[quote=“davide405, post:24, topic:34560”]
Basically, the only “fight” was what the officer started…
[/quote] in reply to Catgrin.
and
[quote=“davide405, post:26, topic:34560”]
I’m not hewing to my original words, I accept the account offered by the eyewitnesses.
[/quote] in reply to you.
Yes, absolutely. And I have doubly (now trebly) acknowledged that mine was incorrect.
Do you suppose that I am defending the cop?
I am baffled by the amount of energy you’ve put into pursuing this point; which I’ve already conceded.
My point is that your immediate assumption that this was a fight, rather than an argument, is part of the problem – and it’s part of the reason why cops like this feel the need to use such excessive force when dealing with a mere argument. I’m not BLAMING you, btw – it’s just part of the larger culture of violence and rationalization of excessive force.
I just find it very interesting that, even though nothing indicated an actual fight, you automatically went to “fight” – rather than the far more obvious “argument”. You didn’t do it on purpose, but it’s still really interesting you ignored the context and reached for the more violent word, isn’t it? I bet the cop had a similar thought-process. “They are arguing passionately! I must break up this FIGHT with as much force as I can.”
I type 120 wpm; I’m not sure why you think I’ve put tons of energy into this when you’ve clearly typed more. Can we not with that crap? Just because someone types an argument out doesn’t mean they need to “calm down” or that they are using “a lot of energy”. It’s dismissive.
Can you cite any source for this? As a firefighter I interact with and have gotten to know many cops, and not all of them are veterans. Also, most big departments have such a hiring deficit, they can’t just choose veterans. Veterans get Civil Service points on hiring exams, but not enough to stop non-veterans from getting hired and I don’t think any department can put military service as a requirement. And I know more than a few gay cops who’ve been there since before DADT was repealed.
Marilove, I’ll ask it - lay off him!
Stop taunting a person who is in support of the person attacked.
He didn’t do anything wrong. I only originally corrected the wording to avoid it being repeated that way further down the thread (threads are like a game of operator). I had access to a more full report, and he didn’t know one way or the other what had happened prior to that. (He didn’t read the quote about what the girl said, and fact that she’d just stepped too close.) He’d read “argument” and wrote a synonym that has a slightly different meaning. Since I had better info, I wanted to keep the thread clean. I even said in my post that I knew he and I were on the same side of this topic.
From your actions, I’m now sorry I ever spoke up, and probably won’t bother to do so again in this way for quite some time - even though it really does matter to this type of discussion.
Wow, your crusade against him managed to do a great thing.
The first article I read on this incident also used the word ‘fight’. Perhaps Davide405 didn’t so much choose the verb but rather repeated what was reported. Once it was pointed out to him that this was an argument, he quickly recanted his earlier statements. To then go on and suggest he ignored the context and reached for the more violent word seems a stretch. To compare his thought process to the thug cop is hyperbole. I see no equivalence between an honest mistake made while discussing what was reported and the choice to harm a person.
Happens more than you might think - I was a criminal defense investigator for a number of years and I often saw APO charges with the injury to the officer described as “injury to hand” or even “bruised knuckles.” It was like a joke to them. I once had an officer proudly show me the scrapes on his knuckles from where he had assaulted my client, and when I asked him how he got those injuries he said it was subduing the defendant. We ended up getting a pretty good plea offer after that interview
Honest question. It seems like the ‘great thing’ you are referring to is your threat to take your ball and go home. If I am correct, that’s some gnarly passive aggressive crap and you’re getting called on it. At the very least that is a fair interpretation, even if I misunderstand you.
If I am wrong, as I sometimes am, then please do let me know what the ‘great thing’ is you are referring to. If I am to take seriously that it is the quality of conversation you are defending, I may need your help and clarification on this one point, please. Thank you.
I won’t dignify her poor behavior by explaining it to you. Go back and take a look at what she did to him in the thread, and move on to other topics - like the actual topic of this thread, the girl who was beaten by a cop. I won’t respond to you or anyone else on this topic again.
