TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:How is it appeasement to say you can't judge the RS without knowing the RS?

Why is it OK for you to assume the officer had RS when you don't know the RS but not OK for others to assume the officer did not have RS?

That wasn't my assumption before the verdict though I did think it was foolish to think that bystanders would have a better idea what local judiciary would accept as RS than a cop who had to deal with that judiciary, but that's a different subject. I said IF RS was good... See how that works?

Why do you feel compelled to be snarky with every person who disagrees with you?

EEllis wrote:Heck if it's not the 9th then no federal ruling holds in Texas short of SCOTUS but that doesn't prevent them from looking at the case and it does show the cracks in the "Gun does not equal RS" refrain.

The 9th is in San Francisco. Texas is in the 5th District.

EEllis wrote:I'm not really arguing that the cop did do right here, that's is the problem. What I am arguing is that your arguments suck basically.

I rest my case. You argue your beliefs, then you say the other person's argument sucks, therefore you are right. When someone resorts to ad hominem, as you do, it's because they don't really have a good argument. The fact that you think your arguments are so sterling doesn't make them so. Other people see that. Why can't you?

EEllis wrote:You and many others misrepresent facts, procedures, heck reality, to try and prove something.

No, we misrepresent what you perceive to be the facts, procedures and reality. We provide an alternate point of view. And you reject it out of hand, because only one point of view can be right - yours. Life isn't like that. No matter what you believe, no matter how strong you think your argument is, there will always be someone who sees things differently and disagrees with you. The greatest learning in life comes when you learn to listen to those alternate points of view and learn from them rather than calling people stupid and saying their arguments suck.

This isn't an I win you lose forum. This is a discussion forum. Just because you think your arguments are far superior to everyone else's doesn't mean they are. It simply means you think they are.

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:

C-dub wrote: Possibly. I've laid out the fallacy of that officer's and the DA's case that many others here also see. Maybe I'm the ignorant one. However, I think it was just a case where they didn't want to be shown up by that man.

Where? Did I miss it?

Yes, of course.

mojo84 wrote:This is the kind of abuse most of us want to avoid and prevent by not just rolling over and accepting police abuse of power and authority. And some of you wonder why people are becoming less and less trustful and tolerant of police officers, this is why. There was a time when I would have bet everything I owned that this kind of stuff wouldn't happen in this country. Now talk to me about my "tinfoil hat".


"In Miami Gardens, store video catches cops in the act
Earl Sampson has been stopped and questioned by Miami Gardens police 258 times in four years.

He’s been searched more than 100 times. And arrested and jailed 56 times.

Despite his long rap sheet, Sampson, 28, has never been convicted of anything more serious than possession of marijuana.

Miami Gardens police have arrested Sampson 62 times for one offense: trespassing."

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/11/21/3 ... tches.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;