didn't read the article, and it may or may not be correct, but David North's Socialist Equality Party are some pretty sketchy m#%**~**~$@%s, indeed.
They are descended from the infamous Workers Revolutionary Party of one Gerry Healy, whose hallmarks in the past have included: taking money from Qaddafi and Saddam Hussein and then publishing articles lauding the execution of members of the Iraqi Communist Party; scabbing on the British Miners Strike of the '80s (both literally and figuratively by denouncing Arthur Scargill in their paper on the eve of the strike which was picked up by Fleet Street and the Labour Party's trade union tops); running disgusting campaigns against other prominent self-proclaimed Trotskyists as GPU agents complicit in Trotsky's assassination; accepting money from Vietnamese counterrevolutionaries to publish The Bell of Saigon in Australia; and general thuggishness and physical attacks on other members of the left. (Trivia: Vanessa Redgrave was a member for years.)
All of which has nothing to do with the article or Anaheim, but, when dealing with these second-generation Healyites, caveat emptor.
He ran when he saw them. That suggested to the cops that he was doing something illegal.So, why were they there in the first place? See, this chain is open at one end.
Probably patrolling or acting on a tip.
Diaz gets shot and killed < Police suspect person fleeing from them is armed < Police give chase < Diaz takes off running < Police approach Diaz and two others < F!!@ING MAGNETS
He wasn't wanted for a crime. The police aren't even claiming he was doing anything suspicious other than talking to people. Why are the police justified in chasing this guy down instead of just shrugging it off as paranoia?
(P.S. the answer is the same as why this is touching off riots.)
Because running is incredibly suggestive of criminal behavior.
I would appreciate it if you ceased accusing me of defending or justifying the police. I find it highly offensive. I am offering their point of view and explanations, not supporting them. I haven't taken sides in this incident.You're defending them. You are offering a narrative of "It's okay to shoot down unarmed people who are not wanted for a crime, then fire into a crowd of parents and children when they protest it, because..." Those things are not okay. If you are offended by this suggestion, then maybe you should stop doing it.
I have said repeatedly that I have not taken a side on this issue or decided that the police are justified. I entertained the possibility, and added it to the discussion, because both sides should be viewed here. That is not a defense. Please show me where I said that I believe the police were justified in this case. I'm pretty sure I never said it. I also never said the opposite. I am still firmly in the neutral camp here.
|
|
(EDITORS: BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM)
She said the shooting is a civil rights issue because it reflects a pattern of abuse by Anaheim police. "Police don't roust white kids in affluent neighborhoods who are just having a conversation," Douglas said. "And those kids have no reason to fear police. But young men with brown skin in poor neighborhoods do."
(END OPTIONAL TRIM)
Because they are members of criminal gangs
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He ran when he saw them. That suggested to the cops that he was doing something illegal.So, why were they there in the first place? See, this chain is open at one end.Probably patrolling or acting on a tip.
Diaz gets shot and killed < Police suspect person fleeing from them is armed < Police give chase < Diaz takes off running < Police approach Diaz and two others < F!!@ING MAGNETS
He wasn't wanted for a crime. The police aren't even claiming he was doing anything suspicious other than talking to people. Why are the police justified in chasing this guy down instead of just shrugging it off as paranoia?
(P.S. the answer is the same as why this is touching off riots.)
Because running is incredibly suggestive of criminal behavior.
I have said repeatedly that I have not taken a side on this issue or decided that the police are justified. I entertained the possibility, and added it to the discussion, because both sides should be viewed here. That is not a defense. Please show me where I said that I believe the police were justified in this case. I'm pretty sure I never said it. I also never said the opposite. I am still firmly in the neutral camp here.I would appreciate it if you ceased accusing me of defending or justifying the police. I find it highly offensive. I am offering their point of view and explanations, not supporting them. I haven't taken sides in this incident.You're defending them. You are offering a narrative of "It's okay to shoot down unarmed people who are not wanted for a crime, then fire into a crowd of parents and children when they protest it, because..." Those things are not okay. If you are offended by this suggestion, then maybe you should stop doing it.
But you aren't knee jerk hating the police so you must be the enemy.....
|
|
Because they are members of criminal gangs
(EDITORS: BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM)
She said the shooting is a civil rights issue because it reflects a pattern of abuse by Anaheim police. "Police don't roust white kids in affluent neighborhoods who are just having a conversation," Douglas said. "And those kids have no reason to fear police. But young men with brown skin in poor neighborhoods do."
(END OPTIONAL TRIM)
What? All "young men with brown skin in poor neighborhoods"?
Or could they just be worried that the cops will assume they are, like you seem to?
Well this one for instance. Cops don't spend so much time in poor minority neighborhoods because they are so quiet and law abiding. Hispanics and blacks have a higher rates of crime so yes the police justifiably watch their areas closer. Sorry the truth is offensive to some.
|
|
Cops don't spend so much time in poor minority neighborhoods because they are so quiet and law abiding. Hispanics and blacks have a higher rates of crime so yes the police justifiably watch their areas closer. Sorry the truth is offensive to some.And if they act at all suspiciously, the police shoot them down in the street and shoot shotguns at their families. Obviously their fault, they should know better than to not be white in this day and age.
But you aren't knee jerk hating the police so you must be the enemy.....If you don't hate that the police killed an unarmed man and then shot at his neighbors and their children when they protested, then yeah, I've got a problem with you. Funny, that.
Nothing to do with color, ran from cops and acted like he was pulling something might have something to do with it though.
Shoot non lethal at rioters, could be worse. maybe don't riot and attack the cops. maybe don't bring your kids to the riot....
|
|
Of course, there's always the lovely video of the police doing nothing to help the still-living man they just shot in the head.There's also the story of Julian Alexander, another Anaheim man who was shot to death in his own front yard by a plain-clothes policeman who was chasing unrelated robbery suspects. You're a big fan of home defense, Andrew R. How would you feel if you heard a commotion outside and went outside to find out what was going on, and an armed man in plain clothes shot you, and then tied you up while you laid there bleeding?
Those are arguable things but to just throw the race card and accuse anyone not lockstep in your conclusions of racism are not conducive to any discussion and not acceptable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those are arguable things but to just throw the race card and accuse anyone not lockstep in your conclusions of racism are not conducive to any discussion and not acceptable.
Dude no one's even bringing up race but you.
Cops shot an unarmed man who wasn't a suspect in an investigation. Shot him dead.Why the F*~~ is that EVER OKAY?!
Those are arguable things but to just throw the race card and accuse anyone not lockstep in your conclusions of racism are not conducive to any discussion and not acceptable.Dude no one's even bringing up race but you.
Cops shot an unarmed man who wasn't a suspect in an investigation. Shot him dead.Why the F@&~ is that EVER OKAY?!
[poe's law]Because it will never happen to me or my family.[/poe's Law]