To Protect and to Serve...

Status
Not open for further replies.
#5,601
#5,601
#VFL__ said:
If you haven't noticed, our country will have very different demographics in the not so distant future. Im sure you would agree that it would be smart to have a system that works before then. Actions like this are not acceptable...
Click to expand...

What demographics are u talking about?
 
#5,602
#5,602
volbeast33 said:
Bc its obvious from the video that the the woman is instigating the situation and its a setup bc the person that was with the woman video taped her the whole time instead of what the police were doing.
Click to expand...

If that lady and the person videoing it really did set up that officer, then shame on them.

It takes a real piece of trash to completely create a situation for the sole purpose of enticing someone to break the law. She would be ashamed of herself.
 
Last edited:
#5,604
#5,604
Grand Vol said:
Don't start. I really don't like it when people assume I'm taking the side of cops automatically. And I really don't like it when they put words in my mouth. Or post as it is.

And don't be butt hurt from earlier either. You had it coming to you.
Click to expand...

We'll stop assuming you're automatically taking the cop's side when you stop doing it 90% of the time. And ftr when you have to start a statement with "I"m not defending what the cop did" or something similar, it generally means that what you're about to say is going to sound a hell of a lot like defending the cop.

Also... The bossy and condescending way you talk to people coupled with how easily you fly off the handle makes it no surprise you are/used to be law enforcement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#5,605
#5,605
Cdywolfe said:
All I'll say is that 9 out 10 civilians pull a stunt like this at work and they're unemoyeed an hour later.
Click to expand...

How many jobs out there require u to wear bullet proof vests and get into confrontations on a daily basis....I don't think the two are comparable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,609
#5,609
#VFL__ said:
SCOTUS: Police can't extend traffic stop for dog sniff - POLITICO.com

"GOP-appointees Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy dissented, saying that the stop's total duration of about 29 minutes was reasonable, so any delay due to the dog issue did not run afoul of the Constitution."

"Thomas and Alito also said that various other observations—like an overpowering smell of air freshener in the car—meant that the officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct the dog sniff anyway. However, Kennedy did not go along with that point."

Hmmm smells like freedom in here. Let me harass you and search your car. "SMALL GOVERNMENT"
Click to expand...
The freedom loving, Constitutional GOP appointees sided with the state.

We are living under tyranny in the USSA.
 
#5,610
#5,610
volbeast33 said:
How many jobs out there require u to wear bullet proof vests and get into confrontations on a daily basis....I don't think the two are comparable.
Click to expand...

I deal with confrontation almost daily. So what you're saying is that if I start wearing a bulletproof vest to work that its gives me the freedom to attack people and destroy their property?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,611
#5,611
Cdywolfe said:
We'll stop assuming you're automatically taking the cop's side when you stop doing it 90% of the time. And ftr when you have to start a statement with "I"m not defending what the cop did" or something similar, it generally means that what you're about to say is going to sound a hell of a lot like defending the cop.

Also... The bossy and condescending way you talk to people coupled with how easily you fly off the handle makes it no surprise you are/used to be law enforcement.
Click to expand...

I'm going to call BS on that 90% figure. I'm not afraid to call a spade a spade. Have done it before, probably will do it again. You go back and look at my history here. And you'll see me disagree on things that happen just about as often as I agree.

And that disclaimer was put out there because some of the twits that frequent this thread would assume (as they did) that I would be on the defensive and take the cops side. Now, did I do that? Did I not say it was uncalled for? And yet, asked a simple question of what the conversation was before hand. May have been relevant, but wouldn't change the fact the outcome was wrong in many ways.

And nice stereotype btw. I am condescending. And I've got a good reason to be. I tried the nice route too many times. Tried to be reasonable and explain things from the LEO perspective. And what does that get me? BS like your stereotype. BS like some jackwagon trying to provoke a fight to prove how "hostile" I am. Called everything from a liar to a cheat, been told I should burn alive, had three or four people coming at me at once. taking practically everything that's said out of context. Even today it happened. So you damn right I'm a condescending prick. I give what I get.

You go ahead and look back through this thread and see the **** I've put up with. And you ever see me complain about it? Or cry about it? No, you don't. Do I have hostility issues? Not in the least. Because I can damn well guarantee you half the people in this thread would have taken a swing at someone IRL by now if they put up with a quarter of the **** that's been said. So you can take your stereotype and stuff it fella.

You and I had a discussion a couple of days ago. You came at me sideways more than once. And you have the gall to say I fly off the handle?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,620
#5,620
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
It's all about the definition of the word crime. A crime is violent action against persons or property. If there isn't a victim, how can there be a crime?
Click to expand...

This definition of "crime" really needs to catch on. it would solve a bunch of the problems we have with law enforcement.
 
#5,621
#5,621
Cdywolfe said:
Cliff's notes for everybody who didn't read the entire post.

Disclaimer: I'm about 97% joking there.
Click to expand...

I have no problems calling myself a condescending prick. Generally, I'm a nice person that likes to joke and have a good time.

However, I don't like stereotypes. I don't like it when people assume things I don't or won't do and I certainly don't like people twisting my words.
 
#5,622
#5,622
Rasputin_Vol said:
IDK, cops have a pretty high success rate when they are shooting to kill. But as we have learned thus far, shooting to stop or subdue is a bit harder to do.
Click to expand...

I replied once. But here's a suggestion.

If you own a pistol, go sign up for a class. Tactical pistol class preferably. One of the high quality ones like a Haley, Yeager or a Vickers. And when you get there, see if they teach you to shoot at knees or the shoulders. Or to shoot to wound.

Once complete and your eyes are opened. Come back and let us know where on the target they taught you to aim.
 
#5,623
#5,623
volbeast33 said:
I agree.....just feel the cops should get the first benefit of the doubt until the evidence shows them to be in the wrong.
Click to expand...

Giving The State first benefit of the doubt runs counter to "innocent until proven guilty". The citizen should get the benefit of doubt. The burden of proof should be on The State.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,624
#5,624
Rasputin_Vol said:
IDK, cops have a pretty high success rate when they are shooting to kill. But as we have learned thus far, shooting to stop or subdue is a bit harder to do.
Click to expand...

Actually all legal shootings outside of VERY tight parameters are to "stop". This is true for LEO or civilian shootings. In fact, if you ever find yourself in a situation where you've had to shoot someone do NOT use the word "kill" or any analogous terminology when giving a statement to the police or anyone else. You stopped the threat...if the force used winds up proving to be fatal then so be it but that wasn't ever to be the intent.

If you aren't justified in using lethal force then shooting shouldn't be the option in the first place. Arguing the nuances of "shoot to wound" or "shoot to subdue" is basically meaningless. The argument with merit is how loose are the rules for justifying the use of lethal force at all. Obviously there's a lot of disagreement on a good, working application for the definition of the latter.
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top