leo firsked me today! - Page 6
Page 6 of 15 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 144

Thread: leo firsked me today!

  1. Quote Originally Posted by tuts40 View Post
    It is possible the OP was stating that it would not be pretty for himself, true. I'll give you that. Given the number of "internet commando's" tho it's easy to understand how a bit of a macho attitude would be a likely meaning as well.

    So you say I jumped down his throat? I thought I was not jumping but asking him to tell what he'd do, which would have then been a good time for him to explain another meaning, like the one you proposed for example. At the time of your writing the above we did not know what he meant.

    So, you slam me for "jumping down" someone's throat then proceed to refer to me as an "internet Rambo" then further insult by insinuating that I am unable to read and interpret "simple English". Then, you assumed I was trying to play hero. All that for asking a question far, far less agressive than many, many other questions and comments.

    Do you disagree with my assertion about the LEO's behavior being very unprofessional, elitist and refering to the fact that "some would say he was a complete tool"? Or do you find my asking what the OP was gunna do that would make his and the LEO's next meeting not pretty to be aggressive? If the OP was stating that the "not going to be pretty" was in fact meaning that the LEO would act even worse and THAT was not going to be pretty, well, there ya go. However, at the time I wrote my comment the 'not pretty' action and the person causing the action was open for interpretation. The OP was likely angry so you can understand why I leaned toward the typical male response and believed the OP was stating that he's not going to be so nice at any next meeting.

    As for your insults, well, if you actually took the time to read this post and re-read my original comment BOTH (with thought) you likely feel like an a$$ enough now that I'll not add to it. You are welcome.

    I believe it likely that Retired Grunt and TuckersMom did NOT fully and carefully read my post either. I say that because they have each exibited a lot of common sense in the past and yet they gave a "like" to your off track and unnecessarily insultive post.
    It was the assumption that he was talking about the COP being sorry. You both open and close with asking him what he was going to do and that was the intent of the post. The middle part saying "not that appreciate what the cop said" part seemed like a you were giving him a little credit but overall he was wrong.

    I do not feel like an ass because your post was way more easier to misinterpret then the OP's was. He said he felt bad about what he said just before walking off, he said that he was going to take another route, and demonstrated an overall non confrontational attitude and yet you still walked away with the conclusion that he must be threatening the officer. Your post sounded like, what are you going to do big guy? I do not agree whith what he said to you but you just threatened an officer therefor you are a piece of ****. And the hole point of the post was to call him out and hope he takes the bait so you could jump on him again. That's what it sounded like then and now up until you posted this to further explain.

    And I say that when I posted my response and say it again now after rereading it with thought as you asked. Now i challenge you to do the same. Please reread both the OP's and your post and tell me which one was easier to misunderstand.

  2.   
  3. Quote Originally Posted by tuts40:247591
    Quote Originally Posted by Cotillion View Post
    I would have punched him in the face. True story and you can't prove me wrong because this is the internet.

    P.s tuts you're a toolbag go sandpaper your genitals
    Another example of someone who did NOT read my post very carefully. ...And I'm the "Rambo" or "toolbag"? Did you not see that my discussion of being unprofessional, elitiest and "some would refer to him as a tool" was in regard to the LEO? Go back and READ my post, but this time more carefully.

    I ask a question and this is what I get. This guy acts like this (above) and likely gets a pass. Well, at least my being held to a higher standard is something that I can look back on and smile about.
    Heck yeah I get a pass! I was just internet bullying you sir chillax!

  4. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Use Firefox and the adblock plus plugin and 90% of those ads go away. You would be amazed at how clear this forum and facebook become!
    NavyLCDR, I have been programming, networking and building computers since 1978. I can honestly say, without reserve, that the best thing anyone that surfs the Internet can do for themself to improve their security, speed and viewability is never use MSIE (MicroSoft Internet Explorer) EVER AGAIN! I personally use Mozilla Firefox and don't put up with 95% of the garbage that those not in the know have to tolerate. But you can also use Chrome, Opera or any other browser not made by Micro$oft. Most viruses are written for MSIE and simply fail when they hit a different browser! You can save yourself from 90%+ of the viruses out there just by using a different browser.

    Listen to the geeks when it comes to computers - we look funny but we know what we are talking about! :-O
    Edmund Burke: “The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.” – 1784 speech. Taken from Founding Fathers Notes. "The unarmed man is not just defenseless -- he is also contemptible." Machiavelli

  5. #54
    Navy you are either well versed in the law by education or have a great reference website for puling up legal cases.

    Which is it?

    I don't think my understanding of my 4th amendment rights are what they should be.

  6. #55

    Thumbs up Americans, Rights, and Dancing with the Stars

    Whitetiger, thanks again for posting your real-world experiences. Again, you gave me something to think about that I had never before pulled out of my mind as a possible scenario! One more thing I'll be better prepared for now that it's happened to you.

    I'm not going to armchair quarterback this as I haven't really had enough time to think about it completely. I know that the officer was at a minimum unprofessional and probably more along the lines of illegal or unconstitutional. However, I can fully agree with Whitetiger in that a woman laughing about a situation in which we are the victim makes things geometrically worse and causes men to do things they normally wouldn't if they were in their right mind.

    The more disturbing part of this thread is the underlying pervasive attitude that, if something might cost you time, money or inconvenience, you should not defend your rights. Of course this thread only echoes the attitude of the country as a whole that government is the power and we should just submit. Whatever politicians, LEOs, tax assessors, FBI, BATFE, treasurers, or anyone with a title and a badge says, just submit. "I'm only one person, what can I do?" is the anthem of those that want their paycheck on Friday, football on Sunday and "Dancing with the Stars" to never disappear off the air.

    The government has already figured out how to take away our rights. It's not a war...it's not even a fight. They simply lull us into a sense of security, thinking that no matter what we want, the government will provide, as long as we don't rock the boat. So we say nothing as taxes are raised, we do nothing as new laws are passed to take away our rights, and then the government knows there will be no problem to modify that problematic Constitution and Bill of Rights just to "Bring it current" and "clarify a few misunderstandings."

    Liberty dies not with a bang, but a whimper.

    Yeah, Whitetiger classifies himself as having a big mouth, but maybe the LEO trying to impress his little girlfriend will think twice before picking on someone just to show his bullying skills. Whitetiger just as easily could've wound up in the back of a squad car while a drug sniffing dog tore up his upholstery. But that is really for each person to decide what HIS or HER individual rights are worth and what he or she is willing to do to defend them. If it's a right, it deserves to be defended, regardless of the power (or abuse thereof) behind the offense. Whitetiger was conflicted probably more from not being 100% sure of the law behind what was going on rather than the acts themselves. Not being sure of what to say or how you can defend yourself often leads to impotence in situations like this. People like NavyLCDR have the confidence AND the knowledge to pull off confrontations that he recommends, but they scare the living Hell out of most people because they lack one or both. Neither of these is right or wrong, just realize that both problems can be fixed. Knowledge is calls to your attorney and some reading; confidence may be getting a friend to rent a uniform and pull you over! But like every other skill you can learn to defend your rights and learn again that bullies do NOT own the playground or tell you that you can't play in the sandbox. Just as in 2nd grade, though, the bully must be faced down. It may be a quip at him in a convenience store, or a well-worded letter to his administrator, or possibly an investigation by the State Attorney General or the FBI if the whole department is a bunch of bullies, but you need to be ready to face the bully and know how to do it.

    Only 3% of the population actually raised arms against the British in the war of Independence at first. Another 10% or so bought weapons and ammo, provided shelter and information and generally support functions. Most people wanted to reconcile with the British because...they didn't think a war with the largest and best-trained army and navy in the World could be won. The point is you don't have to punch back to defend your rights, you don't even have to hurt him indirectly - most people won't. But know that a lot of people died believing in and getting those rights for us, and it deserves at least a letter, a call, an e-mail to say that someone has done wrong, and I, as an AMERICAN, am not going to let it go idly by. I will defend my right.
    Last edited by TekGreg; 12-02-2011 at 08:31 PM. Reason: Changed incorrect name of OP throughout posting
    Edmund Burke: “The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.” – 1784 speech. Taken from Founding Fathers Notes. "The unarmed man is not just defenseless -- he is also contemptible." Machiavelli

  7. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Off of I-80 between Des Moines and Cheyenne
    Posts
    1,207
    Blog Entries
    1
    TekGreg, the OP was Whitetiger.
    1)"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty." -Thomas Jefferson.
    2)"Imagine how gun control might be stomped if GOA or SAF had the (compromising) NRA's 4 million members!" -Me. http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/nraletter.htm

  8. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by BC1:247518
    Quote Originally Posted by Drunkbeater View Post
    If this all went down exactly as told, then this was clearly an unlawful search and this cop should be sued personally.
    What the LEO did was very wrong. However there is no lawsuit in it. To sue one must be able to prove a tort occurred (which it did), there were damages (there are none) and a close causal connection exists between the two. Embarrassment is not mental anguish and most suits alleging such must show physiological harm or illness resulted. A tort without measurable damage is not enough. For example, if a drunk slams into your car but doesn't damage it you have no suit. Yes he committed a tort but did not cause damage. Same with the incident described in the OP.

    Like any profession there are going to be good and bad people in it. But it is very difficult to successfully pursue a accusation of an unlawful search in this situation. There are no real witnesses and the LEO can say anything when asked why he searched a suspect. A judge will likely support the LEO position.

    However the OP had a great comeback line. :-)
    What do you mean by "there were no damages?" If his rights were violated, which they were (he was illegally searched), that is a "damage." Any judge would agree.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by Drunkbeater View Post
    What do you mean by "there were no damages?" If his rights were violated, which they were (he was illegally searched), that is a "damage." Any judge would agree.
    I believe St. John v. Alamogordo disproves BC1's theory.

    I know a lot of people think my post #25 was overboard. But let me explain a bit. I have no problem with the way Whitetiger handled his first LEO encounter. I didn't handle my first one as gracefully as I would have liked. Here's my problem. First, justifications for the officer's actions. There wasn't any. There might be one technicality that might make his actions legal...that would hinge upon whether a court ruled that Whitetiger (and any reasonable person) was and/or felt as if he was detained, or whether the encounter was voluntary. That's why it is vitally important to ask first thing, right up front, "Am I free to go, officer?" That immediately establishes the detained or not question, which is the first one to come up in court. Not having that knowledge, however, nobody can fault Whitetiger for not doing that. But there just seems to be this overhanging idea that if an officer sees, or think he sees a person with a gun, or a MWAG call, the gun provides justification to check the person carrying it out, even among the "pro-gun" crowd. We all need to stop that thinking.

    Second, and this is the basis for my post #25:
    Quote Originally Posted by whitetiger View Post
    Now I have to drive a other route now. sometime my mouth over rides my brain. He will remember me. next time it's not going to be pretty. well merry chrismas.
    And those that post they agree with that. Altering your route because of an officer's ILLEGAL actions?!? Living in fear of what an officer might ILLEGALLY do and adjusting your life around that fear? In that light...is my post #25 really that far off? If the bully stands at the front door, so you run out the back door two things happen, the bully wins, and the bully becomes more confident and stronger.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  10. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Drunkbeater View Post
    What do you mean by "there were no damages?" If his rights were violated, which they were (he was illegally searched), that is a "damage." Any judge would agree.
    Absolutely no damages. Any judge would agree. The case would not withstand a motion to dismiss. The court may even see the attempted suit as frivilous and assign all costs to the plaintiff. Being afraid or taking a different route home is not a damage.

    The violation of his rights is the tort (wrong) committed against him, not a damage. What did he suffer as a result? Humiliation? Fear of a police officer? These aren't provable damages. The courts have determined that one must show much more than embarrassment or humiliation to claim mental anguish and that in some states that mental anguish must be accompanied by a manifestation of some physical illness. Any damage awarded or any settlement for mental anguish is also taxable income under the Internal Revenue Code unless there was a physical injury. Now if he had a breakdown, required hospitalization, treatment or medication he suffered a consequential damage. If he can prove the officers intent was to cause harm through malfeasance or repeated acts of misfeasance (which takes on the element of intent) he may entitled to punitive damages. Had the LEO been arrested for some act he could file a motion for summary judgement using the LEO conviction to prove the tort occurred but still must show a measurable damage to meet the requirement to file a civil action in most states.

    My reply is based on the NYS CPLR (Civil Practice Law and Rules) and the book "Prosser and Keaton on Torts" which explains the historic interpretation of tort law in relation to damages.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  11. Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    Absolutely no damages. Any judge would agree. The case would not withstand a motion to dismiss. The court may even see the attempted suit as frivilous and assign all costs to the plaintiff. Being afraid or taking a different route home is not a damage.

    The violation of his rights is the tort (wrong) committed against him, not a damage. What did he suffer as a result? Humiliation? Fear of a police officer? These aren't provable damages. The courts have determined that one must show much more than embarrassment or humiliation to claim mental anguish and that in some states that mental anguish must be accompanied by a manifestation of some physical illness. Any damage awarded or any settlement for mental anguish is also taxable income under the Internal Revenue Code unless there was a physical injury. Now if he had a breakdown, required hospitalization, treatment or medication he suffered a consequential damage. If he can prove the officers intent was to cause harm through malfeasance or repeated acts of misfeasance (which takes on the element of intent) he may entitled to punitive damages. Had the LEO been arrested for some act he could file a motion for summary judgement using the LEO conviction to prove the tort occurred but still must show a measurable damage to meet the requirement to file a civil action in most states.

    My reply is based on the NYS CPLR (Civil Practice Law and Rules) and the book "Prosser and Keaton on Torts" which explains the historic interpretation of tort law in relation to damages.
    BC1,

    Why do you keep posting this B.S.? You are wrong. ST. John v. Alamogordo in Federal District Court proves your post is B.S.

    My reply is based on the NYS CPLR (Civil Practice Law and Rules)
    At a minimum, your reply only applies to New York State court cases. What we are talking about here is a 4th Amendment rights violation 14 USC 1983 case filed in Federal court.

    The police officer committed a criminal act. Just because you can't file a case in New York State court does not mean that the officer and city cannot be sued. Other state courts will allow it, and Federal court, as proven by St. John v. Alamogordo will allow it.

    St. John then used his Federal District Court win to obtain a $21,000 settlement from the city.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

Page 6 of 15 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast