Nothing that you say here is relevant to the lies being spread about how this officer supposedly withdrew his firearm on the girl; how he supposedly threatened a young restrained girl with a firearm.

This stuff...it is obviously biased.

"A large group of ignorant people spreading lies that confirm their insane biases not only harms our entire democracy on levels no seen before the internet, it also leads to people getting hurt and even killed."


"The other commenters are changing the topic: Racists are fanning flames of hatred, fueling it with lies. He did NOT pull his gun on the girl, not in the least"

You didn't say that I was obviously biased, you said I had an obvious bias. Do you know my bias? Can you name it, describe it?

Semantics! Both phrases, though subtly different mean EXACTLY the same thing.

Nothing I have read said that he drew his weapon on the bikini girl...I have asked why he did not draw on the two girls that actually committed a crime against his person instead of the two boys that approached him then backed far away before running away from him WHEN HE BRANDISHED HIS WEAPON!

No, not at all. They cover some of the same territory, and you may have intended your phrase to be interpreted only within that shared territory, but the actual phrasing you used implied knowledge of a specific position. More importantly, to insist that the phrases themselves inherently mean 'the same thing' is to demonstrate a surprising lack of awareness of the relationship between language and meaning.

Now that you've demonstrated this, lets go back.

I said:



You responded by intending to claim that I am biased. How is this important?

There is an entire community out there - a very large and vibrant one - which is dedicated to projecting their own biases on events then manufacturing and promoting lies which support their false narratives.

How is the suggestion that I am simply _biased_ a relevant response to this observation?

Yes you are correct. You have not participated in that insane and dishonest propagandizing.

Why should I be interested in your question? Is there some way which the answer to your question might justify or explain the behavior of those who are manufacturing lies to support their agenda?

ok messagetrade, explain to me how the two phrases are different so I don't live the rest of my life being insulted and ashamed for my ignorance.

Let us for the sake of what we are all allowed to see via that little camera image: that the officer being able to turn his head - use all of his peripheral vision/hearing/reacted accordingly to what HE HAD EYE SIGHT ON --- while running up to the area that this young lady was! There is a prior video that shows a similar young lady in a fist fight with another young lady while 2 older women are off to the sides screaming words {inaudible}...

Sure conclusions can be drawn that this officer as well as all the supporting officers arriving on scene were shouting orders: ie., get down - every one down - or stop fighting and sit but to assume that he just for 'willy-nilly' reasoning grabbed her out of all those other's flailing around and shouting...well that's a HUGE STRETCH even for me!

And if she had just gone down and stayed there --- OMG, how different this would have all turned out!

Do as your told - don't be talk'n back {especially to officers on a respond call} and things will get sorted out when the chaos quiets down!

Pretty Dog Gone Simplistic IMHO

BTW - if we women 'RULED THE WORLD'...well what a better place we have to live in! Seems you men have had the reins quite long enough --- give it up and let it go!
WOMAN POWER ---

With all due respect 2OLD, how to determine the priority between a person reported to have been involved in a scuffle and two men that made an officer fear for his life is a pretty easy one to make.

That's why cops will leave speeders unticketed, barking dog complaints unanswered, loiterers loitering and respond to an officer in distress call.

You don't sit on a girl for being churlish when you got two men who "endagered" your life running amok.

And, once again, he DID NOT arrest, detain, point a weapon at, or otherwise enforce the law upon the two girls that grabbed and pulled his arm while he wrestled the bikini girl.

They actually, without a doubt, right there on camera, committed an enforceable criminal act!

Its not very important, but the first vowel in my name is an 'a'.





I appreciate your sarcasm. Your meaning would have also been conveyed by saying I was 'obviously biased', which is to say that there is a quality you ascribe to me, and that the claim of the existence of this quality is obviously true. You instead said I have 'an obvious bias', which is to say that there is a bias which exists and which is, itself, an obvious one. Therefore I misunderstood your actual meaning, and asked - if it such an obvious bias, exactly what that bias is. You are right that there is a potential overlap of meaning here, and you didn't mis-use language. But the first phrase doesn't speak to the bias itself (noun), only the quality you ascribe to the person (adjective). The second phrase includes the suggestion that the specific bias _itself_ is obvious, not just the condition of being biased. The two phrases can mean the same thing, but they need not mean the same thing, depending on context and intention. When people say that phrases 'mean the same thing' in situations like this, its one of my pet peeves. It tends to lead to equivocation fallacies, which is another pet peeve.


As far as the other thread of discussion, you and I are actually on different topics here. I think you would agree that it is wrong of people to go around declaring "The cop pulled a gun on a teenage girl!!" when, in fact, he did not.

Ok...so just to cut to the chase; you'll stand on side of said camera person and with your limited vision of the events - lay claim that 'OFFICER BAD' and everything else was just in error of poor judgment by teenagers 'GONE WILD'?

But - BUT...the back up officers were the ones that chased & hand cuffed the young white male that interfered and ran away --- who BTW is now explaining how he's going to do community service talks about "Doing What Your Are Told by Police Officers"! Seems his hand cuff event and his parents pressure made a lasting impression upon his actions!

Okay, you are missing what I am conveying, 2OLD.

But, yes, I do think this police officer exercised poor judgement throughout the event.

probably why he resigned, admitted he was wrong and apologized.

That's highly plausible...and yet would you agree that our VISION via that little phone camera and what that officer was hearing - seeing - reacting to; would be something that none of use 'Arm Chair Quarterbacks' would be able to judge?

That's my POINT! But I'll withdrawal and quit kicking this dead horse thread...I'm just on the side of the homeowners and that person in charge at the pool! LIABILITY --- and cost for insurance rates; propel quite a bit of my 'who's right or wrong' in this matter

I agree the cop didn't pull a gun on a girl...but since he did pull his weapon, he SHOULD have pointed it at the two girls who physically pulled on his arm, not two boys who never touched him, who backed away, and then ran away from the threat to their safety.

And I wasn't being sarcastic. You want to sidetrack things and muddy the water by insulting the intelligence of others and squabbling over minutia. I'm sure you have misspelled a word or user name before. A mere typo warrants a quote from you? And since the context was mine, I can speak to it's intent and meaning. BTW, people saying "it means the same thing" and "equivocation fallacies" means the same thing! So you just get credit for one pet peeve.

Okay, here we go...

How is it that my opinion that the police officer exercised poor judgement is construed in your mind that I believe that those kids had every right to be where they were, behave the way they did, and disregard the security officer's lawful order to vacate the property?

Ahhhhhh, did I miss that in all of your posts? Could be that I didn't HEAR/READ you stating that --- just the comments about 'poor officer judgment' ---

SORRY, guess - I ASSumed to much - HUH!!!

Oh, you're one of those.