(06-29-2020 10:16 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 10:03 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 09:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:53 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yep. I guess you find that dispositive. Good for you. Thank you for that prime example of regurgitation.

Edited to add: to be blunt, you have never been 'engaging' about any of the SJW issues that you throw up on the screen as all encompassing 'truisms'. When counters are presented, you just run away. Just noting that this falls in that ongoing and unblemished pattern as well.

Now tell me, if I noted that 'well I spoke to a number of prosecutors who say this wasnt a bad shoot in the slightest', please do tell how much you would take that to the bank, 93? I will tell you, all that 'proof' level would do would earn a sarcastic as hell statement from you about 'all the prosecutors you know.' But, I dont need to tell you that, do I?

So in counter, all the cops I talked to here said the shooting appears clean. Bummer. How about those bones?

Then I would say I'm not surprised. "Questionable" \= "absolute". How many times can I tell you that I don't personally find this shooting to be very problematic? I have heard/read more than one police officer describe this is a bad shooting. They know more than I do about this matter. That's why I said it was questionable.

If I was on the jury for this shooting, I'm pretty sure I would exonerate this cop based on the information that I have. Does that help?

I dont find much question in the Atlanta issue in the slightest. As noted, the only 'question' is based on 'should the cops have let him walk'.

The only thing I note is the counter-questions 'Why should the cops have let him walk? In what circumstances should cops 'overlook' the law'.

The only times that seems to be answered is 'in this instance' and *only* after a police fatality. In that regards that question has perfect hindsight record.

Turn it to the Floyd death. Not the 'after the arrest, resisting, and putting the knee on his neck'. One truism that keeps popping up is Floyd was arrested for passing phony bills. I have seen on more than one instance that the cops, in hindsight, should have simply let Floyd walk. Much like the question posed in the first article you posted.

Why, in either the Atlanta instance or the Floyd instance should it be a viable rationale to let either 'walk'? (as is ostensibly championed by not just a few.)

*That* is the biggest question in the Atlanta case for me, and, hate to say it, it really doesnt even rise to that in my view.

This might be a good example of getting non-responses ("running away"). There are plenty of topics in which I have no insight (or interest in researching the topic/time to do so). The question of when cops should enforce the law or let suspects walk falls into that category. There simply isn't enough time to get educated on every topic that pops up here.

To be blunt 93, those last two sentences are diametrically opposed to your throwing out your 'truism about the Atlanta shooting' *and* your 'truism about systemic blahbitty blah'. And yes, when those broad based truisms are tossed out here, I would expect one to have to answer for them.

In fact your defense of the 'truism about Atlanta' was an article -- an article in which the explicitly largest component of the 'question' was 'why didnt the cops just drive him to his sister's place'. (and I hate to tell you, there are a lot of problems with that approach in that circumstance -- issues that the 5 inch analysis in the article seems blithely unaware of, or, just fails to note).

No offense, but the defense of 'I just dont read so much about it, nor do I wish to' isnt a really cogent response in support of already stated broad-based 'truisms'.

No offense 93, but when you yourself toss out such broad based truisms, then refuse to engage in discussion of cogent points of *your* trusim, how do *you* think that might reflect upon those truisms?

If you are saying "I (93) dont get irritated tossing out broad based truisms, but dont deem the time important enough to engage in any form of cogent discussion of those broad based truisms", just exactly *how* are we supposed to view that weird marriage of actions and inactions there?

It seemingly appears that you have the unabashed ability to toss out wide ranging statements of 'fact', and wow, you get *irritated* when you have to back them up. Mercy me. How dare that happen. And yes, the last two statements are churlish, but that is probably an accurate assessment of the combination of 'tossing out broad based and unsubstantiated truism' with the 'refusing to engage in any discussion except by being pulled by a yoke' has with some.

One other way to do this is, if it is so irritating and not worth your time to defend a broad based truism, why toss it out there at all?

The irritation to which I referred when it comes to being on this forum stems from dealing with certain behavior patterns, not from being asked to defend positions.