The Nehor Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 The analogy is valid. It is clear from his account -- and from Burbank's subsequent behavior -- that the foregone intent was to bring about his termination. He left to avoid the travesty of an investigation.Uh-huh. Yep, the SLPD is guilty until proven innocent.Hypocrite.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 I am not sure the charge was false. It could be.It does not make him a scoundrel. Not sure why he felt an obscure notation somewhere warranted bringing in the media but he seems to think it did. And that is his right but he also has to live with the consequences of his choice including the increased scrutiny."An obscure notation somewhere"? What are you talking about? The police department told the media that he was suspended for refusing to provide crowd control and public safety. A patently false statement.
ALarson Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) As the police department initially tried to do?What was the statement that the department initially released regarding him? I'll try to find it too, but thanks in advance if you have it more readily available to post. Edited March 3, 2015 by ALarson
Scott Lloyd Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 Uh-huh. Yep, the SLPD is guilty until proven innocent.Hypocrite. I'm drawing my opinion from known facts. You should try it sometime.
The Nehor Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 "An obscure notation somewhere"? What are you talking about? The police department told the media that he was suspended for refusing to provide crowd control and public safety. A patently false statement.Yes, the news story was small until he decided to tell his story.
The Nehor Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 I'm drawing my opinion from known facts. You should try it sometime.Someone saying something does not equal the facts. People dissemble.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 What was the statement that the department initially released regarding him? I'll try to find it too, but thanks in advance if you have it more readily available to post.Here's an Associated Press story from last summer. It's probably drawn from a Salt Lake Tribune story, which I don't have time to look for right now. Also, you may want to read through his seven-page statement, which I posted in its entirety in an earlier post on this thread. Sorry, I don't have time to look for that right now either.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 Yes, the news story was small until he decided to tell his story.It was picked up nationwide.
The Nehor Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 It was picked up nationwide.And who remembers news stories like this a week later? I would have forgotten it already if it were not for this delightful conversation.
Daniel2 Posted March 3, 2015 Author Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) I'm drawing my opinion from known facts.You should try it sometime.You are treating the officer's statements as "known facts." His statements are his unproven and unsubstantiated perspective, some 9 months later---they are NOT "known facts."You also automatically dismiss the police chief's equally unsubstantiated statements as false, slanderous lies.The fact that you automatically accept the officer's statements as "known facts" while rejecting the police chief's as such demonstrates* your bias.(*edited to correct my grammer--thanks, Stemelbow ) Edited March 3, 2015 by Daniel2
Scott Lloyd Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 And who remembers news stories like this a week later? I would have forgotten it already if it were not for this delightful conversation.Next time your reputation is smeared locally and nationally, come back here and tell us about how it's not worth worrying about.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) You are treating the officer's statements as "known facts."His statements are his unproven and unsubstantiated perspective, some 9 months later---they are NOT "known facts."The fact that you automatically accept them as such belies your bias.It's a known fact that he made the statements. And so long as they stand uncontradicted or rebutted, they merit consideration and it's fair to assume they are accurate. Edited March 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
The Nehor Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 Next time your reputation is smeared locally and nationally, come back here and tell us about how it's not worth worrying about.I might choose to respond but I would not get upset that some people thought I was lying.If I was genuinely slandered for opposition to gay marriage and people were lying about me for it then I should take the Savior's advice and rejoice at being like the prophets and pleased at the great reward waiting for me in heaven.
stemelbow Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 You are treating the officer's statements as "known facts." His statements are his unproven and unsubstantiated perspective, some 9 months later---they are NOT "known facts." The fact that you automatically accept them as such belies your bias. You mean reveals his bias? I'd say believing his story is as good as we can get. We don't have another, as, I believe, you pointed out. We can certainly remain skeptical of his story, but to do so requires us to guess--take a fifty-fifty stab in the dark.
stemelbow Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 Next time your reputation is smeared locally and nationally, come back here and tell us about how it's not worth worrying about. Next time? You mean it's going to happen again? Ah well, if it happened once and I'm getting through it, I figure I can endure it again.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) I might choose to respond but I would not get upset that some people thought I was lying.If I was genuinely slandered for opposition to gay marriage and people were lying about me for it then I should take the Savior's advice and rejoice at being like the prophets and pleased at the great reward waiting for me in heaven.The Savior never said it was always necessary to let falsehood stand unchallenged. Edited March 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 Next time? You mean it's going to happen again?Ah well, if it happened once and I'm getting through it, I figure I can endure it again.I thought I was addressing that to The Nehor.
The Nehor Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 The Savior never said it was necessary to let falsehood stand unchallenged.He challenged. I do not believe his story. Why are you so offended on his behalf?
The Nehor Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 I thought I was addressing that to The Nehor.Last time I was slandered in the news I let it pass. It was admittedly minor.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) He challenged. I do not believe his story. Why are you so offended on his behalf?Why are you so offended that he's challenging it? Why are you trying to shout down any consideration of that challenge? It is a matter of some interest to me not only because what happened to him offends my sense of justice but also because it applies directly to the dialogue going on right now pertaining to the preservation of religious liberty, a subject which is also obviously important to the Brethren right now. Edited March 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
stemelbow Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 I thought I was addressing that to The Nehor. Oh come on, The Nehor butts in all the time, stealing people's thunder and making off hand remarks, answering questions addressed to others (well I can't confirm that last one but I wouldn't put it past him).
Scott Lloyd Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 Oh come on, The Nehor butts in all the time, stealing people's thunder and making off hand remarks, answering questions addressed to others (well I can't confirm that last one but I wouldn't put it past him).I don't mind you answering for him. Just wanted to make sure we were clear.
The Nehor Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 Why are you so offended that he's challenging it? Why are you trying to shout down any consideration of that challenge? It is a matter of some interest to me not only because what happened to him offends my sense of justice but also because it applies directly to the dialogue going on right now pertaining to the preservation of religious liberty, a subject which is also obviously important to the Brethren right now.I am not offended. I just don't trust his story and said so and got jumped on so I had fun with it. I hope everyone else did too.
The Nehor Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 Oh come on, The Nehor butts in all the time, stealing people's thunder and making off hand remarks, answering questions addressed to others (well I can't confirm that last one but I wouldn't put it past him).I will confirm that I have, in fact, done the last one too.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 I am not offended. I just don't trust his story and said so and got jumped on so I had fun with it. I hope everyone else did too.Sorry, what happened to him strikes me as so harrowing and fraught with such harm, I just can't treat it with fun and frolic. As Shakespeare wrote for the character Iago: Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,Is the immediate jewel of their souls.Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;But he that filches from me my good nameRobs me of that which not enriches him,And makes me poor indeed.Othello Act 3, scene 3, 155–161 1
Recommended Posts