THey already tried that remember? They gave the chance t oremove the pics or face charges. He took the charges., and now he got them.presidentsheep wrote:
Dumbasses like him need some short sharp shock, just to remind them they're stupid.lowing wrote:
As I have said, I couldn't care less about him or what they do to him, as long as it hurts.Cybargs wrote:
He's still a stupid fucking kid if he did dumb shit such as, uploading naked pics on myspace. He should be tried in a civil court, not a criminal court. Don't put him in the big boy bars for stupid shit like this. Being a fiscal conservative like yourself lowing, wouldn't you think it'd be a waste of tax dollars putting dumbass' like him in prison?
and please stop pretending like you give sa shit about how much it cost to house a prisoner.
Not a long prison sentence.
Never siad anything about her being innocent. Address what I did post about her and then I will respond to it.ROGUEDD wrote:
I'm still amazed in how you think the girl is innocent in all this "She learned her lesson." HA! But yeah, I agree that this is a matter for the civil courts. I also agree that putting him in prison for years, and then having him registered as a sex offender, a child predator, will make matters much, much worse. I don't know about her being "empowered", but I doubt would be the first time a future "girl who cried rape" started out like this.
damn do you have a hard on for the cops or something?lowing wrote:
I would buy this, execpt whene approached by the police to take it down or face charges. He unremorsefully refused. Fuck him.
I see, so you think you are in control enough to do as you see fit, and disobey authority as you see fit. Kinda like the ASSHOLE in the OP.ruisleipa wrote:
damn do you have a hard on for the cops or something?lowing wrote:
I would buy this, execpt whene approached by the police to take it down or face charges. He unremorsefully refused. Fuck him.
He is King Dracos de Sade.
The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'
I never said that, I'm just wondering why you think anyone should immediately do what the police tell them to do.lowing wrote:
I see, so you think you are in control enough to do as you see fit, and disobey authority as you see fit. Kinda like the ASSHOLE in the OP.ruisleipa wrote:
damn do you have a hard on for the cops or something?lowing wrote:
I would buy this, execpt whene approached by the police to take it down or face charges. He unremorsefully refused. Fuck him.
No need to be so touchy.
and I am just wondering why you think you don't have to.ruisleipa wrote:
I never said that, I'm just wondering why you think anyone should immediately do what the police tell them to do.lowing wrote:
I see, so you think you are in control enough to do as you see fit, and disobey authority as you see fit. Kinda like the ASSHOLE in the OP.ruisleipa wrote:
damn do you have a hard on for the cops or something?
No need to be so touchy.
Mindlessly following the police isn't a good idea in general. Sometimes, cops will try to defy your rights, and that's when you have to stand up for yourself. I'm not saying that applies to this scenario in the OP, but it surely applies to many others.lowing wrote:
and I am just wondering why you think you don't have to.ruisleipa wrote:
I never said that, I'm just wondering why you think anyone should immediately do what the police tell them to do.lowing wrote:
I see, so you think you are in control enough to do as you see fit, and disobey authority as you see fit. Kinda like the ASSHOLE in the OP.
No need to be so touchy.
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-03-15 14:03:32)
Yeah, go ahead and resist arrest, be combative, or even a smart ass, hell try running from them comfortable in your belief that you do not need to comply with their orders because you think you are right. Love to see how that works out for ya.Turquoise wrote:
Mindlessly following the police isn't a good idea in general. Sometimes, cops will try to defy your rights, and that's when you have to stand up for yourself. I'm not saying that applies to this scenario in the OP, but it surely applies to many others.lowing wrote:
and I am just wondering why you think you don't have to.ruisleipa wrote:
I never said that, I'm just wondering why you think anyone should immediately do what the police tell them to do.
No need to be so touchy.
lowing likes the police.
He wants them to pre-judge criminals and beat the living shit out of them. Never mind that it would be breaking the law to do so because he would forgive them. All part of the justice system according to him.
Due process WTF is that? Some strange idea that serves no purpose sorta like the appendix. Just remove it.
He wants them to pre-judge criminals and beat the living shit out of them. Never mind that it would be breaking the law to do so because he would forgive them. All part of the justice system according to him.
Due process WTF is that? Some strange idea that serves no purpose sorta like the appendix. Just remove it.
The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'
You seem to have a hard time addressing what I post. Try and go back read what i said and post accordingly. See if you can do it without inventing shit that I said. It is kinda stupid for you to invent an argument for me than argue against it. If you can not argue against what I actually said, don't post.Stubbee wrote:
lowing likes the police.
He wants them to pre-judge criminals and beat the living shit out of them. Never mind that it would be breaking the law to do so because he would forgive them. All part of the justice system according to him.
Due process WTF is that? Some strange idea that serves no purpose sorta like the appendix. Just remove it.
Now, if you engage the police in a high speed chase endangering innocent people. I hope they yank your ass out of that car and give you the biggest beat down imaginable. There, now you have something you can argue against.
Oh and yes, lowing likes the police.
Last edited by lowing (2010-03-15 15:03:34)
1. I wasn't talking to you. I was following up Turquoise's post. I just happened to hit 'SUBMIT' after you. I ain't going back to read what you said because it most likely is a broken record.lowing wrote:
You seem to have a hard time addressing what I post. Try and go back read what i said and post accordingly. See if you can do it without inventing shit that I said. It is kinda stupid for you to invent an argument for me than argue against it. If you can not argue against what I actually said, don't post.Stubbee wrote:
lowing likes the police.
He wants them to pre-judge criminals and beat the living shit out of them. Never mind that it would be breaking the law to do so because he would forgive them. All part of the justice system according to him.
Due process WTF is that? Some strange idea that serves no purpose sorta like the appendix. Just remove it.
Now, if you engage the police in a high speed chase endangering innocent people. I hope they yank your ass out of that car and give you the biggest beat down imaginable. There, now you have something you can argue against.
Oh and yes, lowing likes the police.
2. I didn't invent anything. You admit in your post that you condone pre-judging by the police and condone ex judicae sanctions. The relevant posts I cba to dig up.
3. Please don't tell me how to post or what to respond to. See 1 above.
4. thank you for admittng you would allow the police to break the law as you see it. According to you the police can pre-judge and administer a punishment solely based on their emotions of the moment and not wait for that pesky justice system to do its job. Hell who needs judges when the police can administer their version of the 'final solution'. In essence you are saying that the courts are not need sorta like an appendix. Thankfully, saner, wiser and more intelligent people than you make and enforce the law.
5. Get that steel pipe out of your ass, you are WAY too full of yourself.
Last edited by Stubbee (2010-03-15 18:26:49)
The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'
When you use my name in your post, I will respond to it as if you are addressing me.Stubbee wrote:
1. I wasn't talking to you. I was following up Turquoise's post. I just happened to hit 'SUBMIT' after you. I ain't going back to read what you said because it most likely is a broken record.lowing wrote:
You seem to have a hard time addressing what I post. Try and go back read what i said and post accordingly. See if you can do it without inventing shit that I said. It is kinda stupid for you to invent an argument for me than argue against it. If you can not argue against what I actually said, don't post.Stubbee wrote:
lowing likes the police.
He wants them to pre-judge criminals and beat the living shit out of them. Never mind that it would be breaking the law to do so because he would forgive them. All part of the justice system according to him.
Due process WTF is that? Some strange idea that serves no purpose sorta like the appendix. Just remove it.
Now, if you engage the police in a high speed chase endangering innocent people. I hope they yank your ass out of that car and give you the biggest beat down imaginable. There, now you have something you can argue against.
Oh and yes, lowing likes the police.
2. I didn't invent anything. You admit in your post that you condone pre-judging by the police and condone ex judicae sanctions. The relevant posts I cba to dig up.
3. Please don't tell me how to post or what to respond to. See 1 above.
4. thank you for admittng you would allow the police to break the law as you see it. According to you the police can pre-judge and administer a punishment solely based on their emotions of the moment and not wait for that pesky justice system to do its job. Hell who needs judges when the police can administer their version of the 'final solution'. In essence you are saying that the courts are not need sorta like an appendix. Thankfully, saner, wiser and more intelligent people than you make and enforce the law.
5. Get that steel pipe out of your ass, you are WAY to full of yourself.
Never said anything about pre-judging. Police when called to a situation must get control of that situation and if some asshole like yourself wants to challenge that authority, I am all for them protecting htemselves even if it means beating the shit out of you. Because yes, I support the cops over some arrogant, asshole that thinks he can act or say whatever he wants in the face of authority.
Again you use my name I will respond.
I acknowledge that cops are human and dealing with people obviously such as yourself, I will give them every latitutude in making their job easier. I refuse to endorse policeythat makes it harder for the cops to maintain law and order. IE you can do and act anyway you want while the police must have both hands tied behind their backs. Saner more wise people have no problem with giving the cops the upper hand in dealing with situations in order to maintain law and order.
Speaks volumes if you think actually being a law abiding citizen, responsible for my actions and respectful of authority is being "full of myself".
There is such a thing as civil disobedience and refusing to cooperate until you see your lawyer.lowing wrote:
Yeah, go ahead and resist arrest, be combative, or even a smart ass, hell try running from them comfortable in your belief that you do not need to comply with their orders because you think you are right. Love to see how that works out for ya.Turquoise wrote:
Mindlessly following the police isn't a good idea in general. Sometimes, cops will try to defy your rights, and that's when you have to stand up for yourself. I'm not saying that applies to this scenario in the OP, but it surely applies to many others.lowing wrote:
and I am just wondering why you think you don't have to.
lol answer my question first and I'll answer yours.lowing wrote:
and I am just wondering why you think you don't have to.ruisleipa wrote:
I never said that, I'm just wondering why you think anyone should immediately do what the police tell them to do.lowing wrote:
I see, so you think you are in control enough to do as you see fit, and disobey authority as you see fit. Kinda like the ASSHOLE in the OP.
No need to be so touchy.
AFTER, you are arrested, you can refuse to talk all ya want. You have no "civil right", to resist arrest, or run from the police.Turquoise wrote:
There is such a thing as civil disobedience and refusing to cooperate until you see your lawyer.lowing wrote:
Yeah, go ahead and resist arrest, be combative, or even a smart ass, hell try running from them comfortable in your belief that you do not need to comply with their orders because you think you are right. Love to see how that works out for ya.Turquoise wrote:
Mindlessly following the police isn't a good idea in general. Sometimes, cops will try to defy your rights, and that's when you have to stand up for yourself. I'm not saying that applies to this scenario in the OP, but it surely applies to many others.
The guy in question was given fair warning, his excercising his "civil disobedience" and now he is going to pay for it. I guess the lawyers no more than he does about the law after all.
My answer is obvious. Get it sorted out by cooperating. If you are indeed innocent, you should have reason to do otherwise. If you are guilty, struggle more PLEASE!!ruisleipa wrote:
lol answer my question first and I'll answer yours.lowing wrote:
and I am just wondering why you think you don't have to.ruisleipa wrote:
I never said that, I'm just wondering why you think anyone should immediately do what the police tell them to do.
No need to be so touchy.
right, so the police never try and arrest innocent people or enforce unjust laws, they always do the right thing, always admit their mistakes and try to rectify them, and you should always do what those in authority tell you to do yeah?lowing wrote:
My answer is obvious. Get it sorted out by cooperating. If you are indeed innocent, you should have reason to do otherwise. If you are guilty, struggle more PLEASE!!
have you considered moving to somewhere where your views might fit in, like Burma?
I think it's worth posting this one again cos your position is so fundamentally stupid. If people never disobeyed authority then you'd be living in Stalinist Russia ffs.
While I agree of course that child pornography is a great evil your blanket acceptance of state authority is troubling.
Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-03-16 08:01:37)
Try addressing what I ACTUALLY said. Then I will respond to that post.ruisleipa wrote:
right, so the police never try and arrest innocent people or enforce unjust laws, they always do the right thing, always admit their mistakes and try to rectify them, and you should always do what those in authority tell you to do yeah?lowing wrote:
My answer is obvious. Get it sorted out by cooperating. If you are indeed innocent, you should have reason to do otherwise. If you are guilty, struggle more PLEASE!!
have you considered moving to somewhere where your views might fit in, like Burma?
I think it's worth posting this one again cos your position is so fundamentally stupid. If people never disobeyed authority then you'd be living in Stalinist Russia ffs.
While I agree of course that child pornography is a great evil your blanket acceptance of state authority is troubling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIVHNylH … r_embedded
where your logic fails is that this isn't burma...ruisleipa wrote:
right, so the police never try and arrest innocent people or enforce unjust laws, they always do the right thing, always admit their mistakes and try to rectify them, and you should always do what those in authority tell you to do yeah?lowing wrote:
My answer is obvious. Get it sorted out by cooperating. If you are indeed innocent, you should have reason to do otherwise. If you are guilty, struggle more PLEASE!!
have you considered moving to somewhere where your views might fit in, like Burma?
I think it's worth posting this one again cos your position is so fundamentally stupid. If people never disobeyed authority then you'd be living in Stalinist Russia ffs.
While I agree of course that child pornography is a great evil your blanket acceptance of state authority is troubling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIVHNylH … r_embedded
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
His logic failed long before that comment. Surprisingly Turquoise actually sided with him.Spark wrote:
where your logic fails is that this isn't burma...ruisleipa wrote:
right, so the police never try and arrest innocent people or enforce unjust laws, they always do the right thing, always admit their mistakes and try to rectify them, and you should always do what those in authority tell you to do yeah?lowing wrote:
My answer is obvious. Get it sorted out by cooperating. If you are indeed innocent, you should have reason to do otherwise. If you are guilty, struggle more PLEASE!!
have you considered moving to somewhere where your views might fit in, like Burma?
I think it's worth posting this one again cos your position is so fundamentally stupid. If people never disobeyed authority then you'd be living in Stalinist Russia ffs.
While I agree of course that child pornography is a great evil your blanket acceptance of state authority is troubling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIVHNylH … r_embedded
what you said was that you sahould always do exactly what the police tell you to do.lowing wrote:
Try addressing what I ACTUALLY said. Then I will respond to that post.
My argument is that that is a dumb position because the police can't always be trusted to 'sort things out' later. As you should know there are surely thousands of innocent people in jail who the police either framed or couldn't be arsed to 'sort out' properly.
errr..I never said it was. I said he should move to Burma where his style of blanket acceptance of authority would fit right in.Spark wrote:
where your logic fails is that this isn't burma...
Read my post did you?
No what I said was thisruisleipa wrote:
what you said was that you sahould always do exactly what the police tell you to do.lowing wrote:
Try addressing what I ACTUALLY said. Then I will respond to that post.
My argument is that that is a dumb position because the police can't always be trusted to 'sort things out' later. As you should know there are surely thousands of innocent people in jail who the police either framed or couldn't be arsed to 'sort out' properly.errr..I never said it was. I said he should move to Burma where his style of blanket acceptance of authority would fit right in.Spark wrote:
where your logic fails is that this isn't burma...
Read my post did you?
My answer is obvious. Get it sorted out by cooperating. If you are indeed innocent, you should have reason to do otherwise. If you are guilty, struggle more PLEASE!!
GET IT SORTED OUT BY COOPERATING. Defying the police in the heat of the moment will not work out well for you, and in such a situation I will always side on the side of safety IE the police to take control of the unknown situation and get it sorted out.
You do realize how anti-authority lowing is right... He only likes authority when they actually convict a proper criminal not an innocent man. The kid had a second chance and he fucked up. He kinda set himself up for this situation didnt he?ruisleipa wrote:
what you said was that you sahould always do exactly what the police tell you to do.lowing wrote:
Try addressing what I ACTUALLY said. Then I will respond to that post.
My argument is that that is a dumb position because the police can't always be trusted to 'sort things out' later. As you should know there are surely thousands of innocent people in jail who the police either framed or couldn't be arsed to 'sort out' properly.errr..I never said it was. I said he should move to Burma where his style of blanket acceptance of authority would fit right in.Spark wrote:
where your logic fails is that this isn't burma...
Read my post did you?
Good God Ruisleipa...you understand that:
1) He did something illegal
2) Upon his ex gf asking him to remove the pics he said no
3) Upon the cops asking him to remove the pics or get charged he said no
4) He got charged
At what point do you think the guy had the right to post pics on the internet? How the fuck is that legal? Imagine yourself as this guy's lawyer, how exactly are you planning to defend his position?
If you are going to make a point about proper treatment by the cops...shouldn't you use an example where the guy has a defendable position, or at least some sort of gray area?
1) He did something illegal
2) Upon his ex gf asking him to remove the pics he said no
3) Upon the cops asking him to remove the pics or get charged he said no
4) He got charged
At what point do you think the guy had the right to post pics on the internet? How the fuck is that legal? Imagine yourself as this guy's lawyer, how exactly are you planning to defend his position?
If you are going to make a point about proper treatment by the cops...shouldn't you use an example where the guy has a defendable position, or at least some sort of gray area?