Cop killer severly beaten by police.

reply to post by muggl3z



What do you mean, "Innocent until proven guilty"? He did it in front of a room full of people, of course they knew he was guilty!

We are coming to a point and time in society where police officers who act out of their own emotions should be seen as less of a threat than we anticipate. If they can act on their OWN emotions then they can think for themselves. Which means that in the coming times they will become an asset to the people and a bigger threat to the governments systematic use o control and abuse.

reply to post by dooper


Great story. I don't blame Wolff. I probably would of done the same thing. Or better yet, make them help with the ammo and then send them out in front with unloaded rifles. Perhaps a bit complex but there's no outrage there. After all they were enemy combatants, armed and ready to kill. And they helped distribute the ammo that killed them.

I never understood why a chaplain stands around in the middle of a war. Seems like their place is out of combat to console marines on religious matters. But then again most of what I know about the military is from my brother or the military channel.

reply to post by Chronogoblin

Hate to break it to you sir, but rehab does't happen alot of the time.

That's pretty much what I was getting at, rehab doesn't happen and punishment doesn't work.

We'll have to disagree on the society bit though. I did have a job which involved close work with criminals, it's influenced my views a fair bit.

Very touchy issue. All I can say is this:

Were the cops wrong? Yes. Because they are not the judge and jury. They should have apprehended the subject and let the courts handle it. That is my 'by the book' answer.

Would I have done the same thing? Yes. Because sometimes instinct takes over and we 'do what we have to do' in spite of what a rule says. That's my 'human instinct' answer.

If someone hurt my child I should turn them into the police and let the law handle it. What I would do is make them regret the day they were ever born.

Law vs. human nature.

What the hell is wrong with folks on ATS. Yea he did get what he deserved, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

The right thing to do was arrest and prosecute him, pushing for the death penalty or at least life in prison. Beating the hell out of him will make you feel better yes, but it will only give his defense more fodder.

And people wonder why no one, especially minorities don't cooperate with cops.

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Due process? What about a fair and impartial trail without prejudice? Oh damn i forgot, that doesn't apply to everybody..

[edit on 14-9-2009 by cenpuppie]

reply to post by AshleyD

If someone hurt my child I should turn them into the police and let the law handle it. What I would do is make them regret the day they were ever born.

Ah, you your okay with taking the law in your own hands then, vigilante style? That's a slippery slop sweetie, having the ends justify the means. But i do feel you, all day long. I don't have any children (yes!) but i do have fam and we tend to get crazy when someone harms someone we care for.

"Human nature" is the reason why the world is heading in the direction that it is.

"Cooler heads must prevail" just isn't cliche....oh wait yea it is. Bah, carry on!

There is a system of justice in this country. Innocent until proven guilty.

Punishment is NOT to be administered by police!

If this man is guilty of a crime (which it seems pretty cut and dry that he is) then his punishment is administered by the courts, and he will get what he deserves.

Any officers involved in the beating have committed a crime of their own, and should face trial for it.

Either we are a country of law or we are a country of hypocrites.

Originally posted by cenpuppie
Ah, you your okay with taking the law in your own hands then, vigilante style?

Although I understand it's not right (as should be abundantly clear in my previous post), I also admit my humanity.

So, yes, I'd take the law into my own hands if someone hurt my child. Although I admire the parents you see being interviewed on the news after their child was kidnapped, raped, and murdered and expressing their thanks that justice was served when the criminal was handed a death sentence, that would never be me. Kudos to them but I'd lose my mind and go nuts.

I'm not totally against vigilante justice depending on the case. There are some serious travesties of justice out there so if the government is too ridiculous to handle it properly, more power to the people who can, I say.

Yes, I know that's not right but it's how I feel.

reply to post by AshleyD


As usual Ashley, the voice of reason.

I know I possibly come off hard sometimes, but I've seen firsthand the results of these guys when no one was around to stop them, and when they were in a fairly large group.

The law was designed to protect society.

When it doesn't, or can't, then the law means diddly squat. Thus a long history of very effective vigilante justice throughout the millennia.

There was a reason for it.

It was effective, efficient, and it worked.

I recall that a young newspaper from back east made his way West and was shocked that a man was about to be hung for horse theft.

"You would HANG a man for stealing a HORSE?"

"Nope. We're hanging this man so that horse are not stolen."

Perspective.

The larger picture helps one put everything into context.

Im sorry I respect vigilante justice more than govt. run "Due Process".

Originally posted by celticdragon23
Im sorry I respect vigilante justice more than govt. run "Due Process".

Then please leave civilization and go to one of many countries that don't use due process. In certain areas of Europe there are small towns that police don't dare to step in, places that house criminals and outcasts only. They use vigilante justice, why not move to one of these places? Or have you not quite thought through the idea of using vigilante justice vs the legal system?

Originally posted by dooper
As usual Ashley, the voice of reason.

Really no, the voice of emotional reaction undermining our legal system, the voice of the viscious. anyone can be vicious when upset and that is the point. The police are supposed to forego their emotions when dealing with suspects, even if they know they are guilty.

Originally posted by dooper
The law was designed to protect society.

When it doesn't, or can't, then the law means diddly squat. Thus a long history of very effective vigilante justice throughout the millennia.

There was a reason for it.

It was effective, efficient, and it worked.

Actually it wasn't ineffective (it wouldn't stop him doing it again), it wasn't that efficient (it caused an investigation that took a while) and it most certainly did not work. It was nothing but petty vengeance. Don't get me wrong, i'm sure if someone killed my friend i'd be out to get them, but that is the point, the law is supposed to be outside of such petty things and police officers are supposed to shelve their feelings.

Why few of you are able to shelve your emotions, base instincts, and seek to uphold the ideas that have kept our civilization running for so long i'm not sure. This was an open and shut case, the guy would have been going to prison for life, is any further punishment needed? No.

Originally posted by dooper
The larger picture helps one put everything into context.

Yes, it's a shame you can't see that picture. If you are all for small acts of vigilante behavior then why bother with a legal system? Either you trust the legal system or you trust the vigilantes, you can't support both. Well you can but you're just contradicting yourself if you do.

[edit on 14-9-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


You're delusional if you think people can control their emotions.

We are emotional creatures. It's what makes us good, life fun, makes us bad, react with anger, jealousy, or a hundred variations or combinations of emotions.

There have been hundreds of thousands, and likely millions and millions of repeat offenses because the "law" and the law alone permitted them.

With vigilante, or summary justice, nothing falls through the crack.

No repeat offenses.

Again. It's effective, efficient, timely, and appropriate.

Unless you're a mindless, emotional machine.

Which I'm not.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


Would these be Muslim enclaves, who live under Sharia?

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
This is in response to the person who was talking about gun owners vs. criminals. Gun owners are a violent bunch..there is no doubt about it. You say all you guys are all law abiding citizens....but you all sound like you are just waiting for th oppurtunity to use your gun on another human being. With such word as "if I was there it would have been different" , "Let them try to take my gun", "if I was the cops, he would never made it out alive" and other such crap. You can just tell who the gun owners are by the way they talk. Sure the criminals use thier guns for violence, but you would jump at the chance to take a life if there weren't any repercusions.

To the other poster concerning death penalty...does texas not have the death penalty and do murders, rapes n other violent crimes still occur? So it does not seem to deter anything. Like I said at the beginning gun owners are a violent bunch...who always ask for blood.

[edit on 13-9-2009 by kerazeesicko]

On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs - Dave Grossman
By LTC (RET) Dave Grossman, author of "On Killing."

"Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another. Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.

I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful.? For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed

Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world.

reply to post by silo13

reply to post by C0bzz

reply to post by jibeho

reply to post by Bringer

reply to post by quaple_pouge

Actually, your missing the entire point. It isn't the idea that anyone is on the killers side in this, it's that we live in a society where the courts and judges are meant to decide what is fit punishment for a crime, NOT THE COPS or anyone else.

The cops, guards or whomever did this to the guy should be held accountable for their crime. Sure they were "cleared" by the FBI, which basically translates to covering each others backs. Again, this is wht is dragging society to fascism.

When jackbooted Nazi's in the guise of Policemen can trample on your rights when they feel justified, regardless of your accused crime, they diminish the entire civilization. God forbid you ever suffer a case of mistaken identity, or get accused of a crime in that kind of world.

The fact that this guy committed his crime in front of witnesses bears no relevance. If you drive a car, you have probably driven over the speed limit. Now I may have lost a relative to someone speeding.

So by the logic outlined in this forum, because I have "witnessed" you speeding, and I feel it is a dangerous act which could result in someones death I am now justified in beating you. NO, I'm not a cop, no my emotions should not bear into the severity of the punishment I inflict, all that matter is that you are guilty (according to me the witness) and its "clobbering time". Or, is it only OK to beat you for speeding if I were a cop, who lost a child, grandparent or other to a speeding car? Wouldn't that be a wonderful world. (/sarcasim)

The correct answer is that none of it is justified. The courts should determine who is punished and to what extent. Not me, not you and certainly not the COPS. This isn't a question about guilt, its entirely about due process. Something I was under the impression was what made America a better place than say..Uganda.



..Ex

Originally posted by dooper
You're delusional if you think people can control their emotions.

Police officers are trained to suppress their emotions so they can deal with certain kinds of people and certain situations. This is their job, to apprehend and collect evidence. They went beyond their jobs and thereefore should be prosecuted. Just because the FBI found them innocent means little, police get protections that citizens don't. Imagine for a second this were an ordinary citizen that had commited this assault, that citizen would now be in prison.

Originally posted by dooper
We are emotional creatures. It's what makes us good, life fun, makes us bad, react with anger, jealousy, or a hundred variations or combinations of emotions.

There have been hundreds of thousands, and likely millions and millions of repeat offenses because the "law" and the law alone permitted them.

In this case i somehow doubt the guy would have gotten off. To many witnesses.

Originally posted by dooper
With vigilante, or summary justice, nothing falls through the crack.

Ahh but some people have been hurt who were innocent. The problem with vigilante justice, and the reason we have a legal system is exactly because vigilante justice is often rubbish.

Originally posted by dooper
No repeat offenses.

Again. It's effective, efficient, timely, and appropriate.

Unless you're a mindless, emotional machine.

Which I'm not.

No repeat offenses? The guy isn't dead i'm sure he'd hapily do it again, he's obviously not normal to be able to kill someone so easily. Explain to me why we invented a legal system and made vigilante justice illegal? Is it possibly because we saw it as

a) Barbaric
b) Often innocent people got caught in it
c) Unless dead the punished often go out for their own revenge and it's an endless cycle

Or maybe it's all of the above

Originally posted by stevegmu
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

Would these be Muslim enclaves, who live under Sharia?

No they wouldn't, not at all.

Second line is here!

I personally do not care that a cop got shot or that this idiot was beat down...it is all the hypocracy that is going on here. Outrage when cops over step thier boundries was all you would read....now it is good for the cops for over stepping them. Which is it?