Off duty, black cops in New York feel threat from fellow police

[Jimmy Higgins]

Of course it is, but we can't assume all police departments are lying in every protest-inciting case either.

Who is saying that we should do that?

In some cases it may be in the best interest of a community/interest group to hate the police and make their side seem like the right one.

Faith in the Police and the State overseeing the police isn't at its highest point right now.

And how much of that is based on a typical rush to judgement that flows from cultural predispositions, initial misinformation and outright distortion of the facts in a case?

I think you misspelled, "based on the recent several shootings/killings of unarmed citizens." For the Black community, shooting of unarmed citizens is a hot-button topic. Really have a short fuse on it. Not like white people. Kill, kill, kill white people all you want, we white people say. We trust your judgment.

These sort of things have legs on both sides of the ideological spectrum, and it really inflames the issues of today. That (in a nutshell) is what I've apparently been wasting my time talking about here.

Actually, what you've been saying under the surface is that police shootings shouldn't be questioned because if we question them, then that could cause people to get angry.

 

[EPresence2]

Actually, what you've been saying under the surface is that police shootings shouldn't be questioned because if we question them, then that could cause people to get angry.

I'm not responsible for what you assume is "under the surface" - which it isn't in this case. IF you think I'm implying police shouldn't be questioned, you have been creating a ludicrous strawman. There is questioning and there is unfair questioning.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Actually, what you've been saying under the surface is that police shootings shouldn't be questioned because if we question them, then that could cause people to get angry.

I'm not responsible for what you assume is "under the surface" - which it isn't in this case. IF you think I'm implying police shouldn't be questioned, you have been creating a ludicrous strawman. There is questioning and there is unfair questioning.

Exactly! And apparently you think it is unfair to question cases where unarmed people are shot and killed.

 

[EPresence2]

I'm not responsible for what you assume is "under the surface" - which it isn't in this case. IF you think I'm implying police shouldn't be questioned, you have been creating a ludicrous strawman. There is questioning and there is unfair questioning.

Exactly! And apparently you think it is unfair to question cases where unarmed people are shot and killed.

I'm not responsible for what you assume is "under the surface" - which it isn't in this case. IF you think I'm implying police shouldn't be questioned, you have been creating a ludicrous strawman. There is questioning and there is unfair questioning.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Exactly! And apparently you think it is unfair to question cases where unarmed people are shot and killed.

I'm not responsible for what you assume is "under the surface" - which it isn't in this case. IF you think I'm implying police shouldn't be questioned, you have been creating a ludicrous strawman. There is questioning and there is unfair questioning.

Interesting reply. Almost like you actually don't have a horse in the race.

 

[EPresence2]

I'm not responsible for what you assume is "under the surface" - which it isn't in this case. IF you think I'm implying police shouldn't be questioned, you have been creating a ludicrous strawman. There is questioning and there is unfair questioning.

Interesting reply. Almost like you actually don't have a horse in the race.

My horse is fairness to both individual police officers and civilians involved in altercations with them. That should have been clear from all my posts. Maybe all the cases where police do it right are not caught on video or made public as a counter-balance to the both dubious and clear cases of unfair profiling and/or excessive force.

 

[laughing dog]

You are wrong because it does. I understand that you are unable to make the connection, but that does not make your retort valid.

*Snark begins* Your assumptions are really juvenile Laughing Dog *Snark ends* - where did I say it was a bad thing? You assumed I was claiming it's a bad thing instead of a cautionary state.

I made no assumptions. You could either show that my observation is not reasonable or that while it is reasonable, it is not what you intended instead of these laughable attempts at extrication.

 

[EPresence2]

*Snark begins* Your assumptions are really juvenile Laughing Dog *Snark ends* - where did I say it was a bad thing? You assumed I was claiming it's a bad thing instead of a cautionary state.

I made no assumptions. You could either show that my observation is not reasonable or that while it is reasonable, it is not what you intended instead of these laughable attempts at extrication.

How old are you? And you did assume one way when I didn't specify. Quit bullshitting everyone.

 

[laughing dog]

I made no assumptions. You could either show that my observation is not reasonable or that while it is reasonable, it is not what you intended instead of these laughable attempts at extrication.

How old are you?

You and I have misjudged your abilities. I did when I thought you could show that my observation was not reasonable or that you could admit that you did not intend that meaning. You did when you said you tried to avoid being snarky.

Besides you have no standing to ask that question because you are not here with me.

 

[EPresence2]

How old are you?

You and I have misjudged your abilities. I did when I thought you could show that my observation was not reasonable or that you could admit that you did not intend that meaning. You did when you said you tried to avoid being snarky.

Besides you have no standing to ask that question because you are not here with me.

I didn't say anything more than arm-chair quarterbacking with regard to not being there in these incidents and you assumed I was implying you can't say anything about the incidents. And I have to explain to you why your interpretation of that is not what I intended? Are you fucking kidding me?

 

[laughing dog]

You and I have misjudged your abilities. I did when I thought you could show that my observation was not reasonable or that you could admit that you did not intend that meaning. You did when you said you tried to avoid being snarky.

Besides you have no standing to ask that question because you are not here with me.

I didn't say anything more than arm-chair quarterbacking with regard to not being there in these incidents and you assumed I was implying you can't say anything about the incidents. And I have to explain to you why your interpretation of that is not what I intended? Are you fucking kidding me?

I assumed nothing. I drew a reasonable conclusion from your ill-conceived comment. Your responses make it perfectly clear that calling you a shallow thinker would be an insult to all shallow thinkers in the world. I realize this next question is a triumph of hope over experience, but do you now realize how silly and inappropriate your armchair quarterback remark was?

 

[EPresence2]

I didn't say anything more than arm-chair quarterbacking with regard to not being there in these incidents and you assumed I was implying you can't say anything about the incidents. And I have to explain to you why your interpretation of that is not what I intended? Are you fucking kidding me?

I assumed nothing. I drew a reasonable conclusion from your ill-conceived comment. Your responses make it perfectly clear that calling you a shallow thinker would be an insult to all shallow thinkers in the world. I realize this next question is a triumph of hope over experience, but do you now realize how silly and inappropriate your armchair quarterback remark was?

This comment is getting reported to the mods.

 

[laughing dog]

I assumed nothing. I drew a reasonable conclusion from your ill-conceived comment. Your responses make it perfectly clear that calling you a shallow thinker would be an insult to all shallow thinkers in the world. I realize this next question is a triumph of hope over experience, but do you now realize how silly and inappropriate your armchair quarterback remark was?

This comment is getting reported to the mods.

I was right - that question was a triumph of hope.

 

[EPresence2]

Arm-chair quarterbacking isn't exactly being completely wrong all the time - it just means you weren't there.

Then no one who wasn't there can make judgments? Then it would be impossible to have discussions about just about any situation or current event.

Reference for anyone who'd like to verify that Laughing Dog was NOT using any assumptions about what I said. Regarding my part in the snark - I would take back those references to juvenile behavior. Returning snark for snark is not appropriate.

 

[Davka]

Then no one who wasn't there can make judgments? Then it would be impossible to have discussions about just about any situation or current event.

Reference for anyone who'd like to verify that Laughing Dog was NOT using any assumptions about what I said. Regarding my part in the snark - I would take back those references to juvenile behavior. Returning snark for snark is not appropriate.

Is too!

Poopyhead.

 

[EPresence2]

Reference for anyone who'd like to verify that Laughing Dog was NOT using any assumptions about what I said. Regarding my part in the snark - I would take back those references to juvenile behavior. Returning snark for snark is not appropriate.

Is too!

Poopyhead.

Is there an icon for that? Maybe

A better statement would be: "Returning snark for snark isn't dignified." It definitely feels appropriate sometimes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Arm-chair quarterbacking isn't exactly being completely wrong all the time - it just means you weren't there. Honestly, I don't much care if you are bored or not with my comments. But that is irrelevant to the discussion of facts, logical connections, and ideas on a discussion forum. I try not to waste peoples time and patience with snarky comments - which seem all too common on this board.

View attachment 1915

Oh, come on now. Pot is green!

 

[blastula]

Arm-chair quarterbacking isn't exactly being completely wrong all the time - it just means you weren't there.

Then no one who wasn't there can make judgments? Then it would be impossible to have discussions about just about any situation or current event.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I am amazed at the length some will go to in order to excuse any civilian involved in an altercation with police.

Since when are police not civilians?

I think your biases are showing.

 

[EPresence2]

Then no one who wasn't there can make judgments? Then it would be impossible to have discussions about just about any situation or current event.

That would be funny if it was on a creation/evolution thread. Difference here is, someone was there for what I was talking about - Hence the term "arm-chair quarterback" and not "arm-chair creator being" or something.