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

[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.

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

Sure, it implied something to somebody who does not understand the difference between descriptions of internal states and descriptions of physical strength differentials. I can't help you there, except perhaps recommend night classes to improve your English comprehension.

 

[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.

Sure, it implied something to somebody who does not understand the difference between descriptions of internal states and descriptions of physical strength differentials. I can't help you there, except perhaps recommend night classes to improve your English comprehension.

Bravo, an ironic projection of pedantry to obscure your double standard.

 

[funinspace]

Man, if this thread were a horse...

Neigh

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

Franco is not a man, but instead a 15 year old.

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.

It is not a theoretical temporary semantic issue merely because he was 15 years old but instead because you focused on how she COULD HAVE used her weapon and thus not been at the mercy of him (according to you). It's what you wrote.

Pay attention. The gender difference is a red herring because I'm talking about what you actually wrote in total, not merely a single "unpopular" element in what you wrote. You wrote that she could have taken him down with a weapon, but even that isn't important because you wrote that later on he was "comically cooperative," meaning she wouldn't have to use a weapon at all and could simply cuff him. Therefore, your argument does indeed amount to some weird, temporary, semantic theoretical concern that when examined in practice is irrelevant in the totality of what happened.

If you are correct that a female cop could not subdue a 15 year old male without a weapon, then she could have done it with a weapon, and then later had another opportunity to cuff him when he put his hands out, and further so did her partner. Screaming about sex differences between adult men and women doesn't cover even a single element since he was 15 years old, but it certainly doesn't provide explanatory power to the totality of what happened even if he were an adult male, which he isn't.

 

[atrib]

It is amazing what lengths some people will go to to defend and brush aside the obvious racial bias exhibited by the police in this scenario. This is something that happens every day, and is accepted as a way of life by most black people.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Sure, it implied something to somebody who does not understand the difference between descriptions of internal states and descriptions of physical strength differentials. I can't help you there, except perhaps recommend night classes to improve your English comprehension.

Jebus! Now it is a semantical argument over semantics, which is on the verge of becoming an argument over that. This is getting close to Six Degrees of Separation from the OP.

 

[TomC]

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.

And the reason that posts #15 and #19 were irrelevant, and her sex unimportant, is simple.
Officer Jane isn't most women. Nor was this tiny episode "most of the time". She had training, equipment, authority, and backup. Far more than most guys do, most of the time.

So far, based on such small evidence as the video shows, I think that the differing treatment of the two miscreants has more to do with the relative levels of competence between the two cops. Officer Jane handled her half of the problem very well. Officer John screwed up his half pretty well. And her's was the bigger half, given that Franco was larger and older than Husain.

Maybe racism played a part. I don't know. But the relative levels of competence shown by the cops is obvious. Unless there's other information that isn't available to me.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

Franco is not a man, but instead a 15 year old.

Franco is a 15 year old male, the kind that would be referred to as a 'young man' by most adults around him. In any case, my statement applies to many males as young as (or even younger than) 15.

It is not a theoretical temporary semantic issue merely because he was 15 years old but instead because you focused on how she COULD HAVE used her weapon and thus not been at the mercy of him (according to you). It's what you wrote.

Yes, she could have used her weapon to subdue him, and, depending on how successful she was, she might not have been at his mercy.

Pay attention. The gender difference is a red herring because I'm talking about what you actually wrote in total, not merely a single "unpopular" element in what you wrote. You wrote that she could have taken him down with a weapon, but even that isn't important because you wrote that later on he was "comically cooperative," meaning she wouldn't have to use a weapon at all and could simply cuff him. Therefore, your argument does indeed amount to some weird, temporary, semantic theoretical concern that when examined in practice is irrelevant in the totality of what happened.

It is not at all irrelevant. There is a sex difference between the female cop and Franco, and between the female cop and the male cop. The way you act when there is a strength differential between you and your target (and the direction of that differential) is bound to be different to the way you act when there is not.

If you are correct that a female cop could not subdue a 15 year old male without a weapon,

In most cases, no they could not, if the male resists.

then she could have done it with a weapon, and then later had another opportunity to cuff him when he put his hands out, and further so did her partner. Screaming about sex differences between adult men and women doesn't cover even a single element since he was 15 years old, but it certainly doesn't provide explanatory power to the totality of what happened even if he were an adult male, which he isn't.

She had the opportunity to cuff him and didn't, because he had already proven he was comically co-operative.

Most 15 year old males already have had the physical changes that gives them a size and strength advantage over most adult women.

I went to an all boys school. I know what the physical realities are between a teenaged male student who is being disruptive and his female teacher are.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Franco is not a man, but instead a 15 year old.

Franco is a 15 year old male, the kind that would be referred to as a 'young man' by most adults around him. In any case, my statement applies to many males as young as (or even younger than) 15.

It is not a theoretical temporary semantic issue merely because he was 15 years old but instead because you focused on how she COULD HAVE used her weapon and thus not been at the mercy of him (according to you). It's what you wrote.

Yes, she could have used her weapon to subdue him, and, depending on how successful she was, she might not have been at his mercy.

Pay attention. The gender difference is a red herring because I'm talking about what you actually wrote in total, not merely a single "unpopular" element in what you wrote. You wrote that she could have taken him down with a weapon, but even that isn't important because you wrote that later on he was "comically cooperative," meaning she wouldn't have to use a weapon at all and could simply cuff him. Therefore, your argument does indeed amount to some weird, temporary, semantic theoretical concern that when examined in practice is irrelevant in the totality of what happened.

It is not at all irrelevant. There is a sex difference between the female cop and Franco, and between the female cop and the male cop. The way you act when there is a strength differential between you and your target (and the direction of that differential) is bound to be different to the way you act when there is not.

The most ridiculous part of this whole thing is that the male cop pulls/pushes the lighter skinned person to the couch. There seems to be this misimpression that the female cop does this. She kind of assisted, but the male officer gets there, pulls the lighter skinned person back towards the couch and then drops on the darker skinned person. So the male officer used two completely different levels of force on the two teens.

Yet, we are reading about women being women.

 

[Metaphor]

And the reason that posts #15 and #19 were irrelevant, and her sex unimportant, is simple.
Officer Jane isn't most women. Nor was this tiny episode "most of the time". She had training, equipment, authority, and backup. Far more than most guys do, most of the time.

I was referring to the physical reality of the strength differential. The male cop had training, equipment, authority and backup too. That is not a sex difference between the two.

So far, based on such small evidence as the video shows, I think that the differing treatment of the two miscreants has more to do with the relative levels of competence between the two cops. Officer Jane handled her half of the problem very well. Officer John screwed up his half pretty well. And her's was the bigger half, given that Franco was larger and older than Husain.

Whether she handled her half of the problem 'well' is obviously a matter of dispute. Many people think Franco ought have been cuffed, too.

In any case, having a comically co-operative 'miscreant' certainly made her half of the problem easy.

Maybe racism played a part. I don't know. But the relative levels of competence shown by the cops is obvious. Unless there's other information that isn't available to me.
Tom

I've never said racism didn't take a part. I have said there are many unknowns, and there is an obvious thing that is being overlooked.

 

[Metaphor]

And the reason that posts #15 and #19 were irrelevant, and her sex unimportant, is simple.
Officer Jane isn't most women. Nor was this tiny episode "most of the time". She had training, equipment, authority, and backup. Far more than most guys do, most of the time.

I was referring to the physical reality of the strength differential. The male cop had training, equipment, authority and backup too. That is not a sex difference between the two.

So far, based on such small evidence as the video shows, I think that the differing treatment of the two miscreants has more to do with the relative levels of competence between the two cops. Officer Jane handled her half of the problem very well. Officer John screwed up his half pretty well. And her's was the bigger half, given that Franco was larger and older than Husain.

Whether she handled her half of the problem 'well' is obviously a matter of dispute. Many people think Franco ought have been cuffed, too.

In any case, having a comically co-operative 'miscreant' certainly made her half of the problem easy.

Maybe racism played a part. I don't know. But the relative levels of competence shown by the cops is obvious. Unless there's other information that isn't available to me.
Tom

I've never said racism didn't take a part. I have said there are many unknowns, and there is an obvious thing that is being overlooked.

 

[TomC]

I was referring to the physical reality of the strength differential.

And I'm asking you, yet again, why you think that is relevant to this particular situation.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

I was referring to the physical reality of the strength differential.

And I'm asking you, yet again, why you think that is relevant to this particular situation.
Tom

I've already explained it more than once.

 

[TomC]

I was referring to the physical reality of the strength differential.

And I'm asking you, yet again, why you think that is relevant to this particular situation.
Tom

I've already explained it more than once.

No.
You've said it.
You've not explained it.

Tell me why you think she might be "at the mercy of" a fifteen year old kid. Given what is clear in the video.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And the reason that posts #15 and #19 were irrelevant, and her sex unimportant, is simple.
Officer Jane isn't most women. Nor was this tiny episode "most of the time". She had training, equipment, authority, and backup. Far more than most guys do, most of the time.

I was referring to the physical reality of the strength differential. The male cop had training, equipment, authority and backup too. That is not a sex difference between the two.

So far, based on such small evidence as the video shows, I think that the differing treatment of the two miscreants has more to do with the relative levels of competence between the two cops. Officer Jane handled her half of the problem very well. Officer John screwed up his half pretty well. And her's was the bigger half, given that Franco was larger and older than Husain.

Whether she handled her half of the problem 'well' is obviously a matter of dispute. Many people think Franco ought have been cuffed, too.

In any case, having a comically co-operative 'miscreant' certainly made her half of the problem easy.

Maybe racism played a part. I don't know. But the relative levels of competence shown by the cops is obvious. Unless there's other information that isn't available to me.
Tom

I've never said racism didn't take a part. I have said there are many unknowns, and there is an obvious thing that is being overlooked.

So the woman is a pussy. You think women must be pussies. Got it.

 

[Metaphor]

I was referring to the physical reality of the strength differential.

And I'm asking you, yet again, why you think that is relevant to this particular situation.
Tom

I've already explained it more than once.

No.
You've said it.
You've not explained it.

Tell me why you think she might be "at the mercy of" a fifteen year old kid. Given what is clear in the video.
Tom

I've explained more than once and I won't do it again

 

[Metaphor]

And the reason that posts #15 and #19 were irrelevant, and her sex unimportant, is simple.
Officer Jane isn't most women. Nor was this tiny episode "most of the time". She had training, equipment, authority, and backup. Far more than most guys do, most of the time.

I was referring to the physical reality of the strength differential. The male cop had training, equipment, authority and backup too. That is not a sex difference between the two.

So far, based on such small evidence as the video shows, I think that the differing treatment of the two miscreants has more to do with the relative levels of competence between the two cops. Officer Jane handled her half of the problem very well. Officer John screwed up his half pretty well. And her's was the bigger half, given that Franco was larger and older than Husain.

Whether she handled her half of the problem 'well' is obviously a matter of dispute. Many people think Franco ought have been cuffed, too.

In any case, having a comically co-operative 'miscreant' certainly made her half of the problem easy.

Maybe racism played a part. I don't know. But the relative levels of competence shown by the cops is obvious. Unless there's other information that isn't available to me.
Tom

I've never said racism didn't take a part. I have said there are many unknowns, and there is an obvious thing that is being overlooked.

So the woman is a pussy. You think women must be pussies. Got it.

No.

 

[Gun Nut]

If I may summarize:

Two different people did two different things to two different people that were on two different sides of the same altercation.

Now... what was it we were comparing, and why?

To be clear, I am certain that if both boys were on the floor getting cuffed by two cops, or if neither boy was on the floor being cuffed, then there would have been absolutely no discussion at all. Right?

So, we are comparing two different people doing two different things to two different people.. THAT we can agree upon, yes?

So, why, then?

 

[ZiprHead]

So, why, then?

Cuz wimmen are pussies. Or so I've heard.

 

[Rhea]

The most ridiculous part of this whole thing is that the male cop pulls/pushes the lighter skinned person to the couch. There seems to be this misimpression that the female cop does this. She kind of assisted, but the male officer gets there, pulls the lighter skinned person back towards the couch and then drops on the darker skinned person. So the male officer used two completely different levels of force on the two teens.

Yet, we are reading about women being women.

It is a tactic. To change the subject to a pet hobby horse.