Ah, so the Rodney King case comes down to ‘he needed beating’. The cops were entirely justified. Taping police actions is bad because tapes may not show how despicable the person was before taping started, and may not excuse the level of beat-down the suspect deserved. This is because we give our police officers complete freedom of violence against people, the discretion being based on how badly the suspect pissed off the officers beforehand.
Congratulations on winning the “Stupidest Strawman of the Week” Award.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t think your point was the stupidest thing I saw on the Dope this week. Close, but not the stupidest.
Or, when replying to strugglingChristian’s questioning how an incomplete recording can be a problem with perceptions, you meant something other than the ‘complete’ footage showed the cops in a better light/exonerated their actions.
Actually, perhaps it was the stupidest thing this week.
Then maybe you should have responded to it, instead of the grotesque misrepresentation you chose to make of it.
Regards,
Shodan
Then the officers should be able to explain their actions, instead of try to suppress public knowledge of it. And let the Public decide if this is something that should be continued policy or should it be changed.
I dunno, I’d have gone with ‘‘Most Extreme Excluded Middle of the Week.’’
The sentimentality behind this is grotesque enough. You offered the background behind Rodney King’s abuse as an example of how complete footage would make things less “cut-and-dried.”
Your description was given in contrast to “If you saw the edited version, you saw a black man being beaten down by racist white cops.” There is little wiggle room to suggest that viewing the “complete” version’s additional details–that he had charged the cops, that he was on parole (that was on the complete version of amateur’s videotape?), that he had (note your own tense) violently resisted, and that he didn’t submit after Tasering–are not an exoneration of the cop’s actions.
You can try going the obscenely disingenuous route and insist that by bringing up the two other non-abused black passengers you were merely refuting claims that the cops had racial motives, but that is undercut by the majority of your descriptors dealing with King’s pre-arrest actions.
The so-called “complete” version, offered as a justification for his beating, is a justification for a grotesque society.
Still trying it, eh?
:shrugs:
Regards,
Shodan
King may have needed to be treated with lots of violence to bring him to a point where the police could control him enough to get the cuffs on and lawfully arrest him. Police need to be able to use power and might to control and arrest suspects who resist arrest.
What is clear to me from the video is that the police got to that point and then kept going. They beat the man and stomped him well after the point where the 5/6 of them could have used their force and weight to restrain him with cuffs and whatever else they had.
I’ve no problem with cops doing what they need to do to arrest people and keep themselves safe. They went too far with King no matter what he did. I doesn’t matter wether he’s black, white or purple. There are rules and they crossed the line.
Shodan, do you think they crossed that line? I’m not asking if King deserved to be treated roughly while he was resisting. I’m asking if you feel the cops went as far as they should have and no further or did they keep going when they already had the situation under control considering their numbers and physical presence?
As someone who saw the full video at the beginning of the arrest, King was not following directions and acting in a way that IMO justified significance force to subdue him. Even while being subdued, he still made aggressive motions to the officers and still refused to follow officer directions.
That being said, there is a point in the video where it stops being the use of force to protect the officers from an unknown but potentially unsafe situation to one of a beating for entertainment/retribution. I believe what Shodan believes (and I do as well) is that the full video justifies the original use of force and how it grew out of control into something heineous.
Uh, okay. I’m not on the side of making it illegal to videotape them. I was simply explaining that there are situations where an officer of the law may punch or kick a suspect.
So, can some anonymous guy take pictures of your daughter at the playground? Can he then put them on a website? If so, what can and can’t he do with these pictures? How about the guy who goes to the mall and takes pictures looking up girls dresses?
For the record, I’m greatly in favor of the ruling and the videotaping of police officers, but private citizens should have more control over being filmed.
If your kid is in a public setting, a person can take as many pictures as they want and put them on the web all he wants.
On the other hand, a mall is not a public place; the mall owners can ask that person to leave; if not, they can detain or arrest him for trespassing. Not sure about the underwear fetish/posting pictures if that is a crime or not, others can fill this gap.
The answer to those first two questions is yes. Anybody can take pictures of my kids, and put them on a website, and I personally don’t give a fuck.
The kind of upskirt photos you’re talking about have been explicitly made illegal because legislators determined that there is an expectation of privacy about one’s undergarments.
Good, excellent, please post a link to this mysterious complete tape. I contend it does not exist.
Go ahead, put me in my place. If you can.
If they don’t video tape, it becomes their word against the polices. That means the cop wins.
Strange, the police can video tape all they want, and it is legal. But if you tape them, it is suddenly wrong and illegal.
If the cop feels he is justified in beating up a suspect, he should be able to defend it. The film does not change the act nor does it give a slanted view. It just records it.
This gentleman, George Holliday, seems to have it, and can license it.
The issue in your first paragraph is significant only insofar as the video may or may not be admissible in court or how it might by admissible, not whether the video should be allowed to exist.
Well, they don’t let us carry guns or tasers, either. 
Never mind. I am still waiting for the full version of the video to justify the Rodney King beating.