The Glade 4.0

Oh, of course not ...

Thanks for proving my point.

_________________

You didn't prove anything. You alledged that a certain thread existed on Glade 2.0 in which you attempted to sum up my positions and the facts of the case in one sentence.

It's pretty obvious that according you your recollection of this alleged thread I was the only one doing so, and that you seem to think the mere fact that an 87 year old woman was involved should have, at the time, made it patently obvious that the shooting was wrong.

In point of fact, you don't even have the facts right. You're referring to the Kathryn Johnston shooting and it's 3 officers, not 4, and she was 92, not 87, and she did shoot at the officers. The issues involved were no-knock warrants (which by the way, I stated I was against at the time and still am), the planting of marijuana (which was not known at the time of the thread) and lying to investigators (also not known at the time of the thread).

Therefore, your actions here illustrate only the fact that you are unable to differentiate between what was known at the time of the thread and wasn't. Your summation, in addition to getting the woman's age and the number of officers wrong, simply points to the age of the woman as if this is in itself conclusive.

In point of fact she did shoot at the officers. It only became clear later that the officers were lying about the incident and had planted evidence. Those were never issues in the thread, but were major reasons for the convictions especially since one officer never fired a shot. As it appeared at the time, it was simply a matter of the circumstances of the raid, whether she believed they were police officers, and why she shot at them.

Your attempt to use later-discovered facts about their dishonesty and then complain I was defending them based on the facts as they appeared at the time is exactly representative of the problems here.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Ok, because I'm taking the protestors' words for their own actions. But you can do what you like.

This is where I get confused...

The OP clearly states UC Davis and suddenly UC San Diego is in the mix??

_________________
"Said I never had much use for one, never said I didn't know how to use one!"~ Matthew Quigley

"nothing like a little meow in bed at night" ~ Bruskey

"I gotta float my stick same as you" Hondo Lane

"Fill your hand you son of a *****!"

_________________

I'm giving it its due, and not swallowing it whole. On the other hand, I'd like to point out that you are completely dismissing it because it conflicts with the stories from four guys you know that say they were there.

And what are these four guys to us? Some guy on the internet says he know four guys that were there, who are unbiased (even though they were present at a protest), and say the stuff on the video didn't actually happen. Uh, yeah....

Wait, so because you just Googled something where the facts are a little fuzzy several years amused, you somehow made the only correct observations at the time?

So, in your haste to discredit someone ...

1. She was listed as 88 in the original article. Sorry I missed it by a year; the 92 part was knowledge way after the fact ...

2. We knew the information denied the claim of purchasing drugs on Johnston's place within 6 days.
http://articles.cnn.com/2006-11-27/us/a ... h?_s=PM:US

So, yes, in point of fact ...

At the time the thread was going on, we already knew things were fishy.

_________________

The OP must be wrong. He knows 4 UCSD professors that were there.

Nope; I just crossed information in my brain; mea culpa.

Seeing as how the video is from UC Davis and not UCSD, you can strike anything I've said about knowing witnesses off those events. I either misread or did not notice UC Davis in the splash text. That said, the rest of my criticisms stand ...

The evidence in the video is not the evidence people are claiming. You don't actually have any full video of officers being completely surrounded and detained by threat of force.

_________________

Unless you take the protestors at their word.

The video evidence contradicts what stupid protesters say to stupid cops, though ...

The cops are free to move at all points in the video. And when the kids get pepper-sprayed, they're sitting on the **** ground chanting.

_________________

Massive strawman. First of all, contrary to what you might like to think, not everyone disagrees with me on everything police related and no one remembers exactly what all of the points made were. Second, what I said was that the fact that these officers were eventually convicted of something does not somehow mean that anything, as in any given point, made at the time was correct - this is reinforced by the fact that they were convicted based on facts not available at the time of the discussion.



1. She was listed as 88 in the original article. Sorry I missed it by a year; the 92 part was knowledge way after the fact ... [/quote]

We're discussing the original thread, not the original article, and the fact that she's 92 is widely available now and not a bone of contention in that thread.



That's nice. The fact is that you initially talked about "if I had followed up on it", but evidently you didn't either, or at least didn't pay attention to the fact that she is now known to be 92.



We knew there was a denial of the claim, but we the thread may or may not have even lasted that long. Moreover, simply the fact that someone denied it doesn't somehow establish that they were planted. That needs a lot more than just someone denying the purchase.



At the time, there was reason to believe something fishy might be going on. That, however, was not the characterization of it by you or anyone else who, at the time, was already screaming for police blood. The fact that "something fishy might be going on" does not mean I'm somehow in the wrong for defending the police when people here (of whom you are a major culprit) want to drag it way beyond "something fishy".

You are massively reaching. This old thread is utterly irrelevant, and you're backpeddling. "We knew something fishy" at the time? Whoop de do! Yeah, clearly the fact that I didn't hop on the something fishy bandwagon at the time means I blindly defend the cops at every turn! And all this somehow pertains to the UC Davis issue and isn't just a massive derail in order to avoid the fact that your 4 buddies and their description of what happened do not hold water in view of what actually occurs in the video, unless every protestor there is blind or incredibly mentally retarded.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

So what incident happened at UCSD that your friends were witnesses of? I saw some quotes from the local police chief discussing how he doesn't want anything similar to UC Davis happening there.

Except that it doesn't. The video in no way provides a full 360 degree view "at all points". So, in other words, you have no idea.

For example. Where is the free movement access shown at 11:04 in the video? How do you know they are not surrounded at that moment?

They got the students who were protesting to disperse extremely peacefully, just like they have on most campuses around the country.

_________________

Just calling them stupid over and over is not going to establish your point.

The cops are free to move at all points in the video. And when the kids get pepper-sprayed, they're sitting on the **** ground chanting.[/quote]

A few of the kids are sitting on the ground. Most are standing. Not only that but how exactly do you get an arrestee across a line of people sitting on the ground.



YES. WE. DO.

The protestors are saying it, right there in the video. Just calling them stupid over and over won't change that. We can SEE the protestors surrounding the cops, so unless the massive hole the protestors can't see just happens to be right behind the camera, it doesn't exist.

Not only that, but why on earth would the cops stand around that long with a massive hole? Just ebcause they're big mean cops that are cowards because Coro says so and just want to pepper spray them a student? If so, why not do it a lot sooner?

Your assertions make zero sense.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Or, you could actually read where I **** up and crossed information in my head, and then I admitted to doing so in this very thread: I confused UCSD and my buddies' statements with UC Davis.

And my observations still hold water in view of the evidence available. What part of the students who got pepper-sprayed were sitting, had been sitting, and weren't physically obstructing anyone or anything did you miss?

More to the point, at what point in the video can you show concrete and irrefutable proof that police officers were being contained and held against their will?

Those claims aren't in even biased video evidence that started this thread; you just have suggestive edits and camera angles.

Stupid cops pepper-sprayed stupid kids for stupid reasons.

Stupid kids said stupid things to stupid cops for stupid reasons.

As for Kathryn Johnston? It proves my point that you defend cops no matter; you're still trying to defend your original defense. You refuse to accept that people's suspicions and opinions of cops can be accurate. You refuse to admit, even now, that those cops were wrong and the people stating those cops were wrong ... were right.

You can't do it. You are constitutionally incapable of saying ...

1. I was wrong.

2. That cop was wrong.

On the other hand, I did **** up in this thread; and I admitted I **** up.

Ball is in your court. Either admit you have an unreasonable bias and predisposition to side with police officers and law enforcement agents, or don't ...

I don't know care, because we all know how you feel about these things.

_________________

I'm on the fence.

I firmly agree that the right to peacefully assemble and free speech is sacrosanct here.

I also am firmly against any such peaceful assembly or protest inconveniencing other people and thereby treading on their rights. Protestors who clog streets, (or striking workers who block company entranceways), anybody who uses their right to free speech and assembly as a shield to try to get away with interfering with other people, is no longer protected by that right and should be fair game for a little police brutality. People blocking the police in the process of performing their legitimate duties are no longer expressing their ideas or peacefully assembling, they are obstructing.

Now, Corolinth has suggested that the police were out of order making the arrests to start with, and if this is true, this becomes a serious issue, but even if it is true, I'm not sure that exhonerates citizens preventing the police from doing what they think is their duty. That's what the courts are for, dysfunctional as they are notwithstanding.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

And yet you used the eye-witness accounts of these four professors as sufficient evidence to contradict the video and conclude that the cops acted without cause. It must have been some pretty specific accounts, and yet they were disbanded peacefully? You know four professors that were present at a peaceful dispersement?

Seems very odd. I don't think these witnesses are as reliable as you think they are. I think at a minimum they were drunk and pepper sprayed themselves. Or some college girl did it for them.

Except, as I've now already stated twice ...

I crossed the information from the two stories in my head. I said I made a mistake. I even said mea culpa and that UCSD has nothing to do with this thread.

Maybe you and DE should actually read what people post.

_________________

Why do we need to do that? You're the one saying the video is bullshit. You're the one saying the protestors were not correct despite what they were saying on the video, and you're the one saying they have a retreat option "at all points".

I'm simply saying that the video evidence shows, at a minimum, an attempt to surround the officers, and the protestors claim they are successful. The police react as if they are successful. The narrator says they are successful. YOU are really the only one saying they are unsuccessful. And we must provide irrefutable proof that there's NOT a hole outside the camera view? What kind of request is that, to prove a negative? We can't we just have preponderance of evidence.

What do you have? You say there's an escape at all points. I'm saying you can't know that. I need only provide one point in time where none is shown and your entire argument falls apart.

But there was no similar incident to confuse, so they must have been drunk. Or high. I'll give you high. I think the problem is that I did read what you posted...

While your admission of that error is well taken, I was already replying when you posted that. My polgies for not carefully reading the "new post since you posted" screen, but it rarely matters so I rarely read it.



They were directly in the path of the cops way to their car. The rest of the students were surrounding the cosp on other sides. The part I missed is where that's accurate. They were sitting down in order to better obstruct the police; i.e. make it harder to remove them. It doesn't matter how many times you claim otherwise, we can see them doing it right there.



You mean, besides the entire video?

The students claim the cops are surrounded, and the cops behave as if they are. The burden is on you to show something, and this is not just a matter of me denying something obvious; Arathain doesn't see it either, he's no fan of the cops, and a couple other people who are not known for defending the cops don't seem to see what you claim either.



What claims aren't in the video evidence? That doesn't even make sense.



No, the cops were not stupid, nor did they have stupid reasons. Again, saying it over and over does not help you.



Yes. However, the kids are not so stupid that they can't see a hole in their circle large enough for the cops to leave by.



It proves no such thing. I'm "defending" my original "defense" becasue all anyone had at the time was "it might be fishy" and were acting as if they had an ace in the hole. The fact that you had to bring up their conviction based on information that was not available for months or years proves that.

I just got done stating the cops were a bunch of crooks, so that's hardly me not admitting the cops were wrong. However, that does not make the criticisms that were levelled at the time, which revolved around entirely different issues (namely, the right to shoot at police officers) correct. Your claim is no different than Monty trying to claim he "knew" there were no WMD in Iraq and that the government "knew" this before the invasion because none had been found a year after the fact. It's simply trying to use hindsight to rub someone's nose in the fact that you were ultimately right about the character of the cops even though the issues broached at the time were completely different.



No. You are constitutionally incapable of admitting:

1. I can't always call whether a cop was right or wrong based on my initital impressions

2. That cop might not be wrong, or he might be "Wrong" only in the sense that I disagree with the law he's enforcing, but didn't make and can't get rid of.
On the other hand, I did **** up in this thread; and I admitted I **** up.



Since I don't, I won't. the fact is that you are judging this in light of your own unreasonable bias against police officers, and the reason that I appear to "defend" so many cops is that the anti-cop threads that show up here are, more often than not, reflective of similar bias on your part and that of a few other people as well. You directly admitted you hate American law enforcement. You are in no position to accuse anyone of unreasonable bias; you've been demonstrating it for years, and have admitted to it.

Once again, we see that all you really care about is making sure the issue is DE and my opinions because what you really want is to lecture with no one seriously opposing your pontificating.



Oh yes you do care. It's reflective of arrogance on your part that you presume to speak for everyone else. More importantly, all you seem to care about in these threads is me personally, and trying to discredit anything I might say with appeal to motive and poisoning the well ad homs.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Really? I made a mistake, admitted I made a mistake, and you're response is ...

I was drunk, high, or (implicitly) lying? Seriously?

Do us all a favor and go **** yourself.

_________________

I will say it, Khross got busted making **** up. That said he makes up a lot of **** imho.

_________________