129 posts
  • 4 / 13
  • 1
  • 4
  • 13
 by /zn/
6 years 1 month ago
 Total posts:   6758  
 Joined:  Jun 28 2015
United States of America   Maine
Hall of Fame

Rams the Legends live on wrote:Yet they took him to be evaluated. It's like I said they need to find out what is going on inside his head and they made the right call to do so. Do you deny this is the right call for them to do?


Yet that does not change either the sentence he wrote or the fact that the police openly came right out and said he did not threaten anyone.

I have no more idea than you do if it is the right call or not to send him to be evaluated.

Since he did NOT threaten anyone, and the police SAID he did not threaten anyone, and since the sentence he actually wrote is not saying what people said it is, then I do not jump to conclusions about why he is being evaluated.

It could be that the Florida thing has him disraught enough emotionally the police wanted to make sure he is not a risk to himself. But I have seen police do that before and just be dead wrong...I have seen them do it as an act of calculated over-caution. And either way that's just me speculating.

Again.

You cannot change the grammar of that sentence. It criticizes people who react to bullying with gun violence. That's the OPPOSITE of offering a threat. And the police directly agree he did not threaten anyone.

And that's whether or not you even agree. Those facts are facts.


...

 by PhxRam
6 years 1 month ago
 Total posts:   376  
 Joined:  Sep 07 2016
Mexico   LA Coliseum
Starter

/zn/ wrote:When he did that he did not change English grammar or syntax, or simple logic.

According to the grammar of that sentence, only cowards react to bullying with gun violence (suicide or revenge).


No offense, but I doubt highly that sentence structure was part of the discussion with police.

 by Rams the Legends live on
6 years 1 month ago
 Total posts:   1987  
 Joined:  Aug 26 2015
United States of America   Colorado Springs
Pro Bowl

/zn/ wrote:Yet that does not change either the sentence he wrote or the fact that the police openly came right out and said he did not threaten anyone.

I have no more idea than you do if it is the right call or not to send him to be evaluated.

Since he did NOT threaten anyone, and the police SAID he did not threaten anyone, and since the sentence he actually wrote is not saying what people said it is, then I do not jump to conclusions about why he is being evaluated.

It could be that the Florida thing has him disraught enough emotionally the police wanted to make sure he is not a risk to himself. But I have seen police do that before and just be dead wrong...I have seen them do it as an act of calculated over-caution. And either way that's just me speculating.

Again.

You cannot change the grammar of that sentence. It criticizes people who react to bullying with gun violence. That's the OPPOSITE of offering a threat. And the police directly agree he did not threaten anyone.

And that's whether or not you even agree. Those facts are facts.


...


I would say more than likely the law showed up because they erred on the side it was a threat. More than likely after speaking with him in person they came to the conclusion it was not. However they still had some reservations as to what he meant by it all and sent him to be evaluated.

This was a decision done by those on the scene and first hand working knowledge. So yea I do have a inclination it was the right call. You don't see it that way, that's your call to make just as mine is they did the right thing.

However to argue your interpretation is fact is silly. What he said was ambiguous and can be taken other ways. Why others here have read different than what you did. To which I am sure that is why the law showed up because it was ambiguous. So I don't think fact can be argued over what he said until he himself clarifies it which it could very well be the rendering of your reading.

For now I believe the right call has been made and the crux of our disagreement is you don't so there we have it.

 by /zn/
6 years 1 month ago
 Total posts:   6758  
 Joined:  Jun 28 2015
United States of America   Maine
Hall of Fame

Rams the Legends live on wrote:I would say more than likely the law showed up because they erred on the side it was a threat.


You can say that all you want.

The law openly and directly said, though, that his comment was not a threat.

Our own imaginings and speculations aside, they directly and straightforwardly said he did not threaten anyone.

Which is good because there is no other credible or rational way to construe what he actually said.

Unless people imagine that he identified himself as a coward and that because he was a coward he was going to resort to violence. I suppose that's next...someone claiming that's what he meant. 8-)



...

 by PhxRam
6 years 1 month ago
 Total posts:   376  
 Joined:  Sep 07 2016
Mexico   LA Coliseum
Starter

/zn/ wrote:You can say that all you want.

The law openly and directly said, though, that his comment was not a threat.

...


Before or after the fact?

 by BobCarl
6 years 1 month ago
 Total posts:   4283  
 Joined:  Mar 08 2017
United States of America   LA Coliseum
Superstar

ZN at first I was leaning toward, or hoping, that your view was correct. And while what you read into his words is a fundamental point worth arguing, but I now think that what he actually said, convicts himself as being the coward that will make one (or both) of two choices.

/zn/ wrote:When he did that he did not change English grammar or syntax, or simple logic.

According to the grammar of that sentence, only cowards react to bullying with gun violence (suicide or revenge).


yes lets examine "simple logic"

Now since Jonathan has admitted to attempting suicide multiple times, he has more than once made the choice a "coward" makes. He has therefore outed himself as being a coward. And since he failed in attempts at suicide, this self-diagnosed "coward" has yet another opportunity to choose (door #1) suicide, or (door #2) violent revenge. Evaluation is in order.

As long as he doesn't ever choose door #2, I will not view him as a coward. Door #1 means he wants to end his misery.

Junior Seau a coward too? I don't think so. These men chose door #1 to end their misery as a result of their illness. The only difference is that Seau succeeded in ending his misery and Jonathan Martin failed.[/quote]

But door #3 is a better choice.

I once, came face to face with a person who had a gun to their head. This happened about 20 years ago. I was able to calmly remind them that most importantly their children needed their support and guidance. I was also able to convince them to hand me the weapon. (Jonathan Martin has a child too, I hope he realizes that his child needs him). The person I encountered was able to (choose door #3) get treatment, resume a new and very successful career, have more children, and a grandchild. (I attended the grandchild's 1st and 2nd birthday party.) Their oldest child who was in his early teens back then, knew what was going on, now has a Dr's degree and is glad his father survived and helped him become successful.

I hope that Jonathan Martin gets treatment that works, and I hope that he gets to be a positive influence in his child's life.

 by BobCarl
6 years 1 month ago
 Total posts:   4283  
 Joined:  Mar 08 2017
United States of America   LA Coliseum
Superstar

/zn/ wrote:The law openly and directly said, though, that his comment was not a threat.
...

they didn't say that before they detained him ....

he was "not a threat" after law enforcement intervened. He is in treatment now. This is called "crisis intervention". The crisis was avoided.... and he figuratively (or literally) "put the gun down".

If the professionals deem that the crisis of harming himself or others is over, then he will be allowed to go back to his normal life. If he needs further treatment before being released, then the professionals will go before a judge and ask for more time.

 by Rams the Legends live on
6 years 1 month ago
 Total posts:   1987  
 Joined:  Aug 26 2015
United States of America   Colorado Springs
Pro Bowl

/zn/ wrote:You can say that all you want.

The law openly and directly said, though, that his comment was not a threat.

Our own imaginings and speculations aside, they directly and straightforwardly said he did not threaten anyone.

Which is good because there is no other credible or rational way to construe what he actually said.

Unless people imagine that he identified himself as a coward and that because he was a coward he was going to resort to violence. I suppose that's next...someone claiming that's what he meant. 8-)



...


That is what they said his comment is not a threat? Well lets look at what they really said per the spokesperson for the PD.

Los Angeles Police Department spokesperson Tony I'm told Perez that a person believed to be Martin was still in detainment as of Friday night: "The individual believed to be responsible for the social media post is being detained, however he is not in police custody. The investigation is continuing, but rest assured we believe there is no threat to any school in the L.A. area."

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2761 ... to-hs-more

I know let me guess you found the comment no threat to any LA school was ambiguous and meant he was no threat period and so you render it as such.

The fact they sent him to be seen and at this time was still investigating does not mean he was no threat to anyone as you say but they felt just like they said they felt he was no threat to any LA school. Which they only mentioned cause the fact he posted a school name on the shotgun means they had reason to worry.


In fact they saw it as a threat or like I said erred on the side of it being a threat.


"We cannot afford to not act on any threat," Los Angeles County Sheriff Jim McDonnell said in an interview with The Times on Friday about the rash of school threats. "You have to be hyper-vigilant on them because God forbid, if one of them is an actual someone willing to do something, you cannot take that chance."

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... story.html

They saw it as a threat and after checking into it and detaining him they commented and said he was no threat to any LA school. Of course they said this after they had him detained.

He was perceived as a threat. They detained and questioned him then said he was no threat to any LA school.

So yeah I find my explanation fits the narrative of events.

 by Rams the Legends live on
6 years 1 month ago
 Total posts:   1987  
 Joined:  Aug 26 2015
United States of America   Colorado Springs
Pro Bowl

BobCarl wrote:they didn't say that before they detained him ....

he was "not a threat" after law enforcement intervened. He is in treatment now. This is called "crisis intervention". The crisis was avoided.... and he figuratively (or literally) "put the gun down".

If the professionals deem that the crisis of harming himself or others is over, then he will be allowed to go back to his normal life. If he needs further treatment before being released, then the professionals will go before a judge and ask for more time.


Well said BC well said bro good post with a great explanation of the situation and intricacies. Good post bro.

 by /zn/
6 years 1 month ago
 Total posts:   6758  
 Joined:  Jun 28 2015
United States of America   Maine
Hall of Fame

BobCarl wrote:they didn't say that before they detained him ....

he was "not a threat" after law enforcement intervened. He is in treatment now. This is called "crisis intervention". The crisis was avoided.... and he figuratively (or literally) "put the gun down".

If the professionals deem that the crisis of harming himself or others is over, then he will be allowed to go back to his normal life. If he needs further treatment before being released, then the professionals will go before a judge and ask for more time.


That's bs. They did not say he was not a threat BECAUSE they detained him. I don't know what happened to honest reading around here. Martin's comment is not threatening (it's the opposite) and the cop did NOT say he was not a threat BECAUSE he was detained.

Grammar, syntax, and logic don't allow that. You can't just distort comments to mean whatever you want:


Sgt. Frank Albarran of the Los Angeles Police Department’s North Hollywood Division...noted that a photo of a gun was shown — though it was not known if the gun was real — and that there was a hashtag mentioning the school.

But Albarran noted “there is no direct threat to the school” and the post “is not even a direct threat to the two former students.”

Albarran noted it wasn’t the intent of the police department to close the campuses today.

“We don’t believe (any threat to the school) is credible either,” he said.


You can't distort syntax and logic to the point where you take that comment as saying that he's not a threat BECAUSE he was detained.

And. An evaluation does NOT mean that he IS in a crisis. In fact they have no way of knowing that UNTIL he has an evaluation. It means they are trying to determine IF he is in a crisis. (And we don't even know what that would be and they do not give any info to speculate on.) That's the point of an evaluation. If not, then, they would be massively unprofessional.

C'mon, man, you can't distort quoted comments like that in an honest discussion.

  • 4 / 13
  • 1
  • 4
  • 13
129 posts Mar 29 2024