Police action in Oslo.

Remove all ads!

Mollusken, you are completely missing the problem here. The police never ever has any right to hurt people unless it is in dire self defence, even if the police break into a house and see a man in a room full of dead children and one live one he is raping before their eyes the police has no right to touch him except to cuff him if he comes peacefully. The police is there to keep order and bring people to justice, not to administer that justice, that is up to the courts.

Secondly I have seen many problems in anti-rascist rallies and anti-porn rallies, several cases where police has beaten the **** out of 14 year old girls that even if they wanted to would not pose any threat whatsoever for the police.

 

Chevalier, obviously getting the tar kicked out of you for something someone else did is an unacceptable state of affairs. That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that we don't know what this woman was doing before you saw her on camera. Perhaps she was victimized -- I fully concede that possibility. I merely also raise the possibility that she had engaged in a criminal act and needed to be forcefully restrained, and the earlier techniques didn't work.

In other words, I understand that police can engage in illegal activities, but I also know that what you see on TV isn't always the whole story.

BTW, is "carnal punishment" a legal term? I've always used the term "carnal" in a sexual sense, and I know that's not what we're talking about here!

 

I would assume that it means physical since carnal means relating to the flesh.

 

@Depaara: corporal punishment is more common in English.

@Mollusken: protests against racism are serious and protests against war aren't serious, rigth?

I believe protests agains this war are in a way protests against racism too. That's because non-American lives don't count, maybe except Europeans that count less.

@Depaara again: I'm far from believing the mostly leftist media fully, as I have already said. But, physical force is needed to restrain one from physical actions, not from verbal ones - unless real obscenities that necessitate the performer taken away. Here I agree. But I will never agree with beating one until he stops speaking - like a sick despotic parent with attitude problem. Or with inflicting pain to scare the target or his companions. Or with beating defeated targets (my option here: 'Goodbye, officer. You may seek a new job'). Or with letting dogs on protesting people like on some house-robbers or street thugs.

Another point of yours: insulting policemen being illegal. Insulting back is illegal too and so is beating even when insulted. So the policeman may only legally arrest the offender (not really criminal) using force if needed. I don't know how it is in US, but in some countries the preferred option for them is to check your papers and take legal steps if you don't assault them physically.

Last but not least I once more stress the obvious truth that police is not to administer justice but only to bring you to it (and it would be nice to be replied on this matter). Justice is administered in courts by either professional judges with legal education at university level among other requirements or justices of peace in whom citizens put trust and who are as independent from the government as it is posible and generally well educated and morally qualified. Johnny boy in uniform and with rubber stick in hand is no judge of anyone.

@Mollusken: I'm asking you now if you advocate carnal (or corporal if you prefer) punishment and justice administered outside judicature.

Last but not least, it's true that one can sue police or individual policemen. But who has tried that way knows that in practice it's close to sheer mockery.

 

All true stuff -- if you look at my posts, I don't believe I ever said the police should beat someone up for things they say -- but they can arrest the speaker. Now, some arrests go down easy. Others don't (look at my earlier scenarios). How can the police bring someone to the court system to have justice administered if the person refuses to come? The answer is force. No debate from me on the issue that sometimes too much force is used when making a legitimate arrest, or that some arrests are not legitimate. But like I said before, many arrests are performed with little to no hassle -- the hassle starts when the arrestee, hoping to be caught on camera or for some other weird reason, starts to get physical.

Anyhow, I figure we've both said our piece on this one -- I won't post on this one again unless I have something really cool to report. Cheers!

 

Who polices the police?

At the DC world bank protests last summer, DOZENS of passersby (including several lawyers and elderly tourists) were arrested and locked up, just for being on the wrong street at the wrong time. Almost all police act in the general good, but there are bad eggs in every basket.

 

The police does not judge anyone. It is wrong to judge anyone to physical punishment. But it is a weapon which is used by the police in extreme cases.

And why protests against war aren't serious? It's "in", "cool" and of course politicaly correct to be against everything the US does.

 

As for protests against US policy, I would say contrary.... Well, depends where in general. Myself, I've never been politically correct if anyone's asking And I repeat once more: I'm not a leftist. I neither need nor want to be 'cool'. I just don't like to see wrong things happen and keep quiet.