Because that's who this story is about? Seems...I dunno, obvious.
"Picking on one reporter or one network isnt helping. Theyre all like this"
I realize you're intentionally overstating for effect here, but you know very well they're not "all like this" and claiming so is also counterproductive.
More importantly, Dan Rather is not the rest of them, he is an extremely high-profile former lead anchor for one of the major networks. He is also well known for involving himself in a story with... dubious origins and a lack of accuracy.
So when he makes his presence know by involving himself in another story with accuracy problems, should we just dismiss it by saying "fuck it they're all doing this"?
"There just aren't that many hours in the day. Which is why news outlets will have producers, copywriters, fact checkers and a whole support staff that handles huge portions of the news end of things."
And when you're the public face of all those people, and your reputation is the main currency you trade on, then you're taking a major risk assuming the facts you get are accurate.
And you're certainly going to be the one held to task, not because you researched the story, but because you presented it as accurate, without knowing it to be so.
So it's nice of you to make excuses for him, but it changes nothing. He is the man. When you're the man, hiding behind peons because you failed in your due diligence won't save you, and makes you look petty in the process.
Oh I get it, I'm a troll because I hurt your feelings.
I guess resorting to name calling when you're not capable of winning through facts bite you in the ass again. Hence, my request that you stop responding to my posts.
"If you had watched the video, you'd know that you're tehwrongz"
I did and I'm not. Saying you think I'm wrong doesn't make it true.
"He said "Stop holding me down and I will walk out peacefully." (or something to that nature)"
Ah, so you think he said something, but you don't know what it is. I know what it was, and it wasn't that. Also, you conveniently ignore my point that IMMEDIATELY before he gets tased, he's trying to sit up and repeatedly snatches his arms away from police.
So your claim is that what you think you heard proves me wrong and you right, but you ignore what he DID. Your claims are based on what (you think) he SAID, while ignoring what he actually visibly DID.
"He wasn't expecting to be let go, but he was willing to be escorted out to a police car and dealt with outside"
Then why did he continue struggling? Why sit up when you're told not to? Why snatch your arm away if you're willing to cooperate? People who are cooperative don't disregard instructions with 4 police officers on them, they do as they are instructed. He didn't. He was, by no definition other than your, cooperative. Snatching your arms away is not cooperative. Fighting to sit up is not cooperative.
So stop lying about that, because we can all watch the video and SEE what he did.
You can make as many claims as you want about what he said, but his easily visible actions prove you're full of shit.
"And to you, this is him preventing everyone else from asking questions?"
No,but the screaming and fighting with the police was. I like how you pretend we didn't see that in the video, because it completely refutes you and moots your point, so you ignore it.
"As an aside, I'd prefer if you didn't respond to anything I post Right back at you"
"Someone was arrested, investigated, and when the police realized they made a mistake, released. An individual was overzealous in his assumption of guilt."
Because it was. Could anyone else effectively use said mic for the time he was present in the room? NO!
So your attempt to make the actual time he spent in front of the mic the issue, instead of the time he monopolized its use, is transparent. You know very well he prevented anyone from effectively using their time as allotted, hence "monopolizing the mic"
"Stop trying to turn this into something it's not."
You mean like a free speech issue? Deal.
As an aside, I'd prefer if you didn't respond to anything I post, I have yet to see anything from you that's worth reading, and you bore me by regurgitating the same ridiculous points while failing to absorb information from those who refute you.
That never happened, and claiming otherwise when it's there in video is pretty fucking pathetic.
RIGHT BEFORE he gets tased, he snatches his arm out of the grasp of the police and tries to sit up, despite being told repeatedly not to.
I notice you leave this obvious act of resisting arrest out when trying to portray this asshole as a victim.
Also, he NEVER "admitted that he lost and was willing to be escorted out to a waiting cruiser to go to the station and be handled." that's just fiction, plain and simple.
What, did you think we couldn't watch the video too?
I don't know why you think you could pawn this lie off, but anyone who watches the videos will see him resisting VERY actively.
And yet there you are, lying about it as though we didn't have multiple videos to watch.
"Supergood-ape, with your unquestioning obedience it seems you would have made a fine slave-catcher back in the day. And I'm sorry to see that"
OOOH look an insult. Well, if I wasn't sure I was right before, this pathetic attempt sealed it. It's like a written admission that you know you're full of shit.
I suppose my response would be, why the fuck should I care what a liar like you has to say about anything?
"and show us one instance where tasing while under control is allowed. He was pinned to the ground."
And that, I'm afraid, is where your ignorance is exposed.
At NO time has "pinned to the ground" ever been the same thing as "under control". It's nice to pretend like one is the other to further a hyperbolic rant, but reality is something else entirely.
Pinning a guy to the ground doesn't magically make him cooperative and safe to handle. As I've told others, people get seriously hurt when they make that mistake, which is why professionals who make it their job to control people who can't control themselves (of which I was one in a past job life) would dismiss your statement out of hand.
""Under control" is not the issue; "being a threat" is the issue. "
When you've already demonstrated you'll ignore instructions from police and actively resist them in a public place, you are a threat. And frankly, whether you agree or not makes not one bit of difference.
"Potentially lethal force, or the use of torture, is justified only to end a threat, not to bring someone "under control"."
Nope. And again, whether you agree or not means nothing. Stop presenting your opinion as fact, it's not. Also, he had already demonstrated to be a threat, so it's ok by YOUR standards anyway.
"Trying to escape from an assault does not make one a threat."
No, but actively fighting the police does, and since he did that, and didn't try to "escape from an assault" I really have no idea why you'd type this.
"Yes, I'm sure it would be so much more convenient everyone if people didn't make a fuss when cops trample their rights."
Maybe they wouldn't have to pretend their rights got trampled if they didn't A) break the law and B) ignore a lawfuly given instruction.
"Or, you know, the thugs with badges could have respected the man's free speech rights and saved a ton of trouble for everyone."
They did, he got his time, just like everyone else was supposed to. Maybe if this asshole hadn't broken the law and failed to respect EVERYONE ELSE'S rights, he wouldn't have been in this situation.
Lastly, save the hyperbole guy, it's works when you're sitting around stoned eating cheetos with your buddies in the dorm, but I'm not stupid or stoned, so knock it off.
If you have a real argument make it, but save the "thugs" "torture" and "assault" bullshit for your friends, I'm not disconnected enough from reality to swallow it.
"One guy on the ground is not a threat to four cops, or to anyone else"
Having wrestled with my share of autistic clients while working at a group home, I can say with certainty that you're full of shit.
You're not under control until you're under control, which doesn't mean thrashing about, fighting, and actively trying to escape. People get hurt when they make the mistake of assuming someone is in control when they aren't like you did.
The fact that there were four cops on the guy reinforces just how much effort was required to get this guy to comply, when he could have done so in the first place and saved a ton of trouble for everyone.
"In the context of a lecture, it is either the speaker's or moderator's job to do that. Not the police's."
I can see why you posted AC, because that's exactly wrong and I wouldn't want something that wrong following me around either.
This is EXACTLY what the police are there for, and no it isn't the speaker's job (he's there to speak) or the moderators (his job description does not include physical intervention on unruly guests) it's the cops.
Slashdot Mirror
"troll x2? Nah, more like, what, times 6?"
I agree, and it's nice of you to finally admit it.
"know you destroyed my argument now."
FYP, and it's nice of you to admit that too.
"America includes..."
No it doesn't. The Americas do, but that's not what you claimed.
Now that you being wrong is dealt with, explain why "America" is not an acceptable abbreviation of "United States of America".
"That's more of an affirmation that you know I'm right than pretty much anything else you could do.
Thanks."
Again. x2
"Why Dan Rather specifically?"
Because that's who this story is about? Seems...I dunno, obvious.
"Picking on one reporter or one network isnt helping. Theyre all like this"
I realize you're intentionally overstating for effect here, but you know very well they're not "all like this" and claiming so is also counterproductive.
More importantly, Dan Rather is not the rest of them, he is an extremely high-profile former lead anchor for one of the major networks. He is also well known for involving himself in a story with... dubious origins and a lack of accuracy.
So when he makes his presence know by involving himself in another story with accuracy problems, should we just dismiss it by saying "fuck it they're all doing this"?
That really doesn't make any sense.
"There just aren't that many hours in the day. Which is why news outlets will have producers, copywriters, fact checkers and a whole support staff that handles huge portions of the news end of things."
And when you're the public face of all those people, and your reputation is the main currency you trade on, then you're taking a major risk assuming the facts you get are accurate.
And you're certainly going to be the one held to task, not because you researched the story, but because you presented it as accurate, without knowing it to be so.
So it's nice of you to make excuses for him, but it changes nothing. He is the man. When you're the man, hiding behind peons because you failed in your due diligence won't save you, and makes you look petty in the process.
"Edwards has made a large fortune as a trial lawyer"
That should have gone to his clients (the victims).
"That's more of an affirmation that you know I'm right than pretty much anything else you could do.
Thanks."
Again.
"q.e.d."
Inappropriate usage.
OOPS!
I still like that I out debated you and crushed your arguments so I'm a troll.
That's more of an affirmation that you know I'm right than pretty much anything else you could do.
Thanks.
"fucking idiot, that article does cite sources"
Hey cocksucker, I never claimed it didn't (but it doesn't, it has a reading list you fucking retard).
I pointed out what the article says about itself.
Keep posting AC, for your own sake.
"No active resistance"
He snatched his arms away and fought to sit up, while being told not to. That sure as hell isn't passive resistance.
Look up the word active so you can see why you're wrong.
"But I won't call you a liar;"
Because you can't. YOU on the other hand have lied repeatedly, as in the first part of this post.
Oh I get it, I'm a troll because I hurt your feelings.
I guess resorting to name calling when you're not capable of winning through facts bite you in the ass again. Hence, my request that you stop responding to my posts.
And you still didn't answer my question.
"If you had watched the video, you'd know that you're tehwrongz"
I did and I'm not. Saying you think I'm wrong doesn't make it true.
"He said "Stop holding me down and I will walk out peacefully." (or something to that nature)"
Ah, so you think he said something, but you don't know what it is. I know what it was, and it wasn't that. Also, you conveniently ignore my point that IMMEDIATELY before he gets tased, he's trying to sit up and repeatedly snatches his arms away from police.
So your claim is that what you think you heard proves me wrong and you right, but you ignore what he DID. Your claims are based on what (you think) he SAID, while ignoring what he actually visibly DID.
"He wasn't expecting to be let go, but he was willing to be escorted out to a police car and dealt with outside"
Then why did he continue struggling? Why sit up when you're told not to? Why snatch your arm away if you're willing to cooperate? People who are cooperative don't disregard instructions with 4 police officers on them, they do as they are instructed. He didn't. He was, by no definition other than your, cooperative. Snatching your arms away is not cooperative. Fighting to sit up is not cooperative.
So stop lying about that, because we can all watch the video and SEE what he did.
You can make as many claims as you want about what he said, but his easily visible actions prove you're full of shit.
"And to you, this is him preventing everyone else from asking questions?"
No,but the screaming and fighting with the police was. I like how you pretend we didn't see that in the video, because it completely refutes you and moots your point, so you ignore it.
"As an aside, I'd prefer if you didn't respond to anything I post
Right back at you"
Then why did YOU just respond?
"Someone was arrested, investigated, and when the police realized they made a mistake, released. An individual was overzealous in his assumption of guilt."
What's novel about this?
"How can you say that is monopolizing the mic?"
Because it was. Could anyone else effectively use said mic for the time he was present in the room? NO!
So your attempt to make the actual time he spent in front of the mic the issue, instead of the time he monopolized its use, is transparent. You know very well he prevented anyone from effectively using their time as allotted, hence "monopolizing the mic"
"Stop trying to turn this into something it's not."
You mean like a free speech issue? Deal.
As an aside, I'd prefer if you didn't respond to anything I post, I have yet to see anything from you that's worth reading, and you bore me by regurgitating the same ridiculous points while failing to absorb information from those who refute you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking
"This article does not cite any references or sources."
"This wiki article has some credible references (AP and others)"
Apparently the Wiki article disagrees with you about itself. I am inclined to believe the article.
That never happened, and claiming otherwise when it's there in video is pretty fucking pathetic.
RIGHT BEFORE he gets tased, he snatches his arm out of the grasp of the police and tries to sit up, despite being told repeatedly not to.
I notice you leave this obvious act of resisting arrest out when trying to portray this asshole as a victim.
Also, he NEVER "admitted that he lost and was willing to be escorted out to a waiting cruiser to go to the station and be handled." that's just fiction, plain and simple.
What, did you think we couldn't watch the video too?
"No one was actively resisting."
Bullshit, it's in the fucking videos.
I don't know why you think you could pawn this lie off, but anyone who watches the videos will see him resisting VERY actively.
And yet there you are, lying about it as though we didn't have multiple videos to watch.
"Supergood-ape, with your unquestioning obedience it seems you would have made a fine slave-catcher back in the day. And I'm sorry to see that"
OOOH look an insult. Well, if I wasn't sure I was right before, this pathetic attempt sealed it. It's like a written admission that you know you're full of shit.
I suppose my response would be, why the fuck should I care what a liar like you has to say about anything?
"and show us one instance where tasing while under control is allowed. He was pinned to the ground."
And that, I'm afraid, is where your ignorance is exposed.
At NO time has "pinned to the ground" ever been the same thing as "under control". It's nice to pretend like one is the other to further a hyperbolic rant, but reality is something else entirely.
Pinning a guy to the ground doesn't magically make him cooperative and safe to handle. As I've told others, people get seriously hurt when they make that mistake, which is why professionals who make it their job to control people who can't control themselves (of which I was one in a past job life) would dismiss your statement out of hand.
You didn't read my comment, you read the quote I was replying to. Good thing you posted AC...
He was resisting, which by default means "not under control".
So no, brave little AC, I'm not claiming anything, I don't have to.
""Under control" is not the issue; "being a threat" is the issue. "
When you've already demonstrated you'll ignore instructions from police and actively resist them in a public place, you are a threat. And frankly, whether you agree or not makes not one bit of difference.
"Potentially lethal force, or the use of torture, is justified only to end a threat, not to bring someone "under control"."
Nope. And again, whether you agree or not means nothing. Stop presenting your opinion as fact, it's not. Also, he had already demonstrated to be a threat, so it's ok by YOUR standards anyway.
"Trying to escape from an assault does not make one a threat."
No, but actively fighting the police does, and since he did that, and didn't try to "escape from an assault" I really have no idea why you'd type this.
"Yes, I'm sure it would be so much more convenient everyone if people didn't make a fuss when cops trample their rights."
Maybe they wouldn't have to pretend their rights got trampled if they didn't A) break the law and B) ignore a lawfuly given instruction.
"Or, you know, the thugs with badges could have respected the man's free speech rights and saved a ton of trouble for everyone."
They did, he got his time, just like everyone else was supposed to. Maybe if this asshole hadn't broken the law and failed to respect EVERYONE ELSE'S rights, he wouldn't have been in this situation.
Lastly, save the hyperbole guy, it's works when you're sitting around stoned eating cheetos with your buddies in the dorm, but I'm not stupid or stoned, so knock it off.
If you have a real argument make it, but save the "thugs" "torture" and "assault" bullshit for your friends, I'm not disconnected enough from reality to swallow it.
"One guy on the ground is not a threat to four cops, or to anyone else"
Having wrestled with my share of autistic clients while working at a group home, I can say with certainty that you're full of shit.
You're not under control until you're under control, which doesn't mean thrashing about, fighting, and actively trying to escape. People get hurt when they make the mistake of assuming someone is in control when they aren't like you did.
The fact that there were four cops on the guy reinforces just how much effort was required to get this guy to comply, when he could have done so in the first place and saved a ton of trouble for everyone.
"In the context of a lecture, it is either the speaker's or moderator's job to do that. Not the police's."
I can see why you posted AC, because that's exactly wrong and I wouldn't want something that wrong following me around either.
This is EXACTLY what the police are there for, and no it isn't the speaker's job (he's there to speak) or the moderators (his job description does not include physical intervention on unruly guests) it's the cops.
No, you couldn't be more wrong about that.
"What will it be like when you're cast in jail despite your non-resistance?"
I imagine it will be pretty crappy, like most jails are.
"The constitution is on the outs so your lawyer might not be of much help."
THAT is the best you could come up with? I respectfully disagree (which is my way of saying that was a pretty ridiculous response).