I've kinda been sorry about that ever since.
Much of their conversations are about things I don't care about.
But today, one guy sent out an email with the header "Explain This to Me!!", and it said this:
State officials in North Carolina have launched an investigation after a police officer in Gastonia shot and killed a 74-year-old man while performing a welfare check.
Gastonia police Chief Robert Helton explained at a press conference on Sunday that a family member had asked officers to check on James Howard Allen on Saturday afternoon, The Charlotte Observer reported.
Helton said that Allen’s family had asked for the welfare check because the 74-year-old veteran had recently undergone surgery.
So, in an attempt to follow the directions of his subject header, I tried to explain things to him. I responded like this:
according to this article, the 74-year old had recently gone through surgery and was in bad health, which caused his neighbors to call and have police or fire department check up on him. Fire and police knocked on his door at 10:30 pm. There was no answer. They discussed what they should do, and they decided to enter his home. They then kicked in his back door. At 11pm. At night. James Allen confronted the team of people kicking in his back door with a gun. The police challenged him to drop the gun, he fired a single shot, and police returned a single fatal shot.
Thems the facts. The rest is speculation.
To which another colleague responded:
Those are not FACTs the But that is the story that’s gonna come out. Oh and don’t forget the part about him being a major DRUG DEALER, or a part of Isis
To which (I ignored the clunky sentence structure) I responded:
Yes, they are the FACTS, [name of co-worker]. They cannot be disputed because the article which can be accessed by the link states exactly what I said. Those are the FACTS, and they are irrefutable. If you would like to refute the story about what happened, I’m sure you can take it up with WCNC.com
Then him:
Don’t mean to offend, but I myself being apart of several wellness checks know it is agasinst protocol to cause unwarranted property damage and we definitely would not enter the Rear entry. I Myself Do Not believe everything someone says but that’s me I just Like using my own Head to conclude my own story. Now the other story coming out he was wearing his. Madi-Gras mask and his Hospital Gown when he charged the Police.
Then another co-worker who is in our "club" jumped in:
I have agree with [our co-worker]…. I too have done welfare checks and entry is never made thru the back of the structure. Only in exigent circumstances do we breech. (force entry). They have surveillance gear even the basic kind to accomplish that.
To which, I responded:
There is no argument about if a breach in protocol was made, or an error in judgment, only that the facts are that a website with a clickable link reported this story in a certain way. I was not trying to imply that the story as reported on the website was factual, only that it was a fact that there was a website which reported the story.
I would hope that you would use your head when reading this story, as it doesn’t take much to put together that 1) elderly man who wasn’t in great health who, most likely, will need rest without any kind of, 2) recent surgery which is serious enough to cause the neighbor concern, which would likely include at least sedation of some kind, like anesthesia, and most likely prescription medication, which might make the 3) forced entry in back door incredibly confusing, no matter who is coming in at, 4) 11 at night, when many 74-year-olds are asleep. I have not been a part of a medical check, but it shouldn’t take too many working synapses to understand that what was reported is a recipe for disaster.
Continue not believing everything you read until you test it. It is the best way to make sure you have the clearest answer.
And after that, I stopped. I was hurt that nobody understood what I was trying to say. I was hurt that nobody else would see that there was a news story, listen to it, make up their own minds, and then talk about it. I was hurt they were all telling me I was wrong. I was clearly not wrong! The website had most certainly reported the story as I said!
And then, I felt like a dick.
Cuz that's what they were doing.
They had skipped over the part where they determine what kind of weight to give the article.
Who reported it, should it be believed, is there anything else to know?
That part didn't matter to them, they just wanted to talk about the man getting killed, without really caring about if the reports were accurate or worthy of being discussed.
And I was being hyper-vigilant reacting with hostility to somebody who was telling me I was wrong.
My kid does that sometimes.
My wife does that sometimes.
So I'm in good company.
But it doesn't make for the best friendships or relationships.
"I'm friends with this dude, and he's so awesome that he always flies off the handle at me when he thinks he knows what I'm talking about, and I have to explain myself two or three times before he gets it, and then he has to calm down before we can move on. It's freaking awesome, and he's a total dude!"
"Those aren't facts," says my co-worker, and I hear him say, "you're wrong."
I fucking hate people.
And I just wanna chill forever.
No comments:
Post a Comment