Cop driving 126mph and texting kills 2 girls, gets probation, files for compensation.

[resistanze]

Find the post where I said the cop was not responsible and you WON'T look like a in' idiot for speakin out yer ass.

Many times I said he pled guilty of reckless homicide --meaning he was guilty.

How does that equate to me saying that he was not responsible?

Dumbfux like you make it way too easy. Loser.

lol @ this dip .

silverblk mystix: It CLEARLY wasn't manslaughter! He was doing his job!

Blake: He pleaded guilty to reckless homicide (which is Illinois is involuntary manslaughter with a vehicle)

silverblk mystix: See! He was punished! What are you complaining about? Great in' car wreck

ing idiot contradicts himself in less 2 pages just to suck that cop's . We need this cop to fly his car into your bedroom.

[Sisk]

But he didn't mean to hurl his 126 mph car into those two girls

He only did because he was texting

Haven't you guys ever driven 126 mph while texting?

I hate to laugh at this, but ing a. Silver - take your blinders off for a second.

[silverblk mystix]

It doesn't really matter what I say- does it?

I said he was in guilty---and you morons twist the words to say that I am claiming he didn't do anything wrong.

I said he pled guilty and was guilty---and you idiots keep repeating that that says that I am somehow defending him.

So just jerk each other off.

[resistanze]

Backtrack all the way out of this thread, sucker.

Think of his legs

He can't walk after driving his car into those girls

The girls should be posthumously charged for assaulting the cop

[silverblk mystix]

Backtrack all the way out of this thread, sucker.

Think of his legs

He can't walk after driving his car into those girls

The girls should be posthumously charged for assaulting the cop

Again,

I don't even know what the you are arguing anymore.

If you took the time to read through this whole thread-you will see that what I said has been consistent from the start.

But if you would rather join the herd and suck each other off in your circle jerk of cop hatred--go right ahead--I could give two s.

The cop did what he did and it was stupid and it was tragic and obviously whatever happened afterwards -good or bad -would never satisfy any of you that just hate cops.

It is a problem you have. Deal with it.

And I am willing to bet you wouldn't be so tough if you didn't have this anonymity to hide behind.

Pussy.

[redzero]

That poor man's legs.

Where is this man's medal of valor?

[Obstructed_View]

That poor man's legs.

Where is this man's medal of valor?

Shut up, cop hater.

[Cry Havoc]

And I am willing to bet you wouldn't be so tough if you didn't have this anonymity to hide behind.

Very next line:

Pussy.

Classic. I see the internet tough guy quarterly is still making it's rounds on the net.

[silverblk mystix]

Very next line:




Classic. I see the internet tough guy quarterly is still making it's rounds on the net.

OK

Now you and your boyfriends run along now.

Maybe you will find another video to reinforce your cop hatred feelings.

[Cry Havoc]

OK

Now you and your boyfriends run along now.

Maybe you will find another video to reinforce your cop hatred feelings.

Steps to being an internet tough guy:

Call other people out for talking , while doing more -talking than anyone.

Ignore calmly worded rational posts from everyone, keep stating the same 3 or 4 phrases to show how "right" he is for "sticking to his guns".

When the majority of posters have provided ample rationale to show that his opinion is illogical, he begins the gay/ phobic insults.

When this fails, begin making threats about how badly he can hurt everyone using his 3 black belts/mma fighting techniques. Dare a poster to show his address and make vague threats as to the consequences of such.

Way to go sbm, for showing us the most typical internet tough guy we could ever hope to find. Just one more step to complete the achievement!

[silverblk mystix]

Steps to being an internet tough guy:

Call other people out for talking , while doing more -talking than anyone.

Ignore calmly worded rational posts from everyone, keep stating the same 3 or 4 phrases to show how "right" he is for "sticking to his guns".

When the majority of posters have provided ample rationale to show that his opinion is illogical, he begins the gay/ phobic insults.

When this fails, begin making threats about how badly he can hurt everyone using his 3 black belts/mma fighting techniques. Dare a poster to show his address and make vague threats as to the consequences of such.

Way to go sbm, for showing us the most typical internet tough guy we could ever hope to find. Just one more step to complete the achievement!

Still no substance to any of your posts-just your irrational hatred of cops.

Maybe, you have been a lawbreaker before-who knows-who cares- but all you have done is jump to conclusions about everything cop related.

By the way---YOU-- are the one that started the cop thread--and you are proud to close it?

OK...Congrats...

The only consistent thing you did was rally your fellow cop haters to hold hands with you and berate anyone who didn't automatically hate cops and cop actions...again congratulations...

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Shut up, cop hater.

cop haters > cop lovers

[Cry Havoc]

Still no substance to any of your posts-just your irrational hatred of cops.

Maybe, you have been a lawbreaker before-who knows-who cares- but all you have done is jump to conclusions about everything cop related.

I have never been in trouble with the law. The worst offense I have ever been charged with is disobeying a traffic control device (it was broken, who cares). But keep reaching, and keep casting those strawmen around!

By the way---YOU-- are the one that started the cop thread--and you are proud to close it?

I didn't start the tazering thread. You said I disappeared, and I was merely pointing out that I have the last post in said thread. Wrong again. Fail again.

OK...Congrats...

Thanks. It's enjoyable to show someone the idiocy of their own statements.

The only consistent thing you did was rally your fellow cop haters to hold hands with you and berate anyone who didn't automatically hate cops and cop actions...again congratulations...

Again, I don't hate cops. In fact, I'll go out of my way to talk to them if I see them standing around looking bored. A lot of our banks in DC have cops positioned outside, and I can only imagine how boring of a job that would be, so I attempt to at least give them a little interaction to keep their day bearable. More strawmen from you, more repeated statements from you, more gay insinuations. Bravo.

You're such a model cop. Someone you think is a cop hater, so instead of trying to prove them wrong, you make gay jokes and alienate yourself from the entire group, because you'd rather convince yourself of your innate ability to be right than to actually listen to other people's opinions and take them into account that you might, in fact, be wrong about something. You definitely mimic the mindset of the worst of cops, at least. Anyone who disagrees with you is instantly a "cop hater".

To summarize: Wrong again. Fail again. Same repeated tripe and strawmen from you, again. Thanks for playing.

[silverblk mystix]

I have never been in trouble with the law. The worst offense I have ever been charged with is disobeying a traffic control device (it was broken, who cares). But keep reaching, and keep casting those strawmen around!



I didn't start the tazering thread. You said I disappeared, and I was merely pointing out that I have the last post in said thread. Wrong again. Fail again.



Thanks. It's enjoyable to show someone the idiocy of their own statements.



Again, I don't hate cops. In fact, I'll go out of my way to talk to them if I see them standing around looking bored. A lot of our banks in DC have cops positioned outside, and I can only imagine how boring of a job that would be, so I attempt to at least give them a little interaction to keep their day bearable. More strawmen from you, more repeated statements from you, more gay insinuations. Bravo.

You're such a model cop. Someone you think is a cop hater, so instead of trying to prove them wrong, you make gay jokes and alienate yourself from the entire group, because you'd rather convince yourself of your innate ability to be right than to actually listen to other people's opinions and take them into account that you might, in fact, be wrong about something. You definitely mimic the mindset of the worst of cops, at least.

To summarize: Wrong again. Fail again. Same repeated tripe and strawmen from you, again. Thanks for playing.

Here is your M.O.

Start a cop based thread where there is usually something inflammatory about a cop/civilian interaction.

Anything that a cop does that is even slightly questionable-you rant and rave about what a piece of every cop is.

You ignore what the law says--because you are already emotionally invested and god forbid that someone should point out what the law actually says-

then that person is automatically an idiot, crazy, or --in your words--you lose all respect for that person as a poster...

what a fair unbiased poster you are.

If for example someone points out that -- an action by a cop -is not actually the crime YOU are accusing the cop of---

you fly off the handle and make statements --of your outrage at the cops actions---but never have the decency to say WHY that law is applicable to the crime or not---

you just basically want the cop to burn because--YOU--are outraged.

Then everyone that joins you--who don't care to translate the letter of the law either---will join you because they are also EMOTIONALLY upset at whatever the cop did or didn't do.

So , tell me;

What is the point of debating with you if you had already decided before you even started the thread--what is the point of an honest debate when all you are trying to accomplish is to let the world know what a pos the cop is---and that anyone who doesn't jump to conclusions along with you is automatically an , idiot, blah...blah...


When I see a video or a scenario---I am trying to see both sides--the public's, the cops and why the cops took a certain action, the facts, the unknown, the known...

and i try to NOT have any conclusions beforehand---or pre-judge...

I try to see if any side has an agenda (usually all sides have their own agenda)
and to see if there are other FACTS--that may be possibly be forthcoming...

And above all--if I am mistaken or flat wrong...I have the balls to admit it.

When and if I admit that i misread something or didn't take the time to read something carefully--i also have the balls to admit that---

and what happens when i do that?

one of your fellow haters--posts some bull --about..``keep backtracking''

it is laughable how you purport to be some level-headed poster --when that is the farthest thing from the truth.

Anytime you feel like re-evaluating and re-thinking exactly the part you played in this and would like to debate with FACTS..you are welcome to try.

But otherwise--this is the last time I will fall for your trolling because i know as soon as I present FACTS --you are going to resort to histrionics and semantics while never really being open to discussing the intricacies of the law.

If you ever want to debate anything i would suggest to you that you should NOT have reached any conclusions beforehand, otherwise all you are really doing is trying to convince someone of your alleged superiority..and the other persons idiocy (in YOUR mind-at least).

[Cry Havoc]

Anything that a cop does that is even slightly questionable-you rant and rave about what a piece of every cop is.

Evidence for this? Or are you just making a token statement with a strawman, as usual?

then that person is automatically an idiot, crazy, or --in your words--you lose all respect for that person as a poster...

what a fair unbiased poster you are.

Other quotes from you:

you---you in monkeys

Now you and your boyfriends run along now.

To be fair-----JUST FOR PRICKS LIKE YOU.....

Way to be sane, unbiased, and level-headed.

If for example someone points out that -- an action by a cop -is not actually the crime YOU are accusing the cop of---

you fly off the handle and make statements --of your outrage at the cops actions---but never have the decency to say WHY that law is applicable to the crime or not---

I am outraged when I see something outrageous, as is the definition of the word. That does not extend only to police officers, but society in general.

you just basically want the cop to burn because--YOU--are outraged.

I don't want anyone to burn. More strawmen. More epic fail from you.

What is the point of debating with you if you had already decided before you even started the thread--what is the point of an honest debate when all you are trying to accomplish is to let the world know what a pos the cop is---and that anyone who doesn't jump to conclusions along with you is automatically an , idiot, blah...blah...

Clearly, you're the only open-minded one here.

When I see a video or a scenario---I am trying to see both sides--the public's, the cops and why the cops took a certain action, the facts, the unknown, the known...

and i try to NOT have any conclusions beforehand---or pre-judge...

I try to see if any side has an agenda (usually all sides have their own agenda)
and to see if there are other FACTS--that may be possibly be forthcoming...

This would make sense if not for your inexorable idea that you are correct in every situation:

I am not contradicting anything.

I said that whatever I stated in this thread---


that it is correct and I stand by it.

Not a contradiction.

Posted immediately after this:

is that from ONLY watching that video--that there was NOT enough information to completely say either side was wrong or right.

And above all--if I am mistaken or flat wrong...I have the balls to admit it.

Must be easy to do that when you never have admitted to being wrong.

it is laughable how you purport to be some level-headed poster --when that is the farthest thing from the truth.

I'm level-headed in my ability to evaluate a situation. I'm not level-headed in dealing with idiocy. This is where you and I see a lot of friction.

But otherwise--this is the last time I will fall for your trolling because i know as soon as I present FACTS --you are going to resort to histrionics and semantics while never really being open to discussing the intricacies of the law.

You mean, "I'm going to make sexual accusations and call people monkeys."?

If you ever want to debate anything i would suggest to you that you should NOT have reached any conclusions beforehand, otherwise all you are really doing is trying to convince someone of your alleged superiority..and the other persons idiocy (in YOUR mind-at least).

I said that whatever I stated in this thread---


that it is correct and I stand by it.

Nice to see you're up for debating things. Let us know when your run of omniscience ends so we can actually have a debate.

[Obstructed_View]

Anything that a cop does that is even slightly questionable-you rant and rave about what a piece of every cop is.

So firing nine shots at someone for bumping into a police car or killing two people is "slightly questionable" to you? I think we all know who the piece of is.

[resistanze]

You say:

It is CLEARLY not manslaughter.

The officer was on duty and driving in a police car I believe and he was responding to a call, so if all that is correct-there can be no way he can be charged with a manslaughter charge.

But the cop pleaded guitly to:

Sec. 9-3. Involuntary Manslaughter and Reckless Homicide.

(a) A person who unintentionally kills an individual without lawful justification commits involuntary manslaughter if his acts whether lawful or unlawful which cause the death are such as are likely to cause death or great bodily harm to some individual, and he performs them recklessly, except in cases in which the cause of the death consists of the driving of a motor vehicle or operating a snowmobile, all-terrain vehicle, or watercraft, in which case the person commits reckless homicide.

Now you say:

I just re-read the OP posting and it confused me as I had not read it carefully the first time.

...

So it seems to me that he pretty much went through all kinds of for his stupid mistake.

So you were originally arguing that what the cop did wasn't even guilty manslaughter, because he was on the job - now all of a sudden you were saying his sentence was appropriate after finding out he pleaded for manslaughter anyways?

That's why nothing you say can be taken seriously; you're going to defend the er anyways.

[Kevin Durant 35]

The Police

[redzero]

[silverblk mystix]

So firing nine shots at someone for bumping into a police car or killing two people is "slightly questionable" to you? I think we all know who the piece of is.

Moron;

for the in record---I NEVER even commented on the scenario involving the cop who fired 9 times...

because i already knew it was another attempt to bash cops...

anyone can go through the internet and post some that will be blatant and incendiary against anyone who does anything stupid or illegal-regardless of his profession.

The fact that the OP only chooses cops as his subjects/threads should tell you all you need to know.

This is another example of how someone runs with some stupid little comment--when I had NEVER even posted any response to said thread---

goes to show you --your agendas here.

If you want to confirm how stupid you are-try to find where i even commented on the cop who fired the 9 shots.

Asshole.

[Cry Havoc]

Moron;

for the in record---I NEVER even commented on the scenario involving the cop who fired 9 times...

because i already knew it was another attempt to bash cops...

anyone can go through the internet and post some that will be blatant and incendiary against anyone who does anything stupid or illegal-regardless of his profession.

The fact that the OP only chooses cops as his subjects/threads should tell you all you need to know.

This is another example of how someone runs with some stupid little comment--when I had NEVER even posted any response to said thread---

goes to show you --your agendas here.

If you want to confirm how stupid you are-try to find where i even commented on the cop who fired the 9 shots.

Asshole.

Again, you dazzle us with your level-headedness, tact, and ability to have rational discourse!

[silverblk mystix]

Again, you dazzle us with your level-headedness, tact, and ability to have rational discourse!

Was I addressing you?

No

Is it your duty to answer for another poster who just made a bull -untrue statement regarding me and I addressed him?

What is this US bull ?

Do you need all that support,really?

I don't try to round up support-if i said it I can handle myself...too bad you feel you can't do it without your little crew.

For the record you don't have to respond as I have lost interest in any threads where i KNOW you will start with your little agenda and it doesn't interest me in the least...

so again,

I was addressing the OTHER asshole...not you...so mind your own in business.

I will mind my own and we can leave it at that and your predictable response --no doubt- will be to twist this in another way to satisfy your little ego...

no problem and have at it...last time I need to deal with you.

[Obstructed_View]

Moron;

for the in record---I NEVER even commented on the scenario involving the cop who fired 9 times...

because i already knew it was another attempt to bash cops...

anyone can go through the internet and post some that will be blatant and incendiary against anyone who does anything stupid or illegal-regardless of his profession.

The fact that the OP only chooses cops as his subjects/threads should tell you all you need to know.

This is another example of how someone runs with some stupid little comment--when I had NEVER even posted any response to said thread---

goes to show you --your agendas here.

If you want to confirm how stupid you are-try to find where i even commented on the cop who fired the 9 shots.

Asshole.

Actually, you referenced the threads that Cry Havoc "rants and raves" about, so what you're referring to as "slightly questionable" are the two cases I mentioned. Whether you posted in the thread is irrelevant; you commented on it the moment you referenced it, and that was the characterization you chose. You're welcome to apologize and back away from that position at any point, but until then you're married to it. Somehow I don't think you'll do anything but try to play semantics while skirting the issue.

The whole thing therefore has little to do with "bashing" cops, and far more to do with your attempts to defend them in even the most extreme cases.

[Obstructed_View]

The fact that the OP only chooses cops as his subjects/threads should tell you all you need to know.

The actual FACT that he doesn't should tell everyone else all they need to know. Aside from the last two, I couldn't find another.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/sear...=2194187&pp=25

[Cry Havoc]

Was I addressing you?

No

The fact that the OP only chooses cops as his subjects/threads should tell you all you need to know.

I'm sorry, what were you saying?

Is it your duty to answer for another poster who just made a bull -untrue statement regarding me and I addressed him?

What is this US bull ?

Do you need all that support,really?

I don't try to round up support-if i said it I can handle myself...too bad you feel you can't do it without your little crew.

For the record you don't have to respond as I have lost interest in any threads where i KNOW you will start with your little agenda and it doesn't interest me in the least...

so again,

I was addressing the OTHER asshole...not you...so mind your own in business.

I will mind my own and we can leave it at that and your predictable response --no doubt- will be to twist this in another way to satisfy your little ego...

no problem and have at it...last time I need to deal with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_forum

You're welcome. I suspect you will learn a lot by reading that.