Honestly looking at the many examples in this thread. Calling cops on a “black dude” for doing normal everyday things (that all citizens have the right to do) is something akin to “soft swatting.”
I know it supposed to be better than going Zimmerman on someone (stalk and shoot down some poor kid), but police can have the same fears, be fed shit info, be violently belligerent, and finally they are shielded from any lawful repercussion.
“How to get away with murder 101” Set up some lawful harassment of someone using a mix of fear + race.
At least part of the controversy is that what you described is totally different than the events of the article.
Not surprised that you knee-jerk towards supporting any authority that injures a person, but usually your lies aren’t so obviously manufactured out of nothing, like something about “a scuffle with bouncers”.
Which part? His being underage, his being drunk, his being disorderly, his fighting with the people whose job it is to keep people like him out, his being wrestled to the ground by unarmed men, or his getting nicked on the forehead?
You made up shit about “bouncers”. No idea why. That article said nothing about bouncers. It also said nothing about being “disorderly”, or him “fighting”. You just made up shit, just like you made up shit about what I posted earlier.
And yet, per your complaints about 3 and 4, you somehow assert that he was neither.
If he wasn’t intoxicated, then he was swearing, which is disorderly.
If he wasn’t intoxicated, then he was swearing, which is fighting.
“Suddenly flung to the ground”. In other words, wrestled.
Speaking of wrestling, do you realize how easy it is to completely cover your own face in blood? All you have to do is nick yourself above the eyebrow with a razor blade and let the blood mix with the sweat and you’ve got yourself a crimson mask. It takes a remarkably minor injury to produce the amount of blood seen in that photo.
Certainly not “bouncers”. Do you even know what bouncers (or ABC agents) are?
Not “fighting” (which involves violence, and there’s no indication that the man was violent), and not “disorderly” (which implies a criminal charge that was not included in this case).
So not the words you chose. You just made shit up.
Swearing is not fighting. Swearing is not even “disorderly”, legally speaking. You’re just full of shit, Smapti. You’re incapable of thinking rationally on issues like this.
Nope. A bouncer is private security at a restaurant, bar, or similar. An ABC agent is a government official charged with enforcing the laws and regulations of the ABC board.
It’s as ridiculous to say they’re the same thing as it would be to say a Mayor and Janitor are the same because they both “take out the trash”, literally or figuratively.
In the context of law enforcement (which was how you used it), it inherently and exclusively is, absolutely.
In the context of law enforcement (which was how you used it), it inherently and exclusively is, absolutely.
Your posts are dishonest and irrational, and your defense of them is even more so.
Their jobs in the context of preventing underage drinking are the same. Are you saying that you wouldn’t have a problem with this incident if it had been an employee of the bar that took him down rather than a state employee?
I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware that I had become an agent of the court and was engaged in filing charges against the man in question.
No they’re not. Keep digging, if you like, or just admit that you shouldn’t have called the ABC agents “bouncers”.
No, I’m not saying this – I’m saying you’re a serially dishonest and irrational poster, and this is just another example. You made stuff up about what I posted, and now you’ve made stuff up about the article describing this incident.
You never were – you were engaged in a discussion about inappropriate actions of law enforcement, and in such a discussion, “fighting” inherently includes physical violence, and “disorderly” has a criminal implication.
Keep digging, or just admit that you used incorrect terminology. There might be a reasonable defense of the actions of the ABC agents in this incident, but you seem incapable of presenting one (and incapable of not lying about the incident).
Giving that wrestling a person to the ground seems to be fairly described by “turbulent”, and that it also seems like “striving vigorously for or against something”, it would be correct to say that the ABC fellows in this case were also disorderly and fought, wouldn’t it?
I don’t know if the arrest was unjust. Based on the article, I want to see an investigation.
As to your posts, I want you to do better. To try and motivate you to do better, I will continue to point out your serial dishonesty and irrational posting.
Then you chose very poorly. “Fighting” definitely implies physical violence – and if you recognize that there’s no reason to believe the arrested man was physically violent, then you should include that in your posts. It’s an important point that he was not resisting the officers (which the article indicates).
You might think it’s okay for government agents and law enforcement to be physically violent towards non-violent people, but most people don’t.
You presented a dishonest one. If you present an honest defense, then I’ll consider it.
