This video was taken out of context. The Amerindian guy had just stolen the rifle from a local store and was was pointing a gun at police and then shot it off into the air to intimidate them:
Watch at 2:15: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFcEMMZju7U
"On Feb. 19, a Marana police officer used his patrol vehicle to stop an armed man who was allegedly involved in multiple criminal acts across town. The man, later identified by police as Mario Valencia, reportedly stole a rifle from a Marana Walmart store and fired the rifle as he walked away. This video was taken from the front dash of Officer Michael Rapiejko, whose vehicle struck Valencia. It was edited to shorten the length."
More on the story here: http://tucson.com/news/blogs/police-beat/marana-suspect-hit-by-police-car-id-d/article_d25f2a7e-bb97-11e4-ba50-df63e61754d4.html?id=201408
No, it wasn't taken out of context because in the video none of what you said happened. And for something to be taken out of context something had to be omitted from this video, but since this is a police video, I ask what, or how was anything, omitted if it wasn't part of that video. Here's how out of context is explained;
The practice of quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as "contextomy" and quote mining), is an informal fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.[1] Contextomies are stereotypically intentional, but may also occur accidentally if someone misinterprets the meaning and omits something essential to clarifying it, thinking it non-essential.
Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms:
As a straw man argument, which is frequently found in politics, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute. As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position.[2]
In either case, while quoting a person out of context can be done intentionally to advance an agenda or win an argument, it is also possible to remove essential context without the aim to mislead, through not perceiving a change in meaning or implication that may result from quoting what is perceived as the essential crux of a statement.
So, I guess you'd be okay if they attacked him with a drone or police used any method to apprehend or subdue a suspect. Where do you draw the line? What if a bystander happen to walk out right at the time the cop used his vehicle? All I can say is the cop had better hope he can convince the system his life was in danger at that moment.
The officer was asked if the suspect was shooting or did you shoot and the officer replied negative did not shoot.
He did not specify whether he didn't or the suspect didn't, but he didn't say the suspect shot at him.
Now, if he had shot at the police then they had every right to shoot back at him, but using a car is not cool since at the time the suspect was not threatening any cop.
We know that cops will lie, cheat, steal, plant evidence, etc...For the record I don't like criminals nor do I like cops.
Pity it wasn't 10 OUT-OF-CONTROL THUGS WITH GUNS THAT JUST COMMITTED ARMED ROBBERY then we coulda had ourselves a really good game of street 10-pin! STRI-I-I-I-I-I-I-KE!!!
Itzda Joos, what you fail to realize is that the police will do this to White people as well. You make it sound like the police are on our side. They aren't.
7 comments:
This video was taken out of context. The Amerindian guy had just stolen the rifle from a local store and was was pointing a gun at police and then shot it off into the air to intimidate them:
Watch at 2:15:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFcEMMZju7U
The police did the right thing.
That f'ing crazy. Everyone needs to prepare to be run over if a cop knows you have a firearm.
"On Feb. 19, a Marana police officer used his patrol vehicle to stop an armed man who was allegedly involved in multiple criminal acts across town. The man, later identified by police as Mario Valencia, reportedly stole a rifle from a Marana Walmart store and fired the rifle as he walked away. This video was taken from the front dash of Officer Michael Rapiejko, whose vehicle struck Valencia. It was edited to shorten the length."
More on the story here: http://tucson.com/news/blogs/police-beat/marana-suspect-hit-by-police-car-id-d/article_d25f2a7e-bb97-11e4-ba50-df63e61754d4.html?id=201408
No, it wasn't taken out of context because in the video none of what you said happened. And for something to be taken out of context something had to be omitted from this video, but since this is a police video, I ask what, or how was anything, omitted if it wasn't part of that video. Here's how out of context is explained;
The practice of quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as "contextomy" and quote mining), is an informal fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.[1] Contextomies are stereotypically intentional, but may also occur accidentally if someone misinterprets the meaning and omits something essential to clarifying it, thinking it non-essential.
Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms:
As a straw man argument, which is frequently found in politics, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute.
As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position.[2]
In either case, while quoting a person out of context can be done intentionally to advance an agenda or win an argument, it is also possible to remove essential context without the aim to mislead, through not perceiving a change in meaning or implication that may result from quoting what is perceived as the essential crux of a statement.
So, I guess you'd be okay if they attacked him with a drone or police used any method to apprehend or subdue a suspect. Where do you draw the line? What if a bystander happen to walk out right at the time the cop used his vehicle? All I can say is the cop had better hope he can convince the system his life was in danger at that moment.
The officer was asked if the suspect was shooting or did you shoot and the officer replied negative did not shoot.
He did not specify whether he didn't or the suspect didn't, but he didn't say the suspect shot at him.
Now, if he had shot at the police then they had every right to shoot back at him, but using a car is not cool since at the time the suspect was not threatening any cop.
We know that cops will lie, cheat, steal, plant evidence, etc...For the record I don't like criminals nor do I like cops.
Where's the full video?
Pity it wasn't 10 OUT-OF-CONTROL THUGS WITH GUNS THAT JUST COMMITTED ARMED ROBBERY then we coulda had ourselves a really good game of street 10-pin! STRI-I-I-I-I-I-I-KE!!!
Itzda Joos, what you fail to realize is that the police will do this to White people as well. You make it sound like the police are on our side. They aren't.
Post a Comment