There is nothing of which we are ashamed.
If they don't get it at work, we will arrange for home delivery.
-
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.
Skidmark proceeding to trial - Sept 13th, 2011
- Thread starter Grapeshot
- Start date
There is nothing of which we are ashamed.
If they don't get it at work, we will arrange for home delivery.
EricDailey X-NRA
Regular Member
Too Subtle
I was thinking that if you want to surprise someone that it is hard to do when you advertise your intentions.
I was thinking that if you want to surprise someone that it is hard to do when you advertise your intentions.
Last edited:
user
Accomplished Advocate
I don't feel we need surprises. This is not a sneak attack.
It's merely a matter of implementing the law as it is.
Ref: Ps. 37
It's merely a matter of implementing the law as it is.
Ref: Ps. 37
What do you presume our intentions might be?
Surely nobody thinks that those posting any details pertenant to this case other than time, date and principals thereto have not properly submitted them for consideration to that same attorney.
This is a highly orchestrated poker game - everything is not what it might appear to be and like the Man in Black said, "Know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em."
EricDailey X-NRA
Regular Member
Quite Right
I must have mis read the post I responded to.
Carry on. Good luck to all.
Thanks for all your work.
I must have mis read the post I responded to.
Carry on. Good luck to all.
Thanks for all your work.
You'd be absolutely right if we wanted to surprise someone.
In the beginning we didn't give many details at all because the case was still being formed.
Now the case is up front and out there and is just a matter of law.
There are some issues that are not kosher but they are just a matter of looking at the facts, research and talking to people.
I have opinions about certain things but they are just that, opinions and bringing them out in public could harm an innocent person if I'm wrong, not to mention putting me on the wrong side of a lawsuit.
I'm making a full length Documentary that lays out the facts, the sequence of events and either confirms or dispels some of the rumors.
That and just being a smart a$$ are the only reasons for not just blurting out plans or events.
This has been a very complicated case and following User is like trying to count chips of wood flying off of a chainsaw. In a legal sense, he kicks butt.
There are still some issues that will not be an issue or a minor issue in the criminal case, but I will not deal with in this Doc because of future litigation.
So no, I'm not trying to trap anyone, just get to the bottom of things so I get it right when I publish this.
Last edited:
EricDailey X-NRA
Regular Member
My Mistake. Sorry.
Thanks.
I may have misunderstood. So carry on and don't mind me.
I enjoy OCDO. I appreciate the opportunity.
Thanks.
I may have misunderstood. So carry on and don't mind me.
I enjoy OCDO. I appreciate the opportunity.
I though that was Kenny Rogers, not Johnny Cash.
Believe you're right - so how many cards you want?
Sure am glad this is jus' a friendly game. You guys take this game seriously. :lol:
TFred
Regular Member
At this point, it seems kind of like the old-fashioned steam engine, heading full bore at 70 mph straight toward the gorge with the bridge out.
It's gonna happen, ain't nothing can stop it at this point... Just pop the popcorn, pour the tea, and keep hitting "refresh!"
TFred
It's gonna happen, ain't nothing can stop it at this point... Just pop the popcorn, pour the tea, and keep hitting "refresh!"
TFred
va_tazdad
Regular Member
I found the biggest problem with the last court date was that it was extremely difficult not to laugh at Poindexter's theatrics. I didn’t want to be locked up for contempt of court.
“User” was professional at all times, but Poindexter started every reply with flailing arm gestures, hysterics and outrage that impressed nobody including the judge. The quality of the different styles was very apparent.
I look forward to attending the next date and anticipate a positive outcome.
“User” was professional at all times, but Poindexter started every reply with flailing arm gestures, hysterics and outrage that impressed nobody including the judge. The quality of the different styles was very apparent.
I look forward to attending the next date and anticipate a positive outcome.
LOL! I laughed outloud at that reply.... and you didn't even post any text. :lol:
user
Accomplished Advocate
Actually, I think we were all impressed, so much so that we're still talking about how impressive it was.
I certainly formed an impression.
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
I prefer swapping the word "lawyers" for the word "cops."
But, they're a protected class around here. Odd, this case and all... Better not win, you'll be censored for cop-bashing... If you file a 42/1983 afterwards, well, you'll be banned for cop-bashing...
The only of those two groups that have come here and done us any good, are the lawyers. Yet, the joke about killing 10,000 of them is acceptable, while saying the same of those who necessitated these proceedings is not...
If you refuse to fight the enemy, you lose. If you won't even name your enemy, you've only shrunk further from your duty...
Last edited:
TFred
Regular Member
There's a big difference between "cop bashing" and "bringing to light specific actions by specific cops that need attention".
The difference is obvious, since this incident has received extensive coverage, and will no doubt be covered with a fine tooth comb until its ultimate resolution.
Lawyers are thick-skinned... they laugh at the lawyer jokes... all the way to the bank!
TFred
The generality, collective grouping, is what makes such a rule violation, not the individual reference to someone as not up to standard.
We ask/demand the same consideration when one of ours deviates from acceptable practices and demeanor. When an OCer or CCer goes a off tangent, we are the first ones to say that he is not representative of us.
I do understand the frustration, but encourage you to see the advances we have made and how the efforts of many are paying dividends - ever increasingly so.
I find it far better to make an ally of what some have described as the "enemy" wherever and whenever possible - many means at our disposal, some gentle and some not so much. OTOH - open warfare often gains casualties on both sides.
What the future holds for this particular situation, remains below the horizon - first things first. I can assure you though that whatever transpires will be reported here in due time and form, but definitely not painted with a broad brush of bashing a group.
wylde007
Regular Member
A term I have seen used in several unrelated instances is "an epidemic of isolated incidents".
I shall remember that and perhaps use it with your permission. :lol:
wylde007
Regular Member
I think that one is safely "public domain".
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
I don't think you'll care much for the provenance on it.
"Another isolated incident" is one of Radley Balko's phrases. He's been exposing cop abusiveness for maybe 5 years or more now. It highlights the absurdity of the bleaters who say one bad cop doesn't make them all bad, and then pretend there's nothing serious going on. All cops are good, just a few rotten apples. Yeah, right. That's why we have this steady stream of isolated incidents.