# I pit the cops who openly applauded police abuse today **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 28, 2017, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-cops-who-openly-applauded-police-abuse-today/792340 "2017-07-28T19:00:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2017, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-cops-who-openly-applauded-police-abuse-today/792340/301 "2017-08-02T17:30:18Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > If you feel threatened by someone’s actions, and it’s reasonable for you to feel threatened - the standard for legitimate self defence - then they threatened you. Intentionally or otherwise. Not true at all, you could be delusional, schizophrenic, high on acid, or just plain mistaken. Your feelings about it do not actually change the actions of another person. ---
**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:** [August 2, 2017, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-cops-who-openly-applauded-police-abuse-today/792340/302 "2017-08-02T17:31:36Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > You’re the one who made a claim about his intent, not me. You shouldn’t do so – it’s both impossible to know, and to ascribe a negative motive to a dead child is cruel and callous. > > Why not just be specific and accurate? Why make claims that have anything to do with the dead child’s motive? It’s entirely unnecessary to your point. > > I’m just recommending that you not say cruel and callous things. There’s no reason for it. It just makes you look bad, and since those things would require psychic abilities to know, it makes you look dumb as well. I’m making no claims about his motives or intent, I’m making claims about his actions, and the effect of those actions. His intent, his motives _do not matter_, as he’s not accused of anything. I am being specific and accurate when I say Tamir Rice threatened the police by reaching for his replica weapon, when instructed by the police to do otherwise. I would \*recommend \*you drop the sanctimonious fake concern for how my posts make me appear, and instead work on understanding that when I specifically state I’m not talking about intent, that means I’m not talking about intent. ---
**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:** [August 2, 2017, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-cops-who-openly-applauded-police-abuse-today/792340/303 "2017-08-02T17:35:46Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Not true at all, you could be delusional, schizophrenic, high on acid, or just plain mistaken. Your feelings about it do not actually change the actions of another person. In those cases, assuming that you mean a mistake that someone shouldn’t have made, the fear is not reasonable, so those situations are irrelevant to this discussion. If you act in such a way as to put someone in fear for their life, you have threatened them regardless of your intentions, assuming they are in their right mind. ---
**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:** [August 2, 2017, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-cops-who-openly-applauded-police-abuse-today/792340/304 "2017-08-02T17:36:05Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > If you feel threatened by someone’s actions, and it’s reasonable for you to feel threatened - the standard for legitimate self defence - then they threatened you. Intentionally or otherwise. That’s not how either english or the law works. If I pull out my cell phone, and you cower in fear, then sure, you may have felt threatened due to your inability to properly analyze threats, but I did not threaten you. ---
**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:** [August 2, 2017, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-cops-who-openly-applauded-police-abuse-today/792340/305 "2017-08-02T17:36:13Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I’m making no claims about his motives or intent, I’m making claims about his actions, and the effect of those actions. His intent, his motives _do not matter_, as he’s not accused of anything. This directly conflicts with your use of the word “threaten”. Maybe you don’t know what it means. When referring to a person (rather than “it’s threatening to rain”), it directly implies intent. > [@](#): > > I am being specific and accurate when I say Tamir Rice threatened the police by reaching for his replica weapon, when instructed by the police to do otherwise. No you’re not – for one thing, you don’t know that the police instructed him to do otherwise, and you don’t know that he reached for his weapon. Why do you continue to insist as factual things that you couldn’t possibly know are true? > [@](#): > > I would \*recommend \*you drop the sanctimonious fake concern for how my posts make me appear, and instead work on understanding that when I specifically state I’m not talking about intent, that means I’m not talking about intent. When the words you use directly conflict with each other, then I have no way to know what you’re actually intending to say. When you continue to repeat, as if they are factual, things that you couldn’t possibly know, you come across as delusional, if not straight up dishonest. We’ve had reasonable conversations about this kind of thing before. I don’t know why you’re insisting on this kind of nonsense when it does nothing for your argument. You can make an entirely cogent argument for your “side” of this issue without asserting, as factual, things that one could not possibly know are facts. I have no idea why you keep sabotaging your own arguments by doing so. ---
**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:** [August 2, 2017, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-cops-who-openly-applauded-police-abuse-today/792340/306 "2017-08-02T17:37:29Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I’m making no claims about his motives or intent, I’m making claims about his actions, and the effect of those actions. His intent, his motives _do not matter_, as he’s not accused of anything. > > I am being specific and accurate when I say Tamir Rice threatened the police by reaching for his replica weapon, when instructed by the police to do otherwise. > > I would \*recommend \*you drop the sanctimonious fake concern for how my posts make me appear, and instead work on understanding that when I specifically state I’m not talking about intent, that means I’m not talking about intent. You cannot say you are not talking about intent, and then go on to talk about intent. If I threaten you, then I have taken an action that I intend to use to harm you. If you feel threatened by an innocuous action that I have taken, then I have not threatened you. ---
**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:** [August 2, 2017, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-cops-who-openly-applauded-police-abuse-today/792340/307 "2017-08-02T17:39:07Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > That’s not how either english or the law works. > > If I pull out my cell phone, and you cower in fear, then sure, you may have felt threatened due to your inability to properly analyze threats, but I did not threaten you. I’m not sure someone who either can’t see or can’t understand the word “reasonable” should be talking about how language works. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2017, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-cops-who-openly-applauded-police-abuse-today/792340/308 "2017-08-02T17:44:39Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > In those cases, assuming that you mean a mistake that someone shouldn’t have made, the fear is not reasonable, so those situations are irrelevant to this discussion. > > If you act in such a way as to put someone in fear for their life, you have threatened them regardless of your intentions, assuming they are in their right mind. I don’t think that you understand how cause and effect works. You are saying that your feelings about an action can change that action after the action has happened? How does that work? Are we talking quantum entanglement or something? How you feel about someone’s action does not after the fact change that action to match your feelings. That’s not how reality works. ---
**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:** [August 2, 2017, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-cops-who-openly-applauded-police-abuse-today/792340/309 "2017-08-02T17:47:35Z")
Even if “threaten” means what **Steophan** says it does (and it doesn’t!), his assertion still requires psychic ability – we don’t know whether the cops were in their right mind, and we don’t know whether the cops were being honest. It’s really not hard to avoid saying things that require knowledge of the workings of the minds of others. Just state facts – “xxx said yyy about situation zzz”, for example. ---
**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:** [August 2, 2017, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-cops-who-openly-applauded-police-abuse-today/792340/310 "2017-08-02T17:48:40Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > This directly conflicts with your use of the word “threaten”. Maybe you don’t know what it means. When referring to a person (rather than “it’s threatening to rain”), it directly implies intent. Repeating a falsehood doesn’t make it true. Whether or not someone is threatened doesn’t depend on the intent of the person supposedly threatening them, it depends on their actions. > [@](#): > > No you’re not – for one thing, you don’t know that the police instructed him to do otherwise, and you don’t know that he reached for his weapon. Why do you continue to insist as factual things that you couldn’t possibly know are true? As I’ve repeatedly said, I’m not stating this as fact proven beyond reasonable doubt, to the point that it would be accepted as proof of guilt in a criminal trial. It’s merely the most likely way things happened, based on the findings of those who actually investigated it. I will say that I think it’s vanishingly unlikely that the cops drove up to him and shot him for no reason, having given him no instructions whatsoever. It’s also pretty fucking unlikely that they told him to reach for what they had every reason to believe was a real gun. I’m making a claim that what happened is probably what the evidence suggests happened, backed up with my opinion that you would expect the police to instruct an armed person not to go for their weapon. You are claiming otherwise based on… well, not much as far as I can tell. ---
**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:** [August 2, 2017, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-cops-who-openly-applauded-police-abuse-today/792340/311 "2017-08-02T17:49:33Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I’m not sure someone who either can’t see or can’t understand the word “reasonable” should be talking about how language works. You have a good point. For instance, you think it is reasonable to drive up on someone who is reportedly carrying a gun, jump out, and shoot to kill, while I think it is reasonable to stop further back and asses the situation. You also think it is reasonable to plant evidence on someone after you have shot them in the back. You also think it is reasonable to shoot someone for informing you that they own a gun. I see your use of the word, it’s just that your use of the word shows that you don’t know what it means. ---
**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:** [August 2, 2017, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-cops-who-openly-applauded-police-abuse-today/792340/312 "2017-08-02T17:50:58Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > How you feel about someone’s action does not after the fact change that action to match your feelings. That’s not how reality works. Yes, I know, that’s exactly what I’ve been saying. The action remains the same regardless of the intent behind it, and remains the same regardless of how someone interprets it. ---
**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:** [August 2, 2017, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-cops-who-openly-applauded-police-abuse-today/792340/313 "2017-08-02T17:52:09Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Repeating a falsehood doesn’t make it true. Whether or not someone is threatened doesn’t depend on the intent of the person supposedly threatening them, it depends on their actions. > > As I’ve repeatedly said, I’m not stating this as fact proven beyond reasonable doubt, to the point that it would be accepted as proof of guilt in a criminal trial. It’s merely the most likely way things happened, based on the findings of those who actually investigated it. > > I will say that I think it’s vanishingly unlikely that the cops drove up to him and shot him for no reason, having given him no instructions whatsoever. It’s also pretty fucking unlikely that they told him to reach for what they had every reason to believe was a real gun. > > I’m making a claim that what happened is probably what the evidence suggests happened, backed up with my opinion that you would expect the police to instruct an armed person not to go for their weapon. > > You are claiming otherwise based on… well, not much as far as I can tell. There were two seconds between them stopping the car and shooting Rice. What kind of instruction can be given in that amount of time? What kind of instruction can be followed in that amount of time? Can you even really understand what is going on in that amount of time? The way things most likely played out was that he was sitting there, playing with his toy gun, the cops screamed up on him, jumped out, started yelling, startling him enough that he twitched enough for the police to feel threatened and to kill him. ---
**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:** [August 2, 2017, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-cops-who-openly-applauded-police-abuse-today/792340/314 "2017-08-02T17:55:01Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > You have a good point. > > For instance, you think it is reasonable to drive up on someone who is reportedly carrying a gun, jump out, and shoot to kill, while I think it is reasonable to stop further back and asses the situation. > > You also think it is reasonable to plant evidence on someone after you have shot them in the back. > > You also think it is reasonable to shoot someone for informing you that they own a gun. > > I see your use of the word, it’s just that your use of the word shows that you don’t know what it means. Hmm, no, I don’t think any of those things. The only one of those descriptions that resembles a case I’ve discussed is the middle one, and the cop I question there is awaiting sentencing for his crime. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2017, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-cops-who-openly-applauded-police-abuse-today/792340/315 "2017-08-02T17:57:53Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Yes, I know, that’s exactly what I’ve been saying. The action remains the same regardless of the intent behind it, and remains the same regardless of how someone interprets it. So you are now saying that Rice didn’t threaten the cops? Because all along you’ve claimed that he did threaten them just because they claim to have felt threatened after the fact. I’m saying that action taken does not automatically become a threat just because someone else felt threatened by it. That cause and effect does not work backwards like that. You are now agreeing with this? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2017, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-cops-who-openly-applauded-police-abuse-today/792340/316 "2017-08-02T17:58:36Z")
Syllogisms: The cops _felt_ threatened by Tamir Rice’s toy gun. _Therefore_ Rice threatened the cops. Dopers _feel_ that Steophan posts morally bankrupt nonsense. _Therefore_ Steophan posts morally bankrupt nonsense. Q.E.D. ---
**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:** [August 2, 2017, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-cops-who-openly-applauded-police-abuse-today/792340/317 "2017-08-02T18:00:47Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Repeating a falsehood doesn’t make it true. Whether or not someone is threatened doesn’t depend on the intent of the person supposedly threatening them, it depends on their actions. Whether or not someone _feels_ threatened, sure. But if I’m in a crowd and reach for my cell phone 20 feet from the Mayor, the Mayor might feel threatened, but I didn’t threaten him and he’s not actually threatened. If you’re just saying that the cops felt threatened, then even that’s arguable (that assumes they’re being honest), but that’s much less objectionable than a factual assertion that they were threatened. > [@](#): > > As I’ve repeatedly said, I’m not stating this as fact proven beyond reasonable doubt, to the point that it would be accepted as proof of guilt in a criminal trial. It’s merely the most likely way things happened, based on the findings of those who actually investigated it. So you don’t believe these are facts? Then just say so! Just qualify you’re language unless you don’t care if people constantly misintepret you. Say “I think the most likely scenario is XXX”, not “XXX occurred”. The second, in English, is an assertion of fact. The first is not. > [@](#): > > I will say that I think it’s vanishingly unlikely that the cops drove up to him and shot him for no reason, having given him no instructions whatsoever. It’s also pretty fucking unlikely that they told him to reach for what they had every reason to believe was a real gun. There are probably dozens of other possible scenarios in between this extreme and the cops’ statements. In any case, I’m not making any claims about what happened – I’m just pointing out that your assertions are, at best, inferences, not statements of fact or anything close to that. > [@](#): > > I’m making a claim that what happened is probably what the evidence suggests happened, backed up with my opinion that you would expect the police to instruct an armed person not to go for their weapon. > > You are claiming otherwise based on… well, not much as far as I can tell. Where have I claimed something else occurred? Why not try responding to my actual posts as opposed to straw men? ---
**Author:** ![Defensive\_Indifference](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/defensive_indifference/32/6502_2.png) [@Defensive\_Indifference](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Defensive_Indifference)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2017, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-cops-who-openly-applauded-police-abuse-today/792340/318 "2017-08-02T18:09:25Z")
I haven’t kept up with the thread, so apologies in advance if this has already been posted. Jeff Sessions today seemed to push back a little on Trump’s remarks, saying he would hold officers responsible for breaking the law. He talked about making sure bad officers didn’t ruin the reputation of the good ones. This was in a brief passage in the middle of a fairly long speech (which I didn’t bother to read). Anyway, I guess it’s good. When Jefferson Beauregard Sessions says he’s going to hold the cops accountable, you can take that to the bank! > **[Jeff Sessions Will ‘Hold Any Officer Responsible’ For Breaking The Law](https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sessions-counters-trump-police-abuse-remark-says-officers-should-follow-law)** > > Amid comments about cracking down on violence and drug-linked crimes on Tuesday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said his office will also work to address police misconduct… ---
**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:** [August 2, 2017, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-cops-who-openly-applauded-police-abuse-today/792340/319 "2017-08-02T18:22:31Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Hmm, no, I don’t think any of those things. The only one of those descriptions that resembles a case I’ve discussed is the middle one, and the cop I question there is awaiting sentencing for his crime. So you claim to have not discussed the Rice case or the Castille case? And the cop there is waiting for sentencing for the lesser charge that he plead to rather than go through another trial after a mistrial was declared in the first one because there was a hold-out juror who would agree with you on what constitutes reasonable. ---
**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:** [August 2, 2017, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-cops-who-openly-applauded-police-abuse-today/792340/320 "2017-08-02T20:10:30Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > So you claim to have not discussed the Rice case or the Castille case? Yes, I’ve discussed them, I’ve simply not claimed that the things you describe are reasonable, either because I don’t think that, or because it’s not relevant to the issues I’ve discussed. For example, whether or not the cops were reasonable to pull up so close to Rice has no effect on whether their fear of him was reasonable. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-cops-who-openly-applauded-police-abuse-today/792340.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-cops-who-openly-applauded-police-abuse-today/792340.md?page=17)