To Protect and to Serve...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Decided not to get caught... Because no one ever decides not to get caught doing something on the straight and narrow.

I've noticed the people *****ing about cops are typically the ones doing "illegal activity". Don't get caught up in the b.s....

Yeah, my "illegal activity" was selling a plant, on a very small level. This was 20+ years ago mind you.
 
CP asked me the other night about what dealings I've had with cops. Well, I had quite a few growing up, until I learned to be smarter in my perceived "illegal activity" and decided to not get caught.
I see cops all the time in the gun stores, with their crew cuts, and 511 tactical trousers, with their chest poked out in their tactical t-shirts, bragging about the arrests they've made, (mostly victimless crimes) and making fun of the people they've brutalized. Talking about what's tactical and what's not. I know those ******** well. Always griping about people on welfare, when law enforcement itself is an arm of the welfare state. Usually, I feel sick to my stomach and leave the shop.

Really?

Can't believe you're hating








































on 5.11 pants. Most awesome pants in the world.
 
All 50 US states fail to meet global police use of force standards, report finds | US news | The Guardian

"Shoot first, ask questions later" is, surprisingly enough, not an acceptable use of force in most nations.

Further, Amnesty found that in 20 states it is legally permissible for law enforcement officers to employ lethal force against an individual attempting to escape prison or jail, even if they pose no threat.

Ridiculous. It gets better, though:

The introduction of mandatory reporting to federal government for all deaths at the hands of law enforcement is a central recommendation of the Amnesty report.

This is getting embarrassing for the US. "We're not even asking you to stop your police from killing unarmed citizens or those armed with knives... we're just asking a developed nation that supposes itself as the best in the world to at least report all the numbers."

I'm ready for Grand Vol's rebuke now. Or is he back on his self-imposed vacation or banishment? I can't keep up with his reality TV show levels of drama.
 
Last edited:
I'm ready for Grand Vol's rebuke now. Or is he back on his self-imposed vacation or banishment? I can't keep up with his reality TV show levels of drama.

You know, you could have left well enough alone as well. Why do some of you persist in being total douchebags when I stopped posting? I said bye, nothing more, nothing less. Never mentioned any other poster, never said anything more than "rethinking my position" and never made a grab for attention. I posted the Buddy Jesus picture for Dink and Mercy as those are two posters that would appreciate it.

However, you made yourself look like an egotistical prick when you decided to think you alone were responsible for my departure. Far from it slick, but that made me laugh. But in a blow to your ego, you weren't even in consideration for my choice to depart. Yeah, sorry about that little piece of information. But as I stated before, some of you just have to call attention to yourself (that's called drama actually) by making a scene over my departure. Can't leave well enough alone and have to put up a post, or two now actually, that shows your true colors as nothing more than an attention whore. And I'm sure I'm not the only one that sees that. So truly, who is making all the drama? Me? No, I left peacefully enough with a final goodbye and nothing else. However, I'm not the one that made juvenile posts unlike you and a couple of others and started talking **** as soon as someone was gone. Now see, that's called DRAMA of which you are entirely guilty.

As for the rebuke, it's funny about taking one quote and using it as a basis for an entire tirade. Here's what the remainder of the laws says:

(2) (a) As used in subsection (1)(c) and (d) of this section, the term "when necessarily committed" means that a public officer or a person acting by or at the officer's command, aid or assistance is authorized to use such force as necessary in securing and detaining the felon offender, overcoming the offender's resistance, preventing the offender's escape, recapturing the offender if the offender escapes or in protecting himself or others from bodily harm; but such officer or person shall not be authorized to resort to deadly or dangerous means when to do so would be unreasonable under the circumstances. The public officer or person acting by or at the officer's command may act upon a reasonable apprehension of the surrounding circumstances; however, such officer or person shall not use excessive force or force that is greater than reasonably necessary in securing and detaining the offender, overcoming the offender's resistance, preventing the offender's escape, recapturing the offender if the offender escapes or in protecting himself or others from bodily harm.

HB 179 (As Introduced) - 2014 Regular Session

But of course your article omits that since it is contrary to the shoot first quote they wanted to use. And of course, the standard of objective reasonableness would have to be considered at the time of the application of deadly force by investigating agencies. So there's your rebuke.

Now to wrap it up, can you stop being an attention whore and making posts about me? It is rather sophomoric and only attempts to create drama where there doesn't need to be any. And it isn't really winning you any points other than trying to garner more likes from the selected few that would do it anyway. Of course, not getting any e-cred and likes would be devastating to your fragile ego so there is that minor point.

Cheers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
I'm just getting your goat GV. And I'm obviously doing a good job of it. It's too easy, really.

Glad to see you back from your exile to Elba.
 
I'm just getting your goat GV. And I'm obviously doing a good job of it. It's too easy, really.

Glad to see you back from your exile to Elba.

No, you're not getting my goat. You really don't have the ability to do so actually as most of your arguments can be easily blown out of the water by minor research. But your original post in the off topic thread was filled with all sorts of egotistical nonsense about making others feel bad and how you were the reason I departed. If it was meant in sarcasm, you likely would have said so in the end. But the drama infused side of you couldn't leave well enough alone and leave me be. Just like you should have accepted the rebuke I just posted in stride and not replied. And yet, your ego got in the way of common sense and you had to reply. I think that's called me getting your goat.

But I'm not really back by any means. I have no avi, I don't post in threads where I should and am very selective about who and what I reply to. And so far, I've really only gone after those that deserve some public ridicule because they can't leave well enough alone. Well, other than DTH and he's beyond saving. Fun to argue with, but I'm never going to change his mind on certain things. However, I will point out omissions and errors to him to get him to thinking. Or minor points to control his rants by means of sarcasm or humor. Such as the 5.11 joke I made yesterday.

If your last post was an olive branch, I'm pretty much eBeating you with it at this point and I'm going to make smores over it later on when I use it to kindle the fire. See, this isn't me having my goat gotten...I don't even like goats, but anyway, this is me going old school GV in my retorts and making you look foolish for even thinking you ever had the upper hand here.

Toodles.
 
No, you're not getting my goat. You really don't have the ability to do so actually as most of your arguments can be easily blown out of the water by minor research. But your original post in the off topic thread was filled with all sorts of egotistical nonsense about making others feel bad and how you were the reason I departed. If it was meant in sarcasm, you likely would have said so in the end. But the drama infused side of you couldn't leave well enough alone and leave me be. Just like you should have accepted the rebuke I just posted in stride and not replied. And yet, your ego got in the way of common sense and you had to reply. I think that's called me getting your goat.

But I'm not really back by any means. I have no avi, I don't post in threads where I should and am very selective about who and what I reply to. And so far, I've really only gone after those that deserve some public ridicule because they can't leave well enough alone. Well, other than DTH and he's beyond saving. Fun to argue with, but I'm never going to change his mind on certain things. However, I will point out omissions and errors to him to get him to thinking. Or minor points to control his rants by means of sarcasm or humor. Such as the 5.11 joke I made yesterday.

If your last post was an olive branch, I'm pretty much eBeating you with it at this point and I'm going to make smores over it later on when I use it to kindle the fire. See, this isn't me having my goat gotten...I don't even like goats, but anyway, this is me going old school GV in my retorts and making you look foolish for even thinking you ever had the upper hand here.

Toodles.

There are a lot of words up there for someone who isn't upset.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
There are a lot of words up there for someone who isn't upset.

Well, I type fast and don't have to use hunt and peck like some. It helps create longer posts than normal and I've been accused of the TL/DR curse before.

And my apologies if you had to have someone explain what some of the bigger words are. I should probably post pictures with them next time like your USMC field manuals.
 
For those interested, check out the documentary about the war on drugs on Netflix called 'The Culture High'

http://www.newsweek.com/culture-high-shows-insanity-war-weed-275171

I'll disagree with one thing in the article about the lung cancer thing and the comparison to cigarettes. With weed, you aren't likely smoking a pack or more a day like one does with tobacco. So the comparison made in the link:

Marijuana Doesn't Increase Risk of Lung Cancer, Mental Illness or Death | U.S. Marijuana Policy: 10 Reasons to Change Laws | TIME.com

And here:

Study: Smoking Marijuana Not Linked with Lung Damage | TIME.com

It can't really draw the conclusions that weed doesn't cause lung cancer as the second link points out that the majority of people tested haven't reached an age to where lung cancer is a real threat. And they aren't heavy users like tobacco smokers would be. Or the theories are inconclusive since both sides are not agreeing on the research data.

However, I'm sure there are more than a few folks on here that would volunteer to be a lab rat for testing the theory of marijuana use lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Well, I type fast and don't have to use hunt and peck like some. It helps create longer posts than normal and I've been accused of the TL/DR curse before.

And my apologies if you had to have someone explain what some of the bigger words are. I should probably post pictures with them next time like your USMC field manuals.

Still sounded like he got your goat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Well, I type fast and don't have to use hunt and peck like some. It helps create longer posts than normal and I've been accused of the TL/DR curse before.

And my apologies if you had to have someone explain what some of the bigger words are. I should probably post pictures with them next time like your USMC field manuals.

Well, so long as your "my feelings are hurt and I'm leaving" LG-esque rant is up there along with your thrashing return filled with blocks of text about how upset you aren't... I'll always have something.

And I have the fragile ego.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Wtf is a "goat" ?

NjqCG9d.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

VN Store



Back
Top