NOT GUILTY verdict in officer involved shootings death of Pamela Turner

Author: TWS1405
Pamela Turner
Ben Crump
Officer Shooting

Posts

Total: 60
#31
Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
-->
@Athias
If you maneuver your eyes to the left-hand side of your screen (don't go too far), there are picture boxes and a word above. That word above is my name.
That's obviously not the point. The fact that you would glean "anarchist dreams" from my statement alone, especially considering that "Avery" and I have never had discourse up until this point and that your profile suggests you've been here a bit more than a month--not to mention your familiarity with DDO--leads me to suspect that you are aware of my politics--politics which I do not advertise on my profile. In essence, I'm accusing "Avery" of being an alt. account. So, who are you?
Ha!

You're just shocked I was able to determine your political ideology so quickly!

Consider me flattered <3

You might like living in a stateless society.
I most certainly would.
This thread isn't about the validity of Anarchy (I'm aware that I brought it up first, too), so I'm just going to drop all points relating to this now. But don't worry, I read them all.

Oh you're right.

When people are on edge, that gives them the right to grab people's weapons.

My bad.
When being threatened on their own property, they most certainly have the prerogative to effectively end said threat.
The more prudent approach is to yield to police officers and let them do their jobs. You can always sue after-the-fact.

Besides, police officers are in the right the vast majority of the time.

I'm curious: do you think it would be okay to assault or even kill a police officer for attempting to arrest you?
The attempt to arrest or detain is a violation of one's person and sovereignty. So yes, one has the prerogative to seek the end of all acts of aggression to which one is subject.
Wow.

Well, at least you're honest. 

I'm surprised you're still alive with that attitude.

What about asking for I.D?
You don't ask police officers for their badge numbers and confirm that they are who they say they are?
No. I try to end interactions with police officers as quickly as possible.

Police impersonation is so rare that I don't assume it.

What about existing?
Police officers are enforcers for the State. The State is an institution defined by its capacity to coerce. So yes, their existing constitutes a threat.
Sounds like original sin...

Where do you draw the line?
STATE = IMMORALITY.
UNDERSTOOD.
#32
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@TWS1405
I’m going to sleep right now, got past a few lines of  your reply and all I can say at this point is…

You are an IDIOT!!! 
Wow, a demonstrably capricious, I guess we can use the word, "debater" resorts to ad hominem statements to convey discontent with an opponent's contention. What a concept...

I’ll shred your ignorant retort in the morning over coffee. 
Perhaps you should ease up on the caffeine. And attempt to "shred" as much as you intend, you'll receive no response from me. Have a nice day, sir.

#33
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Avery
The more prudent approach is to yield to police officers and let them do their jobs. You can always sue after-the-fact.
after you've spent four years "awaiting trial" ?

after your house has been destroyed and you've lost your job ?

after your bank account has been frozen or seized ?

yeah, no big deal

i'm sure a $50 to $600 an hour lawyer will be more than happy to take your case and string it out for several more years
#34
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Avery
Ha!

You're just shocked I was able to determine your political ideology so quickly!

Consider me flattered <3
Not really. While I don't advertise my political ideology, I don't hide it either. There's nothing in my initial post that screams anarchy, so I suspect the only way you could've deduced it is if your familiarity with my political ideology predates the registration of this "Avery" account. You've already tipped your hand, and it's up to you whether you continue to indulge this pretext and attempt to gaslight others into believing this ruse.

This thread isn't about the validity of Anarchy (I'm aware that I brought it up first, too)
You're only making my point. You brought it up. I didn't.

The more prudent approach is to yield to police officers and let them do their jobs. You can always sue after-the-fact.
Yeah, that's prudent. Let police officers accost you and supplicate the State after the fact for money they steal from you.

Besides, police officers are in the right the vast majority of the time.
How do you figure?

Wow.

Well, at least you're honest. 
Yes, I am--or at least, I endeavor to be. I don't create alternate accounts and submit my statements under the veneer of someone different.

I'm surprised you're still alive with that attitude.
...because?

Sounds like original sin...
Does it?

UNDERSTOOD.
Alright, corporal.

Topic's author
#35
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Athias
->@TWS1405
Non Sequitur
Define non sequitur. Because, I believe you don't know what it means.
I know what non-sequitur means, clearly you do not. I do not care what you believe, feel or think. The ONLY thing that matters is what you can prove. And I explained quite clearly how/why it was a NS. You just ignored that fact in order to turn things around on me, fallaciously. 

This thread is about criminals on the street and how cops are treated by not only them, but the general public as well. It has NOTHING to do with politics and who is or is not running the so-called "government."
This thread may be about what you described, BUT THE POINT I ADDRESSED is about the latitude afforded to criminals in a "stateless society."
There is no such thing as a "stateless society" in the United States of America. And it was Avery who was addressing the latitude afforded criminal while castigating civil servants. 

Both she and the officer lived in the same apartment complex. They were in the parking lot. It was NOT "her own property."
I stand corrected.
At least you can admit it, unlike so many others at this forum.

Knowing she lived in the same building, the officer attempted to serve said warrant. During which Turner became hostile, belligerent, combative and resisted lawful arrest.
Which was instigated when the officer attempted to "lawfully" arrest her.
When someone is "caught," being caught does NOT give one carte blanche to resist a lawful arrest through violence, putting the cop's life at risk.

she has no right to act in such a manner, especially towards a peace officer.
Except in defense of her own person when a "peace" officer is attempting to detain her.
No, she does not. No one is entitled to any measure of "defense" when being lawfully arrested. It's called "resisting arrest," "obstructing governmental operations," "assaulting an officer," and any other applicable criminal charge for doing so.

She was the threat, not the officer. 
Unless the terms in which she was renting her apartment were nullified, and the landlord wanted to evict her, the officer was still the threat.
This is why your response is so goddamn stupid. The terms of her lease have absolutely nothing to do with the warrant issued for her arrest for assaulting the property manager. She was the threat, not the officer and he never will be in any universe you can make stupid pathetic excuses for.

You clearly know nothing about the law, constitutional law, and the laws governing the authority law enforcement officers possess when enforcing said laws.
There's a difference between knowing about the law, and arguing in defense of them. I AM NOT arguing in defense of them.
You clearly cannot argue against them if you do not understand them. That's the point of my observation, which stands factually accurate in the wake of your stupid responses. 

A lawful arrest is NOT "a violation of one's person and sovereignty."
Yes it is.
No, it is not. See, yet another stupid response.

Period. Fact. Period. So, NO!
Ordnung Mein Fuhrer!
Sophomorically banal intellectual coward retort. 

No one has the right or prerogative "to seek the end of all acts of aggression" in such a case as this.
Because?
*yawn* Another ignorant STUPID response demonstrating the Dunning Kruger Effect on your part where this subject matter is concerned. 

God! You sound like one of those nut job sovereign citizen clowns. 
"Sounds like" is not an argument.
Sounds like, come off as, appear to be...what difference does it make when you clearly put forth statements indicative of the attitude a sovereign citizen spouts off. Also, it's not meant to be an argument but rather an observation. Big difference. 

Another non-sequitur.
Define non sequitur. Because I don't believe you know what it means.
See initial response to this stupid shifting of the argument back to me when it is to YOU who does not know what it means. 

Everyone knows that 99.90% of the time anyone with a badge IS a law enforcement officer. Imposters are far, few and between. 
So you don't ask police officers for their badge numbers and confirm that they are who they say they are?
Nope. Running into a fake officer is about as rare as winning the lottery. 

FFS! Another non-sequitur.
Define non sequitur. Because I don't believe you know what it means.

See initial response to this stupid shifting of the argument back to me when it is to YOU who does not know what it means. 

She is asking about existing as a human being, being physically present. 
I suppose your guess is as good as mine was.
It wasn't a guess. Reading comprehension matters.

Police officers may be employees of the state, but they are not "enforcers" (i.e., mercenaries) of the state.
Non sequitur. No one said anything about "mercenaries." Do you see how the term non sequitur is properly used?
Proof positive you do not know what non-sequitur means. Not to mention a clear lack of reading comprehension skills.

They are CIVIL SERVANTS!!
They most certainly are not. They are obligated and loyal to the State.
Yes, they are!!! Ignoramus!!! 

"Civil servants are professionals who work for the government and whose salaries are paid by taxpayers. Civil service can be conducted at the national, state and local level."



And there are millions upon millions of victims of crime, especially violent crime, that would wholeheartedly disagree with your last, albeit asinine, assessment. 
I neither entertain nor indulge ad populum arguments.
Their lay statements are evidence against your position. It's not a popularity contest to see who agrees more than others. 

You begin with a stupid statement and end with a stupid statement with a lot of stupid in-between. 

...you'll receive no response from me. Have a nice day, sir.
That's EXACTLY what an intellectual coward with no integrity would say. 

I will take that as your concession that you know you are wrong and have resigned from the debate/discussion.

PS. 

I guess we can use the word, "debater" resorts to ad hominem statements to convey discontent with an opponent's contention. What a concept..
When the observation is true, it is not a fallacious ad hominem. 
#36
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@TWS1405
I will take that as your concession that you know you are wrong and have resigned from the debate/discussion.
I didn't bother reading the rest of your argument. But trust that this is no concession. There's a difference between not wanting to indulge a regressive back and forth, and conceding an argument. If you cannot maintain a respectful decorum when addressing my responses, then I exercise my prerogative to disengage any discussion with you. Have a nice day, sir.

#37
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TWS1405
I guess we can use the word, "debater" resorts to ad hominem statements to convey discontent with an opponent's contention. What a concept..
When the observation is true, it is not a fallacious ad hominem. 
declaring "You are an IDIOT!!!"

is clearly a statement of opinion

and not a statement of fact

and as such, holds no "truth value"
Topic's author
#38
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Wrong. I clearly demonstrated she’s an idiot on the things she said In juxtaposition to the subject of the thread. That’s not opinion, that’s fact. 
Topic's author
#39
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Athias
Quitting for any reason = concession. Period. 
Topic's author
#40
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
@Athias
You two need a vocabulary lesson:

idiot

ĭd′ē-ət
noun
  1. A person who is considered foolish or stupid.

stupid

stoo͞′pĭd, styoo͞′-
adjective
  1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
  2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
  3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless.
stupid person

noun
  1. a person who is not very bright
Through several retorts of Athias', it is patently apparent (i.e., obvious) that she has made several statements with zero evidence - which are purely subjective uneducated opinions - that qualifies as foolish, stupid and demonstrates a lack of intelligence or care on the subject at hand. 

Therefore, my calling Athias an IDIOT is neither an ad hominem NOR factually inaccurate (i.e., it is NOT an opinion). It is a fact-based objective observation premised on her own choice of words in explaining her position on the various parts of the subject under discussion.
#41
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TWS1405
CRITIQUE = RESPECT

name-calling is not a critique
#42
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
-> @TWS1405
CRITIQUE = RESPECT

name-calling is not a critique
Why are you trying  to define TWS1405’s behaviour instead of simply asking him to stop insulting Athias?

Most of your posts end up in circular reasoning around a play with words that you have very little comprehension of.

#43
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Shila
it's just strange to find so many "debaters" who try to defend their own ad hominem attacks
Topic's author
#44
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
And where were you in defense of myself when iwantrosevelt…whatever that clowns handle is, has done nothing but name call me in every post he replies to me in? Eh! 

If you and Athias were true “debaters,” you’d know I am right. 

“if personal attacks are employed to devalue a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker; personal insults in the middle of an otherwise sound argument are not fallacious ad hominem attacks.”

#45
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TWS1405
personal insults in the middle of an otherwise sound argument

you're missing that last part
Topic's author
#46
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Uh, no I am NOT!!! 

Your denialism is not an argument. 

I followed up my post as I said I would  the following morning with that very sound argument, one you’re purposely overlooking. 

I proved how and why she is and has been an idiot where this topic is concerned. You’re just being stubborn and a hypocrite (you said nothing regarding the iwantrosevelt character and his actual name calling, ignoring that point of fact as well).  
#47
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TWS1405
your "scathing-critique" in [POST#35]

contains a few naked declarative statements

and personal opinions

sprinkled with uncreative insults

none of which add up to a "sound-argument"
Topic's author
#48
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
None of what I said is personal opinion. 

Everything I posted is objective opinion - in other words, based on fact based truths. Claiming otherwise without proving it ain’t an argument. 

sprinkled with uncreative insults
“if personal attacks are employed to devalue a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker; personal insults in the middle of an otherwise sound argument are not fallacious ad hominem attacks.”

none of which add up to a "sound-argument"
Now THAT = [a] personal opinion. 

Your continued denialism and inability to admit you’re wrong = intellectual cowardice. 
#49
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TWS1405
Your continued denialism and inability to admit you’re wrong = intellectual cowardice. 
Topic's author
#50
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Awesome sophomoric “I know you are, but what am I” retort there, sport. 

You assert you’re such a great “debater,” then put the proverbial money where your mouth is and take up Athias’ exact arguments put forth and defend them; otherwise prove what I said in rebuttal clearly disproving her asinine assertions wrong. 

Failure to do either simply proves my observations about you both 100% factually accurate. 
#51
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TWS1405
if you honestly believe your opinions are "objective"

i do so wish you the best of luck
#52
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
When did Athias become a "she"?
#53
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
CRITIQUE = RESPECT

name-calling is not a critique

it's just strange to find so many "debaters" who try to defend their own ad hominem attacks

personal insults in the middle of an otherwise sound argument

you're missing that last part

your "scathing-critique" in [POST#35]

contains a few naked declarative statements

and personal opinions

sprinkled with uncreative insults

none of which add up to a "sound-argument

Your continued denialism and inability to admit you’re wrong = intellectual cowardice. 
if you honestly believe your opinions are "objective"

i do so wish you the best of luck
Well stated, and thank you.


#54
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Shila
Why are you trying  to define TWS1405’s behaviour instead of simply asking him to stop insulting Athias?
Correction: he's trying to insult me, under the pretext of his impressions of sound, logical discourse. I've already stated my intention to no longer engage him in any discussion on the subject, so it matters not how much he mouths-off.

Most of your posts end up in circular reasoning around a play with words that you have very little comprehension of.
There's nothing "circular" about 3RU7AL's reasoning as it concerns calling TWS out on his ad hominem arguments. It's rather simple:

CRITIQUE = RESPECT
NAME-CALLING = NO RESPECT/DISRESPECT.

Topic's author
#55
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
if you honestly believe your opinions are "objective"

i do so wish you the best of luck

Doesn’t matter what I believe think or feel. The only thing my that matters is what I can prove. And I’ve proven you both factually inaccurate in your unsubstantiated subjective assertions. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it. That being said, it’s precisely why you won’t put your money where your mouth is and prove what you’re claiming. You can’t. And you won’t. Again? Further displays of intellectual cowardice on your part. 
Topic's author
#56
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Athias
Your image looks feminine, and you come off as remind. So you were considered a she. 

So pardon me, he. 

You’re still behaving like an intellectual coward. If you cannot handle strong criticism of your piss poor positions, you should consider excusing yourself from any debate/discussion then. Because you, anyone for that matter, will be called out for their idiocy when positing wholeheartedly stupid positions as you have here within. 
#57
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@TWS1405
--> @Athias
Your image looks feminine, and you come off as remind. So you were considered a she. 

So pardon me, he. 

You’re still behaving like an intellectual coward. If you cannot handle strong criticism of your piss poor positions, you should consider excusing yourself from any debate/discussion then. Because you, anyone for that matter, will be called out for their idiocy when positing wholeheartedly stupid positions as you have here within. 
Here is Athias response: Correction: he's trying to insult me, under the pretext of his impressions of sound, logical discourse. I've already stated my intention to no longer engage him in any discussion on the subject, so it matters not how much he mouths-off. 

Are you trying to insult Athias or those are insults and should be recognized as such?

Topic's author
#58
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Shila
I’m insulting the lack of intelligence and ignorance (stupidity) of the positions argued, not him “personally” seeing as I don’t know him “personally” to do so. It’s all about the lies poor argument of his, not him. 
#59
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@TWS1405
@Shila
Your image looks feminine
Which image is that? The obviously male character which serves as my avatar, the origin for which I've explained before?

and you come off as remind.
Don't know what this means.

If you cannot handle strong criticism of your piss poor positions, you should consider excusing yourself from any debate/discussion then.
I have no qualms handling criticism of my "piss-poor" positions. However, what I will not tolerate is a lack of decorum and respect. The irony of this statement is that I did in fact excuse myself in the advent of regressive back-and-forth, for which you'd subsequently call me "an intellectual coward."

I’m insulting the lack of intelligence and ignorance (stupidity) of the positions argued, not him “personally”
Define "idiot," "coward," and "ignoramus," because I believe you do not know what they mean.

seeing as I don’t know him “personally”
Which is the reason you can only "try" to insult me, not actually insult me.

Anyway, as I've stated, I have no intention of resuming my engagement in discussing this subject with you. So, carry on mouthing-off.
Topic's author
#60
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Athias
@Shila
->@Shila @TWS1405
Your image looks feminine
Which image is that? The obviously male character which serves as my avatar, the origin for which I've explained before?
Your Avatar. No male has eyebrows like that. No male has hair like that. It's typically feminine. 

and you come off as remind.
Don't know what this means.
*rolling eyes* You know damn well that's an autocorrect, but since you lack reading comprehension skills, it doesn't surprise me you do not know what I was attempting to say here. 

If you cannot handle strong criticism of your piss poor positions, you should consider excusing yourself from any debate/discussion then.
I have no qualms handling criticism of my "piss-poor" positions. However, what I will not tolerate is a lack of decorum and respect. The irony of this statement is that I did in fact excuse myself in the advent of regressive back-and-forth, for which you'd subsequently call me "an intellectual coward."
Respect is earned, not given. 

I have clearly and correctly defined terms and debating terms that allow for that which I have done in identifying you as an idiot via your idiotic argument (i.e., not you the "person").

I did not call you an intellectual coward, what I said in context is that your behavior, attitude and denialism is what is being an intellectual coward (intellectual cowardice). If you knew what it meant you would have understood this; but you do not, which is no surprise. 

I’m insulting the lack of intelligence and ignorance (stupidity) of the positions argued, not him “personally”
Define "idiot," "coward," and "ignoramus," because I believe you do not know what they mean.
I already defined idiot and ignoramus. *facepalm* lack of attention to detail on your part. I never asserted the term 'coward' towards your arguments. Again, lack of attention to detail.

You're no debater. You're just a whiner. 

seeing as I don’t know him “personally”
Which is the reason you can only "try" to insult me, not actually insult me.

Anyway, as I've stated, I have no intention of resuming my engagement in discussing this subject with you. So, carry on mouthing-off.
I don't need to insult you. You insult yourself by being offended by innocuous terminology within the apropos context in which they are given. 

Again, quitting for ANY reason is a concession you are wrong and I right. Also, your persistence denialism and lack of intelligent rebuttals is indicative of the Dunning Kruger Effect and intellectual cowardice.