Depends on how provoked that apology was... And even then, how many killers and other terrible people have issued apologies?
If she was a sincerely good person she would have been happy to sit down and watch the video with the police the first time they offered. Instead she hid away for weeks when she found out the video could be released. Probably only resurfacing when things behind the doors looked bad for her.
Nope, she tried to use her social media platform to defame an officer because she was unhappy she got pulled over. She knew (hell, she hoped) that her post would have career and life impacts on the named officer. There's not much worse than being called a racist in my mind. Imagine if I named you as a pedophile on my Facebook because we had an argument, especially if i had a large following of people who would believe me, I'm sure you wouldn't take my friends words about me being a good person too seriously.
I guess it depends on the severity of what you're apologizing for. Some accusations have lasting effects even after being cleared - an apology on facebook that not everyone might see may not satisfy everyone.
My worry is that she apologized because the truth was on camera not because she came clean. What if it wasn't on film? Would these claims against the CPS still be going forward?
The content of the apology seems to suggest that the officer is satisfied...so that really should satisfy everyone at least in this case.
The Following User Says Thank You to MBates For This Useful Post:
Depends on how provoked that apology was... And even then, how many killers and other terrible people have issued apologies?
If she was a sincerely good person she would have been happy to sit down and watch the video with the police the first time they offered. Instead she hid away for weeks when she found out the video could be released. Probably only resurfacing when things behind the doors looked bad for her.
Nope, she tried to use her social media platform to defame an officer because she was unhappy she got pulled over. She knew (hell, she hoped) that her post would have career and life impacts on the named officer. There's not much worse than being called a racist in my mind. Imagine if I named you as a pedophile on my Facebook because we had an argument, especially if i had a large following of people who would believe me, I'm sure you wouldn't take my friends words about me being a good person too seriously.
You seem more deeply invested in this event than I.
The apology, as MBates says "seems to suggest that the officer is satisfied".
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
I guess it depends on the severity of what you're apologizing for. Some accusations have lasting effects even after being cleared - an apology on facebook that not everyone might see may not satisfy everyone.
My worry is that she apologized because the truth was on camera not because she came clean. What if it wasn't on film? Would these claims against the CPS still be going forward?
To be fair, she is quite a public figure. Has/has had TV shows and published books and such. I don't think she'd arbitrarily endanger her career over something like this.
You seem more deeply invested in this event than I.
Defaming an officer as a racist because you got pulled over is foulplay and makes her one of the scummiest of the scums. It's not even fair to argue that this was a heat of the moment situation, she carefully went on social media and refused to answer the police when they wanted to discuss the incident and release the video. She clearly knew the video was the deathknell in her bull#### story, but she hid while her small legion of fans continued to repost the name of the "racist" officer. If she thought she was given even the slightest bit of an accurate portrayal of the incident she should have been happy they had video. I'm not too invested in this, but like I said, racists are one of the lowest things people can be to me. So someone trying to lie and make an officer seem racist makes you a vile individual (just like a racist officer using his power to harass minorities would be).
I'm not too concerned with what this carefully constructed "apology" says that's trying to make both sides come off looking as good as possible. It's not like the police have anything to gain with continuing going after her, they would just continue to get the same flak they were already getting. And maybe the officer is just an actual good person and willing to forgive, that doesn't mean I need to hear bull#### about how Sunday is this sincere good person.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
I'm not so much dubious of calgaryblood in particular, but of anyone's perceptions of events, and the reality of them, and especially the interpretation of events that can bear multiple interpretations. People fit events into narratives, and if the narrative doesn't fit the events, it's the latter that is usually (and unconsciously) amended. It's not a commentary on someone's truthfulness in general, it's an acknowledgement that people are incapable of objective observation altogether.
While it's certainly possible the cop was trying to bait someone into a ticket, is that likely? Is there a dearth of illegal driving in Calgary so that he needs to drum up business? Is a trained professional driver (they do need to go for training above and beyond Joe Commuter) likely to risk an accident for no good reason other than to *maybe* convince someone to cut him off? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; being skeptical of such claims should be default behaviour.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
Defaming an officer as a racist because you got pulled over is foulplay and makes her one of the scummiest of the scums. It's not even fair to argue that this was a heat of the moment situation, she carefully went on social media and refused to answer the police when they wanted to discuss the incident and release the video. She clearly knew the video was the deathknell in her bull#### story, but she hid while her small legion of fans continued to repost the name of the "racist" officer. If she thought she was given even the slightest bit of an accurate portrayal of the incident she should have been happy they had video. I'm not too invested in this, but like I said, racists are one of the lowest things people can be to me. So someone trying to lie and make an officer seem racist makes you a vile individual (just like a racist officer using his power to harass minorities would be).
I'm not too concerned with what this carefully constructed "apology" says that's trying to make both sides come off looking as good as possible. It's not like the police have anything to gain with continuing going after her, they would just continue to get the same flak they were already getting. And maybe the officer is just an actual good person and willing to forgive, that doesn't mean I need to hear bull#### about how Sunday is this sincere good person.
I feel like this post should be directed to Sunday or "one of her legion of fans".
As I said, you are more invested than I.
Accept the apology, don't accept the apology, Like Sunday or Dislike Sunday. It wasn't I that posted she was a good person.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
I feel like this post should be directed to Sunday or "one of her legion of fans".
As I said, you are more invested than I.
Accept the apology, don't accept the apology, Like Sunday or Dislike Sunday. It wasn't I that posted she was a good person.
My first post was in response to how great of a person Sunday was. I disagreed, you seemed curious as to why, I explained.
Of course if you're willing to forgive what Sunday did and accept her as a good person based on Traditional_Ale's post (or more likely, not really care much about her), that's fine. I clearly won't hold that against you.
But I take issue with someone who is going to play the race card, probably trying to further their own career while knowing full well the type of impact if could have on the officer. Not to mention the other impacts slander and libel like this have.
I think Chief Chaffin said it best:
“When a member of our community, who also identifies themselves as a member of the media, wants to publicly share their dissatisfaction with a member of the CPS, if what they are saying is not consistent with what actually took place, an environment of mistrust and uncertainty is created, which hinders us all,” Chaffin wrote.
I mean, we don't know if he even got a ticket, or if he was even driving or got pulled over or that he even cut anyone off.
My response to your post was assuming that the officer brake-checked the guy complaining.
But then, so did your response which I was critical of.
Your exact words which I quoted:
You literally assumed it was true that the police officer in the story braked on the car behind him and offered as an apparent explanation that would make this understandable the possibility the officer was being tailgated.
That would make the (possibly fictional) police officer a lawbreaking menace to public safety with apparently the same lack of self-control as the guy who then cut him off (possibly fictionally).
My post stands. Interpreting this (possibly fictional) story as one in which a police officer "braking on" a tailgating motorist is anything but illegal and reprehensible amounts to an astonishing willingness to blindly support police.
If you don't believe the OP just say so. Don't suggest a police officer braking on a tailgater instead of pulling him over safely for tailgating is somehow what the tailgater had coming to him.
You do know that braking on a car following you too close is very dangerous and illegal right? Even if you are carrying a badge?
Sheesh. Not a closing argument there defence. Spare us the drama.
I am interested to hear what part of the TSA you are referring to. Careless driving? I am not familiar with the statute, "braking on a car following to close".
Are we blaming to cop here for a perceived 'brake check'? Seriously? What is the point of all this?
I'm not so much dubious of calgaryblood in particular, but of anyone's perceptions of events, and the reality of them, and especially the interpretation of events that can bear multiple interpretations. People fit events into narratives, and if the narrative doesn't fit the events, it's the latter that is usually (and unconsciously) amended. It's not a commentary on someone's truthfulness in general, it's an acknowledgement that people are incapable of objective observation altogether.
While it's certainly possible the cop was trying to bait someone into a ticket, is that likely? Is there a dearth of illegal driving in Calgary so that he needs to drum up business? Is a trained professional driver (they do need to go for training above and beyond Joe Commuter) likely to risk an accident for no good reason other than to *maybe* convince someone to cut him off? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; being skeptical of such claims should be default behaviour.
Yup. The initial reactions of both Calgaryblood and Sunday might be heartfelt and honestly believed, but our memories don't work like tape recorders. Eye witness accounts are often fraught with errors and inconsistencies.
Dash-cams, now those work like tape recorders.
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fighting Banana Slug For This Useful Post:
“When a member of our community, who also identifies themselves as a member of the media, wants to publicly share their dissatisfaction with a member of the CPS, if what they are saying is not consistent with what actually took place, an environment of mistrust and uncertainty is created, which hinders us all,” Chaffin wrote.
Which is why I am happy she issued an apology. It was definately out of character for her to get so carried away so quickly. We're all guilty of getting carried from time to time.
I'm not so much dubious of calgaryblood in particular, but of anyone's perceptions of events, and the reality of them, and especially the interpretation of events that can bear multiple interpretations. People fit events into narratives, and if the narrative doesn't fit the events, it's the latter that is usually (and unconsciously) amended. It's not a commentary on someone's truthfulness in general, it's an acknowledgement that people are incapable of objective observation altogether.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
People who create stories with exceptional details and zero evidence should expect to be questioned.
That said, if the details end up being wrong (it happens, emotions run high for some people while driving, especially in a moment of road rage or getting pulled over), then you'd expect that person to come forward and apologise. It's all you can ask.
Sunday apologised, and I think that's enough. What more could you possible want? I assume calgaryblood will get the tape and apologise if it turns out he was wrong, just like I'm sure a few people would happily apologise if he posted the tape and it showed his version was accurate.
I disagree with Oling's approach. When we start attacking people for apologising because it isn't good enough we only make things worse. Admitting you were wrong is hard, and taking the extra step to ensure those people are shamed and criticisized is petty and sad.
Good on Sunday for owning up to her mistake, especially if she genuinely felt that way at the time.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Which is why I am happy she issued an apology. It was definately out of character for her to get so carried away so quickly. We're all guilty of getting carried from time to time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Sunday apologised, and I think that's enough. What more could you possible want?
Umm, not to do it in the first place?
Look, I get it. People perceive things differently, emotions run high, your own biases affect the narrative. It's human nature to think you're in the right at the time. If she made her post the night of the incident and had a chance to rethink things or took the opportunity to discuss with the police when they tried to contact her and then issued an apology shortly after it occurred. Fine. I could accept that at facevalue.
But that wasn't near the case. She went a month hiding in the shadows, letting her tweet be reposted and reposted, while this officer is being called racist and CPS is taking another hit to its reputation. All the while they are trying to sit down with her and discuss the situation, or at least release the video because they know she's lying. She's avoiding this like the plague, because as a media whore, she's getting "likes," and she knows that this will blow over in a month and a forced apology will not have anywhere near the same media attention. Hell, apparently people will see it as owning her mistake and somehow give her even more positive pres. At the same time the named officer is continuously being called a racist. Disgusting.
If she actually believed her narrative was truthful, she would have been happy to oblige the police in releasing the video or at the very least responded to them. Instead for a month she avoided every contact from the police.
This was more of a career decision by Sunday. Get pulled over, cry racism, get reposted, favourited, discuss her incident in her next article, interview, blog or whatever bull####.
Oh, and this isn't the first time she's done this:
The salesperson was referring to models when she said people like you. Of course the first article received far more views, had over 100 comments, was shared, had people congratulating her for taking the moral high ground. etc. etc. Then the second article where it's determined it's just a misunderstand a week later gets 14 comments. It's her shtick, she doesn't care who she hurts or how she negatively affects society as long as she gets some attention.
It's a vile personality. And it affects more people than just her and the officer. It's crying wolf and it diminishes the likelihood of the next person to complain about racism from the CPS taken as seriously. If propagates racial issues between the CPS and the neighbourhood that may or may not be there, but certainly can't be helped if people are lying about it.
And let's not overlook that she's a "journalist." This isn't Calgaryblood going on CP and anonymously posting about an incident with an anonymous officer. She's the one trying to present her self as media, she's reporting this incident, she's using real names. The very least, as a journalist, she should have been happy to release the video to get the true story out. If you can overlook her vile personality, she's still a terrible journalist.
Last edited by Oling_Roachinen; 04-06-2017 at 07:34 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
Yup. The initial reactions of both Calgaryblood and Sunday might be heartfelt and honestly believed, but our memories don't work like tape recorders. Eye witness accounts are often fraught with errors and inconsistencies.
Dash-cams, now those work like tape recorders.
The difference between Calgaryblood and Sunday is that Calgaryblood would probably be happy to have the video released, hell, he's already voluntereed to send it to Resolute 14. If he's wrong, he's wrong and would probably own it when shown evidence.
The police were trying to get the video of Sunday's incident released, or at least talk with her about the incident in private, and she refused to contact them. For a month she let her fans believe she was the target of a racist police officer, even worse the officer was named, and she did nothing to try to rectify the issue until this was old news, and I wouldn't be surprised if "legal action" came up in discussions when they finally did contact her.
The Following User Says Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
