User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
MO, USA
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 1:07:53 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Beltfed308: The 2nd officer knew but wasted no time joining the barrel himself. I don't know about that. I read the resource officer's comments as "You done fucked up and you better have an air-tight report on this". |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 1:07:59 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SmilingBandit: And a burnt out headlight. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SmilingBandit: Originally Posted By greenranger: 37 in a 30? WTF?? And a burnt out headlight. Even with all of that, ain't no way I would get out in the rain over that. I didn't see anything overly exciting in her driving either. 1- He knew her and didn't like her 2- Cop has small penis syndrome I don't know the area, problems, etc. so maybe they are sticklers over small stuff. Stopping normal people for that minor of stuff should be a rarity and not the norm. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 1:08:20 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Grunteled: I don't know about that. I read the resource officer's comments as "You done fucked up and you better have an air-tight report on this". That's how I read it. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 1:09:52 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Grunteled: If the equipment isn't functional it isn't functional. A car requires both headlights to be working. He was only able to tell because it has DRL but that doesn't change anything about the other headlight not working. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Grunteled: Originally Posted By ramairthree: In the daytime. I don’t know of a single state that requires daytime running lights. Some maybe headlights in the rain. Is there a violation if one of your optional safety lights your are not required to have doesn’t work? If the equipment isn't functional it isn't functional. A car requires both headlights to be working. He was only able to tell because it has DRL but that doesn't change anything about the other headlight not working. Got a source on Indiana requiring that both headlights be functional even when the lights are not required to be used? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 1:11:10 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TAG_Match: Yeah! I forgot all about that. What purpose was running Dads DL? Make sure he wasn't wanted. But more importantly, he was turning over a vehicle to him and allowing him to drive away in it. That should only be done when the vehicle can be legally operated and the person can legally operate it. Now, if he wasn't valid, he could have allowed him to park the car and find someone who is. I was glad to see the cop didn't tow the car which is what he was claiming to do at first. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 1:11:37 PM EDT
[#6]
Another low IQ individual who can't think logically and so reverts to emotional expressions. See this kind of thing all the time with low IQ folks, they get into the red really quickly. You can see from the slamming of the patrol car door, his shaky and emotional voice, and his outburst with the other civilian he doesn't have the temperment for law enforcement or anything else that might induce even average levels of stress. His inability to maintain a stoic demeanor and to become an emotional wreck under such a minor amount of stress makes him a dangerous liability not only to the community, but to his fellow officers and himself. I definitely wouldn't want to have to be in a position where I had to count on this individual in any stressful situation.
Pretty sad when a grown man is more emotional than a teenage girl. Law enforcement isn't made up of clones though. My Cousin has been a police officer for over 20 years now and he is the very definition of the ideal officer, fit, cool under pressure, intelligent, and a good Christian. In short, my Cousin is the kind of guy you want in a serious situation with you. There are exemplary officers out there and then there are guys that slip through the cracks and shouldn't be doing anything even close to law enforcement. I feel like we don't do enough to highlight the ideal officers and hold them up as examples. If all we ever focus on are the bad ones than we're not really inspiring any officers or setting the gold standard for what a police officer should be. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 1:13:48 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Former11BRAVO: Good point! It's been made clear several times that TCRL (aka: LawyerUp) is a member here. Yes but he is ruffling the feathers of some LEO's and that trumps standard COC rules, or so it seems. I am not even amazed that a few are defending this guy. You are doing a wonderful job of reinforcing people's negative impression of law enforcement. Maybe his supporters should question why his previous department suspended him for 10 days and made him take a de-escalation class? Then question why another department would risk hiring him? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 1:15:37 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PatriotAr15: DID THAT COP HAVE TO READ MIRANDA RIGHTS FROM A CARD!!? FFS, I can recite that, and I'm not even a cop! That is done so it is standard and if every challenged, which you will be, you can explain what you read it from and offer it into evidence. I have been asked several times to repeat the warning I provided. I had a case get appealed because of the warning I gave for a show up (cops stop the guy that likely committed the crime and drive the victim/witness there to identify them). We had no written standard on the practice or verbal checklist/warning to provide. After my case, we now have one. I didn't lose the case and the guy's 20 year sentence stuck. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 1:16:49 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Vne: I literally don't give a single flying fuck. My opinion is warranted. And you show me where I called him a liar. I didn't, though what he did isn't far off. I do think it was an unprofessional comment to make. If he hadn't made them I'd be solidly in agreement with him and I'm sure I'd have actually finished the video. But maybe he thinks those comments bolster his case? He should make those comments in front of whatever jury he eventually finds himself before and see if they help. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Vne: Originally Posted By Lug1: Originally Posted By Vne: I think this is a completely reasonable statement. I disagree with none of it. I merely made the decision to stop gathering the facts of this case from a lawyer that is clearly intent on using fallacious arguments to gather emotionally driven clicks. I'll wait for an attorney with a more professional presentation to discuss the case. I don't see why that's such an offensive attitude to take. That lawyer is a member here, so when you go calling people liars and unprofessional based on your opinion remember that. I literally don't give a single flying fuck. My opinion is warranted. And you show me where I called him a liar. I didn't, though what he did isn't far off. I do think it was an unprofessional comment to make. If he hadn't made them I'd be solidly in agreement with him and I'm sure I'd have actually finished the video. But maybe he thinks those comments bolster his case? He should make those comments in front of whatever jury he eventually finds himself before and see if they help.  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 1:17:39 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Imzadi: Got a source on Indiana requiring that both headlights be functional even when the lights are not required to be used? IN law seems pretty fair in headlight use and it doesn't just say when raining. at any other time when, due to insufficient light or unfavorable atmospheric conditions, persons and vehicles on the highway are not clearly discernible at a distance of five hundred (500) feet ahead; must display lighted head lamps and other illuminating devices as required for different classes of vehicles under this chapter. We can clearly see 500' ahead. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 1:17:54 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lug1: Well actually the girl made the impact.....but yea I see what you are saying. troof! lug1 for prez. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 1:22:16 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By USCG_CPO: Yes but he is ruffling the feathers of some LEO's and that trumps standard COC rules, or so it seems. I am not even amazed that a few are defending this guy. You are doing a wonderful job of reinforcing people's negative impression of law enforcement. Maybe his supporters should question why his previous department suspended him for 10 days and made him take a de-escalation class? Then question why another department would risk hiring him? Show us which cops are defending the guy? And are you sure they are cops? LawyerUp does some good reviews, but he will rant about things that aren't even in the video or case. He will also drop other case info that isn't pertinent to the incident he is reviewing. No big deal. He has jumped in early on cases and be absolutely right.... but he has also been wrong. We have had good debates on it and I enjoy the threads. Too many end up locked from other posters though. He has uncovered cases and handled cases where the cops were 100% wrong. Good for him, but the YouTube junk is often just for clicks and popularity, since there is no legit connection to the case. He has a great shill on the site that posts all his videos. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 1:37:52 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UV18: It is all about the clicks and attention. One reason why I asked for the videos. If he was actually trying to inform, he would have put that front and center. Someone else posted the website for the dad which has all the links for the videos. Much more in those and it is easy to pair it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UV18: Originally Posted By chmodx: Is it just me or is this YouTube guy starting to go off the deep end a little bit? Not talking about this incident, but this video. At one point he interjects about the officer having a wedding ring on his left hand and someone should check on his wife. Then he says the black letters on the car with the thin blue line tell you everything you need to know. His videos get posted here all the time but the more recent ones have had some things that don't have clear relevance. Just something I noticed It is all about the clicks and attention. One reason why I asked for the videos. If he was actually trying to inform, he would have put that front and center. Someone else posted the website for the dad which has all the links for the videos. Much more in those and it is easy to pair it. LawyerUP did post the link to the dad's website in his video. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 1:38:03 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PepePewPew: Someone with an ownership interest in the vehicle, or somebody with the detainee's permission, can take custody of the vehicle in lieu of a tow. But you need to document via their license who they are and that they're a licensed driver. Running the license, well, if you're still on a fishing expedition, you got a new fish on the line when he showed you his license. Maybe you'll get lucky and there's a warrant on him. In a normal arrest, not one that's reeking of bullshit and perjury, it's not exactly rare for the replacement driver (usually a passenger in the original traffic stop) to have warrants outstanding. Having such a person in your custody, handing him a set of car keys, and telling him to drive away would be embarrassing. That makes sense. Thanks |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 1:39:11 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SmilingBandit: And a burnt out headlight. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SmilingBandit: Originally Posted By greenranger: 37 in a 30? WTF?? And a burnt out headlight. Burnt headlight during the day |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 1:42:17 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Pallas: I don’t think I have ever heard of anyone (either driver or LE) being pulled over and ticketed for not having their lights on in the rain, unless LE was using it a PC because they wanted to fish. LE doesn’t like to get out in the rain. That guy was being kind of an asshole and just trying to bully a young girl. it should happen more often. "People, your headlights needing to be on when its raining are not so that you can see, but so that we can see you." I can't count how many times I've been on the freeway and seen a spray of water and assumed that there must be a car in there (because they don't have their lights on ) and another spray nearby where it is obvious that there is a car there because you can see their taillights. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 1:46:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: TAG_Match]
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KaerMorhenResident: Another low IQ individual who can't think logically and so reverts to emotional expressions. See this kind of thing all the time with low IQ folks, they get into the red really quickly. You can see from the slamming of the patrol car door, his shaky and emotional voice, and his outburst with the other civilian he doesn't have the temperment for law enforcement or anything else that might induce even average levels of stress. His inability to maintain a stoic demeanor and to become an emotional wreck under such a minor amount of stress makes him a dangerous liability not only to the community, but to his fellow officers and himself. I definitely wouldn't want to have to be in a position where I had to count on this individual in any stressful situation. Pretty sad when a grown man is more emotional than a teenage girl. Law enforcement isn't made up of clones though. My Cousin has been a police officer for over 20 years now and he is the very definition of the ideal officer, fit, cool under pressure, intelligent, and a good Christian. In short, my Cousin is the kind of guy you want in a serious situation with you. There are exemplary officers out there and then there are guys that slip through the cracks and shouldn't be doing anything even close to law enforcement. I feel like we don't do enough to highlight the ideal officers and hold them up as examples. If all we ever focus on are the bad ones than we're not really inspiring any officers or setting the gold standard for what a police officer should be. I agree with you that officers doing a good job should be highlighted. I predicted this over 10 years ago when OPSEC for soldiers and police made sharing everyday stuff on social media verboten. They were removed as part of the community and as fellow human beings so that Osama Bin Ladin wouldn’t kill them in their sleep. It couldn’t have worked any better to promote the division if it had been planned. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 1:46:52 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jack_Of_Some_Trades: it should happen more often. "People, your headlights needing to be on when its raining are not so that you can see, but so that we can see you." I can't count how many times I've been on the freeway and seen a spray of water and assumed that there must be a car in there (because they don't have their lights on ) and another spray nearby where it is obvious that there is a car there because you can see their taillights. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jack_Of_Some_Trades: Originally Posted By Pallas: I don't think I have ever heard of anyone (either driver or LE) being pulled over and ticketed for not having their lights on in the rain, unless LE was using it a PC because they wanted to fish. LE doesn't like to get out in the rain. That guy was being kind of an asshole and just trying to bully a young girl. it should happen more often. "People, your headlights needing to be on when its raining are not so that you can see, but so that we can see you." I can't count how many times I've been on the freeway and seen a spray of water and assumed that there must be a car in there (because they don't have their lights on ) and another spray nearby where it is obvious that there is a car there because you can see their taillights. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 1:49:15 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jack_Of_Some_Trades: it should happen more often. "People, your headlights needing to be on when its raining are not so that you can see, but so that we can see you." I can't count how many times I've been on the freeway and seen a spray of water and assumed that there must be a car in there (because they don't have their lights on ) and another spray nearby where it is obvious that there is a car there because you can see their taillights. CA requires it. IN does not. Here is the CA law- A condition requiring the windshield wipers to be in continuous use due to rain, mist, snow, fog, or other precipitation or atmospheric moisture |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 1:53:07 PM EDT
[#20]
I work in IT.
I get reprimanded if they so much as hear me exhale a breath that might possibly be interpreted as a sigh or makes me sound "annoyed". Meanwhile, cops can rip you out of the car and beat the shit out of you, because they encountered a minor annoyance. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 1:53:52 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lug1: Fallacious equal lies. I literally don't give a flying fuck if you give a flying fuck. You have stated who you are and what you stand for in your posts here. LOL. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/333874/Screenshot_2024-04-19_12_14_35-3192182.png Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lug1: Originally Posted By Vne: Originally Posted By Lug1: Originally Posted By Vne: I think this is a completely reasonable statement. I disagree with none of it. I merely made the decision to stop gathering the facts of this case from a lawyer that is clearly intent on using fallacious arguments to gather emotionally driven clicks. I'll wait for an attorney with a more professional presentation to discuss the case. I don't see why that's such an offensive attitude to take. That lawyer is a member here, so when you go calling people liars and unprofessional based on your opinion remember that. I literally don't give a single flying fuck. My opinion is warranted. And you show me where I called him a liar. I didn't, though what he did isn't far off. I do think it was an unprofessional comment to make. If he hadn't made them I'd be solidly in agreement with him and I'm sure I'd have actually finished the video. But maybe he thinks those comments bolster his case? He should make those comments in front of whatever jury he eventually finds himself before and see if they help. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/333874/Screenshot_2024-04-19_12_14_35-3192182.png But you're goddamn right I've stated who I am and what I stand for. I'm a guy that can be turned off by deceptive and/or illogical comments designed to invoke emotion. I believe in facts, truth, and often times (but not always)... the law. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 2:04:51 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PatriotAr15: I work in IT. I get reprimanded if they so much as hear me exhale a breath that might possibly be interpreted as a sigh or makes me sound "annoyed". Meanwhile, cops can rip you out of the car and beat the shit out of you, because they encountered a minor annoyance. Don't forget swearing at you. |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 2:05:34 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Vne: Fallacious also equals illogical. But you're goddamn right I've stated who I am and what I stand for. I'm a guy that can be turned off by deceptive and/or illogical comments designed to invoke emotion. I believe in facts, truth, and often times (but not always)... the law. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Vne: Originally Posted By Lug1: Originally Posted By Vne: Originally Posted By Lug1: Originally Posted By Vne: I think this is a completely reasonable statement. I disagree with none of it. I merely made the decision to stop gathering the facts of this case from a lawyer that is clearly intent on using fallacious arguments to gather emotionally driven clicks. I'll wait for an attorney with a more professional presentation to discuss the case. I don't see why that's such an offensive attitude to take. That lawyer is a member here, so when you go calling people liars and unprofessional based on your opinion remember that. I literally don't give a single flying fuck. My opinion is warranted. And you show me where I called him a liar. I didn't, though what he did isn't far off. I do think it was an unprofessional comment to make. If he hadn't made them I'd be solidly in agreement with him and I'm sure I'd have actually finished the video. But maybe he thinks those comments bolster his case? He should make those comments in front of whatever jury he eventually finds himself before and see if they help. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/333874/Screenshot_2024-04-19_12_14_35-3192182.png But you're goddamn right I've stated who I am and what I stand for. I'm a guy that can be turned off by deceptive and/or illogical comments designed to invoke emotion. I believe in facts, truth, and often times (but not always)... the law. Deceptive means lies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 2:05:38 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PepePewPew: He's a member here? It's not like his username is in the thread title or anything. No...wait a minute... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PepePewPew: Originally Posted By exDefensorMilitas: And here I thought personal attacks on members were not allowed. He's a member here? It's not like his username is in the thread title or anything. No...wait a minute... No idea why this is your response to something I posted. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 2:05:45 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UV18: CA requires it. IN does not. Here is the CA law- A condition requiring the windshield wipers to be in continuous use due to rain, mist, snow, fog, or other precipitation or atmospheric moisture Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UV18: Originally Posted By Jack_Of_Some_Trades: it should happen more often. "People, your headlights needing to be on when its raining are not so that you can see, but so that we can see you." I can't count how many times I've been on the freeway and seen a spray of water and assumed that there must be a car in there (because they don't have their lights on ) and another spray nearby where it is obvious that there is a car there because you can see their taillights. CA requires it. IN does not. Here is the CA law- A condition requiring the windshield wipers to be in continuous use due to rain, mist, snow, fog, or other precipitation or atmospheric moisture It has to be a fucking downpour for me to continously use my wipers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 2:22:52 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Imzadi: Deceptive means lies. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By Vne: Originally Posted By Lug1: Originally Posted By Vne: Originally Posted By Lug1: Originally Posted By Vne: I think this is a completely reasonable statement. I disagree with none of it. I merely made the decision to stop gathering the facts of this case from a lawyer that is clearly intent on using fallacious arguments to gather emotionally driven clicks. I'll wait for an attorney with a more professional presentation to discuss the case. I don't see why that's such an offensive attitude to take. That lawyer is a member here, so when you go calling people liars and unprofessional based on your opinion remember that. I literally don't give a single flying fuck. My opinion is warranted. And you show me where I called him a liar. I didn't, though what he did isn't far off. I do think it was an unprofessional comment to make. If he hadn't made them I'd be solidly in agreement with him and I'm sure I'd have actually finished the video. But maybe he thinks those comments bolster his case? He should make those comments in front of whatever jury he eventually finds himself before and see if they help. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/333874/Screenshot_2024-04-19_12_14_35-3192182.png But you're goddamn right I've stated who I am and what I stand for. I'm a guy that can be turned off by deceptive and/or illogical comments designed to invoke emotion. I believe in facts, truth, and often times (but not always)... the law. Deceptive means lies. I chose my words carefully because words are nuanced. I never used the word liar. Feel free to quote me all day long but there's no need to put words in my mouth. The lawyer absolutely made comments that were forms of informal fallacies. The thin blue line comment was the clearest example. And did he or did he not insinuate that the cop beats his wife? Got any direct evidence for that? What if he's wrong? I call that a deceptive practice. What would you call it? |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 2:26:58 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Vne: I chose my words carefully because words are nuanced. I never used the word liar. Feel free to quote me all day long but there's no need to put words in my mouth. The lawyer absolutely made comments that were forms of informal fallacies. The thin blue line comment was the clearest example. And did he or did he not insinuate that the cop beats his wife? Got any direct evidence for that? What if he's wrong? I call that a deceptive practice. What would you call it? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Vne: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By Vne: Originally Posted By Lug1: Originally Posted By Vne: Originally Posted By Lug1: Originally Posted By Vne: I think this is a completely reasonable statement. I disagree with none of it. I merely made the decision to stop gathering the facts of this case from a lawyer that is clearly intent on using fallacious arguments to gather emotionally driven clicks. I'll wait for an attorney with a more professional presentation to discuss the case. I don't see why that's such an offensive attitude to take. That lawyer is a member here, so when you go calling people liars and unprofessional based on your opinion remember that. I literally don't give a single flying fuck. My opinion is warranted. And you show me where I called him a liar. I didn't, though what he did isn't far off. I do think it was an unprofessional comment to make. If he hadn't made them I'd be solidly in agreement with him and I'm sure I'd have actually finished the video. But maybe he thinks those comments bolster his case? He should make those comments in front of whatever jury he eventually finds himself before and see if they help. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/333874/Screenshot_2024-04-19_12_14_35-3192182.png But you're goddamn right I've stated who I am and what I stand for. I'm a guy that can be turned off by deceptive and/or illogical comments designed to invoke emotion. I believe in facts, truth, and often times (but not always)... the law. Deceptive means lies. I chose my words carefully because words are nuanced. I never used the word liar. Feel free to quote me all day long but there's no need to put words in my mouth. The lawyer absolutely made comments that were forms of informal fallacies. The thin blue line comment was the clearest example. And did he or did he not insinuate that the cop beats his wife? Got any direct evidence for that? What if he's wrong? I call that a deceptive practice. What would you call it? He didn't say that the cop beats his wife. He also picked his words carefully. He suggested that somebody check on the guy's wife since cops are involved in a lot of domestic violence and the cop is a hot head. |
|
|
MO, USA
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 2:29:13 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lug1: Fallacious equal lies. I literally don't give a flying fuck if you give a flying fuck. You have stated who you are and what you stand for in your posts here. LOL. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/333874/Screenshot_2024-04-19_12_14_35-3192182.png I'll tell him to his face that his comments that the cop beats his wife (someone needs to check on her) and that the blue line on the car is a secret sign of us-against-them were both unsupportable. Obviously it will be the first time in history a YouTuber went over-the-top with their 'analysis' of some video. Although I agree this cop was wrong that doesn't mean its supportable to claim he's a wife beater. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 2:30:26 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Vne: Fallacious also equals illogical. But you're goddamn right I've stated who I am and what I stand for. I'm a guy that can be turned off by deceptive and/or illogical comments designed to invoke emotion. I believe in facts, truth, and often times (but not always)... the law. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Vne: Originally Posted By Lug1: Originally Posted By Vne: Originally Posted By Lug1: Originally Posted By Vne: I think this is a completely reasonable statement. I disagree with none of it. I merely made the decision to stop gathering the facts of this case from a lawyer that is clearly intent on using fallacious arguments to gather emotionally driven clicks. I'll wait for an attorney with a more professional presentation to discuss the case. I don't see why that's such an offensive attitude to take. That lawyer is a member here, so when you go calling people liars and unprofessional based on your opinion remember that. I literally don't give a single flying fuck. My opinion is warranted. And you show me where I called him a liar. I didn't, though what he did isn't far off. I do think it was an unprofessional comment to make. If he hadn't made them I'd be solidly in agreement with him and I'm sure I'd have actually finished the video. But maybe he thinks those comments bolster his case? He should make those comments in front of whatever jury he eventually finds himself before and see if they help. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/333874/Screenshot_2024-04-19_12_14_35-3192182.png But you're goddamn right I've stated who I am and what I stand for. I'm a guy that can be turned off by deceptive and/or illogical comments designed to invoke emotion. I believe in facts, truth, and often times (but not always)... the law. LOL, your truth? |
|
|
|
MO, USA
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 2:31:51 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Imzadi: He didn't say that the cop beats his wife. He also picked his words carefully. He suggested that somebody check on the guy's wife since cops are involved in a lot of domestic violence and the cop is a hot head. It's called insinuation, and if you aren't willing to outright state as fact what you are insinuating then you shouldn't be insinuating it really. Or sack up and admit that's what your doing and go for it, but there are people that don't find it cute. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 2:32:00 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Imzadi: He didn't say that the cop beats his wife. He also picked his words carefully. He suggested that somebody check on the guy's wife since cops are involved in a lot of domestic violence and the cop is a hot head. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By Vne: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By Vne: Originally Posted By Lug1: Originally Posted By Vne: Originally Posted By Lug1: Originally Posted By Vne: I think this is a completely reasonable statement. I disagree with none of it. I merely made the decision to stop gathering the facts of this case from a lawyer that is clearly intent on using fallacious arguments to gather emotionally driven clicks. I'll wait for an attorney with a more professional presentation to discuss the case. I don't see why that's such an offensive attitude to take. That lawyer is a member here, so when you go calling people liars and unprofessional based on your opinion remember that. I literally don't give a single flying fuck. My opinion is warranted. And you show me where I called him a liar. I didn't, though what he did isn't far off. I do think it was an unprofessional comment to make. If he hadn't made them I'd be solidly in agreement with him and I'm sure I'd have actually finished the video. But maybe he thinks those comments bolster his case? He should make those comments in front of whatever jury he eventually finds himself before and see if they help. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/333874/Screenshot_2024-04-19_12_14_35-3192182.png But you're goddamn right I've stated who I am and what I stand for. I'm a guy that can be turned off by deceptive and/or illogical comments designed to invoke emotion. I believe in facts, truth, and often times (but not always)... the law. Deceptive means lies. I chose my words carefully because words are nuanced. I never used the word liar. Feel free to quote me all day long but there's no need to put words in my mouth. The lawyer absolutely made comments that were forms of informal fallacies. The thin blue line comment was the clearest example. And did he or did he not insinuate that the cop beats his wife? Got any direct evidence for that? What if he's wrong? I call that a deceptive practice. What would you call it? He didn't say that the cop beats his wife. He also picked his words carefully. He suggested that somebody check on the guy's wife since cops are involved in a lot of domestic violence and the cop is a hot head. I took at as a joke. And laughed hysterically. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 2:32:00 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Grunteled: I'll tell him to his face that his comments that the cop beats his wife (someone needs to check on her) and that the blue line on the car is a secret sign of us-against-them were both unsupportable. Obviously it will be the first time in history a YouTuber went over-the-top with their 'analysis' of some video. Although I agree this cop was wrong that doesn't mean it's supportable to claim he's a wife beater. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Grunteled: Originally Posted By Lug1: Fallacious equal lies. I literally don't give a flying fuck if you give a flying fuck. You have stated who you are and what you stand for in your posts here. LOL. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/333874/Screenshot_2024-04-19_12_14_35-3192182.png I'll tell him to his face that his comments that the cop beats his wife (someone needs to check on her) and that the blue line on the car is a secret sign of us-against-them were both unsupportable. Obviously it will be the first time in history a YouTuber went over-the-top with their 'analysis' of some video. Although I agree this cop was wrong that doesn't mean it's supportable to claim he's a wife beater. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 2:33:56 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Imzadi: He didn't say that the cop beats his wife. He also picked his words carefully. He suggested that somebody check on the guy's wife since cops are involved in a lot of domestic violence and the cop is a hot head. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By Vne: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By Vne: Originally Posted By Lug1: Originally Posted By Vne: Originally Posted By Lug1: Originally Posted By Vne: I think this is a completely reasonable statement. I disagree with none of it. I merely made the decision to stop gathering the facts of this case from a lawyer that is clearly intent on using fallacious arguments to gather emotionally driven clicks. I'll wait for an attorney with a more professional presentation to discuss the case. I don't see why that's such an offensive attitude to take. That lawyer is a member here, so when you go calling people liars and unprofessional based on your opinion remember that. I literally don't give a single flying fuck. My opinion is warranted. And you show me where I called him a liar. I didn't, though what he did isn't far off. I do think it was an unprofessional comment to make. If he hadn't made them I'd be solidly in agreement with him and I'm sure I'd have actually finished the video. But maybe he thinks those comments bolster his case? He should make those comments in front of whatever jury he eventually finds himself before and see if they help. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/333874/Screenshot_2024-04-19_12_14_35-3192182.png But you're goddamn right I've stated who I am and what I stand for. I'm a guy that can be turned off by deceptive and/or illogical comments designed to invoke emotion. I believe in facts, truth, and often times (but not always)... the law. Deceptive means lies. I chose my words carefully because words are nuanced. I never used the word liar. Feel free to quote me all day long but there's no need to put words in my mouth. The lawyer absolutely made comments that were forms of informal fallacies. The thin blue line comment was the clearest example. And did he or did he not insinuate that the cop beats his wife? Got any direct evidence for that? What if he's wrong? I call that a deceptive practice. What would you call it? He didn't say that the cop beats his wife. He also picked his words carefully. He suggested that somebody check on the guy's wife since cops are involved in a lot of domestic violence and the cop is a hot head. And I didn't say that he said the cop beats his wife. I said he insinuated it, which he clearly did. I don't think even the attorney would deny this fact. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 2:35:57 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Grunteled: It's called insinuation, and if you aren't willing to outright state as fact what you are insinuating then you shouldn't be insinuating it really. Or sack up and admit that's what you're doing and go for it, but there are people that don't find it cute. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Grunteled: Originally Posted By Imzadi: He didn't say that the cop beats his wife. He also picked his words carefully. He suggested that somebody check on the guy's wife since cops are involved in a lot of domestic violence and the cop is a hot head. It's called insinuation, and if you aren't willing to outright state as fact what you are insinuating then you shouldn't be insinuating it really. Or sack up and admit that's what you're doing and go for it, but there are people that don't find it cute. Where there is smoke there is fire. I've heard that somewhere. I know plenty of good cops who would not approve of the cop in the video. Lawyerup took a lot less license with the truth than what that particular cop did with that girl. That particular cop belongs in jail. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 2:36:50 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lug1: LOL, your truth? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lug1: Originally Posted By Vne: Originally Posted By Lug1: Originally Posted By Vne: Originally Posted By Lug1: Originally Posted By Vne: I think this is a completely reasonable statement. I disagree with none of it. I merely made the decision to stop gathering the facts of this case from a lawyer that is clearly intent on using fallacious arguments to gather emotionally driven clicks. I'll wait for an attorney with a more professional presentation to discuss the case. I don't see why that's such an offensive attitude to take. That lawyer is a member here, so when you go calling people liars and unprofessional based on your opinion remember that. I literally don't give a single flying fuck. My opinion is warranted. And you show me where I called him a liar. I didn't, though what he did isn't far off. I do think it was an unprofessional comment to make. If he hadn't made them I'd be solidly in agreement with him and I'm sure I'd have actually finished the video. But maybe he thinks those comments bolster his case? He should make those comments in front of whatever jury he eventually finds himself before and see if they help. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/333874/Screenshot_2024-04-19_12_14_35-3192182.png But you're goddamn right I've stated who I am and what I stand for. I'm a guy that can be turned off by deceptive and/or illogical comments designed to invoke emotion. I believe in facts, truth, and often times (but not always)... the law. LOL, your truth? I never believed in that "your truth/my truth" bullshit. I'm old school. I just believe in the truth. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 2:37:16 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Vne: And I didn't say that he said the cop beats his wife. I said he insinuated it, which he clearly did. I don't think even the attorney would deny this fact. Deal with it. #copium |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 2:37:41 PM EDT
[#37]
Apparently the city council is having a meeting due to the public backlash on this one.
It'll be interesting to see what comes of that. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 2:38:15 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Vne: I never believed in that "your truth/my truth" bullshit. I'm old school. I just believe in the truth. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Vne: Originally Posted By Lug1: Originally Posted By Vne: Originally Posted By Lug1: Originally Posted By Vne: Originally Posted By Lug1: Originally Posted By Vne: I think this is a completely reasonable statement. I disagree with none of it. I merely made the decision to stop gathering the facts of this case from a lawyer that is clearly intent on using fallacious arguments to gather emotionally driven clicks. I'll wait for an attorney with a more professional presentation to discuss the case. I don't see why that's such an offensive attitude to take. That lawyer is a member here, so when you go calling people liars and unprofessional based on your opinion remember that. I literally don't give a single flying fuck. My opinion is warranted. And you show me where I called him a liar. I didn't, though what he did isn't far off. I do think it was an unprofessional comment to make. If he hadn't made them I'd be solidly in agreement with him and I'm sure I'd have actually finished the video. But maybe he thinks those comments bolster his case? He should make those comments in front of whatever jury he eventually finds himself before and see if they help. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/333874/Screenshot_2024-04-19_12_14_35-3192182.png But you're goddamn right I've stated who I am and what I stand for. I'm a guy that can be turned off by deceptive and/or illogical comments designed to invoke emotion. I believe in facts, truth, and often times (but not always)... the law. LOL, your truth? I never believed in that "your truth/my truth" bullshit. I'm old school. I just believe in the truth. If you say so. Real truth is the cop in the video shouldn't be a cop. He has issues that need to be dealt with. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 2:39:13 PM EDT
[#39]
Wow that fucking kid is a RAGING bully and a fucking idiot. By that, I am talking about the cop!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 2:39:26 PM EDT
[#40]
You guys were talking about me for 8 pages and nobody invited me?
 I'm about to do a TV interview w/ a news lady in Indiana about this case in like 5 minutes. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 2:40:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: SAE]
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LawyerUp: You guys were talking about me for 8 pages and nobody invited me? I'm about to do a TV interview w/ a news lady in Indiana about this case in like 5 minutes. Please keep us posted! Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 2:40:46 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lug1: I think there are a lot of good cops. Most of them. But his words apply to this particular cop, at least that was my understanding. In this case, this particular cop yea check on anybody in his life smaller than him. He appears to be an unhinged bully. Where there is smoke there is fire. I've heard that somewhere. I know plenty of good cops who would not approve of the cop in the video. Lawyerup took a lot less license with the truth than what that particular cop did with that girl. That particular cop belongs in jail. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lug1: Originally Posted By Grunteled: Originally Posted By Imzadi: He didn't say that the cop beats his wife. He also picked his words carefully. He suggested that somebody check on the guy's wife since cops are involved in a lot of domestic violence and the cop is a hot head. It's called insinuation, and if you aren't willing to outright state as fact what you are insinuating then you shouldn't be insinuating it really. Or sack up and admit that's what you're doing and go for it, but there are people that don't find it cute. Where there is smoke there is fire. I've heard that somewhere. I know plenty of good cops who would not approve of the cop in the video. Lawyerup took a lot less license with the truth than what that particular cop did with that girl. That particular cop belongs in jail. I can go along with most of what you said here and I wouldn't have quit the video if his words only applied to this cop. But they clearly didn't when he made the blue line on car comment. That smears every cop that happens to drive a cruiser with a blue line on the side. "Us versus them". That's where he completely lost me. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 2:41:02 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LawyerUp: You guys were talking about me for 8 pages and nobody invited me? I'm about to do a TV interview w/ a news lady in Indiana about this case in like 5 minutes. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 2:42:03 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jack_Of_Some_Trades: LawyerUP did post the link to the dad's website in his video. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jack_Of_Some_Trades: Originally Posted By UV18: Originally Posted By chmodx: Is it just me or is this YouTube guy starting to go off the deep end a little bit? Not talking about this incident, but this video. At one point he interjects about the officer having a wedding ring on his left hand and someone should check on his wife. Then he says the black letters on the car with the thin blue line tell you everything you need to know. His videos get posted here all the time but the more recent ones have had some things that don't have clear relevance. Just something I noticed It is all about the clicks and attention. One reason why I asked for the videos. If he was actually trying to inform, he would have put that front and center. Someone else posted the website for the dad which has all the links for the videos. Much more in those and it is easy to pair it. LawyerUP did post the link to the dad's website in his video. Yeah, the dad and the girl reached out to me and said they were so happy with my video. And the Institute for Justice I think is considering taking on the case because my video put it on their radar. Bitch about clicks all you want, but my YouTube videos get more real world government accountability than my lawsuits could ever do in 100 years. Government doesn't care about having to pay money.... they care about the public learning what bad things they've done, as well as political consequences. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 2:42:21 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Vne: I can go along with most of what you said here and I wouldn't have quit the video if his words only applied to this cop. But they clearly didn't when he made the blue line on car comment. That smears every cop that happens to drive a cruiser with a blue line on the side. "Us versus them". That's where he completely lost me. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 2:43:07 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LawyerUp: Yeah, the dad and the girl reached out to me and said they were so happy with my video. And the Institute for Justice I think is considering taking on the case because my video put it on their radar. Bitch about clicks all you want, but my YouTube videos get more real world government accountability than my lawsuits could ever do in 100 years. Government doesn't care about having to pay money.... they care about the public learning what bad things they've done, as well as political consequences. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 2:44:59 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LawyerUp: Yeah, the dad and the girl reached out to me and said they were so happy with my video. And the Institute for Justice I think is considering taking on the case because my video put it on their radar. Bitch about clicks all you want, but my YouTube videos get more real world government accountability than my lawsuits could ever do in 100 years. Government doesn't care about having to pay money.... they care about the public learning what bad things they've done, as well as political consequences. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LawyerUp: Originally Posted By Jack_Of_Some_Trades: Originally Posted By UV18: Originally Posted By chmodx: Is it just me or is this YouTube guy starting to go off the deep end a little bit? Not talking about this incident, but this video. At one point he interjects about the officer having a wedding ring on his left hand and someone should check on his wife. Then he says the black letters on the car with the thin blue line tell you everything you need to know. His videos get posted here all the time but the more recent ones have had some things that don't have clear relevance. Just something I noticed It is all about the clicks and attention. One reason why I asked for the videos. If he was actually trying to inform, he would have put that front and center. Someone else posted the website for the dad which has all the links for the videos. Much more in those and it is easy to pair it. LawyerUP did post the link to the dad's website in his video. Yeah, the dad and the girl reached out to me and said they were so happy with my video. And the Institute for Justice I think is considering taking on the case because my video put it on their radar. Bitch about clicks all you want, but my YouTube videos get more real world government accountability than my lawsuits could ever do in 100 years. Government doesn't care about having to pay money.... they care about the public learning what bad things they've done, as well as political consequences. This x 10000 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 2:46:29 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Grunteled: I'll tell him to his face that his comments that the cop beats his wife (someone needs to check on her) and that the blue line on the car is a secret sign of us-against-them were both unsupportable. Obviously it will be the first time in history a YouTuber went over-the-top with their 'analysis' of some video. Although I agree this cop was wrong that doesn't mean its supportable to claim he's a wife beater. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Grunteled: Originally Posted By Lug1: Fallacious equal lies. I literally don't give a flying fuck if you give a flying fuck. You have stated who you are and what you stand for in your posts here. LOL. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/333874/Screenshot_2024-04-19_12_14_35-3192182.png I'll tell him to his face that his comments that the cop beats his wife (someone needs to check on her) and that the blue line on the car is a secret sign of us-against-them were both unsupportable. Obviously it will be the first time in history a YouTuber went over-the-top with their 'analysis' of some video. Although I agree this cop was wrong that doesn't mean its supportable to claim he's a wife beater. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 2:47:57 PM EDT
[#49]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 2:50:21 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LawyerUp: Yeah, the dad and the girl reached out to me and said they were so happy with my video. And the Institute for Justice I think is considering taking on the case because my video put it on their radar. Bitch about clicks all you want, but my YouTube videos get more real world government accountability than my lawsuits could ever do in 100 years. Government doesn't care about having to pay money.... they care about the public learning what bad things they've done, as well as political consequences. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LawyerUp: Originally Posted By Jack_Of_Some_Trades: Originally Posted By UV18: Originally Posted By chmodx: Is it just me or is this YouTube guy starting to go off the deep end a little bit? Not talking about this incident, but this video. At one point he interjects about the officer having a wedding ring on his left hand and someone should check on his wife. Then he says the black letters on the car with the thin blue line tell you everything you need to know. His videos get posted here all the time but the more recent ones have had some things that don't have clear relevance. Just something I noticed It is all about the clicks and attention. One reason why I asked for the videos. If he was actually trying to inform, he would have put that front and center. Someone else posted the website for the dad which has all the links for the videos. Much more in those and it is easy to pair it. LawyerUP did post the link to the dad's website in his video. Yeah, the dad and the girl reached out to me and said they were so happy with my video. And the Institute for Justice I think is considering taking on the case because my video put it on their radar. Bitch about clicks all you want, but my YouTube videos get more real world government accountability than my lawsuits could ever do in 100 years. Government doesn't care about having to pay money.... they care about the public learning what bad things they've done, as well as political consequences. I have two things to say: One - GREAT FUCKING JOB!!!!! And Two: Please IM me your contact info, so if I ever have to drive through Liberal KS again and get pulled over, I can ask you to represent me! |
|
|
|
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.
Attached File