More False Narratives

durangodawood · Jul 15, 2020

Nithavela said:
I've been told one can tell that I'm not a native speaker because my English is too good....

Its like story of the CIA test for Soviet spies. If they knew verse two of the US national anthem, they were totally spies.

GodsGrace101 · Jul 15, 2020

durangodawood said:
Its like story of the CIA test for Soviet spies. If they knew verse two of the US national anthem, they were totally spies.

Yeah!

Aldebaran · Jul 15, 2020

Belk said:
I must of missed where the police prevent crimes from happening. I was always under the impression they prosecuted crimes after they already transpired. Must be why gun advocates told me I needed a gun since the police were minutes away. So which is it? Do I need a gun because police can't prevent crime or will less police lead to more criminals since they wont be there to stop it?

If the presence of police don't prevent crime, then how would you explain the large increase in crime where police presence has now been reduced?

Aldebaran · Jul 15, 2020

iluvatar5150 said:
Two seconds isn’t enough time for the cops to have made any sort of reasonable assessment of things. He didn’t have the gun out when they arrived. They just rolled up and shot him.

Why are you acting as an apologist for trigger happy cops who acted hastily and shot a harmless kid?

How were they supposed to know a 5' 7" kid who is 200 lbs and holding a gun is "harmless"?

iluvatar5150 · Jul 15, 2020

Aldebaran said:
How were they supposed to know a 5' 7" kid who is 200 lbs and holding a gun is "harmless"?

How are they supposed to know that you're harmless when they approach you? How were they supposed to know they were even rolling up on the right person?

A: They take the time to do their jobs and investigate the situation before reacting.

I'll ask again: Why are you acting as an apologist for a trigger happy cop who acted hastily and shot a harmless kid?

Aldebaran · Jul 15, 2020

iluvatar5150 said:
How are they supposed to know that you're harmless when they approach you? How were they supposed to know they were even rolling up on the right person?

A: They take the time to do their jobs and investigate the situation before reacting.

I'll ask again: Why are you acting as an apologist for a trigger happy cop who acted hastily and shot a harmless kid?

A person standing there with a gun usually doesn't provide much time for "investigation".

iluvatar5150 · Jul 15, 2020

Aldebaran said:
A person standing there with a gun usually doesn't provide much time for "investigation".

That's baloney. Police have talked down lots of shooters. In this case, they didn't even try. Either way, when the police arrived, the gun was in his waistband - it wasn't out and he wasn't waving it at them.

I'll ask again: Why are you acting as an apologist for a trigger happy cop who acted hastily and shot a harmless kid?

Aldebaran · Jul 15, 2020

iluvatar5150 said:
That's baloney. Police have talked down lots of shooters. In this case, they didn't even try. Either way, when the police arrived, the gun was in his waistband - it wasn't out and he wasn't waving it at them.

I'll ask again: Why are you acting as an apologist for a trigger happy cop who acted hastily and shot a harmless kid?

He was holding it in his hand. You've already been told that.
Video shows Cleveland officers shooting boy holding toy gun

Also, shooters who are "talked down" are ones that don't present an immediate threat, such as one who is barricaded. That wasn't the case here.

Broken Fence · Jul 15, 2020

Well I tell you what. I don't really believe what they said about Michael Jackson. He pretty much sums everything up. And for the record he is not just talking about African-Americans, he is talking about everyone not in their club. (The Bloodline Elite)

iluvatar5150 · Jul 15, 2020

Aldebaran said:
He was holding it in his hand. You've already been told that.
Video shows Cleveland officers shooting boy holding toy gun

You've said that, but you're wrong - not even the police officer who shot him claimed that he was holding it in his hand:
Cop says he told Tamir Rice to show hands before fatal shots

Also, shooters who are "talked down" are ones that don't present an immediate threat, such as one who is barricaded. That wasn't the case here.

Again, that's baloney. Do you want me to find you examples of police who've tried to talk down armed individuals who've posed an immediate threat?

ETA: Here's the FBI's report on the constitutionality of the shooting:
http://prosecutor.cuyahogacounty.us...rawford-Review of Deadly Force-Tamir Rice.pdf

I can't find a link to the local prosecutor's report, else I'd post that, too. Note that, in defending the officer, the investigator said:

When Officers Garmback and Loehmann arrived on the scene, Officer Loehmann was on the passenger side of the vehicle which was within close proximity to Rice. At the time, Rice was reportedly armed with a handgun, and Officer Loehmann was without cover. Following universal training and procedures, Officer Loehmann’s attention would be focused on Rice’s hands as they moved towards his waist band and lifted his jacket. Unquestionably, the actions of Rice could reasonably be perceived as a serious threat to Officer Loehmann. Waiting to see if Rice came out with a firearm would be contrary to action versus reaction training. Considering Officer Loehmann’s close proximity to Rice and lack of cover, the need to react quickly was imperative. Delaying the use of force until Officer Loehmann could confirm Rice’s intentions would not be considered a safe alternative under the circumstances.

While I think this investigator's logic is ridiculous and part of the problem with police culture and our deference to them, it doesn't negate that even she doesn't claim that Rice was brandishing the gun.

So, your understanding of what happened is wrong. Your assessment of police ability to try to talk down armed suspects is wrong. We haven't addressed the fact that, if the officers truly thought he was a threat, then driving up to within 10' of him was pretty stupid. There's also the fact that Loehmann's statements regarding the amount of warning he gave to Rice were entirely fallacious. Why are all your errors skewed towards excusing the police?

whatbogsends · Jul 15, 2020

Aldebaran said:
He was holding it in his hand. You've already been told that.
Video shows Cleveland officers shooting boy holding toy gun

Also, shooters who are "talked down" are ones that don't present an immediate threat, such as one who is barricaded. That wasn't the case here.

You might want to look at the evidence (you know, the video itself) rather than the headline of the article.

He wasn't holding the gun in his hand. That was the initial claim by police (as was the claim that they gave him repeated commands prior to shooting, which was also a lie) that was shown to be false by the video evidence.

GodsGrace101 · Jul 15, 2020

Aldebaran said:
A person standing there with a gun usually doesn't provide much time for "investigation".

Amen to that!

GodsGrace101 · Jul 15, 2020

iluvatar5150 said:
You've said that, but you're wrong - not even the police officer who shot him claimed that he was holding it in his hand:
Cop says he told Tamir Rice to show hands before fatal shots

Again, that's baloney. Do you want me to find you examples of police who've tried to talk down armed individuals who've posed an immediate threat?

ETA: Here's the FBI's report on the constitutionality of the shooting:
http://prosecutor.cuyahogacounty.us/pdf_prosecutor/en-US/Tamir Rice Investigation/Crawford-Review of Deadly Force-Tamir Rice.pdf

I can't find a link to the local prosecutor's report, else I'd post that, too. Note that, in defending the officer, the investigator said:

While I think this investigator's logic is ridiculous and part of the problem with police culture and our deference to them, it doesn't negate that even she doesn't claim that Rice was brandishing the gun.

So, your understanding of what happened is wrong. Your assessment of police ability to try to talk down armed suspects is wrong. We haven't addressed the fact that, if the officers truly thought he was a threat, then driving up to within 10' of him was pretty stupid. There's also the fact that Loehmann's statements regarding the amount of warning he gave to Rice were entirely fallacious. Why are all your errors skewed towards excusing the police?

Why are all YOUR errors skewed toward excusing criminals and those that act like criminals?

iluvatar5150 · Jul 15, 2020

GodsGrace101 said:
Why are all YOUR errors skewed toward excusing criminals and those that act like criminals?

1.) They're not. I haven't excused criminals in this thread.

2.) Nobody has yet demonstrated any errors on my part in this thread. You guys were claiming that Rice was holding the gun when the officers arrived - a claim which isn't proven by the ambiguous video (that's too blurry to tell) and which is directly contradicted by the official reports that quote the officer as saying Rice was reaching for his pants and about to draw the gun. If the officer who shot him didn't claim that Rice was waving the gun at the time of the shooting, where did you guys get that notion?

whatbogsends · Jul 15, 2020

GodsGrace101 said:
Why are all YOUR errors skewed toward excusing criminals and those that act like criminals?

Since when is a 12 year old boy playing (irresponsibly) with a toy gun a criminal? It's not even acting like a criminal.

Nithavela · Jul 15, 2020

iluvatar5150 said:
1.) They're not. I haven't excused criminals in this thread.

2.) Nobody has yet demonstrated any errors on my part in this thread. You guys were claiming that Rice was holding the gun when the officers arrived - a claim which isn't proven by the ambiguous video (that's too blurry to tell) and which is directly contradicted by the official reports that quote the officer as saying Rice was reaching for his pants and about to draw the gun. If the officer who shot him didn't claim that Rice was waving the gun at the time of the shooting, where did you guys get that notion?

I think it's a new tactic. Don't try to show that someone is wrong, just tell them that they are wrong.

Belk · Jul 15, 2020

Aldebaran said:
If the presence of police don't prevent crime, then how would you explain the large increase in crime where police presence has now been reduced?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Show me the data that shows a reduction in police is the root behind an increase in crime.

Aldebaran · Jul 16, 2020

Belk said:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Show me the data that shows a reduction in police is the root behind an increase in crime.

I asked how you would explain the increase in crime. Why did you avoid answering?

Belk · Jul 16, 2020

Aldebaran said:
I asked how you would explain the increase in crime. Why did you avoid answering?

Because I have no data to make an educated guess upon. Why would I speculate on something I have no data on. What causes you to claim it was because of a reduction in police? Is it data driven or ideology?

Ken-1122 · Jul 16, 2020

whatbogsends said:
Please explain, how a kid, with a gun down his pants, is supposed to pull it out his pants and put it on the ground in less than 2 seconds.

He wasn't supposed to pull the gun out and put it on the ground in less than 2 seconds, he was supposed to show the cops his hands like he was told. It doesn't take 2 seconds to show your hands.

More False Narratives

Dis Member

Well-Known Member

NCC-1701-A

NCC-1701-A

Well-Known Member

NCC-1701-A

Well-Known Member

NCC-1701-A

God with us!

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

our world is happy and mundane

Senior Member

NCC-1701-A

Senior Member

Newbie

Similar threads