Stupidity + Tazer = BIG Pain

Lobber · Post by **Lobber** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 2:46 am

Lothar wrote:
Lobber wrote:Lothar, why are your opinions always so wrong?
Bait?

Honest Question.

I've noticed a pattern in your opinions over the years. You are always contrary to me. Always.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 2:47 am

Lobber wrote:I've noticed a pattern in your opinions over the years. You are always contrary to me. Always.

Perhaps you should rethink your positions, then. All of them.

Lobber · Post by **Lobber** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 3:53 am

Sounds like you claim to be right all of the time. If I'm not mistaken, it is a fool who believes himself to have all of the answers.

roid · Post by **roid** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 4:48 am

you started the "you're wrong, i'm right" thing Lobber. cease and desist.

BUBBALOU · Post by **BUBBALOU** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 5:58 am

After you guys TAZE me again... hit up Lobber!!

He needs it bad...! and after that taze nuck several times!

Comply comply comply.

If that lady was nice to the police officer she might of just had her vehical towed and left on the side of the road with a ticket! in other countries she would have received a beating on the spot for that attitude then tazed or shot. that was tazing was a joke...

Yes sir, no sir, and thank you sir are the only appropriate responses to an officer. If you ask the officer his/her name and badge number because you can not read or look at them, you address them as "Mr/Ms _____". simple things go such a long way

Night-stops : turn on your interior lights before they even approach the vehical especially if you have tinted windows. This is a sign that you are aware of their procedures of unknown dangers that make be lurking in the backseat.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 7:54 am

Lobber wrote:Sounds like you claim to be right all of the time. If I'm not mistaken, it is a fool who believes himself to have all of the answers.

Most of us do.

I'm not sure it's possible to function with thinking that a majority of what we know as false and uncertain. .. unless of course you're a conspiracy theorist.

Lobber · Post by **Lobber** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 9:18 am

roid wrote:you started the "you're wrong, i'm right" thing Lobber. cease and desist.

Not exactly. I know that what I do know, is accurate, but I also know that I do not know all things, and I know that some things that I think I know I don't know accurately, or at all. I willingly admit that. Lothar doesn't appear to be doing the same.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 9:18 am

Lothar wrote:
Lobber wrote:Lothar, why are your opinions always so wrong?
Bait?

Perhaps, but I see these last couple posts as actions admitting he can't actually counter your argument (Which I thought was quite good). I would call it chase debris, stuff the person being perused throws behind him or her in the path of the pursuers in an attempt to slow them down.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 9:26 am

Lobber wrote:I am greatly disturbed by what I have seen here, and even more disturbed by the responses I've read. I think many of you would react much differently if this woman was your wife, girlfriend, or mother, or even daughter.

The police commander argued that if the officer had tried to pull her out of the vehicle, she could have hit her head and injured herself by falling, therefore the tazing was justified. However, clearly in the video the tazing caused her to fly out of her vehicle and hit the ground alot harder than if an officer were there to help her down. Therefore, his argument is fallacious.

Also, it was the first time he had used his tazer. I think he was abit over eager to try it out, and yearning to see someone like her suffer. He seemed to enjoy it too much. While I don't condone her breaking of the law, or her attitude, I don't think the police made the right decisions either.

I'm just glad I didn't witness that first hand. My initial response to seeing police brutallity is to try to come to the rescue of the woman, I guess that's just human nature.

Lobber, would you have preferred to see the officer physically remove her from the vehicle? As you heard the training officer say, they are trained not to do that if it can be avoided.

Aside from possible injury to himself or the person he is arresting, a big reason for not getting â??close and physicalâ?

Lobber · Post by **Lobber** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 10:27 am

I'm glad to see we're back on track on the topic at hand.

After reviewing the video and thinking about it some more, I do think that it was probably within the bounds of police authority to use the taser the first time. However, I believe he stepped out of bounds when he hit her a second time, seeing that she was paralized by pain. They openly admit that when a person is hit by a taser gun, they are temporarily paralized. This woman was not prepared nor expecting a 50,000 volt electrical shock, and clearly could not recover in the ten seconds they gave her to turn over. The officer definitaly jumped the gun when he hit her a second time.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 10:52 am

Clearly could not recover? I really doubt it. The entire thing smells of show, and if certain parts weren't, then she has boy-who-cried-wolf phenomenon to blame for that. I'm wary to buy into her stunt of victimization and disenfranchisement.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 1:40 pm

Lobber wrote:I'm glad to see we're back on track on the topic at hand.

HAHAHAHA!

I agree with Krom. You threw out some chaff to help you dodge my point... you couldn't admit to being wrong or being unable to counter my argument, so you went on a "you claim to be right all the time and can't admit to maybe being wrong" kick (perhaps you failed to notice the way my response mimicked yours?) When you couldn't address the point, you tried to turn the thread into a referendum on me and distract us from the topic on hand. I'm not going to bite. If you want to argue about uncertainty of knowledge with me, we can have a thread on that, but I'm not going to turn this thread into that.

My argument was real simple: I don't care who we're talking about or how much I care about them, if they treat an officer like that and ignore the warnings about being tazed, they deserve to get zapped.

It appears that, after your whole diversion, you've decided you agree -- they were within their authority to zap her, and she deserved it. Was this whole "you're always so wrong" thing cover for you not wanting to admit that I'd convinced you?

Tricord · Post by **Tricord** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 1:56 pm

Lobber wrote:Sounds like you claim to be right all of the time. If I'm not mistaken, it is a fool who believes himself to have all of the answers.

You don't know Lothar as I do. If you did, you'd realise it's no use to argue with him by means of an online forum

If you argue with him synchronously, as in a phone conversation, he is deprived of all external resources (Google, articles, quotes) and has limited response time.

But to comment Lothar's online way of argueing.. Either one agrees 100% with Lothar, or else he pushes one in the opposite opinion camp in a very much black-and-white fashion.

I'd like to close off with the paralympics online arguing picture, alas I don't have it handy.

Tom, it's nothing personal.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 2:20 pm

Lothar wrote:My argument was real simple: I don't care who we're talking about or how much I care about them, if they treat an officer like that and ignore the warnings about being tazed, they deserve to get zapped.

Hell, she was told like what...four times that she was going to get tazed? The stupid twat got what was coming to her. End of story.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 2:27 pm

I won't take the bait from Lobber, but I will from you...

Tricord wrote:If you argue with him synchronously, as in a phone conversation, he is deprived of all external resources (Google, articles, quotes) and has limited response time.

You've argued with me on the phone twice that I recall. Once, I'd managed something like 4 hours of sleep the night before. The other time, you interrupted during sex and seemed mostly interested in rehashing an old argument with my wife. Not surprisingly, I wasn't very interested in arguing either time.

But to comment Lothar's online way of argueing.. Either one agrees 100% with Lothar, or else he pushes one in the opposite opinion camp in a very much black-and-white fashion.

In other words, you don't pay enough attention to what I write to notice that, for example, I often have subtle disagreements with my wife. I'll often agree with others on 4 or 5 points and disagree on only one, and I'll often be convinced on one or two of a large list of points. If you find yourself thinking I'm "black and white" online all the time, it means you're not paying attention.

That's not to say I'm never "black and white" -- for example, when you wanted to argue about n-sided polygons as n approached infinity, that was a pretty black-and-white situation. But chances are, if you think I'm always black-and-white, it's because you haven't argued with me on enough different topics or because you yourself are being dogmatic. (Most people here have been in some gray area with me on some topic at least once... ask around.)

Let me revisit this:

he is deprived of all external resources (Google, articles, quotes) and has limited response time.

How is that relevant to this thread, in particular, in relation to my argument with Lobber? I used google in response to Canuck in order to provide additional support for a point I didn't need google to make. But I didn't touch any outside resource in what I said to Lobber -- that was all a common sense argument.

What external resource was I using when I said I wouldn't react any differently if it was someone close to me getting zapped? What external resource was I using when I said the officers made the right decisions? When (aside from my sarcastic reply to Lobber's bait / dodge / whatever it was) did I claim I was 100% right?

(What's sad is, you'll probably take this response as evidence that I'm always "black and white", because I dare challenge you!)

Tricord · Post by **Tricord** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 2:48 pm

Well.. For one thing, I've learned not to care..

For instance, not answering the goddamn phone when having sex. Nice imagination you have though. Or did you get that from Google as well?

Anyway, back to our own devices...

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 2:51 pm

Uh, what?

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 5:01 pm

Speaking of a big pain, has anybody tried reading this thread recently?