Fundamental Rights

rigormortis

Has anyone got any views on this;

http://www.infowars.com/?p=194

aidan_walsh

The video? The spamming? The crazy person website?

This one not a Green Issue?

Adam

Have you?

It's a bullshít video imo, typical media hype. I saw no excess force being used, other than on the part of the "victim", screaming hysterically at the officers.

I like the fact that they neglect to mention she was actually charged with disorderly behavior and resisting arrest until the very end of the video! Surprise, surprise, the little psycho... :rolleyes:

rigormortis

I have plenty of opinions on this. It is an absolute disgrace.

Mirror wrote: »

I saw no excess force being used, other than on the part of the "victim", screaming hysterically at the officers.

And how would one be expected to act, like its all a "great laff", share a bit of banter? As for the "victim" remark, who would you refer to the victim in this case?

Adam

rigormortis wrote: »

I have plenty of opinions on this. It is an absolute disgrace.

Well that's tough to argue with, well formed opinion there.

rigormortis wrote: »

And how would one be expected to act, like its all a "great laff", share a bit of banter? As for the "victim" remark, who would you refer to the victim in this case?

Act like a law abiding citizen, they aren't strip searching you for nothing. I never said it was or would be "a great laff" for the woman. But I didn't see any smiles on the officers faces either.

What should the officers have done, or should do with any persons requiring a strip search that decides to scream hysterically for the duration? "Oh well lads, the person is asking us to stop, suppose we best do as they say!" Right...

rigormortis

Yes, I form an opinion on based on my own perceptions, maybe that shocks you. No need for media analysis.

Mirror wrote: »

Act like a law abiding citizen, they aren't strip searching you for nothing. I never said it was or would be "a great laff" for the woman. But I didn't see any smiles on the officers faces either.

What should the officers have done, or should do with any persons requiring a strip search that decides to scream hysterically for the duration?

Act like a law abiding citizen? And here was me thinking that she was the one assaulted to begin with.

Mirror wrote: »

"Oh well lads, the person is asking us to stop, suppose we best do as they say!" Right...

How about, yes. If she is put in a cell by herself, what harm is she going to do. I never heard the officers complaining of any assault on their person.

Eero

Jumped up cops, little power hungry psychopaths, like a pack of wolves.

What happened to treating people with some dignity.

phasers

for some reason I read the title as "fundaland rides"

humanji

phasers wrote: »

for some reason I read the title as "fundaland rides"

It was the trial run of the new ride they're putting in this year. It looks great.

Adam

rigormortis wrote: »

Act like a law abiding citizen? And here was me thinking that she was the one assaulted to begin with.

Well how is it that she was charged with disorderly behavior and resisting arrest? That was her problem, if she'd gone quietly it would probably never have gone down the way it did (which I still don't see anything wrong with to be honest, that video shows tame scenes, serene looking officers doing their job imo).

rigormortis wrote: »

How about, yes. If she is put in a cell by herself, what harm is she going to do.

You're right there, if we put someone in a cell they can't do anything. However if you're not being charged you can't be held, it's against our fundamental rights. :rolleyes:

rigormortis wrote: »

I never heard the officers complaining of any assault on their person.

You never heard from the officers full stop. Not a very balanced story is it?

Adam

humanji wrote: »

It was the trial run of the new ride they're putting in this year. It looks great.

She was a bit of a hottie tbh, but I don't like the blonde. The colour she has it dyed in the cell is way better...

Eero

Mirror wrote: »

She was a bit of a hottie tbh, but I don't like the blonde. The colour she has it dyed in the cell is way better...

All fun & games isn't it...just wait till they are doing this to you

rigormortis

Mirror wrote: »

However if you're not being charged you can't be held, it's against our fundamental rights. :rolleyes:

Here we have "Mirror" rewriting the law, or is it "mirror's" interpretation of the law?

You really do have a vast amount of knowledge based on this statement. Get an education before you try and contradict any statement of mine.

The police involved would have a field day with the likes of you.

rigormortis

What happened to people defending their fellow man? Is authority always right? or maybe people have a short memory span.

Adam

Eero wrote: »

All fun & games isn't it...just wait till they are doing this to you

Tongue in cheek Eero, don't take it to heart. You might cry. T_T

Adam

rigormortis wrote: »

Here we have "Mirror" rewriting the law, or is it "mirror's" interpretation of the law?

You really do have a vast amount of knowledge based on this statement. Get an education before you try and contradict any statement of mine.

The police involved would have a field day with the likes of you.

Who are you to question my intelligence, or my education background?

From citizensinformation.ie, a government affiliated website:

In most cases where you have been arrested for an offence punishable by 5 years imprisonment or more, the maximum period of detention is 24 hours.

rigormortis

Mirror wrote: »

Who are you to question my intelligence, or my education background?

The 24 HOURS reference seems to jump out as I read that statement.

Also note the use of the word "most". Ask a lawyer for a definition, and if you manage to get one I'd love to hear it.

Adam

Yes, that's right, most cases. In other words (in case you can't quite grasp that concept), the majority i.e. more than 50% at least.

But moving on from that, you've taken my argument out of context and focused on tiny little niggles rather then the bigger picture. And that point was that you can't just lock people up left right and center. You need to address the potential issue, and prosecute or release. When a terrorist strolls in to an airport with C4 strapped to his chest you'll be screaming strip the bastard, off with his head etc.

Argue your point that this is against human fundamental rights or stop annoying me kthxbye.

rigormortis

Mirror wrote: »

Yes, that's right, most cases. In other words (in case you can't quite grasp that concept), the majority i.e. more than 50% at least.

Incorrect. There are many meanings and interpretations.

Mirror wrote: »

But moving on from that, you've taken my argument out of context and focused on tiny little niggles rather then the bigger picture. And that point was that you can't just lock people up left right and center. You need to address the potential issue, and prosecute or release. When a terrorist strolls in to an airport with C4 strapped to his chest you'll be screaming strip the bastard, off with his head etc.

I am yet to actually see a terrorist, and I would bet my life I never will.


As for my dragging your argument out of context, I merely suggested that she be held temporarily rather than put through that disgraceful process. You then suggest that this was against the law, I proved this was not the case.

Mirror wrote: »

Argue your point that this is against human fundamental rights or stop annoying me kthxbye.

So what you seen in that short video was not degrading and insulting to the person involved, if that is the case you are correct in ending the discussion.

Terry

No cross forum posting.
Thanks.