Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: ‘Molotov thrower’ Urooj Rahman blames de Blasio for not holding back NYPD

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    holding the head of Perseus in my support hand
    Quote Originally Posted by MickAK View Post
    I do, the one that threw the Molotov in the cop car.
    Oh, you know them personally?

  2. #12
    Modding this sack of shit BehindBlueI's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by Medusa View Post
    What a fun game. Why, we can say the same about cops who brutalize people. “Do you not suppose a badge and gun draws a certain sort of arrogance and world view”? “I’m not sure why people are surprised a cop would do this.”

    I thought y’all wanted to preach over and over about judging people as individuals, and all that? No? Just certain favored kinds of people?

    i unequivocally oppose terrorism and mob violence and unlawful violence of any kind. I don’t know a single lawyer who doesn’t.
    You did notice that I never once expressed surprise over the Floyd death and supported the termination and criminal charges, right?

    I'm not surprised in the least when I see a story that a police officer has used violence inappropriately. We are human and in a role that requires violence on occasion and that is constantly exposed to violence. Policing does tend to draw a certain world view. We don't get a lot of hippies. There's a reason there's a psych test before you get hired pretty much everywhere, as it absolutely can attract people who want the badge for the authority and then use it arrogantly. So, yes, I've never once said "I cant believe a cop could do this" and don't think many people are. The only time I can recall being legimately surprised by unethical or illegal behavior by an officer was drinking on duty, and even that doesn't surprise me now.

    I don't think being an officer gives you some halo that you can't or won't commit an unethical act or a crime. We wouldn't need internal affairs if that were the case. I don't think being a lawyer does, either. I also don't think that all rioters are poor, uneducated, and unemployed...which is actually why some people are surprised since lawyers are viewed as wealthy (even though we both know that pay ranges wildly), well educated, and employed. Almost like I'm realizing a group isn't monolithic, eh?

    Being surprised by something and condoning it are different discussions.

    Being surprised someone is capable of an act and judging the group as problematic or having some shared responsibility are different discussions.

    As per your usual MO, you've read my post in the most negative light possible so you could be offended and preachy. I'll note that this also doesn't surprise me.
    Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.

  3. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    holding the head of Perseus in my support hand
    And yet somehow, as per usual, you come across as condescending and hypocritical especially when you get called on something. Most often, I see you discussing specific police actions, rather than making generalizations about the kinds of people who are attracted to policing, and drawing the most unfavorable inference about them, or making vague references to how it’s no surprise so many are involved in abuses of power.

    But lawyers are an easy target, as is - and this wasn’t you - “liberalism,” and so on. Again, not you, but someone now says they “know” anyone they’ve read about or heard a news story on. If the latter is true, then lots of folks “know” lots of abusive cops.

    I also don’t think being a lawyer gives you a halo, but there’s a big difference between saying, re a story regarding Molotov cocktail throwing, “well, you know, civil rights lawyers are often a certain type” and “this particular lawyer effed up.” What is the point of saying what you said if you are not trying to make a generally negative and unfavorable inference about lawyers, not just that you disagree with them but that they many be prone to unlawful violence? And how many times have you said similar things about cops?

    You’re big on disclaimers and requests to avoid generalizations....when it suits you.

  4. #14
    banana republican blues's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Blue Ridge Mtns
    Open season on lawyers? Oh, too easy a target. But to be fair, I've known some bad ones on the prosecution side as well.

    And, a couple, that I was so impressed with that I told them that if I ever needed an attorney, they would be who I would call. And meant it sincerely.

    Interestingly enough, or maybe not...one was white, one was black. Both were outstanding (despite my sending their clients up the river).
    There's nothing civil about this war.

    Read: Harrison Bergeron

  5. #15
    Modding this sack of shit BehindBlueI's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by Medusa View Post
    And yet somehow, as per usual, you come across as condescending and hypocritical especially when you get called on something. Most often, I see you discussing specific police actions, rather than making generalizations about the kinds of people who are attracted to policing, and drawing the most unfavorable inference about them, or making vague references to how it’s no surprise so many are involved in abuses of power.

    But lawyers are an easy target, as is - and this wasn’t you - “liberalism,” and so on. Again, not you, but someone now says they “know” anyone they’ve read about or heard a news story on. If the latter is true, then lots of folks “know” lots of abusive cops.

    I also don’t think being a lawyer gives you a halo, but there’s a big difference between saying, re a story regarding Molotov cocktail throwing, “well, you know, civil rights lawyers are often a certain type” and “this particular lawyer effed up.” What is the point of saying what you said if you are not trying to make a generally negative and unfavorable inference about lawyers, not just that you disagree with them but that they many be prone to unlawful violence? And how many times have you said similar things about cops?

    You’re big on disclaimers and requests to avoid generalizations....when it suits you.
    How is "Do you not suppose that draws a certain idealism and world view?" an unfavorable inference? Is idealism negative? Does someone's occupation not often color their world view? Does the idealism and worldview of a human rights lawyer somehow preclude participation in a riot? Then why are people surprised? My point, and entire point.

    People who are drawn to police work or to the military also often have a certain idealism and world view. Nothing negative in the slightest. At least for police, reality often beats it out of them, hence the stereotype of the idealistic rookie who thinks he can save the world vs the cynical veteran who realizes he's doing damn good if he can make an impact on a hand full of folks over the course of a career.

    Where, exactly, did I say "civil rights lawyers are often a certain type". I didn't. You assumed it then assumed what that certain type was so you could be offended. Nothing I said implied or indicated some systematic issues with lawyers or blamed other lawyers for this lawyer's actions.

    Lawyers absolutely are an easy target. It's the 97% that give the other 3% a bad name. So are hillbillies, Kentuckians in particular. I made a joke about Waffle House employees too, might want to run over there and be offended for them as well.
    Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Medusa View Post
    Oh, you know them personally?
    I'm confused by your various posts...

    Are you smart?

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •