UJ's Hamster Died. We're All That's Left...
https://www.ujrefugees.net/
that's great and in no way the same thing. Maybe she did want to fix it, but she was an asshole, she wanted to show she had power and was in no way attempting to "fix" anything without first showing how big of a cock she had. Like I said act like an asshole, get treated like one.Flumper wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:13 pmi was at a funeral many years ago. an old woman had died. anyway, i was driving her husband about 100 miles to where she would be buried (after the funeral). She was buried in a really small town in another state. on the way we talked and one thing he said was that his wife had only asked him for one thing when she was buried. she didn't want to be on the "end" of the burial plots. she wanted to be between him (her husband when he dies) and his father (who was already dead. She didn't want to be buried with a "stranger" on one side. He had 2 grave sites left. One that he had bought many years ago and one that an aunt had willed to him.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:54 pmMaybe. But she IS an elitist cunt.Flumper wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:50 pmbecause i think she wanted to know exactly what the problem was. to see if it was something she could fix rather than having to go through all of the bullshit of getting a car out of an impound lot on a holiday week-end. she probably knew all of the people (including the parents) involved and knew this would be easily fixed. But meanwhile she has to get them all back to their schools, get this car out of impound on monday or tuesday. then get the car back to the kid. That is a whole bunch of crap to go through.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:30 pm Then why do you suppose she went after him over and over again about the specifics? Why were they pulled over? All she had to do was ask the driver. But she kept on after the cop.
So, we get there and sure enough, they had dug the hole on the "outside" grave. The one that he owned. He had told them to dig it in the one willed to him that was by his dad. They said they had no proof that he owned it, therefore couldn't use the other grave site. Meanwhile, 40 people are waiting for the service and the casket is sitting in a sling over the wrong grave. The city owned the grave yard, so we were talking to a city employee on a Saturday grave service. I pulled her aside, told him I would handle it, and to go on with the service.
When I got her alone, away from the crowd, I said, "look, i know he owns that other grave. You probably believe him, but your hands are tied. I get it. He can't correct this with a copy of the will until Monday. Now, how much does it cost to dig a hole and cover up the other one?" She said about $200. I said, "Okay" I pulled out $500. I said, "Now, I am going to give you this to hold until Monday. When the crowd leaves, have the crew dig a new hole in the right place. On Monday, if he can prove everything at the city you can give him back $300 of this and keep the other $200 for having to dig 2 holes". She, after a few phone calls, reluctantly agreed and it all worked out perfectly. They even gave him back all the $500 on Monday. I wasn't being elitist. I was just trying to fix a problem.
That's not how laws work.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 4:09 pmIf they followed the rules, but misspoke when answering this woman's "concerns," she could try to use it. "He said this: <xxx>"AnalHamster wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 3:53 pmIf they aren't following the rules then the case should get thrown out.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 2:19 pmIf they say the wrong thing and it’s recorded, the case can be thrown out, they can be accused of not following procedures, etc.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:27 amBecause having a valid reason for the traffic stop is just devastating to a court case.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:13 pmYes. This wasn’t about wanting to know the reason for the stop. She was trying to intimidate the cops after her initial “what’s all this, then” authority tack failed. No reason to engage her whatsoever. Nothing to gain from it, everything to lose in some future court case.Big Chiefin' wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2019 10:59 pm I disagree. She approached with an attitude and could have asked her daughter or the driver the same question but wanted to put on a show for them. She is not a party to the infraction, so it is up to the driver to decide if he wants to tell her what occurred. I hope they foreclosed on her many homes after she lost her job. CUNT!
She had no right to know the particulars, and was trying to intimidate them. By not giving her satisfaction, they effectively exposed her for the cunt she is.
Once again, she had NO RIGHT to any information. But what she wanted was not information, but to throw her weight around and intimidate the cops into backing down.
Yeah, this is the correct answer. Boy, this thread has legs. BTW, earlier in the thread, didn't someone mentioned she resigned after the video came out. That seems to tell the whole story. To me, anyway.
What do you mean?
You've watched too many tv shows, cases don't get thrown out over nothing. What exactly do you imagine the cops could have said to destroy their case without them breaking any rules? If that stop is getting any unusual scrutiny it will be over their refusal to answer the simple question of why they made the stop, that's suspicious.
Once again, they had NO REASON to answer her demands. None. She could have got all she needed from the driver. She had no involvement with the situation.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 9:15 pmYou've watched too many tv shows, cases don't get thrown out over nothing. What exactly do you imagine the cops could have said to destroy their case without them breaking any rules? If that stop is getting any unusual scrutiny it will be over their refusal to answer the simple question of why they made the stop, that's suspicious.
that's what i'm saying. this isn't some crime that was committed. this is about like not using your blinker to change lanes when there is no one behind you. typically if you can provide the right documents within "x" days they drop it anyway. but not until after you have spent the week-end hauling people all over the place, fighting with the impound people and paying tow fines, and then trying to return the car (which means 2 trips).AnalHamster wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 9:15 pmYou've watched too many tv shows, cases don't get thrown out over nothing. What exactly do you imagine the cops could have said to destroy their case without them breaking any rules? If that stop is getting any unusual scrutiny it will be over their refusal to answer the simple question of why they made the stop, that's suspicious.
They are public servants, she was a member of the public and clearly with an interest in the vehicle and passengers since she was there to collect them. They had no reason to refuse to answer her simple and reasonable question, they were just being petulant.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 9:23 pmOnce again, they had NO REASON to answer her demands. None. She could have got all she needed from the driver. She had no involvement with the situation.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 9:15 pmYou've watched too many tv shows, cases don't get thrown out over nothing. What exactly do you imagine the cops could have said to destroy their case without them breaking any rules? If that stop is getting any unusual scrutiny it will be over their refusal to answer the simple question of why they made the stop, that's suspicious.
Cases get thrown out over suspicion of racial profiling, improper procedures, etc. all the time. In my youth, I had a case thrown out because of illegal search and seizure. Had the cop been alone he could have lied and said he'd had probable cause, but he was not alone, so could not lie in his report.
OK, that's a hell of an analogy. Did you hear, Fchmertz got his Nic from the "I Love Lucy" show. Coincidence? I don't think so.Flumper wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 9:26 pmthat's what i'm saying. this isn't some crime that was committed. this is about like not using your blinker to change lanes when there is no one behind you. typically if you can provide the right documents within "x" days they drop it anyway. but not until after you have spent the week-end hauling people all over the place, fighting with the impound people and paying tow fines, and then trying to return the car (which means 2 trips).AnalHamster wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 9:15 pmYou've watched too many tv shows, cases don't get thrown out over nothing. What exactly do you imagine the cops could have said to destroy their case without them breaking any rules? If that stop is getting any unusual scrutiny it will be over their refusal to answer the simple question of why they made the stop, that's suspicious.
This is not what Andy Taylor would have done. This is more what Barney would have done to Gomer.
She has NO right to demand answers. Period. She pissed them off with her authority stance.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 9:33 pmThey are public servants, she was a member of the public and clearly with an interest in the vehicle and passengers since she was there to collect them. They had no reason to refuse to answer her simple and reasonable question, they were just being petulant.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 9:23 pmOnce again, they had NO REASON to answer her demands. None. She could have got all she needed from the driver. She had no involvement with the situation.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 9:15 pmYou've watched too many tv shows, cases don't get thrown out over nothing. What exactly do you imagine the cops could have said to destroy their case without them breaking any rules? If that stop is getting any unusual scrutiny it will be over their refusal to answer the simple question of why they made the stop, that's suspicious.
Cases get thrown out over suspicion of racial profiling, improper procedures, etc. all the time. In my youth, I had a case thrown out because of illegal search and seizure. Had the cop been alone he could have lied and said he'd had probable cause, but he was not alone, so could not lie in his report.
Notice how your examples of what they could have said that would threaten their case all involve them breaking the rules. As I said already, if the cops break the rules they deserve to have their cases thrown out. You said 'if they followed the rules but misspoke' yet your examples all involve not following the rules. Think about it for a moment, you're saying the cops should not have to explain such simple things as why they are pulling someone over in case they accidentally reveal they're breaking the law.
She has the right to request answers, they had no reason to refuse to give them. That's the flaw in their case if it gets challenged, just why were they so reluctant to explain their actions. It looks suspicious, whereas simply saying 'he changed lanes without indicating' or whatever does not.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 10:10 pmShe has NO right to demand answers. Period. She pissed them off with her authority stance.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 9:33 pmThey are public servants, she was a member of the public and clearly with an interest in the vehicle and passengers since she was there to collect them. They had no reason to refuse to answer her simple and reasonable question, they were just being petulant.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 9:23 pmOnce again, they had NO REASON to answer her demands. None. She could have got all she needed from the driver. She had no involvement with the situation.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 9:15 pmYou've watched too many tv shows, cases don't get thrown out over nothing. What exactly do you imagine the cops could have said to destroy their case without them breaking any rules? If that stop is getting any unusual scrutiny it will be over their refusal to answer the simple question of why they made the stop, that's suspicious.
Cases get thrown out over suspicion of racial profiling, improper procedures, etc. all the time. In my youth, I had a case thrown out because of illegal search and seizure. Had the cop been alone he could have lied and said he'd had probable cause, but he was not alone, so could not lie in his report.
Notice how your examples of what they could have said that would threaten their case all involve them breaking the rules. As I said already, if the cops break the rules they deserve to have their cases thrown out. You said 'if they followed the rules but misspoke' yet your examples all involve not following the rules. Think about it for a moment, you're saying the cops should not have to explain such simple things as why they are pulling someone over in case they accidentally reveal they're breaking the law.
Lord... let's say you stop a black man for a broken tail light and the car reeks of reefer. He he's got drugs. You arrest him. You say something to your partner about catching another drug hauling n****r on the i95 corridor. Now, it looks like you were profiling him. You weren't. but that's on the tape. Depending on the case and the judge, that could get your case thrown out. Maybe even before it gets that far.
Without knowing ANYTHING more about this case, and having watched not all of the video, I will say it looks like they might have gone after that guy for a small sporty car with tinted windows. Profiling? Who knows. So they pull him over for the windows and the license plate, then they find it's not been registered for 2 years, and no proof of insurance, either. So that's that. Not a car full of brothers, but someone whose car is 2 years out of registration, and so must be towed. That's all there was to it.
Most cop cars in NJ have computers that can automatically scan plates and check registration/insurance and warrant status.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 10:10 pmShe has NO right to demand answers. Period. She pissed them off with her authority stance.
Lord... let's say you stop a black man for a broken tail light and the car reeks of reefer. He he's got drugs. You arrest him. You say something to your partner about catching another drug hauling n****r on the i95 corridor. Now, it looks like you were profiling him. You weren't. but that's on the tape. Depending on the case and the judge, that could get your case thrown out. Maybe even before it gets that far.
Without knowing ANYTHING more about this case, and having watched not all of the video, I will say it looks like they might have gone after that guy for a small sporty car with tinted windows. Profiling? Who knows. So they pull him over for the windows and the license plate, then they find it's not been registered for 2 years, and no proof of insurance, either. So that's that. Not a car full of brothers, but someone whose car is 2 years out of registration, and so must be towed. That's all there was to it
You have a massively inflated view of your own reasoning skills. If you don’t like something you’ll simply dismiss it. After a while, your moving of goalposts becomes exhausting. There’s simply no point to going on.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:11 pm You should try rereading the exchange at some point, see if you can grasp what I've been saying and the gaping holes in what you've been saying. I won't hold my breath.
Unfortunately, we don’t see the first part of the video. I saw he said something to him about tint d window and his plate holder blocking the tag from being fully visible. Didn’t watch the whole hour start to finish.FSchmertz wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:28 pmMost cop cars in NJ have computers that can automatically scan plates and check registration/insurance and warrant status.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 10:10 pmShe has NO right to demand answers. Period. She pissed them off with her authority stance.
Lord... let's say you stop a black man for a broken tail light and the car reeks of reefer. He he's got drugs. You arrest him. You say something to your partner about catching another drug hauling n****r on the i95 corridor. Now, it looks like you were profiling him. You weren't. but that's on the tape. Depending on the case and the judge, that could get your case thrown out. Maybe even before it gets that far.
Without knowing ANYTHING more about this case, and having watched not all of the video, I will say it looks like they might have gone after that guy for a small sporty car with tinted windows. Profiling? Who knows. So they pull him over for the windows and the license plate, then they find it's not been registered for 2 years, and no proof of insurance, either. So that's that. Not a car full of brothers, but someone whose car is 2 years out of registration, and so must be towed. That's all there was to it
If he was unregistered, it'd flag him immediately.
What goalposts did I move exactly? You claimed they couldn't speak even if they followed all the rules because that can mysteriously cause problems somehow, then when I asked you what you think they could have said gave a bunch of examples of how they could have broken rules then failed to cover it up. If you cannot reconcile the things you have said, you should have the maturity to think again.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:32 pmYou have a massively inflated view of your own reasoning skills. If you don’t like something you’ll simply dismiss it. After a while, your moving of goalposts becomes exhausting. There’s simply no point to going on.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:11 pm You should try rereading the exchange at some point, see if you can grasp what I've been saying and the gaping holes in what you've been saying. I won't hold my breath.
I agree with the first part disagree with the second. It doesnt look like they are covering anything. It either seems like policy, or they thought she was a cunt. Plain and simple. They are not required to cowtow to assholes just to allow them to be assholes to someone else. Some people deserve the shit they get. She was one of them. Basically what you're saying is, cops can be treated like shit and are just to roll over and take it to preserve some preconceived notions. And I disagree with that totally. No one deserves to get treated that way. They could have taken a nicer route, but they didnt have to. They were in the right, in my opinion either way. She served the ball as an asshole, that's how they chose to return it, and they had every right to. So long as neither acted uncivil, which they didnt, or showed a type of power trip, which they didnt, she did, then i see no harm in the fact an idiot got treated as an idiot.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:42 pmWhat goalposts did I move exactly? You claimed they couldn't speak even if they followed all the rules because that can mysteriously cause problems somehow, then when I asked you what you think they could have said gave a bunch of examples of how they could have broken rules then failed to cover it up. If you cannot reconcile the things you have said, you should have the maturity to think again.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:32 pmYou have a massively inflated view of your own reasoning skills. If you don’t like something you’ll simply dismiss it. After a while, your moving of goalposts becomes exhausting. There’s simply no point to going on.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:11 pm You should try rereading the exchange at some point, see if you can grasp what I've been saying and the gaping holes in what you've been saying. I won't hold my breath.
The simple fact is they have no reason to cover up pulling someone over for a broken tail light, erratic driving, flagged plate, whatever. Refusing to give one of these straightforward and valid reasons to anyone who asks just looks suspicious, which does the opposite of protecting their case. Clearly they were just being petulant because they didn't like her attitude, which is just bad policing. Most of the job is dealing with tards.
No shit. Spewing tedious crap signifying nothing. Was old years ago.Biker wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:34 pmHe's not the TediousFuhrer for nothingVinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:06 pm Dear God, I give up. You ain’t ever gonna quit, and I could argue ‘til Eternity, and it won’t make a difference.
Refusing to explain their public exercise of power to a member of the public is a power trip and is covering up. The reason for covering it up being simple petulance does not change the fact that what they were doing was covering it up. I don't understand the attitude that the police somehow have the right to have secret reasons for public law enforcement, or how it is treating them like shit to simply ask why they have exercised their powers to detain people and seize property. Her attitude was shitty, (at the point where the tape starts which is not the start of the encounter), but her questions are entirely reasonable. I doubt it would ever see a court, but if it did any competent defense lawyer can simply point to the secretive and obstructive attitude of the police to suggest something nefarious in the initial stop.necronomous wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:54 pmI agree with the first part disagree with the second. It doesnt look like they are covering anything. It either seems like policy, or they thought she was a cunt. Plain and simple. They are not required to cowtow to assholes just to allow them to be assholes to someone else. Some people deserve the shit they get. She was one of them. Basically what you're saying is, cops can be treated like shit and are just to roll over and take it to preserve some preconceived notions. And I disagree with that totally. No one deserves to get treated that way. They could have taken a nicer route, but they didnt have to. They were in the right, in my opinion either way. She served the ball as an asshole, that's how they chose to return it, and they had every right to. So long as neither acted uncivil, which they didnt, or showed a type of power trip, which they didnt, she did, then i see no harm in the fact an idiot got treated as an idiot.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:42 pmWhat goalposts did I move exactly? You claimed they couldn't speak even if they followed all the rules because that can mysteriously cause problems somehow, then when I asked you what you think they could have said gave a bunch of examples of how they could have broken rules then failed to cover it up. If you cannot reconcile the things you have said, you should have the maturity to think again.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:32 pmYou have a massively inflated view of your own reasoning skills. If you don’t like something you’ll simply dismiss it. After a while, your moving of goalposts becomes exhausting. There’s simply no point to going on.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:11 pm You should try rereading the exchange at some point, see if you can grasp what I've been saying and the gaping holes in what you've been saying. I won't hold my breath.
The simple fact is they have no reason to cover up pulling someone over for a broken tail light, erratic driving, flagged plate, whatever. Refusing to give one of these straightforward and valid reasons to anyone who asks just looks suspicious, which does the opposite of protecting their case. Clearly they were just being petulant because they didn't like her attitude, which is just bad policing. Most of the job is dealing with tards.
Busted into the 4th page. I've got it/ Blah, Blah Blah into eternity. Brit needs a life.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 12:20 amRefusing to explain their public exercise of power to a member of the public is a power trip and is covering up. The reason for covering it up being simple petulance does not change the fact that what they were doing was covering it up. I don't understand the attitude that the police somehow have the right to have secret reasons for public law enforcement, or how it is treating them like shit to simply ask why they have exercised their powers to detain people and seize property. Her attitude was shitty, (at the point where the tape starts which is not the start of the encounter), but her questions are entirely reasonable. I doubt it would ever see a court, but if it did any competent defense lawyer can simply point to the secretive and obstructive attitude of the police to suggest something nefarious in the initial stop.necronomous wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:54 pmI agree with the first part disagree with the second. It doesnt look like they are covering anything. It either seems like policy, or they thought she was a cunt. Plain and simple. They are not required to cowtow to assholes just to allow them to be assholes to someone else. Some people deserve the shit they get. She was one of them. Basically what you're saying is, cops can be treated like shit and are just to roll over and take it to preserve some preconceived notions. And I disagree with that totally. No one deserves to get treated that way. They could have taken a nicer route, but they didnt have to. They were in the right, in my opinion either way. She served the ball as an asshole, that's how they chose to return it, and they had every right to. So long as neither acted uncivil, which they didnt, or showed a type of power trip, which they didnt, she did, then i see no harm in the fact an idiot got treated as an idiot.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:42 pmWhat goalposts did I move exactly? You claimed they couldn't speak even if they followed all the rules because that can mysteriously cause problems somehow, then when I asked you what you think they could have said gave a bunch of examples of how they could have broken rules then failed to cover it up. If you cannot reconcile the things you have said, you should have the maturity to think again.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:32 pmYou have a massively inflated view of your own reasoning skills. If you don’t like something you’ll simply dismiss it. After a while, your moving of goalposts becomes exhausting. There’s simply no point to going on.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:11 pm You should try rereading the exchange at some point, see if you can grasp what I've been saying and the gaping holes in what you've been saying. I won't hold my breath.
The simple fact is they have no reason to cover up pulling someone over for a broken tail light, erratic driving, flagged plate, whatever. Refusing to give one of these straightforward and valid reasons to anyone who asks just looks suspicious, which does the opposite of protecting their case. Clearly they were just being petulant because they didn't like her attitude, which is just bad policing. Most of the job is dealing with tards.
Nope. This is called overthinking a situation to be contrarian. Treating a cunt like a cunt is not a power trip. Not explaining details is not a power trip. Its returning the favor. I in no way implied anything legal, lawyer, or court related as in this case it does not apply and probably never would. Again, either its policy, or they just thought she was a cunt and they returned the favor. I can easily say I cant see how people think they can just roll up on cops and think they can speak however they want because they are a public servant. And that might not be the start of the video, but it is the start of her interaction of being a cunt.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 12:20 amRefusing to explain their public exercise of power to a member of the public is a power trip and is covering up. The reason for covering it up being simple petulance does not change the fact that what they were doing was covering it up. I don't understand the attitude that the police somehow have the right to have secret reasons for public law enforcement, or how it is treating them like shit to simply ask why they have exercised their powers to detain people and seize property. Her attitude was shitty, (at the point where the tape starts which is not the start of the encounter), but her questions are entirely reasonable. I doubt it would ever see a court, but if it did any competent defense lawyer can simply point to the secretive and obstructive attitude of the police to suggest something nefarious in the initial stop.necronomous wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:54 pmI agree with the first part disagree with the second. It doesnt look like they are covering anything. It either seems like policy, or they thought she was a cunt. Plain and simple. They are not required to cowtow to assholes just to allow them to be assholes to someone else. Some people deserve the shit they get. She was one of them. Basically what you're saying is, cops can be treated like shit and are just to roll over and take it to preserve some preconceived notions. And I disagree with that totally. No one deserves to get treated that way. They could have taken a nicer route, but they didnt have to. They were in the right, in my opinion either way. She served the ball as an asshole, that's how they chose to return it, and they had every right to. So long as neither acted uncivil, which they didnt, or showed a type of power trip, which they didnt, she did, then i see no harm in the fact an idiot got treated as an idiot.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:42 pmWhat goalposts did I move exactly? You claimed they couldn't speak even if they followed all the rules because that can mysteriously cause problems somehow, then when I asked you what you think they could have said gave a bunch of examples of how they could have broken rules then failed to cover it up. If you cannot reconcile the things you have said, you should have the maturity to think again.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:32 pmYou have a massively inflated view of your own reasoning skills. If you don’t like something you’ll simply dismiss it. After a while, your moving of goalposts becomes exhausting. There’s simply no point to going on.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:11 pm You should try rereading the exchange at some point, see if you can grasp what I've been saying and the gaping holes in what you've been saying. I won't hold my breath.
The simple fact is they have no reason to cover up pulling someone over for a broken tail light, erratic driving, flagged plate, whatever. Refusing to give one of these straightforward and valid reasons to anyone who asks just looks suspicious, which does the opposite of protecting their case. Clearly they were just being petulant because they didn't like her attitude, which is just bad policing. Most of the job is dealing with tards.
The cop said several times that he wasn’t telling her anything because of her behavior. The higher ups said the cops acted appropriately.necronomous wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 1:08 amNope. This is called overthinking a situation to be contrarian. Treating a cunt like a cunt is not a power trip. Not explaining details is not a power trip. Its returning the favor. I in no way implied anything legal, lawyer, or court related as in this case it does not apply and probably never would. Again, either its policy, or they just thought she was a cunt and they returned the favor. I can easily say I cant see how people think they can just roll up on cops and think they can speak however they want because they are a public servant. And that might not be the start of the video, but it is the start of her interaction of being a cunt.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 12:20 amRefusing to explain their public exercise of power to a member of the public is a power trip and is covering up. The reason for covering it up being simple petulance does not change the fact that what they were doing was covering it up. I don't understand the attitude that the police somehow have the right to have secret reasons for public law enforcement, or how it is treating them like shit to simply ask why they have exercised their powers to detain people and seize property. Her attitude was shitty, (at the point where the tape starts which is not the start of the encounter), but her questions are entirely reasonable. I doubt it would ever see a court, but if it did any competent defense lawyer can simply point to the secretive and obstructive attitude of the police to suggest something nefarious in the initial stop.necronomous wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:54 pmI agree with the first part disagree with the second. It doesnt look like they are covering anything. It either seems like policy, or they thought she was a cunt. Plain and simple. They are not required to cowtow to assholes just to allow them to be assholes to someone else. Some people deserve the shit they get. She was one of them. Basically what you're saying is, cops can be treated like shit and are just to roll over and take it to preserve some preconceived notions. And I disagree with that totally. No one deserves to get treated that way. They could have taken a nicer route, but they didnt have to. They were in the right, in my opinion either way. She served the ball as an asshole, that's how they chose to return it, and they had every right to. So long as neither acted uncivil, which they didnt, or showed a type of power trip, which they didnt, she did, then i see no harm in the fact an idiot got treated as an idiot.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:42 pmWhat goalposts did I move exactly? You claimed they couldn't speak even if they followed all the rules because that can mysteriously cause problems somehow, then when I asked you what you think they could have said gave a bunch of examples of how they could have broken rules then failed to cover it up. If you cannot reconcile the things you have said, you should have the maturity to think again.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:32 pmYou have a massively inflated view of your own reasoning skills. If you don’t like something you’ll simply dismiss it. After a while, your moving of goalposts becomes exhausting. There’s simply no point to going on.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:11 pm You should try rereading the exchange at some point, see if you can grasp what I've been saying and the gaping holes in what you've been saying. I won't hold my breath.
The simple fact is they have no reason to cover up pulling someone over for a broken tail light, erratic driving, flagged plate, whatever. Refusing to give one of these straightforward and valid reasons to anyone who asks just looks suspicious, which does the opposite of protecting their case. Clearly they were just being petulant because they didn't like her attitude, which is just bad policing. Most of the job is dealing with tards.