jakee

Woah there, extenuating circumstances. Are you fucking joking? "I was scared because there was a murderer out there somewhere so I started shooting at random cars." They're cops in LA. There are always murderers out there. If it scares them that much they should never have joined in the first place. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Baaaamp! Of course I can admit that the situations were different, I never said they weren't. What you can't seem to understand is that is precisely the point. You got the right cops on the right day, they got the wrong cops on the wrong day and suffered the consequences. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

When you're the person just driving along minding their own business the 'atmosphere' doesn't mean shit. You're not in control of it, its not your fault and it shouldn't become your problem. As the apologists for police shootings like to tell us, cops are in danger all the time. That those reckless morons let it affect them to the point they started lighting up random vehicles is inexcusable, that they weren't prosecuted is unforgivable - but it highlights the mentality that both the duty cops and their bosses often seem to have which is that their lives are more important than the lives of other citizens. Just like the cop that shot the black dude (yeah, he was black) for reaching back into his car to get the DL that he'd just been told to reach into his car to get. What was the 'atmosphere' in that case? Your argument seems to be based on the idea that you can somehow guarantee that you'll never be in a traffic stop with a cop who's colleague has just been harmed on the job. Which is self evidently ludicrous. Baaamp! Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Oh hey, another case that's still being investigated. So which side are you arguing now, because I don't make you for someone who agrees with Hillary very often. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

The context is that they did exactly the same thing as you, that is to say absolutely fucking nothing, and they didn't even get a chance to be polite in their interactions with the cops because they simply opened fire on sight. The context is that your one anecdote of how being nice to cops means you'll be treated right means absolutely sweet FA in the grand scheme of things. The context is that despite trying their utmost to kill three innocent people in what is at it's very best a case of gross negligence the cops faced only internal disciplinary action, the specifics of which weren't even made public. The context is that the thread was started to ask whether getting stopped by cops is a crapshoot, not about your one individual stop. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dorner_shootings_and_manhunt It was quite big news, and it wasn't that long ago... Do you want to have an ideagasm?

2015 and they're still prosecuting Nazis, so why should these sadistic fuckers be any different? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Lucky you. In LA last year 2 women and one man got ventilated with no warning when police mistook their vehicles for a completely different type, colour and plate. No officers faced any charges. Funny how that works, isn't it? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Choose life. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Except the driver is a massive cunt, who made it pretty clear that he deliberately drove fast and close by the cyclist in the first place. Not the kind of person who's likely to stay cool. The cyclist should learn to be a lot less confrontational though, if he wants these videos to have a positive effect. As for 'malicious prosecution' well, LOL. Where did you get that from? London police encourage cyclists to send in videos of potentially dangerous or illegal driving and decide themselves whether to follow up on it. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

And what if it didn't? What is the next temp to emphasis compliance if not point it at someone? By trying to dodge the question you're making it clear that you believe it is ok for a cop to draw his weapon to intimidate someone who is not presenting any threat, but not to point it at them. Which is insane. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Not if there was no reason to believe he was a kidnapper. Just in case though, you'd better shoot the next few people you see driving and check their trunks. Better safe than sorry. Yea right the headline would read "officer under investigation for failing to thoroughly investigate a traffic stop that lead to the death of XXX" Ever heard of cops letting people go for a DUI then have them end up killing someone in a crash? How did the public treat them for that mistake? What, like if there was a reason to believe they were drunk? Like I just pointed out would be a different situation? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Not if there was no reason to believe he was a kidnapper. Just in case though, you'd better shoot the next few people you see driving and check their trunks. Better safe than sorry. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

You said he may have drawn his gun in case he needed to enforce compliance. So, since the gun merely being drawn doesn't yet count as enforcing compliance, what would he have done with his gun to enforce compliance if not point it at the guy? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

First 'in anger' doesn't mean the same thing as 'while angry'. Second, you're a scary guy! No one, not even the police, should be pointing guns at people to emphasise compliance. You only point guns at people you might need to shoot. If he was waving a gun at someone he had no cause to shoot and it accidentally went off, that's still murder. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

No no no I have been calling it revenue since I posted the story about PP's own report and that is what PP called it. No, you called it profit. Jesus man, you call yourself a republican and you don't know the difference? I'm starting to wonder about senile... Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I'm intrigued. Please explain

Ok, but the thing about that is that no matter what the motivation or intention it's still all the cops fault. He learned into the car, he initiated a struggle, he fired his weapon. In any other situation, for anyone but a cop, if you point a gun at someone in anger and it goes off, you're a murderer. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I usually don't like advocating violence as a response to violence but I sincerely hope that officer Tyler Walker one day picks a fight with someone who has several very large, very angry friends who proceed to kick the ever living shit out of him and leave him eating through a straw. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

that's kind of a couple of crappy options to choose from A dozen years of cycling have left me pretty lean and bony, so I guess I'm a goat. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing. I'd sure as he'll like to be able to climb like one! Do you want to have an ideagasm?

lmao...ya, that's what we want. We want superiority over you, lol... You can't make this shit up - quit projecting... He's not talking about you collectively, he's talking about Ron specifically. So no, he's not making it up. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Ron polite? Pffffffft, you owe me a new keyboard! Do you want to have an ideagasm?

If there was a theory of creationism, then yeah. But there isn't. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

It's a different level. He's writing about people (or rather, online personas) who do exist. You've seen them here. Why he's bothered writing an article about them I don't know, but it's the level and volume of racial hatred and black dick / white chick fixation that sets the OPs link apart. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I know this is over a year later but hey, the thread just got resurrected so... you've got that completely wrong. Stavros the supermarket king is the man who found the money - it's a flashback to the secret the blackmail plot is based on. The preacher isn't real, he's purely a cover identity for Malvo and it shows the reach and power of the organisation he works for. Do you want to have an ideagasm?