You’re comfortable making legal conclusions with an incomplete understanding of the facts, got it—this is exactly why cases are tried before Courts and not the “court of public opinion,” thank god.

I know Dave Chappelle has lots of fans but his gratuitous use of the n-word & crude/vulgar language debases black culture, not uplift or enrich the mind.

Sure, but they legal obligation doesn’t mandate that you sacrifice your life for theirs in an impossible situation. You’re taking it to an absurd extreme.

We don’t know that for sure, and we don’t know why they did. Is it so hard to hold the lynch mob in abeyance for a little bit?

How so? Your analogy to being a person of color I mean? The fact that we now generally use the term “person of color”? 

It’s kind of silly. You don't need to erase the concept of gender to treat people fairly or respectfully. Just as you don't need to erase racial identity to treat people equally. The funny thing is that when it comes to race, non-whites, those outside of the dominant class, seem to really embrace and understand that,…

It is pretty unwieldily. I think you can still be respectful of people without gender erasure. If someone wants you to adjust pronouns for them, thru can ask and you can oblige, or you can ask, I think it's a little odd you think this Maggie language upheaval is the right approach, and I doubt it will work long term.

They really don’t though—you’re making your own life more difficult, and you criticize them because you think you’re better than them. It’s a value judgment, don’t couch it in concern for others. It’s no different than scoffing at a homeless person for being poor.

Unless it’s shown that those officers themselves did something negligent or reckless, then no, they shouldn’t be held responsible. What decisions did they make that led to two deaths? That’s the question. The decision to transport them that day was probably not a decision made by the two officers who actually drove…

It may affect you in some attenuated fashion, it still doesn’t give you the right to tell other people what to do.

It’s fine to tell people what they do with their bodies, or suggest one behavior or another if you’re, say, their doctor, or if your advice or suggestion is solicited. It’s not, however, your place, to dole out unsolicited “advice” or “suggestions” to strangers, or even people you know, about what they should or…

I saw that too and my jaw dropped—it’s definitely a typo.

Your statement was:

What? No.

I mean, the only people who are going to have those facts are the people that were there. Perhaps there is also physical evidence to support or refute those claims as well. 

They didn’t let them drown--by all accounts they made their best efforts to save them but couldn’t. Also, the two cops who transported them probably aren’t to blame themselves, I doubt it was their call to transport these two individuals. I did hear something about them driving around barriers blocking particular…

Sure, they have a duty of care, but what duty? The duty of care owed isn’t so burdensome as to require them to drown with the victims if they aren’t able to save them—that’s absurd.

No.

Uh, this is certainly not murder, if anything, their decision to transport the individuals was reckless at worst, negligent at best. Even if a Court issued an order to have them transported to X facility at Y date and time, which is likely, a Court also isn’t going to find them in contempt of that Order if the…

That is an incredibly stupid response, although I’m sure you think it was very clever.