"No Justice No Tree / #ShutItDown" in NYC (Eric Garner Protests)

[Kimon²]

what you wrote was dismissive in that it said "im not even going to argue with you because lol"

i was saying that cars are not an accurate representation of a violent police-civilian encounter

what he wrote wasn't dismissive because he was explaining how none of what you said mattered

all he did was claim that what i wrote were irrelevant, random statements without explaining himself

That was the point? I was dissecting it and showing you, snip by snip, why most of your content wasn't a valid argument. I'm sort of stunned that you somehow missed that since you thought my assertion that "most if that is irrelevant / not really making an argument" was ludicrous and I was defending myself.

how was any of that irrelevant? i was pointing out what the police officers should have done differently, or i guess what they did wrong in the situation.

[Ad Bot]

[$trinick]

i was pointing out what the police officers should have done differently, or i guess what they did wrong in the situation.

That's not an argument. Those are statements of your beliefs. What am I supposed to reply? "Okay, that's cool." You have to attach a corollary, such as "The cops didn't do XXX, so they should have been indicted."

[Kimon²]

That's not an argument. Those are statements of your beliefs. What am I supposed to reply? "Okay, that's cool." You have to attach a corollary, such as "The cops didn't do XXX, so they should have been indicted."

alright but i wasn't arguing about whether or not they should have been indicted with that particular post, i was arguing that what they did was wrong by most standards.

actually i did say he deserved to face the consequences hold on a sec let me write somethin

[$trinick]

alright but i wasn't arguing about whether or not they should have been indicted with that particular post, i was arguing that what they did was wrong by most standards.

Which is why it was irrelevant to our argument about whether or not he should have been indicted...

[Blockzillahead]

define most standards

[Qwepir]

define most standards

Standards he agrees with.

[Kimon²]

Which is why it was irrelevant to our argument about whether or not he should have been indicted...

i wasn't aware that this argument was ever strictly about indictment. there was always discussion about whether the cop was justified in his actions or if the protests were justified, for example.

anyways, i definitely believe that the man should have to face consequences for his mistake. he violated nypd policy, which should be grounds for him to be fired, but i also believe that there is at least a case to be made if the cop is indicted, which again is extremely easy to do even in a low-evidence case, but they didnt even let that happen.

define most standards

it violated nypd policy, so not nypd standards
it caused a father's death, which is wrong by moral standards
the force used was unnecessary (he was an obese man with asthma, im sure he didnt need much help going down) and had dire consequences regardless of it being intentional or not, so i'd say that its wrong logically.

legally, the guy actually has a case. but he didnt even get indicted so *shrug*

Standards he agrees with.

christ

[Blockzillahead]

Standards he agrees with.

no way. kimon is that true? shame on you

it violated nypd policy, so not nypd standards

I can argue against this but first I need to get my cop degree

it caused a father's death, which is wrong by moral standards

im assuming in the innocent context. otherwise this point is stupid and ill strawman the stuff out of it

the force used was unnecessary and had dire consequences regardless of it being intentional or not, so i'd say that its wrong logically.

im ignoring that last word. "logically". you mean morally. I don't see logic fitting in anywhere you silly
the force was unnecessary is easily argued against. the guy was resisting arrest. chokehold is an easy tactic to take quick control. consequences of said action were not intentional. therefore morality doesn't apply. no logic applies to it either. so it VANISHES *magic*

[Kimon²]

I can argue against this but first I need to get my cop degree

alright it's been accepted as fact that it's against nypd policy the entire time in this thread

im assuming in the innocent context. otherwise this point is stupid and ill strawman the stuff out of it

im not sure what you mean by this but i do not care if he was selling illegal cigarettes or not, he still should not have been killed by it

im ignoring that last word. "logically". you mean morally. I don't see logic fitting in anywhere you silly
the force was unnecessary is easily argued against. the guy was resisting arrest. chokehold is an easy tactic to take quick control. consequences of said action were not intentional. therefore morality doesn't apply. no logic applies to it either. so it VANISHES *magic*

a chokehold is an easy tactic to take control, but is widely unaccepted as a valid approach to subduing an non-compliant suspect. because the results of the action have such a high chance of playing out very badly, it isn't logical to use it, especially when the police department that hired you forbids you from doing it.

[Blockzillahead]

im not sure what you mean by this but i do not care if he was selling illegal cigarettes or not, he still should not have been killed by it

I meant what if he killed millions of jews. he gets sympathy for being a father? no... we wouldn't want that now would we. so instead of strawmaning you to hell, I gave you a go directly to jail card with the ability to collect $200. its a monopoly scheme I came up with oi

a chokehold is an easy tactic to take control, but is widely unaccepted as a valid approach to subduing an non-compliant suspect. because the results of the action have such a high chance of playing out very badly, it isn't logical to use it, especially when the police department that hired you forbids you from doing it.

I need proof that its widely unaccepted. but whats better? shoot him in the legs to cripple him? beat him with a baton until he crawls for the rest of his life? or tazer him into submission and have his face smash off the concrete? its completely logical, effective and quick! no mess!

police department forbids it? im intrigued so prove it to me 100% without some sort of media site telling me about it. im not up for dumbass biased false information from news sites. I need the juicy details bro. if im to be proven wrong give everything I need or I will dismiss your argument with a snap of a finger

[Kimon²]

I meant what if he killed millions of jews. he gets sympathy for being a father? no... we wouldn't want that now would we. so instead of strawmaning you to hell, I gave you a go directly to jail card with the ability to collect $200. its a monopoly scheme I came up with oi

i feel like i shouldnt have to explain why illegal cigarettes =/= genocide

but whats better? shoot him in the legs to cripple him? beat him with a baton until he crawls for the rest of his life? or tazer him into submission and have his face smash off the concrete? its completely logical, effective and quick! no mess!

notice how the cop in this stock image isnt strangling a man

police department forbids it? im intrigued so prove it to me 100% without some sort of media site telling me about it. im not up for dumbass biased false information from news sites. I need the juicy details bro. if im to be proven wrong give everything I need or I will dismiss your argument with a snap of a finger

alright despite the fact that everyone but you knows about this i'll try to find it
this seems like a pretty good article although kinda irrelevant to this post
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/12/5/did_the_nypd_let_eric_garner
"I need proof that its widely unaccepted."
also will get to this, there's a lot of controversy involved with this and many police departments are iffy about this at least

[Nonnel]

are you using a stock photo to prove a point
there are a couple I could find that would show you that those are not a reliable source of information

[Kimon²]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nypd-chokehold-death-jurys-decision-sparks-outrage-surprise/
this article mentions it being against policy
http://www.wcnc.com/story/news/local/2014/12/04/why-police-departments-discourage-choke-holds-or-ban-them-outright/19908077/
and there's the chokehold thing.

are you using a stock photo to prove a point
there are a couple I could find that would show you that those are not a reliable source of information

it was an example of what a cop should do to subdue a person instead of putting them in a chokehold

[Blockzillahead]

i feel like i shouldnt have to explain why illegal cigarettes =/= genocide

yeah... that was my point... you know what. another jail card for you, this time don't pass go, don't collect $200

notice how the cop in this stock image isnt strangling a man

easy combat to this statement: not the same situation. in fact no situation. stock image. but I guess this was a mockery at my expense. you think im joking with my posts but im 100% serious.

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/12/5/did_the_nypd_let_eric_garner

nu huh. more juicy. this is garbage information
although the hot police officer women in the video thumbnail has sparked my interest

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nypd-chokehold-death-jurys-decision-sparks-outrage-surprise/
this article mentions it being against policy
http://www.wcnc.com/story/news/local/2014/12/04/why-police-departments-discourage-choke-holds-or-ban-them-outright/19908077/
and there's the chokehold thing.it was an example of what a cop should do to subdue a person instead of putting them in a chokehold

I said no media websites. that includes news sites which are horse stuff for spreading real information. I need police records. actual laws presented on real information sites such as the official police department site, if they have one

[Kimon²]

i cant find the police records online but you are literally the only person who denies it being against nypd policy so there's that