Gruesome Torturing

[Hitmen]

The patriot act allows for tactics which we have used on organized crime for a long time. It worked.

Why not take away the freedom of one person to safe guard the lives (freedom to live) or a lot more freedom? If he is nto a terrorist I failt to see why he would have a problem. I just cannot grasp the logic of this forum.

I can't grasp the logic of people that defend the patriot act. How is taking away someone's due process rights going to help ANYONE? How is keeping someone from getting a fair trial going to safeguard lives or give others more freedom? It isn't.

Would you have a problem if you were thrown in jail without trial, or would you 'not mind' because you aren't a terrorist and they're just looking out for 'the good of the people'?

[hismajesty]

Furthermore, Arta, what do they do in the UK when a prisoner throws fluids on a guard?

Hitmen: Without the Patriot Act, in order to search a persons house, you'd have to have 100% knowledge of what the person would do. You'd have to know when, where and how. In the case of the Brooklyn Bridge, they only knew where and how. They didn't know when. The guy that was going to bomb it - since after intercepting messages between him and some guy in the middle east  they put a ton of NYPD officers on the bridge - he called his friend back and said "It's too hot in new york to go on with the plan." When police searched the mans house (which they wouldn't have been able to do without the patriot act) they found a bunch of explosives and plans on how to destory the bridge. There's no point in arresting a suicide bomber, suicide hijacker, etc. after he's finished with the plan, by the way.

[quasi-modo]

I do not see how the patriet act gets rid of your right to a speedy trial or anything, all I have seen is like what hismajesty said, it loosens the restrictions for a search and seizure among some other things. Like I said, we have used similar things against organized crime for years, no one said anything about it before... now when the safty of many is at stake people suddenly hate it? I do not understand that.

[muert0]

Why not take away the freedom of one person to safe guard the lives (freedom to live) or a lot more freedom? If he is nto a terrorist I failt to see why he would have a problem. I just cannot grasp the logic of this forum.

You fail to see why a person locked up for something they didn't do would mind? You could of headed the salem witch trials... Why lock one person up let's lockeveryone who doesn't agree with America up isn't that what America is all about?

[Arta]

Furthermore, Arta, what do they do in the UK when a prisoner throws fluids on a guard?

How should I know? I'd hope if they responded by assaulting the prisoner, they'd be disciplined. Of one thing I am completely sure: The prevailing sentiment here would be that assualt in a prison is still assault. I'm not surprised that that's different in the states, I think American culture is more violent than most European nations. (/me Waits for the avalanche of objections)

[quasi-modo]

Why not take away the freedom of one person to safe guard the lives (freedom to live) or a lot more freedom? If he is nto a terrorist I failt to see why he would have a problem. I just cannot grasp the logic of this forum.

You fail to see why a person locked up for something they didn't do would mind? You could of headed the salem witch trials... Why lock one person up let's lockeveryone who doesn't agree with America up isn't that what America is all about?

You can lock a person up for something something they did not do without the patriot act. A person is not 'officially' guilty of a crime until he has had his trial. Until then the person can be held in jail without bond. That does not mean they did it. I see no problem with a suspected terrorist being incarcerated until a proper investigation is completed, and if the state chooses, a trial occurs. That is the way our justice system works now, except right now the person needs to be arrested by the cop when he is caught doing something or there is an arrest warrent. To my knowlege this just changes the warrent system for suspected terrorists... the local judge no longer makes the call on weather to detain the guy or not.

[quasi-modo]

Furthermore, Arta, what do they do in the UK when a prisoner throws fluids on a guard?

How should I know? I'd hope if they responded by assaulting the prisoner, they'd be disciplined. Of one thing I am completely sure: The prevailing sentiment here would be that assualt in a prison is still assault. I'm not surprised that that's different in the states, I think American culture is more violent than most European nations. (/me Waits for the avalanche of objections)

If a prisoner attacks a guard my bet is the guard is going to get out his club or mace or whatever he has handy and defend himself. They control riots here in the states with rubber bullets, mace, and tear gas, and those people are not even in prison. I see no problem with that either.

What it said where the prisoner was hit for assaulting an officer, that seems to me like he was hit right after he assaulted the officer, like it was still a scuffle.

Also if a prisoner is going to throw crap on a guard or spit on a guard I say the guard has every right to hit the prisoner with mace or get out the garden hose on the prioner. That will teach the prisoner that when he does crap like that he is going to have some problems. Yes it may piss him off, but that does not mean he is going to do it again because he knows what he does will have reprocussions. If you do not do anything he will do it again because he knows he can get away with it.

[dxoigmn]

Furthermore, Arta, what do they do in the UK when a prisoner throws fluids on a guard?

How should I know? I'd hope if they responded by assaulting the prisoner, they'd be disciplined. Of one thing I am completely sure: The prevailing sentiment here would be that assualt in a prison is still assault. I'm not surprised that that's different in the states, I think American culture is more violent than most European nations. (/me Waits for the avalanche of objections)

If a prisoner attacks a guard my bet is the guard is going to get out his club or mace or whatever he has handy and defend himself. They control riots here in the states with rubber bullets, mace, and tear gas, and those people are not even in prison. I see no problem with that either.

What it said where the prisoner was hit for assaulting an officer, that seems to me like he was hit right after he assaulted the officer, like it was still a scuffle.

Also if a prisoner is going to throw crap on a guard or spit on a guard I say the guard has every right to hit the prisoner with mace or get out the garden hose on the prioner. That will teach the prisoner that when he does crap like that he is going to have some problems. Yes it may piss him off, but that does not mean he is going to do it again because he knows what he does will have reprocussions. If you do not do anything he will do it again because he knows he can get away with it.

My bet is the prisoner is only going to get more furious and attack the guard again.

[Hitmen]

What it said where the prisoner was hit for assaulting an officer, that seems to me like he was hit right after he assaulted the officer, like it was still a scuffle.

Also that month, a guard was charged with dereliction of duty and assault after a detainee assaulted another guard. After the detainee was subdued[/i][/u], the guard punched the prisoner with his fist.

[MyndFyre]

How should I know? I'd hope if they responded by assaulting the prisoner, they'd be disciplined. Of one thing I am completely sure: The prevailing sentiment here would be that assualt in a prison is still assault. I'm not surprised that that's different in the states, I think American culture is more violent than most European nations. (/me Waits for the avalanche of objections)

Well, I'm not sure about other states, but here in Arizona, under the Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 13 Chapter 4, section 13-404:

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/00404.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.

B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:

1. In response to verbal provocation alone; or

2. To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law; or

3. If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless:

(a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and

(b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person.

If someone is beating on you, then you have the right to beat back.

Section 13-405 permits the use of deadly force.

Section 13-406 permits the use of force to protect a third person.

All of the Title 13 of Arizona Revised Statutes can be found here.

[hismajesty]

Furthermore, Arta, what do they do in the UK when a prisoner throws fluids on a guard?

How should I know?

OK, then, what do you think would be the proper reaction to prisoners acting up/throwing fluid on officers. Since, obviously, sitting on their lap and spraying them with water is far too cruel and unusual.

[Arta]

Revocation of privileges or luxuries, temporary solitary confinement?

Quasi: I have never said that the use of reasonable force in self-defence was bad. This guy, as Hitman points out, hit a prisoner in the face after he was already pacified.

[quasi-modo]

What it said where the prisoner was hit for assaulting an officer, that seems to me like he was hit right after he assaulted the officer, like it was still a scuffle.

Also that month, a guard was charged with dereliction of duty and assault after a detainee assaulted another guard. After the detainee was subdued[/i][/u], the guard punched the prisoner with his fist.

Well the gard got bitched at for it... so what is the problem?

[quasi-modo]

Revocation of privileges or luxuries, temporary solitary confinement?

what privileges? What luxuries? Here lets put him in time out... that is going to straighten him out.

Quasi: I have never said that the use of reasonable force in self-defence was bad. This guy, as Hitman points out, hit a prisoner in the face after he was already pacified.

Well in that case, as the quote said, the guard was punished for it. Its not like he got of scott free. But what about the other cases?

[Arta]

Well, perhaps in your world there's no solution other than a violent one, so I'm just banging my head against the wall here.

After all, the world is just a set of problems with military solutions, right? 

*sigh*