Scotland Yard Racism...

I'm not sure. Has he himself poked someone into a coma?

What if it later transpires that this fully grown man had a psychological impairment that was responsible for his actions. Is it appropriate to beat psychologically impaired people now?

He can also remove a teenager from the vicinity. Both a gang of toddlers and a gang of teenagers will require a group of police officers to disperse the situation; in both cases, it is possible to stop the threat without potentially lethal force.

Are you unable to defend your position logically?

It doesn't matter what he has an hasn't done, as he meets your criteria of

The police have stopped this threat by beating this psychologically impaired man into a coma. Is it still appropriate?

Like what?

Hahaha! I see you don't have much experience with gangs of teenagers/yutes. To get them off someone they've decided to savage you need to actually fight them off.

Logically? You're going on about toddlers and mental impairments that drive you to poking quadrapalegic's eyeballs. Logic left awhile ago.

Subjective. I say it does. Has he poked someone to death?

To what are you referring?

And reasonable force can be used to pull them off the accosted. Thereafter, beatings are irrefragably superfluous.

Are you suggesting my scenarios are situationally impossible? Given there are toddlers, mentally impaired people, the ability to poke, and quadriplegic people; and all of these elements can realistically interact, my scenarios are plausible. Refute them with your logic, if you can.

Then you have undermined your stance that the police should be able to assault anybody, without question, providing they are


That said, what is your new argument?

No. Often when a pack of yutes gets a person or another yute to the floor they will not desist unless they are physically fought off of the prostrate figure they are abusing.

They are situationally improbable. Massively improbable. Not worth consideration.

What psychological impairment causes him to seek disabled people to poke in the eyes?

sigh, i thought we were playing imagination time.

Has he poked someone to death?

Multiple police officers can pull a single adolescent off somebody with ease. If a single officer cannot even pull the assailant off, what do you think the likely result of engaging in a fight with him will be? It's better to not direct the rage at oneself.

Because you can't conceive an answer that conforms to your logical stance? You have no evidence to indicate their probability, but it is factually certain that they are possible scenarios. I would like you to respond.

Incidentally, he is poking a physically impaired person when the police officer encounters him.

Is this an indirect conceding of your position? Aside from what was said in the bullet points, what other general conditions must be present for a beating to be acceptable?

Hence "pack".

Your "situations" were all created with the intention of disproving what I was saying. They are disingenuous. They don't happen in the real world (you should come visit some time!).

Is the aggressors mental impairment obvious?

er... no.

"your stance - that the police should be able to assault anybody, without question, providing they are
fully grown men
who are harming somebody who is incapable of defending themselves"

Yeah , sounds fair enough.

The amount of police officers needed to subdue the assailants would remove the 'necessity' of beating them.

So you can't defend your position logically? If you are arguing a hypothetical situation to evidence the effectiveness of police brutality, why can I not raise hypothetical situations in response?

'No' to what? It is inappropriate for them to beat him?

Then why are you asking for further conditions before casting judgement? The man has fit these criteria so it should be unconditionally appropriate, in your view.

Yutes are known to run in packs of 20-40 in the wild, often there aren't that many police available.

Also, nothing wrong with a bit of summary justice if the police have witnessed the yutes predation.

What was my hypothetical situation?

No I don't "concede". lol

Hm, let's add another bullet point - must not be visibly retarded.

In this case, a few police officers, whether intending to beat or incapacitate via reasonable force, would not be able to do so. In fact, given assaults on the police are given utmost priority, the gang would probably disperse at the sound of sirens and would not be willing to attack anybody. A police officer beating somebody would stir up irrational hostility, and in a blind rage there could be severe injuries or deaths on both sides. There will also be further hostility to the police in general, in future.

Let's abolish the courts!

Police brutality being effective in this country in this age against certain groups of people, despite no evidence suggesting it will be. We're both arguing hypothetically here, so do not dismiss my refutations because they are hypothetical.

ADHD and schizophrenia, for example, are not necessarily readily perceivable. To a police officer, a grown man with no readily perceivable mental impairments causing harm to somebody who cannot defend themselves is, unconditionally, cause for a beating, is it not? Is it now appropriate to attack mentally impaired people?