God help us if you ever do jury duty, David.
If you’re so interested, why don’t you do some research yourself and see what you find, either way? Here is a good place to begin.
Wish to God & Vishnu that I was on that jury – at least I could’ve hung the trial and prevented those evil, cowardly killers from terrorizing the streets of O.C. for at least a little while longer.
You made the claim, it’s up to you to back it up.
It’s only extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence. And my “claim” as you call it was nowhere near extraordinary, I’d consider it common knowledge.
If you feel that I am error, it is *your *job to refute my statement. I’m not gonna do your dirty work for you.
This is a pretty effective (though nontraditional) way of admitting you’re wrong.
ETA: nobody is asking you for “extraordinary” evidence. You are being asked for any evidence.
So, in other words, these ‘studies’ don’t exist. Gotcha.
Wow, that was quite a jumble.
While extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, that doesn’t mean that ordinary claims require no evidence.
That’s also not how it works. After all, I could simply do this:
I looked it up, and you’re completely wrong. And now it’s YOUR job to refute MY statement, since I’m not gonna do your dirty work.
See how stupid that is?
Just prove your claims. Don’t try to bully your way through life by insisting you’re right and expecting everyone to accept it. Same principle goes for things like proving guilt in criminal courts, by the way.
It’s something I read on Yahoo! News or perhaps saw on the Discovery Channel. In any case, I’m convinced it’s not made up and unlike many people here, I do have a life outside the Internet which takes up most of my day. So if you think I’m incorrect in my claim that the sky is blue or that Kiev is the capital of Ukraine or that Abe Vigoda is still alive, go right ahead and try to disprove it. You can’t counter my claim by demanding “CITE?” any more than I can prove it just by saying it was on YouTube years ago.
No, because if you just now looked it up and have the information at hand, but refuse to provide it, then you are being a big dumb jerk.
As if! :rolleyes:
LOL.
You swallowed the bait whole.
Yes, to refuse to provide evidence to back up your claim does indeed make you a big dumb jerk. I couldn’t agree more.
:smack:
Good luck with that law career.
I checked out your source, buddha_david, and a quick search brings this wiki about the accuracy of witness testmony. I can’t find any cites for people’s truthiness immediately after a traumatic event, so… Cite?
Like others, I’m waiting for more information before judging the officers involved in this death. But I will say that I find it probable that a LEO is more likely to physically harm a subject if s/he sees the armed person as a threat to his fellow officers. I still don’t know whether excessive force was used, and I think this event was tragic all around.
When you claim that the sky is blue, that Kiev is the capital of Ukraine, or that Abe Vigoda is still alive, I’ll happily give you the benefit of the doubt. When you throw out something you half remember from Yahoo! News, and in all probability misremember, I’ll assume you are wrong in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
And so will everyone else.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for that cite as buddha_david has clearly indicated he is not interested in backing up his asinine assertions with evidence.
Yes, his incredibly low standards explain why he has such goofy opinions in the first place.
In his court evidence is unnecessary if you have a biased witness or two to give you opinions.
Fair is fair. And I’ll confess, you’re correct, these people look very scary. And they probably looked scarier and scarier (and in many cases, much less white) as they landed blow after blow after blow.
Why must you assume I’m mistaken? (You know what they say about people who assume…) Why can’t you admit that the real truth is “unknown” or treat it like a Schrödinger’s Cat Scenario? If you always presume the negative, you must be a very unpleasant person to be around and probably have a lot of trouble picking up women.
No, Goofy’s a dog, he’s definitely a dog, even though he wears a hat and drives a car.
buddha_david, let me help you out.
It’s ok to say ‘I think I saw it on youtube or Yahoo news or something’ or ‘I think I read somewhere that X is true.’
But what you did was write ‘studies have shown’, as if it were fact. You then compounded the error by writing ’ I consider it common knowledge’ when pressed.
You made the claim about the studies. It is your job to back it up. If you cannot back it up, then it is good form to write ’ I cannot locate them, perhaps I was mistaked or misremembered’.
No, you’re wrong. That is NOT the issue here.
The issue is that R.N.A.T.B. and others are claiming the negative position, merely based on a *presumption *that my claim was mistaken. (And this, frankly, is part of the reason why so many killer cops walk free, since many civilians have been “brainwashed” via media & government-backed soundbites to assume that cops are never guilty of anything that would put a regular person in jail forever.) The proper response to my claim would be: (1) Insufficient data to make a determination at this time (i.e. Schrödinger’s Cat Scenario) or (2) in absence of contrary data, one must conclude via Occam’s Razor that my statement, despite being based on scanty evidence, is more likely than not to be true and factual.
Also, if you won’t listen to me, then just use common sense. Which of these scenarios is more likely?:
(A) “OMFG a cop killed my kid! I can’t believe this is happening!” (i.e. no motivation to lie.)
(B) “OMFG a cop killed my kid! I’ll bet I can get a lucrative civil judgment if I quickly make up a story and stick to it!”
Think about it. No really, think long and hard about it.
Or, just go ahead and double down on the stupidity. That looks like your M.O.
Can anyone count the number the number of logical fallacies already employed?
The one you just used is ‘False Dilema’: