Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Opposing Views)   Kid shot dead by police said to have anger issues. Dad called police on his own son because apparently cops are just like therapists except with loaded guns   (opposingviews.com) divider line 138
    More: Followup, McPherson, Opposing Views, therapy  
•       •       •

6045 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Nov 2013 at 12:21 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



138 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-11-11 11:55:35 AM  
After watching the dash cam of the kid careening off-road in the middle of campus, I have no issues with the cop's actions.
 
2013-11-11 12:23:01 PM  
Followup and Repeat tags have anger issues too.
 
2013-11-11 12:23:40 PM  
The police are doing retroactive abortions now?
 
2013-11-11 12:25:01 PM  
Anybody who would call the cops to teach his son a lesson is a farking moron.  If you don't know that cops shoot first and ask questions later these days, you haven't been paying attention.
 
2013-11-11 12:25:36 PM  
I'm with him.

If you shot me dead, I'd be angry too.
 
2013-11-11 12:26:48 PM  

impaler: After watching the dash cam of the kid careening off-road in the middle of campus, I have no issues with the cop's actions.


This is one of those rare cases where the cops share 0% of the blame.
 
2013-11-11 12:26:59 PM  
You call the cops, you're writing off the kid.
 
2013-11-11 12:28:22 PM  

kelphead: impaler: After watching the dash cam of the kid careening off-road in the middle of campus, I have no issues with the cop's actions.

This is one of those rare cases where the cops share 0% of the blame.


Oh, yes. I have no problem with the cops here.
 
2013-11-11 12:29:54 PM  
So... Darwin.
 
2013-11-11 12:30:16 PM  

impaler: After watching the dash cam of the kid careening off-road in the middle of campus, I have no issues with the cop's actions.


I echo all of the above.  Cops were in the right on this one.
 
2013-11-11 12:31:06 PM  
I have no problems with this kid being dead. He was bound to injure or kill someone innocent if he hadn't been stopped.
 
2013-11-11 12:32:06 PM  
That video was crazy.  If that kid kept going, he probably would have somebody over.  I'm not saying that shooting him was necessarily the best option, but given how recklessly he was driving I am not sure what else they could have done.
 
2013-11-11 12:32:26 PM  
It really bothers me that they claim he was unarmed.  A vehicle is a weapon, and he was clearly demonstrating his willingness to use it as such.
 
2013-11-11 12:33:32 PM  

tetsoushima: That video was crazy.  If that kid kept going, he probably would have   ran somebody over.  I'm not saying that shooting him was necessarily the best option, but given how recklessly he was driving I am not sure what else they could have done.

 
2013-11-11 12:34:31 PM  
Good guys with guns spotted at last
 
2013-11-11 12:35:19 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: You call the cops, you're writing off the kid.


Kid was living in a shelter, he had already been written off.
 
2013-11-11 12:38:32 PM  
Add me to the list of the cops had no other choice.  We know many officers and nearly all of them sincerely want to go through their careers firing 0 bullets off the practice range.

My brother was the worst kind of person when I was young--much too long to detail here.  Sometimes a parent has to call for the police, and it's entirely up to the kid/young adult how far the use of force is escalated.

/Yes, there are bad cops in the world and they should be investigated and punished--this is not one of those cases.
 
2013-11-11 12:39:37 PM  
Holy crap... when I first heard this story it didn't sound like the chase was all that serious. But then you watch the video, numerous red lights ran -- then he goes into a park/campus area with people walking around.

Hate to see deadly force used, but the cops were justified.
 
2013-11-11 12:39:49 PM  
I love the way submitter acts like its the Dads fault when the kid stole his truck. You don't send the kid to a therapist for grand theft auto.

The dad may have a lot to answer for, but probably not this.
 
2013-11-11 12:39:51 PM  

Crass and Jaded Mother Farker: I'm with him.

If you shot me dead, I'd be angry too.


You'd better believe that's a haunting.
 
2013-11-11 12:41:04 PM  
I wonder why the son ran; he escalated the situation. Not only that; but, he rammed a police car! I'd like to hear what the son's tox screen ends up being.

And I'm not seeing that the cop who shot the son had much of a choice. They probably could have backed off and picked the son up later; but, it didn't look like the son cared who he hurt.

I just can't imagine a situation where I'd be unwelcome to stay in my parents' home; I'm betting that the son was violent with family members. Also, I'd bet gold to lead that the son had a serious drug habit and stole things from the family home
 
2013-11-11 12:41:24 PM  

jaybeezey: HotIgneous Intruder: You call the cops, you're writing off the kid.

Kid was living in a shelter, he had already been written off.


He was 19 years old. Perhaps drugs were involved, given how angry he was over "cigarette money"
 
2013-11-11 12:42:33 PM  
"Somebody gonna get hurt real bad"
 
2013-11-11 12:42:39 PM  
I agree that they kinda needed to shoot him after the whole thing was said and done, but really it was preventable.  They shouldn't have engaged him on the chase in the first place. That's the reason so many cities have a "no pursuit" policy.

The guy was off his rocker, yes. But he wouldn't have been driving like that if there weren't sirens going behind him.
 
2013-11-11 12:44:06 PM  
I'd like to see how the average therapist would react if you tried to kill him with your car.
 
2013-11-11 12:45:20 PM  

Jument: I'd like to see how the average therapist would react if you tried to kill him with your car.


"Tell me about your motor."
 
2013-11-11 12:45:21 PM  

MycroftHolmes: It really bothers me that they claim he was unarmed.  A vehicle is a weapon,.


That'd be like saying a rock is a weapon. A rock can certainly be used as a weapon, but so can anything. A gun is a weapon. A tank is a weapon. A Hellfire missile is a weapon.
 
2013-11-11 12:45:30 PM  
This is a tragedy. The cops did the only thing that cops are trained to do. Don't ever call the cops on someone you love unless you know they are better off dead.
 
2013-11-11 12:47:17 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: MycroftHolmes: It really bothers me that they claim he was unarmed.  A vehicle is a weapon,.

That'd be like saying a rock is a weapon. A rock can certainly be used as a weapon, but so can anything. A gun is a weapon. A tank is a weapon. A Hellfire missile is a weapon.


That may be so, but a rock is definitely a weapon when you're using it to bash someone's skull in.  Just like how a vehicle is a weapon when you repeatedly ram people's cars with it.
 
2013-11-11 12:49:07 PM  

Mr.Poops: But then you watch the video, numerous red lights ran -- then he goes into a park/campus area with people walking around.


Almost literally in the middle of the ISU campus.

Between classes, these sidewalks are pretty full.

growlersoftware.com
 
2013-11-11 12:49:07 PM  

Jument: I'd like to see how the average therapist would react if you tried to kill him with your car.


Did you see "what about Bob?"
 
2013-11-11 12:50:44 PM  
Guy was obviously out of control, but a number of things make me think he might have had a psychopath for a dad. This would be the breaking point he was driven to for who knows how long. Doesn't justify anything he did, but it would help explain it.

The only way to know for sure is if i could meet the father and see if he's just feeling sorry for himself right now.
 
2013-11-11 12:54:22 PM  
You called the cops on your own kid. Send your complaints to www.nobodygivesashiat.org
 
2013-11-11 12:55:57 PM  

NEDM: Sin_City_Superhero: MycroftHolmes: It really bothers me that they claim he was unarmed.  A vehicle is a weapon,.

That'd be like saying a rock is a weapon. A rock can certainly be used as a weapon, but so can anything. A gun is a weapon. A tank is a weapon. A Hellfire missile is a weapon.

That may be so, but a rock is definitely a weapon when you're using it to bash someone's skull in.  Just like how a vehicle is a weapon when you repeatedly ram people's cars with it.


My point being that if you describe every person who has an item capable of being used as a weapon as "armed", then the term "unarmed" loses all meaning, as anything can be used as a weapon. The term "unarmed", in this context, is pointing out that he didn't possess a gun, or a knife, or a Hellfire missile.
 
2013-11-11 12:57:48 PM  
I'm not going to say the police had no choice but that was a tough situation they were in with that guy. The dad didn't have to call the cops in the first place though.
 
2013-11-11 12:57:53 PM  
You people saying the father should not have called the police would be saying he's a moron for calling a therapist if he were to kill someone with his vehicle. First half of my life I would have never thought it was possible for cops to be called upon for (teenage) kids, I had a pretty calm life growing up.

Now, I understand. Therapists and phychiatric help is pertinent for proactive and for normal control issues, but in the issue of immediate danger to others/self? There is an obligation for restraint, even if the cops show up to restrain and then have an ambulance deliver the teen to a hospital for psychiatric care.

In my experience our local police have been stellar in terms of being part of the "village" to help families and teens with mental health issues. I pray for those communities who cannot say the same.
 
2013-11-11 12:58:27 PM  
Also calling him unarmed is bullshiat as if cars cannot be used as weapons...
 
2013-11-11 01:00:47 PM  

Bootysama: Also calling him unarmed is bullshiat as if cars cannot be used as weapons...


I think the last thing the US needs is for people to begin thinking driving is guaranteed to everyone by the second amendment.
 
2013-11-11 01:01:06 PM  

impaler: After watching the dash cam of the kid careening off-road in the middle of campus, I have no issues with the cop's actions.


This-itty this.

An item capable of doing harm, used in a way to intentionally cause harm, with the intent of causing harm is a weapon. I don't care if that item is a car, a gun, or a chessboard.
 
2013-11-11 01:01:46 PM  

lockers: This is a tragedy



Nope. Not every death is a tragedy.
 
2013-11-11 01:01:49 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: Guy was obviously out of control, but a number of things make me think he might have had a psychopath for a dad. This would be the breaking point he was driven to for who knows how long. Doesn't justify anything he did, but it would help explain it.

The only way to know for sure is if i could meet the father and see if he's just feeling sorry for himself right now.


Crazy sometimes runs in families.
 
2013-11-11 01:02:36 PM  

Snarfangel: Jument: I'd like to see how the average therapist would react if you tried to kill him with your car.

"Tell me about your motor."


Let me tell you about my motor.

images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-11-11 01:06:20 PM  

Fruit Chews: You people saying the father should not have called the police would be saying he's a moron for calling a therapist if he were to kill someone with his vehicle. First half of my life I would have never thought it was possible for cops to be called upon for (teenage) kids, I had a pretty calm life growing up.

Now, I understand. Therapists and phychiatric help is pertinent for proactive and for normal control issues, but in the issue of immediate danger to others/self? There is an obligation for restraint, even if the cops show up to restrain and then have an ambulance deliver the teen to a hospital for psychiatric care.

In my experience our local police have been stellar in terms of being part of the "village" to help families and teens with mental health issues. I pray for those communities who cannot say the same.


Also, any therapist/psychiatrist will recommend the same, so it is futile to claim he should not call the police but should partner with a therapist/psych. They will TELL him to do this and update them later.
 
2013-11-11 01:09:12 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: MycroftHolmes: It really bothers me that they claim he was unarmed.  A vehicle is a weapon,.

That'd be like saying a rock is a weapon. A rock can certainly be used as a weapon, but so can anything. A gun is a weapon. A tank is a weapon. A Hellfire missile is a weapon.


You know, in the old days that's how we dealt with Neanderthals.  With rocks.
 
2013-11-11 01:11:04 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: lockers: This is a tragedy


Nope. Not every death is a tragedy.


Police, rightfully, gunned down a kid with mental health issues who were called by his dad? That sure sounds like what the greek would have written a play about.
 
2013-11-11 01:12:51 PM  

Fruit Chews: You people saying the father should not have called the police would be saying he's a moron for calling a therapist if he were to kill someone with his vehicle. First half of my life I would have never thought it was possible for cops to be called upon for (teenage) kids, I had a pretty calm life growing up.

Now, I understand. Therapists and phychiatric help is pertinent for proactive and for normal control issues, but in the issue of immediate danger to others/self? There is an obligation for restraint, even if the cops show up to restrain and then have an ambulance deliver the teen to a hospital for psychiatric care.

In my experience our local police have been stellar in terms of being part of the "village" to help families and teens with mental health issues. I pray for those communities who cannot say the same.


You raise an interesting point.

If the kid were mentally ill or on drugs then he is liable for anything the kid does, whether someone is hurt or not, if he fails to report his truck as stolen
And we don't know if the father is to blame forthis guys mental state at all. Having known addicts, they can get into a lot of trouble all on their own.
 
2013-11-11 01:13:00 PM  

dabbletech: Sin_City_Superhero: MycroftHolmes: It really bothers me that they claim he was unarmed.  A vehicle is a weapon,.

That'd be like saying a rock is a weapon. A rock can certainly be used as a weapon, but so can anything. A gun is a weapon. A tank is a weapon. A Hellfire missile is a weapon.

You know, in the old days that's how we dealt with Neanderthals

Charlie Brown. With Rocks.

FTFY

www.trigonman3.com
 
2013-11-11 01:13:57 PM  
It would be nice if people would read the article before submitting headlines.. even nicer if people would read the article before commenting, rather than base their butthurt off of a misleading headline.
 
2013-11-11 01:14:34 PM  

dabbletech: Sin_City_Superhero: MycroftHolmes: It really bothers me that they claim he was unarmed.  A vehicle is a weapon,.

That'd be like saying a rock is a weapon. A rock can certainly be used as a weapon, but so can anything. A gun is a weapon. A tank is a weapon. A Hellfire missile is a weapon.

You know, in the old days that's how we dealt with Neanderthals.  With rocks.


See... if the Neanderthals had thought to invent real weapons, they might still be here today.

/As opposed to shopping at Wal-Mart
//Silly Neanderthals.
 
2013-11-11 01:19:50 PM  

Headso Z


The dad didn't have to call the cops in the first place though.


The kid stole the work truck that belonged to the father's employer. If the father hadn't reported the vehicle stolen, the company probably would hold him responsible if anything happened to the truck or to other parties as a result of the unauthorized operation of the truck.
 
2013-11-11 01:20:17 PM  

tetsoushima: That video was crazy.  If that kid kept going, he probably would have somebody over.  I'm not saying that shooting him was necessarily the best option, but given how recklessly he was driving I am not sure what else they could have done.


They need to start doing background checks before giving drivers licenses
 
2013-11-11 01:20:21 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: NEDM: Sin_City_Superhero: MycroftHolmes: It really bothers me that they claim he was unarmed.  A vehicle is a weapon,.

That'd be like saying a rock is a weapon. A rock can certainly be used as a weapon, but so can anything. A gun is a weapon. A tank is a weapon. A Hellfire missile is a weapon.

That may be so, but a rock is definitely a weapon when you're using it to bash someone's skull in.  Just like how a vehicle is a weapon when you repeatedly ram people's cars with it.

My point being that if you describe every person who has an item capable of being used as a weapon as "armed", then the term "unarmed" loses all meaning, as anything can be used as a weapon. The term "unarmed", in this context, is pointing out that he didn't possess a gun, or a knife, or a Hellfire missile.


This happened in Iowa, so here's the law of that state, summarized: A dangerous weapon is an object that was designed primarily to inflict death or injury on a human being or animal (such as a knife, gun, razor) or any object that is actually used with the intent to inflict death or injury and capable of doing so. For example, a knife is a dangerous weapon, but a baseball bat could also be a dangerous weapon if used with the intention of causing injury.

So, if the guy was just driving his truck around, no, he's not armed with anything.  If he made the conscious choice  to use his truck as a weapon (or began to act in reckless and willful disregard to human life in his operation of the truck) , then he becomes armed.

I have a pen in my pocket.  I am unarmed.  I use my pen to stab you in the eyes.  I am armed with a pen.  Easy!
 
2013-11-11 01:28:54 PM  

Animatronik: jaybeezey: HotIgneous Intruder: You call the cops, you're writing off the kid.

Kid was living in a shelter, he had already been written off.

He was 19 years old. Perhaps drugs were involved, given how angry he was over "cigarette money"


I'm sure they were, but family is family. If you bail on your kid, what's to keep him/her from bailing on you.

If the kid was truly to the point of danger to himself or others, he should have been in psychiatric care.
 
2013-11-11 01:30:37 PM  

jaybeezey: Animatronik: jaybeezey: HotIgneous Intruder: You call the cops, you're writing off the kid.

Kid was living in a shelter, he had already been written off.

He was 19 years old. Perhaps drugs were involved, given how angry he was over "cigarette money"

I'm sure they were, but family is family. If you bail on your kid, what's to keep him/her from bailing on you.

If the kid was truly to the point of danger to himself or others, he should have been in psychiatric care.


It is nearly impossible to get someone involuntarily committed unless they are well and truly batshiat crazy.  We're talking "making racecars out of my own poop" crazy.  Tons of very dangerous people don't meet that threshold.
 
2013-11-11 01:31:12 PM  
That dashcam video really whoa'd my mamas.
 
2013-11-11 01:39:04 PM  
19 yr old meth head != a kid.
 
2013-11-11 01:39:45 PM  

jaybeezey: Animatronik: jaybeezey: HotIgneous Intruder: You call the cops, you're writing off the kid.

Kid was living in a shelter, he had already been written off.

He was 19 years old. Perhaps drugs were involved, given how angry he was over "cigarette money"

I'm sure they were, but family is family. If you bail on your kid, what's to keep him/her from bailing on you.

If the kid was truly to the point of danger to himself or others, he should have been in psychiatric care.


Around here, you can't get someone committed for in-patient treatment until they have been through the police wringer.  If you call the cops too quickly, the kid calms down, and the cops get mad at you for not being able to handle the problem.  Wait too late, and someone is hurt or worse.

NarAnon is similar to Al-anon, and they support parents who feel compelled to call the cops on their drug addled loved ones.  If you have never had to face someone you've loved turned into a completely violent stranger, you have no idea how hard it can be to apply tough love.
 
2013-11-11 01:50:00 PM  

impaler: After watching the dash cam of the kid careening off-road in the middle of campus, I have no issues with the cop's actions.


Neither did I, when this thread first showed up. The guy was a threat to those around him, did quite a bit of damage, and only luck prevented the injury or death of innocent folks. The cops did what they were supposed to do, and, in the end, it meant shooting the guy rather than giving him more chances to injure or kill someone.

As anyone who has ever read my rants regarding law enforcement, I'm not fond of what they've become - but they were doing their job, regrettable as it was, in this situation.
 
2013-11-11 01:50:36 PM  

impaler: After watching the dash cam of the kid careening off-road in the middle of campus, I have no issues with the cop's actions.


Neither did I, when this thread first showed up. The guy was a threat to those around him, did quite a bit of damage, and only luck prevented the injury or death of innocent folks. The cops did what they were supposed to do, and, in the end, it meant shooting the guy rather than giving him more chances to injure or kill someone.

As anyone who has ever read my rants regarding law enforcement knows, I'm not fond of what they've become - but they were doing their job, regrettable as it was, in this situation.
 
2013-11-11 01:51:16 PM  
Huh - double post. Weird, but, my apologies.
 
2013-11-11 01:56:51 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: MycroftHolmes: It really bothers me that they claim he was unarmed.  A vehicle is a weapon,.

That'd be like saying a rock is a weapon. A rock can certainly be used as a weapon, but so can anything. A gun is a weapon. A tank is a weapon. A Hellfire missile is a weapon.


Yes, if someone is bashing my head in with a rock, describing him as unarmed would be inaccurate.  If someone is ramming cars with a truck, describing him as unarmed is inaccurate.

Just to put a little perspective, though, if I had a 1 pound rock and was able to swing it at 75 miles per hour, versus a 3000 pound truck travelling 20 miles per hour, the truck would be able to apply 177 times as much energy.  The car is a much more dangerous weapon than a rock.
 
2013-11-11 01:59:57 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: NEDM: Sin_City_Superhero: MycroftHolmes: It really bothers me that they claim he was unarmed.  A vehicle is a weapon,.

That'd be like saying a rock is a weapon. A rock can certainly be used as a weapon, but so can anything. A gun is a weapon. A tank is a weapon. A Hellfire missile is a weapon.

That may be so, but a rock is definitely a weapon when you're using it to bash someone's skull in.  Just like how a vehicle is a weapon when you repeatedly ram people's cars with it.

My point being that if you describe every person who has an item capable of being used as a weapon as "armed", then the term "unarmed" loses all meaning, as anything can be used as a weapon. The term "unarmed", in this context, is pointing out that he didn't possess a gun, or a knife, or a Hellfire missile.


There is a common sense applied when using words in a non-technical sense.  If an object capable of significant destruction is being used in a way to threaten or injure others, it is not inappropriate to desacribe him as armed, even when the object is not typically considered a weapon.  It is more than a bit disingenuous to stress that an individual is unarmed when they are using their vehicle as a weapon.
 
2013-11-11 02:01:29 PM  
It's like Godzilla. See, Godzilla was unarmed lost of the time, but the military used just about every weapon they had against him because of the amount of damage he was capable of. Yup, just like that.
 
2013-11-11 02:05:21 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: NEDM: Sin_City_Superhero: MycroftHolmes: It really bothers me that they claim he was unarmed.  A vehicle is a weapon,.

That'd be like saying a rock is a weapon. A rock can certainly be used as a weapon, but so can anything. A gun is a weapon. A tank is a weapon. A Hellfire missile is a weapon.

That may be so, but a rock is definitely a weapon when you're using it to bash someone's skull in.  Just like how a vehicle is a weapon when you repeatedly ram people's cars with it.

My point being that if you describe every person who has an item capable of being used as a weapon as "armed", then the term "unarmed" loses all meaning, as anything can be used as a weapon. The term "unarmed", in this context, is pointing out that he didn't possess a gun, or a knife, or a Hellfire missile.


"Point taken."

I'm pretty sure this is what you meant to say.

/no, really
//especially since NEDM specified "when you're using it to" rather than "any item capable of"
 
2013-11-11 02:12:16 PM  
Link goes to the worst pop-up ridden site I have seen (that isnt PRON). Some garbage ad-spewer called "Flowplayer" not only had button to close it, but kept restarting when stopped and then popped out a second infernal pest of itself down the page. So save anyone who clicked yet the pain, the cops chase the truck, truck comes to a stop, and you see nothing. Craptastic site needs to be shot by police.
 
2013-11-11 02:16:43 PM  
MycroftHolmes:
Yes, if someone is bashing my head in with a rock, describing him as unarmed would be inaccurate.  If someone is ramming cars with a truck, describing him as unarmed is inaccurate.

Ooh, I do love a good semantic debate. I'm going to weigh in on the other side here.  Armed vs. Unarmed, as the name suggests, indicates whether you are carrying arms (armaments).  Nobody considers a rock a type of armament, nor a vehicle unless it's strapped with guns and armor.. some gray area there maybe, but not a landscaping truck anyway.  You could say "armed only with a rock", implying he's not truly armed, but is using something for that purpose.

Regardless,to say that someone driving erratically in a vehicle is "armed" is inaccurate to most everyone's definition but yours, andcertainly not something you'd ever hear from an officer or a journalist.
 
2013-11-11 02:16:44 PM  
Sry. Corrected:
Link goes to the worst pop-up ridden site I have seen (that isn't PRON). Some garbage ad-spewer called "Flowplayer" not only had NO button to close it, but kept restarting when stopped only to pop out a second infernal pest of itself down the page. TO save anyone  some pain who hasn't clicked yet, the cops chase the truck, truck comes to a stop, and you see nothing on camera.

Craptastic site needs to be shot by police. It killed my pop-up blocker. It is a threat to others. It needs to die.
 
2013-11-11 02:18:04 PM  

Lyonid: Sin_City_Superhero: NEDM: Sin_City_Superhero: MycroftHolmes: It really bothers me that they claim he was unarmed.  A vehicle is a weapon,.

That'd be like saying a rock is a weapon. A rock can certainly be used as a weapon, but so can anything. A gun is a weapon. A tank is a weapon. A Hellfire missile is a weapon.

That may be so, but a rock is definitely a weapon when you're using it to bash someone's skull in.  Just like how a vehicle is a weapon when you repeatedly ram people's cars with it.

My point being that if you describe every person who has an item capable of being used as a weapon as "armed", then the term "unarmed" loses all meaning, as anything can be used as a weapon. The term "unarmed", in this context, is pointing out that he didn't possess a gun, or a knife, or a Hellfire missile.

"Point taken."

I'm pretty sure this is what you meant to say.

/no, really
//especially since NEDM specified "when you're using it to" rather than "any item capable of"


The part I find objectionable is not the idea that he was armed with a car, but that the articles explicitly describe him as unarmed.  This is disingenuous in the extreme.  This would be like saying 'Unarmed man stabs wife with screwdriver' or 'unarmed man beats person to death with golf club'.  This is bad, biased journalism.
 
2013-11-11 02:19:57 PM  

AngryDragon: for good or for awesome: I suggest fark ban any site that has toenail fungus ads Opposing Views.

FTFY,  Fark that site sucks.


You just know that any time it's an Opposing Views link, it's a troll submission.

. . .and on that grounds, Fark will never ban it because troll links drive clicks.
 
2013-11-11 02:21:33 PM  

limeybrit9: MycroftHolmes:
Yes, if someone is bashing my head in with a rock, describing him as unarmed would be inaccurate.  If someone is ramming cars with a truck, describing him as unarmed is inaccurate.

Ooh, I do love a good semantic debate. I'm going to weigh in on the other side here.  Armed vs. Unarmed, as the name suggests, indicates whether you are carrying arms (armaments).  Nobody considers a rock a type of armament, nor a vehicle unless it's strapped with guns and armor.. some gray area there maybe, but not a landscaping truck anyway.  You could say "armed only with a rock", implying he's not truly armed, but is using something for that purpose.

Regardless,to say that someone driving erratically in a vehicle is "armed" is inaccurate to most everyone's definition but yours, andcertainly not something you'd ever hear from an officer or a journalist.


The classification of on object is defined by it's capability and utility.  No one objected to the terrorist as being described as being armed with boxcutters, because they were capable of , and being used as, weapons, even though that was not their designed use.  If a person is using the vehicle to ram other vehicles, it is being used as weapon.  Now, if he was just driving erratically, not with willful intent to harm, then I might agree with you.  The video clip I saw showed him deliberately ram another vehicle.
 
2013-11-11 02:23:29 PM  
We see police aiming Tasers after the kid was shot multiple times. Isn't the Taser the first weapon to use - not the last? On a progressive scale of force, the cops reversed the order of lethality... They blew up the village in order to electrocute it.
 
2013-11-11 02:27:40 PM  

FlaminFilly: We see police aiming Tasers after the kid was shot multiple times. Isn't the Taser the first weapon to use - not the last? On a progressive scale of force, the cops reversed the order of lethality... They blew up the village in order to electrocute it.


Tasers don't penetrate glass & sheet metal.

Regardless, I didn't see any tasers in that video, just what looked like a pistol with a light attached to the bottom of the muzzle.
 
2013-11-11 02:30:54 PM  

MycroftHolmes: Lyonid: Sin_City_Superhero: NEDM: Sin_City_Superhero: MycroftHolmes: It really bothers me that they claim he was unarmed.  A vehicle is a weapon,.

That'd be like saying a rock is a weapon. A rock can certainly be used as a weapon, but so can anything. A gun is a weapon. A tank is a weapon. A Hellfire missile is a weapon.

That may be so, but a rock is definitely a weapon when you're using it to bash someone's skull in.  Just like how a vehicle is a weapon when you repeatedly ram people's cars with it.

My point being that if you describe every person who has an item capable of being used as a weapon as "armed", then the term "unarmed" loses all meaning, as anything can be used as a weapon. The term "unarmed", in this context, is pointing out that he didn't possess a gun, or a knife, or a Hellfire missile.

"Point taken."

I'm pretty sure this is what you meant to say.

/no, really
//especially since NEDM specified "when you're using it to" rather than "any item capable of"

The part I find objectionable is not the idea that he was armed with a car, but that the articles explicitly describe him as unarmed.  This is disingenuous in the extreme.  This would be like saying 'Unarmed man stabs wife with screwdriver' or 'unarmed man beats person to death with golf club'.  This is bad, biased journalism.


Oh, I agree.

/perhaps I mixed up my quote/reply?
 
2013-11-11 02:37:43 PM  

Lyonid: MycroftHolmes: Lyonid: Sin_City_Superhero: NEDM: Sin_City_Superhero: MycroftHolmes: It really bothers me that they claim he was unarmed.  A vehicle is a weapon,.

That'd be like saying a rock is a weapon. A rock can certainly be used as a weapon, but so can anything. A gun is a weapon. A tank is a weapon. A Hellfire missile is a weapon.

That may be so, but a rock is definitely a weapon when you're using it to bash someone's skull in.  Just like how a vehicle is a weapon when you repeatedly ram people's cars with it.

My point being that if you describe every person who has an item capable of being used as a weapon as "armed", then the term "unarmed" loses all meaning, as anything can be used as a weapon. The term "unarmed", in this context, is pointing out that he didn't possess a gun, or a knife, or a Hellfire missile.

"Point taken."

I'm pretty sure this is what you meant to say.

/no, really
//especially since NEDM specified "when you're using it to" rather than "any item capable of"

The part I find objectionable is not the idea that he was armed with a car, but that the articles explicitly describe him as unarmed.  This is disingenuous in the extreme.  This would be like saying 'Unarmed man stabs wife with screwdriver' or 'unarmed man beats person to death with golf club'.  This is bad, biased journalism.

Oh, I agree.

/perhaps I mixed up my quote/reply?


No, I was agreeing with you and extending your point.
 
2013-11-11 02:53:10 PM  

Mr.Poops: Hate to see deadly force used, but the cops were justified.


Hard to see why they were justified in killing him after his car was immobilized, then. We usually go for vigilante justice here, but not when police are the executioners.
 
2013-11-11 02:56:31 PM  

MycroftHolmes: The part I find objectionable is not the idea that he was armed with a car, but that the articles explicitly describe him as unarmed


Why am I being lambasted for pointing this out?

Sin_City_Superhero: The term "unarmed", in this context, is pointing out that he didn't possess a gun, or a knife, or a Hellfire missile.


Had they said that the guy was armed, people would assume that he had something normally considered a "weapon" (a gun, a knife, a crossbow, etc.) as well as the truck, at his disposal...which wasn't the case.
 
2013-11-11 02:57:36 PM  
I can't believe he blew through that intersection, while pulling a trailer, without killing anyone.

Good riddance.
 
2013-11-11 03:02:31 PM  

strathmeyer: Hard to see why they were justified in killing him after his car was immobilized


Who said his car was immobilized.
 
2013-11-11 03:13:48 PM  

impaler: strathmeyer: Hard to see why they were justified in killing him after his car was immobilized

Who said his car was immobilized.


The office said the guy was revving his engine. But that doesn't help the position of blaming the police. And some people just thing the police are bad through and through and there's nothing that'll change it. So they invent reasons for them to be wrong.
 
2013-11-11 03:17:06 PM  

MadMattressMack: And some people just thing the police are bad through and through and there's nothing that'll change it. So they invent reasons for them to be wrong.


That does go both ways, though. There are some on here that think the cops can do no wrong. There are others that think cops are always wrong. And you ain't gonna change any of their minds, either...
 
2013-11-11 03:29:35 PM  

MycroftHolmes: The video clip I saw showed him deliberately ram another vehicle.


Twice, once with the trailer. He also drove over large signs on the campus lawn that could have hidden people behind them.
 
2013-11-11 03:30:45 PM  

WelldeadLink: MycroftHolmes: The video clip I saw showed him deliberately ram another vehicle.

Twice, once with the trailer. He also drove over large signs on the campus lawn that could have hidden people behind them.


And run a red light through traffic, dragging a trailer that effectively doubled his chances of injuring another driver.
 
2013-11-11 03:31:37 PM  
"Seen him," they all "seen him last night." is "seen" used commonly like that out there?
 
2013-11-11 03:40:01 PM  

addy2: "Seen him," they all "seen him last night." is "seen" used commonly like that out there?


I seen it used that way for years.
 
2013-11-11 03:40:22 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: lockers: This is a tragedy


Nope. Not every death is a tragedy.


Wrong - a tragedy is not necessarily an injustice, or undeserved outcome. It is just a sad tale of human inevitability and failure.
MacBeth was a rotten S.O.B who deserved every thing he got - his tale is still regarded as one of the great  tragedies.
Learn what words mean before you dispute other people's use of them.
 
2013-11-11 04:04:23 PM  

impaler: Mr.Poops: But then you watch the video, numerous red lights ran -- then he goes into a park/campus area with people walking around.

Almost literally in the middle of the ISU campus.

Between classes, these sidewalks are pretty full.

[growlersoftware.com image 689x442]


The quad is one of the busiest areas on campus, period. All those sidewalks are crammed with people. And it's homecoming week - once classes got out, there would have been tons of people streaming around. That big white tent in the video? That's where they put the catered lunches they do during that week. Once classes let out, there would have been a huge line for the food.  And it would have been over one of the busiest passing periods.  *shudders* If he had been 10 minutes later....no way there wouldn't've been casualties.

\Still amazed he didn't hit a CyRide - he went right up the street the orange route uses and it has buses leaving every 2-3 min from Parks Library
\\ Graduated from ISU this past May
\\\ Little sister still goes there - I'm so glad she wasn't out there when that happened
 
2013-11-11 04:07:12 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: MycroftHolmes: The part I find objectionable is not the idea that he was armed with a car, but that the articles explicitly describe him as unarmed

Why am I being lambasted for pointing this out?

Sin_City_Superhero: The term "unarmed", in this context, is pointing out that he didn't possess a gun, or a knife, or a Hellfire missile.

Had they said that the guy was armed, people would assume that he had something normally considered a "weapon" (a gun, a knife, a crossbow, etc.) as well as the truck, at his disposal...which wasn't the case.


By describing a person who was shot as being narmed, the qualifier of 'unarmed' is being used to descriobe his threat level.  It is inaccurate and disingenuous to describe him as unarmed with the implication that he wasn't a threat when in fact he was armed with a weapon capable of inflicting great damage, and was showing a willingness to use that weapon in a destructive manner.
 
2013-11-11 04:13:55 PM  
cured.
 
2013-11-11 04:14:31 PM  

impaler: After watching the dash cam of the kid careening off-road in the middle of campus, I have no issues with the cop's actions.


I agree.  The cops had no choice.  This fark was out of control.  Thank you officers.

Nobody else was hurt and taxpayers don't have to hospitalize or jail this stupid mother farker.
 
2013-11-11 04:21:14 PM  

Doom MD: tetsoushima: That video was crazy.  If that kid kept going, he probably would have somebody over.  I'm not saying that shooting him was necessarily the best option, but given how recklessly he was driving I am not sure what else they could have done.

They need to start doing background checks before giving drivers licenses


Hey buddy, don't use my comment as a spring board for your ambiguously anti/pro-gun satire.
 
2013-11-11 04:21:19 PM  

FlaminFilly: We see police aiming Tasers after the kid was shot multiple times. Isn't the Taser the first weapon to use - not the last? On a progressive scale of force, the cops reversed the order of lethality... They blew up the village in order to electrocute it.


From the dashcam in TFA, what you saw was the officer's pistol with a tactical light mounted under the barrel. Saves you from having to hold your weapon in one hand and a flashlight in the other.

Very handy and mine would light up when I put my finger over a pad that was built into the grip: click on click off.

With that said, video is insane. Guy runs 1 redlight, at least 4 stop signs, and hits the patrol car 3 times. Fark. The campus seemed pretty empty foot traffic wise, thank Jeebus.
 
2013-11-11 04:41:45 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: MycroftHolmes: It really bothers me that they claim he was unarmed.  A vehicle is a weapon,.

That'd be like saying a rock is a weapon. A rock can certainly be used as a weapon, but so can anything. A gun is a weapon. A tank is a weapon. A Hellfire missile is a weapon.


Rocks can be weapons.  This is why the US Border Patrol uses rifles to shoot people throwing rocks: because rocks can kill people.
 
2013-11-11 04:42:12 PM  
A shrink can only do so much. If I had a kid who was that out I control, I'd call the cops too.

Then again, I've had mostly positive experiences with cops. If you're not doing anything wrong and don't act like a dick for no reason, they usually leave you alone. Some of them are even friendly.
 
2013-11-11 04:44:43 PM  

BiffDangler: Anybody who would call the cops to teach his son a lesson is a farking moron.  If you don't know that cops shoot first and ask questions later these days, you haven't been paying attention.


what do you do with a raging juggernaut? i'm not asking about the article, but if someone had such a family member themselves (didnt even rta). If said person with anger issues is an adult, is threatening you, and yelling loud enough that neighbors might call the cops anyway, do I take him to an emergency therapist right then and there? is there such a thing? how do you get a person like that to go seek help? how do you keep him from  breaking your stuff, and you?

you assholes have no idea what you're talking about, you've never had a truly difficult/dangerous family member
 
2013-11-11 04:46:01 PM  

leftymcrighty: I agree that they kinda needed to shoot him after the whole thing was said and done, but really it was preventable.  They shouldn't have engaged him on the chase in the first place. That's the reason so many cities have a "no pursuit" policy.

The guy was off his rocker, yes. But he wouldn't have been driving like that if there weren't sirens going behind him.


So just let them go? I'd agree that pursuit is not always a good choice, but a blanket policy of no pursuit emboldens criminals who know if they run nobody will chase them.
 
2013-11-11 04:50:09 PM  

dabbletech: Sin_City_Superhero: MycroftHolmes: It really bothers me that they claim he was unarmed.  A vehicle is a weapon,.

That'd be like saying a rock is a weapon. A rock can certainly be used as a weapon, but so can anything. A gun is a weapon. A tank is a weapon. A Hellfire missile is a weapon.

You know, in the old days that's how we dealt with Neanderthals.  With rocks.


So what about a knife? Is it a weapon or is it a tool? What about a competition target rifle? they are purpose built for target shooting the way a racecar is built for a particular type of racing. A weapon is any object used to inflict harm. It makes no difference what the manufacture of that item intended it for.
 
2013-11-11 04:51:12 PM  

strathmeyer: Mr.Poops: Hate to see deadly force used, but the cops were justified.

Hard to see why they were justified in killing him after his car was immobilized, then. We usually go for vigilante justice here, but not when police are the executioners.


The truck (looks like a good sized Ford F-250) wasn't immobilized.  Just banged up a bit.  If you watch it get rammed a couple times the truck then disappears leaving to the right out of view of the video and then (off camera) it appears the kid did a 180 degree right turn to ram the parked police car.  You can watch the video to see chunks of red plastic fly across the video screen from right to left.  Those chunks of plastic are from the light bar on top of the police car.  So this kid pulled a 180 degree turn and stomped on the gas hard enough to ram a police car and destroy a good portion of the light bar on top of the car.  At this point he was purposely aiming for police cars and, well, I'll say it: deserved to die.  If he had rammed on police car like at the beginning of the video and then later stopped to surrender, the police could have arrested him.  Trucking off-road in a heavy pedestrian area, refusing to stop, playing bumper cars with police cars, and then purposely ramming a police car while the police are outside the safety of the cage?  Yeah, you gonna die.
 
2013-11-11 04:51:45 PM  

Panatheist: BiffDangler: Anybody who would call the cops to teach his son a lesson is a farking moron.  If you don't know that cops shoot first and ask questions later these days, you haven't been paying attention.

what do you do with a raging juggernaut? i'm not asking about the article, but if someone had such a family member themselves (didnt even rta). If said person with anger issues is an adult, is threatening you, and yelling loud enough that neighbors might call the cops anyway, do I take him to an emergency therapist right then and there? is there such a thing? how do you get a person like that to go seek help? how do you keep him from  breaking your stuff, and you?

you assholes have no idea what you're talking about, you've never had a truly difficult/dangerous family member


Everyone is assuming dad is a smart, thoughtful, decent human being. A court records search reveals numerous convictions for alcohol-related and domestic violence-related offenses.  He didn't call his therapist before calling the police.  He was probably drunk at the time, and his selfish thinking led to this entire disaster.  It was probably less "oh, it's so sad I have to do this", and way more "I'll teach that little FARKER a FARKING lesson!"
 
2013-11-11 04:56:55 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: NEDM: Sin_City_Superhero: MycroftHolmes: It really bothers me that they claim he was unarmed.  A vehicle is a weapon,.

That'd be like saying a rock is a weapon. A rock can certainly be used as a weapon, but so can anything. A gun is a weapon. A tank is a weapon. A Hellfire missile is a weapon.

That may be so, but a rock is definitely a weapon when you're using it to bash someone's skull in.  Just like how a vehicle is a weapon when you repeatedly ram people's cars with it.

My point being that if you describe every person who has an item capable of being used as a weapon as "armed", then the term "unarmed" loses all meaning, as anything can be used as a weapon. The term "unarmed", in this context, is pointing out that he didn't possess a gun, or a knife, or a Hellfire missile.


He possesses a vehicle that he is clearly willing to use as a weapon. I'd rather face off against a guy with a knife any day.

Unarmed means just that, unarmed. Not wielding a dangerous object, and not carrying anything clearly designed as a weapon. Not everything is black & white. Sometimes a screwdriver is a weapon, sometimes it's just a tool for turning screws. If you're brandishing a screwdriver and there's not a screw in sight, I'm going to consider you armed.

We could define "armed" as possessing a gun, but that dilutes the meaning of the term unarmed in this sort of context where people take it to mean not a big threat.
 
2013-11-11 05:01:25 PM  

another cultural observer: Panatheist: BiffDangler: Anybody who would call the cops to teach his son a lesson is a farking moron.  If you don't know that cops shoot first and ask questions later these days, you haven't been paying attention.

what do you do with a raging juggernaut? i'm not asking about the article, but if someone had such a family member themselves (didnt even rta). If said person with anger issues is an adult, is threatening you, and yelling loud enough that neighbors might call the cops anyway, do I take him to an emergency therapist right then and there? is there such a thing? how do you get a person like that to go seek help? how do you keep him from  breaking your stuff, and you?

you assholes have no idea what you're talking about, you've never had a truly difficult/dangerous family member

Everyone is assuming dad is a smart, thoughtful, decent human being. A court records search reveals numerous convictions for alcohol-related and domestic violence-related offenses.  He didn't call his therapist before calling the police.  He was probably drunk at the time, and his selfish thinking led to this entire disaster.  It was probably less "oh, it's so sad I have to do this", and way more "I'll teach that little FARKER a FARKING lesson!"


ok, I just see this story and just start worrying about my bro who can barely take care of himself. My folks weren't the best but they weren't as bad as this dad. not the same and my comments are pointless
 
2013-11-11 05:03:11 PM  

jaybeezey: Animatronik: jaybeezey: HotIgneous Intruder: You call the cops, you're writing off the kid.

Kid was living in a shelter, he had already been written off.

He was 19 years old. Perhaps drugs were involved, given how angry he was over "cigarette money"

I'm sure they were, but family is family. If you bail on your kid, what's to keep him/her from bailing on you.

If the kid was truly to the point of danger to himself or others, he should have been in psychiatric care.


Easier said than done. I know several people with mental disorders and until they actually commit a crime there is really not much you can do to make then get treatment. Someone can be sketchy and give off that snap-at-any-moment vibe, but unless they make an actual threat you can't just lock then up.
 
2013-11-11 05:11:55 PM  
Holy shiat! I had no idea that explaining WHY the term "unarmed" was used by a journalist was going to cause such a controversy. The term was used simply to inform the reader that the guy didn't have a gun or a sword or a flamethrower (or another device commonly described as a "weapon") on him. It was not used to indicate that a vehicle can't be used as a weapon...anything can be used as a weapon. Nor was it used to describe a double-amputee.
 
2013-11-11 05:19:19 PM  

another cultural observer: Panatheist: BiffDangler: Anybody who would call the cops to teach his son a lesson is a farking moron.  If you don't know that cops shoot first and ask questions later these days, you haven't been paying attention.

what do you do with a raging juggernaut? i'm not asking about the article, but if someone had such a family member themselves (didnt even rta). If said person with anger issues is an adult, is threatening you, and yelling loud enough that neighbors might call the cops anyway, do I take him to an emergency therapist right then and there? is there such a thing? how do you get a person like that to go seek help? how do you keep him from  breaking your stuff, and you?

you assholes have no idea what you're talking about, you've never had a truly difficult/dangerous family member

Everyone is assuming dad is a smart, thoughtful, decent human being. A court records search reveals numerous convictions for alcohol-related and domestic violence-related offenses.  He didn't call his therapist before calling the police.  He was probably drunk at the time, and his selfish thinking led to this entire disaster.  It was probably less "oh, it's so sad I have to do this", and way more "I'll teach that little FARKER a FARKING lesson!"


Who cares? Dad is an asshole, it seems the apple hasn't fallen far from the tree. Dad didn't get into his truck and go on an urban rampage, and hence dad is still alive despite being an asshole.
 
2013-11-11 05:23:31 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: Holy shiat! I had no idea that explaining WHY the term "unarmed" was used by a journalist was going to cause such a controversy. The term was used simply to inform the reader that the guy didn't have a gun or a sword or a flamethrower (or another device commonly described as a "weapon") on him. It was not used to indicate that a vehicle can't be used as a weapon...anything can be used as a weapon. Nor was it used to describe a double-amputee.


I think you are missing the point.  I object to the use of the term unarmed because it is deliberately misleading for the purpose of creating a more provocative story.  Additionally, it is inaccurate as it is misleading.  In other words, the reporter was not justified in using that choice of words, and he did it for reasons that are inconsistent with good journalism.

And you continue to miss the point that narrowly defining someone as armed only when they use an object purpose built only to injure is demonstrably a false definition, both legally and semantically.  I can be armed with a boxcutter.  I can be armed with a baseball bat.  I can be armed with a screwdrive.  None of these objects were designed to injure, but all do so effectively.  A person driving a car in a way that places police or bystanders in danger is using the car as a weapon.  Shooting him is not 'shooting an unarmed man'.  Do you honestly not understand the inflammatory nature of that phrase when it is used to describe police action?
 
2013-11-11 05:40:36 PM  

MycroftHolmes: I object to the use of the term unarmed because it is deliberately misleading for the purpose of creating a more provocative story.


I respectfully disagree with that assessment. I don't think the journalist was doing that at all. I get the impression that he said "unarmed" just to let the public know that the vehicle was the only "weapon" in play, so that people weren't under the impression that the guy also had a gun.

MycroftHolmes: Additionally, it is inaccurate as it is misleading. In other words, the reporter was not justified in using that choice of words


I disagree that it was misleading, for the reasons stated above. With that said, I don't think the reporter was out-of-line.

MycroftHolmes: And you continue to miss the point that narrowly defining someone as armed only when they use an object purpose built only to injure is demonstrably a false definition, both legally and semantically.


And you keep missing the point...I am not defining anything. I was simply explaining WHY the term "unarmed" was used by a journalist.

MycroftHolmes: Shooting him is not 'shooting an unarmed man'. Do you honestly not understand the inflammatory nature of that phrase when it is used to describe police action?


Yes. I see where you're coming from. But you seem to be assuming that the reporter chose that wording specifically to make the police look bad. I'm merely pointing out that that might not be the case at all. The reporter possibly chose the word "unarmed" to clarify that the suspect was not in possession of a weapon other than the vehicle, rather than as some sort of condemnation of the officer's use of force.
 
2013-11-11 05:47:04 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: MycroftHolmes: I object to the use of the term unarmed because it is deliberately misleading for the purpose of creating a more provocative story.

I respectfully disagree with that assessment. I don't think the journalist was doing that at all. I get the impression that he said "unarmed" just to let the public know that the vehicle was the only "weapon" in play, so that people weren't under the impression that the guy also had a gun.

MycroftHolmes: Additionally, it is inaccurate as it is misleading. In other words, the reporter was not justified in using that choice of words

I disagree that it was misleading, for the reasons stated above. With that said, I don't think the reporter was out-of-line.

MycroftHolmes: And you continue to miss the point that narrowly defining someone as armed only when they use an object purpose built only to injure is demonstrably a false definition, both legally and semantically.

And you keep missing the point...I am not defining anything. I was simply explaining WHY the term "unarmed" was used by a journalist.

MycroftHolmes: Shooting him is not 'shooting an unarmed man'. Do you honestly not understand the inflammatory nature of that phrase when it is used to describe police action?

Yes. I see where you're coming from. But you seem to be assuming that the reporter chose that wording specifically to make the police look bad. I'm merely pointing out that that might not be the case at all. The reporter possibly chose the word "unarmed" to clarify that the suspect was not in possession of a weapon other than the vehicle, rather than as some sort of condemnation of the officer's use of force.


You seem to be arguing that the reporters choice of words was merely informational, and not meant at all to be prejudicial.  If that was the case, what relevance to the sentence did the word 'unarmed' have?  If it was not meant to describe his threat level relative to the level of response, then why use the word at all.  It would have been as equally relevant to describe the color of shirt he was wearing or what his birthday was.  The only, only reason to indicate that the shot teen was unarmed was to create controversy.

So, your entire stance comes down to the belief that the reporter chsoe to describe the teen as unarmed merely as an objective description, when it is clearly inflammatory in this case, as well as inaccurate.  Either the reporter is an awful reporter, or he is an awful reporter.  Either he chose his words to be deliberately misleading, or he included irrelevant, misleading, and incorrect information in his lede.
 
2013-11-11 05:47:07 PM  

Panatheist: what do you do with a raging juggernaut?


Early in the morning?
 
2013-11-11 06:15:40 PM  

MycroftHolmes: You seem to be arguing that the reporters choice of words was merely informational, and not meant at all to be prejudicial. If that was the case, what relevance to the sentence did the word 'unarmed' have? If it was not meant to describe his threat level relative to the level of response, then why use the word at all.


Because it lets people know that there isn't a gun or knife in play.

MycroftHolmes: So, your entire stance comes down to the belief that the reporter chsoe to describe the teen as unarmed merely as an objective description, when it is clearly inflammatory


My stance is that the term "unarmed" was possibly used to tell me that the only "weapon" involved was a truck. I will acknowledge that it could have been done to make the cops look bad, but I didn't get that impression at all.
 
2013-11-11 06:24:36 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: MycroftHolmes: You seem to be arguing that the reporters choice of words was merely informational, and not meant at all to be prejudicial. If that was the case, what relevance to the sentence did the word 'unarmed' have? If it was not meant to describe his threat level relative to the level of response, then why use the word at all.

Because it lets people know that there isn't a gun or knife in play.


He also wasn't tapdancing at the time, and his favorite color was yellow.  Both of these facts are equally relevant to the incident as was the fact that he did not have a gun or knife.  A gun or knife would define his threat level, saying that he was unarmed, even accepting your very narrow definition that only purpose built objects can be defined as weapons, implies an absence of threat.  The fact that he was controlling a 3000 pound vehicle in a dangerous and threatening manner defined his threat level.  Mentioning that he did not have a knife or gun was irrelevant and misleading.

MycroftHolmes: So, your entire stance comes down to the belief that the reporter chsoe to describe the teen as unarmed merely as an objective description, when it is clearly inflammatory

My stance is that the term "unarmed" was possibly used to tell me that the only "weapon" involved was a truck. I will acknowledge that it could have been done to make the cops look bad, but I didn't get that impression at all.


Then it was awful journalism.  What possible reason would the journalist have had for including that word?  Why would the presence of a gun or knife have been ore or less relevant when it was clear that he was threatening the officers with his truck?  I still see no reason to even use the word unless it was strictly meant to be inflammatory.  So, I will again ask you, given the context of the situatuation, the fact that the driver had rammed the policer officers and that he was revving up his engine, why would it matter as a datapoint whether or not he had a gun or knife?

Mind you, I still fundamentally disagree that being armed only applies to objects designed to be weapons.  I am sure that it is shocking to all of us that the World Trade Center's were destroyed by a handful of unarmed men.
 
2013-11-11 06:43:10 PM  

MycroftHolmes: He also wasn't tapdancing at the time, and his favorite color was yellow. Both of these facts are equally relevant to the incident as was the fact that he did not have a gun or knife.


If the suspect had a gun, he could've shot at the cops. It actually IS a relevant fact. Furthermore, this isn't a 'court of law', scenario. This is a 'letting folks know what's going on' scenario. Had the reporter not used the descriptor "unarmed", there would be question if the guy had a gun on him.

Look, you and I are clearly in disagreement about this, and that's not likely to change. You think the ONLY reason to include the word "unarmed" is to paint the police in a negative light. I don't see it that way. It's fine. The world would be a pretty boring place if everybody agreed about everything.
 
2013-11-11 07:27:14 PM  
I still say the shooting was unwarranted. I've seen worse chases than that on COPS and they managed to stop the guy without gunfire. Big deal, he rammed into the cop car, that doesn't deserve a death sentence.
 
2013-11-11 07:36:48 PM  

impaler: After watching the dash cam of the kid careening off-road in the middle of campus, I have no issues with the cop's actions.


This. The kid endangered the life of the officers and the public. When he refused to stop the police had a duty to stop him.
 
2013-11-11 07:50:18 PM  
 . . . and the therapy is a lot more effective: it never fails to make the point.
 
2013-11-11 08:10:12 PM  

MycroftHolmes: the World Trade Center's were destroyed by a handful of unarmed men.


you would think it would take longer to bring a building down with just box cutters
 
2013-11-11 08:32:49 PM  

medius: MycroftHolmes: the World Trade Center's were destroyed by a handful of unarmed men.

you would think it would take longer to bring a building down with just box cutters


You'll notice that they did not replace them with another two boxes.
 
2013-11-11 08:44:16 PM  
Not one of life's biggest winners.
<a data-cke-saved-href="<a href=" href="<a href=" http:="" www.opposingviews.com="" sites="" opposingviews.com="" files="" imagecache="" 300x250="" featured_image="" comstockmug.jpg"="" target="_blank">  www.opposingviews.com

I wonder what the cop looked like.
 
2013-11-11 08:58:30 PM  

msbpodcast: Not one of life's biggest winners.
<a data-cke-saved-href="<a href=" href="<a href=" http:="" www.opposingviews.com="" sites="" opposingviews.com="" files="" imagecache="" 300x250="" featured_image="" comstockmug.jpg"="" target="_blank">  [www.opposingviews.com image 301x251]

I wonder what the cop looked like.


At least it's accurate.  Most media has run with his high school freshman year picture.  "Yup, here's who the cop shot, folks! Draw your own conclusions!"
 
2013-11-11 09:00:05 PM  
Also, if this kid had been black, this thread would be past 1,000 by now, and Al Sharpton would be bleating about social justice.  So it's at least refreshing in that regard.
 
2013-11-11 09:49:27 PM  
That's the hardest looking 19 I've ever seen.
 
2013-11-11 10:56:05 PM  

Flt209er: Snarfangel: Jument: I'd like to see how the average therapist would react if you tried to kill him with your car.

"Tell me about your motor."

Let me tell you about my motor.

[images2.wikia.nocookie.net image 500x238]


This picture always freaks me out because this guy is the spitting image of a guy I worked with years ago.
 
2013-11-12 12:01:28 AM  

leftymcrighty: I agree that they kinda needed to shoot him after the whole thing was said and done, but really it was preventable.  They shouldn't have engaged him on the chase in the first place. That's the reason so many cities have a "no pursuit" policy.

The guy was off his rocker, yes. But he wouldn't have been driving like that if there weren't sirens going behind him.


So  your theory is "Do any damn fool thing you want.  Rob a bank, steal a car, kidnap a child, whatever the hell you want, the cops have no right to chase you and if anything goes wrong while cops are chasing you, it's their fault".  That makes you an asshole who wants thugs to do stupid shiat without getting caught.

cherryl taggart: NarAnon is similar to Al-anon


I'm assuming that what you mean there is "a bunch of religious fanatics are going to tell you that if you don't pray to Jesus, you are going to hell".  I can't imagine having a problem and going to religious nutcases to find my way out of it.

Sin_City_Superhero: Holy shiat! I had no idea that explaining WHY the term "unarmed" was used by a journalist was going to cause such a controversy. The term was used simply to inform the reader that the guy didn't have a gun or a sword or a flamethrower (or another device commonly described as a "weapon") on him. It was not used to indicate that a vehicle can't be used as a weapon...anything can be used as a weapon. Nor was it used to describe a double-amputee.


For what it's worth, I agree with you, and I suspect that even the idiots arguing with you agree with you.  Some people troll just to troll.  Some have a stick up their ass and want to be "technically correct" even if it makes no logical sense.  Everyone knows the guy had a vehicle, and saying "he was unarmed" doesn't change that - for normal people.  But these guys want to scream about "he was armed he was armed!".  Obviously, if the paper wrote "He was armed" then people would assume he had a gun or similar.  I'm pretty sure even the idiots arguing with you understand all of this, but they are assholes who don't care.
 
2013-11-12 01:24:47 AM  

another cultural observer: It was probably less "oh, it's so sad I have to do this", and way more "I'll teach that little FARKER a FARKING lesson!"


Mission accomplished.
 
2013-11-12 06:49:20 AM  

JuggleGeek: For what it's worth, I agree with you, and I suspect that even the idiots arguing with you agree with you. Some people troll just to troll. Some have a stick up their ass and want to be "technically correct" even if it makes no logical sense. Everyone knows the guy had a vehicle, and saying "he was unarmed" doesn't change that - for normal people. But these guys want to scream about "he was armed he was armed!". Obviously, if the paper wrote "He was armed" then people would assume he had a gun or similar. I'm pretty sure even the idiots arguing with you understand all of this, but they are assholes who don't care.


Sin_City_Superhero: MycroftHolmes: He also wasn't tapdancing at the time, and his favorite color was yellow. Both of these facts are equally relevant to the incident as was the fact that he did not have a gun or knife.

If the suspect had a gun, he could've shot at the cops. It actually IS a relevant fact. Furthermore, this isn't a 'court of law', scenario. This is a 'letting folks know what's going on' scenario. Had the reporter not used the descriptor "unarmed", there would be question if the guy had a gun on him.

Look, you and I are clearly in disagreement about this, and that's not likely to change. You think the ONLY reason to include the word "unarmed" is to paint the police in a negative light. I don't see it that way. It's fine. The world would be a pretty boring place if everybody agreed about everything.


This honestly makes sense to you.  OK.  So, if I see a headline 'Police shoot black man', and it turns out that his race had nothing to do with anything, you would be completely OK with it?  Since th epresence or lack of gun had nothing to do with the threat that a guy rampaging in a turck poses, I am still struggling to follow your mental process of 'Did he have a gun??????  I MUST KNOW!!!!!'  You seem to be falling directly into the trap that I would have preferred the author avoided, by wondering if the driver had a gun, you are looking for justification for the shoot.  The justification was irrelevant of whether he had a gun, a bazooka, or a rubber band. He was posing a threat by the way he was using his truck.  i know you struggle with the idea that a truck could be classed as a weapon, but it clearly was, in this case.

I will leave it at this.  Journalist use words as their craft.  They should use words surgically and purposefully.  Each word should have a meaning and a purpose.  What would be the purpose of using the word 'unarmed' in this sentence?  I know you said it was to let everyone know he didn't have a gun, but what relevance did that have to the event?  I have asked that question several times and still haven't seen a reason why his gun\no-gun status is relevant.
 
2013-11-12 10:14:40 AM  

MycroftHolmes: This honestly makes sense to you. OK. So, if I see a headline 'Police shoot black man', and it turns out that his race had nothing to do with anything, you would be completely OK with it?


This doesn't have anything to do with race.  The only reason you are changing it to a racial story is because you have no argument.

The guy was not armed.  He did have a vehicle which he as using as a weapon.  Everyone that reads the story knows that, because the story says he wasn't armed and says he had the vehicle.  They also link the video, so you can see him using the car as a weapon.

You want them to pretend that he had a gun, but he didn't.
 
2013-11-12 10:31:24 AM  

JuggleGeek: MycroftHolmes: This honestly makes sense to you. OK. So, if I see a headline 'Police shoot black man', and it turns out that his race had nothing to do with anything, you would be completely OK with it?

This doesn't have anything to do with race.  The only reason you are changing it to a racial story is because you have no argument.

The guy was not armed.  He did have a vehicle which he as using as a weapon.  Everyone that reads the story knows that, because the story says he wasn't armed and says he had the vehicle.  They also link the video, so you can see him using the car as a weapon.

You want them to pretend that he had a gun, but he didn't.


You are so close to getting the point.  Push on through.

This had nothing to do with race.  That is 100% correct.  The polices response also had nothing to do with whether or not he had a gun.  Can you close the loop yet?  It is sooo close.

Given the natiure of the threat he was presenting with his vehicle, his status of being armed or unarmed was as relevant as his skin color, taste in music, or favorite teletubby.  That is to say, not relevant at all.  The police's action was appropriate irrespective of his status of having a gun.  It just didn't matter.

Again, the lede stated that police shot an unarmed man.  Are you trying to tell me that you honestly feel like this is a neutral, non-prejudicial statement, especially as his status being armed or unarmed (which is arguable based on definitions, the legal one provided says that he was clearly armed) is irrelevant?

You guys are sooooo close.
 
2013-11-12 10:48:07 AM  

MycroftHolmes: i know you struggle with the idea that a truck could be classed as a weapon, but it clearly was, in this case.


A truck can be used as a weapon, but that doesn't make it a weapon. It's still a vehicle. If I use a stapler to hammer a nail into a board, no one on Earth would call the stapler a hammer, would they? Why are you struggling with this so much?
 
2013-11-12 11:14:36 AM  

Sin_City_Superhero: MycroftHolmes: i know you struggle with the idea that a truck could be classed as a weapon, but it clearly was, in this case.

A truck can be used as a weapon, but that doesn't make it a weapon. It's still a vehicle. If I use a stapler to hammer a nail into a board, no one on Earth would call the stapler a hammer, would they? Why are you struggling with this so much?


This line argument has been refuted over and over again.  First, you are making the assumption that the definition of armed or unarmed only applies to objects purpose built as weapons.  This notion has been dispelled in both legal and common usage.  Second, you are defining a weapon as something that can only be used as a weapon.  I will ask you, would you consider nunchuks to be a weapon?  They are actually flails that farmers used as weapons.  What about kitchen knives.  Or baseball bats.

Below is a definition of weapon

weapon [ˈwɛpən]n
1. (Military / Arms & Armour (excluding Firearms)) (Military / Firearms, Gunnery, Ordnance & Artillery) an object or instrument used in fighting


Also is a definition of armed

armed
adjective \ˈärmd\
Definition of ARMED
1
a :  furnished with weapons <an armed guard>; also :  using or involving a weapon


So, basically, anyone who is using an object for fighting, which this guy was, is armed with a weapon.  I know it is a diffciult concept, but words have meanings, you can't just arbitrarily assign them to mean what you want them to.  Keep trying, slugger.  One day you will be armed with knowledge (oh wait, that will mean that you will have to have a gun or knife to fight knowledge, by your non-existant definition).
 
2013-11-12 03:33:20 PM  

MycroftHolmes: This had nothing to do with race. That is 100% correct.


And yet you are screaming about race.

The polices response also had nothing to do with whether or not he had a gun. Can you close the loop yet? It is sooo close.

The polices response wasn't related to him having a gun - he didn't have one.  People reading the story, however, might be curious if he had a gun, which is why the article specifies that he didn't.
 
2013-11-12 03:37:57 PM  

JuggleGeek: MycroftHolmes: This had nothing to do with race. That is 100% correct.

And yet you are screaming about race.


wow.  I mentioned race as hypothetical example of including irrelevent information to form an inflammatory comment was a bad thing.  You have successfully proven my point beyond my wildest dreams.

The polices response also had nothing to do with whether or not he had a gun. Can you close the loop yet? It is sooo close.

The polices response wasn't related to him having a gun - he didn't have one.  People reading the story, however, might be curious if he had a gun, which is why the article specifies that he didn't.


They might also be curious as to his race, his height, and favorite teletubby.  But none of these facts are remote relevant to the issue at hand.

Let me ask, would respond the same to both sentences

'Police shoot unarmed teen sitting in car'
'Police shoot driver who was ramming other vehicles'

Be honest, is one of those more provocative than the other?
 
2013-11-12 03:52:31 PM  
You are trying to pretend that the news article is trying to paint a picture of the teen as an innocent who did nothing wrong.  But if they wanted to do that, they would not have linked the video.
 
2013-11-12 04:15:07 PM  

JuggleGeek: You are trying to pretend that the news article is trying to paint a picture of the teen as an innocent who did nothing wrong.  But if they wanted to do that, they would not have linked the video.


You and Sin have still answered the question, since the threat he was presenting was completely irrespective of whether or not he had a gun, why was it relevant to include the fact that he was unarmed (of a gun or knife) when he was shot by police.  You had an immediate reaction to my hypothetical 'Police shoot black teen', but in this case, his gun or no gun status is as relevant (or irrelevant) as his skin color, or favorite teletubby.

When you write a sentence, every word should have a meaning and a purpose.  Why disclose the information that he did not have gun, when it was not relevant to the reason why he was shot?

As to your point about including the video, the journalist is not likely the same person who composed the webpage.

Bottom line, it was a poor choice of words.  It was misleading, factually incorrect, prejudicial and provocative, and irrelevant.
 
2013-11-12 04:35:32 PM  
Bottom line, you are trolling.
 
2013-11-12 04:39:07 PM  

MycroftHolmes: As to your point about including the video, the journalist is not likely the same person who composed the webpage.


The headline includes "After Wild Chase (Video)", and the article includes "police dashboard camera video showing the pickup truck driven by Tyler Comstock barreling through streets, backing up and ramming an cop car, and careening recklessly across a lawn on the Iowa State University campus".  This reporter wasn't pretending the kid was innocent and shot for no reason, you just have no grasp of reality.

Me and Sin have both explained this.  Personally, I think you understand it, and that you are just being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole.
 
2013-11-12 04:41:28 PM  

JuggleGeek: Bottom line, you are trolling.


Actually, no I am not.  I am probably beating a dead horse, and have taken far more guilty pleasure out of this discussion than I should, but there is nothing insincere about any stance I have taken.

You should probably give up arguing on the internet, you were soundly disproven at every turn (at one point, your reaction to my hypothetical proved my point about the usage of inflammatory irrelevant data), you have failed to answer the simplest of questions (why would his gun\no gun status be relevant) and have been unable to defend even a single one of your stances.  So, you fall back to the 'deerrrrrrr,  you trolling'.  That is about as succinct a capitulation as I have seen.  At least Sin had the wisdom to run away.
 
2013-11-12 04:45:35 PM  
You didn't prove anything except that you are an asshole who enjoys saying stupid shiat.
 
2013-11-12 04:53:05 PM  

JuggleGeek: You didn't prove anything except that you are an asshole who enjoys saying stupid shiat.


Wow, you became a bad cliche rather quickly.  Perhaps insulting my mother or threatening to settle this man to man would be your next move?
 
2013-11-12 05:07:32 PM  
Dad might have just finished reading Deuteronomy 21:18-21 in his Bible the night before this all went down.
 
2013-11-12 07:24:25 PM  

MycroftHolmes: you were soundly disproven at every turn


congratulations! you're the winner!
 
Displayed 138 of 138 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report