quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Holy crap! Source: DemocracyNow!

You're a little slow on the news, you know. This happened on Friday night/Saturday morning and was national news yesterday.

While we're at it, add this one

quote:

Police shooting of elderly woman leads to federal probe ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- Federal authorities will investigate last week's police involved shooting death of an elderly woman in Atlanta, the city's police chief announced Monday. Richard Pennington also said the eight-member narcotics team tied to the incident will be placed on paid leave. The move came after an informant -- named in a search warrant of the woman's home -- denied buying drugs at the residence, Pennington said. But police spokesmen had initially said narcotics officers carried out a drug buy Tuesday from a man identified only as "Sam" at Kathryn Johnston's home west of downtown Atlanta. Pennington said investigators found a small amount of marijuana there after the raid. "The officers are saying one thing. The confidential informant is saying something else," the chief said. The decision to turn the case over to the FBI, federal prosecutors, the Fulton County district attorney's office and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, came in the middle of "intense speculation and suspicion" surrounding the shooting, said Pennington. He promised to make "every document, every witness and piece of evidence" available. Police said Johnston opened fire on police who tried to enter her home last Tuesday. Three officers were wounded, and Johnston was killed when police returned fire. Neighbors and relatives said the raid had to have been a mistake. Johnston lived alone and was so afraid of crime in the neighborhood that she wouldn't let neighbors who delivered groceries for her come into her home, they said. Relatives gave her age as 92, but Fulton County medical examiners put her age at 88. Reviewing "no-knock" policy The chief said his department was reviewing its use of "no-knock" raids after the shootout. The warrants are common in narcotics cases when officers fear suspects may try to dispose of drugs or evidence in the time it takes authorities to gain access to the home. "There are many unanswered questions. I promise each and every citizen that the complete truth will be eventually known, whatever that might be," he said. "But we must all exercise patience while we examine and re-examine every single aspect of these tragic events." A spokesman for Johnston's family, the Rev. Markel Hutchins, went to Washington to request a federal investigation Monday. Hutchins said he had received assurance agencies involved would conduct a "swift and thorough" investigation into Johnston's death. Hutchins said the three mid-level officials with whom he met also promised "all resources at our disposal" to help counter the fallout in the African American community from the fatal shooting. And a Justice Department official in Washington confirmed the Civil Rights Division's interest in the case. "We have begun a review of the matter, and are collecting information," spokesperson Cynthia Magnuson said. "The FBI has already begun its investigation and we are coordinating with other agencies." Hutchins said he urged Justice Department officials to pressure local police departments to stop using "no knock" search warrants.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/27/at...ting/index.html

___________________
"Go back to bed america your government is in control
Here's American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it,
Watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin' skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom,
Here you go America you are free to do as we tell you
We want your soul
Your cash, your house, your phone, your cash, your house, your life" -Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul

And while I'm at it

quote:

NYPD Shoot Dead Unarmed Man Hours Before His Wedding Here in New York, the police department is coming under intense criticism after a group of undercover officers shot and killed a 23-year-old African American man hours before he was supposed to get married to his high school sweetheart. Early Saturday morning, five officers fired 50 shots at a car carrying the groom-to-be, Sean Bell, who had just left his bachelors party with two friends. None of them were armed. Bullets hit Bell in the neck and arm. He died before reaching the hospital. Joseph Guzman is in critical condition after being hit by 11 bullets. Trent Benefield is in stable condition with wounds to his leg. Benefield was screaming out in pain when reporters arrived at the scene Saturday morning. * Trent Benefield: "I can't feel my legs. Noooo - I can't feel my legs!" Two transit workers were also injured by stray bullets fired by the police. The police claim the shooting occurred after Bell's car hit an undercover officer and an unmarked police minivan. One witness told the Daily News that the undercover police officers didn't identify themselves until after they had begun shooting and that the men initially thought they were being robbed. On Sunday the Rev. Al Sharpton led a protest of hundreds of demonstrators. * Rev. Al Sharpton: "I've already communicated with the city that this stinks. Something about the story being told does not smell right." Al Sharpton also criticized police for handcuffing the two men to their hospital beds while they received emergency care. Many people compared the shooting of Sean Bell to the death of Amadou Diallo who was killed in 1999 when police fired 41 shots him.

The part I bolded is why YOU need to watch your sources, because that is blatantly false. The bullets did not hit two transit workers. Two bullets hit a train station, not workers. While I don't think cops should be firing with no regard for where their bullets could hit, I think we'd all agree that hitting transit workers and hitting a train station are a little different.

By the way, this is the part of the police policy which will have all their badges:

quote:

The police department's policy on shooting at moving vehicles states: "Police officers shall not discharge their firearms at or from a moving vehicle unless deadly force is being used against the police officers or another person present, by means other than a moving vehicle."

___________________
"Go back to bed america your government is in control
Here's American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it,
Watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin' skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom,
Here you go America you are free to do as we tell you
We want your soul
Your cash, your house, your phone, your cash, your house, your life" -Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z This is what I call a being a sheep; the mainstream media must feed you information and form your opinion for you. And we all know how truthfull, reliable, non-manipulative, and trustworthy the mass media is.

oh, whereas just taking shaolin_z at his opinionated word is somehow better? i didnt say i wanted to see it all over CNN's frontpage. but something other than your general paranoid musings? hell yes.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z There is absolutely no reason to trust mainstream corporate owned media, given it's track record and modus operandi.

how is this suddenly a debate about the media?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Jesus man, I wasn't referring to pressure from the police force. The little guy doesn't push pressure on people like lawyers, someone who actually has the ability to effectively intimidate and get compliance does, much higher up in the food chain. That certainly isn't the police. If this ever goes to court, it will have tons of political ramifications and would likely initiate dialogue about several issues, none of which the powers that be want the public to be concerned with. A few possibilities off the top of my head: 1) An example clearly illustrating an obvious abuse of power, and quite possibly profiling. 2) Completely unecessary and excessive use of force (i.e. brutality). 3) 1 & 2 are a reflection of unconstitutional legislation, protocol, and authoritarian nature of the system as it has become, and the direction this country's very possibly headed. Whatever combination of the above three will cause even deeper disaproval of the state of affairs in a post 9-11 America, which could lead to alot more public pressure on and opposition to the current Administration. Many people are fed up enough with system as it is already. On the other hand, if this doesn't go anywhere, it's a clear message to the people of 'authorities' being able to get away with whatever they want, which will only instill fear, which keeps people in line.

now you really have lost me. who in the hell is gonna care about some hostile student getting tasered by the police force? are you really that gullible that you really think defence lawyers are regular targets of "the system"? that its a regular occurence for people to stick their neck out for a few over-zealous police officers? there are countless similar issues every day in the US, why is this one special or different?

seriously, sometimes you sound as bad as magnetonium. it really is crazy talk.

"the lawyer for the student pulled out of the case after elite persons unknown put pressure on him due to the post 9/11 society and the ramification of police brutality in the neo-con era's police state" ??

i really do wonder how somebody so bright can jump to such outlandish assumptions with nothing but the fact that a lawyer dropped the case.

the ramifications of this case will boil down to police procedure and protocol and any changes that are deemed necessary. thats it. hardly a world-changing affair.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy The UCLA Bruin, which is where I've gotten a good amount of the articles I've posted in this thread is hardly MSM.

That wasn't really directed at you. I respect your opinion much more than most people on PDD.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy You really need to stop being SOOO paranoid. Distrust is good, looking for answers is good, but jumping to your own conclusions based on feelings is the opposite of rational behavior, which I think you were condemning Fir3start3r for in the "Should we blame the US thread"

In this case:

It's not (really) based on feelings. It's an absolute disgust to how submisive to authority and passive most people have become, and, on top of that, several people rationalizing it (and I am not including you in that group, just to clarify). And that's based on values.

In the other thread you referenced:

It again, was disgust with the level of ignorace and denial. One the one hand you've got people demonizing Saddam (and rightly so) while on the other hand (some of) these people praise/defend/look up to the sick fucks without who'm none of it would be possible. Even if you're (generic you here) are naive enough to believe the whole "accidents" and "mistakes" nonsense, accountability still doesn't go out the window.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy The reason I think this went away is because the attorney realized that the students supervising the lab asked him for his ID, not the police, which makes this whole police racism angle a little less credible. If all that they did was enforce, and in doing so, kept in line with UCLA's pretty ridiculous rules that allowing tazing of those who passively resist, he had little case. If his family wasn't paying hourly rates, getting this attorney to take a contingency case that's not very winnable isn't very likely. It's not like this shooting in NYC over the weekend where police unloaded 50 shots at a car. That's completely against police protocol here, and those guys are fucked. The police will end up paying for the death (plus the 2 in the hospital) since their officers violated their rules of engagement.

I disagree:

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z No, the amount of publicity he would have gotton for this case would have been ridiculous, and could have easily taken it all the way up to the supreme court. You remember that little document called the Constitution with also included this weird thing called the Bill of Rights? Amendment VIII - Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791. "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

Last edited by shaolin_Z on Nov-28-2006 at 05:22

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z That wasn't really directed at you. I respect your opinion much more than most people on PDD.

Thank you

quote:

I disagree:

Fix that quote, since I didn't say it.

I don't think the publicity would have helped him. It seems like he's well known enough, and based on this bio from his firm's website, I'm guessing hasn't been forced out of cases due to pressure and is probably a pretty decent judge of which cases are winnable and which aren't.

http://www.yagmanlaw.net/index.htm?ResumeFrame.htm

___________________
"Go back to bed america your government is in control
Here's American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it,
Watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin' skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom,
Here you go America you are free to do as we tell you
We want your soul
Your cash, your house, your phone, your cash, your house, your life" -Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN oh, whereas just taking shaolin_z at his opinionated word is somehow better?

No, I want YOU to think for YOURSELF, and break free of your conditioning.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i didnt say i wanted to see it all over CNN's frontpage. but something other than your general paranoid musings? hell yes.

Well, you obviously think my opinion isn't worth shit, you've demonstrated that several times. You don't address my argument but rather attack me instead. That's kind of besides the point though, but I don't see why the fuck you bother responding to anything I say if I'm such a nonsensical paranoid fuck full of shit.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN how is this suddenly a debate about the media?

It's not a "debate about the media." I'm not going to bother explaining something that clearly went over your head, I don't really have the time or the patience to do that rightnow.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN now you really have lost me. who in the hell is gonna care about some hostile student getting tasered by the police force?

I didn't see him putting up a fight or get violent whatsoever, so his behaviour hardly qualifies as hostile.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN are you really that gullible that you really think defence lawyers are regular targets of "the system"?

No, I don't think they're "regular target of the system." Such an obvious level of corruption on virtually every level and abuse of power (localy/on national level) is a fairly recent phenomenon in the US (atleast in a while).

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN that its a regular occurence for people to stick their neck out for a few over-zealous police officers? there are countless similar issues every day in the US, why is this one special or different?

If you didn't understand it the first time, I don't think elaborating on it or paraphrsing it will make a difference.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN seriously, sometimes you sound as bad as magnetonium. it really is crazy talk.

If you insist.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN "the lawyer for the student pulled out of the case after elite persons unknown put pressure on him due to the post 9/11 society and the ramification of police brutality in the neo-con era's police state" ?? i really do wonder how somebody so bright can jump to such outlandish assumptions with nothing but the fact that a lawyer dropped the case.

Because I've lived in the third world and the first world, in multiple places, in very different cultures, under very different regimes. I'm far more familiar with the diversity of the world than you'll ever be. I have plenty of first hand experience with corruption, authoritarian rule, and abuse of power. I can recognize it and understand it when I see it. And that puts me in a unique position to view things from and insiders and an outsiders perspective both at the same time. And don't fucking bother arguing with me on that. You wouldn't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, since you have absolutely no experience to draw from, and some things are pretty fucking hard to learn without first hand experience. There really isn't any substitute for it. The US is starting to resemsble a police state more and more every day, and it wasn't like this before. I'm not a fucking idiot, I'm familiar enough with history to make a reasonable guess or prediction in times of great change as to what the future is likely to hold, especially when there's tons of observable parallels.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN the ramifications of this case will boil down to police procedure and protocol and any changes that are deemed necessary. thats it. hardly a world-changing affair.

I didn't say it would "necessarily" lead to some dramatic change, I said some significant change is possible. And I mentioned several other likely public reactions and scenarios, none of which are favourable to the power structure, especially the people currently in it.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy Thank you Fix that quote, since I didn't say it.

Whoops, done.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z No, I want YOU to think for YOURSELF, and break free of your conditioning.

and what conditioning would that be?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Well, you obviously think my opinion isn't worth shit, you've demonstrated that several times. You don't address my argument but rather attack me instead. That's kind of besides the point though, but I don't see why the fuck you bother responding to anything I say if I'm such a nonsensical paranoid fuck full of shit.

because youre a smart guy and i see hope for you. of course your opinion means more than shit, dont be silly. do i treat you like metalgear? but it also makes me frustrated when you launch into completely unsubstantiated tangents devoid of any evidence but your gut feeling.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Because I've lived in the third world and the first world, in multiple places, in very different cultures, under very different regimes. I'm far more familiar with the diversity of the world than you'll ever be. I have plenty of first hand experience with corruption, authoritarian rule, and abuse of power. I can recognize it and understand it when I see it. And that puts me in a unique position to view things from and insiders and an outsiders perspective both at the same time. And don't fucking bother arguing with me on that. You wouldn't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, since you have absolutely no experience to draw from, and some things are pretty fucking hard to learn without first hand experience. There really isn't any substitute for it. The US is starting to resemsble a police state more and more every day, and it wasn't like this before. I'm not a fucking idiot, I'm familiar enough with history to make a reasonable guess or prediction in times of great change as to what the future is likely to hold, especially when there's tons of observable parallels.

im not debating your larger life experience. but it also doesn't give you a leave-pass to say whatever you want without anything to substantiate it. which you haven't got. the lawyer dropped the case. thats the ONLY fact you have. and you jump to this outlandish assumption of elite interference. for a student tasered at university. that's just ridiculous. you're all too quick to see the shadowy hand of conspiracy behind every outcome in the real world. im not saying things like this happen (of course they do) but if you're going to sound credible you need more than just your previous experience of totalitarian regimes to achieve it.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I didn't say it would "necessarily" lead to some dramatic change, I said some significant change is possible. And I mentioned several other likely public reactions and scenarios, none of which are favourable to the power structure, especially the people currently in it.

well, if its not going to lead to some kind of revolutionary change or revelation, why on earth would anybody bother meddling in the legal affairs of a single student?

___________________

Think of it this way, do you seriously think most people at the time thought that a black woman refusing to move to the back of the bus would be a catalysing event leading to the civil rights movement? No, I'm not saying that a revolutionary change will necessarily occur, but it has the potential to upset the status quo. It could though, yo unever know (no, I'm not acutally strongly asserting the last sentence ).

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN well, if its not going to lead to some kind of revolutionary change or revelation, why on earth would anybody bother meddling in the legal affairs of a single student?

Why would the neo-cons be spying on grass-root organizations, activists, and the like (with the Patriot Act to somewhat save their ass, since it does technically allow them to it)? That's pretty much illegal as it's unconstitutional (but ofcourse 'technically' legal because of the damn Patriot Act, and add a list of other unconsitutional and otherwise illegal actions to it). They're not likely to cause revolutionary change eigther.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z First of all, he was already leaving. The pigs grabbed his arm on the way out which is when he got really upset and asked them to let him go. Gee, how fucking unreasonable. So the cops were the ones being dicks in the first place. How fucking hard is it to pick someone off the ground and drag them away? What the fuck is wrong with you man? Listen, there is no fucking way you can prove what mode they did or didn't have their tasers on. Eigther way, it's not a harmless fucking weapon. There's been tons of cases of taser related deaths. A student even said the guy had a medical condition. They could have fucking killed him. And there's absolutely no need to continuously tase a handcuffed person on the floor. That's pure fucking sadism. Is that doing their job? What the fucks wrong with you? On top of that, they're screaming "get up, get up or you're gonna get tased again." I mean, WTF? You can't fucking move a good 30-40 seconds after being tased. He couldn't possibly have complied with an "order" like that. And the way the guy was screaming made it pretty fucking obvious that it wasn't a "mild" shock.

Look I explained the difference between 'tased' and 'drive-stunned' and you are obviously fucking ignoring the facts to make whatever point it is you're trying to make.
There is a HUGE difference between the two.
If he was in fact, TASED, I'd be right with you, unfortunately, he wasn't, and your blind arguing about being tased is way off base.
The fact is HE HAD THE CAPACITY TO GET UP IF HE WANTED AFTER BEING DRIVE-STUNNED EACH AND EVERY TIME; he refused, not because he was incapable, but because he was playing passive aggressive and generally being a dink.
Asking yourself why his FUCKING LAWYER DROPPED HIM.
At worse, the guy got a little mark where he was drive-stunned; that's it.
Now can I make that possibility any clearer???

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Look I explained the difference between 'tased' and 'drive-stunned' and you are obviously fucking ignoring the facts to make whatever point it is you're trying to make. There is a HUGE difference between the two. If he was in fact, TASED, I'd be right with you, unfortunately, he wasn't, and your blind arguing about being tased is way off base. The fact is HE HAD THE CAPACITY TO GET UP IF HE WANTED AFTER BEING DRIVE-STUNNED EACH AND EVERY TIME; he refused, not because he was incapable, but because he was playing passive aggressive and generally being a dink. Asking yourself why his FUCKING LAWYER DROPPED HIM. At worse, the guy got a little mark where he was drive-stunned; that's it. Now can I make that possibility any clearer???

And there's absolutely NO WAY you can prove it. The cops' (who proved themselves to be brutal fucking pigs) testiomany is far from believable, so there's really no point in stating that as "fact." Plus, good job ignoring every other point that was made. That's ok though, you have a tendency of doing that pretty much all the time.

EDIT: BTW, YOU obviously have no fucking clue WHAT a TASER IS! It's supposed to fucking incapacitate the target, dumbass!

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

Last edited by shaolin_Z on Nov-28-2006 at 07:14

quote:

UCLA police are allowed to use Tasers on passive resisters as "a pain compliance technique," Assistant Chief Jeff Young said last week.

What a lovely euphemism for TORTURE!

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller