ChatterBank0 min ago
Why Is Highlighting The Facts So Wrong?
63 Answers
https:/
Another one fired for daring not to get on the bandwagon.
Another one fired for daring not to get on the bandwagon.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It's not that 'highlighting the facts' that is wrong, it's the results that can occur because of it that means it has to be done in the right way.
Mr Floyd was a convicted criminal, no-one would dispute that, it's a matter of record.
But on the day of his death, with his debts to society paid, he was a lawfully free citizen entitled to the protection of the law like anyone else.
If you start saying things like -
"It lists several previous convictions and alleges Mr Floyd was "high on meth getting ready to drive a car and possibly kill your kid" at the time of his arrest. "
You are heading into dodgy thinking - the allegation of drug ingestion is, I believe, not proven, and apart from a dreadful Tom Cruise film, the name of which escapes me, you can't be arrested, much less die in custody, for something you 'might be about to do ...'.
//Mr Johnson added his own caption, stating: "This is no reason to condone his killing by the officer at all, which still needs to be investigated as a potential crime.
"It is a learning opportunity for people (and your kids) to teach that this type of criminal lifestyle never results in good things happening to you or those around you." //
The inference is, if you have been a criminal, there is every chance you will die a violent death at the hands of the police, even though there was no direct evidence at the time that a crime had been committed.
To reiterate, 'highlighting the facts' depends on the slant you put on them, in this case, it's inferring that a criminal past gets you a violent death, but sometimes, just a reputation is damaged -
In the 1960's the then Archbishop of Canterbury stepped off a plane at Kennedy airport, and the first journalist asked him "Will you be going to see the strippers on Fifth Avenue?"
His Grace, the picture of innocence, replied - "Are there strippers on Fifth Avenue?"
The following morning's headlines - 'Archbishop steps off plane and his first question to waiting reporters - "Are there strippers on Fifth Avenue?"
It's the facts, but it's all about how they are presented, and the message that should not be interpreted, but very often is.
Mr Floyd was a convicted criminal, no-one would dispute that, it's a matter of record.
But on the day of his death, with his debts to society paid, he was a lawfully free citizen entitled to the protection of the law like anyone else.
If you start saying things like -
"It lists several previous convictions and alleges Mr Floyd was "high on meth getting ready to drive a car and possibly kill your kid" at the time of his arrest. "
You are heading into dodgy thinking - the allegation of drug ingestion is, I believe, not proven, and apart from a dreadful Tom Cruise film, the name of which escapes me, you can't be arrested, much less die in custody, for something you 'might be about to do ...'.
//Mr Johnson added his own caption, stating: "This is no reason to condone his killing by the officer at all, which still needs to be investigated as a potential crime.
"It is a learning opportunity for people (and your kids) to teach that this type of criminal lifestyle never results in good things happening to you or those around you." //
The inference is, if you have been a criminal, there is every chance you will die a violent death at the hands of the police, even though there was no direct evidence at the time that a crime had been committed.
To reiterate, 'highlighting the facts' depends on the slant you put on them, in this case, it's inferring that a criminal past gets you a violent death, but sometimes, just a reputation is damaged -
In the 1960's the then Archbishop of Canterbury stepped off a plane at Kennedy airport, and the first journalist asked him "Will you be going to see the strippers on Fifth Avenue?"
His Grace, the picture of innocence, replied - "Are there strippers on Fifth Avenue?"
The following morning's headlines - 'Archbishop steps off plane and his first question to waiting reporters - "Are there strippers on Fifth Avenue?"
It's the facts, but it's all about how they are presented, and the message that should not be interpreted, but very often is.
DTC - // there's a lesson in that message of yours, AH, for you to take in and comprehend. //
Not for the first, and probably not the last time, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
But since your message is based on pointless animosity, please don't indulge in further derailment by explaining it - along with everyone else I would imagine, I'm not interested.
Not for the first, and probably not the last time, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
But since your message is based on pointless animosity, please don't indulge in further derailment by explaining it - along with everyone else I would imagine, I'm not interested.
LadyCG - // Uh, wasn't Floyd up to his eyeballs on Meths at the point of his arrest, about to get behind the wheel and potentially kill? //
It would be meth rather than Meths, but as I pointed out, you can't be arrested for something you may be about to do, and the possibility of meth consumption was not the subject of Mr Floyd's arrest.
It would be meth rather than Meths, but as I pointed out, you can't be arrested for something you may be about to do, and the possibility of meth consumption was not the subject of Mr Floyd's arrest.
douglas - // Google has no record of the event, the Archbish thing, that I can find but it's only an international database.
I'll keep looking and hope it's not a colourful tale made up for effect.
A link would be genuinely appreciated. //
You went looking for a link? Seriously???
I really do have far too much influence over the way you spend your free time!!!
I'll keep looking and hope it's not a colourful tale made up for effect.
A link would be genuinely appreciated. //
You went looking for a link? Seriously???
I really do have far too much influence over the way you spend your free time!!!
sanmac - // "... you can't be arrested for something you may be about to do..." What an absolutely asinine statement! Now come on, give that another thought...And this time, a sensible one. //
You cannot be arrested for getting into a car on the basis that you 'might' do someone some harm.
You can be arrested for attempting to drive a car under the influence of drink or drugs, but that was not the case here, so again, you cannot be arrested for something you 'might be about to do'.
You cannot be arrested for getting into a car on the basis that you 'might' do someone some harm.
You can be arrested for attempting to drive a car under the influence of drink or drugs, but that was not the case here, so again, you cannot be arrested for something you 'might be about to do'.
Latest Posts
News1 min ago
This Will Put The Cat Amongst The...
News6 mins ago
ChatterBank9 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.