“Why did you shoot me? I was reading a book”: The new warrior cop is out of control

[justoh]

More gibberish. Is it intentional?

 

[HumblePie]

More gibberish. Is it intentional?

calling it gibberish without demonstrating is not exactly a way to win an argument.

 

[xj0hnx]

More gibberish. Is it intentional?

Stop being a typical troll and give a real explanation. His usage of the word, well not perfect, is fine. Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it "gibberish".

 

[HumblePie]

Stop being a typical troll and give a real explanation. His usage of the word, well not perfect, is fine. Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it "gibberish".

I think he was referencing how my explanation of how to breakdown the proper use of the word is gibberish. I guess the logic is not strong in this one. By the low post count I am guessing this is a troll account from someone else.

 

[Attic]

At least we aren't forced to pay 6 figure pensions to them.

Just do what your fucking told and don't stick your head out.

 

[Paul98]

This is a big problem, their abuse is becoming common place. Plus for some reason we have people still defending any action they take.

The problem is that the police don't seem to care about much about talking and interacting with people on a daily bases. They don't know how to make the correct decision, or even talk to people. That seems to stem from the type of people who are becoming cops.

 

[Paul98]

How could anyone read beyond the first paragraph. What a stupid article.

So you didn't read beyond the first paragraph and are calling it a stupid article??? give me a break

 

[waggy]

These threads creap up every now and then.

I think a big issue is it seems the police are getting more military like (since some have a stick up there ass about paramilitary). They have armored vehicles (why? sure i can see maybe chicago needing one and such. but many pD's have them), automatic rifles, body armor etc. IT does not help that Homeland Security is arming them for cheap.

Then what? they need to justify the huge cost of such shit. so they make everything they can a swat entrance.

Even small time PD's are getting this equipment for cheap (or free) from the Government.

 

[justoh]

I have already explained why it's used inappropriately. If you honestly think it makes any sense that the purported reason for the killing was to protect him from gambling, or that it appears that way, then you're impressively stupid.

 

[PokerGuy]

Umm.. lets break that down.

So the sentence in question is this:



So applying the definition of the word to that sentence, we can rewrite the sentence for more clarification. Then we can determine if that word is used correctly by the context of the rest of the article.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ostensibly
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ostensibly

It means to appear to be that way. So to rewrite the sentence:



So does the author then go on to back up that claim?



So a bad press release makes the public think the police department is sentencing people to execution if they catch them gambling. Thus to protect the public from the dangers of gambling you may be shot is a possible conclusion a lay person may draw from that press release.

So the author backs up the claim that it appears the government killed the man to protect him from his own gambling habit. Since the claim is backed up... the word is used correctly.

Sorry, but no, that's simply not correct. By saying the government "ostensibly" killed him to protect him from his gambling habit he's saying that killing him was the goal -- which clearly it was not. They didn't kill him to protect him (which is an idiotic notion), they took (IMO) ridiculous actions to crack down on gambling in an effort to "protect" all of society from gambling.

The use of the word is simply wrong, but that doesn't change the gist of the article, something I generally agree with.

 

[unokitty]

Florida's Sanford Police Department Cancels Use Of Military Ribbons After Outrage

For the last decade or so, the Sanford Police Depart was awarding and wearing Military Ribbons?

Pathetic.


“We do know that in 2011, a half-billion dollars of surplus military equipment went to police departments,”


Get a $900,000 tank for $900? Why not? Surely the taxpayers can afford the maintenance...


Police work isn't warfare. Police aren't soldiers.

Buying surplus military equipment and allowing your local police to dress up, and wear ribbons, like soldiers doesn't change that...

Uno
Sentry Dog Handler
US Army
69-71

 

[HumblePie]

Sorry, but no, that's simply not correct. By saying the government "ostensibly" killed him to protect him from his gambling habit he's saying that killing him was the goal -- which clearly it was not. They didn't kill him to protect him (which is an idiotic notion), they took (IMO) ridiculous actions to crack down on gambling in an effort to "protect" all of society from gambling.

The use of the word is simply wrong, but that doesn't change the gist of the article, something I generally agree with.

Ostensibly is appearance, not what is.

Read the example from the dictionary.

His ostensible purpose was charity, but his real goal was popularity.

The OUTWARD appearance is charity, not the real goal.

The OUTWARD appearance of the government shooting the man was to protect him from his own gambling habit. That was based upon the bad press release. That, of course, was not the real goal of the police when they shot him. Thus the word is used correctly.

 

[justoh]

No. It is not backed up. It cannot be, since it is absurd. And so are you, Humbledpie. Fair to call me pedantic, though I still thinks it speaks to the author's credibility. Not only is he clearly stupid but he is also misrepresenting the facts. I expected some disagreement about whether or not it's reason enough to discount the whole article, and perhaps it isn't, but how can people be dumb enough to try justify his absurdity.

 

[HumblePie]

No. It is not backed up. It cannot be, since it is absurd. And so are you, Humbledpie. Fair to call me pedantic, though I still thinks it speaks to the author's credibility. Not only is he clearly stupid but he is also misrepresenting the facts. I expected some disagreement about whether or not it's reason enough to discount the whole article, and perhaps it isn't, but how can people be dumb enough to try justify his absurdity.

He made an elaboration of why he chose that word specifically. The USAGE of the word, through his own example, is correct. As to if his actual evidence is completely factual or not that is a COMPLETELY different issue.

I was argue the semantics of the word usage, not at all the content of the article. The word is used correctly from a purely semantic and technical point.

Clearly your reading comprehension failure is causing you to draw in some other part of article that you don't like to cover how wrong you are while arguing that.

 

[PokerGuy]

Ostensibly is appearance, not what is.

Read the example from the dictionary.



The OUTWARD appearance is charity, not the real goal.

The OUTWARD appearance of the government shooting the man was to protect him from his own gambling habit. That was based upon the bad press release. That, of course, was not the real goal of the police when they shot him. Thus the word is used correctly.

That is just plain absurd. The "appearance" is that they killed the guy to protect him from a possible gambling addict? You'd have to engage in some serious mental contortion to believe that drivel. Bottom line, incorrect use of the word. We know what he's trying to say, he just said it wrong.

 

[justoh]

I looked up some of his other posts and he seems reasonable, so his insistence on the absurd boggles the mind.

 

[HumblePie]

That is just plain absurd. The "appearance" is that they killed the guy to protect him from a possible gambling addict? You'd have to engage in some serious mental contortion to believe that drivel. Bottom line, incorrect use of the word. We know what he's trying to say, he just said it wrong.

I'm not saying the author's proof for using the word may or may not be substantiated. Only that his usage of the word in the context of the writing of the article is semantically correct.

As far as the point being made, that is an entirely different argument.

 

[zinfamous]

I have never read an article of a single person being shot by police simply because they were *only* reading a book - on purpose.

Troll thread.

there is enough concern to be had in the reality of being shot while reading a book "on accident."

do you honestly think that "on purpose" is the only mode of concern here?

 

[Oldgamer]

I have never read an article of a single person being shot by police simply because they were *only* reading a book - on purpose.

Troll thread.

Your post indicates you didn't bother to read the article.. fail

 

[StrangerGuy]

Florida's Sanford Police Department Cancels Use Of Military Ribbons After Outrage

For the last decade or so, the Sanford Police Depart was awarding and wearing Military Ribbons?

Pathetic.


“We do know that in 2011, a half-billion dollars of surplus military equipment went to police departments,”


Get a $900,000 tank for $900? Why not? Surely the taxpayers can afford the maintenance...


Police work isn't warfare. Police aren't soldiers.

Buying surplus military equipment and allowing your local police to dress up, and wear ribbons, like soldiers doesn't change that...

Uno
Sentry Dog Handler
US Army
69-71

They deserve their ribbons because they are only civilian profession that risks their lives in the line of work. *sarcasm*

 

[BoberFett]

Non sense.

You fail to understand the correct word is "nonsense" so none of your posts are now worth reading.

 

[HumblePie]

You fail to understand the correct word is "nonsense" so none of your posts are now worth reading.

I snorted

 

[woolfe9998]

He made an elaboration of why he chose that word specifically. The USAGE of the word, through his own example, is correct. As to if his actual evidence is completely factual or not that is a COMPLETELY different issue.

I was argue the semantics of the word usage, not at all the content of the article. The word is used correctly from a purely semantic and technical point.

Clearly your reading comprehension failure is causing you to draw in some other part of article that you don't like to cover how wrong you are while arguing that.

Well, there are two problems here. First, there is likely an official statement made about the shooting by the Fairfax police, which for some reason is not included in the article. For the author to cite something issued months later, not referring to the incident, and make the connection that protecting the man from gambling was therefore the "ostensible" reason for the shoot is likely ignoring what the police actually said at the time of the incident.

Second, even if the cops made no statement, the inference he's urging is extraordinarily implausible. No one believes that we have the death penalty for gambling, or that cops routinely shoot people for gambling. If I lived in that town and was aware of the shoot and of the circular issued months later, I would not have drawn the connection because it's absurd. If I didn't know the reason for the shoot and was concerned, I'd inquire rather than drawing implausible inferences. As would any rational person. I'm afraid the author is stretching things mightily.

Edit: the police DID make a statement about the incident. They said it was an accidental discharge. Regardless of whether that is true, it certainly undercuts the author's claim that it was "ostensibly" to protect him from gambling.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/23/AR2006032301117.html

 

[woolfe9998]

i will say police are adopting some military tactics, such as active shooter etc., but they are overall FAR less oppressive than the police of the 20th century.

I don't know how you can conclude that police are less oppressive now than in the previous century, any more than I can understand why so many people think they're more oppressive, based on anecdotal evidence. Absent a statistical study of the frequency of police brutality and other illegal conduct over time, it's difficult to draw any conclusions one way or the other.

 

[justoh]

I don't know how you can conclude that police are less oppressive now than in the previous century, any more than I can understand why so many people think they're more oppressive, based on anecdotal evidence. Absent a statistical study of the frequency of police brutality and other illegal conduct over time, it's difficult to draw any conclusions one way or the other.

Woolfe is right, as long as we're talking about white people.. It's probably hard to say whether we're better off or not. On the other hand, if you're black, a communist, or some kind of hippy, or drug addict, or anti social, then the 20th century was hellish at times, especially if you were both black and anti-social, and a drug addict, and then for most of the previous century for them. Actually even now really, lol. Okay best not even consider blacks then, since it's clear you Americans have forgotten them anyway. Then Woolfe is precisely correct, it's really hard to say if it's worse now.

I kid. I think it's safe to say that for many people the 20th century had a far more oppressive society and oppressive popo.