Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by Razorsharp, Feb 8, 2013.
Actually, Bren is rather bright. His sarcastic phrasing overshadows it on occasion, however.
Right, and your knee jerked and changed my contention from "extremely rare" to "rare", and a pissing contest ensued.
I still contend that "extremely rare" is a disengenuous assesment. It's almost dismissive of the actual instances.
Really?? How do you interpret this...
... to be sarcastic phrasing. If the intent was sarcasm, well, then I still contend he's not very bright.
Fine, we can go with "extremely rare" if you want. That should be easier for you to defend. At what frequency point do occurrences cross out of "extremely rare"?
"Extremely rare" is neither disingenuous or dismissive when you admit that even one event is too many, which I did.
Have you ever talked face to face with someone in law enforcement, in a position of responsibility and authority in the warrant service process, and asked why mistakes happen and what is being done to prevent mistakes?
Perhaps it comes from reading almost all of Bren's 28,189 posts over the years. You learn the serious side, the light side, the ugly side, the compassionate side, the teaching side, the comedic side, the sarcastic side, the..., well, you get the point, I hope. The dude, he ain't simple... Having an open mind helps when engaging him.
That's the point I was defending, but you took umbrage at that.
Probably at the point when one can google "police, raid, wrong, house" and only one page of results will show, instead of 20 plus pages.
I said that JBnTX was being dismissive with his "extremely rare" comment. You made the choice to jump in and challenge my response to JBnTX. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't force it on your foot.
No, I haven't. That's a good suggestion. I am sure such inquisitions would be welcomed and responded to with polite sincerity. (In case you didn't catch it, that was genuine sarcasm.)
Oh, and to back up a little bit...
answer to 6c - 8 jurors did not know
answer to 6d - 8 jurors responded "No"
If you call 911 because your house is on fire our new computers can tell us the exact location and the location of the closest fire hydrant. Helps us out a lot. Not sure if it came from the same GPS cords that the .gov took... but if they blow up your house with a drone the FD can use the same ones to help put your fire out
Not to mention that in rural areas fire and EMS using GPS can proceed faster to a scene than if they are trying to read addresses as they go by them.
Yes, and they had the benefit of dash cam video I believe.
Well, that's reassuring.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dt1mFQG3tJg"]Seattle Police Release Dashcam Video Of Woodcarver's Shooting - YouTube[/ame]
But, you never offered a defense.
Again, I go back to the repetition of a single event in news reports, blogs, social media makes some believe there are more events than actually occurred.
If your Google search could be limited to unique occurrences, I might agree with your example.
Do you know how many incidents occurred in say 2010? Do you know the number of total warrants served in 2010? Simple "Yes" or "No" questions.
And, again, yes, one mistake is too many.
Yes, I did challenge you.
You are not willing to ask LE in your area what they do to minimize mistakes in warrant services. Why?
Using the Cato map tslex linked to earlier, the Tri-State area has had no incidents since 1985. Why is that? Are there no warrants served in the area? Is the Cato information wrong?
Cops are easy to talk to. All you have to do is set the mood to get the information you want.
Yes, that's video of the event. How would you have answered the questions after viewing it?
Bull-oney, I provided enough citations to belie the notion that warrant service errors to a wrong address were "extremely rare". Had it been described as "rare", I probably would have let it go at that. But to intentionally catagorize the occurences as extremely rare, is to deliberately mitigate the occurances.
You got me... I don't know the total number of warrants served in any year.
Who are you, anyway, Sean Hannity??
In response to the question concerning whether or not the suspect attemped to put down the knife, I sure wouldn't have answered with a definative, "no".
Do you think it was a "good shoot"? Yes or no?
I doubt it. You cited what, five events? Lets look at them. My comments are in bold...
I appreciate your help in illustrating how multiple reports of the same event exaggerates the total occurrences. Thank you so very much.
Different departments, different cities, different times...
Concentrating on multiple occurrences within a single department, or within a single, multi-jurisdiction task force would be evidence of systemic problems. Another study would be very revealing. Look at agencies with multiple occurrences ten years ago. See if there mistake rate has decreased, remained the same, or increased compared to the total number of warrants served.
No, not Sean, but I do like asking questions that probe what supports a person's opinions. I like having all sides of an issue presented. Guess that might equate to "Fair & Balanced", understanding all sides and presenting all sides...
The question was, " How would you have answered the questions after viewing it?"
It was not, "How would you not answer?"
Based solely on the news reports, I agree with the department. It was unjustified.