A Maryland police officer was convicted on Friday of charges that he joined a mob’s Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol and hurled a smoke bomb and other objects at police officers guarding a tunnel entrance.

U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden heard two days of trial testimony without a jury this week before he found Montgomery County Police Officer Justin Lee guilty of two felonies and three misdemeanors. The judge, who also acquitted Lee of two other misdemeanors, is scheduled to sentence him on Nov. 22.

Lee, 26, ignited and threw a smoke bomb into the tunnel entrance on the Capitol’s Lower West Terrace, where a mob of rioters attacked a group of outnumbered police officers. The device struck a police officer’s riot shield and filled the mouth of the tunnel with a large plume of smoke, prosecutors said.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    63 months ago

    Naturally in my example, the inner-city gang are the bad cops and the inner-city family and community leaders trying to make a difference are the “good cops” who just can’t seem to budge the numbers

    So one set of cops who are all cops, and an unrelated set of people where the only defining factor is race.

    Right. Its a racist, nonsensical argument from the start, that isn’t remotely comparable.

    Both rely on a) an extremely obvious misrepresentation of the root of the problem

    Nope. Only one does. Modern policing is the root of the problem, from the way they were formed and structured.

    b) a fallacious stereotyping of a group based on a subset of the population.

    Negative, only one is fallacious, the racist argument. As modern policing is the root of the problem, all police are complicit in its continuation.

    Your argument is a total crock.

    • @lennybird
      link
      English
      -8
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      So one set of cops who are all cops, and an unrelated set of people where the only defining factor is race.

      Right. Its a racist, nonsensical argument from the start, that isn’t remotely comparable.

      I’ll ask you to try again and re-analyze and consider more from my perspective what you believe I’m actually trying to say as opposed to crafting a straw-man. At the moment, it seems you’re intentionally trying. I’m hoping your comprehension is not this poor, because if it is then there is no point in progressing further.

      Clearly dismissive, but not from a position of substance. Awfully bad-faith, and the lack of substantive rebuttal reinforces that I’m making a good albeit uncomfortable point.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        53 months ago

        There is nothing to consider. The premise is either racism, or a complete misunderstanding of the issue, for either “gang violence” or “cops” respectively.

        So no, I won’t consider from your perspective, because the basis is flawed. There is nothing for me to comment on about a completely incorrect comparison.

        • @lennybird
          link
          English
          -7
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Exactly. Both examples utilize the same fallacy that racists use. Thank you for proving my point.

          Since you’re just making straw-men in bad faith, I figure I might as well do the same. See how this works?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            63 months ago

            No, you’re misunderstanding. One applies (in-group - cops. Unified group by nature of policing). Other group, unrelated, only way to relate them is racism.

            Listen, your lack of understanding here is not my problem. If you’re being honest and don’t understand the issue, then I’d recommend you look at the history of policing, how its shaped modern policing, the current methods of policing being employed and how they are used to target racial groups (including and especially gang laws, like three strikes laws), and then you should understand the difference and can shut racists down.

            If all you’re going to do is keep repeating that you think its valid as an argument, then there isn’t much point since you’re just ignoring everything I say anyway.

            Enjoy your day.

            • @lennybird
              link
              English
              -6
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              No, clearly you’re misunderstanding. Clearly we related that entire group by where they lived and the cultural community from which they reside: the inner-city. Many statistics identify this population of, “the inner-city.”

              You’re utilizing a classic example of profiling and stereotyping by judging all based on a grouping of… Ethnicity, religion, region, profession – It doesn’t matter the what, what matters is the statistical fallacy you employ to advance your prejudice.

              So are all cops bastards? No. It’s a simple question with a simple answer. Even MCAB would make far more sense.

              I have a sneaking suspicion I understand the issue more throughly than you do, so let’s just put aside that condescension-card pissing-contest, shall we? How about we just begin with resorting to less obvious logical fallacies?

              And thank you. You as well.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                43 months ago

                Profession is chosen, race is not.

                You have a fundamental misunderstanding that can’t be passed until you recognize your mistake.

                • @lennybird
                  link
                  English
                  -4
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  You think discrimination and stereotyping only applies to race? People choose their identity by name and gender — does that make it okay to cast prejudice against those?

                  You have a demonstrable case of cognitive dissonance if you don’t recognize the double-standard above.

                  By the way, I thought you were finished?