• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jury Finds Occupy Wall Street Protester Innocent After Video Contradicts Police

clownboy said:
Instead, just screw it, stop policing demonstrations. Let them have at it and warn the rest of the public off the streets if they care for their safety. Let the mob have the town. It's clear from the video, they can't pay police enough to make that a worthwhile job.

Btw, that was no peacable assembly.
Click to expand...

Was anyone attacked?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Was anyone attacked?
Click to expand...

I couldn't tell from the video, and I wasn't there. But it was easy to tell from the video the crowd was not peaceable. They were loud and pushing at and beyond the police.
 
danarhea said:
No, don't let the mob have the town, but while you are out there protecting and serving, stop trying to frame innocent people for crimes they did not commit.
Click to expand...

That just strains credulity. I'm so sure they had so much time on their hands they were free to just pick someone at out of the crowd to charge with a randomly selected crime. They could have chosen virtually any of those yahoos and charged them with failure to disperse or public disorderly, but instead they pick out this one fellow and charge him with assault?

Occam's Razor.
 
clownboy said:
I couldn't tell from the video, and I wasn't there. But it was easy to tell from the video the crowd was not peaceable. They were loud and pushing at and beyond the police.
Click to expand...

Being loud =/= not peaceable in legal terms when it comes to protests. If it did then no protest would ever be allowed.

And I saw the police pushing far more than those behind the netting. As sangha pointed out several people fell due to the police pushing them.
 
clownboy said:
That just strains credulity. I'm so sure they had so much time on their hands they were free to just pick someone at out of the crowd to charge with a randomly selected crime. They could have chosen virtually any of those yahoos and charged them with failure to disperse or public disorderly, but instead they pick out this one fellow and charge him with assault?

Occam's Razor.
Click to expand...

So...what happened to that footage from the police officer that was recording all of it?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Being loud =/= not peaceable in legal terms when it comes to protests. If it did then no protest would ever be allowed.

And I saw the police pushing far more than those behind the netting. As sangha pointed out several people fell due to the police pushing them.
Click to expand...

Once again, this took place well after the legal protest was done. They had been ordered to disperse already. This was a mob having it's way.
 
clownboy said:
Once again, this took place well after the legal protest was done. They had been ordered to disperse already. This was a mob having it's way.
Click to expand...

Last I knew there was no time limit on how long a protest can be held in the Constitution. And being told to disperse is a violation of thier right to peaceably assemble so they can ignore it since cops must uphold ALL the law, not just those which they are told to uphold.
 
Kal'Stang said:
So...what happened to that footage from the police officer that was recording all of it?
Click to expand...

Got me, maybe it was damaged by the crowd, maybe the officer subsequently recorded over the media with his GF's sex tape and didn't want to admit to it. There may be something else going on with the recording that even the judge thinks should be kept under wraps for now (he met with the TARC officer in chambers).

But nothing in that video in the article shows the fellow guilty or innocent.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Last I knew there was no time limit on how long a protest can be held in the Constitution. And being told to disperse is a violation of thier right to peaceably assemble so they can ignore it since cops must uphold ALL the law, not just those which they are told to uphold.
Click to expand...

No, not how it works. If you feel your rights are being violated, you disperse and then take it to court. And yes, a permit can be required for a protest, that passes the constitutional muster (at least the courts seem to believe it does). There's a thin line between a protest and a mob, between peaceable assembly and a trespassing disturbance.

Others have the same right to freely move about their city, your right to protest is balanced against that and sometimes it's time for you to move on and let others enjoy their rights.
 
regardless of any other concerns( political or otherwise), it's a good thing that an innocent person is free.
 
clownboy said:
That just strains credulity. I'm so sure they had so much time on their hands they were free to just pick someone at out of the crowd to charge with a randomly selected crime. They could have chosen virtually any of those yahoos and charged them with failure to disperse or public disorderly, but instead they pick out this one fellow and charge him with assault?

Occam's Razor.
Click to expand...

The video proves that the guy was innocent, and that the police framed him for a crime he did not commit. That is why he was found not guilty. Or should the court have dispensed with the verdict, and instead of giving him a chance to prove his innocence, which he did, taken him out behind the courthouse and shot him?
 
Thrilla said:
regardless of any other concerns( political or otherwise), it's a good thing that an innocent person is free.
Click to expand...


Bingo. Somebody gets it. :)
 
The Jury is the conscience of the community, and that has been demonstrated many times in our existence.

In this case the jury rightly judged that what the cops did was wrong, and that the individual was well within his constitutional rights. I say BRAVO! :2wave:
 
Kal'Stang said:
So its bad to point out the bad ones? Is it bad to point out bad politicians? Bad doctors? :shrug:

I have no problem appreciating good cops, but don't think for one moment that I won't speak up when bad cops do bad things.
Click to expand...

I never said we shouldn't point out bad cops. But there are others on this thread that lump all of them into the same category. You read the thread correct?
 
MarineTpartier said:
I never said we shouldn't point out bad cops. But there are others on this thread that lump all of them into the same category. You read the thread correct?
Click to expand...

I am one of those "others" that you refer to, and I'd like to add that I think that cops in rural areas tend to be pretty good. There just isn't much room to advance in a small town, so you don't get the corruption that you get in more densely populated areas.

But in city after city, year after year, urban cops commit all sorts of criminal behavior. And when they do, the "good" cops keep their mouths shut about it
 
sangha said:
I am one of those "others" that you refer to, and I'd like to add that I think that cops in rural areas tend to be pretty good. There just isn't much room to advance in a small town, so you don't get the corruption that you get in more densely populated areas.

But in city after city, year after year, urban cops commit all sorts of criminal behavior. And when they do, the "good" cops keep their mouths shut about it
Click to expand...

It's like the "blue wall" in Chicago. This "silence of the brothers" is making an "us" vs. "them" attitude in the citizenry. It is the police that must change to address this issue, not the citizenry. Yet, you see all the police on this thread defending actions that are surely questionable. Another manifestation of the same problem.
 
trfjr said:
so you are trying to say because one man out of a crowd was found innocent of a crime means no crime ever did happen?
So i guess none of the rapes and destruction of property ever did happen because of one man was found innocent of one crime
Click to expand...

one crime at a time - that's how we do it.

We present a case - that focuses on it's set span of events with it's evidence . . . it does not puddle jump to other ****. He was not on trial for a rape or burglary or anything else. . . ok?

Someone else might have done those things but that's not this case.

Alrighty then. Seems simple enough.
 
sangha said:
I am one of those "others" that you refer to, and I'd like to add that I think that cops in rural areas tend to be pretty good. There just isn't much room to advance in a small town, so you don't get the corruption that you get in more densely populated areas.

But in city after city, year after year, urban cops commit all sorts of criminal behavior. And when they do, the "good" cops keep their mouths shut about it
Click to expand...

I do think that certain police forces, such as the LAPD, weed out the good cops. While the cops who are corrupt, abuse their authority, or actively disregard the rights of the citizenry may be a minority, that means the rest of cops who aren’t actively engaged in it look away when they see others doing it. A cop who does not turn in a bad cop is not a “good” cop. And the good cops who do take action, well, they probably don’t stick around long.

I'm not saying that is the case on all forces.
 
PeteEU said:
The police were and are nothing but the Gestapo of the political elite when it comes to Occupy Wall Street and similar organisations. Anything that threatens Wall Street and the banks are considered enemies of the state.
Click to expand...

State Sponsored Terrorism and Coercion (no doubt with a little federal sprinkled in here and there). Clearly infringing upon the right to assemble by grass-root peoples.

Our generation needs a new-age Woodstock dammit.
 
MarineTpartier said:
I never said we shouldn't point out bad cops. But there are others on this thread that lump all of them into the same category. You read the thread correct?
Click to expand...
When the whole mechanism allows for everything to be handled internally and even the voice of "white knight" (as in noble hero not race based) cops goes nowhere then the whole has elements catering to bad. When you look for an apple do you look for a completely clean one or shrug off the sparse spots of worm infestation?

I vote all cops have headbands with cameras that are fully charged at the start of shift and can never be turned off. The burden of "that cop planted evidence" and stuff shouldnt be on potential victims in controlled situations. It should be on the cops claiming that they found the evidence their to begin with.

Sounds a bit silly but its a solution. I vote all politicians wear these "Muse of History" headbands also.
 
There are many problems with the criminal justice system. This highlights one of them. Police officers generally may commit perjury without any risk whatsoever.
 
MarineTpartier said:
It really bugs me to hear all of the cop hatred on this website. Those guys do a hard job, with garbage hours, for very minimal pay. And they have to deal with idiots like some that I've read on this website. Sure, there are a few crooked ones. Name a profession that doesn't have a few crooked ones. Just because there are a few crooked ones doesn't mean we should lump them all together. Most of these guys are doing more of a service to our country than active duty servicemembers are IMO. These guys actually protect citizens from the bad guys unlike us who go galavanting around the world fighting people who would allegedly leave their caves to bomb us if we didn't. Stop being a bunch of haters and appreciate the job done by these guys.
Click to expand...

I think you are missing the point.

I generally come down on the side of LE, for the reasons you mention.

But I am adamantly opposed to the common practise of NOT dealing with police misbehavior when it happens.

I've talked to cops about this, and what they say is its about image more than anything. Confidence and "respect". Circling the wagons, etc.

In practise, imo, it actually erodes the relationship between police and the communities they serve. It only takes one instance of blatant coverup that touches someone you know to leave a pretty sour tast permanently in your mouth.

And all it would take to correct this problem is for those who hold us accountable for doing wrong to be held accountable when THEY do wrong. Yet no one I know has ever received a gram of satisfaction when attempting to address police misconduct through official channels. No official reprimands, apologies, nothin'.

And then there's the cop who passed me yesterday talking on a cellphone and making a right turn on a red without signaling or stopping. Just kinda says "**** you!", ya know?
 
dirtpoorchris said:
When the whole mechanism allows for everything to be handled internally and even the voice of "white knight" (as in noble hero not race based) cops goes nowhere then the whole has elements catering to bad. When you look for an apple do you look for a completely clean one or shrug off the sparse spots of worm infestation?

I vote all cops have headbands with cameras that are fully charged at the start of shift and can never be turned off. The burden of "that cop planted evidence" and stuff shouldnt be on potential victims in controlled situations. It should be on the cops claiming that they found the evidence their to begin with.

Sounds a bit silly but its a solution. I vote all politicians wear these "Muse of History" headbands also.
Click to expand...

Almost sounds good.

But it eliminates "positive" discretion. I've been let off with a verbal warning more than once.

I think a little discretion is a good thing, as long as it isn't abused.

The "system" isn't always the best solution. Sometimes it's the worst.
 
danarhea said:
You mean the police and prosecutors fabricated evidence and testimony in order to attempt a conviction of an innocent person? Say it ain't so. I can't speak for New York, but here in Houston, Texas, that's called Official Oppression, and it's a felony.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

What....cops lied to try to get a conviction. Say it's not so! Will anything happen to the cops? You know false testimony and such? Bearing false witness under oath is illegal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom