Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #5551  
Old 07-28-2015, 05:30 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
You awake. You are not in full possession of your visual capacities. You are aware that sounds are occurring in your dwelling that indicate the presence of an armed force. You are aware that under such circumstances reaching for your glasses could be perceived as a threat.

Do you choose to reach for your glasses?
I got exactly what I was expecting - in Smapti's work, people wake up with psychic abilities.

Or if they don't, they deserve to get shot.
  #5552  
Old 07-28-2015, 06:28 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
I got exactly what I was expecting - in Smapti's work, people wake up with psychic abilities.

Or if they don't, they deserve to get shot.
In fairness to Smapti, he's either a robot, an alien, or a human so damaged that his mind can be barely called human any more.
  #5553  
Old 07-28-2015, 06:31 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,370
Maybe this is how humans will develop telepathic abilities - wake them up, if they move, shoot them, let natural selection take its course and in twenty generations; Professor X!
  #5554  
Old 07-28-2015, 06:51 PM
PatriotX is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Fayettenam
Posts: 7,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by up_the_junction View Post
You seriously have armed public servants who aren't sufficiently trained to deal with the concept of someone reaching for their glasses when woken at night?
Apparently.

These servants also seem to have their own set of enablers and endorsers.
  #5555  
Old 07-28-2015, 09:20 PM
Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,674
I suppose the solution is to move to Indiana and simply shoot the officer who is making a bad entry into a home.
  #5556  
Old 07-28-2015, 11:14 PM
CannyDan's Avatar
CannyDan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: East coast of Florida
Posts: 2,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffin View Post
I suppose the solution is to move to Indiana and simply shoot the officer who is making a bad entry into a home.

Easy for you to say! You've probably got insomnia! And 20/20 vision.
  #5557  
Old 07-28-2015, 11:27 PM
Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,674
When I am woken by a disturbance, I shout and flail until I wake up enough to figure out what the fuck is going on, so I expect that I would be shot in my bed by the armed intruder police who would then claim to be fearing for their lives, using the tried (well, usually covered over and seldom tried) and true (well, more along the lines of covering up what is true) method of policing by shooting first and not asking questions later.

Last edited by Muffin; 07-28-2015 at 11:31 PM.
  #5558  
Old 07-29-2015, 01:22 AM
AtomicDog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: USS Obama
Posts: 1,578
An oldie from last summer:

Man arrested for walking while black

I see people using golf clubs as walking sticks all the time. And apparently, no one bothered to review the dashcam video to check the lying cop's story before throwing the poor guy in jail.
  #5559  
Old 07-29-2015, 08:59 AM
dasmoocher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 3,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomicDog View Post
An oldie from last summer:

Man arrested for walking while black

I see people using golf clubs as walking sticks all the time. And apparently, no one bothered to review the dashcam video to check the lying cop's story before throwing the poor guy in jail.
Nice.

Quote:
Wingate was on his daily, 10-mile walk, using the golf club as a cane, when, according to official accounts, Whitlatch stopped him on Capitol Hill, claiming he swung the club in a threatening manner, striking a stop sign, while she was driving past in her patrol car.

Video from her patrol car did not capture Wingate swinging the club, raising questions about Whitlatch’s account.

Smith, in his comments Monday, said there is no evidence showing that Wingate did not swing the club.
[My italics]

This is the justification for defending the officer's arrest?

To paraphrase South Park's Thanksgiving episode: "There's no evidence that aliens were not at the first Thanksgiving."

It's like Smapti's psuedo-argument that there's no evidence that a suspect wasn't going to shoot an officer. Until being proven otherwise by being dead, of course. Just to be safe, ya know.

Last edited by dasmoocher; 07-29-2015 at 09:00 AM.
  #5560  
Old 07-29-2015, 11:13 AM
Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
In fairness to Smapti, he's either a robot, an alien, or a human so damaged that his mind can be barely called human any more.
Yeah, he's one where I have to step back and say "Wow, that person is completely fucking broken. It must be constant effort and constant confusion for him to adapt to normal Human society."
  #5561  
Old 07-29-2015, 12:14 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasmoocher View Post
[My italics]

This is the justification for defending the officer's arrest?
There's also no evidence that the officer did not vigorously roger Mr. Wingate with the golfclub while screaming Heil Hitler.
I'm just saying. On the strength of the non-evidence, we're forced to conclude it's probable.
  #5562  
Old 07-29-2015, 01:29 PM
PastTense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7,824
Quote:
Officials in Cincinnati announced Wednesday that a University of Cincinnati police officer has been indicted for fatally shooting an unarmed black man during a traffic stop earlier this month. “It was so unnecessary for this to occur,” Joe Deters, the Hamilton County prosecutor, said at a news conference Wednesday.

Sam Dubose, 43, was shot and killed during a July 19 traffic stop by Officer Ray Tensing. The officer initially said he was dragged by Dubose’s car, leading to the shooting. Deters said that Dubose “was subdued,” adding that Tensing had his license plate number... While a university police report stated that Tensing said he had been dragged by the car before shooting, Deters said that the officer not dragged. Rather, Tensing fell backwards after shooting Dubose in the head, Deters said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/p...lice-shooting/

Last edited by PastTense; 07-29-2015 at 01:29 PM.
  #5563  
Old 07-29-2015, 02:22 PM
Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastTense View Post
Later in the article they mention that another officer at the scene lied about what happened to make it seem like a good shooting. I hope they charge that other lying fucker too.

Thank god for body cams--without them this would have been called a legitimate shooting and the officer would have been called a hero.

Because the officer was wearing a body cam, even though certain members of society and this board might still call him a hero, luckily they'll be in the minority.

Good on the prosecutor for charging this case. I still think we need an independent prosecutor to investigate officer-related shootings, but at least this time it's working out.
  #5564  
Old 07-29-2015, 02:23 PM
Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,689
But according to S&S, that cop had every right to blow that man away!
  #5565  
Old 07-29-2015, 02:26 PM
dasmoocher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 3,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimera View Post
But according to S&S, that cop had every right to blow that man away!
Yeah, how do we know that the driver was not thinking about running the cop over?

Better shoot him to be safe.
  #5566  
Old 07-29-2015, 02:42 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
The officer is claiming he was in fear for his life. That's the criterion, right?

What does any video or indictment or prosecution have to contribute that could contradict the officer's own fear for his life?
  #5567  
Old 07-29-2015, 02:49 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Near Philadelphia PA, USA
Posts: 12,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastTense View Post
Quote:
Officials in Cincinnati announced Wednesday that a University of Cincinnati police officer has been indicted for fatally shooting an unarmed black man during a traffic stop earlier this month. “It was so unnecessary for this to occur,” Joe Deters, the Hamilton County prosecutor, said at a news conference Wednesday.

Sam Dubose, 43, was shot and killed during a July 19 traffic stop by Officer Ray Tensing. The officer initially said he was dragged by Dubose’s car, leading to the shooting. Deters said that Dubose “was subdued,” adding that Tensing had his license plate number... While a university police report stated that Tensing said he had been dragged by the car before shooting, Deters said that the officer not dragged. Rather, Tensing fell backwards after shooting Dubose in the head, Deters said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/p...lice-shooting/
Here's the body cam video of the stop. The action starts around 4:00, which is where it should start if the follow the link.
https://youtu.be/3jRxGVeI5JE?t=4m
Honestly, I can't figure out what's going on near the end. It looks like the officer shot him and then the car rolled away, or something?
  #5568  
Old 07-29-2015, 02:58 PM
SmartAleq's Avatar
SmartAleq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: PDXLNT
Posts: 5,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Here's the body cam video of the stop. The action starts around 4:00, which is where it should start if the follow the link.
https://youtu.be/3jRxGVeI5JE?t=4m
Honestly, I can't figure out what's going on near the end. It looks like the officer shot him and then the car rolled away, or something?
It looks like the cop told the driver to step out, the driver started the car, the cop shot him and I'm guessing that caused the driver's foot to mash the gas pedal, the car took off and plowed into something then stopped. Motherfucker.
  #5569  
Old 07-29-2015, 03:17 PM
Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
The officer is claiming he was in fear for his life. That's the criterion, right?
No. Never has been, and no-one, ever, on this board has claimed it to be. You lying, straw-manning arsehole.

Quote:
What does any video or indictment or prosecution have to contribute that could contradict the officer's own fear for his life?
As that's not the standard, it doesn't matter. It's necessary for him to have been in fear for his life, but not sufficient. If the evidence proves that no reasonable person could have been in fear for their life, then it's murder.

To quote from the article, “This office has probably reviewed upwards of hundreds of police shootings, and this is the first time that we’ve thought this is without question a murder”. Sounds about right, one in hundreds of these stupid "controversies" is actually a serious crime.
  #5570  
Old 07-29-2015, 03:22 PM
Frylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 19,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
No. Never has been, and no-one, ever, on this board has claimed it to be. You lying, straw-manning arsehole.
It is not quite the clear straw man you're making it out to be. Bricker for example has stated that he would credit the "lighter=threat" testimony despite agreeing that it seems on the face of it preposterous. You have stated that the defendant should be given all the benefit of the doubt, in the context of explaining why it should be believed that a policeman fears for his life.

If the principle you guys are referring to isn't either "Policemen should be trusted when they say they are in fear for their lives" or something that implies that, then you owe us an explanation as to what that principle is. Because it very much looks like that is your principle.
  #5571  
Old 07-29-2015, 03:34 PM
Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frylock View Post
It is not quite the clear straw man you're making it out to be. Bricker for example has stated that he would credit the "lighter=threat" testimony despite agreeing that it seems on the face of it preposterous. You have stated that the defendant should be given all the benefit of the doubt, in the context of explaining why it should be believed that a policeman fears for his life.
Of course they should be given the benefit of the doubt, same as any defendant.

Quote:
If the principle you guys are referring to isn't either "Policemen should be trusted when they say they are in fear for their lives" or something that implies that, then you owe us an explanation as to what that principle is. Because it very much looks like that is your principle.
It looks nothing like that, and you well know it. Stop deliberately twisting things.

Some one who claims to have acted in self defence is, in law, innocent until proven guilty (in 49 states, as discussed earlier). Doesn't matter whether or not you believe them, you have to prove not only that they're lying but specifically that the opposite of what they said was true.
  #5572  
Old 07-29-2015, 03:47 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
It looks nothing like that, and you well know it. Stop deliberately twisting things.
Someone as determinedly misunderstood as you might consider trying to restate their positions more clearly. Just a suggestion.
  #5573  
Old 07-29-2015, 04:06 PM
dasmoocher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 3,503
Authorities: Off-Duty Trooper Fired at Car With 3 Inside

Quote:
Authorities say an off-duty New Jersey state trooper fired three shots at a car with three young men inside who had knocked on his door by mistake early Sunday.

The Attorney General's office says the trooper suspected the three were trying to enter his Sparta residence.

Police say two 18-year-olds and a 19-year-old fled after a verbal exchange. They got in their car and drove away and the trooper fired when the car did not stop. No one was injured.

Authorities say the unidentified officer used his personal weapon. No criminal charges have been filed and the shooting remains under investigation.

One of the three, Jesse Barkhorn, says they knocked on the door by mistake while looking for the house of a friend who lives next door.
My italics

Mmmm... Shouldn't the trooper have shot them at his door (claiming fear for his life; and maybe with some justification)?

Shooting at a fleeing car?

How is Smapti going to spin that?
  #5574  
Old 07-29-2015, 04:10 PM
Frylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 19,731
The officer in that case Is claiming the case was dragging him.
__________________
hopelessgeneralist.blogspot.com
  #5575  
Old 07-29-2015, 04:12 PM
dasmoocher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 3,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frylock View Post
The officer in that case Is claiming the case was dragging him.
This case too? I think that's what the UC cop was claiming.

Three times is a pattern.
  #5576  
Old 07-29-2015, 04:14 PM
Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
No. Never has been, and no-one, ever, on this board has claimed it to be. You lying, straw-manning arsehole.
False. Smapti makes a career of claiming cops have every right to kill people when they can even remotely claim to be in fear.
  #5577  
Old 07-29-2015, 05:23 PM
Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimera View Post
False. Smapti makes a career of claiming cops have every right to kill people when they can even remotely claim to be in fear.
Nope. You need to actually read people posts occasionally, rather than just whatever you want to be there so it's easier for you to argue about.

Smapti also thinks cops should only shoot when it's reasonable for them to feel fear - but he has a much more inclusive view of when that would be reasonable than anybody else.
  #5578  
Old 07-29-2015, 05:24 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Here's the body cam video of the stop. The action starts around 4:00, which is where it should start if the follow the link.
https://youtu.be/3jRxGVeI5JE?t=4m
Honestly, I can't figure out what's going on near the end. It looks like the officer shot him and then the car rolled away, or something?
I notice that the vehicle's engine is not running while the officer approaches the car and driver. After repeatedly ignoring the officer's request to produce his drivers license:

at 5:52 in the linked video, the suspect reaches for the driver's door with his left hand and reaches for the ignition key with his right hand.

at 5:54, the suspect starts his vehicle and puts it in gear.

at 5:55, the officer says stop.

at 5:56, the officer repeats his command to stop.

at 5:57, the officer fires a shot at the fleeing vehicle's driver.

the moving, in forward-gear, vehicle rolls to a dead stop farther down the road.

It looks like the car was rolling away, and then the officer shot the driver.
  #5579  
Old 07-29-2015, 05:37 PM
mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
Smapti also thinks cops should only shoot when it's reasonable for them to feel fear - but he has a much more inclusive view of when that would be reasonable than anybody else.
It seems to include "Fear that they might have to do some paperwork," and "Fear that they might not get home in time for dinner."
  #5580  
Old 07-29-2015, 05:39 PM
Frylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 19,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasmoocher View Post
This case too? I think that's what the UC cop was claiming.

Three times is a pattern.
Sorry, I meant "car" not "case".
  #5581  
Old 07-29-2015, 05:57 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
Nope. You need to actually read people posts occasionally, rather than just whatever you want to be there so it's easier for you to argue about.

Smapti also thinks cops should only shoot when it's reasonable for them to feel fear - but he has a much more inclusive view of when that would be reasonable than anybody else.
Inclusive enough to include someone just waking up and reaching for their glasses? That's like the ultimate inclusivity. Compared to that level of inclusiveness, a Universal Unitarian church looks like a Nazi country club.
  #5582  
Old 07-29-2015, 06:16 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Here's the body cam video of the stop. The action starts around 4:00, which is where it should start if the follow the link.
https://youtu.be/3jRxGVeI5JE?t=4m
Honestly, I can't figure out what's going on near the end. It looks like the officer shot him and then the car rolled away, or something?
Un Fucking Believable. They're charging that piece of shit with murder, I read. It never ends. And people think Black Lives Matter is an unnecessary slogan. What utter buulshit.
  #5583  
Old 07-29-2015, 06:45 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
No. Never has been, and no-one, ever, on this board has claimed it to be. You lying, straw-manning arsehole.
Just yesterday I went and pulled a past quote from you to demonstrate with your own words that you were lying, and being a gutless weaselfuck, you ran away. I don't feel compelled to keep going to any effort proving your deceit. Especially when everyone knows that you're once again lying. Cowardly, racist and liar - quite the resume you've built for yourself.
  #5584  
Old 07-29-2015, 08:06 PM
Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,689
And that's the thing. Steophan clearly believes that the police are perfectly within their rights to charge into someone's bedroom in the middle of the night and blow you away for the crime of reaching for your glasses.

Reasonable people don't believe this is reasonable.
  #5585  
Old 07-29-2015, 08:08 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimera View Post
And that's the thing. Steophan clearly believes that the police are perfectly within their rights to charge into someone's bedroom in the middle of the night and blow you away for the crime of reaching for your glasses.
I thought Smapti believed that and Steophan was just trying to chastise us for being mean to Smapti.


I'm so confused! If a cop walked in here right now, I'd be a dead man!
  #5586  
Old 07-29-2015, 08:09 PM
Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,689
Eh, both of them. They're both fascist sociopaths.
  #5587  
Old 07-29-2015, 08:12 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,370
Can we call them "sociofaps" ?




(I call trademark! - googling - dammit!)
  #5588  
Old 07-29-2015, 09:16 PM
Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,156
Saw this video on how British police handle being attacked by a man with a knife: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOTLP9rDiN4

That seems like an all-around better outcome than what we get in the US.
  #5589  
Old 07-29-2015, 09:48 PM
Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
Just yesterday I went and pulled a past quote from you to demonstrate with your own words that you were lying, and being a gutless weaselfuck, you ran away. I don't feel compelled to keep going to any effort proving your deceit. Especially when everyone knows that you're once again lying. Cowardly, racist and liar - quite the resume you've built for yourself.
No, you didn't prove any such thing, and quite clearly couldn't do so. But keep accusing me of things that my posts clearly refute. It's worked so well in the past, what could possibly go wrong? It's not like you could look any stupider than you already do.
  #5590  
Old 07-29-2015, 09:52 PM
Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimera View Post
Eh, both of them. They're both fascist sociopaths.
Yes, obviously. People who believe in democracy and justice, rather than violently opposing those things, are fascists and sociopaths. I'm not sure how you make the leap from me and Smapi supporting the right of people to challenge police actions in court and vote for politicians who will change laws they dislike to any form of authoritarianism or wish to harm people.
  #5591  
Old 07-29-2015, 11:39 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
I'm quite sure that the first SS also said they believed in justice and democracy. Fascist is as fascist does.
  #5592  
Old 07-29-2015, 11:40 PM
Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
To quote from the article, “This office has probably reviewed upwards of hundreds of police shootings, and this is the first time that we’ve thought this is without question a murder”. Sounds about right, one in hundreds of these stupid "controversies" is actually a serious crime.
In how many of those other cases was there video? Because in this case at least 4 other officers flat out lied to support the killer, and if there hadn't been video they would all have gotten away with it. I'm sure that buried among those "hundreds of other shootings" are a dozen murders that the police got away with because of the culture of lying among the police force.
  #5593  
Old 07-29-2015, 11:42 PM
Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
Yes, obviously. People who believe in democracy and justice, rather than violently opposing those things, are fascists and sociopaths.
I asked you this before but you ignored the question--of all the people who have posted to this thread, do you think you could identify even one who would describe your stance as "believing in democracy and justice"? If not, why not?
  #5594  
Old 07-30-2015, 05:04 AM
Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
I asked you this before but you ignored the question--of all the people who have posted to this thread, do you think you could identify even one who would describe your stance as "believing in democracy and justice"? If not, why not?
Anyone who's read my posts would know that I believe that. Those that don't are being dishonest with themselves - and usually, they are those who don't believe that the police should have the same legal protections as everyone else.
  #5595  
Old 07-30-2015, 07:19 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,370
So since you can't identify one, all respondents are dishonest?
  #5596  
Old 07-30-2015, 08:35 AM
Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
So since you can't identify one, all respondents are dishonest?
There's a lot of people in this thread being dishonest, mainly those who claim that they aren't anti-police but want to give the cops less protection than other people.
  #5597  
Old 07-30-2015, 09:05 AM
Happy Fun Ball is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The down hill slope
Posts: 3,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasmoocher View Post
Authorities: Off-Duty Trooper Fired at Car With 3 Inside


Quote:
Authorities say an off-duty New Jersey state trooper fired three shots at a car with three young men inside who had knocked on his door by mistake early Sunday.

The Attorney General's office says the trooper suspected the three were trying to enter his Sparta residence.

Police say two 18-year-olds and a 19-year-old fled after a verbal exchange. They got in their car and drove away and the trooper fired when the car did not stop. No one was injured.

Authorities say the unidentified officer used his personal weapon. No criminal charges have been filed and the shooting remains under investigation.

One of the three, Jesse Barkhorn, says they knocked on the door by mistake while looking for the house of a friend who lives next door.
My italics

Mmmm... Shouldn't the trooper have shot them at his door (claiming fear for his life; and maybe with some justification)?

Shooting at a fleeing car?

How is Smapti going to spin that?
Smapti hasn't answered, but let me proactively agree with him: those three kids deserved to die and they are lucky they didn't. First off, they ignored a lawful order from a policeman to stop their car. This obviously makes them criminals just like Tamir Rice - strike one. Second, the police officer has every reason to be afraid of imminent harm to life and limb. These kids were in a car with good tires, not stuck in a ditch between a light pole and and another police cruiser. In that case, they still would have deserved to die for being a threat, but as it was they needed to die with extreme prejudice! Strike 2. The only mitigating factor is their race. If they had been black, it would have been 3 strikes and they would be out of here!
  #5598  
Old 07-30-2015, 09:06 AM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
There's a lot of people in this thread being dishonest, mainly those who claim that they aren't anti-police but want to give the cops less protection than other people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frylock View Post
Yeah no. That's not true. You are not telling the truth about what you yourself are saying. You were speaking about whether to accept testimony as true. In other words, you were talking about "what X says" for a certain X.

Look man, it took you a bit of time to come up with that response, so I know you spent some time going back and forth between my quotations of what you said and what I said you said. In your brain was this slow dawning realization that you had fucked up. I know how this goes. It has happened to me on several occasions in the past. But then you quashed that realization, instead pouncing on a point of phrasing in order to be able save face by pretending the particular phrasing had any real implications for the substantive point. This is definitely a dishonest thing to do. But again, I've been there as well. I know how this goes, and I know that, in a certain state of mind, it doesn't feel dishonest.

Over time I got to develop an instinct for knowing when I was bullshitting myself. Nobody can do this perfectly, but with careful attention you can learn to see it for yourself. I wish you good luck in the future on this point.
I just saw this reply from Frylock to Steophan from a different thread, in Great Debates, which felt very familiar. I think Frylock's post is much more insightful and well thought out than anything I would write. It's just so perfectly applicable to Steophan in this thread as well.

Steophan, the "you're a lying liar who is distorting my words and you need to read better" gambit only works if you don't say it to EVERYONE you are talking to. When you do it your way, you make it too obvious that you're the fuck-up who cannot even switch up his schtick to give a false veneer of believability.
  #5599  
Old 07-30-2015, 09:47 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
There's a lot of people in this thread being dishonest, mainly those who claim that they aren't anti-police but want to give the cops less protection than other people.
By that standard, can you name one "honest" respondent?

I see Frylock and Hentor are addressing this issue more articulately, but I just want to cut to the chase.
  #5600  
Old 07-30-2015, 09:57 AM
dasmoocher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 3,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
Steophan, the "you're a lying liar who is distorting my words and you need to read better" gambit only works if you don't say it to EVERYONE you are talking to.
It like if everywhere you go there's a bad stink, maybe it's your BO (or in this case, BS) that's the problem.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017