3 ms·

> Personal safety is the #1 priority of any emergency worker. They created a dangerous situation that required guns drawn by not contacting the building's mana

> Personal safety is the #1 priority of any emergency worker. They created a dangerous situation that required guns drawn by not contacting the building's management with an ex-military guy that might have reacted violently. How the fuck are you going to argue that meshes with personal safety is #1? > By all means, question police methods. But to snidely chide them for putting their personal safety first suggests that you don't really understand their job at all. Or, I am capable of thinking beyond talking points and realizing the police actively create a dangerous situation by not even bothering to contact the building's management. I'm sorry but its ridiculous that they didn't even bother to confirm with the property owner that someone was trespassing.

vacri 11y ago
Could you please reference where I said that the specific activity in the article was some form of best practices? Or where I even mentioned (or even implied) the article at all in that first response to you? You've created your own contradiction, by the way. In this frothy rebuke to me, you've claimed that the police in the article do not care about their personal safety much, yet the first comment you made is bitching about them putting their personal safety as a priority. Perhaps you should do some of this 'thinking' you so proudly throw in my face?
- fweespeech 11y ago
  > Could you please reference where I said that the specific activity in the article was some form of best practices? Or where I even mentioned (or even implied) the article at all in that first response to you? Given I was responding to specifically what happened in the article, you are taking my response out of context if you are applying it to anything other than the population of the police in the article. > You've created your own contradiction, by the way. In this frothy rebuke to me, you've claimed that the police in the article do not care about their personal safety much, yet the first comment you made is bitching about them putting their personal safety as a priority. > It honestly sounds like they are so self-centered that they only care about their arrest stats/job performance + personal safety. They care nothing for anyone else's safety if it gets in the way of their job performance numbers. That is a horrific concept, honestly. I pretty much baldly stated they care about job performance numbers more than anyone else's safety. I also focused on job performance over their personal safety. I think the issue here remains you just didn't understand I'm talking about "job performance is #1" followed by personal safety as #2. > Perhaps you should do some of this 'thinking' you so proudly throw in my face? I pretty clearly said "job performance is #1" and you are insisting otherwise. I just didn't say it literally which is why I guess you got confused?
  - vacri 11y ago
    > I pretty clearly said "job performance is #1" and you are insisting otherwise. No, I'm not. I was talking about the part of your complaint where you were saying that police shouldn't particularly care about their own safety. > you are taking my response out of context if you are applying it to anything other than the population of the police in the article. The part of your comment I responded to was directly after a quote from a comment talking about the issue in general. Similarly, your comment was also general - after all, if you were specifically talking about the event in the article, it would have been in past tense. Anyway, arguing about arguing now. Time to sign off.
    - fweespeech 11y ago
      I quoted the article but I wasn't responding to it? k..........if you say so

vacri 11y ago

Could you please reference where I said that the specific activity in the article was some form of best practices? Or where I even mentioned (or even implied) the article at all in that first response to you? You've created your own contradiction, by the way. In this frothy rebuke to me, you've claimed that the police in the article do not care about their personal safety much, yet the first comment you made is bitching about them putting their personal safety as a priority. Perhaps you should do some of this 'thinking' you so proudly throw in my face?

fweespeech 11y ago
> Could you please reference where I said that the specific activity in the article was some form of best practices? Or where I even mentioned (or even implied) the article at all in that first response to you? Given I was responding to specifically what happened in the article, you are taking my response out of context if you are applying it to anything other than the population of the police in the article. > You've created your own contradiction, by the way. In this frothy rebuke to me, you've claimed that the police in the article do not care about their personal safety much, yet the first comment you made is bitching about them putting their personal safety as a priority. > It honestly sounds like they are so self-centered that they only care about their arrest stats/job performance + personal safety. They care nothing for anyone else's safety if it gets in the way of their job performance numbers. That is a horrific concept, honestly. I pretty much baldly stated they care about job performance numbers more than anyone else's safety. I also focused on job performance over their personal safety. I think the issue here remains you just didn't understand I'm talking about "job performance is #1" followed by personal safety as #2. > Perhaps you should do some of this 'thinking' you so proudly throw in my face? I pretty clearly said "job performance is #1" and you are insisting otherwise. I just didn't say it literally which is why I guess you got confused?
- vacri 11y ago
  > I pretty clearly said "job performance is #1" and you are insisting otherwise. No, I'm not. I was talking about the part of your complaint where you were saying that police shouldn't particularly care about their own safety. > you are taking my response out of context if you are applying it to anything other than the population of the police in the article. The part of your comment I responded to was directly after a quote from a comment talking about the issue in general. Similarly, your comment was also general - after all, if you were specifically talking about the event in the article, it would have been in past tense. Anyway, arguing about arguing now. Time to sign off.
  - fweespeech 11y ago
    I quoted the article but I wasn't responding to it? k..........if you say so