And therein lies the disconnect...
He was already convicted on 34...
Right, right - a disconnect.
That is YOUR defense, fruitcake - that "few bad apples" suckup.*rippy38 » 29 Jun 2024, 11:14 pm » wrote: ↑ You and Smello seem to think that by not condemning every cop on the force for the actions of a few bad apples,
Only with your tongue, statey.
NO QUESTIONS, DICK SUCKER!Blackvegetable » 30 Jun 2024, 6:53 am » wrote: ↑ He was already convicted on 34...
Oh....wait...
There's ANOTHER "cowardly swine"?
Again... it's all or nothing with you and your boyfriend.Cannonpointer » 30 Jun 2024, 7:23 am » wrote: ↑ Right, right - a disconnect.
I say things that hold them to account for their crimes, and you say things to mitigate, minimize, or excuse those crimes...
And then I LEAP to the conclusion that your mealy-mouthing on their behalf is somehow "defending" them.
I am SUCH a reactionary.
That is YOUR defense, fruitcake - that "few bad apples" suckup.
I never said anything about a few bad apples. In fact, I SPECIFICALLY said that the ones who do NOT violate rights and grub money - the ones who actually protect and serve - are quite rare: an exception.
So you turn around and run your clarence darrow head about a few bad apples as if there is no issue raised in that claptrap. It's how you defend the police state like a good little police state supporter. Doesn't matter HOW many dads they arrest for stopping a pervert from entering their daughters' showers; doesn't matter HOW many times the muscle is used to enforce election theft, perversion of every stripe, seizures of money under "civil forfeiture" rules designed for piracy. It doesn't matter how many times they bow to criminals, let children in schools get shot up while they hide, brutalize law abiding citizens while screaming "stop resisting" for the cameras.
They're just doing their job - and a few shmad shmapples shmouldn't shmatter...
Only with your tongue, statey.
Let us approach this from another direction. YOU say a few bad apples. I say a pattern of behavior.
Well, I have taken the issue to the level of evidence, so save your energy for that, Johnny Cochrane.*rippy38 » 30 Jun 2024, 7:36 am » wrote: ↑ Again... it's all or nothing with you and your boyfriend.
Your required to either hate them all or you support everything any of them do.
That's a very closed minded position that I only reserve for chomos since they have no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
Do you hate the Russian police too, or do they get a pass? I asked Smello that last night and his head exploded.![]()
Here ya go...Cannonpointer » 30 Jun 2024, 7:40 am » wrote: ↑ Let us approach this from another direction. YOU say a few bad apples. I say a pattern of behavior.
Instead of mealy mouthing on one side and shaming on the other, let us play a game called, "Back the argument with evidence," shall we?
I think it is a fair presupposition that if "a few bad apples" get caught misbehaving, their departments take appropriate action at the appropriate time. After all - if their departments DO NOT correct that behavior, your "few bad apples" argument falls at the feet of my "pattern of police state behavior" argument.
So let's dahnce.
Here is exhibit one of the prosecution. I say that if THIS egregious behavior (which would have burnt a dozen cities if the victim had been a ****-skin) was not appropriately punished, that would tend to lend credence to MY position and **** on yours. Here we go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tImY5Nj2kek&t=11s
Right. Your defense of criminal police behavior - of a man having HIS NUTS TASED IN FRONT OF HIS INNOCENT CHILDREN - is to argue that criminal cops can usually be avoided.
Your tape says, "You PROBABLY won't get your *** kicked, if you just use common sense."*rippy38 » 30 Jun 2024, 7:45 am » wrote: ↑ Here ya go...
https://youtu.be/OEvMc-K8XHY?si=XAkRuf-q9Jh1vtmG
The clip started out with him fighting the cops.Cannonpointer » 30 Jun 2024, 7:49 am » wrote: ↑ Right. Your defense of criminal police behavior - of a man having HIS NUTS TASED IN FRONT OF HIS INNOCENT CHILDREN - is to argue that criminal cops can usually be avoided.
That's some weak sister **** right there, weak sister.
I apologize to clarence darrow and johnny cochrane for disparaging their names on a pig state cheer leader, weakness.
Yes, his behavior prior to the assault WAS completely appropriate to me.*rippy38 » 30 Jun 2024, 7:58 am » wrote: ↑ The clip started out with him fighting the cops.
The news guy even commented that the perp was being "less than cooperative" while the clip was showing the guy kicking and fighting with the cops.
I guess his behavior "in front of his innocent kids" prior to getting his nuts lit up was completely appropriate to you.
Nothing sets a good example for little Timmy like assaulting law enforcement officers.
The cop in your clip was a bad apple.Cannonpointer » 30 Jun 2024, 7:55 am » wrote: ↑ Your tape says, "You PROBABLY won't get your *** kicked, if you just use common sense."
I happen to agree with your weak evidence. I have found that assertion to be a truism. You probably WON'T get your *** kicked, if you just use common sense.
So, there ya go. I dealt with your evidence. How about you stop dancing around mine?
You have a video of a police officer pulling a law abiding person - no crime shown to have occurred - out of his car and tasing his actual ball sac in front of his children. No action was taken against the cop. He was protected by the other officers on the scene and by his department.
Speak to that, if you're not to busy cheering. Tell us how that evidence fits your "few bad apples" excuse.
From the clip you posted...Cannonpointer » 30 Jun 2024, 8:02 am » wrote: ↑ Yes, his behavior prior to the assault WAS completely appropriate to me.
As the case shook out, more evidence came to light. Your ASSUMPTION that he started the **** is put to rest as the case was kept alive by enraged activists and other body cams were foia-ed.. The cops pulled him illegally and picked a fight with him - went hands on with zero warning or provocation.
Keep lawyering, Gump. Bad cops can USUALLY be avoided - that, and slinging **** on victims, is your mealy mouthing so far.
Rippy, you are such a piece of **** for leaping on the anchor's "Not TOTALLY cooperating" and ignoring your own eyes where the cops went hands on and the victim was completely passive, only reacting to pain holds.Cannonpointer » 30 Jun 2024, 7:40 am » wrote: ↑ Let us approach this from another direction. YOU say a few bad apples. I say a pattern of behavior.
Instead of mealy mouthing on one side and shaming on the other, let us play a game called, "Back the argument with evidence," shall we?
I think it is a fair presupposition that if "a few bad apples" get caught misbehaving, their departments take appropriate action at the appropriate time. After all - if their departments DO NOT correct that behavior, your "few bad apples" argument falls at the feet of my "pattern of police state behavior" argument.
So let's dahnce.
Here is exhibit one of the prosecution. I say that if THIS egregious behavior (which would have burnt a dozen cities if the victim had been a ****-skin) was not appropriately punished, that would tend to lend credence to MY position and **** on yours. Here we go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tImY5Nj2kek&t=11s
It's all about the victim, when you are defending police brutality.*rippy38 » 30 Jun 2024, 8:07 am » wrote: ↑ From the clip you posted...
"Johnny Wheatcroft is now in prison on an unrelated charge."
Color me shocked...
I don't pay any taxes in Arizona and never have...Cannonpointer » 30 Jun 2024, 8:08 am » wrote: ↑ Rippy, you are such a piece of **** for leaping on the anchor's "Not TOTALLY cooperating" and ignoring your own eyes where the cops went hands on and the victim was completely passive, only reacting to pain holds.
You defend cops TORTURING a guy with some smart mouthing about his parenting skills. Whatever that guy's parenting skills - and I doubnt they are stellar, - the TORTURE is what should bother you, bootlicker.
You focus 100% of your contempt on the victim and ignore that a man is HAVING HIS NUTS TASED ON YOUR DIME, you sniveling frank burns boot licker.
Look at the weak shill ignore the fact that his department covered for him.
The real victims in your clip are those kids that have such pieces of trash for parents. I'm sure they are going to follow in mom and dad's footprints too.Cannonpointer » 30 Jun 2024, 8:09 am » wrote: ↑ It's all about the victim, when you are defending police brutality.
You're a weak shill for the police state, and you deserve it. You are what is **** up about America.
You are with the trans **** and everything else the police state you worship enforces, loser.
Gay boy fake conservative has no idea that local agencies routinely get federal funds.