Because only cops are objective?

Because I want to know both sides of the story and don't automatically believe someone telling a story that fits a political narrative I must be a cop?

Cops have a tendency to stick together even when their fellow officers are committing criminal acts. They are psychologically screened for personality types who follow orders and do not ask too many questions. I would not be surprised if at some point you say something like "We should be more objective. What if urinals taste good?"

Cops have a tendency to stick together even when their fellow officers are committing criminal acts. They are psychologically screened for personality types who follow orders and do not ask too many questions. I would not be surprised if at some point you say something like "We should be more objective. What if urinals taste good?"

I have never licked a urinal. So i can neither confirm or deny that statement. Schrodengers cat.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I have never licked a urinal. So i can neither confirm or deny that statement. Schrodengers cat.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

So, you've never given a girl oral pleasure?

Think about it.

So, you've never given a girl oral pleasure?

Think about it.

Girls dont use urinals...not the ones i date anyways.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Girls dont use urinals...not the ones i date anyways.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

:facepalm:

:facepalm:

He didn't think about it ... at all.   

He didn't think about it ... at all.   

Don’t think he does He doesn’t really... ever.

 

Feel free to look, but you wont find anything

So just for giggles, assume thats all there is, was this red flag justified in your opinion?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

If that is all the information there is then I would say it is impossible to form a supported conclusion.

I know that if someone is planning on suing they and their lawyer are going to present the best version of events to fit their complaint and that usually leaves out a anything that isn't in their favor.

Does this kid have a strong case against officers or someone else? Very possible, but also very possible that there were other significant factors that justified everything that happened. Since we only have one side of the story it is impossible to conclude whether the government was right in their actions or not.

Cops have a tendency to stick together even when their fellow officers are committing criminal acts. They are psychologically screened for personality types who follow orders and do not ask too many questions. I would not be surprised if at some point you say something like "We should be more objective. What if urinals taste good?"

So cops stick together.... therefore anyone who claims they did something wrong must automatically be right?

So cops stick together.... therefore anyone who claims they did something wrong must automatically be right?

Strawman in action.

If that is all the information there is then I would say it is impossible to form a supported conclusion.

I know that if someone is planning on suing they and their lawyer are going to present the best version of events to fit their complaint and that usually leaves out a anything that isn't in their favor.

Does this kid have a strong case against officers or someone else? Very possible, but also very possible that there were other significant factors that justified everything that happened. Since we only have one side of the story it is impossible to conclude whether the government was right in their actions or not.

There are both sides told. Its public info, especially when the police made a statement. You just have to know how to look for it.

So i ask again, for giggles, assume the story is true and no "other side" to the story. Is this red flag ok with you?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Strawman in action.

It follows the logic of his reasoning. He is free to explain further if he likes.

There are both sides told. Its public info, especially when the police made a statement. You just have to know how to look for it.

So i ask again, for giggles, assume the story is true and no "other side" to the story. Is this red flag ok with you?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I suppose you are probably correct, I could try to go and find the court records and request a copy of the police report, etc. but that's not real high on my list of things to get done at the moment. I am also not proclaiming anyone guilty or innocent either.

So if there was no other side and all the evidence that existed was that one social media post then I would say it is not ok. I don't think the content of the post could, by itself, constitute an actual threat or reasonable be perceived as a threat.

It   My obvious attempt at using a straw argument  follows the logic of his reasoning as I have defined it to fit my own argument.

He is free to explain further if he likes, even though he never actually said, "...therefore anyone who claims they did something wrong must automatically be right" .

FIFY.

A straw man (or strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument,
while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.

One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

therefore anyone who claims they did something wrong must automatically be right?

So automatically being right (correct) in their claim that they did something wrong = guilty ? 
Based on that statement, anyone who claims they did something wrong (incorrect ) must automatically be wrong = guilty ?

I suppose you are probably correct, I could try to go and find the court records and request a copy of the police report, etc. but that's not real high on my list of things to get done at the moment. I am also not proclaiming anyone guilty or innocent either.

So if there was no other side and all the evidence that existed was that one social media post then I would say it is not ok. I don't think the content of the post could, by itself, constitute an actual threat or reasonable be perceived as a threat.

I dont look up all red flag cases, but the ones that make the headlines that i read. This way i can see what the justifications are.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I suppose you are probably correct, I could try to go and find the court records and request a copy of the police report, etc. but that's not real high on my list of things to get done at the moment. I am also not proclaiming anyone guilty or innocent either.

So if there was no other side and all the evidence that existed was that one social media post then I would say it is not ok. I don't think the content of the post could, by itself, constitute an actual threat or reasonable be perceived as a threat.

It was clearly protected speech. Maybe #coplogic has it that constitutional rights should be taken away based on thought crimes, but the issue should not be decided by the kind of people who make their money off asset forfeiture.

So automatically being right (correct) in their claim that they did something wrong = guilty ? 
Based on that statement, anyone who claims they did something wrong (incorrect ) must automatically be wrong = guilty ?

Guilty? No where did I make any sort of statement on guilt. My statement was to not rush to judgement since we only had one part of the story.

It was clearly protected speech. Maybe #coplogic has it that constitutional rights should be taken away based on thought crimes, but the issue should not be decided by the kind of people who make their money off asset forfeiture.

I agree that the post he made does not qualify as a threat and would be protected speech. However, how do you know that is all there is to the case? Was that the only contentious post he made or was that just the one that he and his lawyers are telling us so he gets our backing? That is one of the necessary questions to get answered to figure out whether the cops and prosecutors were justified or whether they violated his 1st amendment rights.

To fairly judge we need to know more than just the claims of the accused.

To fairly judge we need to know more than just the claims of the accused.

Guilty until proven innocent. And you wonder why people call you guys pigs.