marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
ghostrider wrote:
ghostrider wrote:
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Argue with the cop
- Thread starter Hombre
- Start date
ghostrider
Regular Member
imported post
marshaul wrote:
marshaul wrote:
NO, I qualified it enough. When you attack the person instead of the argument, then you are no better.
Big Gay Al
Michigan Moderator
imported post
ghostrider wrote:
Still, I guess it's a matter of perspective, and opinion.
ghostrider wrote:
Well, I don't know that I would have called the post you quoted and called "cop bashing" that. I would say it was not qualified enough in it's statement. It should have read "some cops," as a way to qualify that not all cops are that way.
Still, I guess it's a matter of perspective, and opinion.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Big Gay Al wrote:
Something which merely lacked precise qualification is all of a sudden inferred to be a personal attack.
What might this suggest?
That's what I was getting at with my misquoted Shakespeare.
Big Gay Al wrote:
This was my point.
Something which merely lacked precise qualification is all of a sudden inferred to be a personal attack.
What might this suggest?
That's what I was getting at with my misquoted Shakespeare.
Big Gay Al
Michigan Moderator
imported post
marshaul wrote:
marshaul wrote:
Ok, you got me there.Big Gay Al wrote:
This was my point.
Something which merely lacked precise qualification is all of a sudden inferred to be a personal attack.
What might this suggest?
That's what I was getting at with my misquoted Shakespeare.
ghostrider
Regular Member
imported post
Big Gay Al wrote:
I didn't think stainless1911 meant it as all inclusive. I was just contrasting the wording. Nevertheless, as often as things are taken out of context, it doesn't view well to paint with a broad brush, even if unintentionally. Image is important, and right now those who OC in Michigan need to maintain a stellar one.
Big Gay Al wrote:
That is exactly why I qualified it with a example of better wording it. Actually, it was more for the OP's benefit, than to belittle or criticize stainless1911. More of a, "This, would be cop-bashing, as opposed to what is normal around here."
I didn't think stainless1911 meant it as all inclusive. I was just contrasting the wording. Nevertheless, as often as things are taken out of context, it doesn't view well to paint with a broad brush, even if unintentionally. Image is important, and right now those who OC in Michigan need to maintain a stellar one.
ghostrider
Regular Member
imported post
marshaul wrote:
marshaul wrote:
My point as well. Which is why I qualified it the way I did.Big Gay Al wrote:
This was my point.
Something which merely lacked precise qualification is all of a sudden inferred to be a personal attack.
What might this suggest?
That's what I was getting at with my misquoted Shakespeare.
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
Hombre1 wrote:
First, no respectful police officer uses the derogatory slang term "cop" when refering to another officer.
Commenting about you is not "anti-cop" rhetoric, because it is highly doubtful that you are a sworn police officer, based on your lack of mental capacity.
At best you may have been a reserve Detroit officer. But that is highly doubtful.
Nope, you are nothing more than a FUDD (2).
And that isn't "anti-cop".
Maybe a former security guard at the welfare clinic.
Hombre1 wrote:
This is not anti-cop rhetoric.
First, no respectful police officer uses the derogatory slang term "cop" when refering to another officer.
Commenting about you is not "anti-cop" rhetoric, because it is highly doubtful that you are a sworn police officer, based on your lack of mental capacity.
At best you may have been a reserve Detroit officer. But that is highly doubtful.
Nope, you are nothing more than a FUDD (2).
And that isn't "anti-cop".
Maybe a former security guard at the welfare clinic.
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
stainless1911 wrote:
stainless1911 wrote:
Duh?!?!? I wonder why?!?!?
stainless1911
Banned
imported post
Rhetorical I know, nevertheless, They censored my posts as well as many others, so I figured I would show them what cop bashing really was.
Rhetorical I know, nevertheless, They censored my posts as well as many others, so I figured I would show them what cop bashing really was.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Argue with a cop? OK.
Argue with a cop? OK.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Hombre1 wrote:
But, proper? No.
Proper would be to get 8-10 friends afterwards and wear him out with a good light beating. Then knock the stuffing out of whoever trained the LEO to be so casual about violatingthe 4th Amendment rights (search and seizure) of other Americans. Then dock two weeks pay from every other cop in the department that tolerated that behavior from that cop.
That would be proper.
When the Blue Wall of Silence comes down and all police start giving rights their correct importance instead of treating them like barriers to be gotten over and around, or tolerating violations by other cops, then we will all be that much safer.
Hombre1 wrote:
Tactically appropriate, maybe, given the force and numbers available to cops.
But, proper? No.
Proper would be to get 8-10 friends afterwards and wear him out with a good light beating. Then knock the stuffing out of whoever trained the LEO to be so casual about violatingthe 4th Amendment rights (search and seizure) of other Americans. Then dock two weeks pay from every other cop in the department that tolerated that behavior from that cop.
That would be proper.
When the Blue Wall of Silence comes down and all police start giving rights their correct importance instead of treating them like barriers to be gotten over and around, or tolerating violations by other cops, then we will all be that much safer.
Taurus850CIA
Regular Member
imported post
CV67PAT wrote:
CV67PAT wrote:
Unfortunately, that is not a disqualifier for the position of a law enforcement officer. I have seen and met several that are couple quarters shy of a full dollar. Their confidence in their actions more than made up for their inability to think, however. Not throwing a blanket statement, here. I'm just pointing out that more than a few get in who are slightly cognitively challenged.
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
Hombre1 wrote:
Hombre1 wrote:
And your slip is showing.
ghostrider
Regular Member
imported post
Hombre1 wrote:
Hombre1 wrote:
Something tells me the two of you would get along quite well.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
You ain't the first to make such an observation.
:lol:
You ain't the first to make such an observation.
:lol:
JeffSayers
Regular Member
imported post
Thinking out loud:
Maybe a thread titled "A cops viewpoint" would incite productive conversations?!?! Maybe such a valuabe resource would even make it's way to a "sticky" topic?
Thinking out loud:
Maybe a thread titled "A cops viewpoint" would incite productive conversations?!?! Maybe such a valuabe resource would even make it's way to a "sticky" topic?
eastmeyers
Regular Member
imported post
Or "One LEOS viewpoint" just so it really inplys it is just HIS opinion not all police.
Or "One LEOS viewpoint" just so it really inplys it is just HIS opinion not all police.