There is a video of an officer planting evidence. That should be the end of the story. But for you it is not.
You trying to control the debate shapiro-style. You create a fictional story, first in conditionals (“if they suspected … then they had every reason”), and by asking questions (“Did he refuse a breathalyzer test at the scene? Was one offered?”). Now there is a vivid image in the readers head, that you use to derail the discussion into a completely different direction (“Bottom line here: What was this man’s blood alcohol level?”).
But the counter to this is very simple: Instead of following your tangent, I will simply un-derail the topic by asking something like:
“Why do you think the officer felt the need to plant evidence?”
Just for giggles I also asked GPT4 oppinion on the subject. His response
To support the officer’s actions and shift the blame onto the accused individual, leveraging the scenario as described would involve a number of stratagems, focusing heavily on hypothetical questions, assumptions, and diverting attention from the core issue. Here’s how such tactics might be applied:
Emphasize Uncertainty and Technicalities: Begin by stressing the complexities and procedural nuances of DUI arrests. Highlight the importance of blood alcohol content (BAC) testing and the legal protocols involving field sobriety and breathalyzer tests. This shifts the debate from the ethics of planting evidence to the technicalities of DUI arrests, muddying the waters.
Frame Hypotheticals as Probabilities: Use hypothetical situations—such as the accused refusing a breathalyzer test or having a reason for arrest due to a suspended license—as almost certain probabilities. This reframes the narrative, suggesting that the officer had just cause for suspicion, thereby indirectly justifying their misconduct.
Construct a False Dilemma: Imply that there are only two possibilities - the accused was either guilty of DUI or not, completely sidestepping the issue of the officer planting evidence. This narrows the debate’s focus to the accused’s potential guilt, diverting attention from the officer’s actions.
Utilize Red Herrings: Introduce unrelated facts (e.g., the suspended license) to distract from the primary issue of evidence tampering. By focusing on these details, you can create a narrative where the officer’s actions seem minor compared to the accused’s alleged law-breaking behavior.
Through these strategies, the conversation can be steered towards scrutinizing the accused’s behavior and the procedural aspects of DUI arrests, rather than the ethical implications of a police officer planting evidence. Such tactics, while effective in shifting debate focus, rely heav…
The officer didn’t plant it. The alcohol bottle was already in the suspect’s vehicle. No one has proven it was sealed. If it is revealed to have been opened, then this man is guilty of having an opened container in his vehicle, as well as driving with a suspended license.
You don’t need to attack me personally. Save your personal attacks for your therapist.
you mean the shapiro thing? I actually thought you intentionally used a shapiro-style argument. I didn’t think you’d take it as an insult.
No one has proven it was sealed. If it is revealed to have been opened, then this man is guilty of having an opened container in his vehicle, as well as driving with a suspended license.
Now this is a much more interesting line of thought. It doesn’t rely on reframing and red herrings. Instead this arguments directly attacks the central point. This is much better.
There is a video of an officer planting evidence. That should be the end of the story. But for you it is not.
You trying to control the debate shapiro-style. You create a fictional story, first in conditionals (“if they suspected … then they had every reason”), and by asking questions (“Did he refuse a breathalyzer test at the scene? Was one offered?”). Now there is a vivid image in the readers head, that you use to derail the discussion into a completely different direction (“Bottom line here: What was this man’s blood alcohol level?”).
But the counter to this is very simple: Instead of following your tangent, I will simply un-derail the topic by asking something like:
“Why do you think the officer felt the need to plant evidence?”
I strongly recommend the youtube series “the altright playbook” https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJA_jUddXvY7v0VkYRbANnTnzkA_HMFtQ
Just for giggles I also asked GPT4 oppinion on the subject. His response
She’s not going to read any of that because she’s a white supremacist as evidenced by her comments on this post.
The officer didn’t plant it. The alcohol bottle was already in the suspect’s vehicle. No one has proven it was sealed. If it is revealed to have been opened, then this man is guilty of having an opened container in his vehicle, as well as driving with a suspended license.
You don’t need to attack me personally. Save your personal attacks for your therapist.
Rule 2. If you’re here to support the police, you’re trolling.
Stupid Nazi says stupid things
you mean the shapiro thing? I actually thought you intentionally used a shapiro-style argument. I didn’t think you’d take it as an insult.
Now this is a much more interesting line of thought. It doesn’t rely on reframing and red herrings. Instead this arguments directly attacks the central point. This is much better.
I recommend not continuing to feed the racist troll.
The trick is not to follow their tangents. They hate it when you point out their fallacies and rhethoric trickery.