jakee

Act like a big man in front of his friends, probably. Still, that's not really relevant. If a cop screams at someone to put their hands up they don't get to shoot someone who puts their hands up quickly unless they clearly see a weapon. If that's more dangerous for them then it's more dangerous for them. That's the job. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

the average as I have shown is around 35k. Right there. 'Average' and 'lowest' are not the same thing. Again, your link even has a page, which I showed you, that sates the average entry level pay for the US. What possible excuse could you have besides lying for still getting it wrong? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

How could he possibly know why they were there? How does that video in any way show that he knew the cops had been told he had a gun? What it does show, just like the guy at the garage, is that he was shot for following orders. He was told to take his hands out. He took his hands out. Bang. How does he know that? When do you think he was trained to do that? Again, if you're a cop and some guy who may or may not have a gun takes his hands out of his pockets you don't shoot him until you see a gun. If that's more dangerous to you, tough shit. It's your job, you chose it, no-one made you do it. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Yeah, and then supported that point by claiming that the average salary is far, far lower than it actually is. Do you not understand why that's important? No, that's not true. You do realise that the other thread still exists and that people can go and check these things, right? You said (before I entered the conversation) that you had shown the average starting salary was $35k. I didn't ask for a specific number - you provided a specific number all on your own, I only asked where you had got it from, since it was clearly wrong. You then provided another, even more wrong specific number (again, of your own accord) showing that you were too lazy to even read your own sources or bother about whether your argument was based on valid information. Ah! So finally you come clean: when you're caught in an error you just start lying instead of admitting it. To be honest, that was all I wanted you to say. In future though dude, just own up when you're wrong. It's so much easier for you in the long run. And if you can't understand that reading sources properly and having correct information is an important part of the validity of your argument then you need help. That stuff's important in real life, not just here. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

when someone has called in stating that someones matching their descriptions had 'flashed a gun' then I guess, yeah, they may... Yeah... funny thing about that is that the kid doesn't know that call was made so there is zero reason for him to act accordingly. The only thing he was aware of was that some angry cop was harrassing him for no reason. He might get that lot. There's no reason for him not to put his hands wherever he might normally put them, waistband, pocket, whatever. Then the cop pulls a gun, kid thinks, shit, I'd better show my hands and (as Don has been trying to explain) gets shot for no other reason than acting like a human being. Like the guy who got shot reaching into his car for the documents he was told to reach into his car for. Normal people aren't trained on how to react with a gun in their face. They will move quickly because they're scared. If you're a cop and you don't know whether that movement will result in a gun being pulled then tough shit, you'll have to wait and find out. That's the job you chose. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

That's clearly not true. If it was, why would it have been important to you at all? Why would you have started nit-picking about whether police start on $75k or not? What's so magic about $75k? No - your point, as you made very clear, was that police aren't paid well enough to bother doing a decent job. To support that argument you claimed the average starting salary for a cop was $30k. The link you provided which you were apparently too lazy to read yourself (despite being asked to multiple times) showed it to be over 40% higher. Again, I don't know about you but to me that's a lot of cash. Someone offers me a $12,500 raise you can be damn sure I'd be willing to start paying more attention. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I guess that explains why you think reddit is a reliable source of intelligence. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I think the point is that you were out by 40% and you don't seem to think that could possibly be important. Maybe $12k is only worth a donut coupon to you but to most people it's a heck of a lot of money. It's also telling to how you approach discussions here that you kept insisting that the figures you were stating were correct when the source you provided clearly showed them to be wrong. I just don't get why that is? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I think the more important question is, was he drunk, high, or is that just what Texans sound like? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

You're wrong, no one said the average starting salary was $75k. You said it was $35k, and you were wrong. You said it was $30k, and you were more wrong. And even though you were told that you were too lazy to check and just kept digging a bigger hole. The point is that when someone pulls you up on a point of fact it's not because they're being a jerk, it's because you're wrong. But yet again, it seems like you're more interested in being aggressively argumentative than examining the facts behind your ideas. But I don't think that's what you're going to take away from this. You're going to keep thinking that you were justified in arguing an incorrect position because you felt you were making a valid statement, and the people pointing out that you were wrong were only doing it because they were douchebags, not because they had a point to make. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

The one you misrepresented just after the words 'its funny'. BTW, have you figured out how much that cop gets paid yet? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I think that statement shows that you do not make the slightest effort to understand the opposing argument. Hint: it's nothing like what you just said. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Read the whole thing. His statement was a black and white way of looking at it. You can't tell me that if you are responding to a call of a guy brandishing a firearm, and the kid turns around and pulls something out of his pants that meets the description, you would not have a different preparedness level than if you were answering a call about a kitten stuck in a tree. Different is one thing, shoot first ask questions later is another. Come on, how many young men in baggy white T-shirts and short haircuts hang around outside shop fronts every day? That's a pretty loose description. The idea that responding to that call makes it even remotely OK to shoot someone who is acting with zero aggression and with zero evidence of a weapon is absolutely incredible. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Great. I think you're intentionally misunderstanding Dan in order to manufacture that little dig at him. That's not adolescent, that's what children do. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Yeah. He pushed as hard as hell for what he wanted, and when it still wasn't quite good enough he invented more. How do you not call that lying? And come to think of it, to be honest, how is 'embellishing' your way into a decade long quagmire of a foreign occupation any better than lying your way into it? What is even the distinction? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

"Im moving on with my life." So you don't think it's worth admitting you were wrong? You just ignore it and hope it goes away? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Uh, yeah - but again how under your standards of verification, aka absolute proof, could they have possibly known what Saddam was planning on doing in the future? Given that the CIA was wrong* and the UN inspectors were right how is it you can claim that it was impossible for the inspectors to know they were right but possible for the CIA to know they were right? * In intelligence it produced under severe political pressure, of course. (Oh, and speaking of knowing how to read a link, you still haven't explained where your police pay averages came from. Planning on doing that ever?) Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Dude, freakin' seriously? Apply your own standard of VERIFICATION [sic] and explain how anyone could know or claim what Saddam was going to do after that round of inspections? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Sounds like another flaw in the Gulf War 1 mission that was so effectively carried out. Why make a ceasefire conditional on removing weapons if you know you have no way of finding out if the weapons are removed? (Of course, outside of the philosophical problem of proving the absence of a thing, it did of course turn out that UN inspectors were right, and there were no weapons. So they probably knew what they were doing and were at least slightly cleverer than you give them credit for.) Do you want to have an ideagasm?

What does VERIFIED mean? VERIFIED by who? Just finding out where the goal posts are here... (BTW, you've gone awful quiet in the cop thread. I'm still waiting for an answer...) Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Anything? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Exactly. In 1991 he had chemical weapons, the ability to use them, and an aggressive foreign policy. He was a threat. In '03... nah. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Oh, so now UN mandates are important? How things change in 10 years. First the UN matters and WMD don't, then WMD matter but the UN doesn't... and both make perfect sense and were completely correct. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I know you'll want to block on a technicality but the first Gulf War worked out pretty well. Not if you prescribe to the notion that version 2 happened because version 1 wasn't handled properly. You might prescribe to that notion. I think it was handled extremely well and accomplished it's goals...right up to the point where we promised to support the Kurds and left them swinging. My only problem with GW1 was the ease with which we were able to complete the mission. I said then that people are going to think it will always be this easy and that would be a dangerous assumption. Well... If you believe (and you do) that Saddam had an active and successful WMD program up to the start of Gulf2 and was giving WMD to nearby rogue states then surely the Gulf1 'mission' was fatally flawed from the start? What do you think the mission was in GW1? What do you think it was? If you think it was successful, and if you think Gulf 2 was justified, then clearly the Gulf 1 mission wasn't to deprive Saddam Hussein of WMD or WMD manufacturing capabilities. Which, again if you think Gulf 2 was justified, would be a rather large error. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I know you'll want to block on a technicality but the first Gulf War worked out pretty well. Not if you prescribe to the notion that version 2 happened because version 1 wasn't handled properly. You might prescribe to that notion. I think it was handled extremely well and accomplished it's goals...right up to the point where we promised to support the Kurds and left them swinging. My only problem with GW1 was the ease with which we were able to complete the mission. I said then that people are going to think it will always be this easy and that would be a dangerous assumption. Well... If you believe (and you do) that Saddam had an active and successful WMD program up to the start of Gulf2 and was giving WMD to nearby rogue states then surely the Gulf1 'mission' was fatally flawed from the start? Do you want to have an ideagasm?