Police/cops are being attacked?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Oh really?

If he meant "we cannot SEE the attack on the cops in the vid", he should have said so.

Sorry man...but there really isn't any other way to interpret what Schecter meant with that statement other than how you just defined it.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
let me ask you this....towards the end of the vid, when the reporters are grilling the cops, does this qualify as an attack on the police?

That is in the eye of the beholder. Some may see it as disparagement (Possibly slander if they didn't do that to him...but we all know that they did) and others may see it as perfectly objective reporting...not letting facts go under the rug unnoticed.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Sorry man...but there really isn't any other way to interpret what Schecter meant with that statement other than how you just defined it.

That is in the eye of the beholder. Some may see it as disparagement (Possibly slander if they didn't do that to him...but we all know that they did) and others may see it as perfectly objective reporting...not letting facts go under the rug unnoticed.

apparently I am one of the latter.

"no cops were attacked in the vid you posted".....read this, tell me that there is only one way to interpret it. It could be taken two ways, IMO.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
it doesnt qualify as the police being verbally attacked?

is the sword mightier than the pen all of a sudden?

So, people shouldn't be questioned about the possibility of the abuse of power and brutality?

In no way did that video directly accuse the police of being guilty, it reported that the incident had been investigated and asked people's opinions on what had happened.

No, it wasn't an attack, it was journalism.

Wait, why is there some big upset going on here?

Schecter said there were no cops attacked in the video because there were no cops being attacked in the video.

If you choose to look over the fact that he said "IN THE VIDEO", then that's your own problem. You can say there are multiple ways to interpret it all you want, RJ, and it's clear you're interpreting it differently to how he intended, but that is your problem, not his.

Everybody else seemed to get that he meant there were none being attacked in the video shown, because he clearly said that.

He should have worded it to your liking, is that what you're saying?

-AC

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
So, people shouldn't be questioned about the possibility of the abuse of power and brutality?

In no way did that video directly accuse the police of being guilty, it reported that the incident had been investigated and asked people's opinions on what had happened.

No, it wasn't an attack, it was journalism.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Wait, why is there some big upset going on here?

Schecter said there were no cops attacked in the video because there were no cops being attacked in the video.

If you choose to look over the fact that he said "IN THE VIDEO", then that's your own problem. You can say there are multiple ways to interpret it all you want, RJ, and it's clear you're interpreting it differently to how he intended, but that is your problem, not his.

Everybody else seemed to get that he meant there were none being attacked in the video shown, because he clearly said that.

He should have worded it to your liking, is that what you're saying?

-AC

DDmon stepped in and took the same stance, but was more clear, said what was on his mind.

how hard is that?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
what did you expect was gonna happen? the cops were just gonna slap him on the wrist? this is a PERFECT example of why cops are viewed as being assholes.

I don't know really, I suppose I thought they might just do there jobs and arrest him. How naive of me.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I don't know really, I suppose I thought they might just do there jobs and arrest him. How naive of me.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
what I am saying is that he left it open for interpretation, even after I questioned him on it. but hey, thats what he does. if someone reads a post of mine and misinterpret it, I correct them, I dont just talk circles and hurl insults.

DDmon stepped in and took the same stance, but was more clear, said what was on his mind.

how hard is that?

You do have a tendancy to want to interpret things however you desire, despite correction, RJ. You have done this many times before.

You can't necessarily blame somebody for seeing you doing a similar thing now and call you on it.

I don't think he left it as open as you're claiming, and either way, I think it was pretty clear what he said and you MISinterpreted it.

That's me, though.

-AC

this will just go on forever.

ignore function = parrot slayer

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You do have a tendancy to want to interpret things however you desire, despite correction, RJ. You have done this many times before.

You can't necessarily blame somebody for seeing you doing a similar thing now and call you on it.

I don't think he left it as open as you're claiming, and either way, I think it was pretty clear what he said and you MISinterpreted it.

That's me, though.

-AC

the moment I misinterpreted it, he had an obligation to rectify the situation, not talk in circles.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
they watched as the shooter took a gun and blew off the face of their FRIEND, their COMRADE. you telling me you would'nt have been liable to get a bit rough with him if it was YOU who had seen this?

No, they didn't, the article you provided said that the gunman and the victim were alone in a room.

It's not about what I would have done, it's about what they did, whether they did it and why further investigation wasn't initiated.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
No, they didn't, the article you provided said that the gunman and the victim were alone in a room.

It's not about what I would have done, it's about what they did, whether they did it and why further investigation wasn't initiated.

the gunman fled the room, the body of the detective was then discovered in the room, face blown off.

who else could have done it? was there some magical leprechaun cop killer lurking under the table?

and you do realize that when under interrogation, they are almost always being watched, right?

and it is VERY much about what you would have done. you have to put yourself in their position. you have to think about what you would have done had it been you. your friend is laying on the floor, dead. you SAW it happen. think about it.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
the moment I misinterpreted it, he had an obligation to rectify the situation, not talk in circles.

He's not obligated to make effort to correct your mistake. Whatever else he did may have been wrong or right, I'm not discussing that issue.

He said something, you misinterpreted it, he told you that you did so, and then having made the initial mistake, it was up to you to ask him.

If he still talked you in circles and avoided it (Haven't read it, to be honest) then that sucks, but maybe now you'll not do it to others as much as you used to, or at all, because regardless of it being just the internet, it's very pointless and relevant to nothing, no matter who does it.

-AC

i spent an entire page worth making an effort to clarify, while he danced and slandered. i reached my breaking point and called him a retard, because he is a retard.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
the gunman and victim were alone in the room. lets think about that a sec.

the gunman fled the room, the body of the detective was then discovered in the room, face blown off.

who else could have done it? was there some magical leprechaun cop killer lurking under the table?

and you do realize that when under interrogation, they are almost always being watched, right?

and it is VERY much about what you would have done. you have to put yourself in their position. you have to think about what you would have done had it been you. your friend is laying on the floor, dead. you SAW it happen. think about it.

I'm not going to waste more space in this thread, going over more tedious specifics.

No, it is not about what I would have done, because I am not a police officer. When deciding to be a police officer, you accept the risk of the occupation and the possibility of death, and the practical certainty of witnessing it. I don't have to accept this possibility, as I'm not a police officer, it is not my job to uphold the law. But, I would prefer it if those who are in that occupation, wouldn't break the law they're supposed to be upholding.

in other words:

Originally posted by Schecter
im aware of the dangers a cop must face and the horror when that danger is realised in such a way.

the point is that an officer of the law is given a degree of power which in the face of a civilian is nearly absolute. we the people submit this power to them willingly, under the assumption that they fulfull their oath to god and their country, to objectively enforce the law. enforcing the law does not involve acts of vengeance. therefore, they were clearly wrong in their actions, despite how many times you type "SHOT IN THE FACE!!1".
it was their job, their duty, their oath, to apprehend him and bring him before a court of law, where he would THEN be judged by a jury of his peers. this is whats called "due process" and is the cornerstone of the american system of justice. its one of those things thats supposed to define us as a free and just country.

-page 5

(page 4 is where this parroting nonesense began)

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I'm not going to waste more space in this thread, going over more tedious specifics.

No, it is not about what I would have done, because I am not a police officer. When deciding to be a police officer, you accept the risk of the occupation and the possibility of death, and the practical certainty of witnessing it. I don't have to accept this possibility, as I'm not a police officer, it is not my job to uphold the law. But, I would prefer it if those who are in that occupation, wouldn't break the law they're supposed to be upholding.

That's exactly right, even if it's a SLIGHTLY idealistic view.

People who apply to any job, serious or not, from policing a city to moderating a forum, should only do so if they can do the job free of bias. If people pick on me for having a go at Bush, and say "Could you do a better job?", I say "No.", because I couldn't. I am way too selfish and biased to take that role.

So should be the case in the police. If you cannot handle yourself, you shouldn't be there.

Granted, watching a friend get his face blown off is gonna mess up your day, and maybe make a little more rough action UNDERSTANDABLE, but not ACCEPTABLE. If he came to me and said "Can you understand why I reacted?" I'd say, "Yeah.". If he said "Do you think it was right?", I'd say "Fack ahhhf.", or just "No.".

-AC

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I'm not going to waste more space in this thread, going over more tedious specifics.

No, it is not about what I would have done, because I am not a police officer. When deciding to be a police officer, you accept the risk of the occupation and the possibility of death, and the practical certainty of witnessing it. I don't have to accept this possibility, as I'm not a police officer, it is not my job to uphold the law. But, I would prefer it if those who are in that occupation, wouldn't break the law they're supposed to be upholding.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
so basically, it wasn't you, it's not your problem, so you don't care. right?

If I was a police officer that witnessed my coworker/friend blown away...I would be extremely pissed. However, I wouldn't beat the utter living shit out of him. I would definitely tackle him as roughly as possible and be as rough as I reasonably could while cuffing him...but that is just me.