Video : 15 Year old pepper sprayed after biting cop

[FallenHero]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Narmer

EDIT: In case you didn't realize, your job may be to enforce the law, not abuse it. The people rely on the police to make sound judgements in every situations. Your job is not to follow the letter of the law but the spirit of the law. Doing otherwise is known as abuse.

The courts are echoing the spirit of the law when it is judged from a REASONABLE police officer standpoint at the time the action occurred. Your argument is falling apart man, just give it up.

The courts do not enforce the law. It is the police that do. You're failing at your own game. In the end, it is the enforcer that defines "reasonable." In other words, the cops have the discretion to abuse the law. This police officer obviously did by abusing a child.

This discussion is over because you are jumping from one point to the next without any sort of fluid train of thought. Anything I post, regardless of how much I back it up with various court cases, state law, training, specific examples and real life situations will merely come back to you stating "you have the power to abuse, so you MUST abuse." Being a police officer means we are granted certain powers that ordinary citizens are not. I'm sorry that you feel like a lesser person because of that. I'm sorry that you feel the need to constantly attack a profession which you know nothing about. I am most sorry that you refuse to see any side but the twisted world you have created for yourself. Your reality is a poor one, you fail to back up any argument you have with any reason or fact, merely what you believe is the case, so it must be the case. I have proven to you and anyone else reading the thread that the courts, training, and various statues back what the officer did. If you truly still believe that the officer is still somehow wrong after passing more tests than any normal citizen would have to, then you really are naive beyond any and all comprehension.

Congrats on winning this one through wearing me down with stupidity and circular logic. I cannot fathom your ignorance.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Narmer

EDIT: In case you didn't realize, your job may be to enforce the law, not abuse it. The people rely on the police to make sound judgements in every situations. Your job is not to follow the letter of the law but the spirit of the law. Doing otherwise is known as abuse.

The courts are echoing the spirit of the law when it is judged from a REASONABLE police officer standpoint at the time the action occurred. Your argument is falling apart man, just give it up.

The courts do not enforce the law. It is the police that do. You're failing at your own game. In the end, it is the enforcer that defines "reasonable." In other words, the cops have the discretion to abuse the law. This police officer obviously did by abusing a child.

This discussion is over because you are jumping from one point to the next without any sort of fluid train of thought. Anything I post, regardless of how much I back it up with various court cases, state law, training, specific examples and real life situations will merely come back to you stating "you have the power to abuse, so you MUST abuse." Being a police officer means we are granted certain powers that ordinary citizens are not. I'm sorry that you feel like a lesser person because of that. I'm sorry that you feel the need to constantly attack a profession which you know nothing about. I am most sorry that you refuse to see any side but the twisted world you have created for yourself. Your reality is a poor one, you fail to back up any argument you have with any reason or fact, merely what you believe is the case, so it must be the case. I have proven to you and anyone else reading the thread that the courts, training, and various statues back what the officer did. If you truly still believe that the officer is still somehow wrong after passing more tests than any normal citizen would have to, then you really are naive beyond any and all comprehension.

Congrats on winning this one through wearing me down with stupidity and circular logic. I cannot fathom your ignorance.

Your stupid ass keeps pointing to the courts as if they enforce anything. You, I, and everyone out there knows damn well that police have a lot of discretion because they are simply "following the law." And what happens when they get in trouble? It becomes less a legal issue than a political one. You see, the police have unions in quite a lot of places and PACs that can exert undue influence to protect themselves. Let's not forget the blue wall of silence whereby most cops close ranks when one of their own does something wrong. So, yeah, I have a serious problem with it. That's why I mentioned earlier that I will never trust police with my life or that of my family. Police can abuse their power because they are the enforcer and they can run and hide behind the various aforementioned barriers. Yeah, the laws are on your side when you do wrong. Congratulations. But wrong is still wrong, even if the law and politicians looks the other way.

I'd be less skeptical if there were actually parties that policed the police, but I don't see shit happening unless it's major. So, you can point at the courts all you want to justify your abuse of power but it still doesn't change the fact that it's abuse of power. I'd like to see where you stand on the day when one of your own is beating the living daylight out of your daughter. Oh wait, all she has to say is "My daddy's a cop" to get her out of the ass-kicking...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Narmer

EDIT: In case you didn't realize, your job may be to enforce the law, not abuse it. The people rely on the police to make sound judgements in every situations. Your job is not to follow the letter of the law but the spirit of the law. Doing otherwise is known as abuse.

The courts are echoing the spirit of the law when it is judged from a REASONABLE police officer standpoint at the time the action occurred. Your argument is falling apart man, just give it up.

The courts do not enforce the law. It is the police that do. You're failing at your own game. In the end, it is the enforcer that defines "reasonable." In other words, the cops have the discretion to abuse the law. This police officer obviously did by abusing a child.

This discussion is over because you are jumping from one point to the next without any sort of fluid train of thought. Anything I post, regardless of how much I back it up with various court cases, state law, training, specific examples and real life situations will merely come back to you stating "you have the power to abuse, so you MUST abuse." Being a police officer means we are granted certain powers that ordinary citizens are not. I'm sorry that you feel like a lesser person because of that. I'm sorry that you feel the need to constantly attack a profession which you know nothing about. I am most sorry that you refuse to see any side but the twisted world you have created for yourself. Your reality is a poor one, you fail to back up any argument you have with any reason or fact, merely what you believe is the case, so it must be the case. I have proven to you and anyone else reading the thread that the courts, training, and various statues back what the officer did. If you truly still believe that the officer is still somehow wrong after passing more tests than any normal citizen would have to, then you really are naive beyond any and all comprehension.

Congrats on winning this one through wearing me down with stupidity and circular logic. I cannot fathom your ignorance.

Your stupid ass keeps pointing to the courts as if they enforce anything. You, I, and everyone out there knows damn well that police have a lot of discretion because they are simply "following the law." And what happens when they get in trouble? It becomes less a legal issue than a political one. You see, the police have unions in quite a lot of places and PACs that can exert undue influence to protect themselves. Let's not forget the blue wall of silence whereby most cops close ranks when one of their own does something wrong. So, yeah, I have a serious problem with it. That's why I mentioned earlier that I will never trust police with my life or that of my family. Police can abuse their power because they are the enforcer and they can run and hide behind the various aforementioned barriers. Yeah, the laws are on your side when you do wrong. Congratulations. But wrong is still wrong, even if the law and politicians looks the other way.

I'd be less skeptical if there were actually parties that policed the police, but I don't see shit happening unless it's major. So, you can point at the courts all you want to justify your abuse of power but it still doesn't change the fact that it's abuse of power. I'd like to see where you stand on the day when one of your own is beating the living daylight out of your daughter. Oh wait, all she has to say is "My daddy's a cop" to get her out of the ass-kicking...

She didn't get the living daylight beat out of her.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Narmer

EDIT: In case you didn't realize, your job may be to enforce the law, not abuse it. The people rely on the police to make sound judgements in every situations. Your job is not to follow the letter of the law but the spirit of the law. Doing otherwise is known as abuse.

The courts are echoing the spirit of the law when it is judged from a REASONABLE police officer standpoint at the time the action occurred. Your argument is falling apart man, just give it up.

The courts do not enforce the law. It is the police that do. You're failing at your own game. In the end, it is the enforcer that defines "reasonable." In other words, the cops have the discretion to abuse the law. This police officer obviously did by abusing a child.

This discussion is over because you are jumping from one point to the next without any sort of fluid train of thought. Anything I post, regardless of how much I back it up with various court cases, state law, training, specific examples and real life situations will merely come back to you stating "you have the power to abuse, so you MUST abuse." Being a police officer means we are granted certain powers that ordinary citizens are not. I'm sorry that you feel like a lesser person because of that. I'm sorry that you feel the need to constantly attack a profession which you know nothing about. I am most sorry that you refuse to see any side but the twisted world you have created for yourself. Your reality is a poor one, you fail to back up any argument you have with any reason or fact, merely what you believe is the case, so it must be the case. I have proven to you and anyone else reading the thread that the courts, training, and various statues back what the officer did. If you truly still believe that the officer is still somehow wrong after passing more tests than any normal citizen would have to, then you really are naive beyond any and all comprehension.

Congrats on winning this one through wearing me down with stupidity and circular logic. I cannot fathom your ignorance.

Your stupid ass keeps pointing to the courts as if they enforce anything. You, I, and everyone out there knows damn well that police have a lot of discretion because they are simply "following the law." And what happens when they get in trouble? It becomes less a legal issue than a political one. You see, the police have unions in quite a lot of places and PACs that can exert undue influence to protect themselves. Let's not forget the blue wall of silence whereby most cops close ranks when one of their own does something wrong. So, yeah, I have a serious problem with it. That's why I mentioned earlier that I will never trust police with my life or that of my family. Police can abuse their power because they are the enforcer and they can run and hide behind the various aforementioned barriers. Yeah, the laws are on your side when you do wrong. Congratulations. But wrong is still wrong, even if the law and politicians looks the other way.

I'd be less skeptical if there were actually parties that policed the police, but I don't see shit happening unless it's major. So, you can point at the courts all you want to justify your abuse of power but it still doesn't change the fact that it's abuse of power. I'd like to see where you stand on the day when one of your own is beating the living daylight out of your daughter. Oh wait, all she has to say is "My daddy's a cop" to get her out of the ass-kicking...

She didn't get the living daylight beat out of her.

My point is that the law will be applied unevenly, at the discretion of the cop. If an officer daughter was doing that to a cop, he wouldn't have man-handled her like he did that little girl. IMHO, either apply the law blindly or don't apply it at all. Fallenhero is here telling us how he has the right to harm others based on somebody committing bodily harm to him. The problem with that is that the definition is so broad that he can do as he pleases if anybody touches him. If that girl had the right background, I can almost guarantee that she would not have been punched.

 

[MartyMcFly3]

Originally posted by: Narmer
Fallenhero is here telling us how he has the right to harm others based on somebody committing bodily harm to him. The problem with that is that the definition is so broad that he can do as he pleases if anybody touches him.

Few things here:

1. I cut out all the bullshit in your statement and left only the comments that are somewhat based on misunderstandings you have, completely removing your misguided opinions.

2. If you want to sit with the courts and establish a laundry list of "If its a 15 year old and they are biting the arm the cops should do this", "If its a punch to the chest from an elderly man who is diabetic, the cops should do this", etc... by all means, go ahead. In fact, I would really appreciate it if you did. That way, when I act based on this list that you and the government created, I wont have a million people looking at the situation with 20/20 hindsight telling me I did it wrong. I can just hold up your list and say "See? 15 year old girl bites arm. Says here I can use strikes and spray for her to stop"

Or we can let the government figure out an alternative solution.

Oh wait, they did. It's called the Use of Force Continuum. Sure, it's not as detailed as "If a 25 year old pregnant woman kicks your leg, pepper spray is an option you can use" and you know why? Because anything can be used as a weapon. It'd be impossible to list every act of violence that a person might do to an officer. So they generalize it into the following:

Use of Force Continuum

This is what we go by. As you can see, the officer in the video is completely justified, based on THIS MODEL THAT APPLIES TO ALL OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, to use both blows to the head, and the use of OC (Pepper) Spray.

FallenHero DOES have the right to harm others if they cause harm to him. For those broad situations you claim happen where anything goes for the officer no matter what the circumstances are, you know what happens on the OFFICER'S side of it after all is said and done? Oh, you are going to LOVE this! The officer's actions are looked into by BOTH THE DEPARTMENT THEY WORK FOR AND THE COURT SYSTEM to determine if excessive force is used. The department only backs the officer's actions up if the officer was justified, and they go through a thorough investigation before doing so.

And that, my friend is an explanation of the use-of-force continuum. I hope this post was somewhat educational for you.

 

[maluckey]

To whom it may concern...this is what you are saying. To me it looks like a load of bunk 😀isgust;

Conservative upbringing makes you a radical Liberal.

A human bite "stings" and is not threatening.

The law doesn't apply if the cop is larger than the assailant.

The law doesn't apply if your parents raised you wrong.

The law doesn't apply if you are under 18.

(the last three = "The man keeps men down" argument of self-pity)

Children cannot be dangerous.

Children do not kill.

(overindulgent parenting?)

Cops are wrong to protect themselves in the performance of official duties.

 

[Narmer]

I think you guys are confused as to what my point(s) are. My main point here is that police officers should not be assaulting children. You reply that it's perfectly legal. I then respond that the legality is up to the presiding police officer who is there to ENFORCE THE LAW. You retort that it's still legal. My response has been to stress test your laws to see if it'll hold in reality. It doesn't. The fact is, I could give you x<inf situations and it would all be perfectly legal but it doesn't mean its right.

The other point I'm making is that with this discretion, police have the power to discriminate. IMHO, if you want to talk about legality, then apply the law to all situations, independent of the individual's background. There have been many posts here where people see police brutailty and the ranks close and defend their partners.

The basic fact is that police officers are expected to enforce the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. This will ensure that they carry out what the lawmakers intended. To do otherwise is called abuse. IMHO, a grown man beating up on a child is abuse.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: maluckey
To whom it may concern...this is what you are saying. To me it looks like a load of bunk 😀isgust;

Conservative upbringing makes you a radical Liberal.

A human bite "stings" and is not threatening.

The law doesn't apply if the cop is larger than the assailant.

The law doesn't apply if your parents raised you wrong.

The law doesn't apply if you are under 18.

(the last three = "The man keeps men down" argument of self-pity)

Children cannot be dangerous.

Children do not kill.

(overindulgent parenting?)

Cops are wrong to protect themselves in the performance of official duties.

That's the best you can do?

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: MartyMcFly3

Originally posted by: Narmer
Fallenhero is here telling us how he has the right to harm others based on somebody committing bodily harm to him. The problem with that is that the definition is so broad that he can do as he pleases if anybody touches him.

Few things here:

1. I cut out all the bullshit in your statement and left only the comments that are somewhat based on misunderstandings you have, completely removing your misguided opinions.

2. If you want to sit with the courts and establish a laundry list of "If its a 15 year old and they are biting the arm the cops should do this", "If its a punch to the chest from an elderly man who is diabetic, the cops should do this", etc... by all means, go ahead. In fact, I would really appreciate it if you did. That way, when I act based on this list that you and the government created, I wont have a million people looking at the situation with 20/20 hindsight telling me I did it wrong. I can just hold up your list and say "See? 15 year old girl bites arm. Says here I can use strikes and spray for her to stop"

Or we can let the government figure out an alternative solution.

Oh wait, they did. It's called the Use of Force Continuum. Sure, it's not as detailed as "If a 25 year old pregnant woman kicks your leg, pepper spray is an option you can use" and you know why? Because anything can be used as a weapon. It'd be impossible to list every act of violence that a person might do to an officer. So they generalize it into the following:

Use of Force Continuum

This is what we go by. As you can see, the officer in the video is completely justified, based on THIS MODEL THAT APPLIES TO ALL OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, to use both blows to the head, and the use of OC (Pepper) Spray.

FallenHero DOES have the right to harm others if they cause harm to him. For those broad situations you claim happen where anything goes for the officer no matter what the circumstances are, you know what happens on the OFFICER'S side of it after all is said and done? Oh, you are going to LOVE this! The officer's actions are looked into by BOTH THE DEPARTMENT THEY WORK FOR AND THE COURT SYSTEM to determine if excessive force is used. The department only backs the officer's actions up if the officer was justified, and they go through a thorough investigation before doing so.
And that, my friend is an explanation of the use-of-force continuum. I hope this post was somewhat educational for you.

Can't help but laugh at that bolded statement. That may be the law, but, as I said earlier, politics comes into play. Do you really believe that justice is that blind for this theory to play out all the time?

 

[maluckey]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: maluckey
To whom it may concern...this is what you are saying. To me it looks like a load of bunk 😀isgust;

Conservative upbringing makes you a radical Liberal.

A human bite "stings" and is not threatening.

The law doesn't apply if the cop is larger than the assailant.

The law doesn't apply if your parents raised you wrong.

The law doesn't apply if you are under 18.

(the last three = "The man keeps men down" argument of self-pity)

Children cannot be dangerous.

Children do not kill.

(overindulgent parenting?)

Cops are wrong to protect themselves in the performance of official duties.

That's the best you can do?

Newly added!!!

Police officers performing their assigned duties are "assaulting" the suspects that refuse to voluntarily comply with THE LAW.

Cops are corrupt and therefore they discriminate and cover for heir buddies.

So called children that ignore legal curfews and then refuse legal commands of a police officer, clearly within his right to arrest, then assault cops are always right!

You sound more absurd the more you go. Keep it up though...it's amusing:laugh:

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: maluckey

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: maluckey
To whom it may concern...this is what you are saying. To me it looks like a load of bunk 😀isgust;

Conservative upbringing makes you a radical Liberal.

A human bite "stings" and is not threatening.

The law doesn't apply if the cop is larger than the assailant.

The law doesn't apply if your parents raised you wrong.

The law doesn't apply if you are under 18.

(the last three = "The man keeps men down" argument of self-pity)

Children cannot be dangerous.

Children do not kill.

(overindulgent parenting?)

Cops are wrong to protect themselves in the performance of official duties.

That's the best you can do?

Newly added!!!

Police officers performing their assigned duties are "assaulting" the suspects that refuse to voluntarily comply with THE LAW.

Cops are corrupt and therefore they discriminate and cover for heir buddies.

So called children that ignore legal curfews and then refuse legal commands of a police officer, clearly within his right to arrest, then assault cops are always right!

You sound more absurd the more you go. Keep it up though...it's amusing:laugh:

And you must be senile.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: piasabird
Reasonable is the key description of force here. The court would argue about what is reasonable force. After biting she should be hogtied like an animal. There are harnesses that can secure both arms in place. If he put a bit in her mouth or put a gag on her he would be justified. Remember that often people with Aids try to bite and spit on people.

Because the chances of transmitting AIDS through saliva are so high...where have you been for the last 20 years?

You want to take that chance???

Saliva, Tears, and Sweat
HIV has been found in saliva and tears in very low quantities from some AIDS patients. It is important to understand that finding a small amount of HIV in a body fluid does not necessarily mean that HIV can be transmitted by that body fluid. HIV has not been recovered from the sweat of HIV-infected persons. Contact with saliva, tears, or sweat has never been shown to result in transmission of HIV.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resourc...heets/transmission.htm

There is no chance. He'd be more likely to catch leprosy from punching her, or actually get AIDS by making her bleed. And what's with that comment about people with AIDS trying to spit on people? If they had Aids they'd undoubtedly have been informed they couldn't give it to someone through spit.

You don't think having sex with virgins is a cure for Aids, right? Just checking.

Nice obnoxious end remark :roll:. You can contract AIDS through an infected person's mouth if there is the presence of other bodily fluids (i.e. blood) in the mouth. It has happened in the past, but has only been documented 1 time. If you want to be foolish enough to risk being the 2nd documented case, then go for it. Next time get your facts straight. And next time don't make obnoxious remarks either, especially if you end up being wrong.

I was going for incredulous, not obnoxious as I'm frankly shocked at your ignorance after over 2 decades of AIDS awareness campaigns. Theres 40 million people living with Aids now, and 25 million have died. You're pointing to one case in 65 million as your evidence that I'm wrong. Good argument.

And I'm not sure why we are the ones talking about this since it was Piasa who made the dumbass comment about how people with Aids try to spit on others to infect them. And that they do this "often." I notice you don't try to defend that one.

 

[eits]

i'd punch her in the face, too, if she tried to bite my hand... either that or slam her face against the hood of the car and hold it there with my forearm while i got the pepper spray out.

she could have had aids or hiv or hep c or something... you never know. i don't think the cop did anything wrong... he reacted as best he could under the given circumstances. he obviously used the pepper spray on her in order to make her focus on the pain rather than focusing on resisting.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

I was going for incredulous, not obnoxious as I'm frankly shocked at your ignorance after over 2 decades of AIDS awareness campaigns. Theres 40 million people living with Aids now, and 25 million have died. You're pointing to one case in 65 million as your evidence that I'm wrong. Good argument.

And I'm not sure why we are the ones talking about this since it was Piasa who made the dumbass comment about how people with Aids try to spit on others to infect them. And that they do this "often." I notice you don't try to defend that one.

Incredulous can also be obnoxious, rude or insulting as it carries a nasty tinge of sarcasm, as if you didn't know.

Notice that there is one Documented case, meaning that there may be other cases, just not documented. How many people with AIDS have how they got AIDS "documented?" Not many! My point was that I would not chance even if the odds are a billion to one b/c only a fool would play that odds game.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: sirjonk

I was going for incredulous, not obnoxious as I'm frankly shocked at your ignorance after over 2 decades of AIDS awareness campaigns. Theres 40 million people living with Aids now, and 25 million have died. You're pointing to one case in 65 million as your evidence that I'm wrong. Good argument.

And I'm not sure why we are the ones talking about this since it was Piasa who made the dumbass comment about how people with Aids try to spit on others to infect them. And that they do this "often." I notice you don't try to defend that one.

Incredulous can also be obnoxious, rude or insulting as it carries a nasty tinge of sarcasm, as if you didn't know.

Notice that there is one Documented case, meaning that there may be other cases, just not documented. How many people with AIDS have how they got AIDS "documented?" Not many! My point was that I would not chance even if the odds are a billion to one b/c only a fool would play that odds game.

That's a ridiculous comment. You get in a car every now and then? Your chances of dying are much higher than getting aids from kissing. You also shouldn't walk outside since getting struck by lightning is less than 1 in 1 billion odds. For someone so risk averse as not to do anything that has a 1 in 1billion chance of killing you I suggest you write your last will and testament, but there's a better than 1 in 1billion chance you'd get ink poisoning from the pen, or drop it and slip picking it up and crack your skull open.

So every girl (I'm assuming you're a straight male) you hooked up with in the last 20 years you verified was HIV-free first?

If someone coughs blood all over you, worry about Aids. Until that happens, there's a few things more likely to kill you.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: sirjonk

I was going for incredulous, not obnoxious as I'm frankly shocked at your ignorance after over 2 decades of AIDS awareness campaigns. Theres 40 million people living with Aids now, and 25 million have died. You're pointing to one case in 65 million as your evidence that I'm wrong. Good argument.

And I'm not sure why we are the ones talking about this since it was Piasa who made the dumbass comment about how people with Aids try to spit on others to infect them. And that they do this "often." I notice you don't try to defend that one.

Incredulous can also be obnoxious, rude or insulting as it carries a nasty tinge of sarcasm, as if you didn't know.

Notice that there is one Documented case, meaning that there may be other cases, just not documented. How many people with AIDS have how they got AIDS "documented?" Not many! My point was that I would not chance even if the odds are a billion to one b/c only a fool would play that odds game.

That's a ridiculous comment. You get in a car every now and then? Your chances of dying are much higher than getting aids from kissing. You also shouldn't walk outside since getting struck by lightning is less than 1 in 1 billion odds. For someone so risk averse as not to do anything that has a 1 in 1billion chance of killing you I suggest you write your last will and testament, but there's a better than 1 in 1billion chance you'd get ink poisoning from the pen, or drop it and slip picking it up and crack your skull open.

So every girl (I'm assuming you're a straight male) you hooked up with in the last 20 years you verified was HIV-free first?

If someone coughs blood all over you, worry about Aids. Until that happens, there's a few things more likely to kill you.

Say whatever you want. You were still wrong! haha 😛 And I maintain that only a fool would play any odds when it comes to something as serious as AIDS. Of course, there are other diseases that can be spread orally.

 

[teclis1023]

Biting someone is more serious than punching them, as it can introduce serious biological toxins and germs into their systems. An untreated bite can turn into an infected wound, can rip tissues and muscles, and can leave permanent scars, disfigurement and incapacities. If biting wasn't dangerous, then bears and wolves would go around punching their prey.

It's similar to poking someone with a syringe. The hole may be small, but I'd rather get punched than needle-stabbed.

 

[Toastedlightly]

Cut her some slack! She had the rage!

 

[teclis1023]

It seems to me that Narmer's distrust of the Police is his motivating factor to continue arguing against the police here. If you state categorically that you will never trust a police officer, then you certainly aren't in a position to call other people out on their stubborn persistence and "illogical" stances. Maybe JD50 is just "defending his own," but I agree with the police on this issue - when someone resists arrests and assaults a police officer, it's time to pull out the ol' tazer gun.

PC and Narmer have spent the majority of this thread mucking it up by slinging insults and unsubstantiated trash, making assumptions and declarations about the character of forum members, and generally making themselves look like apologist asses. If your argument was so strong, you wouldn't have to resort to name calling and inferences.

People are trying to obfuscate the issue by asking all of these dumb questions... "what if she was 8?" "If she ran away, would you shoot her?" etc. etc.

We're not talking about those issues. We're talking about THIS issue: a 15 year old girl out at 1:30AM, breaking curfew, resisting arrest and assaulting a cop. I'm going to venture a guess and suggest that she wasn't out selling Girlscout cookies.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: teclis1023
It seems to me that Narmer's distrust of the Police is his motivating factor to continue arguing against the police here. If you state categorically that you will never trust a police officer, then you certainly aren't in a position to call other people out on their stubborn persistence and "illogical" stances. Maybe JD50 is just "defending his own," but I agree with the police on this issue - when someone resists arrests and assaults a police officer, it's time to pull out the ol' tazer gun.

PC and Narmer have spent the majority of this thread mucking it up by slinging insults and unsubstantiated trash, making assumptions and declarations about the character of forum members, and generally making themselves look like apologist asses. If your argument was so strong, you wouldn't have to resort to name calling and inferences.

People are trying to obfuscate the issue by asking all of these dumb questions... "what if she was 8?" "If she ran away, would you shoot her?" etc. etc.

We're not talking about those issues. We're talking about THIS issue: a 15 year old girl out at 1:30AM, breaking curfew, resisting arrest and assaulting a cop. I'm going to venture a guess and suggest that she wasn't out selling Girlscout cookies.

You're an idiot. If you read the thread more carefully you will see that JD50 started with the insult and I proceeded to dish it out in full. I won't take shit from anyone, especially people on this forum. And I definitely will not trust a police officer unless I'm confident that they are held to a much higher standard given the powers they have.

EDIT: Lesson for the simple and weak: Don't start insulting others if your the sensitive type. I will insult you back and do it at a very low, personal level.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: sirjonk

I was going for incredulous, not obnoxious as I'm frankly shocked at your ignorance after over 2 decades of AIDS awareness campaigns. Theres 40 million people living with Aids now, and 25 million have died. You're pointing to one case in 65 million as your evidence that I'm wrong. Good argument.

And I'm not sure why we are the ones talking about this since it was Piasa who made the dumbass comment about how people with Aids try to spit on others to infect them. And that they do this "often." I notice you don't try to defend that one.

Incredulous can also be obnoxious, rude or insulting as it carries a nasty tinge of sarcasm, as if you didn't know.

Notice that there is one Documented case, meaning that there may be other cases, just not documented. How many people with AIDS have how they got AIDS "documented?" Not many! My point was that I would not chance even if the odds are a billion to one b/c only a fool would play that odds game.

That's a ridiculous comment. You get in a car every now and then? Your chances of dying are much higher than getting aids from kissing. You also shouldn't walk outside since getting struck by lightning is less than 1 in 1 billion odds. For someone so risk averse as not to do anything that has a 1 in 1billion chance of killing you I suggest you write your last will and testament, but there's a better than 1 in 1billion chance you'd get ink poisoning from the pen, or drop it and slip picking it up and crack your skull open.

So every girl (I'm assuming you're a straight male) you hooked up with in the last 20 years you verified was HIV-free first?

If someone coughs blood all over you, worry about Aids. Until that happens, there's a few things more likely to kill you.

Say whatever you want. You were still wrong! haha 😛 And I maintain that only a fool would play any odds when it comes to something as serious as AIDS. Of course, there are other diseases that can be spread orally.

Everything we do carries some risk, all you can do is minimize. By your logic of taking the abolute least risk possible, you shouldn't shake anyone's hand, they could have a cut on it. Don't kiss anyone without a full medical history in front of you. Don't ever go to a hospital or doctor's office because there's a chance an infected needle could stick you. Don't swim in the ocean. And quit the porn business.

If your position is that you should moderate your behavior to minimize risk while accepting that some risk is unavoidable, I'll agree. To claim "any odds" are unacceptable is a meaningless statement. You are risking electrocution right now just using a computer. Oh, and in the US we happen to have treatment for Aids and people can live with it for decades, if not their entire natural life span.

 

[teclis1023]

Originally posted by: Narmer
You're an idiot. If you read the thread more carefully you will see that JD50 started with the insult and I proceeded to dish it out in full. I won't take shit from anyone, especially people on this forum. And I definitely will not trust a police officer unless I'm confident that they are held to a much higher standard given the powers they have.

Am I an idiot because I don't agree with you, or because I pointed out that your prejudice against law enforcement is most definitely tainting your perception of this incident? It doesn't matter - you've debunked any legitimacy that you had by exposing your prejudice. The rest of your insults, your accusations and your ivory-tower condescension melts away under scrutiny.

EDIT: Lesson for the simple and weak: Don't start insulting others if your the sensitive type. I will insult you back and do it at a very low, personal level.

You've certainly made that clear. Of course, if you re-read my thread, you'll notice that I never insulted you. I certainly made a statement about your tactics, let you know my opinion about the content of your arguments, but never did I call you an idiot. As for hitting me on a personal level...I'm still waiting for that. Do you have anything more biting than "you're an idiot?" Perhaps it's your keen wit and biting intellect that has made you so popular on this forum and with the police.

I'll reiterate what I said before - if you actually had a strong argument, you wouldn't have to resort to childhood bullying and taunting.

 

[EagleKeeper]

This thread has gone down hill in many places and turned into a flame fest and name calling.

Rather than attempt to clean this up (and possibly handing out vacations), the thread is locked.

Another thread can be started and kept with a reasonable discussion.
If that thread gets locked, those that caused it will be out for a while.



Senior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy