[Sörnäinen]

Originally Posted by irunat2am 

This comes up every time somebody sees 3+ officers trying to subdue somebody. Every single time. I'm not picking on you, but you're one that brought it up.

Yep, since it is my job to teach people to get along in situations like that without instruments like a taser, i consider myself an expert.

This guy could have been controlled with ONE person. That these officers were totally unable to get things done and used a very dangerous weapon to get in control of someone because they were simply unable to do better - THAT´s a scandal.

[driven]

Originally Posted by Sörnäinen 

Wonderful. So you say security people in the U.S.A. are not able to get their will without physical violence and without tasering people?

Sorry, my dear - but that guy was not "making a scene", he was just stubborn a bit. Something that you can easily solve without any physical violence at all if you are not stupid like bread. And IF you need physical violence for that, it´s easy to put that guy out without any electrification. How totally helpless and unable to do their job are THESE security people???

Curious .... how would YOU put this guy out without any physical violence? Talk him out? What if he refuses?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Sörnäinen 

Yep, since it is my job to teach people to get along in situations like that without instruments like a taser, i consider myself an expert.

This guy could have been controlled with ONE person. That these officers were totally unable to get things done and used a very dangerous weapon to get in control of someone because they were simply unable to do better - THAT´s a scandal.

It's pretty damn difficult to control a person without causing them physical pain or risking them or yourself physical harm.

[Sörnäinen]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

It's pretty damn difficult to control a person without causing them physical pain or risking them or yourself physical harm.

Wow, it´s pretty much difficult to program a good software for a PC, too. But if it is your job, you do it, and you better do it right. Those people DON`t do it right.

They make such a big range of mistakes, it´s unbelievable.

By the way: if somebody behaves like that student (?), some physical pain is not the worst thing that could happen to him. But it´s a question of the AMOUNT of physical pain that´s needed. Using a taser is definitely MASSIVELY overdone, especially on someone you already have ON THE GROUND!

You just grab him the right way, and that´s it. It´s basic knowledge for security officers, or at least it should be.

By the way: The "police people" escalated a situation that was clearly controllable. The right kind of communication, stubborn but friendly, would have been enough for a pseudo-intellectual smartass like that guy.

Even more since Kerry said he wants to answer the question.

What makes me even more irritated: The people around - including Kerry - did not react at all to that clear example of inadequate reaction on a small provocation.

You mentioned the adrenaline level of the guy: Well, it´s clearly the officer´s fault they pushed his adrenaline level over the top instead of cooling down the situation. And still: That guy is not an opponent. He is moving, he is jumping, he is not even KICKING or PUNCHING at the officers. How the HELL can they be so helpless they have to use a taser???


(I admit: This makes me really pissed, and maybe i am a bit too annoyed. It´s just that i don´t like watching people failing in their job, especially if it is harming other people´s health without a reason.)

[climber]

Apparently some on this forum are OK with the police using a tazer as a cattle prod to get force a suspect to comply. Gladly many departments have policies in effect that prohibit it. My guess is that UCLA is much more clear now on the use of this kind of force, and now UF will do the same.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by climber 

Apparently some on this forum are OK with the police using a tazer as a cattle prod to get force a suspect to comply. Gladly many departments have policies in effect that prohibit it. My guess is that UCLA is much more clear now on the use of this kind of force, and now UF will do the same.

Apparently some on this forum are OK with people saying/doing whatever they want. I'm not saying that the police acted in an ideal way, but the student is FAR from blameless.

[Sörnäinen]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

Apparently some on this forum are OK with people saying/doing whatever they want. I'm not saying that the police acted in an ideal way, but the student is FAR from blameless.

I am pretty much in a hurry right now, but i will find some time today to describe a PROFESSIONAL way of acting for the police people.

If you are an officer responsible for peace and safety, you should be aware that your "opponents" are NEVER blameless. That doesn´t give you an excuse for behaving stupid, incompetent and helpless, it means you are needed to be well-educated and act and work the right way. These officers need basic level training. It´s very sad.

[climber]

duplicate

[climber]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

Apparently some on this forum are OK with people saying/doing whatever they want. I'm not saying that the police acted in an ideal way, but the student is FAR from blameless.

I do not remember anyone defending the students actions. Clearly he was acting like an ass. He definitely deserved to be asked to leave. And if he refused, then be arrested and taken to jail. I have no problem with some probation or even community service.

What I find interesting is in many of these cases, including the one at UCLA, the charges of resisting arrest are dropped or never even filed. I certainly would not be surprised if that happens here. What does that say about the need to use this level of force?

[mitchell_pgh]

Anyone defending his actions should read this: Cops on leave after Taser incident, student's behavior under scrutiny - CNN.com

I feel this was purely a stunt that got out of hand.

[irunat2am]

Originally Posted by Sörnäinen 

This guy could have been controlled with ONE person.

Originally Posted by irunat2am

It's not that they "couldn't do it" with less, it's just easier for them with more.

I agree with you that there are holds you can do, but why waste extra time and potentially let the person do something to the officer. At that point, they had made the decision to arrest him, and he was resisting. It's not his call. I'm not justifying what they did, and agree that the situation could have been steered in a better direction pretty quickly. But, when you're being placed under arrest (which college public safety officers have the authority to do), it's the same as resisting arrest from a regular officer.

Somebody said that tasing is only to be used to save a life, which is untrue. If somebody is not complying and being defiant, sometimes tasing is a less-than-lethal method which is highly effective. Within a split second it gives officers a way to take control of a situation. Again, not saying that it was justified in this situation.

And Sörnäinen, you mentioned you're pissed or too annoyed..it's cool. It's fine to get a little heated over subjects you feel strongly about. I do it too

Good night!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

I'm waiting for some nut in the PL to comment that they wish Kerry got Tazered. Any bets on who it is?

Most of us that didn't support Kerry, are supporting the actions that took place here. You'd think if we were such anti-Kerry shills we'd be trying to milk this as OMG FACIST!11 But we aren't. We are treating it to same regardless of who was speaking.

People again should be held responsible for their actions. They should not have a right to disrupt events or going on because they THINK what they say is important.

Have him throw his own event. He can speak all he wants to.

Problem is, no one would go listen to this nut for the most part. So he has to ride on the coat tails of those that do bring in crowds.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by climber 

Apparently some on this forum are OK with the police using a tazer as a cattle prod to get force a suspect to comply. Gladly many departments have policies in effect that prohibit it. My guess is that UCLA is much more clear now on the use of this kind of force, and now UF will do the same.

The problem is people thinking "I don't have to do what I am told" in places they don't own.

You certainly wouldn't want some jerk in your house doing things you wouldn't want him to.

He's a punk. Probably always will be a punk. He isn't doing this for some great cause. He is doing it to feed his ego. It's called acting out.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Most of us that didn't support Kerry, are supporting the actions that took place here. You'd think if we were such anti-Kerry shills we'd be trying to milk this as OMG FACIST!11 But we aren't. We are treating it to same regardless of who was speaking.

Notice I said nut and not conservative. I believe you're referring to the latter here.

[Kevin]

Actually if you want to be THAT picky you said "nut in the PL" therefore making it political... but ok

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Actually if you want to be THAT picky you said "nut in the PL" therefore making it political... but ok

Well yeah, it was about the PL, what's your point?

And I'm not being picky, I'm being precise.

[Kevin]

[edit]

Nevermind. I am not playing this game.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

[edit]

Nevermind. I am not playing this game.

Well, I'll thank you not to start it next time.

[Kevin]

Of course, I apologize for making a valid observation. I'll never do it again.

[Dakarʒ]

Make it all you like. Don't quote me as if it was a response to something in my post.

[climber]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

The problem is people thinking "I don't have to do what I am told" in places they don't own.

You certainly wouldn't want some jerk in your house doing things you wouldn't want him to.

He's a punk. Probably always will be a punk. He isn't doing this for some great cause. He is doing it to feed his ego. It's called acting out.

I agree with everything you said. The guy was a total idiot. And he did not have the right to overstay his welcome. He apparently did just that.

But in my opinion the officers did not act properly to deescalate the problem in the first few moments. I believe they instead chose to show how tough and stupid they were. I base this on watching a separate video on the other side of the room that shows the officers behind him. The video on Youtube is much less clear as it does not show the officers actions until after he is grabbed. I think they should have stepped into his field of view and ordered him to leave. If he refused, then place him under arrest.

I also believe that it is not appropriate to use a tazer in stun mode to force a subject to comply (as in cattle prod). That is unless that person is a threat to himself or others. Not to save a life but to protect from harm. There is a difference. I know that when someone is actively resisting being placed under arrest they are risking harm to themselves, the officers, and others. It is then maybe appropriate to use such a device. It sure seems to me they already had him down and secure when he was stunned. I think they got impatient. But the video is not very clear from either perspective I saw.

[theDreamer]

My only input in this matter is about:
~Why did he have to introduce his simple question with a minute long story? If he could have made his statement about the past election, and why Kerry did not choose to pursue further action the situation would be fine, and of course his question would be answered. Yet he went on a story about the whole situation and such which was unneeded information for his question to Kerry.

From the link from CNN, it seems after he left he was laughing and asking if cameras were going to be at the police station. This was all recorded in the police report by the officers, but at this time I trust what they say and think the situation could have been diffused slightly differently. Charges need to be pressed and pushed forward against him, and a review of the situation should go on as planned.

[wallinbl]

At least someone is making a buck here: Don't Taze Me Bro! : CafePress.com

[Angus_D]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

Anyone defending his actions should read this

I don't see anyone defending his actions, only attacking the police's apparent disproportionate response.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I don't really recall how they were "sold". What I do know is that in this and the UCLA case the drive-stun mode tazing is justified IMO.

In the case of the UCLA incident, the comprehensive independent inquiry disagrees. You can read it here, and it's pretty damning in places.

Some choice snippets:

We conclude that Officer 2’s multiple and ineffective uses of the Taser were not
reasonable or justified according to UCLAPD’s policies on the night of the incident—
policies that, in various and important ways, deviate from common and best law
enforcement practice. We note instances at which the involved CSOs and officers might
have reasonably prevented or de-escalated the situation. We identify numerous junctures
at which Officer 2, as well as Officer 1, might have reasonably, and perhaps effectively,
used means other than the Taser to induce Tabatabainejad’s compliance during the
incident.

Officer 1 provided no opportunity for Tabatabainejad to explain or, in Tabatabainejad’s
words, “clarify the situation.” The officer could have, and should have, asked for
Tabatabainejad’s side of the story.


This failure to interact positively and constructively with Tabatabainejad before telling him
that he would need to leave does not constitute an explicit violation of UCLAPD policy.
Instead, it suggests a lack of objectivity, sensitivity, and fact gathering before formulating
conclusions. While we cannot analyze or know Officer 1’s state of mind, his actions at
least appear consistent with someone who had already “made up his mind” about the
situation, based on a quick conversation with a student employee.

This does not in any way suggest that Officer 1 should not have formed impressions based
upon the information obtained from CSO 1. Indeed, the accounts and perceptions of a
trained student officer should be treated by UCLAPD officers as important and generally
reliable. Nonetheless, we would expect any officer to use his or her well-honed abilities to
assess situations and individuals independently rather than immediately acting. Officer 1’s
initial interaction with Tabatabainejad was neither strategic nor tactical.

When Officer 1 reached to touch Tabatabainejad’s arm, the student had made no resistive
or aggressive movements. Tabatabainejad had done nothing more than to refuse to
produce his BruinCard, put on his backpack, and start to leave the library. There is no
suggestion in the record that a refusal to produce a BruinCard, without more, could serve
as a basis for an arrest or taking the student into custody. The sanction for refusing to
show such identification is that the student must leave the Library. Tabatabainejad was
already doing so. Officer 1 had no reason to use force, however minor, and should have simply remained vigilant to satisfy himself that Tabatabainejad was indeed leaving Powell
Library.

Officer 2’s brandishing of the Taser was not specifically outlawed by UCLA policies,
assuming that Tabatabainejad raised his hands to deflect Officer 1 or lunged towards him.
On the other hand, if it is true that Tabatabainejad did not raise his hands or lunge, there
was no provocation or reason for Officer 2 to brandish the weapon.

The record does not show that Officer 2 made any effort to wait to see Tabatabainejad’s
response to the brandishing before pressing the Taser to the student’s side. Pressing the
Taser against Tabatabainejad’s side was an independent and more serious use of force than
simply brandishing it. If Officer 2 perceived in good faith that Tabatabainejad had raised
his hands aggressively or lunged at Officer 1, he may have had justification to brandish.
Yet, absent further provocation from the student, which no one contends occurred, there
appears to be no independent reason for pressing the Taser to the student’s side.


Tabatabainejad, at that point, was not actively resisting, passively resisting, or failing to
comply.

We now consider Officer 2’s first application of the Taser in light of these policies and find
it to be problematic. Regardless of whether Officer 2 can legitimately claim he was
entitled by UCLAPD policy to use the drive stun mode for pain compliance against a
passive resister, it is clear that Officer 2 failed to utilize or exhaust lesser force options.

Officer 2 could have delayed using the Taser a second time despite the repeated orders for
the student to get up or be tased again. Unless or until Tabatabainejad’s behavior changed
to aggressive resistance, there was no additional provocation to justify the second use of
the Taser.

The potential for injury to the involved officers or to others if the second Taser application
had not occurred was minimal. In the minute and sixteen seconds between the first and
second Taser applications, Tabatabainejad remained stationary and noncompliant, but he
did not become violently or even actively resistive or begin fighting with officers.

—59—
—59—
The absence of meaningful provocation by Tabatabainajad between the first and second
deployment of the Taser leads us to conclude that the second deployment was out of


policy. ... Under that policy, considering the totality of the
circumstances, the use of the Taser the second time was objectively unreasonable,
particularly as there was time to employ reasonable alternatives and the level of resistance
did not justify so disproportionate an application of force.
policy.

Starting to get the picture?

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Angus_D 

I don't see anyone defending his actions, only attacking the police's apparent disproportionate response.

There are a lot of people saying "he was just trying to ask a question" or that "hist First Amendment rights were denied". Those statements imply that he did nothing wrong and that any action at all on the part of the organizers or the police was unjustified.

[Angus_D]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

There are a lot of people saying "he was just trying to ask a question" or that "hist First Amendment rights were denied".

I don't see that in my skimming of this thread. Perhaps you could be more specific.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Don't quote me as if it was a response to something in my post.

I surely will if that is what I am doing.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Angus_D 

I don't see anyone defending his actions, only attacking the police's apparent disproportionate response.

Yet I have yet to see anyone giving a REALISTIC alternative that wouldn't have harmed the guy even more. Esp not knowing his background or what he is likely to do. So until I do, I am not judging what the officers did. I've never been in their shoes. Esp not in this situation.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I surely will if that is what I am doing.

Yeah and I showed you how what I was talking about (nuts) wasn't what you were talking about (conservatives).

Originally Posted by Kevin 

100% Silly.

You calling me picky? Yep.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Yeah and I showed you how what I was talking about (nuts) wasn't what you were talking about (conservatives).

You mean you THOUGHT you "showed me"

Who else would make such a statements but conservatives Dakar?

You calling me picky? Yep.

Picky? nope.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Yet I have yet to see anyone giving a REALISTIC alternative that wouldn't have harmed the guy even more. Esp not knowing his background or what he is likely to do. So until I do, I am not judging what the officers did. I've never been in their shoes. Esp not in this situation.

The event had ended by the time he went up to the microphone. You cut his mic, thank everyone for coming and open the doors. Everyone leaves, and Andrew Meyer is alone in a room ranting to himself.

[voodoo]

What I saw was a bunch of amateur monkeys in uniforms. I'm not blaming them for being amateurs and they were born monkeys.. so law enforcement in a university was probably their only carrier-option.

However, I think it is clear that these amateur monkeys didn't have the initiative to take this person down. The person who controlled the microphone ordered this, most likely.

The monkeys just reacted the way their species does. The real twit in this situation was the person who ordered the monkeys to attack and had control over the microphone-system.

V

[CheesePuff]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

What I saw was a bunch of amateur monkeys in uniforms. I'm not blaming them for being amateurs and they were born monkeys.. so law enforcement in a university was probably their only carrier-option.

When you have no idea what you're talking about, you should just shut your mouth.

In western NY, University Police Officers are just that -- police officers. Fully sworn in officers of the law, carry hand guns, and have the SAME training that any other police officer does. Do you think that this is the first time someone was tazed that shouldn't have been? What about the Florida officers that tazed that 6 year old girl?

[Angus_D]

Originally Posted by CheesePuff 

When you have no idea what you're talking about, you should just shut your mouth.

In western NY, University Police Officers are just that -- police officers. Fully sworn in officers of the law, carry hand guns, and have the SAME training that any other police officer does.

Yeah. Worrying, isn't it?

[Angus_D]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Yet I have yet to see anyone giving a REALISTIC alternative that wouldn't have harmed the guy even more.

Read the report into the UCLA tasering incident.

[driven]

Originally Posted by Angus_D 

Yeah. Worrying, isn't it?

Just to fuel the fire here ... but don't you think if any of these "police" had the option to work for a municipal or county police department they wouldn't have chosen the university police as their employer?

[CheesePuff]

Originally Posted by driven 

Just to fuel the fire here ... but don't you think if any of these "police" had the option to work for a municipal or county police department they wouldn't have chosen the university police as their employer?

Uhh, and why would that be? It's civil service, same benefits, and the same pay.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

You mean you THOUGHT you "showed me"

Who else would make such a statements but conservatives Dakar?

Those who are apolitical, democrats who don't like Kerry for two.

But I understand what you're getting at. I said nuts because there are many conservative denizens of the PL who would not make such a statement because they are fair or even-keeled.

Had I substituted conservatives for nuts I'm sure you would have pointed the fact I just stated above out to me and chastised me for painting with a wide brush. Instead, I chose my words carefully and this is what I get.

Tell me Kevin, what would have been the ideal way to phrase it for you, because honestly, I'm at a loss.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

What I saw was a bunch of amateur monkeys in uniforms. I'm not blaming them for being amateurs and they were born monkeys.. so law enforcement in a university was probably their only carrier-option.

I'd think the carrier option would be USPS, UPS or FedEx.

[G4ME]

Dhl?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Sörnäinen 

And IF you need physical violence for that, it´s easy to put that guy out without any electrification.

Sure, but the alternatives involve more violence, which we in America feel to be bad.

[Sörnäinen]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Yet I have yet to see anyone giving a REALISTIC alternative that wouldn't have harmed the guy even more. Esp not knowing his background or what he is likely to do. So until I do, I am not judging what the officers did. I've never been in their shoes. Esp not in this situation.

Okay, as someone who is in those shoes from time to time, a short note about the way things like that should be solved if professional.

A taser is a rather dangerous instrument that should not be used without any necessarity.

I watched that video from different angels now - on YouTube is a lot of footage from different camera people - and it´s obvious that the officers definitely escalated the situation.

How to do better?

First step:
Deescalation.

The guy doesn´t behave?
Tell him that and tell him what to do. Say it friendly, but strict. No discussion, no escalation.

Possible dialogue:
Officer: "Thank you very much, please leave the room now."
Guy: "I have three more questions!"
"That´s nice to hear, but please leave the room now."
"I think those questions are important!"
"I am very sure you do. Please leave the room now."
"You cannot push me! I have the right of free speech!"
"You have, but now please leave the room."
"Why do you want me to leave? I have important questions!"
"I appreciate your rhetorical abilities, but please leave the room now."

Tone: Friendly, but strict.
Distance: Don´t touch! Don´t push! It raises the aggression, and it´s not necessary.

The guy was searching for a stage to play a game, he wanted to have ATTENTION. NEVER give attention to someone like that. Stay calm, be friendly, he loses the attention of the people around him, he probably will give in.

If he doesn´t, he will escalate himself. From experience i can say: in 60 to 70 percent of the cases, the guy will back off because he doesnt get what he wants if the officer is friendly, but strict. The rest of the event will go on without him, and that means: the guy will probably give in.

If not - next step:

Teamwork

One officer talks. Two officers act, while the guy is distracted by discussing with the first officer. That means: Team up around that guy. If you HAVE to use force, do it quick, and do it without noise. The guy wants attention, he should not get it.

Two officers behind the guy are ready for taking him OUT, not DOWN. Bringing someone to the ground is EXTREMELY noisy and slows down the action. If necessary, if there is any escalation, one of the officers distracts the guy - a grip to the head is helpful - the other one goes for the arm of that guy and uses a joint lock, the elbow is a good aim.

Important: The higher the adrenaline, the more excited the guy, the harder you have to work. So stay CALM until you really have to act.

FAST control of the guy - should be easy for trained officers, especially if the opponent is not AGGRESSIVE, but simply a bit stubborn like this one. TAKE HIM OUT. With a good joint lock, you can bring him out - no need for dangerous treatments like using a taser - you can even CARRY him out, especially if you have THAT many officers to do it.

Everything else happens OUTSIDE, not in front of the audience, which gives the guy the stage he wants for his little drama. Without audience, without noise, thinks will cool down very fast.

As is said, this should even be possible alone - if the officer is well trained - but this definitely leads to more damage.

From talking to action needs to be surprising, you will need some surprise for that guy before you lock him, and maybe in this situation you would have to bring him down. But as soon as you get a grip: Get him up on his feet and BRING HIM OUT. No audience, NEVER, if the guy is just searching for it.


Well, so much for a very short trip in things like that.

It´s very easy to see the AIM of that guy. He wants to make a BIG show. He is searching for his own YouTube appearance being the poor victim of police violence. He will heat up very easy if you give him that advantage.

It´s not necessary to give him that chance, and especially it´s not necessary to risk long-lasting damage by tasering someone who is ALREADY ON THE GROUND.

Originally Posted by voodoo 

What I saw was a bunch of amateur monkeys in uniforms. I'm not blaming them for being amateurs and they were born monkeys.. so law enforcement in a university was probably their only carrier-option.

Well, these people lacked training and leadership, it seems. Doesn´t necessary make them monkeys. :-O

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

The event had ended by the time he went up to the microphone. You cut his mic, thank everyone for coming and open the doors. Everyone leaves, and Andrew Meyer is alone in a room ranting to himself.

Again, I said realistic. That simply wouldn't have happened. People stick around to see car/train wrecks. Again I am not JUSTIFYING their actions. I am just saying i haven't read a viable option that has any bearing with reality.

Originally Posted by Angus_D 

Read the report into the UCLA tasering incident.

It seems to assume a lot of things too like the above way to do things. Again, unless you were in their shoes, and no one here was, we can't really tell.

One thing we do know, the guy who got tazered probably wont do it again.

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Those who are apolitical, democrats who don't like Kerry for two.

Yeah sure Dakar. Like I said, I'm not going to play this "game" of yours.

You don't like my reply? Too bad.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Yeah sure Dakar. Like I said, I'm not going to play this "game" of yours.

What game? What are you even talking about?

Originally Posted by Kevin 

You don't like my reply? Too bad.

Yeah, I don't like it when people seem to have a problem with my post and don't back it up.

This is an interesting curve ball you're throwing, here, if it what I think it is.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Sörnäinen 

Okay, as someone who is in those shoes from time to time, a short note about the way things like that should be solved if professional.

But since you weren't in their shoes AT THAT TIME, what you said afterwards has little relevance....

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

What game? What are you even talking about?

I don't know. Whatever back and fourth silliness you keep playing. Like you are doing with Doofy in this thread.

http://forums.macnn.com/89/macnn-lou...form-mssscc/3/

I'll say what I have to say. If you don't like it, or think it's incorrect. Too bad.

Yeah, I don't like it when people seem to have a problem with my post and don't back it up.

I didn't have a problem with your post. You had a problem with mine. And I certainly backed up my reasoning. You didn't agree. Too bad.

This is an interesting curve ball you're throwing, here, if it what I think it is.

There's that game again.

just sit there and continue playing with yourself.

[Sörnäinen]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

But since you weren't in their shoes AT THAT TIME, what you said afterwards has little relevance....

Believe me, situations like that are quite the same - and so there is a good chance of earning how to deal with them.

Talking about games: It´s YOUR game (you and me already discussed that in another thread) to put yourself above others and judge them and their opinions from that "higher level". And it´s also your game to ignore big parts of their postings, so you can just pick out the few things you can deal with. Your aim once again seems to be a verbal slinging match with someone.... it´s really boring, that´s why i stopped discussing with you in general.

(Hell, i did it again right now. Arghs. :-))

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Sörnäinen 

Believe me, situations like that are quite the same - and so there is a good chance of earning how to deal with them.

There were many policemen in my family. One thing I've heard a lot from them was "Not one situation is always the same, you have to be prepared for anything... you just don't know"

The cops that would end up getting themselves into trouble, or shot were the ones that assumed "Oh I've handled something like this before" and just reacted the way he did the last time. So while that may be YOUR experience were YOU live. It's not here.

Talking about games: It´s YOUR game...blah bah

I wasn't replying to you Sörnäinen about the "game" thing. So why you replied to me as if I did is beyond me.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I didn't have a problem with your post.

So why did you quote it? I keep asking what the point was and you keep not answering for some odd reason.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I don't know. I'll say what I have to say. If you don't like it, or think it's incorrect. Too bad.

Which leads to me to believe my original post was right and you haven't a leg to stand on, so rather than argue, you're stonewalling.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

There's that game again.

Thinking?

Originally Posted by Kevin 

just sit there and continue playing with yourself.

Well, it's not just myself when you're responding.

If you're not playing this 'game' I expect this post will go unanswered.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

So why did you quote it?

Wow, I don't know about you, but every post I quote I don't have a "problem" with. Some I agree with. Some I don't agree with. Very rarely do I have a "problem" with a post. I was just pointing out that most of the "nuts" were actually supporting the actions of something that happened during a event that involved Kerry. Had this been a Bush event, the thread would have turned out as one big Bush bash. And how under Bush we were losing our rights etc.
That isn't how it worked out in this thread though...

I keep asking what the point was and you keep not answering for some odd reason.

Uh, I suggest you go read the thread again. And maybe pay attention.

Well, it's not just myself when you're responding.

Oh, I never said I wouldn't respond. I am just ignoring the "game" parts of it. As a matter of fact, I'll just leave those parts out from now on.

Not playing your game does not = not responding.

But I tell you what Dakar. Lets make a deal. Show me at least one lefty that has a habit of making any death threats, or wished Kerry dead in this forum. And I will concede. (Not that any righty really has either.. but hey.. that was my point too)

On the other hand, if you cannot, you'll have to concede that my comment was certainly valid.

Deal?

[Sörnäinen]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

There were many policemen in my family. One thing I've heard a lot from them was "Not one situation is always the same, you have to be prepared for anything... you just don't know"

(...)

I wasn't replying to you Sörnäinen about the "game" thing. So why you replied to me as if I did is beyond me.

Well, well, Kevin - believe me, situations ARE alike. OF COURSE you have to be flexible and reacting the right way, not like standard. If you actually READ my posting above, you would know i gave options. But training needs to use experiences made before. That´s a simple truth.

And about "situations being the same": That´s why i answered your "game thing". Situations ARE actually quite the same and they ARE comparable, even if you have to stay flexible.

And as always you didn´t even answer my posting, you just picked out one small thing and started talking about that. q.e.d. ;-)