The Glade 4.0

They certainly are responsible for the cost of the injuries, but I am not going to buy that they are responsible in terms of having caused the injuries intentionally without sometihng better than her word.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The injuries would not have occurred if the police did not interject their use of coercive force. They are responsible. Just like criminals who use coercive force are responsible for all injuries and harm anyone sustains because they choose to use it.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

You don't just get a broken ankle while in handcuffs without someone assisting you in breaking it. I can't really envision a scenario where that wouldn't be the responsibility of the arresting officers.

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

So I'm required to risk my safety, life and property under penalty of law, yet I am barred from purchasing a firearm for self defense in NYC? Logical disconnect anyone?

And let's be honest- while the law "allows" it id like to meet who actually qualifies for their "permit"

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

I was curious after seeing your comment and looked up the NY gun laws. Wow that gave me a headache just trying to get through all of them. I am so glad I don't have to deal with all of their crap just to own a few guns.

_________________
I met this six-year-old child, with this blank, pale, emotionless face and, the blackest eyes... the devil's eyes. I spent eight years trying to reach him, and then another seven trying to keep him locked up because I realized what was living behind that boy's eyes was purely and simply... evil

This is not the case. If the police beleived they had probable cause for an arrest, they can make the arrest. The fact that it is "coercive force" is irrelevant; that does not make it criminal, nor is it evidence of criminality.

The fact may be that she will eventually be found not guilty, but that does not mean the arrest was not based on probable cause. The police are financially responsible because she was in their custody, but they are not in any way responsible in the same way criminals are.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yes, in fact you can get your ankle broken pretty easily in handcuffs or out, without someone "assisting you in breaking it". It is entirely possible that she slipped or tripped getting in the vehicle and broke her ankle, especially as heavy as she is.

It's the responsibility of the police department to pay for her treatment, but something beyond the assumptions of untrained people that it "just can't possibly have happened without someone assisting" and the word of someone who stands to get a large financial settlement that it was due to any intentionally inflicted harm.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

If it can be demonstrated that the police had no business placing her into custody in the first place, then all injuries sustained are their direct responsibility, and they should be held individually liable.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

If it could be demonstrated that they did not have probable cause, there might be something to this. However, outrage by members of this board over the fact that the law exists does not constitute lack of probable cause on the part of the police. So far, there is not evidence whatsoever that they did not have probable cause, not even the testimony of the victim herself which only claims that they were abusive, not that she did not do what they claimed she did.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yes they are. No, I am not talking about legally - I don't give **** one about legality. Morally the two scenarios are equal.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

No they are not, and I don't give one **** about morality, since there is no moral issue in play here. If you don't want to talk about legality, then don't respond to my posts about what they are and aren't responsible for. We are not playing your stupid game where you try to claim they're somehow morally responsible for enforcing a law you personally disagree with.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Horse ****.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Responsibility encompasses far more than law DE. I sometimes wonder how you would figure out what to do if there were no law.


I try to respond to your proud ignorance as little as possible but sometimes it is unavoidable.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

It might be easier for you to figure out if you stopped trying to filter everything through your precious ideology. Responsibility does encompass more than the law, but that is not relevant in this case, and I'm not interested in a "discussion" with you; all you do is attempt to lecture while loudly screeching that everyone has to adhere to your ideas.

"Oh I don't know what you'd do without law!" Boy, can you whine. Quit trying to pretend you've got some sort of superior understanding, or some vision of true freedom or whatever. Your political ideology is the glorified ranting of a teenager telling grownups he can do whatever he wants and they "better not piss him off!" On second though, don't quit. It's awfully entertaining.

[/quote][/quote]

Seeing as how you're the most ignorant poster on this board since Monty left, this is pretty much nothing but an attempt to score rhetorical points. I have news for you; "ignorance" does not mean "not discussing what Elmo wants in the frameork Elmo wants". You always like to bring out these pointless lines bemoaning ignorance when you have no real point, which is probably why we see them so often.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Well in this he said she said situation I am positive that both sides will practice their stories often. So it comes down to who has a better lawyer and PR spin. In that case, if there is enough blood in the water for a lawyer, the cops are done.

And considering the questionable nature of the law vs a persons rights, I hope that hiding behind the law bites everyone involved in their collective asses.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Bottom line:

Any time that the police come to you asking for either information or assistance, you have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not you are a suspect or may become a suspect at some time in the future. Which means that you cannot know whether the information or assistance you provide will work towards self-incrimination. Even if they tell you that you are not a suspect, they may very well be lying to you. You cannot lie to the police, but they are allowed to lie to you. And even if they are being entirely truthful that you are not now a suspect, neither you nor they can say with any certainty that you will not become a suspect in the future and that the information or assistance you provide now could be used to incriminate yourself.

The courts have been quite clear that your 5th amendment rights apply to any interaction, in any capacity with the police. You cannot interfere with the legal investigation or apprehension by the police of either yourself or a 3rd party, of course; that would constitute obstruction. However, you cannot be compelled to assist the police without running afoul of the 5th. These are terrible laws and they should be challenged in court.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

You can lie to the police, you just can't obstruct an investigation. If they ask you if it's raining and you say no when it is they can't arrest you for that.

How is this horseshit? Are you seriously suggesting the police should be brought up on charges every time they arrest someone that's found not guilty? You say that "if it can be demonstrated that the police had no business placing her into custody," but where exactly does this fall on the spectrum between "probable cause exists, but suspect was found not guilty" and "suspect was found guilty?"

I get what you're saying, but if I slip, without handcuffs on, I might at worst suffer a bruise and lose some skin. If I slip with handcuffs on, I'm pretty sure I'm going to get Fed up. It's the "custody" component that, at a minimum, increases the injuries.

I'm not disagreeing with that. Clearly, you are more likely to be hurt seriously if you fall with handcuffs on. However, that does not mean the injuries were caused intentionally. That is the key point. Yes, the injuries will probably be increased, but that just means the PD/city will need to pay more for the treatment.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.