16
The Troubled Teen Industry / Martin Anderson Boot Camp Verdict: NOT GUILTY
« on: October 15, 2007, 08:29:35 AM »
Right
1) Okay if they were "following procedures" that means it is procedure to kick and beat someone who is in a state of collapse - as clearly shown on the recording, is that not an admission that their procedures flount the law?
If a kid needs restraint for his safety or those around him, fair enough, and I am NOT taking the type of restraint that means 10 burly men/women crushing a kid to death
2) I have seen and can provide recordings of police officers who have been fired, suspended whatever for using excessive force which although wrong & totally out of control, has in no way put someone in danger of death, yet they were still punished as they should be.
3) Your law differs to ours I think - from a true case in the UK - a man attacks another man in a road rage incident, attacked man is beaten to an unrecognisable pulp, however it is determined attacked man dies of a heart attack, not the beating, so is it not obvious the deceased had a heart attack because a much younger man was pounding the life out of him? No, the deceased had a heart problem that he could have died from at any given time, so attacker walks free, why does he walk free? because the prosecution didn't look into the possibility of this outcome and went for manslaughter charges, no assault, road rage, battery, intent to harm charges were put in place, therefore he was never tried for them and won't be, so until the next time.... :roll:
1) Okay if they were "following procedures" that means it is procedure to kick and beat someone who is in a state of collapse - as clearly shown on the recording, is that not an admission that their procedures flount the law?
If a kid needs restraint for his safety or those around him, fair enough, and I am NOT taking the type of restraint that means 10 burly men/women crushing a kid to death
2) I have seen and can provide recordings of police officers who have been fired, suspended whatever for using excessive force which although wrong & totally out of control, has in no way put someone in danger of death, yet they were still punished as they should be.
3) Your law differs to ours I think - from a true case in the UK - a man attacks another man in a road rage incident, attacked man is beaten to an unrecognisable pulp, however it is determined attacked man dies of a heart attack, not the beating, so is it not obvious the deceased had a heart attack because a much younger man was pounding the life out of him? No, the deceased had a heart problem that he could have died from at any given time, so attacker walks free, why does he walk free? because the prosecution didn't look into the possibility of this outcome and went for manslaughter charges, no assault, road rage, battery, intent to harm charges were put in place, therefore he was never tried for them and won't be, so until the next time.... :roll: