Just add all this to eminent domain and asset forfeiture. Tyranny marches on.
Really? A farm worker, riding his bike home from work, stumbles across two officers questioning a man and is told to stop himself. For some reason, he panics and bolts. (Might have something to do with the public’s perception of the LAPD as a safe haven for racist louts who like to beat people up for kicks.) One officer tackles him, and exclaims “He has a huge knife!” which was true-- it was used to cut strawberries at the farm he worked at. The other officer panics and shoots the poor bastard five times.
Sounds like the wrong place at the wrong time to me, and the cop that was harassing him in the hospital was trying to do his best to fabricate some justification for the shooter’s actions.
So, you’ve been shot in the eye and in the spine, and there’s some asshole cluttering up the emergency room asking you the same stupid questions over and over, “OK. You’re dying. But tell me why you were fighting with the police?” “Did you want to kill the police or what?” “Did you get his gun? … Did you to try to shoot the police?”
When it becomes clear that the guy is ignoring you every time you answer “No,” and refused to let up even though you’ve repeatedly said “I don’t want to say anything anymore,” and specifically asked him to leave, and the hospital staff has ordered him out several times, but he keeps coming back, always with the same questions, how long before you would say “Yeah. I grabbed his gun, had his pants down around his ankles, the barrel up his ass, and I swear I would have pulled the trigger if that bitch didn’t paralyze me first. Now get the hell out of here and let these nice doctors try to help me out. I’m dyin’ over here.” ?
Jesus.
OK, how does it qualify as “torture”? I didn’t see anything about the Police inflicting pain to get their answers, or stopping the medical treatment to get answers, or anything like that. Just that they continued to interrogate him. Now, I could agree the timing of the questioning was in question, but where is the “infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion”? Sure, he is argueing that his “confession” is invalid (I would guess so that it can’t be used against him when he sues the PD fro Megebaucks), and perhaps rightfully so. I could see that the officer was being “insensitiive”- but have we gotten so PC that “being insentsitive”= “torture”?
I thought I had quoted enough to make the case clear. The cop shoots the man five times and injures him to the point where his life is in grave danger and the man is in huge pain. The cop then proceeds to interrogate the man in these circumstances delaying medical care. Yes, I consider that akin to torture and I do not understand how anyone can defend that…:
I am sickened that anyone would defend this kind of thing.
I didn’t defend the situation, just pointing out it isn’t “torture”, unless you go for a real “tortured”
definition of the word. Now, if the officer had shot the guy once- then questioned him, then shot him again to get answers- THAT would be torture.
Nor did I see anything that would prove that the interrogation “delayed medical care”. Cite?
You won’t find me defending civil forfeiture laws, but I call B.S. on the eminent domain comparison. Takings under the power of eminent domain require just compensation to the affected property owner. It’s right there in the Constitution.
Really, Lib these drive by snipings in the name of enlightened libertarianism should be beneath you.
>> Nor did I see anything that would prove that the interrogation “delayed medical care”. Cite?
Man, can you read and comprehend? I’ll post it a third time: the man was PLEADING for treatment. At times the officer left the room to allow for treatment but he would return and continue the questioning. And yes, in my book, delaying medical care under the circumstances is akin to torture. This is totally unacceptable in a civilized society.
On a related note: Eugene, Oregon, is the 14th city to pass a resolution opposing the Patriot Act
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2002/11/26/1a.patriotact.1126.html
Definition Number Two of Torture in my dictionary is listed as:
- Pain or mental anguish.
Causing him severe mental distress by harassing him while he is in a great deal of physical pain… that is torture. Torture takes more forms than physically inflicting pain.
Can the police officer realistically justify shooting the man five times because he saw the suspect reaching for the other officer’s gun?
I guess the question I’m asking is, is five shots to the eyes, legs and spine considered a reasonable response by the police officer to the situation?
At any rate, let’s not get sidetracked or mired in particular cases. My point is that power and authority given to be used for good purposes can also be used for evil purposes and most often will be used for evil ends even if with good intention sometimes. people who do not have to justify or answer for their actions begin to believe their noble ends will justify the means they use and this always leads to evil.
The USA was founded with a very healthy distrust of authority and the concept that authority should be divided among branches of government so that there would be a system of checks and balances. The constitution is mainly concerned with protecting individuals from the power of the State. Even until now there has been much abuse of individuals by the government. You can see enough police brutality, IRS abuses, INS abuses. . . the list goes on. I do not believe it is a good idea to give the government the broad powers it has been given. Yes, these powers can be used for good but they also most surely will be used for bad.
To repeat myself- do you have a cite which says that medical treatment was DELAYED in order to facilitate the interrogation? I read one article about it and nothing of the sort was there. No reputable Medical Doctor would allow a Police Officer to significantly delay their patient’s medical treatment.
So, yes- “delaying medical treatment… is akin to torture”, and that IS “totally unacceptable in a civilized society”. But your saying it happened doesn’t make it so. So, unless you have an unbiased cite which clearly states this did happen- it didn’t, thus no “torture”. Sorry.
The much ballyhooed IRS “abuses” brought out in those Senate hearings were carefully investigated by the GAO, etc, and they found there was no pattern of abuses- in fact they were either wrong or blown way out of proportion. A little known fact- one can go in front of the Senate and accuse the IRS of anything you want to- but the IRS- by Federal Law- CANNOT “tell their side of the story”.
In other words, although we all know that there exist some “rogues” who don’t follow the rules, and abuse their powers- the Govenrment or its Agencies as a whole do not do so.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree. My opinion is that the government has more than enough power to do what it should do and that there is enough abuse of that power already as it is. If you believe there is not too much abuse, then fine but my impression is that there is too much abuse of power. I have seen evidence that there is plenty of police corruption and brutality in many jusridictions. I have seen evidence that the INS is the agency from hell which does much to harass people for no useful purpose. I have seen evidence that the IRS was indeed an abusive agency as a whole. It was documented in a number of TV programs and newsmagazines and when the Senate held hearings I heard a number of senators saying they were dismayed by what they had heard and would enact legislation curbing the powers of the IRS which, I believe, was done eventually. So, I, along with the founding fathers, believe the powers of the government should be very limited and monitored closely. That is my opinion. If you believe there is no abuse of power as it is then you can act accordingly. I believe differently and thus believe the government should not be given more power, much less unchecked power to act and detain people in secret. I find that repugnant to western basic principles of fair government. But that’s just me.
>> , although we all know that there exist some “rogues” who don’t follow the rules, and abuse their powers- the Govenrment or its Agencies as a whole do not do so
That supports my point exactly. There will always be people who abuse their power and I, therefore, prefer they do not have power to abuse to begin with. If you are beaten or shot by police or if your house is taken by the IRS or if you are held secretly by the INS, you will not care if you are the exception to the rule or not. The government should not be abusing one single person.