Posted on 04/08/2011 6:13:36 PM PDT by fuzzybutt
MESQUITE, Texas - A YouTube video of a police officer using pepper spray on a baby squirrel has sparked outrage in the city of Mesquite, Tx.
A student recorded the incident. In the video, the officer is seen spraying the animal after it began chasing students around at Kimbrough Middle School.
Students are heard begging the cop, reffered to as Officer Davis on the video, to stop with cries of "No!" and "Don't spray him!"
Mesquite Police Department has defended the officer's actions.
Sgt. Wes Talley said the officer stood between a group of students and the animal because he thought it may have been rabid.
(Excerpt) Read more at myfoxny.com ...
I don't think you're a coward, I just think you are suffering from severe mental problems.
Quoting people out of context now? Is that all you have left?
So, where is the case? Why can’t you back up your assertions? Why run to a “I’m a coward” excuse, when it’s blatantly obvious that couldn’t possibly be the actual reason for your refusal to prove your assertion?
Why would you want others to search through Westlaw and Lexis (given the facts that you gave, finding the case, if it exists at all, wouldn’t be difficult) when it is your job to prove the assertions that you made?
Well that's not how you do it, again you display a serious lack of math skills... You take the total number of officer and divide by 4,966.... you have it backwards...
Nope. To get the percentage of the whole, you divide the given amount by the total amount. This gives you the raw percentage, then you multiply the raw percentage by 100 to get the total percentage of the whole.
So now you are lying about basic math.
http://www.helpingwithmath.com/by_subject/percentages/per_calculating.htm
“Pilot” indeed.
You don’t supply the number of full time sworn officers, but using the numbers provided, 4966 officers with complaints, and the .0055% number provided by you means there must be 90 million full time sworn officers.
Simple math 4966 divided by 0.0055% (0.000055).
You desperately keep trying to turn this argument into something that its not, we were not discussing my situation, I offered it up as context... you do know what context is don't you Mr. 14 Year Old Policeman...
You have in what can only be described as a desperate, fallacious attempt to steer the argument away from the point it went off the rails for you and your ability to debate... have taken, like a broken record to demanding that I now show you court cases in which I have replied why I will not, because due to your bizarre irrational behavior that you have displayed here I have said that you are the last human being I want knowing my name, my address and any other information about me...
Yet like a proud 3 year old in the middle of a full blown tantrum you keep repeating your demands because you incorrectly believe it makes you appear to be winning the argument, a point that I might remind you that you were scoffing at in this thread... winning an argument on the internet.
How many more times must we show everyone reading this post just how detached from reality you are?
I'm actually enjoying this post because its going to become a permanent record forever entombed on the internet detailing just you foolish and just how much you lack intelligence. You think your smart when infact you are not and you continue to display this trait with each and every successive post you make.
So keep it up, this tread will come in handy the net time you start acting irrational in a future thread, which for you will be the next own where you once gain launch into the defense more criminal cops.
Dear God,,,, You have truly gone round the bend...
All this over a squirrel,hey its spring there will be plenty more!
I gave you the raw percentage. You have to multiply the raw percentage by 100 to get percentage of the whole.
You don’t divide the total number of officers by the incidents, as the liar above is claiming.
More rambling? Why can’t you just provide the proof of what you asserted?
If what you are saying is accurate, and someone where to go to Westlaw or Lexis and find a case with similar facts, cross reference the plaintiffs in that case with the FAA database to make sure that the plaintiff was a pilot, and then post that case back here, what would you have accomplished by hiding it? You’ve already given people enough to find your name if this case where real. Hence, I can’t believe that it is real, or you wouldn’t be hiding it from us.
You have yet to give a rational explanation for refusing to prove your assertion, and each time you get called on it, you refuse to answer, and instead respond with another ad hominem attack and a claim of superiority.
As I said before, you are projecting.
Not wanting someone like you who is clearly irrational to have their name and address isn't rational in your eyes because you are the one being completely irrational and illogical.
Again plz keep rambling on and on... for the archives and for future use in another argument against you. At some point someone else will question your intelligence or your behavior and I'll happily link to this post to show a pattern of irrational, illogical behavior that you display over and over...
Rant on... would you like me to bring you a bigger shovel, so you can dig this hole you are in at twice the pace?
You need to take a math course.
As I already explained to you, this explanation isn't rational. If everything you said were true, then anyone can already find your name and address with just a little bit of legwork, based on the information that you have already released on the board. All one has to do is check Westlaw or Lexis for the civil suits against the Nashville Metro Police for the past 6 or 7 years, narrow the facts down to cases that arose out of traffic stops, and cross reference the plaintiff against the FAA database. If there actually is such a case, and the information that you gave is accurate, someone who wanted to find your name would have it in a day or two. Hence, your explanation can't be accurate. Either the case doesn't exist, or there is another reason that you don't want it coming to light. Why is that so hard for you to understand? You gave an explanation, but the explanation isn't rational. It doesn't hold water when one considers the above. So again, where is the case? If it exists, why are you trying to hide it? It can't be because of your name and address, because you've basically revealed that information already.
Are you seriously suggesting that one doesn’t get the percentage of a whole by dividing the number of incidents by the total number of officers, and then multiplying by 100?
Really now?
http://www.mathsisfun.com/percentage.html
As a fraction, 10/200 = 0.05
As a percentage it is: (10/200) x 100 = 5%
5% of those apples were bad
Now you try:
If only 4996 of the total full time sworn officers in a given year were bad, what percent is that?
As a fraction:
As a percentage:
Answer:
Now you try:
If only 4996 of the total full time sworn officers in a given year were bad, what percent is that?
As a fraction:
As a percentage:
Answer:
The number is in the BLS numbers, earlier in the thread.
By your own words I'm not hiding nothing because I can't, anyone can find out... you just said so much...
If everything you said were true, then anyone can already find your name and address with just a little bit of legwork, based on the information that you have already released on the board. All one has to do is check Westlaw or Lexis for the civil suits against the Nashville Metro Police for the past 6 or 7 years, narrow the facts down to cases that arose out of traffic stops, and cross reference the plaintiff against the FAA database. If there actually is such a case, and the information that you gave is accurate, someone who wanted to find your name would have it in a day or two.
You show your lack of comprehension skills brilliantly right here, your lack of any ability to debate... you cannot have it both ways, either its easy or its not. If its as easy to get as you say it is then by that very point alone, I cannot hide it from anyone... as you claim that I am doing.
See, this is what I;m talking about, your inability to comprehend. You are trying so hard to be so smart yet you are falling so short. You are currently rolled up on two points, with two different people. One a lack of reading comprehension, the other a lack of simple math skills. Yet you stand defiantly on both with your hands clasped over your ears screaming LALALALALALALALALA!!!!! As loud as you can, ignoring those who are pointing out your mistakes on both.
This what I'm talking about, this is the cop in you, your inability to admit your wrong. This is why so many of your brothers and sisters end up in jail, losing a job and sued. because they have no ability to admit they might be wrong and to learn from it. Instead they continue to dig the hole they are in deeper and deeper, just like you are doing here.
What part of this simple point passes your understanding?
I have raised 4 squirrels and feel I have some insight to shed on the matter.
First off in the first few days of leaving the nest, baby squirrels have no fear of humans and will approach them even with their parent's disapproval (the female mother is left). So yes it is normal for a baby to approach humans unashamedly. The bite was probable provoked, and was probable just the baby learning to eat from a human host. A baby squirrel will first lick peanut butter from your finger, then will try to see it's success in biting it off your finger. Usually it will quickly learn that if it bites too hard, it receives a thump in the nose from the human. A child may consider that a bite, but rarely do they bite hard enough to garner blood.
My thoughts on what the officer did is this. A squirrel quickly learns a healthy fear of humans within a few days. This officer educated the baby squirrel rather quickly and taught it a life lesson it will not forget in a matter of seconds, and taught it in a non-lethal manner. I have no quarrels with what he did. He could of did the same thing with a quick kick and saved his spray, but I imagine his image would of been even more splattered across the internet had he played that scenario. A damned if you do and damned of you don't situation.
Now having raised squirrels, I am still of the opinion that they are just fuzzy rats. We as humans have no obligation to treat them as otherwise. To call them nasty, destructive, mass producing, disease carrying rodents is fair game, because they are all of the above. They can also be quite fun pets that love to catch your front door open so they can run in and hide a pecan under your rug. There is always that fun all body search they do when you walk in their domain. One of my squirrels would run all over me and stick his head in every pocket I had looking for goodies in 5 seconds flat. The cable man was scared to death of him.
But wait, earlier the BLS numbers that I posted were bunk and the FBI figures were golden, what changed? Finally see where the FBI was including over 300,000 civilian and admin personnel in their count, that's why the total number was just over one million.... it was added to their count of just over 700,000 SWRON COPS...
Here is YET ANOTHER FINE EXAMPLE of your inability to make a coherent argument... its okay for you to change the facts, right?
Your a cop... hypocrisy just come with the job, right?
Give Balding_Eagle the numbers, you deceiver!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.