So you just think that there are circumstances where police can punch someone in the face that isn’t actively attacking them with overwhelming force?
That’s fascist af.
A face punch should immediately be prosecuted in court & ofc the fine include a ban from law enforcement.
Even in Europe that’s is an extreme for police, next to UK.
Tho water cannons on protesters of any kind has just become a staple in recent decade or so. And we just let that be the case instead of revolting.
When I was 20, I booted utter fuck out of a guy. The bouncers in the club, didnt know the context. They just saw me walk up to a dude and start punch him in the face, down him, and then start booting into his skull. I was the asshole in their view. What they didnt know, was that moments earlier that guy had stuck his hand down the back of my girlfriends jeans and tried to finger her arsehole.
If there was a problem, why didn’t he arrest her then? Is there an offense that is legally repaid by the cop being allowed one punch to the offenders face? I agree context matters, but there’s no context where this cops behavior is justified to me.
I dont know… because the context is missing. Am I not saying it right? God you people are fucking weird. Arguing for LESS information. Utterly fucking bizarre people.
But my question also stands: is there a circumstance where that’s acceptable, even theoretically? Why would a punch suffice and not arrest them? That’s the official legal remedy for an infraction?
You keep dodging the question, you obviously don’t have a good answer. Likely because there simply isn’t one. But hey, feel free to start slinging personal insults when you can’t win
No, thats just the story you need to tell yourself because youre too fucking stupid to understand rage bait when you see it. You cant argue that more information is bad, so instead you make it about me. Cos youre that fucking stupid.
Still a literal crime (assault) for the spat-on police officer to punch the perp.
That’s why people get the huge settlements from courts (more USA than Germany tho), there just is no legal basis for such cop actions.
That is the one thing that starts to enrage me about the fediverse; once the local hivemind decided something no amount of discussion or information is allowed. No more critical thinking even though most likely we would reach the same conclusions…
Did the hive mind really decide cops should in no context go to an individual & punch them in the face, or is that just an universal logical thought known to the majority about public servants?
The law doesn’t mandate face-punching.
If someone breaks the law, there are other prescribed procedural consequences (literal procedures in law that describe what law enforcement needs to do). Not some sadistic ronin desperado impersonating justice as they individually see fit outside the context of law.
If someone is guiltily of something, "a slap on the wrist’ is a metaphor, not a literal means of dispensing justice directly by the law enforcement on the spot.
(Also reserved for those with power & who massively break the law, but that is another convo.)
Without going into technicalities there’s the notion of reasonable force and proportional response and all that which is literally bound to the context of an event.
But you miss my point; I’m not discussing the event depicted here specifically. I’m criticising the lack of critical thinking and openness to arguments.
Reaching the conclusion that this cop mustn’t have punched that particular person for the exact context should not be taboo. We should be, in full understanding of the situation, condemning it.
Person has a bomb in a public place. Cop punches that person in the face, and takes control of the bomb. That would be one example of context in which a cop punching someone would be valid.
This is why context is important, because taking a snap shot of something is never the whole picture. If the cop is in the wrong, I want the whole picture. Not just the part you say is relevant. For example, did the cop punch anyone else before or after punching her?
There’s a difference between the position that something can be determined unacceptable with the given context and arguing against wanting more context
You (in that instance in your 20s) weren’t a cop on duty I assume (horrible situation tho). Neither was the bouncer. You were just four people that should present your testimony to the court.
If I go, finger a cop (non-consensually), & then step back, they still are not allowed, under no circumstances, to punch me in the face if I’m not an active threat. That is just literally the law. The excuse for the punching would be anything other than a direct consequence (bcs we do not have retaliation enshrined in law, bcs “civilised” and whatnot). They would be guilty of punching (and me guilty of fingering).
(Morally justified on their part & unimaginably horrendous on my part - just to be ultra clear.)
Would the face-punching be justified?
Absolutely (and much, much more).
Would it be legal?
No.
“Eye for an eye” is not an anarchistic mandate, it’s a procedural event where a third party decides on face-punch distribution (“legally”).
(Not that I’m saying what op posted falls under that, that is just sadistic tendencies being allowed en masse for political goals. It’s too well documented & officially commented by govs in question to be overall misunderstood as anything but that.)
Nobody is saying context doesn’t matter.
The argument is that for a law enforcement/cop to “legally punch” someone there is all the context necessary already present in the vid - the person was standing there.
Folk will ask for additional context on vids of cops punching (and even killing) someone handcuffed on the ground. Sure there is context, from breakfast food to horoscope. Still legally not allowed to punch.
If a cop catches me speeding they don’t decide between (the illegal option of) two face-punches or a (legal option of a) monetary fine.
Solving violence with violence is what we seek to avoid when we want to advance civilisation.
(Again, the OPs vids imho shows only violence, not even ‘violence hoping to solve anything’.)
“Whoever argues against my argument is wrong” isn’t much of an argument tho.
Not even you will provide what possible context could legally excuse a face-punch by a cop to someone ‘standing there’.
Not that anyone here was arguing for less context. That is just you claiming that we said that. Context is good. Still a crime to punch someone in the face tho.
So you just think that there are circumstances where police can punch someone in the face that isn’t actively attacking them with overwhelming force?
That’s fascist af.
A face punch should immediately be prosecuted in court & ofc the fine include a ban from law enforcement.
Even in Europe that’s is an extreme for police, next to UK.
Tho water cannons on protesters of any kind has just become a staple in recent decade or so. And we just let that be the case instead of revolting.
Thats kinda the point of context, isnt it?
When I was 20, I booted utter fuck out of a guy. The bouncers in the club, didnt know the context. They just saw me walk up to a dude and start punch him in the face, down him, and then start booting into his skull. I was the asshole in their view. What they didnt know, was that moments earlier that guy had stuck his hand down the back of my girlfriends jeans and tried to finger her arsehole.
Context matters.
If there was a problem, why didn’t he arrest her then? Is there an offense that is legally repaid by the cop being allowed one punch to the offenders face? I agree context matters, but there’s no context where this cops behavior is justified to me.
I dont know… because the context is missing. Am I not saying it right? God you people are fucking weird. Arguing for LESS information. Utterly fucking bizarre people.
But my question also stands: is there a circumstance where that’s acceptable, even theoretically? Why would a punch suffice and not arrest them? That’s the official legal remedy for an infraction?
Removed by mod
You keep dodging the question, you obviously don’t have a good answer. Likely because there simply isn’t one. But hey, feel free to start slinging personal insults when you can’t win
You’re not looking for more information, you duplicitous shit. You’re looking for a reason to justify a Muslim woman being brutalized by the police.
No, thats just the story you need to tell yourself because youre too fucking stupid to understand rage bait when you see it. You cant argue that more information is bad, so instead you make it about me. Cos youre that fucking stupid.
Lol.
You don’t know the context and can’t find a context where a police can punch someone yet here you are justifying police brutality
What is the person spat on them? What if the person had a weapon? What if, what if, what if.
The utter fucking state of all of you arguing against knowing what actually happened…
I can’t believe that you think spitting on a police is a valid reason to punch someone. If a person has a weapon to restraint him and take his weapon
Dude, if you spat on me, Id much fucking worse.
You are no police man. If you really punch someone who spat on yoy you would be in the same legal trouble as the perdon who spat on you
Then you arrest the person and not punch them, then let them go.
Still a literal crime (assault) for the spat-on police officer to punch the perp.
That’s why people get the huge settlements from courts (more USA than Germany tho), there just is no legal basis for such cop actions.
deleted by creator
Oh, absolutely, totally!!
I fully agree with all those points about why context matters. Context is very important.
And assault/crime, as you just pointed out, isn’t as a definition related to the backstory or country lore.
As well as leniency showed by courts in such cases. Very important for justice, and context needs to be researched.
Calling people “dumb as fuck” before understanding the argument is perhaps not the best trait tho.
Y?
That is the one thing that starts to enrage me about the fediverse; once the local hivemind decided something no amount of discussion or information is allowed. No more critical thinking even though most likely we would reach the same conclusions…
Did the hive mind really decide cops should in no context go to an individual & punch them in the face, or is that just an universal logical thought known to the majority about public servants?
The law doesn’t mandate face-punching.
If someone breaks the law, there are other prescribed procedural consequences (literal procedures in law that describe what law enforcement needs to do). Not some sadistic ronin desperado impersonating justice as they individually see fit outside the context of law.
If someone is guiltily of something, "a slap on the wrist’ is a metaphor, not a literal means of dispensing justice directly by the law enforcement on the spot.
(Also reserved for those with power & who massively break the law, but that is another convo.)
Without going into technicalities there’s the notion of reasonable force and proportional response and all that which is literally bound to the context of an event. But you miss my point; I’m not discussing the event depicted here specifically. I’m criticising the lack of critical thinking and openness to arguments. Reaching the conclusion that this cop mustn’t have punched that particular person for the exact context should not be taboo. We should be, in full understanding of the situation, condemning it.
Person has a bomb in a public place. Cop punches that person in the face, and takes control of the bomb. That would be one example of context in which a cop punching someone would be valid.
This is why context is important, because taking a snap shot of something is never the whole picture. If the cop is in the wrong, I want the whole picture. Not just the part you say is relevant. For example, did the cop punch anyone else before or after punching her?
But no, just “ThErE iS nO cOnTeXt!!!”
I don’t think you know what a bomb is.
I dont think you know what a good argument is.
Nobody here argued for less information
“Whats the context?”
Downvotes, and personal attacks and name calling. Yeah, sure thing, buddy.
There’s a difference between the position that something can be determined unacceptable with the given context and arguing against wanting more context
You (in that instance in your 20s) weren’t a cop on duty I assume (horrible situation tho). Neither was the bouncer. You were just four people that should present your testimony to the court.
If I go, finger a cop (non-consensually), & then step back, they still are not allowed, under no circumstances, to punch me in the face if I’m not an active threat. That is just literally the law. The excuse for the punching would be anything other than a direct consequence (bcs we do not have retaliation enshrined in law, bcs “civilised” and whatnot). They would be guilty of punching (and me guilty of fingering).
(Morally justified on their part & unimaginably horrendous on my part - just to be ultra clear.)
Would the face-punching be justified?
Absolutely (and much, much more).
Would it be legal?
No.
“Eye for an eye” is not an anarchistic mandate, it’s a procedural event where a third party decides on face-punch distribution (“legally”).
(Not that I’m saying what op posted falls under that, that is just sadistic tendencies being allowed en masse for political goals. It’s too well documented & officially commented by govs in question to be overall misunderstood as anything but that.)
Nobody is saying context doesn’t matter.
The argument is that for a law enforcement/cop to “legally punch” someone there is all the context necessary already present in the vid - the person was standing there.
Folk will ask for additional context on vids of cops punching (and even killing) someone handcuffed on the ground. Sure there is context, from breakfast food to horoscope. Still legally not allowed to punch.
If a cop catches me speeding they don’t decide between (the illegal option of) two face-punches or a (legal option of a) monetary fine.
Solving violence with violence is what we seek to avoid when we want to advance civilisation.
(Again, the OPs vids imho shows only violence, not even ‘violence hoping to solve anything’.)
Removed by mod
“Whoever argues against my argument is wrong” isn’t much of an argument tho.
Not even you will provide what possible context could legally excuse a face-punch by a cop to someone ‘standing there’.
Not that anyone here was arguing for less context. That is just you claiming that we said that. Context is good. Still a crime to punch someone in the face tho.