LogFAQs > #940755174

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, Database 6 ( 01.01.2020-07.18.2020 ), DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Politics Containment Topic 305: Where's the beef? With the police.
Inviso 06/16/20 11:34:33 AM #345:	Corrik7 posted... It is perfectly reasonable to assume a violent offender of the flee from police COULD cause injury to the innocent public. Yes. Here is the problem with many of you in this group. 1. You jump on someone for jumping to a conclusion based on what they read. 2. When someone says you are also jumping to a conclusion regarding something in the OPPOSITE of what has been said in another scenario. You... 3. Get defensive and try to change someone's words to defend your jumping to a conclusion, while you just jumped on someone for jumping to a conclusion. Meaning... 4. You didn't refute jumping to a conclusion after jumping on someone else for having done so. You tried to justify why it is okay when you do it instead of the person you jumped on for it. Like wtf? He wasn't a violent offender until the police escalated the situation and turned him violent. A peaceful, forty-minute conversation with a clearly-inebriated man should not result in the situation turning on a dime, and a man being shot in the back as he's running from the cops. There's something wrong with that situation, and you know it. --- Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier. Inviso <cite>Inviso posted [p:940755174] in Politics C... [t:78771751]...</cite> <quote>Corrik7 posted... </cite> <quote>It is perfectly reasonable to assume a violent offender of the flee from police COULD cause injury to the innocent public. Yes. Here is the problem with many of you in this group. 1. You jump on someone for jumping to a conclusion based on what they read. 2. When someone says you are also jumping to a conclusion regarding something in the OPPOSITE of what has been said in another scenario. You... 3. Get defensive and try to change someone's words to defend your jumping to a conclusion, while you just jumped on someone for jumping to a conclusion. Meaning... 4. You didn't refute jumping to a conclusion after jumping on someone else for having done so. You tried to justify why it is okay when you do it instead of the person you jumped on for it. Like wtf?</quote> He wasn't a violent offender until the police escalated the situation and turned him violent. A peaceful, forty-minute conversation with a clearly-inebriated man should not result in the situation turning on a dime, and a man being shot in the back as he's running from the cops. There's something wrong with that situation, and you know it. --- Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier. Inviso</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1