EXCLUSIVE: Video shows police beating at 201 Poplar (Policeman fired)

WMC ^ | June 18, 2008 | WMC

[zeugma]

Pretty much sums up where we are at this stage. And people believe they still have rights under the Constitution......

Only because the cold, hard reality would force them to start taking up arms or just admit they no longer live in a republic.

[Tired of Taxes]

You’re making a specious argument. The crime is not relevant to the behavior of the officer. I was not equating anything but changing the context of the statement to make a point about the poor form of the initial comment.

When you changed the context of the statement, you made a specious argument. You compared this statement: "As disgusting as he/she/it [a transexual prostitute] is, he/she/it did not deserved to be beaten like that."

To this: “As ignorant and stupid as Christians are, they don’t deserve.........”

That isn't a good analogy. The person in the article was arrested for engaging in criminal, immoral behavior (prostitution). The poster is stating that, despite this person's bad behavior, he/she (I would say "he") didn't deserve to be beaten like that, and the officer should be fired. A perfectly acceptable statement to make. It should be perfectly acceptable if the prostitute were not transexual, too.

You compared it to making a similar statement about Christians. That's not a good analogy.

[Filo]

Well... okay then, sad for you. There seems to be much about LEO internal workings that you obviously do not know about.

Ahh, the "you're just ignorant" card. Subtle.

I know more than enough about how the police work and that is why I'm not fond of them. In the end the police are just not to be trusted.

That isn't to say that there aren't many shining examples within their ranks, but there are too few to make up for the a-holes like the room-full in the video that started this discussion.

We are far better off without them.

[Sybeck1]

“201 Poplar” is local lingo here in Memphis for the jail.

[SengirV]

Only problem is the the deference to the badge is occurring from BOTH sides of the badge(front and back).

[Honor above all]

And you are straining at gnats. The original comment was intended to point out that Reagan_fanatic’s response was a pathetic stab at someone’s sexual disposition. My response, had you read it fully, did not equate religion with sexual orientation. It pointed out that it was a cheap shot by reagan_fanatic toward someone who allegedly was abused by a police officer. As a Christian I would take umbrage with psycho bunny’s response but he is trying to make the same point that I am so I support the comment. The point is: who cares whether reagan_fanatic is disgusted by the trans sexual? It is irrelavant to the issue.

[Honor above all]

Interestingly not a single fact cited in your diatribe. My son is a police officer. He is a very fine young man. He gives to his community through his service as an officer as well as a mentor to troubled youth. He has many colleagues who behave in a similar fashion. Emotional outbursts and name calling hardly create a valid argument.

[Filo]

Interestingly not a single fact cited in your diatribe.

Perhaps you missed the video. . .

I'm happy for you and your son, but if he is who you say he is then he is rare indeed.

[Honor above all]

Watching the video does not endow your argument with any facts. And your sign off of my son being “rare indeed” is also without any factual support. This is the problem when you argue a position based upon emotion and supposition. You are making blanket statements based upon what you assume to be a universal situation where most police officers are bad. You cannot support your argument with any factual information. You use only your feelings and predisposition. You are disparaging a very large group of people with nothing more than your opinion.

[elkfersupper]

This is disgusting behavior from our Law Enforcement Officers.

You've hit on the problem.

They need to be "Peace Officers".

[elkfersupper]

Are you certain, based on all of the evidence, that this is not what happened here?

Irrelevant.

The reason he / she / it was there in the first place is bogus.

[Filo]

Watching the video does not endow your argument with any facts.

Sure it does. That's one more video proving that several more cops are viscious a-holes.

Data points always matter and they are facts.

And your sign off of my son being “rare indeed” is also without any factual support.

Sorry, but there are way, way too many stories of this kind of thing. Cops are constantly pulling this crap. There are posts like this on FR daily. There are more elsewhere even more frequently. There are entire websites devoted to police misconduct.

And for each of these documented incidents there are certainly several more that got shoved under the rug or where the cops weren't taped or witnessed.

You are disparaging a very large group of people with nothing more than your opinion.

They disparage themselves with their actions and inaction against those that do wrong.

I am merely drawing reasonable conclusions from the available data.

[Tired of Taxes]

The original comment was intended to point out that Reagan_fanatic’s response was a pathetic stab at someone’s sexual disposition. My response, had you read it fully, did not equate religion with sexual orientation. It pointed out that it was a cheap shot by reagan_fanatic toward someone who allegedly was abused by a police officer.

I did read your comment fully. You are entitled to your opinion, but the comparison you made was inaccurate. You said:

Your comment is akin to saying “As _____ (fill in the blank) as the Jews were, they didn't deserve to be gassed in ovens”.

Unless you think being a transsexual prostitute is on the same level with being Jewish, you'd have to admit that comparison made no sense. You can say you're not equating the two groups, and I'm sure you didn't intend to. I'm not trying to pick on anyone, but this is an important point: By making the comparison in the first place, you are drawing a line between criminal/immoral activity and religious heritage.

You probably think I'm nitpicking, but that type of comparison is what has led to many of the problems we're having today, particularly when it concerns so-called sexual orientation. "Gay rights" activists love to equate themselves with other groups - with whom they have nothing in common at all - and then accuse anyone who opposes their behavior of bigotry.

The point is: who cares whether reagan_fanatic is disgusted by the trans sexual? It is irrelavant to the issue.

But it IS relevant, and I'm surprised anyone took issue with it here (especially considering some of the truly nasty comments here I've come across over the years). The person is a transsexual prostitute. The #3 comment was akin to saying: "What that person does is immoral and criminal, but he didn't deserve to be beaten." On the news, we all have watched many videos of the police overreacting during an arrest. A common response is: "That person did something wrong, but..." With such statements, we're criticizing the person's behavior - not something he cannot change such as his heritage - and that's the key difference.

[Honor above all]

But, once again, you miss the point entirely. My comment, as I noted, was not intended to draw a comparison between sexual proclivities and religious heritage. YOU have focused on that. My point, once again, was that the comment was just a filthy, cheap shot at someone who was subsequently beaten, possibly because of the fact that they lived a life considered undesirable by most people. Look at the substance of the argument. The fact is that the motivation of the Nazi was no different. The Nazi did not see the Jew as someone from a different religious heritage, he saw them as someone to be despised for their social status, business acumen, etc.. Regardless, my point had to do with the editorial comment that the person who was beaten was disgusting to the poster. Focus on what you will, if you choose not to see my point that is your choice. You can disagree with it only after you understand what I am saying.

[Honor above all]

“I am merely drawing reasonable conclusions from the available data.”

What you are ‘merely’ doing is pontificating from a position of ignorance. You assume that your broad based accusations are steeped in fact because you have observed “data points” on a web site. Go to school, study logic and maybe some statistics then let’s take up the argument again. Your feelings do not provide the basis of a sound argument.

[Tired of Taxes]

I do understand what you’re saying: You see transsexual prostitution as merely “a life considered undesirable by most people.” In your opinion, poster #3’s view of the transsexual prostitute is comparable to the way a Nazi viewed a Jewish person.

What I’m saying is that the arrested person’s behavior is immoral and criminal, and we should look down upon such behavior. The fact that this man is a prostitute is relevant to the discussion: He was sitting there because he was arrested for prostitution. Transsexualism is relevant because he is claiming the officer used an obnoxious term used for transsexuals, which is the reason he refused to walk over to the officer.

I find it perfectly acceptable for someone to say, “I don’t like what this guy is doing, but he didn’t deserve...” Do you understand what I’m saying now?

[Filo]

What you are ‘merely’ doing is pontificating from a position of ignorance. You assume that your broad based accusations are steeped in fact because you have observed “data points” on a web site. Go to school, study logic and maybe some statistics then let’s take up the argument again. Your feelings do not provide the basis of a sound argument.

Sorry, but just because I haven't posted an exhaustive proof here doesn't mean that I haven't studied the problem and reached valid conclusions.

You have no idea about my education or other capabilities.

In the end you are just whining because your feelings run counter to what I've posted. Really it's more likely that you know in your heart that I'm right but you don't want to believe because that would break your worldview.

So, in the end, who is really "pontificating?"

[brityank]

If not what makes your view of that group so tainted when in reality only a very, very small number of police officers are ever accused of doing something illegal or abusive.

Sorry, but the morphing of the police into Law Enforcement Operatives has placed the emphasis on Enforcement and not Law. Same deal with the Muslims; very few are terrorists, few non-terrorist Muslims will denounce their brothers due to pre-ordained death threats that are entirely credible.

Filo's listing has it right, the "Thin Blue Line" is a wall when it comes to enforcing the law on their brethren.

[Honor above all]

You have not only not provided exhaustive proof, you have provided no proof. On top of that you are now a psychic because you claim to know what is in my heart. There is clearly no point in continuing this discussion.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Good thing the officer didn’t do this to a terrorist trying to kill him, he’d really be in trouble.