• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Baltimore on edge after arrestee's fatal spine injury[W:216]

Blemonds said:
That's your opinion and demonstrates your willingness to put your trust in someone else for your well being. I happen to hold a different perspective
Click to expand...

Yeah, that seatbelts are more restrictive than locked cages. :lamo
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Yeah, that seatbelts are more restrictive than locked cages.
Click to expand...
Or more appropriately that handcuffs and seat belts are more restrictive than handcuffs alone. Interesting that a simple concept has to be explained
 
Blemonds said:
Or more appropriately that handcuffs and seat belts are more restrictive than handcuffs alone. Interesting that a simple concept has to be explained
Click to expand...

Neither of which are more restrictive than being locked in a cage insofar as one's ability to escape is concerned.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Neither of which are more restrictive than being locked in a cage insofar as one's ability to escape is concerned.
Click to expand...
But both add to the restrictions. Shouldn't have to explain that
 
Blemonds said:
But both add to the restrictions. Shouldn't have to explain that
Click to expand...

But the cage is the main restriction. Just like how you can't be killed even deader if you're already dead, the seatbelt is ancillary and far less of a problem than the locked cage.

That you need this explained is pretty sad.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
But the cage is the main restriction. Just like how you can't be killed even deader if you're already dead, the seatbelt is ancillary and far less of a problem than the locked cage.

That you need this explained is pretty sad.
Click to expand...
Unless someone else opened the truck.
 
Blemonds said:
Unless someone else opened the truck.
Click to expand...

...and didn't undo the seatbelt? Someone with a key is going to unlock the cage, and you're worried they would just stand there and point and laugh at the seatbelt?

Why can't you admit it wasn't a very well thought out point? There is no shame in that. The shameful part is doubling down and refusing to acknowledge it.
 
Re: Baltimore on edge after arrestee's fatal spine injury

j-mac said:
Come on Lursa, I answered that little attempt from you to disqualify my POV on this situation....I will further state, I have family on my wife's side, along with nieces and nephews, great nieces and nephews that live in that city....Face it, Balto has been under demo control for the better part of the last century, and these policies are responsible for what is going on there, yet they, and YOU still try and blame someone, or something else....
Click to expand...

You misunderstood. I posted that to demonstrate that everyone is invested in and interested in the outcomes and nationally, there is pressure, not just locally.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
...and didn't undo the seatbelt? Someone with a key is going to unlock the cage, and you're worried they would just stand there and point and laugh at the seatbelt?

Why can't you admit it wasn't a very well thought out point? There is no shame in that. The shameful part is doubling down and refusing to acknowledge it.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't want to waste time waiting for someone else to do all the work. You would be free to do so if you wished since waiting for someone else to do something on your behalf is a liberal concept
 
Blemonds said:
I wouldn't want to waste time waiting for someone else to do all the work. You would be free to do so if you wished since waiting for someone else to do something on your behalf is a liberal concept
Click to expand...

I think it's funny that you think I'm a liberal. Refusing to admit your mistakes is a liberal concept. Just admit your mistake. A seatbelt is less restrictive than a cage.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
I think it's funny that you think I'm a liberal. Refusing to admit your mistakes is a liberal concept. Just admit your mistake. A seatbelt is less restrictive than a cage.
Click to expand...
You defined yourself and liberalism in one sentence. No wonder I think you're a liberal
 
Blemonds said:
You defined yourself and liberalism in one sentence. No wonder I think you're a liberal
Click to expand...

You still cling to the idea that being locked in a cage is somehow less restrictive than being buckled into a seat belt.

It's kind of funny.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
You still cling to the idea that being locked in a cage is somehow less restrictive than being buckled into a seat belt.

It's kind of funny.
Click to expand...
No, I cling to the idea that 3 restraints are more restrictive than two. While you deny that, oddly enough
 
Blemonds said:
No, I cling to the idea that 3 restraints are more restrictive than two. While you deny that, oddly enough
Click to expand...

You still think you can escape from a locked cage, while in handcuffs, so long as you don't have a seat belt on.

This was your reason for forgiving the police from failing to belt Gray in. Just despicable.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
You still think you can escape from a locked cage, while in handcuffs, so long as you don't have a seat belt on.

This was your reason for forgiving the police from failing to belt Gray in. Just despicable.
Click to expand...

I said I would rather be unbuckled than buckled. Everything else in your post you made up which is the pattern we're seeing in every discussion with liberals
 
Blemonds said:
I said I would rather be unbuckled than buckled. Everything else in your post you made up which is the pattern we're seeing in every discussion with liberals
Click to expand...

You said you would rather be unbuckled so you could have the ability to escape in an emergency.

...escape from a locked van.

Just....wow.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
You said you would rather be unbuckled so you could have the ability to escape in an emergency.

...escape from a locked van.

Just....wow.
Click to expand...

I said the chances would be better and I don't see how that can be disputed. But like I said, you would be free to follow liberal ideology to sit restrained waiting for someone else to help you rather than trying to help yourself
 
Blemonds said:
I said the chances would be better and I don't see how that can be disputed. But like I said, you would be free to follow liberal ideology to sit restrained waiting for someone else to help you rather than trying to help yourself
Click to expand...

That is a ridilous notion. Thank you for teaching me how to laugh again.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
That is a ridilous notion. Thank you for teaching me how to laugh again.
Click to expand...

Waiting for someone else to help you rather than help yourself is indeed a ridiculous notion, but that's liberalism for you. Laugh if you must
 
Blemonds said:
Waiting for someone else to help you rather than help yourself is indeed a ridiculous notion, but that's liberalism for you. Laugh if you must
Click to expand...

If someone already has to unlock you from the cage, you are still waiting on someone to help you.

Duh.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
If someone already has to unlock you from the cage, you are still waiting on someone to help you.

Duh.
Click to expand...
But you don't have t wait for them to unbuckle you. I think you're finally getting the pont
 
Blemonds said:
But you don't have t wait for them to unbuckle you. I think you're finally getting the pont
Click to expand...

At that point it really doesn't matter. You claim the seatbelt is dangerous for its ability to trap a handcuffed person in a hypothetical emergency while completely ignoring the locked cage they are in.

It's just ridiculous. And the fact that this ridiculous point was used in defense of people who wound up with a dead guy on their hands, whether it was their fault or not, is just brutal and biased and shortsighted. Ridiculous, in a word.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
At that point it really doesn't matter. You claim the seatbelt is dangerous for its ability to trap a handcuffed person in a hypothetical emergency while completely ignoring the locked cage they are in.

It's just ridiculous. And the fact that this ridiculous point was used in defense of people who wound up with a dead guy on their hands, whether it was their fault or not, is just brutal and biased and shortsighted. Ridiculous, in a word.
Click to expand...

It matters if you're the one trapped, unless you're also one who believes it's someone else's responsibility to save you
 
Blemonds said:
It matters if you're the one trapped, unless you're also one who believes it's someone else's responsibility to save you
Click to expand...

Before the hypothetical emergency, the seatbelt is keeping you from bouncing around inside the metal cage. Especially without the use of your hands to help keep you off the walls. A car accident (which is the most likely source of something requiring rescue) would do far more damage without a seatbelt on. In fact, the Baltimore police vans in particular have proven a dangerous method of conveyance in the past for some people being transported.

...but you seem to think all of those risks are completely overshadowed by the risk of the vehicle spontaneously catching fire, in such a way that there would be time to open the cage but not the seatbelt.

It's just not well thought out from your end.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Before the hypothetical emergency, the seatbelt is keeping you from bouncing around inside the metal cage. Especially without the use of your hands to help keep you off the walls. A car accident (which is the most likely source of something requiring rescue) would do far more damage without a seatbelt on. In fact, the Baltimore police vans in particular have proven a dangerous method of conveyance in the past for some people being transported.

...but you seem to think all of those risks are completely overshadowed by the risk of the vehicle spontaneously catching fire, in such a way that there would be time to open the cage but not the seatbelt.

It's just not well thought out from your end.
Click to expand...
It's hyperbole to say one would be bouncing around in the back of the truck. I've ridden in the backs of many trucks with no seatbelt without being bounced around. Feel free to entrust your safety and your life to others. I have no objection to that, but then I'm not a liberal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom