14-year-old Florida boy beaten for supporting Trump

[rockysmith76]

No. In some of these debates, it's been speculated that the officials were pressured into PC. I'm pointing out that wouldn't quite be applicable here.

Here you go:

​

He clearly was beaten for being pro trump, and clearly those denying this are biased. Clearly.

 

[Joe Random]

He was clearly beaten for having whispered his plans for a school shooting to his seatmate. Those denying this are biased, and are gun-nutters to boot.

Argument by drop-in, bare assertion : it's not just for breakfast anymore.

 

[Thermal]

No. In some of these debates, it's been speculated that the officials were pressured into PC. I'm pointing out that wouldn't quite be applicable here.

Still not sure if that would be so simplistic. Even if the police were politically pressured, their findings could still work both directions. For instance, they might be pressured by their bosses to not find political strife in school fights to paint a public image of harmony. Or paint minority students as naked aggressors, not having political opinions. Just being from a red area doesn't render political pressuring inapplicable.

Here you go:

​

OK, but could that poster have meant that the official version is pretty void of credible content? That's my read, too; the police and school are only saying it was not the hat that triggered this fight. That's really not much more than the mom saying it was the hat. I'm sure the official version was investigated, but what they actually found has been silent.

Actually, the police said the incident was not related to the hat. They did not say it was not fueled by racism, which is the other part of the mom's claim. What should we assume on that point? Are we rolling straight into #LWW territory?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yep. Someone's found a hill to defend.

 

[plague311]

As I have pointed out, investigators seek to determine the cause of the action, not psychoanalyze the actors till they find underlying root disagreements. I don't think that the police or school's findings contradict the narrative. The original, more distant cause of dislike between the parties is irrelevant to a police report, once they determine an immediate cause for immediate hostilities.

LoL no, that's not how criminal investigations work at all, and in fact it's their job to find the root cause. I have no idea where you came up with this ******** theory, but it's factually inaccurate in every way it can be.

They will always investigate the facts that led up to the altercation. I know this because a) I have worked with police (including on investigations) at my job b) I've been the subject of investigations c) it's common knowledge. Their job is to provide all of the facts to the prosecutor to timeline things like motive, opportunity, and causation. Please stop repeating this nonsense.

Also, I hear no one saying the versions should be given equal weight. Her version should be met with skepticism. The police and school have said the assault was caused by...what, again? Oh, that's right: they haven't said what they found, just what they didn't find. So we still don't know what they actually did find.

They said it started as a verbal altercation and name calling between the two. They also stated that it wasn't related to the hat, which means they investigated that (in stark contrast to your previous paragraph) and couldn't find a connection.

I'll await your next anecdotal, unsupported claim until you eventually say "agree to disagree" and bail on the thread.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

You know, you've said this before, but nothing was presented to the thread. So I looked. Went back to July on her twitter before getting bored, and while there was a lot of typical right wing stuff, there was nothing indicating this fabled 'break with reality'. Did you find something indicating psychosis that I missed?

Since it hasn't been directly linked yet: https://twitter.com/AmericanDiaries
Sure, it's typical right wing stuff. Ben Garrison cartoons, references to HRC "suiciding" her opponents, Q Anon references, astrology stuff, islam is a death cult stuff, Obama birtherism,


Some choice quotes:

Planned Parenthood reportedly tells mother: We will 'break the baby's neck' if he's born alive

11:11 Mercury energy potential

Obama's real name is Barry Soetoro

This is not an ordered mind at work. This might be typical of right wing folks, but that's just because the right wing has mainstreamed crankery.

Unironically posting Q-anon stuff is an automatic disqualifier for a firm grasp on reality. This lady has some brain rot for sure.

 

[Thermal]

LoL no, that's not how criminal investigations work at all, and in fact it's their job to find the root cause. I have no idea where you came up with this ******** theory, but it's factually inaccurate in every way it can be.

They will always investigate the facts that led up to the altercation. I know this because a) I have worked with police (including on investigations) at my job b) I've been the subject of investigations c) it's common knowledge. Their job is to provide all of the facts to the prosecutor to timeline things like motive, opportunity, and causation. Please stop repeating this nonsense.



They said it started as a verbal altercation and name calling between the two. They also stated that it wasn't related to the hat, which means they investigated that (in stark contrast to your previous paragraph) and couldn't find a connection.

Great. So how do you think the crack forensic team rolled this investigation out?

Police: did you guys beat Tyler up over his hat?
Kids: no, we beat him because he called us names.
Police: You call them these names, Tyler?
Tyler: Yes, but..
Police: Case closed. Motive for assault determined to be verbal altercation.

I don't get why this is not assumed to be the extent of the investigation of a scholbus fight that resulted in a couple boo-boos. Do you expect a task force with a year-long discovery to get to the root causes or something?

I'll await your next anecdotal, unsupported claim until you eventually say "agree to disagree" and bail on the thread.

If you have the slightest bit of awareness, you know that bailing is not my thing. I slug it out longer than most, until it just gets ridiculous. 'Agree to disagree' is for when you simply can't benefit from discussion anymore. and then, it is the reasonable thing to do.

 

[plague311]

Great. So how do you think the crack forensic team rolled this investigation out?

Police: did you guys beat Tyler up over his hat?
Kids: no, we beat him because he called us names.
Police: You call them these names, Tyler?
Tyler: Yes, but..
Police: Case closed. Motive for assault determined to be verbal altercation.

Because that's how police work, right? You know that other people besides the ones specifically involved witnessed it right? Generally the same people ride the same bus and can be interviewed and asked questions. They all go to the same school, so rounding them up isn't tough. I mean, this is seriously all escaped you?

I don't get why this is not assumed to be the extent of the investigation of a scholbus fight that resulted in a couple boo-boos. Do you expect a task force with a year-long discovery to get to the root causes or something?

LoL really? False dichotomy? They either ask 3 questions or have a year-long discovery? Fallacies are fallacious. I don't assume it because I've seen it all in action before. I know how it works. I don't assume **** out of nowhere without evidence. That's the difference between you and I. If they are pressing charges then a complete investigation has to be performed in order to lay out how the situation came to be, and why the charges are being pressed. They have to establish a timeline and if there were previous engagements between the parties. I mean, ****, have you ever ******* seen an investigation in real life? Just because it's kids on a schoolbus doesn't mean they deserve less than a complete and thorough investigation. Something more than asking the parties involved and moving on. Especially one with media attention.

If you have the slightest bit of awareness, you know that bailing is not my thing.

Sure, Jan.

I slug it out longer than most, until it just gets ridiculous. 'Agree to disagree' is for when you simply can't benefit from discussion anymore. and then, it is the reasonable thing to do.

Like making fallacious claims about a topic based on nothing more than your assumptions? Do tell.

 

[Thermal]

Since it hasn't been directly linked yet: https://twitter.com/AmericanDiaries
Sure, it's typical right wing stuff. Ben Garrison cartoons, references to HRC "suiciding" her opponents, Q Anon references, astrology stuff, islam is a death cult stuff, Obama birtherism,


Some choice quotes:



This is not an ordered mind at work. This might be typical of right wing folks, but that's just because the right wing has mainstreamed crankery.

Unironically posting Q-anon stuff is an automatic disqualifier for a firm grasp on reality. This lady has some brain rot for sure.

Yes, she has retweeted some kooky stuff posted by others. Not sure that means she has a psychotic break with reality that renders her incapable of being objective when it comes to her child.

That's actually an interesting point. If she has this theorized break with reality, should she be caring for children at all? Wouldn't plague311's theorized crack CSI team have determined her insanity and had her committed already? I see a wider conspiracy here.

Plus we need a tongue in cheek emoji in this forum.

 

[Thermal]

Because that's how police work, right? You know that other people besides the ones specifically involved witnessed it right? Generally the same people ride the same bus and can be interviewed and asked questions. They all go to the same school, so rounding them up isn't tough. I mean, this is seriously all escaped you?



LoL really? False dichotomy? They either ask 3 questions or have a year-long discovery? Fallacies are fallacious. I don't assume it because I've seen it all in action before. I know how it works. I don't assume **** out of nowhere without evidence. That's the difference between you and I. If they are pressing charges then a complete investigation has to be performed in order to lay out how the situation came to be, and why the charges are being pressed. They have to establish a timeline and if there were previous engagements between the parties. I mean, ****, have you ever ******* seen an investigation in real life? Just because it's kids on a schoolbus doesn't mean they deserve less than a complete and thorough investigation. Something more than asking the parties involved and moving on. Especially one with media attention.



Sure, Jan.



Like making fallacious claims about a topic based on nothing more than your assumptions? Do tell.

Hope you enjoy your first holidays as a grandpa. But when your arguments reduce to LOL and Sure, Jan, honest discussion is long in the rear view mirror.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Since it hasn't been directly linked yet: https://twitter.com/AmericanDiaries
Sure, it's typical right wing stuff. Ben Garrison cartoons, references to HRC "suiciding" her opponents, Q Anon references, astrology stuff, islam is a death cult stuff, Obama birtherism,

Exactly mainstream republicanism, you can't possibly hold such things against someone.

 

[ponderingturtle]

When will we start investigating the more serious allegations she makes instead of some minor assault charges but start looking into the murders and mass child sex rings, those seem more important than one little school kid fight.

So we need to investigate the Clinton's murdering people and their roles in mass child sex rings. Those are much more important than some scuffle on a schoolbus. She is credible and we need to take these claims seriously after all.

 

[plague311]

Hope you enjoy your first holidays as a grandpa. But when your arguments reduce to LOL and Sure, Jan, honest discussion is long in the rear view mirror.

Nice cop out on the entire rest of the post just so you can cherry pick the parts you don't like, but I'm only giving it an 8 out of 10.

Apparently instead of admitting you're wrong about how investigations are run, or providing evidence that support your claims, you're actually just bailing. It's like someone called it!

 

[Thermal]

Nice cop out on the entire rest of the post just so you can cherry pick the parts you don't like, but I'm only giving it an 8 out of 10.

Apparently instead of admitting you're wrong about how investigations are run, or providing evidence that support your claims, you're actually just bailing. It's like someone called it!

Ok, if you are going to harp on it: You have long asserted that the Hamilton County Sheriff conducted their investigation, and you are satisfied with the results.

By this, I assume you have intel regarding what this departments procedures are?

That's right, you said 'common knowledge' about police procedures suffices. In addition to your unsupported anecdotes, used to criticize...my unsupported anecdotes? Still not clear on that one, but whatever.

I opine that it is common knowledge that such a petty police matter would not result in an in depth investigation. My opinion is supported on similar grounds as yours: being an accused, common knowledge, and peripheral involvement in other investigations. One, where I was a witness to an alleged terroristic threat. The police asked me 'did this guy threaten that guy?' I answered 'no, they were arguing about money'. That was pretty much it. No further elaboration or background investigation. No CSI team and psychologists rolled out.

So we both assume what police procedure would have been, based on our experiences and common knowledge. But you insist on pedantic and red-herring evidence presented. It doesn't matter. There is no reason to think that elaborate background unsubstantiated initial causes were studied. It was a school bus fight resulting in ouchies.

eta: I love the quandary you create, too. If I bail, it's a character flaw. If I sustain discussion, I am 'Thermaling' the thread. Oh, and you pepper your posts with personalized insults. You really think no one else sees this?

 

[varwoche]

He clearly was beaten for being pro trump, and clearly those denying this are biased. Clearly.

As clear as the day is long in Barrow, Alaska on Dec 21. Clearly.

... OK, but could that poster have meant that the official version is pretty void of credible content?

What the poster wrote is as close to "assign equal weight" as is humanly possible without having typed those precise words.

 

[plague311]

Ok, if you are going to harp on it: You have long asserted that the Hamilton County Sheriff conducted their investigation, and you are satisfied with the results.

Well, we're starting out pretty good.

By this, I assume you have intel regarding what this departments procedures are?

I know what police procedures are in general, yes. You're the one making the off the wall claims about CSI and ****.

Still not clear on that one, but whatever.

You made a positive claim with nothing to support it. That's what I said, and you've done nothing to support your statements still.

I opine that it is common knowledge that such a petty police matter would not result in an in depth investigation.

Someone went to the hospital and 5 people are being charged. There was a literal assault (part of the charges). If that's petty to you, ok.

My opinion is supported on similar grounds as yours: being an accused, common knowledge, and peripheral involvement in other investigations. One, where I was a witness to an alleged terroristic threat. The police asked me 'did this guy threaten that guy?' I answered 'no, they were arguing about money'. That was pretty much it. No further elaboration or background investigation. No CSI team and psychologists rolled out.

Probably because, and here's the shocker, you had no further ******* information to give, ya think? Terroristic threats are NOT the same as a physical assault that was caught on video .

I guarantee that the first thing the police asked the people directly involved was, "When and how did this all begin?" They probably wrote it down, turned it in, and during the charging\trial phase that information was relied on because you can't just charge people with **** without details. Common. Sense.

So we both assume what police procedure would have been, based on our experiences and common knowledge. But you insist on pedantic and red-herring evidence presented. It doesn't matter. There is no reason to think that elaborate background unsubstantiated initial causes were studied. It was a school bus fight resulting in ouchies.

The difference is my argument is supported by the police saying they did an investigation and directly refuted the claims by the mother. Your argument is based on nothing, admitted to being "assumed", and supported using fallacies. It would be grossly incompetent to not dig into the rest of what happened. Especially since, by your own quote, there were accusations of previous encounters. This isn't rocket science.

eta: I love the quandary you create, too. If I bail, it's a character flaw. If I sustain discussion, I am 'Thermaling' the thread. Oh, and you pepper your posts with personalized insults. You really think no one else sees this?

I don't care what anyone else sees at all. If someone wants to call out my logic, my statements or my position they can feel absolutely free to quote me and lay out their rebuttal.

'Therminaling' isn't because you sustain a discussion. It's because the bulk of arguments you make in the threads that you and I seem to participate in are based on your own anecdotal experiences and assumptions.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I'm not really interested in getting into a tedious argument over whether this lady's conspiracy theory nonsense makes her diagnosably mentally ill or whether she is or isn't capable of tending her own affairs and raising her child. Plenty of nominally sane people believe in all sorts of nonsense and plenty of mentally ill people are competent enough to not require being institutionalized. That is neither here nor there.

The simple point remains that someone who is a Q-Anon conspiracy crank is, by every reasonable interpretation, an unreliable narrator. The story she proposes fits extremely well into the skewed world view of the right and that is inherently suspicious.

It could be true. The unmistakable stench of MAGA brain-rot from this lady is hard to ignore, but it could be true nonetheless.

What does it even matter, in the end? MAGA chuds are always desperately searching for martyrs and victims, be it some MAGA kid getting stomped on a bus or Andy Ngo's antifa milkshaking. All in service to their narrative that they are the true oppressed people, which is 100% nonsense.

 

[Darat]

Doesn't sound like your post #4:







I don't see any 'break with reality' arguments, and none were presented on the thread. Just the fact that she supports Trump...which, okay, kind of does represent a break with reality on its own, but that's not the point.







You know, you've said this before, but nothing was presented to the thread. So I looked. Went back to July on her twitter before getting bored, and while there was a lot of typical right wing stuff, there was nothing indicating this fabled 'break with reality'. Did you find something indicating psychosis that I missed?

You need to do a bit of research into her twitter feed and who she promotes.

 

[Mycroft]

I don't get why this is not assumed to be the extent of the investigation of a scholbus fight that resulted in a couple boo-boos.

Because the only evidence for it is your assertion that it went down that way.

 

[Thermal]

You made a positive claim with nothing to support it. That's what I said, and you've done nothing to support your statements still.

I guess this is the big disagreement? Ok. I freely admit that I am not a Hamilton County Fla Sheriff, and am not familiar with their procedures. I base my posts regarding them on my personal experience with both sides of law enforcement, and common knowledge. You know, those things you said you base your opinions on.

Can we agree that neither of us know Hamilton County Sheriff procedures in detail, or even if they were followed in this instance? If so, are we done on that point?

Someone went to the hospital and 5 people are being charged. There was a literal assault (part of the charges). If that's petty to you, ok.

Oh, stop. The mom voluntarily took him to the hospital after school where they found an ouchie and sent him home with a generic head injury photocopy sheet. He wasn't ******** Medivac'd and sent to ICU.

Probably because, and here's the shocker, you had no further ******* information to give, ya think?

Who told you that? I knew both men, for years, and was present for there entire conflict and interceded between them and the homeowner who was also there, and could witness to both their 'background' on that job and others. I could have given the police pages and pages of this 'background' you so value. But they didn't care. They cared about the immediate alleged criminal matter, not the irrelevant runup. Maybe later in the investigation, it would have been more significant, but it wasn't at the time.

I guarantee that the first thing the police asked the people directly involved was, "When and how did this all begin?" They probably wrote it down, turned it in, and during the charging\trial phase that information was relied on because you can't just charge people with **** without details. Common. Sense.

What makes you think Tyler had made that connection at the time? He may have talked about the instant matter, not when they started disliking each other. The mom even claims that Tyler didn't tell her about the bullying till later.

The difference is my argument is supported by the police saying they did an investigation and directly refuted the claims by the mother.

Bull. The two claims do not dispute each other. Tyler may have not told police about the hat at the time (without a statement from him or the police report, we don't know).

With your insults and personalization aside, is the argument you have that I am not privy to Ham Co Fla's police procedure? Fine. I concede that I am assuming based on my experiences with police and common knowledge. Which shouldn't even need to be spelled out, unless you are one of those posters who expects a paragraph of qualifiers before each sentence. Are we done with that issue?