It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Xcathdra
So? I'm not arguing that either.
I'm just pointing out observations.
ETA: And your "the situation was a product of the suspect messing around with his rifle near a window / pointing it out the window and doing so in an intoxicated manner." is Ergo Propter Hoc.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
Not really since it was his actions that started the situation.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Man, simple note here: You are inappropriately citing logical fallacies.
Citing law is not an appeal to authority.
Citing that someone's own actions (illegal, BTW) led to subsequent actions as it pertains to the response of law enforcement is not 'post ergo propter hoc.' It's called consequences for your action.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X.
originally posted by: daskakik
It is when the argument says "he did nothing wrong because he was acquitted". That is like saying you are not a criminal if you can get away with it.
He obviously wasn't shot on sight so something happened after handling the rifle that actually led to him being shot. We all know what that is, reaching for his waistband but something led to him reaching for his waistband and it wasn't having pointed a rifle out of a window earlier that day.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Who has said that as a sole basis to their argument, though? I haven't seen ANYONE on here do that. I have seen people support the acquittal with facts and laws and explanations of procedures, but no one has simply claimed that the acquittal is "proof" of no wrong-doing.
And again, not one person noting the justified nature of this shooting has argued that it was point the rifle out of the window that got him shot.
So, again, who claimed that it was the rifle out the window that directly led him to being shot?
(pssst...no one did)
Considering not wasting your time and all...
originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Xcathdra
And as I stated, I don't care because I'm not arguing against any of that.
If you were biased you probably wouldn't realize it so you saying you are not is pointless.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
and using a circular argument doesnt help your position so maybe stop using it and instead use facts to support your argument.
Your position makes no sense in that you say you aren't challenging the law. Well the law in question was not violated so simply trying to dismiss that from your argument is even more baffling as it moves your position back into the realm of opinion being substituted for law / case law and procedure.
You seem to be confusing bias with training and knowledge.
originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: wickd_waze
I think the training of officers is poor. Or perhaps maybe the training is for critical thinking people and not for people hell bent on looking for ways around protocols to get themselves some scalps.
An example being an obvious non threat getting shot up trying to balance himself and instincts kicking in to pull up his pants in a very confusing situation. No ones gonne be thinking straight with assault rifles pointed at them. The officers there had numbers and no one had the galls to go up to where they the suspect laying on his stomach and pin him? He had crawled far away enough from the door at that point.
I'm still trying to work this out in my head... but I think our officers are trained exactly how the PTB want them to be trained -- but their purposes are very different than ours!!!
In this situation, as I understand it (and someone correct me quick if I'm wrong!!!), the one screaming and barking virtually impossible orders to the victim was not the officer who fired the gun, but it was the officer's sergeant... presumably the one in charge of this whole travesty, and who fled to the Phillipines after the shooting leaving the officer to face the music alone... like the freaking piece of crap coward that he obviously is. It was the sergeant who was putting EVERYONE on edge and created a volatile situation for EVERYONE -- including his officers. None of that was necessary nor proper.
This may not be the best analogy, but it's similar to how children will react to a parent's reaction. When my kids were little and falling and tripping and whatever, I would wait to see what they did before I reacted -- if they brushed themselves off and went on their way, then great. If they cried and screamed, then I went to see what was hurt. My hubby and mother-in-law would absolutely panic though -- and then my kids would panic!
All this to say, I think the officer reacted as much to the panic and chaos caused by the sergeant as he did to the actions of the victim.
One of the things the public needs to shine a huge spotlight on is how officer training and/or procedure often CREATES dangerous situations... or at least situations that can be perceived as dangerous by an officer, if not outright provocation (such as a no-knock warrant, in which the occupants try to defend themselves, and are then shot and killed because the officers' lives were threatened). In this case, for example, this guy was NEVER a threat to the officers. But they did not know that. So he was considered/perceived/treated as a definite threat. Guilty until proven innocent even if that proof necessarily comes after his death.
originally posted by: notsure1
I saw an interview with the wife yesterday, she said her 8 year old daughter tried to choke her self out at school because she wanted to be with her dad
They also said the DOJ was looking into charging him federally. So lets keep the outrage up and maybe we will seee some justice.