Police response to N.J. mall fight sparks outrage after Black teen cuffed as white teen watches

[Metaphor]

Why do you think that such a cop would "be at the mercy" of a high school kid?
Tom

Just skipping right past your repeated false assertions that I said she was intimidated, and changing the subject? Do you think that's a fair thing to do?

 

[Rhea]

This stupidly transparent tactic of dogged obsession of particular words, while running from responsibility for what your words convey, so that you can derail from the topic is so stupidly shallow.

You said a thing. It obviously conveyed a meaning, the same meaning, to a whole bunch of people. You’re afraid to own that. So instead of saying, “what I meant was…” and then engaging in the conversation, you rail about “apologies” that are “owed” to you and act like a roomba in a corner under a chair.

The TOPIC: the two cops both treated the two boys differently.

The male cop touched both boys. And behaved differently toward each.
The female cop touched both boys. And behaved differently toward each.
The female cop also behaved differently than the male cop, though her trend was the same: more severe to the black youth.

Metaphor made a comment that the conversation should include the effect of sex on the behaviors. (And then apparently got stuck under a chair in a corner repeating “I didn’t say that. I didn’t say that. I didn’t say that,” and ignoring the requests to clarify what he did say, even when people quoted him, as if that’s meaningful discussion. It’s not. We know it, he knows it. If he refuses to engage and thereby self-marks it as “derail,” this discussion should drop it.

And it is off the topic. Since the female cop ALSO treats the two boys differently, it’s a red herring. It’s a tactic to make something besides racism seem like it is more discussable. And yet - it clearly is not by Metaphor’s own admission. He has nothing to say. He wants to talk in circles about language and semantics and block discussion of the topic.


The TOPIC: the two cops both treated the two boys differently.

The male cop touched both boys. And behaved differently toward each.
The female cop touched both boys. And behaved differently toward each.
The female cop also behaved differently than the male cop, though her trend was the same: more severe to the black youth.

 

[Toni]

This stupidly transparent tactic of dogged obsession of particular words, while running from responsibility for what your words convey, so that you can derail from the topic is so stupidly shallow.

You said a thing. It obviously conveyed a meaning, the same meaning, to a whole bunch of people. You’re afraid to own that. So instead of saying, “what I meant was…” and then engaging in the conversation, you rail about “apologies” that are “owed” to you and act like a roomba in a corner under a chair.

The TOPIC: the two cops both treated the two boys differently.

The male cop touched both boys. And behaved differently toward each.
The female cop touched both boys. And behaved differently toward each.
The female cop also behaved differently than the male cop, though her trend was the same: more severe to the black youth.

Metaphor made a comment that the conversation should include the effect of sex on the behaviors. (And then apparently got stuck under a chair in a corner repeating “I didn’t say that. I didn’t say that. I didn’t say that,” and ignoring the requests to clarify what he did say, even when people quoted him, as if that’s meaningful discussion. It’s not. We know it, he knows it. If he refuses to engage and thereby self-marks it as “derail,” this discussion should drop it.

And it is off the topic. Since the female cop ALSO treats the two boys differently, it’s a red herring. It’s a tactic to make something besides racism seem like it is more discussable. And yet - it clearly is not by Metaphor’s own admission. He has nothing to say. He wants to talk in circles about language and semantics and block discussion of the topic.


The TOPIC: the two cops both treated the two boys differently.

The male cop touched both boys. And behaved differently toward each.
The female cop touched both boys. And behaved differently toward each.
The female cop also behaved differently than the male cop, though her trend was the same: more severe to the black youth.

I agree with your assessment: both police officers treated the boys differently. I still believe that in part, the female cop's reaction to the second boy had less to do with his race than an attempt to back up her partner in the moment. The incident was over very quickly. I think that it is impossible to make any conclusions about to what extent her reactions to either boy was due to perceived race and what was reaction in the second instance to her training: back up your partner. If this incident had gone on longer, I think it would be easier to draw valid conclusions. As it is, we lack audio to know what was being said by anyone.

It is clear that the cops reacted differently with respect to one another. It is clear that the male officer acted differently towards the black and the white kid. It is clear that the female cop did as well, but less clear that this was because of her own assessment of the relative danger/guilt attached to either boy or because she was reflexively acting to support her partner. It is also unclear that her knee is actually on Husain, It is clear she is kneeling but it does not appear to me that she is actually pressing on his body with her knee. I could be mistaken.

 

[TomC]

Why do you think that such a cop would "be at the mercy" of a high school kid?
Tom

Just skipping right past your repeated false assertions that I said she was intimidated, and changing the subject? Do you think that's a fair thing to do?

I did not repeat it. You do. You keep going back to a post hundreds of posts ago. But you refuse to explain why you think that she was "at the mercy of a high school boy", despite repeatedly being asked the question.

I posted it once. Then you pointed out that you hadn't used that particular word.
I agreed.
I'm asking you, again, repeatedly, to explain why you think a cop with training, equipment, authority, and backup would possibly be "at the mercy of" a high school kid. Because I see no reason to believe it.

But you posted it. You did post "at the mercy of". But you keep repeating the "intimidated" thing. While ignoring the "at the mercy of" thing.
You're the one who keeps repeating "intimidated". Not me. I posted it once. You bring it up every time you want to avoid discussing what you actually did post.

So here we are. Why do you think she was "at the mercy"?
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

I did not repeat it. You do. You keep going back to a post hundreds of posts ago. But you refuse to explain why you think that she was "at the mercy of a high school boy", despite repeatedly being asked the question.

I posted it once. Then you pointed out that you hadn't used that particular word.
I agreed.

By saying "you did not use that particular word", you imply that I either used a close synonym, which I did not, or I somehow implied it, which I did not.

I'm asking you, again, repeatedly, to explain why you think a cop with training, equipment, authority, and backup would possibly be "at the mercy of" a high school kid. Because I see no reason to believe it.

I am not referring to the 'authority' and 'backup', which are not elements of the female cop's physical strength. Nor does her equipment figure into it. Yes, anyone with a gun could potentially shoot and disable or kill somebody.

In a hand-to-hand situation, I believe that cop would have been at the mercy of Franco (not any high school kid, as you imply, but the majority of 16-year old males, probably yes).

But you posted it. You did post "at the mercy of". But you keep repeating the "intimidated" thing. While ignoring the "at the mercy of" thing.
You're the one who keeps repeating "intimidated". Not me. I posted it once. You bring it up every time you want to avoid discussing what you actually did post.

Yet you still have not acknowledged your own mistake. You are still implying that I used a synonym for intimidated or that I implied she was intimidated, when I did neither. And it seems to me you want to deflect here. You want to avoid acknowledging your mistake.

But, since you are interested in my opinion, the reason I came to it was that Franco, despite being the clearly less-skilled fighter/boxer compared to Husain, nevertheless got a distinct winning position over him using his brute strength and size, a brute strength and size that he also had over the female cop, and probably would have over her with an even larger differential.

But if you think the female cop would best Franco in hand-to-hand fighting, it is no skin off my nose. I don't watch wrestling or boxing or mixed martial arts. I'm not some expert evaluator of fighting potential. I'd still put my money on Franco, if I were the gambling type.

 

[TomC]

By saying "you did not use that particular word", you imply that I either used a close synonym, which I did not, or I somehow implied it, which I did not.

You did.

I have repeatedly asked you why you think she would have been "at the mercy of" a teenager.

You somehow manage to keep avoiding the post where you said that. I think it was post #19, but I don't really care anymore.

I'm pretty sure it was your opinion about women that caused you to post that. And it also caused your backpedaling. A female cop might have done so much better than her male partner, because she felt in danger of "being at the mercy" of a high school kid. Maybe you had a different reason for posting that. But after repeatedly asking you, you still haven't explained why.

I've come to the conclusion that there was lots of racism going on in those few moments. Not because I saw it in the video. But because the Police Department hasn't produced a better explanation.

Similarly, I've come to a conclusion about why you posted what you did about the female cop. Because you can't come up with a different explanation. I've asked you time and time again.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

You did.

I did not imply she was intimidated. You have been told that repeatedly.

I have repeatedly asked you why you think she would have been "at the mercy of" a teenager.

And I've explained.

You somehow manage to keep avoiding the post where you said that. I think it was post #19, but I don't really care anymore.

I'm pretty sure it was your opinion about women that caused you to post that.

What? Of course it was. Men have higher upper and lower body strength than women.

And it also caused your backpedaling. A female cop might have done so much better than her male partner, because she felt in danger of "being at the mercy" of a high school kid.

I didn't backpedal.

I didn't say she did better.

I did not say she felt in danger.

That's three falsehoods in a row from you.

Maybe you had a different reason for posting that. But after repeatedly asking you, you still haven't explained why.

Why did I say she'd be at the mercy of Franco if it were a hand-to-hand fight? Because it is true.

I've come to the conclusion that there was lots of racism going on in those few moments. Not because I saw it in the video. But because the Police Department hasn't produced a better explanation.

Similarly, I've come to a conclusion about why you posted what you did about the female cop. Because you can't come up with a different explanation. I've asked you time and time again.
Tom

You are free to reach any conclusion you wish, of course. If you do not think the sex of the officers explains any of the differential treatment of the boys, you are free to believe that. I believe it does explain some of the difference.

 

[funinspace]

? Where do I say the female cop was intimidated in what you are quoting?

It's already been agreed, you didn't use the term "intimidated"..

Please explain the difference between my term "intimidated" and your term "at the mercy of".
Tom

The difference is probably about half the distance of a Planck length

 

[Metaphor]

? Where do I say the female cop was intimidated in what you are quoting?

It's already been agreed, you didn't use the term "intimidated"..

Please explain the difference between my term "intimidated" and your term "at the mercy of".
Tom

The difference is probably about half the distance of a Planck length

They're completely different things.

 

[Toni]

? Where do I say the female cop was intimidated in what you are quoting?

It's already been agreed, you didn't use the term "intimidated"..

Please explain the difference between my term "intimidated" and your term "at the mercy of".
Tom

The difference is probably about half the distance of a Planck length

They're completely different things.

Please explain how they are completely different things.

 

[laughing dog]

I did not repeat it. You do. You keep going back to a post hundreds of posts ago. But you refuse to explain why you think that she was "at the mercy of a high school boy", despite repeatedly being asked the question.

I posted it once. Then you pointed out that you hadn't used that particular word.
I agreed.

By saying "you did not use that particular word", you imply that I either used a close synonym, which I did not, or I somehow implied it, which I did not.

According to you, people's responses can imply something without their intent.

 

[Toni]

I did not repeat it. You do. You keep going back to a post hundreds of posts ago. But you refuse to explain why you think that she was "at the mercy of a high school boy", despite repeatedly being asked the question.

I posted it once. Then you pointed out that you hadn't used that particular word.
I agreed.

By saying "you did not use that particular word", you imply that I either used a close synonym, which I did not, or I somehow implied it, which I did not.

According to you, people's responses can imply something without their intent.

Depending on convenience.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Man, if this thread were a horse...

 

[Toni]

Man, if this thread were a horse...

So true.

 

[Metaphor]

? Where do I say the female cop was intimidated in what you are quoting?

It's already been agreed, you didn't use the term "intimidated"..

Please explain the difference between my term "intimidated" and your term "at the mercy of".
Tom

The difference is probably about half the distance of a Planck length

They're completely different things.

Please explain how they are completely different things.

I've already explained, multiple times, in this thread.

But because you are too lazy to go back and find it, I will explain for you again.

intimidated
adjective

frightened or nervous because you are not confident in a situation

It is about feelings; an internal mental state. He was intimidated by her quick wit.

I did not talk about the internal mental state of the female cop.

To be at the mercy of something means you are overpowered or helpless to change it.

Whether the rally was called off was at the mercy of the weather gods.

Being at the mercy of something is not referring to your internal mental state.

 

[Metaphor]

I did not repeat it. You do. You keep going back to a post hundreds of posts ago. But you refuse to explain why you think that she was "at the mercy of a high school boy", despite repeatedly being asked the question.

I posted it once. Then you pointed out that you hadn't used that particular word.
I agreed.

By saying "you did not use that particular word", you imply that I either used a close synonym, which I did not, or I somehow implied it, which I did not.

According to you, people's responses can imply something without their intent.

I've explained multiple times the difference between being intimidated and being at the mercy of something.

That you don't (care to) understand the difference is unfortunate but entirely on you.

 

[laughing dog]

I did not repeat it. You do. You keep going back to a post hundreds of posts ago. But you refuse to explain why you think that she was "at the mercy of a high school boy", despite repeatedly being asked the question.

I posted it once. Then you pointed out that you hadn't used that particular word.
I agreed.

By saying "you did not use that particular word", you imply that I either used a close synonym, which I did not, or I somehow implied it, which I did not.

According to you, people's responses can imply something without their intent.

I've explained multiple times the difference between being intimidated and being at the mercy of something.

That you don't (care to) understand the difference is unfortunate but entirely on you.

Your response implied what it implied. That you don't care to accept that it is predictable and unfortunate but is entirely on you.

 

[Toni]

I did not repeat it. You do. You keep going back to a post hundreds of posts ago. But you refuse to explain why you think that she was "at the mercy of a high school boy", despite repeatedly being asked the question.

I posted it once. Then you pointed out that you hadn't used that particular word.
I agreed.

By saying "you did not use that particular word", you imply that I either used a close synonym, which I did not, or I somehow implied it, which I did not.

According to you, people's responses can imply something without their intent.

I've explained multiple times the difference between being intimidated and being at the mercy of something.

That you don't (care to) understand the difference is unfortunate but entirely on you.

Sure.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

What was the point to your statement?
"At the mercy of the white boy"?

I'm trying to understand why you posted what you did. I'm telling you what it looked like to me and asking you to illuminate.
Tom

I really explained my viewpoint quite thoroughly already.

I believe in a physical situation, if it was a physical contest between that female officer and Franco, had Franco decided not to be co-operative (and he was nearly comically co-operative, as can be seen in the video and by the fact of his later statements), the female officer would have been overpowered by him ("at the mercy of"). Now, of course, as I already said, she probably could subdue him if he were unco-operative, by using a weapon* (a baton, or shooting him with a taser or gun), but that would fall into the category of "unnecessary injury" to herself or Franco. I think the more people who can be arrested without having to shoot them, the better.

But nowhere did I reference her internal state or feelings of being 'intimidated'.

*Or a well-placed blunt trauma attack on his balls (hey Toni there you go a genuine reference to genitalia from me rather than one of your imagined ones! This one is on the house!)

So she was "at the mercy of him" because she didn't feel like using a weapon but then later when he was "nearly comically cooperative" she wasn't any longer "at the mercy of him" is just some weird semantic thing of a temporary theoretical nature.

 

[Metaphor]

What was the point to your statement?
"At the mercy of the white boy"?

I'm trying to understand why you posted what you did. I'm telling you what it looked like to me and asking you to illuminate.
Tom

I really explained my viewpoint quite thoroughly already.

I believe in a physical situation, if it was a physical contest between that female officer and Franco, had Franco decided not to be co-operative (and he was nearly comically co-operative, as can be seen in the video and by the fact of his later statements), the female officer would have been overpowered by him ("at the mercy of"). Now, of course, as I already said, she probably could subdue him if he were unco-operative, by using a weapon* (a baton, or shooting him with a taser or gun), but that would fall into the category of "unnecessary injury" to herself or Franco. I think the more people who can be arrested without having to shoot them, the better.

But nowhere did I reference her internal state or feelings of being 'intimidated'.

*Or a well-placed blunt trauma attack on his balls (hey Toni there you go a genuine reference to genitalia from me rather than one of your imagined ones! This one is on the house!)

So she was "at the mercy of him" because she didn't feel like using a weapon

I didn't say that or imply it.

but then later when he was "nearly comically cooperative" she wasn't any longer "at the mercy of him" is just some weird semantic thing of a temporary theoretical nature.

There's nothing theoretical about the size and strength advantage men have over women.

I am about to say something unpopular: most women are at the mercy of most men most of the time. That is a reality. You can deal with that reality or you can ignore it.

If Franco had decided to fight off the female cop, she would not have overpowered him with brute strength.

And, even if I am wrong about that, even if she is Season 1-3 Xena and could easily have subdued him, that still doesn't mean I said she was intimidated. Because I never said it or implied it.