14-year-old Florida boy beaten for supporting Trump

[Thermal]

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

There is no evidence of any procedure at all. We have a press blurb from the sheriff and school. That's it. And I assert nothing, but explained ad nauseum what I believe probably took place, and why. Please, though: enlighten us on what happened if you know more.

 

[Sideroxylon]

There are some old blokes in the Senate who should be beaten for supporting Trump.

 

[bluesjnr]

There are some old blokes in the Senate who should be beaten for supporting Trump.

At what age does it become unacceptable?

 

[Giordano]

Oh good, a "Thermal'd" thread where there's never enough evidence for anything and nothing can be known because literally every ******* piece of available information isn't available to him.

This is his default position in every thread, in this thread he actually said it was his default position, and we (me included) still feel the need to argue with him. What a waste of logic.

Actually it is interesting that in the “... while Black” threads his posts maintain that there is not enough evidence to prove racism, whereas in this thread his posts maintain that there is not enough evidence to prove that the kid was not beaten up because of a pro-Trump hat. A certain underlying political bias perhaps in terms of the default scenario that must be proven?

 

[Mycroft]

There is no evidence of any procedure at all. We have a press blurb from the sheriff and school. That's it. And I assert nothing, but explained ad nauseum what I believe probably took place, and why. Please, though: enlighten us on what happened if you know more.

I think the odds are greater than not that if the police made a statement that they have some reason for believing that statement to be true. Beyond that, I don't see any reason to stake out a position that's not supported by any evidence.

In general, being skeptical means not relying on one's imagination to form their beliefs.

 

[cullennz]

There are some old blokes in the Senate who should be beaten for supporting Trump.

 

[plague311]

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?

No, I'm not agreeing to that. My default position isn't that the police probably didn't do their job when it comes to a fairly simple investigation involving any form of violence.

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.

What's with your perpetual need for hyperbole? No one made either claim, but nothing I said wasn't true. She took her kid to the hospital and 5 people were charged. When there are charges then you have to have the ability to support those charges.

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.

Yes, I do value data. If the background was relevant then you should have taken responsibility to provide that data to them.

But they didn't care.

Probably because it wasn't relevant. I say that for two reasons:

1) They don't need their entire life story to explain a singular event. Just the facts related to it. Like, in this case, if the argument had started over the hat, or if it all started when he wore the hat. You know, how it got started.

2) If the information you did have was relevant then why the **** didn't you tell them? You could actually be charged for that. Especially if it would have changed the outcome of the charges\case.

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.

Hilited the key word. The police said they did the investigation. They said it wasn't related to the hat. The school echoed the same thing, and the only one contesting it is the mother.

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.

He's sitting there talking to a police officer about getting physically hit at school and he leaves out the ******* basis for the god damn assault?

Quick, pull the other one.

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).

Yes they do dispute each other since the police are saying that the hat played literally no role, while his mom is saying it was the central reason!

His mother sure would have said something to the cops about the hat, ya think? She's been blasting it on social media. You think she, who has no issue plastering her son's face all over social media, wouldn't be there for the questions from the cop?

With your insults and personalization aside, is the argument you have that I am not privy to Ham Co Fla's police procedure?

Even if you're not you're still taking 1 woman's word over both the police and the school, without any supporting evidence from her side at all.

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?

Which issue?

It actually turns out that little Tyler-poo might not be the victim that's claimed:

But the mother of one of the suspended students said her daughter is actually a victim, having been attacked by the boy prior to the viral video surfacing.

On Tuesday, the woman shared a video showing the boy punching and kicking a girl on the school bus.

In a shocking turn of events a Trump supporter, and her son, appear to be complete and total ********. In even more of a shock, they may be liars too!

 

[Thermal]

No, I'm not agreeing to that. My default position isn't that the police probably didn't do their job when it comes to a fairly simple investigation involving any form of violence.

We are not talking about whether or not they did their jobs. We were talking about how far back they are procedurally required to investigate. I think they deal with the immediate cause of the violation of law, regardless of how animosities began or when. You think they trace it back further till they discover some root event that started them disliking each other.

What's with your perpetual need for hyperbole?

It's a means of expression by employing colorful language. You like '****** LOL *******Sure, Jan'. I like hyperbole and comical imagery.

No one made either claim, but nothing I said wasn't true. She took her kid to the hospital and 5 people were charged. When there are charges then you have to have the ability to support those charges.

It was trivially true, but obviously misleading. When you said you 'assisted police in investigations', should we assume you really meant you held a door open for a cop?

Yes, I do value data. If the background was relevant then you should have taken responsibility to provide that data to them.



Probably because it wasn't relevant. I say that for two reasons:

1) They don't need their entire life story to explain a singular event. Just the facts related to it. Like, in this case, if the argument had started over the hat, or if it all started when he wore the hat. You know, how it got started.

2) If the information you did have was relevant then why the **** didn't you tell them? You could actually be charged for that. Especially if it would have changed the outcome of the charges\case.

Wrong again. I answered what was asked of me. The additional background I knew was not relevant. Nor did they asked me if I knew anything else. Their concern was with the alleged threat, not the guy's mutual past history. I'm sure if someone cared later at trial, the witnesses could be asked about their past relationship.

Hilited the key word. The police said they did the investigation. They said it wasn't related to the hat. The school echoed the same thing, and the only one contesting it is the mother.



He's sitting there talking to a police officer about getting physically hit at school and he leaves out the ******* basis for the god damn assault?

Quick, pull the other one.



Yes they do dispute each other since the police are saying that the hat played literally no role, while his mom is saying it was the central reason!

His mother sure would have said something to the cops about the hat, ya think? She's been blasting it on social media. You think she, who has no issue plastering her son's face all over social media, wouldn't be there for the questions from the cop?



Even if you're not you're still taking 1 woman's word over both the police and the school, without any supporting evidence from her side at all.

Dude, you're just not reading anymore. I have maintained from the beginning that I am highly skeptical of her story. What I am questioning is the thinking of others here (like you) who are hearing what they want to hear and deny her any credibility because of political positions.

Which issue?

It actually turns out that little Tyler-poo might not be the victim that's claimed:



In a shocking turn of events a Trump supporter, and her son, appear to be complete and total ********. In even more of a shock, they may be liars too!

Couple things on this:

First, I'm sure you assign this story no credibility, and that it is not relevant to the OP fight. The police did their investigation, right? You were satisfied with it, right? Now a self-serving tale comes out from one of the attackers a month later. What, they forgot to mention this to investigators till now? Didn't these cops conduct a detailed and conclusive study into what caused this? That's what you have been crowing.

You take this new version (weeks after the fact and from one of the arrested attackers) as gospel, but dismiss any claims from the mom. Confirmation bias FTW.

But the big issue here is that you are stooping to insulting and ridiculing a boy who has not breathed word one to the public, or even been quoted as saying anything. I'm officially signing off now, cuz I don't want to see your next level down.

 

[Thermal]

I think the odds are greater than not that if the police made a statement that they have some reason for believing that statement to be true. Beyond that, I don't see any reason to stake out a position that's not supported by any evidence.

The post you commented on was where I said that I don't know why people would assume that police dig past immediate causes to discover when they started disliking each other. You seem to be addressing something else now.

In general, being skeptical means not relying on one's imagination to form their beliefs.

Agreed. I used common knowledge and my experience with police to form an opinion of the depth of the investigation into a school fight. This is too imaginative for discussion? If you say so.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Squeeze them pearls.

 

[Thermal]

Actually it is interesting that in the “... while Black” threads his posts maintain that there is not enough evidence to prove racism, whereas in this thread his posts maintain that there is not enough evidence to prove that the kid was not beaten up because of a pro-Trump hat. A certain underlying political bias perhaps in terms of the default scenario that must be proven?

First off, that's a lie. I am critical of poor examples of the LWB threads, and supportive of narratives with stronger evidence, from the original Philly Starbucks thread to the recent Using the N-word While Black thread.

Secondly, I am critical of both kinds of stories on precisely the same grounds: posters run with the political narrative they like, regardless of evidence or lack thereof. On LWB threads, it is assumed that white people must have been motivated by racism. Here, it is assumed that the mom is lying, because she is a Trumpeter.

Challenging these base assumptions has become a quixotic hobby of mine. One I should probably bag, I guess. Posters here are far too committed to their starting assumptions, and don't give an inch.

 

[cullennz]

Can I please be annoying and ask what the "L" stands for in the "LWB" while black references.

Someone may have already said and I forgot

 

[Thermal]

Can I please be annoying and ask what the "L" stands for in the "LWB" while black references.

Someone may have already said and I forgot

'Living'. The meme is intended to show the kind of hassles a POC goes through for doing nothing more than existing. Mostly in the USA

 

[varwoche]

First off, that's a lie. I am critical of poor examples of the LWB threads, and supportive of narratives with stronger evidence, from the original Philly Starbucks thread to the recent Using the N-word While Black thread.

Secondly, I am critical of both kinds of stories on precisely the same grounds: posters run with the political narrative they like, regardless of evidence or lack thereof. On LWB threads, it is assumed that white people must have been motivated by racism. Here, it is assumed that the mom is lying, because she is a Trumpeter.

Challenging these base assumptions has become a quixotic hobby of mine. One I should probably bag, I guess. Posters here are far too committed to their starting assumptions, and don't give an inch.

I don't always agree with you in these threads. Like, this one -- I don't agree as to where the weight of the evidence lies. But that said, this post syncs with my take on your body of work, I don't think Giordano's comments were fair, and I'm glad you're around.

 

[Darat]

First off, that's a lie. I am critical of poor examples of the LWB threads, and supportive of narratives with stronger evidence, from the original Philly Starbucks thread to the recent Using the N-word While Black thread.



Secondly, I am critical of both kinds of stories on precisely the same grounds: posters run with the political narrative they like, regardless of evidence or lack thereof. On LWB threads, it is assumed that white people must have been motivated by racism. Here, it is assumed that the mom is lying, because she is a Trumpeter.



Challenging these base assumptions has become a quixotic hobby of mine. One I should probably bag, I guess. Posters here are far too committed to their starting assumptions, and don't give an inch.

Again the assumption is not based on her political affiliation it is based on her proven inability to distinguish fact from fiction.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Realistically, how much are the police going to look into a fight between schoolchildren? The kid wasn't wearing a Trump hat when he got stomped, so its relevancy is already dropping from a police perspective.

Political ideology isn't a protected class, so there's not really much for the police to do on that front there anyway. Stomping a MAGA chud isn't a hate crime, it's just a normal crime.

If this animosity between these students is long running, the cops aren't going to go into the weeds trying to parse out motivations and inciting incidents. The kid got beat up, it's battery, make an arrest, case closed. Going into who called who a MAGA chud last Tuesday or who called who a Dumbocrat in civics class three weeks ago isn't something the cops care about.

Expecting some definitive report seems unrealistic. The school will claim one thing, the mother may disagree, and the cops will do their own thing and probably not even bother with the whole MAGA hat angle. Somewhere along the line, you have to accept some degree of uncertainty or, more likely, just lose interest.

 

[Thermal]

Again the assumption is not based on her political affiliation it is based on her proven inability to distinguish fact from fiction.

Again, not what you said:

14 year old Florida boy beaten for supporting Trump ... says Trump activist and campaigner.

And again, retweeting memes (which are only vaguely alluded to here) does not indicate psychosis. You have a long way to go to connect those dots.

If you get bored, you can always present some of that evidence stuff to support this 'proven inability to distinguish between fact and fiction'. Support both the proof presented, argued and accepted (you did say 'proven'), and the demonstrable psychosis.

 

[Thermal]

I don't always agree with you in these threads. Like, this one -- I don't agree as to where the weight of the evidence lies. But that said, this post syncs with my take on your body of work, I don't think Giordano's comments were fair, and I'm glad you're around.

Thanks, that's reassuring to hear. I know I come across as one of those alt-right twats when I argue like this. But some of these guys just will not hear the argument I am making, such is the thickness of their political veils.

I think here that this whole thing is likely kids who already didn't like each other, and the hat added fuel to the fire (if it played a role at all), and the whole story much ado about nothing.

Yet look at the posts: one cursing 'little Tyler-poo' out, calling him whatever the auto censor blacked out. Others insisting the mother is literally psychotic. These posters are demonstrably irrational about this. Because of their politics.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I think here that this whole thing is likely kids who didn't like each other, and the hat adding fuel to the fire, and the whole story much ado about nothing.

That is my suspicion as well. If this kid was already in some conflict with others and started wearing a Trump hat, you can practically guarantee that some Trump flavored abuse would come his way. It doesn't really mean that the Trump hat had much to do with the animus that existed. If this kid was already target, any personal piece of flair would become a target too.

It's also possible a MAGA hat was the start of small argument that eventually snowballed into something much larger. Perhaps a tedious IRL flame war eventually snowballed into actual violence. That still isn't the same as targeting someone for wearing a Trump hat. The MAGA narrative is that violent (and often black) libs will target unsuspecting MAGA hat folks and beat them without provocation. That clearly isn't the case here.

Yet look at the posts: one cursing 'little Tyler-poo' out, calling him whatever the auto censor blacked out. Others insisting the mother is literally psychotic. These posters are demonstrably irrational about this. Because of their politics.

Insisting that the mother is psychotic is a red herring. She's extremely ideological and tends to subscribe to absurd conspiracy theories.

I don't know if being a Q-anon follower is in the DSM, but it makes you an unreliable purveyor of facts. Same with Birtherism. Whether spreading "Barry Soetoro" memes is legit mental illness or just right-wing wishful thinking is beside the point. She is extremely loose with the facts, either deliberately or not. That makes her extremely unreliable. Her story is the exact narrative that would fit into the right wing ideology that she would accept uncritically. That is suspect as hell.

Gullible moron isn't in the DSM. Neither is cynical liar.

 

[plague311]

Realistically, how much are the police going to look into a fight between schoolchildren? The kid wasn't wearing a Trump hat when he got stomped, so its relevancy is already dropping from a police perspective.

Since Thermal bailed I'll address this. It has been screamed from the rooftops by one of the parents that the hat was the core reason this started. The day it happened she posted it on social media. You guys keep on bringing up schoolchildren like since they're children the charges don't have to be supported. I've never seen much like it before.

Political ideology isn't a protected class, so there's not really much for the police to do on that front there anyway. Stomping a MAGA chud isn't a hate crime, it's just a normal crime.

Now it appears that this white kid was beating on a black girl. Could that be a hate crime if it all started over a MAGA hat, turned into some racial slurs, which escalated to this incident? I, personally, don't know, but I know that the cops would find out. Because it's their job. Then again...schoolchildren? I guess?

If this animosity between these students is long running, the cops aren't going to go into the weeds trying to parse out motivations and inciting incidents.

Yes, they would. As has been shown this isn't an isolated event. It's that simple. We've heard that it started with the hat, now there are two videos of fights that include the same people. Can anyone give me any real reason why they WOULDN'T go back and look into the root? Anything other than "schoolchildren"?

The kid got beat up,

And apparently beat someone up.

it's battery, make an arrest, case closed.

Definitely not the brevity I've seen with multiple incidents I've been involved with.

Going into who called who a MAGA chud last Tuesday or who called who a Dumbocrat in civics class three weeks ago isn't something the cops care about.

*sigh* There were two fights that were caught on camera LoL. Why do you guys need to do this? It's laid out in my post. This is blatantly wrong in every way.

Expecting some definitive report seems unrealistic. The school will claim one thing, the mother may disagree, and the cops will do their own thing and probably not even bother with the whole MAGA hat angle. Somewhere along the line, you have to accept some degree of uncertainty or, more likely, just lose interest.

It is not wrong in any way, shape or form to expect that the cops would gather all of the details regarding multiple incidents of clashes between students. I'm seriously shocked that it's considered "expecting some definitive report" or that it would be unrealistic. It's their ******* job and it sounds like the police were involved in both occasions based on the article I linked.