billvon 3,085
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Lucky... 0
QuoteSo now it's a conspiracy theory, complete with bigotry! I love it.
Yea, you're right, almost all cops are flaming liberals, flag burning haters. Don't let the haircut fool ya, they really are just plain leftists. No conspiracy, as I wrote, I've had cops decide not to write my complaint a few times, not to take a report as it involved one of their own.
QuoteMore likely what they said happened, happened, since the kid did not dispute it. Occam's Razor is a wonderful thing.
Right, I think the neck embellished about the call the cops part, everything else is true, esp the part about the, 'let us tie you to the pole or get beat down.'
The kid not disputing it then or later had most to do with intimidation.
You don't likey my defintion of coercion? Didn't see a comment on it.
Lucky... 0
QuoteIf someone held a gun to his head you would have a point. No one did; therefore your example is invalid.
Oh, ok..... great, my bad, let's reword it so as to be more pallatable. OK, if a group of necks approached you and demanded all of your money or they would beat you down, YOUR CHOICE, then you chose to give up your money, they left: I guess there was no crime since it was your choice, right?
QuoteHe probably was. Good. Being intimidated is one of the things you might face if you're an arsonist. (Unless you feel arsonists should be protected from feeling intimidated, remorseful or guilty, that is.)
And trial, procedure, due process is what I get to enjoy in the US, apparently not your US.
QuoteSo you honestly think that if he went to a news organization and said "I'm the kid they taped to the flagpole and I want to tell my story" they'd say "go away, kid, not interested?"
The media would love it, the cops would then drop the case on the necks and press his. I've had prosecutors do the excat thing. The necks intimidate via force, the cops/prosecutors do it via legal intimdation.
Quote"Normile asked NEWS10 not to reveal the man's name to also protect the young man's family."
Sounds like the mature thing to do.
Again, I ask what it might be like to have the story from both sides. That's the responsible / intelligent thing to do.
Lucky... 0
QuoteDENIAL....Its not just a river in Egypt, its what you're in here. HEY LOOK!!! Is that someone on the grassy knoll?
What am I denying? That a group of thungs hunted down a person and decided to go vigilante on him? You're in denial of that.
Lucky... 0
QuoteThe cops should have simply consulted Lucky because only he knows the facts of the case.
I'm the only one saying I really don't and I don't want DP to be ruled on "what probably happened."
Lucky... 0
QuoteSo now they are Turds, here we all thought they were Veterans of the US Military and decent people who did not harm anyone.
Taping someone to pole at the threat of violence is a harm, not to metion the potential harm (criminal negligence).
And people who intimidate others with force are turds, even tho they might also be (ex) military members.
QuoteThe fact is that you approved of the flag burning and think anyone who serves or is a Veteran is a turd.
Einstein, I'm a vet, I think vets are awesome. Aside from that, being a vet does not give you license to hunt people down.
I did not approve of the flag burning. That flag was sacred. I have no issue with burning your own flag if it's legal.
QuoteHey weren't you the one that was kicked out of basic training?
Hey, no I wasn't. I guess you're out of gas so you defer to making it about me.
Lucky... 0
Quote>1) Burned the flag
>2) Agreed to being taped to a pole
Nope, I don't "believe" that. It is merely the most rational explanation.
There was no evidence as to him burning the flag other than he was refused a drink. Is it rational to believe that every person cut off at the bar would resort to flag burning? Not to me.
The only evidence that his taping to the pole was voluntary was the word of an abductor who also stated there was the offer of violence too. Since you refuse to address the definition, here it is again:
1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.
QuoteBy all means, ask away.
I would like to, but no one is talking, so I have to conclude that most of the information is inconclusive other than these guys banded together to hunt thius kid down and offered him to be tied up or beaten.
QuoteAnd yet you have already accused the VFW people of "illegal detention" and "coercion" based on NO side of a story. How do you justify that?
They admitted they offered him to be tied up or beat, with coercion there is no choice, hence isn't voluntary. That's why they illegally detained and coerced him, BY WAY OF THEIR OWN WORDS.
QuoteI don't. I merely believe it over people who make stuff up in their heads.
You believe the VFWers, w/o hearing the other side, so yes you do.
QuoteYou're right. This is exactly like racial injustice. Just like Hitler too, I hear.
It's the same methodology as they used in the south, tell and be burned.
QuoteSo you castigate me for "convicting" this guy based on one side of a story, and you have convicted this guy of coercion based on zero evidence? Go Lucky!
Bill, I convicted this guy BASED ON HIS OWN WORDS - HE STATED THE OFFER WAS BEATING, COPS OR POLE. I find questionable the cops offer, they could have just done that if they wanted to, they needed his coerced permission to tape him up. Even if the cops was an option, they still used the threat of physical violence, that makes it coercion.
Holy fuck dude, you're so far gone it's not even funny anymore.
You are only as strong as the prey you devour
Lucky... 0
QuoteHoly fuck dude, you're so far gone it's not even funny anymore.
Yea, us Constitutionalists wanting due process, wanting the idea of posses, lynch mobs or whatever we can metaphorically describe these groups of thugs that go around and inject their own version of justice to be brought to justice.
Funny how the Constitutional thing is interchangeable and you can drop it one minute and wave it around the next. Talk about flip-flopping.
billvon 3,085
>There was no evidence as to him burning the flag other than he
>was refused a drink.
That's no more or less true than anything else that the article claimed.
> Is it rational to believe that every person cut off at the bar would
> resort to flag burning?
Nope. Is it rational to assume that there was something criminal going on just because someone was taped to a flagpole? Nope.
>That's why they illegally detained and coerced him, BY WAY OF THEIR
>OWN WORDS.
Too bad you have zero proof of that, other than your excellent imagination.
>Bill, I convicted this guy BASED ON HIS OWN WORDS
Good on you! You convict him based on your imagination. Why do we need anything more?
Will you be calling the police, then?
>was refused a drink.
That's no more or less true than anything else that the article claimed.
> Is it rational to believe that every person cut off at the bar would
> resort to flag burning?
Nope. Is it rational to assume that there was something criminal going on just because someone was taped to a flagpole? Nope.
>That's why they illegally detained and coerced him, BY WAY OF THEIR
>OWN WORDS.
Too bad you have zero proof of that, other than your excellent imagination.
>Bill, I convicted this guy BASED ON HIS OWN WORDS
Good on you! You convict him based on your imagination. Why do we need anything more?
Will you be calling the police, then?
1969912 0
QuoteHoly fuck dude, you're so far gone it's not even funny anymore.
He's entered a high-speed wobble. Escape is impossible.
"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG
QuoteQuoteDENIAL....Its not just a river in Egypt, its what you're in here. HEY LOOK!!! Is that someone on the grassy knoll?
What am I denying? That a group of thungs hunted down a person and decided to go vigilante on him? You're in denial of that.
You're in denial of what has actually occurred in the REAL WORLD and continue to argue what you perceive to be an injustice when clearly the people responsible for upholding justice, see no injustice. You're also doing a lot of rationalization and making a lot of assumptions to support your statements and or beliefs. Its apparent you have issues with authority figures based on your past experiences you have shared here with us in the thread, which does explain a good deal why you continue with your dogma about cops and locals which you refer to as "necks".
But hey, its OK, you go on believing what you believe. I am not going to try and convince you otherwise. You've already demonstrated that despite being presented with real world events and facts, you will not change your position. I know better to attempt to try and convince you otherwise. I used to work with mentally ill people who absolutely believed they had the facts and knew the truth despite being presented with factual information to the contrary. The guy who swore to me he owned a 67 camaro with 8 mufflers to this day probably still believes that to be the truth even though I and everyone else know the truth.
I am merely following this thread for the amusement value now. Please, by all means continue to tell us how this event occurred in your world.
"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING
QuoteEveryone? All I read was the head redneck who told his story.
That is one person whose side has been told. The police is another. They have stated that neither party wishes to press charges. Since the kid had the chance to have his tapers arrested yet declined that is a pretty good sign that he was a willing participant. That the cops didn't take actions against anyone is another.
I don't have to assume the kid was the burner. According to the vets and the cops he admitted to it.
The kid had every chance, and still does, to tell his side. He has thus far declined. That is a good indicator his story would be pretty darn close to what has already been told.
Be that as it may, if the vets and the kid and the cops are all satisfied with the outcome then why should it matter what you think?
HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.
Lucky... 0
QuoteThat's no more or less true than anything else that the article claimed.
Sure it is, we have a vid clip of the VFWers actions, they teamed up and according to them he confessed. In the law, which nothing here was within the law, that confession is meaningless. Just like torture, as I think you've written, torture just gets the tortured to say whatever it will take to make the pain stop.
There was no evidence the kid burned the flag.
QuoteNope. Is it rational to assume that there was something criminal going on just because someone was taped to a flagpole? Nope.
When you have a video confession that this group hunted down a man, offered him 1 of 3 choices of which at least 1 was violence, there is a case a prosecutor could fall to sleep on and win.
QuoteToo bad you have zero proof of that, other than your excellent imagination.
The video and/or the article didn't quote the VFWer as saying they gave him 3 choices or which 1 was violence? Hmm, do I have to go look it up?
QuoteGood on you! You convict him based on your imagination. Why do we need anything more?
I found that between the video presentation and the direcct quotes in the article that the VFWers offered up violence as an option so the kid would submit to the taping to the pole. I'm just curious why you don't address the definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion
Coercion is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation, trickery, or some other form of pressure or force. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced.
Wiki is encyclopedic. I don't wonder why you refuse to address the definition, it's a lock.
QuoteWill you be calling the police, then?
No, I don't have a legal standing am I'm pretty sure the cops aren't interested; I think we know how the coips feeel about this. This would make a hell of a civil case.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteHoly fuck dude, you're so far gone it's not even funny anymore.
He's entered a high-speed wobble. Escape is impossible.
Thx for your participaation, it's invaluable.
QuoteQuoteSo, you're NOT ok with threatening violence against a known perp.
Sure, anyone with a prior conviction, I say we just have the right to threaten them at will. In fact, the word, "outlaw" used to mean since you operated as a law breaker you were outside thje protection of teh law.QuoteYou're FOR the threat of violence in order to redistribute wealth.
Now this is:
A) about me
B) about taxation?????
How am I for the threat of violence in order to redistribute wealth. Since you must tangent, pls tell me how.
I'll just let you tell you how.
QuoteSo aside from the fact that the top 20% hold 93% of the cash and 85% of all cash and asset, that's growing even more obscene. Taxing teh rich is the only way to reverse it.
1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.
The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.
Lucky... 0
QuoteYou're in denial of what has actually occurred in the REAL WORLD and continue to argue what you perceive to be an injustice when clearly the people responsible for upholding justice, see no injustice.
If you're going to try to tell me the cops are about justice, I think we're arguing differnt issues here. They know of teh matter and aren't pursuing it. Cops refuse to write things all the time.
QuoteYou're also doing a lot of rationalization and making a lot of assumptions to support your statements and or beliefs
You're the one ok with 1 side of the story, not me.
QuoteIts apparent you have issues with authority figures based on your past experiences you have shared here with us in the thread, which does explain a good deal why you continue with your dogma about cops and locals which you refer to as "necks".
Not true. What do you call of group of country folk roundin up the posse to get that guy? Necks works, but since you have no argument to the fact, you make it about me. You could actually address my claim of coercion:
Coercion is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation, trickery, or some other form of pressure or force. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced.
I've only posted it a bunch of times to be ignored.
QuoteYou've already demonstrated that despite being presented with real world events and facts, you will not change your position
1) We have 1 side of the story
2) We have an admission that these guys threatened this kid to get compliance.
You can look the other way to those and make it about me, I'm ok with that.
QuoteI used to work with mentally ill people who absolutely believed they had the facts and knew the truth despite being presented with factual information to the contrary.
OK, so educate me as to what the kid said. Oh, you can't. Educate me as to how offering up violence as an option to gain compliance not being coercion based on any reasonable definition of the word. We do know the VFWer admitted that he gave the kid an option of beating or taping.
QuoteI am merely following this thread for the amusement value now.
Right, because you've chosen to ignore the accounts of threats which were coercion. Those were not under question, the article stated the old guy offered to fight a vet or get taped, he threw in there that calling the cops was an option too, I don't believe that, but even if true, it doesn't discount the violence threat you igniore.
QuotePlease, by all means continue to tell us how this event occurred in your world.
I'm the one quoting the article, you want to infer the kid lit the fire and that it's not coercion when you offer to beat someone's ass if they don't submit.
QuoteNo, I don't have a legal standing am I'm pretty sure the cops aren't interested; I think we know how the coips feeel about this. This would make a hell of a civil case.
There you go assuming again. Why don't you go ahead and tell us how the cops feel? As far as anyone knows they are just fine with how the case resolved itself.
Yes, it would make for a hell of a civil case. Except the kid was a willing participant and he has refused to press charges. Both are sure signs that he feels no wrong has been done.
HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.
>1) Burned the flag
>2) Agreed to being taped to a pole
Nope, I don't "believe" that. It is merely the most rational explanation.
>I like to hear what people have to say on all sides, look at any evidence - you
>know, the scientific model.
By all means, ask away.
>Based upon one side of a story.
And yet you have already accused the VFW people of "illegal detention" and "coercion" based on NO side of a story. How do you justify that?
>And it's people like you who hear 1 side of a story and believe it wholesale.
I don't. I merely believe it over people who make stuff up in their heads.
>I wonder why blacks in the south during the 60's didn't report events?
You're right. This is exactly like racial injustice. Just like Hitler too, I hear.
>BILL, IS IT REALLY SO HARD TO SEE THIS WAS A MATTER OF CORECION
So you castigate me for "convicting" this guy based on one side of a story, and you have convicted this guy of coercion based on zero evidence? Go Lucky!
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites