Mysteroo OP t1_j9oju2m wrote
Reply to comment by Donohoed in "Several deputies carried canisters of gasoline to a local campsite and torched entire everything" - I haven't see any talk about this until now, can someone verify? by Mysteroo
If what's how they spin things? That treating homeless people that way is wrong? If nobody disagrees, then what's the problem? Especially if they didn't actually do it?
All they need to say is "That's inaccurate." Or "This isn't the full story." Instead they're just blowing off journalists with blanket generaliztions about fake news. This is the only sensible response to being caught red handed, and a nonsensical response to be falsely accused
Donohoed t1_j9olo80 wrote
You got real hostile real quick for absolutely no reason and you sound absurd. It's clear from all your comments that you read whatever you want instead of what people say and were actually just looking for a circle jerk, not actual information. They can't just comment without investigating. Maybe somebody did do this, maybe it was even cops. I don't disagree at all that it needs investigated by state or federal authorities and/or independent sources and i certainly never suggested its OK to treat anyone like that, ever, and nobody else suggested that either. That's just your paranoid imagination.
Whatever happened there was a crime. Period. Whether real cops did it, fake cops, teenagers, the homeless people themselves, the property owners, whoever, it was a crime. Active investigations almost always are responded to with no comment until they have enough information to comment. Yes, obviously if he authorized it he's not going to admit that openly. But if it was done without his authorization by some gung-ho asshole cops and he says cops didn't do it then that'll come back on him as a lie even if he just didn't know until after the investigation.
Don't just pretend that anybody who doesn't immediately want the death penalty for all cops without an investigation into what actually happened must hate all homeless people. That's what you sound like. This needs investigated by whoever is in the appropriate position to do so, just like any other crime. The statement that i was referring to above acts like them not making a comment is an admission of guilt, and that's not how things work. They wrote an entire article based around how guilty they must be for not immediately commenting. That's crap journalism.
Mysteroo OP t1_j9phipr wrote
If you read hostility in my reply, then it's because I take issue with shrugging one's shoulders at the oppression of the marginalized, especially when it's justified with flimsy and unfounded skepticism.
I'm not going to play the ad-homenim game, so I'll just ignore all the jabs at my character. It's a waste of our time and energy.
>Active investigations almost always are responded to with no comment until they have enough information to comment.
But that's not what happened here. Not only do they have plenty of information to comment - but they also specified that they will not comment because they don't have any trust in the media reporters. It isn't that they lack information or that they are investigating - it's that they refuse to share any information at all.
>Don't just pretend that anybody who doesn't immediately want the death penalty for all cops without an investigation into what actually happened must hate all homeless people
Just going to point out: The idea that I'm pro-death-penalty, anti-cop, and that I don't think there should be an investigation... all incorrect.
Not making a comment isn't an admission of guilt. But it's foolish to pretend that their hostility towards the very question of it is anything but suspicious. The least they could say is "we have no comment at this time." But their response conveys "We have no comment to give at ANY time."
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments