Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Ruckus At The Club Nationals?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A Ruckus At The Club Nationals?

    Long letsrun thread that has been building since the weekend regards an incident at post-race function.

    http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read. ... ad=2263701

  • #2
    Well, boys will be boys (and cops will be cops).

    But here's a more worthy story about the top MAN at club nationals:
    http://masterstrack.com/blog/001883.html

    And here's the story behind his team, the Fluffy Bunny TC:
    http://masterstrack.com/blog/001885.html

    K E N
    K E N

    Comment


    • #3
      http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ ... 312180071/
      https://twitter.com/walnuthillstrak

      Comment


      • #4
        Here's a post by the guy who was tasered, Mike Gerber:

        http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read. ... 01&page=14

        Comment


        • #5
          "The officer was twisting his arm around the back and basically jerking him around. I approached the officer from the front side and asked him why he was being so rough with this guy. "

          That would be a mistake. A sober person would look at that and conclude the officer must have good reason. And if he doesn't, we'll sort it out later. The drunk wants to know why. As if the drunk is entitled to some sort of an explanation. This subject has the potential to turn in to a slug fest like the linked one. But one thing is absolutely indisputable. If this Gerber fellow keeps his mouth shut and stays out of the way, he wakes up the next morning with a cheerleader. Not in jail.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Wang Lung
            "The officer was twisting his arm around the back and basically jerking him around. I approached the officer from the front side and asked him why he was being so rough with this guy. "

            That would be a mistake. A sober person would look at that and conclude the officer must have good reason. And if he doesn't, we'll sort it out later. The drunk wants to know why. As if the drunk is entitled to some sort of an explanation. This subject has the potential to turn in to a slug fest like the linked one. But one thing is absolutely indisputable. If this Gerber fellow keeps his mouth shut and stays out of the way, he wakes up the next morning with a cheerleader. Not in jail.
            This borders on stupid, IMHO. If you have been through the drill several times it will seem obvious. However, if you have never ever been in a situation close to this then, especially given the state of affairs and the small size of the individual one or two sentences should have been more than enough but that was not the approach of the officer.

            Comment


            • #7
              "That would be a mistake. A sober person would look at that and conclude the officer must have good reason. And if he doesn't, we'll sort it out later. The drunk wants to know why. As if the drunk is entitled to some sort of an explanation. This subject has the potential to turn in to a slug fest like the linked one. But one thing is absolutely indisputable. If this Gerber fellow keeps his mouth shut and stays out of the way, he wakes up the next morning with a cheerleader. Not in jail."

              I disagree. Sober people question excessive force by the police if they are concerned about civil liberties. I am quite sure the individual in question would have behaved the same way had he been entirely sober. In my view he behaved correctly. It is the duty of responsible citizens to question police brutality when it occurs. I would assume it occurs rarely in the USA. It is also the duty of responsible citizens to comply with the police in normal circumstances.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by rikitikitavi
                "That would be a mistake. A sober person would look at that and conclude the officer must have good reason. And if he doesn't, we'll sort it out later. The drunk wants to know why. As if the drunk is entitled to some sort of an explanation. This subject has the potential to turn in to a slug fest like the linked one. But one thing is absolutely indisputable. If this Gerber fellow keeps his mouth shut and stays out of the way, he wakes up the next morning with a cheerleader. Not in jail."

                I disagree. Sober people question excessive force by the police if they are concerned about civil liberties. I am quite sure the individual in question would have behaved the same way had he been entirely sober. In my view he behaved correctly. It is the duty of responsible citizens to question police brutality when it occurs. I would assume it occurs rarely in the USA. It is also the duty of responsible citizens to comply with the police in normal circumstances.
                Briefly: NO. It is quite common. The city of Chicago pays out millions of dollars per year for such claims. Although, the internal investigations by the police department virtually always rule the claims unfounded, the city does not want the cases to go to court. (People here mostly worry about getting shot, not mere brutality.)
                I hate to badmouth the many honest, hardworking cops, but if they refuse to control the bad apples, that is all anyone can do.

                Pat Palmer

                Comment


                • #9
                  A cop's job is difficult enough, but it's made more difficult by rogue cops and the code of silence that enables them. It's only is cases like these that there's a opportunity to weed out the bad ones before they go too far. One only needs to click on this link to be reminded of what happens when rogue cops are allowed to run free.

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampart_Scandal

                  Nearly half (46 percent) of 1,116 law enforcement officers surveyed by the institute's Neal E. Trautman confirmed that they personally had "witnessed misconduct by another employee" and had concealed what they knew.

                  http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 138668.DTL

                  The job of patrolling the womens room at a bar during a private party goes to the assistant junior coat check girl, not the SWAT team.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by malmo
                    The job of patrolling the womens room at a bar during a private party goes to the assistant junior coat check girl, not the SWAT team.
                    The SWAT team might be appropriate if there was any reason to suspect that someone was being assaulted in the bathroom, but that was clearly not the case in this instance, and the guy who was arrested wasn't the one in the bathroom anyway.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by malmo
                      ....The job of patrolling the womens room at a bar during a private party goes to the assistant junior coat check girl, not the SWAT team.
                      Well, yes and no. If it's a private party, then the liability (which in modern American society is spelled LIABILITY!!!!!!) falls on those who are staging the function. If I have a couple of hundred hyped-up athletes (even if anorexics) and a liberal flow of alcohol, my reaction would be to err on the side of making sure I had leg-breakers in place and things didn't get out of hand.

                      But I certainly cant' sanction the use of a Taser at anything less than a stone-throwing mob of masked hooligans, to be sure. There is absolutely no excuse for that.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by gh
                        Originally posted by malmo
                        ....The job of patrolling the womens room at a bar during a private party goes to the assistant junior coat check girl, not the SWAT team.
                        Well, yes and no. If it's a private party, then the liability (which in modern American society is spelled LIABILITY!!!!!!)
                        I don't understand your answer? There is no liability here on the part of the hosts. This is about a rogue cop who first slammed one persons head into a door for the crime of "talking in a ladies room" and then tasered another (causing him to fall down and split his head open) for asking why he did that. This is serious shit.

                        The cop committed at least two violent felonies, then followed it up with perjury and filing a false report. It could happen to you.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X