Common expressions that are wrong....

Oily Dragon

Senior Master
Joined
May 2, 2020
Messages
2,405
Reaction score
1,183
"the plural of anecdote is not data" is a famous misquote that everyone seems to love, even though it's obviously not true.

Forget where I learned the true quote is the exact opposite, but I know it was during a martial arts discussion. Probably about Wing Chun.
 

Kung Fu Wang

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
12,689
Reaction score
3,855
Location
Austin, Tx/Shell Beach, Ca
What are some common expressions, or common thinking that you find to be flat out wrong, over simplified, or misleading?
When someone says,

- "If you have any question, you should ask your teacher. Don't expect to obtain any useful information online.", what he means is he doesn't want to share information with you.
- "As long as you are happy, that's all that matters.", what he means is he doesn't want to have any further discussion with you.
- "It's not safe to go to the Central Park.", what he means is it's not safe for everybody in Central; Park when you go over there.
 
Last edited:

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
21,241
Reaction score
6,758
Location
Covington, WA
"the plural of anecdote is not data" is a famous misquote that everyone seems to love, even though it's obviously not true.

Forget where I learned the true quote is the exact opposite, but I know it was during a martial arts discussion. Probably about Wing Chun.
I think @drop bear posted it around here a while back when someone misused it.
 

Holmejr

Purple Belt
Joined
Dec 23, 2017
Messages
318
Reaction score
191
The fact that cops study self-defense laws, determine probable cause for making arrests if someone breaks those laws, determines when someone has appropriately used self-defense legally, interacts daily with violent criminals, interrogates suspects of violent crimes to determine motive and methods, searches suspects on a regular basis to understand what types of weapons criminals are carrying/and how they conceal them, interviews countess victims of violent crimes, obtains tips from citizens to understand the criminal activity going on in their city better, is trained to appropriately collect and preserve evidence regarding crimes, has experience and training testifying in court, studies supreme court rules, is trained in ethical/moral/legal self-defense of their persons and third party civilians, has specialized training and years of experience in de-escalation when speaking to violent people, has experience in a wide variety of acute life and death stressful events, has extensive training in firearms and tactics, and specialized training in dealing with people in emotional crisis, has training and experience to recognize Pre-attack indicators/intoxicated-imparied persons/people attempting to conceal weapons, and typically has survived being assaulted by criminals, used force on many occasions in self-defense, has lots of experience being first on the scene of many turama relates medical injuries, and is constantly responsible for showing up to very violent situations and making those situations safe in NO WAY makes them an "EXPERT" on self-defense.

I totally agree Steve! The term expert is way overrated. At best moderately knowledgeable compared to the average person.
Not only that, but police must abide by strict rules of engagement. An example would be, In our class when we call out a head shot, they go for the shoulder/clavicle. Head shots are a big no nos. They are very cognizant of the magnifying glass that they are under. Amazingly enough, they choose to serve anyway.
 

GojuTommy

Black Belt
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
514
Reaction score
189
Nope. You didn't touch a nerve at all. Although I suspect that was your intent. Regarding your first question, those are basic activities of an average street cop with a few years on the job. Nothing special in that list.

I'm not sure I understand your second question though?
Do you have a source for this?
In the becoming a cop requirements are almost nonexistent. Most states require more training to cut hair than required to be a cop. Example in Iowa hair stylist, 2100 hours training vs 520 hours training to be a cop.
Most cops cant fight, and the number of abuse of force complaints, would indicate most cops dont know the law. Thats not getting into the general lack of knowledge of citizens rights.

HI has no training requirements, some states you can be a cop for 18 months no academy training, many states 12 months, and even more states 6 months.
 
Last edited:

Oily Dragon

Senior Master
Joined
May 2, 2020
Messages
2,405
Reaction score
1,183
"Pain is weakness leaving the body", yeah? And sometimes it's your body telling you something bad is about happen.
Wow, I've heard that one before.

Where'd you first hear that?
 
OP
J

Jared Traveler

2nd Black Belt
Joined
Jul 17, 2022
Messages
803
Reaction score
374
Do you have a source for this?
In the becoming a cop requirements are almost nonexistent. Most states require more training to cut hair than required to be a cop. Example in Iowa hair stylist, 2100 hours training vs 520 hours training to be a cop.
Most cops cant fight, and the number of abuse of force complaints, would indicate most cops dont know the law. Thats not getting into the general lack of knowledge of citizens rights.

HI has no training requirements, some states you can be a cop for 18 months no academy training, many states 12 months, and even more states 6 months.
I'm not suggesting cops are experts at citizens rights, or that they are great at fighting, or that they are experts at self-defense. Regarding use of force complaints, your assumptions are indeed conclusions based on your assumptions.

The things I mentioned are indeed police training, and duties and responsibilities 101. Day one stuff you are expected to be doing once you leave the academy. Any random episode of cops will reveal that these are things cops do on a daily basis. That's true regardless of how long someone trains to cut hair.
 
OP
J

Jared Traveler

2nd Black Belt
Joined
Jul 17, 2022
Messages
803
Reaction score
374
Not only that, but police must abide by strict rules of engagement. An example would be, In our class when we call out a head shot, they go for the shoulder/clavicle. Head shots are a big no nos. They are very cognizant of the magnifying glass that they are under. Amazingly enough, they choose to serve anyway.
It is true cops operate under a magnifying glass. But head shots are not no no's for cops. They are allowed. What strick rules of engagement are you referring to?
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
21,241
Reaction score
6,758
Location
Covington, WA
I'm not suggesting cops are experts at citizens rights, or that they are great at fighting, or that they are experts at self-defense. Regarding use of force complaints, your assumptions are indeed conclusions based on your assumptions.

Wait. What? You posted a several hundred word, highly sarcastic post in response to me asserting that all cops are exactly those things. Come on, man.
 
OP
J

Jared Traveler

2nd Black Belt
Joined
Jul 17, 2022
Messages
803
Reaction score
374
Wait. What? You posted a several hundred word, highly sarcastic post in response to me asserting that all cops are exactly those things. Come on, man.
Not experts. Knowledgeable more than most in the areas I mentioned.
 

drop bear

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
22,470
Reaction score
7,225
I did have an argument once with a guy once who said you can't head kick in a street fight because you will get taken down.

Then quoted his army L.I.N.E manual as a definitive answer to that discussion.
 

Holmejr

Purple Belt
Joined
Dec 23, 2017
Messages
318
Reaction score
191
It is true cops operate under a magnifying glass. But head shots are not no no's for cops. They are allowed. What strick rules of engagement are you referring to?
I wrote in the context of FMA. Baton and head shots, it would be considered deadly force. They would have to prove that their life was in immediate danger. Same with carotid submissions, its not that it is illegal, but they better be able to justify all they do. Virtually, every situation is now caught on camera. It aint 1940s NY where officer OMally gets to crack you in the head for talking back地nd in some neighborhoods, the magnifying glass is bigger than in others.
 
OP
J

Jared Traveler

2nd Black Belt
Joined
Jul 17, 2022
Messages
803
Reaction score
374
I wrote in the context of FMA. Baton and head shots, it would be considered deadly force. They would have to prove that their life was in immediate danger. Same with carotid submissions, its not that it is illegal, but they better be able to justify all they do. Virtually, every situation is now caught on camera. It aint 1940s NY where officer OMally gets to crack you in the head for talking back地nd in some neighborhoods, the magnifying glass is bigger than in others.
That's true a baton to the head is considered lethal force. But that is true regardless if you are a cop or non law enforcement personnel. Also you are right, many things are in camera. Also people are more than willing to complain, even if the officer did nothing wrong. Being able to articulate why, is an important part of using force.

In the old days, sometimes force used was "instructive" or "punitive", while there are legit moral arguments against this type of force, it had some upsides, however this application of force is no longer tolerated(and it shouldn't be tolerated). Making cops better today at applying moral and legal use of force than in times past.

When people on the outside looking in sometimes get confused is the fact that most of the time when cops use force it is to "control and restrain" a party that is passively resisting, or actively resisting, verses assaulting an officer. Under these conditions the officer is restrained from doing a lot of things because he is not actively being assaulted, but must take physical control of a resisting suspect.

With that said, in these situations there is still possible great risk to the officer. Perhaps during the struggle for control the suspect becomes assaultive, and/or produces a weapon, threats from traffic, threats from other family members and friends, extra.....
 

GojuTommy

Black Belt
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
514
Reaction score
189
I wrote in the context of FMA. Baton and head shots, it would be considered deadly force. They would have to prove that their life was in immediate danger. Same with carotid submissions, its not that it is illegal, but they better be able to justify all they do. Virtually, every situation is now caught on camera. It aint 1940s NY where officer OMally gets to crack you in the head for talking back地nd in some neighborhoods, the magnifying glass is bigger than in others.
If theres a deadly force threat police can take a baton to suspects head. If theres no deadly force threat they cant在ecause hitting someone in the head with a metal stick is something a reasonable person knows or should know can cause death or serious/grave bodily harm

The same thing applies to civilians. If someone takes a swing at you and dome them with a metal stick without a VERY good reason, youre probably going to go to jail.
 

GojuTommy

Black Belt
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
514
Reaction score
189
That's true a baton to the head is considered lethal force. But that is true regardless if you are a cop or non law enforcement personnel. Also you are right, many things are in camera. Also people are more than willing to complain, even if the officer did nothing wrong. Being able to articulate why, is an important part of using force.

In the old days, sometimes force used was "instructive" or "punitive", while there are legit moral arguments against this type of force, it had some upsides, however this application of force is no longer tolerated(and it shouldn't be tolerated). Making cops better today at applying moral and legal use of force than in times past.

When people on the outside looking in sometimes get confused is the fact that most of the time when cops use force it is to "control and restrain" a party that is passively resisting, or actively resisting, verses assaulting an officer. Under these conditions the officer is restrained from doing a lot of things because he is not actively being assaulted, but must take physical control of a resisting suspect.

With that said, in these situations there is still possible great risk to the officer. Perhaps during the struggle for control the suspect becomes assaultive, and/or produces a weapon, threats from traffic, threats from other family members and friends, extra.....
Personally, what counts as nothing wrong is often very wrong in my opinion.
A dude fired 1 shot out his car window during a high speed chase, got out and ran on foot. He was shot something like 90 times in the back. It was deemed a justified shooting because he fired a shot a minute or more before that, despite no immediate threat to anyone.

Im of the opinion that if you cannot confirm 100% a suspect is a deadly force threat, then you shouldnt be using deadly force as a cop. And if someone is uncomfortable with that I dont believe they should be a cop. Both tamir rice and philando Castile would be alive today, along with god knows how many others, and if they wouldnt be their killers would at least suffer some consequences.
 

Monkey Turned Wolf

MT Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
11,172
Reaction score
5,119
Location
New York
Personally, what counts as nothing wrong is often very wrong in my opinion.
A dude fired 1 shot out his car window during a high speed chase, got out and ran on foot. He was shot something like 90 times in the back. It was deemed a justified shooting because he fired a shot a minute or more before that, despite no immediate threat to anyone.

Im of the opinion that if you cannot confirm 100% a suspect is a deadly force threat, then you shouldnt be using deadly force as a cop. And if someone is uncomfortable with that I dont believe they should be a cop. Both tamir rice and philando Castile would be alive today, along with god knows how many others, and if they wouldnt be their killers would at least suffer some consequences.
What do you mean by confirm 100% a suspect is a deadly force threat? That there is a threat deadly force will occur, or that it definitely will occur if deadly force is not used against them first.

To me, the first is a deadly force threat-that you confirm they have the means and motive to apply deadly force against you. Which in the situation you listed, would count as a deadly force threat to me. They are aware this person has a gun that he is willing to shoot, to assist him in getting away. If they then chase him on foot, he now has an easier way to try and incapacitate them then he did in the car, so logic would dictate that he may try to (or successfully) shoot the cop again. Even if the cop does not chase after him, there is still a chance he will shoot back to keep them from doing so, potentially killing someone there again. With both means and motive, and the added proof of conviction, that does seem justified to me.
 

GojuTommy

Black Belt
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
514
Reaction score
189
What do you mean by confirm 100% a suspect is a deadly force threat? That there is a threat deadly force will occur, or that it definitely will occur if deadly force is not used against them first.

To me, the first is a deadly force threat-that you confirm they have the means and motive to apply deadly force against you. Which in the situation you listed, would count as a deadly force threat to me. They are aware this person has a gun that he is willing to shoot, to assist him in getting away. If they then chase him on foot, he now has an easier way to try and incapacitate them then he did in the car, so logic would dictate that he may try to (or successfully) shoot the cop again. Even if the cop does not chase after him, there is still a chance he will shoot back to keep them from doing so, potentially killing someone there again. With both means and motive, and the added proof of conviction, that does seem justified to me.
I mean suspect safety trumps officer safety in my opinion. Police dont get to make mistakes in regards to using deadly force. If a cop shoots an unarmed citizen, or a kid with a toy gun, they should be fired.

Cop is a job people choose to do. Innocent people dont choose to be shot because a coward was a little scared doing the job they chose.

How is someone running away,
unarmed, and obviously not shooting an immediate deadly threat exactly? Thats part of deadly force use夷mmediate threat, but it doesnt matter if he shot previously. No cops returned fire then, but when his back was turned and running like 12 cops did a mag dump.
 
Top