> Serious question: What does this statement mean? Do you believe there to be conduct that is non-criminal and still validates police intimidation? What would that be? It's not like OP walked into the police station and hinted that he was a murderer.
> the police should be able to resist the temptation to intimidate them
Both of you are throwing around the word "intimidation" to describe the police questioning why some idiot walked into a police station strapped and wearing a camera. Is he allowed to do it? Sure. The implication here is that the police aren't allowed to even question him though without it automatically becoming intimidation or interrogation (you're doing it too now), because that crosses a line somehow.
OP appears to be the frequent victim of "harassment," provides no evidence to substantiate his anecdote, and uses loaded verbiage like "obviously intimidating" to reframe perceptions of the alleged encounter and end it with defamatory accusations.
Ticks all the boxes in the performative outrage playbook.
> Is there literally anything on that video that could convince you the police mishandled OP's situation? The police know how to intimidate people -- doing so is literally their job when it comes to getting people to comply with orders or to answer questions in interrogation.
Not really. I'm surrounded by women and have a stepdaughter with terminal Munchausen syndrome so I'm used to histrionics and abuse of the courtroom Kuleshov effect. That one throws around sexual harassment allegations, trying to show individual text messages as evidence. Then you ask to see the full conversation and she gets cagey. You dig deeper and you learn she solicited the other party.
So here we have a guy who seems to get harassed everywhere he goes. We learn he is presenting himself in a conspicuously-threatening way, and are told that the very act of asking an armed man questions in the lobby by the police should obviously be interpreted as "intimidation."
Let's recap:
> Man threatens police, on their own turf.
> Police ask questions.
> Man cries police intimidation.
> Everyone is told to ignore the fact that man tried to antagonize police and nothing happened. Police are bad!
It's bullshit. Desperate attorneys do this florid dubbed-over visualization crap too-- "let me explain to you what you're actually seeing in this amateur video of a man--possibly woman, who knows (gender is a social construct after all!)--who looks like my client (but may or may not actually be), appearing to gently tap the victim with a roll of what could be soft paper towels, but it's possible if you look at it from a weird angle, it's possible it might look a little like a baseball bat."
> the police should be able to resist the temptation to intimidate them
Both of you are throwing around the word "intimidation" to describe the police questioning why some idiot walked into a police station strapped and wearing a camera. Is he allowed to do it? Sure. The implication here is that the police aren't allowed to even question him though without it automatically becoming intimidation or interrogation (you're doing it too now), because that crosses a line somehow.
OP appears to be the frequent victim of "harassment," provides no evidence to substantiate his anecdote, and uses loaded verbiage like "obviously intimidating" to reframe perceptions of the alleged encounter and end it with defamatory accusations.
Ticks all the boxes in the performative outrage playbook.
> Is there literally anything on that video that could convince you the police mishandled OP's situation? The police know how to intimidate people -- doing so is literally their job when it comes to getting people to comply with orders or to answer questions in interrogation.
Not really. I'm surrounded by women and have a stepdaughter with terminal Munchausen syndrome so I'm used to histrionics and abuse of the courtroom Kuleshov effect. That one throws around sexual harassment allegations, trying to show individual text messages as evidence. Then you ask to see the full conversation and she gets cagey. You dig deeper and you learn she solicited the other party.
So here we have a guy who seems to get harassed everywhere he goes. We learn he is presenting himself in a conspicuously-threatening way, and are told that the very act of asking an armed man questions in the lobby by the police should obviously be interpreted as "intimidation."
Let's recap:
> Man threatens police, on their own turf.
> Police ask questions.
> Man cries police intimidation.
> Everyone is told to ignore the fact that man tried to antagonize police and nothing happened. Police are bad!
It's bullshit. Desperate attorneys do this florid dubbed-over visualization crap too-- "let me explain to you what you're actually seeing in this amateur video of a man--possibly woman, who knows (gender is a social construct after all!)--who looks like my client (but may or may not actually be), appearing to gently tap the victim with a roll of what could be soft paper towels, but it's possible if you look at it from a weird angle, it's possible it might look a little like a baseball bat."