Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Democrats plot effort to counter Tucker Carlson on Jan. 6 narrative


OverSword

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

You haven't demonstrated their training is faulty, yet you are blaming their training. The only ones to blame are the criminals whose own actions led to their deaths! 

Non lethal options are the best outcome. If that cannot be achieved the training can be improved. It really is that simple. 

Ma’Khia Bryant didn’t have to die. A technique called deescalation could have saved her.

Important note from that link:

Mental health experts nonviolently disarm teens with weapons every day.

Various cities and counties in the US have taken concerted steps to introduce mental health experts into crisis response in order to reduce an overwhelming law enforcement presence when responding to community calls for help. Seattle deploys a crisis response team during crisis situations and pairs mental health professionals with specially trained officers. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department does something similar in which they send out their medical evaluation team comprised of a trained deputy and a mental health expert.

Well.look at that. An improvement in other states. 

10 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Do you read your own links? Of particular note is this: 

The billy club is a police baton, in case you aren't aware. The police you are quoting is suggesting that the taser is a great alternative to the baton! 

Yes I read them. Do you think before you type? 

Yes it's a great alternative. Less force and violence. 

Despite your meanderings, you said

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Activists, more like. 

So getting back to the actual discussion you're saying that Sangamon County Sheriff’s Chief Deputy Jack Campbell is an activist aren't you? Or you were wrong.

And read the whole bloody thing would you. You're skimming is tiresome. You missed this from the link (obviously)

Taser advocates say the weapons actually save lives.

“What you’ve got to look at, which no one focuses on, is how many lives have been saved with Tasers instead of lethal force. We believe it’s significant,” said Greg Sullivan, executive director of the Illinois Sheriff’s Association.

you going to call him an activist too?

Billy clubs aren't considered lethal options are they.

10 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

The situation involving Ma'khia Bryant required police using a gun as per Use of Force Guidelines

Broken record. 

Take that as an ad hom, I don't care. It accurate. You keep repeating this as if it's relevant. It's not. It's why Reardon is not in jail and the homicide was classified justifiable.

That doesn't mean it was always the best way to diffuse the situation 

You know Mikayla actually called the police don't you. She died because she asked for help. 

10 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I don't have any problems with police using tasers in non-lethal situations. 

I see nothing in your posting that supports that claim. 

It's what you are arguing against

10 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

What a terrible interpretation of what I said. Have you ever noticed that you writing "so you're saying" is almost always followed by a gross misrepresentation of what I actually said? 

Think hard about that 

More often than any other poster you end up agreeing to disagree. You're analogies are rejected by both sides. 

You won't accept it, but you are a poor communicator. You don't read or listen to others. You form a reply whilst waiting for another to finish. That's a communication flaw right there. 

10 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I don't have anything against making them better. You haven't provided evidence of what is "worse" and how the police will "make it better", though. 

Yes I have 

I've suggested professionals collaborate on non lethal options. I've suggested if tasers really do not work or sit at 40% efficiency as per the claims raised by bmk that they should be binned. 

Changes need to happen. It's not good enough to leave as a status quo. I don't see how that's not blatantly obvious.

10 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

And I do find them tragic. Just because I don't whinge and moan about how sad it is now that someone I never met is dead doesn't mean I don't see a tragedy. 

I do not see an ounce of compassion for the dead in your posts. Your approach illustrates a so what you deserved it attitude. That's callous and unproductive. 

10 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

When all else fails, resort to ad hominems and straw men. Very typical :rolleyes:

Very accurate. You keep repeating non relevant sentences. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Non lethal options are the best outcome. If that cannot be achieved the training can be improved. It really is that simple. 

Ma’Khia Bryant didn’t have to die. A technique called deescalation could have saved her.

Important note from that link:

Mental health experts nonviolently disarm teens with weapons every day.

Various cities and counties in the US have taken concerted steps to introduce mental health experts into crisis response in order to reduce an overwhelming law enforcement presence when responding to community calls for help. Seattle deploys a crisis response team during crisis situations and pairs mental health professionals with specially trained officers. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department does something similar in which they send out their medical evaluation team comprised of a trained deputy and a mental health expert.

Well.look at that. An improvement in other states. 

I've seen that article before. It is not compelling. Vox is extremely biased and would have you believe that we should replace the police force with trained counselors. Needless to say I am not swayed. 

 

25 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Yes I read them. Do you think before you type? 

Yes it's a great alternative. Less force and violence. 

Despite your meanderings, you said

So getting back to the actual discussion you're saying that Sangamon County Sheriff’s Chief Deputy Jack Campbell is an activist aren't you? Or you were wrong.

We've been talking about increased taser use as an alternative to using a gun! 

You are using an example of an officer who said that tasers were a great alternative to batons and trying to use it to support your argument.  

 

25 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

And read the whole bloody thing would you. You're skimming is tiresome. You missed this from the link (obviously)

Taser advocates say the weapons actually save lives.

“What you’ve got to look at, which no one focuses on, is how many lives have been saved with Tasers instead of lethal force. We believe it’s significant,” said Greg Sullivan, executive director of the Illinois Sheriff’s Association.

you going to call him an activist too?

Billy clubs aren't considered lethal options are they.

I'm not saying that tasers aren't a great option under many circumstances. I'm saying that when lethal force is required a taser is a useless option. 

 

25 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Broken record. 

Take that as an ad hom, I don't care. It accurate. You keep repeating this as if it's relevant. It's not. It's why Reardon is not in jail and the homicide was classified justifiable.

That doesn't mean it was always the best way to diffuse the situation 

You know Mikayla actually called the police don't you. She died because she asked for help. 

I don't know who called the cops. Do you? 

She died because she tried to stab another human being! She did not die because she asked for help! If she asked for help and did not try to stab another human being she'd still be alive today. If she didn't ask for help and did not try to stab another human being she'd also still be alive today. The only thing that happened that led to her being shot was her attempt to MURDER another person. 

 

25 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I see nothing in your posting that supports that claim. 

It's what you are arguing against

Because you don't read what I write, you just fill in the gaps with your assumptions about what people like me believe. You do it ALL THE TIME, mate! 

 

25 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Think hard about that 

More often than any other poster you end up agreeing to disagree. You're analogies are rejected by both sides. 

You won't accept it, but you are a poor communicator. You don't read or listen to others. You form a reply whilst waiting for another to finish. That's a communication flaw right there. 

Yes I have 

I've suggested professionals collaborate on non lethal options. I've suggested if tasers really do not work or sit at 40% efficiency as per the claims raised by bmk that they should be binned. 

Changes need to happen. It's not good enough to leave as a status quo. I don't see how that's not blatantly obvious.

I do not see an ounce of compassion for the dead in your posts. Your approach illustrates a so what you deserved it attitude. That's callous and unproductive. 

Very accurate. You keep repeating non relevant sentences. 

Ok.

 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I've seen that article before. It is not compelling. Vox is extremely biased and would have you believe that we should replace the police force with trained counselors. Needless to say I am not swayed. 

Oh gosh. You're distrusting mainstream media. What a shock :o

Are you stating here and now that mental health experts do not disarm armed teenagers everyday and that other states have not introduced mental health experts with success?

Because that's what's relevant. Not your boring opinion of mainstream media. 

24 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

We've been talking about increased taser use as an alternative to using a gun! 

The paragraph that I copied and pasted regarding lethal force is from that very same link.

I suggest you reread it. 

24 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

You are using an example of an officer who said that tasers were a great alternative to batons and trying to use it to support your argument.  

And lethal force as per the paragraph I quoted. I.E. guns.

What you’ve got to look at, which no one focuses on, is how many lives have been saved with Tasers instead of lethal force. We believe it’s significant,” said Greg Sullivan, executive director of the Illinois Sheriff’s Association.

You said only activists say tasers are an alternative. Greg Sullivan, executive director of the Illinois Sheriff’s Association says otherwise.

You were wrong. Can't admit it can you. 

24 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I'm not saying that tasers aren't a great option under many circumstances. I'm saying that when lethal force is required a taser is a useless option. 

And why can't a taser replace a deadly weapon exactly? Why is death more appropriate than incapacitation? Why should methods avoid incapacitation? 

24 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Yes Mikayla did. Her mother and aunt confirmed it. Her grandmother was not at the front of the altercation. Jeanene Hammonds was not even at the address but took a phone call from Mikayla who informed her of the disturbance. Her mother and aunt were direct witnesses at the scene. 

What you have displayed there is deliberate ignorance.

24 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

She died because she tried to stab another human being! She did not die because she asked for help! If she asked for help and did not try to stab another human being she'd still be alive today. If she didn't ask for help and did not try to stab another human being she'd also still be alive today. The only thing that happened that led to her being shot was her attempt to MURDER another person. 

Mikayla actually called police and was killed by them. Had she not we honestly don't know what would have happened.

24 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Because you don't read what I write, you just fill in the gaps with your assumptions about what people like me believe. You do it ALL THE TIME, mate! 

So does everyone you seem to have communication issues with. Typical, it's not you, it's everyone else. 

:rolleyes:

24 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Ok.

Stop with the stupid analogies and silly compromises that do nothing other than leave the topic behind. Focus man. All you do is drag topics offtopic lately. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

You keep saying "no attempt at de-escalation". Yet Use of Force policies demand officers meet a threat level with an equal or greater threat neutraliser. That means that if a person is in the middle of shanking someone, as Bryant was doing, the ONLY LEGAL OPTION that the officer has is to use lethal force. If the officer uses anything less than lethal force he is not following his training. Lethal force is a last resort option that officers have to deal with situations where a person's life is in direct danger. 

You may not like that, but that is the law. I am all for improving training, but blaming the training when the officers are doing everything they are told to do is simply wrong.

 

Activists, more like. 

 

In your opinion. 

 

I think the laws that currently exist do what they need to reduce these situations. That they happen is still a tragedy, I'm not saying it's not. But if Bryant wasn't in the process of attempting to murder a fellow human being, she'd still be alive today. If Babbitt wasn't in the process of advancing on a room full of politicians while a riot was happening mere metres away, she'd still be alive today! 

I don't blame police officers when the individuals are guilty. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. 

Sounds like BS again.

Show the case where an officer didn't follow what you purport to be the "ONLY LEGAL OPTION".

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

You haven't demonstrated their training is faulty, yet you are blaming their training. The only ones to blame are the criminals whose own actions led to their deaths! 

Do you read your own links? Of particular note is this: 

The billy club is a police baton, and obviously a very different weapon to a gun. The police you are quoting is suggesting that the taser is a great alternative to the baton! 

The situation involving Ma'khia Bryant required police using a gun as per Use of Force Guidelines

I don't have any problems with police using tasers in non-lethal situations. 

 

What a terrible interpretation of what I said. Have you ever noticed that you writing "so you're saying" is almost always followed by a gross misrepresentation of what I actually said? 

 

I don't have anything against making them better. You haven't provided evidence of what is "worse" and how the police will "make it better", though. 

And I do find them tragic. Just because I don't whinge and moan about how sad it is now that someone I never met is dead doesn't mean I don't see a tragedy. 

 

When all else fails, resort to ad hominems and straw men. Very typical :rolleyes:

Nothing in those guidelines dictates a requirement to use deadly force.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tuckkker Carlson is a piece of human garbage. Same as anyone who believes anything he says. Or "cosuin ****ing terrorists" , as his own staff likes to describe his viewers. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/13/2023 at 4:31 PM, Gromdor said:

It's not either one.  Guy managed to luck out/delay the system (like a certain Orange man is currently doing) to get the initial charges to expire.  The 180 days was the max they could get him for under his Alford plea: No prison time in plea deal for Rochester man facing rape charges against juveniles under 10 (yahoo.com)

The charges won't even be on his record. 

Sadly, this isn't unusual- A teacher got 30 days and the 14year old victim killed herself: Former Montana teacher gets 30 days for student rape | Fox News

There are more I can link, but you get the idea.

Edit to add: On hindsight, that link I gave for Shea probably didn't give the best explaination on how the system failed.  Basically, he was a minor, covid delayed trial, charges expire, they attempt to charge him again when he was an adult, he makes his Alford plea, etc.

Thanks for the insight. I can't believe I thought there could ever be judicial activism. They could've at least chopped his nuts off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Sounds like BS again.

Show the case where an officer didn't follow what you purport to be the "ONLY LEGAL OPTION".

 

18 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Nothing in those guidelines dictates a requirement to use deadly force.

Watch a lawyer break down the case if you wish. Try this video, for example. What I like about Nate the Lawyer is he doesn't tell you what to believe, he simply lays out the events that happened, he lays down the laws that the police have to follow and then he invites you to make your own opinion. So with that said... 

The first ten minutes are a breakdown of how the case was presented in the media. 

Then there's about 13 minutes of discussion of the officer's actions in context of Use of Force Guidelines as shown in Graham vs Connor. 

Then at the 23 minute mark Nate looks at the Columbus PD Use of Force Guidelines. 

 

Also, note directly discussing the Bryant case, but his video on Use of Force Guidelines is also worth watching. 

Now, if you watch these and STILL decide that a taser is an appropriate response to a knife please let me know HOW you arrive at that conclusion, because I cannot see it. Spoiler alert - Use of Force continuum generally says that the officer should meet a threat of force with a level of force ABOVE that which is being displayed by a suspect.... that is, shouting should be met with restraint, fists should be met with a taser or baton, a knife or a gun should be met with a gun [as guns are the highest level of force available to an officer].... and in every situation that is one level of force above the suspect.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Oh gosh. You're distrusting mainstream media. What a shock :o

Are you stating here and now that mental health experts do not disarm armed teenagers everyday and that other states have not introduced mental health experts with success?

Because that's what's relevant. Not your boring opinion of mainstream media. 

Tim Pool says it better than I can, so I will just drop his words here for you: 

 

21 hours ago, psyche101 said:

The paragraph that I copied and pasted regarding lethal force is from that very same link.

I suggest you reread it. 

And lethal force as per the paragraph I quoted. I.E. guns.

What you’ve got to look at, which no one focuses on, is how many lives have been saved with Tasers instead of lethal force. We believe it’s significant,” said Greg Sullivan, executive director of the Illinois Sheriff’s Association.

You said only activists say tasers are an alternative. Greg Sullivan, executive director of the Illinois Sheriff’s Association says otherwise.

You were wrong. Can't admit it can you. 

I said that activists are trying to convince us that a taser can be used as an alternative to deadly force! 

You have twisted that into "activists say tasers are an alternative, period full stop". I have NEVER said that tasers aren't a good option and don't save lives! .

 

21 hours ago, psyche101 said:

And why can't a taser replace a deadly weapon exactly? Why is death more appropriate than incapacitation? Why should methods avoid incapacitation? 

These three questions all have different answers. 

Why can't a taser replace a deadly weapon - because tasers aren't 100% effective, guns are needed. 

Why is death more appropriate than incapacitation - I never claimed this. If possible, incapacitation is a great option. But it is not always an option, and death of a suspect is infinitely preferable to death of an officer or death of an innocent bystander.

Why should methods avoid incapacitation - they shouldn't, but in a life or death situation it is also an issue of zero priority. 

 

21 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Yes Mikayla did. Her mother and aunt confirmed it. Her grandmother was not at the front of the altercation. Jeanene Hammonds was not even at the address but took a phone call from Mikayla who informed her of the disturbance. Her mother and aunt were direct witnesses at the scene. 

What you have displayed there is deliberate ignorance.

I posted evidence that someone else might have called them. 

But even if she did, it's irrelevant to her attempt to murder the lady in pink! That was the action that led to her being shot by police. If she did call them and she didn't try to stab someone, the police would have had no need to resort to deadly force. 

I also recommend you watch the videos I linked above for GD. Find out what the Use of Force Guidelines are, and decide for yourself if the officer had a less deadly option based on Use of Force guidelines. If you think a non-lethal option is viable, please explain using the law and the facts! 

 

21 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Mikayla actually called police and was killed by them. Had she not we honestly don't know what would have happened.

If Ma'Khia called the police, then so what - she tried to MURDER someone, the police shot her because she was putting a woman's life at risk. 

 

21 hours ago, psyche101 said:

So does everyone you seem to have communication issues with. Typical, it's not you, it's everyone else. 

:rolleyes:

No, it's literally just you. I have had an occasional argument about misrepresentation with a couple of others, but those posts last a minute and whatever issue we had is sorted. The only person I regularly see misrepresent me, is you! 

 

21 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Stop with the stupid analogies and silly compromises that do nothing other than leave the topic behind. Focus man. All you do is drag topics offtopic lately. 

Pot. Kettle. Black. Thank you. Ok. 

Edited by Paranoid Android
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, F3SS said:

Thanks for the insight. I can't believe I thought there could ever be judicial activism. They could've at least chopped his nuts off.

That can't do that either.  Legally on those two charges, it never happened.  It will be expunged from his record.  He either deliberately or inadvertantly took advantage of the system.  No judicial activism happened. 

Like Kraft.  There was a video of him commiting the crime, but being rich with good lawyers he managed to get the video tossed and found not guilty.  Not guilty=innocent in the eyes of America.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Tim Pool says it better than I can, so I will just drop his words here for you: 

What a damn waste of time. Hunters fn laptop? I'd like to tell you where you can store you right wing BS YouTube crap but it is a family forum.

He did not say anything whatsoever about mental health experts disarming armed teenagers every day. 

Start reading posts and respond to them or do not at all. I asked simple question and you post this crap. 

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I said that activists are trying to convince us that a taser can be used as an alternative to deadly force! 

I said professionals say tasers are effective and are underutilized with regards to deadly force. You replied with one word. Activists. So I've posted two professionals refuting your claim. 

You were wrong 

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

You have twisted that into "activists say tasers are an alternative, period full stop". I have NEVER said that tasers aren't a good option and don't save lives! .

You brought activists into the discussion. I clearly stated professionals. 

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

These three questions all have different answers. 

Why can't a taser replace a deadly weapon - because tasers aren't 100% effective, guns are needed. 

Aren't they? By how much exactly? The 40% bmk posters? 20? 90?

Why is there a status quo on this? Tasers have been in use for years now. Nobody continues to use a faulty product. Something does not add up here. 

Do they work or not? Doesn't that have to be settled before anything can be realistically determined? Either get rid of them or make police use them. There is no middle ground there. 

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Why is death more appropriate than incapacitation - I never claimed this. If possible, incapacitation is a great option. But it is not always an option, and death of a suspect is infinitely preferable to death of an officer or death of an innocent bystander.

And why wouldn't better training as I've suggested all along improve that ratio? 

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Why should methods avoid incapacitation - they shouldn't, but in a life or death situation it is also an issue of zero priority. 

Different you reckon but same answer as above. 

In this case the officer didn't know the girls fought often. He didn't know the girl in pink was stunned that he killed Mikaih. The bystanders all asked why did you shoot? 

How does that not indicate that there's more to the situation? Why wouldn't better training have allowed the opportunity to diffuse the situation without a lethal outcome? 

Reardon had time to shout get down four times before Mikahia raised the knife. That would have been a good time to deploy the taser. Now he also had to live with the knowledge that he killed a 16 year old girl despite the circumstances. There's no doubt a non lethal outcome would have been better for all involved. 

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I posted evidence that someone else might have called them. 

It was a rubbish story and you knew it. A witness testified that she had called her father and grandmother. Multiple sources confirm that Mikaih made the call.

Time wasting. And pointless.

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

But even if she did, it's irrelevant to her attempt to murder the lady in pink! That was the action that led to her being shot by police. If she did call them and she didn't try to stab someone, the police would have had no need to resort to deadly force. 

Had she not called them all would be alive today including the girl in pink who had fought with her before and actually started the fight. She was the reason the police were called at all. 

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I also recommend you watch the videos I linked above for GD. Find out what the Use of Force Guidelines are, and decide for yourself if the officer had a less deadly option based on Use of Force guidelines. If you think a non-lethal option is viable, please explain using the law and the facts! 

Try ones we don't need a VPN for. 

You know, I can't watch YouTube anymore. You have ruined it for me. 

Option was when he got there and yelled get down four times. He would have seen the weapon long before it was raised and diffused the situation then and there.

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

If Ma'Khia called the police, then so what - she tried to MURDER someone, the police shot her because she was putting a woman's life at risk. 

Those two had fought many times before and nobody died. 

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

No, it's literally just you. I have had an occasional argument about misrepresentation with a couple of others, but those posts last a minute and whatever issue we had is sorted. The only person I regularly see misrepresent me, is you! 

I don't think so. 

You seem to think agreeing to disagree resolved all. It happens very often with you with many posters. 

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Pot. Kettle. Black. Thank you. Ok. 

I'm not the one coming up with inane and irrelevant compromises that nobody entertains, or even wants to. You have become one of the worst offenders at dragging topics offtopic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Betorn said:

:lol:

You have the same opinion as Tucker? How cute. 

Here's the evidence.

https://www.businessinsider.com/court-releases-two-videos-debunking-qanon-shamans-60-minutes-claim-2021-3

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

 

Watch a lawyer break down the case if you wish. Try this video, for example. What I like about Nate the Lawyer is he doesn't tell you what to believe, he simply lays out the events that happened, he lays down the laws that the police have to follow and then he invites you to make your own opinion. So with that said... 

The first ten minutes are a breakdown of how the case was presented in the media. 

Then there's about 13 minutes of discussion of the officer's actions in context of Use of Force Guidelines as shown in Graham vs Connor. 

Then at the 23 minute mark Nate looks at the Columbus PD Use of Force Guidelines. 

 

Also, note directly discussing the Bryant case, but his video on Use of Force Guidelines is also worth watching. 

Now, if you watch these and STILL decide that a taser is an appropriate response to a knife please let me know HOW you arrive at that conclusion, because I cannot see it. Spoiler alert - Use of Force continuum generally says that the officer should meet a threat of force with a level of force ABOVE that which is being displayed by a suspect.... that is, shouting should be met with restraint, fists should be met with a taser or baton, a knife or a gun should be met with a gun [as guns are the highest level of force available to an officer].... and in every situation that is one level of force above the suspect.

You said...

On 3/14/2023 at 7:57 AM, Paranoid Android said:

the ONLY LEGAL OPTION that the officer has is to use lethal force

Your trying to dodge the challenge of supporting this ignorant statement.  Bookmark the lawyer's YouTube comments that you are misinterpreting or quote the Guidelines that obligate an officer to use deadly force.

You're completly ignoring the aftermath of Ulvade.

Let's go with your red herring.  The picture you posted was grom the killer's body cam the rather athletic lokking woman in pink is mostly obscured by Bryant and in the killer's field of fire.  Thr shots did not stop the knife thrust and the athlitic looking woman in pink saved herself from injury. 

If only there was some method that could cause involuntary muscle incapacitation.

Edited by Golden Duck
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

You said...

Your trying to dodge the challenge of supporting this ignorant statement.  Bookmark the lawyer's YouTube comments that you are misinterpreting or quote the Guidelines that obligate an officer to use deadly force.

You're completly ignoring the aftermath of Ulvade.

I'm talking about the specific case involving Ma'Khia Bryant, and within that context the Use of Force Guidelines are pretty specific. When I wrote "only legal option" I was talking about Officer Nicholas Reardon's actions specifically. Ulvade is irrelevant to my arguments. 

I gave you a breakdown of the video in broad strokes -

Minutes 00:00-10:00 - Context of media.
10:01-23:00 - Use of Force as it applies in Graham v Connor (which is basically the go-to precedent case for Use of Force).
23:00-end - Laws specific to Columbus PD where the death of Ma'Khia Bryant took place. 

Nate doesn't tell you what to believe, he just lays down the events and the law and invites you to make your own decision. I have given you my reasoning as to why a lethal response is not just the best option but really the only option. I am happy to discuss alternatives if you can demonstrate from a legal perspective that non-lethal force was a justified response under the circumstances. 

 

14 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Let's go with your red herring.  The picture you posted was grom the killer's body cam the rather athletic lokking woman in pink is mostly obscured by Bryant and in the killer's field of fire.  Thr shots did not stop the knife thrust and the athlitic looking woman in pink saved herself from injury. 

If only there was some method that could cause involuntary muscle incapacitation.

Bryant had a knife, what matter is it how "athletic looking" she is? If she was "short and dumpy" would it have made the attempted murder less heinous? 

Edited by Paranoid Android
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/2/2023 at 11:51 AM, OverSword said:

That part seems weird, I agree.  Has anyone ever heard of the government giving an exclusive before??

All of the time.  They're called anonymous sources. There were tons of them supposedly in the last administration. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/2/2023 at 8:15 PM, Grim Reaper 6 said:

It is pretty obvious that Tucked Man will not give a nonpartisan view of what the Tapes actually show. That’s why McCarty chose him to give his personal account. After Tucked Man and the rest of Fox were caught lying about the election fraud case in the Dominion Lawsuit it seems that Tucked Man and the rest of Fox News has a major credibility problem. But, in reality I don’t care one way or the other because anyone with any common sense knows that McCatheys only did this because his handler told him to do it. It must really suck to be puppet being controlled by others. I personally don’t believe getting the Position of Speaker of the House is worth having when you must first ask permission to act, kinda sad!:yes:

I guess you know everything you just stated is true of the other side as well. Just replace Fox With MSM, McCarthy with Pelosi. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, SoonerTee said:

I guess you know everything you just stated is true of the other side as well. Just replace Fox With MSM, McCarthy with Pelosi. 

Well, I certainly don’t claim to know everything but my assumption about the January 6 footage released to Tucked Man certainly has proven to be accurate. By your comments it appears you believe I am a Democrat, but that is not accurate because I am a Republican and I have never voted for any other political party since I was born in 1959. Now, I also never said that the MSM was never guilty of what Fox News is being sued for, because I imagine other media sources have committed similar crimes. I will be honest though, I have no use for Donald Trump and I didn’t vote in the 2016 or 2020 elections.

I noticed you had a post count of 14, and normally I would well you to the forum. However, you joined the forum 6 years before me.so at least I can say hello!:tu:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, psyche101 said:

What a damn waste of time. Hunters fn laptop? I'd like to tell you where you can store you right wing BS YouTube crap but it is a family forum.

He did not say anything whatsoever about mental health experts disarming armed teenagers every day. 

Start reading posts and respond to them or do not at all. I asked simple question and you post this crap. 

You're right about one thing - this IS a waste of time.

 

21 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I said professionals say tasers are effective and are underutilized with regards to deadly force. You replied with one word. Activists. So I've posted two professionals refuting your claim. 

You were wrong 

You brought activists into the discussion. I clearly stated professionals. 

I'm not against tasers! I've said it several times. Neither am I against professionals saying that tasers are a great alternative to deadly force! 

HOWEVER (and I'm saying this in caps, because the HOWEVER is the important part - which you seem to be ignoring) a taser is NOT a replacement for a gun. There are some situations where a taser is going to be a great non-lethal option, and this choice gives police a far greater scope to do their job, BUT it doesn't change the fact that when lethal force is required (eg, the Ma'Khia Bryant case) a gun is the only option the police have. 

 

21 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Aren't they? By how much exactly? The 40% bmk posters? 20? 90?

Why is there a status quo on this? Tasers have been in use for years now. Nobody continues to use a faulty product. Something does not add up here. 

Do they work or not? Doesn't that have to be settled before anything can be realistically determined? Either get rid of them or make police use them. There is no middle ground there. 

I don't have statistics, if that's what you're asking for. 

Maybe you are starting to see why tasers aren't the best method for disarming a person while they are mid-swing with a knife! 

 

21 hours ago, psyche101 said:

And why wouldn't better training as I've suggested all along improve that ratio? 

You haven't defined what "better training" is yet. You've just waved your hand at it and said "more training = good". 

 

21 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Different you reckon but same answer as above. 

In this case the officer didn't know the girls fought often. He didn't know the girl in pink was stunned that he killed Mikaih. The bystanders all asked why did you shoot? 

How does that not indicate that there's more to the situation? Why wouldn't better training have allowed the opportunity to diffuse the situation without a lethal outcome? 

Reardon had time to shout get down four times before Mikahia raised the knife. That would have been a good time to deploy the taser. Now he also had to live with the knowledge that he killed a 16 year old girl despite the circumstances. There's no doubt a non lethal outcome would have been better for all involved. 

Ok, thanks for offering your opinion. I disagree with it and cannot really argue further. 

 

21 hours ago, psyche101 said:

It was a rubbish story and you knew it. A witness testified that she had called her father and grandmother. Multiple sources confirm that Mikaih made the call.

Time wasting. And pointless.

Like I said, it's irrelevant.

 

21 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Had she not called them all would be alive today including the girl in pink who had fought with her before and actually started the fight. She was the reason the police were called at all. 

And? Why does that change the officer's actions?  

 

21 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Try ones we don't need a VPN for. 

You don't need a VPN! They are watchable on YouTube! 

That said, if you haven't got a VPN, I recommend you get one :tu: 

 

21 hours ago, psyche101 said:

You know, I can't watch YouTube anymore. You have ruined it for me. 

Awww, diddums needs a hug??? :wub: :wub: :wub: 

 

21 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Option was when he got there and yelled get down four times. He would have seen the weapon long before it was raised and diffused the situation then and there.

As above, this is an opinion I don't share.

 

21 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Those two had fought many times before and nobody died. 

This wasn't a kiddy fight, she was trying to shank the lady. 

You accuse me of all sorts of crap, but you are legitimately trying to claim that this: 

Killing of Ma'Khia Bryant - Wikipedia

Is the equivalent of this: 

image.jpeg.a863fd64390d73e7be7dab803df93455.jpeg

21 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I don't think so. 

You seem to think agreeing to disagree resolved all. It happens very often with you with many posters. 

I'm not the one coming up with inane and irrelevant compromises that nobody entertains, or even wants to. You have become one of the worst offenders at dragging topics offtopic. 

Agreeing to disagree means that we have different opinions and neither will change our minds. Only you would find a way to twist that into a ridiculous attack by misrepresenting my purpose in saying this! 

Edited by Paranoid Android
  • Like 2
  • Confused 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.