i bet you drive even though there's a chance you may die while you are driving
two can play at your possibilities game...

Relevance?

I am not sure what is so objectionable to want to know the other side(s) of a story instead of hearing only one.

it's relevant because you pulled the "i'm objective, so it's possible that the lawyer filed the lawsuit without reading the police report"
yet you probably drive all the time despite the fact that objectively it's possible you may die in an accident...

if you want to hear the other side of the story, why don't you just access the police report from your work computer?

Relevance?

I am not sure what is so objectionable to want to know the other side(s) of a story instead of hearing only one.

And how do you know that the lawsuit represents the "one actual side"?

Seems like you find a story you like and your bias doesn't want to allow you to consider any alternative story. Skepticism should be applied equally, not only when it favors your side.

You haven't posted "an alternative story," only garbage from your imagination.

And how do you know that the lawsuit represents the "one actual side"?

Seems like you find a story you like and your bias doesn't want to allow you to consider any alternative story. Skepticism should be applied equally, not only when it favors your side.

HI has yet to win any 2a related lawsuit since at least 2016.
HIFICO/the atty's representing Day have not lost a lawsuit (see above)
HI state/county lawyers have a habit of presenting wrong/bad info (see above why they never won)

So if 1 were to be "objective" then it would be better understandable if this was a brand new type of issue. But with HI's track record of the above, a logical person would give Day the benefit of the doubt.  There are times where being objective is more understandable, which is why in the past I have defended your stance on whataboutism. But recently, I can no longer defend your whataboutisms.

it's relevant because you pulled the "i'm objective, so it's possible that the lawyer filed the lawsuit without reading the police report"
yet you probably drive all the time despite the fact that objectively it's possible you may die in an accident...

if you want to hear the other side of the story, why don't you just access the police report from your work computer?

I never said anything about the lawyer filing a lawsuit without reading the police report. A lawyer would be stupid to file a suit without reading the police report.

My question is if the police report claimed something different than Mr. Day states happened. In other words, are the facts of the pepper spray incident being contested between the two parties or is it only the decision to deny the CCW that is contested. In a lawsuit both parties can stipulate that the facts are agreed upon or they can dispute the facts.

"I wonder if the police report claims something significantly different than what Mr. Day is saying."
wouldn't a lawyer also be stupid to file a lawsuit for a man that reported something significanlty different than what was in the police report?
goalposts moved...

I never said anything about the lawyer filing a lawsuit without reading the police report. A lawyer would be stupid to file a suit without reading the police report.

You haven't posted "an alternative story," only garbage from your imagination.

I did not imagine anything. I asked if there is a different story from the police report. You would be a terrible judge, just believe the first story told and not even question if the other party claimed a different version of events. Go watch some Judge Judy, at least that will start you with some basic critical thinking.

once again, you should be able to access all the files on your work computer...

I never said anything about the lawyer filing a lawsuit without reading the police report. A lawyer would be stupid to file a suit without reading the police report.

My question is if the police report claimed something different than Mr. Day states happened. In other words, are the facts of the pepper spray incident being contested between the two parties or is it only the decision to deny the CCW that is contested. In a lawsuit both parties can stipulate that the facts are agreed upon or they can dispute the facts.

I did not imagine anything. I asked if there is a different story from the police report. You would be a terrible judge, just believe the first story told and not even question if the other party claimed a different version of events. Go watch some Judge Judy, at least that will start you with some basic critical thinking.

Who did you ask? 

Seems like you're speculating that the cops are too dishonest or incompetent to file an honest and accurate report.

"I wonder if the police report claims something significantly different than what Mr. Day is saying."
wouldn't a lawyer also be stupid to file a lawsuit for a man that reported something significanlty different than what was in the police report?
goalposts moved...

You really think lawsuits never claim something different than official police reports? You think the facts of events are never contested?

Who did you ask? 

It was a general question, not addressed to anyone. I was simply stating an unknown piece of information I would like to know.
Are you going to jump down my throat next if I say "I wonder what heaven is like?"

Seems like you're speculating that the cops are too dishonest or incompetent to file an honest and accurate report.

You are jumping to conclusions. Dishonesty isn't the only reason facts/circumstances could differ.  Even if dishonesty were at play I don't have any way of knowing who the dishonest party was or what they were being dishonest about. I just would like to know all sides version of events to have a better understanding.

It was a general question, not addressed to anyone. I was simply stating an unknown piece of information I would like to know.
Are you going to jump down my throat next if I say "I wonder what heaven is like?"


You are jumping to conclusions. Dishonesty isn't the only reason facts/circumstances could differ.  Even if dishonesty were at play I don't have any way of knowing who the dishonest party was or what they were being dishonest about. I just would like to know all sides version of events to have a better understanding.

You assume the official side isn't the correct version.  I'd call that jumping to a conclusion.

Sometimes wishing for an alternate scenario is just that ... wishful thinking.

You assume the official side isn't the correct version.  I'd call that jumping to a conclusion.

Sometimes wishing for an alternate scenario is just that ... wishful thinking.

I said nothing of the sort. I make no assumptions as to which side is the correct side. Asking if there is conflicting statements doesn't imply taking anyone's side, it is a neutral inquiry.

Here's another thread that will go on longer than it should because someone is bored at night.

I said nothing of the sort. I make no assumptions as to which side is the correct side. Asking if there is conflicting statements doesn't imply taking anyone's side, it is a neutral inquiry.

What's your basis for asking such a question?  Are there facts you haven't shared that point to another "side" to the story?

Why not just discuss the facts as presented and quit making up questions nobody can answer while calling it "being objective?"

What's your basis for asking such a question?  Are there facts you haven't shared that point to another "side" to the story?

Why not just discuss the facts as presented and quit making up questions nobody can answer while calling it "being objective?"

Surely you have heard the saying there are two sides to every story? Should a cop respond to a bar fight or a domestic dispute and only hear one side and assume its the true version?

If some person stated Trump did something bad during his presidency, you are telling me you wouldn't want to know Trump's side, you would ":just discuss the facts as presented and quit making up questions nobody can answer"?

What is the basis to your objection? Why not simply respond by saying "I would like to know the other side of the story too but it isn't public so it is unknown for now"

Here's another thread that will go on longer than it should because someone is bored at night.

Stop responding then.

Surely you have heard the saying there are two sides to every story? Should a cop respond to a bar fight or a domestic dispute and only hear one side and assume its the true version?

If some person stated Trump did something bad during his presidency, you are telling me you wouldn't want to know Trump's side, you would ":just discuss the facts as presented and quit making up questions nobody can answer"?

What is the basis to your objection? Why not simply respond by saying "I would like to know the other side of the story too but it isn't public so it is unknown for now"

Sayings are not facts.  Assuming there is another side that actually makes sense is not rational without evidence of what that side entails.

Cops don't have to listen to any side.  if he sees a fight, he can arrest them both and let the judge sort it out while the two causing a public disturbance cool off and sober up.

Trump doesn't have to have a "side" unless the accusers present actual evidence of real, fact-based wrong-doing.  Not some ambiguous "abuse of power" BS because he was looking for evidence of wrong-doing by the Bidens.

If there's another side to any story, it's not my place as a consumer of news to ask for the other side unless the facts reported don't add up.  in this instance, they do add up -- objectively speaking.  If you want more, fine, just don't assume facts not reported, as in 'that's not the full story in the police report." 

Did you see the official report?  Or are you trusting what the media SAID is in the report?

Yeah, i thought so.

Sayings are not facts.  Assuming there is another side that actually makes sense is not rational without evidence of what that side entails.

Cops don't have to listen to any side.  if he sees a fight, he can arrest them both and let the judge sort it out while the two causing a public disturbance cool off and sober up.

Trump doesn't have to have a "side" unless the accusers present actual evidence of real, fact-based wrong-doing.  Not some ambiguous "abuse of power" BS because he was looking for evidence of wrong-doing by the Bidens.

If there's another side to any story, it's not my place as a consumer of news to ask for the other side unless the facts reported don't add up.  in this instance, they do add up -- objectively speaking.  If you want more, fine, just don't assume facts not reported, as in 'that's not the full story in the police report." 

Did you see the official report?  Or are you trusting what the media SAID is in the report?

Yeah, i thought so.

Assuming that two parties in a grievance will always tell you the same story means you live absent reality.

Cops don't have to listen to both sides but they should, it makes them better cops.

I made no assumptions here. I didn't assume that the police report said anything different and even if it did say something different I wouldn't assume that it was any more trustworthy than what Mr. Day is alleging.

Surely you have heard the saying there are two sides to every story? Should a cop respond to a bar fight or a domestic dispute and only hear one side and assume its the true version?

If some person stated Trump did something bad during his presidency, you are telling me you wouldn't want to know Trump's side, you would ":just discuss the facts as presented and quit making up questions nobody can answer"?

What is the basis to your objection? Why not simply respond by saying "I would like to know the other side of the story too but it isn't public so it is unknown for now"

I like taiwanese shaved ice.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk