TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:I wouldn't want to argue with someone who knows so much more about the legal system than I do but I will anyway

Fixed it for ya.

Do you have to? Is this about the actual subject of the thread or a passive aggressive insult?

Again

I found it interesting that when the foremost expert on this forum on all matters legal expressed his opinion you felt it necessary to once again disagree and demand that your "facts" be agreed to. So I merely pointed that out by highlighting your "but". I don't understand why you can't simply say thank you, Charles, for providing your expert professional opinion and leave it at that.

and I could tell you the reason but it would violate forum rules.

Seriously though I could see the " in a manner calculated to cause alarm if the weapon was being carried at combat ready, high or low ready but it was none of these, it was capricious and arbitrary on the part of officers and he was arrested simply for contempt of cop. The DA chased all he could find just to support the officers instead of doing the right thing and telling the officers they were in a dark stinky place.

EEllis wrote:

JP171 wrote: that's always been the case unless there is video evidence to the contrary(that's not even iron clad), but if I were you I wouldn't argue or even discuss anything about police doing something that is wrong with the apologist above you, you won't change his mind nor do even convictions of police having been guilty of criminal acts make him see more than the side of the cop is ALWAYS right even if he was wrong

The problem is that isn't what is being discussed, at least not by me. I have clearly stated that if the initial approach was bad then Grisham shouldn't be found guilty. The issue some seem to have is I demand people make a case based on facts and logic. Then of course when they can't name calling ensues. What are we children? Then why act like it?

you say one thing but do another, you are a police apologist no matter what you profess, you have been shown to be wrong time after time and still say the same things, for me I like to see what kind of crazy things your going to say next in support of the police state. the problem as you said isn't in what is being discussed but rather in attitudes and your refusal to accept reality and not planet bob where you reside. You refuse consistently to ever begin to agree that a LEO of any type is wrong in what they do, how they do it and how it is executed in reference to the public. I am not attacking you, you may be a great person and very nice in person, but nothing can change your belief that no matter what happens that the police are right all the time and we as subjects do not have the right to question them or what they do even if the officer committed premeditated murder of the baby just to get the candy

C-dub wrote:If that's the case, then it sounds as if an officer can tell a believable story, true or false, they can say whatever they want and get away with just about anything.

that's always been the case unless there is video evidence to the contrary(that's not even iron clad), but if I were you I wouldn't argue or even discuss anything about police doing something that is wrong with the apologist above you, you won't change his mind nor do even convictions of police having been guilty of criminal acts make him see more than the side of the cop is ALWAYS right even if he was wrong