This is a perfect illustration of what passes for analysis on your part. You’ve brought up this alleged admission on my part, that i’m an asshole, multiple times. Here’s what i actually said:
Emphasis mine.
To the extent that i’m an asshole, and abusive, it’s usually towards mouthbreathing troglodytes like you, who are either too fucking stupid to understand what rational debate and discussion are, or too fucking hidebound in your backwards thinking to even try having an honest conversation in the first place.
As i’ve said to you before, if i seem to lean towards abuse when you encounter me, it’s precisely because you have constantly and determinedly shown yourself unworthy of any attempt at thoughtful and rational discourse. You’re a shit-flinging monkey who brings literally nothing to any conversation you enter, with the possible exception of TV and movie discussions, where your tendency to rely on uninformed opinion is more easily tolerated.
If your usual contributions on this message board are any indication, you weren’t.
Anyway, the Starving Artist show has derailed this thread long enough. Get back to jerking off over your cardboard tube and your police batons. I’m done with you.
And we’re saying this is monstrous. Force should be used by law enforcement to restrain or defend or eliminate a threat, and that’s it. Not for revenge, or retaliation, or for punishment.
Dude! Bro! Pump yo brakes on the madness and do some basic research.
If you live in at-will state, you can fired for just about anything. You can be fired just because your boss had a bad day, let alone for costing him or her millions of dollars and horrible PR.
You better believe that if you or I were accused of sodomizing a client with a screwdriver and we were found guilty and our employer had to fork over $4M, we’d be out of job so fast we wouldn’t know what hit us. What fairytale world do you live in where this wouldn’t happen?
That you seem to doubt something so basic as this makes me think you need to sit your little ass somewhere and STFU for a good long time.
If retaliation happens, then that cop should go to prison for assault and abuse of power. Period. Their job is to NOT take their feelings out on the public.
See? You’re demonstrating your own untruthfulness here because there’s absolutely no way for you to know whether I’ve looked up your posting history and therefore no way for you to know that I’m lying about it. So with regard to this aspect of your post, you are the liar. And demonstrably so.
Similarly, there’s no way for you to know whether I determined your posting history to contain an insult or cutting remark in an average of one in every three posts, and therefore no way for you to know that I’m lying about it. So with regard to this aspect of your post also, you are the liar. And demonstrably so.
Analysis? That’s an odd word for you to use to describe my allegations regarding your assholery. It’s always been right there for everyone to see. All I’ve done is point out what’s right there in black and white. No analysis required. You must be getting rattled, as you often do when we lock horns.
You are correct, you did say that.
Unfortunately for you, however, that’s not what you said in the post I was talking about, as we shall soon see…
So we can see that my allegations were spot on after all, while yours are the result either of faulty memory or outright lies. And given what I’ve seen of your character elsewhere on this board, combined with the obvious lies you’ve told at the top of this post, I’m going with deliberate duplicitousness myself, especially when your motivations are taken into account which were intended to: a) prove my allegations wrong; b) maintain that you’re not really an asshole despite what I said; and c) to set up an attack on me in which you dishonestly attempt to argue that you’re only rude to the likes of me, for the [mostly bullshit] reasons you describe.
Now, let’s take a look at what you said next:
Sound familiar? Sounds almost word for word like the claims you make about me, yes, no? But in this case your boilerplate criticisms weren’t directed at me, but at the OP of the thread in question, danceswithcats.
So now that we have this critique of danceswithcats on the record, let’s take a look at how you wrap things up in this post:
Again, very similar to what you said eight years ago to danceswithcats.
Au contraire! You’re the one who came flying in here unprovoked and began attacking me. I responded, as I usually do, only to show that you and your claims are full of shit. As they usually are.
HA! I’m surprised you still make comments like this, given your history of reneging on them over and over again. You know, like when you got suspended and declared in a huff (elsewhere) that you weren’t going to return as long as twickster was a mod, only to return again long before she gave it up. And of course there are the virtually countless number of times you’ve made this same declaration to me, only to come back and engage with me over and over again. You’ve not exactly proven yourself to a man who has much in the way of will power and self-discipline. I look forward to engaging you again the next time you prove yourself too weak to keep your word.
Let me confirm to make sure I understand you correctly: Are you saying that if someone hurts the police while resisting arrest, by e.g., biting them, that after that person is restrained and no longer fighting back, the police should be allowed to beat them in retaliation?
And now, for the benefit of those who for some reason found it worthwhile to dispute whether Terence Crutcher was really high on PCP at the time of his encounter with the police, comes this AP report on his autopsy, which concludes that he was indeed high on PCP at the time.
The report also contains more of the biased and untrue reporting on the issue that has characterized media coverage since the shooting. It continues the lie that Crutcher’s car had ‘broken down’ rather than the truth, which is that he had parked it way over the center line and abandoned it with its engine running and the doors open. And it talks about his having had his hands up prior to the shooting but makes only vague reference to what happened at the time of the shooting, saying merely that footage doesn’t offer a clear view of when Shelby fired. This is both untrue and deliberately inflammatory. Both helicopter footage and dash cam footage show Crutcher lowered his hands and attempted to open the door of the car before he was simultaneously tased and shot.
And while it’s true that anecdotes are not proof, a couple of incidents related by readers in the comments section relate instances where they have first-hand knowledge of violent incidents involving people high on PCP which required either multiple police officers or co-workers to subdue the subject and bring him under control. I’ll post two such accounts below:
So it appears Officer Shelby was indeed correct in making the assessment Crutcher was high on PCP, an assessment her training would qualify her to make, and to regard him as potentially a highly dangerous individual, which would create the hyper-focus on her part that’s already been spoken of and explain her determination not to let him gain access to the vehicle.
Again, it’s truly a shame that this man died. But he was high on PCP, refusing to follow police orders, and shot while inadvertently undertaking an action that the police are trained to regard as a mortal threat, and after having watched the police training videos I posted upthread I’d have to concur with that assessment.
As I said before, sometimes shit happens, and this is one of those times. Crutcher was a relatively innocent victim, unknowingly complicit in his own shooting, and Officer Shelby was following her training and fired only at the point when Crutcher’s actions made him a credible and potentially deadly threat. Too bad all around, really.
Oh my God, you fucking moron. The dispute is whether Shelby knew, at the time she shot Crutcher whether he was on PCP. How many times do you need this explained to you? Are you capable of understanding in the slightest the things that are explained to you? Are you legitimately retarded?
Once again, you fucking halfwit, provide a fucking cite that, at the time that Shelby shot him, before the PCP was found in his car, that Shelby made the assessment that Crutcher was on PCP!
Are you not even trying to understand the distinction? Are you trying but incapable? Do you need someone to explain the distinction to you slowly using small words?
Hi, Evil Economist! Welcome back to the thread. Since you’re here perhaps you’d be kind enough to furnish the cites Damuri Asahi asked for. It’s been several days now.
As to when Officer Shelby made the determination that Crutcher was high on PCP, she made that assessment at the time she first encountered him and tried to question him about whether the vehicle parked and left running in the middle of the street was his. It was one of the reasons she called for backup. The information on these facts is available in this very thread.
As I’ve previously mentioned, but which you might have missed given your inability to comprehend, the cite of your stupidity is the Paterno thread, as you yourself pointed out.
I’ve noticed you’re in this thread also: if you want to explain yourself go right the fuck ahead.
This is exactly the thing you need to cite, you simpleton.
And here I’m the one who gets called a moron! :smack:
For the seventh or eighth time…
Crutcher was not summarily executed.
He was not shot for being on PCP.
There was no death sentence.
Deadly force was not employed simply because he was under the influence of something.
One of the most amusing posts in this entire thread was the one where you whinged about me posting things without evidence. In this case there’s not only evidence that you’re wrong but irrefutable proof, and yet you blather on, repeating the same nonsense over and over again as if you’re in your own little world and the facts somehow never penetrate the force field you’ve erected to protect you from reality.
Oh, I saw your mention of it. And I immediately saw it for what it was: a weak and obvious attempt to weasel out of providing the cites Damuri Asahi asked for and which you couldn’t provide if your life depended on it. He didn’t ask which thread your claims are alleged to have occurred in, and he didn’t ask ‘what I really thought’. (And is this not tacit admission you lied in and of itself? Why would you try to goad me into telling him what I really thought if you’d been honest in relating it yourself?)
What Amuri Asahi did ask was for you to furnish proof that I’d made the claims you said I made, and your response was a paragraph of weasel words. (And amusingly so I might add. It’s quite gratifying to see such a bold and bald-faced liar as yourself flame out in such a weak and obvious way.)
See? You did it again! You just did it again!
Once more, it isn’t a question of me explaining myself, it’s a question of whether you can back up your claims.
