after considering people's thoughts on the matter i think the cops still should havetaken out the billy club on them and pulled a rodney king situation on her!!!!....well not that extreme but ya kno
I think the CPD was having too much rastlin with these girls to club them. Besides these guys get trained on Gerry Springer where they are not allowed to club.
Except that they weren't beaten... or touched AFAICT. Further, who is "taking delight?" The original post was just to point out that -- IMO -- if anyone other than a well-connected woman behaved like that during arrest, particularly any man, they would get hammered by the cops. And in this kind of case, it's kind of hard to argue against it.
You're obviously not reading the same thread as me, the one titled: "Club them like baby seals!".
*I* never said they were beaten, but the consensus seems to be that in a fair and just world they would be beaten and humiliated by the police, before being put through normal legal proceedings.
You seem to argue that the cops knew these women were well-connected, something you either made up or got from another source than that linked.
I'm really not sure what the point is: That rich people get a better deal from the legal system? That women get away with some things that men don't when dealing with the police (though I doubt female police officers pull any punches with violent women)? That white people are less likely to have excessive (and sometimes lethal) force used on them by police officers?
All of these are certainly true, but I'm not sure how these girls getting a beating would make the world a better place or why it's bad that these girls were treated in the way we would want our own children treated by the police if they had drunk too much.
You're obviously not reading the same thread as me, the one titled: "Club them like baby seals!".
*I* never said they were beaten, but the consensus seems to be that in a fair and just world they would be beaten and humiliated by the police, before being put through normal legal proceedings.
You seem to argue that the cops knew these women were well-connected, something you either made up or got from another source than that linked.
I'm really not sure what the point is: That rich people get a better deal from the legal system? That women get away with some things that men don't when dealing with the police (though I doubt female police officers pull any punches with violent women)? That white people are less likely to have excessive (and sometimes lethal) force used on them by police officers?
All of these are certainly true, but I'm not sure how these girls getting a beating would make the world a better place or why it's bad that these girls were treated in the way we would want our own children treated by the police if they had drunk too much.
Maybe he read my post in addition to the title of the thread.
Fox, you have to remember that my thread titles are not newspaper headlines. I'm allowed to write whatever I like with regard to humor, getting attention, wit, or whatever I prefer. The first post basically put across, in a somewhat humorous way, that these women would not have gotten off so easily if they were acting in this manner and were larger or if the neighborhood or race were different.
Understand that when someone acts in this manner in those circumstances, the actions of the officer are questioned. I feel an officer shouldn't have to die to prove someone is a threat. I was just stating (humorously) that if these officers had felt a need to elevate the level of force, I feel like it would have been fully justified considering the described actions.
"See how unfair the world is? Women have it so easy, they don't get beaten up as often as men!"
Do I have that right Nick? If not, what is the thread about, and why did you start it?
Let me see if I have your point right. Women are weak and helpless, even when punching police officers in the face and kicking windows out of police cruisers. Women can't use or grab a weapon. Women can never be a threat.
Do I have that right Harald? If not why did you reply?
While no one likes to believe that anyone is treated any different because of race, I really don't think this would have turned out so nicely for the involved parties if they had been, say two six foot tall black males who had been tossed out of a club for being too drunk.
Maybe he read my post in addition to the title of the thread.
The post with these choice quotes:
Crack that head!
I think the officers should have taken their night sticks and gone to town clubbing them like they are the leading homerun hitter with bases loaded during a playoff game.
Throw the book, and then a brick at them says I
-----------
I guess it's just a sense of humour failure then. My bad. But I still don't understand your point.
Let me see if I have your point right. Women are weak and helpless, even when punching police officers in the face and kicking windows out of police cruisers. Women can't use or grab a weapon. Women can never be a threat.
Do I have that right Harald? If not why did you reply?
Thanks for clearing that up; I was right. You started a thread to demonstrate that women have it easier then men; in this instance the proof is that they weren't beaten like men would have been in a similar instance. Not your finest hour if I may say.
By the way, you're totally wrong about my point. No idea where you got that from. At all. HTH.
Thanks for clearing that up; I was right. You started a thread to demonstrate that women have it easier then men; in this instance the proof is that they weren't beaten like men would have been in a similar instance. Not your finest hour if I may say.
By the way, you're totally wrong about my point. No idea where you got that from. At all. HTH.
Well if you look at your reply, it is what you did. Misrepresented the point and then proclaimed yourself right.
Quote:
Right. Just trying to understand this thread.
"See how unfair the world is? Women have it so easy, they don't get beaten up as often as men!"
Do I have that right Nick? If not, what is the thread about, and why did you start it?
So I took what you were eluding too and overstated it as well to show your true thinking. Which is exactly what I am sure you were trying to do as well.
Now more to the point, Harald. Let's find out how sexist you truly are with regard to these women. Could they have been a threat? Punching out cops and windows, resisting arrest and getting close enough to grab weapons. Do you believe women so weak and feeble that they could never hurt you or these police officers?
The assumption that a 6ft black man is a threat from the get go is racist. However the reverse, an assuption that a white woman could never be a threat, is also sexism. I was simply arguing that if the officers had used more force I would have felt it justified since I am not sexist and do not consider women incapable weaklings.
But apparently, you and your sexist attitudes consider women as completely incapable.
I think the officers should have taken their night sticks and gone to town clubbing them like they are the leading homerun hitter with bases loaded during a playoff game.
Throw the book, and then a brick at them says I
-----------
I guess it's just a sense of humour failure then. My bad. But I still don't understand your point.
I bet you would if I claimed I was Al Franken bitchslapping Bernie Goldburg, challenging Rich Lowry to a fight, claiming starving children in India could never replace my job, etc.
Oh wait, you agree with him so that "humor" is just fine.
If anything you prove the point that the entire first post was a bit tongue in cheek and over the top in a manner that would be clearly evident to most readers. You show that all the imagery is consistantly over the top (on purpose) to evoke humor.
I have noticed a common thread in your... err, threads. You will point to discrepancy in treatment of two groups and spend more energy and words advocating poorer treatment for those receiving better than advocating better treatment for those receiving poorer.
There is no logical reason at all to want people beaten more than necessary with sticks, but there is logical reason to want only as much force as necessary to be used.
This may seem like a trivial observation, but it ties in closely to the nature of your threads, which are controversial in the sense that you purposely and rudderlessly dramatize the situation and provoke the audience. This can be done intelligently and with purpose, but relying on trolling as a social panacea produces nothing more than poison.
I have noticed a common thread in your... err, threads. You will point to discrepancy in treatment of two groups and spend more energy and words advocating poorer treatment for those receiving better than advocating better treatment for those receiving poorer.
There is no logical reason at all to want people beaten more than necessary with sticks, but there is logical reason to want only as much force as necessary to be used.
This may seem like a trivial observation, but it ties in closely to the nature of your threads, which are controversial in the sense that you purposely and rudderlessly dramatize the situation and provoke the audience. This can be done intelligently and with purpose, but relying on trolling as a social panacea produces nothing more than poison.
I'll keep your thoughts in mind when I check the new Nielson ratings.
Tongue in cheek. It was meant to show how two groups are perceived so differently. One group can end up shot and dead while the other likely won't even have charges brought up.
I tried to do it with a bit of humor because it is a pretty touchy subject. Knowing that a white woman could act that way, and have officers risk death to insure her perception of weakness is sustained while knowing they might just up and blow away another person they consider to not be worth the risk is really scary in terms of the racism and sexism it sustains.
I think it has worked because most in the thread got the humor and were able to address it by adding their own or simply stating how it might be handled differently instead of blowing up over the racial and gender issues.
I would like to restate the official position in a different way, since some of you seem to think there are people here in favor of seeing women beaten by police.
What some of us believe in this context... is that *any person* who is drunk enough, strong enough and out of control enough... to strike an officer in the face, and subsequently kick out a police cruiser window... deserves to be subdued using some type of non-barbaric, non-lethal force. This means no group-beatings, "boots to the head" (Monty Python thing), or gang rapings by police. OK??
Use the Taser, some pepper spray... whatever makes them stop the threatening behavior. This includes women who are stupid enough to do this.
I would like to restate the official position in a different way, since some of you seem to think there are people here in favor of seeing women beaten by police.
What some of us believe in this context... is that *any person* who is drunk enough, strong enough and out of control enough... to strike an officer in the face, and subsequently kick out a police cruiser window... deserves to be subdued using some type of non-barbaric, non-lethal force. This means no group-beatings, "boots to the head" (Monty Python thing), or gang rapings by police. OK??
Use the Taser, some pepper spray... whatever makes them stop the threatening behavior. This includes women who are stupid enough to do this.
For such an abivalent lady, you need to be sitting on the proverbial fence on this issue... now get up there!
Well, Moogs, I have mixed emotions about many issues, but this ain't one of'em!
I believe in equal treatment under the law. These girls should be treated the way any male would under exactly the same circumstances.
Taser, pepper spray. Sound good to me.
I do feel ambivalent about many things because I see so many positives and negatives on both sides of most issues. Makes it extra tough for me to make decisions. \
I would like to restate the official position in a different way, since some of you seem to think there are people here in favor of seeing women beaten by police.
...
deserves to be subdued using some type of non-barbaric, non-lethal force.
...
Happy?
No, I'm not happy.
The girls *were* subdued using non-barbaric, non-lethal force. The police appear to have done the right thing. Certain posts in this thread seem to suggest that the police officers on the scene should have been *more* violent, not in order to more effectively do their job, not to better protect themselves, but to punish the girls for their behaviour (and to compensate for them not being scary black men who, naturally, need such violent treatment as standard).
How does saying that these women "deserve" to be beaten (more?) by the police make you *not* in favour of women being beaten by the police.
I have noticed a common thread in your... err, threads. You will point to discrepancy in treatment of two groups and spend more energy and words advocating poorer treatment for those receiving better than advocating better treatment for those receiving poorer.
There is no logical reason at all to want people beaten more than necessary with sticks, but there is logical reason to want only as much force as necessary to be used.
This may seem like a trivial observation, but it ties in closely to the nature of your threads, which are controversial in the sense that you purposely and rudderlessly dramatize the situation and provoke the audience. This can be done intelligently and with purpose, but relying on trolling as a social panacea produces nothing more than poison.
Comments
Originally posted by Moogs
Except that they weren't beaten... or touched AFAICT. Further, who is "taking delight?" The original post was just to point out that -- IMO -- if anyone other than a well-connected woman behaved like that during arrest, particularly any man, they would get hammered by the cops. And in this kind of case, it's kind of hard to argue against it.
You're obviously not reading the same thread as me, the one titled: "Club them like baby seals!".
*I* never said they were beaten, but the consensus seems to be that in a fair and just world they would be beaten and humiliated by the police, before being put through normal legal proceedings.
You seem to argue that the cops knew these women were well-connected, something you either made up or got from another source than that linked.
I'm really not sure what the point is: That rich people get a better deal from the legal system? That women get away with some things that men don't when dealing with the police (though I doubt female police officers pull any punches with violent women)? That white people are less likely to have excessive (and sometimes lethal) force used on them by police officers?
All of these are certainly true, but I'm not sure how these girls getting a beating would make the world a better place or why it's bad that these girls were treated in the way we would want our own children treated by the police if they had drunk too much.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
You're obviously not reading the same thread as me, the one titled: "Club them like baby seals!".
*I* never said they were beaten, but the consensus seems to be that in a fair and just world they would be beaten and humiliated by the police, before being put through normal legal proceedings.
You seem to argue that the cops knew these women were well-connected, something you either made up or got from another source than that linked.
I'm really not sure what the point is: That rich people get a better deal from the legal system? That women get away with some things that men don't when dealing with the police (though I doubt female police officers pull any punches with violent women)? That white people are less likely to have excessive (and sometimes lethal) force used on them by police officers?
All of these are certainly true, but I'm not sure how these girls getting a beating would make the world a better place or why it's bad that these girls were treated in the way we would want our own children treated by the police if they had drunk too much.
Maybe he read my post in addition to the title of the thread.
Fox, you have to remember that my thread titles are not newspaper headlines. I'm allowed to write whatever I like with regard to humor, getting attention, wit, or whatever I prefer. The first post basically put across, in a somewhat humorous way, that these women would not have gotten off so easily if they were acting in this manner and were larger or if the neighborhood or race were different.
Understand that when someone acts in this manner in those circumstances, the actions of the officer are questioned. I feel an officer shouldn't have to die to prove someone is a threat. I was just stating (humorously) that if these officers had felt a need to elevate the level of force, I feel like it would have been fully justified considering the described actions.
Nick
"See how unfair the world is? Women have it so easy, they don't get beaten up as often as men!"
Do I have that right Nick? If not, what is the thread about, and why did you start it?
Originally posted by Harald
Right. Just trying to understand this thread.
"See how unfair the world is? Women have it so easy, they don't get beaten up as often as men!"
Do I have that right Nick? If not, what is the thread about, and why did you start it?
Let me see if I have your point right. Women are weak and helpless, even when punching police officers in the face and kicking windows out of police cruisers. Women can't use or grab a weapon. Women can never be a threat.
Do I have that right Harald? If not why did you reply?
While no one likes to believe that anyone is treated any different because of race, I really don't think this would have turned out so nicely for the involved parties if they had been, say two six foot tall black males who had been tossed out of a club for being too drunk.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Maybe he read my post in addition to the title of the thread.
The post with these choice quotes:
Crack that head!
I think the officers should have taken their night sticks and gone to town clubbing them like they are the leading homerun hitter with bases loaded during a playoff game.
Throw the book, and then a brick at them says I
-----------
I guess it's just a sense of humour failure then. My bad. But I still don't understand your point.
Originally posted by trumptman
Let me see if I have your point right. Women are weak and helpless, even when punching police officers in the face and kicking windows out of police cruisers. Women can't use or grab a weapon. Women can never be a threat.
Do I have that right Harald? If not why did you reply?
Thanks for clearing that up; I was right. You started a thread to demonstrate that women have it easier then men; in this instance the proof is that they weren't beaten like men would have been in a similar instance. Not your finest hour if I may say.
By the way, you're totally wrong about my point. No idea where you got that from. At all. HTH.
Originally posted by Harald
Thanks for clearing that up; I was right. You started a thread to demonstrate that women have it easier then men; in this instance the proof is that they weren't beaten like men would have been in a similar instance. Not your finest hour if I may say.
By the way, you're totally wrong about my point. No idea where you got that from. At all. HTH.
Well if you look at your reply, it is what you did. Misrepresented the point and then proclaimed yourself right.
Right. Just trying to understand this thread.
"See how unfair the world is? Women have it so easy, they don't get beaten up as often as men!"
Do I have that right Nick? If not, what is the thread about, and why did you start it?
So I took what you were eluding too and overstated it as well to show your true thinking. Which is exactly what I am sure you were trying to do as well.
Now more to the point, Harald. Let's find out how sexist you truly are with regard to these women. Could they have been a threat? Punching out cops and windows, resisting arrest and getting close enough to grab weapons. Do you believe women so weak and feeble that they could never hurt you or these police officers?
The assumption that a 6ft black man is a threat from the get go is racist. However the reverse, an assuption that a white woman could never be a threat, is also sexism. I was simply arguing that if the officers had used more force I would have felt it justified since I am not sexist and do not consider women incapable weaklings.
But apparently, you and your sexist attitudes consider women as completely incapable.
Nick
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
The post with these choice quotes:
Crack that head!
I think the officers should have taken their night sticks and gone to town clubbing them like they are the leading homerun hitter with bases loaded during a playoff game.
Throw the book, and then a brick at them says I
-----------
I guess it's just a sense of humour failure then. My bad. But I still don't understand your point.
I bet you would if I claimed I was Al Franken bitchslapping Bernie Goldburg, challenging Rich Lowry to a fight, claiming starving children in India could never replace my job, etc.
Oh wait, you agree with him so that "humor" is just fine.
If anything you prove the point that the entire first post was a bit tongue in cheek and over the top in a manner that would be clearly evident to most readers. You show that all the imagery is consistantly over the top (on purpose) to evoke humor.
Nick
I have noticed a common thread in your... err, threads. You will point to discrepancy in treatment of two groups and spend more energy and words advocating poorer treatment for those receiving better than advocating better treatment for those receiving poorer.
There is no logical reason at all to want people beaten more than necessary with sticks, but there is logical reason to want only as much force as necessary to be used.
This may seem like a trivial observation, but it ties in closely to the nature of your threads, which are controversial in the sense that you purposely and rudderlessly dramatize the situation and provoke the audience. This can be done intelligently and with purpose, but relying on trolling as a social panacea produces nothing more than poison.
Originally posted by groverat
t:
I have noticed a common thread in your... err, threads. You will point to discrepancy in treatment of two groups and spend more energy and words advocating poorer treatment for those receiving better than advocating better treatment for those receiving poorer.
There is no logical reason at all to want people beaten more than necessary with sticks, but there is logical reason to want only as much force as necessary to be used.
This may seem like a trivial observation, but it ties in closely to the nature of your threads, which are controversial in the sense that you purposely and rudderlessly dramatize the situation and provoke the audience. This can be done intelligently and with purpose, but relying on trolling as a social panacea produces nothing more than poison.
I'll keep your thoughts in mind when I check the new Nielson ratings.
Tongue in cheek. It was meant to show how two groups are perceived so differently. One group can end up shot and dead while the other likely won't even have charges brought up.
I tried to do it with a bit of humor because it is a pretty touchy subject. Knowing that a white woman could act that way, and have officers risk death to insure her perception of weakness is sustained while knowing they might just up and blow away another person they consider to not be worth the risk is really scary in terms of the racism and sexism it sustains.
I think it has worked because most in the thread got the humor and were able to address it by adding their own or simply stating how it might be handled differently instead of blowing up over the racial and gender issues.
Nick
What some of us believe in this context... is that *any person* who is drunk enough, strong enough and out of control enough... to strike an officer in the face, and subsequently kick out a police cruiser window... deserves to be subdued using some type of non-barbaric, non-lethal force. This means no group-beatings, "boots to the head" (Monty Python thing), or gang rapings by police. OK??
Use the Taser, some pepper spray... whatever makes them stop the threatening behavior. This includes women who are stupid enough to do this.
Happy?
Originally posted by Moogs
I would like to restate the official position in a different way, since some of you seem to think there are people here in favor of seeing women beaten by police.
What some of us believe in this context... is that *any person* who is drunk enough, strong enough and out of control enough... to strike an officer in the face, and subsequently kick out a police cruiser window... deserves to be subdued using some type of non-barbaric, non-lethal force. This means no group-beatings, "boots to the head" (Monty Python thing), or gang rapings by police. OK??
Use the Taser, some pepper spray... whatever makes them stop the threatening behavior. This includes women who are stupid enough to do this.
Happy?
Hi Moogs -
Well-stated.
I agree completely.
Originally posted by Moogs
For such an abivalent lady, you need to be sitting on the proverbial fence on this issue... now get up there!
Well, Moogs, I have mixed emotions about many issues, but this ain't one of'em!
I believe in equal treatment under the law. These girls should be treated the way any male would under exactly the same circumstances.
Taser, pepper spray. Sound good to me.
I do feel ambivalent about many things because I see so many positives and negatives on both sides of most issues. Makes it extra tough for me to make decisions.
Originally posted by Moogs
Happy?
But they were brought into custody. Why is there any need for more force?
Originally posted by Moogs
I would like to restate the official position in a different way, since some of you seem to think there are people here in favor of seeing women beaten by police.
...
deserves to be subdued using some type of non-barbaric, non-lethal force.
...
Happy?
No, I'm not happy.
The girls *were* subdued using non-barbaric, non-lethal force. The police appear to have done the right thing. Certain posts in this thread seem to suggest that the police officers on the scene should have been *more* violent, not in order to more effectively do their job, not to better protect themselves, but to punish the girls for their behaviour (and to compensate for them not being scary black men who, naturally, need such violent treatment as standard).
How does saying that these women "deserve" to be beaten (more?) by the police make you *not* in favour of women being beaten by the police.
Originally posted by groverat
t:
I have noticed a common thread in your... err, threads. You will point to discrepancy in treatment of two groups and spend more energy and words advocating poorer treatment for those receiving better than advocating better treatment for those receiving poorer.
There is no logical reason at all to want people beaten more than necessary with sticks, but there is logical reason to want only as much force as necessary to be used.
This may seem like a trivial observation, but it ties in closely to the nature of your threads, which are controversial in the sense that you purposely and rudderlessly dramatize the situation and provoke the audience. This can be done intelligently and with purpose, but relying on trolling as a social panacea produces nothing more than poison.
Well said.