ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 25th January 2019, 07:03 AM   #321
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 22,912
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I find them very useful for replacing all the non-verbal and paralinguistic communication that's lost in the written word.
They don't, though.

Quite a blanket statement.

Like anything else they can be used well and appropriately, or badly.

I think that they can, and often do add useful, relevant communication.

That is not to say that they always do, but neither is it accurate to suggest that they never do.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2019, 07:12 AM   #322
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,854
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
They don't, though.
For you, clearly not.

You're not everyone.
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2019, 09:21 AM   #323
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 6,396
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
<little snippage to avoid repetition>

...He was tackled while running away. That means he fell to the ground face-first. A hard face-plant on concrete is more than enough to explain those injuries, both the bleeding lip AND the minor fractures.
Your getting silly again. Have you ever seen a football tackle? You usually go down on your side, not freaking face plant. Sometimes on your back, even, depending on how you are taken down. And that does not even assume that Cassidy would have reflexively put up his arms to break his fall, or that they were even on concrete when he fell. Your embellishment of the facts is getting pretty heavy. Any evidence that Cassidy went down on concrete? I see a lot of grass around there, too. Might even expect TB's to have lost some skin if they went down on concrete.

Quote:
It is certainly possible - even probable - but not a given, that Beckham weighs a little more now than he did when he played in the NFL. But unless you're now going to tell us that Beckham is stronger and more fit now, over a decade retired, than he was when he actually played football, whatever "extra weight" he has is good old post-retirement beer-blubber, not hard muscle. And that kind of extra weight makes engaging in physicality harder, not easier. If anything it's a handicap to Beckham, not further advantage. And he's definitely not 50 pounds over Cassidy at any rate.
Yet again. Beckham is videoed in the OP. He look like a beer-blubber porker to you? In the tight shirt he was wearing, he looked pretty damn fit to me.

Quote:
It's not the inconsistency that you think it is. Mrs. Beckham points out the location that Beckham and Cassidy were at when she saw them, before she called police. The police report gives the location they were at when the police arrived on the scene (and Beckham himself seems to point out that location earlier in the video). The police report includes a building number that Cassidy and Beckham were found in front of, so there is not likely to be any error on their part. This only seems to corroborate the fact that Beckham had much more trouble corralling Cassidy that you so desperately want us to believe he should have had.
It was not just 'where she saw them'. It was where she said Tony had him on the ground. You just got done saying in your last post that Beer-Blubbered Beckham had to chase Cassidy for half a football field before tackling him, slick. On and on you went about it. Now you say it happened 25 feet or so from the window...and they now tussled for another 125 feet to end up in front of another building. I don't recall this in the reporting. Did you get this info when you were observing how 'sharp' Cassidy presented himself in the hospital?

Quote:
No, that's not what you said. You said Beckham outweighed Cassidy by 50 pounds.
Stop. With. The. Lies.

I asked you when the last time you had someone who outweighed you by 50 lbs of well-conditioned muscle try to overpower you, when you were criticizing my admitted hyperbole of a toddler. Post #292, to save you from searching. Never did I say TB was 50 pounds heavier than Cassidy. Either provide a quote that I missed or retract this lie, please.

Quote:
At the time you hadn't even realized that Cassidy was borderline obese, and were still asserting that comparing him to Cassidy in terms of an adult versus a toddler was "hyperbole", but not by much.
Conceded, I initially misread his weight as being I thought 145 or something. My bad, although it doesn't matter in terms my argument. Pudge Muffin Cassidy versus Lean and Mean Beckham still applies.

Quote:
You even went on this whole song and dance about how you "used to spar" so you know why people are put into "different weight classes" and how "heavier" gives you an advantage.
Can you go a single post without a provable lie? I said I have been sparring most of my adult life. I do so now. Dear god, you even put this lie in quotes. Wanna support this one too, or should we put it in the pile with the others you are handwaving away?

Quote:
So enough with the trying to pretend you were just drawing a distinction between muscle and fat; 50 pounds of muscle and 50 pounds of fat both end up in the same weight class, which would've rendered that entire tangent of yours out of place.
Yes, Checkmite. They would be put in the same weight class, if one was all fat and the other all muscle. One would have an exponential advantage that I trust doesn't need to be explained to you.

Quote:
Hey look, here's a fun video to watch...
Yes, Checkmite. We can show vids of the entire spectrum of possibilities, from nothing at all to death. Irrelevant.

Quote:
"Changing my story"? My story has remained entirely consistent
'It was just a black eye...'
Um, the OP shows multiple facial fractures.
'It was only one eye...'
Um, the OP shows cuts and split lip, and police report him being bloodied and bruised.
'Well, you said he was in a thuggish rage...'
Um, no I didn't.
'Well, we have no idea what Cassidy's build is...'
Um, you posted it already.
'Well, Cassidy was sharp in his hospital interview...'
Um, we don't know that.
'Well, you specifically claimed Beckham outweighed Cassidy by 50 pounds...'
Um, no I didn't.
'Well, Beckham only punched Cassidy "zero to two times, at most"
Um, we don't know that either.

Sorry, getting ahead of myself with that last one. But those were off the top of my head.

Quote:
Beckham saw Cassidy masturbating, chased him down and tackled him, gave him one or two punches at most (if any at all) in the course of subduing him, and struggled to hold him until police arrived. This is consistent with the police report. The burden of proof is on you if you want to assert that either the police are lying, or Beckham was lying when he told the police he did only what was necessary to keep Cassidy subdued until they arrived. Right now the two minor bone fractures Cassidy received are still consistent with Beckham's story as given by the police report. No matter how many times you rephrase "broken bones" to make your emotional argument, all of the facts remain consistent with Beckham's story.
See, you keep saying that. I'll be polite here: please present evidence to support this claim of yours, that there was a maximum number of punches delivered. Please don't get wishy-washy and say it was a possibility...you are claiming 0-2 at most repeatedly.

Quote:
You are straining credibility to spin Beckham's simple braggadocio on the news about successfully subduing Cassidy, into some kind of confession that he wanted to "punish" Cassidy "extra-judicially" before the police arrived - an assertion for which there is no evidence.
Yet that is precisely how the narrative is being presented by the media. The journalists even say that Beckham had a 'conversation' (in a little singsong voice) and show Cassidy's mugshot saying 'this is what he looked like after their (cue singsong voice) 'conversation'. This is not my straining of credibility; it is exactly how the story is portrayed. Hell, it's the only reason the story is national news. You think this is news because a peeper was caught in Florida? See a lot of those reports nationally, do you?
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2019, 09:26 AM   #324
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,110
Cassidy hit the ground twice. Beckham tackled him, and then as the police were talking to the two, Cassidy ran and fell.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2019, 09:33 AM   #325
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 6,396
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
Yes, felonies and misdemeanors are equal, that's why they have diifferent names and different penalties.
Right. They are different. Thanks.

Quote:
Have you considered that the police have evidence that's not in the newspaper? Like semen and lotion?
Didn't see any of that in the police report. That you re-posted.

Quote:
You continually re-state the lie that Beckham cannot be charged with beating up Cassidy. That won't ever make it the truth.
Bull. I have said that he wasn't charged, and it seemed like he should have been. Never, ever, not even once, did I state he cannot be charged.

Speaking of lies, you stated that 'we know he has a lawyer'. Got some proof you'd like to share?
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2019, 09:34 AM   #326
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 6,396
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
Cassidy hit the ground twice. Beckham tackled him, and then as the police were talking to the two, Cassidy ran and fell.
Yep. So?
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2019, 11:05 AM   #327
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,110
"Impunity from criminal charges by the police, which Beckham seems to have."

impunity noun
im·​pu·​ni·​ty | \ im-ˈpyü-nə-tē
\
Definition of impunity

: exemption or freedom from punishment, harm, or loss

laws were flouted with impunity
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2019, 11:17 AM   #328
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 6,396
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
"Impunity from criminal charges by the police, which Beckham seems to have."

impunity noun
im·​pu·​ni·​ty | \ im-ˈpyü-nə-tē
\
Definition of impunity

: exemption or freedom from punishment, harm, or loss

laws were flouted with impunity
He does seem to enjoy that now. He has beaten a man with impunity from the police. You see differently?

BTW, I already agreed with you that Cassidy can press charges, should he have the wherewithal to do so. So drop the 'repeatedly stating that he cannot be charged'.

How you doing on that proof that we know he has a lawyer?
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2019, 11:22 AM   #329
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,110
The reason I believed he had a lawyer was because he was released almost immediately according to the Miami Herald.

Quote:
He was released from the West Detention Center on a $1,500 bond. A judge ordered him to have no contact with the victim or the victim’s family or to be in the neighborhood where the victim lives.

Another court date is set for Feb. 13.
But if you do an inmate search, he seems to still be in jail.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2019, 11:23 AM   #330
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,110
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
He does seem to enjoy that now. He has beaten a man with impunity from the police. You see differently?

BTW, I already agreed with you that Cassidy can press charges, should he have the wherewithal to do so. So drop the 'repeatedly stating that he cannot be charged'.

How you doing on that proof that we know he has a lawyer?
Does he have impunity or not?

Or do you think the police will ignore a complaint?

Or do you think he can't be sued?
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2019, 11:34 AM   #331
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 6,396
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
The reason I believed he had a lawyer was because he was released almost immediately according to the Miami Herald.
What does that have to do with having a lawyer? Could someone else post bond, family or friend, for instance? Or has his right to pro se representation been revoked? Do tell.

Quote:
But if you do an inmate search, he seems to still be in jail.
Consistent with my understanding.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2019, 11:37 AM   #332
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 6,396
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
Does he have impunity or not?
As I keep saying, currently he does. He enjoys freedom from punishment from having busted a guy up in public.

Quote:
Or do you think the police will ignore a complaint?

Or do you think he can't be sued?
Yet again, he certainly can be at any point in the future. He enjoys impunity...freedom from punishment, as you say...in the here and now.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2019, 12:41 PM   #333
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,196
Which will happen first; the thread die off or the perv's bones heal?
__________________
"I don't think I'm getting the most out of my computer. I turn it on... and use it as a light." - Harry Hill
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2019, 12:43 PM   #334
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 17,780
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Which will happen first; the thread die off or the perv's bones heal?
Bones heal has got to be the odds on favorite.

Unless the police actually provide detailed facts of what actually happened sooner than usual. Nothing kills a thread like this quicker than a detailed factual account.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2019, 12:46 PM   #335
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 6,396
#WankingWhileWhite
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2019, 12:57 PM   #336
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,571
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
#WankingWhileWhite
LOL
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2019, 02:26 PM   #337
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 17,780
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
LOL
Thermal is better than that.

Don't give him the pity laugh for such a weak pull.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2019, 02:31 PM   #338
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 31,599
#ProtectingYourDaughterWhileBlack
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2019, 02:38 PM   #339
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 17,780
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
#ProtectingYourDaughterWhileBlack
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2019, 02:51 PM   #340
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 21,452
#JustAnotherDayAtISF
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2019, 03:41 PM   #341
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 6,396
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Thermal is better than that.

Don't give him the pity laugh for such a weak pull.
I'm really not. Ask Checkmite.

And Cassidy has the weak pull, not i
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2019, 03:43 PM   #342
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 22,803
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Your getting silly again. Have you ever seen a football tackle? You usually go down on your side, not freaking face plant. Sometimes on your back, even, depending on how you are taken down.
It can't have happened, because 'usually' it doesn't happen that way. I see.

These two guys weren't playing football.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Any evidence that Cassidy went down on concrete?
The scuffle happened in a literal parking lot?

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I see a lot of grass around there, too.
There's something like a 8 to 1 ratio of concrete to grass around that parking lot. If he was tackled on grass it would've been an unlikely eventuality; but it matters little, a hard tackle in the grass can still bust a face up in a way consistent with Cassidy's injuries, so I'll allow this if you really need it.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Yet again. Beckham is videoed in the OP. He look like a beer-blubber porker to you? In the tight shirt he was wearing, he looked pretty damn fit to me.
If we're talking only a few pounds over his NFL weight? Easily. Just putting on some fat doesn't transform someone into a "porker". If Beckham put on additional pounds in muscle mass that means that over a decade into retirement, he's working out harder than he did when he was in the NFL.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
It was not just 'where she saw them'. It was where she said Tony had him on the ground.
Before she called police.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
You just got done saying in your last post that Beer-Blubbered Beckham had to chase Cassidy for half a football field before tackling him, slick. On and on you went about it.
AND in the same statement (the part you call "on and on about it"), I evoked the possibility that Beckham tackled him earlier than the full distance and the remainder was covered during a protracted struggle, so this:

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Now you say it happened 25 feet or so from the window...and they now tussled for another 125 feet to end up in front of another building.
...isn't a "story change" that gets a "now you say" qualifier, you're literally just rehashing what I already said to begin with and dishonestly spinning it as a story change.

But yes, that's what the clues in the police report indicate. Is there some law of physics that prohibits this sequence of events or something?

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I asked you when the last time you had someone who outweighed you by 50 lbs of well-conditioned muscle try to overpower you, when you were criticizing my admitted hyperbole of a toddler. Post #292, to save you from searching. Never did I say TB was 50 pounds heavier than Cassidy. Either provide a quote that I missed or retract this lie, please.
So this is how it's going to be. Rambling on and on about differences in "weight class" and asking a rhetorical question about being outweighed by 50 pounds, weren't ever meant to imply that "brick ****house" Beckham outweighed "scrawny" Cassidy at all; they were just random and irrelevant interjections.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Conceded, I initially misread his weight as being I thought 145 or something. My bad, although it doesn't matter in terms my argument. Pudge Muffin Cassidy versus Lean and Mean Beckham still applies.
I disagree. I think that it certainly means Cassidy never had a real chance of "winning" against Beckham assuming Beckham was putting in the effort; but it doesn't mean that Beckham didn't have to put in a substantial effort to restrain Cassidy.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Yes, Checkmite. They would be put in the same weight class, if one was all fat and the other all muscle. One would have an exponential advantage that I trust doesn't need to be explained to you.
If you were talking purely about the advantage of muscle, then why all the irrelevant baloney arguing about "weight classes" and the advantage of weight?

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Yes, Checkmite. We can show vids of the entire spectrum of possibilities, from nothing at all to death. Irrelevant.
Highly relevant: it means "the narrative" - the account of the incident as established by Beckham's statements and the police reports - is physically possible, so there's nothing standing in the way here except your personal incredulity.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
'It was just a black eye...'
Um, the OP shows multiple facial fractures.
...causing the black eye.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
'It was only one eye...'
Um, the OP shows cuts and split lip, and police report him being bloodied and bruised.
He did have only one black eye. He did not have any damage whatsoever to the other one. This is still true.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
'Well, you said he was in a thuggish rage...'
Um, no I didn't.
"Beat downs", "Clock cleaning", "working over", "painful beating", but yeah you're definitely not saying he was angry or anything.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
'Well, we have no idea what Cassidy's build is...'
Um, you posted it already.
You posted it. I merely pointed out that the information you posted contradicted your earlier assertion that Cassidy was "scrawny".

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
'Well, Cassidy was sharp in his hospital interview...'
Um, we don't know that.
He was able to evoke his fifth amendment rights while being questioned by police. I can't call that "sharp", but you can look at Beckham on the news and say "Well he looks pretty fit to me" and that's perfectly fine I guess.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
'Well, you specifically claimed Beckham outweighed Cassidy by 50 pounds...'
Um, no I didn't.
"I only asked you if YOU were ever outweighed by 50 pounds; it was purely out of random personal curiosity and I never meant to imply this question had any relevance to the thread topic or indeed the specific subject of the post it appeared in"

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
'Well, Beckham only punched Cassidy "zero to two times, at most"
Um, we don't know that either.
All that's needed to explain Cassidy's injuries. If Beckham punched Cassidy more than that, his additional punches must have caused no injuries at all.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
See, you keep saying that. I'll be polite here: please present evidence to support this claim of yours, that there was a maximum number of punches delivered. Please don't get wishy-washy and say it was a possibility...you are claiming 0-2 at most repeatedly.
The exceptionally mild injuries Cassidy actually suffered during the incident, as explained above. They can all be explained with a minimum of hits, including no punches at all, as the video I posted above demonstrates by example.

This is simply the crux of our disagreement. I really don't understand the way you are choosing to characterize it; I am stating the "zero to two at most" maxim with exactly the same amount of confidence that you are asserting that Beckham saying "we had a conversation" clearly was intended to convey that he "cleaned Cassidy's clock" with a "beat down". So you may question my confidence of my claim only after you're done doing a little self-reflection on the fact that you are reading a whole novel's worth of subtext into the word "conversation" and don't see anything whatsoever wrong with that.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Yet that is precisely how the narrative is being presented by the media. The journalists even say that Beckham had a 'conversation' (in a little singsong voice) and show Cassidy's mugshot saying 'this is what he looked like after their (cue singsong voice) 'conversation'.
Yeah, he was tackled hard, and he came out bruised and bloody, AND got arrested for his trouble. I'll tell you what, no matter what I did wrong, an ex-football player tackling me in the parking lot isn't going to have to do it twice for me to learn the lesson that's for sure.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002

Last edited by Checkmite; 25th January 2019 at 03:44 PM.
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2019, 08:28 AM   #343
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 6,396
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
It can't have happened, because 'usually' it doesn't happen that way. I see.
No. What you said was, and I quote: "He was tackled while running away. That means he fell to the ground face-first." This is a flat claim, and a silly one, because you don't normally fall face first when tacked. But now you are trying to reframe it as if you only were suggesting a possibility. Looking at the rest of your response, your answers all follow the same reconstructions, so I propose a truce? We are not getting anywhere.

Quote:
This is simply the crux of our disagreement. I really don't understand the way you are choosing to characterize it; I am stating the "zero to two at most" maxim with exactly the same amount of confidence that you are asserting that Beckham saying "we had a conversation" clearly was intended to convey that he "cleaned Cassidy's clock" with a "beat down". So you may question my confidence of my claim only after you're done doing a little self-reflection on the fact that you are reading a whole novel's worth of subtext into the word "conversation" and don't see anything whatsoever wrong with that.
The way I am 'choosing to characterize it' is exactly, precisely how the media portrays it. Cassidy got what he deserved. Posters here are hitching their thumbs in their chaps and saying that this is how the good ol' boys handle things back in the holler. Yours truly is one of the stronger advocates of this kind of thinking, but what concerns me is that private justice is an extremely dicey proposition. If you are wrong about being the good guy, you have become the bad guy. And I have been in the position of looking like I was doing something illicit (when I wasn't) to wholeheartedly get on board with this thinking.

You say you don't agree that Beckham was alluding to a private punishment. You of course may be right, although you would seem to be the only person on the planet interpreting it that way (lo siento, hermano). Just for the sake of argument, assume that Beckham was dishing out more than was necessary to restrain Cassidy, or that he was wrong about what Cassidy was doing, or that Cassidy was not responsible for his actions. Would you still support the damage done? If not, since Beckham did not have these answers either, should he have not done what he did?
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2019, 12:18 PM   #344
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 22,803
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Just for the sake of argument, assume that Beckham was dishing out more than was necessary to restrain Cassidy, or that he was wrong about what Cassidy was doing, or that Cassidy was not responsible for his actions. Would you still support the damage done? If not, since Beckham did not have these answers either, should he have not done what he did?
No, I would not support more violence than was necessary to restrain Cassidy. But I disagree that this applies here; for one, the fact they were still actively struggling when police arrived seems to support that a continuous struggle was necessary to restrain Cassidy - whatever the nature or particulars of that physicality. Indeed, the police on-scene had to resort to handcuffing Cassidy to restrain him, even before an arrest decision had been made.

As for the possibility of being wrong - this is a case-by-case thing obviously; and in this case, I would say the possibility was fairly marginal and Beckham's confidence was founded well enough to justify action. Had Beckham reported that he simply saw a man standing near his daughter's window and nothing else, and he instantly jumped to a conclusion and physically confronted Cassidy, I would not be as supportive. But it wasn't like that; Beckham's reported observations were highly specific, and the only alternative explanation offered here so far for what Cassidy may have been doing simply does not fit them well (and in fact contradicts a very important one). I think a reasonable person who saw what Beckham reported he saw could well conclude that there was no other explanation.

Was Cassidy mentally ill or disabled, to a point that he was not responsible for his actions? Possibly; but in my opinion this fact needs to impact the judicial disposition of the case, not the initial response. A person who may not be mentally capable of stopping himself from committing a crime still needs to be stopped; he needs to be arrested, and bystanders or witnesses can hold him until police arrive without concerning themselves with the particulars of his mental state.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2019, 10:38 PM   #345
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 6,396
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
No, I would not support more violence than was necessary to restrain Cassidy. But I disagree that this applies here; for one, the fact they were still actively struggling when police arrived seems to support that a continuous struggle was necessary to restrain Cassidy - whatever the nature or particulars of that physicality. Indeed, the police on-scene had to resort to handcuffing Cassidy to restrain him, even before an arrest decision had been made.
Reasonable enough. Regarding this, might the particulars be that Beckham was controlling him easily, even with the pudgy pud-puller putting up whatever lame resistance he could? 'Actively struggling' could just as well mean Cassidy squirming and TB simply adjusting his grip on porky perv's neck. I don't think there is any reason to assume an even match for dominance. I certainly don't.

Quote:
As for the possibility of being wrong - this is a case-by-case thing obviously; and in this case, I would say the possibility was fairly marginal and Beckham's confidence was founded well enough to justify action. Had Beckham reported that he simply saw a man standing near his daughter's window and nothing else, and he instantly jumped to a conclusion and physically confronted Cassidy, I would not be as supportive. But it wasn't like that; Beckham's reported observations were highly specific, and the only alternative explanation offered here so far for what Cassidy may have been doing simply does not fit them well (and in fact contradicts a very important one). I think a reasonable person who saw what Beckham reported he saw could well conclude that there was no other explanation.
Okay. Would you allow that many people would believe that they were confident and accurate with what they think they saw? If, as it was posted earlier, this was some homeless drunk peeing in the bushes in the dark, this might look for all the world to TB to be exactly what he described to police. More cynically, might many people report that they saw what happened very clearly, when they really had not, in order to stay on the happy side of the law? I do not suggest any of this happened, but that these are reasons why behavior like this should not be encouraged. You know how often people are wrong in eyewitness accounts.

Quote:
Was Cassidy mentally ill or disabled, to a point that he was not responsible for his actions? Possibly; but in my opinion this fact needs to impact the judicial disposition of the case, not the initial response. A person who may not be mentally capable of stopping himself from committing a crime still needs to be stopped; he needs to be arrested, and bystanders or witnesses can hold him until police arrive without concerning themselves with the particulars of his mental state.
Hold the suspected criminal, yes. Restrain. Not damage. The punches concern me in this, not the apprehension. Punches are aggressive, not restraining. Grabbing his hands/arms, holding him down, etc, are all in the fair game department. Dishing out shots to the face is not a restraining tactic, IMO.

Do you think TB was familiar with whether the variety of lewd behavior Cassidy was charged with was a felony, and knew what appropriate civilian responses were? I doubt it. I doubt that Beckham put any thought at all into the legality of his behavior. I get the feeling from the interview that he was doing what he wanted to do to Cassidy, rights of others be damned. And that is the kind of thinking that should be generally discouraged. Declaring yourself judge, jury, and punisher for non-violent offenses on the fly can go wrong in too many ways.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2019, 11:25 PM   #346
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,571
[quote=Thermal;12579174]Reasonable enough. Regarding this, might the particulars be that Beckham was controlling him easily, even with the pudgy pud-puller putting up whatever lame resistance he could? 'Actively struggling' could just as well mean Cassidy squirming and TB simply adjusting his grip on porky perv's neck. I don't think there is any reason to assume an even match for dominance. I certainly don't.

Or maybe he was biting anything that got near his head in between spitting who knows what diseases in their faces.

I've seen that once.

Cops had to ram an anti biting guard in the blokes mouth

Nutters do weird things cornered

Point is, either way it's pure conjecture
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2019, 11:33 PM   #347
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 6,396
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Reasonable enough. Regarding this, might the particulars be that Beckham was controlling him easily, even with the pudgy pud-puller putting up whatever lame resistance he could? 'Actively struggling' could just as well mean Cassidy squirming and TB simply adjusting his grip on porky perv's neck. I don't think there is any reason to assume an even match for dominance. I certainly don't.
Or maybe he was biting anything that got near his head in between spitting who knows what diseases in their faces.

I've seen that once.

Cops had to ram an anti biting guard in the blokes mouth

Nutters do weird things cornered

Point is, either way it's pure conjecture
Agreed. My argument is what should be the default response. I think do the absolute minimum damage needed to restrain. Beckham gives the impression that he threw a little extra on for good measure
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet

Last edited by Thermal; 26th January 2019 at 11:34 PM.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2019, 11:39 PM   #348
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,571
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Agreed. My argument is what should be the default response. I think do the absolute minimum damage needed to restrain. Beckham gives the impression that he threw a little extra on for good measure
I agree, the only difference is I give the dad a bit of a free pass, as he was restrained enough to do no real lasting damage except a few headaches healing, and it was his young daughter the bloke was pumping the piston at.

If he had actually crippled the dude I'd agree with people saying he should be charged and leave it to the jury/judge

At the end of the day it is discretion
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2019, 11:58 PM   #349
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,769
As a martial artist I'd like to say a couple of things.

A professional athlete will simply move better and more efficiently than a non-athlete. Football includes some aspects of grappling that will transfer to stopping and restraining someone. It would be easy for Beckham to restrain Cassidy.

But. Easy doesn't mean safe. When someone is resisting they can put themselves in danger as much as you and if you're trying to take someone down without hurting them that's going to be a lot harder than just taking them down. There are degrees of both intentional harm (picking a guy up and intentionally slamming him on his head) and negligent harm (barrelling into him full throttle in order to tackle him, say), that I might consider should reasonably be considered assault here, but the fact that Cassidy was injured doesn't demonstrate that. I think it's entirely possible that Beckham really was just trying to restrain him and he was injured as a result, either from being punched or tackled.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 12:04 AM   #350
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 6,396
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
As a martial artist I'd like to say a couple of things.

A professional athlete will simply move better and more efficiently than a non-athlete. Football includes some aspects of grappling that will transfer to stopping and restraining someone. It would be easy for Beckham to restrain Cassidy.

But. Easy doesn't mean safe. When someone is resisting they can put themselves in danger as much as you and if you're trying to take someone down without hurting them that's going to be a lot harder than just taking them down. There are degrees of both intentional harm (picking a guy up and intentionally slamming him on his head) and negligent harm (barrelling into him full throttle in order to tackle him, say), that I might consider should reasonably be considered assault here, but the fact that Cassidy was injured doesn't demonstrate that. I think it's entirely possible that Beckham really was just trying to restrain him and he was injured as a result, either from being punched or tackled.
Also Cassidy was highly incentivized to escape. He would have been running for his life, not just his dinner, so put up a wilder fight. All very plausible.

That 'we just had a good conversation' thing, though...Maybe just opportunistic bluster. Maybe not.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 02:28 AM   #351
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 39,858
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
While most perverts like Cassidy don't escalate beyond doing things like he did here, it is well known in Law enforcement that serial rapists and serial murderers all escalated from the kinds of things done by Cassidy.
You'll probably be willing to excuse me if I don't base my moral decisions on what is legally permissible in Florida.

I can see the emotional appeal of "dad beats pervert for choking the chicken at daughter's bedroom window" but that assumes that his narrative is accurate. I can't assume that so will say that the more disturbing factor is the support for vigilante justice, here. We have one version of the story and it sounds cool if true so there's been a whole lot more effort spent on posturing than in seeking other evidence or views.

I have no trouble waiting until the whole story is made available and if it isn't and all we've got left is the dad's version and the fact that the cops are okay with it, I'll file it away under "can't be proved". But I still will never add my voice to the support of vigilante justice. Linebackers tackle people. The beating was extraneous unless the perp/suspect was also trying to inflict injury.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 02:42 AM   #352
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,571
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
You'll probably be willing to excuse me if I don't base my moral decisions on what is legally permissible in Florida.

I can see the emotional appeal of "dad beats pervert for choking the chicken at daughter's bedroom window" but that assumes that his narrative is accurate. I can't assume that so will say that the more disturbing factor is the support for vigilante justice, here. We have one version of the story and it sounds cool if true so there's been a whole lot more effort spent on posturing than in seeking other evidence or views.

I have no trouble waiting until the whole story is made available and if it isn't and all we've got left is the dad's version and the fact that the cops are okay with it, I'll file it away under "can't be proved". But I still will never add my voice to the support of vigilante justice. Linebackers tackle people. The beating was extraneous unless the perp/suspect was also trying to inflict injury.
And the cops had both and chose to only arrest one of them.


And "beating" is an extremely loaded term for someone getting a facial fracture, especially given the lack of detail of what caused it.

Multiple punches?

One punch?

His head hitting concrete when he fell?

All possible
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 01:52 PM   #353
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 22,803
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Reasonable enough. Regarding this, might the particulars be that Beckham was controlling him easily, even with the pudgy pud-puller putting up whatever lame resistance he could?
They might. That is also a status that can change during the struggle, with Cassidy in turns being well under control at some points and very close to successfully escaping at others. I do think the fact that, as you pointed out, the pair were still much closer to Beckham's house when his wife called police, and yet described in the police report as much further away once police arrived, would seem to suggest that this altercation was not a static match in which Beckham had and maintained easy control for the duration.


Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Okay. Would you allow that many people would believe that they were confident and accurate with what they think they saw? If, as it was posted earlier, this was some homeless drunk peeing in the bushes in the dark, this might look for all the world to TB to be exactly what he described to police.
I believe you're wrong about the bolded. This was the "only alternative" I mentioned earlier, and I feel it fails in most respects to jibe with Beckham's stated observations. Standing there urinating would explain why Cassidy was standing in front of a bush, with loosened pants and his hands generally in front of him. It does not explain anything else that Beckham reported. Draining the old lizard does not match, because Beckham said that the lizard-in-question was not visible, but rather that Cassidy's hands were inside the front of his pants and "making a motion consistent with masturbation". Neither the unexposed location of the lizard nor the reported hand motions make sense if Cassidy was urinating. This fact - that Cassidy urinating would mean that his penis was exposed, while Beckham specifically says it was not - is the contradiction I mentioned in my last post.

I suppose it's possible that Cassidy was urinating into his pants; but I can't help but feel if he was that intoxicated, or if the front of his pants were completely soaked with urine, those things would have been noted in the police report. And again it still doesn't explain the hand motions.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
More cynically, might many people report that they saw what happened very clearly, when they really had not, in order to stay on the happy side of the law? I do not suggest any of this happened, but that these are reasons why behavior like this should not be encouraged. You know how often people are wrong in eyewitness accounts.
This is true, but it's also a different question. Above, I'm answering the question of whether or not a witness is justified in feeling confident enough in their assessment of what they saw to take a capturing action that might result in injury to the perpetrator. Making that judgment requires us to take Beckham's report to the police as honest.

But to address the question - yes, Beckham could have fudged details or outright lied in order to justify his reaction to police, and in reality saw nothing more than Cassidy standing in that location, say. But this doesn't make much sense to me, reading the police report. For instance, if Beckham never actually saw Cassidy's hands making wanking motions, and decided to add an embellishment along those lines, why couldn't he have just claimed at that point that Cassidy's todge was actually out of his pants and in-hand, fully and unmistakably visible in glorious HD? It wouldn't be any harder a claim to believe than that everything was still in the front of his pants; so why embellish in a way that still leaves even a little room for doubt? It's not as if Cassidy could then undermine Beckham's case against him by objecting that "I was definitely wanking inside my pants the whole time, so he's clearly lying".

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Hold the suspected criminal, yes. Restrain. Not damage. The punches concern me in this, not the apprehension. Punches are aggressive, not restraining.
I don't know if that's so straightforward to the average person. We don't know if Beckham used punches, and Cassidy's injuries can have been caused during the altercation through means other than punches; but in point of fact, police use punches and knee-strikes to subdue struggling suspects on occasion, I think that's common knowledge. Beckham isn't a wrestler or martial artist; in his career his job was to block other people or to tackle them and then instantly stop and get up. He's never been trained how to restrain someone who's trying to get away, so almost everything he has to do in this case is improvisation. I can see a person deciding punches might help to discourage someone from struggling - particularly if the person who's struggling to get away, is himself punching and kicking at his would-be captor.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Do you think TB was familiar with whether the variety of lewd behavior Cassidy was charged with was a felony, and knew what appropriate civilian responses were? I doubt it. I doubt that Beckham put any thought at all into the legality of his behavior. I get the feeling from the interview that he was doing what he wanted to do to Cassidy, rights of others be damned.
I agree in that I don't think he was aware of the legal intricacies of Cassidy's behavior - whether it was a misdemeanor or felony, or what is "allowed" to be done to someone seen committing one rather than the other, or any such thing. But I don't agree with you that this means Beckham's attitude was entirely cavalier. It was just simplistic: this man is doing something illegal, so he needs to be caught and held for the cops. I don't think he sweated the details.

I do think he was aware that excessive violence was not permissible, and I also think that he earnestly does not believe he used excessive violence against Cassidy.

I think you are over-analyzing Beckham's statements on the news. Beckham was a male, who had "won" an altercation. Using ironic discretionary language like "we had a conversation" - or similar: "a discussion", "we had words", "sorted things out", "came to an understanding" - to describe physicality of some kind, with a wink or a cheeky grin; this is just highly (highly) typical macho faux-humility victor-posturing when playing to an audience, and it doesn't really contain any useful information about the cause of the confrontation, who instigated it, or how it progressed or was conducted; it only indicates the person using that language considers himself the "winner" of the confrontation, whatever it was. I do not believe you can accurately deduce anything about Beckham's motives or approach to the altercation based on this posturing.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 08:09 AM   #354
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 6,396
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
They might. That is also a status that can change during the struggle, with Cassidy in turns being well under control at some points and very close to successfully escaping at others. I do think the fact that, as you pointed out, the pair were still much closer to Beckham's house when his wife called police, and yet described in the police report as much further away once police arrived, would seem to suggest that this altercation was not a static match in which Beckham had and maintained easy control for the duration.
I think this may need more explanation, as 125' +/- is a long way for a scuffle to travel after Cassidy was quickly dropped, considering the physical mismatch. It may be as simple as the responding officer being sloppy with estimating the distance, I suppose. Or perhaps Cassidy did briefly get away and upon recapture, Beckham dragged him off the asphalt to the nearest grass away from cars. Probably not important in the big picture.

Quote:
I believe you're wrong about the bolded. This was the "only alternative" I mentioned earlier, and I feel it fails in most respects to jibe with Beckham's stated observations. Standing there urinating would explain why Cassidy was standing in front of a bush, with loosened pants and his hands generally in front of him. It does not explain anything else that Beckham reported. Draining the old lizard does not match, because Beckham said that the lizard-in-question was not visible, but rather that Cassidy's hands were inside the front of his pants and "making a motion consistent with masturbation". Neither the unexposed location of the lizard nor the reported hand motions make sense if Cassidy was urinating. This fact - that Cassidy urinating would mean that his penis was exposed, while Beckham specifically says it was not - is the contradiction I mentioned in my last post.

I suppose it's possible that Cassidy was urinating into his pants; but I can't help but feel if he was that intoxicated, or if the front of his pants were completely soaked with urine, those things would have been noted in the police report. And again it still doesn't explain the hand motions.
Of course, I am not proposing Cassidy was urinating, in or out of his pants. I was illustrating how someone could be easily mistaken in the dark about what someone else might be doing.

Beckham claims Cassidy's 'bare butt' was visible, but his penis was not and his hands were in his pants. Try that (recommend strongly not doing this outside, and closing the blinds if indoors). Not physically very easy to do at all, which again makes me think TB did not see things as clearly as he claims.

Quote:
This is true, but it's also a different question. Above, I'm answering the question of whether or not a witness is justified in feeling confident enough in their assessment of what they saw to take a capturing action that might result in injury to the perpetrator. Making that judgment requires us to take Beckham's report to the police as honest.
Fair enough. Dishonesty will always skew the scenario, and is a different question.

Quote:
But to address the question - yes, Beckham could have fudged details or outright lied in order to justify his reaction to police, and in reality saw nothing more than Cassidy standing in that location, say. But this doesn't make much sense to me, reading the police report. For instance, if Beckham never actually saw Cassidy's hands making wanking motions, and decided to add an embellishment along those lines, why couldn't he have just claimed at that point that Cassidy's todge was actually out of his pants and in-hand, fully and unmistakably visible in glorious HD? It wouldn't be any harder a claim to believe than that everything was still in the front of his pants; so why embellish in a way that still leaves even a little room for doubt? It's not as if Cassidy could then undermine Beckham's case against him by objecting that "I was definitely wanking inside my pants the whole time, so he's clearly lying".
To me, this sounds like Beckham felt vindicated in his initial assessment, but his recollection began to unravel under specific questioning by the police, which would explain the odd inconsistencies. Speculation, of course.

Quote:
I don't know if that's so straightforward to the average person. We don't know if Beckham used punches, and Cassidy's injuries can have been caused during the altercation through means other than punches; but in point of fact, police use punches and knee-strikes to subdue struggling suspects on occasion, I think that's common knowledge. Beckham isn't a wrestler or martial artist; in his career his job was to block other people or to tackle them and then instantly stop and get up. He's never been trained how to restrain someone who's trying to get away, so almost everything he has to do in this case is improvisation.
I don't know what other experience TB has in fighting, nor do I think it would necessarily be limited to his former profession. I used to be a paperboy, but delivering newspapers is not all I can do. I do think a muscular former professional athlete would have a fairly easy time controlling a borderline obese shorter transient, generally speaking, and even his improvisations would be pretty effective.

Quote:
I can see a person deciding punches might help to discourage someone from struggling - particularly if the person who's struggling to get away, is himself punching and kicking at his would-be captor.
Yes, I can see that too. But I am not sure it would be legal. That is what I am questioning: how far can a private person go in restraining a non-violent alleged criminal? I think we can agree that you could not tackle a suspected jaywalker, even if he was 'fleeing the scene of the crime'. You probably could not legally punch him if he fought you, as you were the aggressor. Determining when you can damage a suspect is pretty damned slippery, I would think. For someone who posed an imminent threat to others, sure. There was no imminence of violence in Cassidy's actions, so I think TB stepped pretty solidly over the line, even if we don't define exactly where the line is.

Quote:
I agree in that I don't think he was aware of the legal intricacies of Cassidy's behavior - whether it was a misdemeanor or felony, or what is "allowed" to be done to someone seen committing one rather than the other, or any such thing. But I don't agree with you that this means Beckham's attitude was entirely cavalier. It was just simplistic: this man is doing something illegal, so he needs to be caught and held for the cops. I don't think he sweated the details.
Yep, agreed. Simplistic, and Cassidy was doing something illegal and needed to be caught. But again, that is my question. How far do these 'citizens arrest' powers go? If someone fails to curb their dog, or graffitis a wall, and 'flees' when confronted, is it restraining time? Break a few bones time? I think the pervy nature of Cassidy's actions are making us excuse the treatment, on a visceral level as opposed to the reasonable one.

Quote:
I do think he was aware that excessive violence was not permissible, and I also think that he earnestly does not believe he used excessive violence against Cassidy.

I think you are over-analyzing Beckham's statements on the news. Beckham was a male, who had "won" an altercation. Using ironic discretionary language like "we had a conversation" - or similar: "a discussion", "we had words", "sorted things out", "came to an understanding" - to describe physicality of some kind, with a wink or a cheeky grin; this is just highly (highly) typical macho faux-humility victor-posturing when playing to an audience, and it doesn't really contain any useful information about the cause of the confrontation, who instigated it, or how it progressed or was conducted; it only indicates the person using that language considers himself the "winner" of the confrontation, whatever it was. I do not believe you can accurately deduce anything about Beckham's motives or approach to the altercation based on this posturing.
Yes, this is a sticking point in our disagreement. The title of the OP article is 'Man gets beaten up by former NFL athlete', or words to that effect. For the sake of the discussion, that is exactly how his actions are being portrayed in the media. No vacillation at all, and I have heard no objection from Beckham regarding this portrayal. While it is perfectly true, as you say, that the story or even TB is glamorizing the tale, I still think how much private damage can be done to a non-violent suspect warrants scrutiny.

The police responded to a call of a fight in progress. They arrived to find a scuffle going on, with Beckham apparently on top of Cassidy. Cassidy was injured, Beckham was not. The police report says there were no other witnesses. Cassidy denies the charge (lamely, but bear with me).

Basically, there is no proof of anything beyond the report of one of the participants in the fight. The police accepted this wholesale and arrested only the other. That doesn't strike you as a bit odd? My take is that TB should have been charged with...something, and cursorily vindicated during the process. Simply taking one party's word for the whole ordeal wouldn't fly very well in most circumstances.

Btw: check out Checkmite and Thermal having a civil disagreement and discussion. This is nice.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 08:24 AM   #355
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,110
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I think this may need more explanation, as 125' +/- is a long way for a scuffle to travel after Cassidy was quickly dropped, considering the physical mismatch. It may be as simple as the responding officer being sloppy with estimating the distance, I suppose. Or perhaps Cassidy did briefly get away and upon recapture, Beckham dragged him off the asphalt to the nearest grass away from cars. Probably not important in the big picture.



Of course, I am not proposing Cassidy was urinating, in or out of his pants. I was illustrating how someone could be easily mistaken in the dark about what someone else might be doing.

Beckham claims Cassidy's 'bare butt' was visible, but his penis was not and his hands were in his pants. Try that (recommend strongly not doing this outside, and closing the blinds if indoors). Not physically very easy to do at all, which again makes me think TB did not see things as clearly as he claims.



Fair enough. Dishonesty will always skew the scenario, and is a different question.



To me, this sounds like Beckham felt vindicated in his initial assessment, but his recollection began to unravel under specific questioning by the police, which would explain the odd inconsistencies. Speculation, of course.



I don't know what other experience TB has in fighting, nor do I think it would necessarily be limited to his former profession. I used to be a paperboy, but delivering newspapers is not all I can do. I do think a muscular former professional athlete would have a fairly easy time controlling a borderline obese shorter transient, generally speaking, and even his improvisations would be pretty effective.



Yes, I can see that too. But I am not sure it would be legal. That is what I am questioning: how far can a private person go in restraining a non-violent alleged criminal? I think we can agree that you could not tackle a suspected jaywalker, even if he was 'fleeing the scene of the crime'. You probably could not legally punch him if he fought you, as you were the aggressor. Determining when you can damage a suspect is pretty damned slippery, I would think. For someone who posed an imminent threat to others, sure. There was no imminence of violence in Cassidy's actions, so I think TB stepped pretty solidly over the line, even if we don't define exactly where the line is.



Yep, agreed. Simplistic, and Cassidy was doing something illegal and needed to be caught. But again, that is my question. How far do these 'citizens arrest' powers go? If someone fails to curb their dog, or graffitis a wall, and 'flees' when confronted, is it restraining time? Break a few bones time? I think the pervy nature of Cassidy's actions are making us excuse the treatment, on a visceral level as opposed to the reasonable one.



Yes, this is a sticking point in our disagreement. The title of the OP article is 'Man gets beaten up by former NFL athlete', or words to that effect. For the sake of the discussion, that is exactly how his actions are being portrayed in the media. No vacillation at all, and I have heard no objection from Beckham regarding this portrayal. While it is perfectly true, as you say, that the story or even TB is glamorizing the tale, I still think how much private damage can be done to a non-violent suspect warrants scrutiny.

The police responded to a call of a fight in progress. They arrived to find a scuffle going on, with Beckham apparently on top of Cassidy. Cassidy was injured, Beckham was not. The police report says there were no other witnesses. Cassidy denies the charge (lamely, but bear with me).

Basically, there is no proof of anything beyond the report of one of the participants in the fight. The police accepted this wholesale and arrested only the other. That doesn't strike you as a bit odd? My take is that TB should have been charged with...something, and cursorily vindicated during the process. Simply taking one party's word for the whole ordeal wouldn't fly very well in most circumstances.

Btw: check out Checkmite and Thermal having a civil disagreement and discussion. This is nice.
The police saw two people fighting, so two people were probably fighting.

IIRC, there are two witnesses on the affidavit.

Winning a fight while defending yourself is not a crime as far as I know.

Beckham yelled out to a man that he observed near his house, apparently masturbating while looking in his daughter's window.

Instead of just explaining that he was sorry for taking a piss by Beckham's window, this person decided to run.

This reinforces Beckham's belief in what he was actually doing.

Beckham chased and apprehended what he believed to be a felon.

That suspect, instead of just waiting for the police to explain that he was just taking a piss, decided to fight with Beckham in order to escape.

Beckham defended himself, and managed to detain the suspect.

After the police arrived and were talking to both subjects, one of them decided to run again, and fell, and was then detained in handcuffs.

One of these two looked and acted guilty, and had no reasonable explanation for his actions.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

Last edited by LTC8K6; 28th January 2019 at 08:25 AM.
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 08:31 AM   #356
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 6,396
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
The police saw two people fighting, so two people were probably fighting.

IIRC, there are two witnesses on the affidavit.
The police report says there were no other witnesses. The affidavit comes later.

Quote:
Winning a fight while defending yourself is not a crime as far as I know.

Beckham yelled out to a man that he observed near his house, apparently masturbating while looking in his daughter's window.

Instead of just explaining that he was sorry for taking a piss by Beckham's window, this person decided to run.

This reinforces Beckham's belief in what he was actually doing.

Beckham chased and apprehended what he believed to be a felon.

That suspect, instead of just waiting for the police to explain that he was just taking a piss, decided to fight with Beckham in order to escape.

Beckham defended himself, and managed to detain the suspect
.
The police saw none of the above. You also throw in that Beckham believed Cassidy was a felon. Any evidence that TB had analyzed the legalities? I doubt it.

Quote:
After the police arrived and were talking to both subjects, one of them decided to run again, and fell, and was then detained in handcuffs.

One of these two looked and acted guilty, and had no reasonable explanation for his actions.
Yes, Cassidy trying to run made him look guilty. Should that excuse Beckham from any possible wrongdoing in the previous fight? TB could not have been doing anything wrong because Cassidy was worse?
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 09:18 AM   #357
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,110
Analyzed the legalities? Seriously? You're just joking?

That's utterly ridiculous.

What you've highlighted in yellow is merely my own explanation to you as to why Beckham's punches are likely perfectly legal. It's what you'll face in court when you attempt to try Beckham for punching Cassidy.

Now that I know you have just been joking all this time, I'm upset with myself for participating...

Looking back, you have just been trying desperately to maintain several untenable positions, imo.

My stupid fault for carrying on with the repetitious game, I guess.

See you on the next merry-go-round I guess.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 09:32 AM   #358
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 6,396
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
Analyzed the legalities? Seriously? You're just joking?

That's utterly ridiculous.

What you've highlighted in yellow is merely my own explanation to you as to why Beckham's punches are likely perfectly legal. It's what you'll face in court when you attempt to try Beckham for punching Cassidy.

Now that I know you have just been joking all this time, I'm upset with myself for participating...

Looking back, you have just been trying desperately to maintain several untenable positions, imo.

My stupid fault for carrying on with the repetitious game, I guess.

See you on the next merry-go-round I guess.
Cheap flounce.

You made a claim, and I quote: "Beckham chased and apprehended what he believed to be a felon."

I call BS. Beckham likely had no idea whether peeping was a felony or not, and you only interject this to give credibility to his use of force in apprehension.

Flounce away if you like, but it is only your purported mind-reading being questioned.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 01:18 PM   #359
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,110
I wasn't making a claim, I was laying out the likely case if Beckham were charged, which is obviously my opinion since the suspect hasn't even been arraigned yet...



Hell, the judge might release Cassidy because of an illegal arrest/detention.

We can't even wait...to see.

We have to condemn the system right away because what we think should happen didn't happen immediately.

What a pain.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

Last edited by LTC8K6; 28th January 2019 at 01:20 PM.
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 06:23 PM   #360
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 22,803
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
The police responded to a call of a fight in progress. They arrived to find a scuffle going on, with Beckham apparently on top of Cassidy. Cassidy was injured, Beckham was not. The police report says there were no other witnesses. Cassidy denies the charge (lamely, but bear with me).

Basically, there is no proof of anything beyond the report of one of the participants in the fight. The police accepted this wholesale and arrested only the other. That doesn't strike you as a bit odd?
But that is not right. The police report mentions two other witnesses: one is a neighbor who lived in the building Beckham and Cassidy were found in front of, whom the report says "heard the commotion outside his window and ran out" whereupon Beckham yelled at him to call 911. We know the police spoke to him, because the report specifically mentions that he gave a sworn statement (and forgets to redact his name - oops!). And the other witness is Beckham's daughter, who is named in the report, and who said she had just exited the shower and was getting dressed when Cassidy was at her window. It is possible that this information came purely from Beckham himself; but I very highly doubt it, firstly since he was outside the house when he spotted Cassidy and likely wasn't aware of precisely what his daughter was doing in her bedroom at that moment; and secondly because I don't find it likely that the officer would put her full name (which it clearly does, though it is redacted) in the report without having at least talked to her directly, especially given her importance as a potential witness of Cassidy's actions.

But even if we discount those, it wasn't only Beckham's statement either. Firstly, Cassidy tried to escape while Beckham was being interviewed, and had to be recaptured and handcuffed by the police. That's not incriminating, perhaps; but it's attention-getting in all the wrong ways. Then, the police report says that after he was given a medical examination, the officer interviewed Cassidy at the hospital, and that Cassidy was uncooperative there as well. More specifically, Cassidy refused to really provide an alternate account of the events outside Beckham's house, when the police asked him for his story. Which is his legal right of course; but the officer only made the decision to arrest and book him after and in light of all those facts, NOT at the scene immediately after Beckham's sole testimony.

But the arrest and charge isn't the final word. Cassidy is perfectly entitled to choose to defend himself in court to a judge and/or jury rather than to police if that's his wont; in point of fact, he's entitled to not actively defend himself even in court. But as things stood, what the officer was faced with was a situation where one man gave an account that incriminated the other, and the accused person refused to contest it when given the chance. Filing the charge was logical. One runner refusing to leave the starting line doesn't stop the other one from going in the books as the winner of the race.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:36 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.