This Cop Is Getting $2,500 a Month Because Killing an Unarmed Man in a Hotel Hallway Gave Him PTSD

...which he did after becoming a police officer. And I'm not sure that's a disqualifying offense. Should it be? Sure, I can buy an argument in that direction.

 

What, exactly, is it that I don't know? Is it that people brandish weapons regularly in the Sunni triangle? Why would lacking knowledge of that specific fact, which hasn't been established, belie knowing "jack ****" about the Sunni triangle?

 

My marine infantry squad treated Iraqis with more respect than police officers treat American civilians with. Don't really care if you accept that or not. It's the truth.

I don't care what you believe. I encountered dozens of armed individuals on a daily basis for seven months inside an actual warzone. Yet I never responded by shooting them or pointing my rifle at them or threatening to kill them. I always remained calm and professional and obeyed the rules of engagement.

 

There's a difference between "armed" and "brandishing."

 

Cataloging your ignorance of the Sunni Triangle in 2007 would take too long.

I never said they were brandishing their weapons. I said they were armed. Do you need me to explain the difference?

Seeing as how you spent exactly zero seconds in the Sunni triangle, I think it's fair to assume your knowledge of its daily occurrences is effectively nonexistent.

 

You're the one who tried to introduce the "brandishing" canard into this discussion, not me.

 

Is that some frantic googling I am detecting?

 

That's okay, just one will do.

Oh lookie there, I wasn't wrong at all.

My knowledge of "daily occurences" in ****ing Hapsburg Spain is effectively non-existent. That's a far, far cry from knowing "jack ****."

 

Okay, think about why I introduced the concept for a second. In a country where being armed with an assault rifle is the norm, brandishing would be something like the equivalent of reaching in a country where being armed with a handgun is, if not the norm, quite common.

Who do you think is googling what?

 

How about instead of me demonstrating your ignorance of the Sunni triangle, you demonstrate your knowledge of it.

You attempted to introduce a strawman about "brandishing" weapons. So, yes, you were wrong.

You know jack squat.

 

You introduced it because you want to argue against a position that doesn't exist. It's a classic strawman fallacy. Much easier than trying to argue against my actual position.

 

Anything I say will be seen as "googled information." The fact of the matter is that you can go back and look up conversations between me and Iranian Monitor about the Iraq war in which he and I fundamentally disagree on the nature of American relations with Sunni tribes, and how to interpret American intentions thereof.

I could talk to you about the history of that general geographic region going back Millennia in some detail, I could describe the important urban centers, I could talk about the old Iraqi royal family. You wouldn't care, because you're not an honest interlocuter.

Not a strawman at all. Iraq and America are very, very different places, in which the same actions could be interpreted very differently. Me carrying an assault rifle in my hand in the United States would be dangerous, not because our cops are bloodthirsty, but because there are just cultural differences in what's viewed as acceptable or threatening.

You know I'm right.

 

No, it's because I don't think you're being honest in your description of how Sunni Arabs carry their weapons in the presence of American soldiers. Now, you might be, I don't know.

 

What does that mean for a police officer?

I'm still failing to see the need to 1. Make him crawl to the officers and frankly 2. Shoot him given all the information that was available to the officers once they arrived on scene
(Suspects demeanor plus apparent lack of weapon)

I would think it would be involuntarily manslaughter at least

 

We're having some foolish discussion trying to compare the American military occupation of Sunni Iraq to American police in Mesa.

I don't know about how police are trained to handle this kind of situation, so I can't really say. As I've said before, I do think that this cop was a jumpy "tough guy" who probably shouldn't been in this situation.

My problem is that I have massive problems with contemporary Leftist praxis that I think hobbles the political acceptance of popular leftist policies.

Now there I can see a strong argument.

 

I know you are talking out of your ass while attempting to appear knowledgeable.

Fact is, you don't know jack squat about the subject at hand, though you like to pretend that you do.

Trust me... you aren't as awesome as you think you are.

 

They carried them in their hands or slung over their shoulders. And I encountered dozens of armed Iraqis on a daily basis for seven months. Don't really care if you believe it or not.

 

@TedintheShed

I want you to think a minute about the chain of argument you're following here. The idea that the American Marine Corps is less problematic or bloody than American police as an institution is ****ing laughable. The Marines have some of the same institutional and cultural problems turned up to eleven, and a few additional to boot.

You really need to think about the implications of an argument before jumping aboard because it seems to take your side on a certain issue. You're party to a whitewashing of the Marine Corps because you want to castigate the virtue of a single cop? Why? You're allowing a discussion about one man to color the presentation of a troublesome institution (the Marine Corps) more favorably. Incredibly foolish.

 

Sure, I believe that. I'm not sure if they really carried them in their hands with one hand on the handguard and another on the grip, but maybe they do. To do so in Iraq and to do so in America are two completely different things.

 

I just happen to have discussed these matters here before, but somehow never garnered any information about them during or before those discussions.

 

Holy ****...it's the mother of all strawmen!

It's the mother-men!

 

In the Sunni triangle in 2007, it was less problematic. By that time, the rules of engagement had been tightened significantly. Marines were not allowed to open fire unless they positively identified a weapon and a hostile intent. Some complained that these rules of engagement were too restrictive, but I didn't feel overly restricted. I managed to go seven months without shooting or threatening or flagging a single Iraqi despite being surrounded by people with guns on a daily basis. Sorry that you cannot handle the truth about the abusiveness of the US police state.

 

Dude! Why are you supporting the Marine Corps!? Do you love THE STATE!?

 

Not a strawman at all. You and I both know that implication both of focus and of omission can be just as powerful as a stated argument.

 

Yes, they are different.

Because in America, it will probably get you killed by the government, whereas in Iraq the acting government will think nothing of it.

Put another way, the government in America is more authoritarian than the occupying forces in Iraq were.