Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off-topic Political' started by Mrs_Esterhouse, Jul 31, 2017.
And I know most of you approve.
Absolutely disgusting. Stupid, incompetent, sadistic people who have no business working as a mall cop, let alone law enforcement.
The same should be done to the ones who did it to him. Then they should be fired. Then they should pay him damages out of their own pocket.
Cops doing cop stuff. Nothing to see here, move along (or it happens to you) standard response, followed protocol and procedure.
But the jailers really should do a few months in general population in at least a medium security prison. Where everyone knows they are jailers. But only one of the bunch in each block or whatever they are called.
"And I know most of you approve"
Why would "we" approve of torturing a guy who was already restrained in a chair and thus no danger to himself or anybody else?
Now, IF the restraints had not yet been secured on him, and he was resisting the officers, SURE. Light him up. Beat him, taze him, choke him. Whatever it takes to get him tied down to the chair.
Acting up in jail has consequences, and as far as the stupid / drunk / high young man wants to take it, the cops should take it a level or two higher.
But once he's in the chair, secured, leave him alone. Maybe put a bag over his head so he can't spit at people, but otherwise don't mess with him.
Maybe gag him with a rubber ball in his mouth, if he is screaming and yelling loud enough to disrupt important communications in the jail, but otherwise just leave him alone.
Statements like this are why Esterhouse made that statement. Jail is not for extra-judicial punishment. It is not acceptable to "Beat", "Choke", or "Whatever it takes." That line of thought is what leads employees to believe that the type of behavior displayed in the video is acceptable.
The officers are supposed to maintain control and safety. That includes using reasonable force to do so. For some inmates, nothing is needed beyond verbal commands, for others it can take several officers to physical restrain an individual. It isn't (or shouldn't be) about punishment, but rather maintain control and safety. I don't see anyone here suggesting otherwise.
ATL Phillip, if I march to your house uninvited and open your refrigerator and tell you that I'm going to make myself a tomato sandwich whether you Effen' like it or not, are you going to give me "extra judicial punishment"?
After all, I haven't been convicted of any crime (yet) so you can't touch me.
Right? That would be punishing me when I'm not under a sentence of a court ordering such punishment.
Slice that tomato and fry up some bacon; I'm headed your way.
Do you have lettuce, or do I need to stop in to your neighbors' house to steal some lettuce for my BLT?
Some people just have a bad attitude and when that bad attitude motivates them to fight other inmates, damage property, obstruct officers, disrupting disturb the conduct of jail officers or interfere with the correctional activities and procedures...
....or physically resist officers--then the officers need to get rough. Violent even.
Ever seen The Green Mile ?
Remember William "Wild Bill" Wharton ?
Did correctional officers ever have a good enough reason to beat him, spray him with water, hogtie him, or do other forms of "torture" to him ?
The PD claimed they needed to strap Norris down to a chair because Norris was banging his head on his cell door. They tasered Norris for almost a full minute until the batteries went dead. They claimed they needed to because Norris was not "fully" restrained in his chair. At time mark 2:14, one officer states, "I'll keep on doing it until I run out of batteries."
The circular logic here is that they needed to electrocute the s*** out of Norris, burning him all over his body and hospitalizing him, for his own safety.
Was it really necessary to take Gunsmoker's words out of context in order to make your point?
I guess "Whatever it takes to get him tied down to the chair." was too much bother to cut-n-paste?
True. And that may require the application of force, including hard strikes and choke holds. But the statement was not made in isolation without context. In response to a story about an inmate who was terribly abused, language like "beat", "choke" and "whatever it takes" take on a rather dark connotation. There is an undercurrent of approval about what took place.
Your analogy is irrelevant. I am not your legal custodian and defense against an intruder is not punishment.
You are far too smart to write hyperbolic nonsense like this.
I'm not sure what your complaint is. GS's statement was quoted verbatim in my post, and as you can see my post remains unedited. And even if I had left it out, his original post remains 3in above mine with zero other posts separating them.
That said, I do not think that portion you highlighted is relevant. Our system should operate on "reasonable and necessary" not "whatever it takes". It may be necessary to strike a person, but it is never acceptable to beat them. It may be necessary to tase a person, but it is never acceptable to "keep on doing it until I run out of batteries". One is a control measure, the other is a sadistic person using their job as a vehicle to obtain pleasure by abusing a person in custody. And the latter is a criminal, just like the person they are abusing.
Your words, quoted verbatim, right?
Either that or you don't know what verbatim or taking someone's words out of context means.
Gunsmoker's post was "Beat him, taze him, choke him. Whatever it takes to get him tied down to the chair."
You misquoted his words as "Beat, Choke, Whatever it takes."
The two are not the same.
Slow news day, eh?
Original quotation marks corrected to reflect Oxford grammar rules, latest edition. Happy?
That all depends on you.
Do you now understand the difference between "Beat, Choke, Whatever it takes." and "Beat him, taze him, choke him. Whatever it takes to get him tied down to the chair" and why your misquoting changes the meaning of what GS said?
You are being pedantic for the purposes of arguing about a non-existant problem. I have tried to care, but was unsuccessful. Have a great Saturday.
By leaving out the "...to get him into the chair" part, the editing of my quote eliminates the element of a lawful and proper purpose of the deputies' use of force.
Alone, beating him or doing "whatever [else] it takes" can be misinterpreted as authorizing whatever force the cops see as proper for any reason, which might (as some would say) include just to teach him a lesson, inflict on-the-spot punishment, etc.
I worded it like i did to make it clear that the force has to be used with a goal in mind, and that goal is to get him fully restrained in the chair, and gagged (or hooded) so he is no longer disrupting / threatening the operation of the jail, AND so that the other cops can leave the scene and not be tied-up holding him down manually for minutes, or hours.
Those staff members are needed for other job functions at the jail, so they need to quickly get back to work, not spend a lot of time restraining or baby-sitting one out-of-control buttwipe while ignoring the rest of the inmates. Hence, the need to fully tie or buckle that dude in the chair and lock him down.
Your exact statement (verbatim) was included in my post, BEFORE MY COMMENT. It remains there unedited for everyone to see. As does the original comment immediately before it.
I strongly suspect there is a great deal of attention being paid to the minutiae of syntax to avoid the cold hard fact that Esterhouse was right.
You then plainly misrepresented it to make a point against an argument that gunsmoker did not make. This is a strawman. Everybody stop dancing around what happened. Learn what logical fallacies are, how to spot them, and what they are called. Using the proper terminology would have had the result that AtlPhilip would not have been so confused by everyone's posts discussing what was quoted. The point is the strawman, not the use of punctuation.