I saw this a few days ago but I can hear the argument right now, the cop may be in the hospital for a few days but noone is dead and the bad guy is in jail, better than a dead guy who beat a cop unconscious. Frankly I don’t know when she had theopportunity to reach for and fire her gun. The mistake was getting that close to begin with. I’m still waiting for Chappie style drones.
I am still a big proponent of tasering. What you see in that video is not tasering, it is drive stunning and it mostly causes pain rather than neuromuscular incapacitation.
Chisquirrel comes to mind. Several posters want to presume guilt until proven innocent by video or audio proof. And there are several posters that think that police testimony should be afforded less credibility just because it is police testimony.
I don’t notice you correcting them when they make these statements. Its like you can’t even see them.
Some posters here seem to be excusing it. We covered this already, didn’t we? Do you really need me to go back and find all the places where people say that the rioting is understandable in some way :
Post 9196 seems to think that there are excuses for rioting;
Post 9231 seems to think that riots can be excused;
Post 9256 seems to think rioting is a symptom of a disease, you know, something not in the control of the rioters;
Post 9328 seems to acknowledge that rioting is bad but ask us to focus on the core message of BLM as neighborhoods burn and stores get looted;
Post 9361 seems to call rioting the inevitable result of injustice;
and there are certainly BLM folks that think rioting and looting is OK, as evidenced by the rioting and looting.
Chisquirrel in post 9199 and the entire back and forth after that until he slunk away after he realized how stupid his argument was. I don’t see how its not clear that he is protesting the tasering when he says "Nothing about that entire encounter was justified. "
Czarcasm in 9363. If he actually thinks the tasering was justified then WTF is he arguing about? Why is he responding in that manner to a post about tasering? His response in post 9596 seem evasive.
You had also read Ike Witt’s post as protesting the tasering but he later explained that he was replying to an intervening post by Shoadan (that quoted my post about tasering) that he thought was about the shooting rather than the tasering. I think he is credibly claiming confusion.
I don’t notice any of the police bashers correcting these idiots. I try to correct the police defenders when I think they are wrong, I have been corrected when I made mistakes by other folks who defend a policeman’s right to self defense, all I see is backslapping from the police bashers.
Crucify them? That’s what you got out of a discussion about shooting an unarmed man that we disagree on his threat level? This from the guy that implied a man assaulted with a screwdriver may have been a victim of prison rape and blamed it on police?
I stopped participating in the conversation because it was clear you had your perception of events and refused to look at it in any other fashion, and I refuse to deal with those that can’t think about their impressions critically. Strangely enough, I looked further into the situation and almost came around on tasering him, though I still don’t feel it was necessary.
You’re everything I find wrong with police apologists, and an inveterate asshole to boot.
My participation on this thread recently has been limited to making fun of Starving Artist for being a stupid pedophile and wondering who you’re arguing with. I hadn’t realized there was a participation quota.
Well, I am taking some artistic license. I don’t think you literally want to nail their hands and feet to a cross. But you are inclined to presume guilt unless they prove themselves innocent.
I think we both agree that the shooting was not justified.
Do you think tasering was justified?
Oh that’s right, you said “Nothing about that entire encounter was justified.”
I think it was justified because it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was not obeying police orders and was quickly becoming a threat to their safety.
A man alleged to have been assaulted with a screwdriver. I am open to evidence that they did this. I am open to sending them to jail if they did this.
I am happy to look at things from any rational reasonable perspective. You have never presented one.
You looked into it after you categorically stated that it wasn’t justified? THEN you almost came around? I think you are doing it in the wrong order?
I think you’re just pissed off because I have made you look stupid and irrational.
You realize that stupid and irrational is not something you have to resign yourself to.
No of course there isn’t but I think every time you ask 'who ever said that" I have presented at least one poster that did say that. I don’t really think I’m being a police apologist (as Elucidator says I come down pretty hard on both sides of the argument) but the police bashers are the only ones calling me names. I wonder why?
Remember the story about the police officer who shot the guy climbing out of his wrecked car? The officer who didn’t alert anyone that he’d shot the guy until 11 minutes after the fact, as the guy tried to communicate to anyone who’d listen what had happen?
And I just learned that the DA initially wasn’t going to press charges, but the outcry was too loud to ignore. So I guess those of us who are sane and justice-minded should be grateful that it ever went to trial.
And 4 who didn’t say that*. A 20% comprehension rate isn’t great, especially for something fairly basic, like “is this guy protesting a tasing or a shooting”. With a 20% comprehension rate you should probably avoid calling people “police bashers” until you’ve verified they actually are bashing police, and not, say, commentating on the weather.
Maybe as a gut check, you could list the police bashers?
Post 9231 is simply saying that absolute statements are always wrong (:)).
Post 9256 starts “Rioting is stupid, wrong, and destructive.” And then addresses *why *people riot.
Post 9328 states “Most protesters, and even most protests, are non-violent.” Which is a statement of fact.
Post 9361 says “the riots are never justified, or justifiable” and then explains why they’re happening.
With the exception of maybe 9396 (and 9396 might simply be sarcastic), none of those posts is justifying riots, and at least one of the posts you quoted explicitly and clearly stated the riots aren’t justified.
And this is a very pertinent example of the good that BLM has done by protesting unnecessary violence by police officers. If not for BLM I bet the cop walks away scott-free and doesn’t even lose his job.
At least one of those 4 didn’t respond and the rest were either confused and responding to a taser post with an objection to shooting (at least in their minds).
Are you seriously claiming that noone here is bashing the police? C’mon son, you know better than this.
No, it is implying that sometimes riots are excusable.
Yes, and you can condemn an action at the same time you excuse it. See how people are excusing Trump’s "grab a pussy’ statement. They say, gee that was wrong BUT…
in and attempt to excuse or minimize the rioting and looting.
Yes it tries to relieve the rioters from responsibility because the rioters can’t really help themselves or some shit like that.
They are excusing it through explanation. These are posts that are in response to my condemnation of rioting and looting. Some of it was trying to distance BLM from rioting and looting by BLM protesters but that wouldn’t work on this board if the rioters and looters were Trump supporters and it shouldn’t work with BLM either.
However if we are all clear that rioting and looting is unjustifiable, inexcusable and undermines the legitimacy of the movement that is spawning the rioting and looting, then I feel my work is done on that front.