Vick...
MZ
HAHAHAHA ... what?
Michael
> Jaworski quote: "It's like a man with boys when he gets out of the pocket."
>
> HAHAHAHA ... what?
i thought he had a thing for dogs... it's boys ?
Tutor
>
> HAHAHAHA ... what?
Men with bys, huh? Steer clear of that Eaglkes locker room.
papa.carl44
"Tutor" <dcat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4f2fbe3d-217d-4045...@h21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
Well...if that is all you guys get out of this, it's sad because that is one
incredible performance he is putting on. I just enjoy watching an athlete
of that caliber execute as that level. And yes, I was one of the folks who
had problems with him coming back. Then I had to admit he paid his dues and
it is a job like any other...you get to work again. Well, he is probably
one of the best at doing that work.
Michael
wrote:
> "Tutor" <dcat4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
i dont think he's changed anything other than his talk. i am
disgusted that he was allowed back in the league. the only silver
lining is that in keeping up his line of bs he gives some money to
animal rights/protection. yes he paid his debt to society and should
earn a living but the nfl is not a right... IMHO they lowered the
entire league by lettign this depraved shit heel back in.
MZ
If they forced out all the depraved shit heels, we'd have nothing to watch.
Ritchie
He is putting on a great show but, IMHO a tiger never changes his
stripes. His talking about animal rights isn't sincere, its just part
of the show. In reality no one never, ever pays their debt to society.
I am not one to usually wish bad things on people but in Vick's case I
would love to see someone tackle him and snap him in two.
Ritchie
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > If they forced out all the depraved shit heels, we'd have nothing to watch.
>
> fighting but most people don't know or really care they only worry
> about dogs-- but how many NFL players beat their wives or
> girlfriends,drive drunk, use drugs that some cop could get shot trying
> to to prevent its distribution but they hate the dog killer?
IMO the dogs are innocent and had no choice, the wives/girlfriends
that get beaten have a choice to leave and they don't because they
love him and he loves them. As a retired police officer I saw this all
day long. And if you got there when he was beating her and you had to
use force to arrest him, she would be the first one at the local
precinct filing an abuse complaint against the officer and be the
first one testifying against the officer at the trail. I have zero
sympathy for the women that stay in an abusive relationship. Yes some
stay out of fear, but there has to come a time when a decision has to
be made. Seeing and experiencing all the things that I went through as
a police officer has desensitized me towards a lot of things and has
made me have less compassion for mankind, especially when there are
choices. The drunk drivers should never be allowed to step back on the
field if they caused an injury or death. If they are just stopped for
drunk driving they should be suspended for a year while they go to a
program paid for by them. When they are reinstated and able to play
again they then must agree to testing whenever it is called for and at
anytime of the day or night and however many times a week They blew
their chances and should be grateful to be back and should never be
trusted again. If it happens again then its a lifetime ban. The same
goes for the drug users and yes that includes pot. I have never ever
used any illegal drug or smoked pot in my life so I have a higher
standard to judge people by. I always wanted to be in law enforcement
when I grew up so I held myself to a higher standard and I am proud of
this fact.
Ritchie
>
> - Show quoted text -
Unfortunately this is very true. I would say a major percentage of the
athletes in football are pieces of shit. They come from being raised
in neighborhoods that are drug infested and its what they know. When
they make it to the pros instead of bettering themselves with their
payday their mentality is "hey I got a lot of money now, I can buy
better drugs now!" I call it the dumbing down of the America's
athletic profession.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
actually, i consider this from time to time. that i am part of the
hypocrisy. I don't like the way the whole football system looks the
other way for the sake of winning and promoting talent. i don't like
they way athletics are sold to kids as "a way out". yeah, some bad
kids are warehoused by the system for a few years..but... few if any
improve themselves by means of actually learning something valuable
beyond football. "education" in lots of the football factories for
athletes is a joke and even high school kids are being encouraged to
juice.
i know about all of this and i still pay for tickets and watch the
games. the only "out" that I have is that there are still guys like
Kurt Warner that play the game.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
hard to believe there has always been so much wealth, technology and
opportunity in this country yet we still have a significant amount of
people caught in the cycle of poverty. it is interesting the way that
football players are some times likened to "gladiators". the
parallels of violence that are drawn to romanticize the football
players also bringing along some other unintended parallels. If you
want to think about how gladiators fit into the roman economy. Some
of the the "economic" parallels of gladiators circa the flavian
amphitheater and pro ball players of today are also interesting to
consider
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
also wanted to say... there were no criminal types at my college div
III rowan. no juice, no big scholarships, no guys getting away with
violence or criminal acts off the field. and... there was still
plenty of football to watch.
MZ
> On Nov 16, 8:32 am, John C TX<johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>
>>> If they forced out all the depraved shit heels, we'd have nothing to watch.
>>
>> fighting but most people don't know or really care they only worry
>> about dogs-- but how many NFL players beat their wives or
>> girlfriends,drive drunk, use drugs that some cop could get shot trying
>> to to prevent its distribution but they hate the dog killer?
>
> IMO the dogs are innocent and had no choice, the wives/girlfriends
> that get beaten have a choice to leave and they don't because they
> love him and he loves them.
This shit's fucking stupid.
Michael
to some degree it has merit. animals are not able to walk away from a
person that is sustaining their abuse. like it or not, that is the
way a lot of people see it. the animals deserve their consideration
simply because they can not make decisions. same deal with people
that abuse children. like the animals, the kids cant walk away from
an abusive parent. that is why there is such powerful feeling against
people that abuse animals or children. we don't care so much if a
gold digger gets popped in the face by the pro ball player she married
even though she knew he was a head case. I'm not in the slightest way
trying to diminish any crime of any kind. just pointing out where the
sentiment comes from.
MZ
> On Nov 16, 10:17 am, MZ<m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>> On 11/16/2010 5:57 AM, Ritchie wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 16, 8:32 am, John C TX<johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>
>>>>> If they forced out all the depraved shit heels, we'd have nothing to watch.
>>
>>>> I find it interesting --& Papa I know you see a link to gangs& dog
>>>> fighting but most people don't know or really care they only worry
>>>> about dogs-- but how many NFL players beat their wives or
>>>> girlfriends,drive drunk, use drugs that some cop could get shot trying
>>>> to to prevent its distribution but they hate the dog killer?
>>
>>> IMO the dogs are innocent and had no choice, the wives/girlfriends
>>> that get beaten have a choice to leave and they don't because they
>>> love him and he loves them.
>>
>> This shit's fucking stupid.
>
> to some degree it has merit. animals are not able to walk away from a
> person that is sustaining their abuse.
The same is true for people. Ask Justin Smith's victim, or Santonio
Holmes' victim (if it's true), or any number of victims of these guys.
They were unable to predict that they'd get clocked. Also, yes, many
animals ARE able to run away from the abuser but choose not to -- which
is Ritchie's (grossly oversimplified) stance on spousal abuse victims.
I mean, dogs are animals so they don't know any better. How come we
don't extend the same excuse to humans? Well, humans have cognitive
ability, and so they're vastly superior to animals, right? Well, not
according to the animal rights crowd that wants to hang Vick.
> like it or not, that is the
> way a lot of people see it. the animals deserve their consideration
> simply because they can not make decisions. same deal with people
> that abuse children. like the animals, the kids cant walk away from
> an abusive parent. that is why there is such powerful feeling against
> people that abuse animals or children. we don't care so much if a
> gold digger gets popped in the face by the pro ball player she married
> even though she knew he was a head case.
Maybe YOU don't, and that's a little fucked up if you ask me.
> I'm not in the slightest way
> trying to diminish any crime of any kind. just pointing out where the
> sentiment comes from.
Haha you may not be TRYING to diminish any crime, but that's exactly
what you're doing. You're placing culpability with the victim. It
would be like me coming in here and saying, "well those dogs wouldn't
have gotten beaten or killed if they just cooperated and won those fights!"
Sometimes a victim is just a victim. In Vick's case, those dogs were
victims. For most physical abuse cases, the abused people are victims.
We don't have to like dogs, or like "gold diggers" to recognize that.
Michael
> On 11/16/2010 7:40 AM, Michael wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 16, 10:17 am, MZ<m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> >> On 11/16/2010 5:57 AM, Ritchie wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 16, 8:32 am, John C TX<johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> >>>>> If they forced out all the depraved shit heels, we'd have nothing to watch.
>
> >>>> I find it interesting --& Papa I know you see a link to gangs& dog
> >>>> fighting but most people don't know or really care they only worry
> >>>> about dogs-- but how many NFL players beat their wives or
> >>>> girlfriends,drive drunk, use drugs that some cop could get shot trying
> >>>> to to prevent its distribution but they hate the dog killer?
>
> >>> IMO the dogs are innocent and had no choice, the wives/girlfriends
> >>> that get beaten have a choice to leave and they don't because they
> >>> love him and he loves them.
>
> >> This shit's fucking stupid.
>
> > to some degree it has merit. animals are not able to walk away from a
> > person that is sustaining their abuse.
>
> The same is true for people. Ask Justin Smith's victim, or Santonio
> Holmes' victim (if it's true), or any number of victims of these guys.
> They were unable to predict that they'd get clocked. Also, yes, many
> animals ARE able to run away from the abuser but choose not to -
Where the fuck is a domestic cat or dog going to run to ??? This has
to be one of the most moronic things I have read hear.
> is Ritchie's (grossly oversimplified) stance on spousal abuse victims.
> I mean, dogs are animals so they don't know any better. How come we
> don't extend the same excuse to humans? Well, humans have cognitive
> ability, and so they're vastly superior to animals, right? Well, not
> according to the animal rights crowd that wants to hang Vick.
Ritchie was pointing out that domesticated animals are seen as being
helpless. He was not saying it is OK for a scum bag to beat his
wife. He said he saw a lot of that and it disgusted him to the point
of not being able to over identify with criminals and victims.
> > like it or not, that is the
> > way a lot of people see it. the animals deserve their consideration
> > simply because they can not make decisions. same deal with people
> > that abuse children. like the animals, the kids cant walk away from
> > an abusive parent. that is why there is such powerful feeling against
> > people that abuse animals or children. we don't care so much if a
> > gold digger gets popped in the face by the pro ball player she married
> > even though she knew he was a head case.
>
> Maybe YOU don't, and that's a little fucked up if you ask me.
I beg your pardon ?
> > I'm not in the slightest way
> > trying to diminish any crime of any kind. just pointing out where the
> > sentiment comes from.
>
> Haha you may not be TRYING to diminish any crime, but that's exactly
> what you're doing. You're placing culpability with the victim. It
> would be like me coming in here and saying, "well those dogs wouldn't
> have gotten beaten or killed if they just cooperated and won those fights!"
>
> Sometimes a victim is just a victim. In Vick's case, those dogs were
> victims. For most physical abuse cases, the abused people are victims.
> We don't have to like dogs, or like "gold diggers" to recognize that.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mark... Like I said. Before you start writing more silly things...
Read this carefully. Care-Fully...
Michael
<SNIP>
>I have never ever
> used any illegal drug or smoked pot in my life so I have a higher
> standard to judge people by. I always wanted to be in law enforcement
> when I grew up so I held myself to a higher standard and I am proud of
> this fact.
I have never done any illegal drugs either including pot. Still.. My
problem with pot is that it is illegal and not so much that it will
cause people health or social problems if they smoke it. I think it
is stupid that pot is against the law. Tobacco and booze are more
damaging than pot. IMHO, legalizing drugs and controlling them is the
only way to deal with the drug problem. The "war on drugs" is a
joke. A very wasteful one for the tax payer and a needlessly
dangerous one for law enforcement.
Ritchie
No, you're stupid if you cant or wont see the reality of the statement.
Ritchie
I agree with your statements on the war on drugs and yes make drugs
legal and controlled does sound like a decent answer. Unfortunately
that wont stop the crimes of robbery, assault and murder committed by
the addicts so they can get the money to buy the drugs. There really
is no good answer for it.
MZ
Pets don't run away? Or are you taking a NYC-centric view that there's
nowhere to run away to? I really don't understand your objection.
>
>> is Ritchie's (grossly oversimplified) stance on spousal abuse victims.
>> I mean, dogs are animals so they don't know any better. How come we
>> don't extend the same excuse to humans? Well, humans have cognitive
>> ability, and so they're vastly superior to animals, right? Well, not
>> according to the animal rights crowd that wants to hang Vick.
>
> Ritchie was pointing out that domesticated animals are seen as being
> helpless. He was not saying it is OK for a scum bag to beat his
> wife. He said he saw a lot of that and it disgusted him to the point
> of not being able to over identify with criminals and victims.
No, that's not what Ritchie was saying (at least, it's not what I took
issue with). He was taking the "bitch deserved it" stance, WRT domestic
abuse.
I can call you an asshole and follow it up with "you're a swell guy."
That doesn't mean I never called you an asshole. But that's exactly
what you're doing. You're spending effort minimizing physical brutality
against people, even saying that you don't care if certain women get
beat up by their spouses, and then following that up with "I'm not
trying to diminish any crime."
You're either very confused or you're playing your own devil's advocate.
MZ
It might reduce it, as the cost of these items will naturally decrease
as competition increases.
This might not be a good thing either. But at least people who are not
addicts may no longer get caught in the crossfire.
MZ
You stereotype way too much, Ritchie. Your "reality" always seems to
resemble a tv movie.
Michael
fucking brilliant. a domesticated animal can run away from an abuser
to the "safety" of the woods or street. we have a real einstein
here....
> You're either very confused or you're playing your own devil's advocate.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
look here, you new England boiled dip stick. give your brain a
chance... why do a lot of people react with strong sentiment when
animals are abused ??? for example... if people hear about dogs being
electrocuted and drowned and tortured at length... why would people
find this more disturbing and upsetting than a news story about a pro
ball player that popped his his spouse in the face ???
Michael
Legalizing drugs will just about completely snuff out the related
crimes you speak of. the same way it has done in other countries that
have legalize and controlled drugs. along with taking the criminal
element out of drug sales, you also use the tax money you earn and
"drug war" money you are no longer spending on treatment and awareness
programs. that would include... and no im not kidding... free drugs
for the dead enders that cant or wont be helped.
MZ
I think you missed something. Like maybe the part where I talked about
how ridiculous that notion would be as a justification for abusing pets.
Yet this seems to be the approach you and Ritchie are taking when you
spend so much effort attempting to JUSTIFY THE PHYSICAL ABUSE OF PEOPLE.
As usual, you're defending an indefensible position. I guess that's
one of your hobbies, but don't expect not to be called out on it.
Honestly, you should be completely ashamed of yourself for taking a
shithead position just so you can argue.
> look here, you new England boiled dip stick. give your brain a
> chance... why do a lot of people react with strong sentiment when
> animals are abused ??? for example... if people hear about dogs being
> electrocuted and drowned and tortured at length... why would people
> find this more disturbing and upsetting than a news story about a pro
> ball player that popped his his spouse in the face ???
The better question is why would people spend so much effort trying to
justify punching women in the face. Nobody here -- not a soul -- has
advocated or excused Vick's torture of animals. Yet you and Ritchie are
going to great lengths to excuse it when people do it to other humans.
I know why you're doing it. You're a contrarian. I don't know why
Ritchie is doing it.
Harlan Lachman
MZ <ma...@nospam.void> wrote:
Nor anyone to watch it.
h
Ritchie
>
> - Show quoted text -
I can only go by what I have seen, investigated and have experienced
on the streets and in the courtrooms. The last time a checked being on
patrol and in a courtroom gives a perfect view of the reality I am
talking about. I have never been known for my compassion for my fellow
man.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
mark... you are really missing somthing here. yes... i can be a
contritionist and i often argue for the sake of it... but this time
that is not the case. i'm pointing out that there are strong feelings
where animal abuse is concerned. why are you having such a hard time
getting that ??? did you ever have a pet ??? do you understand the
nature of the relationship between people and their pets ??? what the
hell did any animal do to deserve being abused or tortured ??? i'm
not saying that i'm comfortable to hear the story about the wife of a
ball player that gets abused. you are saying that i am. you are
missrepresenting me.
MZ
I understand that. But has it occurred to you that perhaps your
experiences, because of your profession, have given you a somewhat
limited viewpoint when it comes to certain topics?
MZ
I don't think I'm misrepresenting you. I think you're misrepresenting
yourself, if you're serious about what you say above. One of the things
you said was: "we don't care so much if a gold digger gets popped in the
face by the pro ball player she married even though she knew he was a
head case." And this was seemingly in defense of the idea that certain
people have it coming to them. This fits in with the "bitch deserved
it" viewpoint.
All this discussion stemmed from John pointing out that people get up in
arms over the dog killer thing while not giving a shit about the things
these other athletes do to fellow human beings. This is an appropriate
observation. The more I think about it, the more I remember Ritchie
being pretty consistent in his disdain for abusers of all types. And I
seem to remember the same about you too. So I'm completely perplexed
about why you both seem to be almost giving certain athletes a free
pass, or at least forgiveness, about some of their abuses, while wanting
to nail Vick (literally) to the wall. Where's the consistency? Where's
the logic and objectivity?
Ritchie
> I think you missed something. Like maybe the part where I talked about
> how ridiculous that notion would be as a justification for abusing pets.
> Yet this seems to be the approach you and Ritchie are taking when you
> spend so much effort attempting to JUSTIFY THE PHYSICAL ABUSE OF PEOPLE.
> The better question is why would people spend so much effort trying to
> justify punching women in the face. Nobody here -- not a soul -- has
> advocated or excused Vick's torture of animals. Yet you and Ritchie are
> going to great lengths to excuse it when people do it to other humans.
> I know why you're doing it. You're a contrarian. I don't know why
> Ritchie is doing it.- Hide quoted text -
Listen you fucking NE idiot, I am NOT justifing the abuse of people! I
am stating that if they stay in an abusive relationship then they
deserve what they get! As a police officer I would gladly arrest those
abusing others but the idiots almost always dropped the charges. I
cant have sympathy for anyone who creates their own misery. I dont
expect people from NE to understand given their very low intelligence
levels so read into this what you will. I'm done responding to
something that was created because a moron forgot to pull out, or
better yet not fuck an ugly woman in the first place!
Ritchie
>
> - Show quoted text -
NO and it never will.
Ritchie
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are right I dont like abusers of any type but if they (humans)
stay with their abuser then they deserve every bit of pain and anguish
they get!
Michael
> I don't think I'm misrepresenting you. I think you're misrepresenting
> yourself, if you're serious about what you say above. One of the things
> you said was: "we don't care so much if a gold digger gets popped in the
> face by the pro ball player she married even though she knew he was a
> head case."
i was not speaking for myself when i said "we". i was being the
representative for those who might have a particular sentiment. in
this case, those that see animals as having no self determination vs a
woman or man for that matter that can reason and make choices.
And now... No one deserves to have their arm or leg bitten off.
And... No one in their right mind should wonder why they have gotten
their arm or leg bitten off if the go swimming in water that they are
sure is infested with sharks. I'm sure you have some idea of just
EXACTLY what I am saying. The word "Deserve" does not have a fucking
thing to do with it.
dig ???
MZ
>
>> I think you missed something. Like maybe the part where I talked about
>> how ridiculous that notion would be as a justification for abusing pets.
>> Yet this seems to be the approach you and Ritchie are taking when you
>> spend so much effort attempting to JUSTIFY THE PHYSICAL ABUSE OF PEOPLE.
>
>> The better question is why would people spend so much effort trying to
>> justify punching women in the face. Nobody here -- not a soul -- has
>> advocated or excused Vick's torture of animals. Yet you and Ritchie are
>> going to great lengths to excuse it when people do it to other humans.
>> I know why you're doing it. You're a contrarian. I don't know why
>> Ritchie is doing it.- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> Listen you fucking NE idiot,
Necessary?
> I am NOT justifing the abuse of people! I
> am stating that if they stay in an abusive relationship then they
> deserve what they get! As a police officer I would gladly arrest those
> abusing others but the idiots almost always dropped the charges. I
> cant have sympathy for anyone who creates their own misery. I dont
> expect people from NE to understand given their very low intelligence
> levels so read into this what you will. I'm done responding to
> something that was created because a moron forgot to pull out, or
> better yet not fuck an ugly woman in the first place!
I'm a new yorker and have been for about a decade. I haven't lived in
MA for any length of time since I was in high school. :) Thought I'd
clear that up.
A woman may make stupid decisions, but that never justifies that she's
beaten for them. Just like it may be dumb to walk in a bad neighborhood
at night, but that doesn't make it excusable for them to get stabbed.
If that's not what you're saying, then why are you arguing with John's
initial premise that there are lots of people who think Vick is the
biggest scumbag since sliced bread, but who don't think twice about guys
like Justin Miller who get off scott free for clocking a chick in the
face because he can't keep his emotions in check. Are you one of those
people? If not, what the hell are you going on about?
MZ
And that's where the "that's fucking stupid" part comes in. No, they
don't deserve pain and anguish. You have a really twisted world view.
marcman
> The same
> goes for the drug users and yes that includes pot. I have never ever
> used any illegal drug or smoked pot in my life so I have a higher
> standard to judge people by. I always wanted to be in law enforcement
> when I grew up so I held myself to a higher standard and I am proud of
> this fact.
You must be a laugh riot at parties.
marcman
Nobody deserves "every bit of pain and anguish they get" under *any*
circumstances.
In the example you cite, we're talking about a woman being beaten/
abused by her boyfriend/husband. That's the most obvious and easiest
example of this position to get and should be apparent.
A more difficult example to wrap one's head around would be that even
a violent criminal doesn't deserve "every bit of pain and anguish they
get" even after being arrested and convicted.
Yeah, that's right, even criminals have rights. And despite some of
our emotional responses to horrid events, when you later (not self
defense) beat somebody to within an inch of their life, in retaliation
for them beating you or a loved one within an inch of your/their life,
you'd be just as guilty as the instigator.
That's as applied to a civilian. As it applies to police, or prison
quards, etc., are there not rules against excessive use of force?
As it applies to our courts, are there not rules against cruel and
unusual punishment? Even when we execute a killer, we are *supposed*
to do so in as humane a manner as possible.
Despite what our government did in Iraq, our country and its
constitution doesn't sanction torture or cruel and unusual punishment
- because we are supposed to be civilized people.
Like I said, *nobody* deserves "every bit of pain and anguish they
get" under *any* circumstances.
marcman
> > I think you missed something. Like maybe the part where I talked about
> > how ridiculous that notion would be as a justification for abusing pets.
> > Yet this seems to be the approach you and Ritchie are taking when you
> > spend so much effort attempting to JUSTIFY THE PHYSICAL ABUSE OF PEOPLE.
> > The better question is why would people spend so much effort trying to
> > justify punching women in the face. Nobody here -- not a soul -- has
> > advocated or excused Vick's torture of animals. Yet you and Ritchie are
> > going to great lengths to excuse it when people do it to other humans.
> > I know why you're doing it. You're a contrarian. I don't know why
> > Ritchie is doing it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Listen you fucking NE idiot, I am NOT justifing the abuse of people!
You are aware, officer, that this very statement of yours is abusive,
yes?
> I
> am stating that if they stay in an abusive relationship then they
> deserve what they get!
No, they don't *ever* deserve being abused.
> As a police officer I would gladly arrest those
> abusing others but the idiots almost always dropped the charges.
Maybe you should have been arresting thugs with higher caliber
victims?
> I
> cant have sympathy for anyone who creates their own misery.
The person being beaten isn't creating the beating, the person doing
the beating is.
> I dont
> expect people from NE to understand given their very low intelligence
> levels so read into this what you will.
Your original statement was *obviously* abusive. *This* statement is
bigoted.
> I'm done responding to
> something that was created because a moron forgot to pull out, or
> better yet not fuck an ugly woman in the first place!
It would seem from the way you express yourself that you could be the
poster child for why people hate the police.
And before you lash out at me with abusive and bigoted remarks, let me
notify you that I'm not one of the "police haters," I support the men
and women in law enforcement in general.
It's abuse and bigotry I have a problem with ya see, because *nobody*
deserves that . . .
marcman
> I have never been known for my compassion for my fellow
> man.
Honest and straight up question please . . . then why in the hell did
you become a cop??
marcman
I and the majority of law enforcement personnel in the US agrees with
that sentiment.
marcman
It may not stop the crimes associated with getting the money to buy
the drugs, but those same crimes are being commited by people to get
other things besides drugs. And they always will, and we'll always
need police, legal drugs or not.
The premise behind legalizing and regulating is to prevent the
violence associated with *providing* the drugs, not getting them.
marcman
Not correct. Some poor people that want stuff badly enough that don't
have the money to pay for the stuff, regardless of what the stuff is,
will steal.
> the same way it has done in other countries that
> have legalize and controlled drugs.
It has not.
> along with taking the criminal
> element out of drug sales,
Correct.
> you also use the tax money you earn and
> "drug war" money you are no longer spending on treatment and awareness
> programs. that would include... and no im not kidding... free drugs
> for the dead enders that cant or wont be helped.
Also correct.
Michael
Guess what. I'm not talking about the Netherlands. Do a bit of
checking into what the government of Portugal has done. Thus far, most
of the countries that have tried to decriminalize drugs have had
success in some areas but not in others. Meaning, some have lowered
the amount of drug related crime but have still not gotten rid of the
criminal element or lowered the amount of users. The Netherlands
still has about 50 % of their penal system tied up with drug related
offenses. The Netherlands has also not made any money off of drug
sales that they could put back into drug programs. Portugal on the
other hand has had a good deal of success in all areas. It is not an
ideal or perfect system, but the best so far and real proof that it
can be done. If you are interested in the subject there is plenty of
qualified info on Portugal's program on the net.
> > along with taking the criminal
> > element out of drug sales,
>
> Correct.
>
> > you also use the tax money you earn and
> > "drug war" money you are no longer spending on treatment and awareness
> > programs. that would include... and no im not kidding... free drugs
> > for the dead enders that cant or wont be helped.
>
> Also correct.- Hide quoted text -
marcman
My point is that legalization, regulation and control will not stop
some people that do not "have" from "taking" what they want. Whether
they steal what they want directly, or rob a third party to get the
money to buy what they want, crimes of this nature are not the result
of the product being illegal and will continue even with
legalization. I agree with most of the rest of your position
regarding legalization . . .
>
>
> > > along with taking the criminal
> > > element out of drug sales,
>
> > Correct.
>
> > > you also use the tax money you earn and
> > > "drug war" money you are no longer spending on treatment and awareness
> > > programs. that would include... and no im not kidding... free drugs
> > > for the dead enders that cant or wont be helped.
>
> > Also correct.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Michael
i am not suggesting a solution to some jack ass that steals a car
radio or candy bar. im talking about drug related crime.
marcman
As am I.
Legalizing drugs will not stop people from stealing car radios to sell
in order to use the money to buy legal drugs, or candy bars. It will
however, at least in theory as well as in practice in countries that
have gone this route, put a serious dent in the crimes associated with
providing the drugs. It will also free up the police from wasting
their time and resources busting pot smokers so that they can use
their resources more effectively against serious crime. It will also
alleviate the crowding in our jails and prisons. It will also unclog
to a degree our over taxed court system. But it won't stop people that
are predisposed to stealing to get what they want, from stealing to
get what they want.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
i agree... it wont stop kleptos but i was not talking about kleptos...
anyway... at least we agree that decriminalizing drugs would better
than our current "war on drugs" so long as the plan is well thought
out. i also think whores should be legal in all of the states too.
marcman
What an incredible coincidence, I too am in favor of legalizing
whoring.
Say, you by chance wouldn't happen to also be a Jets fan?
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
yes im a jet fan and no, i'm not on drugs :-) and i suspect many of
us educated and reasonable northeasterners have the same practical and
wordly view of how to deal with vice.
Ritchie
> On Nov 16, 7:35 pm, Ritchie <ritchie1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nobody deserves "every bit of pain and anguish they get" under *any*
> circumstances.
They don't deserve sympathy either.
> In the example you cite, we're talking about a woman being beaten/
> abused by her boyfriend/husband. That's the most obvious and easiest
> example of this position to get and should be apparent.
She can leave and decides to stay, my sympathy only goes so far.
> A more difficult example to wrap one's head around would be that even
> a violent criminal doesn't deserve "every bit of pain and anguish they
> get" even after being arrested and convicted.
Yes, they do deserve every bit of it.
> Yeah, that's right, even criminals have rights. And despite some of
> our emotional responses to horrid events, when you later (not self
> defense) beat somebody to within an inch of their life, in retaliation
> for them beating you or a loved one within an inch of your/their life,
> you'd be just as guilty as the instigator.
True, even in the law there comes a point where the defender after
overcoming the assault becomes the aggressor.
> That's as applied to a civilian. As it applies to police, or prison
> quards, etc., are there not rules against excessive use of force?
>
> As it applies to our courts, are there not rules against cruel and
> unusual punishment? Even when we execute a killer, we are *supposed*
> to do so in as humane a manner as possible.
I don't agree with this at all. I believe that the person executed
should face the same type of situation the victim did.
> Despite what our government did in Iraq, our country and its
> constitution doesn't sanction torture or cruel and unusual punishment
> - because we are supposed to be civilized people.
I don't have a problem with what we did in Iraq. The only problem is
that we didnt finish it because we have rules we must obey.
> Like I said, *nobody* deserves "every bit of pain and anguish they
> get" under *any* circumstances.-
That's your opinion and I have mine and we are both entitled to it.
Ritchie
>
> > Listen you fucking NE idiot, I am NOT justifing the abuse of people!
>
> You are aware, officer, that this very statement of yours is abusive,
> yes?
No longer an officer but I see that you are one of those that words
can be abusive. Are you the sensitive, caring and cry at sad movies
also type?
>
> > I
> > am stating that if they stay in an abusive relationship then they
> > deserve what they get!
>
> No, they don't *ever* deserve being abused.
Yes they do. They deserve it for being stupid enough to stay
> > As a police officer I would gladly arrest those
> > abusing others but the idiots almost always dropped the charges.
>
> Maybe you should have been arresting thugs with higher caliber
> victims?
Maybe the victims should stand on their own 2 feet and realize that
they need to make it stop by testifying and not dropping the charges.
> > I
> > cant have sympathy for anyone who creates their own misery.
>
> The person being beaten isn't creating the beating, the person doing
> the beating is.
They are adding to it and allowing it by staying.
>
> > I dont
> > expect people from NE to understand given their very low intelligence
> > levels so read into this what you will.
>
> Your original statement was *obviously* abusive. *This* statement is
> bigoted.
>
> > I'm done responding to
> > something that was created because a moron forgot to pull out, or
> > better yet not fuck an ugly woman in the first place!
Sorry it was meant to be insulting
> It would seem from the way you express yourself that you could be the
> poster child for why people hate the police.
Only stupid people. Actually I was very well liked in my patrol
neighborhood because I kept things somewhat safer. Because sometimes
to enforce the law, you have to break the law. And anyone that doesnt
realize this is living on fantasy Island.
> And before you lash out at me with abusive and bigoted remarks, let me
> notify you that I'm not one of the "police haters," I support the men
> and women in law enforcement in general.
Everyone says this but never really means it.
> It's abuse and bigotry I have a problem with ya see, because *nobody*
> deserves that . . .
It depends.
Ritchie
Family tradition and I looked up to them and wanted to be one. When on
patrol and the victims needed compassion I would have my partner speak
to them. In most police partner relationships you have the one that
does the talking while the other observes the scene and watches
reactions of those involved and is ready to intervene on a moments
notice. Sometimes he or she gets involved because for some reason the
victim can relate to him or her better than the other officer and it's
understandable, that's where what was learned in social science comes
into play It would surprise you to know that most people out there
that become police officers don't want to be one. They do it for the
retirement and medical benefits.
Ritchie
>
> - Show quoted text -
Really, you know that for a fact? I know of many, from several
different departments that do not.
marcman
> On Nov 16, 9:37 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 16, 7:35 pm, Ritchie <ritchie1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Nobody deserves "every bit of pain and anguish they get" under *any*
> > circumstances.
>
> They don't deserve sympathy either.
Now that I can at least begin to understand how you feel about it, I
do however disagree with you.
>
> > In the example you cite, we're talking about a woman being beaten/
> > abused by her boyfriend/husband. That's the most obvious and easiest
> > example of this position to get and should be apparent.
>
> She can leave and decides to stay, my sympathy only goes so far.
Regarding this example, you weren't talking about sympathy, you were
talking about some kind of deserved mistreatment of the victim all for
the crime of being weak. Preps prey on weak people, and I'm pretty
sure I know that you know that.
>
> > A more difficult example to wrap one's head around would be that even
> > a violent criminal doesn't deserve "every bit of pain and anguish they
> > get" even after being arrested and convicted.
>
> Yes, they do deserve every bit of it.
>
You're not supporting your position even a little bit, you are merely
repeating it.
> > Yeah, that's right, even criminals have rights. And despite some of
> > our emotional responses to horrid events, when you later (not self
> > defense) beat somebody to within an inch of their life, in retaliation
> > for them beating you or a loved one within an inch of your/their life,
> > you'd be just as guilty as the instigator.
>
> True, even in the law there comes a point where the defender after
> overcoming the assault becomes the aggressor.
>
> > That's as applied to a civilian. As it applies to police, or prison
> > quards, etc., are there not rules against excessive use of force?
>
> > As it applies to our courts, are there not rules against cruel and
> > unusual punishment? Even when we execute a killer, we are *supposed*
> > to do so in as humane a manner as possible.
>
> I don't agree with this at all. I believe that the person executed
> should face the same type of situation the victim did.
First and foremost, our trial and conviction system is far from
perfect, in fact it's recently been shown to be somewhat corrupt. If
there is but one innocent person in jail it's one too many. You're an
ex police officer, perhaps you'll have a better estimate as to how
many people in the last 25 years have been released from prison
because new evidence surfaced in many cases due o the availability of
new science that was not available during their trial which in many
cases was a decade ago or longer?
What if one of those people had been put to death for their
conviction? Then what do we do, the state is guilty of manslaughter,
maybe even second degree murder. As it is when they're not put to
death, they're released in most cases with their lives completely
ruined and to a busted up family. Sure there's some cash compensation
coming their way, but really, is there enough money in the world to
fairly compensate for 15-20 years tucked away in federal max security
prison as an innocent person?
And of course, there's that pesky opinion that murder is murder. And
certainly carrying out a death sentence is about as premeditated as
premeditated gets. So we as a state, go ahead and commit murder
against those themselves that have commited murder. Is that really the
example we want to set, that murder is ok under certain circumstances?
Murder rates are actually higher in states with the death penalty than
in those without, please don;t make me Google or Wiki, that's a
broadly well known fact.
> > Despite what our government did in Iraq, our country and its
> > constitution doesn't sanction torture or cruel and unusual punishment
> > - because we are supposed to be civilized people.
>
> I don't have a problem with what we did in Iraq. The only problem is
> that we didnt finish it because we have rules we must obey.
We were either lied to as a nation by our Commander in Chief, or he
was simply such a bumbling fool that he just thought Iraq was an
imminent threat to our homeland and acted on a belief and not proof of
WMDs. Pretty big decision to be made without solid proof, wouldn't you
agree?
But I wasn't talking about that just then, I was referring to what we
did to detainees, held indefinitely without trial, and without even so
much as an official accusation as to what they did. I was referring to
the S&M sex games that went on at Abu Gharib.
>
> > Like I said, *nobody* deserves "every bit of pain and anguish they
> > get" under *any* circumstances.-
>
> That's your opinion and I have mine and we are both entitled to it.
I agree 100% with that.
marcman
> On Nov 16, 9:45 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Listen you fucking NE idiot, I am NOT justifing the abuse of people!
>
> > You are aware, officer, that this very statement of yours is abusive,
> > yes?
>
> No longer an officer but I see that you are one of those that words
> can be abusive. Are you the sensitive, caring and cry at sad movies
> also type?
>
I might be, I might not be, but that's not the point, is it?
The point is that verbal abuse is abuse. Just ask any sensitive,
caring, cryer at sad movies if they are intimidated, threatened and
scared by verbal abuse. Or do you not know what verbal abuse is? Do
you not understand how easy it is to threaten and scare somebody
without actually making a specific threat? Of course you do. Do
sensitive people not count? Aren't they entitled to protection as
much as a tough guy like you - who actually requires less protection
because of how tough you are?
>
>
> > > I
> > > am stating that if they stay in an abusive relationship then they
> > > deserve what they get!
>
> > No, they don't *ever* deserve being abused.
>
> Yes they do. They deserve it for being stupid enough to stay
>
Are you actually stating that stupid people that get beat up deserve
to get beat up? Do you not realize that if that statement is actually
true, then the statement that it is ok to beat up stupid people is
then also true?
> > > As a police officer I would gladly arrest those
> > > abusing others but the idiots almost always dropped the charges.
>
> > Maybe you should have been arresting thugs with higher caliber
> > victims?
>
> Maybe the victims should stand on their own 2 feet and realize that
> they need to make it stop by testifying and not dropping the charges.
>
Maybe they should? Personally I believe that the definitely should.
But maybe they just can't. And if they don't, it might just piss you
off a little bit as a police officer who just wasted his time
investigating, arresting, writing reports and going to court and not
getting the conviction, but does any of that, you know, any part of
the way that makes you feel personally, really have a bearing on the
guilt of the perp? That guy just beat the shit out of his girlfriend,
yeah, shes an idiot, shes not pressing charges, I get that, does that
mean that her boyfriend is any less of a criminal? Of course not. And
if that's so, then the "stupid" woman is still a victim, worthy of our
sympathy, not our scorn just because she wasn't brave enough to do the
right thing. Maybe she just doesn't trust the cops and the system.
Maybe she knows that even though her thug boyfriend will go away for a
while that eventually he'll be back. Maybe she's not even afraid for
herself, maybe she has a kid. Hey, man, gimme a fucking break, any way
you slice this thing up, there ain't no way a beating victim deserves
a beating. Not even if she wasted your time after she was beaten,
while you tried to help her. That's what you got paid to do while you
carried a badge. Thattime was paid for by that victim's taxes. And she
deserves a better attitude from you, in my opinion. Maybe save your
sensitivities and "crying" for sad movies and be a little more
objective about the job.
> > > I
> > > cant have sympathy for anyone who creates their own misery.
>
> > The person being beaten isn't creating the beating, the person doing
> > the beating is.
>
> They are adding to it and allowing it by staying.
>
Unless they start punching themselves, they are unequivocably not
adding to the beating.
>
>
> > > I dont
> > > expect people from NE to understand given their very low intelligence
> > > levels so read into this what you will.
>
> > Your original statement was *obviously* abusive. *This* statement is
> > bigoted.
>
> > > I'm done responding to
> > > something that was created because a moron forgot to pull out, or
> > > better yet not fuck an ugly woman in the first place!
>
> Sorry it was meant to be insulting
>
> > It would seem from the way you express yourself that you could be the
> > poster child for why people hate the police.
>
> Only stupid people.
No actually, you might not care, but you do paint a very unfriendly
picture of yourself as you were when you were a cop. You said yourself
you've never had much compassion for your fellow man. Your opinions
are very much in line with why some people don't like cops. From what
you've written here, and only from what you've written here, because
this here is all I know of you, I'd say you'd be a perfect example to
point to as to why the cop haters hate cops in the first place.
> Actually I was very well liked in my patrol
> neighborhood
As far as you knew. Some people prefer to be feared over respected.
And regardless of what they prefer, it can get a little confusing
sometimes as to what the actual dynaimc is, especially from the POV of
the one that is either feared or respected.
> because I kept things somewhat safer. Because sometimes
> to enforce the law, you have to break the law.
Is that an admission?
> And anyone that doesnt
> realize this is living on fantasy Island.
Curius, ever point a 44 at somebody's face and ask them to go ahead
and make your day?
>
> > And before you lash out at me with abusive and bigoted remarks, let me
> > notify you that I'm not one of the "police haters," I support the men
> > and women in law enforcement in general.
>
> Everyone says this but never really means it.
Do you have anything to base that ridiculous conclusion on? Everyone,
huh? No such thing as a person that says they support the police that
actually does? Who then does support the police, the people that say
they hate the police?
>
> > It's abuse and bigotry I have a problem with ya see, because *nobody*
> > deserves that . . .
>
> It depends.
No, really it doesn't. Nobody deserves abuse, but even if I conceded
(which I do not) that "it depends" on that point, who exactly is it
that you think deserves bigotry?
marcman
> On Nov 16, 9:48 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 16, 5:48 pm, Ritchie <ritchie1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I have never been known for my compassion for my fellow
> > > man.
>
> > Honest and straight up question please . . . then why in the hell did
> > you become a cop??
>
> Family tradition and I looked up to them and wanted to be one. When on
> patrol and the victims needed compassion I would have my partner speak
> to them. In most police partner relationships you have the one that
> does the talking while the other observes the scene and watches
> reactions of those involved and is ready to intervene on a moments
> notice. Sometimes he or she gets involved because for some reason the
> victim can relate to him or her better than the other officer and it's
> understandable, that's where what was learned in social science comes
> into play
Thank you for a straight up answer. No sarcasm at all, I appreciate
your honesty. Most if not all of that makes sense to me.
> It would surprise you to know that most people out there
> that become police officers don't want to be one. They do it for the
> retirement and medical benefits.
Not only does that not surprise me in the least, I know already knew
it to be a fact.
marcman
I also now of many that do not.
Most do however, if you put any stock in polls and that sort of thing.
Hey, not everybody does put much stock in polls, I realize that, but
fwiw, I based my statement of what I believe to be fact on my belief
that my understanding of the polls from both camps indicate that the
majority would rather not be driving around busting recreational
marijuna users. Biger and better fish to fry. I know you can find
individuals that will support your side of that argument. Your
personal relationships though are largely irrelevant in the bigger
picture, as it's more likely than not that the cops and ex cops that
you socialize(d) with would agree with your beliefs, that's why you
golf with them. Wouldn't be much fun to golf with somebody that would
just piss you off more and more the more you conversed.
MZ
So what we are to learn from your last four posts is that women deserve
to be beaten by men when they make what you consider to be bad choices.
Fine. That's all kinds of fucked up, but you're entitled to your
beliefs (as long as you don't act on them, I suppose).
But what does this have to do with football? Again, I point to John's
initial comment that led to all this (thanks, John...) that some people
are more sensitive to animal abuse than human abuse. You cherry picked
a circumstance from thin air, whereas I provided SPECIFIC examples of
football players initiating aggression against a stranger. Your
argument, therefore, doesn't fly, but you're trying as hard as you can
to try to defend their actions. Nevermind all the other stuff. The key
question here is why your first instinct is to defend the abusers. I'm
sure you're aware that this does not paint you in a favorable light..
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
mark...
lets say we have a grop of observers. ten people from all walks of
life.. and we ask them to watch and react to the following.
# 1. i am a strong healthey man...i have a jet cap on and i jump up
and down near you and I yell J E T S jets jets jets... and then you
pop me in the face...
# 2. a man sees a cat walking near him. the cat comes to investigate
the man. the man kicks the cat in the face.
#3. a young woman that is a perfect ten, has breast implants, is
dressed like she is going to a club. she is with a pro ball player.
he is not very good looking. he is not very smart or polished. the
woman, for an unknown reason is yelling in the ball players face and
posturing. the ball player pops her in the face.
#4. a man is in his home. he looks agitated. we dont know why. his
dog walks up to him. the man belts the dog in the face.
tell me how the observation group feels in each case.
remember... "deserve" has nothing to do with it.
MZ
A poll? Well, the answer is: varied. Which is what John said
originally, which prompted this whole thing.
But one stance is definitely stupid. And that's the one where "deserve"
comes into play.
Michael
well... i think using the word "varied" is a cop out on your part...
> But one stance is definitely stupid. And that's the one where "deserve"
> comes into play.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
you will get no argument from me about that. remember, the word i have
been using is "sentiment" and not "deserve".
Ritchie
>
> - Show quoted text -
I guess you don't understand. I am not defending the players hitting
the women, that is 100% wrong. But you cant ask me to have sympathy
for someone that stays in an abusive relationship. That I have more
sympathy for an abused animal id because it doesn't know any better.
An abused person knows they have choices and can act upon them and
choose not to. I cant feel bad for them because of this. Where you
read that I am defending the abuser is beyond me. You must try to read
between the lines too much and put your own things into it.
Ritchie
> to be beaten by men when they make what you consider to be bad choices.
> Fine. That's all kinds of fucked up, but you're entitled to your
> beliefs (as long as you don't act on them, I suppose).
If they cant or wont admit to their bad choice and do not do anything
to fix it then they deserve what they get. I cant have compassion for
anyone that stays in a bad situation when there are solutions out
there.
Michael
i understand what you are saying... the only problem is the word
"deserve". i can see where MZ is coming from there. substitute
"deserve" with somthing else and it will make him feel better.
like i was saying about sharks. no one "deserves" to get a leg bitten
off. at the same time, it should not come as a shock to you if you
feel a shark on your leg when you swim in waters that are shark
infested.
lots of people that stay in abusive relationships are fucked up in the
head. im not making any excuses, but i think a lot of people who stay
in abusive relationships are not able to make good decisions. that is
why there are psych doctors and social workers. people that are
fucked up have to pay money to a professional in order to get positive
attenon because no one else in their right mind would go near them.
especially if they are violent or on drugs or what ever...
Ritchie
> > If they cant or wont admit to their bad choice and do not do anything
> > to fix it then they deserve what they get. I cant have compassion for
> > anyone that stays in a bad situation when there are solutions out
> > there.
>
> i understand what you are saying... the only problem is the word
> "deserve". i can see where MZ is coming from there. substitute
> "deserve" with somthing else and it will make him feel better.
>
> like i was saying about sharks. no one "deserves" to get a leg bitten
> off. at the same time, it should not come as a shock to you if you
> feel a shark on your leg when you swim in waters that are shark
> infested.
I know what you are saying. When I patrolled in NYC we used to get
calls of a person being robbed in Central Park and it was 3 in the
morning. Now in a perfect world a person should be able to walk
through anywhere in the city, at any time w/o the fear of getting
robbed, assaulted or raped. But we don't live in a perfect world and
they showed poor judgement and stupidity to walk through a dark area
like CP at 3am. Did they deserve it, maybe not but they were sure
pushing their luck.
> lots of people that stay in abusive relationships are fucked up in the
> head. im not making any excuses, but i think a lot of people who stay
> in abusive relationships are not able to make good decisions. that is
> why there are psych doctors and social workers. people that are
> fucked up have to pay money to a professional in order to get positive
> attenon because no one else in their right mind would go near them.
> especially if they are violent or on drugs or what ever...
There are a multitude of social services out there, payed by the
taxpayers for them to use. They just have to take the first step.
Michael
yep... there are social programs out there... still... i'm not sure if
a violent drunk or druggie has anything on his/her mind besides the
self deceit they are full of. assholes with anger problems never
"reach out" for help. they just brutalize anyone that tries to tell
them their behavior is defective until they have a run in with the
law. much more often than not fuck-up's get attention from the cops
long before they get attention from a social worker. or at least that
is the way the world appears to me
MZ
What do you want from me? You're asking me if some people would be more
affected by the pet one, or by the human one, right? It should be
glaringly obvious that there are lots of people in both groups. What
answer were you looking for??
MZ
Pick a stance. You already said that some "deserve" it. Either it's
wrong, or they deserve it. Nobody here has used the word "sympathy"
except for you.
Ritchie
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you dont understand what I have said then you're an idiot. Simple
enough for you?
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
that perhaps... the assaults against the people can be *thought* of as
*provoked* and the ones against the aninals can not. too complicated
for you ???
marcman
This is interesting, when I was speaking in absolute terms as in
nobody ever deserves to get beat up, I hadn't really thought about
provocation . . . is there ever a case where a person can be non-
physically provoked before popping the other guy in the head and still
be within the law?
Hey Riitchie, if ya wouldn't mind, what is the deal with that, what if
person A gets all up in person B's face, and verbally assaults that
person, but no contact is made and no overt threats are made. Just a
bunch of childish name calling kind of stuff. Person A then pops
Person B in the mouth. A police officer witnesses the whole thing
eliminating any he said, he said bullshit . . . who broke the law,
Person A, Person B or both?
Michael
yep... in some states... if a person gets close to you and attempts to
menace and intimidate you.... and you warn them to back off and they
dont... you can, by law, make contact with them before they touch
you. i know about that from a work place incident. every now and
then you will come across an asshole that thinks he/she is going to
get ahead of others by means of physical intimidation. they wont
touch you, but they will crowd you and posture as if they promise to
do you physical harm if you protest against their intimidation. i
have been at my current job for fifteen years. the incident happened
at a job i had prior to my current gig. a punk there was trying to
menace another guy he felt professionally threatened by. the punk was
warned a few times and continued to play his game. the other guy had
enough of it and broke his eye socket. it took some time to sort out,
but the guy that hit the punk was not convicted. from what i
remember, even though the punk was well known for his tricks, it was
still a big legal mess.
> Hey Riitchie, if ya wouldn't mind, what is the deal with that, what if
> person A gets all up in person B's face, and verbally assaults that
> person, but no contact is made and no overt threats are made. Just a
> bunch of childish name calling kind of stuff. Person A then pops
> Person B in the mouth. A police officer witnesses the whole thing
> eliminating any he said, he said bullshit . . . who broke the law,
> Person A, Person B or both?- Hide quoted text -
MZ
I understand what you said. You said "they deserve it", but it's "100%
wrong". But I'm the idiot.
MZ
No. It's not too complicated from me. I understood that from the
getgo. But it's a completely contrived hypothetical. Look at the
examples that I provided where they weren't provoked. There are lots
and lots and lots of cases where someone physically assaults someone
else who didn't assault them first.
Or maybe you can find a good reason for Quinn Ojinnaka, of the New
England Patriots, to have thrown his wife down the stairs? I'm sure if
anyone can rationalize that one, you can.
MZ
That must have been what happened when a 6'5 330lb offensive lineman
threw his wife down the stairs. He must have felt threatened by her.
I've NEVER in my entire life witnessed so many people making so many
excuses for violent wife-beaters. This is the most screwed up thread
I've seen in this newsgroup in my entire time here.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
ok, nimrod... who the hell said anything about it being OK for a 330
lb guy to throw his wife down the stairs much less say that any abuse
of any kind is OK. i dont mind if you call me names... i dont mind if
you dont agree with me... i do mind it very much if you missrepresent
me. no one here said a single thing about abuse being OK. mark, you
have flipped your fucking lid here this time.
MZ
You win, Michael. Take it easy.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
how the hell should i know why he threw her down the stairs. may be
she came home wearing a jets jersey. no one is saying that is OK....
no one is making exceuses for that sort of thing.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
winning has nothing to do with it. and i am perfectly calm... im just
wondering why you are saying that i am making up excuses for a wife
beater ???
Ritchie
> Hey Riitchie, if ya wouldn't mind, what is the deal with that, what if
> person A gets all up in person B's face, and verbally assaults that
> person, but no contact is made and no overt threats are made. Just a
> bunch of childish name calling kind of stuff. Person A then pops
> Person B in the mouth. A police officer witnesses the whole thing
> eliminating any he said, he said bullshit . . . who broke the law,
It depends on the state. Some states recognize a person right to their
own private area and if a person gets to close and tries to intimidate
the other they are allowed to use physical force.
Ritchie
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes you are.
Ritchie
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you cant tell what I meant you are not only an idiot but you are
incompetent also.
Deadmeat
Far be it from me to stick my nose into other peoples conversations...
Richie how long where you a cop before you got fired?
Ritchie
>
> - Show quoted text
Not that its any of your concern, but I retired after a full career
with the NYPD.
marcman
Congratulations, and thank you. Quite sincerely.
marcman
I'm gonna open up a bit.
My stepson's dad is a city of Miami police officer. He works in the
hood dealing with very bad people. He's a good cop. And a good dad.
Not such a good husband, I reckon, lol, but his loss there is my gain.
Anyway, I really did mean it when I said that I appreciate and respect
LE.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
i'm not defending cops that mess up but... lots of people have SUCH
UNDERSTANDING for a guy like mike vick that does horrific things.
They say stuff like... "look at the background he came from" "his
upbringing was so bad" "he had no examples" "the cycle of poverty".
I'm not discounting that stuff and i think it should always be
considered. still... people often are not so understanding with
people who's occupations cause them trauma or personality changes or
to have a skewed world view. one of my friends is a mis/technology
support guy and he deals with people that are having tech problems.
he often gets calls from people that dont have their computer plugged
in and cant figure out why it wont run. to him, people in general
seep stupid. i do exec level sales work and im up to my ass in sharks
all day. people to me seem cleaver and instinctive. i also have two
friends in law enforcement. their personalities and views now as
compared to what they were before they were on the job is drastically
different. i dont even like being arond one of them any longer. i
cant see being able to be a law enforcement guy especially in the big
cities and not be some what of an asshole in one way or another
Ritchie
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank you very much.
Ritchie
> i'm not defending cops that mess up but... lots of people have SUCH
> UNDERSTANDING for a guy like mike vick that does horrific things.
> They say stuff like... "look at the background he came from" "his
> upbringing was so bad" "he had no examples" "the cycle of poverty".
> I'm not discounting that stuff and i think it should always be
> considered. still... people often are not so understanding with
> people who's occupations cause them trauma or personality changes or
> to have a skewed world view. one of my friends is a mis/technology
> support guy and he deals with people that are having tech problems.
> he often gets calls from people that dont have their computer plugged
> in and cant figure out why it wont run. to him, people in general
> seep stupid. i do exec level sales work and im up to my ass in sharks
> all day. people to me seem cleaver and instinctive. i also have two
> friends in law enforcement. their personalities and views now as
> compared to what they were before they were on the job is drastically
> different. i dont even like being arond one of them any longer. i
> cant see being able to be a law enforcement guy especially in the big
> cities and not be some what of an asshole in one way or another
Yes having a career in LE does change a person, even if its only a
minor change. Those that say they have not changed either haven't
realized it or are in denial.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
you could not pay me enough to go into LE. i often wonder why people
choose that as a direction to go in. one of my friends became a cop
because his father was and so was his grandfather. he went to college
first and got a four year degree. the other guy was in the military.
the military guy says im the only non cop friend that he has kept from
his younger days. for what ever reason, he cant stand being around
"civilains".
Ritchie
> you could not pay me enough to go into LE. i often wonder why people
> choose that as a direction to go in. one of my friends became a cop
> because his father was and so was his grandfather. he went to college
> first and got a four year degree. the other guy was in the military.
> the military guy says im the only non cop friend that he has kept from
> his younger days. for what ever reason, he cant stand being around
> "civilains
I always wanted to be one because I admired all police officers, plus
I come from a long line of police officers spread out through various
departments throughout the US. I also got my degree but I did it while
working as a PO, so it took me a little longer. I understand what your
friend means when he says about being around civilians. A lot of
officers (including myself) after being exposed to the various people
out there and we are mostly exposed to the bad elements of society,
develop and us (PO's) against them (civilians) mentality. Most of this
attitude comes from doing our jobs and the people out there not being
satisfied with the results. Or it comes from arresting dealers and
other criminals and their parents filing complaints because we had to
hit their son because he tried to fight or stab or shoot one of us.
They don't realize that they are lucky their son is alive. I say this
because the law allows officers to use "deadly physical force" when
their lives are in danger. This may be by someone coming at us with a
bat, a knife or any other instrument that can cause serious/deadly
physical harm. We can also use our guns to prevent a suicide (sounds
strange doesn't it?). When I trained the rookie cops fresh out of the
academy I always told them to not take what people say personally, a
lot of them are venting and a lot are decent and are just caught up in
the moment. Yes you will get the rogue, rude, asshole crooked cop out
there and he is the one that ruins it for the decent ones trying to do
their jobs. I had many close friends that stayed away from me when I
became a police officer because I was now one of "them". That's is why
a lot of officers cant be friends with "civilians". I would say that
90% of the officers out there in the larger departments develop the
"me against them" mentality. Sometimes it does feel like its you
against the world.
Michael
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > you could not pay me enough to go into LE. i often wonder why people
> > choose that as a direction to go in. one of my friends became a cop
> > because his father was and so was his grandfather. he went to college
> > first and got a four year degree. the other guy was in the military.
> > the military guy says im the only non cop friend that he has kept from
> > his younger days. for what ever reason, he cant stand being around
> > "civilains".
>
good one :-) if i do look like a criminal, it is a white collar
version. not the type he'd go up against. since i have known this
fellow since 6th grade, i remember him from a former encarnation. his
speach and behavior now is not as shocking to me as it is to others
that dont know him. i knew him once uppon a time when he was a
person. for the most part, he does not feel out of place around me
because i am not reactionary. he is almost violently cynical about
people. everyone is a "pice of shit" or what ever. when people
protest against the way he acts, he just ramps up his presence.
really not a comfortable guy to be around.
Michael
thanx for the excellent response... i'd also gather that it effects
different people in differnt ways. some people in high pressure
business/sales find it to be exhillerating as do I. Others have
nervous breakdowns and drink. makes me think a bit about two relatives
that i had whore were in WW II. Both are decised now, but they could
not have been more opposite about their experience in the war. Both
saw heavy combat. One of them talked about it like the time of his
life and wanted to pass on the war stories. The other one was fucked
up and you did not go near it or ask.
Ritchie
> thanx for the excellent response... i'd also gather that it effects
> different people in differnt ways. some people in high pressure
> business/sales find it to be exhillerating as do I. Others have
> nervous breakdowns and drink. makes me think a bit about two relatives
> that i had whore were in WW II. Both are decised now, but they could
> not have been more opposite about their experience in the war. Both
> saw heavy combat. One of them talked about it like the time of his
> life and wanted to pass on the war stories. The other one was fucked
> up and you did not go near it or ask
I had an uncle that went to Vietnam and he also was in heavy combat
situations. He, in his own words "loved every minute of it" and likes
to talk about it. My guess is that he liked the rush/excitement that
the situations he was in gave him.
Michael
my mothers sister (my aunt) is married to a vietnam vet. he is an
interesting guy. he was a long haird free spirit hippi guy back in
the day. he was/is a very talented musician. not a rock pop guy. a
classical player that has been in many an ochestra pit in NYC. he
actually voulenteed for service while he was 18 y/o and attending
julliard. he did so because his old man was a WW II and Korean war
vet. He still feels like the US government had the right idea at the
time to get involved and he is pissed off that they cut it short. it
is odd to hear a hippi sort of guy and a musician to boot say that he
was all for the vietnam war.