Talk:Abner Louima
From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BenHur (Talk | contribs) at 00:35, October 23, 2008. It may differ significantly from current revision.
Rectum penetrated with a broomstick is not sexual assault. --Jpatt 16:51, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- What would you classify it as? In NYC it was viewed as a form of prison rape, but committed by the officer instead of an inmate. --DinsdaleP 16:53, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- Jpatt- that's nonsense. Granted, the officer did not place his penis in Louima's anus or mouth, or vice-versa, but it's not exactly the same as a heavy beating, is it? Penetration of any bodily orifice under duress is a sexual assault. BenHur 17:03, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- You want to call it nonsense, fine with me. If you think that the cop was getting his rocks off, then it is sexual assault. If a knife was placed in his rectum, would it still be called sexual? Maybe someone should pull up the charges the cop was booked with, just to be accurate.--Jpatt 17:09, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- Jpatt, you're making the classic association of rape and sodomy with crimes driven by sexual desire, when they actually crimes of violence, intimidation, an dehumanization of the victim. While the Federal charges were for civil rights violations and obstruction of justice, the news accounts at the time described the broomstick assault as an incident of sodomy, not assault. --DinsdaleP 17:16, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- Than I stand corrected. I can admit to being wrong.--Jpatt 17:18, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- You're respected for being open to other views, Jpatt - thanks. --DinsdaleP 17:32, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- Than I stand corrected. I can admit to being wrong.--Jpatt 17:18, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- Jpatt, you're making the classic association of rape and sodomy with crimes driven by sexual desire, when they actually crimes of violence, intimidation, an dehumanization of the victim. While the Federal charges were for civil rights violations and obstruction of justice, the news accounts at the time described the broomstick assault as an incident of sodomy, not assault. --DinsdaleP 17:16, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- You want to call it nonsense, fine with me. If you think that the cop was getting his rocks off, then it is sexual assault. If a knife was placed in his rectum, would it still be called sexual? Maybe someone should pull up the charges the cop was booked with, just to be accurate.--Jpatt 17:09, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
"Becoming Very Rich"
BHarlan, in case you didn't read the accounts of the Louima incident at the jailhouse in detail, he was taken to a back room, had his hands cuffed behind his back, and was then repeatedly hit and kicked. He was then sodomized by having a broomstick violently shoved into his rectum, and then shoved into his mouth. The rectal assault caused a torn bladder and intestine, which required several surgeries to repair the damage. He also had several teeth broken when the blood-and-feces-covered broomstick was rammed into his mouth. I find it offensive and against the values of this project to portray this incident as if he suffered a minor inconvenience and was awarded a windfall for his troubles. --DinsdaleP 17:32, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- The article started as a stub. It has since expanded. If you want to help, modify the article to add detail. We are trying to build an encyclopedia here.
- It's not clear how awarding someone 9 million dollars acts as a deterrent. The city did not condone the incident, and large cash awards can encourage people to go through awful injury. If you don't believe me, Google "Vernon Florida".
- I am, of course, not claiming that Louima did this on purpose. My only claim is that cash awards set large precedents. Justice ends up delivered by the taxpayers, who did not injure Louima, rather than by the parties that actually did injure him.
- Most importantly, however, that language had been long since removed by the time you wrote this complaint. Do you have anything constructive to offer, or are you merely here to complain? Liberal style isn't welcome here. BHarlan 19:35, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
Better article elsewhere
I've tidied up the minute amount of content to make it at least of some use. However there's a far better article at Wikipedia that readers should check instead. There's no point in duplicating the good, referenced work done over there. BenHur 19:54, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- That's sort of the entire point of this encyclopedia. HelpJazz 19:55, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- Are you suggesting that the Wikipedia article is effectively useless? I think there's every reason to use wikis, so long as the articles are well referenced, as that one is. This article is hardly core values Conservapedia material, hence why publish a weaker article? BenHur 19:57, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- I'm not saying you aren't right, I'm saying that linking to WP defeats the whole purpose of having this wiki. HelpJazz 20:03, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- Well, isn't that a conversation we should be having then? What is the point of this wiki? To rewrite every story in the Universe, finding a Conservative perspective on all truths? That seems kind of ridiculous. And BHarlan - your most recent edit comment suggested that "Wikipedia is useful only as a citation for things that are liberal". But this article isn't about liberal or conservative anything, is it? A guy was assaulted in a pretty hideous way, the bad guy went to jail, and an award was made to the unfortunate victim. I can't see the harm in simply saying "there's a better article elsewhere, go read it"? Especially for an article so way out of left field for Conservapedia? I'm sorry if I'm wrong, but I can't see the logic? It's not even really a 'child-friendly' story? BenHur 20:06, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- I think that actualy is the purpose of this wiki. I tried to look around for the page that explains why the wiki was started, but I can't seem to remember where it is anymore. HelpJazz 20:15, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- I think this is what I was thinking of. The rest is spread across various talk pages over the last 2 years. HelpJazz 20:16, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- Are you suggesting that the Wikipedia article is effectively useless? I think there's every reason to use wikis, so long as the articles are well referenced, as that one is. This article is hardly core values Conservapedia material, hence why publish a weaker article? BenHur 19:57, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- Interesting. "The starting point for increasing your knowledge, your faith and the well-being of you and those around you is to understand concepts better. Conservapedia enables you to do that". But shouldn't a resource that tries to guide people to information actually do that? If information is out there that is factually correct and without bias (as in this criminal case), shouldn't readers/surfers/students be pointed in that direction? Isn't declining to link to that resource actually counter-productive and counter knowledge? What is the point, if not to inform? BenHur 20:23, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- Yes, it is probably best to simply delete this article and link to Wikipedia, presuming there is no "liberal bias" in the WP article, but that's against the (apparently unwritten) policies of this encyclopedia. If you want to change the policy, this is not the right place. Though I doubt you will get the administration of this website to agree that there are any pages at WP that (a) aren't biased and (b) can't be done better here. HelpJazz 20:32, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- I would be delighted to see this article grow to be better, more detailed, more referenced, more accurate, more everything than the WP article. I just doubt that that's ever going to happen. BenHur 20:35, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- Yes, it is probably best to simply delete this article and link to Wikipedia, presuming there is no "liberal bias" in the WP article, but that's against the (apparently unwritten) policies of this encyclopedia. If you want to change the policy, this is not the right place. Though I doubt you will get the administration of this website to agree that there are any pages at WP that (a) aren't biased and (b) can't be done better here. HelpJazz 20:32, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- Interesting. "The starting point for increasing your knowledge, your faith and the well-being of you and those around you is to understand concepts better. Conservapedia enables you to do that". But shouldn't a resource that tries to guide people to information actually do that? If information is out there that is factually correct and without bias (as in this criminal case), shouldn't readers/surfers/students be pointed in that direction? Isn't declining to link to that resource actually counter-productive and counter knowledge? What is the point, if not to inform? BenHur 20:23, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
