InfoMan
Posts: 471
Joined: 2/20/2017
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Edwird
quote:
ORIGINAL: InfoMan
quote:
ORIGINAL: Edwird
quote:
ORIGINAL: InfoMan
Simply suspecting it [PCP] in an individual is technically acceptable grounds for an escalation of the use of force,
So now, mere 'suspicion' of something is grounds for use of lethal response.
The fact that it's in the nature of the job for police to suspect everything to begin with . . .
You've explained yourself quite well, here.
And yet we waste all this money on the courts and legal system.
Yes - mere 'suspicion' of something which is very serious and dangerous is grounds for the escalation of the use of force, even up to the point of lethal force.
You see a man wearing this:
(image)
That could be a joke a bunch of drunk frat boys thought up late at night and thought was funny...
Or each of those cans could be filled with gunpowder, and those bottles filled with gasoline...
Okay, so your jpg above was from the police video of the incident in question, then?
And this is proof that you cannot read.
If you actually read the post it is not speaking specifically of the situation at hand it is pointing out that mere 'suspicion' of something can warrant the usage of deadly force.
It directly counters your statement providing a direct reference of a questionable object that cannot be conclusively proven to be real or fake at face value....
But rather then acknowledging that your ignorant statement in how 'Suspicion' is reasonable grounds for the escalation of force, You instead try and twist it around in an ignorant attempt to dismiss the statement which conclusively has proven you wrong.
You cannot counter the Fact that mere suspicious behavior is grounds for the use of lethal force.
You have been proven Wrong.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Edwirdquote:
By simply suspecting that the object worn by the subject may be an explosive device Requires certain precautions to be taken.
What such object was being worn by by the guy who was executed in this instance? Just asking.
The original 911 call warned that there was a person running away from an abandoned vehicle stating: "It is going to blow up!"
Given that most motor vehicles can produce a sizable explosion through an upset of their normal functions, The car the suspect was trying to get into was a potential bomb based on the initial information provided to police until proven otherwise. Like it or not that is just the facts.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Edwird
quote:
It has been conclusively proven that you not only do not have the moral high ground, but that you have no validity in your words any ways.
"Proven" is an adjective, "proved" is the simple past tense you're looking for, here. Sorry for the condescension. While on the subject; I've never presented myself as being anything other than a minimally-above-average guy (except for matters of music), but I am tired of those who make every effort to lower themselves and then take pride in it by way of braying it to all the world. People who choose not to live in your gutter are not 'condescending,' news to you as that may be.
So now rather then engaging with fact, you are going to argue grammar?
Okay well:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prove
The past participle proven, originally the past participle of preve, a Middle English variant of prove that survived in Scotland, has gradually worked its way into standard English over the past three and a half centuries. It seems to have first become established in legal use and to have come only slowly into literary use. Tennyson was one of its earliest frequent users, probably for metrical reasons. It was disapproved by 19th century grammarians, one of whom included it in a list of “words that are not words.” Surveys made some 50 or 60 years ago indicated that proved was about four times as frequent as proven. But our evidence from the last 30 or 35 years shows this no longer to be the case. As a past participle proven is now about as frequent as proved in all contexts. As an attributive adjective ⟨proved or proven gas reserves⟩ proven is much more common than proved.
Given that Proven is the more common used term in current vernacular and across more contexts (legal, Literary, and as an attributive adjective) - you are actually incorrect.
Also by using the statement:
People who choose not to live in your gutter are not 'condescending,'
while presenting yourself as an average/above average normal human is the literal definition of condescension.
just because you attempt to present it passive aggressively rather then directly does not make it any less condescending.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Edwird
quote:
No one is going to ever take you seriously if you continue to argue this way.
Right. So everyone is going to take you seriously for posting a jpg of a bomb vest that this victim of a street execution never wore, by any account, to make your case. 'Planting evidence,' as it were. One can see the simpatico on display, here.
You've presented the case quite well enough, though not exactly as you imagined, perhaps.
Well, if the person is incompetent enough to believe that was the correlation i was trying to make, then i seriously do not care if they take me seriously or not, as it would be no different then concerning myself over if an insect took me seriously or not...
|
RE: BLM NOT SO MUCH - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread