Victoria BC Police Brutality Video

[wyly]

What defines "well after"? Do you think all media reporting comes to you live?

The event had already taken place. If the need to air the footage of it immediately somehow trumped the option of sending a reporter to do some prior investigation, then there should have been, as I said, at least a caveat that the surrounding circumstances were unknown. There was neither.

they presented the information they had, the incident took place Sunday morning it was reported yesterday I wouldn't define that as irresponsible or hasty journalism...

[eyeball]

And I explained to you that the difference lies in the fact that I was able to explain the context in which I saw the video, whereas the cop has not been able to explain the context in which the events in the video took place. Can you follow along?

I understand what you're saying but the fact remains that the first thought that came to your mind was of a defensive nature on the side of the cops.

The difference to me is that I've yet to see any videos of this type resulting in the exoneration of the police recorded in them but it seems every time a new one surfaces there's more people like you automatically rushing to the defense of the police. I think that speaks to an increasingly sick and perverted context developing within our society.

[wyly]

I understand what you're saying but the fact remains that the first thought that came to your mind was of a defensive nature on the side of the cops.

The difference to me is that I've yet to see any videos of this type resulting in the exoneration of the police recorded in them but it seems every time a new one surfaces there's more people like you automatically rushing to the defense of the police. I think that speaks to an increasingly sick and perverted context developing within our society.

police are like any other segment of our population, most are good and a few aren't...and a video doesn't tell the whole story, half of the video tells us very little of the beating one man is getting, it may be deserved...the latter half of the video does not cast the polieman in question in a good light, the second man fully complied with police commands and still recieved a beating, if there is something to justify the beating it better be good I've seen murderers arrested and treated with more respect and no violence... Edited March 25, 2010 by wyly

[g_bambino]

I understand what you're saying but the fact remains that the first thought that came to your mind was of a defensive nature on the side of the cops.

You can't have understood what I said if what you say above is what you think I said. What I said was that I thought judgmental conclusions were being drawn based on no more than a minute of out-of-context video footage. It's beyond me why you insist on dealing with the opinions you imagine I have rather than the ones I said I had.

[-]

Edited March 25, 2010 by g_bambino

[msj]

Uh, maybe it will. But the point was that it's poor journalism to broadcast videos with no more story than what's in the video itself. In case you didn't notice, it leads some soft-minded people to formulate and then froth about all sorts of baseless assumptions.

You do realize that posting a video to youtube does not automatically qualify as "journalism?"

You also realize that posting to it on a forum also does not automatically qualify as "journalism?"

Presenting the video on CBC/CTV news like it has been does qualify as journalism and they were careful to mention that the video does not show the entire story blah blah blah (which should be obvious to anyone ).

So knock off the "journalism" BS argument cuz it's a poor one to make.

[g_bambino]

Presenting the video on CBC/CTV news like it has been does qualify as journalism and they were careful to mention that the video does not show the entire story blah blah blah (which should be obvious to anyone

You should save the rolleyes for when it might make you look less stupid; on the morning CTV first aired the video, there was no mention of what you say they mentioned. They may have subsequently done so, I don't know; but on Tuesday morning CTV certainly did not.

[wyly]

You should save the rolleyes for when it might make you look less stupid; on the morning CTV first aired the video, there was no mention of what you say they mentioned. They may have subsequently done so, I don't know; but on Tuesday morning CTV certainly did not.

I don't recall the report on CBC or CTV being judgemental...the impression I got from the reports were the same I felt when I saw the video..."oh crap, I hope there's a good reason for the beating the guy is getting"...

[msj]

You should save the rolleyes for when it might make you look less stupid; on the morning CTV first aired the video, there was no mention of what you say they mentioned. They may have subsequently done so, I don't know; but on Tuesday morning CTV certainly did not.

If you want to refer to specific incidences of poor journalism then it is best to link to the stories in question otherwise one can only assume that you are making stuff up or are conveniently "remembering" stuff that can not be easily verified.

Very hypocritical of you to do this given your complaint of "poor journalism."

[eyeball]

You can't have understood what I said if what you say above is what you think I said. What I said was that I thought judgmental conclusions were being drawn based on no more than a minute of out-of-context video footage. It's beyond me why you insist on dealing with the opinions you imagine I have rather than the ones I said I had.

[-]

And I explained to you that the difference lies in the fact that I was able to explain the context in which I saw the video, whereas the cop has not been able to explain the context in which the events in the video took place.

I'm basing my judgement on an event within the video - that of a cop kicking then repeatedly kneeing someone who was obviously complying with police orders to...comply.

I admit it never dawned on me a cop might possibly have a rational explanation for the actions I saw in the video no matter what the context of the scenario in which they were committed. As for the video in the context of journalism, reporting the Youtube posting of such events is in fact news, important news too I think, especially given the number of people who in my opinion are too quick to defend, dismiss or worse see nothing wrong with police using more excessive force.

If I'm to understand you correctly now, what you seem to be saying is that videos shouldn't be displayed lest people come to their own conclusions about what constitutes appropriate police behaviour when subduing suspects.

[g_bambino]

If you want to refer to specific incidences of poor journalism then it is best to link to the stories in question otherwise one can only assume that you are making stuff up or are conveniently "remembering" stuff that can not be easily verified.

As I don't possess the technology to link to my television three days in the past, you're going to have to just assume whatever you want about what I said. A rational person might wonder why I'd make such a story up; do you think I have some vendetta against CTV?

[g_bambino]

{I}mportant news... I think, especially given the number of people who in my opinion are too quick to defend, dismiss or worse see nothing wrong with police using more excessive force.

The news is important, but with the video alone you're not getting the full picture (literally). Less than a minute of video footage of a police officer delivering a couple of blows to some individuals, with no hint at extenuating circumstances, makes it appear as though you have proof of police using excessive force; no wonder you like the video sans context. The surrounding events may well prove you right, but there's also a risk they could prove you wrong.

If I'm to understand you correctly now, what you seem to be saying is that videos shouldn't be displayed lest people come to their own conclusions about what constitutes appropriate police behaviour when subduing suspects.

Unfortunately, you're not understanding me correctly at all.

[+]

Edited March 26, 2010 by g_bambino

[eyeball]

The news is important, but with the video alone you're not getting the full picture (literally). Less than a minute of video footage of a police officer delivering a couple of blows to some individuals, with no hint at extenuating circumstances, makes it appear as though you have proof of police using excessive force; no wonder you like the video sans context. The surrounding events may well prove you right, but there's also a risk they could prove you wrong.

I highly doubt it, as I said I've yet to see a video of this nature ever being used to exonerate a cop. I did in fact get the full picture and the proof of excessive force is the video itself.

Unfortunately, you're not understanding me correctly at all.

[+]

I guess this is why a video is worth a thousand words.

Edited March 26, 2010 by eyeball

[g_bambino]

I highly doubt it, as I said I've yet to see a video of this nature ever being used to exonerate a cop.

Who ever said the video would exonerate the cop?

I did in fact get the full picture and the proof of excessive force is the video itself.

Really? Care to share the facts about the surrounding circumstances, then? I'm interested to know all that happened prior to the start of that tape.

[Gabriel]

That video has all the context we need. There's no question that this is excessive force. It's not EXTREME excessive force, but it's definitely excessive. Like I said earlier, a little too much machismo is flowing through the veins of the police officer in the yellow.

[msj]

As I don't possess the technology to link to my television three days in the past, you're going to have to just assume whatever you want about what I said. A rational person might wonder why I'd make such a story up; do you think I have some vendetta against CTV?

Well, if you're gonna complain about poor journalism not providing proper context and you can't do the same thing here, well, if it talks like a hypocrite, and walks like one, then you've gotta be one.

Of course, that's my point: you muddy the waters with nonsense about context while unable to provide it for yourself.

How convenient of you to complain about "poor journalism" when you can't be bothered to put up a link to demonstrate the context that you claim to have occurred.

If the video in the OP was never produced then we would likely never know of this case of alleged excessive force.

The video is an important start at arriving at the context through a proper investigation.

As for how the news presents it - well, I think most people understand that when they consume a short video clip it's not going to be the whole story and, frankly, I'm tired of twits like you and M. Dancer etc... having to point this out as if it is somehow some profundity.

It ain't profound nor deep.

Edited March 26, 2010 by msj

[eyeball]

Who ever said the video would exonerate the cop?

Nobody.

Really? Care to share the facts about the surrounding circumstances, then? I'm interested to know all that happened prior to the start of that tape.

Why - evidence leading to exoneration perhaps?

So how do you feel about making cops wear cameras and microphones when they're on duty?

[eyeball]

That video has all the context we need. There's no question that this is excessive force. It's not EXTREME excessive force, but it's definitely excessive. Like I said earlier, a little too much machismo is flowing through the veins of the police officer in the yellow.

What's worse is that this particular cop was the officer on charge. I sure hope this guy hasn't been responsible for training other police.

[eyeball]

The news is important, but with the video alone you're not getting the full picture (literally). Less than a minute of video footage of a police officer delivering a couple of blows to some individuals, with no hint at extenuating circumstances, makes it appear as though you have proof of police using excessive force;

I don't think you're quite getting the picture here...less than 5 seconds was all that I and likely millions of Canadians needed to very accurately pass judgement on the cop in yellow.

I realize there are also increasing numbers of Canadians who would give cheerfully award this asshole a medal but I doubt if they number in the millions....yet.

[g_bambino]

I don't think you're quite getting the picture here...less than 5 seconds was all that I and likely millions of Canadians needed to very accurately pass judgement on the cop in yellow.

You think I don't get that when all along I've been holding that forward as the evidence of how narrow minded you are.

Who ever said the video would exonerate the cop?

Nobody.

Precisely. So stop assuming I'm as quick to pass judgement as you. I've never once said I believe the video to be proof that the officer was innocent of wrongdoing. If you review, I've only ever said he should be as entitled as the rest of us to not be judged guilty without all the information considered. You deem the video to be enough proof. It is not.

[sp]

Edited March 27, 2010 by g_bambino

[eyeball]

You think I don't get that when all along I've been holding that forward as the evidence of how narrow minded you are.

I'm sorry but I've been taking that as evidence of your obtuseness.

Precisely. So stop assuming I'm as quick to pass judgement as you. I've never once said I believe the video to be proof that the officer was innocent of wrongdoing.

I never said you did.

If you review, I've only ever said he should be as entitled as the rest of us to not be judged guilty without all the information considered. You deem the video to be enough proof. It is not.

[sp]

Good luck with that in court. I sure hope you're not a lawyer.

[g_bambino]

Well, if you're gonna complain about poor journalism not providing proper context and you can't do the same thing here, well, if it talks like a hypocrite, and walks like one, then you've gotta be one.

Perhaps you need to brush up on your English language skills. I gave the context. What you're asking for is proof that what I said about the context is true. A fair enough request (had you known what it was you were actually requesting), but one that, for practical reasons, I won't be fulfilling.

[g_bambino]

I never said you did.

Oh?

[T]he fact remains that the first thought that came to your mind was of a defensive nature on the side of the cops... [E]very time a new surfaces there's more people like you automatically rushing to the defense of the police.

You live in a black and white world defined by your pathological need to be anti-establishment; you have to imagine my neutrality, my reservation of judgement pending further evidence, as "defence of the police" so that you may then attack it for countering your unwavering anti-cop position. I suspect you rather get a hard-on for these types of videos and my party-pooper, rational requests for more information are ruining the mood.

[eyeball]

Oh?

That's right.

This; the first thought that came to your mind was of a defensive nature on the side of the cops. and this every time a new video surfaces there's more people like you automatically rushing to the defense of the police is not what you said I said you said.

You live in a black and white world defined by your pathological need to be anti-establishment; you have to imagine my neutrality, my reservation of judgement pending further evidence, as "defence of the police" so that you may then attack it for countering your unwavering anti-cop position. I suspect you rather get a hard-on for these types of videos and my party-pooper, rational requests for more information are ruining the mood.

I also said neutrality and reservation of judgement could simply be evidence of obtusity. Failing that as an explanation I have to conclude that our views on what constitutes appropriate police force is at odds, and wildly so. Why we're at such odds is probably our ideological leanings. As for your attempts at psyhcoanalysis never mind your conclusions, your inability to conclude anything from this video clip suggests you couldn't analyze your way out of a wet paper bag.

By the way you still haven't answered how you feel about making cops wear cameras and microphones when they're on duty. Why is that? You're right about one thing I do have a real hard-on for transparency and video surveillance of the "establishment" including the police and videos like this and of Dzianski etc keep reinforcing why.

Speaking of ruined moods perhaps official transparency and accountability gives you a limp dick. These would certainly take all the fun out of using excessive force.

[g_bambino]

This; the first thought that came to your mind was of a defensive nature on the side of the cops. and this every time a new video surfaces there's more people like you automatically rushing to the defense of the police is not what you said I said you said.

Of course it's what you said I said. And you talk about me being obtuse?

I have to conclude that our views on what constitutes appropriate police force is at odds, and wildly so.

Not necessarily. And how would you even know, given that I've not yet proffered my personal verdict on whether or not the force was excessive and subsequently just how excessive the force was? But then, there's yet more illustration of what I said about you: In your world, there is no nuance (which makes me wonder if you actually know what "obtuse" means), and anyone who doesn't immediately join you in your self-righteous, frenetic mental masturbation over knocking down the pigs, who prefers a wider picture over a narrow one before issuing condemnations, is simply a shill for the establishment, too stupid to "analyze their way out of a wet paper bag."

You may like to stroke your own ego with such opinions, but, in fact, it's you who evades analysis by flatly denying that any further information is required to analyse; you say I find accountability and transparency abhorrent, yet it's me, and not you, who's asking for more evidence. In other words, a wet paper bag is about the biggest challenge you give yourself. I guess your obvious need for self-satisfaction is fulfilled easier that way.

By the way you still haven't answered how you feel about making cops wear cameras and microphones when they're on duty. Why is that?

Most likely because it was tangential to the discussion at hand and there was no urgency to answer it. Sorry if you felt ignored. But I wonder about the proposal before I give my yea or nay to it: Is it only the police who you think deserve this requirement? Or, are you okay with cameras recording all of us?

[DrGreenthumb]

You think I don't get that when all along I've been holding that forward as the evidence of how narrow minded you are.

Precisely. So stop assuming I'm as quick to pass judgement as you. I've never once said I believe the video to be proof that the officer was innocent of wrongdoing. If you review, I've only ever said he should be as entitled as the rest of us to not be judged guilty without all the information considered. You deem the video to be enough proof. It is not.

[sp]

It absolutely IS enough proof. Regardless of what happened previously, when the guy stopped resisting, the cop had no right to assault him. The guy getting kicked has a right to a trial before the officer takes it upon himself to be judge jury and `punisher`. The video clearly shows the man complying with officer`s orders, and then the cop rewards him for his compliance by brutally assaulting him.