As a general rule, anyone who proclaims themselves to be a hero, very likely isn't. Anyone who claims that they showed utmost courage, very likely didn't. Anyone who seeks praise for things they (or a group they are a part of) have done, likely hasn't done as much as they'd like you to think.
Pride is addictive.
56 comments:
Perhaps. But then, is it also true that anyone who continually denigrates and criticizes and attacks those who are fighting for the right and for Justice and against oppression is, of course, a larger part of the problem?
For my part, I am quite proud of the work done by social workers, protesters, activists and organizers who've been fighting for justice and think it's a reasonable thing to be proud of... it's the good work that all good people should be part of. Praising that work is a rational thing, it seems to me.
It's not the sort of harmful self- pride of, "look at me! I'm a good person!"
It's the pride of good work done well. I wish that more people would take pride in their work, especially when it's good and important work.
Do you think otherwise?
From BillyGraham.org...
"It’s not necessarily wrong to take pride in something we’ve done well. This kind of pride isn’t boastful or self-centered, but is a feeling of satisfaction over what we’ve accomplished. The writer of Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament declared, “Nothing is better than that a man should rejoice in his own works” (Ecclesiastes 3:22, NKJV).
But sinful pride—the kind the Bible condemns—is far different. Sinful pride is self-centered and boastful, and makes us take credit for everything we are and everything we do."
One must acknowledge the difficulty in speaking of one's own deeds or accomplishments in a humble manner...so I don't try. I'm outstanding!
Craig... "Anyone who seeks praise for things they (or a group they are a part of) have done, likely hasn't done as much as they'd like you to think.
Pride is addictive."
Just curious: When a person - say a conservative church member - says to someone who's denigrating churches as country clubs that do no real good in the world, "You know, my church has a clothes closet that is open to those in need and we have a certified therapist on staff with a sliding scale to give counsel to those who'd like it... I think churches have and continue to make a meaningful impact in the world..." Do you think THAT is a negative, corrosive "pride," somehow?
If so, I'd disagree.
"Do you think THAT is a negative, corrosive "pride," somehow?"
No, simply stating facts doesn't seem to be an issue of pride as much as accuracy. Pride comes in when someone is actively seeking credit, praise, or aggrandizing themselves.
"Sinful pride is self-centered and boastful, and makes us take credit for everything we are and everything we do."
1. I'm not sure that something is True just because Billy Graham said it.
2. I was pretty specifically referring to just this type of pride.
3. It's always interesting when you treat sin as something to be used to make a point.
"But then, is it also true that anyone who continually denigrates and criticizes and attacks those who are fighting for the right and for Justice and against oppression is, of course, a larger part of the problem?"
Perhaps, but I'm unaware of anyone who's "continually denigrating" every single type of "fighting for Justice...". Seems like another straw man.
"For my part, I am quite proud of the work done by social workers, protesters, activists and organizers who've been fighting for justice and think it's a reasonable thing to be proud of... it's the good work that all good people should be part of."
Yes, you've made it quite clear that you are proud of (and want praise for) the work of others. If this sort of pride makes you feel superior or fulfilled or accomplished, then you own your pride.
"Praising that work is a rational thing, it seems to me. It's not the sort of harmful self- pride of, "look at me! I'm a good person!" It's the pride of good work done well. I wish that more people would take pride in their work, especially when it's good and important work."
Seeking praise, no matter how "good" the work seems to go against the very words of Jesus. I think he said something about doing good works in secret and keeping the left hand from knowing what the right hand was doing. But, again, if you feel superior, or fulfilled, or accomplished by seeking praise, then don't let me stop you.
"Do you think otherwise?"
I think that humility, is a better posture than pride. I think that seeking praise or trumpeting one's "good works", simply draws attention to the one who does the "good works", not to the works or those who've been helped.
It's why I've spent so little time talking about "good works" I've been involved with.
Craig... "Seeking praise, no matter how "good" the work seems to go against the very words of Jesus."
Good rule of thumb IF and when the purpose is merely seeking vain praise. But then there are people and situations where talking about good work for other reasons is done. That's all I'm saying.
I guess, I'm wondering what possible reason could have for seeking "praise" or aggrandizing themselves that isn't about seeking "praise".
?? You can't imagine a reason to talk about good work that is being done? Are you serious?
To promote good work.
To promote good policy.
To promote healthy living.
To promote strong community.
To encourage healthy identities.
To strengthen communities.
To encourage the down trodden.
To give hope to the hopeless.
How many reasons do you need?
Maybe it would help if you gave an example. Who specifically is seeking praise?? Give an example.
"You can't imagine a reason to talk about good work that is being done? Are you serious?"
Once again, you choose to invent a "position" out of thin air, act as if it's my "position", then attack the straw man. Where have I specifically said anything close to what you claim?
"Who specifically is seeking praise?? Give an example."
Well, if you'd been paying attention to what I wrote, and to NBC news interviews (and the extensive coverage thereof), you could have probably figured it out yourself. How about you try really hard, then if you can't figure it out, I'll spoon feed it to you.
What you wrote... "As a general rule, anyone who proclaims themselves to be a hero, very likely isn't. Anyone who claims that they showed utmost courage, very likely didn't."
I have no idea what this vague generalized obtuse attack is talking about. I pay attention to the news and I have no idea what you're talking about.
This is a childish and passive aggressive Wway to pretend to communicate. Say what you mean to say. Grow up.
Dan,
I'm sorry if you'd prefer that I do things in the way that is best for you, and that you feel the need to resort to ad hom type shots as your reaction.
The reality is that my post is not vague, I literally quoted (without "") the words of someone who was the subject of a high profile, widely distributed, and well documented, interview on the NBC nightly news.
It's strange that Art managed to figure it out, yet you are unable/unwilling to do do.
Your attitude leads me to conclude that I should not spoon feed you the information that you are ignorant of. I see no reason to encourage your incivility by doing your bidding.
Craig... "I'm sorry if you'd prefer that I do things in the way that is best for you..."
Just to point out the obvious, and then I'm done...
1. I never said anything about doing things the way I prefer them doing. This has nothing to do with me and everything to do with communication.
2. There is absolutely nothing in your post this suggests that you're quoting someone. There's nothing in your post that suggests you're referencing some other story. There just isn't. Do you recognize that reality?
3. I googled some of your words and came up with no hits. So your claim - after the fact - that it's from some news story doesn't help either if the words don't bring up a source.
4. So my point is that this way of communicating by making a vague criticism that is referencing some unknown source is just an irrational way to try to communicate, if communication is your goal. If you just want to make cryptic vague milquetoast comments that mean nothing out of context, have at it.
I think communication is more important than that.
Wow. By adding in NBC news and selecting the right words I was able to find the store you're talking about.
Wow.
You finally found it within yourself to criticize a policeman involved in a shooting and the one you land on is a black man who helped stop the capital rioters.
Wow.
I'm guessing the reason that you and Marshall are aware of this story is that this is probably some story that's being hyped in conservative circles and this black officer is being attacked by white conservatives who are defending Trump's insurrection attempt. Shame on you.
We see.
From NBC...
"Byrd, who is Black, the incident turned his life upside down. He has been in hiding for months after he received a flood of death threats and racist attacks that started when his name leaked onto right-wing websites."
We see. Shame on you. But but if it gives you any comfort, the KKK no doubt supports your position.
So, back to the point of your post...
you.
You are the reason why sometimes it is appropriate to point out the heroism of a group of people. People like you and the KKK and right wing insurrectionists who would overthrow our nation. You are the reason why it is important to point out what people are trying just to do a good job.
Are you one of these sick individuals who think that Babbitt was a martyr to some noble cause? To some "noble lost cause?"
Craig... "Your attitude leads me to conclude that I should not spoon feed you the information that you are ignorant of. I see no reason to encourage your incivility by doing your bidding."
My "attitude..."? You reluctant to concede that there are things to be proud of, you appear to be talking about an unknown quote about some specific situation that your post IN NO WAY suggests or links to or refers to and when I make a request for an example, instead of complying like a rational person would, you suggest I am deficient for not noticing your reference in your post which makes NO suggestion that it is referencing something.
What attitude precisely am I projecting? Expecting rational discussion about clear topics and politely asking for a specific example while being attacked for not somehow intuiting your vague and non-specific post is referencing some specific instance?
Do you even understand how your attitude comes across? I'm being incivil by asking for an example and not recognizing your vague reference?
Craig... "It's strange that Art managed to figure it out..."
? Marshal has made precisely ONE comment here...
"One must acknowledge the difficulty in speaking of one's own deeds or accomplishments in a humble manner...so I don't try. I'm outstanding"
There's no indication that he recognizes your vague story reference. What are you talking about?
"Just to point out the obvious, and then I'm done..."
By "done" you clearly mean 4 bullet points and 5-6 additional comments.
1. Yet you constantly bitch about how I choose to write posts on my blog. Posts that other people don't seem to have nearly as much trouble understanding as you do. Maybe, my style isn't the problem. Of course, when you assume that it's about you, that might be a problem as well.
2. Yes, I chose not to make things quite as clear as you would have preferred. My blog, my post, my choice.
3. Not my problem.
4. Again, your like or dislike of the way I choose to write occasional posts isn't really my concern. I think that it's interesting that your initial choice when confronted with a post like this is to make assumptions, and respond based on your assumptions, rather than to simply ask for clarification before you go off.
"You finally found it within yourself to criticize a policeman involved in a shooting"
The above is a 100% false statement.
"and the one you land on is a black man who helped stop the capital rioters."
This bullshit is simply the fruit of the tree of falsehood above.
I did criticize a policemen who admitted that he shot an unarmed women and that he didn't know or care if she was armed. (But not for that) I did criticize a policemen for administering the death penalty for a misdemeanor. (But not for that) I did not, although I could, criticize that Capitol Police for doing a shitty job of investigating this shooting.
What I did criticize this cop for is the fact that he chose self aggrandizement, pride, and hubris as his public stance.
"I'm guessing the reason that you and Marshall are aware of this story is that this is probably some story that's being hyped in conservative circles and this black officer is being attacked by white conservatives who are defending Trump's insurrection attempt. Shame on you. We see."
While I can't speak for Art, I can say that the racial dynamic had absolutely nothing to do with my criticism of his self aggrandizing, prideful public statements.
Of course, if I was to look at the racial dynamic, I'd spend more time looking at the virtual silence on the left when it's a black cop killing a white victim.
"We see. Shame on you. But but if it gives you any comfort, the KKK no doubt supports your position."
If you're going to make these sorts of bullshit false claims, then at least have the balls to provide proof.
"So, back to the point of your post... you. You are the reason why sometimes it is appropriate to point out the heroism of a group of people. People like you and the KKK and right wing insurrectionists who would overthrow our nation. You are the reason why it is important to point out what people are trying just to do a good job."
Let me know when you decide to actually get "back to the point of my post".
BTW, how many of the 1/6 rioters have been charged with or convicted of "insurrection"?
"Are you one of these sick individuals who think that Babbitt was a martyr to some noble cause? To some "noble lost cause?""
Nope, I think that she was someone who should have been arrested and tired for the same sorts of misdemeanors that the rest of the 1/6 rioters were charged with, tried, and fulfilled her sentence if convicted. I don't think that she should have been shot, as an unarmed rioter who was not in a position to harm anyone.
"Are you one of these sick individuals who think that Babbitt was a martyr to some noble cause? To some "noble lost cause?""
No. She was a misguided victim of an incompetent cop who shot her for no legitimate reason as if she was an actual threat to anyone or anything. Like the actual thugs Dan has defended as being hapless innocents murdered by racist cops, I've stated that she was no different in the sense her actions brought about her own demise. But that's not the issue when trying to make sense of why this cop was not immediately identified for public consumption like all the other cops involved in justified shootings of thugs resisting arrest.
By the way, I was not aware of the specific story Craig was referencing by his post. My response was to the principle he was addressing. Seemed rather obvious and the actual story of this cop not as relevant by comparison. His was only an example of the principle.
Art,
My bad, I thought you made the connection. However, you did actually get the point of the post (that pride is addictive)
Had this post been about the actions on 1/6, I would have pointed out the double standard in identifying every other high profile cop who shot someone of another race. I'd have pointed out that every single cop who's been outed has had their lives made miserable by all sorts of people. This one cop isn't and shouldn't be immune.
Further, I would have pointed out the fact (unlike the Floyd killing) that the policies and procedures of the Capitol police haven't been investigated. The fact that the cop's actions violate the vague and undetailed procedures that the capitol still don't justify the shooting, would have been mentioned. Finally, I would have discussed the fact that the cop admitted that he wasn't in any imminent danger from Babbitt and the hypocrisy of crucifying the Louisville cops for shooting when they weren't in danger, but supporting this guy for the same thing. The reality is that the Cap cop and the Cap police dept have gotten a pass on this whole incident, and aren't being held to the same standards as other cops/departments.
Clearly giving a black cop a pass (even lauding he's heroism) for shooting an unarmed white woman, seems to be based entirely on the races of the tow people.
But that's not racist at all.
This black cop killing someone in the midst of a violent attempt to get into the Capitol to disrupt a legal election isn't being investigated like the Floyd case BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A HISTORY OF BLACK PEOPLE OPPRESSING WHITE PEOPLE OR BLACK COPS RANDOMLY HARASSING WHITE PEOPLE.
The context of our history is what you appear to be blind to, perhaps (probably) because of your white privilege leading to a white blindness to the real history of oppression in our nation.
Come on. Open your eyes and ears. Watch. Listen.
Well, it's the race of the two and certainly the politics of the one...the dead chick. The double standard of the left is blatantly obvious once again.
"This black cop killing someone in the midst of a violent attempt to get into the Capitol to disrupt a legal election isn't being investigated like the Floyd case BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A HISTORY OF BLACK PEOPLE OPPRESSING WHITE PEOPLE OR BLACK COPS RANDOMLY HARASSING WHITE PEOPLE. The context of our history is what you appear to be blind to, perhaps (probably) because of your white privilege leading to a white blindness to the real history of oppression in our nation. Come on. Open your eyes and ears. Watch. Listen."
Interesting, if technically racist take. I guess the killing of an unarmed, non life threatening, protester just doesn't deserve a full investigation if she's white and the killer is black. For absolutely no reason other than the skin color of the two people involved. I guess you'll continue to accept these killings until black cops kill enough white people to even the score.
This is what happens when you inject race into everything, you ignore the fact that Babbitt was a US Citizen who was killed unjustly by a cop who admitted that she posed no specific, direct danger to him or those he was "protecting". The fact that the cop failed to follow the CP guidelines (such as they are) for use of force is immaterial, because he was a black guy killing an unarmed white woman.
Again, this fails to be on the actual topic (I've indulged your bullshit, and will continue to post your comments).
The reality is that this cop is proud of himself for killing this unarmed white woman, and is actively seeking praise and aggrandizing himself. But that doesn't seem to bother you because there aren't enough unarmed white folks killed by black cops yet.
Craig... " I guess the killing of an unarmed, non life threatening, protester just doesn't deserve a full investigation if she's white and the killer is black."
It WAS investigated. WE ALL SAW HER being a part of a crowd attacking and threatening the Capitol. Maybe you missed it?
Context matters. And it's NOT racist to point out the reality of our racist history.
Good Lord have mercy on you.
The cop is rightly proud for defending the capitol from a group of violent "protesters" trying to disrupt a legal election.
Why today's "conservatives" are ignoring what we all saw is part of the problem with modern "conservatism." Open your eyes.
Craig... "...just doesn't deserve a full investigation if she's white and the killer is black."
Reality... "The U.S. Capitol Police said Monday that the officer who fatally shot a California woman during the January 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol acted lawfully and within the department's policy,
concluding an internal investigation
into the shooting that occurred outside the House of Representatives."
There WAS an investigation and they found no wrong-doing. Certainly no suggestion of racism.
There WAS a riot
BY Trump supporters
that WAS violent and
POSED a threat
the rioters WERE trying to
VIOLENTLY break into the Capitol
to DISRUPT a legal election
because THEY BELIEVED
Trump's stupidly FALSE CLAIMS that
the election was being stolen.
These rioters DID cause harm to cops and others
and the police DID NOT KNOW what would happen if they made it inside
because they WERE acting violently.
We saw it all with our own eyes.
And yet you want to condemn a black cop for killing a white protester while committing crimes in a crowd of violent rioters.
More from the story...
"The department said the officer and the officer's family have faced "numerous credible and specific threats" for their actions. The Capitol Police interviewed multiple witnesses and reviewed "all available evidence," including video and radio calls, as part of its probe, it said in its statement."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/january-6-capitol-riot-ashli-babbitt-shooting-officer-acted-lawfully/
This cop and others are facing threats because of people like you suggesting that this cop has something to be ashamed of for shooting a criminal protester in the midst of a violent rioting crowd of Trump supporters trying to disrupt an election.
What the hell is wrong with modern conservatives?
And we demand more robust investigations when cops kill black people because our nation has a history of white cops killing black citizens. It's a real and shameful part of our history.
You want someone to display some shame? How about saying we all should be ashamed of the racist violence in our history, especially in our police and justice departments.
Do you even acknowledge the reality of the violence against black folks perpetrated by the justice and policing systems?
Two more mostly off topic comments by Dan lauding (or at least justifying the killing of an unarmed women, who posed not direct threat to the officer) based purely on their skin color.
Because, or course, it's OK for black cops to kill unarmed, white folks who might be guilty of a misdemeanor, who posed no threat to the officer, because some white cops have wrongly killed black people in the past.
One more off topic comment, which includes bullshit laden false claims and ad hom attacks.
"God have mercy on your partisan-blind, racism-defending soul."
Either provide proof of this claim, apologize for it, or stop commenting. It's your choice, but you making these unfounded, false, defamatory, ad hom attacks, will not be tolerated any further.
As far as the proof text that's unrelated to anything I've actually said or written, I'll simply ignore your use of scripture as a weapon.
I'll simply note that you failed to even attempt to provide the kind of contemporaneous evidence that might have given your hunch some support, choosing the tactic of false witness instead.
You'll have to forgive Dan. He's totally given over to lies and idiocy and can't help himself. What we see regarding the Jan 6 incident is not white-washed by us at all, but viewed objectively for what it actually was. Dan likely dismisses the fact that no evidence has been found to show it was a coordinated assault, but rather no more than a couple hundred people who went too far in seeking redress for a stolen election.
Double standards are essential to those like Dan. We see in this situation the polar opposite, a photographic negative as it were, of cases like that of Derrick Chauvin. Legitimate evidence exonerating him of the charges were ignored, because white cop/black dead guy. Legitimate evidence of guilt regarding this black cop's actions were ignored, because black cop/dead Trump supporter.
There's also the fact that unarmed white guys are killed by cops at least as often as are black dudes, and that black cops are more likely to shoot black suspects than are white cops.
But Dan's a racist accusing others of racism, because that's what today's racists do.
ACraig... "Either provide proof of this claim, apologize for it, or stop commenting."
Prove reality? Gladly. Although, to one who is blinded by partisanship or allegiance to an ideology, it's not likely you will see it. Here are the facts that, put together, demonstrate that you're failing to see reality...
1. This woman was part of a mob that was acting in violent ways and illegally breaking into the capital.
Correct?
2. This violent, rioting mob had already harmed large numbers of cops.
Right?
3. Being a part of a criminal violent mob literally breaking windows and busting down doors, the cops on hand had no way of knowing they (nor the people they were protecting) were safe from this mob.
4. In THAT context, this cop shot ONE of these assailants.
Right?
5. There is ZERO evidence that this woman's race played ANY role in her being shot.
Right?
6. Here is an account of the criminal mom's actions leading up to her shooting...
"Members of Congress can be seen on the other side of the door. Also on the other side of the door is a police lieutenant holding a gun, pointing it at the mob, an unmistakable warning to stay back.
But Babbitt decides instead — although it’s a little hard to see on the video — to climb through the shattered glass window into the Speaker’s Lobby, past the police barricade, toward the pointed gun. If she is allowed through, it seems inevitable that the mob will follow.
As she climbs through, a single shot is fired and she drops to the floor."
What would YOU prefer the cop do? Let in a violent mob?
There is no evidence that the police that day were doing anything other than their job.
Right? You suggest from your ivory palace that the cop should have just arrested her... but what of the rest of the violent mob? Should he have just said to the bloodthirsty rioters, "all rights then, you're under arrest. Come with me..."
You saw those deadly zealots. Do you seriously think they would have cooperated?
If so, that is just evidence of your blindness.
Before I respond, I'll point out that there is no actual proof of the claim you made, nor an apology for the false claim.
"1. This woman was part of a mob that was acting in violent ways and illegally breaking into the capital. Correct?"
At the time she was shot she was "breaking in" to the Capitol, but was not acting violently or presenting a threat to the officer or anyone else.
"2. This violent, rioting mob had already harmed large numbers of cops. Right?"
Not as far as I've seen. The only cop harmed that I've heard about was killed, but not by the protesters. The false media narrative was that he'd been beaten with a fire extinguisher, but that was proven false after investigation. Perhaps you'd provide proof of your claim. FYI, whatever the number of cops "harmed", it was significantly lower than the BLM riots of last summer.
"3. Being a part of a criminal violent mob literally breaking windows and busting down doors, the cops on hand had no way of knowing they (nor the people they were protecting) were safe from this mob."
If only you'd apply this bizarre logic to all of the BLM riots from 2020. The problem with this narrative is that the cop was quite clear that this particular woman was not a direct threat, nor was she visibly armed when he killed her. I guess if they'd been burning and looting, they'd get a pass, right? It seems as if you are suggesting that it is reasonable for a cop to kill an unarmed woman if he feels like he's not "safe", or if others are not "safe". Are you suggesting that this standard be applied to ALL police shootings?
"4. In THAT context, this cop shot ONE of these assailants. Right?"
Who was she "assailing"? The cop testified and stated in the interview that he wasn't in direct danger from this unarmed woman. Are you suggesting that it's OK to shoot "ONE" protester "pour encourager les autres"?
"5. There is ZERO evidence that this woman's race played ANY role in her being shot. Right?"
I have no idea, you are the one who's introducing the races of the two people involved. My post is about pride and self aggrandizement.
"6. Here is an account of the criminal mom's actions leading up to her shooting... "Members of Congress can be seen on the other side of the door. Also on the other side of the door is a police lieutenant holding a gun, pointing it at the mob, an unmistakable warning to stay back. But Babbitt decides instead — although it’s a little hard to see on the video — to climb through the shattered glass window into the Speaker’s Lobby, past the police barricade, toward the pointed gun. If she is allowed through, it seems inevitable that the mob will follow. As she climbs through, a single shot is fired and she drops to the floor." What would YOU prefer the cop do?"
We could start with, doing what every other cop that day did. If it was appropriate to shoot this "ONE" protester, why not shoot them all? Or why not shoot more to be "safe"? The reality is that she's likely committing a misdemeanor, what misdemeanor is punishable by death?
"Let in a violent mob?"
The protesters were already in. Are you suggesting that all police should shoot unarmed protesters as opposed to allowing a violent mob to run rampant?
"There is no evidence that the police that day were doing anything other than their job. Right?"
Are you suggesting that the job of the cop was to shoot unarmed protesters who didn't actually pose a direct threat to them? Given the ambiguous nature of the CP use of forec guidelines, we really can't accurately judge.
"You suggest from your ivory palace that the cop should have just arrested her... but what of the rest of the violent mob?"
No. This is one more false statement. Please provide proof immediately.
"Should he have just said to the bloodthirsty rioters, "all rights then, you're under arrest. Come with me..." You saw those deadly zealots. Do you seriously think they would have cooperated?"
!. How many people did the protesters injure to the point of spilling blood?
2. How many people did the protesters kill?
3. When you shoot first, we'll never know what the unarmed woman would have done.
4. The protesters left the capitol voluntarily.
"If so, that is just evidence of your blindness."
No it isn't.
It's amusing to see how vehemently you argue in favor of this black cop shooting an unarmed, white protester using the exact same arguments that you dismissed when talking about other police shootings.
Either prove your claims or apologize, if you want your other comments to leave moderation.
"Prove reality? Gladly."
Except you didn't.
"Although, to one who is blinded by partisanship or allegiance to an ideology, it's not likely you will see it."
Pray tell, what specific ideology do I have allegiance to? What political party am I blinded by?
"Here are the facts that, put together, demonstrate that you're failing to see reality..."
Strangely enough, all of your "facts" were connected to questions regarding their accuracy. None of your "facts" actually came with a citation or proof.
Again, prove your false claims, retract them, and apologize for your lies.
I do love the fact that you inserted your little disclaimer to try to set it up so that my disagreement with you actually "proves" your lies to be True.
Impressive bullshit.
Again, until you prove your initial false claim, as well as the second false claim, your other comments will stay in moderation.
I'll simply point out, again, that in all the other cases you mentioned, that my response was to wait for the facts and the full investigation, before jumping to conclusions. Your problem in this case is that you've assumed that my post is about something that it is not about. My post is about pride and self aggrandizement, and nothing else. It's not about the details of this killing, it's about a cop taking pride in killing an unarmed woman who posed no direct threat to him or anyone else.
Everything else in the comment thread is stuff you introduced as a way to divert attention from the topic.
Just out of curiosity, can you cite or quote the specific section of the CP ROE that justifies killing an unarmed, defenseless, person who was not an immanent threat to anyone at the time she was killed?
Are you really suggesting that cops should be preemptively killing unarmed people who are not an immanent threat to prevent them from possibly doing something in the future?
How many of the 1/6 protesters have been charged with/convicted of insurrection?
If insurrection is a "violent uprising against an authority or government" then wouldn't damage to or destruction of ANY government building constitute an insurrection?
If you answer these questions simply and directly, I will not keep those answers in moderation pending your proof of your false claims and/or apology for your lies.
Actually, there's plenty of witness testimony suggesting cops "drew first blood". One area where protesters were outside the building basically marching about, cops rushed them and began pushing them around, throwing tear gas canisters and by the testimonies, kids were present with their parents.
Another I just about concerned the death of another woman originally attributed to a drug overdoes. There apparently is some form of tunnel, if I have the story right, wherein protesters began to enter and in doing so confronted other CP cops and DC cops as well. Some other form of spray was used against the protesters that wasn't mace or tear gas, and according to one victim of it, it had an immediate effect on breathing and coordination. The victim was helped up, and saw the woman also fall prey to this substance the cops were using (SIDEBAR: I'm going to stick my neck out and presume the Capitol cops may be in possession of substances not normally used by typical police in riot situations, but have this in the event of a REAL assault against Congressional members). The woman fell to the ground, became motionless almost immediately and began bleeding from the nose. A man trying to render CPR suffered beatings by the cops. The cops eventually picked up the woman and took her inside to, I think the article said it was, Steny Hoyer's office.
So Dan simply repeats what his cherished holy reporters from CNN and MSNBC (or Daily Koz, for all I know) have told him and he buys it because the people acting badly are pissed about the stolen election...another event about which Dan has nothing to offer but what he is told by the very people who stole it.
You just know you won't get good faith discourse from the likes of Dan Trabue.
More comments, more bullshit, still no acknowledgement of the falsehoods, apology, or proof of any claims. Therefore, more moderation.
It seems that the problem is conflating one's hunches with Truth.
"The ROE allows for the use of deadly force in the case of an eminent threat. As I have now shown you, there was eminent threat from the violent mob."
Interesting dilemma, should I believe Dan or should I believe the shooter? In the NBC interview the cop was pretty clear that Babbitt was not an "eminant" threat, and the he had absolutely no idea if she was armed.
Since you didn't actually answer the question as asked, I'll try again.
"If insurrection is a "violent uprising against an authority or government" then wouldn't damage to or destruction of ANY government building constitute an insurrection?"
To be clear, I'm talking about actual, significant damage to (or concerted attempts to damage or destroy) any government building. I'm not talking about a fire in a trash can, nice attempt to change the subject.
"But if you're not aware of the violence committed by the insurrectionist on that day, there's something going on.."
Who said I was unaware of the "violence" that happened on 1/6?
" At least part the problem appears that you are entirely unaware of the facts about the great harm done by the insurrectionists breaking into the capitol on insurrection day."
Again, who said I was unaware of what happened on 1/6? I think that your problem is that in your desperate attempt to divert from the actual topic of the post you are substituting your prejudice driven hunches and assumptions for actual facts.
"So, you're concerned about cops being too lose with the deadly force and that is why you posted about the black cop who killed a white lady who was part of a violent mob in the midst of illegally storming the Capitol..."
No, I posted about a person (who happened to be a black cop) who appears to be consumed with pride, self aggrandizement, and self promotion, as an example of how corrosive pride can be.
" How about the black man killed for driving while black and pointing out he had a legally owned gun in the car with him?"
I've written and commented plenty about Castillo.
"How about the black woman killed for being in her bed when they stormed her house?"
You mean the one who's drug dealer boyfriend shot at police?
"How about the black man killed for "illegally selling single cigarettes..."?"
Let's leave out resisting arrest.
"(I know it's much worse than storming the Capitol with a deadly mob, so surely you wrote about police overreach in that case...?)"
Again, I've written about this, and I've not even hinted at the false claim you're making.
"How about the black man killed by the cops for passing on a fake $20?"
Again, you left out resisting arrest and illegal drug use.
"How about the 12 year old black boy killed by cops for playing with a toy gun?? Castile, Taylor, Garner, Floyd, Rice. Say their names. Or don't."
The problems with this pathetic attempt to change the subject are twofold.
1. I've written, or commented about all of these, at the times they happened. In all of those cases I advocated allowing the process to play out before jumping to conclusions, and was critical of the cops when appropriate. This is what happens when you give in to your preconceptions and prejudices and let those drive you to make assumptions that aren't true.
"Instead wait until it's a black cop killing a white woman for illegally storming the capitol as part of a violent rioting mob. We see."
Again, that's not the topic of the post.
But, it is hilarious to see you so fanatically advocating in favor of the cop who shot an unarmed woman who posed no direct threat to him. I guess the idea of holding all cops to the same standard regardless of skin color doesn't seem reasonable to you.
FYI, you left out the black, Muslim cop who shot an unarmed white woman with absolutely zero provocation, while simultaneously endangering his partner.
"I seriously want to know, do you have any idea how bad that makes you look to call that self defense prideful and wrong? To suggest that he was not being a hero that day?"
1. These aren't questions.
2. The cop was very clear that Babbitt was not a treat to him, and that he had absolutely no idea if she was armed or not.
3. My issue is with him being the one to insist that he was a "hero" and that he "saved lives" that day. My problem is with self aggrandizement and self promotion. It's telling that no one else is saying those sorts of things about him.
But, anything to change the subject.
"I'm also curious, what lies precisely do you think I've passed on?"
I've clearly pointed them out, maybe I'm not the one who's blind?
"If it's the case that you think I lied by saying you had a partisan blindness, and if it's the case that you literally did not know that the insurrectionist or the mob that day were a violent mob the cause actual harm to actual people, is that not a sign of blindness?"
The problem with this bit of self justification is that you are treating the "if"s as if they were facts. That you are treating your biased, prejudiced assumptions as if they were True, then using those assumptions to launch false attacks directed at me.
The reality is that you did "lie" or bear false witness, or whatever and you're just trying to come up with excuses to avoid an acknowledgement and an apology.
Again,, your rabid defense of cops shooting unarmed women is quite strange.
Had he exhausted any and all non violent means to restrain her? If he was afraid of the "violent mob", why just shoot ONE protester? Why shoot before she actually posed a direct immanent threat? It's almost like you're acknowledging that it's possible that cops might not make the best judgements when they are under stress and that it might be wise to give cops a little benefit of the doubt before piling on.
To be clear, I have NOT addressed the actual shooting and it's appropriateness beyond pointing out the facts that the cop admitted.
10 more comments, so far no apology. But more false claims.
"you racists-defending piece of shit."
The fact that my auto correct changed Castile to Castillo doesn't even begin to justify this lying bullshit. Further, I've referenced Philando multiple times in various comments and posts at various places. The depths of lies you will go to is quite impressive. Too bad it doesn't involve acting like Jesus or embracing grace.
If you really want to play this game with typos and auto correct, I'll be glad to point out the numerous instances where you do it.
"WE SEE the racists you are defending and aligning yourself with."
Do you have a multiple personality disorder, or do you think that pretending to speak for more than just yourself actually helps you? If you can't point to specifics,then stop with the bullshit false claims.
"The facts are that you NEVER ONCE condemned police violence UNTIL it was a black cop shooting a white woman who was leading a violent mob in what rational people recognize as a violent insurrection. We see."
If you are going to make these absurd and outlandish (false) claims, yet can't prove them to be true, what the hell are you and the mouse in your pocket trying to accomplish?
Still wading through the piles of bullshit, still no apology, acknowledgement of the false claims, no proof of any of the claims, no answer to the question about insurrection as it was asked (just excuses as to why you're too ignorant to even attempt an answer), and more bullshit.
"I have been answering questions from you that you are not recognizing how they are directly answering your questions. And yet, when I ask you reasonable questions, you just ignore them."
1. Since your comments are in moderation due to your inability to prove your claims, or to acknowledge that your claims are false and apologize, I am not parsing and answering all of your questions as I normally do.
2. The "questions" that provoked the above rant were posed by you, and were not actually questions. They were statements with a "?" added to the end.
3. I could, as I've done before, make a list of the questions you haven't answered, but it would be as waste of my time.
"We see."
Which one of your multiple personalities is this?
"No, you are the coward who called this man a coward and not a hero for recognizing the reality of his role that day."
No, this is false.
"Your children and their children will rise up and call you and others who defended this vile attack on our free republic,..."
Since I haven't defended this protest, this is simply one more false claim that you can't prove to be True.
Finished wading through the 10 new comments, nothing new, no proof of any claims, more lies and bullshit.
Even without the obsessive insistence that Dan speaks for some unseen multitude, whether it's multiple personality disorder, or that he thinks that the voices in his head represent real people, we're watching an example of one of the classic definitions of insanity in action. We're watching someone do the same thing over and over, while appearing to expect different results.
Unfortunately, in the absence of actual objective proof that Dan's multiple claims about me are objectively True, or an acknowledgement that he can't prove his false claims and an apology, his comments will languish in moderation and I'll deal with the bits and pieces that I choose. It's possible that Dan is confused by the request that he prove his claims, but he insists that he's pretty smart, so I don't think it's confusion.
Are you talking about the same Dan...last name, Trabue...who deletes comments for not responding in the precise manner he demands? THAT Dan? THAT Dan won't respond in the manner YOU request? I can't believe he won't do for you what he expects...no, DEMANDS...of others.
Art,
That's something I've been pointing out for years. He demands a standard of behavior from others that he doesn't apply to himself. He demands that others prove their claims, while he doesn't bother to prove his. He demands answers, but doesn't answer.
I asked him if the attacking/destruction of any government building would be considered an insurrection, and he's hiding behind the "I'm not a lawyer" excuse. As if he hasn't made all sorts of legal type pronouncements over the years. The question is simple and doesn't require any legal expertise. If the destruction or attack on a government building fits the dictionary definition or does not fit the dictionary definition. But, still no answer, just evasion.
Apparently Dan is confused by the question he's been dodging.
The question was approximately, "Based on the definition of the word insurrection as an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government, would the destruction of government buildings be considered an insurrection?".
Dan has used the "I'm not a lawyer, because insurrection is a specific legal term" excuse, and the "burning a trash can outside a government building" excuse to avoid the simple direct question as asked.
Of course, in the absence of proof of claims, apologies, answers, and the like, his comments are still in moderation.
I guess that Dan feels like adding a third non-answer to his repertoire will somehow help the situation.
I've had the suspicion before that I've asked Dan questions that (if he answers honestly) will cause him difficulties. Given the amount of effort he's putting into avoiding the answer, I suspect that this is one of those situations.
Obviously, I could be wrong, but I guess we'll see. I fail to see how difficult it is to compare that act of engaging in physical destruction on a building belonging to a governing entity (not a trash can, that's just a bullshit straw man), with the actual dictionary definition of insurrection. But, clearly it's much more complex than it appears.
Insurrection: act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government.
Circumstances matter. In the case of protesters protesting police brutality who damage or even destroy a building, their intent is not to overthrow the government. Their intent is protesting Police brutality.
In the case of little tyrannical man boys who had their feelings hurt because their candidate lost the election who tried to intervene and disrupt the election process and damage a building and cause harm to cops in the process, that sounds much closer to open rebellion against the government.
And that is why circumstances matter.
5 more comments, not one of them answers the question as asked. Multiple excuses, ad hom attacks, more bullshit, but no direct answer. Also no proof of claims, no apologies, no nothing bet self serving self justifying excuses.
In what appears to be desperation, Dan brings in intent as a factor.
1. In the definition I offered, intent isn't mentioned.
2. He attempts to assign intent to people he's never met (as well as to entire groups of people), based on his alignment with the political/social views of the groups as he perceives them, as opposed to offering actual evidence.
3. By offering a "source" who refers to the riots of 2020 as "BLM riots", he seems to be acknowledging reality.
Post a Comment