GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-03-2013, 12:45   #251
SKSman57
Senior Member
 
SKSman57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by warcry View Post
this, i think, is giving far more credit than is due in this case.
qft!!!
SKSman57 is offline  
Old 11-03-2013, 13:16   #252
SKSman57
Senior Member
 
SKSman57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuneyBooney View Post
Have I ever stated that the shooting was not justified? No. I said the number of rounds fired was excessive and that is not stupidity. Now if you look at that Connor case law it contradicts itself because of the decision for false arrest which allows people to use deadly force to avoid arrest if they know they have done nothing wrong. John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. I actually had a Latino cashier come out one day and accuse me of taking something because I had walked out of a 7 eleven after seeing that they did not have the flavor of Slurpee I wanted. After the clerk accused me I told him I would stomp his ass and all was well...But he needed to get Cherry flavor. Everyone wants a little cherry now and then.

Now in Connor the incident would have been questionable because the guy supposedly did not take anything and the leo was investigating and placed them in cuffs to investigate. I agree with "reasonable". But we all know that two similar cases could have total different outcomes. Have a good one.
Ah, the "John Bad Elk" talking point from the "Sovereign Citizen" websites.

Do you know what happens if you Shepardize John Bad Elk? (Oh wait, you don't know what Shepardizing is do you. Shepardizing is the process that lawyers use in determining if a particular case is good law or not.)

Yes, if you Shepardize John Bad Elk, you get a red flag which indicates that the decision was superseded by statute and is no longer good law.

You see, the court was interpreting an arrest statute in place on an Indian Reservation in 1899. The Statutes governing arrest and the right to resist an arrest have been changed numerous times in the 114 years since.

Only a complete idiot without any real legal knowledge would think that John Bad Elk stands for anything today.

Moreover, the John Bad Elk decision never did state that one has the right to use deadly force to resist an unlawful arrest. What the court stated was this: "At common law, if a party resisted arrest by an officer without warrant, and who had no right to arrest him, and if in the course of that resistance the officer was killed, the offence of the party resisting arrest would be reduced from what would have been murder, if the officer had had the right to arrest, to manslaughter. What would be murder, if the officer had the right to arrest, might be reduced to manslaughter by the very fact that he had no such right."

Now I understand that the syntax of 1900s Legalese is difficult for your small mind to comprehend, but no where is

Occasionally, even today, a Sovereign Citizen type will attempt to quote John Bad Elk in an attempt to avoid charges of resisting arrest, and all quickly get shot down as the Courts point out that quoting cases from 1900 that are no longer good law is a good way to demonstrate your stupidity and nothing more. See Villafranca v. United States, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111716, 7-6, 2008 WL 8919855 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2008).

Please refrain from offer legal citations and advice when you are clearly unqualified to do so.
SKSman57 is offline  
Old 11-03-2013, 14:50   #253
JuneyBooney
Senior Member
 
JuneyBooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 15,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by SKSman57 View Post
Ah, the "John Bad Elk" talking point from the "Sovereign Citizen" websites.

Do you know what happens if you Shepardize John Bad Elk? (Oh wait, you don't know what Shepardizing is do you. Shepardizing is the process that lawyers use in determining if a particular case is good law or not.)

Yes, if you Shepardize John Bad Elk, you get a red flag which indicates that the decision was superseded by statute and is no longer good law.

You see, the court was interpreting an arrest statute in place on an Indian Reservation in 1899. The Statutes governing arrest and the right to resist an arrest have been changed numerous times in the 114 years since.

Only a complete idiot without any real legal knowledge would think that John Bad Elk stands for anything today.

Moreover, the John Bad Elk decision never did state that one has the right to use deadly force to resist an unlawful arrest. What the court stated was this: "At common law, if a party resisted arrest by an officer without warrant, and who had no right to arrest him, and if in the course of that resistance the officer was killed, the offence of the party resisting arrest would be reduced from what would have been murder, if the officer had had the right to arrest, to manslaughter. What would be murder, if the officer had the right to arrest, might be reduced to manslaughter by the very fact that he had no such right."

Now I understand that the syntax of 1900s Legalese is difficult for your small mind to comprehend, but no where is

Occasionally, even today, a Sovereign Citizen type will attempt to quote John Bad Elk in an attempt to avoid charges of resisting arrest, and all quickly get shot down as the Courts point out that quoting cases from 1900 that are no longer good law is a good way to demonstrate your stupidity and nothing more. See Villafranca v. United States, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111716, 7-6, 2008 WL 8919855 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2008).

Please refrain from offer legal citations and advice when you are clearly unqualified to do so.
I know all about Shepardazing because that is what we did back before computers became widespread as in pc computers..most schools had computers in libraries etc..additionally I am not one of those Sovereigns so don't talk wacky.

But if you think a person cannot fight a cop making a bogus arrest you are mistaken. Additionally a judge issuing a bench warrant had better make sure that the man/woman was notified of the court date before issuing a bench warrant for a missed court date. People are not sheep and as we get more diverse the new religions fight back with violence and don't take the nonsense that Christians have taken over the years such as a man falsely arrested four times because of mistakes and intentional errors which can cause problems for all involved.

Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306, 34 N.E. 968 (1983) actually says. It states “[i]f the officer is resisted before he has used needless force and violence, he may then press forward and overcome such resistance, even to the taking of the life of the person arrested, if absolutely necessary.” Id. at 313, 34 N.E. at 969 (emphasis added). If the officer is being resisted, then the officer can use any force necessary, up to and including deadly force. Nothing at all about the citizen using deadly force. What the opinion does state is that if the officer uses unnecessary, excessive force, a person has the right to defend themselves from that excessive force. Here the officer hit Plummer over the head from behind with a billy club, and then shot at Plummer. Plummer shot back, more accurately, and killed Marshal Dorn. The court said “[w]hen a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel force by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self-defense, his assailant is killed, he is justifiable.” Id. at 314, 34 N.E. at 970. Plummer is still good law for what it actually says, that a citizen may defend himself against an officer’s excessive force.

PS I have had cases to the SCOTUS. But you did write a nice post.

Additionally, I don't see what the big deal was in my original response posting that in my opinion the Akron campus cop shot too many rounds. It is my opinion and that was all. I have never said the shooting was not justified or that the young officer was not fearful and I did not intend any sort of flame war. But I know you guys like to argue and that is entertainment for you. But unlike Tantric or whatever his name is I am not flying anywhere to fight MMA. I may meet some folks at a steakhouse to terminate some steaks with prejudice but that would be it. Have a nice rest of the weekend.

Last edited by JuneyBooney; 11-03-2013 at 15:52..
JuneyBooney is offline  
Old 11-03-2013, 14:53   #254
JuneyBooney
Senior Member
 
JuneyBooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 15,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawman800 View Post
Juney, straight and to the point:

Were you ever a LEO?

Are you a LEO now?

Answer those two questions. YES/NO

That's is all. You've been dodging the question for 4 pages. I already know the answer, but I just want to see you ignore this one too and answer some totally unrelated question out there.
I am not patrol leo.

Last edited by JuneyBooney; 11-03-2013 at 15:43..
JuneyBooney is offline  
Old 11-03-2013, 14:54   #255
JuneyBooney
Senior Member
 
JuneyBooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 15,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveksux View Post
Cop Talk

Hindsight. Its not always as 20/20 as people make it out to be.

Randy
Now that is a good pic. I know who that cop is...
JuneyBooney is offline  
Old 11-03-2013, 15:57   #256
SKSman57
Senior Member
 
SKSman57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuneyBooney View Post
I know all about Shepardazing because that is what we did back before computers became widespread as in pc computers..most schools had computers in libraries etc..
Shepardazing [sic] is not a word.

Quote:
But if you think a person cannot fight a cop making a bogus arrest you are mistaken.
In a minority of States (14 States), you can resist an unlawful arrest with reasonable NONDEADLY force. In the majority of States (36 States), you cannot resist an unlawful arrest.

No State allows the use of deadly force simply to resist an unlawful arrest.

Quote:
Additionally a judge issuing a bench warrant had better make sure that the man/woman was notified of the court date before issuing a bench warrant. People are not sheep and as we get more diverse the new religions fight back with violence and don't take the nonsense that Christians have taken over the years such as a man falsely arrested four times because of mistakes and intentional errors which can cause problems for all involved.
What? This isn't even coherent English. Try to lay off the crack and unwrap the tinfoil.

Quote:
Plummer v. State
Quote:
, 136 Ind. 306, 34 N.E. 968 (1983)
Wrong. First of all, I can tell you are lifting nonsense directly from "Sovereign Citizen" webpages. I also can tell that your legal knowledge (and lack thereof) specifically comes from these pages. You see, 136 Ind. 306 returns to Sego v. Stoddard, not Plummer v. State. Sego was a case concerning an election contest.

The correct citation to Plummer is: Plummer v. State, 135 Ind. 308, 34 N.E. 968 (1893).

So why fabricate the reporter and page number? Simple, because the "Sovereign Citizen" webpages don't want folks to actually find and read the actual case (which again is from 1893).

Why? Because, what the case is really about is revealed in the facts. In Plummer, a Marshal went up to an individual, didn't tell him that he was under arrest, and hit him over the head with a billy club and tried to shoot him. The individual resisted by firing a shot that killed the Marshal.

Plummer does not authorize a blanket defense to resist either an unlawful arrest or to use deadly force in resistance of an arrest. It was a very fact specific case from 1893 AND Indiana law has been modified in the century since.

Quote:
actually says. It states “[i]f the officer is resisted before he has used needless force and violence, he may then press forward and overcome such resistance, even to the taking of the life of the person arrested, if absolutely necessary.” Id. at 313, 34 N.E. at 969 (emphasis added). If the officer is being resisted, then the officer can use any force necessary, up to and including deadly force. Nothing at all about the citizen using deadly force. What the opinion does state is that if the officer uses unnecessary, excessive force, a person has the right to defend themselves from that excessive force. Here the officer hit Plummer over the head from behind with a billy club, and then shot at Plummer. Plummer shot back, more accurately, and killed Marshal Dorn. The court said “[w]hen a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel force by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self-defense, his assailant is killed, he is justifiable.” Id. at 314, 34 N.E. at 970.


Why are you cutting and pasting (plagiarizing) from this webpage?

http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com...ntitution-org/

Quote:
Plummer
Quote:
is still good law for what it actually says, that a citizen may defend himself against an officer’s excessive force.
Plummer (like John Bad Elk) was abrogated by Statute. IC 35-41-3-2 governs the use of force in Indiana, not Plummer.

Quote:
PS I have had cases to the SCOTUS. But you did write a nice post.
Your delusions do not count as reality.
SKSman57 is offline  
Old 11-03-2013, 16:17   #257
JuneyBooney
Senior Member
 
JuneyBooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 15,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by SKSman57 View Post
Shepardazing [sic] is not a word.



In a minority of States (14 States), you can resist an unlawful arrest with reasonable NONDEADLY force. In the majority of States (36 States), you cannot resist an unlawful arrest.

No State allows the use of deadly force simply to resist an unlawful arrest.



What? This isn't even coherent English. Try to lay off the crack and unwrap the tinfoil.



Wrong. First of all, I can tell you are lifting nonsense directly from "Sovereign Citizen" webpages. I also can tell that your legal knowledge (and lack thereof) specifically comes from these pages. You see, 136 Ind. 306 returns to Sego v. Stoddard, not Plummer v. State. Sego was a case concerning an election contest.

The correct citation to Plummer is: Plummer v. State, 135 Ind. 308, 34 N.E. 968 (1893).

So why fabricate the reporter and page number? Simple, because the "Sovereign Citizen" webpages don't want folks to actually find and read the actual case (which again is from 1893).

Why? Because, what the case is really about is revealed in the facts. In Plummer, a Marshal went up to an individual, didn't tell him that he was under arrest, and hit him over the head with a billy club and tried to shoot him. The individual resisted by firing a shot that killed the Marshal.

Plummer does not authorize a blanket defense to resist either an unlawful arrest or to use deadly force in resistance of an arrest. It was a very fact specific case from 1893 AND Indiana law has been modified in the century since.



Why are you cutting and pasting (plagiarizing) from this webpage?

http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com...ntitution-org/
[I]


Plummer (like John Bad Elk) was abrogated by Statute. IC 35-41-3-2 governs the use of force in Indiana, not Plummer.



Your delusions do not count as reality.
You really are a jerk. If you have read some of my posts you know I had a bad lasik procedure and that I can sometimes have typos because of it. I am not going to flame war with you anymore but you are not as swift mentally as you think. Go ahead and start a thread on false arrest and resisting and we can argue there or on a blog but when you lose don't blame me. It didn't take time to cut and paste something just for you but it may take a little time to print up the Glocktalk police badge for you. You must suffer from OCD because you are obsessed. Try Federal Courts sometimes and then argue.

the best law in the US is the one in Oklahoma that says you cannot sell a firearm to a moron.
JuneyBooney is offline  
Old 11-03-2013, 16:28   #258
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuneyBooney View Post
I am not patrol leo.
I notice you've still not answered the question, though, (un)remarkably.
__________________
"If you have something to say, now would be a perfect time to keep it to yourself." --Col. Chester Phillips
"If you believe everything you read, better not read." --Japanese proverb
WarCry is offline  
Old 11-03-2013, 16:29   #259
SKSman57
Senior Member
 
SKSman57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuneyBooney View Post
You really are a jerk. If you have read some of my posts you know I had a bad lasik procedure and that I can sometimes have typos because of it. I am not going to flame war with you anymore but you are not as swift mentally as you think. Go ahead and start a thread on false arrest and resisting and we can argue there or on a blog but when you lose don't blame me. It didn't take time to cut and paste something just for you but it may take a little time to print up the Glocktalk police badge for you. You must suffer from OCD because you are obsessed.
You can barely string together a coherent sentence. You get caught plagiarizing, misquoting, and misinterpreting case law and trolling Coptalk.

Do you really want to blame all that on a bad Lasik procedure?




Quote:
the best law in the US is the one in Oklahoma that says you cannot sell a firearm to a moron.
Interestingly enough, you can't even get this one quite right.

You are most likely referring to 21 Okl. St. § 1289.10, which does not contain the words "idiot" and "moron." (Both of which had a specific legal meaning in the past.)

However, McAlester, Oklahoma Code of Ordinances Sec. 82-134 does still retain these words, so please don't attempt to buy a firearm in McAlester anytime soon.
SKSman57 is offline  
Old 11-03-2013, 16:31   #260
SKSman57
Senior Member
 
SKSman57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
I notice you've still not answered the question, though, (un)remarkably.
I'm not sure it can even read and/or understand the question.

After all, that bad Lasik procedure does some crazy things to the brain.
SKSman57 is offline  
Old 11-03-2013, 16:37   #261
txleapd
Hook 'Em Up
 
txleapd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: TX
Posts: 6,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuneyBooney View Post
....But if you think a person cannot fight a cop making a bogus arrest you are mistaken....
One who is so ignorant, might not want to offer advice. I would ask you to consider stop posting, but your lack of knowledge and understanding is rivaled only by your inflated ego, so it would do no good.

I really wish Eric would not allow you to post on CT, because I'm afraid some naive member might read your bull**** and think it legitimate.

A wise man once said that the difference between genius and stupidity if that genius has its limits. You are proving to be quite limitless....






Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
__________________
1911 Club #75
Kahr Club #286
Lone Star Glockers #919


"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity” Sigmund Freud
txleapd is offline  
Old 11-03-2013, 16:43   #262
JuneyBooney
Senior Member
 
JuneyBooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 15,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
I notice you've still not answered the question, though, (un)remarkably.
Even if I say I am not a leo I may be lying and I have answered that previously. I will say not a cop and if we meet you may think I am lying. I am technically disabled but you would probably look at me and disagree. Haven't you guys ever seen the cop walk up to a guy and buy drugs and claim he is not a cop and then make the arrest. Even if I take a graph and say either answer I will pass. Even though I have never used drugs I can make the graph look like I have. I do like your user name..good name.
JuneyBooney is offline  
Old 11-03-2013, 16:49   #263
JuneyBooney
Senior Member
 
JuneyBooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 15,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by txleapd View Post
One who is so ignorant, might not want to offer advice. I would ask you to consider stop posting, but your lack of knowledge and understanding is rivaled only by your inflated ego, so it would do no good.

I really wish Eric would not allow you to post on CT, because I'm afraid some naive member might read your bull**** and think it legitimate.

A wise man once said that the difference between genius and stupidity if that genius has its limits. You are proving to be quite limitless....






Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
Well, I am not trolling. If a man is grabbed by people he does not believe to be actual cops and he believes he will be beaten and he does not believe he has done anything to be arrested and he fights the arrest it is valid for him to do so. Now each state has their own laws but I can tell you something to try in your area. Hypothetical case..a drug house is operating and you know it but there have been no controlled buys etc. Dept is really busy so they don't do anything..but you want to slow the goings on at the house..very easy..just park in front of the house for about twenty minutes a day for a few days and in broad daylight and the business will drop by half.

We all come into the world naked and are alone and we die alone too.
JuneyBooney is offline  
Old 11-03-2013, 16:56   #264
JuneyBooney
Senior Member
 
JuneyBooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 15,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by SKSman57 View Post
You can barely string together a coherent sentence. You get caught plagiarizing, misquoting, and misinterpreting case law and trolling Coptalk.

Do you really want to blame all that on a bad Lasik procedure?




Interestingly enough, you can't even get this one quite right.

You are most likely referring to 21 Okl. St. § 1289.10, which does not contain the words "idiot" and "moron." (Both of which had a specific legal meaning in the past.)

However, McAlester, Oklahoma Code of Ordinances Sec. 82-134 does still retain these words, so please don't attempt to buy a firearm in McAlester anytime soon.
Actually I just remembered Oklahoma law from something I read twenty five years ago but I still think it is funny. You look things up quickly and maybe you can sit second chair sometime.
Purchase

No state permit is required for the purchase of a rifle, shotgun or handgun. It is unlawful to knowingly sell, trade, give, or transfer a firearm to a convicted felon; to an individual who is under the influence of alcohol or drugs; or to an individual who is mentally or emotionally unbalanced or disturbed.
It is unlawful to sell or give a handgun to a minor.
It is unlawful to knowingly transmit, transfer, sell, lend, or furnish a firearm to a person who is under an adjudication of mental incompetence, or to a person who is a moron, idiot or insane.

Read this sometime and get some empathy because it may happen to you. I would guess you to either be old and cranky or too young to know better.

http://www.lasiknewswire.com/2009/09...k-suicide.html

Last edited by JuneyBooney; 11-03-2013 at 17:01..
JuneyBooney is offline  
Old 11-03-2013, 17:05   #265
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuneyBooney View Post
Even if I say I am not a leo I may be lying and I have answered that previously. I will say not a cop and if we meet you may think I am lying. I am technically disabled but you would probably look at me and disagree. Haven't you guys ever seen the cop walk up to a guy and buy drugs and claim he is not a cop and then make the arrest. Even if I take a graph and say either answer I will pass. Even though I have never used drugs I can make the graph look like I have. I do like your user name..good name.
Well, seeing as how you presumably don't use your real name on here, your whole "I might be undercover" shtick is just one more patty on your pile of bulldung that you keep serving up.

You want people to believe you're a cop, because you feel that gives you more authority in conversations you're having, and I can tell you that dancing around the issue like you're doing just makes it more and more obvious that you're so full o' sh** that you can't even see how freakin' stupid you are.

I know there are rules about trolling in CopTalk. I'm really hoping you're at that line, because as a non-cop myself, I can say that you're just an annoying bit of bullsquirt that can't display COMMON sense, let alone demonstrate a grasp of legal sense.




But what do I know, I'm not pretending to be something I'm not like you are.
__________________
"If you have something to say, now would be a perfect time to keep it to yourself." --Col. Chester Phillips
"If you believe everything you read, better not read." --Japanese proverb
WarCry is offline  
Old 11-03-2013, 17:16   #266
SpringerTGO
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by warcry View Post
well, seeing as how you presumably don't use your real name on here, your whole "i might be undercover" shtick is just one more patty on your pile of bulldung that you keep serving up.

You want people to believe you're a cop, because you feel that gives you more authority in conversations you're having, and i can tell you that dancing around the issue like you're doing just makes it more and more obvious that you're so full o' sh** that you can't even see how freakin' stupid you are.

I know there are rules about trolling in coptalk. I'm really hoping you're at that line, because as a non-cop myself, i can say that you're just an annoying bit of bullsquirt that can't display common sense, let alone demonstrate a grasp of legal sense.




But what do i know, i'm not pretending to be something i'm not like you are.

+1000
SpringerTGO is offline  
Old 11-03-2013, 17:24   #267
JuneyBooney
Senior Member
 
JuneyBooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 15,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
Well, seeing as how you presumably don't use your real name on here, your whole "I might be undercover" shtick is just one more patty on your pile of bulldung that you keep serving up.

You want people to believe you're a cop, because you feel that gives you more authority in conversations you're having, and I can tell you that dancing around the issue like you're doing just makes it more and more obvious that you're so full o' sh** that you can't even see how freakin' stupid you are.

I know there are rules about trolling in CopTalk. I'm really hoping you're at that line, because as a non-cop myself, I can say that you're just an annoying bit of bullsquirt that can't display COMMON sense, let alone demonstrate a grasp of legal sense.




But what do I know, I'm not pretending to be something I'm not like you are.
Not pretending to be anyone. I am not trolling. I once again say that the young officer in the original post shot too many rounds in my opinion. People don't have to agree with a cop shooting sixteen rounds and before I got slammed by everyone I did not realize the first post would cause so much outrage. . I would love for that newspaper that wrote the article to ask a poll about that information and see what happens because the newspaper never mentioned sixteen rounds shot. That was all I ever said and there was no reason for all this outrage.

Do I have training and skills related to law enforcement, yes/ Do I know all laws and ordinances..no. Does anyone? NO. Do I know caselaw? Yes. But do people in cases misquote cases to courts? Yes. Do I still consider you guys friends? Yes. Have a great evening.
JuneyBooney is offline  
Old 11-03-2013, 17:32   #268
Kilrain
Señor Member
 
Kilrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: On the road to Shambala
Posts: 1,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuneyBooney View Post
Not pretending to be anyone. I am not trolling. I once again say that the young officer in the original post shot too many rounds in my opinion. People don't have to agree with a cop shooting sixteen rounds and before I got slammed by everyone I did not realize the first post would cause so much outrage. . I would love for that newspaper that wrote the article to ask a poll about that information and see what happens because the newspaper never mentioned sixteen rounds shot. That was all I ever said and there was no reason for all this outrage.

Do I have training and skills related to law enforcement, yes/ Do I know all laws and ordinances..no. Does anyone? NO. Do I know caselaw? Yes. But do people in cases misquote cases to courts? Yes. Do I still consider you guys friends? Yes. Have a great evening.
You should really just walk away from this thread, you are not helping yourself or anyone else by continuing to post. Just a though..........
__________________
O, that a man might know the end of this day's business ere it come!
But it sufficeth that the day will end and then the end is known.
And if we do meet again, why, we shall smile;
And if not, why then, this parting was well made.
Kilrain is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:37.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,345
377 Members
968 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42