(06-29-2020 08:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:35 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:34 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:25 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  You made the grandiose statement that, and I paraphrase '[the shooting] was questionable (I can assume we all agree)'.

I mentioned some very cogent and particular points.

Then you say (paraphrase) 'well I just simply repeat what I read, here is what I have read'.

What I read and heard from police officers made it seem reasonable to call it a questionable shooting. Probably most times a cop shoots somebody in the back as they are running it is worth questioning. My tone on the matter should have reflected just how not-outraged I was over this particular shooting. You seem to want to turn this into a fight.

None of your numbered points that you made do I disagree with.

Quote:That change from the first response (that how dare anyone not deem the shooting 'questionable') to the 'well I simply regurgitate what I read, without either thinking about it, nor really bothering to assess with any particularity anything that might run contrary' seems a pretty massive leap.

Perhaps you should have just led off with the latter, and saved all of us some time.

But you have done that before, havent you? That is led off with grandiose conclusory statements, and when pressed, simply abandon them with amazing alacrity and refuse to even acknowledge any issue that a contrary position might have with what you proffer, followed by a rapid abandonment of the conversation en toto.

Glad to note your are "not very interested". First, it seems a fairly wide contradistinction from your first statement you gleefully made about the issue being steadfastly 'questionable', closer to retreat on 'here is stuff I read, but I wont even bother to note what is in it, I am simply regurgitating'. And quite the way to finish that progression with the same velocity and direction.

Seems to be quite your tactic when actually pressed on specific points in your stance(s).

You must have a camera inside my house, Tanq. You are right... I was completely gleeful when I made that statement. Making that statement was the highlight of my week and I derived innumberable joy from that moment.

You and OO are correct... I should be more engaging with you. That service academy thing was super fun for me. More of that, please.

Fine -- scratch the word 'gleefully'. Then perhaps address the content. Or just use the gleeful to try a 'lets redirect this away from my absolute inability and refusal to address the issue at hand.' Par for the course, though. Good grief.

Did you read this?

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?