Messages

RE: Fascism

---

Now to address you question about the mounted police incident in the video. Here are a few facts about the training of mounted police and their horses in both Australia and the US:

* Horses are trained to stay calm around shouting, sudden movements, loud noises, and physical contact. They are exposed to flags, smoke, sirens, and people pressing against them.

* Horses are trained to push into crowds using their bodies, not their hooves. They learn to stop or side-step rather than walk forward if a person is in front of them. They are taught to maintain composure and not panic even when surrounded.

* Horses are conditioned to move carefully and respond to the rider’s commands, avoiding stepping on people lying down or falling.

* The goal of mounted police operations is to use the psychological presence and height of the horse to disperse crowds, not to cause injury.

* Riders police officers are highly trained to steer clear of fallen individuals or vulnerable persons in a crowd.

And here is what I saw in the video:

1. The police officer forcefully hurled the (assumed) protester to the ground.

2. One horse then pivots, kicking the man's arm on the way through.

3. A second horse then leaps over the man, collecting him with his hooves on the way.

4. One of the mounted police them hits the man on the ground with a stick.

5. The man then manages to stumble to his feet, at which point an officer on foot grabs his backpack and once again hurls him to the ground, this time kneeling on him and pinning him.

6. The video ends at that point.

Now, if you have ever done farrier work on a horse, you will know how nimble they are and how virtually impossible it is for their feet to go where they don't want them to, unless they are well trained to trust whomever is requesting them to act accordingly. I conclude this man was not kicked, nor leapt over, at the whim of the horse, especially given what I said above.

Considering what I've seen of the behaviour of LA Police since this conflict started , I am far more likely to believe that they deliberately chose to ignore their training than that the horses did. Whether at their own discretion or because of a command issued by some superior, I can't say.

In my view, the evidence indicates it's just another example of violent, thuggish behaviour on the part of those who are meant to serve and protect.

RE: Fascism

---

And yes, I know there are a typo or two in the above. I would correct them, but I haven't got the patience to deal with the accusations of "cheating" at this time.

RE: Fascism

---

It's not an ad hominem attack. A classic example of ad hominem is to dismiss someone by association ("that's a typical argument from a Nazi") or if I were to say: "Craig, you are suffering from late-stage malignant narcissism, with symptoms of Old Man Superiority Complex and allusions of relevance. Congratulations, you have been officially diagnosed by a gorilla. All your arguments are officially stoopid."

This is the way you tend to use it:

You're clearly becoming increasingly unhinged in your ridiculous attempt to score some sort of "point" victory (Craig)

Now get off the drugs (Craig)

it's a comprehension problem, like I said... draw yourself a Venn diagram (Craig)

petulant child (Craig) -- your favorite insult

You seem to savor throwing personal insults into your posts, and you make a big fuss when we do it back to you, aptly fitting the theoretical diagnostic model offered above.

Perhaps unlike you, I don't care what political "side" the truth is on. If I was trying to argue on behalf of federal troops, it would not serve me to defend the LA police in any way, who as I pointed out have a bad reputation nationally. You have tried to associate the LA police with the feds because it suits your point, and have tried to infer that federal troops are irresponsible and poorly trained. See the bottom of our conversation on page 3:

Harambe: The 6000 troops in LA are not there to shoot pedestrians. That is deterrence. You're a smart enough guy to see that.

Craig: Smart enough to ask if they're not there for that, why are they doing it?

Harambe: It's to deter people from causing damage, like the sort of damage that BLM did across American cities in 2020 smashing billions of dollars in private property.

Craig: No, I mean if they're not there to shoot pedestrians, why are they shooting pedestrians? {inserted video of LAPD shooting civilian at point blank with rubber bullet}

So we're clearly talking about TROOPS (military, not police) but you’re clearly showing a video that is clearly POLICE. You doubled down on this claim by muddying the water at the top of page 6, and I persistently called you out on it. See my last post on page 6. Editing posts makes them much harder to read with the quadruple line spacing. Yes, I'd rather deal with reading a few typos (as my posts often have) than deal with the extra spacing.

I can't find where the horse video is anymore, so I'll defer to your detailed analysis of it. I've been told before by horse riders when driving by them that their ride was easily agitated, and they'd furiously wave at me to reduce my speed to grandmother pace. But maybe horses respond differently to cars, or that horse lady was a poor rider, or her horse was poorly trained. It had appeared to me that the police were trying to maneuver the horses away from harming the guy on the ground. Thanks for clarifying that is not the case at all.

The problem with every one of these videos is that they are cropped to omit all of the context leading up to the police responses. What did the protestors do right before the cops shoved them? Does it matter? Not to the public, that's for sure.

Time to check the news and see what sort of mayhem happened last night while I was sleeping.

RE: Fascism

---

I'll let most of that go, simply because I'm as sick of the rubbish as Emma and pretty much everyone else reading, I imagine. And, believe it or not, I don't like being part of it. I just want to argue facts and opinions about events, not each other.

What context do you expect there to be for a lone male, with no sign of a weapon in sight, surrounded by several mounted and foot patrol police? How about an unarmed woman standing still, several feet from at least seven or eight armed police, engaging them in conversation, telling them she wants to get into her house in the dark? How about a female reporter, giving a news report, the content of which is perfectly audible, surrounded by a cameraman and other press, and at some distance from both police and protesters? What more context would you like for these and many more examples?

RE: Fascism

---

I'm not asking for context on those videos, or trying to excuse the police actions. Just pointing out that the public will never be privy to any backstory that might exist. For all intents and purposes, none exists. If I saw cops in my state doing that, I'd go out of my way to find their badge numbers and make sure the public knows who they are. (I would stop short from giving out their personal addresses).

RE: Fascism

---

Fair enough.