Jump to content

When Defending Cops Becomes Impossible


Cinaruco
 Share

Recommended Posts

Angry? No. perturbed...a little. 

As to looking at/asking about different cases...it's called looking for consistency. If they can't get, repeatedly, multiple case details including whether it was rioting or something else.....let alone details correct about major cases that are spurring rioting all over the US....perhaps it's fair to say that the press are either lying to you OR are incompetent. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

17 hours ago, Rickard N said:

Where in the Swedish media was the arson called an accident? You asked me what Swedish media reported and I answered, now you ask med other questions instead of answering.

Why the attitude? What have I done to deserve the attitude?

/R

Dont sweat it. He assumes anyone that doesnt instantly agree with him is a Communist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, rmgill said:

Angry? No. perturbed...a little. 

As to looking at/asking about different cases...it's called looking for consistency. If they can't get, repeatedly, multiple case details including whether it was rioting or something else.....let alone details correct about major cases that are spurring rioting all over the US....perhaps it's fair to say that the press are either lying to you OR are incompetent. 
 

 

Well, you could have replied if the answers seems ok from your point of view since you asked what the media "IN MY COUNTRY" said before starting the questions in another direction, but that might be my idea of a conversation that's wrong.

/R

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Dont sweat it. He assumes anyone that doesnt instantly agree with him is a Communist.

Use some logic smart guy. Rub some of those brain cells together like two welsh sheep making lambs. 

Riot happens. Fire happens. Fire is shown on video with rioters around the building. 

Thus, te fire is....deliberately set and thus arson, caused by the rioters. Not hard to posit when they're seen throwing rocks/bottles, breaking in and eventually throwing molotov cocktails.

OR

It's an accident, act of god. 

If the fires are more or less ignored by the media...and they're not attributed to criminal act and the rioters...what caused them? Magic? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Rickard N said:

Well, you could have replied if the answers seems ok from your point of view since you asked what the media "IN MY COUNTRY" said before starting the questions in another direction, but that might be my idea of a conversation that's wrong.

/R

And I was pointing out that they seemed to have gaps in their reporting of what was reported to you vs what someone who's in the city in question where the reporting was done (Or look at coverage of the Chauvin Trial in detail) an. 

If the murder of the police officer in Gothenburg had been reported as a traffic accident what would your view on the reporting be? Does the detail of deliberate homicide vs accidental death matter in the reporting? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, rmgill said:

And I was pointing out that they seemed to have gaps in their reporting of what was reported to you vs what someone who's in the city in question where the reporting was done (Or look at coverage of the Chauvin Trial in detail) an. 

If the murder of the police officer in Gothenburg had been reported as a traffic accident what would your view on the reporting be? Does the detail of deliberate homicide vs accidental death matter in the reporting? 

 

The shooting of the police officer is now reported, from the police, as a probable wrong target.

Where in what I wrote was it called an accident, and that was also from on of the Swedish left wing media. I'm not defending them or their angle at times but you are making things up that didn't exist in what I've written so far.

Is this what a straw man is?

/R

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Rickard N said:

The shooting of the police officer is now reported, from the police, as a probable wrong target.

Where in what I wrote was it called an accident, and that was also from on of the Swedish left wing media. I'm not defending them or their angle at times but you are making things up that didn't exist in what I've written so far.
 

I'm not making anything up. I'm asking if X is reported as Y does that make sense or is that a problem? 

Entirely off the wall example: If someone tells you a Dog is really a horse does that makes sense. That doesn't mean I SAID that you said a dog was a horse. Or that I even think you think horses and dogs are the same thing. 

11 hours ago, Rickard N said:

Is this what a straw man is?

No, it's an example for the sake of argument and testing what is and is not a good example of reporting. This, if there's an arson in line with rioting and the media reports it not as rioting at all....what is the takeaway? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no discourse, merely an endless stream of debating tricks, logical fallacies and whataboutisms. In short, when certain denizens of this Grate Site show up in a topic, everyone else leaves.

We live in marvellous times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct in that the coverage of the violence in the US IS dripping with debating tricks, logical fallaices, and whataboutisms. Not to mention outright lies. 

That folks suffer mental harm from pushback on those issues in discussions here, well, that's too bad. 

Look at the points about the US Rioting where you can see coverage is tilted in favor of the rioters looking good and not as in the wrong. You can literally find local news footage of people looting liquor and clothing stores but it's all framed around racial justice. 

Look at the recent thread posted by another denizen about San Jose passing a city law to tax guns to pay for their gun violence. You think that's going to have any appreciable effect on the legislation's aim? 

Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Teen Was Having Car Trouble. A Sheriff’s Deputy Shot and Killed Him. (vice.com)

During a traffic stop last week, an Arkansas sheriff’s deputy shot and killed a teenage boy who was only armed with a neon-blue jug of antifreeze, family members told VICE News.

Lonoke County Sheriff’s Office Sgt. Michael Davis stopped 17-year-old Hunter Brittain near Cabot, Arkansas, at about 3 a.m. last Wednesday, and it’s still unclear why. Hunter had been having trouble with his truck when Davis pulled in behind him outside of a local auto repair shop and flashed his emergency lights, according to the account of a 16-year-old riding with Hunter at the time. When Hunter went to put the antifreeze behind his back tire so his vehicle wouldn’t roll into the officer’s, Davis allegedly fired at him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

A Teen Was Having Car Trouble. A Sheriff’s Deputy Shot and Killed Him. (vice.com)

During a traffic stop last week, an Arkansas sheriff’s deputy shot and killed a teenage boy who was only armed with a neon-blue jug of antifreeze, family members told VICE News.

Lonoke County Sheriff’s Office Sgt. Michael Davis stopped 17-year-old Hunter Brittain near Cabot, Arkansas, at about 3 a.m. last Wednesday, and it’s still unclear why. Hunter had been having trouble with his truck when Davis pulled in behind him outside of a local auto repair shop and flashed his emergency lights, according to the account of a 16-year-old riding with Hunter at the time. When Hunter went to put the antifreeze behind his back tire so his vehicle wouldn’t roll into the officer’s, Davis allegedly fired at him.

A White kid.  No one will care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, R011 said:

A White kid.  No one will care.

One of the radio chat shows made mention of this under the catchphrase 'Reverend Al Sharpton is the voice of reason so it MUST be bad:
Sharpie mentioned how he went to give a eulogy for Brittain and afterwords, he was told, by a person on the street: Are you going to go say anything about all those young black men who are shooting each other?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Paywalled:

A former Marine was pulled over for following a truck too closely. Police took nearly $87,000 of his cash.

Quote

Lara — a former Marine who says he was on his way to visit his daughters in Northern California — insisted he was doing none of those things, though he readily admitted he had “a lot” of cash in his car. As he stood on the side of the road, police searched the vehicle, pulling nearly $87,000 in a zip-top bag from Lara’s trunk and insisting a drug-sniffing dog had detected something on the cash.

Police found no drugs, and Lara, 39, was charged with no crimes. But police nonetheless left with his money, calling a Drug Enforcement Administration agent to coordinate a process known as “adoption,” which allows federal authorities to seize cash or property they suspect is connected to criminal activity without levying criminal charges. Attorney General Eric Holder curtailed use of the practice in the Obama administration, but Attorney General Jeff Sessions restored it under President Donald Trump. Though Attorney General Merrick Garland has rolled back many Trump-era changes at the Justice Department, he has not taken any action on asset forfeiture.  It was only after Lara got a lawyer, sued and talked with The Washington Post about his ordeal that the government said it would return his money. Asked for comment on this story on Tuesday, spokespeople for the Justice Department, DEA and Nevada Highway Patrol all declined to comment. But on Wednesday, after this story first published, DEA spokeswoman Anne Edgecomb said the agency had made a decision to return Lara’s money and the government vowed a broader review.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/stephen-lara-nevada-asset-forfeiture-adoption/2021/09/01/6f170932-06ae-11ec-8c3f-3526f81b233b_story.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, JWB said:

Paywalled:

A former Marine was pulled over for following a truck too closely. Police took nearly $87,000 of his cash.

The Daily Show had a piece on that type of police shakedown of passers through in little counties all over the US - maybe about 4 years ago?  Fairly shocking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JWB said:

Paywalled:

A former Marine was pulled over for following a truck too closely. Police took nearly $87,000 of his cash.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/stephen-lara-nevada-asset-forfeiture-adoption/2021/09/01/6f170932-06ae-11ec-8c3f-3526f81b233b_story.html

 

  The Sheriff of Nottingham would be envious of such thieving talents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

https://fee.org/articles/minnesotas-second-largest-county-is-radically-changing-its-approach-to-policing/

Some good, some bad in the article. To wit;

Quote

Additionally, non-public safety traffic stops target poor people, often compounding the government’s role in creating a permanent underclass. By that I mean that these stops are frequently for offenses like expired tags or broken taillights—things that the person may not have fixed because they already do not have the means to do so. By ticketing them for these things we merely push people further into poverty and harass citizens for non-violent violations that shouldn’t be on the books to begin with.

If broken taillights are a public safety hazard, then they are a hazard regardless of the income level of the vehicle owner/operator.

One thing that critics of traffic stops fail to understand is that, with the revolving-door justice system, it is a mechanism for police to apprehend career criminals. Take that away, we're looking at an ensuing rapid rise in violent crime.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lower income folks tend to make more of the bad decisions that result in equipment problems on their cars. Bad decision making is WHY they’re lower income in the first place as a rule..

Now, the court systems can be hard to deal with! I got to see that first hand with my own stupid code enforcement case that the county was utterly wrong on. I was able to prevail because I had resources to do so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/1/2021 at 6:18 PM, JWB said:

Paywalled:

A former Marine was pulled over for following a truck too closely. Police took nearly $87,000 of his cash.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/stephen-lara-nevada-asset-forfeiture-adoption/2021/09/01/6f170932-06ae-11ec-8c3f-3526f81b233b_story.html

It is not your money, it is OUR money.

On 9/13/2021 at 2:07 AM, Ivanhoe said:

https://fee.org/articles/minnesotas-second-largest-county-is-radically-changing-its-approach-to-policing/

Some good, some bad in the article. To wit;

If broken taillights are a public safety hazard, then they are a hazard regardless of the income level of the vehicle owner/operator.

One thing that critics of traffic stops fail to understand is that, with the revolving-door justice system, it is a mechanism for police to apprehend career criminals. Take that away, we're looking at an ensuing rapid rise in violent crime.

Same here :( Piss poor people owning nothing more than a bicycle as meaning to travel to work fined many times on the same day for missing lights...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Adam Peter said:

It is not your money, it is OUR money.

Yes. Asset seizure is a big issue. I have little visibility of anyone save for  Libertarians really complaining about it. 
 

1 hour ago, Adam Peter said:

Same here :( Piss poor people owning nothing more than a bicycle as meaning to travel to work fined many times on the same day for missing lights...

Hang on, so they're running red lights repeatedly while operating a human powered vehicle on the road? I would submit that traffic laws ARE there for a reason. Perhaps people on bicycles should be excluded from using the roads OR excluded from traffic laws? But if they're using the roads perhaps they need to work within the confines of what makes for good sense like abiding by traffic control devices? If we get to ignore traffic control then why not let us all do so? 

Before you observe that a bicyclist isn't going to hurt someone in a car, be aware that a motorcyclist hitting a bicyclist or likewise just trying to avoid one can end up severely injured or dead when they impact other objects that are commonly found on or alongside the road. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only car accident I have ever been in was to avoid a bicyclist on the edge of the shoulder. Swerved to miss, and hit the rear left corner of the guy in the middle lane at 10 o'clock.

Was not happy about it, but I survived the exchange of insurance info (this can turn into an exchange of gunfire in CA). If I hadn't swerved, I'd have probably killed the cyclist. What saved her and I was the flash of sunlight off her reflective biker shorts.

To her credit, she eventually caught up to us on the same shoulder and stopped to check in on us all.

Freeways are not a ticket to ride. This is coming from an avid cyclist.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...