Silver Supporter
- Messages
- 6,072
- Reactions
- 15,024
From the page 98 video analysis:
"Finicum brandished firearms and made threats for weeks.
Finicum ignored lawful orders to exit a vehicle.
Finicum evaded a vehicular stop.
Finicum RAMMED A ROADBLOCK.
Finicum ran around and refused orders to get down.
Finicum looked like he was going for a gun. Three different times. Hands up, hands down, hands up, hands down, hands up, hands down, bang."
I'm gonna add one to that list: Finicum wrote a bad western novel about a government-hating rancher. The novel ended with the quick-draw rancher gunning down 3 evil government employees with his pistol. Okay.
"Finicum brandished firearms and made threats for weeks" OK. So what? Talk is cheap.
"Finicum ignored lawful orders to exit a vehicle" Without sound how do we know that?
"Finicum evaded a vehicular stop" Again, without sound we don't know why. Was he being shot at?
"Finicum RAMMED A ROADBLOCK" No, actually he didn't. I watched the video. He tried NOT to ram the roadblock.
"Finicum ran around and refused orders to get down" Without sound you are once again assuming facts not in evidence. And at no time did he "run around".
"Finicum looked like he was going for a gun. Three different times. Hands up, hands down, hands up, hands down, hands up, hands down, bang." I will agree he "looked like" he might be going for a gun, or he "looked like" he was losing his balance, or he "looked like" he was reaching to cover a wound.
For all the pseudo-logic and debate rules you quote, you consistently violate them yourself. You use pejorative characterizations to shade your "facts" to fit your prejudiced position. You come here and start telling us who we are and what we think with no history of your own (9 posts). You argue the government's case very effectively, while at the same time telling us we are ignorant fools and that you don't care what we think. Your true allegiances are exposed by your terminology. If you want a perfect example of a thinly veiled ad hominem attack start with your own paragraph #9 and go on for the next few paragraphs. Clumsy character assassination won't change anyone's minds.
As for your statistical analysis, it doesn't work when you assume that everyone here is an "ignorant redneck". Some of us have college degrees, law school, medical school, etc. That usually requires an understanding of research methods and statistical analysis. But you wouldn't be aware of that since you just popped in here to crap on our floor without so much as a "Howdy, folks!". It's quite possible that instead of 3600 responses you might get a valid result with 360 or 36 responses. It all depends on how reliable you want your result to be, and from your diatribe above it would seem that you don't care about reliability because you've already decided who's right and who's wrong. My ignore list is about to get a little longer, I'm afraid.