okay, theryan, i don’t know why you went into immediate asshole mode, but you did. so here’s my response. first of all, i had many problems with the arrest, but also many reservations about many complaints with the arrest. sorry i forgot to type an ‘s’
said the ryan:
What’s wrong with stopping once sufficient force has been applied? Should they have kept on hitting him after sufficient force had been applied? Should they have stopped before sufficient force had been applied?
my point was that the officers only stopped after a supervisor came onto the scene. it had nothing to do with either suffiecient or insufficient force applied. it had to do with the fact that the officers fucked up, and only stopped when somebody who could inflict punishment onto them (unlike the suspect) arrived on the scene.
quote: (of mine, posten by ryan)
enough force was used that the suspect could have died
the ryan:
This doesn’t really have much bearing on the question of whether they applied more than sufficient force. If “sufficient force” brings with it the risk that the suspect dies, then the police are to take that risk. I don’t want the police refusing to shoot back just because “the suspect might die”.
you dumbass. i know this isn’t a flame pit, but you toitally took my comment out of context. my point was that only sufficient force should be exercised. you bring up the fact that you don’t want “the police refusing to shoot back because the suspect might die”, but the suspect wasn’t shooting at the cops at the time, dumbass! force should be proportional to the risk the suspect presents. i am not satisfied that the suspect posed enough of a risk that the officers should have STOMPED on him repeatedly, over and over and over, which they did.
quote:
my quote, posted by ryan
what would have happened if the suspect had turned out to be the wrong person (pretty unlikely given the circumstances of the chase, but still a possibility),
ryan’s quote
Just what sort of scenario are you proposing? Are you saying that it’s possible that the person resisting arrest was not the person that stole the car? Yes, it certainly is. That’s what we have lawyers for. Did the guy accept arrest, and then call his lawyer, like an innocent person should have? No, he didn’t. Is it possible that the person resisting arrest was not the person resisting arrest? No, of course not. That’s absurd. When a cop first tries to arrest someone, they generally don’t know for sure whether the suspect did in fact commit a crime. Oncce the suspect resists arrest, however, the cops can be 100% sure that the suspect has committed at least one crime: resisting arrest.
you fucking idiot! you start out by saying that the person who reisted arrest wasn’t the person who stole the car. not likely, since they pulled him out of the car. my point was that he may not have stolen the other car, and may not have shot the cop, both of which are still viable alternatives to the official line. as to the guy accepting arrest and then calling his lawyer, well his arrest entailed being beaten savagely by philadelphia officers, and i’ll bet you that he did call a lawyer afterwards.
as for your claim that a cop is sure that a suspect is resisting arrest, i totally agree with you. however, is the penalty for resisting arrest being beaten savagely by a mob? i think not, you idiot.
quote:
again, me
or if the suspect had been justified for doing what he did
again, ryan
You mean he honestly believed that he would be in physical danger is he accepted arrest? Such a claim would affect how I feel about the suspect, but it wouldn’t change how I felt about the cops. If someone were attacking me, I would want to immobilize him regardless of his motivation.
no, numbnuts, my point was that he may not have been responsible for the attack of a cop, or carjacking, etc, which all of the officers assumed him to be when they started beating on his ass.
quote:
me:
third, there is as of yet no evidence that the suspect shot another officer.
him:
I think that a more accurate statement would be “there is no proof that he shot an officer”. There also is no proof that he didn’t. If we’re going to accuse the cops of misconduct, then it seems to me that the burden of proof should be on the accusers.
i agree with you there, you stupid dwoight. and in this case, the accusers are the POLICE AND THE STATE, as they usually are in criminal cases.
hey, here’s some advice. go back to kindergarten, graduate, and then come back to the board. maybe then your comments will have ANY bearing on the discussion at hand. until then, shut your dumb mouth, theryan.
