I Get Scolded by ‘Anonymous’
You can see the whole thing posted in comments. I’ll respond bit by bit.
boooring…
I write for me, not for you. If you find my site entertaining, great. If not, feel free to move a long. Calling me boring isn’t exactly the kind of intellectual sparring I’m looking for from commenters, especially anonymous ones.
another uninformed individual passing off media speculation and personal suppostion as fact.
To call me uninformed implies that you are in some way more informed. I comment on the stories as they come out. If an important part of the story turns out to be falsely reported (by the media), I'd be happy to change my outlook. My guess is that if any part of the media account was merely "media speculation" being passed off as fact, the professionals would have been all over them to get it corrected. If anything, I'd suspect the media of being overly soft on the po-po and giving them a generous benefit of the doubt.
was the lawful resident arrested? or, was he detained? do you know the difference? was he ever charged with anything??
The information that I have says that he was arrested, but does not make mention of a charge. Again, I pass on the information that is available to me, and comment on it. What do you want from me? As for whether or not I know the difference... Am I supposed to bow to your self-supposed superior knowledge after that kind of comment? The only kind of person who asks a question like that is the kind of person who would also say "If you don't already know, I'm not telling." According to the news, he certainly was arrested, since he was cuffed at gunpoint (I think that pretty much means his freedom to move about freely was restricted). He was probably detained until they found out that he was the resident of the place, but there I go with my "personal suppositions." I forgot, I'm not allowed to draw conclusions or have opinions.
did the male officer shoot the female officer...are you a crime scene investigator with intimate knowledge of the crime scene?
According to reports, the male officer's first shot grazed the head or ear of his partner, causing her to open fire as well. Once again, you ask a question to which you're obviously not looking for an answer, so I will make the "personal supposition" that you're just trying to intimidate me by being pompous. The real question is, do I have to be a "crime scene investigator with intimate knowledge of the crime scene" in order to comment about the undisputed (by the police) account of the events?
did the involved officers make statements to the media, which you called "lies"? do you really think those officers shot someone then ran out to the media trucks and made a statement?? pretty unlikely...more likely statements made by officers on the fringes who were not involved in the incident or, even worse, pure media speculation.
I really think that a, "department spokesman initially told reporters that Sullivan had fired at the officers through the attic floor, a version of events that police did not officially correct for more than 16 hours. Fong [the police chief] said the earlier story was based on a preliminary account." There you have it. I guess it depends on who gave the "preliminary account". Since only two officers responded to the call, I'm going to make the "personal supposition" that they're the one who gave that account. Your "personal supposition" that they are "more likely statements made by officers on the fringes who were not involved in the incident" seems to be much less likely given the available information.
was the attic only 2 1/2 feet high? again, you weren't there and you don't know.
Apparently you (Anonymous) think that having a detail reported in two separate accounts is no reason to talk about it or believe it. The only reason to ever believe anything you read in the news is to have first-hand knowledge. Should I start every post with, "If this is true..." and then proceed to give my take? If the media account isn't disputed by the agency it paints in a not-so-bright color, what reason would I have to doubt it?
please, reason, use your reason to realize that thorough investiations are good things.
I don't need to "realize that thorough investigations are good things." I WISH there could be real thorough investigations into events like this, Ruby Ridge, and Waco. If we had some honest, thorough investigations into instances of police abuse and misconduct, followed by some real consequences for those found to be negligent or irresponsible, then maybe stuff like this wouldn't happen as often. Until then, officers will continue to place their own safety high above that of those who they are supposed to "serve and protect".
question: reason is confronted by a man in a dark room....reason is threatened by the man in the dark room...the man tells reason that he is going to shoot him....reason doesn't see a gun, but reason doesn't know if the man is concealing the gun...reason has his gun on him....the man suddenly pulls out a dark object and points it at reason's face...spit-second reason......live or die???....him or you???
I honestly laughed when I read that. First of all, the officers weren't "confronted by a man in a dark room." First of all, they were investigating a scene where no crime had been committed. Instead of getting the facts straight and having a little talk with those they encountered, they went crawling into an attic to try to drag somebody out. Who is the aggressor? I'm all for self-defense, but aggressors have no right to use that argument. "Live or die? Him or you?" Give me a break. There was never such a choice to be made. Sullivan would have LIKED to have such a choice.
i'm thankful that there are "professionals" who are courageous enough to put there lives on the line everyday for the rest of us.
First of all, you're going to need to brush up on the difference between "their" and "there". There's nothing courageous about getting paid to catch criminals, and there's certainly nothing courageous about blindly trusting false information which results in the negligent killing of an innocent person.
Mr. (ETA: supposition!!!) Anonymous posted what he thought in response to what I thought. I don't have anything wrong with that, and in fact encourage it. If my response sounds harsh, it's because he treated me like a preschooler, not because I don't like criticism.
boooring…
I write for me, not for you. If you find my site entertaining, great. If not, feel free to move a long. Calling me boring isn’t exactly the kind of intellectual sparring I’m looking for from commenters, especially anonymous ones.
another uninformed individual passing off media speculation and personal suppostion as fact.
To call me uninformed implies that you are in some way more informed. I comment on the stories as they come out. If an important part of the story turns out to be falsely reported (by the media), I'd be happy to change my outlook. My guess is that if any part of the media account was merely "media speculation" being passed off as fact, the professionals would have been all over them to get it corrected. If anything, I'd suspect the media of being overly soft on the po-po and giving them a generous benefit of the doubt.
was the lawful resident arrested? or, was he detained? do you know the difference? was he ever charged with anything??
The information that I have says that he was arrested, but does not make mention of a charge. Again, I pass on the information that is available to me, and comment on it. What do you want from me? As for whether or not I know the difference... Am I supposed to bow to your self-supposed superior knowledge after that kind of comment? The only kind of person who asks a question like that is the kind of person who would also say "If you don't already know, I'm not telling." According to the news, he certainly was arrested, since he was cuffed at gunpoint (I think that pretty much means his freedom to move about freely was restricted). He was probably detained until they found out that he was the resident of the place, but there I go with my "personal suppositions." I forgot, I'm not allowed to draw conclusions or have opinions.
did the male officer shoot the female officer...are you a crime scene investigator with intimate knowledge of the crime scene?
According to reports, the male officer's first shot grazed the head or ear of his partner, causing her to open fire as well. Once again, you ask a question to which you're obviously not looking for an answer, so I will make the "personal supposition" that you're just trying to intimidate me by being pompous. The real question is, do I have to be a "crime scene investigator with intimate knowledge of the crime scene" in order to comment about the undisputed (by the police) account of the events?
did the involved officers make statements to the media, which you called "lies"? do you really think those officers shot someone then ran out to the media trucks and made a statement?? pretty unlikely...more likely statements made by officers on the fringes who were not involved in the incident or, even worse, pure media speculation.
I really think that a, "department spokesman initially told reporters that Sullivan had fired at the officers through the attic floor, a version of events that police did not officially correct for more than 16 hours. Fong [the police chief] said the earlier story was based on a preliminary account." There you have it. I guess it depends on who gave the "preliminary account". Since only two officers responded to the call, I'm going to make the "personal supposition" that they're the one who gave that account. Your "personal supposition" that they are "more likely statements made by officers on the fringes who were not involved in the incident" seems to be much less likely given the available information.
was the attic only 2 1/2 feet high? again, you weren't there and you don't know.
Apparently you (Anonymous) think that having a detail reported in two separate accounts is no reason to talk about it or believe it. The only reason to ever believe anything you read in the news is to have first-hand knowledge. Should I start every post with, "If this is true..." and then proceed to give my take? If the media account isn't disputed by the agency it paints in a not-so-bright color, what reason would I have to doubt it?
please, reason, use your reason to realize that thorough investiations are good things.
I don't need to "realize that thorough investigations are good things." I WISH there could be real thorough investigations into events like this, Ruby Ridge, and Waco. If we had some honest, thorough investigations into instances of police abuse and misconduct, followed by some real consequences for those found to be negligent or irresponsible, then maybe stuff like this wouldn't happen as often. Until then, officers will continue to place their own safety high above that of those who they are supposed to "serve and protect".
question: reason is confronted by a man in a dark room....reason is threatened by the man in the dark room...the man tells reason that he is going to shoot him....reason doesn't see a gun, but reason doesn't know if the man is concealing the gun...reason has his gun on him....the man suddenly pulls out a dark object and points it at reason's face...spit-second reason......live or die???....him or you???
I honestly laughed when I read that. First of all, the officers weren't "confronted by a man in a dark room." First of all, they were investigating a scene where no crime had been committed. Instead of getting the facts straight and having a little talk with those they encountered, they went crawling into an attic to try to drag somebody out. Who is the aggressor? I'm all for self-defense, but aggressors have no right to use that argument. "Live or die? Him or you?" Give me a break. There was never such a choice to be made. Sullivan would have LIKED to have such a choice.
i'm thankful that there are "professionals" who are courageous enough to put there lives on the line everyday for the rest of us.
First of all, you're going to need to brush up on the difference between "their" and "there". There's nothing courageous about getting paid to catch criminals, and there's certainly nothing courageous about blindly trusting false information which results in the negligent killing of an innocent person.
Mr. (ETA: supposition!!!) Anonymous posted what he thought in response to what I thought. I don't have anything wrong with that, and in fact encourage it. If my response sounds harsh, it's because he treated me like a preschooler, not because I don't like criticism.
2 Comments:
Spoken like a true…well, maybe I shouldn’t resort to name calling. But you sure make some funny assertions, there anonymous. Where to start? Well, Reason did a pretty good job of refuting your post for the in-your-face nonsense that it was, but I’ll throw in my 2 cents anyway.
In the first place, the cover-up lie was in a statement given by the department spokesman. If he wasn’t qualified to make a statement, I don’t know who was. The disparity between what they said happened and what actually happened was SO STARK that they were either intentionally perpetrating a cover-up or they hadn’t even talked to their own people. How likely do you think it was that they hadn’t talked to their own people?
Secondly, they handcuffed a man for being in his own home because the neighbors said that the apartment should be abandoned. I don’t care if you call that “arrest” or “detained” but you can’t call it good police work. (It’s being detained by the way.) You CAN call it a good pissing on the Bill of Rights.
Your demand for first-hand knowledge is totally irrational. If there is an article in the newspaper that says we’re at war in Iraq, do I need to have been to Iraq and to have seen the war for me to have the “qualification and firsthand knowledge” to be able to assert that there is a war in Iraq? Reason wasn’t claiming that he knew what the dialogue that took place in the attic was or where the empty shell casings landed. He was simply stating the well-known and easily-verified acts.
Invading someone’s home and chasing their guest into an attic and then gunning him down like a stray dog isn’t “courageous.” At best – and I’m being extremely merciful – I will allow that their actions were “insanely stupid.” To be more realistic, I would say that their actions were stupid, authoritarian and murderous.
You’re obviously a cop yourself, so I won’t expect you to read or understand this. Go on telling yourself that their actions were courageous. Next time you manufacture your own “probable cause” and pull someone over for nothing just because it’s a slow night, you can tell yourself that you’re being “courageous” too. Just be sure to keep your hand on your gun. You never know when someone might pull an eyeglasses case on you.
Well said.
Post a Comment
<< Home