Suspected shoplifter dies after being detained at California Walmart
- Thread starter KilljoyKlown
- Start date
Bells
Staff member
Seagypsy, when you post on forums, people will sometimes disagree with your assessment. They will often quote you and ask you questions about what you have posted. That is the nature of forums.
It is not a personal attack or an attack on your character if someone asks you why you left out something from an article, especially when it seems to directly go against what was said in the OP (ie, gives the indication that the guards tackled him down first and that was when he resisted). This is not an attack against you or your integrity.
At first in this thread, I pretty much ignored you, because it was clear you were intent on starting an argument with me by deliberately twisting what I had said. You then changed tact and started to accuse me of being emotionally charged. I responded to you politely and I even asked you politely to cease and desist with that line of argument. And you kept at me and kept on going. I continued to respond to you about this thread topic politely.
I will ask you again. Please stop accusing me of being emotionally charged. Contrary to what you may believe, I am not some weak woman who suffers from vapors at the mere sign of confrontation and false accusations. I am not emotionally charged. I have explained to you that you have not offended me. I don't quite know how many times I need to keep saying it. But you don't actually matter enough to me to get that kind of response out of me. Neither does Neverfly. Is that clear enough for you now?
What I would like you to show me, however, is where I have apparently "hinted" at moderating you for apparently not agreeing with me. That is a very grievious accusation and one that I would like you to please explain.
That aside, accusing me of being too involved in what? This discussion?
I beg to differ. If your accusation is to be taken seriously, it would apply to you just as much, if not more so. People often disagree, seagypsy. It does not mean that when there is a disagreement that one becomes emotional and one cannot remain objective. Nor does it mean that just because someone does not disagree with your assessment that they are flaming you or insulting you.
So apparently the official mod note in this thread requesting us to drop it is being ignored by one participant. Interesting.
that just sop around these parts
the only way one can get a sciforumer to shut up is to either lock or ban
all hail us
whats up, sciforumer?
that just sop around these parts
the only way one can get a sciforumer to shut up is to either lock or ban
all hail us
whats up, sciforumer?
You gotme on that one, but I was more making a comment to all readers pointing out an observation. The. Quote was just evidence to support my conclusion.
Where I live, until he is tried and convicted in a court of law, demonstrating that the charges have been proven beyond reasonable doubt, the crime remains an allegation, and he is the alleged offender.
Regardless of the crime.
You could stab someone in front of thirty witnesses in broad daylight, killing them, but until you are tried and convicted in a court of law, and had the opportunity to defend yourself, you are the accused, and the crime is an allegation.
Perhaps the alleged shoplifter had a lapse in a moment of panic. Perhaps the alleged shoplifter panicked because they had a pre-existing medical condition (Angina, for example) that became their overwhelming imperative. Perhaps it became their overwhelming imperative because they had their angina medication in their car, rather than their pocket.
Perhaps they ran and fought the guards off simply because they knew they had a pre-existing medical condition, and that they needed to get to their vehicle to retrieve their medication because they could feel the precursor symptoms of an impending attack. Perhaps the guards in their fervor to 'catch a crook' misinterpreted the alleged shoplifters actions.
Last edited:
You're one to talk pjdude, you love saying untrue things.
Right I don't what I did that you took as me crapping in your wheaties but I have never said anything that was demonstrated to me in a logical manner to be false and would like you to elaborate. Or are u a sock or a friend of some of less reputable members? Because if your like most people here you confuse untrue with I don't believe
I said that if more facts came to light, I'd probably view this case a little differently. This Case.
I still don't pity a crook. I really don't give a damn what others think about that.
In this case, the news said he attacked Security.
Later, the news said that it wasn't security.
So F.I.A- it isn't my fault if the news is faulty.
I also considered that the guy intended to pay, had a medical emergency and rushed to his car. I thought of it today after reading some news. He forgot about the cart.
It's possible that was the case. Irrelevant to what I said earlier.
Because what I said earlier was clear and established.
It's not unusual for more facts to come to light and a person will reevaulate a position- but I didn't make a real position. I stated I don't pity crooks. I bastard.
If this guy turns out to not be a crook- I'll have more pity for him. But I had stated a General Opinion. I stand by that and I won't tolerate to the words being twisted and changed for someone else to enjoy flaming another member that they dislike.
Not hard, is it?
Bells flaming and character attacks were still B.S. and it's DISGUSTING you guys allow that hypocritical and unchecked behavior.
Last edited:
Bells questions about "inflicting the Death Penalty" and "judge jury and executioner are Legitimate,"
Riiiiiiight...What you have is a Moderator instigating fights deliberately because she gets off on it, then she tricks others into thinking she hates fighting and it was all a misunderstanding. I don't fight with anyone else the way I do Bells. It's only Bells. Now that hell's been raised, she's turned on the sweet factory.
This demonstrates something. It's not everyone else, just Bells.
I stand by what I said:
No Confidence In Her ability to Moderate. She's disruptive and accusatory and does so with intent. If the other mods wish to blind themselves to it- it speaks of the forum as a whole.
You guys just don't want to have to deal with the problem.
Nope, sure isn't. I never said anything of the kind, nor expressed that a situation like that would be fine. I challenge you to find MY WORDS that say I'd be ok with that, considering MY words spoke of cops, guard, security DEFENDING THEMSELVES FROM VIOLENCE ONLY.
But that question is not based on what I said, is it? It's based on the Image Bells Painted using her own words. And it's why her behavior is intolerable.
You're quoting BELLS Words there.
Your failure to critically assess the news at hand, the very thing you were berating others for doing, however, is your fault.
I made the post before I saw the more recent posts in the last couple of pages (EG Seagypsys post #76) so "But the situation changed!" In my opinion, is nothing more than a cop-out.
Oh yeah. I'm also not a former or has-been anything. I currently work in law enforcement.
Last edited:
Funny thing.
I was recently assaulted in my garage, in front of my children.
I was injured, and have the Dr's report to prove it.
I defneded myself without injuring my assailant, whom I am quite convinced would not have stopped had his initial attack been successful (under Florida law, I would have been justified in shooting him).
Anecdotal. So what? YOU managed to not injure someone. But you did get injured.
Irrelevant.
The story is Irrelevant to the commentary I had actually made. You are ignoring Key Points I had made, Trippy.
I said, "There's not enough info on this case"
I said, "It's too soon to tell."
I also said I don't pity a man that assaults those trying to stop him from a crime.
That's when JDawg cut in and then Bells. If you want to claim I jumped the gun- So did they.
Don't change what I said, then claim that I changed it and call it a cop out. That's inaccurate. A Mod in here that was hammering repeated accusations of wording that was not made does not change what I actually said. She wasn't asking for clarification- this is her TACTIC.
She accuses you of thinking something horrifyingly far fetched and keeps repeating no matter how much you clarify her unwarranted accusations are false.
It's not innocent, it's a tactic. If it's not deliberate, someone needs to teach her better communication and listening skills.
The whole argument was entirely preventable. Had Bells LISTENED to what answers were given and questioned things appropriately, not blowing things way out of proportion, there would have been no argument.
This is why only Bells Instigates these far out arguments with me- and others.
Last edited:
So what?
Vaccines were developed based on what was initially anecdotal evidence.
I got injured, so what? I got injured because I was initially taken by surprise.
I would still have been injured had I injured my assailant, and my injuries would not have been any less.
What's you're point?
Punching someone in the face after they punch you in the face doesn't lessen your injuries, does it?
How I handled the situation had absolutely no bearing on the degree of injuries I received. In fact, the fact that I didn't respond by throwing a punch meant that I came out of the assault with fewer injuries than if I had.
I'm ignoring nothing, actually.
And at every step you defended the guards actions, and questioned the reporting around the alleged shoplifters actions, but not once did you aknowledge that the employees interpretation of the events was accurate.
Every story has three sides, but only one of them is the truth.
Don't change what you said?
Here's what you said:
Here's how I paraphrased it:
Are you suggesting that new information hasn't come to light? Are you suggesting that your opinion in this case has not changed?
All so, note the qualifier in the first clause of the second sentence. That's probably the most important part.
That it's irrelevant to anything that's been said. That's what.
In one instance, you were able to subdue an attacker without harming him. That's commendable, but you cannot assume that somehow will apply across the board and you should be well aware of that.
It's anecdotal and has no bearing here.
Every step?!
REALLY? How many posts had we actually gone through by then, Trippy?
Every step...
I made a general opinion and then JDawg and Bells stepped in with ABSURD character accusations, repeatedly hammering them and keeping me on the defensive.
Are you deliberately blinding yourself to that or is it unintentional?
Irrelevant. I stated a general opinion right off the bat. I said that may change and if it DID NOT change- that would make me what you're trying to claim I am now.
So it's not a cop out at all- it's adjusting for the facts. Which still isn't very relevant to a general opinion anyway.
It has every bearing here. The problem is your ability to see it.
There you go, doing the exact same thing that you have just accused Bells of doing, and berating me for doing.Every step?!
REALLY? How many posts had we actually gone through by then, Trippy?
Every step...
I made a general opinion and then JDawg and Bells stepped in with ABSURD character accusations, repeatedly hammering them and keeping me on the defensive.
Are you deliberately blinding yourself to that or is it unintentional?
None of this attempt at justification has done anything to sway my opinion. Which I am as entitled to as you are of yours.
You can explain it to me...
I'm also posting while emotionally charged. Go back to page one and read forward and what led up to me being Emotionally Charged is plain as day. Consider that ONLY BELLS has gotten this reaction out of me. It is because she is intellectually dishonest about what Ive said and then keeps pushing that on me, pushing and pushing until I finally lose my temper. I get Fed Up with the pushing.
Again- it's plain as day and no other member has this effect.
You are also ignoring that Bells chooses to not diffuse situations. Why is that?
I'm not even sure what your opinion is.
Neverfly said:
I did no such thing. I addressed your comments in general, not the specifics of the case. I addressed your insistence that security guards have no responsibilities when detaining an alleged criminal. The one assumption I did make (a conditional one, at that) was that if your detainee winds up dead, you probably did something wrong. And as it turns out, they did, because company policy is to disengage when a situation rises to that level.
That's when you started in with the macho BS about being a monster and how people like me need people like you to do the "dirty work."