What's new
By:

Dumb pig cops getting smarter?

Joe Bagadonuts said:
I don't think the "reason for Miranda rights" is so that you won't interfere with a cop doing his job. It's a post-arrest reminder that even though they are likely to ask you questions you are not required to provide answers.
Click to expand...

Yeah I was extrapolating to make a point, not going into the finer points of Miranda v. Arizona.
 
Dr. Jones said:
I don't know.. I just feel like anthropoliteia is a drummed up manifestation of an academia sub-group attempting to justify an of-little-use degree.

I do have a serious question for NAOS, though. If I provide you a used tampon, can you tell me what period it's from?
Click to expand...

I relish the ironies of this board (most of the time). My favorites are when the board-certified tough guys rush in and, with the color and candor of the post above, tell me I've done some wrong. Aside from some harmless quips, the rough thing I said in this thread was a joke that wasn't understood, then explained, but then used as excuse to launch away anyway. ...In the end, a perfect demonstration that we will form an out-group and use our greatest force against them when we feel justified. Accountable policing? Applause.

I'm speaking to about 10 people here:
I'm going to do you guys a favor and stop posting here. I have no alts left either, so this is a big gift to ya. I've been holding out for a little while because the jazz are returning to relevance, but oh well.

ciao
 
NAOS said:
I relish the ironies of this board (most of the time). My favorites are when the board-certified tough guys rush in and, with the color and candor of the post above, tell me I've done some wrong. Aside from some harmless quips, the rough thing I said in this thread was a joke that wasn't understood, then explained, but then used as excuse to launch away anyway. ...In the end, a perfect demonstration that we will form an out-group and use our greatest force against them when we feel justified. Accountable policing? Applause.

I'm speaking to about 10 people here:
I'm going to do you guys a favor and stop posting here. I have no alts left either, so this is a big gift to ya. I've been holding out for a little while because the jazz are returning to relevance, but oh well.

ciao
Click to expand...

where did I say or even imply this?
 
Wait, we have "board-certified tough guys"? Was there a vote or something? I don't remember that. LOL at acting like you've been censored.

Bye NAOS. It's been fun.
 
Stoked said:
Wait, we have "board-certified tough guys"? Was there a vote or something? I don't remember that. LOL at acting like you've been censored.

Bye NAOS. It's been fun.
Click to expand...

"Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted"

The dream is real, for some "people"
 
To Dutch.

You called these kids hoodrats...

I don't know what the "hood" looks like where you come from, or what hoodrats look like, but the location in this video is not a "hood" in the U.S., it's a very middle class neighborhood, probably with a mix of higher paid blue collar workers and white collar professionals. Those kids are all wearing swimsuits. They were attending a pool party shortly after the end of the school year. You call into question their upbringing. You refer to them in derogatory ways. By their behavior and their speech these are suburban kids. You might be fooled by the color of their skin, but I'm not. I grew up in a ghetto and moved to the suburbs as a teen. Those are not ghetto kids, they are not thugs, they are bratty teenagers.

The person who called the police wanted the large (very large) group of brats to get out of the pool they had overrun. When the police showed up the crowed dispersed. Mission accomplished!

I've been chased out of a neighborhood pool before. I even gave the person telling us to leave an attitude about it. I didn't get physically assaulted by a police officer in the process and I don't think that should be the standard response, even if the kids are black.
 
NAOS said:
link???

please.... keep trying to bend the language to your advantage. High entertainment value.

There's nothing wrong with the term "local protector".... it just doesn't fit your categories.
Click to expand...

Couldn't I make that same claim against you? You use the term 'local protector,' which is a general term, and presumably have some idea of what specific types protection they provide, which can (I assume) be described using other, more specific terms.

One of the functions of warlords is to provide protection to people under their control, primarily against other groups/warlords is it not?. Without such protection, the common folk would be totally vulnerable to the depredations of rivals groups/warlords. Thus, identifying warlords as a position that provides protection to his/her subjects strikes me as a perfectly reasonable application of a general term.

From where I sit, you are the one trying to bend language to your advantage, in this case by taking perfectly reasonable definitions of general terms and ridiculing them.

If you don't want people attaching their own definitions to the general/vague terms you use, then please feel free to clarify just what you mean by them. Otherwise, quit complaining.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXvPVw8yn4k

lol i just love theyoungturks. im not trolling. just funny how they analyze it and spun it.
 
NAOS said:
that's your fate, too. I've noticed the putdown in your post. It'll be interesting to see how your gender biases impact your life. You're perpetually single and picky, right?
Click to expand...

Haven't you used 'sissy' as a putdown on this board? You know, the word typically used for men for are too effeminate according to others? Interesting to see how your gender biases impact your life.
 
Howard said:
Haven't you used 'sissy' as a putdown on this board? You know, the word typically used for men for are too effeminate according to others? Interesting to see how your gender biases impact your life.
Click to expand...

Is this your way of gloating for marrying HAWT?!!
 
NAOS said:
I relish the ironies of this board (most of the time). My favorites are when the board-certified tough guys rush in and, with the color and candor of the post above, tell me I've done some wrong. Aside from some harmless quips, the rough thing I said in this thread was a joke that wasn't understood, then explained, but then used as excuse to launch away anyway. ...In the end, a perfect demonstration that we will form an out-group and use our greatest force against them when we feel justified. Accountable policing? Applause.

I'm speaking to about 10 people here:
I'm going to do you guys a favor and stop posting here. I have no alts left either, so this is a big gift to ya. I've been holding out for a little while because the jazz are returning to relevance, but oh well.

ciao
Click to expand...

I nearly shed a tear.
 
LogGrad98 said:
The great and disgustingly terrible thing about these videos is the issue of cause and effect.

Yes the kids lunging at him while he was vulnerable (handling another person who was not cooperating) made him feel justifiably threatened. However, if he hadn't taken down that girl (and so poorly) in the first place the thugs wouldn't have felt the need to act all tough for the camera. So if the girl had cooperated, even if just to sit down on the lawn when asked, for questioning or whatever, the cop wouldn't have felt the need to tackle her to get her to cooperate. However, if the cops had had a better game plan at the beginning (like if you get a report of many people having a drug party why do you show up with only 2 guys in the first place?) and hand handled things better then it wouldn't have gotten out of hand. However, if there had been NO drug party to begin with (you know, people actually obeying the law) then the cops would never have been called out in the first place. So where along this line of cause and effect does it all fit?

To me the part bolded at the end is what gets blurred out. Either everyone thinks that the cop's bad handling of the whole thing justifies the illegal behavior (post hoc ergo propter hoc), or that somehow if a cop screws up it negates the illegal behavior that might have been occurring in the first place. What if this party had young kids who were being given hard drugs for the first time. Is it still worse that at cop tackles a teenager, or is it possible that something happening at the party might have been just as bad or worse? Does anyone even know? So without all the facts everyone is so willing to jump to judgement and execution. That is my beef with these.

For the record, if it proves out it is just another Dirty Harry wannabe then throw the mother ****in ******* in jail, and throw away the key. THAT **** HAS GOT TO STOP!

At the same time, STOP BREAKING THE LAW ASSHOLES!
Click to expand...

The Law is a joke and this **** isn't going to stop.

There are too many laws and too many cops. There is too little training and that training has the wrong emphasis. The emphasis should be service and arbitration over protection and enforcement but it's not.

The cause and effect argument is bs. You cannot justify the use of force with a convoluted story. It's simple was this young girl in a bikini a threat. The answer to any reasonable person is no. (Being a loud mouthed teenager does not constitute a threat) A reason why something happened is not justification. It does not absolve this officer of his responsibility to only use force when necessary and to temper that force.
 
♪alt13 said:
The Law is a joke and this **** isn't going to stop.

There are too many laws and too many cops. There is too little training and that training has the wrong emphasis. The emphasis should be service and arbitration over protection and enforcement but it's not.

The cause and effect argument is bs. You cannot justify the use of force with a convoluted story. It's simple was this young girl in a bikini a threat. The answer to any reasonable person is no. (Being a loud mouthed teenager does not constitute a threat) A reason why something happened is not justification. It does not absolve this officer of his responsibility to only use force when necessary and to temper that force.
Click to expand...

If you had read anything else I posted you would see that I do not condone the use of force. But since you obviously didn't there is no need to carry this conversation further.


But I can see from your response that you follow the post hoc ergo propter hoc line of thinking. I guess we can fundamentally disagree there. Someone else's bad behavior does not excuse your own.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
Did you post this video because you like how eloquently he explains how wrong you have been in this thread?
Click to expand...

no i posted it because just like fox. they shape the narrative.
notice he makes those white look like racist and when he tells the narative. the whites say black ****er, section 40 housing etc. and the black responses are: hey what are u doing you cannot say this.
like they where pretty civil en the whites where rude and dumb.

but with fox it is the other way around. it is just funny so depending on which side of media you listen it might shape your narative
 
NAOS said:
I relish the ironies of this board (most of the time). My favorites are when the board-certified tough guys rush in and, with the color and candor of the post above, tell me I've done some wrong. Aside from some harmless quips, the rough thing I said in this thread was a joke that wasn't understood, then explained, but then used as excuse to launch away anyway. ...In the end, a perfect demonstration that we will form an out-group and use our greatest force against them when we feel justified. Accountable policing? Applause.

I'm speaking to about 10 people here:
I'm going to do you guys a favor and stop posting here. I have no alts left either, so this is a big gift to ya. I've been holding out for a little while because the jazz are returning to relevance, but oh well.

ciao
Click to expand...
Escalated quickly much?

Ron-Burgundy-Saying-I-Dont-Believe-You.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top