doorhinge lives under a bridge

[Saint_Cad]

And yes that is a troll reference.

When I first read his responses in this thread about Eric Garner’s arrest/death I thought he simply did not understand burden of proof. His logic is like this:
I claim doorhinge lives under a bridge. You haven’t proven that he hasn’t therefore I am right.

Then I thought he was pitifully stupid. That occurred when his replies started to go like:
I claim doorhinge lives under a bridge.
<Normal person> You haven’t produced any evidence he lives under a bridge. In fact I have evidence to indicate he lives in a house.
Evidence is not proof. Therefore I am right.

But then he goes back to burden of proof but now it is clear that he is borderline retarded.
I claim doorhinge lives under a bridge. I prefer to believe his quotes that where he admits he lives under a bridge.
<Normal person> Ummm everything I’ve read says he lives in a house. Where are these quotes of him saying he lives under a bridge?
Go ask him.

Now he has reached official troll status by putting all of his arguments into one giant steamy pile of bullshit:
I claim doorhinge lives under a bridge. Until you prove he cannot be living under a bridge I prefer to believe his quotes that where he admits he lives under a bridge.
<Normal person> You have yet to prove anything. Yes I have repeatedly shown you that you are wrong and you STILL are talking about quotes that no one has ever seen.
As of this post, we are still waiting to see doorhinge ride up in his short bus and raise dumbfuckery to even higher levels. Please don’t disappoint up. We like seeing the intellectually-void people like you try to accomplish something even if it’s being the best assclown you can be.

[Trinopus]

Your examples are a little confusing: who is the “I” in “I claim doorhinge lives under a bridge?” It looks as if those quotes are being given as examples of really bad arguments doorhinge himself is using.

That he is incapable of putting together a rational debate or chain of inferences or even an opinion – yes, definitely granted. He’s incredibly weak in the clear-thinking department.

I can’t tell if he’s a troll, or merely an imbecile.

[Czarcasm]

@Trinopus

Your examples are a little confusing: who is the “I” in “I claim doorhinge lives under a bridge?” It looks as if those quotes are being given as examples of really bad arguments doorhinge himself is using.

That he is incapable of putting together a rational debate or chain of inferences or even an opinion – yes, definitely granted. He’s incredibly weak in the clear-thinking department.

I can’t tell if he’s a troll, or merely an imbecile.

Or?

[BigT]

4/10: woulda been a 7/10 with links to posts in each section.

[wonky]

<post shortened>

Ayup.

[stretch]

@jsgoddess

<post shortened>

Ayup.

Nice.

[Trinopus]

@Czarcasm

Or?

Grin! Excellent point. “And/Or.”

[Simplicio]

Didn’t he post about having some cognitive difficulties at some point?

In anycase a lot of his posts read like he’s kind of out of it. I don’t think he’s a troll.

[zweisamkeit]

He made a big splash onto my radar in the thread about Christie’s Bridgegate in the Elections forum months ago. His tenacity was breath-taking, like a dog who keeps trying to walk through the doorway as normal, seemingly oblivious to the fact the large branch they carry in their mouth is much wider than the space and keeps bonking against the walls.

[Guinastasia]

I’m not wading through 15 goddamned pages just to see some troll posts – how about some specific quotes or links?

[Donald_Rump]

Ah, I always appreciate another disquisition on the ineffable douchebaggery of doorhinge. He’s like the Pillsbury Doughboy of the SDMB: you can poke him all you want, but allyou’ll get is “Hahahaha.” The combination of diabolical tenacity, robotic syntax, repetition of bizarre turns of phrase (anyone remember Ol’ Hillary’s Ol’ State Department?) have led me to wonder if he might actually be a Turing machine, albeit a rather pointless one.

Pitting endorsed.

[Darth_Panda]

You shot who in the what now?

[Saint_Cad]

This was probably the one that started it off

[QUOTE=doorhinge]
The police witnessed Garner violating the law. They detained him and told him that he was under arrest.
[/QUOTE]

There was also this quote
[QUOTE=doorhinng]
Yes, Garner was arrested many, many times for violating the law. Yes, Garner earned income from criminal activities. That makes Garner a career criminal.
[/QUOTE]

Looks pretty innocuous right? Little did we know the tortured logic that because he was a career criminal that that meant he was committing a crime right then and there. So that’s where I step in. Remember trollhing has already stated the cops saw a crime as in with their own eyes.

And what crime was he committing or was reasonable believed to be committing at the time he was placed in a chokehold, wrestled to the ground and had the cop continue to shove his face into the sidewalk.

Or are you saying that if you are a career criminal the cops can arrest you at any time whether ot not you are currently committing a crime?

The reply?

I’m saying that Garner’s history as a career criminal would make him very familiar with police arrest procedures. Police told him that they had witnesses him committing a crime. Garner relied that he didn’t do anything. One of the officers turned and pointed to someone in the crowd who Garner had just interacted with.

But wait, didn’t trollhinge say they saw him do it?
Then trollhinge responding to Garner saying he couldn’t breath

And career criminals lie. Garner lied when he said he hadn’t done anything (illegal).

So where are we at? Some of us are questioning why the police even needed to arrest Garner which resulted in the chokehold and his death. Doorhinge has said that Garner was seen by the cops committing the crime and lied when he said he wasn’t doing anything.

You can assume anything after the event but hindsight isn’t available before, or during, the actual arrest. Garner said he hadn’t done anything wrong. Police witnessed Garner violating the law.

Then it all starts unraveling
iiandyiiii asks for a cite that police actually witnessed the crime. doorhinge posts some more and then talks about the video

At 0:34, Garner asks X. An officer turns around and points at, or in the direction of, the person Garner is inquiring about.

Wait we’ve seen that. So the police respond to a crime report or they saw it? Hmmm… still no cite the police saw a crime and iiandyiiii calls him out on it

How does this answer the question? You said officers witnessed him breaking the law. What is the lawbreaking at 0:34?

The response

There is no lawbreaking at 0:34. There was a discussion under way. Garner asked the officer, “who did I sell a cigarette to?” The officer then turned and pointed in the direction of the person in question.

The liar taking the video didn’t video the crime that the police witnessed.

The retort?

[QUOTE=iiandyiiii]
]The conversation is not at all this clear. The cop might have been pointing at someone who may have reported something, or it may have been for something totally different.

Further, you asserted as a factual statement that officers observed lawbreaking. A video showing a cop pointing at someone is not even close to proof that officers observed any lawbreaking.

You’re just making things up.
[/QUOTE]

and

[QUOTE=iiandyiiii]
Your statement that he committed a crime is based on a cop pointing at someone, apparently.
[/QUOTE]

But doorhinge doesn’t back down

The officer(s) witness the crime. The officers were arresting Garner. Garner chose to resist arrest.

[QUOTE=iiandyiiii]
How do you know?
[/QUOTE]

And now new (lack of) evidence that seriously calls into question how the police could have witnessed a crime. My reply to doorhinge’s claim that the cops actually witnessed the crime

Doubly wrong

1. The cops did not witness a crime, a crime was reported to them.
2. The crime was selling untaxed cigarettes. Garner did not have cigarettes on him at the time of the arrest so how did the police witness this?

His reply?

I’ll take your word that someone other than a police officer reported Garner for illegally selling illegal cigarettes provided you provide a cite. It’s NYC, or more specifically Staten Island, and I believe it’s illegal to sell untaxed cigarettes and untaxed cigarettes are illegal to own.

Let’s see, Garner sold untaxed cigarettes. Someone bought those untaxed cigarettes and walked away. Garner no longer had illegal cigarettes in his possession. It can’t possibly be that simple, can it?

So despite his refusal to supply any cites of his own (and iiandyiii and elucidator both call him out on this), he demands cites from me. Oh and he points out that it is illegal to possess the loosies Garner was selling, claims to have cops witnessing the transaction yet the police do not arrest the guy who bought the cigs OR confiscate them?

[QUOTE=doorhinge]
It’s still in the same place. The video showed the officer turning and pointing in the direction of the buyer when career criminal Garner asked who he had sold cigarettes to.

Who reported that police were only responding to a citizen’s complaint and hadn’t actually seen the illegal sale? Other than Saint Cad, that is.
[/QUOTE]

to which iiandyiiii points out the video does not make it clear that the police actually witnessed anything.
doorhinge’s reply to that?

There doesn’t seem to be any 1st person report that police could not have witnessed Garner’s illegal sale of illegal cigarettes. I’ll accept the police version until someone can actually prove otherwise.

Wait now it’s that no one disproved the negative? Well at least he alludes to the police version so clearly he has something: a copy of the police report or something from CNN or Huffpost where the police say they saw Garner selling cigs with their own eyes right?

[QUOTE=Saint Cad]
No cigarettes or packs were found on the corpse. Explain how if the police witnessed the sales there is no evidence of it.
OR
Even point out any police report that they were an eye witness to the crime.
[/QUOTE]

Time to duck, dodge and obfuscate

[QUOTE=doorhinge]
Garner sold them. The person who bought them, walked away.

AND

Are you referring to an eyewitness, other than the police officer, who witnessed the illegal sale?
[/QUOTE]

And to
[QUOTE=doorhinge]
Of course, the police could have chosen the Eric “Don’t arrest the NPPP for issuing death threats and demands for kidnapping” Holder, who would expect police to just ignore crimes they have witnessed.
[/QUOTE]

I reply

Again you have no evidence that the police witnessed any crime and in fact the evidence indicates that this “career criminal” was in fact NOT selling untaxed cigarettes at the time. All you seem to say is since we cannot absolutely 100% prove the cops DIDN’T witness it, we must accept your teapot that they did witness it. Well where is YOUR evidence?

His reply was

What evidence are you referring to? Is it something you can share with the class? Garner said he wasn’t doing anything wrong.

The police said that they had witnessed Garner’s criminal activity and that was the reason for the arrest.

Unless you have some proof that the police could not have witnessed the crime, I have to go with what the police said. An unfounded assumption that all police lie all the time just isn’t very convincing.

I just said that the LACK of evidence is telling. If he was selling cigarettes when the police showed up, where are they? They didn’t confiscate them from the buyer and he probably did not dispose of them after he died. And doorhinge chooses to rely on what the cops said - but he’s never actually has shown us what the cops said. I point this out

Show me even ONE reference that police witnessed the crime. Every, and I mean EVERY report and article I read said there was suspicion.

There were no untaxed cigarettes on Garner. If police WITNESSED him selling the cigarettes (maybe he sold his last pack?), why were the cigs not confiscated from the guy that bought them as evidence?

And now the troll has been found out

[QUOTE=doorhinge]
You’ll have to ask the police.
[/QUOTE]

So he doesn’t have any evidence to these quotes he assume exists and puts it on us to do his research and find information we don’t think even exists.

In a 2 for 1 I point out how logical argumentwork AND press him for his cite. I mean he has been so sure in his position he must have SOMETHING, no matter how unreliable, that he’s using as the basis for his claim that the police were eyewitnesses to Garner’s crime.

No I don’t. YOU’RE the one making the claim so YOU need to provide the evidence.

Do you have any evidence or reports or quotes indicating the police saw (as in eyewitness and not merely suspecting) Garner selling the cigs?

Again he is absolutely sure he id correct despite still not having any cites

You’ll still need to ask the police for a definitive answer to what the police actually saw. Police witnessed something that they thought looked suspiciously like a violation of the law. The police suspected that they were eyewitnesses to a crime. Police then attempted to detain and arrest the suspect.

It’s a case of he said/he said. Garner said he didn’t do anything wrong. The police said Garner had committed a crime. To an impartial jurist or jury, it’s a tie. Some people might favor police testimony over a defendants, while others might believe anyone other than a police officer. I would prefer that someone else came forward and EITHER confirmed the officer’s version OR provided evidence that police could not have witnessed a crime because (fill in your favorite excuse here).

So wait! You are telling me I need to ask the cops and you don’t even know what they said? And he even realizes he’s talking out of his ass in the last line of that post.

[QUOTE=doorhinge]
As things stand now, I believe that police suspected that they had witnessed a crime.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Saint Cad]
Again and stop dancing around the question. Where is there any evidence that the police were eyewitnesses to any crime? Why do I need to find the sources or ask the police to back up YOUR statement? Do you have any cites that police claim to see something (other than just suspecting or having a report of a crime being violated? If not then quit arguing it as a fact that they WITNESSED a crime.
[/QUOTE]

So now doorhinge ties up everything in a nice little package

There are three choices. Someone reported a crime to the police and the police responded. Police witnessed a crime and attempted to arrest the suspect. Police made up the whole thing in order to strangle Garner in broad daylight.

AFAIK, there were no reports of police responding to a complaint from the public concerning Garner’s selling cigarettes. Unless/until someone comes forward to prove that the police could not possibly have seen Garner selling cigarettes, I’m going to have to take the word of the police.

You don’t have to prove anything because you couldn’t possibly have seen anything.

So let’s see. A demand that other people show him evidence? Check. Making statement he has no evidence for? Check. Appealing to police statements that don’t even exist? Check.
Oh and I do have a cite. Not a very good one I admit but it is better than nothing. It would also indicate that no one anywhere has any evidence that police claim to have witness the alleged crime.

Still no reply from doorhinge.

[Shodan]

I am not sure what your point is - your own cite says

Store owners on Staten Island had complained to local police that Garner was selling individual cigarettes, known as loosies, in front of their shops. Apparently, that’s against the law. It may well be a silly law, but it is a law that is on the books.

Daniel Pantaleo, a young police officer, approached Garner with other officers. You can watch Garner protest on YouTube. “I did not sell nothing,” he says, as he backs away. Pantaleo was about to arrest him.

Police officers need not witness a crime take place to make an arrest. When it comes to minor offenses, they can arrest a person on the speedy information of others. In this case, it appears as if store owners complained about Garner, and officers, in reliance on the store owners, sought to arrest him.

Obviously, I have no idea whether Garner sold cigarettes or not. Most likely, the cops simply relied upon the accusations of others when they approached Garner. All that was necessary to detain him was a reasonable suspicion, more than a hunch, that he had broken the law. To arrest him, they need only conclude that there was a reasonable belief he broke the law.

So the cops detained him either because they saw him selling untaxed cigarettes, or based on the report of local store owners that he was selling untaxed cigarettes. AFAIK the grand jury testimony isn’t released so you can’t get a cite of the police saying “I saw him sell” or “he was reported selling”.

It’s a fairly minor quibble on which to hang a Pitting.

Regards,
Shodan

[andros]

@Shodan

So the cops detained him either because they saw him selling untaxed cigarettes, or based on the report of local store owners that he was selling untaxed cigarettes.

Sure, but if you claim one or the other is a stone fact, you’re simply wrong. And when you persist in claiming it to be a fact, despite not having the evidence, you’re being clueless at best and actively disingenuous at worst.

That said, I agree that

It’s a fairly minor quibble on which to hang a Pitting.

[CannyDan]

Point of information, please! In other contexts and another jurisdiction we’ve discussed at length police authority to detain (let alone arrest) based upon reported actions versus actions actually observed by the police. The standard there, as I recall, is that police must actually observe a misdemeanor themselves and cannot rely on the report of a citizen. Whereas a citizen report is sufficient for a felony, or a misdemeanor involving violence.

So the question is, how does this jurisdiction handle the sale of “loosies”? Felony or misdemeanor? If it’s a felony, citizen reports are sufficient for a detention for investigation. If though this is a misdemeanor, then it was an unlawful detention (that lead to a death).

Or is my memory completely wrong?

[Saint_Cad]

I admit my cite sucks ass but that wasn’t the point. My point is that if doorhinge is correct in that the police literally saw him selling cigarettes rigth in front of them, then where are the cigarettes sold (wouldn’t they be taken in as evidence) or the cigarette pack (he was selling them loose). These don’t exist so I suspect the police didn’t actually see him doing anything.

doorhinge’s response is basically

1. Cite please that that is what happened.
2. You can’t prove that’s what happened therefore I am correct.

Plus doorhinge constantly refers to “what the police said” and implies they claim they eyewitnessed a crime. If that has happened, no one seems to know about it including the writer of the article I linked to.

So doorhinge is at best a hypocrite and at worst a pathetic loser that believes that whatever he thinks is true is reality despite ANY evidence to the contrary.

[kayaker]

@jsgoddess

<post shortened>

Ayup.

Touche`

[Shodan]

@andros

Sure, but if you claim one or the other is a stone fact, you’re simply wrong. And when you persist in claiming it to be a fact, despite not having the evidence, you’re being clueless at best and actively disingenuous at worst.

Well, my eyes rather glazed over by the fifteenth paragraph of post #13 of this thread, but AFAICT the claim was that the police pointed to a person to whom Garner sold cigarettes. I rewatched the video, and the police did in fact turn and point at 0:34 of the video, so the claim is at least superficially plausible.

As I mentioned, I don’t see the point of the quibble. Either the police saw him do it, or someone else like a store owner saw him do it, he was out on bail for doing it, he had been convicted many times of doing it in the past - I would say the chances were more than 50-50 he was doing it that day. I realize that is not how it works in a court of law, but when trying to figure out what probably happened it is pretty close.

And ultimately it doesn’t matter - the police had (IMNon-legalO) probable cause to detain him, based on their knowledge of him they had reason to cuff him, he resisted arrest and they subdued him. AFAICT the choke hold they used on him was against department policy/illegal, probably, so that is a significant factor. But the justification for his arrest was not in signficant question.

I think this is an example of a mode of argumentation that can be annoying - to go thru and systematically deny everything the other side says, demand cites for every single solitary word, and then lunge at anything without iron-clad proof behind it, no matter how trivial. Not that I haven’t done it myself.

Regards,
Shodan

[iiandyiiii]

@Shodan

Well, my eyes rather glazed over by the fifteenth paragraph of post #13 of this thread, but AFAICT the claim was that the police pointed to a person to whom Garner sold cigarettes. I rewatched the video, and the police did in fact turn and point at 0:34 of the video, so the claim is at least superficially plausible.

As I mentioned, I don’t see the point of the quibble. Either the police saw him do it, or someone else like a store owner saw him do it, he was out on bail for doing it, he had been convicted many times of doing it in the past - I would say the chances were more than 50-50 he was doing it that day. I realize that is not how it works in a court of law, but when trying to figure out what probably happened it is pretty close.

And ultimately it doesn’t matter - the police had (IMNon-legalO) probable cause to detain him, based on their knowledge of him they had reason to cuff him, he resisted arrest and they subdued him. AFAICT the choke hold they used on him was against department policy/illegal, probably, so that is a significant factor. But the justification for his arrest was not in signficant question.

I think this is an example of a mode of argumentation that can be annoying - to go thru and systematically deny everything the other side says, demand cites for every single solitary word, and then lunge at anything without iron-clad proof behind it, no matter how trivial. Not that I haven’t done it myself.

Regards,
Shodan

With doorhinge, he repeatedly asserted “the police witnessed lawbreaking” without providing any support.