User Profile: Rowgue


Member Since: September 27, 2010

CommentsDisplaying comments newest to oldest.

123 To page: Go
  • March 17, 2014 at 12:58am

    I get where you’re coming from but this isn’t an activist judge.

    Our entire legal system is built upon the explicit principle that you have the right to confront your accuser and see any and all evidence against you. It is not some trivial technicality.

    Witness protection can be arranged if it’s warranted, but under the law no case can even be prosecuted without a named complainant. Substituting the state of xxxxx as the complainant does not meet that legal requirement.

  • March 17, 2014 at 12:48am

    I’m not seeing the issue here. Nobody else is allowed to carry a gun into that building, off duty police should be no different. They aren’t there in an official capacity as police officers, they are there off duty in the capacity of lobbyists. They should be treated exactly the same as any other citizen, which they were.

    Responses (1) +
  • March 17, 2014 at 12:41am

    That’s asinine. When you’re about to end somebodies life, you HAVE to be sure the situation warrants it. Thinking somebody might possibly be reaching for a weapon is not enough to warrant putting a hole through his face. If that’s your reaction in a similar scenario then you’ve got no business being in law enforcement. Again as I’ve said already under the law police are extended no such special exemption where they can kill people on a whim simply because they were frightened by what later turned out to be some innocuous action.

    You can’t simply chalk it up to being human and say sometimes we get it wrong when you’re killing people. That is not acceptable.

    Responses (1) +
  • March 17, 2014 at 12:30am

    That’s the big lie by the people that always defend these senseless police shootings. Yes it’s a dangerous job and the possibility does exist that police will get shot at. But the reality is that it’s exceedingly rare for someone to actually shoot at an officer.

    People have been watching too much tv and too many movies depicting every suspect pulling out a machine gun and blazing away at cops. It just isn’t reality. Even in most cases where suspects actually have guns they are rarely ever brandished let alone actually used. Incidents of police being shot at are the very rare exception, and police shouldn’t be being trained to behave as if it’s the norm.

  • March 17, 2014 at 12:20am

    Anybody else would be on trial for murder right now regardless of the circumstances that lead up to it. It’s outrageous that police are allowed to do a cursory “internal investigation” and then summarily exonerate an officer of any wrongdoing. There are no exemptions granted to police under the law that allows such action. It’s blatantly illegal and one of the major contributing factors of the out of control militarized police we have on the streets these days. A jury should be deciding these cases, not a supervising officer. If a janitor shoots somebody we don’t allow his supervisor to decide he’s not criminally responsible. Again under the law police are extended no such exemption from the law.

    Responses (1) +
  • March 13, 2014 at 2:14pm

    That’s because smooth soled shoes aren’t designed to walk on wet surfaces.

  • March 13, 2014 at 2:12pm

    Minor league hockey is what you’re describing, but minor league hockey has always been like that. This fight was clearly staged and planned and not really a fight but a display of two guys punching each other. But that’s been going on in minor league hockey since it started. All minor league sports are the same way. They have to make them into some sort of spectacle for people to come out to watch.

    The pro game is anything but what you’re describing however. Your idea of how things “used” to be is ass backwards. The pro game used to be almost as if not as much a game of goons and no talent clowns as the minor league game. It’s gotten further and further away from that every single year. There will always be guys that are just dirty players and most teams will continue to carry a guy on their roster that serves no purpose but to go take a run at a guy when they feel like they need a spark. But you don’t have teams with those guys making up half their roster anymore.

  • March 13, 2014 at 1:41pm

    I would have thought the market for stolen smartphones and tablets would have dried up when the government started providing them at no cost.

  • March 12, 2014 at 5:52am

    This is a stupid “controversy”. They can’t legally provide a drug to somebody that doesn’t yet have fda approval. People are trying to make this out like it’s a greedy drug company letting somebody die, but those people clearly have no clue about how hamstrung pharmaceutical companies are by the fda. This company having folded to public pressure if they provide the drug will be breaking the law and exposing themselves to an almost certain consent decree from the fda that can carry hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties. The drug could POSSIBLY help this one person, but that action could very possibly mean the end of the company.

    Responses (1) +
  • March 12, 2014 at 5:20am

    I don’t really get all the proclamations of “mystery”. The plane was very obviously hijacked. And it’s more than likely that it crashed when the hijacking went bad.

    The only mystery is where it went down. But given that they have no idea where it was once the transponder was turned off it’s likely that question will never be answered.

  • March 7, 2014 at 3:34pm

    She has the body of a twelve year old boy. That’s kind of a limited niche market in the porn industry.

    Responses (1) +
  • March 7, 2014 at 3:25pm

    Unless you have a death wish you should always be ASSUMING everyone is stupid enough to pull out in front of you because most of them are. Anytime you see a vehicle approaching on a perpendicular trajectory you should be easing off the gas and covering the brake precisely because of situations like this. Assuming they aren’t going to pull out in front of you is stupid, and assuming a moving vehicle is going to stop as was the case here is even more stupid yet.

    Yes it takes time to react, which is why in such situations you always anticipate that the other driver IS going to pull out in front of you and be anticipating it so you can react instantly.

    The guy that pulled out is technically at fault according to the law, but this could have easily been avoided had the other guy not been just as distracted and just as bad a driver.

  • March 7, 2014 at 3:11pm

    Both drivers are at fault in this accident. To what degree each is can’t really be determined without having witnessed the incident firsthand and having access to all the relevant data and information.

    The other truck did clearly pull out in front of him. Whether he was on a cell phone or not can’t be established from the ****** dash cam footage.

    The guy recording the footage however is at least as much at fault. He was clearly distracted himself as evidenced by the fact that he didn’t react to the guy pulling in front of him until about two seconds after it happened. He also didn’t make much of an attempt to brake even after his severely delayed reaction, which was compounded by the fact he was clearly going way too fast. And to top it off he steered toward where the other vehicle was heading instead of where it was coming from.

    Sure the guy shouldn’t have pulled out in front of him, but this accident could have easily been avoided had the idiot with the dashcam been paying attention to his driving instead of his dashcam.

  • March 7, 2014 at 2:48pm

    If she really thought porn was so empowering and enlightening she wouldn’t be using a fake stage name. She would be taking pride in her work, but that isn’t the case. She’s even using the fake name during the interview.

    Utter nonsense from yet another dimwit that thinks they are enlightened because they’ve discovered they have free will but no morals.

    Responses (1) +
  • March 7, 2014 at 2:43am

    Interesting. I didn’t make this comment but it’s appearing under my screen name. Time to change my password it seems

  • March 7, 2014 at 2:38am

    A gun does not equate to death. It’s nothing more than a tool which can be used for a variety of both good and evil purposes. It requires the will of a deranged person to kill. If anyone had had a gun there would be 33 less people laying in a morgue in China right now.

  • February 18, 2014 at 4:40pm

    You would expect a course about social welfare to be biased somewhat in favor of social welfare.

    But no matter what the bias there should always be a standard of teaching factual information. It would be completely understandable and rather predictable if a textbook for such a course were filled with cherry picked information that supports the ideals of social welfare. But there isn’t any factual information to be found in any of these excerpts. It’s nothing but a bunch of quotes pulled from different anti-conservative entertainment authors attributing assertions to conservatives in general or specific people with no factual basis. Not a single statistic cited or historical example given. I can quote people all day long every day telling you what a clown and a miserable failure just about anybody that has ever lived was. But those are just opinions unless they are giving you specific data or examples to back them up.

  • February 18, 2014 at 4:20pm

    That’s nonsense. They had plenty of opportunity to subdue the guy without shooting him.

    Sure at the precise moment they shot him the case could be made that they had no other choice. But it was only their own incompetence that allowed the situation to escalate to that point to begin with.

    You’re also assuming they had a legal reason to detain him as well. Even if you could consider the use of force reasonable during the resulting situation, if there was no legal cause for detainment to begin with then the situation itself was unlawful then that is moot.

    Police are not allowed to just kill anyone that makes them nervous. Well I should restate that. They are allowed to, just not legally.

  • January 21, 2014 at 11:59am

    theblaze isn’t on most cable systems because they want too much money for them to carry it. Period, end of story.

    There is no liberal conspiracy not to carry it. Stop trying to spread nonsense.

  • January 15, 2014 at 5:45pm


    If the very existence of a gun provokes a police response then open carry doesn’t exist anyway, which if you weren’t so dense you would understand is the entire point of this article. Further it implies that guns themselves are illegal, meaning concealed carry and mere ownership of a gun are also crimes.

    You pretend to be a 2nd amendment supporter, but you’re full of it. Your ridiculous stance allows constitutional rights to be violated as long as it’s being done to ease someone’s discomfort at the sight of something that is constitutionally protected. Your arguments are so absurd as to almost be unfathomable.

123 To page: Go