Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Are you acknowledging cops do not have mothers?

Grey Templar wrote:Unlawful imprisonment is a threatening action. Not allowing someone to leave is imprisonment, which by its definition is a violent threat.

Violence =/= physical harm.

Violence does equal physical harm or threat thereof.

from wikipedia: Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.

kronk wrote:

 dæl wrote:
they simply refused to allow them to leave, which while inconvenient isn't violent by any means.

That's called unlawful restraint and it is a violent crime. Unlawful restraint of peace officers, even.

They got FAR less than they deserved.

So what exactly did they deserve?

No,

But maybe they are having a bad day, maybe its a misunderstanding, etc... Why the Cop is acting like he is is irrelevent. All that matters is how you respond.

 AustonT wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Feth you Kronk. Point to you.

Yeah, but I'm still down 2, at least.

 dæl wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Unlawful imprisonment is a threatening action. Not allowing someone to leave is imprisonment, which by its definition is a violent threat.

Violence =/= physical harm.

Violence does equal physical harm or threat thereof.

from wikipedia: Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.

Thank you for proving what the protestors did was Violent

 Grey Templar wrote:

Just because a cops being rude doesn't mean you can be rude back. Its not right, and its certaintly not smart.

Unless you are Chief Whip of the Conservative Party, then you can say whatever you like to the plebs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 dæl wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Unlawful imprisonment is a threatening action. Not allowing someone to leave is imprisonment, which by its definition is a violent threat.

Violence =/= physical harm.

Violence does equal physical harm or threat thereof.

from wikipedia: Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.

Thank you for proving what the protestors did was Violent

As I said, mental gymnastics. What physical force was threatened? What deprivation went on?

 Grey Templar wrote:
No,

But maybe they are having a bad day, maybe its a misunderstanding, etc... Why the Cop is acting like he is is irrelevent. All that matters is how you respond.

Like I said you have it backwards. I can be as rude to the cops as I want; the cop does not have the same freedom. His JOB is to interact with the public. As a professional rudeness is unacceptable. it may not be polite but it's my right as a citizen to treat the cops with distain, rudeness, and derision; cops do not have the same right.
I can't post it while I'm out and about but I have a great video of a cop who is both polite and firm with a total d bag. He's damn near perfect.

Deprivation of their freedom. They were imprisoned by the protestors.

The Threat was implied when the protestors demanded the release of the people that had been arrested.

Threats do NOT have to be explicit in form, implication is enough.

For the record Lieutenant Pike and his officers were all found to have used appropriate force by three separate investigations with the actual internal department investigation, the University's Board (or whatever) had an investigation and the County DA, ALL came back and said "Nope cops were in the right"

Soooooo dael or however you get your magic "ae" you're wrong and not only are your own justifications (like your wiki link) proving it, but the US justice system flat out disagrees as well.

 Grey Templar wrote:
To be fair, in New York you could miss your target and still hit a criminal

Exactly, nothing of value lost.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
For the record Lieutenant Pike and his officers were all found to have used appropriate force by three separate investigations with the actual internal department investigation, the University's Board (or whatever) had an investigation and the County DA, ALL came back and said "Nope cops were in the right"

Soooooo dael or however you get your magic "ae" you're wrong and not only are your own justifications (like your wiki link) proving it, but the US justice system flat out disagrees as well.

They're hardly independent are they? Investigations only really count when there's no vested interest in finding a certain outcome. Exactly the same as when this chappy who shot the blind guy in the back gets investigated by the "Independent" Police Complaints Commission and they find no wrongdoing and he ends up doing something similar in a few years.

æ you can get from character map, along with many other cool things. Although I generally just CtrlC CtrlV.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
For the record Lieutenant Pike and his officers were all found to have used appropriate force by three separate investigations with the actual internal department investigation, the University's Board (or whatever) had an investigation and the County DA, ALL came back and said "Nope cops were in the right"

Not that I disagree with what you're saying here but the Reynoso TF cited the incident as "critically flawed", and LT Pike no longer works for UC. Odds are very good they still pay him though.

 Grey Templar wrote:
To be fair, in New York you could miss your target and still hit a criminal

 dæl wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Unlawful imprisonment is a threatening action. Not allowing someone to leave is imprisonment, which by its definition is a violent threat.

Violence =/= physical harm.

Violence does equal physical harm or threat thereof.

from wikipedia: Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.

kronk wrote:

 dæl wrote:
they simply refused to allow them to leave, which while inconvenient isn't violent by any means.

That's called unlawful restraint and it is a violent crime. Unlawful restraint of peace officers, even.

They got FAR less than they deserved.

So what exactly did they deserve?

threat thereof. How else do you restrain someone?

 AustonT wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
To be fair, in New York you could miss your target and still hit a criminal

I legitimately forget, was this the same logic you used when those NYPD officers managed to hit 9 bystanders near the Empire State Building?

I wasn't in that thread AFAIK.

Ah, I can see why you might want to avoid it....

 AustonT wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
For the record Lieutenant Pike and his officers were all found to have used appropriate force by three separate investigations with the actual internal department investigation, the University's Board (or whatever) had an investigation and the County DA, ALL came back and said "Nope cops were in the right"

Not that I disagree with what you're saying here but the Reynoso TF cited the incident as "critically flawed", and LT Pike no longer works for UC. Odds are very good they still pay him though.

Sure but the Yuba County DA's office cleared all the officers involved on the use of force. Was the situation flawed? Yes I'd say it was poor tactics on the officer's part and they needed to come out with more force (as in numbers) and disperse the protestors (as in hippy trash). The situation was jacked, the use of force wasn't is all I'm saying.

Remember all those video's we dissected in the UC Davies thread

 AustonT wrote:

I legitimately forget, was this the same logic you used when those NYPD officers managed to hit 9 bystanders near the Empire State Building?

.... They had it coming?

here in Portland you are lucky to be tazed, well if you aren't white that is

we have a very high police shooting unarmed citizens rate here, they also taze the feth out of folks too


http://www.progressive.org/mag_amctaser

old people having seizures getting tazed is FETHED up

 DIDM wrote:
here in Portland you are lucky to be tazed, well if you aren't white that is

we have a very high police shooting unarmed citizens rate here, they also taze the feth out of folks too


http://www.progressive.org/mag_amctaser

old people having seizures getting tazed is FETHED up

To be fair though, some of the cases where police shoot people, you really have to wonder what the feth the'victim' was thinking.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 DIDM wrote:
here in Portland you are lucky to be tazed, well if you aren't white that is

we have a very high police shooting unarmed citizens rate here, they also taze the feth out of folks too


http://www.progressive.org/mag_amctaser

old people having seizures getting tazed is FETHED up

To be fair though, some of the cases where police shoot people, you really have to wonder what the feth the'victim' was thinking.

the FEDERAL government said the cops here shoot and taze TOOOOOOOOOOOOO much, especially the mentally ill.

if you are an unarmed black man or a mentally ill person off your meds and it is after 11, watch out for bullets from cops


I'm a white male in my early 30's and am employed I feel safe as hell, I just feel for all these poor folks getting shot and killed by cops who are known "Nazis"

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/10/portland_police_panel_finds_ca.html

http://chuckcurrie.blogs.com/chuck_currie/2010/10/katu-coverage-of-capt-mark-krugers-nazi-interests-includes-my-interview.html

http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-2933-the_cop_who_liked_nazis.html

 DIDM wrote:
here in Portland you are lucky to be tazed, well if you aren't white that is

we have a very high police shooting unarmed citizens rate here, they also taze the feth out of folks too


http://www.progressive.org/mag_amctaser

old people having seizures getting tazed is FETHED up

After watching a few episodes of Portlandia, I'd taze people there on sight too

The dream of the 90's is alive in Portland.

@ DIDM... I was referring to the Kendra James shooting. I was home on leave when it happened, and basically had no sympathy whatsoever.

Basically cop pulls over car with 2 black women in it. Driver starts getting attitude with police, and exits vehicle. While talking to officer outside vehicle, the pregnant passenger thinks its a good idea to hop over to the drivers' seat, and take off. As she is now fleeing a crime scene, cop opens fire, killing pregnant lady, killing her.

The kicker here is though, they were pulled over at a GAS STATION, lol.

Talked to a friend of mine in England earlier today. He said they were broadcasting Zatoichi so he was watching it.

Coincidence?