Facepalm Of The Day

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

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).

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

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.

JC29856 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

JC29856 said:

https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/exclusive-documents-expose-direct-us-military-intelligence-influence-on-1-800-movies-and-tv-shows-36433107c307

US Intel interfering and meddling in our performing arts!

This will be an interesting read. 

I've read a quote from Michael Bay about how he gets great cooperation from the US army for his films because he doesn't show them in a bad light. Or something to that affect. But that I do not see a problem with.

 how many Hollywood films paint armed forces in negative light? I'm not a movie buff but I probably can count on 1 hand.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

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.

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

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.

tbergs said:

Man, this thread has gotten completely derailed and is basically Police abuse 2.0.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

^^^
Easy Mr. Lux

I for one have never done any on your above list.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

brianlux said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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."