Former Ranger beaten by police in Oakland during protest

[Destructionator XV]

In looking at the graphic above, do you at least agree that this is, at best, extraordinarily unlikely?

No. If you were swinging, with your right hand, at the arm, and missed, you'd hit the area where the spleen is.

They might have been hitting too hard, but it's easy to do a lot of damage with a stick.

here's still the matter of leaving him in a cell for 18 hours with no medical attention. I see no reasonable explanation for this,

There's an easy explanation: it's not true. Read the second article frigidmagi posted. He got attention from a nurse at some point, though he refused the suggested treatment, and got an ambulance to the hospital at some later point.

From here:
http://www.contracostatimes.com/rss/ci_19274128

Oakland police released a list of people arrested Thursday morning.
It shows that Sabeghi was arrested at 1:30 a.m. Thursday and booked 11 hours later at 12:30 p.m.
A man who said he shared a cell with Sabeghi at Glenn Dyer jail in Oakland said Sabeghi showed his wounds, which looked like baton bruises mainly to his torso.
Goodstal said they posted bail about 12:30 p.m. Thursday, but the partner who made the trip down there did not see Sabeghi. The next time they heard from him, he was calling from Highland Hospital.
"I didn't know he was going to take part in the protest; I heard about it when he called me and said he was seriously injured," Goodstal said. "He said he went to the port, and then he and a friend had dinner and he was leaving and was confronted by the police."

He was bailed out 11 hours after being arrested.

Now, here's what I find bizarre: why didn't Mr. Goodstal wait for Mr. Sabeghi when he bailed him out? He just wrote the check and left? Who would do that? See below for some speculation.

"He went by ambulance to the hospital. He couldn't get up himself and walk out so he said they just locked the cell," Goodstal said.

I find this very hard to believe too. So, his friend abandoned him, the guards opened the door and nobody escorted him out, and then just locked him back in when he didn't stand up?

If this part of the story is true at all, my guess is this is when they called the ambulance. He was free to go, but unable to. Someone would have opened the cell for him. Someone would have called the ambulance for him.

It'd make sense if those someones were the same person. The guard opens the door to let him go, sees how serious his injuries are, and calls the ambulance. He might have re-locked the door while waiting for the paramedics.

That's why Mr. Goodstal didn't see or hear from him until later, when he was at the hospital. He wasn't able to leave, so the guard called an ambulance instead of bringing him out to meet his friend. Then, he spent some hours waiting and/or being treated before he could make another phone call.


This would explain everything post-arrest, and is reasonably consistent with all the first hand reports we have so far. It's plausible, no?

I'd like to see when Mr. Sabeghi arrived at the hospital. If it's closer to 1:00 than to 6:00, that'd be very good support for this version.

[Hotfoot]

He was arrested on suspicion of resisting arrest as well as not leaving the scene of a riot.

Arrested for "Suspicion" of resisting arrest? Hilarious. So you're saying if I suspect you might resist arrest, I can arrest you for it, or that I can arrest you for resisting arrest? Recursive crimes now? Minority Report? What's the law being broken? Not leaving the scene of a riot? Wait, that's a crime? Since when? Oh, wait, you don't need to cite silly things like laws, that would mean you were using logical analysis. Please, do cite the law he is charged with breaking, please.

For the record, the police don't NEED a reason to arrest you, just to hold you past a certain period of time. Curiously, these detentions are often used to discourage people from getting in the way of the police. But hey, please show where he resisted. You know, show EVIDENCE of it. Until then, it's merely hopeful speculation with a bias in favor of the Oakland PD.

This is a matter of public record. We saw him standing with with the police in the video, and his first hand statement admitted he was chatting up the officers and didn't understand why they wanted him to leave.

There's no criminal offenses shown there. None. Talking to the police is not illegal. Peaceful protest is not illegal.

We know he received an injury at some point, which is consistent with him being hit by a police officer. Why would an officer hit him? To arrest him for the crime of failing to obey the lawful order to leave the scene.

Oh, a lawful order to leave the scene. Except, those aren't always lawful. You're entering into a very murky gray area that happens to involve First Amendment Rights. Please cite the law being broken, specifically.

Yes, it does. You don't need three guys to tackle someone to arrest him if he wasn't resisting.

Ah, three men tackled him, therefore he MUST be resisting arrest. Oh, wait, that's an assumption, isn't it? We know he was manhandled by numerous men, but not the reason why. Maybe they felt they needed to because he was resisting arrest, or maybe they didn't like his smart mouth and decided to teach him a lesson. You know, like firing tear gas into a peaceful protest. You don't need to fire tear gas into a protest unless it turns violent. See what I did there? Only the protest last time wasn't violent. Where's your logic now? Oh, wait, people aren't inherently logical.

It's interesting how you're being an ass when I say "he might have gotten his injury somewhere else", but at the same time, you're being an ass because I won't automatically assume the alternative answer of police brutality is obviously right rather than the simple answer of the police responding to his actions.

My reasons for being an ass directly result from you talking as though you know what you mean when you say certain things, but really are just talking out of your ass. You don't know what logic is, what Occam's Razor is, you don't know what the Blue Wall is, you don't know what patterns of behavior are, you don't know what is necessary to cause damage to the spleen, you don't know medicine, and you don't know that you don't need 100% certainty to come to a conclusion about something.

You see, when something is a forgone conclusion, unless you have exculpatory evidence, saying "we don't know what happened" looks a hell of a lot like being an apologist for Police Brutality, Corruption, and calling a Veteran a fucking liar in the process. It indicates that you have something to gain by throwing doubt on the accuracy of the man's statements and the situation overall. You certainly wouldn't be fighting tooth and nail to try and throw reasonable doubt into the situation if you were just unsure.

But trying to pretend that you're only following logic and rational thought? No, you're not. You can't even pretend well. You're flailing and right now the only one who thinks you're doing well is you. You've been backpedaling this entire thread and for what? your own ego? Time to learn that sometimes, you have to lose gracefully.

He's not a weakling either, by the way. He's former military, and appears to be physically fit. If he became agressive, that'd explain an escalation of force.

Except we see footage where he is not resisting. He doesn't know he's being filmed, there's no such thing as a "camera sense", so if he was resisting, why not resist all out? Does he somehow stop when the camera is recording? Another assumption there, he resisted, but not on camera. Occam's Razor's cutting you deep, buddy.

An officer swung at him with a baton, probably aiming for his arms, to force compliance. This is consistent with his first hand statement. See frigidmagi's second post: "one moved forward and hit me in my arm and legs and back with his baton."

Now, I'm pretty sure you aren't supposed to hit the torso with a baton, but there's a simple explanation for that: the officer missed. Suppose you have a right handed officer, face to face with someone. He swings and misses. What is he most likely to hit? The left side of the body.


I'm not saying this is how it happened, but it's a good possibility.

No, it's really not, but then I guess you'd only know that if you engaged your brain by looking at the evidence and made a conclusion from them, rather than fitting evidence to your conclusion. And yes, that is precisely what you are doing. You are saying, "look, here's an alternate theory, here's how it could have happened if you assume X, Y, and Z".

You know who does that? Hucksters. The people who promise they can talk to the dead. The people who get laughed out of science and engineering degrees. Poorly paid lawyers who know their client is guilty. You're not using logic. You're just a sad sack who's in an untenable position and trying to prove that, by some slim chance that if you grasp at enough straws, you might be right. And if it turns out by some slim chance you are, you'll crow about it, and if you're not, you'll hide away, using some excuse to explain away your nonsense.

Why don't you go chat up Harold Camping. Maybe together the two of you can figure out when the Rapture is really about to happen.

[Destructionator XV]

Arrested for "Suspicion" of resisting arrest? Hilarious. So you're saying if I suspect you might resist arrest, I can arrest you for it, or that I can arrest you for resisting arrest?

No, it means you're innocent until proven guilty. I know you don't believe in that principle, but the law does.

When you're arrested, they suspect you of a crime. You aren't guilty until after you're convicted.


And, by the way, you're really revealing your ignorance of these events here. Have you actually read any articles about it? Like, the opening post of this thread?

"The group Iraq Veterans Against the War said Sabeghi was detained during disturbances that erupted late on Wednesday in downtown Oakland and was charged with resisting arrest and remaining present at the place of a riot."

Or, you could search the web and come up with, say, this:

http://www.wxvt.com/global/story.asp?s= ... =Printable

"Records show Sabeghi was booked on suspicion of resisting arrest"


Searching for "resisting arrest california" quickly leads to a specific law: http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/appndxa/pe ... nco148.htm


You'd know that if you were even remotely interested in finding the truth. In the time you took writing those flames, you could have answered your own questions.

But hey, please show where he resisted. You know, show EVIDENCE of it.

Again, the police booked him on it, and we have video of several guys arresting him. It's not conclusive, but it is evidence.

I can't believe you don't see your double standard here. You're willing to take an injury as conclusive that the guy was beaten by police, but you aren't even willing to consider statements and video that logically follow from someone resisting arrest might have followed from someone resisting arrest.


Now, I don't know if that's what happened. It's possible the cops just jumped him out of the blue and brutalized him for no reason. But, this is possible too.

Oh, a lawful order to leave the scene. Except, those aren't always lawful.

That's what lawyers are for.

Ah, three men tackled him, therefore he MUST be resisting arrest. Oh, wait, that's an assumption, isn't it?

No, that's a conclusion. Assumptions go on the left hand side of "therefore". For all your blustering about logic and definitions, this is a pretty elementary mistake to make.


and snipping your strawmen.

You see, when something is a forgone conclusion, unless you have exculpatory evidence, saying "we don't know what happened" looks a hell of a lot like being an apologist for Police Brutality, Corruption, and calling a Veteran a fucking liar in the process.

It's only a forgone conclusion to you because you're the biased one. You see the police as a monolithic block of monsters. Prejudice, plain and simple.

BTW, speaking of prejudice, you're apparently assuming a Veteran can't exaggerate, can't make mistakes, can't lie, and apparently, can't possibly have been breaking the law.

Just as all kinds of people can be police officers, all kinds of people can be veterans. He's just as human as anybody else.

(though note that I'm taking most his first hand statements as useful; it's the hearsay I'm questioning the hardest.)

Except we see footage where he is not resisting.

Indeed. Another example of your double standard though: there's also no direct video of him being beaten with batons.


and more guilt by association flamebait. Incredible. Could you at least try to be civil?


You know what I'll do if the investigation shows it was a case of excessive force? I'll call it a case of excessive force. I don't know what happened yet. Any speculation posted is just that: speculation.

[Destructionator XV]

Whoa, wait a god damned minute:

http://www.baycitizen.org/occupy-moveme ... s-injured/

Kelly said his friend told him he was ignored when he requested medical attention in the jail. Kelly bailed Sabeghi out Thursday afternoon and drove him home. Kelly said he was not sure how his friend got to the hospital.

Now that is a story I believe at face value (aside from the "ignored when he requested medical attention", which we have a first hand report contradicting). But, it doesn't quite agree with the other story I posted above:

http://www.contracostatimes.com/rss/ci_19274128

Goodstal said they posted bail about 12:30 p.m. Thursday, but the partner who made the trip down there did not see Sabeghi. The next time they heard from him, he was calling from Highland Hospital.

OK, looking back, it does say "they", so perhaps both Goodstal and Kelly went to bail him out together, or maybe some important details got lost in all the layers of hearsay. Maybe Goodstal wrote the check and left while Kelly waited for their friend.


But the top link, published a day before the bottom link, says someone bailed him out Thursday afternoon and drove him home.


Isn't that what people usually do when they bail out a friend? Wait for him to come out and drive him home? I believe this is what happened. It makes sense to me.

Link #1 says it was the "afternoon", which is consistent with link #2 and the police records, saying he was bailed out at 12:30 PM.


Then, Sabeghi probably called for his own ambulance, as the pain got worse, and that's how he ended up at the hospital. That makes sense too - he said he was ok for the first few hours. Then it got bad enough to call for the nurse, but apparently not bad enough to insist on more treatment.

Then he felt ok enough to leave, but realized it was a lot worse than he thought it was at some point later, and went to the hospital.


Link #1 has his friend describing him as a tough guy. He might have felt a few whacks from a stick wasn't all that bad, and he'd be ok on his own for a while.



This is starting to make sense to me now. When you bail someone out, you don't leave him in his cell. You drive him home. Now, we have a story where one of his friends said he did just that.


I'm sure some of the details are still going to change as more information comes to light, but this doesn't strike me as absurd any more. This is believable.

[Hotfoot]

No, it means you're innocent until proven guilty. I know you don't believe in that principle, but the law does.

When you're arrested, they suspect you of a crime. You aren't guilty until after you're convicted.

So you can be "suspected" of resisting arrest before you do it? Because they didn't arrest him twice, you know. This isn't some quantum physics trick question of a superposition of states. You can't be charged with an offense you at some point in the future might be guilty of. In fact, that would be the height of abuse of power. "Arrest him boys, he looks like he might try to resist it!"

And, by the way, you're really revealing your ignorance of these events here. Have you actually read any articles about it? Like, the opening post of this thread?

"The group Iraq Veterans Against the War said Sabeghi was detained during disturbances that erupted late on Wednesday in downtown Oakland and was charged with resisting arrest and remaining present at the place of a riot."

Oh, okay. So when the cops arrest you, the charges are always valid, never trumped up, or in violation of one's civil rights? And they never use excessive force?

Oh, wait, they do. Oakland Police Department in particular. That the police say he was resisting arrest doesn't mean he was. Oh look, the video you supplied showed him NOT RESISTING ARREST. The video YOU SUPPLIED.

YOU.

The asshole who claims I'm not looking at the evidence in question and working it out logically from there.

Or, you could search the web and come up with, say, this:

http://www.wxvt.com/global/story.asp?s= ... =Printable

"Records show Sabeghi was booked on suspicion of resisting arrest"

Hilarious. Please, do tell me, how do you arrest a man for resisting the arrest you have not yet arrested him for? Please, do tell. This should be good.

Searching for "resisting arrest california" quickly leads to a specific law: http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/appndxa/pe ... nco148.htm


You'd know that if you were even remotely interested in finding the truth. In the time you took writing those flames, you could have answered your own questions.

You provided an example of a recursive arrest, you moron. An arrest based on a possibility that he might resist the arrest. Resisting arrest charges are applied after the fact of an arrest for ANOTHER REASON. You'd know that if you had two brain cells to rub together, but I guess that's in short supply today.

Again, the police booked him on it, and we have video of several guys arresting him. It's not conclusive, but it is evidence.

We have several guys arresting a man who was standing still, not threatening or obstructing officers, who is clearly not resisting on the film DURING THE ARREST. I mean I know you're stupid, but this is a new standard.

I can't believe you don't see your double standard here. You're willing to take an injury as conclusive that the guy was beaten by police, but you aren't even willing to consider statements and video that logically follow from someone resisting arrest might have followed from someone resisting arrest.

Okay, you're right. I should judge statements based on the reliability of the individuals making them. Let's see, a Military Veteran, who owns a business in the area, his friends, family, and unrelated individuals witnessing the event on one side, and a Police Department with a long history of police brutality, corruption, and a recent event of using unnecessary force on civilians in the same area in the last week. Hmm...which is the most reliable? I wonder...

Now, I don't know if that's what happened. It's possible the cops just jumped him out of the blue and brutalized him for no reason. But, this is possible too.

Sure it is. It's just nowhere near as likely since you need to make more assumptions for it to be true. Again, Occam's Razor should be used to discover the likely result, not to rid yourself of unwanted crotch hair.

That's what lawyers are for.

You're absolutely right. Except that I don't need a lawyer to tell me what the most likely scenario is.

No, that's a conclusion. Assumptions go on the left hand side of "therefore". For all your blustering about logic and definitions, this is a pretty elementary mistake to make.

No, listen very, very closely. Here are the facts. He was tackled by several armed men in uniform. He was unarmed. These are "facts". Nobody is disputing them. However, how do YOU know why they did that? Can you read their minds? Can you show proof that he threatened them? No? Oh, then without that, you don't know WHY THEY DID WHAT THEY DID!

Thusly, you assumed they had reasons for their actions, regardless of if they did or not. Assumption. Not conclusion.

People are not programs, though I suppose you'd know that if you interacted with more of them.

It's only a forgone conclusion to you because you're the biased one. You see the police as a monolithic block of monsters. Prejudice, plain and simple.

Absolutely incorrect. In fact, you've now just again shown your bias and incredible arrogance in this one set of statements. I provided precise reasoning for why my conclusion is straightforward. You can't attack that directly, so you snip around at the sides of things and try to cast shades of doubt and now are even going for attacks on my character.

I don't hate the police at all, but I do hate when police corruption or disintegration of our civil rights are waved away as nonsense by people who are so scared of the world that they would rather throw away their freedoms than accept the fact that sometimes, bad things happen and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

The Blue Wall isn't assuming that the Police are monolithic blocks of monsters, but that the bad apples inside the police department can use the positive traits of others against them to protect their own bad acts from coming to light. But then you'd know that if you actually did research and cared to know about these things that you claim don't exist. You know, like you claim to. Or, if you know, had asked me if my position was that all police are bad.

But I guess that requires effort on your part, doesn't it? And you don't like to do things that require effort, do you?

BTW, speaking of prejudice, you're apparently assuming a Veteran can't exaggerate, can't make mistakes, can't lie, and apparently, can't possibly have been breaking the law.

Nothing I've said requires that. Even using reasonable force doesn't result in ruptured spleens, but I guess you didn't know that.

Indeed. Another example of your double standard though: there's also no direct video of him being beaten with batons.

Oh, wait, there's evidence of physical trauma that would not have occurred from him being pressed against the ground.

I will refer you to my post WRT Occam's Razor and the possible explanations for how he sustained that injury.

and more guilt by association flamebait. Incredible. Could you at least try to be civil?

Do you even understand what you're saying at this point? YOU ARE FITTING EVIDENCE TO YOUR CONCLUSION! LOGIC DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! If your actions are associated with the actions of people who are crackpots, well guess what, if it walks like, looks like, and sounds like, it probably is.

You don't like it? Too bad, maybe you should look at your actions. If they are similar to the actions of those you do not respect, perhaps you should re-evaluate your life.

You know what I'll do if the investigation shows it was a case of excessive force? I'll call it a case of excessive force. I don't know what happened yet. Any speculation posted is just that: speculation.

Yeah, Harold Camping admitted it wasn't the Rapture after Oct. 21st too. Doesn't stop either of you from being crackpots who proclaim yourselves to know better than all and have done the research and are so right it's not even worth questioning.

I have asked you on numerous occasions, what theory requires fewer assumptions than the one I have suggested? You've failed each and every time. Mostly because you don't seem to understand what an assumption even is. I suggest you go to a community college and take an English course.

No, I'm sorry, that assumes English is your first language. Perhaps an ESL course instead?

[Destructionator XV]

No, they were arresting him for not leaving the scene. Then, he (allegedly) added the resistance, which they also booked him for.

It's suspicion because you're innocent until proven guilty.


That you're going on about this for several paragraphs, despite it being printed in several news articles, really speaks to how absurd this whole "debate" is.


Are you interested in finding facts, or just attacking me over and over again?

[Hotfoot]

Oh, so he wasn't arrested for resisting arrest? Because that's what you said before. Oh, wait, I guess reading what you wrote and not assuming you meant something else more reasonable was bad. Sorry, I was working off of what you said, not what I presumed you might mean. I can't read your mind, after all. Not like you bothered clarifying. Nope, easier to cite legal code without understanding the question than to, you know, answer the question.

I'm attacking you because you're being a dishonest jackass throughout this entire thing. You can't provide evidence, so you make up a story and call it fact. You can't answer a question, so you throw out something tangentially related from a two minute google search.

Your standard of evidence is unreasonable, your presumptions insulting, and your statements asinine. You do not adhere to the rules of logic that you claim you are so devoted to, making you either a baldfaced liar or an idiot. I ask you again, provide an explanation of the man's injuries that require fewer assumptions than the one I have provided.

For the record, an assumption is a conclusion based on facts that are not present. Like whether or not he resisted arrest, something which is not known. Something that you ASSUMED to be true because the Oakland PD used overwhelming force on the man.

And every time you evade, use crappy reasoning, or attempt to engage in libelous statements, I damn well will insult you, denigrate you, and reduce what little ego you have, because sometimes, just sometimes, the puppy that pees on the carpet needs to have his nose rubbed in it.

So please, apply Occam's Razor, or provide evidence that my reasoning is actually flawed.

And remember, this is the same police department that fired LTL gear into peaceful protesters, has a long, documented history of corruption and brutality. If you would like to contest those facts, please do so, but please, use something a little more more useful than "nuh-uh".

PS: it doesn't help that we have their response to the peaceful protests just a week prior to this case on video.

[Destructionator XV]

Oh, so he wasn't arrested for resisting arrest? Because that's what you said before.

http://board.libriumarcana.com/viewtopi ... 93#p135693

You even quoted what I actually said, and flamed me over the other part!

The OP article also states what he was arrested for. Are frigidmagi and reuters liars too?

Something that you ASSUMED to be true because the Oakland PD used overwhelming force on the man.

5. a: an assuming that something is true b: a fact or statement (as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) taken for granted

Is Webster a liar too?


But that's not what I said anyway. I said it's possible, even likely, but I don't know what happened.

[Hotfoot]

"Arrested on suspicion of resisting arrest"

Your words, not mine. Feel free to try and defend that, but you are the one that put that out there. I challenged it, and you defended it, blindly, thinking that just because it can be an offense to resist arrest, one could be arrested for it. I'm sorry, are you feeling like an idiot for showing your ignorance there? Because you did also say this:

"Records show Sabeghi was booked on suspicion of resisting arrest"


Searching for "resisting arrest california" quickly leads to a specific law

So it turns out you're a blithering idiot who can't realize that you can't be charged with a crime you haven't committed yet, and now you're backpedalling.

Oh, yes, "not leaving the scene of a riot" is tacked on, but I also pointed out that a charge like that is a legal gray area, and not one which warrants being manhandled by nearly a half-dozen officers, especially since we do not see any evidence whatsoever of him resisting. There is only the recursive assumption you make:

Yes, it does. You don't need three guys to tackle someone to arrest him if he wasn't resisting.

That's golden, by the way, and just shows how stupid you are, and how little you follow your own professed logical guidelines. You can scream up and down that you're attempting to be neutral here, a perfect observer who is high upon his ivory tower, but the truth is you're just a guy who wants to show off how smart he is because he thinks that google searches can make up for formal training and experience.

By the way, the above quote? That pretty much demolishes the last half of your post. You said, point blank, you don't need three guys to tackle someone if he's not resisting arrest. That is a statement that presumes facts not in evidence, as I have pointed out. You have not acknowledged your error, you have simply ignored it and gone back to stating up and down what an impartial observer you are, and how you're superior as a result of it.

And AGAIN, you have ignored the central point to all of this. You have refused to show how my previous analysis is either wrong, or provided an example of a more likely scenario. You have also refused to explain how making a determination now is somehow harmful. All you are doing, all you have done this entire thread, is snipe at the minutiae at the sidelines.

So, one last time. Here are the scenarios as of right now, and the assumptions one must make for them to be true.

1. He was sick and really only got mildly roughed up resisting arrest (requires: rare and usually crippling/terminal illness)
2. He did it himself to get back at the Oakland PD (requires: willingness to potentially kill himself to prove a point/sue the city, awkward striking angle makes self-infliction difficult at best, would likely draw attention)
3. Another prisoner did it (requires: motive, means)
4. The Oakland PD did it: (requires: ....well, really, not much. They have a history of brutality, the most recent case being last week, which isn't enough time to find out who is at fault, much less remove them from the force, this was in the same general area, for largely the same reasons)

Either deal with it directly, or toss off, because if you come back here with another post wherein you try and fail to twist little things to put yourself in a better light, I will be done with any measure of polite discourse, because it will be clear that your only purpose here is to be a troll.

[Destructionator XV]

"Arrested on suspicion of resisting arrest"

Your words, not mine.

No, the Associated Press writer's words, though I mistakenly attributed "arrested" to him, where he actually said "booked", who might have gotten them from the report the Oakland Police Department gave; all the media sources are pretty consistent with calling it resisting arrest. (though the actual California law does not call it such.)

Feel free to try and defend that, but you are the one that put that out there. I challenged it, and you defended it, blindly, thinking that just because it can be an offense to resist arrest, one could be arrested for it. I'm sorry, are you feeling like an idiot for showing your ignorance there?

Is this what you do every time reality disagrees with your preconceptions? Insult people?

He was arrested for it, according to virtually every media source there is. I hate journalists too, so if you want to take it up with them, more power to you.

So it turns out you're a blithering idiot who can't realize that you can't be charged with a crime you haven't committed yet, and now you're backpedalling.

No, turns out you're a lying sack of shit. Before Monday, I thought you were a decent poster, but now I know you're one of the worst I've ever seen.

I'll ask again: did you actually read any of the news articles about this incident? I think I've linked to four now, and frigidmagi linked to two. Each of them briefly described the allegations against Mr. Sabeghi, and while some specific words have changed, they've all said the same thing.

By the way, I just checked. Not once have you actually said Kayvan Sabeghi's name in your posts. Do you know who he is? Do you know why I've been talking about him in my posts?

If I knew the name of the officer who allegedly attacked him, I'd use his name too, but that hasn't been released yet. We haven't heard the other side of the story at all.

the truth is you're just a guy who wants to show off how smart he is because he thinks that google searches can make up for formal training and experience.

LOL, I use Bing, idiot.

The police officers have formal training and experience. They booked him for resisting arrest. Why don't you consider the possibility that he was actually resisting arrest?

By the way, the above quote? That pretty much demolishes the last half of your post. You said, point blank, you don't need three guys to tackle someone if he's not resisting arrest. That is a statement that presumes facts not in evidence, as I have pointed out. You have not acknowledged your error, you have simply ignored it and gone back to stating up and down what an impartial observer you are, and how you're superior as a result of it.

There is no error here. When people willingly obey orders, there's no need to tackle them to the ground and have several people hold them down.

They might do it anyway, but there's no need for it.


You've said that if someone else attacked him, I'd have to provide a motive. #3 in the thing you're repeating below.

Why is it that police officers don't need a motive, but prisoners do? Why would the police attack him?

"they were reacting to a threat or resistance, like they booked him for" is no less valid than "pigs are brutal, lying assholes", at least until we hear their side of the story or another eyewitness comes forward.

And AGAIN, you have ignored the central point to all of this. You have refused to show how my previous analysis is either wrong, or provided an example of a more likely scenario.

I've provided two likely scenarios now, one in an early post (he tried to walk past them to get home, there was some kind of misunderstanding and things got out of control) and one in a more recent post (he refused to leave, and an officer used physical violence to force compliance).

Are you even reading these posts?


By the way, my two alternatives both have hard evidence behind them, as I've already outlined. Esther Goodstal's statement said he could see his house from where he was standing. Mr. Sabeghi's statement said he didn't understand why the police were there and giving him orders.

We saw, in the video, that he spent at least several seconds standing with the officers, talking to them. What was said? We don't really know, but the man in the video (I don't remember his name right now) said the police wanted Sabeghi to leave, and Sabeghi didn't want to - he said "I'm just standing here", allegedly. (Hearsay is never reliable. See above: I mistakenly attributed the AP to "arrested" when that particular author actually said "booked". Oops.)

I don't have to take down your story. The burden of proof doesn't work that way. Besides, I don't even necessarily disagree with it, though we differ on some details.

You have also refused to explain how making a determination now is somehow harmful.

Just look at how you're acting. You're convinced it happened one way, and when evidence questions that, you ignore it, and when people question it, you insult them.

By having a realistic assessment of my confidence level, I don't get invested in one particular story. As more information becomes available, I'm changing my opinion. Are you?

All you are doing, all you have done this entire thread, is snipe at the minutiae at the sidelines.

That's you, buddy. Which one of us has been posting additional sources to flesh out the story each day?

1. He was sick and really only got mildly roughed up resisting arrest (requires: rare and usually crippling/terminal illness)

I agree this is unlikely.

2. He did it himself to get back at the Oakland PD (requires: willingness to potentially kill himself to prove a point/sue the city, awkward striking angle makes self-infliction difficult at best, would likely draw attention)

I never even hinted at this as being likely. I did say perhaps he was in a fight (or an accident) earlier, and the symptoms didn't get bad until he was in police custody though.

Then, he might have mistakenly or maliciously connected the dots incorrectly - the false cause fallacy.

Of course, there's no evidence of this, but at the time, there was almost no evidence of any sort available. Now, we have a statement from his cell mate who said it was his opinion that Mr. Sabeghi had bruises consistent with baton strikes. If he had been in a fight earlier, there would have been other noteworthy bruises too.

So I believe this is unlikely now as well.

3. Another prisoner did it (requires: motive, means)

I never said this either. Do you enjoy arguing with yourself?


His first statement was that the pain started to get bad while waiting in the police van.

4. The Oakland PD did it: (requires: ....well, really, not much.

It requires the same evidence as accusing anyone else, and the accused have the same rights as anyone else.

That's one of the things I love about America. We're all created equal in this country. We all have the same rights. We're all innocent until proven guilty.

Now, I know this is true in a lot of countries and isn't always true in practice in this country. But dammit, if loving America and the rights we built this country upon is wrong, then I don't want to be right.

Anyway, this is the most likely scenario, as I've said several times. But, we still don't know the details. Was it legal? Was it morally justified? Was it accidental? These questions matter to justice and truth.

I will be done with any measure of polite discourse

hahaha, that ship sailed when you started (improperly) harassing me on AIM. If this is you being polite, mang, now I have to see this.

because it will be clear that your only purpose here is to be a troll.

Take a look at this picture I made earlier in the week:




I was going to use it to replace my av on SDN, but I'm not sure I will. Looks really good though. I'm proud of it.



BTW what are your thoughts on the "refused medical attention in jail" allegations? I'm actually pretty willing to take a hard stand there. I think I have a decent overall picture on what happened there. It's outlined above.

The pre-arrest story is still unknown. The basics look pretty well set up, but we still don't know the circumstances.

[White Haven]

Headed to bed soon, but I figured I'd drop in and leave some food for thought. (Check the two minute mark for relevant footage). Specifically...exactly what riot was he theoretically being ordered to leave? Seems miiighty calm beyond that police line. Doesn't there have to be, yaknow, a riot going on, for the charge of 'not leaving a riot when told' to hold any water? And if there was no riot at that place and time, then there was no lawful order to leave the riot's location, and if there was no lawful order to leave the riot's location, there was no lawful arrest to resist in the first place.

Video's a bitch, eh?

[Hotfoot]

So it turns out if you make an outrageous, easily refuted statement, then backpedal, focus on minor points to divert attention from your mistake, then claim that what you meant was obvious, you're a model of logical analysis and intelligence, am I right?

Honestly, Destructionator, I expected more from you. I'm not sure why, but I was sort of hoping. Again, you get frustrated and result to lashing out with what insults you think can stick. See, I at least have attempted to give you the benefit of the doubt here. Either you're mistaken, a liar, or an idiot. You've clearly shown us which of the options over this thread, but it's only punctuated when you can't even respond to me using your own words against you without you calling me a liar. Fantastic.

Truly, you are the best of us, sir. I am shamed by your analysis of me and what a wretch I am in your eyes. Or I really couldn't give a fuck about what you think of me, given the fact that you have no fucking idea what you've been talking about on this subject since you posted. I mean I could go on, so in fact, I will.

Turns out you're wrong about the medical aspect. Spleens don't rupture on their own. Search engine vs. eduction and experience, failed.

Turns out that citing legal code doesn't make it reasonable to say that you can be arrested for resisting arrest. Had you meant "booked", perhaps it would have served you better to make that clarification then, instead of calling me an idiot for pointing out a simple logical fallacy you haven't come up with a decent excuse for until now. Once again, searching the internets? Not an acceptable substitute for life.

Turns out your wanting to focus on the million what-ifs you've presented so far doesn't matter, since they're all based on the assumption that he resisted arrest, and at face value, he's a more reliable individual at the moment (backed up, in fact, by video evidence that you yourself provided and clearly didn't pay attention to) than the police department that fired LTL ordnance into the peaceful protest a week before (which we also have video of, as well as video of the incident in question of them actively trying to prevent it from being recorded), and is now scrambling to deal with the aftermath of that. I mean you can argue against it all you want, but patterns of behavior matter, even the police recognize that simple fact. But then you'd know that if you did more than type a few terms that were meant to support your point into the search bar.

And hey, it turns out that you don't need a conviction to be reasonably certain someone did something. See, our justice system is filled with all sorts of things that try to make sure we don't lock up innocent people, because that would be bad. Unfortunately, it's used by bad people to get them out of trouble, like how the Blue Wall works. Or really any code of silence or interference that prevents justice from being done. Add to the fact that this is not, in fact, a court of law, but rather a message board, and, well, you see where this is going, I hope. Unless CSI really has rotted your brain.

But you're right. The man's name? That matters. That's vital. In fact, I should know the names of every officer on the street that held him down, blocked the TV cameras, and the guys that shine their shoes. Honestly, all that matters about as much as the price of tea in China. We're talking about the use of logic with the evidence presented to come to a reasonable conclusion as to what happened. Not the details, those aren't important right now, largely because we don't have any and even if we did, unless we get the big detail, like someone who admits to socking him hard straight on near the spleen, or someone who saw that happen, or someone who caught it on tape, or evidence that it happened when the Ranger was no longer in police custody, nothing else really matters that much. You can scream and whine as much as you want, but like I said, repetition doesn't make something true. Just ask the GOP.

By the by, what's sad about this really is that there are likely numerous other cases of people getting beaten up unjustly in the same events as this man and the marine, but these guys get the media attention because they are veterans. Where there's smoke, after all, there's quite often fire.

I'm sorry that in the process of trying to figure out what the most likely option was I came up with all the reasonable scenarios I could. I should have not bothered, leaving those avenues open to debate later. I never said those options were among those you said, I just said these are likely options. But, hey, I guess I'm a "liar" since I put words in your mouth.

Oh. Wait. I didn't. This is you throwing a hissy fit because you're wrong, and instead of acting like a grown person and saying "okay, maybe I was wrong" on at least something that I've called you on, you've pretended like nothing I've said has mattered. When I questioned you on why you decided to say he was arrested for resisting arrest, which is a ludicrous statement in and of itself. When I challenged it for being a stupid thing to say, instead of clarifying, you went and spent a post defending it, that it wasn't a stupid thing to say, even going so far as to cite law when, really, all you needed to do was check yourself before you made an ass of yourself.

As for our AIM conversation, I lost it when you decided to leave reality and deny the existence of a long-documented and often studied fact. I was attempting to talk you down from making a fool of yourself in public because you were engaged in foolish action. Apparently, that was a mistake, because you don't even want to discuss things, you just want to show off how right you are at this point. You're so heavily invested in proving me wrong by any means necessary that you've made an enormous fool of yourself to protect your fragile ego. It's a pity you didn't learn earlier in life that sometimes saying, "okay, you got me there" save you a lot of face later. But if you want to go for the low blows, so be it, let's rock.

I don't care if you are a maladjusted wretch of a human being who has forgotten what it is like to interact with your fellow kind. I don't care if you are a drop-out who thinks he's a genius but doesn't have anything to show for it. I don't care if you're the president of the galaxy. You're being an idiot and an asshole. Not only that, but a dumbass motherfucker who doesn't understand the difference between libel and being insulting. One of which can result in legal action, the other of which just pisses people off. I suggest you learn the difference now, since the next person you piss off may be more interested in making an example of your idiocy with regards to "justice" than I. Seriously, for someone who can figure out how to look up legal codes, you haven't put that knowledge to good use, or maybe put your energies towards other matters, like getting out into the world and enjoying life, even if just a little. Trust me, it's worth it.

I could go further, I guess, but really, what would it matter? You clearly don't want to learn. I've tried to calm down since you hit my rage switch the other day and give you a chance to unfuck yourself here, but clearly your misplaced pride won't let you do that. I mean really, it's sad. You can't even admit that you assumed the cops had a good reason to dogpile him. You won't even let that go, even though it's a fucking albatross around your neck right now.

You never even bothered responding to my question as to why. Why is it so important to wait for a conviction before we decide if there was wrongdoing or not? What is so important to you that makes you defend this tooth and nail, and against all rational thought? Why are we somehow not allowed to make up our minds about something based on what are, frankly, pretty reasonable assumptions? I mean, if you're such a genius, such a basic answer should be simple. Of course, were you actually a genius, a guru of our era, you might have mentioned that back in your first post.

I guess I shouldn't expect a rational answer to this post, I haven't gotten any thus far, but on the off chance you manage to compose yourself and not withdraw into your mancave to be forever alone, you might want to consider answering that question.

For the record, when a crime is committed, you know who the police go to most often? People who have committed similar crimes before. Because, as I've stated many a time before, past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. A police department with a history of brutality and abuse of power does not get the same consideration as a police department with a good pattern of behavior. It's a shock, I know, but the same thing that keeps me from expecting you to make your next post rationally and in good humor is the same thing that keeps me from believing that the police department I watched fire rubber bullets and grenade-launched tear gas canisters into a PEACEFUL PROTEST might be innocent in a situation where the only reasonable solution, barring highly unlikely evidence, is police brutality.

But keep on trollin' chief. I'm sure one day you'll win a fight on the internet, and I hear that feels a lot like being successful, maybe it might even make you a real boy someday if you win enough.

[Destructionator XV]

You're a liar because you're saying things you know aren't true; you're making stuff up and saying it came from videos. For example, first you said 8 guys were on him. Then it was 6. Then they were beating him with clubs on the ground. The truth? Anyone can watch the video and see for themselves.

"The man had over half a dozen men on him for what had to be several minutes."

Exaggeration. The video wasn't even several minutes long in total, and the reporter said they captured the tail end of the take down.

On video, in a matter of seconds, he went from on the ground to cuffed and helped up. Several minutes has no support whatsoever from this. But, then neither does "half a dozen men on him", and the facts didn't stop you from saying that.


"Well over a dozen officers moved to attempt to stop the filming."

Outright lie. There's absolutely zero truth to this at all. We do see some officers walk past the camera, but none moved toward it. None took action against it.

"When brought up, he was clearly not standing or moving fully under his own power."

I'm not sure if you're lying here, or just seeing what you wanted to see, but the officers were not supporting him. They helped him back to his feet (it's a pain to stand when wearing handcuffs) and then held him in place, but look at their fingers. It's not a tight grab until he starts lunging about [!]. We see him walk at about 1:27.


"He was not resisting. [...] Heavily edited and with no context. "

And your double standard again. Stuff that doesn't fit your prejudice is heavily edited with no context, but stuff that does is the gospel truth.

Though we can see him resisting, ever so slightly, at 0:48 in that video! I missed this before myself. After giving his military overview, he moves forward (perhaps to make a point when talking), and is held in place.





And, btw, I've given citations for everything, except the stuff labeled speculation. You're appealing to your own training and experience I guess.... what are you referring to there?



You can blab on and on about me. How about facing the evidence? Let's see if you can make a post without talking about me.

[Destructionator XV]

Had you meant "booked", perhaps it would have served you better to make that clarification then, instead of calling me an idiot for pointing out a simple logical fallacy you haven't come up with a decent excuse for until now.

http://board.libriumarcana.com/viewtopi ... 98#p135698

Or, you could search the web and come up with, say, this:

http://www.wxvt.com/global/story.asp?s= ... =Printable

"Records show Sabeghi was booked on suspicion of resisting arrest"

Hilarious. Please, do tell me, how do you arrest a man for resisting the arrest you have not yet arrested him for? Please, do tell. This should be good.

It's a nitpick anyway. Whether he was booked for it (AP link's words), charged with it (Reuters link's words), or arrested for it (my error), it doesn't change the facts. And, I'll let the quote above speak for itself.

I mean you can argue against it all you want, but patterns of behavior matter, even the police recognize that simple fact.

"Even the police". Again, so much for their training and experience.

But here's the thing: patterns matter when it's the same entity doing it. If the officer in this case has a history of violence, I'd accept that. But you can't just paint all these individual people with the same brush because they share a few other characteristics.

That's why I'm using their names instead of labels.

Unfortunately, it's used by bad people to get them out of trouble, like how the Blue Wall works. Or really any code of silence or interference that prevents justice from being done.

And this is irrelevant. We haven't heard the other side of the story, nor have they refused to tell it. You're poisoning the well before it's even dug.

You can scream and whine as much as you want, but like I said, repetition doesn't make something true.

I ask any neutral reader of this thread to judge for themselves on this and other topics.

As for our AIM conversation, I lost it when you decided to leave reality and deny the existence of a long-documented and often studied fact. I was attempting to talk you down from making a fool of yourself in public because you were engaged in foolish action.

Let's let the people judge for themselves. We were discussion how I like to play juror, or defense counsel. Then, you said:

(16:19:52) hotfootb5: No, in this case, you're more akin to the blue
wall that protects abusers of the system
(16:20:07) destructionator4: I don't believe that blue wall exists, btw
(16:20:43) destructionator4: every one of these cases has internal
police investigations, and a lot of them do result in charges being
filed
(16:21:11) hotfootb5: .....you are so fucking wrong
(16:21:50) destructionator4: I've never seen an alleged brutality case
that didn't have an investigation. Maybe I'm just uninformed.
(16:21:56) hotfootb5: In fact, go fuck your ass with your computer
cable, shove a god-damn needle in your dick and die in a fire with
cancer

You didn't say "well, maybe you've heard of the Mollen Commission in New York, or the Rodney King incident in Los Angeles", and we could have talked about it. No, you said "In fact, go fuck your ass with your computer cable, shove a god-damn needle in your dick and die in a fire with cancer".

You could have said "the blue wall doesn't mean 'no investigation' or even 'no punishment', it means the investigation has hurdles from officers whitewashing the truth", and we could have talked about it. But, instead, you said "In fact, go fuck your ass with your computer cable, shove a god-damn needle in your dick and die in a fire with cancer".

You could have said "you are uninformed. Here's a citation showing it is wide spread, and not just a few isolated, well publicized invidents". Instead, you said "In fact, go fuck your ass with your computer cable, shove a god-damn needle in your dick and die in a fire with cancer".

It's a pity you didn't learn earlier in life that sometimes saying, "okay, you got me there" save you a lot of face later.

And, again, as anyone can see, I did say it was my mistake. That doesn't erase your mistakes, nor make it relevant.

You never even bothered responding to my question as to why. Why is it so important to wait for a conviction before we decide if there was wrongdoing or not?

I didn't say that. I've been saying things like talking to the other people who were there, and getting the facts together.

This is important because we don't know if there was wrongdoing until we know what happened. Take the allegation of abuse in jail. If we took the hearsay and decided it was wrongdoing right off the bat, we would have (probably) got that wrong.

Now, we know, he was bailed out eleven hours after being arrested and saw a nurse while in the jail. Things aren't as bad as they seemed with the incomplete information.

For the record, when a crime is committed, you know who the police go to most often? People who have committed similar crimes before.

Individuals with a history of crime. That's why I'm looking at the facts of this case. That's why I'm using these people's names instead of labels, where possible.

But keep on trollin' chief. I'm sure one day you'll win a fight on the internet, and I hear that feels a lot like being successful, maybe it might even make you a real boy someday if you win enough.

I find it vaguely amusing how you can call me a troll, yet take it all seriously at the same time.

[Dark Silver]

!	Message from: Dark Silver
	Enough. This has gone on long enough, and is devolving into uselessness. Destructionator and Hotfoot, take a step back, cool your heads. Any continuation of this until new evidence comes to light, WILL be met with Administrative Consequences, understood? Locking thread.