JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
I appreciate your friendly gesture and kind words. Thank you.

As for when I am wrong I like to think that I am not "adamant and persistent" but admit my error and apologize when appropriate as I did with WillametteWill not so long ago.

Of course, like all humans I've ever known, I am subject to the pitfall of being wrong and while not knowing I'm wrong. However, I don't think that is the case in this thread. What I see mostly here are not factual disagreements where someone is right and someone else is wrong. It seems that most of the disagreements here are matters of opinion and values or philosophy not easily susceptible to factual determinations.

It seems like we all agree that Officer Budworth hit (or pushed) Teri Jacobs twice with his baton. Where we seem to disagree is what, if any, level of culpability he bears for that, what context matters and how much, and whether there should be any negative consequences for him. Those don't seem like right or wrong issues as much as agree or disagree issues.
I will admit I chuckled at Flopswets chin music, that said your following posts were well reasoned and convincing. the best response is always a well reasoned one. I always respect any opinion if it can be defended with something other than emotion.
 
This is an ad hominem argument. How about you and I agree that neither of us knows what the other has or has not endured in life and leave it at that?
No, it's not. It's not an argument or an assertion. It's merely an opinion. But you are correct in that it proves nothing, nor was it meant to. It was more an attempt to determine your frame of reference and perhaps to move on to common ground from there. As an example: I can't build a proof to explain to a blind person what I see when I see the color blue. That discussion requires a common frame of reference, as does this one. We'll come back to trying to build that later.

You are mistaken. I am fully aware of and do not trivialize human breaking points, PTSD, and mental trauma I just don't think it gives anyone--least of all a police officer--the right to break the law with impunity. To me, your argument is the same kind of excuse-making that Leftists engage in for the law breakers they like and support.
I don't doubt at all that you have sympathy and compassion for those suffering from mental trauma of any kind. I also agree that it does not give anyone the right to break the law with impunity. However, prosecution of a crime requires criminal intent. We'll come back to that later too.

Here comes an opinion. Your statement in the second quote makes me believe that you don't "understand" human breaking points. That's just my opinion and I can't prove it. Perhaps you have endured torture and been broken, but have forgotten what it's like and what happens. I say that because your statement implies rather strongly that the Officer's action was based on rational thought. You don't seem to understand that humans can be pushed past that point where they are capable of making a rational or appropriate decision. It's my opinion that if you had ever been put in that place, you'd understand. Perhaps I'm wrong. I'm not questioning your compassion, I'm questioning your understanding.

Let's take an extreme example to start building a frame of reference. Let's say terrorists strap a rather large explosive to a man. The bomb is triggered by any large impact. They place the man in a tall building above a large crowded concert venue. The bomb would clearly kill hundreds of people. We can both agree that the man would be totally wrong to jump out the window. (Not to mention he isn't going to want to do that anyway.) Now the terrorists set the floor on fire. The heat becomes intense. The man knows that he is going to die no matter what he does, and he has no wish to commit mass murder as his last act. But what would happen? The man would jump, killing hundreds as well as himself, because a human is simply not capable of standing up to that fire. His mother and his children may be in that crowd, he is going to jump anyway. 911 proved that beyond any doubt. Do we blame the victims of 911? Do we consider their actions reckless endangerment of those below? No. There is fault, and it lies with the 911 terrorists and their leaders.

Yes the above example is extreme, and only relevant to demonstrate one point. Human beings can be pushed into actions that they would never voluntarily undertake. So hopefully we can now take that as a given. The only question is what level of trauma is sufficient to cause a human to "break" and commit a crime they would not normally commit.

So now I have to ask a couple of questions. Do you think the rioters and the politicians placed the officers involved into a sufficiently traumatic situation that a reasonably moral human might break and commit criminal acts that they would normally not consider. Second question: If the situation is sufficiently traumatic to cause a human to break and to commit a crime they would not normally willingly commit, who is responsible? The victim of the trauma, or those that engineered the trauma? Without settling these two questions, we are simply arguing in circles and accomplishing nothing.
 
Last Edited:
No, it's not. It's not an argument or an assertion. It's merely an opinion. But you are correct in that it proves nothing, nor was it meant to. It was more an attempt to determine your frame of reference and perhaps to move on to common ground from there. As an example: I can't build a proof to explain to a blind person what I see when I see the color blue. That discussion requires a common frame of reference, as does this one. We'll come back to trying to build that later.


I don't doubt at all that you have sympathy and compassion for those suffering from mental trauma of any kind. I also agree that it does not give anyone the right to break the law with impunity. However, prosecution of a crime requires criminal intent. We'll come back to that later too.

Here comes an opinion. Your statement in the second quote makes me believe that you don't "understand" human breaking points. That's just my opinion and I can't prove it. Perhaps you have endured torture and been broken, but have forgotten what it's like and what happens. I say that because your statement implies rather strongly that the Officer's action was based on rational thought. You don't seem to understand that humans can be pushed past that point where they are capable of making a rational or appropriate decision. It's my opinion that if you had ever been put in that place, you'd understand. Perhaps I'm wrong. I'm not questioning your compassion, I'm questioning your understanding.

Let's take an extreme example to start building a frame of reference. Let's say terrorists strap a rather large explosive to a man. The bomb is triggered by any large impact. They place the man in a tall building above a large crowded concert venue. The bomb would clearly kill hundreds of people. We can both agree that the man would be totally wrong to jump out the window. (Not to mention he isn't going to want to do that anyway.) Now the terrorists set the floor on fire. The heat becomes intense. The man knows that he is going to die no matter what he does, and he has no wish to commit mass murder as his last act. But what would happen? The man would jump, killing hundreds as well as himself, because a human is simply not capable of standing up to that fire. His mother and his children may be in that crowd, he is going to jump anyway. 911 proved that beyond any doubt. Do we blame the victims of 911? Do we consider their actions reckless endangerment of those below. No. There is fault, and it lies with the 911 terrorists and their leaders.

Yes the above example is extreme, and only relevant to demonstrate one point. Human beings can be pushed into actions that they would never voluntarily undertake. So hopefully we can now take that as a given. The only question is what level of trauma is sufficient to cause a human to "break" and commit a crime they would not normally commit.

So now I have to ask a couple of questions. Do you think the rioters and the politicians placed the officers involved into a sufficiently traumatic situation that a reasonably moral human might break and commit criminal acts that they would normally not consider. Second question: If the situation is sufficiently traumatic to cause a human to break and to commit a crime they would not normally willingly commit, who is responsible? The victim of the trauma, or those that engineered the trauma? Without settling these two questions, we are simply arguing in circles and accomplishing nothing.
as a fan of spirited debate...point made and while wordy entertaining! my own opinion started out as EFF NO! I'm actually thinking more in depth about the nuances of the whole case than my initial response. If he needs to be tried I would feel better with a change of venue! Yes I am a trust police kind of person and would pull over and come to the aid of any uniformed officer. Thanks for making honest and well constructed points for your views.
 
as a fan of spirited debate...point made and while wordy entertaining! my own opinion started out as EFF NO! I'm actually thinking more in depth about the nuances of the whole case than my initial response. If he needs to be tried I would feel better with a change of venue! Yes I am a trust police kind of person and would pull over and come to the aid of any uniformed officer. Thanks for making honest and well constructed points for your views.
I tend to stand back from the event and look at a bigger picture. The real event isn't what we see in my opinion but the consequences of the event. Here is a site that gives one cops explanation of where the event takes us. Some of the reply with charts are interesting.

 
....or Bosnia on the Willamette
Only thing missing are the snipers operating out of the PH suites on the South Waterfront
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top