User Profile: SpeckChaser

SpeckChaser

Member Since: January 08, 2011

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [32] August 29, 2014 at 11:26pm

    Slimex…a Rolex stepsister company

  • August 29, 2014 at 10:47pm

    Well, if he is gonna be severely crippled maybe they will bring him back before Social Security / Disability dry up.

  • [124] August 29, 2014 at 10:35pm

    “We respect the rule of law”

    Except when they don’t. Border? What border?

    Responses (2) +
  • August 29, 2014 at 4:01pm

    Free voice

    Imagine if you had 3 or 4 punks lock the door and jump someone. Somebody is getting beat and no adults can intervene. I think that type of example is more of what they have in mind. Not so much the inconvenience.

    Also, I think you are giving modern day parents too much credit. I know several teachers. A reoccurring theme I hear is the the well behave kids have involved parents. The kids that cause trouble, the ones who would lock a door, more than likely have parents who couldn’t care less.

    They won’t show up for meet the teacher or parent student conferences. The dang sure won’t be showing up for a locked door.

  • [40] August 29, 2014 at 3:23pm

    Blaze commenter

    “how do you escape the fact that these couples would like to get married.”

    Marriage: the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.

    Gay couples want to get married? Hmm…that doesn’t make any sense.

  • [5] August 29, 2014 at 1:18pm

    “And perhaps in some cases the warnings are overstate in order to get people’s attention.”

    Perhaps…?

    Wow. So even when they bury actual data not favorable to their cause and make make up the rest out if thin air, they are still doing it for our own good.

  • August 29, 2014 at 12:45pm

    Josh

    I looked at your post history. I imagine we would pretty much agree on most issues. I also imagine we would even agree on most of the issues regarding police abusing their power.

    I think there are an unsettling amount of examples of abuse. With my current understanding, I really just don’t see a violation if this guys rights, but I am no expert. I guess we can just agree to disagree.

    And, You should definitely hit the water to night. Believe I will do the same.

  • [40] August 29, 2014 at 12:31pm

    “Moral relativism has no bounds”

    +1000.

    If it is not ones place to tell someone who they can marry, then it is also not their place to say how many they can marry, what age they can marry, which family members they can marry, which animals they can marry.

    There is no end to that reasoning.

  • August 29, 2014 at 11:18am

    Josh

    Not trying to split hairs but thumping someone can be assault . In court, it would come down to what a reasonable person considers reasonable.

    Is it reasonable to take down one only suspected of littering the way they took down this guy? No.

    Is it reasonable to take down one suspected of shooting people and taking hostages the way they took this guy down? IMO, yes, but that would be up to a jury. My money would be on the jury thinking it was reasonable.

    “your slave district’s insurance company would be reminding your officer’s that my rights are intact at all times.”

    Actually, that is not true. And if you think about it you wouldn’t want it to be.

    Your right to not be stopped is not intact if you are a suspect.

    Your right to not be detained is not intact if you are a suspect.

    Your right to not be questioned is not intact if you are a suspect.

    Your right to not identify yourself is not intact if you are a suspect.

    Imagine if you saw someone shoot someone. You call the police. The police respond. They call to update you. “Hello sir, we found the guy you saw shoot someone. Unfortunately, he didn’t volunteer any info. And since his rights are intact at all times, we could not stop, identify, detain or question him. There is nothing we can do. Sorry. Our hands are tied.”

    On your side note. Haven’t been fishing in forever…probably been two weeks, but it was decent.

  • [39] August 29, 2014 at 10:15am

    Dizzave

    Because democrats are resilient.

  • August 29, 2014 at 10:01am

    Wild

    I think they are more concerned with the liability and not as much the inconvenience.

  • [19] August 29, 2014 at 8:59am

    $70? Why would she sell it for so cheap!

    A government that can pay $400 for a claw hammer would surely have no trouble paying a couple thousand for this life saving device.

    Never mind that you could go to a decent rigging store and buy something similar off the shelve for $20-30.

    Responses (2) +
  • [3] August 29, 2014 at 8:50am

    Thanks for the clarification East. Wasn’t too clear in the first post

  • [18] August 29, 2014 at 8:08am

    I think they stay away from that because students could lock themselves in the classroom

    Responses (7) +
  • [5] August 29, 2014 at 1:15am

    Josh

    Whether you like it or not, the police are going to gain control of the situation BEFORE they try to sort out the facts.

    They do this in case the guy who is “certainly someone sitting at a computer desk facing away from the room entry not engaging in a mass shooting” doesn’t pull a pistol from his waistband after they assume that he is not a threat.

    They do this so “A man who is sitting at a desk, gets up and lays down on the floor at your command with his hands up, does not” try to stab them after they drop their guard assuming he is harmless.

    There is enough examples of police violating people’s rights. This is not one of them.

  • [3] August 28, 2014 at 9:07pm

    I have something you can address if you like.

    I am just curious, but how would you go about taking a suspect of a shooting into custody.

  • [4] August 28, 2014 at 9:04pm

    Josh

    I can address the issues you stated, but before that, I’m going to go over some basics I hope you already know. It is not a violation of ones rights to be stopped, questioned, or detained if you ARE a suspect in a crime.

    “Boot on my back”

    They responded to a potential shooting and hostage situation where this guy was a SUSPECT. It iS in the police and suspects best interest to secure the suspect until they figure out what is going on, whether you understand that or not.

    “Taking my cell phone”

    They responded to a PHONED IN threat and had probable cause to check his phone.

    “I don’t want them to threaten my well being,”

    I did hear them say don’t move. I imagine that is pretty standard when dealing with the suspect of a shooting.

    “assaulting me”

    I guess that is your opinion. To me it looked like you would expect them to detain the suspect of a shooting.

    “take my property”

    I addressed that if your talking about the cell phone.

    “invade my privacy”

    It is there job to stop, detain, and question suspects of crime, as dictated by the constitution. From the video I saw, that is what they did.

  • [18] August 28, 2014 at 3:40pm

    That is unusual coming from a female. Not that they can’t say it, you just normally hear it from guys. If that was even what she was talking about.

  • August 28, 2014 at 2:42pm

    Mcsledge

    I actually laughed out loud when I read your post. How about you specify what rights that you believe were violated and I will address them.

  • August 28, 2014 at 2:15pm

    Red blood

    “If there had been an actual shooter the police would be in a world of hurt legally because they were for warned and came in after being warned”

    Uh…yea, could you explain that for me?

    So someone calls the police and says they are about to rob a bank and the police better not show up or they will start shooting and taking hostages. Are you telling me that the police would be in a “world of hurt legally” for showing up after they have been warned? Is that what you are saying?

    Again, I’m no expert, and you may be right. It just sounds really dumb.

123 To page: Go