Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
zk
Participant[quote=utcsox]
I don’t understand what’s wrong with Steeplechase either. At $400/SQFT, isn’t this house is on the expensive side? There are couple of non-canyon lot that were sold this year for around $850K and it’s 2500+ SQFT.[/quote]
It’s expensive for a Steeplechase and for a 2259 sf house. It’s inexpensive for a canyon lot (in Carmel Valley). Depends what your priorities are, I guess. But, overall, with inventory where it is, I don’t think it’s overpriced. I think they’ll get what they’re asking or very close. Possibly even a bit more.
Participant[quote=markmax33]For all you Ron Paul haters [/quote]
I’ve seen people who disagree with Ron Paul here on this blog. Maybe even some who think he’s a bit nuts. But I don’t recall seeing any Ron Paul haters.
markmax haters, on the other hand…
Just because somebody hates you, markmax, doesn’t mean they hate Ron Paul. Try not to conflate yourself with Ron Paul. You couldn’t carry his jock strap.
ParticipantI’m curious what you don’t like about Steeplechase (and maybe the OP could learn something from our conversation). We rented a Steeplechase for 5 years and we really liked it. Some of their floor plans are a bit funky, but we liked the one we had (I think it was a plan 3 with a loft – it was 2520 sf). The location was good. There’s a canyon lot Steeplechase available now (2259 sf) for 899k. That’s about as cheap as you’re going to get a SFH on the canyon in CV.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/10986-Cloverhurst-Way-92130/home/4518527
I have mixed feelings about Palacio. We lived there about a year. It’s a bit chilly down there in the bottom of the valley, and the house we were in didn’t have great insulation and it had slate floors. So it was cold a lot. It had a real feeling of community, though. And the pool, tennis courts, basketball courts, and golf course were great. Not everybody is going to find it worth the $300/mo. But some will.
ParticipantTorrey hills is nice. You might also want to consider the communities immediately adjacent to the east. Carriage Run has some (relatively) affordable homes, and they’re almost new. Steeplechase is a bit older, but nice. It’s an extra 2 or 3 minutes from SV to Steeplechase (compared to torrey hills) but it’s 2 or 3 minutes closer to the middle school and the high school.
Busy is a relative term, but I’d say CM road is pretty noisy and busy.
Participant[quote=pri_dk]
Plenty of room for reasonable doubt in the reports and testimony.
[/quote]Exactly. And it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that what the cops did was battery (or whatever) and not an attempt to keep a suspect who’d tried to attack them from attacking them again.
Participant[quote=pri_dk][quote=zk]You don’t see much additional information?[/quote]
I never challenged the fact that King tried to escape from the police. That’s all the additional video shows, so there is nothing new. What we don’t know from the video is what happened from the very beginning.
Were the beatings prompted by him attacking the police, or did he try to escape because he was being beaten? That’s the crux of it, and the video does not answer that question.
It does, however, show that he was hit many, many times when laying on the ground. That’s when the cops became criminals.
Did King get up because he wanted to hurt the cops, or because he feared for his life? The video does not answer that crucial question.
[quote]You assume that whites must be unable to see the cops as guilty. Have you considered that maybe it’s the other way around? Maybe blacks are unable to see them as innocent.[/quote]
The first trial had a jury with no blacks. Not exactly representative of the population.
The second trial had only two blacks. The jury convicted unanimously. Your assertion that he was convicted by racially-biased blacks doesn’t hold up to basic logic. Most of the jury that convicted was not black.
[quote]Also, the police reports were corroborated by all present officers. Including the ones who aren’t “convicted criminals.”[/quote]
Oh, so all the cops said the same thing – all in favor of the other cop’s story?
Are you really that naive?
[quote]In any case, your attempt to dismiss entirely the police reports because some of those present were convicted in one out of two trials shows the weakness of your arguments.[/quote]
Right, because people convicted of only one crime instead of two aren’t really criminals. And cops never lie to back each other up.
I didn’t know the term “convicted criminal” got a one-time pass.
[quote]Strong enough to throw two men off his back.[/quote]
There’s no proof that he ever did this.
Get it?
[quote]If he’s strong enough to throw two men off his back, […][/quote]
Building the whole argument on weak evidence again.
[quote]You haven’t been paying attention at all. He did get up with 400+ pounds of weight on his back.[/quote]
You can repeat it over and over, there’s still no proof.
There were five cops – most likely with martial arts training – and they believed they would not be able to collectively hold him down?
[quote=pri_dk] I said “I wouldn’t have thrown two officers off my back, then got up and charged them.”[/quote]
This is getting tiresome. Your entire argument is based upon a claim for which there is no proof. We don’t know what happened before the video started. Perhaps he did comply and was beaten just the same? There is no evidence either way.
Your entire explanation of what would have happened is predicated by speculation rooted in nonexistent evidence.
Normally I would give the testimony of cops the benefit of the doubt, but not cops whom I see beating a guy on the ground.
56 blows and 6 kicks.[/quote]
I could refute each of your points, but I agree this is getting tiresome. Your basic argument at this point is that there’s no proof that King threw two officers off his back. Fine. There’s no proof that he didn’t, either. You yourself said there’s no proof either way. So if that’s the crux of your argument, then I don’t see how you can say that, beyond a reasonable doubt, the cops are guilty. For them to be guilty, they all (all 23 of them) have to be lying. Is that possible? Sure. Would I say that, beyond a reasonable doubt they’re all lying? No way. So if it’s true that he did throw them off his back, then your arguments fail. And, since you can’t prove that beyond a reasonable doubt that they’re all lying, then you can’t prove that they’re guilty. Get it?
Participant[quote=pri_dk]Let’s take a step back to where all this began. My initial post on the video was a response to the claim that the whole video “tells a different story” than the shorter version that the media repeatedly played. Having never seen the whole video, I decided to watch it. I don’t see much additional information.[/quote]
You don’t see much additional information? See, right there, that, to me, shows your confirmation bias. If you don’t think that King jumping up and charging the officers is much additional information, then I don’t think you’re looking at it clearly.
[quote=pri_dk]
What’s interesting in your statements above is that you consistently add information that is not in the video. “He threw two officers off his back …”, he was “twice as strong as [the officers]”If the video tells the whole truth,…[/quote]
Show me where I said the video tells the whole truth. You’re making that up.
[quote=pri_dk]
then why do we need to use police report statements (statements made by convicted criminals and their cohorts) and speculation about how strong someone was?[/quote]Statements made by convicted criminals? Please. You yourself said:
Wanna know why the two trials had different outcomes? It’s real simple:
Unlike the Simi Valley jury, the federal jury was racially mixed. Although the defense made a considerable effort to exclude African-Americans, two blacks were seated as jurors.You assume that whites must be unable to see the cops as guilty. Have you considered that maybe it’s the other way around? Maybe blacks are unable to see them as innocent.
Also, the police reports were corroborated by all present officers. Including the ones who aren’t “convicted criminals.”
In any case, your attempt to dismiss entirely the police reports because some of those present were convicted in one out of two trials shows the weakness of your arguments.
The part about him being twice as strong as you is speculation, but it’s informed speculation. In any case, my arguments are pretty much the same without that speculation. He was clearly very strong. Strong enough to throw two men off his back. If he’s strong enough to throw two men off his back, I’m not going to bet my life that he’s not strong enough to get my gun from me. Especially if there other techniques – techniques I’ve been trained to use – that are available and less risky. Even if those techniques will result in injuries to this person who is trying to attack me.
[quote=pri_dk]It’s interesting that you speculate that King was “twice as strong” as the officers (that’s pretty darn strong!) but ignore that fact that he was outnumbered five to one. King must have had some sort of superhuman powers if your interpretation were to be true. [/quote]
Twice as strong as the officers isn’t superhuman. And I’m not ignoring the fact that he was outnumbered. See below (where I respond to what you’d have done).
[quote=pri_dk]
Being a cop, especially in a large city, is a dangerous job. Everybody knows this. Anyone who doesn’t want to deal with dangerous situations shouldn’t be a cop. It’s that simple. [/quote]Anyone who doesn’t want to deal with dangerous situations shouldn’t be a cop. I agree with that. But you go on to say, “It’s that simple,” as if there’s no spectrum of dangerous situations. Driving a car is a dangerous situation. So is opening a can of tuna, for that matter. How dangerous a situation should a cop be required to put himself in? That’s not a simple question at all. And perhaps our ideas of how dangerous a situation a cop should be required to put himself in differ. Or maybe our ideas of how dangerous it would have been to approach King in a different manner differ. But to say it’s “simple” is, well, simple.
[quote=pri_dk]
The notion that “I was in danger I can beat the shit out of people no questions asked” is ridiculous. Everyone should be accountable, especially people who are given the power to kill.[/quote]That is a ridiculous notion. And not one I ever espoused.
[quote=pri_dk]
So what would I have done? The answer is simple. I would have stopped hitting him when he was on the ground. I would have jumped on his back with two or more other officers when he was down to hold him in place (nobody is going to get up with 400+ pounds of weight on their back.) I also would not have kicked six times (is kicking someone when they are down part of police training?)
[/quote]You haven’t been paying attention at all. He did get up with 400+ pounds of weight on his back.
I don’t know if kicking someone when they’re down is part of police training. But “down” isn’t as simple as you make it out to be. If they’re telling him to lie face down and put his hands behind his head and he’s rolling around on the ground in contradiction to his orders, and he’s just gotten through throwing two officers off his back, and just gotten up and charged them, then maybe it’s not a bad idea.
[quote=pri_dk]
What I would have done is a lot more credible than your answer: “I would lay down and let them beat me.” But maybe you have some extraordinary tolerance for pain…[/quote]There you go making stuff up again. Every time you make something up, it exposes the weakness of your arguments. I never said “I would lay down and let them beat me.” I said “I wouldn’t have thrown two officers off my back, then got up and charged them. I wouldn’t have continued to move around. Then I wouldn’t have gotten 56 baton blows.” I would have immediately and fully complied. And they wouldn’t have beat me. And if they had, in that situation, then they’d deserve to go to jail. But that wasn’t what happened.
[quote=pri_dk]And if I genuinely thought he had a weapon or my life was in danger, I would have shot him. It’s a touch ironic, but shooting him would have been a more logical course of action if there was really any threat.[/quote]
You present two scenarios, neither of which is true. He didn’t have a weapon and, as far as I know, no one suspected that he did. The officers’ lives weren’t in danger, as long as they didn’t let him get into a position where he could get a gun. So, to try to get on top of him with another officer (already proven ineffective) would put your life at risk, in which case you’d have had to shoot him. Looking at it that way, the cops saved his life by trying to get him to fully comply (lie face down on the ground and put his arms behind his head) by beating him.
[quote=pri_dk]These cops weren’t scared, they were mad. And they decided to act out their anger by inflicting a little “street justice.” Those that do should that should go to jail.[/quote]
I agree that those who engage in street justice should be criminally charged. But I wouldn’t agree that that’s what happened in this case.
Participant[quote=pri_dk][quote=zk]A hypothetical is exactly what that is. What you describe is not what happened in this case.
Passing judgement from a civil, air-conditioned office is exactly what you’re doing.[/quote]
The cops were convicted. Looks like I’m not the only one that “passed judgement.”
Oh…the convictions were wrong?
So the legal system is legitimate when it’s beating the crap out of someone on the street, but not when due process is applied in an air-conditioned courtroom?
But let’s get back to the “hypothetical.” Cuz you avoided an answer to my question:
What would you do?
56 baton blows and six kicks
From people trained in the use of force.
Fifty six baton blows.
So when was King supposed to think that the blows were going to stop?
After the first ten?
After the next twenty?
Not exactly “love taps.” Those cops were winding up for each swing!
Ten more blows…we are barely half way there…
“Oh yeah, sure the pain is excruciating, but I’m sure they’ll stop beating me. Probably sometime before I’m dead…”
Since you know the situation so well, the answer should be easy:
What would you have done?[/quote]
I wouldn’t have thrown two officers off my back, then got up and charged them. I wouldn’t have continued to move around. Then I wouldn’t have gotten 56 baton blows.
Now let me ask you a question. What would you have done if you were in the cops’ situation? A man twice as strong as you wants to attack you. He wants to hurt you. If you go in and try and restrain him, there’s a very good chance he’ll get your gun and shoot you. Now your children are fatherless. What would you do?
Participant[quote=pri_dk][quote=zk]Or maybe it’s the other way around. Maybe you’ve been seeing the whole thing out of context this whole time and you just don’t really want to see it.[/quote]
Let’s consider a hypothetical:
You are arrested by the police. They tell you to get on the ground. You comply.
They start beating you. It really hurts. You say. “Ok, I’m down!”
They keep beating you. There are shocks of pain all over your body.
What do you do? Lie there and keep getting hit…plead with them to stop…try to get up and run away?
This is the point in the story that deviates from reality for most Americans, and essentially all white Americans (including me.)
All you have to do is comply with the police and they stop using force, right?
Yeah right.
So what do you do when they keep hitting you after you comply? The blows are hard enough to kill. All it takes is one strike to the head and you are finished.
Are you such a tough guy that you lay there and take the pain because it’s the “correct” thing to do?
So, what do you do?
Oh, you think that didn’t happen – cops did not beat the shit out of blacks, routinely, in cities all across the country at that time?
Remember Mark Fuhrman?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuhrman_tapesAny chance that he may have administered a little extra “justice” while making an arrest? You think he was an anomaly?
There’s a whole reality out there that is very different from the civil, air-conditioned offices that so many people sit in while they pass judgement. The video camera exposed that reality for the first time.
And so many people, including the jury, still just did not want to believe it.[/quote]
A hypothetical is exactly what that is. What you describe is not what happened in this case.
Passing judgement from a civil, air-conditioned office is exactly what you’re doing.
Participant[quote=pri_dk][quote=zk]It’s right at the beginning. King jumps up off the ground and lunges at one of the officers.[/quote]
[quote=pri_dk]I see some blurry figures but I’ll agree that’s likely what it was.[/quote]
Likely? Anyone that doesn’t see that that was King lunging at an officer, to quote you, just doesn’t really want to see it.
[quote=zk]This was after he’d thrown two officers off his back.[/quote]
[quote=pri_dk]Is that on the video? Or are you adding some context to help with “interpretation?”[/quote]
Neither. It happened before the video was started. It was seen by all in attendance and in the police report.
[quote=pri_dk]
Now of course King was a troublemaker resisting arrest. He should have been convicted of that crime and the crimes he committed leading up to that.But anyone that doesn’t see a bunch of cops beating the crap out of a guy well after he was subdued just doesn’t really want to see it.[/quote]
Or maybe it’s the other way around. Maybe you’ve been seeing the whole thing out of context this whole time and you just don’t really want to see it.
Well after he was subdued? He got up and lunged at the officer at the beginning of this video. And was refusing their commands during most of it. How is that “well after he was subdued?” And after he gets up a couple times, and consistently resists, and you’ve seen he’s super strong and violent and wants to attack you (and you make a reasonable, but incorrect, guess that he’s on PCP) how long do you wait to approach him and risk your life? How subdued do you want him at that point. Pretty fucking subdued, if you ask me. More subdued than he was during most of that video.
Participant[quote=pri_dk]I never watched the “full” Rodney King video.
Decided to take a trip down memory lane:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAc718W8axM
I really don’t see any evidence of King fighting anyone. His reaction looks like that of someone in a panic because the blows keep coming even after he submits.
It’s good to know that two of the thugs did time.[/quote]
It’s right at the beginning. King jumps up off the ground and lunges at one of the officers. This was after he’d thrown two officers off his back. These officers were in danger, and it’s not their job to further endanger themselves in that situation. Which is what they’d have been doing if they tried to got in close enough to do more than whack him with batons. He’d shown superior strength, he’d attacked the officers, and he was not willing to comply. Asshole’s lucky they didn’t shoot him.
Participant[quote=svelte]
…but once a person is in submission, the beating should not continue. Secure him and haul him in. End of story.[/quote][quote=briansd1]
Yes. There is no justification for the police to act like savages.
After all, as ca renter likes to say, aren’t the police highly qualified “professionals” who have extensive training in law enforcement?
Technology can be an invasion of privacy… but Technology such as video surveillance is making things more transparent.
Without the camera, the killers in this case might have gotten off:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/09/mississippi-teen-deryl-dedmon-hate-crime-video_n_922357.html%5B/quote%5DAre you sure he was “in submission?” Easy to say, as he didn’t get up again once the video started (the part they showed over and over again on tv, anyway). But he had gotten up at least once after he appeared to be secured. Would you be willing to bet your life (and that of the father of your children’s) that he was “in submission?” I wouldn’t. My point isn’t that the cops weren’t without fault. My point is that it isn’t a clear cut case and that the parts of the video most often shown leave out crucial evidence, and that events occurred before the video that we can’t be sure of.
Participant[quote=carlsbadworker]My first impression is: damn, the American poor are rich![/quote]
If I won the lottery, none of my charity would be given to people in the U.S. With the possible exception of the mentally ill, who sometimes get screwed here.
The poor in America:
[img_assist|nid=16016|title=Dayum, I wish we could afford cable. |desc=|link=node|align=left|width=300|height=183]
The poor elsewhere:
[img_assist|nid=16018|title=…|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=184|height=275]Participant[quote=svelte]This is not a clear cut case.
Rodney King, with the beating caught on tape, that was clear cut.
[/quote]
I wouldn’t call the Rodney King case clear cut at all. The beating was caught on tape, but not what led up to it. King throwing two officers at a time off his back and charging them. A strong, enraged, violent man on the attack. That wasn’t shown on the tape.
-
AuthorPosts
