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

[EPresence2]

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.

That doesn't make sense to me. Could you be more specific?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Since when are police not civilians?

I think your biases are showing.

That doesn't make sense to me. Could you be more specific?

The OP is about cases of black off-duty officers/detectives being harassed by on-duty white police officers. You have been going on about thugs making up dandelion brew stories in order to look awesome and cool and to stoke the fires of hate against the police.

But the OP is about cases of the police being harassed by the police. So the whole 'thug' thing goes out the window, though, even in those cases you wanted more info to see whether you could spin the offending officer out of the predicament.

Open-mindedness is important. Not all officers are mean and jerks and willing to abuse their power. Not all blacks are thugish, police hating criminals.

If you continue your current posting form, your response to the paragraph above this will be "I completely agree, however..."

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Since when are police not civilians?

I think your biases are showing.

That doesn't make sense to me.

Fair enough.

Could you be more specific?

I am convinced at this point that doing so would not advance the discussion.

 

[EPresence2]

That doesn't make sense to me.

Fair enough.

Could you be more specific?

I am convinced at this point that doing so would not advance the discussion.

Okay thanks for ???

 

[EPresence2]

That doesn't make sense to me. Could you be more specific?

The OP is about cases of black off-duty officers/detectives being harassed by on-duty white police officers. You have been going on about thugs making up dandelion brew stories in order to look awesome and cool and to stoke the fires of hate against the police.

But the OP is about cases of the police being harassed by the police. So the whole 'thug' thing goes out the window, though, even in those cases you wanted more info to see whether you could spin the offending officer out of the predicament.

Open-mindedness is important. Not all officers are mean and jerks and willing to abuse their power. Not all blacks are thugish, police hating criminals.

If you continue your current posting form, your response to the paragraph above this will be "I completely agree, however..."

Sounds like you already have all my answers. And I do apologize profusely for the thread derail and I should have created my own thread to broaden the topic. I actually wasn't talking about the OP specifically and I thought that was obvious.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The OP is about cases of black off-duty officers/detectives being harassed by on-duty white police officers. You have been going on about thugs making up dandelion brew stories in order to look awesome and cool and to stoke the fires of hate against the police.

But the OP is about cases of the police being harassed by the police. So the whole 'thug' thing goes out the window, though, even in those cases you wanted more info to see whether you could spin the offending officer out of the predicament.

Open-mindedness is important. Not all officers are mean and jerks and willing to abuse their power. Not all blacks are thugish, police hating criminals.

If you continue your current posting form, your response to the paragraph above this will be "I completely agree, however..."

I actually wasn't talking about the OP specifically.

Probably should have seeing you were the first person to respond in this thread other than the OP'er.

 

[blastula]

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.

Thank you for confirming that you believe "no one who wasn't there can make judgments."

 

[EPresence2]

I actually wasn't talking about the OP specifically.

Probably should have seeing you were the first person to respond in this thread other than the OP'er.

To be fair, the article was more broad than the title suggested. But thanks for the advice and the kind words.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Thank you for confirming that you believe "no one who wasn't there can make judgments."

Boy, people can't take any criticism around here. I never said that you can't make a judgement if you weren't there. Why are you so keen on making a judgement? Like I said - it was more about the cautionary stance of that position. In other words, there are nuances of the situation that may not have been captured explicitly by the media accounts. Jimmy continued on the derail with me when we were talking about this earlier. For me it was about the rush to claim (for example) Wilson's actions were stupid (or whatever derogatory term you like) based on an inaccurate or narrow-minded reading of his testimony.

 

[blastula]

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.

Thank you for confirming that you believe "no one who wasn't there can make judgments."

Boy, people can't take any criticism around here. I never said that you can't make a judgement if you weren't there.

If you didn't mean that, then why say, "Difference here is, someone was there for what I was talking about?" What difference does it make that someone was there, as to whether someone else can make judgments?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Probably should have seeing you were the first person to respond in this thread other than the OP'er.

To be fair, the article was more broad than the title suggested. But thanks for the advice and the kind words.

I've got more, but mainly cooking related.

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.

Thank you for confirming that you believe "no one who wasn't there can make judgments."

Boy, people can't take any criticism around here.

Around here? This is the Internet, where no one posts an incorrect opinion!

I never said that you can't make a judgement if you weren't there. Why are you so keen on making a judgement?

Probably because you positioned it with that judgment meaning absolutely nothing and being worthless.

Like I said - it was more about the cautionary stance of that position. In other words, there are nuances of the situation that may not have been captured by the media accounts. Jimmy continued on the derail with me when we were talking about this earlier. For me it was about the rush to claim (for example) Wilson's actions were stupid (or whatever derogatory term you like) based on an inaccurate or narrow-minded reading of his testimony.

Actually Wilson's actions were stupid. Not Zimmerman stupid, but it appears that he helped create a situation that then led to the death of a person. But that is off-topic. You can't help but derail a thread can you?

 

[EPresence2]

 

[EPresence2]

Jimmy - You followed the minor derail with me and now you are complaining about it. I say minor because the article was about more than police-on-police situations. And I disagree that Wilson's actions were stupid enough to warrant an indictment but that's another thread.

 

[EPresence2]

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.

Thank you for confirming that you believe "no one who wasn't there can make judgments."

Boy, people can't take any criticism around here. I never said that you can't make a judgement if you weren't there.

If you didn't mean that, then why say, "Difference here is, someone was there for what I was talking about?" What difference does it make that someone was there, as to whether someone else can make judgments?

Why are you stuck on some assumed prohibition on making a judgement if you weren't actually IN the situation? I had to correct someone on the forum about the sequence of events in the Wilson testimony that she characterized as implausible. The missing bit of information made it plausible but she didn't seem to notice.

 

[blastula]

Because of YOUR words YOU are posting stuck on saying there should be a prohibition. And when called on it, you evade and dodge the question.

 

[EPresence2]

Because of YOUR words YOU are posting stuck on saying there should be a prohibition.

Where on the god-damn page did I say that? Quit putting fucking words in my mouth people. It was meant as a caution... and not a prohibition. Why choose the most negative interpretation if not to assume the stupid?

 

[blastula]

I just showed you in the post that you replied to and yet dodged the question. The truth hurts, it seems.

 

[Rhea]

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.

Thank you for confirming that you believe "no one who wasn't there can make judgments."

Boy, people can't take any criticism around here. I never said that you can't make a judgement if you weren't there.

If you didn't mean that, then why say, "Difference here is, someone was there for what I was talking about?" What difference does it make that someone was there, as to whether someone else can make judgments?

Why are you stuck on some assumed prohibition on making a judgement if you weren't actually IN the situation? I had to correct someone on the forum about the sequence of events in the Wilson testimony that she characterized as implausible. The missing bit of information made it plausible but she didn't seem to notice.

She noticed that you didn't make the case that you seem to think you made.

 

[EPresence2]

edited

 

[EPresence2]

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.

Thank you for confirming that you believe "no one who wasn't there can make judgments."

Boy, people can't take any criticism around here. I never said that you can't make a judgement if you weren't there.

No, you left out a critical part in his testimony. By all mean, quote me and please quote the right part.

If you didn't mean that, then why say, "Difference here is, someone was there for what I was talking about?" What difference does it make that someone was there, as to whether someone else can make judgments?

Why are you stuck on some assumed prohibition on making a judgement if you weren't actually IN the situation? I had to correct someone on the forum about the sequence of events in the Wilson testimony that she characterized as implausible. The missing bit of information made it plausible but she didn't seem to notice.

She noticed that you didn't make the case that you seem to think you made.

No, you left out a critical part of the testimony - why is that I wonder?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Because of YOUR words YOU are posting stuck on saying there should be a prohibition.

Where on the god-damn page did I say that? Quit putting fucking words in my mouth people. It was meant as a caution... and not a prohibition. Why choose the most negative interpretation if not to assume the stupid?

Careful. This forum doesn't take kindly to blasphemy.