White cop tackles black mom after she called police for help[W:295]

ashurbanipal · Jan 21, 2017

Excon said:
And btw, you need to get a different legal theory instructor because all you are doing is spewing nonsense.

Anyone can make that kind of remark. Anyone can say "that's nonsense." But if this, or basically anything you say, is true, you'd be able to say why. So far, this sort of remark (i.e. "that's nonsense!") is about 90% of the content you post.

Excon said:
No. They haven't taken anything away.

A person who is shot and killed had a life before, and none after. Your claim is obviously false.

Excon said:
Due process has already occurred through the enforcement of what has already been authorized given the situational circumstances.

Evidence?

Excon said:
From that point it should be assumed that LE was doing their job of law enforcement. (not assuming the idiotic position of not doing their job)
Under that review if it is shown that the Officer was not acting within the bounds of the law that is where the presumption stops. It is like you do not not understand that.

I understand that's your position. I disagree with it.

Excon said:
You are making argument against something no one has said. Doh!

Perhaps in your world conversation is no more subtle than what third-graders can grasp, but in debate over a topic, no one is restricted to merely refuting the points made by an interlocutor. Sometimes a person explains some consequences of their position, or anticipates a potential future point, or something like that. If any of this is too convoluted for you to handle, I'm afraid I don't know what to tell you, except that reading more is the only way to build the necessary skills.

In the meantime, your reply simply dances around the point, suggesting (as should be obvious to anyone by now) that you have no substantive points to make at all.

Excon said:
Shootings are automatically reviewed. Do you really not understand that?

Sure, I agree that is the case. So what? I have no idea why you would think that'd be a problem for my position.

Excon said:
No. I did not speak to hijacking. I spoke to a flaw in design.

A process that can be hijacked might be said to be flawed...but whatever terminology strikes your poetic soul here is fine by me.

Excon said:
Another absurd reply. Figures.
No, professional juries sounds like a better solution, made up of those trained in the law and the standards required.

The absurdity is meant to mirror the absurdity of your point. You were complaining about a proposed process because it might be imperfect. Well, every process is imperfect in some way. So on your view, we should abandon all our processes...which is obviously an absurd view.

Excon said:
You can repeat it until you are blue in the face. I care not.
Nor does your assumption follow from what I stated.

My question assumes nothing except that some state of affairs is possible. The fact that you have refused three times now to answer it tells me and pretty much anyone else that you cannot actually answer it. So here it is again, for a fourth time:

You've said, explicitly, that we should presume the police have acted correctly in all cases of police violence against a citizen, even including when they've shot and killed someone. You've also said that we should presume that whatever review is done is adequate and fair. My question, then, is what prevents the police from murdering citizens if these standards are implemented?

ashurbanipal · Jan 21, 2017

Excon said:
Your question was totally absurd and irrelevant in this discussion. The police are not in the habit of just going out and murdering folks. Do you really not understand that?

I think I've already agreed with you that the police do not, by and large, just go out and murder people. I have no idea why you think that's relevant.

Excon said:
For your question to following you would have to show they are in the habit of doing such and you simply can not do that.

Questions don't follow (and they certainly don't following). Propositions follow from other propositions, but a question is not a proposition.

Excon said:
Any opinion I give in regards to your question is irrelevant as you can not show that that is the norm for them.

I don't have to show it's the norm for the question to be relevant. You've made a counter-proposal to mine about the ideal way we ought to regard instances of violence by the police on citizens. I think it's pretty obvious that if we implemented your suggestion, the police would be able to murder anyone they want. So it's not a good suggestion, and we shouldn't implement it.

Excon said:
Your question does not follow from what you quoted.

I spoke to their actions in the course of their duty and reacting to what they perceive as a threat.

I have no idea where you get this idea that questions should follow something. Look: if a question really is irrelevant, the thing to do is answer it honestly and correctly, and then show why the answer has nothing to do with the original issue.

Excon said:
Wow. Now you are presuming that those assigned to review can't do the the job they are assigned to do either. That is just more absurdity.

You seem to have a view of the logic of questions that is just false.

Excon said:
Of course they have such reviews? Wut?
No. They do not have such reviews.
Maybe the word "such" has confused you as all you have done is provide information showing that they do not have such reviews.

They clearly did not have a system such as ours is.

I agree, but that doesn't mean they didn't have reviews when a police officer shot a citizen. For example, in the Shirer text, a member of the Gestapo shot a Jewish man in the street in Berlin for no reason. The matter was reviewed, and the review board initially recommended the officer be jailed. Himmler found out about it, forwarded it to Hitler, who reversed the sentence and fired the members of the review board. But there was still a review, and under the proposal you've made, we should assume that review (i.e. the one that took place in that instance in Nazi Germany) was adequate.

Excon said:
And btw, thanks for the unsolicited reading list.
Just so you do not understand, that comment goes to you not actually having provided a valid argument by simply providing titles to read.

I was providing sources that show that tyrannical regimes have a review process when their police forces shoot citizens. If you actually go and read those...ah, geez. Nevermind. If I have to explain how a citation works, there's little hope you're going to get anything.

Excon · Jan 23, 2017

ashurbanipal said:
Excon said:

If you want a person to reply to a specific point, you provide it. They do not go hunting for whatever it is they think you may be referring to.
That is all on you.

Click to expand...

First, I don't know who appointed you the ethics and protocol judge of internet-board debating--perhaps you could enlighten us all on that matter. In the meantime, I did provide the point. It was a post I wrote, and I told you where to go find it.

iLOL
Your response does not refute or even negate what I said.
And no, you did not tell me where to find it. Pointing to the actual post number would be telling me where to find it, but that is not what you did.

Linking to the actual post or quoting what you said would be far better and less lazy. But you do not go tell a person to hunt down your first few posts to look for further argument like you absurdly did. It doesn't work that way.

And btw, fyi (though I am sure you already know), stripping the numbers from what you quoted removes the link to what you actually quoted. That (as I am sure you know) makes it harder for one to follow the quotes back to what was said. You might want to consider leaving those numbers in, especially if you are going to refer someone back to something you said previously.

Excon · Jan 23, 2017

Re: ashurbanipal's illogical and rediculous arguments for a presumption.

ashurbanipal said:
And like I said, if what you say is true, you wouldn't keep posting.

Still speaking nonsense I see.

ashurbanipal said:
Yes, correct. Part of the contention, anyway.
Rather, it's like you do not understand that what is, is irrelevant to what ought to be. I am arguing about what ought to be.

iLOL
No. You are not understanding that the way it is is the way it should be.
Not what you absurdly want it to be.

Like I said.

Nothing you have said supports such a presumption or refutes my position in any way.

ashurbanipal said:
Yes, but not in a manner that cannot be contradicted and overruled. It is merely to say that evidence should be required to substantiate warrant for shooting a citizen. The idea is not that this presumption continues in the face of evidence presented to the contrary. That's how it works in a court of law--the presumption of innocence doesn't continue if sufficient evidence of guilt is presented.

Which is wrong headed, and is you arguing in circles as you haven't refuted what was said.
As I already stated.

It is like you do not understand that we have a review process and if something turns up they investigate further and charge if need be.
In that process, when force is used they question it. It is not unlike an affirmative defense. The Officer articulates why he used said force.

Their job is to do "right" and you want to assume they have done wrong. Your position is illogical and absurd.

Excon · Jan 23, 2017

ashurbanipal said:
You calling it wrong doesn't make it wrong. Where is your argument that it is wrong?

Stop with the bs.
I didn't simply tell you that you were wrong as you are, the argument was in what you quoted.

ashurbanipal said:
The difference being that in my post, there actually was an argument in support of my position. I've read all your posts, and do not see any such argument. I had read them before asking you where you addressed the comment--which was, incidentally, that plenty of people don't do their jobs correctly. You haven't said anything to argue against that...and it would be pretty foolish of you to do so, because it's pretty clearly true.

Wrong on all counts.
There was no argument in what you presented as you failed to provide any, and you even failed to direct me to one and instead just said for "further argument" see one of your first few posts. Doh!
Which one of your arguments and in what post?

And yes, I have given argument which has shown why it is a stupid idea. Double doh!

ashurbanipal said:
Not only should I be, I would be, if you had made such a comment. But you haven't.

Stop with your dishonesty.
According to your standards I already directed you to it.
Again.

... see my first few posts addressing you in this thread.

That is if you are going to continue to not acknowledge the absurdity of your position in regards to that.

Excon · Jan 23, 2017

ashurbanipal said:
So, who appointed you the ethics and protocol judge of internet debating? As a matter of sheer pragmatics, the fact that you never answer my questions should worry you; an impartial observer would start to think that perhaps you have no answers.

You not knowing how debate occurs is not my problem.
Questions? You mean like you answered all of mine?
iLOL
I do not have to answer your questions, especially when they are not pertinent to my argument.
It is funny that you think I do.

ashurbanipal said:
No. Pointing out that it is impossible for you to judge.

iLOL
Besides you being wrong, no, what I said was clear. All you are doing is deflecting.

ashurbanipal said:
Says who? Why should it apply to a job review, or to a grand jury inquiry?

Says who? Wtf?
We are talking about when the person is accused.
Presuming they are in the wrong like you want to do is an accusation that they are in the wrong. Or aren't you aware of that?

Excon · Jan 23, 2017

Re: ashurbanipal's illogical and rediculous arguments for a presumption.

ashurbanipal said:
Anyone can make that kind of remark. Anyone can say "that's nonsense." But if this, or basically anything you say, is true, you'd be able to say why. So far, this sort of remark (i.e. "that's nonsense!") is about 90% of the content you post.

iLOL No. The 90%[SUP]+[/SUP] nonsense is what you have posted, my pointing that out is not.
I have said why, you just choose to ignore what you read.

ashurbanipal said:
A person who is shot and killed had a life before, and none after. Your claim is obviously false.

Wrong again and totally outside of what we are speaking about which is dishonesty.
No one would disagree that they had a life before and not after. The reason it was lost though is usually because of their own actions.

ashurbanipal said:
Due process has already occurred through the enforcement of what has already been authorized given the situational circumstances.

Click to expand...

Evidence?

Wtf?
So what you are saying is that you do not recognize the laws passed by our legislators allowing LE to respond the way they do, as due process?

ashurbanipal said:
I understand that's your position. I disagree with it.

iLOL
And yet you haven't been able to refute that argument.

Excon · Jan 23, 2017

ashurbanipal said:
Perhaps in your world conversation is no more subtle than what third-graders can grasp,

iLOL
You lack of understanding speaks far more to your inability than it does of me.
Thinking you can disparage me is as illogical as it is telling that you have no valid argument.

ashurbanipal said:
Sometimes a person explains some consequences of their position, or anticipates a potential future point, or something like that. If any of this is too convoluted for you to handle, I'm afraid I don't know what to tell you, except that reading more is the only way to build the necessary skills.

iLOL
You are projecting.

ashurbanipal said:
In the meantime, your reply simply dances around the point, suggesting (as should be obvious to anyone by now) that you have no substantive points to make at all.

Said the one with no valid argument.
iLOL
You would be better off trying to refute what I have said instead of projecting and revealing that you have no valid argument over and over again.

Excon · Jan 23, 2017

ashurbanipal said:
Excon said:

ashurbanipal said:

--and when person A shoots person B (in any circumstance), there is probable cause to investigate person A.

Click to expand...

Shootings are automatically reviewed. Do you really not understand that?

Click to expand...

Sure, I agree that is the case. So what? I have no idea why you would think that'd be a problem for my position.

Because it is at that point that if there is reason to look further the Officer is called on to support their actions. If they are unable then the presumption of wrong doing is assumed form that point forward.
So again, to do so before that point is ridiculous and opens up liability concerns that need not be opened until it appears wrong doing has happened.
Not to mention that it is wrong to assume wrong doing, period.

ashurbanipal said:
A process that can be hijacked might be said to be flawed...but whatever terminology strikes your poetic soul here is fine by me.

Way to deflect from being wrong.

ashurbanipal said:
The absurdity is meant to mirror the absurdity of your point. You were complaining about a proposed process because it might be imperfect. Well, every process is imperfect in some way. So on your view, we should abandon all our processes...which is obviously an absurd view.

Another absurd reply that is non-responsive to what was quoted. Figures.
There was no absurdity in my point, but there was in yours.
You asked me why I made a specific comment I replied. There was nothing absurd about the reply, especially as it was based in reality.
Your response to that though was absurd, as no one was suggesting that juries be gotten rig of.
The fact remains that your original comment of "when warrant truly does exist, it's easy to prove", is not always easy to prove and was an absurd comment.

Excon · Jan 23, 2017

Re: ashurbanipal's illogical and rediculous arguments for a presumption.

ashurbanipal said:
My question assumes nothing except that some state of affairs is possible. The fact that you have refused three times now to answer it tells me and pretty much anyone else that you cannot actually answer it. So here it is again, for a fourth time:

You've said, explicitly, that we should presume the police have acted correctly in all cases of police violence against a citizen, even including when they've shot and killed someone. You've also said that we should presume that whatever review is done is adequate and fair. My question, then, is what prevents the police from murdering citizens if these standards are implemented?

Just more absurdity.

Again.
(This time try responding to the totality of what was actually said.)

Excon said:
You can repeat it until you are blue in the face. I care not.
Nor does your assumption follow from what I stated.

Your question was totally absurd and irrelevant in this discussion. The police are not in the habit of just going out and murdering folks. Do you really not understand that?
For your question to following you would have to show they are in the habit of doing such and you simply can not do that.

This was your question.

ashurbanipal said:

So, in your view, what stops police officers from outright murdering whoever they please, whenever they please?

Click to expand...

Any opinion I give in regards to your question is irrelevant as you can not show that that is the norm for them.
So keep asking your absurd question all you want. You will get nowhere by doing so.

ashurbanipal said:
I think I've already agreed with you that the police do not, by and large, just go out and murder people. I have no idea why you think that's relevant.

I have no idea why you do not think it is relevant?

ashurbanipal said:
Questions don't follow (and they certainly don't following). Propositions follow from other propositions, but a question is not a proposition.

Absurd avoidance noted.

Again.

For your question to following you would have to show they are in the habit of doing such and you simply can not do that.

Excon · Jan 23, 2017

ashurbanipal said:
I don't have to show it's the norm for the question to be relevant.

You may not want to, but in this case you do if you want to justify a presumption.

You are the one arguing for a presumption.
LE is in the habit of doing their job as they are supposed to do it.
That is where the assumption should lay, the norm, not in the unusual of not doing their job the way they are supposed to do it.

ashurbanipal said:
You've made a counter-proposal to mine about the ideal way we ought to regard instances of violence by the police on citizens. I think it's pretty obvious that if we implemented your suggestion, the police would be able to murder anyone they want. So it's not a good suggestion, and we shouldn't implement it.

Your reply here is totally dishonest and is a reflection of the totality of the arguments you have made.

That is not what I argued. I argued it should be the way it currently is, which does not just let LE murder folks as you irrationally claim.

ashurbanipal said:
I have no idea where you get this idea that questions should follow something. Look: if a question really is irrelevant, the thing to do is answer it honestly and correctly, and then show why the answer has nothing to do with the original issue.

iLOL Not when it is irrelevant.

Excon · Jan 23, 2017

ashurbanipal said:
You seem to have a view of the logic of questions that is just false.

1. Non-responsive to what was quoted.
2. Deflection.
3. Wrong as usual.

Three strikes. Go figure.

ashurbanipal said:
I agree, but that doesn't mean they didn't have reviews when a police officer shot a citizen. For example, in the Shirer text, a member of the Gestapo shot a Jewish man in the street in Berlin for no reason. The matter was reviewed, and the review board initially recommended the officer be jailed. Himmler found out about it, forwarded it to Hitler, who reversed the sentence and fired the members of the review board. But there was still a review, and under the proposal you've made, we should assume that review (i.e. the one that took place in that instance in Nazi Germany) was adequate.

Irrelevant nonsense.
We do not have reviews like that. That you can not grasp that speaks to a convoluted thinking process.

ashurbanipal said:
I was providing sources that show that tyrannical regimes have a review process when their police forces shoot citizens. If you actually go and read those...ah, geez. Nevermind. If I have to explain how a citation works, there's little hope you're going to get anything.

1. Irrelevant. We do not have such reviews.
2. :lamo You might want to brush up on how to actually cite. Simply providing a reading list does not suffice.

RogueWarrior · Jan 28, 2017

You can see exactly where the encounter escalated.
'Why not?' are going to 2 very expensive words for Forth Worth.

I wonder why the officer didn't talk with the people who called for help first, and then talk to the guy. Well not really...
It is as if the painter was the one who called the police.