"I can explain it to you but, I can't understand it for you"
"God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
-C G Jung
My perspective would be that he's not subdued until I've beat him so bad that he can't get up anymore; at which point--of course--I'll stop beating the crap out of him.
Saying that convicts should have no right to have court cases about police brutally is equally as extreme as saying police are always abusing their authority and never doing their jobs. The rights of the individual are paramount, and if the people who arrested the guy in this case did so within the proper letter of the law then they have nothing to worry about.
Now stop having a heart attack over something I never even said, and calm the **** down please.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius
Reading the article there's no where near enough information to make a judgment, if the man was captured while running via tackle from a police officer or a private citizen, I think any reasonable person/judge would not see any excess in that. However if the man was obviously captured, meaning there was no longer any threat of him acting violently or running, than any further injury caused to this person is grounds in my opinion for this lawsuit. Now I don't know if the injuries would be 500,000 dollars worth or whatever else, I'm just saying its grounds to look at it a little more.
Consider this: If any of us were walking down the street and observed three men beating a man on the ground, either restrained or otherwise incapable of self-defense, what would we do? Well odds are we'd do nothing as most people wouldn't, but assuming we did attempt to intervene we'd probably do so on behalf of the man on the ground. If we happened to find out the reason was because he stole a bicycle, would any of us honestly let this continue? I honestly believe that anyone watching three men beat a defenseless man for whatever reason, would have a pretty sick feeling in their stomach, because we know its wrong.
But thats just my general opinion and again no one hear knows enough details to make a truly fair opinion, there's too much speculation here as to what might have happened.
How can this guy even get around without being weighed down by his giant balls?