WHY SHOULD WE STILL BE CONCERNED ABOUT MAY 4, 1970 AT KENT STATE?
In Robert McNamara's (1995) book, "In Retrospect:The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam" is a way to begin is an illustration of the this process. In it he says that United States policy towards Vietnam was "... terribly wrong and we owe it to future generations to explain why."
The May 4 shootings at Kent State need to be remembered for several reasons. First, the shootings have come to symbolize a great American tragedy which occurred at the height of the Vietnam War era, a period in which the nation found itself deeply divided both politically and culturally. The poignant picture of Mary Vecchio kneeling in agony over Jeffrey Miller's body, for example, will remain forever as a reminder of the day when the Vietnam War came home to America. If the Kent State shootings will continue to be such a powerful symbol, then it is certainly important that Americans have a realistic view of the facts associated with this event. Second, May 4 at Kent State and the Vietnam War era remain controversial even today, and the need for healing continues to exist. Healing will not occur if events are either forgotten or distorted, and hence it is important to continue to search for the truth behind the events of May 4th at Kent State. Third, and most importantly, May h at Kent State should be remembered in order that we can learn from the mistakes of the past. The Guardsmen in their signed statement at the end of the civil trials recognized that better ways have to be found to deal with these types of confrontations. This has probably already occurred in numerous situations where law enforcement officials have issued a caution to their troops to be careful because "we don't want another Kent State." Insofar as this has happened, lessons have been learned, and the deaths of four young Kent State students have not been in vain.
-------------------- ^..^ Posts: 3897 | From: New York | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not saying they didn't go above and beyond in the short video I saw, they should have just hauled him off and done without the show. but he did seem like he was either tring to piss 'em off, or looking for a lawsuit to me...
Posts: 2634 | From: The highway | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by permanentjaun: 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:
quote:Originally posted by permanentjaun: 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.
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, When the Constitution says "no" it meams no, not sometimes no and not maybe.
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.
You keep trying to restrict the possible usages to exactly what you want rather than what is the actual and accepted usage of "beat", "torture", and "humiliate". The language doesn't work that way.
For example, when one cheches the dictionary for the word "beat", it turns out there is not any assumption of whipping or lashing, as you are insisting. There we learn that the first and primary usage of the word "beat" is
" to strike violently or forcefully and repeatedly."
The student was clearly repeatedly struck violently with a taser, i.e., he was beaten.
Then too, just exactly where are you getting ANY verification that the Campus Cops had ANY adequate cause for accosting the student? All the evidece indicates they did so purely and only because they believed he looked like an Arab.
I think you are showing a tad of racial prejudice yourself and way more than a tad of the sort of prejucice bad cops have for what they call "civilians".
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow bdgee. You are really stretching the definition of beating. "to strike violently or forcefully and repeatedly." The cops tasered him not beat him. If the cops had literally hit the victim with the taser itself then it would be beating. They did not. They tasered him. When you taser someone you don't beat them with it. You hold it to their skin and electrocute them. I can't believe you are even trying to argue with me on that point.
"Then too, just exactly where are you getting ANY verification that the Campus Cops had ANY adequate cause for accosting the student? All the evidece indicates they did so purely and only because they believed he looked like an Arab."
No. I mentioned nothing about him being an arab. You have just now. How dare you accuse me of being a racist. You are really crossing lines that you shouldn't be.
Here is why the cops had reason to physically remove him. Library policy clearly states that only students with ID's are allowed in the library after 11 pm. When asked for an ID he would not show the ID. Therefore, by campus rules he must leave the library. He was trespassing. They have every reason to remove him from the library so that the safety of UCLA's students is protected. Every year women are raped on campus' across the country. Not just a few campus', all of them. They don't always make national headlines, but it's the truth.
When someone does not have ID they must leave. Those are the rules. Plain and simple. I should have said this earlier since we do not know the whole situation. If they had him handcuffed already by the time they tasered him the first time then I don't agree with the tasering. I will assume he was not handcuffed yet since he was still yelling for the officers to not touch him.
When someone who must be removed from a facility is obviously enraged and yelling for officers to not touch him then officers can not take chances with them. People make stupid decisions when adrenaline is flowing and even usually level headed people will lash out in situations such as this.
The police had every right to taser and subdue the person the first time. I'll state again that the subsequent taserings were excessive force.
Ace of Spades this reply is for your post as well. The video doesn't show if the kid was on the ground at the time of the first tasering. My next sentence is based on the idea that he was not already handcuffed. He was rightfully tasered considering the rage that the kid was obviously displaying. He needed to be subdued.
"I think you are showing a tad of racial prejudice yourself and way more than a tad of the sort of prejucice bad cops have for what they call "civilians".
I still can't believe you said that bdgee; even more than you defining electrocution as beating. Not once did I say the cops were right in their procedure because he was Arab. In fact, my reply to NaturalResources when he mentioned that the man was middle-eastern is as follows -
"Not even the fact that he's middle-eastern. If you don't have an ID you're not allowed to be there. Simple as that. LA isn't a city to be messing around with and letting anyone go where they want. It's full of drug dealers, rapists, murderers and the same. It's not a school in Rhode Island."
Meaning, I based my decision not by his ethnicity but by the situation. Unidentified male refusing to give ID, enraged in the library after 11 pm and therefore trespassing unless ID is shown. He must be removed. He must be handled in a manner as to protect the students in the library and the officers safety. Minimal force should be used to remove the persons. Tasering is one of the safest ways to bring someone down. If it's dangerous, why do people volunteer to get tasered for the news? I don't see anyone volunteering to get hit with a club or shot.
Criminals do still have rights. He will win in court because the cops did use excessive force after they tasered him the first time. If he was handcuffed at the time of the first tasering then the first tasering will also be categorized as excessive force.
They didn't beat him. They didn't torture him. They didn't humiliate him. They used excessive force in removing an unidentified, enraged male from a facility which he was not allowed to stay in. Simple as that. Don't you dare try to say I'm a racist twice.
Posts: 1504 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Wow bdgee. You are really stretching the definition of beating."
No, I'm not stretching the "definition" of beating. I simply supplied you with the preferred and most common (over 50% in this case) usage of the word from the dictionary.
If you differ with that preferred usage, it is you that is stretching, not me.
I can see what you want to be the case and can sympatiize with your wish to declare the police, in general, as heros and good guys, but that isn't a fact. After all, they are representatives of us.
But that isn't realistic. They are a visciously prejudiced and angry group that wants to define everything in the simplist terms to make thier lot easier and legal.
Their propensity to refer to everyone not in law enforcement is a give-away. How many times have i found them declaring they are not enforcing "civil" law and therefore have powers beyond those specifically stated in the Constitution. I even found a big city police academyt was teaching that balogna in its academy, i.e., "this is not civil law", then a quick look at marshal law, implying to the cadets that policxe power means the power of Marshal law.
It's dangerous to EVER allow that sort of illogical and abuse of the language get into the head of a cop who wants the easiest and simplest route to what he chooses to believe to be the law.
NOT ALL COPS ARE BAD, but the practice of accepting bad law (however well meaning) by any cop leads to making them all bad cops.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
I didn't disagree that beating is defined as striking someone repeatedly. What I asked was you actually think putting a taser to someones skin and shocking them is beating? When someone is put to death by the electric chair, are they beat to death too? No, they're electrocuted.
At what point in my posts have I ever called the cops heroes and good guys? I have repeatedly stated that they used excessive force. I have even now stated that if the kid was handcuffed at the time of the first tasering then that was excessive force as well.
The police were correct in their initial use of power if he was not hancuffed at the time of the first tasering.
"It's dangerous to EVER allow that sort of illogical and abuse of the language get into the head of a cop who wants the easiest and simplest route to what he chooses to believe to be the law.
It doesn't matter what the cops define it as. If they have broken the law they will be tried and found guilty just like everyone else. They will be found guilty for excessive force, not beating. You can't twist words around like that. It would be like you saying its not stealing, its borrowing. It's not murder, its assisted suicide. It's not arson, I was setting off fireworks for the community.
When are you going to respond to the situation the student actually presented? If the cops knew he was a student then they would not have acted in that manner.
The student didn't present himself in that manner though. He was an illegally trespassing unidentified male that was severely enraged and uncooperative with the officers. Was he someone waiting for a woman to leave so he could rape her late at night on the streets of LA? Was he a drug dealer, possibly even having a bad trip considering his rage? Was he a homeless person looking to use the library as his home? Was he in a gang and waiting for someone to leave so he could beat them or kill them?
These are the scenerios that must be handled. When someone doesn't identify themselves and then becomes furious with rage you don't assume, "oh he's just a nice student looking to study in the library." That isn't a logical conclusion to come to.
You don't watch someone standing on a street corner for hours in a bad part of town and assume they're just having a tough time hailing a cab. All the kid had to do was show his ID and cooperate. He did not. Therefore the cops must assume the situation is more than just some student being uncooperative.
You tell me how the cops could have come to the conclusion that he was just a nice student looking to study. I don't see many students lashing out in fury in libraries. I also don't know many students that don't have ID's since their ID's are their lifeblood at colleges. They use it to get meals at the cafeteria, open the outer doors to their dorms, get them into sporting events, allows them to check out books from the library, and allows them to stay in the library past 11 pm. An ID is an important tool for students on campus.
Open your eyes. You're looking at the situation after the fact when you know now he is a student. The situation was completely different at the time of the incident.
Posts: 1504 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Agree on one point Bdgee. Never forget that an officer is just a regular joe dressed in blue. Some of em are really there because they feel they can make a difference, some of em are there because they like the power trip of having a gun and telling people what to do. For the majority of em though life just drifted that direction and they are there to pick up a paycheck just like everybody else.
Also is good to remember that these men and women live in a different world. They deal with the crap that you and I walk away from, rubberneck for, and throw shoes out the window because of. It tends to jade the view quite quickly.
I remember a newbie EMS worker on a team responding to an auto accident not too long ago. On scene the guy was very obviously dead but the team lead had the newbie doing CPR on him for over 20 minutes while the rest of the scene was cataloged. To the outsider it could be seen as cruel or disrespectful. The team leads response "He gotta have practice somehow."
Divorce rate for jailers is over 65% Main reasons for leaving a position as a dispatcher: depression and stress in that order.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I didn't disagree that beating is defined as striking someone repeatedly. What I asked was you actually think putting a taser to someones skin and shocking them is beating?"
Whether or not you agree with the dictionary speaks of your intent, not mine.
And yes, i do indeed that repeatedly striking a person with a taser is beating that person....I need only refer to the preferred usage of "beat in the dictionary: :
"beat"
" to strike violently or forcefully and repeatedly."
I do very much agree with:
"these men and women live in a different world. They deal with the crap that you and I walk away from ... because .. it tends to jade the view quite quickly."
Quickly and askew, so that they come to think they are not a part of the general society which they derogatorily refer to as "civilians" and which they come to believe are made up of and of the same moral character as the riff-raff they are forced to deal with.
Once that point is reached, they become sort of like a secret society, believing in authority via possession of moral superiority that enables them to interpret the Laws and the Constitution so as to make their new judgement unquestionable and appropriate to any situation.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. I even repeated myself that I don't disagree with the definition of what beating is. They were NOT struck by the taser itself. When you are shot by a gun you are not beat by the gun. You are shot by a bullet. You are beat by a gun if someone physically takes the gun and hits you with it.
The same goes with the taser. When you are tasered you are not beat by the taser. You are electrocuted. You are beat by the taser if someone physically takes the taser device and hits you with it. The police did not hit the kid with it. They tasered him with electricity.
"Quickly and askew, so that they come to think they are not a part of the general society which they derogatorily refer to as "civilians" and which they come to believe are made up of and of the same moral character as the riff-raff they are forced to deal with."
In fact police officers are not part of general society, just like how a soldier is not a civilian. Police officers are licensed by the state they serve to act in ways civilians, i.e. non police officers, are not allowed to act. Common citizens are not allowed to stop speeding motorists. Common citizens are not allowed to fire weapons in public unless in self defense. Common citizens can not investigate crimes. Common citizens can not arrest anyone. Do you see where I am going with this?
Officers are not general society. They have been licensed to have certain responsibilities above what common citizens do not have. Does this make them a "secret society?" Come on. The police officers will be tried for their actions and penalties distributed among them. They will answer for their actions of excessive force.
Are they interpreting the laws as they see fit? No, that is the job of the judicial system. Their job is to apprehend who they see as breaking the law. Which brings me back to my point WHICH YOU STILL HAVE NOT ADDRESSED!
How did the kid present himself? Was he acting in a calm cool collect manner such that the police could handle him as a student? Or was he handling himself as an unidentified male acting in a furious rage and being uncooperative with police?
You still haven't addressed the point that the police were acting with the safety of theirs and the other students. What if he wasn't a student and was a rapist, gang banner, drug dealer?
You are making your decisions after the fact that he is known to be a student now. THE SITUATION WAS MUCH DIFFERENT AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT. He presented himself as a nonstudent and should have been handled as such. Even then as a nonstudent all he had to do was cooperate by standing up and leaving. Instead he decided to yell furiously at the police and not cooperate with their demands to stand up.
The cops had reason to remove him with force.
Posts: 1504 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The cops have no business ignoring the Constitution even if they want to believe they are "protecteng themselves or their kind and the fact 5thqt they singled out a racially distinct and different individual tells us that they wee acting out of bias and prejudice.
Even so, they had no justifiable "cause" as is required by the Constitution to single out that particular person. (And I have indeed previously address that particular point.)
The situation at the time and before the time was that the cops had no reason, other than prejudice, to single out the victim they did.
Left alone and not threatened improperly by the misaction of the Campus Cops, there was no "failure to cooperate". That so called "failure", as you insist it was, could not have existed had the cops not acted without adequate cause.
Then, according to witnesses, the student was removing himself. (The Cops do not constitute unbiased witnesses.)
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
-------------------- "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin Posts: 3898 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the crux of the matter revolves around the question...
Were the cops acting under the guidelines of the university to check I.D. for all users of the library after 11pm?
If so then the initial contact between the cops and the student is valid.
It may be contested that the requirement to produce I.D after 11pm is unconstitutional but then that is the university rules at fault...not the officers.
Regardless of the terminology used to describe the multiple tazer shocks I don't believe anyone here thinks such actions were warranted. On that point alone a lawsuit is reasonable and I hope he pursues and wins.
Having a security background, and knowing the uncertainty such encounters have, I personally have some sympathy for the initial action of the officers. However I do not hesitate to say that conduct after initial contact went beyond the bounds of legitimate action and should be addressed and rectified.
A free market is never truly free. The middle class is nowhere near the middle. An equal share is never truly equal. And justice is not truly blind, but is color blind and blinded by colors and sees in shades of grey and brown.
Imperfect structures set up by an imperfect species. To be lamented but likely never changed.
Be good to each other.
The Bigfoot
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are the one saying they singled him out for his race. Is he supposed to be excluded from laws because he is a muslim american? No. Therefore they have the right to ask him, just like any other student, for his ID.
You are not reading my posts. I didn't ask you to address a point of why he was first addressed and asked for his ID. My point was why the cops used force to remove him. WHICH YOU STILL HAVE NOT ADDRESSED.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE REFUSING TO SHOW ID. THEREFORE ILLEGALLY TRESPASSING. YELLING IN A FURIOUS RAGE AT POLICE OFFICERS AND REFUSING TO COOPERATE WITH OFFICERS. NEEDED TO BE SUBDUED
"The situation at the time and before the time was that the cops had no reason, other than prejudice, to single out the victim they did."
Again you're the one bringing race and ethnicity into this. They had every reason to ask the kid for his ID. They needed to make sure he was allowed to stay in the library. It's posted library policy that you must have an ID past 11.
"Left alone and not threatened improperly by the misaction of the Campus Cops, there was no "failure to cooperate". That so called "failure", as you insist it was, could not have existed had the cops not acted without adequate cause."
This is the lamest part of your last post. That's like saying a drug dealer should not be accused of murdering a cop because he wouldn't have done it if the cop didn't approach him to arrest him for drug dealing. Therefore, it was the cops fault he got murdered and not the drug dealers. Give it up. You need to treat officers with the respect and dignity they deserve. This is to honor the duty they have undertaken and so you don't get involved in stuff like this. If you're not a criminal, don't act like one. Why should you act in that manner against the police when they are there for your protection unless you are doing something wrong or illegal?
No, you still have not addressed my point. How did the kid handle himself with the cops? Was he calm, cool and collected? No. Did he at any time identify who he was and what he was doing there? No. Did he show his student ID? No. Was he yelling furiously at police officers? Yes.
How do you want officers to handle the situation differently such that the lives of other officers who are in similar situations but the person being arrested actually has a knife and is willing to use it on police?
What part of the constitution clearly states an officer is not allowed to ask for a students ID when there are postings around a library that say a student has to have an ID after 11 pm? You're being ridiculous trying to bring the constitution into this. Are security checkpoints not allowed to ask for ID? If we refuse to show ID they can't touch us, remove us, or deny access to us? Get over it.
If you want a world where we don't allow officers to ask people for ID then you can go living with your family not knowing if the person next to you has a gun, is there to do homework or stalk their victim, is writing a report on Tchaikovsky or waiting for their drug dealer, studying American economic policy during the 50's or waiting for someone to leave their laptop unattended so they can steal it.
You are saying all security should be dropped. You no longer want our possessions at airports to be x-rayed. What right do those people have looking through my possessions? You don't think we should allow border patrol to ask for ID when people enter this country. Why do I have to prove to you I'm a legal citizen?
Get over it. You have to show your drivers license to write a check. Asking for ID is a common practice across this country that even non police officers are given. Ever try to buy alcohol when you look 17? No ID, No Sale.
You saying they weren't legally allowed to ask for his ID is a lame reason to excuse his behavior towards the police. Would they have tasered him if he was calm and cool with the police? We'll never know because he acted out in rage and obviously needed to be subdued.
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: The cops have no business ignoring the Constitution even if they want to believe they are "protecteng themselves or their kind and the fact 5thqt they singled out a racially distinct and different individual tells us that they wee acting out of bias and prejudice.
Even so, they had no justifiable "cause" as is required by the Constitution to single out that particular person. (And I have indeed previously address that particular point.)
The situation at the time and before the time was that the cops had no reason, other than prejudice, to single out the victim they did.
Left alone and not threatened improperly by the misaction of the Campus Cops, there was no "failure to cooperate". That so called "failure", as you insist it was, could not have existed had the cops not acted without adequate cause.
Then, according to witnesses, the student was removing himself. (The Cops do not constitute unbiased witnesses.)
posted
"You are the one saying they singled him out for his race. Is he supposed to be excluded from laws because he is a muslim american? No. Therefore they have the right to ask him, just like any other student, for his ID."
Just a bit of backward logic, there, it seems.
Correctly, it is, if the proposition , "if is true that implies B is true" is logically equivalent to the "if B is not true, that implies that A is not true".
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Were not the officers involved black and hispanic? I think the race card goes out the window.
Posts: 2634 | From: The highway | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Surprise surprise bdgee, you still haven't addressed the point I've made several times.
Now you dance around everything by presenting broken philosophical sentences.
Where is the backward logic. I'll point it out to you in your philosophical manner.
All americans are subject to the law. Muslims Americans are american. Therefore Muslim Americans are subject to the law.
Still, you have been the one to single out in this debate that he was an ethnic minority. You're trying to place the blame on cops simply because of that. You're disregarding the clear facts of the manner the kid presented himself and how cops are supposed to act when someone presents themselves in that way.
We've established that the cops used excessive force eventually, but the kid was wrong in how he acted from the beginning.
You are constantly dancing around the topic and the facts. I believe you will continually do so and this convorsation will go no where. In my mind you are no better than Bush.
I don't even know how your philosophical sentence even relates to what I said. I wouldn't be surprised if you were just spewing that out to try and sound intelligent.
"If a is true that implies B is true." If the kid is muslim american that implies he is to be excluded from laws? The kid was not exluded from law, implying he is not muslim american?
What point were you trying to make?
Oh yea, try and answer my points by the way. Refer to my previous post.
Posts: 1504 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. You haven't addressed anything. You tried to address the idea that the cops were not right in approaching him asking for his ID.
Not once have you addressed the point about how the kid acted and what situation it presents to the cops.
Explain to me then, how your philosophical sentence relates to what you quoted in that post?
Where were the A and B clauses in my statement that can either be true or not true? I was simply stating that he can not be excluded from law because he is muslim american. He must follow the rules and law just like every other american and student at UCLA.
Do you believe he shouldn't be subject to showing his ID because he is muslim american?
Look at you. You've turned a simple debate about police using excessive force into a debate about race and ethnicity. What motives do you have?
You can believe what you want, but you have yet to address my points. (OH look, I formed a compound sentence!) Get over yourself.
Posts: 1504 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: Score: permanentjaun... 3 bdgee........... 0
It's not over till the Fat Lady Sings
Or the Cows come home...
-------------------- Bill Gates, Donald Trump and James Dean, Willie Nelson, John Lennon and Neil McCoy Posts: 1102 | From: Sometimes Honolulu, Sometimes Laguna Beach, today in the Valley | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Bill Gates, Donald Trump and James Dean, Willie Nelson, John Lennon and Neil McCoy Posts: 1102 | From: Sometimes Honolulu, Sometimes Laguna Beach, today in the Valley | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
He was singled out and declared a problem with no reason other than the attitude of the Campus Cops.
The kid acted like he should, minding his own business and not presenting any reason for anyone to assume he isn't exactly what he is, which, according to the Constitution is his right and an assurance that you will not be hasseled by the police, since they have no reason to single you out.
You need to address that issue, as I have repeatedly pointed out and you have repeatedly claimed a student has no right of any kind if the police want to assume they have unchecked authority to act on whim or prejudice or to assume that student, without specific reason, is daqngerous or a troublemaker or whatever.
You clearly have no respect for the Constitution and are an avid supporter of the rightwing undermining of the Constitution. I am not!
You are not going to change your mind and, like the whole body of the far right conspiracy, you eagerly avoid the question of the Bill of Rights, choosing instead to misrepresent the action of the police and the Government as "protections needed from terrorist".
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Permanentjaun......You will not win this arguement, did'nt you know bdgee is always right. If you dont believe me ask him.
Posts: 1178 | From: Mobile, AL | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fact I have addressed this issue multiple times. I repeat, multiple times.
When you go to the airport just like millions of other americans each day, are you not asked for ID? Where you acting in some manner to single yourself out such that anyone had reason to believe you are a troublemaker? No. Each day millions of americans have their possessions scanned and ID's checked. Many are subject to random bag checks where their possessions are rummaged through by a stranger.
Am I supposed to declare it is my constitutional right to be able to refuse these ID checks, metal detection scans, and x-ray scans? That is essentially what you're saying. Someone alert the millions of Americans flying each day that they have a case for the Supreme Court.
When a 23 year old goes to a liquor store and is asked for their ID, is he allowed to buy alcohol without showing ID? Where does it say in the constitution that he doesn't have to prove he is of legal age to purchase alcohol? No ID, No Sale.
If it were not campus policy that only students with an ID be allowed in the library past 11 then you would have a case, but it is. The library has postings clearly stating you need a student ID to be able to stay in the library past 11 pm.
Why would this situation be any different from the security at airports or buying alcohol?
You do have the constitutional right to not show any ID. Sure. But there are rules. When you don't show ID at the airport, you don't get to fly. When you don't show ID at the liquor store, you don't get to buy alcohol. When you don't show ID at the library, you have to leave.
"The kid acted like he should, minding his own business and not presenting any reason for anyone to assume he isn't exactly what he is..."
Sure. He was fine, until he was approached for his ID, which the cops are allowed to do, and he starts yelling at them. Why should he start yelling at them? Why would he refuse to show ID if he is a student? When he began acting like he did he gave the cops reason to believe he was a threat. I'll say it again, unidentified male without ID yelling at the cops furiously and not cooperating. When I went to school I saw many students asked for their ID. Not once did I see them flip out in a rage against police.
Prove to me it's your constitutional right to be able to fly on a plane without having to show ID or have your bags x-rayed.
Posts: 1504 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So...how far up your ass have you put your head? Half way...three quarters...that sounds painful!!! That explains your inability to think clearly though...
-------------------- ***********************
It's all in the timing... Posts: 4303 | From: DSA | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
