NAACP

Hogboy · Troll

RE: NAACP

eltsacon · I have seen USofA's big balls

For the most part, I have to agree.

USofGay · I feel entitled, so answer me darnit

Hogboy wrote:

USofAcop wrote:

eltsacon wrote:

Hogboy wrote:

Plush wrote:

If a cop tells me to do something, i do it. That kid shouls have just complied. Now i do believe that some cops go a little extreme, but in this case, no. If it's my life on the line, I would have done the same thing. Who knows what he had in his pocket.

Although his FINGERTIPS were in his pockets, you could see the kid's hands were empty. He was standing there FLATFOOTED and OBVIOULSY was not getting ready to fight. Most experienced cops can pick up on signals wen somebody wants to go the hard way. This kis looked soft and docile to me. he was just a smart-mouthed,spoiled little upper middle class punk and there were TWO cops there. He was NOT GOING TO RESIST. I would bet big money on that. As soon as the cop grabbed ahold of his arm he would put his hands behind his back VERY quickly. Whacking somebody in the throat can cause serious injury or death. It could have collapsed his windpipe and killed him. If he had died from that whack in teh throat a jury would have put that cop in prison and that punk's family would be living off the taxpayers and living in the cop's house.

He used more force than was necessary to affect that arrest

-- Edited by Hogboy at 22:05, 2006-11-07

Well, as much as I hate to say it. I agree with hogboy here. Out of princible, I have to admit this. I could see his hands. He was just being stupid, not to mention he looked so fucked up he could hardly figure out what was going on. But, thats me.

I never said that it was the best method, I simply said that it was justifiable if articulated correctly.

An agency that appears on COPS has full editing rights. LVMPD approved it to air, so I would assume that they had no or little issue with it.

So, if you were this cop and you were up in IA under the hot lights and knowing there was a video which has been shon on national television---How would you "articulate" this?????

Maybe you could try these lines:

"The guy was a 140 lb dynamo. I know he looked skinny and weak, but he looked like a skateboarder and those guys are WILD..."

"The kid had a hemp necklace. That means he was probably a pot head and pot gives people the strength of 10 men just like PCP...Doesn;t it ?????"

"I know the kid was standing flat-footed and slouching with his fingertips in his pockets, but that could have been a diversionary technique. I read in karate magazine that a lot of Ninjas do that..."

"The kid was falling down drunk. I had tho slam hin in the throat before he fell down all by himself"

Let me explain something. When you justify the use of force, you look at three things; 1. Intent, 2. Ability 3. Opportunity....For example, a suspect who is on the corner, but his gun is locked in a safe in the house, does not have the opportunity to shoot you.....A suspect who has a gun in his belt, but his hands in the air and he is saying "please don;t shoot me, I give up" is PROBABLY showing that he does not INTEND to shoot you. A man with no arms, legs and teeth, laying on the ground does not have the ability to assault you....

The kid did not show any serious intent to harm the two cops

The kid was small and weak, so he did not have the ability

The kid was was flat-footed with his hands in his pockets. he had no opportunity

When IA under these so called hot lights, I would use this line...

"I am not speaking to you until my attorney arrives."

Now, the other thing is, had you seen the episode on COPS, the whole thing as shown on COPS, not just this clip, you would know that he already attacked one person. You also know that the Police Officer who took him out was there by himself when he took him out, and it was not the "two cops" picture that you paint.

Knowing that he already attacked one person, I have no reason whatsoever to wait until I am attacked to then decide I should be reacting.

Buttercup · Monkey Proof is Beautiful yet hideous

USofAcop wrote:

When IA under these so called hot lights, I would use this line...

"I am not speaking to you until my attorney arrives."

Now, the other thing is, had you seen the episode on COPS, the whole thing as shown on COPS, not just this clip, you would know that he already attacked one person. You also know that the Police Officer who took him out was there by himself when he took him out, and it was not the "two cops" picture that you paint.

Knowing that he already attacked one person, I have no reason whatsoever to wait until I am attacked to then decide I should be reacting.

If I can throw this in, one also has to realize that even if you'd seen the entire episode of "COPS," it's television for one thing, and for another it's edited. What was seen in the entire episode is probably still not truly representative of everything that took place.

USofGay · I feel entitled, so answer me darnit

Buttercup wrote:

USofAcop wrote:

When IA under these so called hot lights, I would use this line...

"I am not speaking to you until my attorney arrives."

Now, the other thing is, had you seen the episode on COPS, the whole thing as shown on COPS, not just this clip, you would know that he already attacked one person. You also know that the Police Officer who took him out was there by himself when he took him out, and it was not the "two cops" picture that you paint.

Knowing that he already attacked one person, I have no reason whatsoever to wait until I am attacked to then decide I should be reacting.

If I can throw this in, one also has to realize that even if you'd seen the entire episode of "COPS," it's television for one thing, and for another it's edited. What was seen in the entire episode is probably still not truly representative of everything that took place.

Correct.

Plush · Make believe Slutty Zombie/Official TOP Drama Queen

Hogboy wrote:

Plush wrote:

If a cop tells me to do something, i do it. That kid shouls have just complied. Now i do believe that some cops go a little extreme, but in this case, no. If it's my life on the line, I would have done the same thing. Who knows what he had in his pocket.

Although his FINGERTIPS were in his pockets, you could see the kid's hands were empty. He was standing there FLATFOOTED and OBVIOULSY was not getting ready to fight. Most experienced cops can pick up on signals wen somebody wants to go the hard way. This kis looked soft and docile to me. he was just a smart-mouthed,spoiled little upper middle class punk and there were TWO cops there. He was NOT GOING TO RESIST. I would bet big money on that. As soon as the cop grabbed ahold of his arm he would put his hands behind his back VERY quickly. Whacking somebody in the throat can cause serious injury or death. It could have collapsed his windpipe and killed him. If he had died from that whack in teh throat a jury would have put that cop in prison and that punk's family would be living off the taxpayers and living in the cop's house.

He used more force than was necessary to affect that arrest

-- Edited by Hogboy at 22:05, 2006-11-07

And I am sure that he would be ver happy to know that YOU are betting with his life. It's simple, the dumbfuck should have just took his hands out. If he had nothing to hide, than no big deal. Stubborness will get you nowhere with the 5.0. It is called resisting and after that, the gloves are off and 9 out of 10 times, the cop is gonna win...

Hogboy · Troll

USofAcop wrote:

Hogboy wrote:

USofAcop wrote:

eltsacon wrote:

Hogboy wrote:

Plush wrote:

If a cop tells me to do something, i do it. That kid shouls have just complied. Now i do believe that some cops go a little extreme, but in this case, no. If it's my life on the line, I would have done the same thing. Who knows what he had in his pocket.

Although his FINGERTIPS were in his pockets, you could see the kid's hands were empty. He was standing there FLATFOOTED and OBVIOULSY was not getting ready to fight. Most experienced cops can pick up on signals wen somebody wants to go the hard way. This kis looked soft and docile to me. he was just a smart-mouthed,spoiled little upper middle class punk and there were TWO cops there. He was NOT GOING TO RESIST. I would bet big money on that. As soon as the cop grabbed ahold of his arm he would put his hands behind his back VERY quickly. Whacking somebody in the throat can cause serious injury or death. It could have collapsed his windpipe and killed him. If he had died from that whack in teh throat a jury would have put that cop in prison and that punk's family would be living off the taxpayers and living in the cop's house.

He used more force than was necessary to affect that arrest

-- Edited by Hogboy at 22:05, 2006-11-07

Well, as much as I hate to say it. I agree with hogboy here. Out of princible, I have to admit this. I could see his hands. He was just being stupid, not to mention he looked so fucked up he could hardly figure out what was going on. But, thats me.

I never said that it was the best method, I simply said that it was justifiable if articulated correctly.

An agency that appears on COPS has full editing rights. LVMPD approved it to air, so I would assume that they had no or little issue with it.

So, if you were this cop and you were up in IA under the hot lights and knowing there was a video which has been shon on national television---How would you "articulate" this?????

Maybe you could try these lines:

"The guy was a 140 lb dynamo. I know he looked skinny and weak, but he looked like a skateboarder and those guys are WILD..."

"The kid had a hemp necklace. That means he was probably a pot head and pot gives people the strength of 10 men just like PCP...Doesn;t it ?????"

"I know the kid was standing flat-footed and slouching with his fingertips in his pockets, but that could have been a diversionary technique. I read in karate magazine that a lot of Ninjas do that..."

"The kid was falling down drunk. I had tho slam hin in the throat before he fell down all by himself"

Let me explain something. When you justify the use of force, you look at three things; 1. Intent, 2. Ability 3. Opportunity....For example, a suspect who is on the corner, but his gun is locked in a safe in the house, does not have the opportunity to shoot you.....A suspect who has a gun in his belt, but his hands in the air and he is saying "please don;t shoot me, I give up" is PROBABLY showing that he does not INTEND to shoot you. A man with no arms, legs and teeth, laying on the ground does not have the ability to assault you....

The kid did not show any serious intent to harm the two cops

The kid was small and weak, so he did not have the ability

The kid was was flat-footed with his hands in his pockets. he had no opportunity

When IA under these so called hot lights, I would use this line...

"I am not speaking to you until my attorney arrives."

Now, the other thing is, had you seen the episode on COPS, the whole thing as shown on COPS, not just this clip, you would know that he already attacked one person. You also know that the Police Officer who took him out was there by himself when he took him out, and it was not the "two cops" picture that you paint.

Knowing that he already attacked one person, I have no reason whatsoever to wait until I am attacked to then decide I should be reacting.

Well, now I am 100% convinced that you are not a cop, but private security. If you were a cop, you would know about the GARRITY CASE. You may not know the case by name, but you would know its implications

If IA (or just a supervisor for that matter) askes you questions about misconduct, or how you did your job, you have THREE choices 1. TRUTHFULLY answer ALL the questions,2. QUIT your job, or 3. GET FIRED. The statements you make to IA (usually) cannot be used against you in a criminal investigation (where you can demand a lawyer). You will know the difference because they will read you the "Garrity Warning" or your "Miranda rights". I guess Wackenhut doesn;t have to play by those rules.

If you try to "lawyer up" in IA, they MIGHT politely explain Garrity AGAIN, or maybe not. Then they will FIRE YOU if you dont start talking.

-- Edited by Hogboy at 19:08, 2006-11-09

-- Edited by Hogboy at 19:11, 2006-11-09

USofGay · I feel entitled, so answer me darnit

Hogboy wrote:

USofAcop wrote:

Hogboy wrote:

USofAcop wrote:

eltsacon wrote:

Hogboy wrote:

Plush wrote:

If a cop tells me to do something, i do it. That kid shouls have just complied. Now i do believe that some cops go a little extreme, but in this case, no. If it's my life on the line, I would have done the same thing. Who knows what he had in his pocket.

Although his FINGERTIPS were in his pockets, you could see the kid's hands were empty. He was standing there FLATFOOTED and OBVIOULSY was not getting ready to fight. Most experienced cops can pick up on signals wen somebody wants to go the hard way. This kis looked soft and docile to me. he was just a smart-mouthed,spoiled little upper middle class punk and there were TWO cops there. He was NOT GOING TO RESIST. I would bet big money on that. As soon as the cop grabbed ahold of his arm he would put his hands behind his back VERY quickly. Whacking somebody in the throat can cause serious injury or death. It could have collapsed his windpipe and killed him. If he had died from that whack in teh throat a jury would have put that cop in prison and that punk's family would be living off the taxpayers and living in the cop's house.

He used more force than was necessary to affect that arrest

-- Edited by Hogboy at 22:05, 2006-11-07

Well, as much as I hate to say it. I agree with hogboy here. Out of princible, I have to admit this. I could see his hands. He was just being stupid, not to mention he looked so fucked up he could hardly figure out what was going on. But, thats me.

I never said that it was the best method, I simply said that it was justifiable if articulated correctly.

An agency that appears on COPS has full editing rights. LVMPD approved it to air, so I would assume that they had no or little issue with it.

So, if you were this cop and you were up in IA under the hot lights and knowing there was a video which has been shon on national television---How would you "articulate" this?????

Maybe you could try these lines:

"The guy was a 140 lb dynamo. I know he looked skinny and weak, but he looked like a skateboarder and those guys are WILD..."

"The kid had a hemp necklace. That means he was probably a pot head and pot gives people the strength of 10 men just like PCP...Doesn;t it ?????"

"I know the kid was standing flat-footed and slouching with his fingertips in his pockets, but that could have been a diversionary technique. I read in karate magazine that a lot of Ninjas do that..."

"The kid was falling down drunk. I had tho slam hin in the throat before he fell down all by himself"

Let me explain something. When you justify the use of force, you look at three things; 1. Intent, 2. Ability 3. Opportunity....For example, a suspect who is on the corner, but his gun is locked in a safe in the house, does not have the opportunity to shoot you.....A suspect who has a gun in his belt, but his hands in the air and he is saying "please don;t shoot me, I give up" is PROBABLY showing that he does not INTEND to shoot you. A man with no arms, legs and teeth, laying on the ground does not have the ability to assault you....

The kid did not show any serious intent to harm the two cops

The kid was small and weak, so he did not have the ability

The kid was was flat-footed with his hands in his pockets. he had no opportunity

When IA under these so called hot lights, I would use this line...

"I am not speaking to you until my attorney arrives."

Now, the other thing is, had you seen the episode on COPS, the whole thing as shown on COPS, not just this clip, you would know that he already attacked one person. You also know that the Police Officer who took him out was there by himself when he took him out, and it was not the "two cops" picture that you paint.

Knowing that he already attacked one person, I have no reason whatsoever to wait until I am attacked to then decide I should be reacting.

Well, now I am 100% convinced that you are not a cop, but private security. If you were a cop, you would know about the GARRITY CASE. You may not know the case by name, but you would know its implications

If IA (or just a supervisor for that matter) askes you questions about misconduct, or how you did your job, you have THREE choices 1. TRUTHFULLY answer ALL the questions,2. QUIT your job, or 3. GET FIRED. The statements you make to IA (usually) cannot be used against you in a criminal investigation (where you can demand a lawyer). You will know the difference because they will read you the "Garrity Warning" or your "Miranda rights". I guess Wackenhut doesn;t have to play by those rules.

-- Edited by Hogboy at 19:08, 2006-11-09

And neither does the Federal Govt!

Hogboy · Troll

USofAcop wrote:

Hogboy wrote:

USofAcop wrote:

Hogboy wrote:

USofAcop wrote:

eltsacon wrote:

Hogboy wrote:

Plush wrote:

If a cop tells me to do something, i do it. That kid shouls have just complied. Now i do believe that some cops go a little extreme, but in this case, no. If it's my life on the line, I would have done the same thing. Who knows what he had in his pocket.

Although his FINGERTIPS were in his pockets, you could see the kid's hands were empty. He was standing there FLATFOOTED and OBVIOULSY was not getting ready to fight. Most experienced cops can pick up on signals wen somebody wants to go the hard way. This kis looked soft and docile to me. he was just a smart-mouthed,spoiled little upper middle class punk and there were TWO cops there. He was NOT GOING TO RESIST. I would bet big money on that. As soon as the cop grabbed ahold of his arm he would put his hands behind his back VERY quickly. Whacking somebody in the throat can cause serious injury or death. It could have collapsed his windpipe and killed him. If he had died from that whack in teh throat a jury would have put that cop in prison and that punk's family would be living off the taxpayers and living in the cop's house.

He used more force than was necessary to affect that arrest

-- Edited by Hogboy at 22:05, 2006-11-07

Well, as much as I hate to say it. I agree with hogboy here. Out of princible, I have to admit this. I could see his hands. He was just being stupid, not to mention he looked so fucked up he could hardly figure out what was going on. But, thats me.

I never said that it was the best method, I simply said that it was justifiable if articulated correctly.

An agency that appears on COPS has full editing rights. LVMPD approved it to air, so I would assume that they had no or little issue with it.

So, if you were this cop and you were up in IA under the hot lights and knowing there was a video which has been shon on national television---How would you "articulate" this?????

Maybe you could try these lines:

"The guy was a 140 lb dynamo. I know he looked skinny and weak, but he looked like a skateboarder and those guys are WILD..."

"The kid had a hemp necklace. That means he was probably a pot head and pot gives people the strength of 10 men just like PCP...Doesn;t it ?????"

"I know the kid was standing flat-footed and slouching with his fingertips in his pockets, but that could have been a diversionary technique. I read in karate magazine that a lot of Ninjas do that..."

"The kid was falling down drunk. I had tho slam hin in the throat before he fell down all by himself"

Let me explain something. When you justify the use of force, you look at three things; 1. Intent, 2. Ability 3. Opportunity....For example, a suspect who is on the corner, but his gun is locked in a safe in the house, does not have the opportunity to shoot you.....A suspect who has a gun in his belt, but his hands in the air and he is saying "please don;t shoot me, I give up" is PROBABLY showing that he does not INTEND to shoot you. A man with no arms, legs and teeth, laying on the ground does not have the ability to assault you....

The kid did not show any serious intent to harm the two cops

The kid was small and weak, so he did not have the ability

The kid was was flat-footed with his hands in his pockets. he had no opportunity

When IA under these so called hot lights, I would use this line...

"I am not speaking to you until my attorney arrives."

Now, the other thing is, had you seen the episode on COPS, the whole thing as shown on COPS, not just this clip, you would know that he already attacked one person. You also know that the Police Officer who took him out was there by himself when he took him out, and it was not the "two cops" picture that you paint.

Knowing that he already attacked one person, I have no reason whatsoever to wait until I am attacked to then decide I should be reacting.

Well, now I am 100% convinced that you are not a cop, but private security. If you were a cop, you would know about the GARRITY CASE. You may not know the case by name, but you would know its implications

If IA (or just a supervisor for that matter) askes you questions about misconduct, or how you did your job, you have THREE choices 1. TRUTHFULLY answer ALL the questions,2. QUIT your job, or 3. GET FIRED. The statements you make to IA (usually) cannot be used against you in a criminal investigation (where you can demand a lawyer). You will know the difference because they will read you the "Garrity Warning" or your "Miranda rights". I guess Wackenhut doesn;t have to play by those rules.

-- Edited by Hogboy at 19:08, 2006-11-09

And neither does the Federal Govt!

Wanna bet?

USofGay · I feel entitled, so answer me darnit

Sure, I wanna bet a retard on the internet!

My union contract clearly says that I do not have to answer any questions from anyone in my chain of command without having a representative of my choice present if the questions could or likely could be used for discipline or criminal prosecution.

Hogboy · Troll

USofAcop wrote:

Sure, I wanna bet a retard on the internet!

My union contract clearly says that I do not have to answer any questions from anyone in my chain of command without having a representative of my choice present if the questions could or likely could be used for discipline or criminal prosecution.

OK, you can your contract says you can bring the F Lee Bailey or dig up Johhny Cochran if you want to hold your hand in the room, but the criminal and the administrative investigations will be separate, and if you don;t answer the questions suring th eadmin investigation, , they will FIRE YOU

-- Edited by Hogboy at 19:23, 2006-11-09

USofGay · I feel entitled, so answer me darnit

Hogboy wrote:

USofAcop wrote:

Sure, I wanna bet a retard on the internet!

My union contract clearly says that I do not have to answer any questions from anyone in my chain of command without having a representative of my choice present if the questions could or likely could be used for discipline or criminal prosecution.

OK, you can your contract says you can bring the F Lee Bailey or dig up Johhny Cochran if you want to hold your hand in the room, but the criminal and the administrative investigations will be separate, and if you don;t answer th equestions, they will FIRE YOU

They could try, but as the saying goes, it is very VERY difficult to fire federal employees.

Hogboy · Troll

USofAcop wrote:

Hogboy wrote:

USofAcop wrote:

Sure, I wanna bet a retard on the internet!

My union contract clearly says that I do not have to answer any questions from anyone in my chain of command without having a representative of my choice present if the questions could or likely could be used for discipline or criminal prosecution.

OK, you can your contract says you can bring the F Lee Bailey or dig up Johhny Cochran if you want to hold your hand in the room, but the criminal and the administrative investigations will be separate, and if you don;t answer th equestions, they will FIRE YOU

They could try, but as the saying goes, it is very VERY difficult to fire federal employees.

Not for hacking a skinny, docile drunk in the throat it ain;t

-- Edited by Hogboy at 19:31, 2006-11-09

USofGay · I feel entitled, so answer me darnit

Hogboy wrote:

USofAcop wrote:

Hogboy wrote:

USofAcop wrote:

Sure, I wanna bet a retard on the internet!

My union contract clearly says that I do not have to answer any questions from anyone in my chain of command without having a representative of my choice present if the questions could or likely could be used for discipline or criminal prosecution.

OK, you can your contract says you can bring the F Lee Bailey or dig up Johhny Cochran if you want to hold your hand in the room, but the criminal and the administrative investigations will be separate, and if you don;t answer th equestions, they will FIRE YOU

They could try, but as the saying goes, it is very VERY difficult to fire federal employees.

Not for hacking a skinny, docile drunk in the throat it ain;t

-- Edited by Hogboy at 19:31, 2006-11-09

Ok, so says you.

Hogboy · Troll

USofAcop wrote:

Hogboy wrote:

USofAcop wrote:

Hogboy wrote:

USofAcop wrote:

Sure, I wanna bet a retard on the internet!

My union contract clearly says that I do not have to answer any questions from anyone in my chain of command without having a representative of my choice present if the questions could or likely could be used for discipline or criminal prosecution.

OK, you can your contract says you can bring the F Lee Bailey or dig up Johhny Cochran if you want to hold your hand in the room, but the criminal and the administrative investigations will be separate, and if you don;t answer th equestions, they will FIRE YOU

They could try, but as the saying goes, it is very VERY difficult to fire federal employees.

Not for hacking a skinny, docile drunk in the throat it ain;t

-- Edited by Hogboy at 19:31, 2006-11-09

Ok, so says you.

Some day when you are working your "beat" at the airport, VA Hospital or Federal building, you will chop some old lady in the throat and you will find out for yourself

Da Po po · Moldy

Hogboy wrote:

USofAcop wrote:

Sure, I wanna bet a retard on the internet!

My union contract clearly says that I do not have to answer any questions from anyone in my chain of command without having a representative of my choice present if the questions could or likely could be used for discipline or criminal prosecution.

OK, you can your contract says you can bring the F Lee Bailey or dig up Johhny Cochran if you want to hold your hand in the room, but the criminal and the administrative investigations will be separate, and if you don;t answer the questions suring th eadmin investigation, , they will FIRE YOU

-- Edited by Hogboy at 19:23, 2006-11-09

I guess you've never heard of the police officer's bill of rights. It provides that you can be represented by an attorney during an internal investigation. While you can still be disciplined for not answering all questions truthfully, you still have the right to have the attorney present. I guess only real cops know to call their PBA rep.

Hogboy · Troll

Da Po po wrote:

Hogboy wrote:

USofAcop wrote:

Sure, I wanna bet a retard on the internet!

My union contract clearly says that I do not have to answer any questions from anyone in my chain of command without having a representative of my choice present if the questions could or likely could be used for discipline or criminal prosecution.

OK, you can your contract says you can bring the F Lee Bailey or dig up Johhny Cochran if you want to hold your hand in the room, but the criminal and the administrative investigations will be separate, and if you don;t answer the questions suring th eadmin investigation, , they will FIRE YOU

-- Edited by Hogboy at 19:23, 2006-11-09

I guess you've never heard of the police officer's bill of rights. It provides that you can be represented by an attorney during an internal investigation. While you can still be disciplined for not answering all questions truthfully, you still have the right to have the attorney present. I guess only real cops know to call their PBA rep.

Hiram, some states or union contracts allow a lawyer in the room during an internal investigation. My state ("right to work" state) does not. If you show up with a lawyer, they will politely have the lawyer sit out in the waiting room. If the lawyer gets mouthy, he will have to wait out on the sidewalk. Like I said, even if they let you have a lawyer in the room druring an internal investigation, you had better answer the questions and you had better answer them TRUTHFULLY.

Don;t take what I say as an indication that I am some kind of IA backstabbing, Freemason, ratsnitch,company man. I AM NOT. But I don;t think security guys like USofACop should be giving people the impression that they can get all cocky and snotty up in IA or they may find themselves looking for a job with that "fired cop" tag on their forehead.

-- Edited by Hogboy at 16:37, 2006-11-10

-- Edited by Hogboy at 16:38, 2006-11-10

Plush · Make believe Slutty Zombie/Official TOP Drama Queen

Holy shit, I think we have President Bush on our forum. Thinks he knows everything. While I know nothing about this subject, I know it is Fucking Old!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! if nothing else. Maybe you guys should go get second jobs, you have too much time on your hands.

eltsacon · I have seen USofA's big balls

Hogboy · Troll

Plush wrote:

Holy shit, I think we have President Bush on our forum. Thinks he knows everything. While I know nothing about this subject, I know it is Fucking Old!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! if nothing else. Maybe you guys should go get second jobs, you have too much time on your hands.

I would expect a reply like that from you. Whenever an "outsider" makes a valid point that differes from your point of view, you want to slam the door on the thread.

I got that same attitude on Officer.com with my Freemason thread. People would say "This is boring" "You are beating a dead horse", yetthe threat continued for almost 1100 posts

Have you seen that You Tube clip of those LA cops punching that guy on the curb. I will reserve my opinion on that one because the clip did not show the entire confrontation. It is entirely possible that the suspect was trying to snatch guns before the clip rolled. In that case, the face punches MAY HAVE been justified because they did not want to risk rolling the guy over right away......Not enough info for me to make a judgement on that one.

But the Vegas thing was NOT justified. I saw that whole clip of the cop coldcocking the skinny, drunken, falling down kid in the throat. Do I feel sorry for the kid NO. He is a punk. But the cop was risking his job and freedom with that move

USofGay · I feel entitled, so answer me darnit

USofAcop wrote:

How come there are so many black people in jails and prisons? Because they commit more crime!!

Just watch any of these caught on camera shows, most all of the bad guys are black. You really think that it is a big conspiracy to keep the black man down?? It has to be someting genetic.

As I was saying....

http://www.filecabi.net/video/ghettopulp28.html

luther racquli · Troll

luther b liven proof thet u rong bout teh blaek man
pepole who got the wite race is thinken deminise blaeks
polatishins who senden jobs teh chiena maeken all teh money
blaek pepole wine up selin craek teh maek a livin

Hogboy · Troll

USofAcop wrote:

USofAcop wrote:

How come there are so many black people in jails and prisons? Because they commit more crime!!

Just watch any of these caught on camera shows, most all of the bad guys are black. You really think that it is a big conspiracy to keep the black man down?? It has to be someting genetic.

As I was saying....

http://www.filecabi.net/video/ghettopulp28.html

The quality of that vieo was lacking. But tell me how thei behavior differs from the behavior of white underclass ignorami in trailerparks and biker bars?

It amazes me how underclass white people want to fly the stars and bars and talk bad things about black people because they claim blacks are uneduated, illiterate,substance-abusing, financially irresponsible and promiscuous when they themselves although white,speak like idiots, drop out of school, abuse drugs and booze, park a $20,000 bass boat in front of a 2,000 mobile home, have bastard children and act just as violently when frustrated

luther racquli · Troll

luther a lovir
he only want teh gaet sum
most blaek people r thinken liek luther

teh closer 2 teh boen
teh sweetit teh meet

luther no thet wite race iss b thinken bout teh othr en a thet old sayin

teh darkir teh berrie
teh sweetur the juce
we got a big fat n
4 teh persinil use

-- Edited by luther racquli at 10:53, 2006-11-11

-- Edited by luther racquli at 10:55, 2006-11-11

KatScratch · Bad kitty....in the best possible way

maybe you will find video more to your liking here.....

eltsacon · I have seen USofA's big balls

Hogboy wrote:

Have you seen that You Tube clip of those LA cops punching that guy on the curb. I will reserve my opinion on that one because the clip did not show the entire confrontation. It is entirely possible that the suspect was trying to snatch guns before the clip rolled. In that case, the face punches MAY HAVE been justified because they did not want to risk rolling the guy over right away......Not enough info for me to make a judgement on that one.

UGH! So, if he did reach for a gun, fuck his mother up her ass, play doctor with a boyscout, then it may have been justified?

USofGay · I feel entitled, so answer me darnit

Why length of video and angel of video are important.

http://www.filecabi.net/video/armedsus08.html

eltsacon · I have seen USofA's big balls

USofAcop wrote:

Why length of video and angel of video are important.

http://www.filecabi.net/video/armedsus08.html

A valid point... Though I can't help but to wonder where the other 16 bullets ended up that missed the guy from 5 foot away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Geeezzzz

-- Edited by eltsacon at 13:23, 2006-11-12

Hogboy · Troll

eltsacon wrote:

USofAcop wrote:

Why length of video and angel of video are important.

http://www.filecabi.net/video/armedsus08.html

A valid point... Though I can't help but to wonder where the other 16 bullets ended up that missed the guy from 5 foot away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Geeezzzz

-- Edited by eltsacon at 13:23, 2006-11-12

Why did 16 bullets miss?

1.The target was moving

2.The target was shooting back

eltsacon · I have seen USofA's big balls

WHAT???????????????????

HE was fucking walking! He was walking the same speed the officers were 5 and 10 foot away! And as for the shooting at the officers. PLEASE, So, if I fire a bullet 3 weeks ago does that fucking count too?!!!! geeezzz. I'll say this much, if I was that guy, I would be dead, but so would the two officers right fucking behind me! Personally, the more I see of these video's the more I see drunk fisherman mentality, and performance! No disrespect for the good one's out there, but I see this bullshit brotherhood mentality is letting any dumb-ass get, and keep a badge these days.