In a bar and an off duty police officer confronts you. Starts a fight with you which you end up defending yourself, bamn assaulting a police officer and you get yourself arrested as well.ghettoperson wrote:
What? Seriously? Fuck that, I'm not going to fight the police because I think they're arresting me unlawfully. Sounds like a great way to get a beat-down, and then wind up in jail with assault charges on top of whatever the other charges were.
And my lawyer has a field day with the department...cpt.fass1 wrote:
In a bar and an off duty police officer confronts you. Starts a fight with you which you end up defending yourself, bamn assaulting a police officer and you get yourself arrested as well.ghettoperson wrote:
What? Seriously? Fuck that, I'm not going to fight the police because I think they're arresting me unlawfully. Sounds like a great way to get a beat-down, and then wind up in jail with assault charges on top of whatever the other charges were.
Yeah so you think. Your lawyer will be lucky to get you out of the assult.DBBrinson1 wrote:
And my lawyer has a field day with the department...cpt.fass1 wrote:
In a bar and an off duty police officer confronts you. Starts a fight with you which you end up defending yourself, bamn assaulting a police officer and you get yourself arrested as well.ghettoperson wrote:
What? Seriously? Fuck that, I'm not going to fight the police because I think they're arresting me unlawfully. Sounds like a great way to get a beat-down, and then wind up in jail with assault charges on top of whatever the other charges were.
Last edited by cpt.fass1 (2010-06-28 08:22:54)
You're such an idiot it's untrue.lowing wrote:
Hey Berster7!! Look what these to cops started. If only they had left those 2 criminals alone, this wouldn't have happened,right? I love your logic.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/29/flo … tml?hpt=T2
Why? For calling you out on your dumb fuck logic that the cop got himself assaulted by confronting the bitch that assaulted him?Bertster7 wrote:
You're such an idiot it's untrue.lowing wrote:
Hey Berster7!! Look what these to cops started. If only they had left those 2 criminals alone, this wouldn't have happened,right? I love your logic.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/29/flo … tml?hpt=T2
I can't believe they let you out on the streets on your own? Or do you have a carer of some sort?
Last edited by lowing (2010-06-30 05:15:04)
You haven't called me out on anything - you just clearly don't understand. Because you're very stupid. As can be seen from the content, and style, of most of your posts.lowing wrote:
Why? For calling you out on your dumb fuck logic that the cop got himself assaulted by confronting the bitch that assaulted him?Bertster7 wrote:
You're such an idiot it's untrue.lowing wrote:
Hey Berster7!! Look what these to cops started. If only they had left those 2 criminals alone, this wouldn't have happened,right? I love your logic.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/29/flo … tml?hpt=T2
I can't believe they let you out on the streets on your own? Or do you have a carer of some sort?
Sorry, if you do not like how your logic plays out, change the way you think.
Hmmmm I seem to recall you stating this would not have happened if it were not for the cop stopping this bitch for jay-walking...Your logic plays out exactly like that. Again, if you do not like it, or can not defend it, you might wanna change the way you think.Bertster7 wrote:
You haven't called me out on anything - you just clearly don't understand. Because you're very stupid. As can be seen from the content, and style, of most of your posts.lowing wrote:
Why? For calling you out on your dumb fuck logic that the cop got himself assaulted by confronting the bitch that assaulted him?Bertster7 wrote:
You're such an idiot it's untrue.
I can't believe they let you out on the streets on your own? Or do you have a carer of some sort?
Sorry, if you do not like how your logic plays out, change the way you think.
It wouldn't have happened if he hadn't stopped her. Just as it wouldn't have happened if she hadn't been jaywalking. Either way, the jaywalking started the incident. That is flawless logic. If you can't see that then you have no grasp of the simple principles of cause and effect. That was the start of the incident, claiming anything else started it, as you have been doing, is retarded. It may not have been the key factor, but that's not relevant to what started the incident.lowing wrote:
Hmmmm I seem to recall you stating this would not have happened if it were not for the cop stopping this bitch for jay-walking...Your logic plays out exactly like that. Again, if you do not like it, or can not defend it, you might wanna change the way you think.Bertster7 wrote:
You haven't called me out on anything - you just clearly don't understand. Because you're very stupid. As can be seen from the content, and style, of most of your posts.lowing wrote:
Why? For calling you out on your dumb fuck logic that the cop got himself assaulted by confronting the bitch that assaulted him?
Sorry, if you do not like how your logic plays out, change the way you think.
I know, I agree that is what you said, now apply that very same logic to what I posted. Those cops started it by pulling that car over, which lead to their deaths. Now, if only the cops would not have pulled that car over those criminals would not have shot them. Cops shouldn't have pulled the car over and they wouldn't have been killed and those criminals wouldn't be sought for murder.Bertster7 wrote:
It wouldn't have happened if he hadn't stopped her. Just as it wouldn't have happened if she hadn't been jaywalking. Either way, the jaywalking started the incident. That is flawless logic. If you can't see that then you have no grasp of the simple principles of cause and effect. That was the start of the incident, claiming anything else started it, as you have been doing, is retarded. It may not have been the key factor, but that's not relevant to what started the incident.lowing wrote:
Hmmmm I seem to recall you stating this would not have happened if it were not for the cop stopping this bitch for jay-walking...Your logic plays out exactly like that. Again, if you do not like it, or can not defend it, you might wanna change the way you think.Bertster7 wrote:
You haven't called me out on anything - you just clearly don't understand. Because you're very stupid. As can be seen from the content, and style, of most of your posts.
What I like or dislike has nothing to do with this, nor does your apparent inability to grasp very simple concepts of how one action leads to another in any sort of dispassionate way. You are attaching weight to the importance of each event, which is not relevant in the slightest to what started any of it.
Go back to school - you need it.
Again, it is perfectly true that if they had not pulled him over they wouldn't have been shot. Nothing fucked up about the logic behind that, it's plain as day. Cause and effect. Sorry if that doesn't fit in with your warped view of reality.lowing wrote:
I know, I agree that is what you said, now apply that very same logic to what I posted. Those cops started it by pulling that car over, which lead to their deaths. Now, if only the cops would not have pulled that car over those criminals would not have shot them. Cops shouldn't have pulled the car over and they wouldn't have been killed and those criminals wouldn't be sought for murder.Bertster7 wrote:
It wouldn't have happened if he hadn't stopped her. Just as it wouldn't have happened if she hadn't been jaywalking. Either way, the jaywalking started the incident. That is flawless logic. If you can't see that then you have no grasp of the simple principles of cause and effect. That was the start of the incident, claiming anything else started it, as you have been doing, is retarded. It may not have been the key factor, but that's not relevant to what started the incident.lowing wrote:
Hmmmm I seem to recall you stating this would not have happened if it were not for the cop stopping this bitch for jay-walking...Your logic plays out exactly like that. Again, if you do not like it, or can not defend it, you might wanna change the way you think.
What I like or dislike has nothing to do with this, nor does your apparent inability to grasp very simple concepts of how one action leads to another in any sort of dispassionate way. You are attaching weight to the importance of each event, which is not relevant in the slightest to what started any of it.
Go back to school - you need it.
Your fucked up logic in practice. Enjoy it.
THis is true, your bullshit does not fit into my "warped view of reality", which basically says people interact, and that interaction can go a 2000 different ways. That bitch did not have to assault that cop and those criminals did not have to kill those cops. Niether of those things happened because the cops stopped them, they happened because both parties are fucked up assholes that deserve what they got and are going to get.WHich again has nothing to do with the cops stopping them.Bertster7 wrote:
Again, it is perfectly true that if they had not pulled him over they wouldn't have been shot. Nothing fucked up about the logic behind that, it's plain as day. Cause and effect. Sorry if that doesn't fit in with your warped view of reality.lowing wrote:
I know, I agree that is what you said, now apply that very same logic to what I posted. Those cops started it by pulling that car over, which lead to their deaths. Now, if only the cops would not have pulled that car over those criminals would not have shot them. Cops shouldn't have pulled the car over and they wouldn't have been killed and those criminals wouldn't be sought for murder.Bertster7 wrote:
It wouldn't have happened if he hadn't stopped her. Just as it wouldn't have happened if she hadn't been jaywalking. Either way, the jaywalking started the incident. That is flawless logic. If you can't see that then you have no grasp of the simple principles of cause and effect. That was the start of the incident, claiming anything else started it, as you have been doing, is retarded. It may not have been the key factor, but that's not relevant to what started the incident.
What I like or dislike has nothing to do with this, nor does your apparent inability to grasp very simple concepts of how one action leads to another in any sort of dispassionate way. You are attaching weight to the importance of each event, which is not relevant in the slightest to what started any of it.
Go back to school - you need it.
Your fucked up logic in practice. Enjoy it.
Of course they didn't have to, of course the incidents didn't have to play out like that. They did play out like that though, and the initial incident in each event was what started it, since that's what starting something is, being at the beginning. The first event of any incident is always the start - not the one that is of greatest importance.lowing wrote:
THis is true, your bullshit does not fit into my "warped view of reality", which basically says people interact, and that interaction can go a 2000 different ways. That bitch did not have to assault that cop and those criminals did not have to kill those cops. Niether of those things happened because the cops stopped them, they happened because both parties are fucked up assholes that deserve what they got and are going to get.WHich again has nothing to do with the cops stopping them.Bertster7 wrote:
Again, it is perfectly true that if they had not pulled him over they wouldn't have been shot. Nothing fucked up about the logic behind that, it's plain as day. Cause and effect. Sorry if that doesn't fit in with your warped view of reality.lowing wrote:
I know, I agree that is what you said, now apply that very same logic to what I posted. Those cops started it by pulling that car over, which lead to their deaths. Now, if only the cops would not have pulled that car over those criminals would not have shot them. Cops shouldn't have pulled the car over and they wouldn't have been killed and those criminals wouldn't be sought for murder.
Your fucked up logic in practice. Enjoy it.
and what exactly would your point be by making such observations, if not to assign blame to the cops for stopping them in the first place and "starting it"?Bertster7 wrote:
Of course they didn't have to, of course the incidents didn't have to play out like that. They did play out like that though, and the initial incident in each event was what started it, since that's what starting something is, being at the beginning. The first event of any incident is always the start - not the one that is of greatest importance.lowing wrote:
THis is true, your bullshit does not fit into my "warped view of reality", which basically says people interact, and that interaction can go a 2000 different ways. That bitch did not have to assault that cop and those criminals did not have to kill those cops. Niether of those things happened because the cops stopped them, they happened because both parties are fucked up assholes that deserve what they got and are going to get.WHich again has nothing to do with the cops stopping them.Bertster7 wrote:
Again, it is perfectly true that if they had not pulled him over they wouldn't have been shot. Nothing fucked up about the logic behind that, it's plain as day. Cause and effect. Sorry if that doesn't fit in with your warped view of reality.
The weight of each event is utterly meaningless in determining what started a sequence of related events. Which event came first is everything. In both instances you could either say that the stop, or the infraction that caused the stop started the incident - you cannot say that something that happened halfway through is what started it. If that's what you think the word started means you really do need to go and buy a dictionary.
I wasn't making a point. You were the one who asserted I was.lowing wrote:
and what exactly would your point be by making such observations, if not to assign blame to the cops for stopping them in the first place and "starting it"?Bertster7 wrote:
Of course they didn't have to, of course the incidents didn't have to play out like that. They did play out like that though, and the initial incident in each event was what started it, since that's what starting something is, being at the beginning. The first event of any incident is always the start - not the one that is of greatest importance.lowing wrote:
THis is true, your bullshit does not fit into my "warped view of reality", which basically says people interact, and that interaction can go a 2000 different ways. That bitch did not have to assault that cop and those criminals did not have to kill those cops. Niether of those things happened because the cops stopped them, they happened because both parties are fucked up assholes that deserve what they got and are going to get.WHich again has nothing to do with the cops stopping them.
The weight of each event is utterly meaningless in determining what started a sequence of related events. Which event came first is everything. In both instances you could either say that the stop, or the infraction that caused the stop started the incident - you cannot say that something that happened halfway through is what started it. If that's what you think the word started means you really do need to go and buy a dictionary.
I see, so you typically spout of shit without actually trying to make a fuckin point? Tell ya what I think, I think the point you were trying to make is exactly what I called you out on, problem is, you can no longer roll with that assertion without looking like a jack- off.Bertster7 wrote:
I wasn't making a point. You were the one who asserted I was.lowing wrote:
and what exactly would your point be by making such observations, if not to assign blame to the cops for stopping them in the first place and "starting it"?Bertster7 wrote:
Of course they didn't have to, of course the incidents didn't have to play out like that. They did play out like that though, and the initial incident in each event was what started it, since that's what starting something is, being at the beginning. The first event of any incident is always the start - not the one that is of greatest importance.
The weight of each event is utterly meaningless in determining what started a sequence of related events. Which event came first is everything. In both instances you could either say that the stop, or the infraction that caused the stop started the incident - you cannot say that something that happened halfway through is what started it. If that's what you think the word started means you really do need to go and buy a dictionary.
Last edited by lowing (2010-06-30 08:50:33)
you are really associating killing 2 cops with simply making a fuckin mistake???cpt.fass1 wrote:
Hmmm wonder why they were looking into the guy?
The woman seemed to be the one who broke the law, the guy for all we know could have been innocent in this case. Other then just the Missing License plate we don't know much. Which brings me to, Why are passengers of cars forced to produce their ID's??
Oh well if the situtation is shoot a cop or go to jail, what do you think is going to happen? We all make mistakes, we've all done stupid shit but our laws are turning into a jail pass(pretty much all of them).
From the articlelowing wrote:
you are really associating killing 2 cops with simply making a fuckin mistake???cpt.fass1 wrote:
Hmmm wonder why they were looking into the guy?
The woman seemed to be the one who broke the law, the guy for all we know could have been innocent in this case. Other then just the Missing License plate we don't know much. Which brings me to, Why are passengers of cars forced to produce their ID's??
Oh well if the situation is shoot a cop or go to jail, what do you think is going to happen? We all make mistakes, we've all done stupid shit but our laws are turning into a jail pass(pretty much all of them).
Is that what you think?lowing wrote:
I see, so you typically spout of shit without actually trying to make a fuckin point? Tell ya what I think, I think the point you were trying to make is exactly what I called you out on, problem is, you can no longer roll with that assertion without looking like a jack- off.Bertster7 wrote:
I wasn't making a point. You were the one who asserted I was.lowing wrote:
and what exactly would your point be by making such observations, if not to assign blame to the cops for stopping them in the first place and "starting it"?
there was a warrant out for his arrest. The cop did not know this before hand. Also allow for the fact that a cop does not hold the privilege to decide if a warrant is worth serving or not. warrants are issued by a judge, not the police.cpt.fass1 wrote:
From the articlelowing wrote:
you are really associating killing 2 cops with simply making a fuckin mistake???cpt.fass1 wrote:
Hmmm wonder why they were looking into the guy?
The woman seemed to be the one who broke the law, the guy for all we know could have been innocent in this case. Other then just the Missing License plate we don't know much. Which brings me to, Why are passengers of cars forced to produce their ID's??
Oh well if the situation is shoot a cop or go to jail, what do you think is going to happen? We all make mistakes, we've all done stupid shit but our laws are turning into a jail pass(pretty much all of them).
"Curtis had pulled over a vehicle and found its male passenger had an outstanding warrant for "minor violations,"
Now in this day and age that + the gun = jail time. Not alot of people want to go to jail, that's where harden criminals go. Now unless the guy had money to pay for a decent lawyer, he'd get a court appointed attorney who'd tell him to plead guilty and only do 5 years(3 with good behavior). So his options where go to jail or kill cops who might not have had a right to even ask him for his ID's at the time(depending on the situation.
Minor Violations to me = a small mistake, but the way our laws are this day and age there is no such thing as a small mistake.
