23 May 09
Originally posted by Sam The ShamNo body disputes that he may be loony - but is that sufficient reason to be tortured. [call it what you like]
But if they all act like bible-boy and sit in line at the checkpoint being jerks, those 12 cars could take all day.
This is a collection of the pastor's confrontations with police, he likes to film himself abusing law enforcement officers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl84DU77k7s
His behaviour is loony.
23 May 09
Originally posted by Sam The ShamIf you want to get factually correct about it: it was torture
Call it what it is. It was not "torture". You are using Weasel Words.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words
Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is:
"...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture
From your reference site.
Hope that clears it up for you. 😛
23 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveNo. Read the last sentence in your definition:
If you want to get factually correct about it: it was [b]torture
Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is:
"...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture
From your reference site.
Hope that clears it up for you. 😛[/b]
"It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions"
Not torture. He was resisting arrest, had locked himself in the car, and was taken down and subdued lawfully.
Hope that clears it up for you.
23 May 09
Originally posted by Sam The ShamThat would be stretching it a bit if you tried to claim it was "lawful" ROFL.
No. Read the last sentence in your definition:
"It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions"
Not torture. He was resisting arrest, had locked himself in the car, and was taken down and subdued lawfully.
Hope that clears it up for you.
23 May 09
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveOK I'm missing something, perhaps you can explain why it was not a lawful arrest?
That would be stretching it a bit if you tried to claim it was "lawful" ROFL.
The state authorities have filed criminal charges against him, and no action is being considered against the officers after review, so they don't seem to agree with you.
23 May 09
Originally posted by Sam The ShamYou must have weird laws over there if its lawful to smash someones car window and tazer them because they were taking too long for your liking.
The state authorities have filed criminal charges against him, and no action is being considered against the officers after review, so they don't seem to agree with you.
That wouldn't be allowed or be lawful in most other democratic countries.
Bear in mind, he was causing no immediate threat.
nb.
The cops HAVE to file charges against him to justify their wrongdoings - that's obvious.
[this is the standard ploy employed by the police in many countries]
I have no doubt whatsoever that the pastor will receive a massive payout for being victimized in the way he was.
23 May 09
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove"You must have weird laws over there if its lawful to smash someones car window and tazer them because they were taking too long for your liking."
You must have weird laws over there if its lawful to smash someones car window and tazer them because they were taking too long for your liking.
That wouldn't be allowed or be lawful in most other [b]democratic countries.
Bear in mind, he was causing no immediate threat.
nb.
The cops HAVE to file charges against him to justify their wrong ...[text shortened]... atsoever that the pastor will receive a massive payout for being victimized in the way he was.[/b]
You missed what Sam The Sham said; he was under arest.
Weather you agree with being under arest or not doesnt matter at the time you are under arest. You might want to step to court later when you think its an unlawful arest, but at the time itself you cant do much, you just have to co-operate.
The so called pastor was under arest, he didnt co-operate. What do you want the cops to do? Sit next to his car and wait for mister to come out when hes out of food and water? Ofcourse not, break his windows and take him out with force is what they do.
"I have no doubt whatsoever that the pastor will receive a massive payout for being victimized in the way he was."
I hope you are awfully wrong. I dont think you should conclude he was victimized, all you know is that he got 1 tasershot, which is reasonable because he was resisting arest.
I think he should pay big time for wasting everyones time. Including mine lol😛
23 May 09
Originally posted by zozozozoAll the evidence shows he was tasered more than once. Also how did he get the cuts and bruises to his face?
as above post
Regardless of whether he was technically under arrest or not, are you defending the police and their excessive and unnecessary use of force?
What next? Shoot people for speeding?
The "so called pastor" [as you call him] may have been a jerk but the police [or agents or whatever] demonstrated that they were even bigger jerks.
23 May 09
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveYou are bound and determined to misrepresent everything, it's begining to look like you're doing it on purpose just to argue. (Much like the pastor)
You must have weird laws over there if its lawful to smash someones car window and tazer them because they were taking too long for your liking.
That wouldn't be allowed or be lawful in most other [b]democratic countries.
Bear in mind, he was causing no immediate threat.
nb.
The cops HAVE to file charges against him to justify their wrong ...[text shortened]... atsoever that the pastor will receive a massive payout for being victimized in the way he was.[/b]
They didn't smash his window and taze him because "he was taking too long for their liking".
23 May 09
Originally posted by Sam The ShamSo: exactly why did they tazer him?
You are bound and determined to misrepresent everything, it's begining to look like you're doing it on purpose just to argue. (Much like the pastor)
They didn't smash his window and taze him because "he was taking too long for their liking".
24 May 09
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove"All the evidence shows he was tasered more than once. Also how did he get the cuts and bruises to his face?"
All the evidence shows he was tasered more than once. Also how did he get the cuts and bruises to his face?
Regardless of whether he was technically under arrest or not, are you defending the police and their excessive and unnecessary use of force?
What next? Shoot people for speeding?
The "so called pastor" [as you call him] may have been a jerk but the police [or agents or whatever] demonstrated that they were even bigger jerks.
I thought there was only one shot visible on the video.
The so called pastor claims the cops pushed his face into the glass. But im not believing him for his word, he could have pushed his own face into it.
"Regardless of whether he was technically under arrest or not, are you defending the police and their excessive and unnecessary use of force?"
I wouldnt call it excessive. But IF the cops did all of that to him, shot him multiple times, pushed his head in the glass and what not, then it would be a little bit over the top.
But all we know is he got tasered once...which i dont think is excessive at all, so yes, im defending the cops for the one tasershot.
"What next? Shoot people for speeding?"
Driving over them would be a good punishment😛
"The "so called pastor" [as you call him] may have been a jerk but the police [or agents or whatever] demonstrated that they were even bigger jerks."
I call him that because i dont want to offend other christians. I dont mind offending christianity, but calling him a pastor, thats just to much.
The police demonstrated that there should be some rule changes around there. They should be able to arrest these wise asses right away whithout allowing him to block the traffic first.
Its sunday, wonder how many people got tasered so far at the border:p
24 May 09
Originally posted by Sam The ShamNo-one is arguing. The facts are clear as day.
No. Not getting sucked into your arguments anymore. You saw the video and heard the officer. Find someone else to counter the fairy-tales you concoct I'm not interested anymore.
1. The pastor is a douchebag.
2. The cops are sexually frustrated thugs and bullies who take out their frustration on the first defenceless person who doesn't dance to their tune.
3. You look silly (for the umpteenth time on these forums) defending them.