Corronchilejano
Member
Guns don't kill people. Ancient sword back lunging maneuvers do.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Utah police shoot black man "lunging" w/ sword. Witnesses, autopsy say shot in back
- Thread starter timetokill
- Start date
- Status
Guns don't kill people. Ancient sword back lunging maneuvers do.
Jmanunknown
Member
Yes in some ways it might make it higher because he stands out but, their had never been a police involved shooting death in the city since the police department was formed in 2007 and in a city of around 22,000 people and .5 percent of the population is black that means their are around 44 black people in the city, the odd's of the first police officer shooting death in the city being a black person are pretty low but, given the police in the US treatment of minorities it should not be surprising.
soundahfekz
Member
Devil's Advocate Defense Force. Wow.
Yeah, because it's never relevant to discuss how black men are disproportionately killed by cops who always pull the "Aggressive Step" card in a thread where a black man was shot in the back by a cop who's pulling the "Aggressive "Step" card.
Sufficient scientific evidence to contradict the police account already exists, so exactly what are you saying here?
Funny that even with law of averages, it's never anyone black on here playing devil's advocate or asking people to not engage in logical discussion based on the present evidence.*
Possibly Ripclawe*
I kid
maybe
Uh huh. None of the devil's advocates in these threads are actually trolls. It's not like anyone ever gets banned for being a fuckass in these threads. Sorry kiddo, but in the actual situation that we're talking about, there is virtually no difference between the two. Maybe lurk a bit more before you toss your ignorance in the ring.
Devil's advocacy isn't inherently bad. It's about having perspective.
Satan is such a misunderstood character after all.
Then we'd get shot for jealous of our impressive physiques. And women get shot too, it's just reported less, as with all violence against women.
There's a video. I'm not sure if being a contrarian at this point in the discussion is worth it.
Link?
Because men are more violent toward officers and have natural lethal capabilities. Usually women just yell and make a huge scene while resisting, while men will literally try to fight and sometimes disarm the officer. I've seen a man almost knock an officer unconscious with one swing. While I've seen women just push, shove, try to slap, and spit at officers.
Women are shot by police too, but often a police officer can handle a woman and arrest them even when the woman is using all her strength. There are always exceptions to the rule though. One woman in my old neighborhood required 4 male cops to arrest her, she was beating her husband and he filed a complaint.
speculawyer
Member
He could have been lunging forward like
This is awesome.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
soundahfekz
Member
Did anyone ever seen it was inherently bad?
in the context of threads on GAF about black people being killed maimed and injured by police, it's absolutely detrimental to meaningful conversation.
Playing Devil's Advocate in that context (which is 99% of what goes on in these threads) completely ignores the facts we DO have, while crafting hypothetical scenarios that almost always support the police's "rationale".
In short, it's a bunch of shit.
So infuriating, its like watching the double standard in subhd. Literally waving guns at children...
Where is the cops training to 'herp must kill all things fired at..rawrrwrrr"
Soundahfekz is right.
The person I was responding to seemed to be supporting the notion that Devil Advocacy is nothing but trolling while some of us are pointing out DA's definition is as far as that possible.
It's a side discussion about the definition.
Then don't bother responding to posts if you don't realize what the context of the discussion was.
I mentioned DA can be useful but it's dumb to employ it in thread like this because of the usual suspects.
YOU agreed with me.
A second person said I was full of shit and said DA should be a bannable offense.
A 3rd poster responded to the ban supporter that their equivocation of DA with agent provocateur is false because they have entirely different definitions.
YOU proceed to tell that 3rd poster he's a mindless defense force agent when in reality you lost track of what he was talking about.
The second person proceeds to do the same thing but is more obnoxious about how they express themselves.
Facetious Strawmen arguments arguments dropped by 15 posters tripping over themselves to pre-empt the Devil's Advocate isn't critical thinking either in most cases . Maybe pick someone who's actually funny to trot one out at the start of a thread and then you can all quote it and post 'This' afterwards. You could even take turns.
"LOL Men can't be raped."
"I was mentally high fiving you until I realized how ugly she was."
Devil's advocacy to the first person.
Just imagine you are being overpowered by a man. Men can't rape men? Now imagine with modern technology like date rape drugs a women overpowering a man.
DA tactics with the second person.
Would you still high five if the person was hot? Why stop at her being ugly on the outside? Try putting yourself in their shoes. They have no clue about this stranger that could have a disease or tie them down with child support.
soundahfekz
Member
So we're pulling strawman shit now?
Understand context. In the context that I described, playing Devil's Advocate is equivalent to trolling. I agree with you in PRINCIPLE, not in the context of this thread, or any other thread in which a minority has been killed, facts are presented and the Devil's Advocate card is pulled.
Chill with the gotcha shit, 'cause you didn't get anyone.
You mean that we described. I made the same point you did hours ago.
But you inserted yourself into a conversation about whether or not it is trolling in general.
I didn't pull gotcha shit until you tried claiming events that didn't occur in this thread.
TheRedSnifit
Member
If you made this post from the opposite point of view, your name would be grey. Chill out.
If you have any questions or concerns about moderation I think it's best to maybe talk to a mod. What's the worse that can happen?
soundahfekz
Member
It's quite clear given the precedence of "Devil's Advocate" being played that DreamDrop was referring to it in the context of these kinds of threads, and not in general.
But we have to do this merry-go-round of blanket interpretation because if it isn't explicitly written, there's a Strawman to be had!
If everyone followed this then we wouldn't be having this discussion. The mods would decide who are the racist shitheads and everyone else would stay on topic. What's the worst that can happen?
hydragonwarrior
Member
This would explain the shot from the back the most.
But how did the guy end up running away from the cops or get that far away from them? I don't think adrenaline would prevent you from falling over after a shot to the back...
If I made this post from the opposite point of view, I would deserve the ban for being a fucking idiot. Your point?
You are being disingenuous to the nth degree. I was obviously talking about a specific type of mentality that always pops up in these threads but you want to derail the conversation with some #NotAllDevil'sAdvocates bullshit. Yes obviously the DA approach can be helpful in some situations. This type of thread is not one. This specific thread is especially not one. There is no other side to argue. Well, unless you want to argue that maybe this negro deserved to get killed in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, which is what the DA stance in this type of thing always boils down to. So, if you want to make the case of the cops being justified in gunning down yet another young black youth, well...
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
It's called devil's advocacy because you're arguing for the inherently less palatable or defensible position. Some times it's one or the other, sometimes it's both. Contradicting someone who says "lol men can't be raped" isn't devil's advocacy, it's common sense. That's not a good example.
Something that often happens in threads involving race and abuse of power, and sex and abuse of power for that matter, is the same predictable crop of posters will express disbelief that race or gender had anything to do with the events, or that the events occurred as reported or at all, regardless of what was reported or in how much detail. They claim to be waiting for the facts, which is true-they're waiting for facts that will let them smile and say "see, you were just being paranoid." Or, they bring out the devil's advocate/#notall shield, which can get tiring when you see it so often.
Something that often happens in threads involving race and abuse of power, and sex and abuse of power for that matter, is the same predictable crop of posters will express disbelief that race or gender had anything to do with the events, or that the events occurred as reported or at all, regardless of what was reported or in how much detail. They claim to be waiting for the facts, which is true-they're waiting for facts that will let them smile and say "see, you were just being paranoid." Or, they bring out the devil's advocate/#notall shield, which can get tiring when you see it so often.
Corronchilejano
Member
The fact that we honestly have to believe someone with a fake sword would lunge at a cop for no reason is also ass backwards.
#filmthepolice
Or something. Really, cameras would solve pretty much everything.
Nose Master
Member
I bet this causes conventions to tighten up their prop rules again...
I would suggest a lot of trolls do try to claim they are playing devils advocate. It is not the same thing. The correct response is to mock the trolls, not lump in actual devils advocacy with trolling. Seems that nuance is a bit much for some of you though.
And kiddo? How fucking old are you sunshine?
You would have a lot stonger point if the guy I was replying to didn't say all devils advocates are trolls. Instead, you just look like a bit silly since I agree with absolutely with your post here.
It's not just a label trolls use to try and protect themselves while trolling.
Edit: Apologies for continuing the derail. But be accurate with your accusations.
soundahfekz
Member
The man never said ALL. He didn't elaborate, but he shouldn't have to. Given the context of the thread and the precedence of devil's advocates being closet racists/contrarians in every thread in which someone black is killed by police, it's very clear what he was referring to.
You and wildfire prefer to shit up the thread with semantics instead of continuing to talk about the investigation and evidence though.
You clearly can't read.
But please, continue your straw man and derailment. Let's not talk about the black people being gunned down in the street like rabid dogs.
This fucking semantical idiocy over my choice of words is far more important. 😐
TheRedSnifit
Member
My point is that it looks like you're frothing at the mouth while posting here. Ranting about how everybody that disagrees with you is a "fuckass" who is "tossing their ignorance into the ring" isn't going to make you any friends. In fact, if it makes them dig into their position simply because they don't like being insulted and accused of things (as none of us do), then it actually hurts your argument even if it's factually sound.
Jesus christ. This is the post I was responding too.
You've actually got me shaking with rage at these bullshit accusations. Well done. You have taken an ally and made them hate you.
You really think this fucking thread is the proper place to play devil's advocate? Do you actually think that? Honestly? Because that's what you are arguing for. People's right to play devil's advocate in this thread. Cause that's not really being an "ally".
The fact is that the devil's advocate position in this case is that maybe he deserved to die. That's the position you're dying to allow to be discussed. And if you somehow think that I should just stand by while people arbitrarily decide the value of a black man's life and whether this is "just another thug* that had it coming", THEN YOU SHOULD FUCKING HATE ME WITH EVERY FIBER OF YOUR BEING. Sorry for you if you aren't willing to talk real. And yeah. If you even remotely think that maybe this kid deserved to die, then I think you should get banned. Simple.
*AKA nigger
Except what you accuse me of and what I did aren't remotely the same. If I were calling people fuckass fir disagreeing, I would be banned. Period. I didn't and have never done that. I called the trolls that jump in this type thread and get banned fuckasses. And if you don't understand what I'm saying and you are commenting, then you are being ignorant. That's not an insult per se, but rather a statement of fact.
"Frothing at the mouth" right. I should have a calm and stately demeanor when discussing the racially motivated eradication of my people by society's "protectors" 😒
TheRedSnifit
Member
Literally in the same post. If you in any way, shape, or form believe that there's a chance that the cop was in the right, then you're a racist jackass who should be banned.
You should have a calm and stately demeanor when trying to have a discussion. Again, your current approach is not only going to make your opposition more hostile, but has already alienated a person who agrees that the cop is to blame, simply because you've been screaming at him over this nonsensical "Devil's Advocate" argument. Relax. The adversarial attitude doesn't suit you, especially when the guy you're yelling at agrees with you.
What exactly do you think a cop's job is? Because executioner isn't it.
TheRedSnifit
Member
I don't really have an argument with you here. Autopsy + the changing official account makes me inclined to place the blame on the officers.
My only hang-up is that the attorney is apparently refusing to name the pathologist, show the actual documents, or release the seemingly incriminating witness testimony; since the only thing I trust less than a cop is a lawyer (uh, unless they're on GAF, of course), that raises some red flags. But again, looking at the evidence we have now, this looks like a serious police fuck-up.
Wow. Go harder mate, it will be even more awesome.
You have missed the very simple point that all I was disagreeing with is that being a devils advocate equates to trolling. You should really read all of my posts before launching into this weird rant you are on. I even said I had no idea if the guy being discussed at the time was troll or not.
But by all means, continue.
Indeed. Done with that clown. Apologies again.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Let's leave the devil's advocate stuff alone on both sides, it's getting old now
Kid's dead under shady circumstances, that's fucked enough
This is getting tiring
Kid's dead under shady circumstances, that's fucked enough
This is getting tiring
Just remember. Whatever happens, you've still got a mad beard.
I don't know what you wrote before the edit, but this amused me greatly.
Jmanunknown
Member
The more that I think about this whole incident it just gets more confusing and sadder. This feels way to similar to the john crawford shooting in walmart. They were both the same age, both got killed in predominately white city's, both were carrying pseudo weapons. Both had the police called on them because they "looked suspicious" and in neither incident was either gentlemen breaking the law yet here we are today both of them are dead and two families are looking for answers as to why their son's had to die for no reason.
CadetMahoney
Member
pretty much.
Pretty much my thoughts too. If those circumstances didn't exist I could see the version that has other cops shooting him from behind as he attacked somebody else being valid. As it is, it reeks of fuck up and cover up.
Talk about ignoring the context. :/
I came for tone policing, and I left satisfied.
The frequent danger of topics like this is that, to some people, it's an academic discussion of a far-away event, full of possibilities and opportunities for debate, and to others it represents the very real danger that they themselves might be hurt or killed -- by the police, by somebody standing their ground, whatever -- and their attacker might face no consequences because of a policy literally over 200 years old that African-Americans don't have fully recognized rights to their own bodies. To somebody who's learned to shape their behavior patterns around the threat of death, or has possibly seen real people around them suffer because of their failure to do so, a devil's advocate position might feel a little like if your house was on fire and a bystander is trying to talk to you about why would this be a problem since fire is the cornerstone of human civilization, so shouldn't it be a good thing?
- Status