Recent comments in /f/nyc

ifiwereaplatypus t1_jajxpyf wrote

Reply to comment by casicua in New York Will Pay Millions to Protesters Violently Corralled by Police by mowotlarx

MAGA cult of idiots, if only.

“I’m a moderate Democrat but protestors really should learn to respect the officers in blue.”

“Gosh that’s horrible, it was a really dangerous time to be outside at night anyways. Why are they provoking the police?? Let them do their jobs.”

Roll eye so they join the space x train all the way around the globe and back.

7

spicytoastaficionado t1_jajx4ci wrote

Reply to New York Will Pay Millions to Protesters Violently Corralled by Police by mowotlarx

I remember this story well.

DeBlasio/Shea defended NYPD's actions by claiming they were arresting looters and rioters who violated the city curfew.

But it turned out NYPD kettled in a large group of protestors before the 8 PM curfew, didn't let them leave, and then claimed they were violating curfew after it was 8 PM.

I am all for cracking down on opportunistic rioters and looters, but NYPD was more interested in the low-hanging fruit of peaceful protestors.

20

OverlordXenu t1_jajwn33 wrote

Reply to comment by Arleare13 in New York Will Pay Millions to Protesters Violently Corralled by Police by mowotlarx

https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1:2020cv10291/549912 seems like they sued the city of new york, too. so you're right, probably the law department. i'll ask a friend of mine who works there.

edit: my friend says it's ny law dept's divison of "special federal litigtation", so you're right.

2

NetQuarterLatte t1_jajuo5f wrote

Reply to comment by ShadownetZero in Pols target NYC’s violent, repeat shoplifters with bill to protect retailer workers just like cops, firefighters by NYY657545

>Any intentional physical touch can be considered a form of assault in New York. Even if the offense doesn't have the word "assault" in it.

In your argument, "can" is doing a lot of lifting here. Sure it's 100% correct in a logician's pedantic sense, after all "can" doesn't imply it "must". It's not hard to conceive scenarios of intentional physical touch that must be considered assault which would validate the "can" assertion.

But that's not a gotcha, because that doesn't contradict with anything I wrote. I didn't claim the statement was incorrect. I called it a "bad example" and added more context to it because on its own that statement is misleading in this context.

My clarification that in NY they are "not automatically assault" is still 100% correct and adds relevant context.

So your point is not only pedantic itself, it tries to be obtuse and redirect away from the stink that those those examples are misleading.

Public debate doesn't benefit much from out-of-context statements that are misleading, even if those out-of-context statements are 100% correct in a pedantic sense.

1