Post A Reply
my profile
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board
»
Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk
»
!!!!!!!!!! UCLA student stunned by Taser plans suit !!!!!!!!!!
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by permanentjaun: [QB] Show me the video or news report saying the officers beat the victim. Tell me how the student was humiliated and tortured. Tell me how he was tortured. The cops used excessive force, not torture. If a cop shoots a suspect in the leg is that torture? No. It may be excessive force. It's not torture. Even Rodney King didn't file claims of torture. He fought in court for excessive police brutality. This is all besides the point. The point is that the cops were correct in their intial use of force, but not the use thereafter. You should be careful who you call a right winger. I am not a right winger so you're only alienating yourself from those on the left, who are supposed to be on your side. In fact it is your analysis of the 5th amendment that is wrong. Using your right to not bear witness against yourself is only applicable in court. The way you're analyzing it you would be saying that the police are not allowed to check ID's and visa's at US Borders. If you can produce an ID at the border to prove citizenship then you are allowed in. If you're not, they turn you around. Why do I have to prove I'm a US citizen to be allowed in? I'm not an alien. I know I'm legal. Why do I have to tell prove myself to an officer? To keep non-US citizens out. To keep drug trafficers out. I could go on. The kid needed to prove that he was a UCLA student to stay in the library. If he can't he is asked to leave just like anyone else without an ID. All he had to do was produce an ID. He did not. He did not leave. The officers are in their right to use force to remove him. I'll say again, I do believe they used excessive force after the initial taser. [QUOTE]Originally posted by bdgee: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by permanentjaun: [qb] They didn't beat him. They didn't humiliate him. I can't believe I'm having this debate with you. You don't even know how to analyze the amendments. Amendment V is an amendment that states no one shall be imprisoned for a crime without first being tried. Nor can they be tried twice for the same crime, i.e. double jeopardy, nor be forced to be used as a witness against themselves ("I plead the fifth"), nor removed of life, liberty, and property, imprisoned, without going through the complete process of law. Nor shall property be taken for public use without being compensated for it, i.e. emminent domain. The fifth amendment is for the process after being arrested, not while being arrested. The fifth amendment has absolutely nothing to do with what you are talking about. Don't try to throw amendments at me, especially ones that have nothing to do with the topic. The kid was wrong in not producing an ID even though he had one. He was being stupid. The cops were correct in their procedure up until they tasered him a second time. They can and will be held responsible for excessive force for their 2nd and subsequent taserings. [/qb][/QUOTE]You need to learn some appropriate usages that reach beyond your obvious politically biased overstatements of specificity of a few statements: They did beat him. They did humiliate him. They did torture him. And I am not speaking of or in the sense of the Chaney/Rumsfield abominations of the usage of the word torture that they put forth to make you right wingers think you have a legal or honoirable position after the abuses in Iraq and elsewhere and to cover their illegal actions. Yours seems to be a quite simple minded reading of the Constitution, allowing only those results that your rightwing leanings want to come from the Constitution. It doesn't allow such interpretation. To to paraphrase Hogo Blacks explanation, [i]When the Constitution says "no" it meams no, not sometimes no and not maybe.[/i] Indeed the 5th Amendment does indeed have something to do with this. it clearly states therein that "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...: and to require that a person supply proof that he is not in violation of trespass laws is a requirement that he bear witness against himself. [/qb][/QUOTE] [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
Allstocks.com Message Board Home
© 1997 - 2021 Allstocks.com. All rights reserved.
Powered by
Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2