It’s almost like you didn’t click any links whatsoever!
Yes, I clicked on the links, and the guy was an off-duty police officer working as a security guard. But I guess saying, “This is such clear police idiocy” sounds more inflammatory than “This is such clear idiocy by an off-duty police officer working as a security guard who was immediately put on suspension by the police department.” No, much better to imply that “the police” were behind the action.
Hey that’s good! Just make sure the police officer is off duty and then he can do what he likes! You are a genius Andy!
No, he can’t do what he likes…which is why he is on restricted duty and under investigation by his department. But again, saying “police department responds quickly and decisively to actions by off-duty police officer” isn’t nearly as exciting as talking about “clear police idiocy.”
jason
1927
They didn’t exactly respond quickly and decisively. They blamed the kid for the incident until the video came out. They acted rashly and defensively, protective of their own, until such time that they clearly couldn’t.
He wasn’t, actually, and they tried to cover it up until videos started pouring out. Also, he gets back-pay for time on suspension after the investigation clears him of any wrongdoing.
So in other words, you have even the most basic facts wrong and still you continue to emit bullshit. Who’s surprised? Nobody.
Quitch
1929
Because he’s off-duty, ergo not acting on behalf of the police, ergo “police idiocy” is completely wrong.
God I hate this thread.
Jibble
1930
I’m sorry, clear idiocy from a police officer who should damn well know better.
I wasn’t insinuating that he had his superiors whispering in his ear to shove the kid. I was simply pointing out that a police officer did something incredibly stupid and incited a bunch of people.
Is that clear enough?
So he wasn’t acting on behalf of the police and he was off-duty, yet the department felt that his actions merited a response that seems about equivalent to what would have happened if he was on duty.
You can’t detach a police officer from his job and training simply because he’s not on the clock.
That seemed to be exactly what you were insinuating, which is why I commented on it. And as I keep pointing out, although he was an off-duty officer, he was acting as a security guard at the time. “Police idiocy” certainly implies that it was actions by “police” in general, instead of saying, “One security guard shoved a kid.”
And yes, he was off duty, yet the department still thought it was worth an official response, but I suppose they don’t get credit for that, do they?
Dude, I know admitting you’re wrong is like death for you people but you clearly screwed up. Just admit it and move on.
Wrong about what exactly? He was a security guard, and he wasn’t acting on behalf of the police, so calling it “police idiocy” is clearly wrong and misleading. Jibble admitted as much and amended his original statement. But see, he actually responds to discussions, instead of just throwing out little one-liners like, “Are you serious? Tell me you’re not serious! You ARE serious!” I know it’s fun to take little potshots from the cheap seats, but I don’t need you to give me the Cliff’s Notes version of a conversation I am actively reading.
Jibble
1934
It’s not what I wrote. It’s what you read. Not my problem, but I’ve now cleared it up anyway. Any further conjecture on what I meant is meaningless now that I’ve made it clear.
Let’s see, what was the timeline here. Cop shoves kid, cop lies about it, department stands behind cop, kid spends four days in jail, video surfaces showing that cop was lying, department responds to irrefutable evidence of wrongdoing.
It sounds like you want me to give them a cookie for reversing their opinion only when faced with clear evidence they were wrong.
Yeah. No.
Andy, you said the guy wasn’t a police officer. Remember this?
But he was, in fact, a police officer. I realize you will now attempt to turn up into down and black into white rather than admit you were wrong on this point, but we’re all “actively reading” the thread too, you know.
Jibble
1936
Um, no. I didn’t “admit” that I was “clearly wrong and misleading”. I corrected your incorrect assumption about what I was saying.
No, you’re absolutely right: police that are off duty shouldn’t be held to the same standards we hold regular police. Or human beings. As a security guard not pushing people off things is above his pay grade.
You’re clearly an apologist troll, from your “I don’t know what a kick is” earlier to this latest “I didn’t finish reading the sentence” nonsense. “And debates” or “Andy baits” whichever. You’re either stupid or slightly less stupid pretending to be stupid.
He was a police officer, which you explicitly said he wasn’t.
so calling it “police idiocy”
Is exactly correct, because there was an immediate reaction and covering-everything-up attempt from the police department.
In other news, it appears that Andy has finally gone full-troll instead of even pretending to discuss in good faith, so I get to add yet another idiot to my ignore list. Le sigh, Qt3 nowadays… back in my day, our trolls were at least entertaining, instead of just depressingly dull.
Quitch
1939
It really isn’t because it heavily implies he was acting on behalf of the police, which he wasn’t.
When I was a kid my school would punish me for things happening off the grounds because they could reflect badly on the school. That did not mean I was representing the school off their grounds, especially if I was in my part-time Subway job.
No one said he was acting on behalf of the police. They just said it was typical police behavior towards these protesters. Which it is unfortunately.
When I was a kid my school would punish me for things happening off the grounds because they could reflect badly on the school. That did not mean I was representing the school off their grounds, especially if I was in my part-time Subway job.
If, however, you had a job at the school serving food and were fired from Subway for shitting in the mashed potatoes I’d say your school would be very fair in punishing you by, at the very least, banning you from the mashed potatoes.
