GostHacked Posted May 8, 2012 Report Share Posted May 8, 2012 I am just going to post this video and see where we go from here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BrkXeixEJA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted May 8, 2012 Report Share Posted May 8, 2012 The end justifies the means Isn't that what state authorities usually say when conducting medical experiments on the public? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted May 8, 2012 Report Share Posted May 8, 2012 Link Lieutenant Eric Roeske, Public Information Officer/Spokesperson for the Minnesota State Patrol, denied the accusations. "It is against our policies and against the law to provide people with any sort any sort of illegal drugs or to allow them to use them in our presence," he said. "We have found no evidence or information that substantiated the allegations made in the video." Where's the evidence that the police were doing this, other than the claims being made? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted May 8, 2012 Report Share Posted May 8, 2012 Where's the evidence that the police were doing this, other than the claims being made? The recorded statements people made is the evidence. Assuming this video isn't some sort of staged prank why should we disbelieve them? It would be naive to assume the police/state are 100% trustworthy. I mean c'mon, it's patently clear to almost all of humanity that particular ship sailed hundreds if not thousands of years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted May 19, 2012 Report Share Posted May 19, 2012 The recorded statements people made is the evidence. Assuming this video isn't some sort of staged prank why should we disbelieve them? It would be naive to assume the police/state are 100% trustworthy. I mean c'mon, it's patently clear to almost all of humanity that particular ship sailed hundreds if not thousands of years ago. You provide a classic example of the kind of simplistic black and white thinking that leads to findings of guilt, the same findings of guilt you would protest if it led to finding you guilty but have no problem engaging in to find police guilty. Here let's explain that in simplistic black and white terms for you. The fact that people have made some recorded statements does not automatically render those statements true. You now smeer the police. If they provided statements stating you were guilty and had no other proof you would be having a tantrum complaining of police injustice and the trampling of your right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Reverse the situation and you have no problems leaping to the conclusion police are guilty and why because it would be naive to think police are trustworthy. Of course using your ridiculous reasoning and double standard, its not unreasonable to believe people off the street are trustworthy. Only police lie. Here is how the law works. Whether you are a police officer or a person of the public, unlike in your world where you stereotype only police as untrustworthy, the law is supposed to apply the presumption of innocence to everyone equally and corroborate evidence not as you do stereotype. What you do to police is no different than racists do with blacks or hispanics on the street when they seem them and automatically assume they are criminals. The uniform or appearance you choose to stereotype negatively is a police uniform. See if you can digest that. I doubt trying to explain to you why the statements you are assuming are true need to be cross examined would penetrate at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted May 20, 2012 Report Share Posted May 20, 2012 (edited) You now smeer the police. If they provided statements stating you were guilty and had no other proof you would be having a tantrum complaining of police injustice and the trampling of your right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. I'm well aware of the limitations of assuming anything with certainty, except about police and the state always being 100% trustworthy. I don't think displaying anything less than 100% faith in the police and the state constitutes a smear, that's the sort of sycophantism and over-sensitivity I'd expect to see from senior members of North Korea's government. Reverse the situation and you have no problems leaping to the conclusion police are guilty and whybecause it would be naive to think police are trustworthy. So what if this had been a video of protesters in Iran recounting their having been randomly picked up by Iranian police and having medical experiments conducted on them? This thread would be 25 pages long and filled with righteous indignation and calls for war. Edited May 20, 2012 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.