The post that has created the discussion was likely misplaced.
No harm done, but it probably belonged in the police abuse thread.
Brian, why do you feel the need to knock 'the Train' anytime a discussion occurs where differing points of view oppose each other and you don't really have a pony in the race? When you make those comments, whether knowingly or not, you are essentially placing yourself above those that, for better or worse, participated in the discussion.
My comment was not about differing points of view, Thirty. It was a mere reflection of the tendency here to do one or more of the following (and pretty much everyone if not all of us have done one or more of these):
-Detract from the subject by making personal attacks. -Detract from the subject by talking about something at best only vaguely related. -Have a conversation bog down with near endless circular arguments. -Have someone over-react to something fairly innocuous. -Have people over-react to things they don't want to hear even though they may be true.
These are just observations, Thirty. I don't make them with the intent on trying to be better than anyone else here. If I see bullshit, I call it bullshit. You may have noticed I've called myself on my own bullshit enough times. If I read something that someone said that I find enlightening, informative or inspiring, I say, "Cool, thanks, good to know that!"
Just telling it like I see it, that's all.
I stand by the gist of my comment: the Train derails regularly and often.
Hmmm.
I think you should consider that discourse, by its very nature, has a level of fluidity to it. In a thread such as the 'Face Palm Thread'... I'm not so sure the content is such that it limits free flow of thought. Each unique and unrelated submission is designed to encourage discussion where in most cases... we would find subject material completely unrelated to the previous subject. For intents and purposes, the dog on 'suspect' (I heard you, RG) post did its job.
As for the qualiy of discussion... I think the best judge of that are the participants. Somebody weighing in from the outside to label it as 'bullshit' or 'poor' would not necessarily be the presiding voice. Becoming somewhat out of line as people might find themselves arguing from a passionate perspective is no worse than someone chiming in from the sidelines and ultimately saying, "Wow, guys. You just exchanged 10 posts and look at ya. Look how you've digressed." Followed by an, "I'm outta here."
A good, well thought out post, Thirty and keeping with your motto, "My brain is a good brain". Mine is turning into a harbinger of an approaching headache, so I am, indeed gonna have to say, "I'm outta here" for now" before the pain sets in.
I'm not attacking you, Brian. And I'm not trying to win a discussion either.
We have been on these boards for a long time together. I respect you. I'm just offering some food for thought in the event you hadn't considered what I was getting at.
The canine is considered an officer of the law by most standards, including at least some legal issues.
You continually dodge the question of the relevance of what he did. It isn't relevant! Is there some sort of scale, if you commit "X" crime, then police are allowed to use "Y" level of force? No, the use of force is determined by the threat posed, and an unarmed, handcuffed man lying face down poses a low level of threat that does not excuse use of a deadly animal weapon.
It doesn't matter if he committed unspeakably heinous crimes, if society gives police authority to enact punishments, that authority will absolutely and unquestionably be misused by error and abused on purpose. That's human nature, and judging from your comments here and in the death penalty thread, I think you are ok with cracking those eggs to make that "justice" omelette you desire.
I wish you meant, "a suspect was apprehended and nobody was killed", but I know you don't think in those terms. You assume that every person who is detained by police is a criminal and voice it freely. That is factually incorrect and a little unnerving. In America we have due process, where guilt is determined by courts of law.
I ask what he did to be taken down by the dog.
I am assuming the dog was necessary.
I am not even going to respond to the rest of the babble. Sheesh.
That is a strange assumption to make, seems biased. I assume he was already down, because putting handcuffs on a man who's arm is currently being mauled by a dog would be pretty difficult to impossible. It also seems unlikely that he was up because of the position of the bite, but it's possible he was cuffed and running. That still doesn't warrant a dog, hustle up officers, surely you can run faster than a cuffed and barefoot person. If you can't, you shouldn't be on the payroll.
The rest isn't babble, it makes perfect sense and if you won't respond it's because you can't. You deal with issues of "justice" from a position of passion and not from logic. They are all just criminals to you and you don't care what happens to them, in fact, you do seem to care, you seem to hope they get roughed up.
Sure I could respond, but to be frank, your egg mcmuffin metaphor needs work. If I get the gist of what you were trying to say... I'm not into a back and forth (again) where I detail my sentiments regarding criminals (I don't care for them) and you tell me yours (they're groovy).
What you say about the handcuffs makes sense and actually sheds a bit more light on the situation that has not been explained yet. If this point had been raised a page ago, we could have saved some time. Remember, I am not arguing the dog is brutal... I'm arguing that the details need to be revealed before we vilify the cops. Everything I see on the video shows the K9 cop trying to control the mutt. That's not to say the cop might eb an incompetent dog handler, but it is saying he's hardly indifferent and enthusiastic for waht is happening (which is contrary to the police vs us narrative that likes to get played out here).
I don't think criminals are groovy, I just think they have the right to due process. Shocking, I guess.
I'm struggling to think when I have ever claimed due process was a waste of time. Can you please point me to where I might have misspoken and I will try and clarify? I agree that people need a fair opportunity to defend themselves against charges that are brought against them.
Your problem with me is really how I feel after due process has occurred (preferring meaningful penalties that reflect the nature of the crime committed).
You do it with every comment that gives police a pass for roughing up civilians because of their prior activities, and you make those comments every time the discussion comes up. You do it with your casual assumption that everyone who is a recipient of police use of force is a criminal.
So you're making stuff up?
I never give police a pass to rough up civilians. I afford them some latitude when civilians resist arrest. There is a difference.
Just because I do not agree with letting them go when they resist (as you do) doesn't mean I want cops to shoot them on the spot.
You characterize your own position as inaccurately and hyperbolically as you characterize mine! It's astounding.
I thought that was the game?
Did you expect me to just take shots and not fire back? That's your style... not mine.
Can we drop this? I think we know where each other sits on this issue. I don't like what we have digressed to. Pop into the Trump thread- I just reposted Brian's post of Trump picking his nose. It's kinda funny.
Have a good day.
Edit: I just reread your quip. You weren't acknowledging your part in exaggerating my position... you were dumping it on me (and I'm not totally seeing how given what I wrote to be honest). Regardless... I'm done.
A good day to you as well, I never take these things to heart so no worries there. I'm currently jazzed about planning a trip to see the eclipse from one of my favorite mountains next month, it's not every day that a once in a lifetime opportunity drops into your lap!
The post that has created the discussion was likely misplaced.
No harm done, but it probably belonged in the police abuse thread.
Brian, why do you feel the need to knock 'the Train' anytime a discussion occurs where differing points of view oppose each other and you don't really have a pony in the race? When you make those comments, whether knowingly or not, you are essentially placing yourself above those that, for better or worse, participated in the discussion.
My comment was not about differing points of view, Thirty. It was a mere reflection of the tendency here to do one or more of the following (and pretty much everyone if not all of us have done one or more of these):
-Detract from the subject by making personal attacks. -Detract from the subject by talking about something at best only vaguely related. -Have a conversation bog down with near endless circular arguments. -Have someone over-react to something fairly innocuous. -Have people over-react to things they don't want to hear even though they may be true.
These are just observations, Thirty. I don't make them with the intent on trying to be better than anyone else here. If I see bullshit, I call it bullshit. You may have noticed I've called myself on my own bullshit enough times. If I read something that someone said that I find enlightening, informative or inspiring, I say, "Cool, thanks, good to know that!"
Just telling it like I see it, that's all.
I stand by the gist of my comment: the Train derails regularly and often.
Hmmm.
I think you should consider that discourse, by its very nature, has a level of fluidity to it. In a thread such as the 'Face Palm Thread'... I'm not so sure the content is such that it limits free flow of thought. Each unique and unrelated submission is designed to encourage discussion where in most cases... we would find subject material completely unrelated to the previous subject. For intents and purposes, the dog on 'suspect' (I heard you, RG) post did its job.
As for the qualiy of discussion... I think the best judge of that are the participants. Somebody weighing in from the outside to label it as 'bullshit' or 'poor' would not necessarily be the presiding voice. Becoming somewhat out of line as people might find themselves arguing from a passionate perspective is no worse than someone chiming in from the sidelines and ultimately saying, "Wow, guys. You just exchanged 10 posts and look at ya. Look how you've digressed." Followed by an, "I'm outta here."
A good, well thought out post, Thirty and keeping with your motto, "My brain is a good brain". Mine is turning into a harbinger of an approaching headache, so I am, indeed gonna have to say, "I'm outta here" for now" before the pain sets in.
I'm not attacking you, Brian. And I'm not trying to win a discussion either.
We have been on these boards for a long time together. I respect you. I'm just offering some food for thought in the event you hadn't considered what I was getting at.
And good food for thought it is Thirty didn't see it as an attack but thanks for verifying. And if I ever appear to be coming across as a wise ass or know it all, I certainly don't mean to be. It's probably due to having grown up with a low self esteem which is explained a bit in my music memoir which is getting close to being finished.
The motto is good and I don't see it as arrogant.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
How about some trivia: which two countries strictly prohibit 11 year olds from allegedly throwing rocks, handcuffing and detaining them and their families?
How about some trivia: which two countries strictly prohibit 11 year olds from allegedly throwing rocks, handcuffing and detaining them and their families?
I think every country prohibits 11 year olds from throwing rocks at people's windows.
There was no harm done here if that was the case. This was a hell of a lot better than the homeowner coming out and giving the kid a swift kick in the ass.
How about some trivia: which two countries strictly prohibit 11 year olds from allegedly throwing rocks, handcuffing and detaining them and their families?
How about some trivia: which two countries strictly prohibit 11 year olds from allegedly throwing rocks, handcuffing and detaining them and their families?
In which country is it legal to throw rocks at windows? I have zero problem if a cop cuffed one of my children for the same crime. (father of five here)
Definitely a fluke that it just happened to hit the lighter which caused the man's hair to catch fire. I feel badly for the guy (who knows what drove him to such desperate measures), the cop (sounds like they did all the right things), the family. Just a sad story all around.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
How about some trivia: which two countries strictly prohibit 11 year olds from allegedly throwing rocks, handcuffing and detaining them and their families?
In which country is it legal to throw rocks at windows? I have zero problem if a cop cuffed one of my children for the same crime. (father of five here)
Well, except it was "allegedly" throwing rocks at windows. How do we know he wasn't just throwing rocks? Or maybe hit a window accidentally? I threw rocks all the time when I was a kid. Show me a boy (or girl for that matter) that doesn't throw rocks and I'll show you a maladjusted child!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
The guy was freaking out. Cops tried to subdue him and were unsuccessful. After a taser resulted in a 'flukey' bodily fire because he was holding a lighter... "An officer was able to pat the fire out. Tingler, still refusing to get into the squad car, punched the officer in the face and was hit a second time with a stun gun."
Excatly what did the cops do wrong in your eyes except be cops?
The guy was freaking out. Cops tried to subdue him and were unsuccessful. After a taser resulted in a 'flukey' bodily fire because he was holding a lighter... "An officer was able to pat the fire out. Tingler, still refusing to get into the squad car, punched the officer in the face and was hit a second time with a stun gun."
Excatly what did the cops do wrong in your eyes except be cops?
other than the fact that I don't agree with police having the authority to electrocute people, nothing, I just wanted to post a cop story handcuffing an adult instead of a child. I thought some would find it reassuring that instead of being killed by a stun gun the guy was only set on fire.
The guy was freaking out. Cops tried to subdue him and were unsuccessful. After a taser resulted in a 'flukey' bodily fire because he was holding a lighter... "An officer was able to pat the fire out. Tingler, still refusing to get into the squad car, punched the officer in the face and was hit a second time with a stun gun."
Excatly what did the cops do wrong in your eyes except be cops?
other than the fact that I don't agree with police having the authority to electrocute people, nothing, I just wanted to post a cop story handcuffing an adult instead of a child. I thought some would find it reassuring that instead of being killed by a stun gun the guy was only set on fire.
Police have to be able to subdue threats and defend themselves, the Taser is the safest option for doing so without resorting to lethal methods.
The guy was freaking out. Cops tried to subdue him and were unsuccessful. After a taser resulted in a 'flukey' bodily fire because he was holding a lighter... "An officer was able to pat the fire out. Tingler, still refusing to get into the squad car, punched the officer in the face and was hit a second time with a stun gun."
Excatly what did the cops do wrong in your eyes except be cops?
other than the fact that I don't agree with police having the authority to electrocute people, nothing, I just wanted to post a cop story handcuffing an adult instead of a child. I thought some would find it reassuring that instead of being killed by a stun gun the guy was only set on fire.
so they can't taser and i assume you are against them shooting people. would a nightstick be ok? if not i'd sure as heck like to know how a cop should subdue perps.
The guy was freaking out. Cops tried to subdue him and were unsuccessful. After a taser resulted in a 'flukey' bodily fire because he was holding a lighter... "An officer was able to pat the fire out. Tingler, still refusing to get into the squad car, punched the officer in the face and was hit a second time with a stun gun."
Excatly what did the cops do wrong in your eyes except be cops?
other than the fact that I don't agree with police having the authority to electrocute people, nothing, I just wanted to post a cop story handcuffing an adult instead of a child. I thought some would find it reassuring that instead of being killed by a stun gun the guy was only set on fire.
so they can't taser and i assume you are against them shooting people. would a nightstick be ok? if not i'd sure as heck like to know how a cop should subdue perps.
Required Jedi training would resolve this problem.
The guy was freaking out. Cops tried to subdue him and were unsuccessful. After a taser resulted in a 'flukey' bodily fire because he was holding a lighter... "An officer was able to pat the fire out. Tingler, still refusing to get into the squad car, punched the officer in the face and was hit a second time with a stun gun."
Excatly what did the cops do wrong in your eyes except be cops?
other than the fact that I don't agree with police having the authority to electrocute people, nothing, I just wanted to post a cop story handcuffing an adult instead of a child. I thought some would find it reassuring that instead of being killed by a stun gun the guy was only set on fire.
so they can't taser and i assume you are against them shooting people. would a nightstick be ok? if not i'd sure as heck like to know how a cop should subdue perps.
The guy was freaking out. Cops tried to subdue him and were unsuccessful. After a taser resulted in a 'flukey' bodily fire because he was holding a lighter... "An officer was able to pat the fire out. Tingler, still refusing to get into the squad car, punched the officer in the face and was hit a second time with a stun gun."
Excatly what did the cops do wrong in your eyes except be cops?
other than the fact that I don't agree with police having the authority to electrocute people, nothing, I just wanted to post a cop story handcuffing an adult instead of a child. I thought some would find it reassuring that instead of being killed by a stun gun the guy was only set on fire.
so they can't taser and i assume you are against them shooting people. would a nightstick be ok? if not i'd sure as heck like to know how a cop should subdue perps.
The guy was freaking out. Cops tried to subdue him and were unsuccessful. After a taser resulted in a 'flukey' bodily fire because he was holding a lighter... "An officer was able to pat the fire out. Tingler, still refusing to get into the squad car, punched the officer in the face and was hit a second time with a stun gun."
Excatly what did the cops do wrong in your eyes except be cops?
other than the fact that I don't agree with police having the authority to electrocute people, nothing, I just wanted to post a cop story handcuffing an adult instead of a child. I thought some would find it reassuring that instead of being killed by a stun gun the guy was only set on fire.
so they can't taser and i assume you are against them shooting people. would a nightstick be ok? if not i'd sure as heck like to know how a cop should subdue perps.
The guy was freaking out. Cops tried to subdue him and were unsuccessful. After a taser resulted in a 'flukey' bodily fire because he was holding a lighter... "An officer was able to pat the fire out. Tingler, still refusing to get into the squad car, punched the officer in the face and was hit a second time with a stun gun."
Excatly what did the cops do wrong in your eyes except be cops?
other than the fact that I don't agree with police having the authority to electrocute people, nothing, I just wanted to post a cop story handcuffing an adult instead of a child. I thought some would find it reassuring that instead of being killed by a stun gun the guy was only set on fire.
so they can't taser and i assume you are against them shooting people. would a nightstick be ok? if not i'd sure as heck like to know how a cop should subdue perps.
^^^ Not trying to give it a spin but part of me thinks it is fake news. I mean really, how can that be real . What is going on in the US that a citizen would do this?
Comments
We have been on these boards for a long time together. I respect you. I'm just offering some food for thought in the event you hadn't considered what I was getting at.
I'm currently jazzed about planning a trip to see the eclipse from one of my favorite mountains next month, it's not every day that a once in a lifetime opportunity drops into your lap!
The motto is good and I don't see it as arrogant.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_596b821de4b0d6341fe992fd
Make Alaska Great Again
https://www.glamour.com/story/alaska-cops-defend-sexual-contact-sex-workers-arrests/amp
Alaska Cops Defend Their 'Right' to Sexual Contact With Sex Workers Before Arresting Them
which two countries strictly prohibit 11 year olds from allegedly throwing rocks, handcuffing and detaining them and their families?
There was no harm done here if that was the case. This was a hell of a lot better than the homeowner coming out and giving the kid a swift kick in the ass.
http://www.nydailynews.com/amp/news/national/wisconsin-police-accidentally-set-naked-man-fire-article-1.3335530
Excatly what did the cops do wrong in your eyes except be cops?
http://www.mediaite.com/online/watch-baltimore-cop-apparently-caught-on-body-cam-planting-drugs/
Not trying to give it a spin but part of me thinks it is fake news. I mean really, how can that be real . What is going on in the US that a citizen would do this?