Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Scary stuff bruce. I am stepping well away.

   

Can you really count that far when tasered? I seriously doubt it... I can see it felt like that though

   

The judge cleared them on drug charges but found them guilty of obstruction so obviously there was more going on during the incident than the article suggested. The judge even went as far as to say that they should have been more careful about who they chose to be friends with. On the surface I'd say that this is more about the usual "human rights" whiners going off on another one of their anti-police rants as opposed to an excessive force issue on the part of the police.

Two guys in the wrong place at the wrong time who get roughed up by the cops but are still alive as opposed to police doing it the soft and polite way and potentially getting shot at by some drug dealer armed with a MAC-10? I know which outcome I'd prefer.

   

If you do the slightest thing when being approached by a constable that is obstruction of justice. If the police use excessive force they will always have that as an excuse and there will be no evidence. And Judges will always support the justice system and lecture you should chose your friends better. Basically, you can't catch the police.

   

I’ve had a run in with police for some time now. Back in the 1980s I lost a lot of bad computer programming jobs and wound up on UIC several times. So I was an eminently employable programmer that was one of the worst users of UIC. The people in my neighbourhood began to pay attention to me, as at that time the federal fiscal deficit was troubling people with what was wrong and I was noticeable. The neighbour in the apartment directly overhead mine began to stalk me, to pay attention to every little thing I did. The police in the neighbourhood would have known about this but did not arrest her. This went on for years and I became agitated and wound up under psychiatric care. The psychiatrists at the Clarke Institure opinion was I was being stalked by this neighbour as a political protest and was police business. Eventually interest in me wore out and the stalking neighbour moved out.

Then in July 2002 a wave of concern about the lack of good jobs spread through Toronto and as I had become a “job activist” in the intervening years and had an opinion on these matters a new neighbour in the over head apartment began to stalk me again, as a copy cat crime. It had, or has, the attention of the whole neighbourhood, is a political protest and the local constables are colluding.

I have a 215 page affidavit written up on the event accusing the local police of politicalization. It took me about a man year to write the 215 pages. The story sounds like a fiction or a delusion even but in fact it’s truth is stranger than fiction. If it goes public it’ll be trouble for the government. In the mean time unless the police and government apologize to me first I won’t be able to sue because of the huge cost of suing city hall.

The constables on the street think “so what” although being stalked has disrupted my life. That’s the way it is with them.

   

It should be understood though that the courts and police probably have that attitude considering that the people most likely to be found at crime scenes are usually criminals. Overwhelming statistics and evidence probably back them up too.

   

That's the theory. In fact the police are pretty average people and will have attitude. This is the issue, and if ask around rather a lot of people don't trust them.

   

Aluminium pie plates and skate laces for the lot of us!!!

   

Sounds to me, if what you're saying is true, that you're dealing more with more of a case of unjustfiable profiling than the alleged police brutality that the two bozos in the article are claiming. Not to be dismissive of you but it's an apples-to-oranges thing and IMO shouldn't be confused. By a judge finding them guilt of obstruction there's clearly a basis to accept that, going by what's know of the particulars of the incident, the police made a righteous bust. The ranks of the judiciary aren't exactly known for their kindness to police that cross the line so in this particular case I don't see where there's a basis for too much controversy, other than that the people involved were black and therefore able to open up all the usual accusations of police racism.

I'm not dumb enough to suggest that some people don't trust the police and that in certain instances the police haven't done enough stupid or heavy-handed things to justify it. Hopefully there's enough corrective apparatuses built into the system that these things can be properly addressed. My own point of view, thanks to certain instances of victimization by criminals in my own past, is that I'm almost by default going to take the side of the police over that of a bunch of low-class thugs, dopers, chronic recidivists, psychopathic bullies,and troublemaking assholes who deliberately go out of their way to make life difficult and unsafe for the rest of us. Maybe it's my inner fascist speaking but I'd far rather live in a place where there's strong police control over these types of jerks as opposed to some so-called "civil liberties" lawyers paradise where the dirtbags are free to run amok in any manner they wish.

   

I appreciate that sentiment and certainly feel that way, at times. But I think there is a better solution: Get rid of the cops and increase the effectiveness of the courts. I don't mean all the cops, of course, but I don't think you need as much of a police presence if the courts punish offenders appropriately.

   

You can't get rid of the police unless you have a society where the rule of law is universally respected. Our society over the last fifty years has done the exact opposite and created a climate where obeying the law is something optional dependent on your own immediate and selfish desires. Get rid of the respect for authority and the respect for each other, as our society has clearly done in recent decades, and you create a chaotic situation where more policing, not less, becomes vitally necessary just to hold the line against anarchy.

Until the magic moment arrives where individuality means the creation of a better and more responsible person, instead of a more selfish, hedonistic, or criminal one, then an increase in policing is the only option available to keep what's left of the good parts of society from falling prey to the criminal and the psychopathic. Our world is full of people, for example, who think that even something as small as obeying the speed limit in a playground zone full of little kids is too much to ask from them and that no one else's right to safety should ever get in the way of their manic me-first free-for-all. What the hell exactly, aside from punishment that sometimes has to be very harsh, are you ever going to be able to do to get through to idiots with attitudes like that?

   

I'm going to try to put situations like this into perspective.
I have met many 'good Cops and a few bad Cops. I would not have met as many 'good Cops' and likely none of the bad Cops had I not been the cause of most of the problems to begin with!

The reasons for my interactions with the law varied from accidents, being a witness, filing a complaint etc. Strange though how it always seemed that whenever I was 'raising hell' only bad Cops showed up!

   

Again, I share your sentiments, but I guess I'm more afraid of the government harming me than some random psychopath.

   

People don't like to be told what to do, regardless of the fact it in your best interest.

   

Not holding my breath for that to happen, but very well said nonetheless

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next