Your bias shows with every comment. There is a law. A law is broken. An officer witnesses the law being broken and initiates a stop. (Pivotal or action moment occurs!!) the person who is engaged in a stop does not adhere to the law (for a second time!!) when the police signal them to stop. Then the police (dependent on chase policy) begin a chase and/or initiate a PIT.
If we step-by-step this… it’s the law breaker… who is wrong in THIS* SPECIFIC CASE.
now, if you want to question what information the media has received, and if it came from the police directly… then I may be there with you, since ‘police stated’ is and has been heavily debated in the past.
There’s a possible worldview where… both wrong things are wrong. Endangering others is what the drug dealer is doing (I don’t really believe ecstacy is worth this event but I digress.)… endangering others is what the cops also actively did. Neither is right. Cops have the ability to back off and find the person pretty efficiently when they have plates on their car. Also this is ecstacy not fentanyl or meth.
All we know is that it was initiated on a moving or traffic violation. The drugs were found afterwards, so don’t factor into the chase decision. We do not have information to support that lives were put at risk.
Everything I have stated up until this very comment has argued that you have failed to prove what you just said, by using this specific case as your example. Your statement is an opinion, and a false one at that because you have continued to fail to prove your argument.
Edit: this case disproves your argument on its merits alone. This case proves that you are wrong.
I can’t locate your comment in the thread, outside of my ‘replies’ window because Lemmy doesn’t make the transition easy. I can not see my prior arguments or the thread leading up to your comment, but luckily I’ve stayed on the exact point throughout my entire argument. I’m not breaking anything new out, from the start I stated one thing, and one thing only (so feel free to re-read my comment history) and that has been:
this post doesn’t fit this sub, based on the facts provided in the original post (headline with article). Anything else is adding to the post in order to shoehorn the post into the theme of the sub.
Again, as per my last comment, I am done with this thread and post, as I have had to repeat myself… repeatedly and everyone is and has still missed the point.
Your bias shows with every comment. There is a law. A law is broken. An officer witnesses the law being broken and initiates a stop. (Pivotal or action moment occurs!!) the person who is engaged in a stop does not adhere to the law (for a second time!!) when the police signal them to stop. Then the police (dependent on chase policy) begin a chase and/or initiate a PIT.
If we step-by-step this… it’s the law breaker… who is wrong in THIS* SPECIFIC CASE.
now, if you want to question what information the media has received, and if it came from the police directly… then I may be there with you, since ‘police stated’ is and has been heavily debated in the past.
There’s a possible worldview where… both wrong things are wrong. Endangering others is what the drug dealer is doing (I don’t really believe ecstacy is worth this event but I digress.)… endangering others is what the cops also actively did. Neither is right. Cops have the ability to back off and find the person pretty efficiently when they have plates on their car. Also this is ecstacy not fentanyl or meth.
All we know is that it was initiated on a moving or traffic violation. The drugs were found afterwards, so don’t factor into the chase decision. We do not have information to support that lives were put at risk.
There are no safe police chases, and no safe PIT-maneuvers to cause a safe crash. People and property are at peril.
Everything I have stated up until this very comment has argued that you have failed to prove what you just said, by using this specific case as your example. Your statement is an opinion, and a false one at that because you have continued to fail to prove your argument.
Edit: this case disproves your argument on its merits alone. This case proves that you are wrong.
I like how you just decided to break out philosophy 101 terminology like it’s going to make your point for you.
The other user cited examples and made an argument using said examples. It’s a valid argument. The question is whether it is sound.
To that I would say, “Yes”. Police chases do endanger lives. In fact, many jurisdictions have outright bans on chases.
I can’t locate your comment in the thread, outside of my ‘replies’ window because Lemmy doesn’t make the transition easy. I can not see my prior arguments or the thread leading up to your comment, but luckily I’ve stayed on the exact point throughout my entire argument. I’m not breaking anything new out, from the start I stated one thing, and one thing only (so feel free to re-read my comment history) and that has been:
this post doesn’t fit this sub, based on the facts provided in the original post (headline with article). Anything else is adding to the post in order to shoehorn the post into the theme of the sub.
Again, as per my last comment, I am done with this thread and post, as I have had to repeat myself… repeatedly and everyone is and has still missed the point.
deleted by creator