K, but if you did the research and found out the k9 group for that department uses body cams on their k9s, why not include that information within the “discussion” part of your original remark?
Because I didn't do that. I assumed that he would have a bodycam and extrapolated with the caveat that if he wasn't wearing one, that too, would be suspect.
One doesn't HAVE to have devil's details to get to the endpoint, it just confirms.
Either way presents an issue. Are we disagreeing on something? Am I obliged to find the details that don't exist yet? My 'asking' instead of 'telling' creates interest and motivation rather than opposition. Still happens tho, even with good questions.
You made an assumption- you haven’t bothered to check- that’s my endpoint. If the department doesn’t use body cams on k9s then your assumption has made an ass out of you. The department might have made the ruling that body cams on k9s are 1) unnecessary because they are with their handler at all times or 2) unreliable because of impediments caused by dog’s body or 3) causes an unnecessary risk to k9, ie may be makes it easier for the dog to be grabbed onto.
Do your research first then post your “discussion”.
No. A QUESTION does NOT make an ASSumption. You ASSume I didn't know what I was doing. Now go prove me 'wrong'.....no wait, I didn't make a statement to prove or disprove, I caused discussion and show the glow of master baiters.
What about the QUESTION do you disagree with again?
—Because I didn't do that. I assumed that he would have a bodycam and extrapolated with the caveat that if he wasn't wearing one, that too, would be suspect—
You said you assumed, but haven’t bothered to do the research. That’s an assumption. My point is, it’s not really a discussion when you’re simply entertaining a “what if” scenario when you could simply do the research to answer your question. You could have then opened the post with - hey, the k9, according to (insert source) had a body cam - do y’all think we’ll get to see the footage—
That’s the discussion question that you should have posted.
K, but if you did the research and found out the k9 group for that department uses body cams on their k9s, why not include that information within the “discussion” part of your original remark?
Because I didn't do that. I assumed that he would have a bodycam and extrapolated with the caveat that if he wasn't wearing one, that too, would be suspect. One doesn't HAVE to have devil's details to get to the endpoint, it just confirms. Either way presents an issue. Are we disagreeing on something? Am I obliged to find the details that don't exist yet? My 'asking' instead of 'telling' creates interest and motivation rather than opposition. Still happens tho, even with good questions.
You made an assumption- you haven’t bothered to check- that’s my endpoint. If the department doesn’t use body cams on k9s then your assumption has made an ass out of you. The department might have made the ruling that body cams on k9s are 1) unnecessary because they are with their handler at all times or 2) unreliable because of impediments caused by dog’s body or 3) causes an unnecessary risk to k9, ie may be makes it easier for the dog to be grabbed onto.
Do your research first then post your “discussion”.
No. A QUESTION does NOT make an ASSumption. You ASSume I didn't know what I was doing. Now go prove me 'wrong'.....no wait, I didn't make a statement to prove or disprove, I caused discussion and show the glow of master baiters.
What about the QUESTION do you disagree with again?
—Because I didn't do that. I assumed that he would have a bodycam and extrapolated with the caveat that if he wasn't wearing one, that too, would be suspect—
You said you assumed, but haven’t bothered to do the research. That’s an assumption. My point is, it’s not really a discussion when you’re simply entertaining a “what if” scenario when you could simply do the research to answer your question. You could have then opened the post with - hey, the k9, according to (insert source) had a body cam - do y’all think we’ll get to see the footage—
That’s the discussion question that you should have posted.