No less silly than asserting race was a factor, simply because Mr. Garner was black and the officer white.
And, my position didn't end with her mere presence; she was the ranking officer on the scene, she did not intercede on Mr. Garner's behalf, and her later statements indicated she didn't have any concerns with the manner of arrest or with Mr. Garner's condition during the take down.
What is your evidence the arrest had any racial component?
So you believe that black officers are less likely to treat black suspects unjustly. What do you base that on?
FYI I don't believe the takedown was racially motivated either, but it seems like you (like most people on your side of the issue) see complaints about racial injustice as a black-vs-white thing instead of a black-vs-justice thing.
Last edited by Spurminator; 12-05-2014 at 01:13 PM.
No, your assertion is sillier because there is no possible link from one to the other.
None of which have anything to do with possible prejudice on the part of the killing officer.And, my position didn't end with her mere presence; she was the ranking officer on the scene, she did not intercede on Mr. Garner's behalf, and her later statements indicated she didn't have any concerns with the manner of arrest or with Mr. Garner's condition during the take down.
And she was a ty ranking officer to allow a chokehold. Seems like immunity would be a very attractive offer for her.
The racial component is self evident.What is your evidence the arrest had any racial component?
Whether prejudice was a factor is a matter to be investigated.
What I'm saying is, imputing race as a factor in this (and many other -- Brown and Martin come to mind) encounters between police and suspects is unsupported by the facts. What I'm saying is, there is a whole of a lot of harm being done in the name these individuals based on the mere birth accident of their race. Granted, not so much with Mr. Garner's death than with Mr. Brown's but, the fact their race is being used as some catalyst for national outrage and misbehavior (supported, apparently, by the administration) is unconscionable.
If Mr. Brown or Mr. Garner were white, cities wouldn't have been looted and protesters wouldn't be acting like idiots with their made up memes of "Hands up, Don't Shoot," "I Can't Breath," and "Black Lives Matter."
That's what I'm saying.
What specific misbehaviors are you saying the administration supports?(supported, apparently, by the administration)
How so?
And, how would you determine this without knowing unknowable -- the mind and heart of the officer?
You can't figure it out?
Think.
That's what investigations are for. Patterns and the like are not completely unknowable.And, how would you determine this without knowing unknowable -- the mind and heart of the officer?
I'm fine with saying this cop was a dangerous idiot without bringing race into it.
Does that make you feel better?
That the suspect is black doesn't automatically introduce race a component to the reason or manner of his arrest and death.
It doesn't make me feel anything. Why would it?
lol moving the goalpost.
You just seem to be so upset.It doesn't make me feel anything. Why would it?
No, my guess is, once again, you weren't explicit enough in your declaration, "the racial component is self-evident."
Obviously it's not evident to me and I drew on the only thing to which I believed you could be referring, that the mere fact Mr. Garner was black introduced a racial component.
Tell me, what goal post did I move?
Which of my posts demonstrates this "upset?"
You only said component. There is an obvious component.
You felt compelled to qualify it further, which is moving the goalposts.
Most of them tbh.Which of my posts demonstrates this "upset?"
Reading is fundamental, I didn't "only [say] component." This is what I said:
"...to the reason or manner of his arrest and death," being the part you ignored.
You're getting tedious, I suppose I should let you bite someone else's ankle for awhile.
RIF
and your link doesn't work.
After re-reading the thread, I realized it wasn't to the statement I posted you were referring, it was probably this one:
Same argument. I used the term in qualifying why I didn't see any racial component to the arrest.
Which link?
Are you having a stroke?
No. Just did the stroke test in a mirror. Now, are you going to respond to the questions?
The link where you quoted yourself doesn't work.
because it's not a link. If you type "quote=Me," instead of just hitting the quote code, it thinks its a link, even if it's not. It wasn't an intentional deception; the quote was a couple of posts prior to the one in which I quoted it.
My link worked and is from a post prior to the one you quoted.
That's because I pushed the "Reply With Quote" link below your post and that automatically inserts the post's serial number. With my quote, I merely typed [open bracket]Quote=Me[close bracket]. I was unaware it treated that as a hyperlink but, since the actual post serial number wasn't included (and, I suppose I could have done that) the hyperlink had no place to take you.
The ones in your mind? Because I really don't see him moving goalposts in the thread.
I wouldn't expect you to.
I'm beginning to wonder if you see them. You keep claiming they've been moved but have avoided answering the question of how they were moved, every time it's asked.
It's just hilarious that you don't get it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
