CADsortaGUY
Lifer
lol, you obviously haven't a clue. My reply to the person whining about not going there is that it's not necessarily where you are but rather that you shouldn't break the law so you don't have to worry about the supposed "asshole".
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
As usual, CAD doesn't even know what he says, much less what anyone else says.
1. Person raises problem with bad treatment of suspects/prisoners.
2. CAD responds saying to dismiss the issue, because the only thing that matters is that the person shouldn't have broken the law, and then they wouldn't have the problem.
3. Noting the broad error in CAD's position, someoone calls him on it, pointing out how inadequate his position is in dealing with problems with the treatment of suspects/prisoners.
4. Now that the topic isn't the specific one CAD used a broad generalization to respond to, he denies ever having made the broad generalization.
This is a basic logical'rationality error you see a lot of especially foolish people make.
It's why people like CAD are so ill-equipped to say anythinng about actual issues. H has no clue about policies,just knee-jerk blather.
Yes, CAD, when someone says there's a problem with prisoner treatment, and you say the only thing that matters is they should follow the law, you ARE implying that prisoners should get no rights, that there's license to do anything to them - and your complaining that's not what you said is wrong, it's that you don't know what you say, so you don't realize you saiid it and your complaint is that you didn't mean to say what you said, not that anyone is misquoting you.
Let's recap the facts:
Poster:
CAD:
What did CAD just imply? He said not to look at any problems from that Sheriff. He didn't say why any particular problem with the Sheriff is inaccurate, or why there was something specific about the problems with the Sheriff why not to deal with them - without any specific comments about the problem, he said don't look at them, simply say that whatever the problems are, the right answer is for the prisoners to not have broekn the law.
That *is* implying that no prisoner abuse deserves any attention, the right answer is they sholdn't break the law, and if they do, the Sheriff has free license to do anything he wants.
Why? Becuase if the Sheriff does something wrong, CAD already said, don't pay attention, simply say they prison should have followed the law.
We know this because he didn't say anything about the abuses alleged here.
But then point out what he said to him, and he'll say he never said it.
He's very confused.
He needs to get a clue about what he said, and recognize he did say what he denies saying, and instead deal with the actual allegations, not just say to ignore them.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
As usual craig and the other leftists will skip right over what is actually said and go straight to their ASSumptions.
I responded to the whiner who said he didn't want to travel to the state that the "asshole" is in. Nowhere did I suggest "Prisoners being killed is ok".
So again, you start with a faulty premise and your usual wall of text is meaningless in light of that fact.
Pull your head out of your ass and actually try reading for once.
dahunan
Lifer
- Jan 10, 2002
- 18,191
- 3
- 0
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Neither has to do with what I stated to the whiner. The guy isn't a sheriff of the whole state he wants to avoid. And also, here in the US, you would need to commit a crime - despite the very few instances you angst filled kiddies like to trot out.
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
Both do, but I understand your aversion to acknowledging the correlations, as answering to my arguments would require you to admit the fallacies in yours.
Of course not, but it is the state which allows the sheriff to do what he does.
This statement is self-contradictory.
Gunslinger08
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2001
- 13,234
- 2
- 81
Because everyone who gets picked up by the police broke the law. Guilty until proven innocent, I guess.
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
That is how we treated Iraqis on the WMD charge, so why should we hold any different stands for anyone else? Besides, if we did treat everyone as innocent until proven guilty, what would we do with our compulsion to inflict unjustified suffering on others? If you can't answer these questions, you really don't have a rational argument here.
:evil:
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
As usual craig and the other leftists will skip right over what is actually said and go straight to their ASSumptions.
I responded to the whiner who said he didn't want to travel to the state that the "asshole" is in. Nowhere did I suggest "Prisoners being killed is ok".
So again, you start with a faulty premise and your usual wall of text is meaningless in light of that fact.
Pull your head out of your ass and actually try reading for once.
You did as I describd, not your revisionist version. You said the response to mistreatment of prisoners is not not doing anything about it and instead tell them not to break the law.
Your response is clueless.
And it's not worth any further repitition of the facts you can't deal with and deny.
Shooting the homeowner by mistake I can understand. Dragging him by his feet and driving away with him on the hood of the car instead of trying to stop the bleeding and calling for an ambulance I think should count as attempted murder. Where the hell did they think they were taking him?
According to the Phoenix Use of Force Board, the homeowner being shot and nearly killed by the actions taken by the cops after the shooting, not tragic. If the cop had hesitated and been hurt, that would have been tragic. Cops did nothing wrong with shooting.
What about the attempts at cover up which in and of itself could have resulted in the homeowner's death? What was the ruling on that? It's because of situations like this that folks don't like cops. One set of laws for the masses another set for those who enforces the laws.
According to the Phoenix Use of Force Board, the homeowner being shot and nearly killed by the actions taken by the cops after the shooting, not tragic. If the cop had hesitated and been hurt, that would have been tragic. Cops did nothing wrong with shooting.
What about the attempts at cover up which in and of itself could have resulted in the homeowner's death? What was the ruling on that? It's because of situations like this that folks don't like cops. One set of laws for the masses another set for those who enforces the laws.
most reasonable people would take your statement to mean that the treatment is alright, after all if you obey the law you have nothing to worry about, inspite of "the asshole's" history of abusing the law, as cited several times in the article
- Sep 21, 2001
- 18,447
- 133
- 106
Sorry I don't memorize all the posts you put in a thread; I replied to the one that caught my eye and didn't edit anything out.
ericlp
Diamond Member
- Dec 24, 2000
- 6,137
- 225
- 106
Well, I can see some cops over reacting to screaming and maybe seeing a gun. Hell, are own army has a lot of friendly fire incidents. What kills them is the way they tried to cover it up and poor judgment after wards. Obviously it doesn't excuse the "fuckup" to begin with .. but mistakes do happen. But it's the events that took place after is where they really screwed up. I suppose the outcome may have been WAY different if they admitted the mistake and tried to act like civil human beings.
Oh well, I think they will serve some time for the stunt they pulled ... Don't let a few bad apples spoil the bunch. Obviously not all cops are like this... It's just a job and a lot of people make poor decisions -- It's called being human. When you screw up and adrenalin is pumping most people just continue to make even WORSE mistakes. Like they did. Sadly.
Glad the guy didn't die.
Oh well, I think they will serve some time for the stunt they pulled ... Don't let a few bad apples spoil the bunch. Obviously not all cops are like this... It's just a job and a lot of people make poor decisions -- It's called being human. When you screw up and adrenalin is pumping most people just continue to make even WORSE mistakes. Like they did. Sadly.
Glad the guy didn't die.
I am not sure if this means they are not being charged with a crime or not but apperantly the board that reviews cops use of force says
http://www.kpho.com/news/21121206/detail.html
I would really like to know exactly what is over the line if this is within policy. The sad part is, if the homeowner would have returned fire like any reasonable person would have (if able) the homeowner would be in jail right now. Yet the cop was simply following policy. What complete and total bullshit.
BTW, I am by no means a "cop hater". I know a bunch of cops and for the most part they are all great people. Most of this nonsense comes from a few bad apples, I understand that. My problem is when the bad apples get protected or let off on crimes that would put me in jail for life. For fucks sake they drug the man by his leg in front of his kids and put him on a hot ass hood while talking about covering it up! Are these guys completely immune from prosecution?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter