the right wing ethos that boils my blood the quickest is when people drool out shit like ‘play stupid games win stupid prizes’ under a story about some guy getting brutally beaten by police for being at a protest or stealing a dvd
Who got beaten by police for stealing a dvd?
Yeah, of course the video doesn’t show any of the events leading up to the arrest, so we can only speculate what really happened.
Yes it doesn’t look like fun and I’m all for giving someone the benefit of the doubt, but the guy also looks and acts like he might be on drugs, and he’s out in public not wearing a shirt, which already shows at least a tendency towards blatant disregard for the rules, but either way, we should be careful to jump any conclusions when seeing something like that, because there’s definitely a big part of the story that’s missing here.
But the good news is, it looks like he survived, so I’m sure he’ll get to have his day in court to prove his innocence, and I sure hope that he won’t be punished excessively or unjustly.
I’m all for giving someone the benefit of the doubt
Well that’s a good first step
but the guy also looks and acts like he might be on drugs, and he’s out in public not wearing a shirt
As yes, those two infamous crimes of “possibly being on drugs” and “no shirt, no presumption of innocence”
Come on man. Be better.
If you automatically side with the supposed victim despite the clear lack of any information about prior events leading to this scene, I might as well accuse you of “uniform and badge, no presumption of innocence”. It’s just as biased and therefore bigoted as the opposite stance.
That’s why we have the courts, though. The cops will have to prove that they had a legitimate reason to make an arrest or the judge will just let the guy go. Happens often enough, believe it or not.
I urge you to look up cases of people only convicted of resisting arrest.
Ok but resisting arrest IS a crime. If you haven’t done anything wrong, just let them arrest you, they can’t keep you locked up without charging you with something.
Every single case of someone being convicted only for resisting arrest is a case where it would have been better for them to comply since the cops clearly either didn’t find anything else or couldn’t make any of the other charges stick.
Arrest, yes. I’m less on board with the violence. I’m all about a proportionate response.
And that’s in general terms. There’s a reason people think all cops are bastards and it’s not because they dislike the colour blue.
Again, without being able to see what happened before the video started, it’s hard to judge whether this was a proportionate response or not.
If your default assumption is ACAB and they’re just doing this to hurt him because they can, then you’re just as biased as you’re accusing me of being. And I’m not saying the cops are by always innocent by default, but I’ve also seen enough people like this guy act like major dickheads before claiming to be a victim of police brutality.
But once again, if he did nothing wrong, I hope he goes free. And with a nice check to boot, if they did use excessive force. But that’s up to the judge to decide, not me.
Absolutely. The right say they’re pro-freedom but they’ll strip you of the right to vote if you smoke weed.
Coincidentally one of the reasons that led to the prohibition of cannabis.
Who smoked weed? Black people, brown people, and when the war on drugs really ramped up…hippies.
Nowadays most rational people realized the war on drugs was bunk and people of all walks and colors smoke weed.
I doubt it’s a coincidence that the states that haven’t decriminalized yet are the ones that still love to hassle PoCs and hippies the most.
It was Mexicans too. It’s where the “lazy Mexican sleeping in the shade” comes from.
If you’re willing to question cannabis legality maybe look at other drugs too. Coca leaves were chewed by native tribes millennia ago to help with long journeys. Kratom was used in Asia to help with long harvest days. Celts were eating shrooms millennia ago.
Humanity has a LONG history of drug use with nothing off-limits and there was no societal collapse from it. It’s the past century puritan ideals that are a serious aberration.
Did you know it’s statistically more dangerous to go horse riding than take Molly? The toilets in the UK Parliament were tested for cocaine and all tested positive. No drug should be illegal.
Ref:
- Chasing the Scream - Johann Hari
- Drugs Without the Hot Air - Prof David Nutt
I love how stereotypical Mexicans are portrayed as both lazy and hard working at the same time.
That’s a very good way of putting it. Reminds me of the developments in Russia.
You mean how Putin killed Navalny? Yes.
Yes, but not only that. His murder is emblematic of a general culture of taking away the rights of people who do not fall in line with the regime.
A right to remain silent. A right to a competent attorney regardless of ability to pay. A right to due process. A right to a timely trial by a jury of peers. A right to healthy food, shelter, healthcare, and other accommodations while incarcerated. I’m probably missing a few.
The right to a fair wage while imprisoned. Or else your justice system only serves to produce slaves.
Slavery is legal in prisons here in the U.S.
Yes, precisely.
written into the constitution
That’s why the rights of people today shouldn’t be dictated by a document written over a century ago. Idolizing a document over human rights is terrible.
What is your plan to manage crime without limiting the rights of criminals?
Same thing as before, just dont block them from voting, serving jury duty, healthcare, jobs, etc after release, prison fees be damned.
You’ll get life, most of it, or execution for murder, rape, significant theft, etc regardless.
Besides, limiting their rights creates more crime, as it locks away job opportunities that would help discourage stealing or killing plus gives them no incentive to work with police & government. If they move to crime again, lock em up again but for much longer. Not hard.
Does that work for you?
So not allowing someone to serve jury duty is limiting their rights, but its not limiting their rights to imprison of execute them? Also, even after being freed some people should have less rights. I don’t care how much time a pedophile served, they should never be allowed to work anywhere near children. A drunk driver shouldn’t be able to drive again for a long time.
Properly dealing with crime forces you to revoke some people’s rights at least temporarily. I’m ok with trying to minimize that after time is served, but there is no changing that.
Made a 5 page response at first literally citing the Universal Declaration of Human rights, but others who responded when i was done did much better at explaining, so I will just add:
There’s no reason to stop inmates from voting except for preconceived notions that they are any less human or competent than anyone else. I promise you they aren’t.
Jury duty? There are already exemptions. Add in prison.
Just being on someone else’s property, whether the government, a school, store, etc is a priviledge.
Same with having a job, much less at a type of institution. My awful vision means i am unable to work in the military. Working in the military was never a right in the first place. Nor is working near or at children’s institutions.
Driving is a priviledge. Visit a city with good public transit, cycleways, & ample walkways & this will be made obvious. If driving feels like a necesity & thus a right, then that’s a problem with your city, but i digress…
Forced labor in prison camps? Basically indentured servitude. Should be voluntary otherwise you lose benefits, nothing like toilets or clothes or food & water for example.
Can’t restrict their ability to read books & learn.
No civil asset forfeiture except to pay off charges from trial (fraud, miney laundering, theft, etc), she even so, when they leave they should be returned a check or cash value equivalent to everything they once owned, minus charges from verdict of course. Otherwise it literally becomes police sponsored theft.
Look dude, its very simple. Putting people in prison is limiting their rights. Therefore, punishing criminals requires limiting their rights to some extent. You don’t need multiple paragraphs, and you certainly don’t need 5 pages.
Look dude, it’s very simple: some rights of criminals need to be restricted for practical reasons. Most don’t, and those that don’t shouldn’t be.
Exactly, that’s what I’m saying.
Ok good. I don’t think anyone is really arguing otherwise except for the most hardcore anarchists, who seem like generally unreasonable people. (Like, you’re not going to stop anyone from doing whatever they want? What if what they want to do is create a government that enforces its will on everyone?)
“cRiMe” is not the issue, the unmet needs of people that motivate them to circumvent the system are the issue
I’m generally against cops and “tough on crime” measures but you only have to look at a few high profile criminals to see that some extremely destructive crimes are committed by people whose every conceivable material need is met. Trump in particular is a great example. He’s also a great example of what happens certain crimes are not prosecuted.
Victims have rights too. People have a right to not be victimized by criminals.
You’re arguing a completely separate point.
