- Thread starter sdkidaho
- Start date
Re: Idiot Law?
The idiots wasting the police officers time here are probably the same ones that want to know why the cops aren't doing more to stop crime. I'll bet they are hero's in their own mind.
The idiots wasting the police officers time here are probably the same ones that want to know why the cops aren't doing more to stop crime. I'll bet they are hero's in their own mind.
Re: Idiot Law?
Hilarious! The idiots are the ones 'running around' trying to prevent people from 'peeing in public'. Those who actually called the idiots to stop these people are surprisingly, more inept.
Society could use more pranks, and happiness to snap out of the depraved mental state we are currently in.
Hilarious! The idiots are the ones 'running around' trying to prevent people from 'peeing in public'. Those who actually called the idiots to stop these people are surprisingly, more inept.
Society could use more pranks, and happiness to snap out of the depraved mental state we are currently in.
Re: Idiot Law?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BALLISTIC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hilarious! The idiots are the ones 'running around' trying to prevent people from 'peeing in public'. Those who actually called the idiots to stop these people are surprisingly, more inept.
Society could use more pranks, and happiness to snap out of the depraved mental state we are currently in. </div></div>
Hopefully next time you take your kids to play in the park, you catch them frolicking in a puddle of human piss and shit.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BALLISTIC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hilarious! The idiots are the ones 'running around' trying to prevent people from 'peeing in public'. Those who actually called the idiots to stop these people are surprisingly, more inept.
Society could use more pranks, and happiness to snap out of the depraved mental state we are currently in. </div></div>
Hopefully next time you take your kids to play in the park, you catch them frolicking in a puddle of human piss and shit.
Re: Idiot Law?
Maybe when your wife and daughter are being raped the "idiots" will be to busy responding to pranks.
Maybe when your wife and daughter are being raped the "idiots" will be to busy responding to pranks.
Re: Idiot Law?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MintyCock</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe when your wife and daughter are being raped the "idiots" will be to busy responding to pranks. </div></div>
damn I hope so... then they won't save the raping bastard
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MintyCock</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe when your wife and daughter are being raped the "idiots" will be to busy responding to pranks. </div></div>
damn I hope so... then they won't save the raping bastard
Re: Idiot Law?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Slapchop</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BALLISTIC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hilarious! The idiots are the ones 'running around' trying to prevent people from 'peeing in public'. Those who actually called the idiots to stop these people are surprisingly, more inept.
Society could use more pranks, and happiness to snap out of the depraved mental state we are currently in. </div></div>
Hopefully next time you take your kids to play in the park, you catch them frolicking in a puddle of human piss and shit. </div></div>
Excellent reply, as per your usual.
I would hope that ALL CHILDREN were taught that they should not play in piss and shit...but maybe some aren't so lucky to have a person to help guide them in this world. I'll leave those ones to you, as you seem to have a way to care for them. Also, if you were paying attention in the video, they used WATER, so it seems that no piss, shit, or children were harmed in the making of the video.
ETA: BTW it perturbs me to think that an LEO wishes bad upon the public they are sworn to 'protect and serve'.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Slapchop</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BALLISTIC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hilarious! The idiots are the ones 'running around' trying to prevent people from 'peeing in public'. Those who actually called the idiots to stop these people are surprisingly, more inept.
Society could use more pranks, and happiness to snap out of the depraved mental state we are currently in. </div></div>
Hopefully next time you take your kids to play in the park, you catch them frolicking in a puddle of human piss and shit. </div></div>
Excellent reply, as per your usual.
I would hope that ALL CHILDREN were taught that they should not play in piss and shit...but maybe some aren't so lucky to have a person to help guide them in this world. I'll leave those ones to you, as you seem to have a way to care for them. Also, if you were paying attention in the video, they used WATER, so it seems that no piss, shit, or children were harmed in the making of the video.
ETA: BTW it perturbs me to think that an LEO wishes bad upon the public they are sworn to 'protect and serve'.
Re: Idiot Law?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Force_Multiplier</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MintyCock</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe when your wife and daughter are being raped the "idiots" will be to busy responding to pranks. </div></div>
damn I hope so... then they won't save the raping bastard </div></div>
What he said...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Force_Multiplier</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MintyCock</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe when your wife and daughter are being raped the "idiots" will be to busy responding to pranks. </div></div>
damn I hope so... then they won't save the raping bastard </div></div>
What he said...
Re: Idiot Law?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BALLISTIC</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Force_Multiplier</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MintyCock</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe when your wife and daughter are being raped the "idiots" will be to busy responding to pranks. </div></div>
damn I hope so... then they won't save the raping bastard </div></div>
What he said... </div></div>
Took me a minute to catch this... but yeah it would be good if the guy bled out and died before the cops got there to save him.
Remember when seconds count the police are only minutes away!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BALLISTIC</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Force_Multiplier</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MintyCock</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe when your wife and daughter are being raped the "idiots" will be to busy responding to pranks. </div></div>
damn I hope so... then they won't save the raping bastard </div></div>
What he said... </div></div>
Took me a minute to catch this... but yeah it would be good if the guy bled out and died before the cops got there to save him.
Remember when seconds count the police are only minutes away!
Re: Idiot Law?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MintyCock</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe when your wife and daughter are being raped the "idiots" will be to busy responding to pranks. </div></div>
I hope you are aware SCOTUS has ruled that law enforcement are NOT responsible for the safety of individuals, on multiple occasions. Since you seem to enjoy the topic of rape, here is a nice decision from the DC Court of Appeals where the police were found to have acted properly despite displaying astonishing incompetence and negligence. Not trying to bash LEO here, but their function is not to protect us, it is to "enforce the law" and strictly that. You can argue whatever you want till you are blue in the face but the fact that courts at all levels have ruled pretty consistently on this, including SCOTUS, means that it's unfortunately pretty much moot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MintyCock</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe when your wife and daughter are being raped the "idiots" will be to busy responding to pranks. </div></div>
I hope you are aware SCOTUS has ruled that law enforcement are NOT responsible for the safety of individuals, on multiple occasions. Since you seem to enjoy the topic of rape, here is a nice decision from the DC Court of Appeals where the police were found to have acted properly despite displaying astonishing incompetence and negligence. Not trying to bash LEO here, but their function is not to protect us, it is to "enforce the law" and strictly that. You can argue whatever you want till you are blue in the face but the fact that courts at all levels have ruled pretty consistently on this, including SCOTUS, means that it's unfortunately pretty much moot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
Re: Idiot Law?
Wow... some of you guys are pretty uptight.
This wasn't a bash thread, at least that wasn't "my" intent. The officer kept saying they were idiots, hence the thread title.
Lighten up, Francis...
Wow... some of you guys are pretty uptight.
This wasn't a bash thread, at least that wasn't "my" intent. The officer kept saying they were idiots, hence the thread title.
Lighten up, Francis...
Re: Idiot Law?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SCARbliss</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MintyCock</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe when your wife and daughter are being raped the "idiots" will be to busy responding to pranks. </div></div>
I hope you are aware SCOTUS has ruled that law enforcement are NOT responsible for the safety of individuals, on multiple occasions. Since you seem to enjoy the topic of rape, here is a nice decision from the DC Court of Appeals where the police were found to have acted properly despite displaying astonishing incompetence and negligence. Not trying to bash LEO here, but their function is not to protect us, it is to "enforce the law" and strictly that. You can argue whatever you want till you are blue in the face but the fact that courts at all levels have ruled pretty consistently on this, including SCOTUS, means that it's unfortunately pretty much moot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia</div></div>
Isn't the enforcement of many laws a form of protection? Not trying to bash on non-law enforcement, but its funny when non-LE want to describe a cops job by contradicting themselves. When you are trying to keep up with all the crap that happens in a metroplitian city (i.e. Cincinatti) having someone doing a prank just to get youtube attention can get annoying. Especially when you think someone is commiting a crime (yes, peeing in public is a crime), then you get there, only to find out some attention whores are goofing around.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SCARbliss</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MintyCock</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe when your wife and daughter are being raped the "idiots" will be to busy responding to pranks. </div></div>
I hope you are aware SCOTUS has ruled that law enforcement are NOT responsible for the safety of individuals, on multiple occasions. Since you seem to enjoy the topic of rape, here is a nice decision from the DC Court of Appeals where the police were found to have acted properly despite displaying astonishing incompetence and negligence. Not trying to bash LEO here, but their function is not to protect us, it is to "enforce the law" and strictly that. You can argue whatever you want till you are blue in the face but the fact that courts at all levels have ruled pretty consistently on this, including SCOTUS, means that it's unfortunately pretty much moot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia</div></div>
Isn't the enforcement of many laws a form of protection? Not trying to bash on non-law enforcement, but its funny when non-LE want to describe a cops job by contradicting themselves. When you are trying to keep up with all the crap that happens in a metroplitian city (i.e. Cincinatti) having someone doing a prank just to get youtube attention can get annoying. Especially when you think someone is commiting a crime (yes, peeing in public is a crime), then you get there, only to find out some attention whores are goofing around.
Re: Idiot Law?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SCARbliss</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MintyCock</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe when your wife and daughter are being raped the "idiots" will be to busy responding to pranks. </div></div>
I hope you are aware SCOTUS has ruled that law enforcement are NOT responsible for the safety of individuals, on multiple occasions. Since you seem to enjoy the topic of rape, here is a nice decision from the DC Court of Appeals where the police were found to have acted properly despite displaying astonishing incompetence and negligence. Not trying to bash LEO here, but their function is not to protect us, it is to "enforce the law" and strictly that. You can argue whatever you want till you are blue in the face but the fact that courts at all levels have ruled pretty consistently on this, including SCOTUS, means that it's unfortunately pretty much moot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia</div></div>
<span style="color: #FF6666"><span style="font-weight: bold"> Isn't the enforcement of many laws a form of protection?</span></span> Not trying to bash on non-law enforcement, but its funny when non-LE want to describe a cops job by contradicting themselves. When you are trying to keep up with all the crap that happens in a metroplitian city (i.e. Cincinatti) having someone doing a prank just to get youtube attention can get annoying. Especially when you think someone is commiting a crime (yes, peeing in public is a crime), then you get there, only to find out some attention whores are goofing around.
</div></div>
No, it isn't. I suggest you read some of the decisions if you disagree. Also, care to clarify how anyone contradicted themself in this thread? I think it's funny that some immature individuals who happen to be LEO suggest in this thread that people's family should be raped and children should play in human feces...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SCARbliss</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MintyCock</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe when your wife and daughter are being raped the "idiots" will be to busy responding to pranks. </div></div>
I hope you are aware SCOTUS has ruled that law enforcement are NOT responsible for the safety of individuals, on multiple occasions. Since you seem to enjoy the topic of rape, here is a nice decision from the DC Court of Appeals where the police were found to have acted properly despite displaying astonishing incompetence and negligence. Not trying to bash LEO here, but their function is not to protect us, it is to "enforce the law" and strictly that. You can argue whatever you want till you are blue in the face but the fact that courts at all levels have ruled pretty consistently on this, including SCOTUS, means that it's unfortunately pretty much moot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia</div></div>
<span style="color: #FF6666"><span style="font-weight: bold"> Isn't the enforcement of many laws a form of protection?</span></span> Not trying to bash on non-law enforcement, but its funny when non-LE want to describe a cops job by contradicting themselves. When you are trying to keep up with all the crap that happens in a metroplitian city (i.e. Cincinatti) having someone doing a prank just to get youtube attention can get annoying. Especially when you think someone is commiting a crime (yes, peeing in public is a crime), then you get there, only to find out some attention whores are goofing around.
</div></div>
No, it isn't. I suggest you read some of the decisions if you disagree. Also, care to clarify how anyone contradicted themself in this thread? I think it's funny that some immature individuals who happen to be LEO suggest in this thread that people's family should be raped and children should play in human feces...
Re: Idiot Law?
Ok, I'll play.
YOU CONTRADICTING YOURSELF: "their function is not to protect us, it is to "enforce the law" and strictly that"
THE CONTRADICTION: With several laws, when enforced, can or will, protect individuals, either directly or indirectly.
(SECRET: They really are not there as a form of tyrannical government control hell bent on world domination, but shhhhhh, dont tell anyone, dont want that getting around)
Example: Presence and enforcement of speed limits can prevent a motorist from causing an accident that could injure/kill themselves and/or other motorists and/or pedestrians, and prevent property damage.
If you want more examples, we can take it to a PM, there is an endless supply.
I have no idea what your point is as to the "decisions" the supreme court made. In fact, it appears like its a smoke n mirrors answer to a mindset that I think every cop has, or should have. Sit back, pull your head from the clouds and answer this question. Would YOU prefer a cop is responding to a bunch of retards playing a practical joke, when there is a REAL crime happening? How would you feel if you or a family member was being victimized, and a large number of cops are tied up dealing with these douche bags?
Do you really think a SCOTUS ruling makes a cop feel better or relieved knowing that the are not responsible (legally) for preventing a crime on a person? Really? The fact is, when you now have to REACT to a crime committed, when there could have been a chance, likely or not, that you (the officer), could have prevented it, tends to strike a nerve, especially if you had to respond to a bullshit call of assholes playing a prank. Perhaps if you put some thought into what the cops could be doing, in lieu of dealing with these clowns, a SCOTUS decision about responsibility will seem a lot less relevant.
Now, if it still isn't making sense, then I think you should refrain from commenting on what you THINK a cops job is, and get a better understanding what it REALLY is and how it works. Perhaps look up the statutes and codes in your neck of the woods and see that they are most likely preventive in nature, and like most laws, when enforced, provides protection.
Ok, I'll play.
YOU CONTRADICTING YOURSELF: "their function is not to protect us, it is to "enforce the law" and strictly that"
THE CONTRADICTION: With several laws, when enforced, can or will, protect individuals, either directly or indirectly.
(SECRET: They really are not there as a form of tyrannical government control hell bent on world domination, but shhhhhh, dont tell anyone, dont want that getting around)
Example: Presence and enforcement of speed limits can prevent a motorist from causing an accident that could injure/kill themselves and/or other motorists and/or pedestrians, and prevent property damage.
If you want more examples, we can take it to a PM, there is an endless supply.
I have no idea what your point is as to the "decisions" the supreme court made. In fact, it appears like its a smoke n mirrors answer to a mindset that I think every cop has, or should have. Sit back, pull your head from the clouds and answer this question. Would YOU prefer a cop is responding to a bunch of retards playing a practical joke, when there is a REAL crime happening? How would you feel if you or a family member was being victimized, and a large number of cops are tied up dealing with these douche bags?
Do you really think a SCOTUS ruling makes a cop feel better or relieved knowing that the are not responsible (legally) for preventing a crime on a person? Really? The fact is, when you now have to REACT to a crime committed, when there could have been a chance, likely or not, that you (the officer), could have prevented it, tends to strike a nerve, especially if you had to respond to a bullshit call of assholes playing a prank. Perhaps if you put some thought into what the cops could be doing, in lieu of dealing with these clowns, a SCOTUS decision about responsibility will seem a lot less relevant.
Now, if it still isn't making sense, then I think you should refrain from commenting on what you THINK a cops job is, and get a better understanding what it REALLY is and how it works. Perhaps look up the statutes and codes in your neck of the woods and see that they are most likely preventive in nature, and like most laws, when enforced, provides protection.
Re: Idiot Law?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok, I'll play.
YOU CONTRADICTING YOURSELF: "their function is not to protect us, it is to "enforce the law" and strictly that"
THE CONTRADICTION: With several laws, when enforced, can or will, protect individuals, either directly or indirectly.
(SECRET: They really are not there as a form of tyrannical government control hell bent on world domination, but shhhhhh, dont tell anyone, dont want that getting around)
Example: Presence and enforcement of speed limits can prevent a motorist from causing an accident that could injure/kill themselves and/or other motorists and/or pedestrians, and prevent property damage.
If you want more examples, we can take it to a PM, there is an endless supply.
I have no idea what your point is as to the "decisions" the supreme court made. In fact, it appears like its a smoke n mirrors answer to a mindset that I think every cop has, or should have. Sit back, pull your head from the clouds and answer this question. Would YOU prefer a cop is responding to a bunch of retards playing a practical joke, when there is a REAL crime happening? How would you feel if you or a family member was being victimized, and a large number of cops are tied up dealing with these douche bags?
Do you really think a SCOTUS ruling makes a cop feel better or relieved knowing that the are not responsible (legally) for preventing a crime on a person? Really? The fact is, when you now have to REACT to a crime committed, when there could have been a chance, likely or not, that you (the officer), could have prevented it, tends to strike a nerve, especially if you had to respond to a bullshit call of assholes playing a prank. Perhaps if you put some thought into what the cops could be doing, in lieu of dealing with these clowns, a SCOTUS decision about responsibility will seem a lot less relevant.
Now, if it still isn't making sense, then I think you should refrain from commenting on what you THINK a cops job is, and get a better understanding what it REALLY is and how it works. Perhaps look up the statutes and codes in your neck of the woods and see that they are most likely preventive in nature, and like most laws, when enforced, provides protection.
</div></div>
OK, I'll say again, READ THE JUDGMENT
Women were repeatedly raped while police WILLFULLY IGNORED REPEATED CALLS BY THE VICTIMS and were found to have acted correctly. I don't care how you "feel" about something if I am a victim and the only consequences for your inaction are that you "feel bad" There is no contradiction here, any protective role you are assuming is a byproduct of the role of enforcing the law from a LEGAL STANDPOINT. I am not talking about the actions of officers in terms of how their work impacts a community, I am saying that you are LEGALLY NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAFETY OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC, as was determined by SCOTUS. Also, don't presume to tell me what I can or can't comment on, that is the beauty of America, and part of the reason I went to law school!
ETA: Reading your post I think my whole point flew completely over your head, did you not realize what I wrote the first time was in response to one of your fellows (MintyCock) who wrote that he hoped the other posters wife and daughters would be raped? Examine what I actually wrote in response to before you jump in with this junk about a water bottle, I could care less about your guys discussion of a water bottle, what I care about is someone implying that if you don't support their way of thinking, then your family deserves rape. Slapchop was also writing he hopes our kids play in shit and piss, does this seem to be conduct becoming of an officer of the court? Do you guys think this crap makes you look professional? Saying stupidity like that makes those who said it or support it a disgrace to ALL who wear the uniform, no one should wish rape or harm to ones children to anyone, LEAST OF ALL someone who is given greater responsibility than the average joe. Re-read what I wrote and what it was in response to and come down off that high horse.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok, I'll play.
YOU CONTRADICTING YOURSELF: "their function is not to protect us, it is to "enforce the law" and strictly that"
THE CONTRADICTION: With several laws, when enforced, can or will, protect individuals, either directly or indirectly.
(SECRET: They really are not there as a form of tyrannical government control hell bent on world domination, but shhhhhh, dont tell anyone, dont want that getting around)
Example: Presence and enforcement of speed limits can prevent a motorist from causing an accident that could injure/kill themselves and/or other motorists and/or pedestrians, and prevent property damage.
If you want more examples, we can take it to a PM, there is an endless supply.
I have no idea what your point is as to the "decisions" the supreme court made. In fact, it appears like its a smoke n mirrors answer to a mindset that I think every cop has, or should have. Sit back, pull your head from the clouds and answer this question. Would YOU prefer a cop is responding to a bunch of retards playing a practical joke, when there is a REAL crime happening? How would you feel if you or a family member was being victimized, and a large number of cops are tied up dealing with these douche bags?
Do you really think a SCOTUS ruling makes a cop feel better or relieved knowing that the are not responsible (legally) for preventing a crime on a person? Really? The fact is, when you now have to REACT to a crime committed, when there could have been a chance, likely or not, that you (the officer), could have prevented it, tends to strike a nerve, especially if you had to respond to a bullshit call of assholes playing a prank. Perhaps if you put some thought into what the cops could be doing, in lieu of dealing with these clowns, a SCOTUS decision about responsibility will seem a lot less relevant.
Now, if it still isn't making sense, then I think you should refrain from commenting on what you THINK a cops job is, and get a better understanding what it REALLY is and how it works. Perhaps look up the statutes and codes in your neck of the woods and see that they are most likely preventive in nature, and like most laws, when enforced, provides protection.
</div></div>
OK, I'll say again, READ THE JUDGMENT
Women were repeatedly raped while police WILLFULLY IGNORED REPEATED CALLS BY THE VICTIMS and were found to have acted correctly. I don't care how you "feel" about something if I am a victim and the only consequences for your inaction are that you "feel bad" There is no contradiction here, any protective role you are assuming is a byproduct of the role of enforcing the law from a LEGAL STANDPOINT. I am not talking about the actions of officers in terms of how their work impacts a community, I am saying that you are LEGALLY NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAFETY OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC, as was determined by SCOTUS. Also, don't presume to tell me what I can or can't comment on, that is the beauty of America, and part of the reason I went to law school!
ETA: Reading your post I think my whole point flew completely over your head, did you not realize what I wrote the first time was in response to one of your fellows (MintyCock) who wrote that he hoped the other posters wife and daughters would be raped? Examine what I actually wrote in response to before you jump in with this junk about a water bottle, I could care less about your guys discussion of a water bottle, what I care about is someone implying that if you don't support their way of thinking, then your family deserves rape. Slapchop was also writing he hopes our kids play in shit and piss, does this seem to be conduct becoming of an officer of the court? Do you guys think this crap makes you look professional? Saying stupidity like that makes those who said it or support it a disgrace to ALL who wear the uniform, no one should wish rape or harm to ones children to anyone, LEAST OF ALL someone who is given greater responsibility than the average joe. Re-read what I wrote and what it was in response to and come down off that high horse.
Re: Idiot Law?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SCARbliss</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style="color: #CC0000">Also, don't presume to tell me what I can or can't comment on, that is the beauty of America, and part of the reason I went to law school!</span>
</div></div>
Gonna paraphrase this, can't remember the exact quote...It's better to be silent and let people think your an idiot, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. In the same way that being a cop doesnt make me a lawyer, being a lawyer doesnt make you a cop. Take your SC rulings and shove it up your ass. It doesnt matter what my "legal" responsibility is. Knowing that you could have done something to help a person, but you were busy with bullshit, doesnt alleviate the aggrevation it causes. So until you are there, and done that, I stand by my statement of STFU until you can speak from experience and not in print.
Lets see how this statement would fly:
Ma'am I am sorry your child was hit by a speeder in the school zone, but I was busy dealing with these guys who were reportedly peeing on the sidewalk. Pretty funny gag, huh? But dont worry, if you go to law school you will learn that technically, I am not responsible to be there to enforce the speeding laws, which means I cannot be held responsible for the death of your child. Have a nice day.
So, thats how I am suppose to do my job? If you really think that should be the mindset of LEOs, or that a SC ruling makes it any better, then perhaps the web is the best place for you to practice or dictate law. Its bad enough you think you know how cops should do their jobs, but now you think that either you or the SC can dictate how we should feel? Thats ballsy and arrogant. There is no high horse. If anyone is on one its you, and in reality its not even a horse, more like a midget donkey. Mintycock and Slapchop may have come off harsh, and somehow I doubt they wish those actual acts. Perhaps they painted a picture that just happened to offend you a bit much, but I dont think they went too far.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SCARbliss</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style="color: #CC0000">Also, don't presume to tell me what I can or can't comment on, that is the beauty of America, and part of the reason I went to law school!
</span></div></div>
Gonna paraphrase this, can't remember the exact quote...It's better to be silent and let people think your an idiot, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. In the same way that being a cop doesnt make me a lawyer, being a lawyer doesnt make you a cop. Take your SC rulings and shove it up your ass. It doesnt matter what my "legal" responsibility is. Knowing that you could have done something to help a person, but you were busy with bullshit, doesnt alleviate the aggrevation it causes. So until you are there, and done that, I stand by my statement of STFU until you can speak from experience and not in print.
Lets see how this statement would fly:
Ma'am I am sorry your child was hit by a speeder in the school zone, but I was busy dealing with these guys who were reportedly peeing on the sidewalk. Pretty funny gag, huh? But dont worry, if you go to law school you will learn that technically, I am not responsible to be there to enforce the speeding laws, which means I cannot be held responsible for the death of your child. Have a nice day.
So, thats how I am suppose to do my job? If you really think that should be the mindset of LEOs, or that a SC ruling makes it any better, then perhaps the web is the best place for you to practice or dictate law. Its bad enough you think you know how cops should do their jobs, but now you think that either you or the SC can dictate how we should feel? Thats ballsy and arrogant. There is no high horse. If anyone is on one its you, and in reality its not even a horse, more like a midget donkey. Mintycock and Slapchop may have come off harsh, and somehow I doubt they wish those actual acts. Perhaps they painted a picture that just happened to offend you a bit much, but I dont think they went too far.
Re: Idiot Law?
hmm... sorry to wander into your bubble of awesomeness but as per usual DR, you're wrong and confusing correlation with causation.
Enforcing the law may have side effects of affording protection by proxy but the primary DUTY, which is the focus of the SCOTUS decision, is enforcement of law.
You cite that being able to help and not doing so is a craven act. I would agree. Perhaps if LE was more inclusive of citizens and didn't repeat the mantra of "observe and report" as being the only thing citizens should do then the act of protection could become a civic duty rather than a by-product of enforcement.
You and Slapchop would be amusing if it wasn't for the fact that your views are ones that infect the policies and procedures of LE. In turn the infection spreads and people think the only means of protection and only mechanism of civic cohesion is an ever more powerful police force. Through the self-aggrandizement of people like you, through the corrupt posturing of Police Unions (cutting benefits equates to killing innocents... really? Wow, didn't realize your ability to not have to co-pay for a foot massage was so dire..) and the general un-Constitutional and illegal bias against gun owners and self-defense, the LE have diluted what should be the same checks and balance of civilian oversight over government and all government agencies.
Am I paranoid? Heck, you lot can burst into the wrong house, kill people who defend themselves and enjoy immunity and charge the survivors for the cost of the door! I must be paranoid to not think that's a bad thing...
No, there isn't some grand master plan as you point out in such droll fashion. What there is, is regular human nature and a proclivity to corruption and enjoying leverage over others. These are the things the Constitution was designed to try and counter by articulating a set of basic rights and principles. Things often deemed irrelevant and inconvenient by LE.
But hey, DR, the SCOTUS and the Constitution and the Framers be damned - none of them every walked a beat... right?
hmm... sorry to wander into your bubble of awesomeness but as per usual DR, you're wrong and confusing correlation with causation.
Enforcing the law may have side effects of affording protection by proxy but the primary DUTY, which is the focus of the SCOTUS decision, is enforcement of law.
You cite that being able to help and not doing so is a craven act. I would agree. Perhaps if LE was more inclusive of citizens and didn't repeat the mantra of "observe and report" as being the only thing citizens should do then the act of protection could become a civic duty rather than a by-product of enforcement.
You and Slapchop would be amusing if it wasn't for the fact that your views are ones that infect the policies and procedures of LE. In turn the infection spreads and people think the only means of protection and only mechanism of civic cohesion is an ever more powerful police force. Through the self-aggrandizement of people like you, through the corrupt posturing of Police Unions (cutting benefits equates to killing innocents... really? Wow, didn't realize your ability to not have to co-pay for a foot massage was so dire..) and the general un-Constitutional and illegal bias against gun owners and self-defense, the LE have diluted what should be the same checks and balance of civilian oversight over government and all government agencies.
Am I paranoid? Heck, you lot can burst into the wrong house, kill people who defend themselves and enjoy immunity and charge the survivors for the cost of the door! I must be paranoid to not think that's a bad thing...
No, there isn't some grand master plan as you point out in such droll fashion. What there is, is regular human nature and a proclivity to corruption and enjoying leverage over others. These are the things the Constitution was designed to try and counter by articulating a set of basic rights and principles. Things often deemed irrelevant and inconvenient by LE.
But hey, DR, the SCOTUS and the Constitution and the Framers be damned - none of them every walked a beat... right?
Re: Idiot Law?
Jesus wept...
Here's how I see it, you want to piss or crap outdoors, you damn sure better do it completely obscured as if it appears to me to be public exposure I'll be calling the cops since I can no longer drop kick your ass without getting in trouble.
There are "Homeless" scumbags constantly dropping trou all over the metro area here as well as drunk football fans, parade revellers and other undisciplined fucktards who feel as though they can't be seen when in fact they are in plain view of anyone who may be around.
So yeah, I have no problem with police interdicting assholes who distribute their bodily waste wherever the mood suits them.
Jesus wept...
Here's how I see it, you want to piss or crap outdoors, you damn sure better do it completely obscured as if it appears to me to be public exposure I'll be calling the cops since I can no longer drop kick your ass without getting in trouble.
There are "Homeless" scumbags constantly dropping trou all over the metro area here as well as drunk football fans, parade revellers and other undisciplined fucktards who feel as though they can't be seen when in fact they are in plain view of anyone who may be around.
So yeah, I have no problem with police interdicting assholes who distribute their bodily waste wherever the mood suits them.
Re: Idiot Law?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It doesnt matter what my "legal" responsibility is.</div></div>
Yes it does, if you took an oath to become a LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. That's pretty much a summary of the whole problem with your attitude as a LEO.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: queequeg</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
So yeah, I have no problem with police interdicting assholes who distribute their bodily waste wherever the mood suits them.
</div></div>
Not gonna get a whole lot of argument on that count, but pranksters with water bottles aren't exactly in the same category...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It doesnt matter what my "legal" responsibility is.</div></div>
Yes it does, if you took an oath to become a LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. That's pretty much a summary of the whole problem with your attitude as a LEO.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: queequeg</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
So yeah, I have no problem with police interdicting assholes who distribute their bodily waste wherever the mood suits them.
</div></div>
Not gonna get a whole lot of argument on that count, but pranksters with water bottles aren't exactly in the same category...
Re: Idiot Law?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Matt.Cross</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It doesnt matter what my "legal" responsibility is.</div></div>
Yes it does, if you took an oath to become a LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. That's pretty much a summary of the whole problem with your attitude as a LEO.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: queequeg</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
So yeah, I have no problem with police interdicting assholes who distribute their bodily waste wherever the mood suits them.
</div></div>
Not gonna get a whole lot of argument on that count, but pranksters with water bottles aren't exactly in the same category...</div></div>
Well here is some more of the typical internet-ery of smoke n mirrors to try and validate self-righteous opinions and beliefs. Taking just one quote is typical when the the goal is to change the context of what has been said, you know this, and attemmpted to make something of it. The point I am arguing is the idea that police officers should have no emotional reaction to a person who has been victimized while they are busy dealing with bullshit pranks. Yes I am aware that the decision of the SCOTUS is that LEOs are not responsible for protecting people. Sorry, but all the rulings in the world are not going to make dealing with that situation any easier. If you cant understand that, oh well.
For some reason there is a few folks here that think that an officer shouldnt be upset if he has has been tied up with bullshit like the topic here, or civil disputes, or parents wanting to scare their kids to go to school, and the baby raper that just got out hasnt bothered to register yet, then a kid winds up missing. But because the SCOTUS said its not my responsibility to protect, I should feel better about the job I did making sure that little Johnny thinks he is going to jail if he doesnt go to school. The fact that an officer gets pulled off his normal patrol to respond as backup to a prank call so the person with the scanner can laugh his ass off, then a house gets broken into on the other side of town, think it doesnt happen? Think that officer isnt a little pissed? You think a SCOTUS decision makes it any better? No, it doesnt.
EH, again you give no arguement. You are trying to push your "all LE is corrupt" banter. Now all of a sudden I am a part if this imaginary disease that affects policy and procedures, please privide these fine folks with quotes that can back that up.....oh wait, you cant. You have stated that you are not from the US and have a tough time grasping the politics of this country, its obvious that outside biased and paranoid opinions, your knowledge of LE and the political structure that comprises LE agencies comes from reading infowars.com articles, and watching cheesy corrupt cop movies. It doesnt matter how intelligent to try to make your posts out, its all just well arranged drivel. Sorry man, you dont have a leg to stand on. You ask questions, get answers and then all of a sudden have an opposing belief and opinion of something you still clearly do not understand. I ask, more like demand, in the same fashion you have in the past that you PLEASE PROVIDE QUOTES TO BACK UP YOUR STATEMENTS ABOUT ME!!!! NO QUOTES = FULL OF SHIT
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Matt.Cross</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It doesnt matter what my "legal" responsibility is.</div></div>
Yes it does, if you took an oath to become a LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. That's pretty much a summary of the whole problem with your attitude as a LEO.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: queequeg</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
So yeah, I have no problem with police interdicting assholes who distribute their bodily waste wherever the mood suits them.
</div></div>
Not gonna get a whole lot of argument on that count, but pranksters with water bottles aren't exactly in the same category...</div></div>
Well here is some more of the typical internet-ery of smoke n mirrors to try and validate self-righteous opinions and beliefs. Taking just one quote is typical when the the goal is to change the context of what has been said, you know this, and attemmpted to make something of it. The point I am arguing is the idea that police officers should have no emotional reaction to a person who has been victimized while they are busy dealing with bullshit pranks. Yes I am aware that the decision of the SCOTUS is that LEOs are not responsible for protecting people. Sorry, but all the rulings in the world are not going to make dealing with that situation any easier. If you cant understand that, oh well.
For some reason there is a few folks here that think that an officer shouldnt be upset if he has has been tied up with bullshit like the topic here, or civil disputes, or parents wanting to scare their kids to go to school, and the baby raper that just got out hasnt bothered to register yet, then a kid winds up missing. But because the SCOTUS said its not my responsibility to protect, I should feel better about the job I did making sure that little Johnny thinks he is going to jail if he doesnt go to school. The fact that an officer gets pulled off his normal patrol to respond as backup to a prank call so the person with the scanner can laugh his ass off, then a house gets broken into on the other side of town, think it doesnt happen? Think that officer isnt a little pissed? You think a SCOTUS decision makes it any better? No, it doesnt.
EH, again you give no arguement. You are trying to push your "all LE is corrupt" banter. Now all of a sudden I am a part if this imaginary disease that affects policy and procedures, please privide these fine folks with quotes that can back that up.....oh wait, you cant. You have stated that you are not from the US and have a tough time grasping the politics of this country, its obvious that outside biased and paranoid opinions, your knowledge of LE and the political structure that comprises LE agencies comes from reading infowars.com articles, and watching cheesy corrupt cop movies. It doesnt matter how intelligent to try to make your posts out, its all just well arranged drivel. Sorry man, you dont have a leg to stand on. You ask questions, get answers and then all of a sudden have an opposing belief and opinion of something you still clearly do not understand. I ask, more like demand, in the same fashion you have in the past that you PLEASE PROVIDE QUOTES TO BACK UP YOUR STATEMENTS ABOUT ME!!!! NO QUOTES = FULL OF SHIT
Re: Idiot Law?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Well here is some more of the typical internet-ery of smoke n mirrors to try and validate self-righteous opinions and beliefs. Taking just one quote is typical when the the goal is to change the context of what has been said, you know this, and attemmpted to make something of it. The point I am arguing is the idea that police officers should have no emotional reaction to a person who has been victimized while they are busy dealing with bullshit pranks. Yes I am aware that the decision of the SCOTUS is that LEOs are not responsible for protecting people. Sorry, but all the rulings in the world are not going to make dealing with that situation any easier. If you cant understand that, oh well.
For some reason there is a few folks here that think that an officer shouldnt be upset if he has has been tied up with bullshit like the topic here, or civil disputes, or parents wanting to scare their kids to go to school, and the baby raper that just got out hasnt bothered to register yet, then a kid winds up missing. But because the SCOTUS said its not my responsibility to protect, I should feel better about the job I did making sure that little Johnny thinks he is going to jail if he doesnt go to school. The fact that an officer gets pulled off his normal patrol to respond as backup to a prank call so the person with the scanner can laugh his ass off, then a house gets broken into on the other side of town, think it doesnt happen? Think that officer isnt a little pissed? You think a SCOTUS decision makes it any better? No, it doesnt.</div></div>
I don't have any problem whatsoever with your emotions, what I have a problem with is a LEO letting his emotions come before his professionalism. You do whatever you have to do to blow off steam, after you get off the clock, not while you're dealing with your local prankster. If anybody is going to get the idea that you were wasting your time on the local idiot, they'll get it from watching you bully them on Youtube, when you could just walk away as soon as see that nothing illegal is being done. You don't seem to hold anything against the morons who are calling the police before they are even sure their is an actual crime in progress...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Well here is some more of the typical internet-ery of smoke n mirrors to try and validate self-righteous opinions and beliefs. Taking just one quote is typical when the the goal is to change the context of what has been said, you know this, and attemmpted to make something of it. The point I am arguing is the idea that police officers should have no emotional reaction to a person who has been victimized while they are busy dealing with bullshit pranks. Yes I am aware that the decision of the SCOTUS is that LEOs are not responsible for protecting people. Sorry, but all the rulings in the world are not going to make dealing with that situation any easier. If you cant understand that, oh well.
For some reason there is a few folks here that think that an officer shouldnt be upset if he has has been tied up with bullshit like the topic here, or civil disputes, or parents wanting to scare their kids to go to school, and the baby raper that just got out hasnt bothered to register yet, then a kid winds up missing. But because the SCOTUS said its not my responsibility to protect, I should feel better about the job I did making sure that little Johnny thinks he is going to jail if he doesnt go to school. The fact that an officer gets pulled off his normal patrol to respond as backup to a prank call so the person with the scanner can laugh his ass off, then a house gets broken into on the other side of town, think it doesnt happen? Think that officer isnt a little pissed? You think a SCOTUS decision makes it any better? No, it doesnt.</div></div>
I don't have any problem whatsoever with your emotions, what I have a problem with is a LEO letting his emotions come before his professionalism. You do whatever you have to do to blow off steam, after you get off the clock, not while you're dealing with your local prankster. If anybody is going to get the idea that you were wasting your time on the local idiot, they'll get it from watching you bully them on Youtube, when you could just walk away as soon as see that nothing illegal is being done. You don't seem to hold anything against the morons who are calling the police before they are even sure their is an actual crime in progress...
Re: Idiot Law?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SCARbliss</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style="color: #CC0000">Also, don't presume to tell me what I can or can't comment on, that is the beauty of America, and part of the reason I went to law school!</span>
</div></div>
Gonna paraphrase this, can't remember the exact quote...It's better to be silent and let people think your an idiot, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. In the same way that being a cop doesnt make me a lawyer, being a lawyer doesnt make you a cop.<span style="color: #FF0000"> Take your SC rulings and shove it up your ass. It doesnt matter what my "legal" responsibility is.</span> Knowing that you could have done something to help a person, but you were busy with bullshit, doesnt alleviate the aggrevation it causes. So until you are there, and done that, I stand by my statement of STFU until you can speak from experience and not in print.
Lets see how this statement would fly:
Ma'am I am sorry your child was hit by a speeder in the school zone, but I was busy dealing with these guys who were reportedly peeing on the sidewalk. Pretty funny gag, huh? But dont worry, if you go to law school you will learn that technically, I am not responsible to be there to enforce the speeding laws, which means I cannot be held responsible for the death of your child. Have a nice day.
So, thats how I am suppose to do my job? If you really think that should be the mindset of LEOs, or that a SC ruling makes it any better, then perhaps the web is the best place for you to practice or dictate law. Its bad enough you think you know how cops should do their jobs, but now you think that either you or the SC can dictate how we should feel? Thats ballsy and arrogant. There is no high horse. If anyone is on one its you, and in reality its not even a horse, more like a midget donkey. <span style="color: #FF0000">Mintycock and Slapchop may have come off harsh</span>, and <span style="color: #FF0000">somehow I doubt they wish those actual acts.</span> Perhaps they painted a picture that just happened to offend you a bit much, but <span style="color: #FF0000">I dont think they went too far. </span> </div></div>
If this is seriously how you think you are literally a danger to society and should NOT have a badge. I'll attribute this garbage you posted to you having a bad day, but you need to step back and assess why exactly you think you aren't bound by the law like the rest of us, because its EXTREMELY apparent that you feel you're a cowboy. Guess what, supreme court rulings ARE LAW, so you're basically telling people to shove the law YOU SWORE AN OATH TO UPHOLD AND ENFORCE up their ass.
ETA: Ironic you decided to talk about people opening their mouths to remove any doubt...keep digging that hole!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SCARbliss</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style="color: #CC0000">Also, don't presume to tell me what I can or can't comment on, that is the beauty of America, and part of the reason I went to law school!
</span></div></div>
Gonna paraphrase this, can't remember the exact quote...It's better to be silent and let people think your an idiot, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. In the same way that being a cop doesnt make me a lawyer, being a lawyer doesnt make you a cop.<span style="color: #FF0000"> Take your SC rulings and shove it up your ass. It doesnt matter what my "legal" responsibility is.</span> Knowing that you could have done something to help a person, but you were busy with bullshit, doesnt alleviate the aggrevation it causes. So until you are there, and done that, I stand by my statement of STFU until you can speak from experience and not in print.
Lets see how this statement would fly:
Ma'am I am sorry your child was hit by a speeder in the school zone, but I was busy dealing with these guys who were reportedly peeing on the sidewalk. Pretty funny gag, huh? But dont worry, if you go to law school you will learn that technically, I am not responsible to be there to enforce the speeding laws, which means I cannot be held responsible for the death of your child. Have a nice day.
So, thats how I am suppose to do my job? If you really think that should be the mindset of LEOs, or that a SC ruling makes it any better, then perhaps the web is the best place for you to practice or dictate law. Its bad enough you think you know how cops should do their jobs, but now you think that either you or the SC can dictate how we should feel? Thats ballsy and arrogant. There is no high horse. If anyone is on one its you, and in reality its not even a horse, more like a midget donkey. <span style="color: #FF0000">Mintycock and Slapchop may have come off harsh</span>, and <span style="color: #FF0000">somehow I doubt they wish those actual acts.</span> Perhaps they painted a picture that just happened to offend you a bit much, but <span style="color: #FF0000">I dont think they went too far. </span> </div></div>
If this is seriously how you think you are literally a danger to society and should NOT have a badge. I'll attribute this garbage you posted to you having a bad day, but you need to step back and assess why exactly you think you aren't bound by the law like the rest of us, because its EXTREMELY apparent that you feel you're a cowboy. Guess what, supreme court rulings ARE LAW, so you're basically telling people to shove the law YOU SWORE AN OATH TO UPHOLD AND ENFORCE up their ass.
ETA: Ironic you decided to talk about people opening their mouths to remove any doubt...keep digging that hole!
Re: Idiot Law?
I blame YouTube
It seems since YouTube came along, civilization has gone straight downhill with people trying to do more stupid and dangerous things just to have their little bit of fame.
I'm personally very much against all this "indecent exposure" BS as I'm of the opinion that it's quite simply crazy religious taboos that stuck up religious zealots got put into law (if you are not sure just ask yourself why it's fine for the Discovery channel to have family friendly documentaries showing people running around naked just so long as they are black skinned and covered in dirt and in some desert, but if they happen to be white skinned & clean oh my god... it's horribly indecent)
In this case however the idiots were purposely trying to make a public spectacle and were hoping to get police attention to validate the YouTube worthyness of their prank. In fact I would say if the police had of ignored them they would have tried more crazy stuff just to get attention.
I can see why the cop in the largest clip was rather upset, busy city, lots of calls, probably lots of other things way more important to trying to protect people etc, and he gets stuck wasting time and effort just to help some people enhance their YouTube video.
On a side note, he did make a bit of a mistake by being grabby with the cameras. Realistically in my opinion the police should welcome audio / visual recording of everything & should carry cameras running at all times, it's the best way to show what really happened and not what some criminal's lawyer tries to say happened.
I blame YouTube
It seems since YouTube came along, civilization has gone straight downhill with people trying to do more stupid and dangerous things just to have their little bit of fame.
I'm personally very much against all this "indecent exposure" BS as I'm of the opinion that it's quite simply crazy religious taboos that stuck up religious zealots got put into law (if you are not sure just ask yourself why it's fine for the Discovery channel to have family friendly documentaries showing people running around naked just so long as they are black skinned and covered in dirt and in some desert, but if they happen to be white skinned & clean oh my god... it's horribly indecent)
In this case however the idiots were purposely trying to make a public spectacle and were hoping to get police attention to validate the YouTube worthyness of their prank. In fact I would say if the police had of ignored them they would have tried more crazy stuff just to get attention.
I can see why the cop in the largest clip was rather upset, busy city, lots of calls, probably lots of other things way more important to trying to protect people etc, and he gets stuck wasting time and effort just to help some people enhance their YouTube video.
On a side note, he did make a bit of a mistake by being grabby with the cameras. Realistically in my opinion the police should welcome audio / visual recording of everything & should carry cameras running at all times, it's the best way to show what really happened and not what some criminal's lawyer tries to say happened.
Re: Idiot Law?
Here let me help you out since your reading and comprehension skills are that of an 11 year old with ADHD.
This is the context of the statement I made. Stop picking out your favorite part and going off of it. What are you trying to prove highlighting just that part red and going down the road of "Oh lordy lord, you should stop being a LEO with that attitude." All someone has to do is read the whole statment to know what I was talking about. But you two idiots are continuing to chop it up and inject it as something it isnt. Care to elaborate on that fellas?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<span style="color: #CC0000">Take your SC rulings and shove it up your ass. It doesnt matter what my "legal" responsibility is. Knowing that you could have done something to help a person, but you were busy with bullshit, doesnt alleviate the aggrevation it causes. So until you are there, and done that, I stand by my statement of STFU until you can speak from experience and not in print.</span>
</div></div>
For those not aware, the "legal responsibility" mentioned is this: Police are not required to provide protection, and ARE NOT responsible (better word would be liable) for crimes committed in the officers absence. This is a SCOTUS decision. This, like many SCOTUS decisions, doesnt do a whole lot except take any civil or criminal liability off of LEOs. Hence, a "feel good" ruling that doesnt do that at all.
Just like you, LEOs are just as entitled to their opinions as well. For those who think that you should just leave your emotions at the door, yeah, that sounds real sweet on the internet. I guess in your years of LE experience you never got frustrated. Hell, I dont know any line of work where you are not going to get frustrated. If there is a crime comitted by the pranksters, cite or arrest them, I can live with that. If there was no crime, you can bet an ass chewing is more than in order. You want to call it unprofessional, fine. I am sure the ass chewing those idiots get is still lightyears ahead of pretending to pee on the sidewalk, as far as maturity is concerned.
Here let me help you out since your reading and comprehension skills are that of an 11 year old with ADHD.
This is the context of the statement I made. Stop picking out your favorite part and going off of it. What are you trying to prove highlighting just that part red and going down the road of "Oh lordy lord, you should stop being a LEO with that attitude." All someone has to do is read the whole statment to know what I was talking about. But you two idiots are continuing to chop it up and inject it as something it isnt. Care to elaborate on that fellas?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<span style="color: #CC0000">Take your SC rulings and shove it up your ass. It doesnt matter what my "legal" responsibility is. Knowing that you could have done something to help a person, but you were busy with bullshit, doesnt alleviate the aggrevation it causes. So until you are there, and done that, I stand by my statement of STFU until you can speak from experience and not in print.</span>
</div></div>
For those not aware, the "legal responsibility" mentioned is this: Police are not required to provide protection, and ARE NOT responsible (better word would be liable) for crimes committed in the officers absence. This is a SCOTUS decision. This, like many SCOTUS decisions, doesnt do a whole lot except take any civil or criminal liability off of LEOs. Hence, a "feel good" ruling that doesnt do that at all.
Just like you, LEOs are just as entitled to their opinions as well. For those who think that you should just leave your emotions at the door, yeah, that sounds real sweet on the internet. I guess in your years of LE experience you never got frustrated. Hell, I dont know any line of work where you are not going to get frustrated. If there is a crime comitted by the pranksters, cite or arrest them, I can live with that. If there was no crime, you can bet an ass chewing is more than in order. You want to call it unprofessional, fine. I am sure the ass chewing those idiots get is still lightyears ahead of pretending to pee on the sidewalk, as far as maturity is concerned.
Re: Idiot Law?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Here let me help you out since your reading and comprehension skills are that of an 11 year old with ADHD.
This is the context of the statement I made. Stop picking out your favorite part and going off of it. What are you trying to prove highlighting just that part red and going down the road of "Oh lordy lord, you should stop being a LEO with that attitude." All someone has to do is read the whole statment to know what I was talking about. But you two idiots are continuing to chop it up and inject it as something it isnt. Care to elaborate on that fellas?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<span style="color: #CC0000">Take your SC rulings and shove it up your ass. It doesnt matter what my "legal" responsibility is. Knowing that you could have done something to help a person, but you were busy with bullshit, doesnt alleviate the aggrevation it causes. So until you are there, and done that, I stand by my statement of STFU until you can speak from experience and not in print.</span>
</div></div>
For those not aware, the "legal responsibility" mentioned is this: Police are not required to provide protection, and ARE NOT responsible (better word would be liable) for crimes committed in the officers absence. This is a SCOTUS decision. This, like many SCOTUS decisions, doesnt do a whole lot except take any civil or criminal liability off of LEOs. Hence, a "feel good" ruling that doesnt do that at all.
<span style="color: #FF0000"><span style="font-weight: bold"> Just like you, LEOs are just as entitled to their opinions as we</span>ll.</span> For those who think that you should just leave your emotions at the door, yeah, that sounds real sweet on the internet. I guess in your years of LE experience you never got frustrated. Hell, I dont know any line of work where you are not going to get frustrated. If there is a crime comitted by the pranksters, cite or arrest them, I can live with that. If there was no crime, you can bet an ass chewing is more than in order. You want to call it unprofessional, fine. I am sure the ass chewing those idiots get is still lightyears ahead of pretending to pee on the sidewalk, as far as maturity is concerned.
</div></div>
Except in all your posts so far, you've explicitly stated that nobody else's opinions matter because they are not leo...you literally have nothing of worth to say so you resort to ad hominem attacks. I would tell you to be ashamed of yourself, but I doubt it would make any difference. You words make you a disgrace to all in uniform, and I thank God I've never had to deal with someone as incompetent, as well as apparently unethical, and ignorant as you in court.
ETA: You can't even be bothered to address the horrendous things you said, and that others said which you supported. It is disgusting that you wear a badge, I hope you are just slow and not actually malicious, because your posts are increasingly indicating you are the latter.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Here let me help you out since your reading and comprehension skills are that of an 11 year old with ADHD.
This is the context of the statement I made. Stop picking out your favorite part and going off of it. What are you trying to prove highlighting just that part red and going down the road of "Oh lordy lord, you should stop being a LEO with that attitude." All someone has to do is read the whole statment to know what I was talking about. But you two idiots are continuing to chop it up and inject it as something it isnt. Care to elaborate on that fellas?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<span style="color: #CC0000">Take your SC rulings and shove it up your ass. It doesnt matter what my "legal" responsibility is. Knowing that you could have done something to help a person, but you were busy with bullshit, doesnt alleviate the aggrevation it causes. So until you are there, and done that, I stand by my statement of STFU until you can speak from experience and not in print.</span>
</div></div>
For those not aware, the "legal responsibility" mentioned is this: Police are not required to provide protection, and ARE NOT responsible (better word would be liable) for crimes committed in the officers absence. This is a SCOTUS decision. This, like many SCOTUS decisions, doesnt do a whole lot except take any civil or criminal liability off of LEOs. Hence, a "feel good" ruling that doesnt do that at all.
<span style="color: #FF0000"><span style="font-weight: bold"> Just like you, LEOs are just as entitled to their opinions as we</span>ll.</span> For those who think that you should just leave your emotions at the door, yeah, that sounds real sweet on the internet. I guess in your years of LE experience you never got frustrated. Hell, I dont know any line of work where you are not going to get frustrated. If there is a crime comitted by the pranksters, cite or arrest them, I can live with that. If there was no crime, you can bet an ass chewing is more than in order. You want to call it unprofessional, fine. I am sure the ass chewing those idiots get is still lightyears ahead of pretending to pee on the sidewalk, as far as maturity is concerned.
</div></div>
Except in all your posts so far, you've explicitly stated that nobody else's opinions matter because they are not leo...you literally have nothing of worth to say so you resort to ad hominem attacks. I would tell you to be ashamed of yourself, but I doubt it would make any difference. You words make you a disgrace to all in uniform, and I thank God I've never had to deal with someone as incompetent, as well as apparently unethical, and ignorant as you in court.
ETA: You can't even be bothered to address the horrendous things you said, and that others said which you supported. It is disgusting that you wear a badge, I hope you are just slow and not actually malicious, because your posts are increasingly indicating you are the latter.
Re: Idiot Law?
I got his point. What is unclear about it? Assholes waste a Cops time for their own enjoyment or profit, indifferent to the risk that may impose on those whose lives may depend on the police at the very moment their time is being wasted.
The fact that the SCOTUS edicts amount to constitutionally equivalent law is hardly any correlative indication of the true factual righteousness of their ruling. The imbecilic decisions rendered this week on Arizona and healthcare are easy examples.
The idea that Cops must be unparalleled examples of infinite patience, regardless of provocation, i.e., automatons, and then also stand for abject criticism for being monolithically rigid and inhuman is a good demonstration of incoherence in my opinion.
No one believes that cops do no wrong.
I have little patience for the bullshitters with law degrees plying the legal trade at the moment.The Idea that we are supposed to uniformly and blindly follow the renderings of the appellate courts is childish and ignores the hugely idiotic and/or unconstitutional decisions these nearly unassailable potentates possess.
And don't get me started on the job security provided these arrogant loafs by the slavish devotion to Stare decisis...
I got his point. What is unclear about it? Assholes waste a Cops time for their own enjoyment or profit, indifferent to the risk that may impose on those whose lives may depend on the police at the very moment their time is being wasted.
The fact that the SCOTUS edicts amount to constitutionally equivalent law is hardly any correlative indication of the true factual righteousness of their ruling. The imbecilic decisions rendered this week on Arizona and healthcare are easy examples.
The idea that Cops must be unparalleled examples of infinite patience, regardless of provocation, i.e., automatons, and then also stand for abject criticism for being monolithically rigid and inhuman is a good demonstration of incoherence in my opinion.
No one believes that cops do no wrong.
I have little patience for the bullshitters with law degrees plying the legal trade at the moment.The Idea that we are supposed to uniformly and blindly follow the renderings of the appellate courts is childish and ignores the hugely idiotic and/or unconstitutional decisions these nearly unassailable potentates possess.
And don't get me started on the job security provided these arrogant loafs by the slavish devotion to Stare decisis...
Re: Idiot Law?
Maybe I should get some popcorn and come back...
Maybe I should get some popcorn and come back...
Re: Idiot Law?
SCARbliss wrote,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Except in all your posts so far, you've explicitly stated that nobody else's opinions matter because they are not leo...you literally have nothing of worth to say so you resort to ad hominem attacks. I would tell you to be ashamed of yourself, but I doubt it would make any difference. You words make you a disgrace to all in uniform, and I thank God I've never had to deal with someone as incompetent, as well as apparently unethical, and ignorant as you in court.
ETA: You can't even be bothered to address the horrendous things you said, and that others said which you supported. It is disgusting that you wear a badge, I hope you are just slow and not actually malicious, because your posts are increasingly indicating you are the latter.</div></div>
Actually Desertrat is one of the most articulate, and level-headed guys to come across this place in a long time. The fact that he has the patience and wherewithal to deal with some of the idiots (lets face it, there are complete idiots that love to chime in on these threads) and total buffoonery that manifests itself here, tells me a lot about the guy.
I don't think he is a disgrace at all. Quite the contrary, I'm sure that he is a credit to wherever he works and whomever he serves. We need more like him.
I think that the main issue is that most are to obtuse and puerile to grasp exactly what it is he is trying to convey. Just look at the basic scope of this thread. Guys wanting their 15 minutes of fame, provoke the police into a response and when the police respond: "Ha Ha Ha, jokes on you it's only water in a bottle". Cop gets annoyed and all of a sudden it's "whoa is me, I'm a victim cause the cop yelled at me".
They weren't worried about offending anyone when they were pretending to piss in a public place, so why be offended at being called an idiot by the responding cop? Double fucking standard. FUCK THEM and their sense of humor. Completely juvenile and anyone who supports this type of bullshit shows their colors. Cool if it's 14 year olds responding in the thread but if you're an adult and condone this type of shit then perhaps you need to reevaluate your life.
SCARbliss wrote,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Except in all your posts so far, you've explicitly stated that nobody else's opinions matter because they are not leo...you literally have nothing of worth to say so you resort to ad hominem attacks. I would tell you to be ashamed of yourself, but I doubt it would make any difference. You words make you a disgrace to all in uniform, and I thank God I've never had to deal with someone as incompetent, as well as apparently unethical, and ignorant as you in court.
ETA: You can't even be bothered to address the horrendous things you said, and that others said which you supported. It is disgusting that you wear a badge, I hope you are just slow and not actually malicious, because your posts are increasingly indicating you are the latter.</div></div>
Actually Desertrat is one of the most articulate, and level-headed guys to come across this place in a long time. The fact that he has the patience and wherewithal to deal with some of the idiots (lets face it, there are complete idiots that love to chime in on these threads) and total buffoonery that manifests itself here, tells me a lot about the guy.
I don't think he is a disgrace at all. Quite the contrary, I'm sure that he is a credit to wherever he works and whomever he serves. We need more like him.
I think that the main issue is that most are to obtuse and puerile to grasp exactly what it is he is trying to convey. Just look at the basic scope of this thread. Guys wanting their 15 minutes of fame, provoke the police into a response and when the police respond: "Ha Ha Ha, jokes on you it's only water in a bottle". Cop gets annoyed and all of a sudden it's "whoa is me, I'm a victim cause the cop yelled at me".
They weren't worried about offending anyone when they were pretending to piss in a public place, so why be offended at being called an idiot by the responding cop? Double fucking standard. FUCK THEM and their sense of humor. Completely juvenile and anyone who supports this type of bullshit shows their colors. Cool if it's 14 year olds responding in the thread but if you're an adult and condone this type of shit then perhaps you need to reevaluate your life.
Re: Idiot Law?
Mark it down folks I agree with Slapchop again. If this keeps happening people are gonna talk....
Mark it down folks I agree with Slapchop again. If this keeps happening people are gonna talk....
Re: Idiot Law?
Whats funny is that some of the same clowns who seem to think it's okay to urinate and defaecate in public and that a law preventing such disgusting behavior is wrong or idiotic, get offended when I wish their kids play in the same urine and feces that they supported being discharged in public.
Whats funny is that some of the same clowns who seem to think it's okay to urinate and defaecate in public and that a law preventing such disgusting behavior is wrong or idiotic, get offended when I wish their kids play in the same urine and feces that they supported being discharged in public.
Re: Idiot Law?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Slapchop</div><div class="ubbcode-body">SCARbliss wrote,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Except in all your posts so far, you've explicitly stated that nobody else's opinions matter because they are not leo...you literally have nothing of worth to say so you resort to ad hominem attacks. I would tell you to be ashamed of yourself, but I doubt it would make any difference. You words make you a disgrace to all in uniform, and I thank God I've never had to deal with someone as incompetent, as well as apparently unethical, and ignorant as you in court.
ETA: You can't even be bothered to address the horrendous things you said, and that others said which you supported. It is disgusting that you wear a badge, I hope you are just slow and not actually malicious, because your posts are increasingly indicating you are the latter.</div></div>
Actually Desertrat is one of the most articulate, and level-headed guys to come across this place in a long time. The fact that he has the patience and wherewithal to deal with some of the idiots (lets face it, there are complete idiots that love to chime in on these threads) and total buffoonery that manifests itself here, tells me a lot about the guy.
I don't think he is a disgrace at all. Quite the contrary, I'm sure that he is a credit to wherever he works and whomever he serves. We need more like him.
I think that the main issue is that most are to obtuse and puerile to grasp exactly what it is he is trying to convey. Just look at the basic scope of this thread. Guys wanting their 15 minutes of fame, provoke the police into a response and when the police respond: "Ha Ha Ha, jokes on you it's only water in a bottle". Cop gets annoyed and all of a sudden it's "whoa is me, I'm a victim cause the cop yelled at me".
They weren't worried about offending anyone when they were pretending to piss in a public place, so why be offended at being called an idiot by the responding cop? Double fucking standard. FUCK THEM and their sense of humor. Completely juvenile and anyone who supports this type of bullshit shows their colors. Cool if it's 14 year olds responding in the thread but if you're an adult and condone this type of shit then perhaps you need to reevaluate your life. </div></div>
Once again, you miss the point. Nowhere did I even mention the bottle video, I was mentioning how inappropriate the comments YOU and mintycock and desertrat made were for LEO. If you can't grasp that then there's nothing left for me to say in this thread.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Slapchop</div><div class="ubbcode-body">SCARbliss wrote,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Except in all your posts so far, you've explicitly stated that nobody else's opinions matter because they are not leo...you literally have nothing of worth to say so you resort to ad hominem attacks. I would tell you to be ashamed of yourself, but I doubt it would make any difference. You words make you a disgrace to all in uniform, and I thank God I've never had to deal with someone as incompetent, as well as apparently unethical, and ignorant as you in court.
ETA: You can't even be bothered to address the horrendous things you said, and that others said which you supported. It is disgusting that you wear a badge, I hope you are just slow and not actually malicious, because your posts are increasingly indicating you are the latter.</div></div>
Actually Desertrat is one of the most articulate, and level-headed guys to come across this place in a long time. The fact that he has the patience and wherewithal to deal with some of the idiots (lets face it, there are complete idiots that love to chime in on these threads) and total buffoonery that manifests itself here, tells me a lot about the guy.
I don't think he is a disgrace at all. Quite the contrary, I'm sure that he is a credit to wherever he works and whomever he serves. We need more like him.
I think that the main issue is that most are to obtuse and puerile to grasp exactly what it is he is trying to convey. Just look at the basic scope of this thread. Guys wanting their 15 minutes of fame, provoke the police into a response and when the police respond: "Ha Ha Ha, jokes on you it's only water in a bottle". Cop gets annoyed and all of a sudden it's "whoa is me, I'm a victim cause the cop yelled at me".
They weren't worried about offending anyone when they were pretending to piss in a public place, so why be offended at being called an idiot by the responding cop? Double fucking standard. FUCK THEM and their sense of humor. Completely juvenile and anyone who supports this type of bullshit shows their colors. Cool if it's 14 year olds responding in the thread but if you're an adult and condone this type of shit then perhaps you need to reevaluate your life. </div></div>
Once again, you miss the point. Nowhere did I even mention the bottle video, I was mentioning how inappropriate the comments YOU and mintycock and desertrat made were for LEO. If you can't grasp that then there's nothing left for me to say in this thread.
Re: Idiot Law?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Slapchop</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you a man? If so, stop being a thin-skinned faggot, reach down between your legs. That fleshy sack you feel, is your balls. Use them.
Hopefully this doesn't offend you too much. </div></div>
Big man on the internet huh? With a disposition like yours I don't envy any prosecutor who would have you as the arresting officer, because you're obviously an incredible liability. Lulz
ETA: Love how you guys whine and cry about cop bashing, but love to bash non leo every chance you get and have absolutely no shame about it. Ignorant tools who don't deserve to wear the uniform.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Slapchop</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you a man? If so, stop being a thin-skinned faggot, reach down between your legs. That fleshy sack you feel, is your balls. Use them.
Hopefully this doesn't offend you too much. </div></div>
Big man on the internet huh? With a disposition like yours I don't envy any prosecutor who would have you as the arresting officer, because you're obviously an incredible liability. Lulz
ETA: Love how you guys whine and cry about cop bashing, but love to bash non leo every chance you get and have absolutely no shame about it. Ignorant tools who don't deserve to wear the uniform.
Re: Idiot Law?
Re: Idiot Law?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SCARbliss</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Once again, you miss the point. Nowhere did I even mention the bottle video, I was mentioning how inappropriate the comments YOU and mintycock and desertrat made were for LEO. If you can't grasp that then there's nothing left for me to say in this thread.</div></div>
Really? What comment would that be? What did I say that, by your own indications, is unbecoming of an officer? Please elaborate for all of us. You can go ahead and pick whatever portion of a statement, any fragment of the whole. It doesnt change the context it was originaly presented in. It actually really pathetic that someone even would even attempt it. But I guess they dont teach ethics and honesty in law school.
As far as your point?.?.? The fucking Hubble telescope cant see your point.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SCARbliss</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Once again, you miss the point. Nowhere did I even mention the bottle video, I was mentioning how inappropriate the comments YOU and mintycock and desertrat made were for LEO. If you can't grasp that then there's nothing left for me to say in this thread.</div></div>
Really? What comment would that be? What did I say that, by your own indications, is unbecoming of an officer? Please elaborate for all of us. You can go ahead and pick whatever portion of a statement, any fragment of the whole. It doesnt change the context it was originaly presented in. It actually really pathetic that someone even would even attempt it. But I guess they dont teach ethics and honesty in law school.
As far as your point?.?.? The fucking Hubble telescope cant see your point.
Re: Idiot Law?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SCARbliss</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Once again, you miss the point. Nowhere did I even mention the bottle video, I was mentioning how inappropriate the comments YOU and mintycock and desertrat made were for LEO. If you can't grasp that then there's nothing left for me to say in this thread.</div></div>
Really? What comment would that be? What did I say that, by your own indications, is unbecoming of an officer? Please elaborate for all of us. You can go ahead and pick whatever portion of a statement, any fragment of the whole. It doesnt change the context it was originaly presented in. It actually really pathetic that someone even would even attempt it. But I guess they dont teach ethics and honesty in law school.
As far as your point?.?.? The fucking Hubble telescope cant see your point. </div></div>
I already did about 6 times in my previous posts, but you simply sidestepped them and went on ranting on a tangent each time rather than respond, anyone can go back and read the plethora of examples, but does telling people to shove the law up their ass ring a bell? Or maybe saying that slapchop and mintycock were A-OK for saying that non-leo should be raped or have their children play in human feces? No point in discussing anything further with you because you obviously have the mental capacity of a cactus.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SCARbliss</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Once again, you miss the point. Nowhere did I even mention the bottle video, I was mentioning how inappropriate the comments YOU and mintycock and desertrat made were for LEO. If you can't grasp that then there's nothing left for me to say in this thread.</div></div>
Really? What comment would that be? What did I say that, by your own indications, is unbecoming of an officer? Please elaborate for all of us. You can go ahead and pick whatever portion of a statement, any fragment of the whole. It doesnt change the context it was originaly presented in. It actually really pathetic that someone even would even attempt it. But I guess they dont teach ethics and honesty in law school.
As far as your point?.?.? The fucking Hubble telescope cant see your point. </div></div>
I already did about 6 times in my previous posts, but you simply sidestepped them and went on ranting on a tangent each time rather than respond, anyone can go back and read the plethora of examples, but does telling people to shove the law up their ass ring a bell? Or maybe saying that slapchop and mintycock were A-OK for saying that non-leo should be raped or have their children play in human feces? No point in discussing anything further with you because you obviously have the mental capacity of a cactus.
