Man accidentally sets off medical alert pendant, cops shoot him

[m52nickerson]

Okay, we have two different stories.  Now the truth most like is somewhere in between.  Let look at each one and see which one makes more sense.

First we have a man accidentally triggered his medical alert device.  The police arrive but the man will not let them in because it was a mistake.  The police taser him, then shoot him out while he is just standing there, I guess out of frustration...or because he is black...or the cops are evil...take your pick.

Second we have a man activating his medical alert device for unknown reasons.  The police hear shouting and ad incoherent voices behind the door.  They ask to come in but are denied, talking a hatchet away from a man.  They finally get into the apartment to make sure everyone is okay, while trying to talk a disturbed man.  They try to subdue him but he comes at them with a knife and they are forced to shoot him.

To me one of these sounds like it would be closer to the truth than the other.

[DasFuchs]

Okay, we have two different stories.  Now the truth most like is somewhere in between.  Let look at each one and see which one makes more sense.

First we have a man accidentally triggered his medical alert device.  The police arrive but the man will not let them in because it was a mistake.  The police taser him, then shoot him out while he is just standing there, I guess out of frustration...or because he is black...or the cops are evil...take your pick.

Second we have a man activating his medical alert device for unknown reasons.  The police hear shouting and ad incoherent voices behind the door.  They ask to come in but are denied, talking a hatchet away from a man.  They finally get into the apartment to make sure everyone is okay, while trying to talk a disturbed man.  They try to subdue him but he comes at them with a knife and they are forced to shoot him.

To me one of these sounds like it would be closer to the truth than the other.

Exactly.

And the only thing I've seen in defense of the lesser of the two is "the cops are known to lie". Like grief stricken family members aren't.

As a sidenote...I kinda laugh at how because I don't hop on the "fuck da po po" bandwagon has someone pressing the negative button whenever they get the chance

[m52nickerson]

I think it is more that grief stricken people are unwilling to accept things that happen.  Which is is lying, but understandable.

Personally I feel higher my negative number is the more I'm doing my job!

[DasFuchs]

I think it is more that grief stricken people are unwilling to accept things that happen.  Which is is lying, but understandable.

Personally I feel higher my negative number is the more I'm doing my job!

Yeah, i guess I should restate that. They're not always by a far margin lying with intent, they just don't get a good grasp on the incident and rather see things how they want over what really happened.

Case in point I guess, after my aunt passed away before we even had the funeral my mother was going through her house sorting out all her stuff. Not a tear was shed, no respect for anything there. I saw it as a bit insensative and assholeish and held a grudge for some time till the family that was there with us confronted me about it. She'd been in tears the whole time and was only acting that soon to quickly get the weight of all that extra financial burden done with since my aunt's property wasn't exactly up to date financially.

[Kit Walker]

My gut instinct is to say that the truth is somewhere in the middle, since that often seems to be the case when it comes to my-word-against-yours situations.

Okay, we have two different stories. Now the truth most like is somewhere in between.  Let look at each one and see which one makes more sense.

While this may well be right, it is a pet peeve of my mine when people hold that attitude because it is intellectually lazy. Most of the time someone is just incorrect, whether it be through gross misinterpretation of available evidence (conspiracy theorists), denial of evidence (YECs, Holocaust Deniers), or outright falsehood (Fox News pundits).  The times where the truth is actually in between the two extremes seem to be fairly rare, really.

[Art Vandelay]

Okay, we have two different stories. Now the truth most like is somewhere in between.  Let look at each one and see which one makes more sense.

While you may well be right, it is a pet peeve of my mine when people hold that attitude because it is intellectually lazy. Most of the time someone is just fucking incorrect, whether it be through gross misinterpretation of available evidence (conspiracy theorists), denial of evidence (YECs, Holocaust Deniers), or outright falsehood (Fox News pundits).  The times where the truth is actually in between the two extremes seem to be fairly rare, really.

That's true when you're dealing with a situation of science and logic vs. faith and bullshit in general (as is the case in all of your examples), but when both sides are essentially anecdotes and quite obviously biased ones at that, then the truth is indeed often somewhere in the middle.

[Kit Walker]

That's true when you're dealing with a situation of science and logic vs. faith and bullshit in general (as is the case in all of your examples), but when both sides are essentially anecdotes and quite obviously biased ones at that, then the truth is indeed often somewhere in the middle.

The two extremes are "He was standing there completely unarmed and innocently, they shot him without provocation" and "He came at us with weapons and we had no choice but to shoot".  What's the middle ground there?  The facts of the two stories are so wildly different that at least one of the sides must be far  more incorrect than not.

Unless you count something like "he was armed but was not threatening himself or the police" as "in the middle". I would not, because if the police aren't being threatened then there's not justification for shooting and the family's story is the one consistent with the facts.

[Art Vandelay]

The two extremes are "He was standing there completely unarmed and innocently, they shot him without provocation" and "He came at us with weapons and we had no choice but to shoot".  What's the middle ground there?  The facts of the two stories are so wildly different that at least one of the sides must be far  more incorrect than not.

Unless you count something like "he was armed but was not threatening himself or the police" as "in the middle". I would not, because if the police aren't being threatened then there's not justification for shooting and the family's story is the one consistent with the facts.

I'm not saying they both have to be equally close to the truth, just that it's quite likely that the real story isn't exactly as either one of the other side claims. I've no idea what the truth of the matter could potentially be, nor do I care to speculate on account of fucking pointless, just saying that with these things, it's very rare that one side is either completely right or completely wrong.

[The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist]

"Somewhere in the middle" does not mean "exactly in the middle", Kit, regardless of how you personally define the phrase.

My point is that both sides are emotionally invested, meaning that both are liable to make assumptions, remember things incorrectly, or outright lie. Of course one half is going to be far closer to the truth than the other -- that's so obvious that it goes without saying, hence my not bloody saying it. No one is making a middle ground fallacy by acknowledging that neither account is likely to be 100% accurate, thereby making it, as you say, intellectually lazy to draw concrete conclusions from either article.

[D Laurier]

Speaking from personal experience, I've seen pigs lie shamelessly to justify all manner of grotesque acts of violence and depravity.
More than once I was jumped while carrying my groceries home, and the pigs always made some vague insinuations about "concern for public safety", or some other bullshit.

I say the pigs are lying.

Personally, I don't really value the opinion of anyone who refers to all police officers as "pigs" as a matter of course.

And I dont particularly repect the shit that pig lovers spew out when they are activly betraying their fellow humans by siding with the pigs.
The only good pig is a dead pig, and only cowards and collaborators say otherwise.

[D Laurier]

Speaking from personal experience, I've seen pigs lie shamelessly to justify all manner of grotesque acts of violence and depravity.
More than once I was jumped while carrying my groceries home, and the pigs always made some vague insinuations about "concern for public safety", or some other bullshit.

I say the pigs are lying.

Personally, I don't really value the opinion of anyone who refers to all police officers as "pigs" as a matter of course.

What she said. x10

But then again, I've always known D Laurier to be an unashamed cop hater.

There is however, some more to the story and I am hoping the White Plains PD does the right thing and investigates fully.

Other than that, I have no comment on the story itself.

The correct term is "decent human being".

[Auri-El]

My uncle's a cop. He's a good man. You really should stop with the anti-cop hate. Yes, many of them are corrupt. No, they're not perfect. But try to have a little empathy. They deal with the worst humanity has to offer. They don't see good people very often. And mistakes happen, and it sucks. Do you go around saying all doctors are pigs because the hospital stands behind its employees in medical malpractice cases? People die from that, too, and it's not any less horrible. Doesn't mean all doctors are pigs, just 'cause some of them make mistakes. Doesn't mean all cops are pigs, just 'cause some make mistakes. Most of them are just decent people trying to make a living.

[Askold]

D Laurier...

Take a deep breath and try to calm down.

And I dont particularly repect the shit that pig lovers spew out when they are activly betraying their fellow humans by siding with the pigs.
The only good pig is a dead pig, and only cowards and collaborators say otherwise.

You just supported killing a group of people simply because of what they do for a living. You did narrow it down to corrupt members of the profession, instead you claim that EVERY cop is evil/corrupt and disregard all evidence to contrary by claiming that all of it comes from "cowards and collaborators."

Also you imply that cops should not be considered humans...

The correct term is "decent human being".

Correct term for what?

[Cerim Treascair]

The only good pig is a dead pig, and only cowards and collaborators say otherwise.

And you're advocating violence against the very people, GOOD PEOPLE for the most part, that we pay to protect us.  I knew there was a reason I hated you and wanted to crack your skull with a crowbar.  I hope we never meet in real life, because odds are good I'm going to want to lay you out.

I never thought I'd have to put anybody on my ignore list, but you're the first.  Fucking congratulations.

[Kit Walker]

"Somewhere in the middle" does not mean "exactly in the middle", Kit, regardless of how you personally define the phrase.

My point is that both sides are emotionally invested, meaning that both are liable to make assumptions, remember things incorrectly, or outright lie. Of course one half is going to be far closer to the truth than the other -- that's so obvious that it goes without saying, hence my not bloody saying it. No one is making a middle ground fallacy by acknowledging that neither account is likely to be 100% accurate, thereby making it, as you say, intellectually lazy to draw concrete conclusions from either article.

Fair enough. I've seen that phrase used incorrectly far more often than correctly that I knee-jerk associate it with a kind of "golden mean" reasoning, "since there are two extremes, neither side is more right than the other" kind of garbage. I apologize, I shouldn't have gone with my knee-jerk reaction.

and I dont particularly repect the shit that pig lovers spew out when they are activly betraying their fellow humans by siding with the pigs.
The only good pig is a dead pig, and only cowards and collaborators say otherwise.

Let's see:
1) Dehumanizing your completely human "enemy".
2) Extreme black and white, us vs. them thinking.
3) Calling for the extermination of a massive group of people based solely on one characteristic.
4) Insulting the ideological opposition as a way of dismissing their arguments.
5) Misspellings!

I know just what to do with this.