10 Rules for Dealing with Police - Page 2 - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 Old 03-29-2010, 01:17 PM
Veggie Regular
 
julz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellye View Post

Here's the way I see it: if they can't tell me in very specific terms what they're investigating, I can't help them. If they can't be honest with me, I have no motivation to be honest with them. Any conversation I have with a cop (through a closed door) that leads to, "We are not at liberty to disclose that information," is going to earn a, "Well, good luck with your interrogations!" and an end to the discussion from me.



That makes sense. Do you know if once you open your door, would that be the same as inviting them in? Basically, if you open your door and then decide the interview is over, can you just close it as long as you have not invited them in?
julz is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#32 Old 03-29-2010, 01:31 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Kellye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by julz View Post

That makes sense. Do you know if once you open your door, would that be the same as inviting them in? Basically, if you open your door and then decide the interview is over, can you just close it as long as you have not invited them in?



I can't say this is true with absolute certainty, but my housemate was doing civil liberties research into this subject the other day and he told me that you shouldn't open the door at all, as it can be interpreted the same as an invitation to come in. I will look around and see if I can get some confirmation on that, but I take his word for it and will not ever open the door to a policeman unless I have a really good reason to.



Usually, if you tell a cop to come back with a warrant, they'll tell you that it's no big deal for them to get one. That's a flat bluff. Warrants can only be issued upon a showing of probable cause, supported by an affidavit - it's not that easy to get one. The facts contained in the affidavit must be facts - they can't be based on suspicion or assumption of criminal behavior. This is what protects people from unreasonable searches of their private property.



Unfortunately, lots of people consent to a search because they are intimidated and feel that they have to submit to authority - they don't. You pay cops, therefore you are the authority.
Kellye is offline  
#33 Old 03-29-2010, 01:43 PM
Red
Veggie Regular
 
Red's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellye View Post

You pay cops, therefore you are the authority.



Back in my youth, I actually told a cop that. So he politely pointed out that I looked a little young to be paying property taxes. I think he'd heard that one more than once.
Red is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#34 Old 03-29-2010, 01:53 PM
Veggie Regular
 
DaftLikeAFox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 563
I don't think that works in the same way. Besides fleeing or not having money, you don't really have a choice but to pay.
DaftLikeAFox is offline  
#35 Old 03-29-2010, 01:56 PM
Veggie Regular
 
julz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,567
The first video, the one that Otomilk put up, raised a good point that I had not even thought of.



When my husband purchased his truck (used), we gave it a thorough cleaning. In the process, we found a very suspicious looking pipe. If he had been pulled over and consented to a search, he may have been arrested and it would have been difficult to prove his innocence. Prior to watching either one of those videos, I would have never thought twice about answering questions or consenting to a search. Since all of the police interactions that I have had since I changed my attitude have been very favorable, I would still be reluctant to be evasive or uncooperative, but this has been a very good discussion in that , by viewing the videos, I have been given food for thought and will look at these situations with more caution.
julz is offline  
#36 Old 03-29-2010, 01:59 PM
Veggie Regular
 
julz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red View Post

Back in my youth, I actually told a cop that. So he politely pointed out that I looked a little young to be paying property taxes. I think he'd heard that one more than once.



I frequently get youngsters trying to tell me how life is.
julz is offline  
#37 Old 03-29-2010, 02:07 PM
Veggie Regular
 
LiveVegan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 471
The ALF (who I do not work with) has a book about what to do with the police. I get the don't say a word thing other then name and things like that. But, I know very little about lawyers. Can someone tell me, can you trust a lawyer? I mean, can you tell them the absolute truth? What is their obligations to you should you be guilty and tell them you are guilty? I always wondered that.
LiveVegan is offline  
#38 Old 03-29-2010, 06:23 PM
mlp
Banned
 
mlp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,995
LiveVegan, here's a good summary of lawyer/cofidentiality rules: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...ters-9706.html



You should note, though, that your lawyer cannot be a party to you perjuring yourself. Therefore, if you tell your lawyer that you are guilty, he will not want you to take the witness stand in your own defense since he cannot be a party to you lying under oath.







I hope that none of you who will not answer police questions ever complain about failure to solve crimes/arrest criminals, violent or otherwise. I guess you don't actually see a role for police, other than if a crime happens to be committed within their sight. Basically, we can just get rid of the police entirely, other than traffic cops.
mlp is offline  
#39 Old 03-29-2010, 07:32 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlp View Post

I guess you don't actually see a role for police, other than if a crime happens to be committed within their sight. Basically, we can just get rid of the police entirely, other than traffic cops.

Well personally, I am for using a ****load of taxpayer money to design an android model that looks, speaks and thinks like Columbo, then mass producing it and replacing the current police force with an army of these robo-Columbos. It would not only be a cost-effective way of fighting crime but would help the struggling trenchcoat industry.

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#40 Old 03-29-2010, 07:55 PM
mlp
Banned
 
mlp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,995
That's a good idea, because Columbo didn't even need to ask questions in order to figure out whodunit - his questions were just intended to rattle the suspects - so that'll work out well, with no one answering questions. The questions alone will cause the guilty parties to do something to incriminate themselves, and voilÃ*!
mlp is offline  
#41 Old 03-29-2010, 08:06 PM
Veggie Regular
 
unovegan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlp View Post




I hope that none of you who will not answer police questions ever complain about failure to solve crimes/arrest criminals, violent or otherwise. I guess you don't actually see a role for police, other than if a crime happens to be committed within their sight. Basically, we can just get rid of the police entirely, other than traffic cops.



Just like those Michigan militiamen who wanted to off all those pigs!!

The Big Bad.
unovegan is offline  
#42 Old 03-29-2010, 08:20 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,641
There was some good information presented in the first part of the video. I learned some important things that I will keep in mind if ever confronted. However, I was quite disappointed how judge Wilson turned it racial saying that white people get away with possessing drugs and they are the majority users of drugs (75% of all drugs and drug users are by white people according to him). Where the heck did that little fact come from? Is that his estimate or can he back that up with any facts at all? The information in the film is great and is intended to give all people equal rights. Why let one person turn it racial and point fingers? Seems inappropriate for this type of film. I think it should have just stuck to the facts.



That being said, when I was a teenager/early 20s, I got pulled over many times for no reason at all (I'm a white guy). But I have not been pulled over without reason in a long time. I think that police do target young people because they are more inclined to make mistakes and usually don't know their rights. I had always let them search my car and was always polite, so that's why I never had a problem (plus the fact that I have never been near any drugs ever in my life probably helped a lot).



Overall, this is worth watching. It couldn't hurt and it may just help.
sleepydvdr is offline  
#43 Old 03-29-2010, 09:25 PM
Veggie Regular
 
JLRodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlp View Post


I hope that none of you who will not answer police questions ever complain about failure to solve crimes/arrest criminals, violent or otherwise. I guess you don't actually see a role for police, other than if a crime happens to be committed within their sight. Basically, we can just get rid of the police entirely, other than traffic cops.



If everyone wasn't guilty of something, and everything an "innocent" person says could be used against them--maybe more people would be willing to talk to the police. Especially since a few things like this:



I once with a friend turned in a purse that we found on the highway (like a woman had it on the top of her car, and it flew off). We were interrogated, asked for ID, and a number of other things. My only comment once we got out was "I sure hope the women doesn't ask where tons of money was that she never had".



I've reported crimes (such as pedophiles--unless grown men with cameras going into the women's bathroom when only young kids are around is "good clean fun"--likewise for high school students doing the same for 5-8 year olds. Police response? They can't do anything unless they see it happen. Then once I made the comment of "so you can't stop a potential abduction at a public place" they decided to send an officer.... 45 minutes later. The police location was only 8 blocks away--actually in eyesight of the park.



Other times I called the police they said the same thing--if they do not see it happen, they cannot do anything about it. Murder they can do things about, as they can see blood or death (and I once had to call the police as there was blood all over the post office) despite not seeing it happen. Robbery, same type of thing (missing items, damage).
JLRodgers is offline  
#44 Old 03-29-2010, 09:40 PM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLRodgers View Post

I've reported crimes (such as pedophiles--unless grown men with cameras going into the women's bathroom when only young kids are around is "good clean fun"--likewise for high school students doing the same for 5-8 year olds. Police response? They can't do anything unless they see it happen. Then once I made the comment of "so you can't stop a potential abduction at a public place" they decided to send an officer.... 45 minutes later. The police location was only 8 blocks away--actually in eyesight of the park.



even if the cop station was near by its not like theyre gonna be staring out the window waiting to stop crime as it happens, theyve got duties to do that keep them occupied.



Quote:
Other times I called the police they said the same thing--if they do not see it happen, they cannot do anything about it. Murder they can do things about, as they can see blood or death (and I once had to call the police as there was blood all over the post office) despite not seeing it happen. Robbery, same type of thing (missing items, damage).



what ?? do you expect them to just automatically arrest & charge people based on hearsay or something. there has to be something tangible to go by.
GhostUser is offline  
#45 Old 03-29-2010, 10:49 PM
Veggie Regular
 
JLRodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by rapt View Post

even if the cop station was near by its not like theyre gonna be staring out the window waiting to stop crime as it happens, theyve got duties to do that keep them occupied.







what ?? do you expect them to just automatically arrest & charge people based on hearsay or something. there has to be something tangible to go by.



My first point was, when there are known pedophiles by the park, and they are that close to the park (and even had two police cars just driving around the outside of the park) -- a 45 minute wait is quite unacceptable. All they had to do was say over the radio "car X please turn into the park" and they could have drove through with maybe 20 second wait (if that -- and they did not have lights on or anything, just cruising around). Police even fill up gas across the street from the park (one was even doing so). All they had to do was swing through once and call it a day, but they waited 45 minutes to even send a car into the park to do that. By then, the people had left.



The second part is quite simple, and you misunderstood the point: I called when a crime was going on, and when there was evidence of a potential crime. They said since they did not see it, they could do nothing. Doing nothing included not sending a car to investigate. Meaning, unless the police just happened to be driving by, and by chance they just happened to spot something criminal going on, they would do nothing. If you called the police they said "sorry we didn't see it so we can't send a car" even if the crime was currently going on.





Picture it like this: someone's breaking into your house. You call the police. Instead of sending a car they say "sorry, we did not see anyone break into your house so we cannot do anything. But call us once they leave and there's proof". That's what the police did here in my examples. They would not even send a car by or anything to check things out. I did not say they should arrest anyone -- I am saying if you report something going on, they should at least check it out, especially considering they had one vehicle 2 feet from the property at the time, and another within 75 feet.



Call me weird, but I would assume that police duties involve checking out reported crime -- especially when they are nearby, and the crime reported is common in the area (pedophiles are frequently arrested at the park)-- and when they are close to the point, and have vehicles across the street.
JLRodgers is offline  
#46 Old 03-30-2010, 01:17 AM
Veggie Regular
 
das_nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,130
For those of you who are saying you are innocent and thus you have no fear talking to the police, please consider this:



It doesn't matter if you think you're innocent or not. It matters if the police officer in question thinks that you are innocent or not.
das_nut is offline  
#47 Old 03-30-2010, 03:09 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Savannah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlp View Post

LiveVegan, here's a good summary of lawyer/cofidentiality rules: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...ters-9706.html



You should note, though, that your lawyer cannot be a party to you perjuring yourself. Therefore, if you tell your lawyer that you are guilty, he will not want you to take the witness stand in your own defense since he cannot be a party to you lying under oath.







I hope that none of you who will not answer police questions ever complain about failure to solve crimes/arrest criminals, violent or otherwise. I guess you don't actually see a role for police, other than if a crime happens to be committed within their sight. Basically, we can just get rid of the police entirely, other than traffic cops.



My advice not to talk was limited to the arrest situation. If arrested one should never answer police questions. Instead people should demand counsel and contact with their family or whoever they're close to.



I see no problem talking to the police if you are certain that you are not the target of their investigation.
Savannah is offline  
#48 Old 03-30-2010, 03:30 AM
Veggie Regular
 
draconian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savannah View Post

My advice not to talk was limited to the arrest situation. If arrested one should never answer police questions. Instead people should demand counsel and contact with their family or whoever they're close to.



I see no problem talking to the police if you are certain that you are not the target of their investigation.



They can and WILL lie to you! They're looking for any hint of information that can allow them to make an arrest. If you didn't call them, never talk to them. Clamming up once you're under arrest is not a good strategy. if you spoke to them already then they've gathered enough information to arrest you the damage is already done.



I point at das_nut's post directly above. The only thing that matters is do THEY think you've done something!



For everyone who watched the video, when they arrested the old lady for weed do you think she was guilty? Were the police looking out for her best interests? Were they getting dangerous criminals off the streets? Were they preventing crime? No, no, no and NO!

--
The Twilight Is My Robe
draconian is offline  
#49 Old 03-30-2010, 04:37 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Savannah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by draconian View Post

They can and WILL lie to you! They're looking for any hint of information that can allow them to make an arrest. If you didn't call them, never talk to them. Clamming up once you're under arrest is not a good strategy. if you spoke to them already then they've gathered enough information to arrest you the damage is already done.



I point at das_nut's post directly above. The only thing that matters is do THEY think you've done something!



For everyone who watched the video, when they arrested the old lady for weed do you think she was guilty? Were the police looking out for her best interests? Were they getting dangerous criminals off the streets? Were they preventing crime? No, no, no and NO!



If you are being questioned and you are a suspect, obviously clam up. I think that many of us can discern between the police investigating and looking for information when they think someone else did it and when the officer believes that you may have been the perpetrator. But, you are right, they will attempt a ruse to get info from you pretending to be looking for someone else, so my advice might not be good in all situations, so your strategy might be better than what I recommended. I will have to think on it a bit more.
Savannah is offline  
#50 Old 03-30-2010, 04:38 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Marie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by draconian View Post

If you didn't call them, never talk to them.





What if a really cute one asks you on a date?
Marie is offline  
#51 Old 03-30-2010, 04:43 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Savannah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marie View Post

What if a really cute one asks you on a date?



yeah, what she said!
Savannah is offline  
#52 Old 03-30-2010, 06:37 AM
Veggie Regular
 
julz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,567
I agree with Savannah and MLP on this one.



In that earlier example that I gave, I immediately adopted a mistrustful attitude. The police were checking into a report of a car that was suspected in a car-jacking was parked in front of my house. When I displayed a hostile attitude, the police officers responded in kind. All it ended up being was a car of similar color parked there. After a few minutes of questioning, and me answering, the police left never to return.



I have had several encounters with police. Never did they try to railroad me. It could happen, though. That is why I now will approach it with a healthy dose of caution.
julz is offline  
#53 Old 03-30-2010, 07:44 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Kellye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,814
Quote:
I hope that none of you who will not answer police questions ever complain about failure to solve crimes/arrest criminals, violent or otherwise. I guess you don't actually see a role for police, other than if a crime happens to be committed within their sight. Basically, we can just get rid of the police entirely, other than traffic cops.



I didn't say I wouldn't answer police questions; I said that I wouldn't answer police questions if they would not answer my question about what they were questioning me about:



Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellye View Post

Here's the way I see it: if they can't tell me in very specific terms what they're investigating, I can't help them. If they can't be honest with me, I have no motivation to be honest with them.



I'm not in the habit of giving out information to people I don't know - I don't care if they're wearing a uniform or not. Also, I believe you should use all of your rights as a citizen on principle when the opportunity presents itself. If only the guilty use their rights, it'll only be easier to sweep them away.



Quote:
However, I was quite disappointed how judge Wilson turned it racial saying that white people get away with possessing drugs and they are the majority users of drugs (75% of all drugs and drug users are by white people according to him). Where the heck did that little fact come from?



I don't know if that estimate is correct, but I do agree with Wilson that minorities get lambasted by the system (particularly with drug charges) in comparison to white people. For example, a white kid might get probation for a drug charge, but a black kid will probably get two years in prison. Statistically, 1 in 3 black men will go to jail at some point during their lives, and it's not because black people commit more crimes. They just get away with them less often.



Quote:
I think that police do target young people because they are more inclined to make mistakes and usually don't know their rights.



I agree with this - I also think younger people are stereotypically expected to be more rebellious and liable to engage in illegal activities.



Quote:
even if the cop station was near by its not like theyre gonna be staring out the window waiting to stop crime as it happens, theyve got duties to do that keep them occupied.



Yeah, like staff meetings and other issues of bureaucratic import.



Kellye is offline  
#54 Old 03-30-2010, 08:43 AM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
^^^ nice tough girl act towards cops for the internet which im not buying & neither would the cops if they approached you for any inquiries. you would fail their attitude test immediately.



Quote:
Originally Posted by draconian View Post

They can and WILL lie to you! They're looking for any hint of information that can allow them to make an arrest. If you didn't call them, never talk to them.



thats not the best advice imo. you wouldnt pass the attitude test either like that & their suspicions will be aroused. people need to just mellow out & cooperate & it will get them a long way. but, if you have been arrested by them, then yes, clearly you stay schtum until your lawyer arrives. just make sure its a good one.





Quote:
Originally Posted by JLRodgers View Post

My first point was, when there are known pedophiles by the park, and they are that close to the park (and even had two police cars just driving around the outside of the park) -- a 45 minute wait is quite unacceptable. All they had to do was say over the radio "car X please turn into the park" and they could have drove through with maybe 20 second wait (if that -- and they did not have lights on or anything, just cruising around). Police even fill up gas across the street from the park (one was even doing so). All they had to do was swing through once and call it a day, but they waited 45 minutes to even send a car into the park to do that. By then, the people had left.



The second part is quite simple, and you misunderstood the point: I called when a crime was going on, and when there was evidence of a potential crime. They said since they did not see it, they could do nothing. Doing nothing included not sending a car to investigate. Meaning, unless the police just happened to be driving by, and by chance they just happened to spot something criminal going on, they would do nothing. If you called the police they said "sorry we didn't see it so we can't send a car" even if the crime was currently going on.





Picture it like this: someone's breaking into your house. You call the police. Instead of sending a car they say "sorry, we did not see anyone break into your house so we cannot do anything. But call us once they leave and there's proof". That's what the police did here in my examples. They would not even send a car by or anything to check things out. I did not say they should arrest anyone -- I am saying if you report something going on, they should at least check it out, especially considering they had one vehicle 2 feet from the property at the time, and another within 75 feet.



Call me weird, but I would assume that police duties involve checking out reported crime -- especially when they are nearby, and the crime reported is common in the area (pedophiles are frequently arrested at the park)-- and when they are close to the point, and have vehicles across the street.



in your part of the world, cops are often way to busy to be responding to calls about about some guy in a toilet block whos gonna be outta there before it even gets on their radio. they have to prioritise unfortunately, so some calls of a less concrete nature are gonna go unattended.

ive never had the cops not turn up when ive called them for anything & it always seems a little suss to me or like theres more to the story when some people like yourself complain of numerous incidences of them not attending.
GhostUser is offline  
#55 Old 03-30-2010, 09:16 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Kellye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,814
Quote:
^^^ nice tough girl act towards cops for the internet which im not buying & neither would the cops if they approached you for any inquiries. you would fail their attitude test immediately.







^ Not afraid to stand up to the police, either physically or verbally. And I couldn't care less about failing any cop's "attitude test" if subservience is the attitude they're looking for. It's one thing to be polite with the police (which I unfailingly have been any time I've had to deal with them) it's another to roll over like a chicken**** because you're too intimidated to stand up for yourself or your civic rights, which the overwhelming majority of people are.
Kellye is offline  
#56 Old 03-30-2010, 09:47 AM
Red
Veggie Regular
 
Red's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlp View Post

I hope that none of you who will not answer police questions ever complain about failure to solve crimes/arrest criminals, violent or otherwise. I guess you don't actually see a role for police, other than if a crime happens to be committed within their sight. Basically, we can just get rid of the police entirely, other than traffic cops.



This is why we need arms-bearing reform. If we started now, by 2014 we could require everyone to carry a firearm. Children up to the age of 26 could still use their parent's firearms. We would pay for it in part by taxing those with 'Golden' personal protection plans (i.e. bodyguards).



The money saved in a reduction in police services alone would be a boost to our economy, and we could largely eliminate those that have to rely on emergency services because they don't have an alternative.



Yes we can.
Red is offline  
#57 Old 03-30-2010, 09:51 AM
Veggie Regular
 
julz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red View Post

This is why we need arms-bearing reform. If we started now, by 2014 we could require everyone to carry a firearm. Children up to the age of 26 could still use their parent's firearms. We would pay for it in part by taxing those with 'Golden' personal protection plans (i.e. bodyguards).



The money saved in a reduction in police services alone would be a boost to our economy, and we could largely eliminate those that have to rely on emergency services because they don't have an alternative.



Yes we can.



julz is offline  
#58 Old 03-30-2010, 10:00 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Kellye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red View Post

This is why we need arms-bearing reform. If we started now, by 2014 we could require everyone to carry a firearm. Children up to the age of 26 could still use their parent's firearms. We would pay for it in part by taxing those with 'Golden' personal protection plans (i.e. bodyguards).



The money saved in a reduction in police services alone would be a boost to our economy, and we could largely eliminate those that have to rely on emergency services because they don't have an alternative.



Yes we can.



Personally, I think we could take a valuable lesson from the Swiss model of arms-bearing.
Kellye is offline  
#59 Old 03-30-2010, 10:29 AM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellye View Post





^ Not afraid to stand up to the police, either physically or verbally. And I couldn't care less about failing any cop's "attitude test" if subservience is the attitude they're looking for. It's one thing to be polite with the police (which I unfailingly have been any time I've had to deal with them) it's another to roll over like a chicken**** because you're too intimidated to stand up for yourself or your civic rights, which the overwhelming majority of people are.



the fact that you choose to see cooperating with the police & being polite with them when theyre making their inquiries in order to save your own arse from going to jail as "rolling over like a chicken ****", indicates to me that you are confrontational by nature purely for the sake of it which will always land you in trouble. and that stuff about standing up to the cops physically & verbally, what do you actually mean by that cuz anyone ive known or seen whos tried that approach doesnt come out on top. the cops will always be in charge not you, so go bull**** someone else with the sad riot guuuurl act
GhostUser is offline  
#60 Old 03-30-2010, 10:34 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Kellye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by rapt View Post

the fact that you choose to see cooperating with the police & being polite with them when theyre making their inquiries in order to save your own arse from going to jail as "rolling over like a chicken ****", indicates to me that you are confrontational by nature purely for the sake of it which will always land you in trouble. and that stuff about standing up to the cops physically & verbally, what do you actually mean by that cuz anyone ive known or seen whos tried that approach doesnt come out on top. the cops will always be in charge not you, so go bull**** someone else with the sad riot guuuurl act



Next time you get tear-gassed and chased by LRAD tanks and spend four days marching against 10,000 riot police and the National Guard, feel free to lecture me about attitude. 'Til then, all I hear is BAWK BAWK BAWK.
Kellye is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off