User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 1:58:35 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As for example: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/519673_.html&page=4&anc=8434515#i8434515 A play on the 'Oh Well' that earns selective bans, it seems. Especially when she was murdered. Well, technically her 'civil rights were violated in such a way as to result in her death', but in the real world, that is murder. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
. Ya, for your impartial investigation. You probably don't need me to explain the concept of 'equivocation' to you. Such as claiming, for instance, that in this particular case, it's probably A-OK to run from the police. Where the perp just so happens to have a badge. And murder? I gotcha murder right here: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/519673__ARCHIVED_THREAD____Wrong_Address_in_Atlanta_results_in_92_year_old_woman_shot_dead__3_cops_shot.html&page=3 And that's ignoring the 'he was holding a PS3 controller so I had to shoot' ones. Please use the "Link to this Post" feature as a link to page 3 of an 8 page thread isn't helpful. Explaining the legal intricacies of an event in no way constitutes "defended child molestation." Quite the stretch you are attempting. As for example: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/519673_.html&page=4&anc=8434515#i8434515 ...She shot the cops and the cops shot her. She fucked up and died for it. The Officers will recover, thank God... A play on the 'Oh Well' that earns selective bans, it seems. Especially when she was murdered. Well, technically her 'civil rights were violated in such a way as to result in her death', but in the real world, that is murder. I have never seen sum rifle state he was a LEO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 1:59:18 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As for example: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/519673_.html&page=4&anc=8434515#i8434515 A play on the 'Oh Well' that earns selective bans, it seems. Especially when she was murdered. Well, technically her 'civil rights were violated in such a way as to result in her death', but in the real world, that is murder. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
. Ya, for your impartial investigation. You probably don't need me to explain the concept of 'equivocation' to you. Such as claiming, for instance, that in this particular case, it's probably A-OK to run from the police. Where the perp just so happens to have a badge. And murder? I gotcha murder right here: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/519673__ARCHIVED_THREAD____Wrong_Address_in_Atlanta_results_in_92_year_old_woman_shot_dead__3_cops_shot.html&page=3 And that's ignoring the 'he was holding a PS3 controller so I had to shoot' ones. Please use the "Link to this Post" feature as a link to page 3 of an 8 page thread isn't helpful. Explaining the legal intricacies of an event in no way constitutes "defended child molestation." Quite the stretch you are attempting. As for example: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/519673_.html&page=4&anc=8434515#i8434515 ...She shot the cops and the cops shot her. She fucked up and died for it. The Officers will recover, thank God... A play on the 'Oh Well' that earns selective bans, it seems. Especially when she was murdered. Well, technically her 'civil rights were violated in such a way as to result in her death', but in the real world, that is murder. Was that guy from a thread 8 or 9 years ago a cop? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 2:01:48 PM EDT
[#3]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 2:02:54 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Was that guy from a thread 8 or 9 years ago a cop? Hard to tell, what with the hidden badges. 
Volunteer TBL, though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 2:04:20 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
" They've defended everything from murder to child molestation, just because the perpetrators had a badge." You cant get much more simpler than that... if cops on this board have defended child molesters, then prove it. It isnt that hard.  Quoted:
BS. He clearly said that officer who are members of this forum have "defended everything from murder to child molestation". That's not even in the same ballpark as "benefit of the doubting". If he meant what you are saying he did, he made the worst mis-type I've ever seen. Again, I'm more defending Tomislav against a ban than his statement, but if you read the thread he linked to, which was about a police officer who had admitted to the activity in question (masturbating in front of a child) there are those choosing to argue for why he wasn't charged with fleeing from deputies. That is on some level offering a defense for the actions of an admitted child molester. I agree, not defending child molestation, (and I wouldn't say Bama is a child molester defender) but if you're going to hash words, hash words. Ban-able offense? Seems like an overreaction and a standard not so equally applied across GD conversations. It seems Tomislavs crime was not phrasing it as "defended the actions of an admitted child molester" as that would be technically correct. But is that semantic argument worth catching action from site staff? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 2:10:46 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He was under suspicion of causing a disturbance. Officer wanted to detain him. Depending on what that was he probably wanted to cuff the cumbass for officer safety. Shit happens all the time, he never told him to stop recording, just to put the camera down. Only mistake the officer made was repeating himself too many times. At the second "you're under arrest" he should have followed it up with a this is your final warning, and then just taxed the dumbass. Esp when he decided he should just walk away. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Dumbass kid didn't obey a lawful order and resisted lawful detention. The genius took a situation that (if his story is true) would have been a stern talking to and an order to go the Fuck home and stop being an ass along traffic and turned it into an arrest and in the process made a complete fool of himself in his own video. What's lawful about it? It it lawful simply because the officer says it is? He was under suspicion of causing a disturbance. Officer wanted to detain him. Depending on what that was he probably wanted to cuff the cumbass for officer safety. Shit happens all the time, he never told him to stop recording, just to put the camera down. Only mistake the officer made was repeating himself too many times. At the second "you're under arrest" he should have followed it up with a this is your final warning, and then just taxed the dumbass. Esp when he decided he should just walk away. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 2:14:59 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Again, I'm more defending Tomislav against a ban than his statement, but if you read the thread he linked to, which was about a police officer who had admitted to the activity in question (masturbating in front of a child) there are those choosing to argue for why he wasn't charged with fleeing from deputies. That is on some level offering a defense for the actions of an admitted child molester. I agree, not defending child molestation, (and I wouldn't say Bama is a child molester defender) but if you're going to hash words, hash words. Ban-able offense? Seems like an overreaction and a standard not so equally applied across GD conversations. It seems Tomislavs crime was not phrasing it as "defended the actions of an admitted child molester" as that would be technically correct. But is that semantic argument worth catching action from site staff? I'm not saying he should be banned either, but arguing why he wasn't charged with fleeing deputies (there ARE a ton of reasons) does not equal "on some level offering a defense for the actions of a child molester". Sorry. Not in the same ballpark. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 2:15:55 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Again, I'm more defending Tomislav against a ban than his statement, but if you read the thread he linked to, which was about a police officer who had admitted to the activity in question (masturbating in front of a child) there are those choosing to argue for why he wasn't charged with fleeing from deputies. That is on some level offering a defense for the actions of an admitted child molester. I agree, not defending child molestation, (and I wouldn't say Bama is a child molester defender) but if you're going to hash words, hash words. Ban-able offense? Seems like an overreaction and a standard not so equally applied across GD conversations. It seems Tomislavs crime was not phrasing it as "defended the actions of an admitted child molester" as that would be technically correct. But is that semantic argument worth catching action from site staff? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
" They've defended everything from murder to child molestation, just because the perpetrators had a badge." You cant get much more simpler than that... if cops on this board have defended child molesters, then prove it. It isnt that hard. Quoted:
BS. He clearly said that officer who are members of this forum have "defended everything from murder to child molestation". That's not even in the same ballpark as "benefit of the doubting". If he meant what you are saying he did, he made the worst mis-type I've ever seen. Again, I'm more defending Tomislav against a ban than his statement, but if you read the thread he linked to, which was about a police officer who had admitted to the activity in question (masturbating in front of a child) there are those choosing to argue for why he wasn't charged with fleeing from deputies. That is on some level offering a defense for the actions of an admitted child molester. I agree, not defending child molestation, (and I wouldn't say Bama is a child molester defender) but if you're going to hash words, hash words. Ban-able offense? Seems like an overreaction and a standard not so equally applied across GD conversations. It seems Tomislavs crime was not phrasing it as "defended the actions of an admitted child molester" as that would be technically correct. But is that semantic argument worth catching action from site staff? There is a world of difference between defending and explaining. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 2:18:42 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hard to tell, what with the hidden badges.
Volunteer TBL, though. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Was that guy from a thread 8 or 9 years ago a cop? Hard to tell, what with the hidden badges.
Volunteer TBL, though. So you hinge the argument on someone who may or may not meet the proof of your statement that you were asked to cite? The "Volunteer TBL" kind of shows your bias too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 2:20:09 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is a world of difference between defending and explaining. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
" They've defended everything from murder to child molestation, just because the perpetrators had a badge." You cant get much more simpler than that... if cops on this board have defended child molesters, then prove it. It isnt that hard. Quoted:
BS. He clearly said that officer who are members of this forum have "defended everything from murder to child molestation". That's not even in the same ballpark as "benefit of the doubting". If he meant what you are saying he did, he made the worst mis-type I've ever seen. Again, I'm more defending Tomislav against a ban than his statement, but if you read the thread he linked to, which was about a police officer who had admitted to the activity in question (masturbating in front of a child) there are those choosing to argue for why he wasn't charged with fleeing from deputies. That is on some level offering a defense for the actions of an admitted child molester. I agree, not defending child molestation, (and I wouldn't say Bama is a child molester defender) but if you're going to hash words, hash words. Ban-able offense? Seems like an overreaction and a standard not so equally applied across GD conversations. It seems Tomislavs crime was not phrasing it as "defended the actions of an admitted child molester" as that would be technically correct. But is that semantic argument worth catching action from site staff? There is a world of difference between defending and explaining. Not a world of difference at all: Defend: "speak or write in favor of (an action or person); attempt to justify." Explain: "account for (an action or event) by giving a reason as excuse or justification." Since we're being ultra pedantic and all... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 2:21:13 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hard to tell, what with the hidden badges.
Volunteer TBL, though. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Was that guy from a thread 8 or 9 years ago a cop? Hard to tell, what with the hidden badges.
Volunteer TBL, though. Perhaps an edit of your first post is in order. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 2:22:31 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you hinge the argument on someone who may or may not meet the proof of your statement that you were asked to cite? The "Volunteer TBL" kind of shows your bias too. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Was that guy from a thread 8 or 9 years ago a cop? Hard to tell, what with the hidden badges.
Volunteer TBL, though. So you hinge the argument on someone who may or may not meet the proof of your statement that you were asked to cite? The "Volunteer TBL" kind of shows your bias too. Well, I'll gladly review W2s or whatever to verify employment, but that is of course far from the only Oh Well in that thread, of course. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/519673_.html&page=3&anc=8434392#i8434392 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 2:31:08 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, I'll gladly review W2s or whatever to verify employment, but that is of course far from the only Oh Well in that thread, of course. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/519673_.html&page=3&anc=8434392#i8434392 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Was that guy from a thread 8 or 9 years ago a cop? Hard to tell, what with the hidden badges.
Volunteer TBL, though. So you hinge the argument on someone who may or may not meet the proof of your statement that you were asked to cite? The "Volunteer TBL" kind of shows your bias too. Well, I'll gladly review W2s or whatever to verify employment, but that is of course far from the only Oh Well in that thread, of course. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/519673_.html&page=3&anc=8434392#i8434392 I see you and Stretch Armstrong have something in common. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 2:34:28 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I see you and Stretch Armstrong have something in common. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I see you and Stretch Armstrong have something in common. Is it any more of a stretch than some of the comments in this very thread explaining how virtually any gesture or posture at all can constitute a threatening gesture and therefore grounds for being detained? Again, just asking for a little consistency here. ETA: because I know you'll demand evidence of it: Quoted:
Offering or threatening violence to another without justification is assault, if it mattered. Taking a swing at someone is a threatening gesture. "Bowing up" at someone is a threatening gesture. There are an untold number of threatening gestures. It doesn't matter if the gesture in question was unlawful, because the officer needn't have witnessed a crime to initiate a detention. He may have witnessed a gesture or gestures that threatened public disorder or tumult or indicated illegally aggressive panhandling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 2:36:43 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, I'll gladly review W2s or whatever to verify employment, but that is of course far from the only Oh Well in that thread, of course. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/519673_.html&page=3&anc=8434392#i8434392 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Was that guy from a thread 8 or 9 years ago a cop? Hard to tell, what with the hidden badges.
Volunteer TBL, though. So you hinge the argument on someone who may or may not meet the proof of your statement that you were asked to cite? The "Volunteer TBL" kind of shows your bias too. Well, I'll gladly review W2s or whatever to verify employment, but that is of course far from the only Oh Well in that thread, of course. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/519673_.html&page=3&anc=8434392#i8434392 You sure seem to be dodging around. How about you provide a link to those child molesting defense post? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 2:49:00 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, I'll gladly review W2s or whatever to verify employment, but that is of course far from the only Oh Well in that thread, of course. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/519673_.html&page=3&anc=8434392#i8434392 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Was that guy from a thread 8 or 9 years ago a cop? Hard to tell, what with the hidden badges.
Volunteer TBL, though. So you hinge the argument on someone who may or may not meet the proof of your statement that you were asked to cite? The "Volunteer TBL" kind of shows your bias too. Well, I'll gladly review W2s or whatever to verify employment, but that is of course far from the only Oh Well in that thread, of course. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/519673_.html&page=3&anc=8434392#i8434392 Again, is that guy from a thread 8 or 9 years ago a cop? This really can turn into a game of hot and cold....."cold......... cold........colder........" |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 2:49:10 PM EDT
[#17]
Any chance we can get back on track with the original thread??
That kid seemed like a jackass but if all I have to go on is the video I am on his side. I wish more of these stories had a conclusion posted as well so we could know the outcome rather than guessing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 2:57:33 PM EDT
[#18]
What I've learned in this thread:
Cop can walk up to someone and claim to have witnessed them doing something suspicious - reasonably, this would upset quite a few people especially if they weren't doing what was accused. Person becomes agitated and uncooperative. Boom! Resisting lawful detention! Arrestable offense. Sounds like a great way for cops to troll people into becoming irritated and uncooperative so as to facilitate an arrest. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but from the way things have been described regarding police contact and detention policies, my scenario seems plausible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 3:02:11 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ya, for your impartial investigation. You probably don't need me to explain the concept of 'equivocation' to you. Such as claiming, for instance, that in this particular case, it's probably A-OK to run from the police. Where the perp just so happens to have a badge. And murder? I gotcha murder right here: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/519673__ARCHIVED_THREAD____Wrong_Address_in_Atlanta_results_in_92_year_old_woman_shot_dead__3_cops_shot.html&page=3 And that's ignoring the 'he was holding a PS3 controller so I had to shoot' ones. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You are going to need to back those accusations up. Links please. I'll check back later, as failure to do so is the kind of generalized bashing we do not tolerate.  http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1583791_No_charges_against_state_trooper_who_masturbated_with_boy_to_teach_him_about_sex.html&light=trooper There you go. No protected class generalized bashing going on here; just pointing out facts. I read every post in the thread and didn't find a single one which could remotely be construed as having "defended everything from murder to child molestation." Please use the "Link to this Post" feature to provide a link to the specific posts which do this. Also, there was no "murder" in that thread. Need that too. Ya, for your impartial investigation. You probably don't need me to explain the concept of 'equivocation' to you. Such as claiming, for instance, that in this particular case, it's probably A-OK to run from the police. Where the perp just so happens to have a badge. And murder? I gotcha murder right here: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/519673__ARCHIVED_THREAD____Wrong_Address_in_Atlanta_results_in_92_year_old_woman_shot_dead__3_cops_shot.html&page=3 And that's ignoring the 'he was holding a PS3 controller so I had to shoot' ones. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 3:05:30 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
At the same time, you're now applying the standards you would expect in a legal trial to a conversation in GD. If the site plans to ban or issue a timeout to Tomaslav for what he said, that is pretty derpy IMO. Could he have chosen his words better? Sure. Nobody in that thread said child molestation is peachy. But there is clearly plenty of benefit of the doubting going on in that thread, need to see more, well it is just his ex-wife's word, oh he admitted it? Well you can run from the cops if you didn't do anything wrong, type of defense in that thread to make the average Joe sense that there is some TBLing going on, in contrast to most other threads where the same folks tend to lean on the 'don't respond to authority immediately you get what you get' side of the equation. Tomaslavs intent with his post was to post out inconsistency of some LEOs defense of certain issues when certain parties were involved. It wasn't a "all cops are child molester defenders" statement. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Please use the "Link to this Post" feature as a link to page 3 of an 8 page thread isn't helpful. Explaining the legal intricacies of an event in no way constitutes "defended child molestation." Quite the stretch you are attempting. At the same time, you're now applying the standards you would expect in a legal trial to a conversation in GD. If the site plans to ban or issue a timeout to Tomaslav for what he said, that is pretty derpy IMO. Could he have chosen his words better? Sure. Nobody in that thread said child molestation is peachy. But there is clearly plenty of benefit of the doubting going on in that thread, need to see more, well it is just his ex-wife's word, oh he admitted it? Well you can run from the cops if you didn't do anything wrong, type of defense in that thread to make the average Joe sense that there is some TBLing going on, in contrast to most other threads where the same folks tend to lean on the 'don't respond to authority immediately you get what you get' side of the equation. Tomaslavs intent with his post was to post out inconsistency of some LEOs defense of certain issues when certain parties were involved. It wasn't a "all cops are child molester defenders" statement. So what you are saying is that Tomaslav cannot back up his claims. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 3:07:26 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Again, I'm more defending Tomislav against a ban than his statement, but if you read the thread he linked to, which was about a police officer who had admitted to the activity in question (masturbating in front of a child) there are those choosing to argue for why he wasn't charged with fleeing from deputies. That is on some level offering a defense for the actions of an admitted child molester. I agree, not defending child molestation, (and I wouldn't say Bama is a child molester defender) but if you're going to hash words, hash words. Ban-able offense? Seems like an overreaction and a standard not so equally applied across GD conversations. It seems Tomislavs crime was not phrasing it as "defended the actions of an admitted child molester" as that would be technically correct. But is that semantic argument worth catching action from site staff? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
" They've defended everything from murder to child molestation, just because the perpetrators had a badge." You cant get much more simpler than that... if cops on this board have defended child molesters, then prove it. It isnt that hard. Quoted:
BS. He clearly said that officer who are members of this forum have "defended everything from murder to child molestation". That's not even in the same ballpark as "benefit of the doubting". If he meant what you are saying he did, he made the worst mis-type I've ever seen. Again, I'm more defending Tomislav against a ban than his statement, but if you read the thread he linked to, which was about a police officer who had admitted to the activity in question (masturbating in front of a child) there are those choosing to argue for why he wasn't charged with fleeing from deputies. That is on some level offering a defense for the actions of an admitted child molester. I agree, not defending child molestation, (and I wouldn't say Bama is a child molester defender) but if you're going to hash words, hash words. Ban-able offense? Seems like an overreaction and a standard not so equally applied across GD conversations. It seems Tomislavs crime was not phrasing it as "defended the actions of an admitted child molester" as that would be technically correct. But is that semantic argument worth catching action from site staff? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 3:07:43 PM EDT
[#22]
Ost
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 3:11:20 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your contributions to these threads is always the same. Without the smilies icon menu, I dare say you'd be rendered largely mute. It speaks to a certain level of intellect, FYI. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 3:17:42 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your contributions to these threads is always the same. Without the smilies icon menu, I dare say you'd be rendered largely mute. It speaks to a certain level of intellect, FYI. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Your contributions to these threads is always the same. Without the smilies icon menu, I dare say you'd be rendered largely mute. It speaks to a certain level of intellect, FYI. Got it. You can't back up your BS either. Why would I waste my intellect on people who are being dishonest? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 3:19:55 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Got it. You can't back up your BS either. Why would I waste my intellect on people who are being dishonest? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Your contributions to these threads is always the same. Without the smilies icon menu, I dare say you'd be rendered largely mute. It speaks to a certain level of intellect, FYI. Got it. You can't back up your BS either. Why would I waste my intellect on people who are being dishonest? Not sure which of my BS you're referring to, but laughing at your inference of wasteable intellect when the majority of your posts in LEO threads is simply pushing smiliey icon buttons. Allow me to retort in kind.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 3:22:33 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Soo.. uhh.. He was detained for threatening hand movements and looking around in a park, and arrested for resisting arrest... USA USA USA "I like the look and gesters of the female officer, she was all and  at the sgt's behavior  she knew it was stupid and wrong " |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 3:24:13 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not sure which of my BS you're referring to, but laughing at your inference of wasteable intellect when the majority of your posts in LEO threads is simply pushing smiliey icon buttons. Allow me to retort in kind. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Your contributions to these threads is always the same. Without the smilies icon menu, I dare say you'd be rendered largely mute. It speaks to a certain level of intellect, FYI. Got it. You can't back up your BS either. Why would I waste my intellect on people who are being dishonest? Not sure which of my BS you're referring to, but laughing at your inference of wasteable intellect when the majority of your posts in LEO threads is simply pushing smiliey icon buttons. Allow me to retort in kind.
This is awesome you cannot even follow the stuff you quoted. Your BS: Quoted:
Again, I'm more defending Tomislav against a ban than his statement, but if you read the thread he linked to, which was about a police officer who had admitted to the activity in question (masturbating in front of a child) there are those choosing to argue for why he wasn't charged with fleeing from deputies. That is on some level offering a defense for the actions of an admitted child molester. I agree, not defending child molestation, (and I wouldn't say Bama is a child molester defender) but if you're going to hash words, hash words. Ban-able offense? Seems like an overreaction and a standard not so equally applied across GD conversations. It seems Tomislavs crime was not phrasing it as "defended the actions of an admitted child molester" as that would be technically correct. But is that semantic argument worth catching action from site staff? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 3:28:32 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your BS: Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your BS: Quoted:
Again, I'm more defending Tomislav against a ban than his statement, but if you read the thread he linked to, which was about a police officer who had admitted to the activity in question (masturbating in front of a child) there are those choosing to argue for why he wasn't charged with fleeing from deputies. That is on some level offering a defense for the actions of an admitted child molester. I agree, not defending child molestation, (and I wouldn't say Bama is a child molester defender) but if you're going to hash words, hash words. Ban-able offense? Seems like an overreaction and a standard not so equally applied across GD conversations. It seems Tomislavs crime was not phrasing it as "defended the actions of an admitted child molester" as that would be technically correct. But is that semantic argument worth catching action from site staff? The quoted part in red is fact. The person in question had admitted to behavior consistent with child molestation. There were people in that thread defending his actions (specifically his fleeing from deputies.) My statement in red was 100% factual. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 3:49:44 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The quoted part in red is fact. The person in question had admitted to behavior consistent with child molestation. There were people in that thread defending his actions (specifically his fleeing from deputies.) My statement in red was 100% factual. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Your BS: Quoted:
Again, I'm more defending Tomislav against a ban than his statement, but if you read the thread he linked to, which was about a police officer who had admitted to the activity in question (masturbating in front of a child) there are those choosing to argue for why he wasn't charged with fleeing from deputies. That is on some level offering a defense for the actions of an admitted child molester. I agree, not defending child molestation, (and I wouldn't say Bama is a child molester defender) but if you're going to hash words, hash words. Ban-able offense? Seems like an overreaction and a standard not so equally applied across GD conversations. It seems Tomislavs crime was not phrasing it as "defended the actions of an admitted child molester" as that would be technically correct. But is that semantic argument worth catching action from site staff? The quoted part in red is fact. The person in question had admitted to behavior consistent with child molestation. There were people in that thread defending his actions (specifically his fleeing from deputies.) My statement in red was 100% factual. You are trying to defend a point that was not implied. No link has shown that any cop here has defended child molestation. That is what was claimed. Not that anyone defended that the POS ran and why. Of which he still can run or leave as he was a suspect being interviewed later not at the scene of the crime just as it happened, he was not under arrest, and had no warrants against him. Unless you are now trying to tell us all with your legal wisdom that he can be forced to sit and give a statement and incriminate himself. Quoted:
Just read some of the TBL responses here. They've defended everything from murder to child molestation, just because the perpetrators had a badge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 3:56:15 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are trying to defend a point that was not implied. No link has shown that any cop here has defended child molestation. That is what was claimed. Not that anyone defended that the POS ran and why. Of which he still can run or leave as he was a suspect being interviewed later not at the scene of the crime just as it happened, he was not under arrest, and had no warrants against him. Unless you are now trying to tell us all with your legal wisdom that he can be forced to sit and give a statement and incriminate himself. Don't try to wiggle out, you specifically called MY statement BS, and highlighted it red to 'prove' it was BS. My statement, the one you specifically highlighted was 100% factually correct; I explained simply and plainly how it was correct. Don't be a weasel, be a man and admit you were wrong to call me out and refer to my statement as BS. Funny how you want to hold Tomislav to the exact letter of his words in a GD argument, but when the tables are turned, you don't see the need to admit that your callout was just as flawed and apologize. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 3:58:09 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You are going to need to back those accusations up. Links please. I'll check back later, as failure to do so is the kind of generalized bashing we do not tolerate. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Thugs with badges. I simply see this too often to believe these are isolated incidents. Something is rotten in American law enforcement. Not all cops are bad, but enough are that this shit keeps showing up on YouTube and liveleak. Just read some of the TBL responses here. They've defended everything from murder to child molestation, just because the perpetrators had a badge. You are going to need to back those accusations up. Links please. I'll check back later, as failure to do so is the kind of generalized bashing we do not tolerate. I think falsely claiming someone was a convicted criminal is a bash, but that goes by just fine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 3:58:17 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are trying to defend a point that was not implied. No link has shown that any cop here has defended child molestation. That is what was claimed. Not that anyone defended that the POS ran and why. Of which he still can run or leave as he was a suspect being interviewed later not at the scene of the crime just as it happened, he was not under arrest, and had no warrants against him... Right. Because hauling ass after being accused of jerking off with a kid, and then being chased by police for a mile ISN'T something anyone else would be detained over. Seriously, that is what you are claiming? Because to me it seems more like dissembling a bit on behalf of said pedo, since in the real world, doing the above would land an unbadged person in jail. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 3:59:53 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Right. Because hauling ass after being accused of jerking off with a kid, and then being chased by police for a mile ISN'T something anyone else would be detained over. Seriously, that is what you are claiming? Because to me it seems more like dissembling a bit on behalf of said pedo, since in the real world, doing the above would land an unbadged person in jail. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You are trying to defend a point that was not implied. No link has shown that any cop here has defended child molestation. That is what was claimed. Not that anyone defended that the POS ran and why. Of which he still can run or leave as he was a suspect being interviewed later not at the scene of the crime just as it happened, he was not under arrest, and had no warrants against him... Right. Because hauling ass after being accused of jerking off with a kid, and then being chased by police for a mile ISN'T something anyone else would be detained over. Seriously, that is what you are claiming? Because to me it seems more like dissembling a bit on behalf of said pedo, since in the real world, doing the above would land an unbadged person in jail. Where is the link? We are waiting... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 4:04:27 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't try to wiggle out, you specifically called MY statement BS, and highlighted it red to 'prove' it was BS. My statement, the one you specifically highlighted was 100% factually correct; I explained simply and plainly how it was correct. Don't be a weasel, be a man and admit you were wrong to call me out and refer to my statement as BS. Funny how you want to hold Tomislav to the exact letter of his words in a GD argument, but when the tables are turned, you don't see the need to admit that your callout was just as flawed and apologize. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You are trying to defend a point that was not implied. No link has shown that any cop here has defended child molestation. That is what was claimed. Not that anyone defended that the POS ran and why. Of which he still can run or leave as he was a suspect being interviewed later not at the scene of the crime just as it happened, he was not under arrest, and had no warrants against him. Unless you are now trying to tell us all with your legal wisdom that he can be forced to sit and give a statement and incriminate himself. Don't try to wiggle out, you specifically called MY statement BS, and highlighted it red to 'prove' it was BS. My statement, the one you specifically highlighted was 100% factually correct; I explained simply and plainly how it was correct. Don't be a weasel, be a man and admit you were wrong to call me out and refer to my statement as BS. Funny how you want to hold Tomislav to the exact letter of his words in a GD argument, but when the tables are turned, you don't see the need to admit that your callout was just as flawed and apologize.
Yes your statement is BS in the terms of the claim that was made. That is the point to all of this. You are defending a guy who is claiming that people on this board have defended child molestation and has no proof to back it up. So you in your infinite wisdom decided to chime in and try to prove it by saying people supported the POS child molester when all that was done was explain why he wasn't arrested for leaving and interview. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 4:07:26 PM EDT
[#35]
Welp may as well get ready to abandon this thread.
It's going off the rails and will probably get locked. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 4:08:07 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes your statement is BS in the terms of the claim that was made. That is the point to all of this. You are defending a guy who is claiming that people on this board have defended child molestation and has no proof to back it up. So you in your infinite wisdom decided to chime in and try to prove it by saying people supported the POS child molester when all that was done was explain why he wasn't arrested for leaving and interview. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You are trying to defend a point that was not implied. No link has shown that any cop here has defended child molestation. That is what was claimed. Not that anyone defended that the POS ran and why. Of which he still can run or leave as he was a suspect being interviewed later not at the scene of the crime just as it happened, he was not under arrest, and had no warrants against him. Unless you are now trying to tell us all with your legal wisdom that he can be forced to sit and give a statement and incriminate himself. Don't try to wiggle out, you specifically called MY statement BS, and highlighted it red to 'prove' it was BS. My statement, the one you specifically highlighted was 100% factually correct; I explained simply and plainly how it was correct. Don't be a weasel, be a man and admit you were wrong to call me out and refer to my statement as BS. Funny how you want to hold Tomislav to the exact letter of his words in a GD argument, but when the tables are turned, you don't see the need to admit that your callout was just as flawed and apologize.
Yes your statement is BS in the terms of the claim that was made. That is the point to all of this. You are defending a guy who is claiming that people on this board have defended child molestation and has no proof to back it up. So you in your infinite wisdom decided to chime in and try to prove it by saying people supported the POS child molester when all that was done was explain why he wasn't arrested for leaving and interview. You can post all the smilies you want, you were 100% wrong and incorrect to call my statement BS because it was 100% factually correct. your continued refusal to acknowledge that and apologize while you demand Tomislav to acknowledge and apologize for his statement shows you have zero integrity, and a great deal of hypocrisy. Funny how that cuts both ways like that. Please, reply with more smilies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 4:08:43 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Right. Because hauling ass after being accused of jerking off with a kid, and then being chased by police for a mile ISN'T something anyone else would be detained over. Seriously, that is what you are claiming? Because to me it seems more like dissembling a bit on behalf of said pedo, since in the real world, doing the above would land an unbadged person in jail. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You are trying to defend a point that was not implied. No link has shown that any cop here has defended child molestation. That is what was claimed. Not that anyone defended that the POS ran and why. Of which he still can run or leave as he was a suspect being interviewed later not at the scene of the crime just as it happened, he was not under arrest, and had no warrants against him... Right. Because hauling ass after being accused of jerking off with a kid, and then being chased by police for a mile ISN'T something anyone else would be detained over. Seriously, that is what you are claiming? Because to me it seems more like dissembling a bit on behalf of said pedo, since in the real world, doing the above would land an unbadged person in jail. Either post proof that arfcom officers defended child molestation or be quiet. You are stretching so bad it makes the Octomom look tight. He was at an interview after the fact. They had no charges to arrest him on. They had no warrant to arrest him on. So unless you are saying that he has to be detained to incriminate himself then he was free to leave. Sorry if that hurts your feelings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 4:08:44 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
. I don't have any more time to spend on this. Please either provide link(s) to back up or accusations or edit your post. Your choice, but failure to do either will result in sanction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 4:12:01 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can post all the smilies you want, you were 100% wrong nd incorrect to call my statement BS because it was 100% factually correct. your continued refusal to acknowledge that and apologize while you demand Tomislav to acknowledge and apologize for his statement shows you have zero integrity, and a great deal of hypocrisy. Funny how that cuts both ways like that. Please, reply with more smilies. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You are trying to defend a point that was not implied. No link has shown that any cop here has defended child molestation. That is what was claimed. Not that anyone defended that the POS ran and why. Of which he still can run or leave as he was a suspect being interviewed later not at the scene of the crime just as it happened, he was not under arrest, and had no warrants against him. Unless you are now trying to tell us all with your legal wisdom that he can be forced to sit and give a statement and incriminate himself. Don't try to wiggle out, you specifically called MY statement BS, and highlighted it red to 'prove' it was BS. My statement, the one you specifically highlighted was 100% factually correct; I explained simply and plainly how it was correct. Don't be a weasel, be a man and admit you were wrong to call me out and refer to my statement as BS. Funny how you want to hold Tomislav to the exact letter of his words in a GD argument, but when the tables are turned, you don't see the need to admit that your callout was just as flawed and apologize.
Yes your statement is BS in the terms of the claim that was made. That is the point to all of this. You are defending a guy who is claiming that people on this board have defended child molestation and has no proof to back it up. So you in your infinite wisdom decided to chime in and try to prove it by saying people supported the POS child molester when all that was done was explain why he wasn't arrested for leaving and interview. You can post all the smilies you want, you were 100% wrong nd incorrect to call my statement BS because it was 100% factually correct. your continued refusal to acknowledge that and apologize while you demand Tomislav to acknowledge and apologize for his statement shows you have zero integrity, and a great deal of hypocrisy. Funny how that cuts both ways like that. Please, reply with more smilies.
Your statement to the claim was BS and had nothing to do with the claim despite your attempt to make it so. Post proof that arfcom LEOs have supported child molestation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 4:12:39 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can post all the smilies you want, you were 100% wrong and incorrect to call my statement BS because it was 100% factually correct. your continued refusal to acknowledge that and apologize while you demand Tomislav to acknowledge and apologize for his statement shows you have zero integrity, and a great deal of hypocrisy. Funny how that cuts both ways like that. Please, reply with more smilies. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You are trying to defend a point that was not implied. No link has shown that any cop here has defended child molestation. That is what was claimed. Not that anyone defended that the POS ran and why. Of which he still can run or leave as he was a suspect being interviewed later not at the scene of the crime just as it happened, he was not under arrest, and had no warrants against him. Unless you are now trying to tell us all with your legal wisdom that he can be forced to sit and give a statement and incriminate himself. Don't try to wiggle out, you specifically called MY statement BS, and highlighted it red to 'prove' it was BS. My statement, the one you specifically highlighted was 100% factually correct; I explained simply and plainly how it was correct. Don't be a weasel, be a man and admit you were wrong to call me out and refer to my statement as BS. Funny how you want to hold Tomislav to the exact letter of his words in a GD argument, but when the tables are turned, you don't see the need to admit that your callout was just as flawed and apologize.
Yes your statement is BS in the terms of the claim that was made. That is the point to all of this. You are defending a guy who is claiming that people on this board have defended child molestation and has no proof to back it up. So you in your infinite wisdom decided to chime in and try to prove it by saying people supported the POS child molester when all that was done was explain why he wasn't arrested for leaving and interview. You can post all the smilies you want, you were 100% wrong and incorrect to call my statement BS because it was 100% factually correct. your continued refusal to acknowledge that and apologize while you demand Tomislav to acknowledge and apologize for his statement shows you have zero integrity, and a great deal of hypocrisy. Funny how that cuts both ways like that. Please, reply with more smilies. It wasn't factual because it was an opinion. Your opinion. You seem to think that someone attempting to offer an explanation for why things happened the way they did equate to justifying molestation. The FACT remains that no one in that thread justified or attempted to justify anyone molesting anyone. Which goes back to the whole issue at hand, that Tomislav said LEOs here have justified murder and molestation, which is not true. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 4:16:13 PM EDT
[#41]
I see the blue liners found a technicality only tangentially related to the thread and harped on it until they got some staff action against a "cop hater". Again.
A very sandy thread. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 4:18:34 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your statement to the claim was BS and had nothing to do with the claim despite your attempt to make it so. Post proof that arfcom LEOs have supported child molestation. I don't have to, wasn't my claim. And again, you are revising your claim, you highlighted my statement in red, said it was BS. It was a factual statement. Your refusal to admit this continues to stand as a testament to your hypocrisy and lack of integrity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 4:19:38 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It wasn't factual because it was an opinion. Your opinion. You seem to think that someone attempting to offer an explanation for why things happened the way they did equate to justifying molestation. The FACT remains that no one in that thread justified or attempted to justify anyone molesting anyone. Which goes back to the whole issue at hand, that Tomislav said LEOs here have justified murder and molestation, which is not true. Wrong. I never said it was justifying molestation. I specifically said it WASN'T justifying molestation. Go back and read. What I said, which was highlighted in red, was 100% factual. Not opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 4:20:47 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I see the blue liners found a technicality only tangentially related to the thread and harped on it until they got some staff action against a "cop hater". Again. A very sandy thread. And one of them, when caught in the same sort of technicality, refuses to acknowledge it and is standing by it. Huh. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 4:21:32 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't have to, wasn't my claim. And again, you are revising your claim, you highlighted my statement in red, said it was BS. It was a factual statement. Your refusal to admit this continues to stand as a testament to your hypocrisy and lack of integrity. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Your statement to the claim was BS and had nothing to do with the claim despite your attempt to make it so. Post proof that arfcom LEOs have supported child molestation. I don't have to, wasn't my claim. And again, you are revising your claim, you highlighted my statement in red, said it was BS. It was a factual statement. Your refusal to admit this continues to stand as a testament to your hypocrisy and lack of integrity. It was not fact. It had nothing to do with the claim. Keep swinging though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 4:23:23 PM EDT
[#46]
I will not say it is 'defending a child molester' but I do find it interesting that we have two different incidents where police want to detain a person, in one instance that person is accused of making 'threatening gestures' and in the other, sexual misconduct with a child. In both cases the person in question does not meekly allow himself to be detained, but puts up some form of resistance (Fleeing while pursued by deputies vs backing away and not putting the camera down)
For only one of those two individuals does Bama come in and state that in some areas of this country it is lawful to not comply by fleeing for not violating the law that the cops are attempting to detain or arrest him for. That's pretty telling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 4:23:32 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I see the blue liners found a technicality only tangentially related to the thread and harped on it until they got some staff action against a "cop hater". Again. A very sandy thread. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 4:23:35 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And one of them, when caught in the same sort of technicality, refuses to acknowledge it and is standing by it. Huh. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I see the blue liners found a technicality only tangentially related to the thread and harped on it until they got some staff action against a "cop hater". Again. A very sandy thread. And one of them, when caught in the same sort of technicality, refuses to acknowledge it and is standing by it. Huh. Absolutely. They have badges man, they don't do wrong, they are the good guys. You don't have a badge, you are a bad guy. Just embrace your lot in life you ex-convict.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 4:23:38 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And one of them, when caught in the same sort of technicality, refuses to acknowledge it and is standing by it. Huh. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I see the blue liners found a technicality only tangentially related to the thread and harped on it until they got some staff action against a "cop hater". Again. A very sandy thread. And one of them, when caught in the same sort of technicality, refuses to acknowledge it and is standing by it. Huh. Its not my fault you can't understand the difference between defending and explaining why someone can leave and does not have to be forced to confess at a voluntary interview. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 4:23:43 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was not fact. It had nothing to do with the claim. Keep swinging though. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Your statement to the claim was BS and had nothing to do with the claim despite your attempt to make it so. Post proof that arfcom LEOs have supported child molestation. I don't have to, wasn't my claim. And again, you are revising your claim, you highlighted my statement in red, said it was BS. It was a factual statement. Your refusal to admit this continues to stand as a testament to your hypocrisy and lack of integrity. It was not fact. It had nothing to do with the claim. Keep swinging though. It was, keep lying. Or rather, please explain how the statement highlighted in red was incorrect. Not how you felt it applied to the issue, but was an incorrect statement. You can't. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
