apparently not.burnzz wrote:
"Can't we all just get along?" - Rodney King
Sorry, you are rare, it is the tree hugging, peace at any price, why can't we all just get along, liberals that are all in arms over this cop. Same ones that were all in arms over Henry Gates...If you are not one of them, then you have streak of common sense about you. Roll with it.ghettoperson wrote:
I'm a liberal tree hugging bisexual asshole and I think the cop was right to punch her. In fact, I think he wasn't efficient enough with his asskicking. Labels are stupid.lowing wrote:
liberalism-Sh1fty- wrote:
I don't understand why we're still debating this issue. She pushed an officer, and he defended himself.
Can somebody please tell me where the problem is with that?
Last edited by lowing (2010-06-25 08:22:39)
How long have you been in the forum..............Of course you do not have the right to defend yourself....That is the cops job, of course they better not project any authority while doing so, because that would make them a fascist pig.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Well, do you have the right to defend yourself?
Since it is a police officer you should obey, but there are plenty of times officers of the law abuse their power.. So when does it cross the line of enforcing the law and turn into assult.
He was doing over a 100 mph while having double the legal alcohol blood level. He ran from the police because he was still on parole for armered robbery. In all honesty he deserved to have his skull smashed in.Trotskygrad wrote:
apparently not.burnzz wrote:
"Can't we all just get along?" - Rodney King
Cops are human, and those cops were probably local civilians first. That attitude of entitlement, and lack of honor or integrity was there long before they put on a badge. Problem is, who the fuck, with an ounce of integrity, is gunna move to NJ to be a cop and put up with an entire city of you assholes? ( present company accepted of course)cpt.fass1 wrote:
Actually it's strange lowing cause we do live in two totally different areas. I live in a place that is a bankrupt police state and you live in a place were you probably don't see 15 cops on the 10 mile drive to the office.
Yes New Jersey has the most police officers per square mile then any other state. I've seen just about enough police corruption that if there was a stand off between an officer and a civilian with a gun I'd probably just walk away.
Why do you complain that no one respects you...then go and post something like this?-Sh1fty- wrote:
Oh my God you're all still going at it!
Well I'm bored so...
The cop was racist!
Well they're human and very fallible, it's a matter of laws in this country + high stress job = Breaking point which we don't have. I'm a huge support of a out of uniform(unless undercover) cop should be off duty.lowing wrote:
Cops are human, and those cops were probably local civilians first. That attitude of entitlement, and lack of honor or integrity was there long before they put on a badge. Problem is, who the fuck, with an ounce of integrity, is gunna move to NJ to be a cop and put up with an entire city of you assholes? ( present company accepted of course)cpt.fass1 wrote:
Actually it's strange lowing cause we do live in two totally different areas. I live in a place that is a bankrupt police state and you live in a place were you probably don't see 15 cops on the 10 mile drive to the office.
Yes New Jersey has the most police officers per square mile then any other state. I've seen just about enough police corruption that if there was a stand off between an officer and a civilian with a gun I'd probably just walk away.
If you're dealing with a cop, the best defense is to be calm and reasonable and logical. If the cop continues to be a jackass, deal with it and handle it in court. There are many ways to get cops in trouble and get them reprimanded without having to make a fist, it's really quite easy if you go about it like a mature adult and don't resort to violence (all this applies to American police).cpt.fass1 wrote:
Well, do you have the right to defend yourself?
Since it is a police officer you should obey, but there are plenty of times officers of the law abuse their power.. So when does it cross the line of enforcing the law and turn into assult.
That isn't what I said.lowing wrote:
I suppose you think that a cop should not confront a speeder either, ya know, just in case it might escalate into something more than just a speeding ticket. Your logic that the cop should not have stopped the girl therefore would not have been assaulted is about as fucked up as logic as there ever was. But hey, from this forum I expect nothing less.Bertster7 wrote:
Why did the cop get assaulted?lowing wrote:
no assaulting the cop is what started the issue, if not for that we would not be talking about any of it.
Was it because he was issuing a jay walking ticket?
The ticket was how the encounter began. That is the start of the incident.
For it to have started by the cop getting assaulted they would've had to be attacked randomly before any other interaction between them and the other party. As it stands, that's not what happened.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-06-26 07:32:31)
Don't even dignify it by referring to it as a "crime".Bertster7 wrote:
That isn't what I said.lowing wrote:
I suppose you think that a cop should not confront a speeder either, ya know, just in case it might escalate into something more than just a speeding ticket. Your logic that the cop should not have stopped the girl therefore would not have been assaulted is about as fucked up as logic as there ever was. But hey, from this forum I expect nothing less.Bertster7 wrote:
Why did the cop get assaulted?
Was it because he was issuing a jay walking ticket?
The ticket was how the encounter began. That is the start of the incident.
For it to have started by the cop getting assaulted they would've had to be attacked randomly before any other interaction between them and the other party. As it stands, that's not what happened.
You said jaywalking wasn't what started the issue. It absolutely unambiguously was, as it was the initial event in a sequence of events which led to the cop assaulting this girl. That is absolutely beyond question. If you can't see that, then you're retarded. That may not have been what your overall point was - as has been pointed out by others, but that the jaywalking started the incident is not in question here.
Jaywalking is a stupid crime that doesn't exist in most countries anyway. Stupid pedantry by the police if you ask me.
Already responded to this non-sense.Bertster7 wrote:
That isn't what I said.lowing wrote:
I suppose you think that a cop should not confront a speeder either, ya know, just in case it might escalate into something more than just a speeding ticket. Your logic that the cop should not have stopped the girl therefore would not have been assaulted is about as fucked up as logic as there ever was. But hey, from this forum I expect nothing less.Bertster7 wrote:
Why did the cop get assaulted?
Was it because he was issuing a jay walking ticket?
The ticket was how the encounter began. That is the start of the incident.
For it to have started by the cop getting assaulted they would've had to be attacked randomly before any other interaction between them and the other party. As it stands, that's not what happened.
You said jaywalking wasn't what started the issue. It absolutely unambiguously was, as it was the initial event in a sequence of events which led to the cop assaulting this girl. That is absolutely beyond question. If you can't see that, then you're retarded. That may not have been what your overall point was - as has been pointed out by others, but that the jaywalking started the incident is not in question here.
Jaywalking is a stupid misdemeanor that doesn't exist in most countries anyway. Stupid pedantry by the police if you ask me.
You seem to be of the somewhat misguided opinion (as usual) that what I am saying has anything to do with whether or not I think the girl should've been stopped.lowing wrote:
Already responded to this non-sense.Bertster7 wrote:
That isn't what I said.lowing wrote:
I suppose you think that a cop should not confront a speeder either, ya know, just in case it might escalate into something more than just a speeding ticket. Your logic that the cop should not have stopped the girl therefore would not have been assaulted is about as fucked up as logic as there ever was. But hey, from this forum I expect nothing less.
You said jaywalking wasn't what started the issue. It absolutely unambiguously was, as it was the initial event in a sequence of events which led to the cop assaulting this girl. That is absolutely beyond question. If you can't see that, then you're retarded. That may not have been what your overall point was - as has been pointed out by others, but that the jaywalking started the incident is not in question here.
Jaywalking is a stupid misdemeanor that doesn't exist in most countries anyway. Stupid pedantry by the police if you ask me.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-06-26 13:56:16)
no you don't understand that what started this was the assault on the police officer. If not for that none of this would be worth talking about.Bertster7 wrote:
You seem to be of the somewhat misguided opinion (as usual) that what I am saying has anything to do with whether or not I think the girl should've been stopped.lowing wrote:
Already responded to this non-sense.Bertster7 wrote:
That isn't what I said.
You said jaywalking wasn't what started the issue. It absolutely unambiguously was, as it was the initial event in a sequence of events which led to the cop assaulting this girl. That is absolutely beyond question. If you can't see that, then you're retarded. That may not have been what your overall point was - as has been pointed out by others, but that the jaywalking started the incident is not in question here.
Jaywalking is a stupid misdemeanor that doesn't exist in most countries anyway. Stupid pedantry by the police if you ask me.
The stop was the initial event in the sequence of events that led to this happening - therefore it started this. Not because it was right or wrong, but because it was first. If you don't understand that then you don't understand whating starting something is about.
Your response, now that really was nonsense.
From this response it is clear you either haven't read, or understood what I wrote above.lowing wrote:
no you don't understand that what started this was the assault on the police officer. If not for that none of this would be worth talking about.Bertster7 wrote:
You seem to be of the somewhat misguided opinion (as usual) that what I am saying has anything to do with whether or not I think the girl should've been stopped.lowing wrote:
Already responded to this non-sense.
The stop was the initial event in the sequence of events that led to this happening - therefore it started this. Not because it was right or wrong, but because it was first. If you don't understand that then you don't understand whating starting something is about.
Your response, now that really was nonsense.
She broke the law, just like throwing trash on the side-walk, is it a big deal nope, but you do not do it in front of a cop.
The assault is what matters not the jay walking. The jay walking had nothig to do with it. You are saying this would not have happened if the cop didn't stop the girl. THat is bullshit. This would not have happened if the girl did not assault a police officer. Period.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-06-26 14:23:23)
Well gee then, lets back up......You said this was started because the cop stopped this bitch for jaywalking. I disagree, this started because the bitch assaulted a police officer. EVERYTHING before that assault is irrelevant to the felony assault on a police officer.Bertster7 wrote:
From this response it is clear you either haven't read, or understood what I wrote above.lowing wrote:
no you don't understand that what started this was the assault on the police officer. If not for that none of this would be worth talking about.Bertster7 wrote:
You seem to be of the somewhat misguided opinion (as usual) that what I am saying has anything to do with whether or not I think the girl should've been stopped.
The stop was the initial event in the sequence of events that led to this happening - therefore it started this. Not because it was right or wrong, but because it was first. If you don't understand that then you don't understand whating starting something is about.
Your response, now that really was nonsense.
She broke the law, just like throwing trash on the side-walk, is it a big deal nope, but you do not do it in front of a cop.
The assault is what matters not the jay walking. The jay walking had nothig to do with it. You are saying this would not have happened if the cop didn't stop the girl. That is bullshit. This would not have happened if the girl did not assault a police officer. Period.
Read it again and perhaps try to respond in a fashion that makes you look like you have some comprehension of English.
Last edited by lowing (2010-06-26 14:29:58)
lowing wrote:
Well gee then, lets back up......You said this was started because the cop stopped this bitch for jaywalking. I disagree, this started because the bitch assaulted a police officer. EVERYTHING before that assault is irrelevant to the felony assault on a police officer.Bertster7 wrote:
From this response it is clear you either haven't read, or understood what I wrote above.lowing wrote:
no you don't understand that what started this was the assault on the police officer. If not for that none of this would be worth talking about.
She broke the law, just like throwing trash on the side-walk, is it a big deal nope, but you do not do it in front of a cop.
The assault is what matters not the jay walking. The jay walking had nothig to do with it. You are saying this would not have happened if the cop didn't stop the girl. That is bullshit. This would not have happened if the girl did not assault a police officer. Period.
Read it again and perhaps try to respond in a fashion that makes you look like you have some comprehension of English.
Don't make the common mistake prevalent in this forum, do not assume disagreeing with you means you do not understand you.
Absolutely. If he hadn't stopped her, would this have happened?lowing wrote:
You said this was started because the cop stopped this bitch for jaywalking.
Well gee, using your stupidity as a beacon of rationality I guess if the cop had never been born, none of this would have happened either.Bertster7 wrote:
lowing wrote:
Well gee then, lets back up......You said this was started because the cop stopped this bitch for jaywalking. I disagree, this started because the bitch assaulted a police officer. EVERYTHING before that assault is irrelevant to the felony assault on a police officer.Bertster7 wrote:
From this response it is clear you either haven't read, or understood what I wrote above.
Read it again and perhaps try to respond in a fashion that makes you look like you have some comprehension of English.
Don't make the common mistake prevalent in this forum, do not assume disagreeing with you means you do not understand you.
Are you really this thick? Do you just put it on?
Jaywalking was obviously what started this. Not even the ticket for jaywalking - her doing the jaywalking would really be the start of this incident.Absolutely. If he hadn't stopped her, would this have happened?lowing wrote:
You said this was started because the cop stopped this bitch for jaywalking.
Obviously not.
In fact if she hadn't been jaywalking none of this would've happened. Either way, jaywalking most certainly was what started the incident.
Look at the sort of typical quotes you get on police camera TV shows as an example to illustrate the point more clearly so you can understand it:
"What started as a routine traffic stop...."
It's like talking to a child...lowing wrote:
Well gee, using your stupidity as a beacon of rationality I guess if the cop had never been born, none of this would have happened either.Bertster7 wrote:
lowing wrote:
Well gee then, lets back up......You said this was started because the cop stopped this bitch for jaywalking. I disagree, this started because the bitch assaulted a police officer. EVERYTHING before that assault is irrelevant to the felony assault on a police officer.
Don't make the common mistake prevalent in this forum, do not assume disagreeing with you means you do not understand you.
Are you really this thick? Do you just put it on?
Jaywalking was obviously what started this. Not even the ticket for jaywalking - her doing the jaywalking would really be the start of this incident.Absolutely. If he hadn't stopped her, would this have happened?lowing wrote:
You said this was started because the cop stopped this bitch for jaywalking.
Obviously not.
In fact if she hadn't been jaywalking none of this would've happened. Either way, jaywalking most certainly was what started the incident.
Look at the sort of typical quotes you get on police camera TV shows as an example to illustrate the point more clearly so you can understand it:
"What started as a routine traffic stop...."
It wasn't the jay-walking, it was the assault. Get over it.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-06-26 15:07:36)
Hey, don't blame me, it is your stupidity not mine.Bertster7 wrote:
It's like talking to a child...lowing wrote:
Well gee, using your stupidity as a beacon of rationality I guess if the cop had never been born, none of this would have happened either.Bertster7 wrote:
lowing wrote:
Well gee then, lets back up......You said this was started because the cop stopped this bitch for jaywalking. I disagree, this started because the bitch assaulted a police officer. EVERYTHING before that assault is irrelevant to the felony assault on a police officer.
Don't make the common mistake prevalent in this forum, do not assume disagreeing with you means you do not understand you.
Are you really this thick? Do you just put it on?
Jaywalking was obviously what started this. Not even the ticket for jaywalking - her doing the jaywalking would really be the start of this incident.
Absolutely. If he hadn't stopped her, would this have happened?
Obviously not.
In fact if she hadn't been jaywalking none of this would've happened. Either way, jaywalking most certainly was what started the incident.
Look at the sort of typical quotes you get on police camera TV shows as an example to illustrate the point more clearly so you can understand it:
"What started as a routine traffic stop...."
It wasn't the jay-walking, it was the assault. Get over it.
Actually - that's not very fair on most children.
Well not in this instance but let's say in an other one, where you feel your life is in danger from a police officer. What are said ways to get a cop in trouble without raising a fist? They're really protected when it comes to that sort of thing, because they issue out tickets and punishment. You see tons of videos where officers of the law are being completely abusive but nothing happens, they're protected.CapnNismo wrote:
If you're dealing with a cop, the best defense is to be calm and reasonable and logical. If the cop continues to be a jackass, deal with it and handle it in court. There are many ways to get cops in trouble and get them reprimanded without having to make a fist, it's really quite easy if you go about it like a mature adult and don't resort to violence (all this applies to American police).cpt.fass1 wrote:
Well, do you have the right to defend yourself?
Since it is a police officer you should obey, but there are plenty of times officers of the law abuse their power.. So when does it cross the line of enforcing the law and turn into assult.