NYPD terrorizing civilians

[O-PGManager]

Great 13 min mini-doc on the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7rWtDMPaRD8

Actual audio footage of your average NYPD encounter with a young man of
color - NYPD whistleblowers explain the illegal orders given to them by
commanders. We know where Jerry Sturdivant stands on stop and frisk - but
what about racism-hating BillB? If I had to guess he lines up pretty
squarely with thug mayor Bloomberg.



Opie G. Manager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)

[BillB]

I'm sorry, I don't have time to watch your video right now. I'll just go
with whatever Jerry says. He's the only real law enforcement
professional around here.

[Jason Pawloski]

Did you see the video Philadelphia cop beat someone at a parade for no
reason? Did you see that the chief either suspended or dismissed the cop,
and his cop gang banger buddies are running a fund raiser for the
dishonored cop? You can't even make this shit up in a movie, people
wouldn't believe it.

--
WILLIAM COLEMAN PHOTO GALLERY! See here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGg-mbTtlJ4&feature=youtu.be

William Coleman of Las Vegas Nevada is a dangerous, violent convicted
criminal. He has recently committed felonies in his harassment of an RGP
user.

"As a result of my encounter with the Henderson Police SWAT team, I
eventually pled guilty to Conspiracy to Commit a Crime, a gross
misdemeanor." - William Coleman admits that he is a convicted criminal
(cite: http://recgroups.com/a/1/127894/)

"I have killed many dogs in my life, and I will kill many more." William
P. Coleman boasting about his sociopathic tendencies (cite:
http://recgroups.com/a/1/128390/)

"For years, when I see one or more teenaged girls walking down the
street, I pull up beside them and ask them if they want to go smoke
dope and fuck. Amazingly, this technique gets good results fairly
often. Otherwise, I wouldn't continue to use it." Convicted criminal
William Coleman (cite: http://recgroups.com/a/1/123930/)

WARNING! 67-year old convicted criminal William Coleman describes how he
uses Facebook to meet minor girls. See:
http://recgroups.com/t/1/123914#a123914

[Jason Pawloski]

On Oct 13 2012 7:51 PM, Jason Pawloski wrote:

> On Oct 13 2012 6:06 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
>
> > Great 13 min mini-doc on the subject:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7rWtDMPaRD8
> >
> > Actual audio footage of your average NYPD encounter with a young man of
> > color - NYPD whistleblowers explain the illegal orders given to them by
> > commanders. We know where Jerry Sturdivant stands on stop and frisk - but
> > what about racism-hating BillB? If I had to guess he lines up pretty
> > squarely with thug mayor Bloomberg.
> >
> >
> >
> > Opie G. Manager
> > Rec.Gambling.Poker
> > Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)
>
> Did you see the video Philadelphia cop beat someone at a parade for no
> reason? Did you see that the chief either suspended or dismissed the cop,
> and his cop gang banger buddies are running a fund raiser for the
> dishonored cop? You can't even make this shit up in a movie, people
> wouldn't believe it.
>

Here's a cite from "Law Enfrocement's #1 site"

http://www.policeone.com/news/6010212-Union-to-fete-Philly-cop-who-hit-parade-goer/

Read the comments. If this doesn't terrify you and teach you that cops are
a serious danger to non-criminals, nothing will.

I rejoice every time a cop is killed. That community is safer for having a
cop murdered. The more cops that are killed, the safer society is.

[ChrisRobin]

On Oct 13 2012 9:34 PM, BillB wrote:

> I'm sorry, I don't have time to watch your video right now. I'll just go
> with whatever Jerry says. He's the only real law enforcement
> professional around here.

Must. Obey. Authority!

[da pickle]

Very interesting. I was most interested in the statistic given that
"only" 1% of those stopped had a gun! Only one percent. Let's see ...
1800 stopped and ONLY 180 concealed weapons ... in NYC? Only 180?

I suspect there are two sides of the whole story and we have seen one
side presented. I do not think it is proper for the police to harass
anyone ... however, this one young man was "known" to the police. What
they knew is unknown, of course. Talking back to the police is not a
good idea. Jerry's admonition to do what the officer tells you is a
good one.

A one sided anecdote is not much of case ... but do not think for a
minute that I do not believe that there is racism and bad judgement by
NYC (and other big city) police officers ... and do not think for a
moment that those same officers sometimes have good reason for their
prejudices.

I had a friend ask me last week if I could "help" him with a ticket ...
50 in a school zone. It was on the edge of the 2-4 time and after the
school children were long gone. I did ask him if he was polite to the
police officer ... he said "yes" ... "until he actually gave me the
fucking ticket."

I am amazed that people believe that speaking to a police officer in
anything other than a subservient manner is a "good thing" ... it does
not matter whether your "rights" are being violated or not. It is just
stupid. Many police officers are not the brightest folks in your
community, why be dumber than you think they are? [They have a gun ...
that seals the deal for me.]

PS: I can help you if you are polite to the nice officer.

[Jason Pawloski]

On Oct 14 2012 8:00 AM, da pickle wrote:

> On 10/13/2012 7:06 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
> > Great 13 min mini-doc on the subject:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7rWtDMPaRD8
> >
> > Actual audio footage of your average NYPD encounter with a young man of
> > color - NYPD whistleblowers explain the illegal orders given to them by
> > commanders. We know where Jerry Sturdivant stands on stop and frisk - but
> > what about racism-hating BillB? If I had to guess he lines up pretty
> > squarely with thug mayor Bloomberg.
> >
> >
> >
> > Opie G. Manager
> > Rec.Gambling.Poker
> > Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)
>
> Very interesting. I was most interested in the statistic given that
> "only" 1% of those stopped had a gun! Only one percent. Let's see ...
> 1800 stopped and ONLY 180 concealed weapons ... in NYC? Only 180?

I see numbers are your strong suit.

[VegasJerry]

On Saturday, October 13, 2012 5:08:50 PM UTC-7, O-PGManager wrote:
> Great 13 min mini-doc on the subject:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7rWtDMPaRD8
>
> Actual audio footage of your average NYPD encounter

Of course you don't know this….

> with a young man of color

Or this.

> - NYPD whistleblowers explain the illegal orders given to them by
> commanders.

Or this.

> We know where Jerry Sturdivant stands on stop and frisk -

Or this.

> but what about racism-hating BillB? If I had to guess

Gee; imagine that; you guessing - again.

> he lines up pretty squarely with thug mayor Bloomberg.

Then making up another position for someone.

I see why you're a Romney supporter. Believe made up bullshit; then make up positions on things you know absolutely nothing about.

Heh, nailed you again.
Just shut up and do what you're told.


Jerry 'n Vegas

[brattt]

On Oct 13 2012 7:06 PM, O-PGManager wrote:

> Great 13 min mini-doc on the subject:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7rWtDMPaRD8
>
> Actual audio footage of your average NYPD encounter with a young man of
> color - NYPD whistleblowers explain the illegal orders given to them by
> commanders. We know where Jerry Sturdivant stands on stop and frisk - but
> what about racism-hating BillB? If I had to guess he lines up pretty
> squarely with thug mayor Bloomberg.

This is beyond disturbing

---------------------------------------------------------------

Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator, rec.gambling.poker
Whose stated mission is to call out the Asses on RGP

[VegasJerry]

On Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:48:40 PM UTC-7, ChrisRobin wrote:
> On Oct 13 2012 9:34 PM, BillB wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry, I don't have time to watch your video right now. I'll just go
> > with whatever Jerry says. He's the only real law enforcement
> > professional around here.

.
> Must. Obey. Authority!

Hmm, I see why you're having so much trouble.

[Clave]

"VegasJerry" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:d791295f-c9e1-45ac...@googlegroups.com...

He's a Dalek.

[VegasJerry]

On Sunday, October 14, 2012 7:00:42 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
> On 10/13/2012 7:06 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
> > Great 13 min mini-doc on the subject:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7rWtDMPaRD8
> >
> > Actual audio footage of your average NYPD encounter with a young man of
> > color - NYPD whistleblowers explain the illegal orders given to them by
> > commanders. We know where Jerry Sturdivant stands on stop and frisk - but
> > what about racism-hating BillB? If I had to guess he lines up pretty
> > squarely with thug mayor Bloomberg.
> >
> >
> >
> > Opie G. Manager
> > Rec.Gambling.Poker
> > Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)

.

> Very interesting. I was most interested in the statistic given that
> "only" 1% of those stopped had a gun! Only one percent. Let's see ...
> 1800 stopped and ONLY 180 concealed weapons ... in NYC? Only 180?

So let's apply that reasoning to other situations. Care to ride on an airliner where 1% of the passengers might be carrying a bomb? Care to take medicine where they only check 99% of it

Jerry 'n Vegas

[Bill Vanek]

On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 07:43:39 -0700 (PDT), VegasJerry <jer...@cox.net>
wrote:

Why do you post? I mean, first, he either meant 10% or 18 guns, but
you completely misunderstood what he was saying anyhow.

[O-PGManager]

How many times have you been stopped, frisked, and humiliated? Another
old white guy telling the 800,000 dark skinned kids that their harassment
is no big deal.

[O-PGManager]

On Oct 14 2012 10:32 AM, VegasJerry wrote:

> On Saturday, October 13, 2012 5:08:50 PM UTC-7, O-PGManager wrote:
> > Great 13 min mini-doc on the subject:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7rWtDMPaRD8
> >
> > Actual audio footage of your average NYPD encounter
>
> Of course you don't know this….
>
>
> > with a young man of color
>
> Or this.
>
> > - NYPD whistleblowers explain the illegal orders given to them by
> > commanders.
>
> Or this.
>
> > We know where Jerry Sturdivant stands on stop and frisk -
>
> Or this.
>
>
> > but what about racism-hating BillB? If I had to guess
>
> Gee; imagine that; you guessing - again.
>
> > he lines up pretty squarely with thug mayor Bloomberg.
>
> Then making up another position for someone.
>
> I see why you're a Romney supporter.

facetopalm

[brattt]

On Oct 14 2012 10:40 AM, Bill Vanek wrote:

> Why do you post? I mean, first, he either meant 10% or 18 guns, but
> you completely misunderstood what he was saying anyhow.

LOL quit dodgeting and answer his question

[Jason Pawloski]

Why's that Susan?

[Bill Vanek]

On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 09:15:11 -0700, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid>
wrote:

>On Oct 14 2012 10:40 AM, Bill Vanek wrote:
>
>> Why do you post? I mean, first, he either meant 10% or 18 guns, but
>> you completely misunderstood what he was saying anyhow.
>
>LOL quit dodgeting and answer his question

Right, so he can tell me to "learn to lose". I think he'd be a great
teacher on that subject, though. Continuous firsthand experience and
all. So many teachers are lacking in that area.

[Will in New Haven]

So one side of an argument has a monopoly on the discussion. Besides,
Jerry isn't a law enforcement pro. He's a failed cop.

--
Will in New Haven

[Will in New Haven]

On Oct 14, 11:48 am, "O-PGManager" <ad63...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> How many times have you been stopped, frisked, and humiliated?  Another
> old white guy telling the 800,000 dark skinned kids that their harassment
> is no big deal.

I've been stopped and frisked many times. The Birmingham police
department had no use for me when I was there in the late Sixties,
less than they had for most Black people. I never felt humiliated and
they never caught me for any of the many crimes I was committing back
then.

[O-PGManager]

I hope you're not citing the late 60s Birmingham police as an example of a
force using an acceptable approach to law enforcement.

"By his count, before his 18th birthday, he had been unjustifiably stopped
by the police more than 60 times. On several occasions, merely because he
asked why he had been stopped, he was handcuffed, placed in a cell and
detained for hours before being released without charges. These
experiences were scarring; Mr. Brehon did whatever he could to avoid the
police, often feeling as if he were a prisoner in his home."

Pickle will never have a clue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/opinion/the-scars-of-stop-and-frisk.html

[da pickle]

On 10/14/2012 6:30 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
> On Oct 14 2012 5:26 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
>
>> On Oct 14, 11:48 am, "O-PGManager" <ad63...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>>> How many times have you been stopped, frisked, and humiliated? Another
>>> old white guy telling the 800,000 dark skinned kids that their harassment
>>> is no big deal.
>>
>> I've been stopped and frisked many times. The Birmingham police
>> department had no use for me when I was there in the late Sixties,
>> less than they had for most Black people. I never felt humiliated and
>> they never caught me for any of the many crimes I was committing back
>> then.
>>
>> --
>> Will in New Haven
>
> I hope you're not citing the late 60s Birmingham police as an example of a
> force using an acceptable approach to law enforcement.
>
> "By his count, before his 18th birthday, he had been unjustifiably stopped
> by the police more than 60 times. On several occasions, merely because he
> asked why he had been stopped, he was handcuffed, placed in a cell and
> detained for hours before being released without charges. These
> experiences were scarring; Mr. Brehon did whatever he could to avoid the
> police, often feeling as if he were a prisoner in his home."
>
> Pickle will never have a clue.

You may be correct ... I do not know the difference between 10% and 1%.

However, if it takes 100 stop and frisks on suspicion to get one
concealed weapon, that seems reasonable.

"By his count" does not mean much to me nor does his likely definition
of "unjustifiably". A lot of things happened in the 60s and a lot of
things are happening now. I can see why people might be upset by
certain police actions ... I also understand that victims of crime in
the area where the "suspicious activity" is taking place might have a
different view of the situation.

It is difficult to be a policeman these days. Might be a chicken and
egg thing ... or it might not.

[fffurken]

On Oct 15, 2:03 am, da pickle <jcpick...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

> It is difficult to be a policeman these days.  Might be a chicken and
> egg thing ... or it might not.

Chicken *or* egg. As I've said before on RGP, the 'or' instead of
'and' is fucking vital in the understanding of the expression, you
fucking retard.

[da pickle]

Sorry you were confused ... I said it might "not" be a "chicken and egg"
thing.

[fffurken]

On Oct 15, 1:38 pm, da pickle <jcpick...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

> >> It is difficult to be a policeman these days.  Might be a chicken and
> >> egg thing ... or it might not.
>
> > Chicken *or* egg. As I've said before on RGP, the 'or' instead of
> > 'and' is fucking vital in the understanding of the expression, you
> > fucking retard.
>
> Sorry you were confused ... I said it might "not" be a "chicken and egg"
> thing.

What difference does that make?

[da pickle]

Good grief, "chicken or egg" is correct, ffffff .... your pointing it
out is pointless ... there was a discussion going on and you jumped in,
like some others often do, to divert any reasonable discussion into a
blind alley of nonsense. My apology for responding to you at all.

[fffurken]

On Oct 15, 2:18 pm, da pickle <jcpick...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

> >> Sorry you were confused ... I said it might "not" be a "chicken and egg"
> >> thing.
>
> > What difference does that make?
>
> Good grief, "chicken or egg" is correct, ffffff .... your pointing it
> out is pointless ... there was a discussion going on and you jumped in,
> like some others often do, to divert any reasonable discussion into a
> blind alley of nonsense.  My apology for responding to you at all.

You're damn right you should fucking apologise, for wasting my time.

Because you were talking shit, and you still are.

[O-PGManager]

Says the old white guy who will NEVER be subject to these detentions, who
will NEVER have to live in constant fear of a cop slamming him against a
wall and racially harassing him. Reasonable indeed.

>
> "By his count" does not mean much to me nor does his likely definition
> of "unjustifiably". A lot of things happened in the 60s and a lot of
> things are happening now. I can see why people might be upset by
> certain police actions ... I also understand that victims of crime in
> the area where the "suspicious activity" is taking place might have a
> different view of the situation.
>
> It is difficult to be a policeman these days. Might be a chicken and
> egg thing ... or it might not.

[Jason Pawloski]

You are an absolute piece of shit.

[BillB]

On 10/13/2012 5:06 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
> Great 13 min mini-doc on the subject:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7rWtDMPaRD8
>
> Actual audio footage of your average NYPD encounter with a young man of
> color - NYPD whistleblowers explain the illegal orders given to them by
> commanders. We know where Jerry Sturdivant stands on stop and frisk - but
> what about racism-hating BillB? If I had to guess he lines up pretty
> squarely with thug mayor Bloomberg.

Okay, I watched the video. This is just a tiny but highly visible
example of the structural racism faced by minorities in the United
States. I have been talking about these issues here for years, and the
right-wingers continually deny their importance in the unGodly social
stratification that persists in the US to this very day. So if your post
was for some reason directed to me, you are preaching to the choir.

[brattt]

On Oct 15 2012 11:36 AM, BillB wrote:

> Okay, I watched the video. This is just a tiny but highly visible
> example of the structural racism faced by minorities in the United
> States. I have been talking about these issues here for years, and the
> right-wingers continually deny their importance in the unGodly social
> stratification that persists in the US to this very day.

liar

[VegasJerry]

.
> Why do you post?

Why do you dodge questions that prove logic?

Jerry 'n Vegas

[VegasJerry]

On Sunday, October 14, 2012 9:18:34 AM UTC-7, brattt wrote:
> On Oct 14 2012 10:40 AM, Bill Vanek wrote:
>
>
>
> > Why do you post? I mean, first, he either meant 10% or 18 guns, but
>
> > you completely misunderstood what he was saying anyhow.
>
>

.
> LOL quit dodgeting and answer his question

I already asked him that. Now I might as well ask why you couldn't answser?


Jerry

[VegasJerry]

Gee, another that couldn't address the logic and reverted to lying.

You wing nuts are nuts.

Jerry

[da pickle]

On 10/14/2012 8:26 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
> On Oct 14 2012 9:03 PM, da pickle wrote:

>> However, if it takes 100 stop and frisks on suspicion to get one
>> concealed weapon, that seems reasonable.
>
> Says the old white guy who will NEVER be subject to these detentions, who
> will NEVER have to live in constant fear of a cop slamming him against a
> wall and racially harassing him. Reasonable indeed.

If I, even at my advanced age, am in a "bad" part of town wearing a
hoodie and acting "suspicious" and when the police stop to speak to me I
give them a hard time, I suspect that I could provoke them into more
than speaking to me.

I know the crime problems in bad parts of town only are seen by you as
only a prime opportunity for detention and harassment of black folks ...
but that does not mean that all bad parts of town are inhabited by black
folks nor does it mean that all stops are legitimate nor does it mean
that all stops are illegitimate.

[da pickle]

On 10/15/2012 11:23 AM, Jason Pawloski wrote:
> On Oct 14 2012 7:03 PM, da pickle wrote:

>> You may be correct ... I do not know the difference between 10% and 1%.
>>
>> However, if it takes 100 stop and frisks on suspicion to get one
>> concealed weapon, that seems reasonable.
>
> You are an absolute piece of shit.

One might be accurate to say that all of us are in some way somewhat
full of shit.

[fffurken]

On Oct 15, 11:28 pm, da pickle <jcpick...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

> > You are an absolute piece of shit.
>
> One might be accurate to say that all of us are in some way somewhat
> full of shit.

None more so than you.

Most people just say what they mean on RGP but you tap dance around
almost everything.

I can't think of anyone more evasive and dishonest than you on RGP
except perhaps mo_ron.

In the stupidity stakes, I put you about equal.

[da pickle]

And yet, I said exactly what I meant ... you are just as full of shit as
I ... literally.

[fffurken]

> I ... literally.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No, I am not as full of shit as you are.

You are a stupid asshole.

[O-PGManager]

You just said 99 out of 100 failed searches for weapons was "reasonable".
It's only reasonable if the possibility of you being one of the 99 will
never be more than an abstract hypothetical.

[O-PGManager]

Glad to hear you're with me on this one. I stand corrected on my guess of
where you'd come down. One thing though - it's far from just the "right
wingers" who don't recognize structural racism.

[fffurken]

On Oct 16, 12:15 am, da pickle <jcpick...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

> I ... literally.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

And just in case it isn't entirely clear to you - you have crossed a
line with me.

I know exactly what you're like. I know you like to prey and fester on
what you consider weaknesses in any one. JtS and Pepe are good
examples, even ramashiva. But you should realise one thing if it's all
you do, I am not a mentally unstable adult, I am someone with whom you
should never fuck, on RGP. I am going to rip you a new asshole. And no
one, with a shred of decency, will say that you didn't have it coming
to you.

[da pickle]

The sound is familiar. I do wish that you would reconsider your thoughts.

[da pickle]

No, it is not that at all. The failed stops are not unreasonable at all
... they are based on suspicious behavior. That many stops turn out to
be not important is irrelevant. They deter the suspicious folks from
being up to no good. That is a worthy goal. If those stopped would
just cooperate with the police, there would seldom be a problem. But
they do not. More often than not, the police know who the problem folks
are ... and they are definitely looking for any excuse to confront them.
That does not mean that there is no abuse, there is. It is a problem.
You only see one side of the problem. That does not make you bad
person. It really has nothing to do with me being stopped; or you.

[fffurken]

> The sound is familiar.  I do wish that you would reconsider your thoughts.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I'll reconsider my thoughts on two conditions.

1) You change your handle from pickle to pickpest.
2) You do as I tell you and don't ever talk back.

I have a funny feeling you won't comply with these conditions and
therefore I'm just going to get on with ripping you a new asshole over
the months and years we are likely to spend together. Welcome to hell,
it was of your own making.

[BillB]

On 10/15/2012 5:21 PM, da pickle wrote:

> No, it is not that at all. The failed stops are not unreasonable at all
> ... they are based on suspicious behavior.

LOL! Ya, we heard your idea of being "suspicious." (wearing a hoodie)

To a right-winger, walking down the street while not being white is
"suspicious." We already went through this with Trayvon Martin.

[da pickle]

The familiar ring ... it is uncanny. So similar, so ... so not-strange
in the least. Who could it be? A reincarnation. Could it be?

[da pickle]

Was anyone speaking to you? Opie was attempting to be reasonable and I
disagree with his take on the matter. Shouldn't you be resting?

[fffurken]

On Oct 16, 1:47 am, da pickle <jcpick...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

> The familiar ring ... it is uncanny.  So similar, so ... so not-strange
> in the least.  Who could it be?  A reincarnation.  Could it be?

I'm obviously mimicking ramashiva, are you a fucking idiot to ask the
question?

I can tell, you're going to have to raise your game for any chance at
survival. Which I already put at zero.

[O-PGManager]

On Oct 15 2012 8:21 PM, da pickle wrote:

> On 10/15/2012 6:33 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
> > On Oct 15 2012 6:25 PM, da pickle wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/14/2012 8:26 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
> >>> On Oct 14 2012 9:03 PM, da pickle wrote:
> >>
> >>>> However, if it takes 100 stop and frisks on suspicion to get one
> >>>> concealed weapon, that seems reasonable.
> >>>
> >>> Says the old white guy who will NEVER be subject to these detentions, who
> >>> will NEVER have to live in constant fear of a cop slamming him against a
> >>> wall and racially harassing him. Reasonable indeed.
> >>
> >> If I, even at my advanced age, am in a "bad" part of town wearing a
> >> hoodie and acting "suspicious" and when the police stop to speak to me I
> >> give them a hard time, I suspect that I could provoke them into more
> >> than speaking to me.
> >>
> >> I know the crime problems in bad parts of town only are seen by you as
> >> only a prime opportunity for detention and harassment of black folks ...
> >> but that does not mean that all bad parts of town are inhabited by black
> >> folks nor does it mean that all stops are legitimate nor does it mean
> >> that all stops are illegitimate.
> >
> >
> > You just said 99 out of 100 failed searches for weapons was "reasonable".
> > It's only reasonable if the possibility of you being one of the 99 will
> > never be more than an abstract hypothetical.
>
> No, it is not that at all. The failed stops are not unreasonable at all

> .... they are based on suspicious behavior.

If 99 out of 100 times your suspicion turns out to be wrong, does that say
anything to you about what standard you are using for 'suspicion'?

It says it's meaningless - and it totally is in New York, all a cop has to
do is mutter 'he made a furtive movement'.

That many stops turn out to
> be not important is irrelevant. They deter the suspicious folks from
> being up to no good. That is a worthy goal. If those stopped would
> just cooperate with the police, there would seldom be a problem. But
> they do not. More often than not, the police know who the problem folks
> are ... and they are definitely looking for any excuse to confront them.
> That does not mean that there is no abuse, there is. It is a problem.
> You only see one side of the problem. That does not make you bad
> person. It really has nothing to do with me being stopped; or you.

[brattt]

On Oct 15 2012 6:36 PM, O-PGManager wrote:

> One thing though - it's far from just the "right
> wingers" who don't recognize structural racism.

Of course it is. He constantly lies about this.

[mo_ntresor]

On Oct 15 2012 6:49 PM, da pickle wrote:

> > LOL! Ya, we heard your idea of being "suspicious." (wearing a hoodie)
> >
> > To a right-winger, walking down the street while not being white is
> > "suspicious." We already went through this with Trayvon Martin.
>
> Was anyone speaking to you? Opie was attempting to be reasonable and I
> disagree with his take on the matter. Shouldn't you be resting?

what he meant was hispanic "white".

mo_ntresor

[BillB]

Uh, no, I didn't. Learn to read for comprehension.

[mo_ntresor]

On Oct 16 2012 9:46 AM, BillB wrote:

> >>> To a right-winger, walking down the street while not being white is
> >>> "suspicious." We already went through this with Trayvon Martin.
> >>
> >> Was anyone speaking to you? Opie was attempting to be reasonable and I
> >> disagree with his take on the matter. Shouldn't you be resting?
> >
> > what he meant was hispanic "white".
>

> Uh, no, I didn't. Learn to read for comprehension.

that explains why zimms was arrested, some white cops found him suspicious.

mo_ntresor

[Will in New Haven]

Saying that you are a failed cop is not a lie. It is an expression of
opinion. "Failed cop" is not an either/or thing. I think you are a
failed cop and you think you're not. I suppose it is a matter of
definition. I concede that you were not fired but either you or the
job didn't work out.

The "logic" of "only police officers can have an opinion on police
misconduct" is so obvious that only you defend it.

[VegasJerry]

Yea, actually it is. You can't show where I was.

> It is an expression of opinion. "Failed cop" is not an either/or thing. I think you are a
> failed cop and you think you're not. I suppose it is a matter of
> definition.

.
> I concede that you were not fired but either you or the
> job didn't work out.

And you can't show this weird fantasy of yours either.

> The "logic" of "only police officers can have an opinion on police
> misconduct" is so obvious that only you defend it.

And you can't show that, either.

(Check your mental health - you (and sS) are getting weird attempting to pursue me like this)


Jerry 'n Vegas


> Will in New Haven

[FL Turbo]

Hey, that's really mean.
I can just see pickle sobbing uncontrollably after that.
It is to laugh.
Ha Ha.

I knew ramashiva, and you ain't no ramashiva.

Face it, fffurkhead.
You're about as threatening as a 4 year old calling somebody a
poopyhead.

STFU or I shall insult you once again.

--------------------------------------------------------
Irish foreplay
"Brace yourself, Bridget"

[fffurken]

On 17 Oct, 02:49, FL Turbo <noem...@notime.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:52:18 -0700 (PDT), fffurken
>

lol Yeah right, sure, whatever, moron.

[Will in New Haven]

And you can't show that you weren't. So it's a matter of opinion.
Since I stated my opinion, you fucking moron, I wasn't lying. Do you
even understand the definition of a lie

>
> > The "logic" of "only police officers can have an opinion on police
> > misconduct" is so obvious that only you defend it.
>
> And you can't show that, either.

OK, let's lay it out. If only police officers can have an opinion on
police misconduct, then there can be no such thing as police
misconduct. So any piece of shit with a badge can get away with
anything he wants, providing other cops approve or look the other way.
And other cops do, with some really appreciated exceptions, tend to
look the other way.

>
> (Check your mental health - you (and sS) are getting weird attempting to pursue me like this)

Check your understanding of the language and your general stupidity.

[mo_ntresor]

On Oct 17 2012 9:10 AM, Will in New Haven wrote:

> Check your understanding of the language and your general stupidity.

as the only truly objective resource on the ng, i've checked those for
jerrytard near daily. he's impervious to revelations of his own stupidity.

mo_ntresor

[brattt]

On Oct 17 2012 10:10 AM, Will in New Haven wrote:

> Check your understanding of the language and your general stupidity.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven

ask him what the word BOTH means while you are at it.

[da pickle]

You are correct ... different folks have different opinions of what
rises to "suspicious." Apparently, there is not that much difference
between those that are just selling drugs and those that are carrying
concealed weapons. We should add that there are different opinions of
what rises to "a furtive movement". Your implication that "all" police
stops are unjustified is not supported ... your idea that there should
be fewer stops is an opinion and I am sure there is anecdotal evidence
to support it.

Specifically, I have been visiting NYC for over forty years. It is a
MUCH safer place now than it was forty years ago. I suggest the change
started with Giuliani.

[Will in New Haven]

On Oct 17, 11:23 am, "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com>
wrote:

The idea that having an incorrect opinion, and I admit that my opinion
could be incorrect, or simply an opinion that differs with that of the
speaker is lying is pernicious. Lying is an entirely different thing
and Jerry cannot tell the difference because he is incredibly stupid
or he will not acknowledge the difference because that would mean
admitting that he is wrong.

A counter-factual statement is only lying if the speaker does not
believe it. To enter the sordid world of present-day politics, the
following advertisement keeps appearing.

Romney's proposed tax policy is described, not terribly innacurately,
and the spokesman then says that this would lead either to a much
bigger deficit or higher taxes on the middle class. Then the spokesman
says "if we can't trust him on this, how can we trust him on that."

Maybe, however, Romney believes that he can reduce spending
sufficiently to do the job. One does not have to accept that he
_could_ I don't think he could, even if he had both houses of Congress
in the Republican camp. In fact, the ad is dishonest because it
implies that Romney _must_ be lying.

In fact, like his opponent, Romney is operating from a set of beliefs
and a world-view that I don't share and, within that set of beliefs
and that world-view, he is or at least very well may be saying what he
thinks to be true.

[Will in New Haven]

New Haven is a much safer place than it was forty years ago, although
not as safe as it was ten or twelve years ago. If you look at the
large cities of the eastern seaboard, it would be a rare exception
that did not follow this pattern (dates approximate):

1965: Rather little, comparatively, violent crime. Some riots and the
people from Paducah thought the cities were dangerous but they weren't
all that dangerous.
1980: Dodge City east (actually, MUCH more dangerous than Dodge City)
1995: Very little, comparatively, violent crime
2008: Not up to 1980s levels but an upward trend.

And EVERY mayor of every one of those cities took credit for the
1980-95 change and none of them want to take the blame for the recent
upswing. There were Democrats and Republicans, strict law-and-order
types and coddlers of the criminals in office all over the place and
stuff happened pretty much the same everywhere.

One of the factors, but only one: The crack addicts died or survived
in such condition that they were no longer likely to commit or be
victims of violent crime. The crack business tanked.

[ChrisRobin]

On Oct 17 2012 12:33 PM, da pickle wrote:

> Specifically, I have been visiting NYC for over forty years. It is a
> MUCH safer place now than it was forty years ago. I suggest the change
> started with Giuliani.

Giuliani also presided over a police force that regularly shot unarmed
immigrants, if I remember correctly. Bug, or feature?

[VegasJerry]

Inability to show it, noted.

> > > It is an expression of opinion. "Failed cop" is not an either/or thing.

That's for sure. I don’t understand your need to express it.

> I think you are a failed cop and you think you're not.

I know I'm not. You know nothing.

> > I suppose it is a matter of definition.

Backing up so soon?

.
> > > I concede that you were not fired but either you or the
> > > job didn't work out.

> > And you can't show this weird fantasy of yours either.


> And you can't show that you weren't.

Oh but I can. But thank you for admitting you can't prove your accusation.

> So it's a matter of opinion.

WHOA! Making up new rules here? You already "conceded" you in a corner.

> Since I stated my opinion, you fucking moron, I wasn't lying.

Except the parts that weren’t opinion, you fucking moron. Keep digging.

> Do you even understand the definition of a lie

Yes. Quit dodging. Keep digging. You have something about me you were going to show, remember?

> > > The "logic" of "only police officers can have an opinion on police
> > > misconduct" is so obvious that only you defend it.
> >
> > And you can't show that, either.
>
> OK, let's lay it out.

You're going to attempt to show it?

> If only police officers can have an opinion on
> police misconduct, then there can be no such thing as police
> misconduct.

You still haven't shown where that's my opinion and I'm defending it. Keep digging.

> So any piece of shit with a badge can get away with
> anything he wants, providing other cops approve or look the other way.

You still haven't shown where that's my opinion and I'm defending it. Keep digging.

> And other cops do, with some really appreciated exceptions, tend to
> look the other way.

You still haven't shown where that's my opinion and I'm defending it. Keep digging.

Ball's in your court. Go find it.

Jerry 'n Vegas

[VegasJerry]

On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 8:23:44 AM UTC-7, mo_ntresor wrote:
> On Oct 17 2012 9:10 AM, Will in New Haven wrote:
>
> > Check your understanding of the language and your general stupidity.
>
> as the only truly objective resource on the ng,

WHA HA! HA! There, Will, that any help? He's your "only true objective resource."

Jerry (having fun) 'n Vegas

[VegasJerry]

On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:39:45 AM UTC-7, Will in New Haven wrote:
> On Oct 17, 11:23 am, "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Oct 17 2012 9:10 AM, Will in New Haven wrote:
> >
> > > Check your understanding of the language and your general stupidity.
> >
> > as the only truly objective resource on the ng, i've checked those for
> > jerrytard near daily. he's impervious to revelations of his own stupidity.

.
> The idea that having an incorrect opinion, and I admit that my opinion
> could be incorrect, or simply an opinion that differs with that of the
> speaker is lying is pernicious. Lying is an entirely different thing
> and Jerry cannot tell the difference because he is incredibly stupid
> or he will not acknowledge the difference because that would mean
> admitting that he is wrong.

Hey! What a minute. YOU made the accusation about me. It's yours to prove. Or is this you backing out already? Get back to digging.


Jerry 'n Vegas

[brattt]

On Oct 17 2012 4:42 PM, VegasJerry wrote:

> WHA HA! HA! There, Will, that any help? He's your "only true objective
resource."
>
> Jerry (having fun) 'n Vegas

On Aug 31 2012 6:28 PM, VegasJerry wrote:

Another content-free reply noted.

[VegasJerry]

Do you every have anything to say? Or are you just another Beldummy, writing to see your shit on the screen?

[brattt]

[O-PGManager]

On Oct 17 2012 2:46 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:

> On Oct 17, 12:33 pm, da pickle <jcpick...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/15/2012 11:51 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Oct 15 2012 8:21 PM, da pickle wrote:
> >
> > >> On 10/15/2012 6:33 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
> > >>> On Oct 15 2012 6:25 PM, da pickle wrote:
> >
> > >>>> On 10/14/2012 8:26 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
> > >>>>> On Oct 14 2012 9:03 PM, da pickle wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>> However, if it takes 100 stop and frisks on suspicion to get one
> > >>>>>> concealed weapon, that seems reasonable.
> >
> > >>>>> Says the old white guy who will NEVER be subject to these
detentions, who
> > >>>>> will NEVER have to live in constant fear of a cop slamming him
against a
> > >>>>> wall and racially harassing him.  Reasonable indeed.
> >
> > >>>> If I, even at my advanced age, am in a "bad" part of town wearing a
> > >>>> hoodie and acting "suspicious" and when the police stop to speak to
me I
> > >>>> give them a hard time, I suspect that I could provoke them into more
> > >>>> than speaking to me.
> >
> > >>>> I know the crime problems in bad parts of town only are seen by you as
> > >>>> only a prime opportunity for detention and harassment of black folks
..

Thank you for this historical backdrop Will, much appreciated. You get an
Opie point.

>
> One of the factors, but only one: The crack addicts died or survived
> in such condition that they were no longer likely to commit or be
> victims of violent crime. The crack business tanked.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven

[O-PGManager]

Searches for drugs aren't allowed under Terry - these searches are
supposed to be on reasonable suspicion of weapons/danger... and 99 out of
100 times the cops are wrong. This is not "anecdotal evidence". This is
a full statistical analysis of the program.

The term "reasonable suspicion" is vague, but no court has ever held that
1/100 probability holds up. Not even close.

> Your implication that "all" police
> stops are unjustified is not supported ..

Do you just invent facts as you need them? Where did I say ALL police
stops are unjustified?

> Specifically, I have been visiting NYC for over forty years. It is a
> MUCH safer place now than it was forty years ago. I suggest the change
> started with Giuliani.

I suggest crime went down in NY the same time it went down in every city
in the US. It's a good discussion, but whatever you think....... the NYPD
wasn't doing 800,000 stop and frisks in the 90s, hell they weren't doing
800,000 stop and frisks LAST YEAR. 5 years ago it was something like 1/5
of that amount.

It's completely out of control and citizens are being terrorized.

[Pepe Papon]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 11:39:45 -0700 (PDT), Will in New Haven
<bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:

>Romney's proposed tax policy is described, not terribly innacurately,
>and the spokesman then says that this would lead either to a much
>bigger deficit or higher taxes on the middle class. Then the spokesman
>says "if we can't trust him on this, how can we trust him on that."
>
>Maybe, however, Romney believes that he can reduce spending
>sufficiently to do the job. One does not have to accept that he
>_could_ I don't think he could, even if he had both houses of Congress
>in the Republican camp. In fact, the ad is dishonest because it
>implies that Romney _must_ be lying.
>
>In fact, like his opponent, Romney is operating from a set of beliefs
>and a world-view that I don't share and, within that set of beliefs
>and that world-view, he is or at least very well may be saying what he
>thinks to be true.

Is the ad dishonest if the people behind it believe that Romney is
lying?

--

Pepe "The Revelation" Papon

[VegasJerry]

On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 7:28:42 PM UTC-7, O-PGManager wrote:
> On Oct 17 2012 12:33 PM, da pickle wrote:
>
> > On 10/15/2012 11:51 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
> > > On Oct 15 2012 8:21 PM, da pickle wrote:
> > >

> > You are correct ... different folks have different opinions of what
> > rises to "suspicious." Apparently, there is not that much difference
> > between those that are just selling drugs and those that are carrying
> > concealed weapons.

.
> Searches for drugs aren't allowed under Terry - these searches are
> supposed to be on reasonable suspicion of weapons/danger... and 99 out of
> 100 times the cops are wrong. This is not "anecdotal evidence". This is
> a full statistical analysis of the program.

And you see something wrong in that? Give us an acceptable percentage v. a person being allowed to go and shoot someone. An 'acceptable': "Yea, that's okay that my spouse was killed; the cops were kinda doing their job."

> The term "reasonable suspicion" is vague, but no court has ever held
> that 1/100 probability holds up. Not even close.

Right; there is no number a court has upheld. It's just you. Hence 'reasonable suspicion.'

> > Your implication that "all" police
> > stops are unjustified is not supported ..
>
> Do you just invent facts as you need them? Where did I say ALL
> police stops are unjustified?

You didn't. You indicated the some of them were. So justify it.

> > Specifically, I have been visiting NYC for over forty years. It is a
> > MUCH safer place now than it was forty years ago. I suggest the change
> > started with Giuliani.

> I suggest crime went down in NY the same time it went down in every city
> in the US. It's a good discussion, but whatever you think....... the NYPD
> wasn't doing 800,000 stop and frisks in the 90s, hell they weren't doing
> 800,000 stop and frisks LAST YEAR. 5 years ago it was something like 1/5
> of that amount.
>
> It's completely out of control and citizens are being terrorized.

No it's not and no they aren't and you can't show where they are.

Just do what the nice police and courts say.


Jerry (been there, done that) 'n Vegas

[Will in New Haven]

That is a good question. I just don't know how they can honestly
_know_ that he is lying, rather than simply being wrong. Of course,
their world-view may be such that they cannot imagine someone thinking
differently than they do. Then they are telling the truth but
shouldn't be given anything very difficult to do.

[O-PGManager]

On Oct 18 2012 12:23 PM, VegasJerry wrote:

> On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 7:28:42 PM UTC-7, O-PGManager wrote:
> > On Oct 17 2012 12:33 PM, da pickle wrote:
> >
> > > On 10/15/2012 11:51 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
> > > > On Oct 15 2012 8:21 PM, da pickle wrote:
> > > >
>
> > > You are correct ... different folks have different opinions of what
> > > rises to "suspicious." Apparently, there is not that much difference
> > > between those that are just selling drugs and those that are carrying
> > > concealed weapons.
>

> ..

> > Searches for drugs aren't allowed under Terry - these searches are
> > supposed to be on reasonable suspicion of weapons/danger... and 99 out of
> > 100 times the cops are wrong. This is not "anecdotal evidence". This is
> > a full statistical analysis of the program.
>
> And you see something wrong in that? Give us an acceptable percentage v. a
person being allowed to
> go and shoot someone. An 'acceptable': "Yea, that's okay that my spouse was
killed; the cops were
> kinda doing their job."

Everyone carrying a gun is automatically going to go murder someone? Why
the hell did we let you carry one then?

>
>
> > The term "reasonable suspicion" is vague, but no court has ever held
> > that 1/100 probability holds up. Not even close.
>
> Right; there is no number a court has upheld. It's just you. Hence
'reasonable suspicion.'

Courts uphold numbers all the time - US v. Winsor 9th circuit - 1 out of
40 chance didn't meet probable cause. None have ever held 1/100 as
meeting reasonable suspicion. Christ, I hope they instruct today's police
officers a little better on the law.

>
>
>
> > > Your implication that "all" police
> > > stops are unjustified is not supported ..
> >
> > Do you just invent facts as you need them? Where did I say ALL
> > police stops are unjustified?
>
> You didn't. You indicated the some of them were. So justify it.
>
>
> > > Specifically, I have been visiting NYC for over forty years. It is a
> > > MUCH safer place now than it was forty years ago. I suggest the change
> > > started with Giuliani.
>
> > I suggest crime went down in NY the same time it went down in every city
> > in the US. It's a good discussion, but whatever you think....... the NYPD
> > wasn't doing 800,000 stop and frisks in the 90s, hell they weren't doing
> > 800,000 stop and frisks LAST YEAR. 5 years ago it was something like 1/5
> > of that amount.
> >
> > It's completely out of control and citizens are being terrorized.
>
> No it's not and no they aren't and you can't show where they are.
>
> Just do what the nice police and courts say.
>
>
> Jerry (been there, done that) 'n Vegas

[VegasJerry]

On Thursday, October 18, 2012 9:18:48 PM UTC-7, O-PGManager wrote:
> On Oct 18 2012 12:23 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 7:28:42 PM UTC-7, O-PGManager wrote:
> > > On Oct 17 2012 12:33 PM, da pickle wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 10/15/2012 11:51 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
> > > > > On Oct 15 2012 8:21 PM, da pickle wrote:
> > > > >
> >
> > > > You are correct ... different folks have different opinions of what
> > > > rises to "suspicious." Apparently, there is not that much difference
> > > > between those that are just selling drugs and those that are carrying
> > > > concealed weapons.
> >
> > ..
> > > Searches for drugs aren't allowed under Terry - these searches are
> > > supposed to be on reasonable suspicion of weapons/danger... and 99 out of
> > > 100 times the cops are wrong. This is not "anecdotal evidence". This is
> > > a full statistical analysis of the program.
> >
> > And you see something wrong in that? Give us an acceptable percentage v. a
> > person being allowed to go and shoot someone. An 'acceptable': "Yea, that's
> > okay that my spouse was killed; the cops were kinda doing their job."

.

> Everyone carrying a gun is automatically going to go murder someone?

.
This is where we come to the part of the discussion where the logic showed you in error and you feel the knee-jerk need to make up a position for your opponent by pretending I indicated, "Everyone carrying a gun is automatically going to go murder someone."

Try not being so transparent.

Why
> the hell did we let you carry one then?
>
>
> >
> >
> > > The term "reasonable suspicion" is vague, but no court has ever held
> > > that 1/100 probability holds up. Not even close.
> >
> > Right; there is no number a court has upheld. It's just you. Hence
> > 'reasonable suspicion.'

> Courts uphold numbers all the time - US v. Winsor 9th circuit - 1 out of
> 40 chance didn't meet probable cause. None have ever held 1/100 as
> meeting reasonable suspicion. Christ, I hope they instruct today's police
> officers a little better on the law.

And that you make the connection that what I said was correct. See why any police procedure suggestion sent in by you would be laughed at? Just leave it to the professionals; they'll do their best to protect you.

> > > > Your implication that "all" police
> > > > stops are unjustified is not supported ..
> > >
> > > Do you just invent facts as you need them? Where did I say ALL
> > > police stops are unjustified?
> >
> > You didn't. You indicated the some of them were. So justify it.

.
Missing justification noted.


Jerry 'n Vegas

[Pepe Papon]

They don't have to *know* he's lying, they just have to *believe* it.
It's not a hard conclusion to reach if one sees numbers that simply
don't add up, one sees that Romney is being challenged on this point,
and one sees that Romney refuses to disclose the details of his plan
that would prove that the numbers do add up.

It's hard to imagine a good reason,, if he can show that the numbers
do add up, why he wouldn't do so. Therefore, it's not hard for one to
conclude, correctly or not, that he's lying.