It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ZOMG!!! got stopped by a cop just now, anomalous behavior on officers part

page: 9
34
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


So in other words your argument that rights were violated was throughly disproven, and since you can no longer support your wrong argument, you decide to call people names and then run away form the thread - typical.

It is people like you, who dont understand the law, or hwo your rights work, who want to sue people at the drop of a hat, that causes issues with the legal system. You cry over a non issue, while trying to say the persons rights were violated... Then how you would protect your rights.

While providing absoilutely no suport for your argument other than your cicular argument. By all means, if you are so right, then prove me wrong and cite your case law that shows how these rights were violated. Explain how those rights are violated, and how.
edit on 28-5-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 28 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


So in other words your argument that rights were violated was throughly disproven, and since you can no longer support your wrong argument, you decide to call people names and then run away form the thread - typical.

It is people like you, who dont understand the law, or hwo your rights work, who want to sue people at the drop of a hat, that causes issues with the legal system. You cry over a non issue, while trying to say the persons rights were violated... Then how you would protect your rights.

While providing absoilutely no suport for your argument other than your cicular argument. By all means, if you are so right, then prove me wrong and cite your case law that shows how these rights were violated. Explain how those rights are violated, and how.
edit on 28-5-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




Sure man. Whatever you say. Not one thing I have presented has been disproved, in fact, most the things I have said in this thread have not even been addressed. Anything I say gets met with a "no way nuh-uh, you are wrong because I said so" answer. I have better things to do with my time than argue with people that can't actually form an argument.

I have not called anyone names in this thread, I'm not quite sure how you landed on that. I actually think I have behaved quite nicely considering all the insults and names that have been tossed my way. You people seem to have a very difficult time with someone who does not agree with you-what a surprise-you are a cop.

I have cited plenty in this thread already, and none of you seem to want to bother with it. And thats fine. But expect me to worry about the opinion of and obviously extremely uneducated person.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
reply to post by OrphenFire
 


Puerto Rico but don't be
embarrassed and leave like the previous poster that was pointed out to


i would also like to thank everybody for keeping it somewhat civil no mods have had to intervene

and we are now on the home page folks

2nd in popular topics so let's keep that in mind


Oh Puerto Rico. Well I'm not embarrassed for being wrong lol. I just assumed it was Spain because you spoke Spanish, and in Mexico things would not have turned out as pretty.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


So in other words your argument that rights were violated was throughly disproven, and since you can no longer support your wrong argument, you decide to call people names and then run away form the thread - typical.

It is people like you, who dont understand the law, or hwo your rights work, who want to sue people at the drop of a hat, that causes issues with the legal system. You cry over a non issue, while trying to say the persons rights were violated... Then how you would protect your rights.

While providing absoilutely no suport for your argument other than your cicular argument. By all means, if you are so right, then prove me wrong and cite your case law that shows how these rights were violated. Explain how those rights are violated, and how.
edit on 28-5-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




Sure man. Whatever you say. Not one thing I have presented has been disproved, in fact, most the things I have said in this thread have not even been addressed. Anything I say gets met with a "no way nuh-uh, you are wrong because I said so" answer. I have better things to do with my time than argue with people that can't actually form an argument.

I have not called anyone names in this thread, I'm not quite sure how you landed on that. I actually think I have behaved quite nicely considering all the insults and names that have been tossed my way. You people seem to have a very difficult time with someone who does not agree with you-what a surprise-you are a cop.

I have cited plenty in this thread already, and none of you seem to want to bother with it. And thats fine. But expect me to worry about the opinion of and obviously extremely uneducated person.


Well, I am not a cop but I have to call you out.

You have the right to act as you say, you have the right to be unhelpful, to not empty your pockets, the right to be a right pain the cops arse. But why would you do that? There is an armed robber wondering arround your neighhborhood, surely the first thing you want to do is help the cops find him? No? What am I missing? It would be stupid to waste the cops time dealing with you standing up for your rights when you should be helping him cross you off the list of suspects so that he can go out and make YOUR neighborhood a safer place for YOU!!!!

Man! You have the right to help others as much as you have the right to privacy. Which right would you excorsise and why?



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shamatt

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


So in other words your argument that rights were violated was throughly disproven, and since you can no longer support your wrong argument, you decide to call people names and then run away form the thread - typical.

It is people like you, who dont understand the law, or hwo your rights work, who want to sue people at the drop of a hat, that causes issues with the legal system. You cry over a non issue, while trying to say the persons rights were violated... Then how you would protect your rights.

While providing absoilutely no suport for your argument other than your cicular argument. By all means, if you are so right, then prove me wrong and cite your case law that shows how these rights were violated. Explain how those rights are violated, and how.
edit on 28-5-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




Sure man. Whatever you say. Not one thing I have presented has been disproved, in fact, most the things I have said in this thread have not even been addressed. Anything I say gets met with a "no way nuh-uh, you are wrong because I said so" answer. I have better things to do with my time than argue with people that can't actually form an argument.

I have not called anyone names in this thread, I'm not quite sure how you landed on that. I actually think I have behaved quite nicely considering all the insults and names that have been tossed my way. You people seem to have a very difficult time with someone who does not agree with you-what a surprise-you are a cop.

I have cited plenty in this thread already, and none of you seem to want to bother with it. And thats fine. But expect me to worry about the opinion of and obviously extremely uneducated person.


Well, I am not a cop but I have to call you out.

You have the right to act as you say, you have the right to be unhelpful, to not empty your pockets, the right to be a right pain the cops arse. But why would you do that? There is an armed robber wondering arround your neighhborhood, surely the first thing you want to do is help the cops find him? No? What am I missing? It would be stupid to waste the cops time dealing with you standing up for your rights when you should be helping him cross you off the list of suspects so that he can go out and make YOUR neighborhood a safer place for YOU!!!!

Man! You have the right to help others as much as you have the right to privacy. Which right would you excorsise and why?


How many times am I going to get this same response?

It isnt a matter of being unhelpful, or being a pain in anybodies ass. Its a matter of not having to follow a cops orders just because. I have explained my position plenty of times in this thread, yet some of you still want to jump to the 'pig hating arrogant sob' retort. Get over it. Throwing out labels to try and make me look bad does not make your argument any stronger.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skerrako
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Dont get frustrated with him, he does this constantly. You give him facts, prove him wrong over and over and he repeats himself like a broken robot. Just let it go, you and I both know what rights were violated.

Keep this in mind the next time you come across the individual

-Skerrako


No rights were violated. Please read the OP's thread again without the aggressive attitude to law enforcement.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Ghost Who Walks

Originally posted by Skerrako
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Dont get frustrated with him, he does this constantly. You give him facts, prove him wrong over and over and he repeats himself like a broken robot. Just let it go, you and I both know what rights were violated.

Keep this in mind the next time you come across the individual

-Skerrako


No rights were violated. Please read the OP's thread again without the aggressive attitude to law enforcement.


Why is it, if someone questions Law Enforcement, it is automatically assumed that the person has an aggressive attitude toward them?



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


there were 3 yesterday
including a ogress who would tie her children naked to a table beat them with a paddle and uploaded video to a fetish site

i guess you must live in mayberry

for me me this is a 1st



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Argyll
 


You are forgetting something. He matched the description of a suspected felon. Innocent until proven guilty, unless maybe PR doesn't have the same kind of justice system.


That is some mind boggling logic you have there.
How can one be determined innocent without being questioned to establish that innocence?

The OP matched the description, was questioned and given the all clear.

What would be the point of putting out an arrest warrant for a criminal if you weren't allowed to question suspects?

How would you establish who is the criminal from the innocent?



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I will then disregard everything you have to say, from now on. You have proven yourself as part of the enemy to the people. I don't care what happens to you from now on. I hope you wake up, and realize you are wrong. If not, if you get killed, I will not shed a tear. And I still think you are probably not a cop, but a rentacop that failed the dismal test to become a cop, and that is sad as hell. Keep licking the jackboots, it won't help you any. You will still be a failure.


What a foolish, despicable response from an obviously foolish person. Shame on you.
Just pray you never require the support of law enforcement to protect your loved ones.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
I have left this thread because it has quickly devolved into pointless namecalling and tripe, but for the record, if it were up to cops, such as yourself, do decide what our rights are and what they are not, A)We would have none; and B)There would be no need for trials.

Thanks for playing though.


So another chicken flies the coop.
When your logic flounders and you start losing credibility you scuttle away?



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Ghost Who Walks

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
I have left this thread because it has quickly devolved into pointless namecalling and tripe, but for the record, if it were up to cops, such as yourself, do decide what our rights are and what they are not, A)We would have none; and B)There would be no need for trials.

Thanks for playing though.


So another chicken flies the coop.
When your logic flounders and you start losing credibility you scuttle away?




Ugh, its like you all are reading out of the same playbook. As I said, considering that all my points have been ignored, and I have been swarmed with insults and personal attacks, it isnt worth my time to stay here.

one cant debate with people who refuse to acknowledge the argument of the other side. And one certainly cant have a constructive debate with a bunch of people who pile on with childish and immature comments.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
one cant debate with people who refuse to acknowledge the argument of the other side. And one certainly cant have a constructive debate with a bunch of people who pile on with childish and immature comments.



But your side of the arguement is "your" thoughts on how the law should be interpreted not how the law is in fact implemented.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Ghost Who Walks

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
one cant debate with people who refuse to acknowledge the argument of the other side. And one certainly cant have a constructive debate with a bunch of people who pile on with childish and immature comments.



But your side of the arguement is "your" thoughts on how the law should be interpreted not how the law is in fact implemented.



Yup. The legal precedence and language I posted in this thread are just "my" thoughts on how it should be interpreted.

Whatever you say.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Says the person who dimisses out of hand the Terry ruling by the Supreme Court. If you want your info looked at, then dont be so quick to dismiss counter infomation. Secondly you have not cited any sources for your argument, although you have stated time and again you have case law to support your argument.

As far as not being helpful and your answer above to the other person, you still do not understand your rights, and its evident with your responses. Your answer,that you dont ahve to follow a cops orders jsut because, in this scenario, is incorrect.

Since you match the description, you do have to follow our orders until such time we determine you are not the perosn we are looking for. As much as that annoys you, its the way it is, and t no point is it a violation of any of your rights (which by the way you still ahve yet to explain what rights you think are being violated).


edit on 28-5-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Says the person who dimisses out of hand the Terry ruling by the Supreme Court. If you want your info looked at, then dont be so quick to dismiss counter infomration.




Yeah, i posted the exact precedents and language that backed up my claims.

Are you going to continue to try and make this about personal attacks on me, or are you going to address the topics presented?

This is exactly why I left this thread before...none of you can seem to attack the topic. You only seem focused on trying to make this about me.
edit on 28-5-2011 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Says the person who dimisses out of hand the Terry ruling by the Supreme Court. If you want your info looked at, then dont be so quick to dismiss counter infomration.




Yeah, i posted the exact precedents and language that backed up my claims.

Are you going to continue to try and make this about personal attacks on me, or are you going to address the topics presented?


Your the one who moved from the OP to what you would do in that situation, so you made this about you,. not me. I ave explained why your position is wrong, and have cited why its wrong and directed you to appropriate sources. Your the one who disregarded it (Terry ruling means nothing response).

You have yet to cite your court cases that support your flawed logic in this regards. Also, you arent questioning law enforcement.. There is a difference in questioning law enforcement, and what you are suggesting.
edit on 28-5-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 


I believe your story even though you haven't showed one bit of proof to back it up!

But with all the cop hating threads I guess someone had to make one that wasn't.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Ghost Who Walks

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I will then disregard everything you have to say, from now on. You have proven yourself as part of the enemy to the people. I don't care what happens to you from now on. I hope you wake up, and realize you are wrong. If not, if you get killed, I will not shed a tear. And I still think you are probably not a cop, but a rentacop that failed the dismal test to become a cop, and that is sad as hell. Keep licking the jackboots, it won't help you any. You will still be a failure.


What a foolish, despicable response from an obviously foolish person. Shame on you.
Just pray you never require the support of law enforcement to protect your loved ones.


What he does not understand is by matching the description, the officer has reasonable suspicion to stop and detain the person. If during that detention its determined the perosn is involved, it movs into probable cause for an arrest. If the investigation determines the person is not involved, the person is released since the RS never made it to PC.

God forbid people understand how the law works.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Says the person who dimisses out of hand the Terry ruling by the Supreme Court. If you want your info looked at, then dont be so quick to dismiss counter infomration.




Yeah, i posted the exact precedents and language that backed up my claims.

Are you going to continue to try and make this about personal attacks on me, or are you going to address the topics presented?


Your the one who moved from the OP to what you would do in that situation, so you made this about you,. not me. I ave explained why your position is wrong, and have cited why its wrong and directed you to appropriate sources. Your the one who disregarded it (Terry ruling means nothing response).

You have yet to cite your court cases that support your flawed logic in this regards. Also, you arent questioning law enforcement.. There is a difference in questioning law enforcement, and what you are suggesting.
edit on 28-5-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


"You are the one" ..."says the guy"...can you post anything that isnt accusatory rhetoric?

I never said the Terry Ruling means nothing. I posted why it doesnt cover this case. YOu choose to ignore that, and wish to deflect it into a Me vs. You topic. Get over yourself. You are a cop. OBVIOUSLY you are going to take the standpoint that the cop is right.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join