Virginia teen was detained and prosecuted for saying 'OINK OINK' to cop

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Which doesn't make any sense...

We could be looking at a typical day for a soldier and his wife. The soldiers goes out and shoots at people, get shot at, but comes out unscathed. The wife at home however, burns her finger while making a pot roast.

If we used your method, we would have to conclude that the wife had the more dangerous day. That would be absurd. It would make more sense to just subjectively consider the difficulty of avoiding danger on the job. Is it harder to avoid getting shot? Or is it harder to cook a pot roast without getting burned? Probably getting shot, right?

No, statistics measure and assess danger would work over time given populations, and sampling would want to model what is going on in those populations, they aren't deciphered anecdotally like this.

If we took all incidences of cooking, and all incidences of soldiers in fire fights, then we looked at both the rate and severity of injuries incurred we could assess how dangerous relatively those two actions are.
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Why? Because a cop successfully fought for their life against an attacker and didn't sustain an injury?

The times they fought for their lives and were not injured and the times they were injured count evenly.

That's how we can tell how dangerous the action is.

But that's not what we are talking about. It's just your assumption of what is going on.

Sometimes the police are fighting for their lives, and sometimes they have to struggle a little bit more with a drunken person who was little more difficult to arrest than usual. They both count as assaults.

Assaults here are a vague term. They count as you defined as everything north of lightly resisting arrest. We can determine how dangerous "assaults" are by assessing how often injuries occur and how severe they are.

It's a completely bizarre argument that I can only imagine you're making to back your earlier hasty statements. Here's an example of some surfers narrowly avoiding a shark attack? How narrowly? One of them punched the shark...

Surfer narrowly escapes wild shark attack after punching shark

If I were to assess danger the way you want to....I'd be concluding that no one was ever in danger. Would that be reasonable to you? Or would it sound rather silly for me to say the surfers weren't in any danger?

No, you just don't get it. The danger is the probability that you are going to be injured. You measure it by measuring how many times it happens verses how many times actual injury's occur.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Everything you've posted has been semantics. You argued about what qualifies as assault....and when that fell apart, you argued about the relative dangers of assault. Your whole argument has been semantics.....semantics you want to drop now that you think you've found a favorable statistic. For all you know...some kid responding could be thinking of the time some bully knocked books off his desk or a fight that happened outside of school. Why did your scrutiny suddenly disappear when we aren't talking about cops .

The argument is semantics. You decided by yourself that all assaults are inherently dangerous and you don't want to explore the issue beyond that.

Wow...other than the fact that police are typically getting assaulted by people who want to avoid the consequences of criminal behavior. As long as we ignore the differences between the amount of damage an adult does compared to a high school kid. If we ignore the reality that cops are going on record for their assaults and the kids could be making things up since they don't have any consequences....

...then yes, these are similar. In reality though, not really.

You know how you could tell how dangerous the relative things are? You could compare injuries and the severity of those injuries over the incidents involved.

I agree that being a school child is less dangerous than a police officer but that is because you started to worry about the relative damage done rather than the number of incidents like you were in the other posts.

I can't really deal with your shifting standards here, you should work on that.

Then you replied to me with this nonsense about how assaults "aren't that dangerous". The point I made was about the dangers of policing compared to other jobs. That's why your schoolkids statistic will never be relevant. Even if you could pin down what they mean by a "physical fight" (and let's face it...you can't) being a high school student isn't a job. They can simply walk away from a fight. They haven't sworn an oath, they aren't expected to do a duty. There's no ethics or scrutiny involved. It's completely irrelevant.

So are we comparing the relative danger of jobs? Or did you not have any clue what you were replying to?

Cuz if we're still comparing jobs....all of what you dismissed above is entirely relevant.

The relative danger of anything really. We haven't found any common ground on how to measure it.

You seem very perturbed that I think danger should be measured as the rate of injury rather than the rate of some nebulous and ill defined category of actions.

You know, when you're not actually accepting my ideas by assessing the relative dangers of things (say school fights and police assaults) by their actual dangers, how much likely damage and rate of injury. Or doubting the reliability of the statistics and witnesses and severity of the incidents (kids making stuff up, fights not being all that big a deal circumstantially).

You know, when it suits you.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: whatbogsends
Upvote 0

W2L

Well-Known Member
Jun 26, 2016
20,081
10,988
USA
✟213,573.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
And that is irrelevant when compared to the lack of moral character of a police officer that resorts to violence when called a name by a kid.
You have a point but its still relevant because people are defending the name calling.
 
Upvote 0

W2L

Well-Known Member
Jun 26, 2016
20,081
10,988
USA
✟213,573.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Neither does complaining that people one has never met are protesting in the wrong way, but oh well.
I was just saying that we should teach our kids character. Is that complaining? The same with police. They need better training as well..
 
Upvote 0

SummerMadness

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
18,201
11,829
✟331,677.00
Faith
Catholic
You have a point but its still relevant because people are defending the name calling.
People are defending their right to free speech, there's a difference.

I was just saying that we should teach our kids character. Is that complaining? The same with police. They need better training as well..
Those are not equal concepts. The lack of training results i injury and death. Demanding kids show good "character" in the face of injury or death is where the real disrespect lies, you show no respect for their lives.
 
Upvote 0

W2L

Well-Known Member
Jun 26, 2016
20,081
10,988
USA
✟213,573.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
People are defending their right to free speech, there's a difference.

Those are not equal concepts. The lack of training results i injury and death. Demanding kids show good "character" in the face of injury or death is where the real disrespect lies, you show no respect for their lives.
They dont need to be equal. I wasnt aware the name calling was self defense? Calling a cop a pig somehow saved his life?
 
Upvote 0

SummerMadness

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
18,201
11,829
✟331,677.00
Faith
Catholic
They dont need to be equal. I wasnt aware the name calling was self defense? Calling a cop a pig somehow saved his life?
Your certainly don't treat them equal and seem to be only focused on the name calling as if "better training" is the answer to issue with police. The DOJ found that most police officers (84%) have seen fellow officers use excessive force and most do nothing about that (61%). Yet here you are talking about respect and children having poor character while ignoring a widespread crisis.
 
Upvote 0

W2L

Well-Known Member
Jun 26, 2016
20,081
10,988
USA
✟213,573.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Your certainly don't treat them equal and seem to be only focused on the name calling as if "better training" is the answer to issue with police. The DOJ found that most police officers (84%) have seen fellow officers use excessive force and most do nothing about that (61%). Yet here you are talking about respect and children having poor character while ignoring a widespread crisis.
Ignoring? No i said police need better training, which is acknowledging a problem, so im not ignoring. You just dont like my answer i guess. But what other answer is there?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SummerMadness

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
18,201
11,829
✟331,677.00
Faith
Catholic
Ignoring? No i said police need better training, which is acknowledging a problem, so im not ignoring. You just dont like my answer i guess. But what other answer is there?
It’s an answer that suggests you’ve thought nothing of the issue. How does “better training” address that most officers see excessive force and most do nothing about it? Are you suggesting it’s a lack of knowledge about excessive force or ignorance about how to report it? Their training on such issues is fine, but there is a deeper seeded issue of corruption that “better training” does not address. You have provided nothing that could be useful in addressing the issue, “better training” is a meaningless statement.
 
Upvote 0

W2L

Well-Known Member
Jun 26, 2016
20,081
10,988
USA
✟213,573.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It’s an answer that suggests you’ve thought nothing of the issue. How does “better training” address that most officers see excessive force and most do nothing about it? Are you suggesting it’s a lack of knowledge about excessive force or ignorance about how to report it? Their training on such issues is fine, but there is a deeper seeded issue of corruption that “better training” does not address. You have provided nothing that could be useful in addressing the issue, “better training” is a meaningless statement.
How else will you address the issue without additional training?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

trunks2k

Contributor
Jan 26, 2004
11,369
3,520
41
✟270,241.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
How else will you address the issue without additional training?
More accountability for officers who engage in excessive force & those that knowingly cover it up. Additionally, better protection for those that do speak up.
 
Upvote 0

W2L

Well-Known Member
Jun 26, 2016
20,081
10,988
USA
✟213,573.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
More accountability for officers who engage in excessive force & those that knowingly cover it up. Additionally, better protection for those that do speak up.
I agree, but i still think police need better training in handling proper use of force.
 
Upvote 0

trunks2k

Contributor
Jan 26, 2004
11,369
3,520
41
✟270,241.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I agree, but i still think police need better training in handling proper use of force.
I'm not really convinced training is the main issue. Yes, there is a good argument that training should focus on de-escalation, but I think the big reason such training changes need to be made is that for far too long, police officers have been able to get away with using excessive force. You can do all the training you want, but I don't think it will have any effect without actually holding them accountable rather than trying to excuse their behavior as people so often do.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Sparagmos
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

W2L

Well-Known Member
Jun 26, 2016
20,081
10,988
USA
✟213,573.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I'm not really convinced training is the main issue. Yes, there is a good argument that training should focus on de-escalation, but I think the big reason such training changes need to be made is that for far too long, police officers have been able to get away with using excessive force. You can do all the training you want, but I don't think it will have any effect without actually holding them accountable rather than trying to excuse their behavior as people so often do.
the reason isnt being debated, just whether its needed.
 
Upvote 0

Sparagmos

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2018
8,632
7,319
52
Portland, Oregon
✟278,062.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
How else will you address the issue without additional training?
Firing police officers for using excessive force, prosecute corrupt cops and sadistic cops. Reward, rather than punish, cops who turn other cops in for such behavior. Stop weeding out cops with a high I.Q.. Weed out bullies with psychological testing. Hire more cops with degrees in sociology and psychology, and pay them more.
 
Upvote 0

W2L

Well-Known Member
Jun 26, 2016
20,081
10,988
USA
✟213,573.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Firing police officers for using excessive force, prosecute corrupt cops and sadistic cops. Reward, rather than punish, cops who turn other cops in for such behavior. Stop weeding out cops with a high I.Q.. Weed out bullies with psychological testing. Hire more cops with degrees in sociology and psychology, and pay them more.
In other words include sociology and psychology training. Like i said, better training.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums