Police Shootings and Media Stupidity

[Vox]

The Media love to sensationalize it when a black man is killed by the police.

The outcry is usually pretty much the same when these tragedies happen.

Yet it should NOT be the same. Every shooting is different and must be treated as unique.

For those who know the law and are familiar with police procedures, it's easy to see that most, if not all, of the shootings of the past couple of years have ended with the CORRECT outcome.

Yet the Media lump them all together and, if anything, push the notion that the police are at fault.

Because that's where the money is........demonizing police is how you keep the ratings high.

:2usflag:

 

[celticwar17]

Most certainly do end in the correct outcome. Some are in an unfortunate grey area that can't really be prevented. And a very very few are unjustified and criminal.

 

[X Factor]

The Media love to sensationalize it when a black man is killed by the police.

The outcry is usually pretty much the same when these tragedies happen.

Yet it should NOT be the same. Every shooting is different and must be treated as unique.

For those who know the law and are familiar with police procedures, it's easy to see that most, if not all, of the shootings of the past couple of years have ended with the CORRECT outcome.

Yet the Media lump them all together and, if anything, push the notion that the police are at fault.

Because that's where the money is........demonizing police is how you keep the ratings high.

:2usflag:

Funny comments from you about taking things on a case by case basis and the concept of "demonizing", considering your support for the destruction of dogs based on solely on a breed that you have demonized.

 

[Cigar]

The Media love to sensationalize it when a black man is killed by the police.

The outcry is usually pretty much the same when these tragedies happen.

Yet it should NOT be the same. Every shooting is different and must be treated as unique.

For those who know the law and are familiar with police procedures, it's easy to see that most, if not all, of the shootings of the past couple of years have ended with the CORRECT outcome.

Yet the Media lump them all together and, if anything, push the notion that the police are at fault.

Because that's where the money is........demonizing police is how you keep the ratings high.

:2usflag:

It's always Sensational when an Un-Armed Human Being is shot Multiple Times ... Always.

It's The Principle reason why every time I leave home, I'm Armed.

In my 50 years, I've never once worried about any encounter with a Thug, even though I've regularly gone in and out of Chicago worst Neighborhoods for most of my life. My Father was a Cop, and I have multiple friends and family who are trained Law Enforcement Processionals. The one thing my Family and friends all know, they will never have to worry about reading that I was an Un-Armed Victim.

 

[Vox]

Funny comments from you about taking things on a case by case basis and the concept of "demonizing", considering your support for the destruction of dogs based on solely on a breed that you have demonized.

Pit bulls have demonized themselves by their consistent bad behavior.

:2usflag:

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Pit bulls have demonized themselves by their consistent bad behavior.

:2usflag:

No, they haven't. Why pretend otherwise?

 

[Tanngrisnir]

The Media love to sensationalize it when a black man is killed by the police.

The outcry is usually pretty much the same when these tragedies happen.

Yet it should NOT be the same. Every shooting is different and must be treated as unique.

For those who know the law and are familiar with police procedures, it's easy to see that most, if not all, of the shootings of the past couple of years have ended with the CORRECT outcome.

Yet the Media lump them all together and, if anything, push the notion that the police are at fault.

Because that's where the money is........demonizing police is how you keep the ratings high.

:2usflag:

I know the law and and intimately familiar with police procedure. Tell me, what data did you quantify to come to your conclusion? And how long is 'the past couple of years' in your calculations?

How many shootings did you use that were within 'the past couple of years', and what was 'most'? How did you account for the Michael Slager case, given that you stated 'if not all'?

Please be very, very specific.

Thanks in advance!

 

[Vox]

No, they haven't. Why pretend otherwise?

Yes, they have......the record is clear. Why pretend otherwise?

:2usflag:

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Yes, they have......the record is clear. Why pretend otherwise?

:2usflag:

Nah. But you go on pretending that it has if you have to.

I'll understand.

 

[Vox]

How many shootings did you use that were within 'the past couple of years', and what was 'most'? How did you account for the Michael Slager case, given that you stated 'if not all'?

What is your criticism of the outcome of the Michael Slager case?

:2usflag:

 

[Vox]

Most certainly do end in the correct outcome. Some are in an unfortunate grey area that can't really be prevented. And a very very few are unjustified and criminal.

Very true.

:2usflag:

 

[X Factor]

Pit bulls have demonized themselves by their consistent bad behavior.

:2usflag:

It's not "consistent" all. The large majority of pit bulls are never involved in a biting incident, just as the large majority of officers go their entire careers without shooting anyone.

 

[Vox]

It's not "consistent" all. The large majority of pit bulls are never involved in a biting incident, just as the large majority of officers go their entire careers without shooting anyone.

ttt

If you want to discuss that topic......go to the pit bull thread to get your proper trouncing.

:2usflag:

 

[Tanngrisnir]

What is your criticism of the outcome of the Michael Slager case?

:2usflag:

Why can't you answer the the questions I asked you?

 

[Vox]

Why can't you answer the the questions I asked you?

Your questions are impertinent.

You seem to be complaining about the Slager case. That's pertinent.

So discuss it. What did you find improper about the outcome? I thought it was appropriate, as have been most such cases in the past couple of years.

:2usflag:

 

[Grim17]

It's always Sensational when an Un-Armed Human Being is shot Multiple Times ... Always.

Not true... Unarmed white men are also shot by police, but they rarely have the spotlight shined on them by the national news media.

.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Your questions are impertinent.

No, they're not. I suggest not using words you don't understand.

You seem to be complaining about the Slager case. That's pertinent.

No, I made no complaint about it.

So discuss it. What did you find improper about the outcome? I thought it was appropriate, as have been most such cases in the past couple of years.

:2usflag:

Sorry you're frightened by what I asked you and you can't back up your claim.

Frankly, I didn't expect anything different.

 

[Vox]

No, they're not. I suggest not using words you don't understand.

No, I made no complaint about it.

Sorry you're frightened by what I asked you and you can't back up your claim.

Frankly, I didn't expect anything different.

So did you misspeak on the Slager case and now you're afraid to discuss it?

If my "claim" is wrong, you should be able to easily refute it.

But you don't do that.......you just ask impertinent questions.

:2usflag:

 

[X Factor]

ttt

If you want to discuss that topic......go to the pit bull thread to get your proper trouncing.

:2usflag:

In other words, you cannot explain your own inconsistency. :lol:

 

[Tanngrisnir]

So did you misspeak on the Slager case and now you're afraid to discuss it?

If my "claim" is wrong, you should be able to easily refute it.

But you don't do that.......you just ask impertinent questions.

:2usflag:

I didn't misspeak. You said, 'if not all', and I offered an example to correct that. Your claim about 'all' was refuted.

Now then: what's got you frightened to death about answer what I asked you and backing up your claim.

It's not up to me to refute a bare assertion; it's up to you to substantiate it.

Looks like you might be in a little over your head here if you can't do that.

 

[Vox]

I didn't misspeak. You said, 'if not all', and I offered an example to correct that. Your claim about 'all' was refuted.

Now then: what's got you frightened to death about answer what I asked you and backing up your claim.

It's not up to me to refute a bare assertion; it's up to you to substantiate it.

Looks like you might be in a little over your head here if you can't do that.

No, you refuted nothing.

I didn't claim "all" as you wrongly assert. I offered "all" as a possibility.

You offered a case that may have been an exception, but you refused to discuss it.

So, it looks like you're the one who got in over his head and is afraid to discuss the issue.

:2usflag:

 

[Vox]

In other words, you cannot explain your own inconsistency. :lol:

Those "other" words would be yours......and wrong.

:lol:

 

[Tanngrisnir]

No, you refuted nothing.

LOL! I didn't claim I had refuted anything. I stated that I didn't need to. YOU haven't supported your claim. You've essentially run from it.

I didn't claim "all" as you wrongly assert. I offered "all" as a possibility.

Yes, you stated, 'if not all', and the example I provided showed that to be specious.

You offered a case that may have been an exception, but you refused to discuss it.

So, it looks like you're the one who got in over his head and is afraid to discuss the issue.

I'm happy to discuss your as of yet bare assertion from your TP, but you refuse to back it up.

What's got you so deathly frightened of doing so? There's no 'issue' to discuss up you stop running from your own words.

 

[Vox]

I didn't claim I had refuted anything.

Previous post by Tanngrisnir: "Your claim about 'all' was refuted."

You seem determined to refuse any serious discussion.

Carry on by yourself.

:2usflag:

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Previous post by Tanngrisnir: "Your claim about 'all' was refuted."

You seem determined to refuse any serious discussion.

Carry on by yourself.

:2usflag:

I understand. You made a claim in your TP, were challenged on it, and were forced to run.

Your claim included 'if not all', and now you're denying that.

Sad. What's got you so frightened of back up your own statement?