Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Porter arrrested on the South Side
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Pittsburgh Steelers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
CKSteeler


Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Posts: 10243
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 1:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Dear Lord you're clueless. The officer is supposed to allow him to grab and control his wrists? Then just let him off with a friendly "No harm. No foul?" Insanity.


1. If that happened, he did allow it. Porter let go in that report on his own.
2. Yes, because it is no harm, no foul. What, were the officer's poor wrists sore afterwards? What's comical to *me* is just how dramatic you are about it. Someone disrespected his authority for a split second! The horror!
3. Aggravated assault typically implies a pretty serious level of harm or threat of harm. You know, like using a deadly weapon. A large black man grabbing your wrists for two seconds doesn't really count and that charge will not stick.
4. While the officer says he was in full uniform, he also says that he had layers of clothing on top. He also never identified himself as an officer until he took his jacket off revealing his body camera and initiated the arrest. It's entirely possible that - gasp - Porter didn't know he was dealing with a cop at all.
5. This same cop has an absolutely strange and checkered history with the truth. He shouldn't even have a job anymore, but the system is set-up to protect bad cops like him. Unionized scum.

The fact that you defend the use of aggravated assault here and the other list of charges shows what a biased toad you are. Zero physical damage was done here. It was all over with in under 10 minutes. You have this cop tacking on 'terorristic threats' as a charge despite not documenting a single actual threat coming out of Porter's mouth this night.

This is what's funny. You aren't even sitting here arguing for black and white enforcement of the laws here. Because if we were just talking about sticking to the letter of the law, there's no way in hell to justify aggravated assault, terroristic threats, and a laundry list of charges added on top of this.

What we have here is the sort of example of why so many people dislike cops. Porter's great sin was disrespect of cop. He made a cop with an absolutely awful track record and history feel fearful for a split second.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chieferific


Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 4543
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 2:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

chieferific wrote:
Dear Lord you're clueless. The officer is supposed to allow him to grab and control his wrists? Then just let him off with a friendly "No harm. No foul?" Insanity.

CKSteeler wrote:
1. If that happened, he did allow it. Porter let go in that report on his own.

"He did allow it"? Strange comment. He eventually let go.

CKSteeler wrote:
2. Yes, because it is no harm, no foul. What, were the officer's poor wrists sore afterwards? What's comical to *me* is just how dramatic you are about it. Someone disrespected his authority for a split second! The horror!

Hmmmm, let's try and use our brains here. Why on earth would an Officer (while a crowd gathers mind you) NOT want someone to grab his wrists and NOT let them go? I mean what could go wrong there? It's not like he's vulnerable and has a weapon that he cannot (but someone else could) reach. This (partially) is what makes it against the law.

CKSteeler wrote:
3. Aggravated assault typically implies a pretty serious level of harm or threat of harm. You know, like using a deadly weapon. A large black man grabbing your wrists for two seconds doesn't really count and that charge will not stick.

Ahhh, I bathe in your ignorance. Police Officers (along with Firefighters, EMTs...etc) are a protected class where most any assault can be considered aggravated. Perhaps it will be dropped but not because it "doesn't really count".

CKSteeler wrote:
4. While the officer says he was in full uniform, he also says that he had layers of clothing on top. He also never identified himself as an officer until he took his jacket off revealing his body camera and initiated the arrest. It's entirely possible that - gasp - Porter didn't know he was dealing with a cop at all.

Officers wear layers that still identify them as OFFICERS for reasons that should be obvious. Also, it was evident (to me) that Porter should have been able to recognize him as an Officer because as the Officer approached and asked, "Hey guys. What going on?" his friends responded, "Officer, we got him. We got him".

CKSteeler wrote:
5. This same cop has an absolutely strange and checkered history with the truth. He shouldn't even have a job anymore, but the system is set-up to protect bad cops like him. Unionized scum.

I see nothing here to support that but perhaps you have some sort of dealings with him or read something somewhere else.

CKSteeler wrote:
The fact that you defend the use of aggravated assault here and the other list of charges shows what a biased toad you are.


Biased because I stated what the law is? A pathetic and lazy rebuttal.

CKSteeler wrote:
Zero physical damage was done here. It was all over with in under 10 minutes.

Doesn't matter. That's what the law states. If that's what you wanna go by anyways.

CKSteeler wrote:
You have this cop tacking on 'terorristic threats' as a charge despite not documenting a single actual threat coming out of Porter's mouth this night.

I'm lost here. Terroristic threats? Was there another article referenced here?

CKSteeler wrote:
This is what's funny. You aren't even sitting here arguing for black and white enforcement of the laws here. Because if we were just talking about sticking to the letter of the law, there's no way in hell to justify aggravated assault, terroristic threats, and a laundry list of charges added on top of this. Arguing for black and white enfrorcement of the laws.

What are you talking about? Hopefully I have explained the justification.

CKSteeler wrote:
What we have here is the sort of example of why so many people dislike cops. Porter's great sin was disrespect of cop.

No. It was grabbing an Officers wrists. You cannot do that. This shouldn't be hard to understand.

CKSteeler wrote:
He made a cop with an absolutely awful track record and history feel fearful for a split second.

I don't know the man.
_________________

warfelg wrote:
Quote:
why does KC have Houston (who is returning from a knee) cover AB on a crucial play? THAT makes no sense

They Butlered themselves. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CKSteeler


Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Posts: 10243
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 3:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
"He did allow it"? Strange comment. He eventually let go.
...

Hmmmm, let's try and use our brains here. Why on earth would an Officer (while a crowd gathers mind you) NOT want someone to grab his wrists and NOT let them go? I mean what could go wrong there? It's not like he's vulnerable and has a weapon that he cannot (but someone else could) reach. This (partially) is what makes it against the law.


You realize that nothing you just posted here is a response to anything I've argued? That it is entirely irrelevant?

The officer already had his wrists grabbed, did NOTHING about it, and only after Porter let go did he start to initiate any arrest. And unless you can explain what happened here that created actual harm, rather than explain how it had the 'potential' to lead to something dangerous if Porter decided to act in a particular way, then none of your bull is a response to my initial statement that:

NO HARM, NO FOUL.

Quote:
Ahhh, I bathe in your ignorance. Police Officers (along with Firefighters, EMTs...etc) are a protected class where most any assault can be considered aggravated. Perhaps it will be dropped but not because it "doesn't really count".


I'm sure this is what your union tells you to do. Overcharge, but your description simply doesn't match up with the letter of the law unless it's stretched past its breaking point. People can read that for themselves:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=18&div=0&chpt=27&sctn=2&subsctn=0

There is zero chance that charge sticks. If you are a cop, you know full damn well they are overcharging and why this is done, whether you admit it or not. And you know full well it isn't to serve the interests of justice or the public.

The only applicable part of the law here to charge Porter would be:
Quote:
(6) attempts by physical menace to put any of the officers, agents, employees or other persons enumerated in subsection (c), while in the performance of duty, in fear of imminent serious bodily injury;


That's not going to stick in any court no matter how pants-[inappropriate/removed] terrified this officer wants to claim he was.

Quote:
I see nothing here to support that but perhaps you have some sort of dealings with him or read something somewhere else.


http://www.post-gazette.com/local/neighborhoods/2008/07/04/City-police-officer-linked-to-false-charge/stories/200807040120
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2009/06/12/Officer-cleared-in-off-duty-assault-on-South-Side/stories/200906120177
http://www.truecrimereport.com/2011/01/top_5_police_blunders_1.php
http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/feature/paul-abel.html

Quote:

I'm lost here. Terroristic threats? Was there another article referenced here?


I'm not going to sit here and do all of your work for you. It was one of the initial charges here. You can very easily google it and find that for yourself.

Quote:
No. It was grabbing an Officers wrists. You cannot do that. This shouldn't be hard to understand.


Yes, amazingly, there was a time when law enforcement was more prone to using discretion. A simpler time when cops weren't ellowed to just shoot dogs for the hell of it, or claim officer safety as an excuse for any and all stupid decisions they made.

And, amazingly, that simpler time and use of common sense didn't lead to a horde of dead or brutalized cops!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chieferific


Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 4543
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CKSteeler wrote:
Quote:
"He did allow it"? Strange comment. He eventually let go.
...

Hmmmm, let's try and use our brains here. Why on earth would an Officer (while a crowd gathers mind you) NOT want someone to grab his wrists and NOT let them go? I mean what could go wrong there? It's not like he's vulnerable and has a weapon that he cannot (but someone else could) reach. This (partially) is what makes it against the law.


You realize that nothing you just posted here is a response to anything I've argued? That it is entirely irrelevant? It is a response to your saying there was "No harm. No foul". And that the only issue was "disrespect". It was a failed attempt to help you understand that there is more to it than that.

The officer already had his wrists grabbed, did NOTHING about it, I don't understand this "he did nothing about it" comment. He stated he couldn't pull away. and only after Porter let go did he start to initiate any arrest. When else was he supposed to? I mean really. There are some serious issues with your ability to think things through. And unless you can explain what happened here that created actual harm, rather than explain how it had the 'potential' to lead to something dangerous Potential is (partially) the reason for the law. Harm does not matter. If you think differently, that's fine. But that ISN'T how the law reads. if Porter decided to act in a particular way, then none of your bull is a response to my initial statement that:

NO HARM, NO FOUL. Hands on cop=Illegal.

Quote:
Ahhh, I bathe in your ignorance. Police Officers (along with Firefighters, EMTs...etc) are a protected class where most any assault can be considered aggravated. Perhaps it will be dropped but not because it "doesn't really count".


I'm sure this is what your union I'm not in a union and disagree with their existence. tells you to do. Overcharge, but your description simply doesn't match up with the letter of the law unless it's stretched past its breaking point. People can read that for themselves:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=18&div=0&chpt=27&sctn=2&subsctn=0 Only you could add a link in an effort to support you argument that includes reasons why mine is right. You can't just say it doesn't matter. It's right there in plain English. He's on duty. Restrained by a larger person. Cannot move. Has no backup. And a crowd gathering. That's doesn't invoke a fear of imminent injury? I disagree

There is zero chance that charge sticks. If you are a cop, you know full damn well they are overcharging and why this is done, whether you admit it or not. And you know full well it isn't to serve the interests of justice or the public. Thank you for telling me what I know. I didn't realize we've met. For the record, I do not think it's overcharging. I do know you cannot lay your hands on Officers in an aggressive manner. I thought everyone knew that.

The only applicable part of the law here to charge Porter would be:
Quote:
(6) attempts by physical menace to put any of the officers, agents, employees or other persons enumerated in subsection (c), while in the performance of duty, in fear of imminent serious bodily injury;

BINGO! But let's ignore that part of THE LAW because it ends the coversation.

That's not going to stick in any court no matter how pants-[inappropriate/removed] terrified this officer wants to claim he was. A Judge may or may not differ. I'm not one so I will not assume.

Quote:
I see nothing here to support that but perhaps you have some sort of dealings with him or read something somewhere else.


http://www.post-gazette.com/local/neighborhoods/2008/07/04/City-police-officer-linked-to-false-charge/stories/200807040120
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2009/06/12/Officer-cleared-in-off-duty-assault-on-South-Side/stories/200906120177
http://www.truecrimereport.com/2011/01/top_5_police_blunders_1.php
http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/feature/paul-abel.html

Quote:

I'm lost here. Terroristic threats? Was there another article referenced here?


I'm not going to sit here and do all of your work for you. It was one of the initial charges here. You can very easily google it and find that for yourself. I didn't have any interest in going though the man's life. I barely have interest in this topic. But I saw your idiotic post and felt the need to respond. If he's a piece of crap, Ok. You still cannot grab him (legally).

Quote:
No. It was grabbing an Officers wrists. You cannot do that. This shouldn't be hard to understand.


Yes, amazingly, there was a time when law enforcement was more prone to using discretion. A simpler time when cops weren't ellowed to just shoot dogs for the hell of it, or claim officer safety as an excuse for any and all stupid decisions they made. So it is illegal? I'm confused.

And, amazingly, that simpler time and use of common sense didn't lead to a horde of dead or brutalized cops!Yes, if cops allowed drunk people to grab their wrists and not let go less cops would be dead. Sound logic.

_________________

warfelg wrote:
Quote:
why does KC have Houston (who is returning from a knee) cover AB on a crucial play? THAT makes no sense

They Butlered themselves. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CKSteeler


Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Posts: 10243
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
So it is illegal? I'm confused.


When I pointed out how your response to 'no harm, no foul' was irrelevant, you didn't seem to take the hint. No where did I claim that Porter didn't break some law(s). I said that this was a stupid minor incident that didn't require any arrest to be made.

You are simply engaging in goal post shifting. You started responding to me. You don't get to morph my argument into whatever you think is easier for you to deal with.

But go ahead and continue to try and change the terms of the argument to things I didn't say.

Quote:
Yes, if cops allowed drunk people to grab their wrists and not let go less cops would be dead. Sound logic.


No. I said the opposite. That if cops showed common sense and discretion, it wouldn't be the end of the world. Cops did use to do those things. 'Training' has changed.

Your inability to comprehend that simple violating a law maybe isn't a big deal and harm in itself is evidence of exactly what I'm talking about. You can't actually articulate any harm done here. Any person reading this should be able to stop for a few moments and think of multiple examples of times when police officers look the other way on violations of the law because they are minor and no harm resulted.

Quote:
BINGO! But let's ignore that part of THE LAW because it ends the coversation.


No, it doesn't. Would you like to take a bet on what happens to that aggravated assault charge? If it's such a slam dunk here, there's no way they'd end up dropping/reducing it, right?

Quote:
Only you could add a link in an effort to support you argument that includes reasons why mine is right. You can't just say it doesn't matter. It's right there in plain English. He's on duty. Restrained by a larger person. Cannot move. Has no backup. And a crowd gathering. That's doesn't invoke a fear of imminent injury? I disagree.


Notice how much of your description extends well past any actual action of Porter's. Notice that the law does not simply rely on the mental state of the officer, but requires an "attempt" by the accused to create a menace through the threat of bodily harm. Grabbing and letting go of the officer's wrists for some undisclosed amount of time?

Yea, I'll more than assume here. I'll guarantee the aggravated assault doesn't stick. I'll bet on that fact.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chieferific


Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 4543
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CKSteeler wrote:
Quote:
So it is illegal? I'm confused.


When I pointed out how your response to 'no harm, no foul' was irrelevant, you didn't seem to take the hint. No where did I claim that Porter didn't break some law(s). I said that this was a stupid minor incident that didn't require any arrest to be made. Let me dumb it down then. You didn't say it was illegal. You said (and I'm paraphrasing) it wasn't a big deal and the cop should just let it go. To which I replied you were clueless because it IS a big deal. You cannot grab a cop's wrist. You seem to think this is a "minor" offense. I promise you it isn't.

You are simply engaging in goal post shifting. You started responding to me. You don't get to morph my argument into whatever you think is easier for you to deal with. There is no "goal post shifting". You use this one a lot in your debates. I guess because it sounds clever even if it doesn't apply.
But go ahead and continue to try and change the terms of the argument to things I didn't say. What change? The issue of semantics? My (incorrect) assumption that by your saying it was a minor offense and the Officer should let it go you meant it wasn't illegal? Ok. You got that one.

Quote:
Yes, if cops allowed drunk people to grab their wrists and not let go less cops would be dead. Sound logic.


No. I said the opposite. That if cops showed common sense and discretion, it wouldn't be the end of the world. Cops did use to do those things. 'Training' has changed. Now wait a second. You made the comment that in cases like this, if Officers used more "discretion" like in the "simpler times" and allowed people to commit these offenses (grabbing wrists) without consequence less cops would be dead. This is YOUR inference. How is that the opposite? There is no other way to read that. Talk about goal post moving.

Your inability to comprehend that simple violating a law maybe isn't a big deal and harm in itself is evidence of exactly what I'm talking about. Your inability to comprehend that grabbing and restraining an officer for ANY amount of time is a serious offense is mind boggling and embarrassing for you. You can't actually articulate any harm done here. Brick wall No harm HAS to be done. You think it's ok to touch an Officer as long as no "harm" is done? So pushing is Ok? As long as they don't fall down and scrape their knee. Right?
Any person reading this should be able to stop for a few moments and think of multiple examples of times when police officers look the other way on violations of the law because they are minor and no harm resulted. Yes. This is not one of them.

Quote:
BINGO! But let's ignore that part of THE LAW because it ends the coversation.


No, it doesn't. Would you like to take a bet on what happens to that aggravated assault charge? If it's such a slam dunk here, there's no way they'd end up dropping/reducing it, right? If it gets dropped, it gets dropped. It doesn't necessarily reflect whether or not the law was broken. This should be common sense.
Quote:
Only you could add a link in an effort to support you argument that includes reasons why mine is right. You can't just say it doesn't matter. It's right there in plain English. He's on duty. Restrained by a larger person. Cannot move. Has no backup. And a crowd gathering. That's doesn't invoke a fear of imminent injury? I disagree.


Notice how much of your description extends well past any actual action of Porter's. I felt I explained why this applied. I cannot make it any simpler. Sorry. Notice that the law does not simply rely on the mental state of the officer, but requires an "attempt" by the accused to create a menace through the threat of bodily harm. Grabbing and letting go of the officer's wrists for some undisclosed amount of time? Yes this applies.

Yea, I'll more than assume here. I'll guarantee the aggravated assault doesn't stick. I'll bet on that fact. It may. It may not.
To cut out all the minutia, You feel it isn't a big deal to be drunk, disorderly and grab/restrain an Officer. You want dictate that Officer's thoughts and feelings in that moment and tell him he was never in danger. It is a minor offense that should be ignored. You also think I'm biased and part of a union. Also, because he is charging Porter with these petty offenses his fellow Officers are subject to retaliation. At least this is in part the reason for it. I, on the other hand, disagree and have a very hard time understanding that point of view.
_________________

warfelg wrote:
Quote:
why does KC have Houston (who is returning from a knee) cover AB on a crucial play? THAT makes no sense

They Butlered themselves. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CKSteeler


Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Posts: 10243
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Let me dumb it down then. You didn't say it was illegal. You said (and I'm paraphrasing) it wasn't a big deal and the cop should just let it go. To which I replied you were clueless because it IS a big deal. You cannot grab a cop's wrist. You seem to think this is a "minor" offense. I promise you it isn't.


I like how you come out right away attacking me as if I don't understand the complexity of your simpleminded argument, when in the next paragraph you admit you have incorrectly interpreted my argument. You'd think after admitting that you may have a bit of humility, but, no.

The second Porter let go of his wrists and backed away, it seems to me and I think most reasonable people that he realized his mistake and was attempting to deescalate the situation. The cop, on the other hand, would have none of it.

If you want to pretend that arresting Porter for this sends some sort of message that will prevent future incidents of...I don't know, wrist-grabbing...so be it. Otherwise, what you are really complaining about here is that this officer's authority was momentarily undermined.

You seem very willing to put yourself in the officer's situation. Far less so anyone else's. When someone starts shoving/pushing you with their hands, most people have a pretty natural habit to grab stop that behavior. Just like a cop may feel naturally threatened by the NFL LB-sized dude doing that.

But what was my initial point again? Oh, right. NO HARM, NO FOUL. I think grown [inappropriate/removed] men, especially cops who are supposedly well trained, should be able to control their emotions and rationally assess a situation. You think that I should bow to...an officer's emotional state.

Quote:
Now wait a second. You made the comment that in cases like this, if Officers used more "discretion" like in the "simpler times" and allowed people to commit these offenses (grabbing wrists) without consequence less cops would be dead. This is YOUR inference. How is that the opposite? There is no other way to read that. Talk about goal post moving.


No I didn't. I made no comparison between dead cops in the past versus today. I made no comment on whether officers should face retaliatory violence. What I did say was:

"And, amazingly, that simpler time and use of common sense didn't lead to a horde of dead or brutalized cops!"

So, if I frequently accuse you of goalpost shifting and twisting my words, it's because you frequently engage in goalpost shifting and twisting my words around.

My whole point here is that if this cop didn't arrest Joey Porter that night, it wasn't going to lead to anyone being hurt. Porter had backed away, he had done no actual harm, and the situation could have been defused without dragging him through the mud and the legal system. And this wouldn't have created some dangerous scenario where in the future cops were at threat of increased violence or death.

Basically, my point is very simple. Cops actually don't need to treat every situation as if it's a life and death encounter. That is bad training and often leads to situations being escalated rather than diffused. And it did NOT use to be this way.

My statement in no way implied what you have claimed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chieferific


Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 4543
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 6:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CKSteeler wrote:
Quote:
Let me dumb it down then. You didn't say it was illegal. You said (and I'm paraphrasing) it wasn't a big deal and the cop should just let it go. To which I replied you were clueless because it IS a big deal. You cannot grab a cop's wrist. You seem to think this is a "minor" offense. I promise you it isn't.


I like how you come out right away attacking me as if I don't understand the complexity of your simpleminded argument, when in the next paragraph you admit you have incorrectly interpreted my argument. You'd think after admitting that you may have a bit of humility, but, no. In simple conversation, assumptions are made and communication is simplified. It makes it easier to carry on conversations. At least it supposed to. If your WHOLE argument is based on the difference between saying something is minor opposed to legal. Congratz.

The second Porter let go of his wrists and backed away, it seems to me and I think most reasonable people that he realized his mistake and was attempting to deescalate the situation. The cop, on the other hand, would have none of it. Oh, he realized it after he did it. No problem then. Carry on Porter.

If you want to pretend that arresting Porter for this sends some sort of message that will prevent future incidents of...I don't know, wrist-grabbing...so be it. Otherwise, what you are really complaining about here is that this officer's authority was momentarily undermined. No I'm not. You are very arrogant to keep telling me what I'm thinking. Just read. I'm telling you what I'm thinking. You cannot grab and restrain an Officer's wrists. That is a dangerous scenario.

You seem very willing to put yourself in the officer's situation. Far less so anyone else's. When someone starts shoving/pushing you with their hands, most people have a pretty natural habit to grab stop that behavior. Just like a cop may feel naturally threatened by the NFL LB-sized dude doing that. You cannot grab an Officer's wrists and hold them. I don't care what the natural habit is. It is irrelevant in the eyes of the law.

But what was my initial point again? Oh, right. NO HARM, NO FOUL. Doesn't matter. There is a reason in the link you provided that no harm has to be made. You seem to be wanting to replace the law with what YOU think it should be and how YOU think it should be levied. Again, arrogance. I think grown [inappropriate/removed] men, especially cops who are supposedly well trained, should be able to control their emotions and rationally assess a situation. You think that I should bow to...an officer's emotional state. Who said he didn't control his emotions? Writing a ticket is not controlling his emotions?

Quote:
Now wait a second. You made the comment that in cases like this, if Officers used more "discretion" like in the "simpler times" and allowed people to commit these offenses (grabbing wrists) without consequence less cops would be dead. This is YOUR inference. How is that the opposite? There is no other way to read that. Talk about goal post moving.


No I didn't. I made no comparison between dead cops in the past versus today. I made no comment on whether officers should face retaliatory violence. What I did say was:

"And, amazingly, that simpler time and use of common sense didn't lead to a horde of dead or brutalized cops!" Ahhh, but you conveniently forgot to add the previous statement of,
Quote:
"Yes, amazingly, there was a time when law enforcement was more prone to using discretion. A simpler time when cops weren't ellowed to just shoot dogs for the hell of it, or claim officer safety as an excuse for any and all stupid decisions they made."

In combination with the other statement one would conclude you were inferring that this type of charge is in some way related to the increase in cop deaths. That is a logical connection

So, if I frequently accuse you of goalpost shifting and twisting my words, it's because you frequently engage in goalpost shifting and twisting my words around. Again, you always claim someone is twisting your words. They're not. It just when you see how ridiculous they are you can even admit to yourself that they are beyond stupid. I don't recall you using it on me specifically but you use it on others. It never fits. It's a last ditch effort to salvage integrity.

My whole point here is that if this cop didn't arrest Joey Porter that night, it wasn't going to lead to anyone being hurt. So only arrest people when they get hurt. Got it. Porter had backed away, he had done no actual harm doesn't have to, and the situation could have been defused without dragging him through the mud and the legal system. And this wouldn't have created some dangerous scenario where in the future cops were at threat of increased violence or death.

Basically, my point is very simple. Cops actually don't need to treat every situation as if it's a life and death encounter. They do and are trained to. At least initially as a possibility. It's ok that you do not understand that. That is bad training and often leads to situations being escalated rather than diffused. And it did NOT use to be this way. Correct. But Porter escalated the situation.

My statement in no way implied what you have claimed. It did. You may not have intended it to but it did.

Alas, it is bedtime. So to be continued. I for one am grateful the majority of the public understands the Police and is grateful for them.
_________________

warfelg wrote:
Quote:
why does KC have Houston (who is returning from a knee) cover AB on a crucial play? THAT makes no sense

They Butlered themselves. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jebrick


Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 9926
Location: Indianapolis
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 6:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In other news, Kevin Greene is interested in coaching LBs for the Steelers.
_________________

"You build with draft choices. You find people with talents adaptable to your plans and then you teach them to do things the way we do them." - Chuck Noll
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CKSteeler


Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Posts: 10243
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 7:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
In simple conversation, assumptions are made and communication is simplified. It makes it easier to carry on conversations. At least it supposed to. If your WHOLE argument is based on the difference between saying something is minor opposed to legal. Congratz.


I said x. You argue against y and pretend that I'm irrational. Right.

As for you last bit, everyone on this forum right now breaks the law multiple times a day. To include you. Many times, people don't even know they are breaking some law or regulation. We all know full well cops let a number of violations of the law slide every day.

You may disagree that this is a minor infraction, but do not pretend that you are talking about some sort of principle you adhere to. You recognize - have recognized - that the same line exists as I do. You are simply drawing said line in a different spot.

Quote:
No I'm not. You are very arrogant to keep telling me what I'm thinking. Just read. I'm telling you what I'm thinking. You cannot grab and restrain an Officer's wrists. That is a dangerous scenario.


It is a potentially dangerous scenario that was over with. With no actual harm done. Someone speeding and cutting another person off is a dangerous scenario. One that law enforcement ovrerlook every day, and yet statistically results in more deaths than what Porter did.

Quote:
You cannot grab an Officer's wrists and hold them. I don't care what the natural habit is. It is irrelevant in the eyes of the law.


Well, Porter did it, and he's not going to be convicted of any aggravated assault over it. So, I guess you can do it in the eyes of the law.

Quote:
You seem to be wanting to replace the law with what YOU think it should be and how YOU think it should be levied. Again, arrogance.


I guess cops are guilty of this every time they show discretion and let someone off for breaking the law, then? Actually, let me just repeat that no one is going to convict Joey Porter for aggravated assault over this.

Quote:
In combination with the other statement one would conclude you were inferring that this type of charge is in some way related to the increase in cop deaths. That is a logical connection


Nothing in what you quoted made any reference to violence being done against an officer. There is NO statistically significant increase in cop deaths, either. Your argument here is that if we assume a fact that isn't an actually true, that we can then make more assumptions as to what I really mean based off that. Instead of just actually reading what I said and taking it for what it is. And this is...called logic. No, there's no way someone could rationally make this connection.

Nothing I said indicates a belief that cops 'deserve' retaliation for the actions of other officers. Nothing I said even comes close to that.

Simply put, there's no nice way to put this. You aren't very bright. You don't have a shred of integrity. Your argument here is incredibly dishonest. And I really hope that you aren't in a position to write police reports or give testimony that can and does ruin people's lives. Because it's a power you absolutely should not have given your sloppy thinking and lack of integrity.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
warfelg


Joined: 12 Jan 2014
Posts: 3128
Location: Richmond Va
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 7:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jesus H Christ, Porter got arrested. He touched an officer which you can't do. He picked someone up, which you can't do.

Sounds cut and dry to me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
the bell ringer


Joined: 21 Dec 2016
Posts: 164
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 8:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is my take on this.....who gives a Sh!t ?....The situation has been QUASHED...Like I was asking for way before the Steelers announced Porter's leave of absence. This is totally Non-Issue for the team. As for Porter...what he did was a Bonehead thing to do yes. And I expect more from my teams coaches. However...we are NOT talking about OJ here, or freaking Ted Bundy like offenses. Give it a rest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FourThreeMafia


Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 62952
Location: East of Sixburgh
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 9:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CKSteeler wrote:
Simply put, there's no nice way to put this. You aren't very bright. You don't have a shred of integrity.


Your hypocrisy is apparently never-ending. Confused

I seriously feel embarrassed for you when I read your senseless drivel. Cant be easy struggling to grasp simple concepts and basic logic the way you regularly do. Your halfwit arguments regularly get blown up on here, but since you are so delusional and arrogant, you backpedal, move goal posts (even though you claim others do it) and pretend to know things you dont actually have a clue about...all in a futile effort to make your points seem more relevant and intelligent than they actually are. THEN, you try to tell someone THEY arent smart in yet ANOTHER futile effort to detract from how clueless YOU clearly are.

Integrity? Laughing You're too much.

Im glad youre able to at least convince YOURSELF that youre some kind of beacon of knowledge and righteousness, because you sure as hell arent convincing anyone else.

Run along now.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FourThreeMafia


Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 62952
Location: East of Sixburgh
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 9:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

the bell ringer wrote:
Here is my take on this.....who gives a Sh!t ?....The situation has been QUASHED...Like I was asking for way before the Steelers announced Porter's leave of absence. This is totally Non-Issue for the team. As for Porter...what he did was a Bonehead thing to do yes. And I expect more from my teams coaches. However...we are NOT talking about OJ here, or freaking Ted Bundy like offenses. Give it a rest.


???

Except no one is acting like it is. Smile

Its still an idiotic move on Porter's part and could justifiably cost him his job....and thats why people care, as it could possibly affect the team going forward.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
the bell ringer


Joined: 21 Dec 2016
Posts: 164
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FourThreeMafia wrote:
the bell ringer wrote:
Here is my take on this.....who gives a Sh!t ?....The situation has been QUASHED...Like I was asking for way before the Steelers announced Porter's leave of absence. This is totally Non-Issue for the team. As for Porter...what he did was a Bonehead thing to do yes. And I expect more from my teams coaches. However...we are NOT talking about OJ here, or freaking Ted Bundy like offenses. Give it a rest.


???

Except no one is acting like it is. Smile

Its still an idiotic move on Porter's part and could justifiably cost him his job....and thats why people care, as it could possibly affect the team going forward.





I was the first one here to call Porter out, and said he should be fired...or at least suspended...long before Pittsburgh did it. But now that he won't be around, and that it removes the potential media circus...it won't in any way effect the team going forward. I mean it is not even a remote possibility now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Pittsburgh Steelers All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 3 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group