Police officers investigated after assault of Mark Aspinall caught on CCTV, page 5
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 16 times


reply posted on 2-12-2008 @ 02:04 AM by Canadianduder
reply to post by rcwj75


".in this world we blame everyone BUT ourselves for the dumb stuff we do..."

*Actually, in this world be blame the criminals for the crimes they commit - Even if they are policemen and their victim was drunk.

[edit on 2-12-2008 by Canadianduder]


reply posted on 2-12-2008 @ 11:44 AM by Canadianduder
reply to post by rcwj75


Just because You don't like Human Rights doesn't mean they don't exist - and that the Courts won't observe them.

I'm sorry your so hard done by... It must be hard being an apologist these days




reply posted on 2-12-2008 @ 10:21 PM by Canadianduder
reply to post by rcwj75


Do you think all those individuals who get drunk or otherwise intoxicated should be be beaten by police?

Same for women? Teens?

How about war heroes?

Do you know that on ATS, you are regarded as an apologist for corrupt police... you are.

It turns out you also pretend to be a police officer - pathetic.

This reminds me of you:

[edit on 3-12-2008 by Canadianduder]


reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 02:02 AM by Merriman Weir
Originally posted by Lokey13
reply to post by Merriman Weir


No I'm not familair with English law, and if this is acceptable behavior as part of English law then I suppose I'd be called a terrorist there. Absolutely no reason for this beating, how bout you get drunk call me a bunch of names then I grind your head into the pavement; sound good? Well by what your saying that would be acceptable behavior.

[edit on 1-12-2008 by Lokey13]


Erm, no. Where exactly am I stating that it's acceptable behaviour? Can you point to it or quote where I say that?

Did you miss this sentence in the post you replied to?

I think the police were really in the wrong here and way over the top,


How, from that, did you think I was saying the Police's behaviour was acceptable? Do you really and honestly think that I was saying it was acceptable? To me, it just looks like you're making a strawman.

What I was pointing to was yet another American who seems to think it's 'the American Way or the highway'. As weird as it may sound, we have our own laws and we've actually had a legal system for a very long time. It's not about what you wrote here:

Originally posted by Lokey13Last time I checked being drunk wasn't a crime and the free speach law would allow you to say whatever you wanted


You've admitted you're not familiar with English law, so to say "the last time I checked" is meaningless as you can only be referring to a law that is irrelevant to this story. Being drunk can be crime when tied to a particular kind of behaviour in England and as I stated, depending on what Aspinall actually said to the Police, that could be the case here. As for your "free speach law" again, an American irrelevance that has nothing to do with this particular story. Although I'd be very surprised if being drunk and spouting off/threatening/harrassing/&c - if indeed Aspinall was spouting off &c - it wasn't also some kind of offence in American law. I could be wrong, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't the case.

EDIT: rejigged for clarification and to ask a genuine question: does 'free speech' really cover anything and everything?

[edit on 3-12-2008 by Merriman Weir]


reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 02:44 AM by rcwj75
Originally posted by Canadianduder
Do you think all those individuals who get drunk or otherwise intoxicated should be be beaten by police?


When you cant control your alcohol and disrupt others, and cause all sorts of problems...yeah you should get your butt whipped...either that or grow up and you have nothing to worry about

Same for women? Teens?


I believe it was WOMEN who said they are equal to men, they faught for the same rights, same treatment...sooo if a women decided to drink and act like a fool then baby here it comes. Again, learn how to grow up and control your alcohol intake/behavior..and guess what NO WORRIES!!

As for teens..IF..IF we had parents who actually cared that their teen kid got caught drinking/drunk...all the cops would have to do is call mom & pop and that kid SHOULD wish the cops put one on him instead...but this new society we breed proves that a drunk teen is a harrassed teen by the growing police state..

How about war heroes?


What about them...if they ARE war hero's and professional soldiers...they WILL NOT act in such a manner, they WILL NOT draw unneeded attention to themselves and they WILL correct any problems with "those" who choose to act like morons..if they happen to be fellow soldiers...

Do you know that on ATS, you are regarded as an apologist for corrupt police... you are.

It turns out you also pretend to be a police officer - pathetic.

[edit on 2-12-2008 by Canadianduder]


Really...man what am I going to do...that kind of label from people on the internet whom I do not know...man, I think I will lose sleep over this..matter of fact..knowing how SOME ATS members will view me as all these bad things...I may just go get drunk, harass people, stand in the middle of a street, taunt the cops and other people, cuss and scream and be arrogent...then have the cops cuff and slap me around a bit..then come back here to ATS and know that the most important people in my life (the ATS community) will stand behind me and bash the cops for doing what they did when I got out of control. Because lets face it...being called an apologist by you or other members will affect me drastically!!!!!!!

As for your retarded comment about pretending to be something...aka a LEO...you obviously like to make assumptions...you did it this entire thread, and do it on many other threads.....I'll let you continue believing whatever you want...but my credentials as a LEO and my military experiance have already been verified a LONG time ago....so with that..enjoy your day in canada!!


reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 03:43 AM by Canadianduder
reply to post by rcwj75


"my credentials as a LEO and my military experiance have already been verified a LONG time ago."

*How predictable. You must realize that is exactly what everyone says when they are lying about their credentials online - 'my credentials and my military experiance have already been verified a LONG time ago.' that is exactly what I would say

Great minds think alike.

Nevertheless you are trying to excuse the inexcusable.

By continuing to lie about your credentials you are only detracting from credibility you may already have - and judging from other member's responses to you, it is not much.

Your chosen false persona and posting patterns belie a strong bias on behalf of the police - you are continuously Astroturfing on their behalf, regardless of how inexcusable their offenses.





[edit on 3-12-2008 by Canadianduder]


reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 06:52 AM by blueorder
reply to post by Man_Versus_AntiMan


askin for "trouble", by running away, do me a favour, I have long lost respect for the cops and I dont think one should accept a beatin at the hands of paid thugs just for running away


reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 01:52 PM by Lokey13
Originally posted by Merriman Weir
Originally posted by Lokey13
reply to post by magicmushroom



I should remind you that this actually happened in Lancashire, England. How familiar are you with British laws?

Now whilst I think the police were really in the wrong here and way over the top, there may have been grounds for drunk and disorderly or something under the Public Order Act depending on what Aspinall actually said to the Police.

Unfortunately, neither you nor I actually know for certain what was said. I'm not sure about your "free speach law" but it really doesn't stretch to saying whatever you want to the Police whilst you're drunk in Britain.

Also, just in case it's not been mentioned in this thread - or I missed it - one of those involved, the man who banged Aspinall's head on the floor wasn't even a copper as such, he was a 'special constable' or, as they get called round our way: a 'hobby bobby'.


Why would you ask me if I were familiar with British law, unless you were defending the policemen's action. Then you go on to state that there may have been GROUNDS (YES GROUNDS) for the actions by the police for something Aspinall did or said. Then you deny that free speach is a possibility in your country, I don't care about what your laws are; they must be wrong if this is happening. I don't care about what he actually said, so therefor since the man wasn't violent why should the police be.
Also the "constable" should be receiving further action against him then since he wasn't supposed to be policing in the first place. You clearly defended the police in this post and if you can't see it, read the terminology you used and it's all there.


reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 01:55 PM by Lokey13
reply to post by rcwj75


Wow I can see if there is any up and coming change by 2012 that you'll be the first to get hit by lightning. The world has no place for men high on authority, which your not high on authority but you sooooooo wish you were; sad life, sad, sad, life. I would also expect more from a man of military service but you clearly show why American's have a problem on the global level and if your representing our country; it is a sad day(but I think your lieing about being in the military/ why else have a photo of someone else in military gear because you don't have a picture of yourself). Also why exactly should a man be beaten for talking or yelling or swearing? Why also should a woman be beaten? (Remember the golden rule Men don't hit Women, regardless of your call for equality; women should never be struck by a man) Last I checked those weren't a reason to fight someone, the only reason I've ever had in my life to fight is if someone trys to hit me. I am a man of many different martial arts disciplines and this has taught me that you are never as strong as you think you are; and that a human can kill another human so easily, even by a touch, so whats the point in being a thick headed bullie? Because you can? Well my friend the better man would know he could do and wouldn't; you are clearly not a better man and a sad excuse for a human being. Also our current president has said just about everything imaginable, from an idiots perspective that is, and I gaurantee the drunk man made more sense then 90% of GW's speaches; so would GW need a beating as well? The most ironic thing is that you seem to think you haven't done anything as foolish as this man; well 99% chance that you have and just won't admit it: nice to be a hypocrit, and I'm not saying you had to be drunk to sound like an idiot I mean take a look at your post.


[edit on 3-12-2008 by Lokey13]


reply posted on 4-12-2008 @ 02:05 AM by Merriman Weir
Originally posted by Lokey13
Originally posted by Lokey13

Why would you ask me if I were familiar with British law, unless you were defending the policemen's action. Then you go on to state that there may have been GROUNDS (YES GROUNDS) for the actions by the police for something Aspinall did or said. Then you deny that free speach is a possibility in your country, I don't care about what your laws are; they must be wrong if this is happening. I don't care about what he actually said, so therefor since the man wasn't violent why should the police be.
Also the "constable" should be receiving further action against him then since he wasn't supposed to be policing in the first place. You clearly defended the police in this post and if you can't see it, read the terminology you used and it's all there.


Erm, no. I'm not defending the over-the-top actions of the Police at all. What, by pointing out that Aspinall may have committed some offence, which was the point I've been making regarding your comments as to how:

Originally posted by Lokey13
Last time I checked being drunk wasn't a crime and the free speach law would allow you to say whatever you wanted


so to point out that that depending on what Aspinall actually said, and that the testimonies made against him are truthful, I'm somehow "defending the police"? How do you make that ridiculous leap when I've already stated that I thought the Police were in the wrong. Reread this from my first post on this thread:

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
I think the police were really in the wrong here and way over the top


You make a massive mistake in thinking that because I think might have been "GROUNDS (YES GROUNDS)" for some charge against Aspinall regarding being drunk and disorderly or some Public Order charge this somehow means I advocate the Police's actions here - despite my already saying they were wrong and over-the-top.

So, you really can't tell the difference between the two points or are you just trying to start a fight here?


reply posted on 4-12-2008 @ 02:18 AM by rcwj75
Originally posted by Canadianduder
*How predictable. You must realize that is exactly what everyone says when they are lying about their credentials online - 'my credentials and my military experiance have already been verified a LONG time ago.' that is exactly what I would say

Great minds think alike.

Nevertheless you are trying to excuse the inexcusable.

By continuing to lie about your credentials you are only detracting from credibility you may already have - and judging from other member's responses to you, it is not much.

Your chosen false persona and posting patterns belie a strong bias on behalf of the police - you are continuously Astroturfing on their behalf, regardless of how inexcusable their offenses.





[edit on 3-12-2008 by Canadianduder]


You must be related to be below member...gotta be..lol

Originally posted by Lokey13
Wow I can see if there is any up and coming change by 2012 that you'll be the first to get hit by lightning. The world has no place for men high on authority, which your not high on authority but you sooooooo wish you were; sad life, sad, sad, life. I would also expect more from a man of military service but you clearly show why American's have a problem on the global level and if your representing our country; it is a sad day(but I think your lieing about being in the military/ why else have a photo of someone else in military gear because you don't have a picture of yourself). Also why exactly should a man be beaten for talking or yelling or swearing? Why also should a woman be beaten? (Remember the golden rule Men don't hit Women, regardless of your call for equality; women should never be struck by a man) Last I checked those weren't a reason to fight someone, the only reason I've ever had in my life to fight is if someone trys to hit me. I am a man of many different martial arts disciplines and this has taught me that you are never as strong as you think you are; and that a human can kill another human so easily, even by a touch, so whats the point in being a thick headed bullie? Because you can? Well my friend the better man would know he could do and wouldn't; you are clearly not a better man and a sad excuse for a human being. Also our current president has said just about everything imaginable, from an idiots perspective that is, and I gaurantee the drunk man made more sense then 90% of GW's speaches; so would GW need a beating as well? The most ironic thing is that you seem to think you haven't done anything as foolish as this man; well 99% chance that you have and just won't admit it: nice to be a hypocrit, and I'm not saying you had to be drunk to sound like an idiot I mean take a look at your post.


[edit on 3-12-2008 by Lokey13]


You two make a great duo!!! And I must say...between both your posts, and assumptions...by far the two best at not having a clue as to what you ever talk about. As I said to the canadian...you must be related...

As for this thread...as I stated...act right, control your behavior, don't inflict your stupidity on others who WANT to enjoy life and good times...and there would never be a problem....SUCH an EASY solution...well for those of us with common sense...


reply posted on 4-12-2008 @ 03:23 AM by Canadianduder
reply to post by rcwj75


"act right, control your behavior, don't inflict your stupidity on others who WANT to enjoy life and good times..."

That is what I have been saying all along - The police had no right to attack that man who just wanted to enjoy life and good times.

The police did not Act as the Law specifies they should (in fact they acted in contravention of it) and due to their actions and criminal Behaviour they are now facing criminal charges.

Is that you in the avatar picture - or is it who you wish you were?





[edit on 4-12-2008 by Canadianduder]


reply posted on 4-12-2008 @ 07:28 AM by Lokey13
reply to post by Merriman Weir


You can't think the police were over the top, and then say its ok if he's sentenced as part of disorderly conduct. All charges against the man should be waved no matter what, well short of him killing an infant. So I don't understand why you keep saying if theres something credible to what the police say he did, because it doesn't matter, it's not credible what he did because the ends never met the means. So even though you are saying your for Aspinall you'll be ok with this if he's found guilty?


reply posted on 4-12-2008 @ 07:31 AM by Lokey13
reply to post by rcwj75


Thank you for answering all of my questions RCW, *cough* I mean thank you for answering none. You have shown me your intelligence and clearly aren't smart enough to hold a debate with. So like so many others continue to post your idiotcricy, I'm simply going to IGNORE you, damn I can't get enough of that button. Good day, sir or mam, you've been a pitiful opponent. O and great minds think alike clearly because not one person has agreed with you here, so I'm sorry my friend but your the retard. IGNORED!!!

[edit on 4-12-2008 by Lokey13]
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^




Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Free Psychic Readings
  General Chit Chat, Posted 14 hours ago, 106 replies
Hollow Earth Theory New Evidence.
  General Conspiracies, Posted 12 hours ago, 68 replies
Anonymous show your face!
  Rant, Posted 8 hours ago, 61 replies
Free will
  Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 16 hours ago, 50 replies