# Controversial encounters between law-enforcement and civilians - the omnibus thread **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 10, 2014, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942 "2014-10-10T07:35:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 592
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2017, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11822 "2017-10-30T23:55:15Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Wrong again. Not only does your own quote make it clear that they are _wrongly_ regarded as toys, there’s this - If they’re commonly called toys, that means that lots of people call them toys, and thus _I’m not lying when I call it a toy_. You don’t have to call it a toy if you want, but if you want to argue for pages and pages about semantics, you’ll have to do it alone. > [@](#): > > Add in the fact that this particular gun had been modified to look like a real one instead of a replica, and it’s clear that anyone seeing it could reasonably believe they were in danger. As acknowledged by those who know the facts of the case, and not (for some reason) by you, who ignores the facts. This doesn’t conflict with anything I said. I simply challenged an assertion that Rice pointed the toy/Airsoft/not-toy gun at the police, since I’ve seen no evidence that he did so (and the video directly contradicts this assertion). > [@](#): > > But by all means continue with the _ad hominems_. Apart from being wrong, they also make you look petty and foolish, as anyone who actually reads my posts will know that I acknowledge my mistakes and apologise for them. > > Something you should consider doing regarding your comments about “toy” guns. So apologize for lying (or saying something incorrect) about me. That was all I asked originally. It shouldn’t have been such a big deal – you said something incorrect about me, and you provided no back up for your assertion about me, and when I challenged you, you should have said “Oops, I guess I made a mistake”. But you doubled down and accused me of dishonesty simply for challenging your assertion about me. Shouldn’t be such a big deal. I’ll ask again – if you have some decency, admit that you made a mistake and apologize to me. Not the end of the world. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2017, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11823 "2017-10-30T23:58:36Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Good thing she was neither arrested nor searched then. This is a perfect illustration of your disingenuousness and dishonesty. First of all, my argument about probable cause was made not because she was arrested—i recognize that she wasn’t—but because someone in this thread claimed that the cop had “probable cause.” I wonder who that was? Let’s have a look: > [@Steophan](#): > > There was **probable cause** he explained to her, as he did with the handcuffing. Emphasis mine. You are wrong about probable cause. It has an actual meaning. At the absolute most, he had reasonable suspicion based on the telephone report, but he didn’t even yet know that he had the right person, and he had no evidence that the person he was cuffing had broken any law. You also, predictably enough given your long track-record of dishonesty, completely ignore the rest of my argument, which makes clear that she was also not legally required to answer any of the officer’s questions, and which also notes that the officer himself could have actually made this encounter far more productive by actually acting like a human being and a professional peace officer instead of a martinet. This argument was made precisely because you have invested so much time and effort in suggesting that she was somehow acting unreasonably by choosing not to answer abrupt and confrontational questions without knowing why those questions were being asked. You also keep misrepresenting what the officer said about the report. He never once mentioned burglary or robbery; he said that she was on a bike and looking at driveways. As i said, he was obliged to respond to the call, but he is also supposed to use “reasonable person” standards in evaluating what to do once he gets there. That’s apparently of no concern to people like you. You also seem unconcerned that he accused the woman of “throwing stuff at me. You handed the ID card to me like you wanted to use it as a weapon and throw it at me.” That’s hilarious, especially since we have the actual video to compare with the statement. Only someone like you would swallow that sort of bullshit. I guess it’s good for the cop that dishonest assholes like you don’t care if cops lie in order to justify their lack of professionalism. He also said in his written report that she attempted to throw her drivers license at him. I guess you don’t care about that lie either. Just remember, though, that continuing to repeat lies does not make them true. If you work that out, it might reduce the number of redundant lying posts you make in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2017, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11824 "2017-10-31T00:54:06Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > In case anyone forgot, **Steophan** [lied about me](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=835614) for no reason I can discern and refused to take it back or apologize for it. Whew! I almost forgot! Thanks for reminding us! ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2017, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11825 "2017-10-31T01:03:32Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > First of all, my argument about probable cause was made not because she was arrested—i recognize that she wasn’t—but because someone in this thread claimed that the cop had “probable cause.” I wonder who that was? Let’s have a look:Emphasis mine. You are wrong about probable cause. It has an actual meaning. At the absolute most, he had reasonable suspicion based on the telephone report, but he didn’t even yet know that he had the right person, and he had no evidence that the person he was cuffing had broken any law. You’re correct, it was reasonable suspicion, not probable cause. I apologise for mixing them up. As for the rest of what you say, it’s either wrong or irrelevant. I’ve already said that the cop was mistaken when he said she threw the ID at him, but he corrected himself straight afterwards. And she _is_ required to identify herself, although not to present an actual ID, so it’s not correct that she has to answer no questions. Also the cop, unlike the woman, is civil throughout the encounter. Here’s a question. Since you don’t think he stopped her due to the report, on suspicion of theft or burglary, why _do_ you think he stopped her? It’s clear from the way he spoke that he’s not on any sort of power trip (which is what so many people accuse cops of), nor was he violent or abusive in any way. He speaks like someone who just wants to get the job done, so what do you think that job _was_, if not investigating someone suspected of a crime? ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2017, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11826 "2017-10-31T01:07:52Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > If they’re commonly called toys, that means that lots of people call them toys, and thus _I’m not lying when I call it a toy_. You don’t have to call it a toy if you want, but if you want to argue for pages and pages about semantics, you’ll have to do it alone. You, like those many others, may have been genuinely mistaken to call it a toy at one point. Now that you’ve been shown that it isn’t, continuing to do so is deliberately spreading a falsehood. I’m sure someone can think of a word for someone who does that… Perhaps you’ll be prepared to apologise for doing so, just as I did in my previous post after it was pointed out that I misused a phrase. As I tend to do when I’m wrong, something you could consider learning from. ---
**Author:** ![Chisquirrel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6bbea6/32.png) [@Chisquirrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chisquirrel)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2017, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11827 "2017-10-31T01:12:28Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Actually, yes it is. You must have missed \*\*Steophan \*\*claiming that a perceived threat (AKA armed people in your house in the middle of the night) is not enough evidence to defend yourself. It’s ok that it’s complicated. If everything was simple, \*\*Steophan \*\*would be able to follow along. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2017, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11828 "2017-10-31T01:51:49Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > You, like those many others, may have been genuinely mistaken to call it a toy at one point. Now that you’ve been shown that it isn’t, continuing to do so is deliberately spreading a falsehood. I’m sure someone can think of a word for someone who does that… But you haven’t shown that it isn’t a toy. You haven’t even offered any actual argument that it isn’t a toy, either. You’ve simply declared it to not be a toy. You’re wrong. It’s a toy. So maybe now that you’ve been shown that it’s a toy, you’ll stop deliberately spreading the falsehood that it isn’t a toy, right? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2017, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11829 "2017-10-31T05:12:25Z")
[: > [@](#): > > Two detectives threatened an 18-year-old woman with arrest over a bottle of prescription pills, handcuffed her, drove her around in their police van and then raped her, authorities said Monday in announcing charges against the two. > > The detectives, Eddie Martins and Richard Hall, were arraigned Monday on a 50-count indictment that included rape and kidnapping counts, said acting Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez. He said DNA recovered from the woman matched both defendants. > [@](#): > > The woman said the detectives assaulted her on Sept. 15 while they were on duty. > > Martins “told the young woman he and his partner are ‘freaks’ and asked her what she wanted to do to get out of the arrest,” Gonzalez said. Martins forced the handcuffed 18-year-old to perform a sex act on him as Hall drove, and then Martins raped her, the prosecutor said. > > The detectives then stopped the van and switched places with Martins taking the wheel and Hall getting into the back seat of the van, Gonzalez said. Hall then forced the teen to perform a sex act, the prosecutor said. There’s even video of her getting out of the van. [url=[Two Cops Got Charged with Rape After a Teen's Desperate Public Plea](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/evbvem/two-cops-got-charged-with-rape-after-a-teens-desperate-public-plea)]VICE also has a story about this](]New York City here[/url): > [@](#): > > According to the Brooklyn District Attorney’s office, the detectives abandoned a buy-and-bust drug operation in Coney Island and stopped the teenager while she was driving with two young men in Calvert Vaux Park in Gravesend. After she admitted she had some loose pills of Klonopin and a small amount of marijuana, she was cuffed and forced to call her friends from the phone of a detective so they could be instructed not to follow her, the indictment said. Of course the young lady’s social media accounts are being watched and pored over for something that can help the defense. And there was a delay in arresting the officers. But that’s not the most controversial thing here; this is: > [@](#): > > John Arlia, who represents Hall, cited an alleged exchange in her Twitter mentions about the precise legality of consent while in custody as evidence of quid-pro-quo with the officers for her release on the drug arrest. Martins’s attorney Mark Bederow, for his part, claimed the woman’s social media feeds contain “substantial evidence that we believe respectfully will undermine her credibility—and I’m not talking about photographs.” > > The attorneys said the bribery charge supports their narrative of quid pro quo, which would appear to be the only other remotely plausible explanation to offer for the detectives’ DNA matching with the victim’s rape kit, as has been previously reported. The idea that anyone could legally consent to sex while in police custody defies moral logic, but in New York, as in much of the country, it’s the law. > [@](#): > > Indeed, New York State law says sexual contact between a corrections worker and an inmate, or someone detained in jail, is always illegal for precisely this reason. > > But such protection “does not exist currently” for those in police custody, Gonzalez said, noting that his office has been inundated with inquiries from politicians looking to change that, a move he called “a good idea.” As the law stands now, DNA evidence alone can’t prove that what happened to Chambers was illegal. :eek:😕:mad: ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2017, 9:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11830 "2017-10-31T09:36:39Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > You, like those many others, may have been genuinely mistaken to call it a toy at one point. It’s your opinion that this object, which looks like a gun but does not shoot bullets, is not a toy. It’s my opinion that it is a toy. No big deal – just a difference of opinion. Words like “toy” are often not perfectly exact. > [@](#): > > Perhaps you’ll be prepared to apologise for doing so, just as I did in my previous post after it was pointed out that I misused a phrase. As I tend to do when I’m wrong, something you could consider learning from. You still haven’t apologized for lying about me. Until you do so you have absolutely no credibility whatsoever. I still just don’t get it. Why not just apologize? Why is this so hard for you? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2017, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11831 "2017-10-31T12:52:16Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > Tamir Rice was a minor. Unless I am very much mistaken, open carry laws do not apply to unsupervised minors. And he was not really carrying it openly when the police arrived: it was tucked in his waistband, under his jacket. But a 12-year-old gets little slack from police if they are a scary, scary, small black person, it seems. Kids have played with toy guns for decades, with no problem. We played cops n robbers all the time as kids, Not one one us ever got killed for it. Considering Ohio is an open carry state, that raised MORE questions. But mine were answered the day I saw the actual video and then read that “Wild Bill” had already been rejected by one department as being totally unfit (emotionally unstable and unable to follow simple instructions), and then hopped to another department. What the fuck. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2017, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11832 "2017-10-31T12:56:00Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > [:There’s even video of her getting out of the van. > > [url=[Two Cops Got Charged with Rape After a Teen's Desperate Public Plea](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/evbvem/two-cops-got-charged-with-rape-after-a-teens-desperate-public-plea)]VICE also has a story about this](]New York City here[/url):Of course the young lady’s social media accounts are being watched and pored over for something that can help the defense. And there was a delay in arresting the officers. But that’s not the most controversial thing here; this is::eek:😕:mad: Good cops. Nothing to see here. She probably resisted or wasn’t friendly enough. RIGHT? ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2017, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11833 "2017-10-31T15:28:21Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > But you haven’t shown that it isn’t a toy. You haven’t even offered any actual argument that it isn’t a toy, either. You’ve simply declared it to not be a toy. You’re wrong. It’s a toy. > > So maybe now that you’ve been shown that it’s a toy, you’ll stop deliberately spreading the falsehood that it isn’t a toy, right? > > :dubious: No, I’ve recently linked to a legal page, and previously cited the manufacturers page, showing that it’s not a toy. It’s also been cited by someone else that the Grand Jury said that it was not a toy. So, you are factually wrong. I, and others, have provided high quality citations for the claim that it’s not a toy. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2017, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11834 "2017-10-31T15:31:31Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > It’s your opinion that this object, which looks like a gun but does not shoot bullets, is not a toy. It’s my opinion that it is a toy. No big deal – just a difference of opinion. Words like “toy” are often not perfectly exact. My opinion is based on actual evidence, from both legal interpretations and from the manufacturer of the replicas. Yours is based on nothing more than bias and a desire to be right despite the facts showing otherwise. Not all opinions are equal, and some are demonstrably wrong. > [@](#): > > I still just don’t get it. Why not just apologize? Why is this so hard for you? At any point an apology or retraction is warranted, I will make one. It’s a shame you can’t say the same, and continue to make false claims despite being shown the facts. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2017, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11835 "2017-10-31T15:39:00Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Good cops. Nothing to see here. She probably resisted or wasn’t friendly enough. > > RIGHT? I wouldn’t say so, no. I would say that, as a matter of urgency, the rules of the police force need to change so that any sexual activity between a cop and a suspect is grounds for sacking, and that the law needs to change to something similar to the prison guard/inmate law, or for that matter teacher/student laws or similar ones where one party is in a significant position of power over the other. There seems to be a strong movement to end, or at least expose, sexual abuse of this kind at the moment, with people like Weinstein or Spacey getting what they deserve, among others. Hopefully this will spread to the police. _However_, as it stands, the cops involved still need to be proven guilty of an actual offence before being convicted. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2017, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11836 "2017-10-31T15:45:43Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > My opinion is based on actual evidence, from both legal interpretations and from the manufacturer of the replicas. Yours is based on nothing more than bias and a desire to be right despite the facts showing otherwise. Not all opinions are equal, and some are demonstrably wrong. > > At any point an apology or retraction is warranted, I will make one. It’s a shame you can’t say the same, and continue to make false claims despite being shown the facts. You’ve lied about my opinions multiple times in this thread and you still are. My opinion that I asserted about Rice was that there’s no evidence he pointed anything at the cops. Whether you call it a toy or not doesn’t matter. You ignored my statement about pointing and focused on the irrelevant use of toy. And you still are refusing to address your earlier lies about me with regards to black people in America. You lied about me. Why are you so afraid to talk about this? Why did you make something up about me regarding black people in America? What drove you to do so, and why are you so afraid to admit you might have been wrong? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2017, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11837 "2017-10-31T15:57:36Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I wouldn’t say so, no. I would say that, as a matter of urgency, the rules of the police force need to change so that any sexual activity between a cop and a suspect is grounds for sacking, and that the law needs to change to something similar to the prison guard/inmate law, or for that matter teacher/student laws or similar ones where one party is in a significant position of power over the other. There are laws against exactly that. > [@](#): > > There seems to be a strong movement to end, or at least expose, sexual abuse of this kind at the moment, with people like Weinstein or Spacey getting what they deserve, among others. Hopefully this will spread to the police. > > _However_, as it stands, the cops involved still need to be proven guilty of an actual offence before being convicted. And that’s the problem, you will always believe the cop over their rape victim, even when confronted with video proof. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2017, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11838 "2017-10-31T16:34:37Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > There are laws against exactly that. **Snowboarder Bo** ’s cite said otherwise, making the specific distinction between someone who was detained or arrested and someone imprisoned. It’s possible the laws are different in different states. > [@](#): > > And that’s the problem, you will always believe the cop over their rape victim, even when confronted with video proof. I’ve yet to see a video of a cop raping someone, and to be honest I don’t think i want to see a video of _anyone_ doing that. If such a video exists, I assume that a jury will see it and make their decision. The only thing I believe that’s relevant is that the defendant, whether a cop or not, no matter what they are charged with, gets all the benefit of the doubt. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2017, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11839 "2017-10-31T16:39:54Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > You’ve lied about my opinions multiple times in this thread and you still are. My opinion that I asserted about Rice was that there’s no evidence he pointed anything at the cops. Whether you call it a toy or not doesn’t matter. You ignored my statement about pointing and focused on the irrelevant use of toy. And yet you still won’t retract your demonstrably false statement that it’s a toy, despite repeatedly having been shown the cites to the contrary. You are deliberately spreading falsehoods, for no good reason. > [@](#): > > why are you so afraid to admit you might have been wrong? I willingly admit, and apologise, when I’m wrong, as you have seen from my recent posts. This is another demonstrably false statement from you, looks like there’s a pattern emerging here. You throw out accusations without evidence, misuse words to suit your biases, move the goalposts when you’re shown to be wrong, and prefer to either attack the poster rather than what they say, or wilfully misunderstand them. All the while talking about honesty, honour, and fear of being wrong. It is clear and obvious projection, not everyone is as dishonest as you. ---
**Author:** ![Crazy\_Canuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazy_canuck/32/5282_2.png) [@Crazy\_Canuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazy_Canuck)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2017, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11840 "2017-10-31T17:27:38Z")
Sorry for the delay, this thread moves too damn fast and I spent the last few days out with a nasty flu, spewing shit from both ends. Speaking of Steophan … > [@Steophan](#): > > You (obviously) don’t have that right against cops who are there with a warrant. I’ve no idea why you would think otherwise. You have the right to defend yourself against _threats_, not against the police. Are you really so idiotic you can’t see the difference? Do you even remember that this discussion started over the use of no-knock warrants, where the occupants of the home are not told that it’s the police busting in the doors? I’m not planning on shooting any cops who show up and announce they have a warrant. However, if they don’t identify themselves as such and bust into my house in the middle of the night, I am not refraining from protecting myself just because the people breaking into my house **might** be cops with a warrant. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2017, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11841 "2017-10-31T17:39:40Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > And yet you still won’t retract your demonstrably false statement that it’s a toy, despite repeatedly having been shown the cites to the contrary. You are deliberately spreading falsehoods, for no good reason. > > I willingly admit, and apologise, when I’m wrong, as you have seen from my recent posts. This is another demonstrably false statement from you, looks like there’s a pattern emerging here. > > You throw out accusations without evidence, misuse words to suit your biases, move the goalposts when you’re shown to be wrong, and prefer to either attack the poster rather than what they say, or wilfully misunderstand them. All the while talking about honesty, honour, and fear of being wrong. It is clear and obvious projection, not everyone is as dishonest as you. When I played with airsoft guns as a kid, we called them toys. If lots of people call something a toy, then it’s a toy. If can also be other things, if other people call it something else, but that’s how language works. There’s no fundamental “toyness” - no scientific definition. Language can be funny that way. I’ll note that the Wikipedia entry for airsoft guns calls them “toy weapons”. With that in mind, perhaps you’d like to retract your claims about me, but I doubt it. [Airsoft gun - Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airsoft_gun) I’m sorry for whatever trauma you’ve ensued that has led you to post as such a cowardly and dishonorable liar. I’d be hopeful that the fact that no Dopers have come forward to defend or justify your lies about me, and that many who normally strongly disagree with me on this issue also criticized you for making unsupported statements about me (about black people - of all the things to lie about me, why choose something about black people?) and refusing to back down, would lead you towards some personal growth and capability to admit fault, but you’ve shown no such ability to grow. We used to have reasonable and thoughtful discussions, even when we disagreed. And then you lied about me, multiple times, accusing me of dishonesty just for challenging you. What started that? Why are lies better than reasonable discussion? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=591) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=593)