Really? This is your standard for judging right from wrong?
Says the guy whose standard for moral culpability is something unrelated from 15 years earlier.
Given his lame response to this post, you can leave it at that.
[ETA: I see below he’s blaming @doctorow for flagging his comments. He understands neither how the flagging system works (hint: it’s not the top-down system an authoritarian would assume it to be) nor Cory’s well-known indifference to participating in the comment threads.]
Adios wysinwyg… seems as if Cory has flagged most of my comments. Including the first one. And probably this one too.
Sure, why not? The general consensus of the people is an excellent measure of right and wrong in a democratic society. But really your question is a bit of a red herring isn’t it? Surely you read the sentences before and after that bit you quoted where I clearly stated that begging ignorance is not a justification for committing a crime.
I do hope you haven’t invested too much in your argument of feigned incredulity as it doesn’t really seem to help your position.
@Jack_Kado is on vacation after doubling down on his thread derailing.
Thank you, oh merciful moderator.
It’s the same reason that dredging up the victim’s past isn’t appropriate either - because, as I mentioned in my original comment, his injuries are consistent with a beating (or at least, being beaten up), and a pedantic digression on the use of the word ignores the whole of the message (The cops appear to have lied) in favour of the implication that the message is circumspect because of the Author’s choice of a single word.
This is one of several reasons why the rules in a court of law are terrible for application in common civil discourse.
Such a good movie. Terrible title, good movie.
And now, back to our discussion.
The sad part is, if Vince Gilligan were writing this thread, and we could keep it open for 5 years, Jack would eventually become one of the most likable commenters on the thread before his untimely death, of course…
Sure, but the rest of us will get killed off, turn heel, or both.
I agreed that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
[quote=“orenwolf, post:96, topic:99811”]- because, as I mentioned in my original comment, his injuries are consistent with a beating (or at least, being beaten up)
Yeah, sorry, that doesn’t hold water with me. There is a big difference than beating someone and injuries through either excessive force, bad technique, accident, or a combination of the three. Falling down the stairs can lead to similar injuries, doesn’t mean they took a beating.
And I think the distinction is important. Beating, physically hitting or striking someone shows a DIFFERENT problem than excessive force and/or bad technique. It shows intentional malice that has nothing to do with lack of training or technique.
Of course cops also can use more or less “proper” technique, and still use excessive force. That is, do the move needed to cuff someone, but do it in a manner that injures them on purpose. Or the old bouncer trick of walking someone out of bar, and “accidentally” whacking them against the wall or door on the way out.
Or it can be a combination, with poor technique, and no care on whether someone gets hurt or not, and/or intentional malice. It is one of the reasons choke holds aren’t allowed in most departments, it is too easy to abuse them.
When placing blame and, more importantly, figuring out how to prevent the event from repeating itself, we need to recognize WHAT exactly happened, WHY, and HOW to prevent it.
I am not trying to draw attention AWAY from their transgressions, but I didn’t start it either. Cory has used this word several times in his posts, and IMHO it is hyperbole.
I mean if this was a reversed situation where the authority was assaulted, and the police claimed someone “beat up a cop” when really they were trying to get away, pulling the cop with them, and endes up pulling the cop into something, knocking them out. Who among you would say, “Eh, his injuries are consistent with a beating, so close enough.”
I have the two times I brought this up, SPELLED OUT that just because Dao wasn’t beaten, that the cops weren’t guilty of doing the wrong thing and are responsible for his injuries.
OK. So I guess that explains why the LAWYER wouldn’t use hyperbolic language (is that a word?). Why are all the major news orgs also not claiming he was beaten? Clearly I am not alone in this. Am I wrong for wanting some consistency and accuracy in “common civil discourse”?
Another flight with United. Because that $800 was, i believe, in the form of vouchers. A.k.a., United Land Fun Bucks.
Fair enough. You’re welcome to your opinion. Mine is that it’s 1) close enough and 2) a distraction from the overall discussion to focus on it. The key, for me, is that I don’t believe there’s any nefarious intent here anywhere, so *shrug* I can’t really get in a bother about it.
What… no broken bones? That’s not a beating! /s
So a little white lie or a fib? ETA - that smacks of the defense of many people who put their foot in their mouths and people defend it at as, “They didn’t mean it that way.”
I dunno man. I’d give you a pass if its some people around the water cooler. I think people who run popular sites that both spread information and are influential should hold themselves to a higher standard. YMMV.
[quote=“Mister44, post:54, topic:99811”]
HOW is that victim blaming? How the hell is calling for an accurate description blaming the victim? How is calling for an actual description even excusing the cops’ behavior? [/quote]
Because it neatly ignores the fact that it IS an accurate description of what happened: Mr. Dao’s injuries were caused by the police. When the police yanked Mr. Dao out of his seat, they caused his face to hit the armrest. His injuries are the direct result of their actions. The end.
To beat someone is to:
strike (a person or an animal) repeatedly and violently so as to hurt or injure them, usually with an implement such as a club or whip.
That didn’t happen, which is why his lawyer and the media isn’t describing it as such.
That is an accurate description of what happened, and omits the word/s beat or beaten.
One could even color it with slammed, bloodied, and dragged.
Hey hey, hold on here:
More than half the commenters in this topic disagree with you. I disagree with you, I’d call it a beating. You are declaring the definition wrong, then Chastizing Cory for the decision as if it was a clear and obvious fallacy. But it’s not. Not even in this topic. You’re creating a pedantic straw man argument for… well for what, I’m not sure.
I did not write the piece. If you think “you” means “you all collectively at Boing Boing” then you are grossly misjudging the editorial process here.