- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Video shows how your typical LEO interaction goes
Posted on 11/15/25 at 10:01 am to stout
Posted on 11/15/25 at 10:01 am to stout
quote:
Had the women in your video not driven a Rivian with that much technology, that cop would have runined her life over fale allegations for a $25 package.
Court would have had to agree.
Very unlikely. How many blonde 50ish year old women run through that area?
All they proved was she drove through the area. That's miles away from what they need to ID her.
1
Posted on 11/15/25 at 10:03 am to llfshoals
quote:
Again, you’re making mistakes in your fictitious declaration. Unless of course you’re going to say your trophy house because you’re a successful wealthy lawyer is in the ghetto. Somehow I doubt that one is gonna fly.
This was 2010 or so when I was fresh out of law school and certainly not wealthy. It was a rental, also, not a home I owned.
quote:
In an actual encounter he could have applied failure to yield, no turn signal, improper lane change.
Then he'd be giving himself rope to hang himself for malfeasance in office by lying on a police report. Again, he was not a patrol cop. He was part of a specialized unit.
Posted on 11/15/25 at 10:03 am to UncleFestersLegs
quote:More evidence his “law degree” and “success practice” are complete bs.
Did you cry when that thread got whacked, slowing your slog to 500k?
Hell I’m retired and don’t have a fraction of that number.
So I wouldn’t be shocked if his actual profession is EBT recipient and message board spammer.
Posted on 11/15/25 at 10:04 am to Azkiger
quote:
Court would have had to agree.
Very unlikely. How many blonde 50ish year old women run through that area?
All they proved was she drove through the area. That's miles away from what they need to ID her.
Do you want to have to put your faith in the court and a DA because a criminal cop accused you on shaky evidence? They are all in the same club IMO
Posted on 11/15/25 at 10:05 am to stout
quote:
I had a plain clothes cop hit the mirror on my truck at FedEx on Clarence St a few weeks ago. I told him to watch what he was doing, and he threatened me saying I'd better drive carefully when I leave the parking lot. He acted like I should bow down to his badge and not only accept his apology but be OK with him hitting my truck. I truly think he was drunk and when I asked him for a business card, he refused by saying he was off duty, but he had his badge on his belt like he was on duty. He was just being a bully with his badge.
This is why bodycams have helped so much, but it probably wouldn't have helped you in that specific situation. The bodycams have exposed a lot of bad LEO behavior (and lots of bad behavior by citizens)
Posted on 11/15/25 at 10:07 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This is why bodycams have helped so much, but it probably wouldn't have helped you in that specific situation. The bodycams have exposed a lot of bad LEO behavior (and lots of bad behavior by citizens)
He was in the city limits but was a Sheriff deputy making those threats towards me. I should have called him in for drinking and driving because I am pretty positive he at least had a good buzz. He even looked like a drunk.
Posted on 11/15/25 at 10:09 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Sure Jan
This was 2010 or so when I was fresh out of law school and certainly not wealthy. It was a rental, also, not a home I owned.
quote:Only if you could prove it, which you couldn’t.
Then he'd be giving himself rope to hang himself for malfeasance in office by lying on a police report.
quote:So is it you were just out of law school or you were well established enough to have the connections you claimed?
Again, he was not a patrol cop. He was part of a specialized unit.
There’s an old story, when you’re in a hole, stop digging. Since you aren’t smart enough to do that I’ll just keep picking your story apart.
Posted on 11/15/25 at 10:10 am to stout
quote:
Do you want to have to put your faith in the court and a DA because a criminal cop accused you on shaky evidence? They are all in the same club IMO
No, but this isn't China were there's a 99% conviction rate.
Not sure about the county/parish level, but a quick Google reveals state conviction rates generally range between 40-80%. So lots of examples of the courts saying no. So it's not quite as bad as you're imagining.
Posted on 11/15/25 at 10:10 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The opposite, which makes this obsession with owning yourself hilarious.
The problem with a lot of your threads/responses is after you've been proven verifiably incorrect, you start altering what your meaning was/is. "That's not what I meant", "that's not what I said". ...a lot of other b.s. ...
...and then you inevitably destroy the thread.
Posted on 11/15/25 at 10:11 am to llfshoals
quote:
There’s an old story, when you’re in a hole, stop digging.
Posted on 11/15/25 at 10:11 am to hogcard1964
quote:
The problem with a lot of your threads/responses is after you've been proven verifiably incorrect
My brother in Christ, you're using your examples of you projecting being incorrect (saying I'm lying about being a lawyer) to say that I was "proven verifiably incorrect"
Posted on 11/15/25 at 10:12 am to SlowFlowPro
...straw
Posted on 11/15/25 at 10:12 am to Azkiger
quote:
No, but this isn't China were there's a 99% conviction rate.
Not sure about the county/parish level, but a quick Google reveals state conviction rates generally range between 40-80%. So lots of examples of the courts saying no. So it's not quite as bad as you're imagining.
That’s great and all, but you’re ignoring the bigger issue: she shouldn’t have to spend the time, energy, or money defending herself because of the incompetence and aggressiveness of that cop.
Posted on 11/15/25 at 10:12 am to hogcard1964
quote:
and then you inevitably destroy the thread.
"False, the threads still exist so I didn't 'destroy' them."
- SFP
This post was edited on 11/15/25 at 10:13 am
Posted on 11/15/25 at 10:13 am to hogcard1964
Sorry. You're right. I didn't look closely enough at the name.
The all lower case + Bama logo had me thinking you were the other guy with the Bama logo and all lower case
The all lower case + Bama logo had me thinking you were the other guy with the Bama logo and all lower case
Posted on 11/15/25 at 10:15 am to hogcard1964
quote:
The problem with a lot of your threads/responses is after you've been proven verifiably incorrect,
But this doesn't happen.
People create meandering strawman diversions and then when I try to get things back on track to relevance, they claim I'm changing what I said (ironically) or that I was proven incorrect (somehow).
quote:
"That's not what I meant", "that's not what I said". ...a lot of other b.s. ...
That just shows the power of dishonesty and straw man arguments.
People who rely on them to respond to me just get annoyed because I am good at pointing them out in real time. Online discourse post-2016 has devolved greatly and that sort of dishonesty is rampant. Within their echo chambers it seems normal, so when it's pointed out as being dishonest they don't react well.
Posted on 11/15/25 at 10:15 am to SlowFlowPro
You may be a lawyer. Probably not
...but that has zero bearing on anything
...but that has zero bearing on anything
Posted on 11/15/25 at 10:16 am to stout
quote:
That’s great and all, but you’re ignoring the bigger issue: she shouldn’t have to spend the time, energy, or money defending herself because of the incompetence and aggressiveness of that cop.
I agree. Sadly that's just part of the system.
Do you support ICE deporting illegals?
If so how can you support them when they've at least wrongly detained at least one American citizen by accident? Why should they have their day ruined by being detained for an hour or more and have to prove their citizenship?
The cop was retarded, no doubt, but when you're dealing with a profrssion that requires hundreds of thousands of individuals nation wide you're going to have retards and misunderstandings and coincidences.
Posted on 11/15/25 at 10:18 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Online discourse post-2016 has devolved greatly and that sort of dishonesty is rampant.
I can trace this trend/behavior back a lot further, back to at least 2004.
This post was edited on 11/15/25 at 10:19 am
Posted on 11/15/25 at 10:19 am to Azkiger
quote:
If so how can you support them when they've at least wrongly detained at least one American citizen by accident? Why should they have their day ruined by being detained for an hour or more and have to prove their citizenship?
That's always the pickle with mass government action, especially when done aggressively. That's why the ICE stuff has hurt Trump's popularity a bit.
Mass deportation is a political talking point that's always better in terms of words and not actions.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News