Flamewar. Flamewar never changes.

Back in my day, trolling was a art!

Regardless of anything else anyone has posted in this thread, I have to agree 100% with this. I, too, want to know why folks are down-voting someone simply for stating an unpopular opinion. Most of lukipela's arguments were free of spam, flame, or insults, yet every single post of his that I read has been down-voted? Maybe there is a history here that I am missing, but it seems like a rather over the top reaction.

However, there are other folks in this thread that are name-calling, flaming, and trolling against the minority dissenters . Yet, they don't get down-voted simply because they are in the majority? This isn't the only thread I have seen this happen in either. Yeah, where has the 'classy community' gone? My thoughts exactly.

As for the topic at hand: Yeah, police brutality exists, and it sucks. This doesn't mean that all authority is bad, but it does mean that human beings, even those in authority, make bad decisions and overreact occasionally. This is not really news to me.

I would be interested to know how, and if, those cops were punished, though. I would also like to know WHY they chose to beat up those people. As has been mentioned a few times, more contextual information can't be a bad thing here. It probably won't make it right, but a little bit of context might make it easier for me to understand.

I don't know what's unclear about this, someone with much better training decided to beat the crap out of someone in custody when he was in no physical danger himself. Even if he feared violence from the 120 pound girl, if he doesn't have enough training to take her down he should be fired anyway.

He beat the crap out of her because he lost his temper, plain and simple. Regardless of whether one jury was willing to convict him of an actual crime, he's unfit and gives officers that do maintain their temper a horrible name.

Ironically it sounds like he did actual injury to himself while beating her up and then filed a false report when he failed to mention punching her.

The dude's a douchebag. There's no reason for officers to act like this, they are trained to keep their cool and should damned well do so.

This guy is fucking hero and is doing exactly what he's supposed to be doing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyHMbHHtArE

The guy in your link is a piece of trash according to the information presented.

I wouldn't be surprised if those extra two punches he gave her was because he hurt himself. I know I've often wanted to hit something when I've stubbed my toe.

Also I love that video.

Actually I have too, though not another person, I do look around for crap to smash though. As I've aged my ability to factor the cost of the replacement has improved:)

You old fart.

Oh my god, I laughed so hard I cried.

He sounds like Kahn from King of the Hill!

I've heard that about that game, I've avoided playing it even at a friend's house for that very reason.

We can respect authority while questioning it. In my mind, to question authority does not equate to rejecting it. I respect rule of law. I mostly abide. Where I don't, I accept the legal consequences without fight or flight. Been there done that, had this conviction tested more than once. But if a cop breaks into my home and tries to beat the hell out of me for smoking an evening joint, I'd be hard pressed to just lay there and take it..

I accept authority of law as defined by the people. It's a compact I make with my society. But I'm sure as shootin gonna question this authority. I'll not meekly accept anyones authority over me without questioning it. If I don't like the answers, then we've got a problem. If it's just me then it's my own problem and I've got a decision to make. When it's an answer that society doesn't accept, then we've all got a problem and we have the choice to accept it or correct it.




In this video we see examples of some recurrent unacceptable behavior:

The first clip shows a cop pulling a guy out of car. The guy offers no aggressive resistance. Perhaps he was passive resistant. Maybe he was being an ass. He could have been drunk out of his mind, or otherwise mentally or physically impaired. We don't know. That bit of context has no relevance when questioning what follows. The cop pushes the guys head down then grabs him by the back of his pants and puts him on the ground. Then slowly and without showing any immediacy, the cop extends his baton and strikes the man twice. He begins another swing but stops mid-swing. He takes time to close the car door. Taking his eyes of the suspect to do so. Then he begins another swing. But once again he stops. This time he motions two bystanders to step back. Then he proceeds to strike the man 5 times more. Nowhere in that event is the cop or the public endangered. The cop takes his time. He takes his eyes off the suspect. He shows no signs of being pressured or threatened. It seems clear that this was one sided aggression.



In the last clip we see a vehicle pursuit resulting in the suspects car running off the road. The driver is ejected from the vehicle to lie unmoving on the side of the road. The cops converge, the driver remains motionless. Five cops deliver multiple punches and kicks (I see at least 20 blows). From start to finish the beating takes approximately 10 seconds. The cops converge, deliver a flurry of blows, then disperse.

I've seen that behavior caught on police dash cams far too many times to have kept track of the number of incidents I have seen. I've watched many seasons of the show COPS, as well as spinoff shows (I once pondered this line of work myself; I am also interested in observing extreme human behavior (generally the suspects) for the purpose of understanding). I've also read and watched national and local news for some 25 years. I'm surprised at the prevalence of this "converge, strike, disperse" behavior. From casual purview of the media record alone, one can see that this isn't just a "one off" occurrence.

Then from some first hand interactions with law enforcement officers, I am left with the understanding that in some departments, there is a culture of retribution. You do them wrong and their gonna make you pay. You disrespect them and their going to fuck you up. *Disclaimer: The preceding does Not describe law enforcement in general.*




That behavior/mentality must be corrected where it exists. It undermines the purpose of rule of law. Much more can be said on that. Ponder on the various riots which were sparked by police brutality. And more. Anyway, To correct a problem, the problem must be identified. Questions have a way of identifying problems.

More than all that though, I simply won't accept authority without questing it's purpose, motivation, execution, legitimacy, etc. History proves the need to check and balance power. My countries governing is firmly based on the checks and balance of questioning authority. Great care was taken by my countries founders to see this so. Its eroding over time. As a whole we are failing at our job as citizens. You see the result.


EDIT: Speaking of context: The video begins with the following quote...

Yep, master troll at work.

You've said this three times now. You've added nothing more to the conversation than these three sentences declaring me a troll. Whats your purpose?

Our definitions of trolling differ. There's no baiting in my posts. Nor have I taken the bait of other posters and replied in kind. I make no user attacks. I use no personally demeaning language. I converse a topic. /

Well said.
I've never thought I would read "Enjoy sucking satan's cock" as a reply on this forum.

Also, why is whiteelk a troll? He didn't bait or insult. This thread degraded into a flamewar due to the actions of the community.

Huh? Where exactly did I insult you?

No, ESPECIALLY those in authority. As countless social studies have shown power does corrupt which is why you have to question those with power and authority first and foremost.

If it would be ok to divert a litle, I think that the philosophical considerations of authority are interesting as well.

In my understanding (and I am non-religious, so may be in error) the viewpoint in the original song is that if everyone 'obeyed authority' then the world would be harmonious. The obvious objection based on the well-founded concept of corruption with power is argued against by a higher authority, one seen to be faultless.

Obviously this is unacceptable to most, as, even given the supposition of a deity (the un-philosophical concept of the cristian god, to me, cannot even be supposed) the tenets of these faiths - and in this respect especially christianity - are themselves human constructions. Were they intact and inviolate from time immemorial it would perhaps be different, but given the historical records of alteration of the new testament (and the old as well, being borrowed by judaism from the chaldeans - that is, babylon - and by them from india, egypt, and other earlier middle eastern faiths from the same sources, every subsequent step with its own alterations), we must then look at these constructions as themselves the products of the same - in principle - human morality and philosophy as constructs our own schema, be they the products of society, or the individual.

Now, the argument becomes interesting because we have to compare here the fallibility and corruptibilty of the indivdual, and the society as merely the composite of those individuals, the two hopefully keeping each other in check and ultimately moving forwards. We see, as quoted at the begginning of this video, the commedable urge to question the authority of society as a product of that self-same individual moral authority, compared to the viewpoint of the religious check of one societal system against another.

The question we have to ask is, how close to that individual morality is ideal? Remembering that the two must balance against each other. Too far to one side (and I speak of our own internal compass here) and we have no genuine counter-balance, too far to the other, and our own imperfections are not allowed to be tempered from outside. On one hand the religious orthodoxy, on the other the fanatic. Similarly, on one hand the sycophant, on the other the psychopath.

We cannot live divorced from the whole of which we are a part, but similarly cannot ignore that inner compass, as it is all we have.

I think that striving to find the balance here is an essential aspect of human life, as we are attempting not only to define these terms, but to use them in order to create a better world. Save the miraculously, perfectly wise - of which, I would argue, humanity has none - this is true of us all.