4 ms·
> The recent high school grad and aspiring art teacher collapsed on the sidewalk in cardiac arrest. Also forgot "vandal suspect"
by balls187 9y ago
> The recent high school grad and aspiring art teacher collapsed on the sidewalk in cardiac arrest.
Also forgot "vandal suspect"
- Spivak 9y agoSure, because killing someone is a totally acceptable response to vandalism.
- cliffy 9y agoThe use of force to detain someone suspected of graffiti is disproportionate to the crime. Especially if the use of force could foresee-ably result in death.
- balls187 9y agoStrawman.
- SimbaOnSteroids 9y agoYou keep using that word, I do not believe it means what you think it means.
- balls187 9y agoStrawman is a logical fallacy, which occurs when someone refutes an argument not actually made. My argument: he was a teacher, recent grad, and a vandal [the victim/suspect was painted one way, biasing the reader]. Refuted argument: His being a vandal was irrelevant, because death as a punishment does not fit the crime of vandalism.
- SimbaOnSteroids 9y agoWhen you add "and vandal", you're implicitly saying that this somehow makes the use of deadly force more justified. You're saying its relevant; they're saying its irrelevant. We aren't computers we don't need to declare every variable.
- balls187 9y ago> When you add "and vandal", you're implicitly saying that this somehow makes the use of deadly force more justified. Well no that's not at all what I was saying. I took issue with the author attempting to make Israel more sympathetic, instead of treating him objectively. Rather than paint a right vs wrong, police accountability should be based on facts and the merits of the circumstances according the policies and processes of the police department. But, since you raised that point, the fact that he was a vandal, and he was fleeing police, was actually material in making the use of non-deadly force (a TASER is not considered deadly force), lawful.
- gerbilly 9y ago> making the use of non-deadly force (a TASER is not considered deadly force), lawful. Your use of 'lawful' is a weasel word. You are trying to have it both ways. Trying to slur the dead young man as a 'vandal' and a criminal (I don't think graffiti is a felony in most jurisdictions) but then insisting that the news article should have been objective. You yourself are not being objective. You used an emotionally loaded term, but then in your subsequent arguments are insisting on defending it by logic alone, when you know your comment was meant to have an emotional impact.
- gerbilly 9y ago> Also forgot "vandal suspect" The article describes the offence he was being chased for (according to the police). Do you have a problem with that?
- balls187 9y agoYes I do. The author was clearly trying to subjectively paint him, glossing over the fact that he was caught (allegedly) committing a crime. Did he deserve to die, of course not. That's not the point. The point, reporting on policing should be objective. Biasing your readership towards one point of view over another is only going it that much harder to get accountability.
- serf 9y agoFor once, I don't feel as if anything key was left out -- mostly because I think it's ridiculous to pull a weapon on a (non-violent) 'vandal', especially one with a history of lethality. 'Vandal Suspect' added in there somewhere does absolutely nothing to help me relate to the decision to shoot a TASER at a non-violent vandal.
- balls187 9y agoHe was a high school grad, and an aspiring teacher. But he was also a vandal, and he was running away from the police. Why bias the reader one way?
- sp332 9y agoRight, except for two sentences earlier where it does say that.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]