It is currently Mon Nov 25, 2024 10:19 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 273 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Who was more at fault?
Sterling Brown 53%  53%  [ 10 ]
The police 47%  47%  [ 9 ]
Total votes : 19
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 19045
pizza_Place: World Famous Pizza
Curious Hair wrote:
Milwaukee PD will settle before this gets ugly. Remember that the state recently defunded the University of Wisconsin to pay for the Bucks' new arena. You don't want to look that hostile to your precious toy, do you?


I imagine those who sport a half-chub at the mere thought of a black getting what's coming to him care little that that commie factory in Madison was defunded.

_________________
Seacrest wrote:
The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:12 am
Posts: 1362
pizza_Place: J.B. Alberto's
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
KDdidit wrote:
No one’s going to read that, problem averted.


Yep.


Except we had at least one person on the board belaboring that exact, erroneous, point, before he was showed exactly why it is reasonable for officers to command you to remove your hands from your pockets before they've searched you.

People should be dispelling that notion, not reporting it and alleging it as a fact in a lawsuit.


It calls into question why they didn't just search him to begin with. It's a pretty standard procedure and they had plenty of time to do it.

_________________
"Now comes good sailing. Moose. Indian."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 1:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 22533
pizza_Place: Giordano's
MajorKong wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
KDdidit wrote:
No one’s going to read that, problem averted.


Yep.


Except we had at least one person on the board belaboring that exact, erroneous, point, before he was showed exactly why it is reasonable for officers to command you to remove your hands from your pockets before they've searched you.

People should be dispelling that notion, not reporting it and alleging it as a fact in a lawsuit.


It calls into question why they didn't just search him to begin with. It's a pretty standard procedure and they had plenty of time to do it.


Sure it does. But not following procedure for timely searching of someone being detained isnt a violation of the detainee's civil rights. The order go remove his hands was a lawful one, and the forceful arrest was reasonable after he failed to comply. The Taser is too much force, and he should be compensated for that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92067
Location: To the left of my post
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Quote:
The justification narrative they settle on omits several facts evident from the videos, the suit says, especially that police had “observed Mr. Brown for many minutes while his hands were in and out of his pockets and that Mr. Brown was actually attempting to remove his hands from his pockets after [officers] initiated their scheme to use excessive force against him.”


More "Cops can't lawfully order someone to take their hands out of their pockets after they've seen you with your hands in and out of your pockets for MANY minutes, that proves you don't have a weapon" lunacy.

This kind of shit is dangerous because people are going to read it and think that's actually true.

It's pretty amusing that a hypothetical gun also makes a person a serious threat to law enforcement yet average citizens shouldn't view gun owners as threats.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
badrogue17 wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Quote:
The justification narrative they settle on omits several facts evident from the videos, the suit says, especially that police had “observed Mr. Brown for many minutes while his hands were in and out of his pockets and that Mr. Brown was actually attempting to remove his hands from his pockets after [officers] initiated their scheme to use excessive force against him.”


More "Cops can't lawfully order someone to take their hands out of their pockets after they've seen you with your hands in and out of your pockets for MANY minutes, that proves you don't have a weapon" lunacy.

This kind of shit is dangerous because people are going to read it and think that's actually true.

Its gonna be cool when he's asked in court why he didnt comply with lawful orders and he says " cuz I was cold"

Im asking here because I dont know but is it a crime do disobey a lawful order? Who decides if it's lawful?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 pm
Posts: 68612
pizza_Place: Lina's Pizza
rogers park bryan wrote:
badrogue17 wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Quote:
The justification narrative they settle on omits several facts evident from the videos, the suit says, especially that police had “observed Mr. Brown for many minutes while his hands were in and out of his pockets and that Mr. Brown was actually attempting to remove his hands from his pockets after [officers] initiated their scheme to use excessive force against him.”


More "Cops can't lawfully order someone to take their hands out of their pockets after they've seen you with your hands in and out of your pockets for MANY minutes, that proves you don't have a weapon" lunacy.

This kind of shit is dangerous because people are going to read it and think that's actually true.

Its gonna be cool when he's asked in court why he didnt comply with lawful orders and he says " cuz I was cold"

Im asking here because I dont know but is it a crime do disobey a lawful order? Who decides if it's lawful?


Yes.

The Police.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Terry's Peeps wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
badrogue17 wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Quote:
The justification narrative they settle on omits several facts evident from the videos, the suit says, especially that police had “observed Mr. Brown for many minutes while his hands were in and out of his pockets and that Mr. Brown was actually attempting to remove his hands from his pockets after [officers] initiated their scheme to use excessive force against him.”


More "Cops can't lawfully order someone to take their hands out of their pockets after they've seen you with your hands in and out of your pockets for MANY minutes, that proves you don't have a weapon" lunacy.

This kind of shit is dangerous because people are going to read it and think that's actually true.

Its gonna be cool when he's asked in court why he didnt comply with lawful orders and he says " cuz I was cold"

Im asking here because I dont know but is it a crime do disobey a lawful order? Who decides if it's lawful?


Yes.

The Police.

Well of course the police think it's lawful, but ultimately the judge decides?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 10:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 22533
pizza_Place: Giordano's
rogers park bryan wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
badrogue17 wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Quote:
The justification narrative they settle on omits several facts evident from the videos, the suit says, especially that police had “observed Mr. Brown for many minutes while his hands were in and out of his pockets and that Mr. Brown was actually attempting to remove his hands from his pockets after [officers] initiated their scheme to use excessive force against him.”


More "Cops can't lawfully order someone to take their hands out of their pockets after they've seen you with your hands in and out of your pockets for MANY minutes, that proves you don't have a weapon" lunacy.

This kind of shit is dangerous because people are going to read it and think that's actually true.

Its gonna be cool when he's asked in court why he didnt comply with lawful orders and he says " cuz I was cold"

Im asking here because I dont know but is it a crime do disobey a lawful order? Who decides if it's lawful?


Yes.

The Police.

Well of course the police think it's lawful, but ultimately the judge decides?


The judge/jury would decide, if that becomes material. Disobeying the lawful order both acts as an offense and as the justification for further use of force to gain compliance while in police custody/detention.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
https://www.yahoo.com/news/cut-hair-wom ... 01337.html



Why do cops think people being dicks to them is illegal and an arrestable offense? I'm pretty sure it's not.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19521
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
rogers park bryan wrote:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/cut-hair-woman-struggles-officer-video-shockingly-violent-arrest-200801337.html



Why do cops think people being dicks to them is illegal and an arrestable offense? I'm pretty sure it's not.


Because they've been given incredible power over people.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 22533
pizza_Place: Giordano's
rogers park bryan wrote:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/cut-hair-woman-struggles-officer-video-shockingly-violent-arrest-200801337.html



Why do cops think people being dicks to them is illegal and an arrestable offense? I'm pretty sure it's not.


Why do people think they can just disobey lawful orders and then resist attempts to arrest them? One reason is because people like you will eat this shit up despite the facts: Lawful traffic stop, the people in the car appeared to be drunk and underage, lawful order to exit the vehicle, unlawful resisting of arrest.

Another is they think there's a big payout to be had by resisting lawful arrest and then getting forcefully arrested: "Weeee're takin you guyss to court." :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/cut-hair-woman-struggles-officer-video-shockingly-violent-arrest-200801337.html



Why do cops think people being dicks to them is illegal and an arrestable offense? I'm pretty sure it's not.


Why do people think they can just disobey lawful orders and then resist attempts to arrest them? One reason is because people like you will eat this shit up despite the facts: Lawful traffic stop, the people in the car appeared to be drunk and underage, lawful order to exit the vehicle, unlawful resisting of arrest.

You dont know any of that. You're assuming the cop in question is telling the truth. She may be, she may not be.

The girl did not appear to be impaired at all.

But let's be real: The cop told her to get out of the car, because she was giving her attitude, not ANY other reason. It's 100% clear.


Again, Ill ask since you are a lawyer: Is being a dick to cops an arrestable offense? I dont think it is.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 22533
pizza_Place: Giordano's
rogers park bryan wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/cut-hair-woman-struggles-officer-video-shockingly-violent-arrest-200801337.html



Why do cops think people being dicks to them is illegal and an arrestable offense? I'm pretty sure it's not.


Why do people think they can just disobey lawful orders and then resist attempts to arrest them? One reason is because people like you will eat this shit up despite the facts: Lawful traffic stop, the people in the car appeared to be drunk and underage, lawful order to exit the vehicle, unlawful resisting of arrest.

You dont know any of that. You're assuming the cop in question is telling the truth. She may be, she may not be.

The girl did not appear to be impaired at all.



As an expert on getting and being drunk, I can tell you the chick was drunk. These were college cops who see drunkeness a shit ton, I'm sure they have more keen of an eye than me.


rogers park bryan wrote:
But let's be real: The cop told her to get out of the car, because she was giving her attitude, not ANY other reason. It's 100% clear.


Her attitude ended up getting her arrested, but the "arrestable offense" was disobeying a lawful order and then resisting arrest. She may not have even been arrested had she gotten out of the car when the cop asked. She almost certainly wouldn't have been told to get out of the car if she had been pleasant and not given the cop a hard time.

I know now you're going to make the "thing" here the cop telling her to get out of the car because of an attitude, but your first post made it seem like the attitude was the reason she was arrested, and it very clearly was not.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 22533
pizza_Place: Giordano's
rogers park bryan wrote:


Again, Ill ask since you are a lawyer: Is being a dick to cops an arrestable offense? I dont think it is.


Not a lawyer, and disobeying a lawful order and resisting arrest/detention are arrestable offenses, and those two things are what got her arrested.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:44 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79559
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
She didn't seem drunk to me. If you don't think the cops were completely unreasonable there, I'm not sure what to tell you. Maybe you want to live in a police state.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
She didn't seem drunk to me. If you don't think the cops were completely unreasonable there, I'm not sure what to tell you. Maybe you want to live in a police state.

Yea, definitely did not appear drunk.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Her attitude ended up getting her arrested, but the "arrestable offense" was disobeying a lawful order and then resisting arrest. She may not have even been arrested had she gotten out of the car when the cop asked. She almost certainly wouldn't have been told to get out of the car if she had been pleasant and not given the cop a hard time.

That's an issue, imo.


Attitude should not affect the procedure.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 22533
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
She didn't seem drunk to me.


She wasn't cartoonishly drunk, but coupling the observation of her standing through the sunroof with the pains she was taking with her elocution, I assess with high probability that she was drunk and trying to hide it.

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
If you don't think the cops were completely unreasonable there, I'm not sure what to tell you. Maybe you want to live in a police state.


Come on, JORR, don't pull that shit with me. You're better than this, and I deserve more out of you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 22533
pizza_Place: Giordano's
rogers park bryan wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Her attitude ended up getting her arrested, but the "arrestable offense" was disobeying a lawful order and then resisting arrest. She may not have even been arrested had she gotten out of the car when the cop asked. She almost certainly wouldn't have been told to get out of the car if she had been pleasant and not given the cop a hard time.

That's an issue, imo.


Attitude should not affect the procedure.


So you want Robocop. He's not available, the best we've got right now are humans, and there is going to be some human-like ebb and flow to police interaction. I'm fine with that, not sure why you aren't.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Her attitude ended up getting her arrested, but the "arrestable offense" was disobeying a lawful order and then resisting arrest. She may not have even been arrested had she gotten out of the car when the cop asked. She almost certainly wouldn't have been told to get out of the car if she had been pleasant and not given the cop a hard time.

That's an issue, imo.


Attitude should not affect the procedure.


So you want Robocop. He's not available, the best we've got right now are humans, and there is going to be some human-like ebb and flow to police interaction. I'm fine with that, not sure why you aren't.

Im all for robot umpires too.

But, it's not normal ebb and flow. You know there are a significant number of cops out there with the "just give me a reason" mindset.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:52 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79559
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
She didn't seem drunk to me.


She wasn't cartoonishly drunk, but coupling the observation of her standing through the sunroof with the pains she was taking with her elocution, I assess with high probability that she was drunk and trying to hide it.

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
If you don't think the cops were completely unreasonable there, I'm not sure what to tell you. Maybe you want to live in a police state.


Come on, JORR, don't pull that shit with me. You're better than this, and I deserve more out of you.



Did you just "Be better" me? :lol: That's kind of an SJW thing to do.

Seriously, I don't see how anyone could think that police officer was reasonable. She argued with the woman over her name. I don't think she's fit to be a police officer. In fact, I'm pretty sure she isn't one. She's likely just a keystone cop working for a university with less training than a real officer. She's Paul Blart.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 22533
pizza_Place: Giordano's
rogers park bryan wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Her attitude ended up getting her arrested, but the "arrestable offense" was disobeying a lawful order and then resisting arrest. She may not have even been arrested had she gotten out of the car when the cop asked. She almost certainly wouldn't have been told to get out of the car if she had been pleasant and not given the cop a hard time.

That's an issue, imo.


Attitude should not affect the procedure.


So you want Robocop. He's not available, the best we've got right now are humans, and there is going to be some human-like ebb and flow to police interaction. I'm fine with that, not sure why you aren't.

Im all for robot umpires too.

But, it's not normal ebb and flow. You know there are a significant number of cops out there with the "just give me a reason" mindset.


The ebb and flow is: Be pleasant, and if the offense isn't that serious, you'll be let go with a warning; Be an argumentative ass about a last name for a couple minutes after being observed doing illegal shit, and arrest becomes more imminent.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 22533
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Seriously, I don't see how anyone could think that police officer was reasonable.


What would a "reasonable" officer done in that circumstance? Observed acting recklessly in a vehicle on a public street, high probability of drunkeness, and you also know the person isn't old enough to be drunk, let alone drunk in public. Not what does Officer JORR do, but what does a "reasonable officer" do at the point the video picks up?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Her attitude ended up getting her arrested, but the "arrestable offense" was disobeying a lawful order and then resisting arrest. She may not have even been arrested had she gotten out of the car when the cop asked. She almost certainly wouldn't have been told to get out of the car if she had been pleasant and not given the cop a hard time.

That's an issue, imo.


Attitude should not affect the procedure.


So you want Robocop. He's not available, the best we've got right now are humans, and there is going to be some human-like ebb and flow to police interaction. I'm fine with that, not sure why you aren't.

Im all for robot umpires too.

But, it's not normal ebb and flow. You know there are a significant number of cops out there with the "just give me a reason" mindset.


The ebb and flow is: Be pleasant, and if the offense isn't that serious, you'll be let go with a warning; Be an argumentative ass about a last name for a couple minutes after being observed doing illegal shit, and arrest becomes more imminent.

So you are ok with an arrest happening or not being based on how pleasant the person is?

I think that's pretty fucked, but to each their own.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Seriously, I don't see how anyone could think that police officer was reasonable.


What would a "reasonable" officer done in that circumstance? Observed acting recklessly in a vehicle on a public street, high probability of drunkeness, and you also know the person isn't old enough to be drunk, let alone drunk in public. Not what does Officer JORR do, but what does a "reasonable officer" do at the point the video picks up?

Accept that the girl's last name is what she says it is. Move on from that to the next part of the procedure.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 22533
pizza_Place: Giordano's
rogers park bryan wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
The ebb and flow is: Be pleasant, and if the offense isn't that serious, you'll be let go with a warning; Be an argumentative ass about a last name for a couple minutes after being observed doing illegal shit, and arrest becomes more imminent.

So you are ok with an arrest happening or not being based on how pleasant the person is?

I think that's pretty fucked, but to each their own.


"I think discretion from police is pretty fucked."

Ok, then. Enjoy the rest of your week.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 33067
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
rogers park bryan wrote:
Im all for robot umpires too.

But, it's not normal ebb and flow. You know there are a significant number of cops out there with the "just give me a reason" mindset.


Right from the start
You were a thief, you stole my heart
And I your willing victim
I let you see the parts of me, that weren't all that pretty
And with every touch you fixed them
Now you've been talking in your sleep oh oh
Things you never say to me oh oh
Tell me that you've had enough
Of our love, our love
Just give me a reason, just a little bit's enough
Just a second we're not broken just bent, and we can learn to love again
It's in the stars, it's been written in the scars on our hearts
We're not broken just bent, and we can learn to love again

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 22533
pizza_Place: Giordano's
rogers park bryan wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Seriously, I don't see how anyone could think that police officer was reasonable.


What would a "reasonable" officer done in that circumstance? Observed acting recklessly in a vehicle on a public street, high probability of drunkeness, and you also know the person isn't old enough to be drunk, let alone drunk in public. Not what does Officer JORR do, but what does a "reasonable officer" do at the point the video picks up?

Accept that the girl's last name is what she says it is. Move on from that to the next part of the procedure.


Like tell her to get out of the car?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92067
Location: To the left of my post
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
She didn't seem drunk to me. If you don't think the cops were completely unreasonable there, I'm not sure what to tell you. Maybe you want to live in a police state.
Don't worry. I'm sure JLN will soon be saying she was a danger because of a hypothetical gun she could have had. At least she wasn't listening to Drake.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
The ebb and flow is: Be pleasant, and if the offense isn't that serious, you'll be let go with a warning; Be an argumentative ass about a last name for a couple minutes after being observed doing illegal shit, and arrest becomes more imminent.

So you are ok with an arrest happening or not being based on how pleasant the person is?

I think that's pretty fucked, but to each their own.


"I think discretion from police is pretty fucked."

Ok, then. Enjoy the rest of your week.

That's not what I said.

You think cops should be able to detain people for disrespect or not being "pleasant" and yes, that is truly "fucked"

Enjoy the quest for a police state.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 273 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group