To Protect and to Serve...

Status
Not open for further replies.
#3,951
#3,951
tim said:
To intentionally prevent or obstruct an officer from serving or attempting to serve any legal process.
Click to expand...

I assume 'any legal process' covers any process the officer wants to declare as a 'legal process'.

Excuse me if I don't grant the assumption that LEOs, who are largely recruited for their lack of brilliance, are experts on law and rights. They are not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#3,952
#3,952
MercyPercy said:
And yet you are blind to the most obvious fact of all, you are simply too biased to give an honest opinion that's worth a grain of salt. You've been brainwashed to believe that LEOs are above the law, and their lives are worth much more than a civilian's.
Click to expand...

I am biased. We all are. I do not feel LEO's have more value and have arrested plenty. I simply do not jump to conclusions based on media reports. They are the most untrustworthy forms of documentation available.
 
#3,953
#3,953
tim said:
I am biased. We all are. I do not feel LEO's have more value and have arrested plenty. I simply do not jump to conclusions based on media reports. They are the most untrustworthy forms of documentation available.
Click to expand...

Yes, moving pictures are highly unreliable. Officer testimony, however... impeccable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,954
#3,954
therealUT said:
I assume 'any legal process' covers any process the officer wants to declare as a 'legal process'.

Excuse me if I don't grant the assumption that LEOs, who are largely recruited for their lack of brilliance, are experts on law and rights. They are not.
Click to expand...

Legal process. Define it how you want, you will anyway. You often jump to the iq of LEO's as some sort of insult, but I assure you that an insult from you draws no blood.
 
#3,955
#3,955
tim said:
Legal process. Define it how you want, you will anyway. You often jump to the iq of LEO's as some sort of insult, but I assure you that an insult from you draws no blood.
Click to expand...

Being that you're LE, I'll take your expert statement about drawing blood. That's one thing you and your fascist brethren are good at (well, good when facing unarmed persons).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,956
#3,956
therealUT said:
Yes, moving pictures are highly unreliable. Officer testimony, however... impeccable.
Click to expand...

Yep, 2 dimensional pictures are flawless. You can actually see 360 degrees and feel everything going on. You have to be the brightest dimwit on the internet.
 
#3,957
#3,957
therealUT said:
Being that you're LE, I'll take your expert statement about drawing blood. That's one thing you and your fascist brethren are good at (well, good when facing unarmed persons).
Click to expand...

Well I sure wouldnt abandon my family or property if attacked.
 
#3,958
#3,958
tim said:
To intentionally prevent or obstruct an officer from serving or attempting to serve any legal process.
Click to expand...

With that definition, no way could I support making it a felony.

Reasonable would be using violence to avoid arrest, using a firearm to threaten, something along those lines. Simply pulling out of the grasp of an officer is not a felony act!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,967
#3,967
Are you trying to ask if there is a reason not to put too much faith in the testimony of a person who either just killed someone or watched their friend do so?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,968
#3,968
MercyPercy said:
Gee, I wonder what incentives the police might have to tell a story that doesn't make them look like cold blooded murderers.
Click to expand...

You guys are impossible. So Im guessing all cops are cold blooded murderers? Its pointless to try to have a conversation with someone that is so closed minded. Carry on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,969
#3,969
jp1 said:
You guys are impossible. So Im guessing all cops are cold blooded murderers? Its pointless to try to have a conversation with someone that is so closed minded. Carry on.
Click to expand...

You have a serious problem with reading comprehension.
 
#3,971
#3,971
jp1 said:
Actually I don't....thats the implication you made.

Edit. At least the ones that have to shoot someone.
Click to expand...

The implication I made is that officers have an incentive to lie in order to protect themselves and their friends, and the risk of recourse for lying about a deadly event is not great enough to deter such misremembering of events.
 
#3,972
#3,972
MercyPercy said:
The implication I made is that officers have an incentive to lie in order to protect themselves and their friends, and the risk of recourse for lying about a deadly event is not great enough to deter such misremembering of events.
Click to expand...

You are implying they have a reason to tell the lie to begin with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,975
#3,975
MercyPercy said:
That is the case unless you believe every single deadly police shooting is justifiable.
Click to expand...

I don't believe every single case is justifiable, however again your implication is none are. I'm sure there are bad officers out there, however I think the majority are good and have a very difficult job to do.
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top