How’s that medicine taste, buddy?

Published On February 11, 2013 | By Georgia Sand | Articles

It is no secret that police, and their bootlickers, believe themselves to be a higher order of human than the rest of us. For instance, in many states, assault on an officer carries a higher penalty than assault on a lowly peon such as you or me. In many states homicide of a police officer also carries a higher sentence than homicide of the rest of us.

Police shoot people’s dogs All. The. Fucking. Time. If those 4 links were not sufficient evidence of their penchant for killing dogs, see more here and here. The last link there is particularly fun, involving a situation wherein police raided the wrong house, shot the family dog, and handcuffed the children next to their dead dog. Super compassionate, and not to mention classy. Over and over, these dog-killing police are cleared of wrongdoing or found to have been justified in their actions. On the other hand, the same standards do not seem to apply to them. If you so much as resist against their violent and horrifying K-9s, your ass is going to jail.

Forget the dogs, how about our fellow human beings? As long as cops accompany all kinds of murder with 5 magic words – “I feared for my life” – they’re pretty much home free. They are free to murder people running in the other direction; unarmed people laying down on the ground; hobbling, half-deaf elderly people; people lawfully carrying weapons; etc.

Not so long ago, 16 New York City police officers were arraigned in connection with over 1,600 counts of ticket fixing,  wherein these cops made traffic tickets magically disappear for their friends and family. The hallowed police were apparently incensed that they (supreme beings, obviously) were being  forced to abide by the very laws they swore to uphold, and a whole horde of them protested violently at the courthouse.

Every time any innocent person suffers at the hands of police abuse, or every time a pet dies, the police and their goddamn supporters respond with the following (or some variant thereof) -

  • It was a necessary measure to get the job done
  • The victim had it coming, because he was doing ________ [insert some petty transgression here, e.g. drinking in public, jaywalking, smoking weed, etc.]
  • The law is the law! Ignorance of the law is no excuse!
  • You don’t know how hard it is to be a police officer, so STFU!
  • Just doing their jobs. Go take it up with a legislator.

Thus, you can imagine that I wasn’t very sympathetic when these fuckers got a taste of their own medicine in more than one instance of blatant “injustice” recently.

An Indiana police officer and his wife are facing jail time for rescuing an orphaned deer. The deer was badly injured, and out of the goodness of their hearts, the Councellers nursed back to health. However, an Indiana Conservation Officer stopped by their home to advise them the deer should be euthanized. Further, Jeff Counceller, a police officer in Connersville, and his wife, were charged with unlawful possession of a deer. This charge is a misdemeanor which could result in 60 days in jail time and cost up to $2,000 in fines (more here).

LOL!

Now, let’s repeat to the good Officer Counceller what he must have said to every innocent victim he has ever ticketed and/or jailed for stupid shit -

  • It was a necessary measure to get the job done
  • You had it coming, because you were doing something illegal!
  • The law is the law! Ignorance of the law is no excuse!
  • You don’t know how hard it is to be an Indiana Conservation Officer, so STFU!
  • Just doin’ my job, brah! Go find your local legislator! Don’t know one? Tough luck.

Make no mistake – this would be no laughing matter if it had happened to a mere peon, or my fellow man, and I certainly do not support criminalization of helping local wildlife. However, this should give police and their supporters pause for thought with regard to their habit of violent enforcement, which usually falls disproportionately on everyone else, rather than themselves.

In another laughable incident, an off-duty Hollywood police officer and an off-duty DEA agent got in a scuffle over a minor traffic incident. The DEA agent alleges the police officer grew unnecessarily irate because the DEA agent was speeding in his neighborhood. This resulted in the officer screaming “Yeah well I hope you die,” striking the agent in the face, and attempting to choke him (more here), according to the lawsuit filed by the DEA agent. The lawsuit also alleges that Hollywood police threatened to “set up” the DEA agent to get him fired, and attempted to cover the errors and crimes of Hollywood police.

So the DEA agent, a guy who dedicates his life to ruining the lives of harmless potheads (and other partiers, or drug addicts who need help), suffers at the hands of law enforcement himself. He is violently attacked, and the victim of framing and lies. Not so fun when it happens to you, is it? It’s probably too much to hope that these the law enforcement individuals involved here will learn a lesson and feel sympathy for the people they terrorize daily.

So I’ll just laugh instead.

 

Like this Article? Share it!

About The Author

Georgia (George) Sand received her B.A. from UCLA and her J.D. from the University of San Diego School of Law. She enjoys beer, jogging, the beach and music in her spare time.
  • Common Sense

    Note the time and date, Sand discovers life’s not fair.

  • t.

    Wow. Another inciteful “Georgia Sand” rant. What silliness.

  • Lakewood_in_Afghanistan

    And now the Knights in Black of the LAPD get the same taste, this time from someone not willing to curl up into a fetal position for them to kick.

    Anyone want to start a pool as to the final tally?

  • Lakewood_in_Afghanistan

    As for the story above, you kinda hope both sides lose. Though I suspect DEA agents will inhabit a slightly cooler circle of Hell than your standard beat cop. After all, DEA agents don’t drone on endlessly about how they put their lives on the line and we aught to love them, and on and on. See “t” and Common above…

    Authoritarian doofuses at all levels of “rule enforcement and general asshattery” need to find useful employment, like picking up cans by the side of the road.

  • t.

    Hey douche bag! How’s thing in the rear with the gear? Any of the men around you try to kill you yet? Bet theyve thought about it.

    I’ll go with 1.

  • steve

    police have it so tough. poor dea has it so tough. at this point i wish dueling to settle your matters was legal. i would love to see that crooked ass hollywood nail the dea. i do not consider dea a police agency. their more like little primadonnas. they suck each other. smell crotches and lick ass. i imagin hollywood will win. remember hollywood cops are like a little rougher than most its a tough area.screw the liars all of them.

  • Common Sense

    Oh, had Sand done any type of fact checking, she’d learn that the DA is dropping the charges against the couple in reference to the deer.

    I’m sure its a conspiracy, him being a cop and all….

  • http://www.badgeabuse.com badgeabuse

    T…this thread is awaiting your douche bag response…I see you have no comment…you POS.

    http://www.copblock.org/27349/police-shoot-randomly-at-trucks-similiar-to-that-of-accused-cop-killer/

  • 2minutes

    “Wow. Another inciteful “Georgia Sand” rant. What silliness.”

    No sillier than your response, which disregards the inappropriate actions of the police as a whole, which this ‘rant’ is attempting to
    illuminate. Just look at the actions of the New York police mentioned above; when their ticket-fixing scheme fell apart, they immediately turned to violence and mob mentality – this is the people who are supposed to uphold the law? Who are supposed to be the peacekeepers?

    These cops are no different from the criminals that they claim to be
    protecting us from. The fact is, cops make mistakes (if they are indeed mistakes and not retaliatory gestures) all the time, and innocent people suffer. A lot. And the cops walk away with relatively
    little repercussions for their crimes – sorry, I meant mistakes.

    Hell, just look at the situation going on currently: cops in California shooting at trucks just because the person of interest in the case was driving one. Never mind that the trucks descriptions didn’t match, just shoot to kill – because if you kill an innocent person, well, tough shit. That’s the breaks. And in the aftermath, this is how the cops always sound:

    “It was a mistake and all, you know how much a Toyota and a Nissan truck look alike (they don’t) and how much 2 women look like 1 man (of different ethnic backgrounds, no less)? Just a mistake, one of many. We’re cops, so we can make those kind of mistakes, you shouldn’t mind – but you had better not ever do something similar, or else we’re coming for you. We can make mistakes, you can’t. You should feel really safe now, knowing we’re there to protect you, unless we make a mistake, of course. But, it’s OK, nothing will happen. To us. To you? Well, if something does, and we do it, then it was a mistake, you know. But, we’ll investigate it, you’ll see. And find no wrongdoing. Annnd, Case closed.”

    Now, given that the police seem to get away with so much, like assaults on innocent people, killing innocent people, creating a violent mob (see New York again), breaking into an innocent persons home – all acts of violence without cause – I’m just gonna come out and say this: you cops have no standing when it comes to decrying violent actions and/or individuals calling for violence. Until you can, as a group, come to terms with your own proclivities toward violence, and reign in your own actions, you have no grounds from which to condemn others, something I’ve seen numerous times on this site alone. So, if cops can shoot holes in a truck without knowing
    for a fact that the driver is the man they are looking for, endangering the lives of innocent people because fuck you, that’s
    why, then I have no sympathy for these cops when they themselves become the target of violence. And you cops have no one to blame but yourselves.

  • t.

    Well….

    Badge: What would you like to talk about….about that thread? I, nor anyone that I’ve seen who comment on this site, have ever claimed police perfection. In fact, it’s just the opposite. Iunderstand tthat there are police failings. Time after time I’ve point out that the police make mistakes. So what would you like me to comment on??

    2: The problem with her “rant” is that it uses very limited examples. Again, I’ll use a little general math for you. (Now its just a generalization, but its pretty close). I answer say an average of 20 calls per shift, 14 shifts per month. I deal with an average of 4 people per call. That’s over 13000 people per year that i , alone, have contact with. ( its really gonna be way, WAY more than that when you take into account persons not directly involved in whatever I’m doing that witness / observe me). Now, if I work for a deptment that has 1000 officers…..that’s over 13,000,000….13 million…contacts a year. (Now of course there are many, many variables…but its just an example). Now, if there are 16,000 police agencies in the US…..then number of direct police contacts is staggering. Now, a HUGE number of the contacts are the same people over and over, and lots of times the same 4 people are being “counted” by 2or 3 involved officers so the number can really change….but the number is still gigantic. And good old Sands points out a very few incidents and you just buy into the idea that every police department and officer is bad. You sir are a fool at best. I will again direct you to this sirpte called “Cop Block”. Maybe you seen it. The frequently feature article where police officers have done something stupid and gotten in trouble for it. Now unfortunately, there are lots of contributes to that site that are not only biased, but grossly disingenuous. But, as a 1 stop shop so to speak, the site does show officer being held accountable for their actions.

  • Lakewood_in_Afghanistan

    “I’ll go with 1.”

    I’m not sure what you were trying to say. Have you been drinking or taking any prescription medications that have a CNS effect?

    Or are cops just that incoherent?

  • 2minutes

    @t
    I don’t care about your general math, or how many contacts the police have in a year; it still doesn’t justify the kind of incidents that are mentioned here. You seem to think that a percentage of incidents that end in killing, maiming, or imprisoning innocent people are alright, as long as it’s kept to a minimum. It’s not, and you, sir, are the fool to even attempt to justify such things with your weak mathematics. Just how many are too many? Greater than 1%? 2%? 10%? Where is the limit?

    How many innocent people get to suffer the outcome of your math? You are in a profession that can seriously, sometimes fatally, impact a life, and there is no room for the kind of errors that you so casually relegate to the acceptable error margins.

    As far as accountable, come on, even the courts have recognized the ‘blue wall” as legitimate. Yes, sometimes cops are accountable, but only after exhausting all the possible excuses/legal dodges/ blue wall ‘assistance’. Cops get break after break, committing petty (and sometimes not so petty) crimes with impunity, or at worst, minimal
    sanctions, and when they finally go too far and get caught in something big, then they get thrown out there as an example of cops being held accountable. Please. If you think the general public isn’t aware of this, then you, sir, are the biggest fool on this site.

  • courtofpublicopinion

    basic math would also tell us that the high number of “i was in fear for my life” crap out of cops mouths after they shoot someone means that they must be a bunch of scardy cat pussies, and should maybe seek safer jobs if they are that AFRAID!

  • Common Sense

    As per usual, its the emotion response.

    If the police were ‘terrified’ then why do they kill ‘only’ 350 per year out of 50+ million citizen contacts and 12-14 million arrests? Out of the execution of 20,000 search warrants, but still only one death, per day, in a nation of 315 million? That numbers of police shootings has been pretty constant for the last 10 years too. I mean, from what you say, the police would be slaying people everyday, every shift. They’d be calling for ammo. There would be thousands and thousands shot to death by the ‘scared’ police.

    Sorry, I know CB doesn’t like facts or nubmers, but they make sense to those who understand.

  • shawn

    @common

    One, where do you get your numbers? Two, do they account for those who simply survive the wounds because of better medical care? Three, do they account for cops who try to kill and simply miss? Remember that cops shot at three innocent people last week in LA. Fortunately their aim was as incompetent as their judgment.

  • Common Sense

    On average, the numbers are.

    1200 police shootings total annually – many whom who won’t hear about nationwide when either no one is hit, or the injuries are minor, suspect lives etc.

    350-400 people shot to death by police

    250 people shot and killed by other people (justified)

    The number of police contact(s) are averages, but the number of arrests are from the FBI.

  • t.

    Flakewood: You wanted to start a pool. I went with 1. Even for an idiot like you, how hard is that to understand. He got the only one hel’ll get.

  • t.

    2: Did you even follow any of the links she put up? Her examples are even weaker than her arguments. I didn’t even bother to go to them all as the ones I went were crap. Heck, I surprised she didn’t link to the story that Davy V. posted where the maurding pit bull was shot after it went after at least 3 people. And then she tries to use the case where video clearly shows an officer who clearly thought he had grabbed his taser but got his pistol instead. Really? And her arguments about the police shooting people that are running away. Really. Ialready exposed her when she wrote the article about Tennessee vs. Garner where sshe…a lawyer…won’t even present that right because she wants to bias YOU when you read it…and it worked. You buy it. Dude. Read and think for yourself. I didn’t care if you agree with me or not. But don’t just take what you are being fed as gospel. If you see the police do something that makes no sense, check their facts. See if what they say happened, what is reported makes sense. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t. But so many here want to really believe that there is a great conspiracy to trample your rights and that law enforcement is all acting in concert to screw you. Really? You believe that? That is stupid at best.

  • Pingback: How’s that medicine taste, buddy? - Unofficial Network

  • courtofpublicopinion

    @ t i think you and senseless should be the negotiating team they send in when they find chris dorner, you guys can explain it all to him just like you do to us here, i am sure if the 2 of you team up you will make him see the error of his ways.

  • t.

    Court: k.

  • 2minutes

    t: I did scan the links, but I did not read them fully. I do not need to, as my position remains as stated; the links neither strengthen nor weaken it one bit. I do not buy into what anyone is trying to sell me, including you with your “oh, a few innocent people were deprived of their liberty, or hurt, or maimed, or killed by mistake, but that’s ok, it’s just a statistical anomaly, nothing to see here” bullshit. It shouldn’t happen; people driving trucks shouldn’t be shot by cops because they think a Toyota or a Honda looks like a Nissan, or 2 women look like a man – but that’s the kind of thing you’re trying hard to justify. Hell, the agitator is running a botched raid of the day, and Mr. Balko says he has enough to go on for quite some time. A pretty large statistical anomaly if you ask me. So many anomalies when the police are involved – why is
    that?

    As for conspiracies: well, a federal judge ruled recently the the police ‘code of silence’ exists, at least in Chicago, in the
    Karolina Obrycka case. It seems that she was assaulted by an off duty officer and his cop buddies went out of their way to cover it up. Dictionary.com defines conspiracy as “a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose”, which certainly applies to the actions of the Chicago PD, so there’s that. A conspiracy within a police department, who’da thought? But of course, I’m sure it’s
    a statistical anomaly. Again.

    So, now that the presence of a conspiracy has been ruled by a federal judge, it seem extremely stupid -that’s the nicest way I
    can say it -to deny the existence of such. But hey, don’t argue with me – tell it to the judge.

  • Georgia Sand

    Go fuck yourself, common sense. You don’t know your ass from the law and are in no position to talk about tennesse v. Garner. You’re fucking brain dead and didn’t read the case before mouthing off at me about a subject of which you know nothing. In fact, I dedicated this entire post to you to show everyone what a fucking liar you are -

    http://www.copblock.org/19331/tennessee-v-garner/

    Did you forget about that? Probably just your selective attention.

  • Georgia Sand

    Everyone else – Thank you for reading. :)

  • t.

    Ms. Sand: First, I.m not @Common Sense. I know in your raving state that you frequently get things wrong, but I’ll let that slide as it makes no difference. Now the legal advice the you gave about Tennessee vs. Garner was absolutely wrong. Oh, you read the case as any prelaw student should. But your understanding of it is just wrong. You missed that part. That why i linked that case to Graham vs. Connor. Those are THE go to police use of force cases. For YOU to not link them is just crappy lawyering.

    You may be an intelligent person, but your arguments tend to be weakened because you try to use “board line” cases. You may want to reach for some lower hanging fruit, instead of reaching so far.

  • Georgia Sand

    Ok t. the two cases do not have mutually exclusive holdings. Tennessee v. Garner has not been overturned. But let’s assume you are right. If you think that it is “objectively reasonable”under the Graham case to shoot a fleeing person in the back, you are not only fucking retarded, you are fucking evil.

  • t.

    K. You stand still wrong. Wow, if you really have a law license, you should turn it in, or maybe sue yourself for malpractice.

    But all joking aside. If you think that Tennessee v. Garner says / means that the police can’t shoot at someone because they turn their back, you are really foolish. That case was about a fleeing felon. But its decision, along with / combine with, Graham vs. Connor (most informed circles link the 2 in any “use of force” discussion). The result is in a “reasonableness standard”. And that’s all I’m trying you…someone who should be learned in such things, to share with those that you are trying to sway to your thinking. There’s nothing wrong with a little intellectual honesty.

  • Georgia Sand

    ok T. Let’s pretend TN v. Garner doesn’t even exist.

    All Graham says is that the “objectively reasonable” test must be used in excessive force cases. That case was about a diabetic who got beat up by police.

    The only way you can possibly be right, and I could possibly be wrong is if it is “objectively reasonable” for police to shoot a fleeing suspect in the back. I said it before and I’ll say it again. If you think it’s “objectively reasonable” for police to shoot an unarmed, fleeing suspect in the back, you are either fucking retarded or fucking evil.

    Don’t take it from me. Take it from your other brothers in blue –

    http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/1271618-How-to-ensure-use-of-force-is-reasonable-and-necessary-and-avoid-claims-of-excessive-force/

    In this article, written on a police website for police, the Graham case, and various excessive force factors to be considered by courts are laid out. If you read that and think Graham means that you can shoot a non-violent fleeing suspect in the back, you are fucking insane.

  • Georgia Sand

    You know what, T – here. I’m going to copy and paste portions of Graham here for you because I don’t think you read it. It cites Garner all over the place. It does not contravene the idea that shooting a fleeing, non-violent suspect in the back is unconstitutional.

    As we have said many times, § 1983 “is not itself a
    Page 490 U. S. 394
    source of substantive rights,” but merely provides “a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.” Baker v. McCollan, 443 U. S. 137, 443 U. S. 144, n. 3 (1979). In addressing an excessive force claim brought under § 1983, analysis begins by identifying the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed by the challenged application of force. See id. at 443 U. S. 140 (“The first inquiry in any § 1983 suit” is “to isolate the precise constitutional violation with which [the defendant] is charged”). [Footnote 9] In most instances, that will be either the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable seizures of the person or the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments, which are the two primary sources of constitutional protection against physically abusive governmental conduct. The validity of the claim must then be judged by reference to the specific constitutional standard which governs that right, rather than to some generalized “excessive force” standard. See Tennessee v. Garner, supra, at 471 U. S. 7-22
    ….
    Where, as here, the excessive force claim arises in the context of an arrest or investigatory stop of a free citizen, it is most properly characterized as one invoking the protections of the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees citizens the right “to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable . . . seizures” of the person. This much is clear from our decision in Tennessee v. Garner, supra. In Garner, we addressed a claim that the use of deadly force to apprehend a fleeing suspect who did not appear to be armed or otherwise dangerous violated the suspect’s constitutional rights, notwithstanding the existence of probable cause to arrest.
    ….
    Today we make explicit what was implicit in Garner’s analysis, and hold that all claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force — deadly or not — in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other “seizure” of a free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its “reasonableness” standard, rather than under a “substantive due process” approach. Because the Fourth Amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection against this sort of physically intrusive governmental conduct, that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of “substantive due process,” must be the guide for analyzing these claims.

    Determining whether the force used to effect a particular seizure is “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment requires a careful balancing of “the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests’” against the countervailing governmental interests at stake. Id. at 471 U. S. 8, quoting United States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696, 462 U. S. 703 (1983). Our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has long recognized that the right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. at 392 U. S. 22-27. Because “[t]he test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application,” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U. S. 520, 441 U. S. 559 (1979), however, its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. at 471 U. S. 8-9 (the question is “whether the totality of the circumstances justifie[s] a particular sort of. . . seizure”).
    ….

  • Common Sense

    1. Sand does not fact check
    2. I now know why Sand may have a JD, but not a bar card.
    3. Sand cannot take any criticism.

  • t.

    Ms. Sands: Ease up on the hate and open up your mind. You now at least admit that the 2 case are linked (and should be) in any police use of force incident or discussion. Again, you are absolutely right in your reading of Tennessee vs garner. And i think its crazy to look back and think that it was every a legal thing to do ( but it was at the time ). And no where has anyone ever said it was “overturned..”. But since graham vs Connor, the reasonableness standard of police force is much more clearly laid out.

    Recently under a post by Davy V. about the police killing a maurading pit bull, I mentioned graham vs Connor. Many of your cop block followers probably thought I was crazy and one tried to call me out about using a case about a human diabetic and comparing to shooting a vicious and dangerous animal. Now hopefully, a learned person such as yourself will understand that the reasonableness of the action is the key. As example, if I had been working in rural Alabama 2 weeks ago and I had witnessed an armed old man trying to board a school bus…do you think I would have been justified in shooting him in the back as that is the only target he presented me? How about 20 years ago in North Hollywood? If they had just fobbed that bank, shot at everyone and then turned away from me….your use of Tennessee vs. Garner would say I can’t shoot. And that’s a very wrong understanding.

    Look at the item you link to on Police One. You for some reason linked to it…when it clearly says exactly what I said and am saying. Its about “reasonableness,”. In the moment…not in the cushy review from a warm office over a cup of coffee.

    The police aren’t perfect. They don’t implant the perfection chip in the academy. But neither is anyone else. Its a dangerous world out there. Your spread of intentionally wrong information, or at least incomplete information, puts those that you claim to want to help, at greater risk. I don’t want anyone to get hurt. The comments I make here are put up to hopefully keep people from acting irresponsibly. Yours seem to want to encourage irresponsibility.

  • Chubs

    Just found out that the SFPD/LAPD (and probably many other departments around the country) have a “Bill of Rights” which makes it extremely hard for their performance records…etc…to be released to the public. Thus, even if a cop shoots an unarmed citizen in the back and kills them (BART incident)…it is very difficult to get past info to the jury.

    To all big city wannabe cops…don’t do it. It isn’t what it seems. Like most govt agencies, to succeed…get recognized…and promoted…you have to become one of the douche bags. It is like evolution…just in reverse…DEVOLUTION. Only the douche bag traits move up and on. The rest are neutered and put out to pasture or attacked and forced out. Forget what you’ve been brainwashed to believe. Being a cop/DEA/FBI/Special Op…etc…is not what Hollywood makes it out to be…it’s boring…stressful…and will crush your ‘soul.’ Do something better with your life…

  • Shawn

    @t

    The police version of reasonableness is shooting two women delivering newspapers without any verification of the target, or call to surrender. The police version of reasonableness is to shoot a woman in her own back yard because she surprised them. The police version of reasonableness is shooting a kid who walked up to an officer making an arrest.

    What they all have in common besides countless cowards is that no one was punished.

  • BluEyeDevil

    LOL, COMMON SENSE
    TALK ALL THE SHIT YOU WANT FOOL, YOUR NOTHING MORE THAN A COPY AND PASTE HACK. YOU DON’T KNOW SHIT. YOU GOOGLE A SUBJECT, COPY IT, THEN PASTE ON A THREAD. YOU ARE LAUGHABLE, PREACHING ABOUT YOUR VAST KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW. IDIOT. I CAN’T STOP LAUGHING WHAT A TOOL YOU ARE FAGGOT.
    T.
    I’M JUST GLAD DORNER KILLED ONE MORE COP AND INJURED ANOTHER BEFORE HE WENT OUT IN A BLAZE OF GLORY. LOL, YES I DO LIKE THE MURDER OF COPS. JUST WAIT AND SEE MORE DEAD COPS WILL BE LAYING IN THE STREETS DUE TO THE ATTITUDES OF POLICE RESPONSES. AND I WILL BE HERE LAUGHING. AND IF THEY COME AFTER ME I WILL KILL AS MANY AS I CAN. DEATH DOESN’T HURT AND I WILL BE A MARTYR TO THE MASSES. I’VE SEEN IT ACROSS SEAS IN WARZONES AND IT IS COMING TO A NEIGHBORHOOD NEAR YOU. LOL, SUCK MY DICK YOU BOOTLICKING COWARD…….

  • t.

    Devil: Whatever there keyboard Rambo. You and Sayers ought to get together…he wants to cut people eyes out and wear them. If you have a meeting of the minds it would double hour iq to 20.

    Shawn: Dude, you need to get out more. Your simplistic views….wanting to believe or pretend that everything is so easy. So black and white. I think you once claimed to have friends in law enforcement. Go on a ride along. Even the simplest of calls would make you see nothing is that clear.

  • Common Sense

    …,and remember, a fish cop found him. He was gonna take in the LAPD, and someone who checks for life jackets and fishing licenses found him.

    Not quite the law enforcement assassin you’d thought he was huh.

  • Shawn

    @Shawn

    um, you think anyone who was a cop would call me friend? I may have said I have a friend who connected to LE. Nor is my view on these shootings the least bit simplistic. How you can call that simplistic is beyond normal reason. Cops are shooting people in absurd situations and getting away with it.

    Don’t you think that shooting at unverified targets, who’s sole suspicious activity is to drive slowly is a bit absurd? Don’t you think that there should be consequences to that decision? I don’t care who you are, there should be consequences for such poor judgement that endangers lives. Anyone else would not have gotten away with that.
    Same with the other two shootings, and many more. I’m sorry you feel put upon that people think cops should control their use of deadly force to CLEAR threats. But I want to go home too, not be used for target practice by a jumpy cop. I’m sick of cops wanting me to support them as they shoot innocent people.

    You’re even killing your own with this Quick Draw McGraw routine.

  • BluEyeDevil

    YOU KNOW WHAT IS FUNNY, T. AND COMMON SENSE TRY SO HARD TO BE THE REASON OF MORAL FORTITUDE AND END UP BEING NOTHING MORE THAN PLAYERS ON DIFFERENT TEAM. THEY STOOP DOWN TO THE LEVEL OF THE SO CALLED COPBLOCKERS THAT THEY SO DESPISE MAKING THEM NO BETTER THAN ANYONE. YOU JUST HIDE BEHIND THE MASK THAT IS THE BADGE. LOL, YOUR A JOKE AND THE TIME OF CONGRATULATING YOURSELVES IS OVER BECAUSE YOUR MORAL COMPASS IS AS BANKRUPT AS THE REST OF THOSE WHO COMMENT ON THIS THREAD OR SOCIETIES FEELINGS IN GENERAL. YOUR SKIN IS REALLY THIN, YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE WEAK AND YOU LACK THE INTELLIGENCE TO EXPRESS YOUR IDEAS POETICALLY. YOU ARE EXACTLY THE REASON NO ONE TAKES COPS SERIOUSLY. I FEAR SOON YOU WILL BE LOSING YOUR CONTROL OVER THE MOBS. YOU WILL HAVE TO RESORT TO HIDING BECAUSE YOUR EMPLOYMENT WILL GET YOUR FAMILY KILLED. HISTORICALLY SPEAKING NOTHING CHANGES IT JUST REPEATS ITSELF AND WE ARE LIVING IN PAST EXPERIENCES. AHHHH……THE DRAMA OF LIFE.

  • t.

    Shawn: What is simplistic is your view of them. Like it was something so crystal clear during the moment. Hence why I said the ride along would most likely hurt your brain. Dude lots of folks who want to be he police to on ride alongside and never come back when they see what it is really all about. Some think it “cops” where 3 exciting things happen every hour. It ain’t that. And it ain’t just being a se unity guard. It’s everything from missing dogs to murders…in a split second. And you have to deal with it all. Your approach is exactly why SCOTUS has ruled that incidents can’t be “Monday morning quarterbacked”. They have to be seen through the eyes of the officer in the moment. And your 3 cases, and your “many more” are just the very rare thing. Millions of police interactions every day. With nothing wrong. You want to dwell on the rare incident. And that’s ok. But that’s what it is. The math is on my side… Not yours.

    Devil: Enjoy your meth induced dream. There aren’t any “mobs” for me to fear. That sound you hear inside your head is your own nervous laughter…nervous because there are so few that share your views. Like with @shawn above… The math is on my side. People are screaming for more and more police to help keep the idiots away from them. And you are a great example of an idiot. A coward hiding in the dark

  • Yami

    Look i understand you all hate police.
    Especially when your doing something wrong.

    But just because a good officer or a good DEA got in trouble with the law does not justify you saying things like they deserved it or did that to pothead kids etc.

    You dont know them, you dont know if they upheld their conduct well during their career you dont know if they were corrupt or not.

  • Shawn

    @T

    Maybe you need a ride along as police target practice then. You might get a whole new perspective if you had to wonder if by calling the cops, the cop would shoot at you. Or if they simply went into your back yard. Or got the the address wrong.

    What is simplistic is the pig belief that as soon as they FEEL threatened, they kill. They don’t wait for facts. In all those shooting, what were the actual FACTS that justified it? None.

    This attitude of yours regarding shootings is why I have no respect at all for cops. It shows a lack of morality in law enforcement. Irresponsible cowards all.To hell with the innocents around you. When you kill someone or cripple them for life, no amount of money can change that. And we see you not caring. You can’t get why these shootings were unacceptable to the citizens because all you care about is yourselves.

    No one is asking you to let nuts shoot at you. We’re only asking that you know what you’re shooting at. If you can’t do that, quit.

  • Shawn

    @t

    “And your 3 cases, and your “many more” are just the very rare thing.”

    Do you think your victims care how ‘rare’ it is? Does the variety change whether the cop should be punished?

    All I can say is that if you ever harm one of mine like you did those people, you better hope society did a better job teaching me moral values than it did on you. I can’t say for sure I’d trade my life for my child, wife, mother, or sisters’ murderer. But it would be Damon tempting. Especially when I hate police for what they do to people I don’t even know.

  • YankeeFan

    It is not relevant what SCOTUS said about monday morning quarterbacking. Any police actitity that happens will always be scrutinized and righrfully so. That can’t be a cop out for police to act in a negliegent and reckless manner. In most cases where something happen horribly wrong, such as the shooting death of an innocent, there are always steps that the police took where courts have ruled in lawsuits that reasonable officers would not have done certain things. W

  • YankeeFan

    It is not relevant what SCOTUS said about monday morning quarterbacking. Any police actitity that happens will always be scrutinized and righrfully so. That can’t be a cop out for police to act in a negliegent and reckless manner. In most cases where something happen horribly wrong, such as the shooting death of an innocent, there are always steps that the police took where courts have ruled in lawsuits that reasonable officers would not have done certain things.

    What I am saying is the exercise of power must always be reviewed and the profession you are in has done a wonderful job of saying…well, the courts who disagree with us are just liberal bleeding hearts or anyone for that matter who disgrees with the police are just liberals that embrace criminals. No, just regular freedom loving people who recognize that police are police no matter where they are and that without a constitution, like the one we have, peoples will have the rights that the police say they have. I have yet to see any country, without a constitution like ours where the police operate on the honor system of respecting the rights of people. Police will always exercise maximum authority they can get away with and this country would be no different.

    So to conclude, we have the right as citizens to say..how come you relied on information from a crackhead to go and get a PC warrant to do a raid on a house now occupied by a christian family? We have the right to ask that because in every single case where something has gonbe horribly wrong, there were steps taken by the police that if done correctly would not even have placed police officers in that situation to begin with. With that said, most interactions do not go wrong but even if 1% of raids are wrong thats no good as any pharmacist who review medicine orders at a 1% failure rate would be gone and have his license revoked at the end of hour number 1.

    ** sorry for the duplicate as I accidentally hit enter **

  • 2minutes

    @Shawn

    You hit the nail on the head, t and his ilk just don’t give a damn about the people they harm, it’s just ‘math’ to them. Those people, and their families, shouldn’t mind being killed, or crippled, or whatever other injustice these cops perpetrate on them, because it’s not personal, it’s just “math”: and that makes it all ok. At least as far as t is concerned. What’s funny is that he accuses everyone else of having a simplistic viewpoint, then comes out with such childish justifications like that. He might as well be saying “I dunno” and “not me”; “it’s just math” as an excuse rests on the same intellectual level.

    So, lets deconstruct his math a bit. Lets take a look at the recent big news event, Christopher Dorner. Yes, Mr. Dorner went on a vendetta, targeting the police and their families, something that the police reacted strongly to. But, why? This is a rare occurrence,
    not something that happens as often as, say a cop abusing an innocent person. After all, we see cop abuse stories almost daily, or at least weekly, but I haven’t seen nearly as many stories of vendetta rampages targeting cops. Hardly any, in fact. So, according to t’s logic, the police shouldn’t have had a problem with it at all. It’s just math, and math of a rarer equation than the math that he quotes as justification. No, according to t’s logic, the police should have just looked the other way and accepted the rampage as a one-off event, a statistical anomaly that can be accepted as justifiable as a mathematical inevitability.

    But, they didn’t. they didn’t accept the mathematics of the situation, instead going on a manhunt – to the death. So why does
    t expect us to accept the same kind of situation – being shot at,
    with intent to kill – as just “math” when the police don’t?
    Because t’s viewpoint is extremely simplistic, even childish:

    cop = good guy
    not cop = “math”

    and nothing else matters.

  • t.

    :Shawn: Officers don’t go out to harm anyone. Things happen. No one is defending the cases you mention. What I said is that even those case are far more complex than the 4 or 5 words that you are wanting to use to describe them.

    And you forget there guy….I’m on duty 12 hours a shift, 14 shifts a month. The rest of the time…I just like you. I get stopped at the checkpoints you hate so much. If I go out and get drunk and act the fool, I’m subject to the same ordinances and laws you are (and fact its worse as I face harsh punishments at work if its even just reported that I did this…you don’t face that). All of the things that you think I don’t face….are really magnified for us (in most cases anyway).

    But I do need yo dress your double standard on of defense. Yousant tone able to defend yourself and you family. I think you should be able to. But in every post, you want to deny me that right. You want me to wait until I’m being killed to try and stop someone from killing me. Bet you ddon’t want me to wait until someone is killing you before I try and them (I know, youe like every one keyboard Rambo arojn her, and you can defend yourself). This is the double standard / double speak that weakens your side every time. I go into iit jnder Pete’s recent article where he critizes the public duty doctrine. You want me to stop crime before it happens…but not to “stop”people for suspicious activity. Want me stop drunk drivers, but notthe people you are jjust driving bad. Get the guys swiping stuff, BT not brothers them about what they are stealing the stuff to fund. Two-faced doublespeak.

  • t.

    YF: the Monday morning quarterback standard / idea is very important though. Every police shooting is looked into in incredible detail, good or bad. They are use to teach others about how to handle various situations as they arise, to maybe look for different tactics and / or ways to handle similar incidents. But looking back and judging an officers actions in the cool light of day….even with reports, witness statements and videos, isn’t right. Video is a very tricky thing. It shows a very one sided, cold view of things. Body worn videos can be better, but even they don’t catch everything that is taking place or is seen. A great example of this exists in an OISin which you see one officers dash can Ashe pulls into a gas station parking lot and the video shows a different officer shooting a black man in the back as he is turning to walkaway. Looks really, really bad. But when you throw in the perspective of the involved officers dash can, you can clearly see the “victim” pointing a pistol at the officer. Big difference. The number of variblales in a situation like that are endless. NO ONE every says don’t look at the case. But as SCOTUS understood, they need to been seen through the eyes of the officer as it happened, seen in the Leigh if the information available at that second. Not clouded with additional info gained afterwards

  • t.

    2: Whatever dde. Hope the sand feels nice around your head.

  • Shawn

    @T

    “But in every post, you want to deny me that right. You want me to wait until I’m being killed to try and stop someone from killing me.”

    I’m not interested in denying cops self defense. And in this, I’m only addressing ridiculous shoots of people who offered no threat, armed or otherwise. I have not brought up “he reached for his waist” because that is another issue.
    As for other incidents,I only ask you to remember that innocent people may be armed too. You work in a civilian world, not a military one. You can’t react the same.
    You are in situations where others can legitimately be armed. Just because you see a gun doesn’t mean you’re justified to shoot. And certainly you should know it is a gun. Remember the raid where they imagined a gun in a teen girl’s hand?
    I’ve been on both sides of a gun when family surprised each other. Only self control prevented a Brady statistic. But cops have shot each other, and innocents. Self control is everything when commanding a weapon. Emotions are a poor guide to gun safety.

    Oh, the cops who shot the women. Their chief/sheriff whatever did excuse the shooting. Gave nothing but excuses for what they did.

    We each have a responsibility to verify the threat before shooting. Even in our own homes, and especially in someone else’s.

  • Shawn

    @t

    Oh, you’ve got to watch that auto correct. It is mangling your sentences.

  • t.

    Just because you don’t agree with something doesn’t make it an excuse

  • 2minutes

    “2: Whatever dde. Hope the sand feels nice around your head.”

    It’s probably nicer than the shit on your lips from having your head so far up your ass, t. Enjoy the view.

  • t.

    Its always nice on my side.

  • courtofpublicopinion

    @yami lmao did you even read your own post? Look i understand you all hate police.
    Especially when your doing something wrong.

    But just because a good officer or a good DEA got in trouble with the law does not justify you saying things like they deserved it or did that to pothead kids etc.

    You dont know them, you dont know if they upheld their conduct well during their career you dont know if they were corrupt or not a good copor dea “GOT IN TROUBLE WITH THE LAW” well duhh of course they got what they deserved, they did something wrong!

  • Lakewood_in_Afghanistan

    Me – Anyone want to start a pool as to the final tally? (when the tally was currently 3)

    You – I’ll go with 1. (when, as stated earlier, the current tally was 3)

    That is why I was wondering if you were drunk, or merely unable to do basic math.

    Your response – Flakewood: You wanted to start a pool. I went with 1. Even for an idiot like you, how hard is that to understand. He got the only one hel’ll get.

    Again, drunk or possessing a standard cop 85 IQ, not much difference to be seen in your postings. I’d have to flip a coin…

    And even if you completely misunderstood the concept of tally and missed that the count was three, and think only cops are worth counting, the retired cop’s kid’s financee was a cop as well, though aparently a slow on the draw cop…

  • Lakewood_in_Afghanistan

    http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/14040025-victims-of-vigilante-ex-cop-dorner-were-minorities-does-that-change-racism-claims

    Feel free to play any time. I will check in from time to time when business is slow and the net is up.

  • YankeeFan

    T,

    I am not in disagreement. I am talking more about innocents who end in the cross hairs. There are to many examples to choose from. Take the Robin Pratt shooting. She was an honest to god innocent woman killed by police. Family members were subject to searches based on an informant claiming they were involved in an armoured car robbery that resulted in a homocide. I read that just to read it, even though it was from 1992, to see what hasppened and I found out that an F.B.I. agent working with the Lynwood PD told them that their informant was “shaky” and they did not have PC to make arrests. This information did not make it into the hands of or was ignored by the Snohomish County Sheriffs Dept. There is more but that, is the big facts of the case. All the family memnbers were innocent as they ahd alibis. Thats an example where Mondy Morning QB’ing as an innocent woman was killed and innocents were raided. There were things that the police either ignored or they did not follow up on or investigate properly. In other words, not doing your job properly is a legit concern, esp if an innocent person(s) are killed or subject to police activity. There are things that were not done right from the start that reasonable officers would have paid attention to.

    Thats an example of what I mean and even if the situation is one of those valid “you can’t monday QB this” kind of story, that does not excuse to justify mistakes that get made. You will need to be held accountable, especially if innocents are involved and with the police it is usually with a lawsuit against the department and city.

  • t.

    Flakewood: He said he was cop hunting. At the time, he had 1. Ended with 2. You should be proud, another proud ex-military gone bad. You remain an idiot.

  • t.

    YF: Not only have I never said the police shouldn’t be held accountable, I say the we should. As should you. What I have said is that the police are held to an incredibly high standard and the case are reviewed at many levels. I have never said threat mistakes don’t get made and that occasionally intentional wrongs are done. But it is plain stupid, and wrong, when you look at the huge number of police interactions Donna daily or yearly basis, ALL of the highly volatile situations that the police end up in…that we get it wrong very, very few times. It is a strange thing that many police experts agree that the police don’t shoot often enough. We put ourselves at greatly increased chances of injury because we allow to much, practice to much restraint (personally, I agree). The fear of lawsuits…even when we are vindicated, has pushed many officers into fear of action.

    I have never heard of the case you spoke of, I’ll look into it.

    While I don’t excuse any police misconduct, you need to look at everything. Look at the HUGE number of shootings that take place that the police aren’t involved in (knowing of course that is not what this site is about, but I hold you specifically to a much higher standard than the rest of the..umm…people that post/comment here). Incidents where intentional harm is always the desire. The police getting caught in a bad situation, which is pretty much where we stay all the time when were at work, is far different.

  • YankeeFan

    T,

    I was not being specific, I was generalizing my statements. I do not care what job it is, when mistakes are amde, doing an analysis is what needs to happen to elarn and make sure it does not happen. It is not specific to police at all and never said so. I only bstated that when things go wrong and the wrong persons are hurt, then we need to find out what happened and at times monday morning quarterbacking is valid. Like I said, it’s not exclusive to police. Military operations are included. Imagine if a spectre gunship strike happens and we find out it was a harmless group of bedouin farmers, then you bet your ass there were things that were missed or ignored or peoples flat out failed to their jobs and even if something is an honest to god mistake, which humans do make, peoples still need to be held accountable.

    The case I mentioned was an old case. If I recall correctly, she was shot at a distance from 12-18 inches. The deputy who fired the shot, said things were hectic but did not remember if his finger was on the triger. His weapon was field tested to determine if it malfunctioned and it was deemed to be in good working order. The woman was on her knees.

    Here is a excerpt I mentioned about the F.B.I. agent:

    — An FBI agent who worked with Lynnwood police to solve the armored-car robbery. He says he told investigators the informant who implicated the Pratt family in the heist was shaky and hadn’t given them probable cause to arrest anyone. Lynnwood police went ahead anyway, only to learn later family members had iron-clad alibis and couldn’t have been the robbers.

    – The informant, also a family member, who now claims he made up the whole story under pressure from Lynnwood police. “I told them . . . what they told me to tell them,” he said during a deposition last January

    and the link to the story:

    http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19931213&slug=1736843

    I do not want you to misunderstand me. I get “shit” happens and what else can you do. All I say in in general, regardless of profession when things happen and it is determined that things were missed or overlooked and peoples failed to do jobs properly, heads need to roll, especially if innocent people are caught up. Whether it is police work, military operations, medical procedures and etc. I do get the heat of the battle and how things change on a dime. Unlike others, I do understand from my military days!!

  • t.

    YF: I get you and as always I respect an informed point if view. I thought that had pointed out that any “use of force” incident, and just as many where force wasn’t used are looked at in great detail. What I meant by the Monday morning quarterback, and as the courts have ruled, is that things must be looked at through the eyes of the officer on scene at the time. In the office, in the “cool light of day”, with nothing dangerous going on, and frequently with lots of additional information to analyze, things look a lot different. But don’t think that incidents aren’t reviewed, and tactics changed because of things.

    And just looking at the outcome isn’t always the right approach either. I think I put up the story about a supervisor (Sgt.) who had and FTO and a trainee who responded to an armed EDP in the street. The EDP fails to comply and just keeps coming. The rookie looks to his FTO for guidance. The FTO just keeps trying to talk him down as he gets closer and closer. Jumping forward the EDP gets right up on the FTO and finally puts down the weapon. No one got hurt. Good outcome? Thankfully, yes no one got hurt. But what risk did the FTO put not only himself, but his trainee in? Should he have shot? That’s the problem the Sgt had. People aren’t like math where there is always a “right” answer, and you can’t just get a new sheet if paper and start over.

    There’s lots of damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Really look at what most of the articles and comments on this site are about. The cops were to aggressive in doing their job. Or the cops weren’t aggressive enough. Hyper vigilant or sloths. All a matter of perspective. I think it was you that talked about “hearts and minds”. Not really my worry. That’s my chiefs worry. In almost everything I do, somebody loses and is unhappy. Pleasing people isn’t in my job description. When you see officer that seem aloof, that’s why. I may like you, but still have to arrest you. It’s not personal.

  • Lakewood_in_Afghanistan

    Cop body count was 3: Slow draw Fiancee, Cop 1 busy looking for jaywalkers and Deputy 1 who didn’t duck…

  • Lakewood_in_Afghanistan

    But math is hard when your only job requirements are a GED and a pulse…

  • t.

    Talk about GED math. Can’t even add to 2 right. What a loser.

  • Lakewood_in_Afghanistan

    Did you miss that there were three cops greased? The cop’s daughter showed the poor judgement to be engaged to a cop, who aparently missed the day they taught situational awareness at the academy.

    Your GED is showing…

  • t.

    Shesnot one fool

  • Common Sense

    ..and in the end, the wouldbe cop assassin couldn’t take the heat and ate a bullet. I guess all that extensive military training really didn’t help out when someone can shoot back. Those murdered will be hailed as heroes and missed by family and friends, while Dorner will be vilified and forgotten…well, by anyone who can fog a mirror. His charred body remains yet unclaimed. Even his own family has ignored him. A pauper’s funeral is expected.

  • Lakewood_in_Afghanistan

    Dorner Count

    Cop’s Daughter – Non Cop

    Cop’s Daughter’s Fiancee – Cop, PSO Lawrence, University of Southern California Department of Public Safety, who was absent on the day they taught paying attention at cop school

    Michael Crain – Cop, who was distracted by a donut

    Jeremiah MacKay – Deputy, which I assume you count as a cop, who was slow to duck

    You need to get your money back from the GED course…

    1+1+1 = 3, not two. Math is hard for cops.

  • t.

    I had to go back and look. I will admit that I missed that the financed was an officer. All initial stories all just focused on her being the daughter of an officer. So I admit that I didn’t count him. 3 it was for the PTSD ex military liar.

  • Lakewood_in_Afghanistan

    At least you can read when it is spelled out in nice 2 syllable words for you. You’re not a detective, are you?

  • t.

    Had to look through several articles before it talked much about the fiancée. Everything focused on her and her fathers job. And only mentioned her fiancée. Sorry if I don’t have all day to read like you sitting “in the rear with the gear”.

  • Lakewood_in_Afghanistan

    Again, not to worry. I have no problem breaking things down into nice, easy to process chunks for the simple minded “85s” that keep us safe from jaywalking and unmowed lawns.

    I don’t have all day, but as there is a 10+ hour difference in time, what I do after 2200 is my business. And showing that cops cannot do basic reading or math is a worthy use of off time.

  • Wicked Vet

    Cops… more trouble then they are worth.

  • Pete Malloy

    Lakewood, it’s been a long time! How you doing buddy? I was starting to think you finally made good on your threats and attacked a police officer. I’m glad to see you are still all talk. Welcome back!

  • t.

    @Pete: Be nice. Flakewood took the only job he could get. The army took as he had a pulse. But they don’t even trust him enough to put on the front line. But that’s ok.

    I’m sure you did notice how he didn’t want to touch the a trial topic of the thread. After Ms Sands got hers handed back to her, I guess he thought it smarter to stay off topic

  • Wicked Vet

    Did you ever serve typical?

  • t.

    Why? Did you?

  • t.

    Why? Did you?

    And what, on Gods earth does that have to do with this topic? Don’t go all Flakewood and go off on whatever. Man up on topic. Otherwise, write and post up you own little ideas about whatever, and we’ll discuss it.

  • Wicked Vet

    I was asking because you were talking about the military not trusting someone on the front line and I am just wondering if you know anything about service… or are you just talking out your…

  • Lakewood_in_Afghanistan

    “T” is upset because he was shown lacking in even rudimentary math or reading skills. I have given up correcting cop grammar, as “cop grammar” is the most laughable oxymoron one can write.

    Our local cop posters have zero clue about the military, though they think we are brethren because both of our teams wear uniforms. But I have news for them, so do garbage men.

  • Lakewood_in_Afghanistan

    I wouldn’t allow a reservist who is a cop for his “job” empty our medical waste containers. Every one I have ever encountered have been universally worthless.

  • t.

    Flake wood: Oh, you are very right. We are not brethren. I have very useful real world skills. You can barely do as told.

  • Lakewood_in_Afghanistan

    “Can barely do as told”

    Jimminy Christmas, are you a fucking neanderthal? Can barely do as YOU ARE told?

    Did you ever take Junior High English? If so, your teacher needs to be necklaced for crimes against the english language. Obviously your “very useful real-world” don’t include coherence, ability to use google to look up common knowledge about current events or the ability to add 1+1+1.

    It hurts my head to read the drivel cops type into the comments box. But I endure, mostly for the laughs.

    http://www.calstate.edu/brand/styleguide/commonwords/ns.shtml

  • Common Sense

    @t

    Whoa, watch out, the ‘Motrin Peddler’ is upset.

    Busted out his “English Grammar” book out on ya. Make sure you used proper punctuation, or he’ll ‘necklace’ you! Ha ha ha, what a clown. His own family gets hassled by the cops, and for all his talk, what’d he do? Nothing. He punked out. What a pussy. No wonder he’s a male nurse.

    Hey t, ask him to go into his ‘spears and shields’ speech, its very moving.

  • t.

    Nah, I’m still waiting for the riveting tail about how his daughter, or his son, or his sons boyfriend got stop for nothing and harassed and how he was going to get some answers. Funny how he never mentioned it again. Of course now that I brought it up….I’m sure there be a fanciful tale of how he backed the officer and chief down and how the officer is now sweeping up after his dog or some such nonsense. Never fails to amaze how lots of things get done, but no one ever does it. Incredible.

  • Lakewood_in_Afghanistan

    Good to see the cop circle jerk is still in session.

    And I hope common has gotten help for his dark little “problem”.

  • t.

    :-) ha ha

  • Lakewood_in_Afghanistan

    “riveting tail”
    “got stop”

    I think you aspire to be stupid enough to be a cop.

  • Lakewood_in_Afghanistan

    Are you just lazy, or are you stupid? When you speak out loud, do similar things come out of your mouth?

    Is it your upbringing? Lousy schools? Fetal alcohol syndrome? Molested by an Uncle or family pet?

    I hope there is an excuse out there somewhere. For someone who claims to have such “mad skills”, I am not finding the evidence in your writing.

  • t.

    So what happened? I can’t wait to hear? BTW…it just a blog comment section, that’s why people use type like BTW. I only have a few seconds to reply (usually anyway). I have things to do unlike yourself.

  • Common Ssense

    @t

    He went on once about how some local cop hassled his family or his offspring or whatnot, and he was ‘gonna take action!’

    ..yeah, he did nothing.

  • Common Sense

    @t

    Yeah, your right. Fakewood’s offspring were hassled by the local cop apparently. He was all in a tizzy and gonna take action.

    Yeah, he didn’t do anything.

    When you go on and on, and say you’re gonna do something, especially when it involves your own family, and then you do nothing…that makes you a punk.

  • Lakewood_in_Afghanistan

    I hope the parents of the underage offspring you have “hassled” have not given you too much trouble.

    When you say you are going to do something to an underaged girl, especially when you describe it in such shocking detail (do a search for “common sense cop block” on google if the reader is curious)… that makes you a pedophile.

  • t.

    Really. Nice. That’s why you are the leader of the Legion of Fools.

  • Common Sense

    @t

    ha ha ha, I had forgot that one, ‘legion of fools’ – always a classic.

  • Lakewood_in_Afghanistan

    Note the singular lack of denial. Truth is a defense.

  • t.

    Still waiting for the story….

  • Lakewood_in_Afghanistan

    If you are looking for something I have posted in the past, google is your friend. I have made no secret that I read about horrible ends to cop’s lives with great glee after dealing with some of their 85 IQ representatives back in Texas. If you have such a poor memory that this eludes you, have a coworker explain how google works. My story is pretty typical of the work of the human/mongoloid crossbreeds that generally work for team blue.

    If you are looking for Common Sense’s pedophillic rants, again, google is your friend. His vulgar, highly sexualized comments directed at my minor daughter are a part of the internet that cannot be erased. The fact you two are “bros” is hardly unexpected.

    If you are looking for a bedtime story, ask your mommy.

  • Common Sense

    @t

    and you’ll wait a lomg time.

  • t.

    Oh, so sounds like you made the story up then. Figures. Lying is like breathing for you. And therefore, I will renew that I will not respond to your silliness unless it is directly on topic with thread.

  • Lakewood_in_Afghanistan

    I am pained by your lack of attention.

  • LD

    Under marshal law you don’t get an explanation, regardless of your sex, age or handicap.

    You are picking at the scab. The infection is the legislature. You had an opportunity to end this with Ron Paul. You voted for Obama or Romney instead, or you didn’t vote at all. The latter are liberal politicians. This is their program. You wanted it. You got it. Live with it.

    As for Jeff, have him explain his broadcasting logo, Bulletinman AKA Bulle-Tin-Man. He won’t, but his property is cartographically lined up on Bulle overseas. You people need to wake up and start taking responsibility. You talk and act like little children.

  • http://bilgeadam-magdurlari.blogspot.com watch porn warez

    Thanks for your inquiry. That’s really cool. Please keep moving like this.