ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 19th January 2019, 03:44 PM   #161
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,096
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Your response to my example, was not a good-faith effort. I posted a video of a man whom it can be clearly and quite instantly discerned is masturbating, despite the fact that his hand and his genitals are not directly visible. Your reply was "The father stood around for several minutes watching the accused peeping and stroking it, did he?", which is nonsensical and dishonest given that the very video I linked as an example isn't even "several minutes" long in its entirety, let alone that you only have to watch a few seconds of it at most to see what's going on.

The video wasn't an instance of "analogy" or "parallel". The person in it is performing exactly the actions that the father in the present case under discussion contends the suspect was committing when he saw them. And this isn't an "irrelevant detail"; I posted the video as a direct response to your suggestion that the fact the man's hands were in his pants meant that the father would not have been able to reliably determine whether the man was fondling himself (i.e., "might've had his hands in his pockets") - an allegation which in the same post you call "central to the issue". The video has a point: with this particular activity, you do not need to see hands on body parts to know what's going on under the fabric. You CAN reliably determine with high confidence that a person in that set of circumstances is engaging in that activity.
Really? I didn't see anything in your video because it was too dark (and thanks for the warning now I have to clear my youtube history). It's still going to be a he said, he said scenario to the courts. I think that's what Norseman and others here are saying.
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2019, 04:11 PM   #162
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,197
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Don't you have to examine his defence before you can dismiss it and label him a creep?
It depends. Am I the state, trying to determine whether I have a lawful justification for infringing on his rights?

Or am I a private citizen, with a trespasser on my property?

Because the state does indeed have to follow a process. But private citizens are pretty much left to their own judgement in such matters as labeling people.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2019, 04:29 PM   #163
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 7,065
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Your response to my example, was not a good-faith effort. I posted a video of a man whom it can be clearly and quite instantly discerned is masturbating, despite the fact that his hand and his genitals are not directly visible. Your reply was "The father stood around for several minutes watching the accused peeping and stroking it, did he?", which is nonsensical and dishonest given that the very video I linked as an example isn't even "several minutes" long in its entirety, let alone that you only have to watch a few seconds of it at most to see what's going on.

The video wasn't an instance of "analogy" or "parallel". The person in it is performing exactly the actions that the father in the present case under discussion contends the suspect was committing when he saw them. And this isn't an "irrelevant detail"; I posted the video as a direct response to your suggestion that the fact the man's hands were in his pants meant that the father would not have been able to reliably determine whether the man was fondling himself (i.e., "might've had his hands in his pockets") - an allegation which in the same post you call "central to the issue". The video has a point: with this particular activity, you do not need to see hands on body parts to know what's going on under the fabric. You CAN reliably determine with high confidence that a person in that set of circumstances is engaging in that activity.
In some circumstances you could be reasonably sure. But would Beckham have had such a clear view? In the dark and with Cassidy in some bushes, mind you.

Showing one pretty clear example does not necessarily extrapolate to this guy seeing things just as clearly as in your bus video. And the Norseman and others are arguing what a proper response should be in general, and I think they are correct. When you get closer to the margin call situations, it becomes clearer that they are right in reserving vengeance till you are pretty positive
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2019, 04:32 PM   #164
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 7,065
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It depends. Am I the state, trying to determine whether I have a lawful justification for infringing on his rights?

Or am I a private citizen, with a trespasser on my property?

Because the state does indeed have to follow a process. But private citizens are pretty much left to their own judgement in such matters as labeling people.
I recall reading that this was an apartment, and the sidewalk/bushes area would have been common area. This would be significant if Casdidy was rieving himself in the bushes and Beckham mistook that for masturbating.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2019, 04:42 PM   #165
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
mgidm86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,295
A dude trespassing outside a young girl's window with his pants down rubbing his cork - hmmm ya it could be something innocent. How many broken laws is that right off the top?

Even if the guy wasn't masturbating, if I'd seen him I would assume he was planning on climbing in the window and burglarizing the home, raping the girl, or killing her. I can think of no innocent explanation for jerking off at someones window.

If it's an apartment would it be trespassing if the guy didn't live there? Or if he were committing a crime?

Someones skeptic hat is on too tight.
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.

Last edited by mgidm86; 19th January 2019 at 04:46 PM.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2019, 05:04 PM   #166
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 7,065
Not what I mean. Talking about whether or not you should start breaking bones, when you may not be absolutely sure what you are seeing. If a guy was taking a piss in the bushes, he might look exactly like a creep whacking off. And that's why fracturing skulls is maybe not the immediate move. If the guy was mentally disabled, should you go to town on the brother? I don't think so. And Beckham would have no way of knowing that at the time. That's why some posters are arguing for restraint, I think
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2019, 05:33 PM   #167
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 23,153
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I'm not querying conclusion, only method.

In order to come to the conclusion that this guy is a creep, it is necessary to examine the circumstances and listen to the blokes excuse - it might be an appropriate one.

As it turns out, it wasn't, but that determination can't be made until the excuse has been heard and considered.
He gave an excuse. He said he was in the bushes outside Beckham's house "because his car had broken down" and he was "waiting for it to cool down". It's an illogical excuse, and therefore not an appropriate one. If your car breaks down in a strange neighborhood, you don't walk up to random nearby houses and start crawling around in their bushes; that makes no sense. Topping this off is the fact that Cassidy refused to tell police where his allegedly broken-down vehicle was. The unavoidable implication is that at the very least if this vehicle exists it was not anywhere in the immediate vicinity of Beckham's house, which even further decimates the credibility of his already-illogical explanation.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002

Last edited by Checkmite; 19th January 2019 at 05:35 PM.
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2019, 05:58 PM   #168
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 7,065
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
He gave an excuse. He said he was in the bushes outside Beckham's house "because his car had broken down" and he was "waiting for it to cool down". It's an illogical excuse, and therefore not an appropriate one. If your car breaks down in a strange neighborhood, you don't walk up to random nearby houses and start crawling around in their bushes; that makes no sense. Topping this off is the fact that Cassidy refused to tell police where his allegedly broken-down vehicle was. The unavoidable implication is that at the very least if this vehicle exists it was not anywhere in the immediate vicinity of Beckham's house, which even further decimates the credibility of his already-illogical explanation.
All after the fact, and hence irrelevant. At the time of the multiple fractures to the face, he presented nothing that we know of
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2019, 06:16 PM   #169
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 23,153
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
All after the fact, and hence irrelevant. At the time of the multiple fractures to the face, he presented nothing that we know of
Irrelevant to what? 3point14 said we (that is, those of us here in this forum right now) need to consider Cassidy's excuse, in case it might be "an appropriate one".
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2019, 06:29 PM   #170
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 7,065
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Irrelevant to what? 3point14 said we (that is, those of us here in this forum right now) need to consider Cassidy's excuse, in case it might be "an appropriate one".
Before breaking him up. Cassidys lame excuses came after the damage was done.

Others are questioning whether the initial assumption of guilt and consequent fracturing was warranted. You are excusing it post hoc. At the time that Beckham went to town on Casdidys face, no excuses had been heard
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2019, 06:30 PM   #171
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,076
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Irrelevant to what? 3point14 said we (that is, those of us here in this forum right now) need to consider Cassidy's excuse, in case it might be "an appropriate one".
I think he was saying that punishment shouldn’t happen until after the person has had a chance to present their side of things. The point being that while in this case his side of things isn’t a valid excuse, he hadn’t been given that opportunity before being subjected to violence. In hindsight we may be able to determine that violence was justified, because we have had a chance to hear his case, but that happened after the violence was administered, not before.

So pi is saying in general we should hear a case first.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2019, 08:06 PM   #172
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 23,153
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I think he was saying that punishment shouldn’t happen until after the person has had a chance to present their side of things. The point being that while in this case his side of things isn’t a valid excuse, he hadn’t been given that opportunity before being subjected to violence.
Uhhh....facts not in evidence, right there at the end. We have absolutely no idea what was said or not said between the two men.

But assuming for a moment, as I suspect most will, that Beckham did nothing except talk with his fists when he finally caught up to Cassidy - the whole reason Cassidy had to be chased and subdued to begin with was because when initially spotted and called out by Beckham, he did not take the opportunity of the moment to even attempt an excuse, but rather immediately turned and ran away. Actions speak, and this particular action would seem to say "I've just been caught doing something I know is wrong". Such a non-verbal statement would do nothing but corroborate Beckham's assessment of what had been going on.

But this seems to me to be a specious line of reasoning. Why does Beckham need to ask Cassidy to "explain" why he was masturbating before deciding what to do about it?
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002

Last edited by Checkmite; 19th January 2019 at 08:13 PM.
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2019, 03:20 AM   #173
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 85,379
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Funny how certain posters magical ability to craft alternative universe scenarios why actions are okay seems to have evaporated in this thread. I can't imagine what the difference is.
Especially since the evidence was the known criminal's claim of the victim having his hand down his trousers. I mean no man ever puts his hand into his trousers apart from when wanting to masturbate.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2019, 03:45 AM   #174
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 23,153
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Especially since the evidence was the known criminal's claim of the victim having his hand down his trousers. I mean no man ever puts his hand into his trousers apart from when wanting to masturbate.
The "known criminal's claim" also included the fact that the man's pants were partially down, far enough for his buttocks to be visible.

I'm sure men drop trou and start handling their tackle in front of teenage girls' windows in the dark for all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with masturbation; but let's not act like it's an unreasonable conclusion to reach.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2019, 07:30 AM   #175
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 20,382
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post



Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
If someone sees a creep checking out their kid's bedroom whilst pleasuring themselves, then yes I think most people would consider that a threat.
That surely doesn't mean that it's right or accurate; I mean, c'mon. How many times have we all used the popularity fallacy card enough to know not to use it?

It's a good guide to what a reasonable person's feelings and responses would be. Yes, he could "just" be a peeping tom, but he could have been a stalker working himself up to a rape.

It is perfectly reasonable for a parent to think the worst in such a situation and to take immediate action.


This is also valid too.
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It depends. Am I the state, trying to determine whether I have a lawful justification for infringing on his rights?

Or am I a private citizen, with a trespasser on my property?

Because the state does indeed have to follow a process. But private citizens are pretty much left to their own judgement in such matters as labeling people.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2019, 07:43 AM   #176
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,076
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
It's a good guide to what a reasonable person's feelings and responses would be. Yes, he could "just" be a peeping tom, but he could have been a stalker working himself up to a rape.

It is perfectly reasonable for a parent to think the worst in such a situation and to take immediate action.
To be honest I pretty much agree.


Quote:
This is also valid too.
That on the other hand I disagree with. The state has a monopoly on violence, so when they selectively enforce that monopoly they are responsible by proxy.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2019, 08:03 AM   #177
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,197
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
That on the other hand I disagree with. The state has a monopoly on violence, so when they selectively enforce that monopoly they are responsible by proxy.
I don't understand the nature of your disagreement. Who is responsible for what by proxy?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2019, 08:18 AM   #178
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 20,382
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post


That on the other hand I disagree with. The state has a monopoly on violence, so when they selectively enforce that monopoly they are responsible by proxy.
I'd say that the state has a monopoly on justice.

In the UK and US people have a right to self defence, which also includes their loved ones.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2019, 08:34 AM   #179
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,197
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
I'd say that the state has a monopoly on justice.
I wouldn't.

State justice is the solution of last resort between people who can't resolve their differences privately. Not a be-all and end-all of justice.

Quote:
In the UK and US people have a right to self defence, which also includes their loved ones.
I'd say everyone has a right to self defense, whether the state recognizes it or not. And self-defense is exactly the kind of private justice that falsifies the claim that the state has a monopoly on justice.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2019, 08:37 AM   #180
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,076
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I don't understand the nature of your disagreement. Who is responsible for what by proxy?
If the state chooses to selectively enforce its laws such that the violence of some is simply ignored then the state (depending on who makes the decision that could be police or prosecutors) is responsible for that violence.

If it is incapable of enforcement that’s a different issue.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2019, 08:42 AM   #181
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 20,382
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
I'd say that the state has a monopoly on justice.
I wouldn't.

State justice is the solution of last resort between people who can't resolve their differences privately. Not a be-all and end-all of justice.
I see where you are coming from, and obviously negotiation is an option for civil justice and private prosecutions are possible for criminal justice - the state still is the final arbiter of criminal justice. It is possible for the state to prosecute someone for a crime, even if the victim wants the charges dropped.

Quote:


Quote:
In the UK and US people have a right to self defence, which also includes their loved ones.
I'd say everyone has a right to self defense, whether the state recognizes it or not. And self-defense is exactly the kind of private justice that falsifies the claim that the state has a monopoly on justice.
I'd say everyone *should* have the right to self defence, but its only recognised in some places (however that is a bobbish distraction from this discussion).

Self defence is not private justice in my books. If one is attacked and hits the attacker in self-defence, it is not as an attempt to punish the attacker as much as protect oneself. That is subtly different in my view.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2019, 09:03 AM   #182
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 85,379
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
The "known criminal's claim" also included the fact that the man's pants were partially down, far enough for his buttocks to be visible.



I'm sure men drop trou and start handling their tackle in front of teenage girls' windows in the dark for all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with masturbation; but let's not act like it's an unreasonable conclusion to reach.
That wasn't in the report I read, the victim was only described as having his hand in his trousers.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2019, 09:46 AM   #183
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 7,065
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
I'd say that the state has a monopoly on justice.

In the UK and US people have a right to self defence, which also includes their loved ones.
But that's the hitch here, isn't it? Was Beckham lawfully defending his daughter/family, or was he enacting a little private vengeance? The former NFL athlete chased Cassidy down, 50 yards or so IIRC, and worked him over pretty heartily. 'Had a good conversation', to use his words.

It is so tempting to side with a father protecting his family, and to view this hospitalizing event in this way, but I dunno. This is leaning far more towards private justice, I think. And I wouldn't want people declaring themselves judge, jury and punisher on me without a little due process.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2019, 11:28 AM   #184
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 23,153
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
That wasn't in the report I read, the victim was only described as having his hand in his trousers.
Here is the original report by the local news station. If you haven't already, I highly suggest watching the video at the top of the article, which is an interview with Beckham at the home. It's very useful in terms of forming a picture of the scene, including things like how readily visible Cassidy would have been, and how clear and close Beckham's line of sight was. Note that Beckham explains Cassidy didn't just happen to be standing in front of the window, but appeared to be moving his head around as if trying to get a better view through it.

I also suggest reading the police report, which contains some useful information as well. For instance, after the police officer arrived, he found Cassidy on the ground and ordered him to stay there; but after the officer started to question Beckham, Cassidy attempted to flee and had to be chased down again and handcuffed by the officer. Definitely not a good look. Also worth noting that during the original incident, a neighbor who heard the commotion and came out to see what was going on reported to police that Beckham told him to call 911. Clearly one of these two men wanted police there, and the other very definitely did not.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002

Last edited by Checkmite; 20th January 2019 at 11:32 AM.
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2019, 12:33 PM   #185
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,130
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I recall reading that this was an apartment, and the sidewalk/bushes area would have been common area. This would be significant if Casdidy was rieving himself in the bushes and Beckham mistook that for masturbating.
Doesn't matter.

Common areas are private property to those who live in, work in, are legitimately visiting (as in, by invitation) or own the apartment.

Perverts standing in the common area, jacking off while looking through an apartment window watching naked 15 year old girl get dressed, do not meet any of those criteria.

The prick got what he deserved.
__________________
#THEYAREUS
The Mueller Report must be released to Congress in full - If Trump has nothing to hide, then he should also have nothing to fear!
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2019, 01:19 PM   #186
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 23,153
Also worth noting - as the video in the report I linked makes evident, Beckham's house does not front the actual street, or any public sidewalk. It is well inside a sort of large, lobed common parking lot surrounded by this complex of apartment buildings and homes. A person merely walking down the actual street, would not have been in this location.

Also, Cassidy was not hospitalized. He was taken to the hospital to be assessed; the doctor diagnosed the two fractures on his eye socket and cleared him to be taken to jail.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2019, 01:33 PM   #187
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 7,065
Cassidy was the bad guy here. I don't think there is any argument about that. Even if he was mentally disabled. Bad, bad Cassidy.

Now, was Beckham right in his response? Eye sockets and cheekbones don't get fractured from using appropriate force during a citizens arrest, which Beckham doesn't report he was making anyway. This was teaching Cassidy a lesson. This is okay with posters here? Appropriate way to deal with misdemeanor offenders? When else can you break people's faces up without trial? When can cops do so, too?
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2019, 03:12 PM   #188
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,352
For those talking about trials or due process, in certain circumstances, the police can shoot a fleeing felon in the US. No due process.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2019, 03:20 PM   #189
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,352
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Cassidy was the bad guy here. I don't think there is any argument about that. Even if he was mentally disabled. Bad, bad Cassidy.

Now, was Beckham right in his response? Eye sockets and cheekbones don't get fractured from using appropriate force during a citizens arrest, which Beckham doesn't report he was making anyway. This was teaching Cassidy a lesson. This is okay with posters here? Appropriate way to deal with misdemeanor offenders? When else can you break people's faces up without trial? When can cops do so, too?
There's nothing like that in the police report, as far as I can tell. Beckham was not making a citizen's arrest. He was detaining a person he caught peeping in his daughter's window. That person chose to fight with Beckham. Beckham defended himself.

When the police arrived, the two were on the ground. Beckham let Cassidy go when the police intervened.

Cassidy ran from the police and fell down, and the police caught up to him and arrested him.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2019, 05:37 PM   #190
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,035
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Cassidy was the bad guy here. I don't think there is any argument about that. Even if he was mentally disabled. Bad, bad Cassidy.

Now, was Beckham right in his response? Eye sockets and cheekbones don't get fractured from using appropriate force during a citizens arrest, which Beckham doesn't report he was making anyway. This was teaching Cassidy a lesson. This is okay with posters here? Appropriate way to deal with misdemeanor offenders? When else can you break people's faces up without trial? When can cops do so, too?
This is not true.

One punch from a very big bloke can easily fracture an eye socket.

Real fights are not like they are in movies, especially bare fisted
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2019, 08:12 PM   #191
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 23,153
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Now, was Beckham right in his response? Eye sockets and cheekbones don't get fractured from using appropriate force during a citizens arrest, which Beckham doesn't report he was making anyway. This was teaching Cassidy a lesson.
In the police report, it says Beckham said "he did only what was necessary to detain Cassidy until our arrival". One could argue that Beckham's statement is self-serving, and that's certainly true; but I will contend that someone of Beckham's size and fitness could have given Cassidy considerably more severe injuries had injury been his intent.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2019, 08:54 PM   #192
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,406
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
This is not true.

One punch from a very big bloke can easily fracture an eye socket.

Real fights are not like they are in movies, especially bare fisted
Romanowski vs Williams comes to mind.

Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
but I will contend that someone of Beckham's size and fitness could have given Cassidy considerably more severe injuries had injury been his intent.
^That can't be said enough.

Another guy might've seen that the gators didn't go hungry that night.
__________________


The better you get, the harder you work.
AJM8125 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2019, 08:55 PM   #193
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,035
The other thing that is there is this, unless I have missed something about actual punches done.

Quote:
When a deputy arrived, Cassidy and Beckham were fighting. According to the affidavit, Cassidy tried to run away, but he stumbled and fell down. The deputy then placed him in handcuffs.
Apart from the obvious massive flashing neon lights saying if he ran from police he was obviously doing what the father said.

There is nothing to say he didn't break his miserable face on the curb when he fell.
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2019, 09:01 PM   #194
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 7,065
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
In the police report, it says Beckham said "he did only what was necessary to detain Cassidy until our arrival". One could argue that Beckham's statement is self-serving, and that's certainly true; but I will contend that someone of Beckham's size and fitness could have given Cassidy considerably more severe injuries had injury been his intent.
And considerably less, too, which has been my point. Likely could have held Cassidy immobile with little to no effort.

Beckham said they 'had a good conversation'. Let's not get childish and pretend we don't know what that means. TB tuned him up, and because he wanted to teach him a lesson ('he won't be doing this on this side of town again'). If you guys want to concoct dewey-eyed fantasies about how Beckham innocently defended himself against big bad Cassidy, and golly the injuries weren't so bad, knock yourselves out. Or maybe Beckham will do that for you.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2019, 09:03 PM   #195
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 7,065
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
The other thing that is there is this, unless I have missed something about actual punches done.



Apart from the obvious massive flashing neon lights saying if he ran from police he was obviously doing what the father said.

There is nothing to say he didn't break his miserable face on the curb when he fell.
Right. And I'll bet they really were having a good conversation.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2019, 09:14 PM   #196
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,035
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Right. And I'll bet they really were having a good conversation.
The most logical thing that happened was the dad hit him in the head.

He is an ex-football player so probably broke his eye socket with his punch.

The sleazy dude was taking to the hospital as per standard procedure and was found not to need admitting.

Tough luck... Next time keep it in your pants and learn how to search google for free porn to get off on

Teenagers manage to do it, it cant be that hard, hope your face heals painfully
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2019, 09:22 PM   #197
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,035
Originally Posted by AJM8125 View Post
Romanowski vs Williams comes to mind.



^That can't be said enough.

Another guy might've seen that the gators didn't go hungry that night.
Indeed

Australia even introduced new laws specifically for king hit punches killing people, let alone a fractured eye socket.

What can sometimes seem like your "just gave him a slap" can ruin lives when it ain't on the screen

https://www.northernstar.com.au/news...e-way/2146259/
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2019, 10:11 PM   #198
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,087
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
In general this forum is strongly against cops using violence against criminals and those who they believe are criminals. That generality is reversed here when a civilian is doing the violence. It seems like a double standard to me but maybe it isn't.
Don't forget that this is about somebody being caught red handed and reasonable force is permissible when making an arrest. Apparently Florida also allows citizens to use force to make an arrest.

Whether the force used by the home owner was excessive or not can't be discerned by the information given.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2019, 10:26 PM   #199
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 24,782
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
In general this forum is strongly against cops using violence against criminals and those who they believe are criminals. That generality is reversed here when a civilian is doing the violence. It seems like a double standard to me but maybe it isn't.
Double standard or not, it is a reasonable standard to assume that the police should be professional and disinterested about how they apply the law, whereas a "civilian" (really? Isn't a police officer also a civilian) who is protecting their home is necessarily an interested party and is likely to be more emotional in an encounter with an assailant.

Now, unlike some here, I do not approve of feeding someone to an alligator, or prison violence, or beating someone to within an inch of their life once someone is restrained, but I think it is more than reasonable for some exercise of violence to be used in self-defence.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2019, 12:12 AM   #200
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 23,153
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
TB tuned him up, and because he wanted to teach him a lesson ('he won't be doing this on this side of town again').
He gave him a black eye. In only one eye. All of Cassidy's injuries can be explained with one or two punches, tops. Beckham very clearly didn't work him over; and given that he immediately stopped and stood up when the police arrived he clearly wasn't in some kind of rage fit either.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:52 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.