Page 55 of 69 FirstFirst ... 545535455565765 ... LastLast
Results 541 to 550 of 681

Thread: Prisoner in van said Freddie Gray was ‘trying to injure himself,’ document [W:384]

  1. #541
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:21 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    28,883

    Re: Prisoner in van said Freddie Gray was ‘trying to injure himself,’ document [W:384

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    I can see you're really into petty arguments.
    Nothing more than a manifestation of your own thoughts.

    Being on point and following what was quoted isn't petty. It is pretty relevant.


    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    My foray into the later part of this discussion was at post #514 and was very relevant to the thread topic, towhich: "Who said Freddie Gray was banging (his head) against the van walls and believed he was trying to purposely injure himself." I provided three links that bring into question the claim that it was Donta Allen who made such a claim and I started with the very OP you provided. I can hardly see where my comments since post #514 are not in keeping with the overall discussion.
    Why do you keep referring to 514? We are not talking about 514. A reply was given to that as well as your continuation in posts 518 & 519.

    We are talking about your post at 520, as already pointed out.
    You quoted my conversation with another but your reply did not follow what was being disused in those quotes. And here you now are making more of an issue out of it for some reason.


    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    I did no such thing. I asked if the quote that's being attributed to him were, in fact, his words.
    Yes, that is what you did.

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    It's possible that the quote that's been attributed to Donta Allen were not his words but rather those of this yet to be identified ear witness.
    1. That is a statement. A statement of possibility. Not a question.
    2. "the quote that's been attributed to" is an acknowledgement of to whom it was attributed.
    3. Your statement acknowledges the words were attributed to a specific witness but may apply to another.
    4. The article was updated the include the witness's name


    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Obviously you do not understand what quotation marks indicate.
    Your common MO seems to be to attack the poster's intelligence as if yours is superior. So far all you've managed to do is twist things around in what can only be deemed as a purposeful attempt to deflect and confuse. It's what you do.
    1. No, it isn't.
    2. Your interpretation of my motivations is a manifestation of your own thoughts.
    3. And was said in reply to his snipe of "You still don't seem to understand what a quote is.".
    Have you not seen the back and forth?
    Unlike you, he wouldn't admit that the author attributed the quote to the witness. To admit that would be an admittance that my arguments in regards to that were correct, as that is what the information stated.
    But as it is, it took two of us. So spare me the bs of only pointing out one side.

    At least I admitted to the possibility that the author could have badly worded his article.


    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    And all I've asked was were those words spoken by Donte Allen or someone else? If you can provide a direct quote from Donte Allen where he said those exact words, I'm in your corner.
    Thank you, but I do not need people in my corner.

    Yes you asked that, after admitting that the reporter attributed the words to the witness. Asking such makes no sense in such light.
    And the author attributing those words in "quotes" to the witness, is saying they are direct quotes of that witness.


    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    But you do not want to admit that so go round and round with your absurd game.
    What's there to admit other than the possibility that someone's probably trying to hide the truth?
    1. You are again quoting what I said to him. How does that apply to you?

    2. We are discussing the available information/evidence. What the author reported is part of that information.
    That specific information was quoted and attributed to the witness and has been corrected to include the witness's name.
    That is pretty relevant information to this debate. Yet he wouldn't acknowledge that and wanted to play his denial game.

    3. This wasn't the only argument made in reference to the statements, it was just the one he wouldn't acknowledge.
    But it is what the wording indicates. Yet he wanted to go round and round with the bs.


    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Yes the author did, but it's clear from a strict reading of the article the author could have been wrong.
    Yes he did, period.
    Thank you for admitting that.
    There is no "he could have been wrong" in reference to what he quoted. He had the info in his hands.

    It could only be that he poorly worded his report, which I previously acknowledged.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle

  2. #542
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:21 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    28,883

    Re: Prisoner in van said Freddie Gray was ‘trying to injure himself,’ document [W:384

    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzo Rodeo View Post
    The article doesn't claim to quote Allen; it very clearly is quoting the affidavit written by the officer.

    Look at that change in argument once another has acknowledged the quotes were attributed to the witness.

    To bad you are still wrong.

    The only correct interpretation of those words, because of the actual wording, paragraph construction and quotations, was that the author was quoting the prisoner's words.

    Not once did he indicate that he was quoting anything else.


    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzo Rodeo View Post
    One could make an argument that the affidavit might be quoting Allen, but without seeing it we can't know if they are Allen's words exactly or a retelling of Allen's story by the officer...which makes the affidavit a secondhand source, and the article a thirdhand source.
    We are arguing what the reporter authored. He clearly indicated the "quotes" came from the witness and clearly indicated that "his statement" was contained in the application.
    The only argument you have is that the report is poorly worded. Not that he didn't attribute the quotes to the witness.


    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzo Rodeo View Post
    Again, if you could quote Allen's words to me, this argument would be over.
    How sad, I was mistaken and you are back to the same ol' tired bs.
    Those quotes were attributed to the witness, not to anybody else.


    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzo Rodeo View Post
    You obviously DO know what a quote is, and you obviously DO know that NO quotes from Allen have been provided.

    That would be you, as the words are quoted in the report and attributed to the witness.


    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzo Rodeo View Post
    You cling to this idea that he isn't trustworthy now, but that narrative is only possible given a quote from him earlier...which you are unable to produce.

    Lame.
    We are discussing one singular point which you refuse to acknowledge.
    And that point doesn't effect any of the other relevant arguments previously made.

    One being that even if it was just an Officer's statement of what the witness said, as a sworn statement it has a lot more credibility to it than than whatever the witness says now. You can't get around that.

    You can't get around what the Commissioner has told us he said.

    Regardless of these arguments, we know he spoke to police and there is no indication that he did so for any reason that would taint what he said.
    So you can bet if that information is ever given to a jury they will have far more reason to trust it than anything he says now.
    Absent information to the contrary, thinking otherwise is sheer lunacy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzo Rodeo View Post
    Ya got nothing. And you aren't fooling anybody..
    No. That clearly would be.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle

  3. #543
    better late than pregnant
    Gonzo Rodeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Here
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:20 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    3,007

    Re: Prisoner in van said Freddie Gray was ‘trying to injure himself,’ document [W:384

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post

    Look at that change in argument once another has acknowledged the quotes were attributed to the witness.

    To bad you are still wrong.

    The only correct interpretation of those words, because of the actual wording, paragraph construction and quotations, was that the author was quoting the prisoner's words.

    Not once did he indicate that he was quoting anything else.


    We are arguing what the reporter authored. He clearly indicated the "quotes" came from the witness and clearly indicated that "his statement" was contained in the application.
    The only argument you have is that the report is poorly worded. Not that he didn't attribute the quotes to the witness.


    How sad, I was mistaken and you are back to the same ol' tired bs.
    Those quotes were attributed to the witness, not to anybody else.



    That would be you, as the words are quoted in the report and attributed to the witness.



    Lame.
    We are discussing one singular point which you refuse to acknowledge.
    And that point doesn't effect any of the other relevant arguments previously made.

    One being that even if it was just an Officer's statement of what the witness said, as a sworn statement it has a lot more credibility to it than than whatever the witness says now. You can't get around that.

    You can't get around what the Commissioner has told us he said.

    Regardless of these arguments, we know he spoke to police and there is no indication that he did so for any reason that would taint what he said.
    So you can bet if that information is ever given to a jury they will have far more reason to trust it than anything he says now.
    Absent information to the contrary, thinking otherwise is sheer lunacy.


    No. That clearly would be.
    Again, the "quotes" are quoting the affidavit, written by the officer. You can't get around this fact. When someone takes "a statement", the officer paraphrases what they say and writes a report in prose. Since the officer is NOT taking dictation - and he is summarizing the other person's words - this leaves room for interpretive error.

    And that's the problem.

    Without hearing a tape or seeing a video of Donta Allen saying that he thinks Gray hurt himself, which is an awfully convenient narrative for the police department (related by a police officer, no less), we really have no reason not to trust the full court refutation offered by Gray to literally the first person who asked him to corroborate. The only reason to assume he is now lying is to assume he is a liar; that is to say, one must invent a need for him to lie in order to believe the police over him about his own statement.

    You have to assume police would NEVER lie, and that young black men in custody ALWAYS would.
    "Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. . . . Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness."
    ~Orwell, Politics and the English Language

  4. #544
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:21 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    28,883

    Re: Prisoner in van said Freddie Gray was ‘trying to injure himself,’ document [W:384

    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzo Rodeo View Post
    the "quotes" are quoting the affidavit, written by the officer.
    No. It doesn't say that at all.

    The only correct interpretation of those words, because of the actual wording, paragraph construction and quotations, was that the author was quoting the prisoner's words.

    The quotes were attributed to the witness. "His statements". Not anyone else's.
    But of course you do not want to recognize that.

    Your argument based on the information in the OP is 100% wrong, and it is you who can't get around that fact.

    It wouldn't even matter if what you say turns out to be factual correct. Based on the wording, paragraph construction and quotations, the author was attributing the quotes to the witness.
    I even acknowledged that it may have been badly written, but the attribution was still to the witness. Not anyone else.


    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzo Rodeo View Post
    Since the officer is NOT taking dictation - and he is summarizing the other person's words - this leaves room for interpretive error.
    1. Irrelevant argument in regards to whom the author attributed the quotes.
    2. An assumption on your part which is not consistent with the way the article was written.

    And as already pointed out, an Officer's sworn statement has far more credibility that the contrary statements the witness is now making. Just another thing that you can not get around.


    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzo Rodeo View Post
    which is an awfully convenient narrative for the police department (related by a police officer, no less),
    iLOL Nothing more than your own convoluted bias speaking.


    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzo Rodeo View Post
    we really have no reason not to trust the full court refutation offered by Gray to literally the first person who asked him to corroborate
    Simply wrong. Just you willfully ignoring reality.


    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzo Rodeo View Post
    The only reason to assume he is now lying is to assume he is a liar; that is to say, one must invent a need for him to lie in order to believe the police over him about his own statement.

    You have to assume police would NEVER lie, and that young black men in custody ALWAYS would.
    More convoluted bias and racial bs speaking and purposeful ignorance to what has already been revealed.
    Nothing has been made up.
    The witness made it known why he was now saying what he was. It was to protect himself and that taints his denial.
    Contrasted with what he said earlier having no reason shown that he could be making it up, one is far more believable than the other.

    Whether you realize it or not, that is a clear distinction, which has nothing to do with anyone's skin color.

    And as I previously said, "if that information is ever given to a jury they will have far more reason to trust it than anything he says now".
    Absent information to the contrary, thinking otherwise is sheer lunacy.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle

  5. #545
    better late than pregnant
    Gonzo Rodeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Here
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:20 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    3,007

    Re: Prisoner in van said Freddie Gray was ‘trying to injure himself,’ document [W:384

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    No. It doesn't say that at all.

    The only correct interpretation of those words, because of the actual wording, paragraph construction and quotations, was that the author was quoting the prisoner's words.

    The quotes were attributed to the witness. "His statements". Not anyone else's.
    But of course you do not want to recognize that.

    Your argument based on the information in the OP is 100% wrong, and it is you who can't get around that fact.

    It wouldn't even matter if what you say turns out to be factual correct. Based on the wording, paragraph construction and quotations, the author was attributing the quotes to the witness.
    I even acknowledged that it may have been badly written, but the attribution was still to the witness. Not anyone else.


    1. Irrelevant argument in regards to whom the author attributed the quotes.
    2. An assumption on your part which is not consistent with the way the article was written.

    And as already pointed out, an Officer's sworn statement has far more credibility that the contrary statements the witness is now making. Just another thing that you can not get around.


    iLOL Nothing more than your own convoluted bias speaking.



    Simply wrong. Just you willfully ignoring reality.


    More convoluted bias and racial bs speaking and purposeful ignorance to what has already been revealed.
    Nothing has been made up.
    The witness made it known why he was now saying what he was. It was to protect himself and that taints his denial.
    Contrasted with what he said earlier having no reason shown that he could be making it up, one is far more believable than the other.

    Whether you realize it or not, that is a clear distinction, which has nothing to do with anyone's skin color.

    And as I previously said, "if that information is ever given to a jury they will have far more reason to trust it than anything he says now".
    Absent information to the contrary, thinking otherwise is sheer lunacy.
    I see you're going to rely on your preconceived notions and continue to ignore the definition of what a "quote" is. You know, that thing you have been unable to provide?
    Last edited by Gonzo Rodeo; 05-11-15 at 04:34 PM.
    "Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. . . . Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness."
    ~Orwell, Politics and the English Language

  6. #546
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:21 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    28,883

    Re: Prisoner in van said Freddie Gray was ‘trying to injure himself,’ document [W:384

    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzo Rodeo View Post
    I see you're going to rely on your preconceived notions and continue to ignore the definition of what a "quote" is. You know, that thing you have been unable to provide?
    The only one ignoring things is you.
    The article makes it clear the quote is attributable to the witness.

    And even if the article was badly written and were correct that it was only the Officer relaying what he was told, your interpretation of how it was written is still wrong.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle

  7. #547
    better late than pregnant
    Gonzo Rodeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Here
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:20 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    3,007

    Re: Prisoner in van said Freddie Gray was ‘trying to injure himself,’ document [W:384

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    The only one ignoring things is you.
    The article makes it clear the quote is attributable to the witness.

    And even if the article was badly written and were correct that it was only the Officer relaying what he was told, your interpretation of how it was written is still wrong.
    What do you think a quote is?
    "Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. . . . Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness."
    ~Orwell, Politics and the English Language

  8. #548
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:21 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    28,883

    Re: Prisoner in van said Freddie Gray was ‘trying to injure himself,’ document [W:384

    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzo Rodeo View Post
    What do you think a quote is?
    What do you not understand about the actual quotes in the article being attributed to the witness?
    What do you not understand about the fact that they were not attributed to anyone else?
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle

  9. #549
    better late than pregnant
    Gonzo Rodeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Here
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:20 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    3,007

    Re: Prisoner in van said Freddie Gray was ‘trying to injure himself,’ document [W:384

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    What do you not understand about the actual quotes in the article being attributed to the witness?
    What do you not understand about the fact that they were not attributed to anyone else?
    Seriously, give me a definition of a quote.
    "Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. . . . Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness."
    ~Orwell, Politics and the English Language

  10. #550
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:21 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    28,883

    Re: Prisoner in van said Freddie Gray was ‘trying to injure himself,’ document [W:384

    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzo Rodeo View Post
    Seriously, give me a definition of a quote.
    Don't need to.
    You are the one that needs to explain what you do not understand about the actual quotes in the article not being attributed to anyone else but the witness.

    Again. "His statement is contained in an application for a search warrant," You clearly do not understand what you read.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle

Page 55 of 69 FirstFirst ... 545535455565765 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •