Ryan Frederick Poll

[Sheriff]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Please, just let it quietly go. Almost any comment that "agrees" or continues along the lines of my post is going to start another argument.

I'm confused. When you posted a very definitive and accurate diatribe about nitrovicky's actions and comments in disrupting the Open Carry forums, did you honestly believe people would not step in and agree or disagree? You hit the nail right on the head. And I think John and Mike should see exactly howyou and others feel about any and all disruptive and antagonistic members.

If this was a bar, a person would be thrown out in short order if it was obvious he was goingfrom person to person with nothing more thanthe intent of antagonizing and provoking them into arguments and fights.

Back when I was younger and had the time and interest, I was asked and agreed to be a moderator on a major Ford forum. I would take special note of posts such as yours above, Citizen. I would then sit back and watch. I would then ban the most disruptive person, especially if their intent was more than obvious. If things didn't get back on track real quick I would then ban the 2nd most disruptive person. And so on. And often it included banning them just about every day they returned and created a new user name to fight back at administration out of spite. The forum attorney even threatened legal action if one user kept creating a new name every day. It didn't take long to clean the place up. Ford didn't need the three ring circus in every thread with hundreds of thousands of readers, and neither does the Open Carry forums. It's not a real cozy "feel good"image for readers to see gun toting people arguing and fussing day in and day out.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Sheriff wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Please, just let it quietly go. Almost any comment that "agrees" or continues along the lines of my post is going to start another argument.

SNIP I'm confused. When you posted a very definitive and accurate diatribe about...did you honestly believe people would not step in and agree or disagree? You hit the nail right on the head.

It wasn't really meant to be an agree/disagree discussion sort of thing.

It wasmeant to call attention to certain things for those members who have gotten wrapped up into the other person's destructive postings. Let them know they are being induced, in a manner of speaking.And that they can break the cycle.

And lay out the case for the solution I recommended.

I do see your point, however. I guess I touched a nerve. Now that you mention it,it would be kinda silly to expect others not toreply in agreement.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

Let's not derail yet another thread over this stuff. I don't think there is one person to blame for the recent thread derailments and bickering. I don't think the recent derailments and bickering, nor the recent jumping all over new posters instead of talking with them is in any way productive for the forum. I think the forum rules cause a lot of this crap to be posted in the middle of other threads instead of just having a few complaint threads posted in General Discussion. I think a lot of things about some recent occurrences on the forum and some ongoing issues a lot good and a little bad.

But most of all, I think we should as a group start trying more assiduously to keep the threads on topic and move the bickering to PM.

 

[Thundar]

imported post

FreedomJoyAdventure wrote:

The War on Drugs deserves nullification by jury. As do all the gun laws.

+1000.

If it took a constitutional ammendment to justify prohibition, how can we have drugprohibition without a constitutional ammendment?

 

[nitrovic]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Vic, do you ever tire of seeing yourself post? Generally, it's considered spamming to post so many time consecutively.

I suspect Vic is trying to wreck thread discussions and get threads locked. 

He makes unnecessarily antagonistic and/or hostile posts.   

Then when someone takes the bait, he escalates rapidly.

Certainly he seems to enjoy getting into arguments.  He certainly gets into plenty of them.  With a few other members as exceptions, most of the rest of the forum tries to avoid such fights with tact and diplomacy most of the time.  Compare that to Vic's methods. 

He also utilizes off-forum tools against members.  He's threatened to report me to police; and in this thread he's reported a member or his post to the courts.  This is the only person I've ever seen on this forum use this sort of tactic.  Its an extreme solution, in my mind.  But it fits right in with his modus operandi of quick, steep escalation. 

He's been involved in the arguing that seemed to help get a few recent threads locked.  Threads that I suspect, if they had been kept civil, wouldn't have been locked.

I recommend members not take the bait on any of Vic's argumentative, hostile, or tactless posts.  Not unless one wants to wreck the discussion or see the thread locked. 

Edited to Add:  Please do not comment on this post in a way that might be offensive to Vic, or anyone else.  It would only perpetuate the animosity.  Lets get back to the thread topic, and keep it in-bounds with respect to the forum rules. 

I would say just the opposite. The usual suspects tend to swoop down and hijack threads with anti-leo issues that have little to nothing to do with the post at hand.

BTW, when did I threaten to report you to the police? Was it the time you told the female poster to find out who an officers wife is and tell the wife that he husband is sexist? (I'll refresh your memory, this was your response to a female poster who stated a officer gave a self defense class to a group of citizens. Nowhere did the post state the officer said anything negative about females.)

-Citizen wrote:

Would a pointed letter to the editor, copy to the Chief be in order?

They really have no justification for the editorializing. If they want to talk about home security, lighting, fences, door locks, etc., fine. But its utter nonsense to discuss self-defense by saying, essentially, don't--call us instead.

What arrogant, elitist false information. "Oooooo. You're too stupid. In fact I'm so convinced you're too stupid that it doesn't even occur to me to try to educate you or tell you where to seek training. Nevermind that once upon a time, before I became a thoroughly trained master, I knew nothing about it either and was in the same shoes as you. Being a cop, alone, means I was trainable. But obviously, you're not."

If it was all women, hammer the sexist angle. Better yet, find out who his wife is, and just by coincidence bump into her at whatever social circles she travels in. See if she knows he has this attitude about women.

I know if I was that officer I would want to know somebody on an internet forum made a threat like that. It's very disturbing. I did in fact say I would report the Jury incident to the prosecutor, but that did not involve you or the police. I think a fair trial should be just that, fair. It goes beyond an issue personally, any good citizen should report such actions.


Back to the topic, what laws were broken in this case in regards to the police? Please cite-

GLENGLOCKER wrote:

Kevin108 wrote:

If Frederick's case did not involve him being in possession of marijuana, it might be a different story. He used his firearm while breaking the law. Drugs and guns don't mix in my book.

Whether it's marijuana or or anything else illegal, law enforcement has no right to break the law to enforce the law and thats what is coming into question. Since most gun owners are opposed to marijuana or other drugs that is why he is not getting full fledged support. And that can be dangerous, sort of like the peom or story from Nazi Germany "there was no one left to fight for me" (I may have the title wrong)

 

[nitrovic]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Vic, do you ever tire of seeing yourself post? Generally, it's considered spamming to post so many time consecutively.

I have been answering and questioning posts. Simply because you do not agre with me doesn't make it "spamming". That's ridiculous.

 

[Kevin108]

imported post

What the police have done here is WAY out of line, but make no mistake that this WAS a criminal they were dealing with as far as the law is concerned. By choosing to possess and most likely consume a controlled substance, this guy crossed the line. He was no longer a law-abiding gun owner. On top of that, it is never an acceptable tactic to shoot an unidentified target. This guy is was basically being targeted by a rogue officer but this is definitely a case where two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Kevin108 wrote:

What the police have done here is WAY out of line, but make no mistake that this WAS a criminal they were dealing with as far as the law is concerned. By choosing to possess and most likely consume a controlled substance, this guy crossed the line. He was no longer a law-abiding gun owner. On top of that, it is never an acceptable tactic to shoot an unidentified target. This guy is was basically being targeted by a rogue officer but this is definitely a case where two wrongs don't make a right.

No offense, but the topic isn't RF's situation and circumstances.

Its whether his case is important to the forum and rights.

 

[Thundar]

imported post

Well thepurpose of this postwas not to discuss the right or wrong of Ryan Frederick or the Chesapeake P.D. It was only to determine whether the issue was appropriate for OCDO. I started this poll because I didn't understand why the Ryan Frederick threads had been locked.

I learned two things from this thread.

1) The vast majority of those polled felt that a Ryan Frederick thread is appropriate.

2) Some members do not play well in the sandbox with others.:banghead:

I now understand why the administrators locked the threads. There are a few that do not respect the views and opinions of others, post goading and rude comments and look for an argument to escalate.

Nitrovic you really should go back to kindergarten and learn sand box etiquette. Your perspective would be valuable to the boards if you would respect the values, opinions and perspectives of other members.

Live Free or Die,

Thundar

 

[marshaul]

imported post

nitrovic wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Vic, do you ever tire of seeing yourself post? Generally, it's considered spamming to post so many time consecutively.

I have been answering and questioning posts. Simply because you do not agre with me doesn't make it "spamming". That's ridiculous.

You attempt to obfuscate every thread you dislike with an interminable barrage of tedious, often redundant posts, invariably employing a new, separate post for each and every single response.

On most forums, this would be called spamming, or at best post-whoring. Here, the moderators happen to have a (perhaps too generously) kind view of "law enforcement", and so you get away with it.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

You attempt to obfuscate every thread you dislike with an interminable barrage of tedious, often redundant posts, invariably employing a new, separate post for each and every single response.

On most forums, this would be called spamming, or at best post-whoring. Here, the moderators happen to have a (perhaps too generously) kind view of "law enforcement", and so you get away with it.

Perhaps a good word here would be 'tendentious'

http://www.google.com/search?q=tendentious
Adjective tendentious (comparative more tendentious, superlative most tendentious)
Positive
tendentious

Comparative
more tendentious

Superlative
most tendentious

1. Having a tendency; Written or spoken with a partisan, biased or prejudiced purpose. She tendentiously espoused her particular solution at every opportunity.
2. implicitly or explicitly slanted As a supporter of the cause, his reports were tendentious in the extreme.

 

[nitrovic]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

nitrovic wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Vic, do you ever tire of seeing yourself post? Generally, it's considered spamming to post so many time consecutively.

I have been answering and questioning posts. Simply because you do not agre with me doesn't make it "spamming". That's ridiculous.

You attempt to obfuscate every thread you dislike with an interminable barrage of tedious, often redundant posts, invariably employing a new, separate post for each and every single response.

On most forums, this would be called spamming, or at best post-whoring. Here, the moderators happen to have a (perhaps too generously) kind view of "law enforcement", and so you get away with it.

What about the usual suspects "post whoring" of threads involving any negative stories in reference to LE? It is a small number of police haters here who get these posts off of the topic at hand.

I posted my initial response to this thread. The question of the OP was answered. Then the usual suspects came along and started their tactics. You are also included with the "small number or anti police" on this board. You people just go around and attempt to discredit police officers. Then, when you do get one here who wants to discuss a topic, you all swoop in and try to bully them around.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

Internet forum threads are a lot like a well used pasture you need to cross.

As you pass through you will encounter some smells you will find to be unpleasant. Along with this you will find places you should step over. If you fail to step over them you will find yourself unavoidably covered by something unpleasant, and people you encounter will not know that it is something you stepped in rather than something you produced yourself.

Regards

 

[profile]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Internet forum threads are a lot like a well used pasture you need to cross.

As you pass through you will encounter some smells you will find to be unpleasant. Along with this you will find places you should step over. If you fail to step over them you will find yourself unavoidably covered by something unpleasant, and people you encounter will not know that it is something you stepped in rather than something you produced yourself.

Regards

Well said.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Internet forum threads are a lot like a well used pasture you need to cross.

As you pass through you will encounter some smells you will find to be unpleasant. Along with this you will find places you should step over. If you fail to step over them you will find yourself unavoidably covered by something unpleasant, and people you encounter will not know that it is something you stepped in rather than something you produced yourself.

Regards

Indeed, well said.

I would like to extend the allegory to some intention and design in the deposition of the 'unpleasantness' and to the oft repeated caution against wrassling[sic] with a PIG (because nothing worthwhile is accomplished, both are sullied and the PIG enjoys it).

 

[Thundar]

imported post

Nitrollvic, yourhijacking is so blatent that the Department of Homeland Security is after you!

Sherriff, there are psychiatric drugs that can help with your narcissism.

Next time you two want to hijack a thread and turn it into Adam 12 reruns try a less important thread. Might I suggest this thread on sagging holsters:

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum62/18191.html

 

[nitrovic]

imported post

Thundar wrote:

 

Nitrollvic, your hijacking is so blatent that the Department of Homeland Security is after you! 

Sherriff, there are psychiatric drugs that can help with your narcissism.

Next time you two want to hijack a thread and turn it into Adam 12 reruns try a less important thread.  Might I suggest this thread on sagging holsters:

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum62/18191.html

It's apparently only "hijacking" when somebody comes along and calls the BS on some of the usual suspect cop haters here. But when the usual suspects do the cop bashing and spread the lies, it's simply "posting". It's actually against forum rules to to police bash. This is NOT what this forum is for. There are many police basing forums. They should go there and do the bashing. You have been guilty of the bashing as well....

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Thundar wrote:

Next time you two want to hijack a thread and turn it into Adam 12 reruns try a less important thread.  Might I suggest this thread on sagging holsters:

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum62/18191.html

I lol'ed. A lot. :lol: :lol:

 

[PayMeNow]

imported post

nitrovic wrote:

Thundar wrote:

Nitrollvic, yourhijacking is so blatent that the Department of Homeland Security is after you!

Sherriff, there are psychiatric drugs that can help with your narcissism.

Next time you two want to hijack a thread and turn it into Adam 12 reruns try a less important thread. Might I suggest this thread on sagging holsters:

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum62/18191.html

It's apparently only "hijacking" when somebody comes along and calls the BS on some of the usual suspect cop haters here. But when the usual suspects do the cop bashing and spread the lies, it's simply "posting". It's actually against forum rules to to police bash. This is NOT what this forum is for. There are many police basing forums. They should go there and do the bashing. You have been guilty of the bashing as well....

DUDE!!!

Objecting to your Adam 12 Hijacking isn't cop bashing, it is imbecile bashing. This is just SOOOO funny.

Sagging holsters! That made me spew.

 

[nitrovic]

imported post

PayMeNow wrote:

nitrovic wrote:

Thundar wrote:

 

Nitrollvic, your hijacking is so blatent that the Department of Homeland Security is after you! 

Sherriff, there are psychiatric drugs that can help with your narcissism.

Next time you two want to hijack a thread and turn it into Adam 12 reruns try a less important thread.  Might I suggest this thread on sagging holsters:

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum62/18191.html

It's apparently only "hijacking" when somebody comes along and calls the BS on some of the usual suspect cop haters here. But when the usual suspects do the cop bashing and spread the lies, it's simply "posting". It's actually against forum rules to to police bash. This is NOT what this forum is for. There are many police basing forums. They should go there and do the bashing. You have been guilty of the bashing as well....

DUDE!!!

Objecting to your Adam 12 Hijacking isn't cop bashing, it is imbecile bashing.  This is just SOOOO funny. 

Sagging holsters!  That made me spew.

Dude!!! Yo!!! Go away.

Peace out, yo.



PayMeNow wrote:

Dudes,

What is up with the bad attitudes? One of you said I'm a troll on my thread. My Mom showed me this site. I didn't log on until I had news. How does that make me a troll?

Anyways, it seems really stupid to abuse ryan Fredericks rights because he was defending his home. I don't have all of the 411, so I'll keep an open mind.

For the dude that said I should just look at the facts, well you are WRONG!!! You look at the facts and at the justness of the law. Go to the FIJA website if you don't believe me.

Peace Out

PayMeNow
Member


Joined: Tue Dec 16th, 2008
Location:
Posts: 3
Status: Online
Posted: Tue Dec 16th, 2008 07:51 am
Dudes,

I just got a jury summons for the Circuit Court. This kind of scares me. This is the time for picking Ryan's jury. I'm pretty young and have never been to a trial. I know the dirtbag disrict attorney will try to keep me off the jury so I have cancelled all of my gun magazines. I love the FIJA website. Lots of good clues about doing your civic duty like the constitution intended. What else can I do?

Peace Out