NationStates Jolt Archive

And if you do.. Do not bring it to the Media..
If you are feeling like a hero ... Use the Net.. keep your privacy.

Why? The Police is not going to like it and may find ways to retribute.. and do expect the "Justice system" to be on their side.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-highspeed8feb08,0,2781320.story?coll=la-headlines-california

what got my attention?
I just saw a bit of the Video.. and Mariela Carrion weeping on CNN live.

So my post is actually about the Carrions..

Valdes had two outstanding warrants for aggravated assault in Florida, and was taken into custody Friday while visiting a federal immigration office in Pomona to renew his immigrant registration card. Valdes' arraignment on charges of being a fugitive from justice was postponed until Thursday.


Maybe I'm the crazy one, but if I had a warrant out for my arrest, I'd try to stay OUT of the police's way. :p

Valdes had two outstanding warrants for aggravated assault in Florida, and was taken into custody Friday while visiting a federal immigration office in Pomona to renew his immigrant registration card. Valdes' arraignment on charges of being a fugitive from justice was postponed until Thursday.I think that's why he's sitting in jail.

it's an attempt to do a "OMG, the Feds are corrupted" ploy.

would rather wait and see what the outcome of the two warrents.

Where's the link to the video?

Where's the link to the video?

*edit*
damn 2 seconds too late

he's a criminal who also happens to have a video that shows some police commiting crimes. the two are seperate issues. he is stewing in jail because he assaulted people and is trying to use this video to gain sympathy. as for the justice system being 'on their side', the video in question is being used in an investigation into the shooting.

Where's the link to the video?Like I said.. I just saw it on CNN..

Basically You see the Man on the ground..yelling at the Cop "I am on your side..plz.. I am on your side"..

I wonder why.. Maybe he was Arab looking or something :confused:

I think that's why he's sitting in jail.

it's an attempt to do a "OMG, the Feds are corrupted" ploy.

would rather wait and see what the outcome of the two warrents.

Yeah, I think I need a little more evidence than some conspiracy claims. Were this warrants issued after the tape was released? Are we arguing that if someone videotapes a police incident and broadcasts it they should automatically be exempt from be prosecuted for their own transgressions. Not a shred of evidence is offered that this person did not commit crime, only an offering that the prosecution for the crime is motivated by wrath. Forgive me while I scoff at the entire thing.

And if you do.. Do not bring it to the Media..
If you are feeling like a hero ... Use the Net.. keep your privacy.

Why? The Police is not going to like it and may find ways to retribute.. and do expect the "Justice system" to be on their side.
The article was somewhat less than informative.

Oceandrive, here's another one for your conspiracy detector. One night I was driving home from work. I had a warrant out for my arrest, and I was kind of annoyed at the person driving in front of me. She was driving slowly in the passing lane right next to another vehicle.

I flashed my brights to let her know she should get over and let me pass, but she didn't get the message, so I followed her for several miles honking my horn and repeatedly flashing my brights.

A police car came up and pulled me over. Arrested me too. Weird, ain't it? I think it's because I'm not a big fan of Bush. What do you think?

he's a criminal who also happens to have a video that shows some police commiting crimes.yes they are.

But, it is the first time a Viedeo-taper eventually runs into Plice trouble..
..or more trouble than warranted in this case?

Like I said.. I just saw it on CNN..

Basically You see the Man on the ground..yelling at the Cop "I am on your side..plz.. I am on your side"..

I wonder why.. Maybe he was Arab looking or something :confused:


Well- You saw it-was he or wasnt he "arab looking" ?

And what does that have to do with anything? Just you're tainted twist to the story?

Oceandrive, here's another one for your conspiracy detector. One night I was driving home from work. I had a warrant out for my arrest, and I was kind of annoyed at the person driving in front of me. She was driving slowly in the passing lane right next to another vehicle.

I flashed my brights to let her know she should get over and let me pass, but she didn't get the message, so I followed her for several miles honking my horn and repeatedly flashing my brights.

A police car came up and pulled me over. Arrested me too. Weird, ain't it? I think it's because I'm not a big fan of Bush. What do you think?Depends.. What was your arrest warrant for?

The video is pretty clear. The officer is shouting almost incomprehensible (incoherent) commands interspersed liberally with expletives. Obviously he was keyed up at the end of an extended 100 mph chase (this is a common psychological effect). He told Senior Airman Elio Carrion to "get up" to which Carrion answers "I'm getting up" and starts to stand up. Then the deputy shoots him three times at close range.

The deputy's shouts after the shoots are fired are indicative of his frame of mind. "You...you (expletive) you try to attack me? You try to...(shouting) Shut the (expletive) up! I'll (expletive) your (expletive) ass." (quoted from the tape).

This is an example of poor reaction under stress. Some are theorizing that the deputy had an ND and thought he was shot at (as the Las Vegas female LEO that almost shot the secured, proned suspect in that other famous video) - its possible, but will never know because I doubt the deputy can give a coherent explaination of what happened. Its quite likely that the deputy, highly agitated and on an adrenalin rush after the chase (or coming off one) was totally unaware of what he was shouting and maybe thought he yelled 'DON'T get up' - just as FBI SA Christopher Braga appeared to be confused by his own commands when he shot Joseph Schultz in 2002 when Schulz followed Braga's order to get out of his car and unlatched his seatbelt (Schultz was not the bank robber Braga's roadblock was for, nor was he a criminal, nor did he match the discription, etc.). Sometimes there is just no damn explaination for what people do other than they fucked up.

The deputy, unfortunately, fucked up. Such fuck ups should be career-killers since they can be people-killers, otherwise they will happen again.

Not everyone is cut out for making life or death decisions under moments of high stress - you can't train everyone to be able to do it - it is not really a learnable skill.

The video may still be here at this site:
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/topstories_story_032065346.html

Oceandrive, here's another one for your conspiracy detector. One night I was driving home from work. I had a warrant out for my arrest, and I was kind of annoyed at the person driving in front of me. She was driving slowly in the passing lane right next to another vehicle.

I flashed my brights to let her know she should get over and let me pass, but she didn't get the message, so I followed her for several miles honking my horn and repeatedly flashing my brights.

A police car came up and pulled me over. Arrested me too. Weird, ain't it? I think it's because I'm not a big fan of Bush. What do you think?

And President Bush was probably listening to the cel phone conversation you were having at the same time you were driving.

:p

And what does that have to do with anything? Why the hell would he yell repeatedly "I am on your side?"
I am open to read your suggestionsWell- You saw it-was he or wasnt he "arab looking" ?
No the Video angle does not show

Depends.. What was your arrest warrant for?
Failed to show up for court. I only didn't show up because I knew I'd be convicted by the fascist police state though!

The video is pretty clear. The officer is shouting almost incomprehensible (incoherent) commands interspersed liberally with expletives. Obviously he was keyed up at the end of an extended 100 mph chase (this is a common psychological effect).
The video may still be here at this site:
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/topstories_story_032065346.html


Like chris rock said; if the police have to chase you they're bringing an asskickin with them.

Like chris rock said; if the police have to chase you they're bringing an asskickin with them.

I'm still waiting for Ocean to knee-jerk to my post and say, "DK is full of it... "

and then...

"whoops..."

Well- You saw it-was he or wasnt he "arab looking" ?and the Picture search is not showing.. so far

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=Elio%20Carrion

Depends.. What was your arrest warrant for?

In this case, the warrant was for aggrevated assault with a firearm. I'd say that warrants a little consideration, don't you?

I'm still waiting for Ocean to knee-jerk to my post and say, "DK is full of it... "

and then...

"whoops..."


LMAO :D It's cool i don't do that.

Well- You saw it-was he or wasnt he "arab looking" ?

And what does that have to do with anything? Just you're tainted twist to the story?
Well if he was Arab looking and you have one of these on your car

http://pics.hoobly.com/full/ed1f314fe161fa67c5549b933963aff4.jpg

you might get away with it.

Well- You saw it-was he or wasnt he "arab looking" ?actually here is the sister.
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20060203/capt.la10402032231.airman_shooting_la104.jpg
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060203/480/la10402032231

she is a definitely a "brown skin".. but I say we wait for his pictures.

Well if he was Arab looking and you have one of these on your car

http://pics.hoobly.com/full/ed1f314fe161fa67c5549b933963aff4.jpg

you might get away with it.


just says hoobly.com

Well if he was Arab looking and you have one of these on your car

http://pics.hoobly.com/full/ed1f314fe161fa67c5549b933963aff4.jpg

you might get away with it.

Maybe Ocean thinks the police were ordered to kill by the Jews.

Judging from the video I've seen (which is grainy, but informative enough), the officer is too keyed up to exercise proper judgment, and shoots the victim - definitely an unjustified shooting.

But, that's probably not enough for Ocean - it has to be part of some grand tinfoil hat conspiracy to have the "ring of truth".

I'm still waiting for Ocean to knee-jerk to my post and say, "DK is full of it... "

and then...

"whoops..."it happens like that in your dreams only. :D :D :p :D

The video is pretty clear. The officer is shouting almost incomprehensible (incoherent) commands interspersed liberally with expletives. Obviously he was keyed up at the end of an extended 100 mph chase (this is a common psychological effect). He told Senior Airman Elio Carrion to "get up" to which Carrion answers "I'm getting up" and starts to stand up. Then the deputy shoots him three times at close range.

The deputy's shouts after the shoots are fired are indicative of his frame of mind. "You...you (expletive) you try to attack me? You try to...(shouting) Shut the (expletive) up! I'll (expletive) your (expletive) ass." (quoted from the tape).

This is an example of poor reaction under stress. Some are theorizing that the deputy had an ND and thought he was shot at (as the Las Vegas female LEO that almost shot the secured, proned suspect in that other famous video) - its possible, but will never know because I doubt the deputy can give a coherent explaination of what happened. Its quite likely that the deputy, highly agitated and on an adrenalin rush after the chase (or coming off one) was totally unaware of what he was shouting and maybe thought he yelled 'DON'T get up' - just as FBI SA Christopher Braga appeared to be confused by his own commands when he shot Joseph Schultz in 2002 when Schulz followed Braga's order to get out of his car and unlatched his seatbelt (Schultz was not the bank robber Braga's roadblock was for, nor was he a criminal, nor did he match the discription, etc.). Sometimes there is just no damn explaination for what people do other than they fucked up.

The deputy, unfortunately, fucked up. Such fuck ups should be career-killers since they can be people-killers, otherwise they will happen again.

Not everyone is cut out for making life or death decisions under moments of high stress - you can't train everyone to be able to do it - it is not really a learnable skill.

The video may still be here at this site:
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/topstories_story_032065346.html

Actually, there is a phenomena that is almost unavoidable. For this reason in many states, policemen are not permitted to approach a car until backup arrives that was not involved in the chase. This forces the police officers to calm down.

Some effects of being that amped is a loss or limitation of hearing (in gunfights cops often claim to not have heard any fire at all, the appearance of things occuring in slow motion, acting out of habit rather than making decisions, tunnel vision, and other dangerous side-effects.

Example: An officer was shot in a bank robbery when he suddenly left from behind the protection of the vehicle. In his hand they found the brass from his firearm. Out of habit, he went to collect his brass when he finished firing.

People who are amped are generally dangerous unless they've been in such situations several times. It's not a flaw. It's the nature of the beast. The best solution is to keep these amped individuals from approaching suspects until situation has calmed somewhat unless absolutely necessary.

just says hoobly.com
It comes up just fine on my screen. Anyway, do a google image search on "terrorist hunting permit" and you'll see what I'm talking about.

It comes up just fine on my screen. Anyway, do a google image search on "terrorist hunting permit" and you'll see what I'm talking about.


a dis?

http://www.republicangear.com/federalTerroristPermit.gif

a dis?

http://www.republicangear.com/federalTerroristPermit.gif
I have that on my car.

a dis?

http://www.republicangear.com/federalTerroristPermit.gif
Yeah. Those are legal, right?

Well if he was Arab looking and you have one of these on your car
*empty pic*
you might get away with it.Did you lose your permit DCD?? :D :D :p :D

is this what you are looking for?http://www.txroadrunners.com/images/pics/funny2/texaspermit.jpg

I gotta get me one of those

Yeah. Those are legal, right?
Works for me, as long as they're still wearing that suicide belt bomb after I blow their head off.

I gotta get me one of those
Go to most any gun store, hunting store, or surplus store.

Usually up at the counter.

/hijack

Go to most any gun store, hunting store, or surplus store.

Usually up at the counter.


nice. will do

/hijack
You'll notice that I made a good previous post about the video, and Ocean didn't even read it.

The video is still up at http://www.bareknucklepolitics.com

you have to go through a couple pages to find it tho

I'm still waiting to hear Ocean's evidence for a nationwide police conspiracy...

I'm still waiting to hear Ocean's evidence for a nationwide police conspiracy...


im always up for a good conspiracy theory (just not the movie)

You can't see ANYTHING in that video. I can't really tell what happened. I did hear somebody keep saying "Don't touch me. Don't touch me." I believe it was the veteran saying it. He definitely sounded drunk and "don't touch me" often is a prelude to resisting arrest. This doesn't excuse the shooting in any way, but it seems the person shot may not have been as innocuous as has been made out.

However, NONE of that has anything to do with the fact that a man broke the law and was arrested for it when the warrant for his arrest was discovered. I don't understand why his being a videographer makes a different.

I'm still waiting to hear Ocean's evidence for a nationwide police conspiracy...and I should have that? ..Why??

You can't see ANYTHING in that video. I can't really tell what happened.told you so..

But i see hear Cleary @ CNN report about Carrion saying "I am on your side.. I am a service man..Plz.. I am on your side"

You'll notice that I made a good previous post about the video, and Ocean didn't even read it.

It's just terrorism has nothing to do with this guy and we'll end up just talking about that.

told you so..
But i did hear Cleary a live report on CNN about Carrion saying "I am on your side.. I am a service man..Plz.. I am on your side"

He definitely said that. He also said, "Don't touch me." That is technically resisting arrest. I think there is a lot more to know about this video and we don't know it. I certainly don't see anything that would make a shooting make sense though.

and I should have that? ..Why??

And I quote:

#while in the US, if you see a policeman shooting a civvie, do NOT video-tape it..
And if you do.. Do not bring it to the Media..
If you are feeling like a hero ... Use the Net.. keep your privacy.

Why? The Police is not going to like it and may find ways to retribute.. and do expect the "Justice system" to be on their side.

He filmed in in California and was picked up by the Feds and then transferred to Florida police where he was wanted on assault warrants. Hence the "national police conspiracy".

So, you say to be afraid and careful because if you aren't, the police will get you.

So, prove it.

So, prove it.Prove what?
I have nothing to prove.

"National conspiracy" are your words.. NOT mine.

Prove what?
I have nothing to prove.

"National conspiracy" are your words.. NOT mine.

I take you're admitting then that you just made this crap about the warrants being payback for the video. Good. I guess there is nothing to debate in this thread. You agree that peopel who commit assault with a firearm deserve to be arrested and you give up three cheers for the law at catching a criminal. Everyone is happy. Yay.

Prove what?
I have nothing to prove.

"National conspiracy" are your words.. NOT mine.

Prove that the police aren't going to like it (your words).
Prove that they will retaliate (your words).

And prove that somehow, the Feds, the police in California, and the police in Florida somehow are all working to do both of those things together (that's what a conspiracy is).

Otherwise, we have nothing to fear by doing a video - because the police will not be angry and they will not retaliate.

the police aren't going to like it (your words).
Yes I said that. and I stand by that my unedited postthey will retaliate (your words).Not my words.. Read it again.. S-L-O-W-L-Y

I didn't say anthing about you being a child molestor.

What I said:

Don't go into a room alone with you, particularly if you're a child.
People in rooms alone with you are going to get fondled.


Seeeeee... I didn't say anything about child molesting. So quite putting words in my mouth. /sarcasm

Yes I said that. and I stand by that my unedited postNot my words.. Read it again.. S-L-O-W-L-Y

You're being ridiculous. Fine, you didn't say retaliate, you said they may seek retribution. And indicated that this story is evidence of such a thing. Show how this story is evidence of retribution. Support your assertion. Seriously, unfounded assertions are trolling.

What I said:

Don't go into a room alone with youIt is good you say that... because if you go into a room alone with yourself.. You may end up molesting yourself.

:D :D :p :D

Yes I said that. and I stand by that my unedited postNot my words.. Read it again.. S-L-O-W-L-Y

So, prove that they don't like it.

I don't see any proof. Conjecture, but absolutely no proof.

You're being ridiculous. Read my post again.. S-L-O-W-L-Y
and now read what he says:

they will retaliate (your words).

Read my post again.. S-L-O-W-L-Y
and now read what he says:
Ocean, you've proved nothing relevant to anything you asserted in your first post.

The link proves nothing, and neither does the video.

I take it you didn't read my analysis of the video, either.

So, prove that they don't like it.

I don't see any proof. Conjecture, but absolutely no proof.#1) Police do not like you videotaping them.

#2) Cats like Milk

#3) 2+2=4

Do you also want proof for my second and third statements ????

Read my post again.. S-L-O-W-L-Y
and now read what he says:

I'm not responding to what he said nor am I responsible for it. You're avoiding the point. I pointed out what YOU DID SAY and asked you to support the assertion. I take your reluctance to do so that it's just a ridiculous theory by someone who refuses to support their claims. Your claim has the value of the evidence behind it. And that would be.... none.

What i want to know is if the two warrents came from, They could be false. I'm not saying they are but they could be.

I just think this boils down to something really sad and they should work out ways to stop this from happening ever again. I still think it a little suss that they took the video and refuse to give it up though.

#while in the US, if you see a policeman shooting a civvie, do NOT video-tape it..

Why not? Many have done so with no problem. Prove that it is a problem in this case - prove that the person in question was arrested because he made the tape.

And if you do.. Do not bring it to the Media..

Why not? Many have done so with no problem. Prove that it is a problem in this case - prove that the person in question was arrested because he took the tape to the media. It might interest you to know that the police have had a copy of the tape since day one.

If you are feeling like a hero ... Use the Net.. keep your privacy.
Why? If there's no problem you can prove, why?

Why? The Police is not going to like it and may find ways to retribute.. and do expect the "Justice system" to be on their side.

Prove that they don't like it. Prove that they are engaged in retribution. Prove that the justice system is on their side.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...nes-california

Read the whole story and watched the video - no proof for anything you've asserted here...

what got my attention?
I just saw a bit of the Video.. and Mariela Carrion weeping on CNN live.
Weeping is weeping, especially if it is not at the scene of the crime. The video of the shooting is relevant, but still does not support any of your assertions.

So my post is actually about the Carrions..
So why did you make all those assertions about the police?

Next time, wait until the high wears off before you post.

I take it you didn't read my analysis of the video, either.yes I did.
But so far im closer to Jocabis's tape analysis.

why do you ask?

#1) Police do not like you videotaping them.

#2) Cats like Milk

#3) 2+2=4

Do you also want proof for my second and third statements ????

What? So now you're going to claim that your statements are somehow truisms like 2+2=4? More ridiculous.

You definitely implied that there was retribution in this case and you've shown no causality or even possible causality. You showed a coincidence and acted like coincidence and causality are equal. You win the logical fallacy trophy for the day.

What i want to know is if the two warrents came from, They could be false. I'm not saying they are but they could be.

I just think this boils down to something really sad and they should work out ways to stop this from happening ever again. I still think it a little suss that they took the video and refuse to give it up though.

Maybe we should ask the arrested man why, on the night of the shooting, he gave police a blank tape and lied about it being the real tape - then went inside and made multiple copies of the original and gave the police a copy LATER.

The original tape is considered evidence. Evidence of a potential crime. They are trying to figure out if the police officer committed a crime.

Do you think that the investigation is served by lying and hiding a tape, and concealing the original, or would it be better served being entered as evidence in an investigation?

Hmm?

If the police were trying to cover this up, why would they be investigating?

What i want to know is if the two warrents came from, They could be false. I'm not saying they are but they could be.

I just think this boils down to something really sad and they should work out ways to stop this from happening ever again. I still think it a little suss that they took the video and refuse to give it up though.

Actually, the videographer admits that one of them (for drunk driving) is valid. So it appears one issue is not related to the other.

What i want to know is if the two warrents came from, They could be false. I'm not saying they are but they could be.
I do not know if the Warrants were issued after or before..

But I do think he stands suffer trouble now.. I think he would have less trouble without his videotaping.

What? So now you're going to claim that your statements are somehow truisms like 2+2=4? More ridiculous.

You definitely implied that there was retribution in this case and you've shown no causality or even possible causality. You showed a coincidence and acted like coincidence and causality are equal. You win the logical fallacy trophy for the day.

This is Ocean's traditional pattern. I'm waiting for it all to be Bush's fault (Ocean's favorite truism), or it's all the fault of the Jews (Ocean's other favorite truism).

For instance, it's quite clear in the various threads about the rioting Muslims, that Ocean believes that the Iranian retaliation by making fun of Jews and the Holocaust is "an eye for an eye", and is "Jewish law" and therefore appropriate - as though we're all supposed to know, and accept, that Jews were responsible for the outrageous cartoons. Which they most certainly were not.

I do not know if the Warrants were issued after or before..

But I do think he stands to more troble now.. I think he would have less trouble without his videotaping.

Uh-huh. But you're not suggesting a conspiracy, are you? You know, given that the incident happened in California and the man is being shipped to Florida? Yep. You're not suggesting a national conspiracy, just a bunch of individuals across the country subversively working toward the same goal. Bwahaha.

ooo somebody hasn't had thier bowl of cheerios this morning.

listen you don't have to take out your frustrations on me. I am happy to admit i don't know much, in fact you'll find me the first one to admit it. I just look to all Possibilities okay, the news report DID say they took the original mind you,though you can't trust anything in the news these days. I will say this though the fact is he WAS shot and they should do something about it. Not prosecute but actually do something to make sure it never happens again.

Maybe we should ask the arrested man why, on the night of the shooting, he gave police a blank tape and lied about it being the real tape - then went inside and made multiple copies of the original and gave the police a copy LATER.

The original tape is considered evidence. Evidence of a potential crime. They are trying to figure out if the police officer committed a crime.

Do you think that the investigation is served by lying and hiding a tape, and concealing the original, or would it be better served being entered as evidence in an investigation?His stunt did not hurt the investigation..

Unless you are suggesting he edited the tape.. Is that what you are suggesting?

In the other hand he made sure the incriminating evidence against a Police officer was not "lost" by Police. (accidents happen ;) )

You definitely implied that there was retribution in this case and you've shown no causality or even possible causality. If I did imply that.. you would have no problem Quoting ... Would you?

if so.. just use the Quote Function.

The video is pretty clear. The officer is shouting almost incomprehensible (incoherent) commands interspersed liberally with expletives. Obviously he was keyed up at the end of an extended 100 mph chase (this is a common psychological effect). He told Senior Airman Elio Carrion to "get up" to which Carrion answers "I'm getting up" and starts to stand up. Then the deputy shoots him three times at close range.

The deputy's shouts after the shoots are fired are indicative of his frame of mind. "You...you (expletive) you try to attack me? You try to...(shouting) Shut the (expletive) up! I'll (expletive) your (expletive) ass." (quoted from the tape).

This is an example of poor reaction under stress. Some are theorizing that the deputy had an ND and thought he was shot at (as the Las Vegas female LEO that almost shot the secured, proned suspect in that other famous video) - its possible, but will never know because I doubt the deputy can give a coherent explaination of what happened. Its quite likely that the deputy, highly agitated and on an adrenalin rush after the chase (or coming off one) was totally unaware of what he was shouting and maybe thought he yelled 'DON'T get up' - just as FBI SA Christopher Braga appeared to be confused by his own commands when he shot Joseph Schultz in 2002 when Schulz followed Braga's order to get out of his car and unlatched his seatbelt (Schultz was not the bank robber Braga's roadblock was for, nor was he a criminal, nor did he match the discription, etc.). Sometimes there is just no damn explaination for what people do other than they fucked up.

The deputy, unfortunately, fucked up. Such fuck ups should be career-killers since they can be people-killers, otherwise they will happen again.

Not everyone is cut out for making life or death decisions under moments of high stress - you can't train everyone to be able to do it - it is not really a learnable skill.

The video may still be here at this site:
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/topstories_story_032065346.html
My opinion is that anyone leading a police officer on a high speed chase has so greatly endangered the lives of everyone on that route, that he should end up dead. That's the only proper end. It's too bad the criminal didn't pile himself into a telephone pole or a tree. It's too bad the cop was taped and that he hadn't been to the pistol range a little more often.

Those patrol cars have lights and sirens for a reason. When you see them behind you, you are supposed to pull over.

Those patrol cars have lights and sirens for a reason. When you see them behind you, you are supposed to pull over.

thats a good point why did he run from the cops?

My opinion is that anyone leading a police officer on a high speed chase has so greatly endangered the lives of everyone on that route, that he should end up dead. That's the only proper end...

It's too bad the cop was taped and that he hadn't been to the pistol range a little more often.I have an idea.. You should write your congresman.. and ask him to give the Cop a medal.

His stunt did not hurt the investigation..

Unless you are suggesting he edited the tape.. Is that what you are suggesting?

In the other hand he made sure the incriminating evidence against a Police officer was not "lost" by Police. (accidents happen ;) )

Since you're not a lawyer, I'll introduce you to a concept called:

"chain of custody"

It is vitally important to the LAW (not to the police) that any and all evidence be collected, unmolested and undistubed, and be identified as originating at the scene, and there must be an unbroken chain of custody of that evidence from the crime scene to the courtroom.

If it doesn't make that unbroken trip, any defense lawyer can assert that there's a reasonable chance that the evidence was altered in some way substantial to the case.

The defense lawyer is not required to prove that the tape was altered - he merely has to ask the prosecution to show an unbroken chain of custody for the tape.

If the prosecution can't show that unbroken chain of custody, they have to prove that the tape was never altered.

Rather difficult to do -beyond a reasonable doubt.

By taking the tape, this idiot has compromised any case that anyone wants to make against the police officer - you're not going to be able to use the video as evidence - at the very least, the video evidence will be doubtful - the defense can raise doubts that the prosecution will be obliged to answer.

So, you think it was a smart idea now? It was a completely stupid idea, especially if you believe the video can (and I think it would) implicate the police officer.

By taking the tape, this idiot has compromised any case that anyone wants to make against the police officer -so, The the Police Officer should be happy.. Can we still give him a Medal-of-Congress ?

I mean he did put his career in danger.. trying to terminally rid us of this dangerous criminal.

so, The the Police Officer should be happy.. Can we still give him a Medal-of-Congress ?

I mean he did put his career in danger.. trying to terminally rid us of this dangerous criminal.

You obviously didn't read my interpretation of the tape.

The police officer made a terrible mistake. At the very least, he should no longer be a police officer - I believe he should be tried for manslaughter.

But your idiot paranoia view of police and evidence has tainted the evidence that would make this possible.

But your idiot paranoia view of police and evidence has tainted the evidence that would make this possible.LOL
I have tainted the Tape ???

For Your Information I have never touched the Tape... Heck I'm having trouble getting even a lousy web clip to work !!!

Why the hell would he yell repeatedly "I am on your side?"
I am open to read your suggestionsNo the Video angle does not show

According to the story, the man who was shot was a passenger in the car, not the driver, who had led police on a 100mph chase.

As someone else pointed out, the urge to kick the driver's ass is a natural consequence of chases. My wife was so instructed when she went through the police academy, and told that they needed to be careful at the end of a chase to calm down.

As a passenger, he was probably trying to make sure that the officer understood that it wasn't his idea to run, but that he was on the same side as the officer, wanting a peaceful end to that night's events.

Unfortunately, the end result was bad for all involved. I hope the driver is charged and goes to jail, and the shooting victim gets just compensation for the officer's wild and out of control actions.

okay some facts

Elio Carrion was not killed and is in reported good condition and recovering so man slaughter would be a bit extreme. he was also the passanger. The driver was one Luis Fernando Escobedo who started the chase after being caught speeding.


*edit* http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/08/earlyshow/main1296006.shtml

so, The the Police Officer should be happy.. Can we still give him a Medal-of-Congress ?

I mean he did put his career in danger.. trying to terminally rid us of this dangerous criminal.

So being a passenger when the driver gets stupid and tries to run from the cops is a criminal offense?

LOL
I have tainted the Tape ???

For Your Information I have never touched the Tape... Heck I'm having trouble getting even a lousy web clip to work !!!

You are terminally obsequious.

My opinion is that anyone leading a police officer on a high speed chase has so greatly endangered the lives of everyone on that route, that he should end up dead. That's the only proper end. It's too bad the criminal didn't pile himself into a telephone pole or a tree. It's too bad the cop was taped and that he hadn't been to the pistol range a little more often.maybe next time he will get his "kill".

As a passenger, he was probably trying to make sure that the officer understood that it wasn't his idea to run, but that he was on the same side as the officer, wanting a peaceful end to that night's events.

I was under the impression that he was referring to his being a policeman too.

maybe next time he will get his "kill".
(not making comment on you OD just using it to bring up a point)

Maybe there should'nt BE a next time. I would like to see some positive action taken to make sure that this should never happen again.

I was under the impression that he was referring to his being a policeman too.the word I saw at CNN were "I am a serviceman..plz..I am on your side..."

So far the media Coverage is very poor .. Where are the BBC or Al-Jazeera when you need them?

(not making comment on you OD just using it to bring up a point)

Maybe there should'nt BE a next time. I would like to see some positive action taken to make sure that this should never happen again.

Since the effect on the police officer is a psychological one induced by the rage and fear involved in chasing a car at over 100 mph on urban streets, the only real way to assure that it doesn't happen again is to have a no-chase policy.

Some urban areas have this policy, largely because the odds of a fatal crash involving bystanders is so great.

Handling a firearm when you're really steamed isn't a good idea - very few people can handle the stress and rage without having something bad happen.

I was under the impression that he was referring to his being a policeman too.

Thanx for pointing that out. I skipped reading the fact that he is an Air Force security officer.

You are quite right. Of course, he didn't have a uniform on. That might have saved him from the overheated cop.

the only real way to assure that it doesn't happen again is to have a no-chase policy.

That's not true, there are other ways for instance and JUST for instance replacment of guns with less leathal weapons such as the taser gun. In this instance it would of worked.

I am just glad the guy is alive and I want to hear his opinion on the matter if anyone should understand about what happened it would be him.

(not making comment on you OD just using it to bring up a point)

Maybe there should'nt BE a next time. I would like to see some positive action taken to make sure that this should never happen again.that post was huber sarcasm.

I should be adding tags to make it more clear.

I do think that Cop should no longer work as a Cop.. and face a criminal enquiry.. But I need more info.

Why the hell would he yell repeatedly "I am on your side?"
I am open to read your suggestionsNo the Video angle does not show


No- I wasnt addressing what the guy on the ground did or didnt yell- You said maybe he looked arab and thats what I asked -what does that have to do with anything?

It seems you are deliberately trying to make this situation something it isnt, or worse than it already is.

Nice edit work on my posts too- between the edit and changing the order, thats looks like something else now too.

Like i said OD wasn't saying anything about the comment, though I do admit my sentence was fractured. I understand what your saying and I was just using it to bring up my point

Since the effect on the police officer is a psychological one induced by the rage and fear involved in chasing a car at over 100 mph on urban streets, the only real way to assure that it doesn't happen again is to have a no-chase policy.

Some urban areas have this policy, largely because the odds of a fatal crash involving bystanders is so great.

Handling a firearm when you're really steamed isn't a good idea - very few people can handle the stress and rage without having something bad happen.

But if you have a no-chase policy, won't more people decide to run, because they think that they will be able to get away successfully?

I thought I heard on the radio that someone had invented a james bondian/spiderman type tracking device that could be fired at a fleeing vehicle, so that it could be tracked by GPS. Gotta find out if that is true...could change everything!

OK, found it: StarChase real-time tagging and tracking pursuit management system (http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=546)

And LAPD definitely needs this. Would have a big impact on those post chase shootings.

BTW if anyone has a Link to the Video.. plz do Post it.. or repost it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8770396702332615729&q=chino

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8770396702332615729&q=chino

thanks Chercheurs-de-linconn

If I did imply that.. you would have no problem Quoting ... Would you?

if so.. just use the Quote Function.

Happy to.

And if you do.. Do not bring it to the Media..
If you are feeling like a hero ... Use the Net.. keep your privacy.

Why? The Police is not going to like it and may find ways to retribute.. and do expect the "Justice system" to be on their side.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-highspeed8feb08,0,2781320.story?coll=la-headlines-california

You say that if you produce a video that the police may find a way to exact retribution and then provide a link. Are you actually suggesting that the link was a non-sequitor?

You say that if you produce a video that the police may find a way to exact retribution and then provide a link. Are you actually suggesting that the link was a non-sequitor?Finally!!

Yes.. that is my statement..
"The Police is not going to like it and may find ways to retribute.."
I stand by that statement.

What does "non-sequitor" means ..
mi Latino es pobre.

And if you do.. Do not bring it to the Media..
If you are feeling like a hero ... Use the Net.. keep your privacy.

Why? The Police is not going to like it and may find ways to retribute.. and do expect the "Justice system" to be on their side.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-highspeed8feb08,0,2781320.story?coll=la-headlines-california

what got my attention?
I just saw a bit of the Video.. and Mariela Carrion weeping on CNN live.

So my post is actually about the Carrions..

This is pretty rare in the United States, if you really want to be a hero OceanDrive, go to North Korea and video tape the executions of people who were caught trying to leave. Also, I hear the death camps would be a good place to video tape.

This is pretty rare in the United States, if you really want to be a hero OceanDrive, go to North Korea and video tape the executions of people who were caught trying to leave. Also, I hear the death camps would be a good place to video tape.North Korea is too far.. I coud go to Cuba..

Was in Vancouver Canada once and seen a female police officer beating this guy to death. When I say death she killed him in my opinion. Although in the papers the "perp" died while fighting with police. This guy was on the ground and not moving at all. She was wailing on him with her baton. We were not so politely told to get the F*ck out of the area when we saw this. Was sobering to say the least.

Finally!!

Yes.. that is my statement..
"The Police is not going to like it and may find ways to retribute.."
I stand by that statement.

What does "non-sequitor" means ..
mi Latino es pobre.

Alright, I get it. You don't feel like being honest is something you have to do. You very much suggested that the link was evidence of retribution but you've done nothing to make the connection. Everyone else here sees it and the more you play this game the more everyone becomes aware of your dishonesty. I've given up. I see that you cannot draw a connection and you're not interested in even pretending to care about being remotely honest.

Non-sequiter means that the link had nothing to do with the previous statement. Either you don't know how to compose a point or you're being intentionally dishonest. Care to admit which it is?

Am I the only one who notices the way some people use the exact same arguments to talk about trigger-happy policemen that others use when they talk about trigger-happy US soldiers in Iraq?

Am I the only one who notices the way some people use the exact same arguments to talk about trigger-happy policemen that others use when they talk about trigger-happy US soldiers in Iraq?
No, I'm afraid I'm not quite following you. Could you be somewhat more specific?

No, I'm afraid I'm not quite following you. Could you be somewhat more specific?
This is an example of poor reaction under stress. Some are theorizing that the deputy had an ND and thought he was shot at (as the Las Vegas female LEO that almost shot the secured, proned suspect in that other famous video) - its possible, but will never know because I doubt the deputy can give a coherent explaination of what happened. Its quite likely that the deputy, highly agitated and on an adrenalin rush after the chase (or coming off one) was totally unaware of what he was shouting and maybe thought he yelled 'DON'T get up' - just as FBI SA Christopher Braga appeared to be confused by his own commands when he shot Joseph Schultz in 2002 when Schulz followed Braga's order to get out of his car and unlatched his seatbelt (Schultz was not the bank robber Braga's roadblock was for, nor was he a criminal, nor did he match the discription, etc.). Sometimes there is just no damn explaination for what people do other than they fucked up.

The deputy, unfortunately, fucked up. Such fuck ups should be career-killers since they can be people-killers, otherwise they will happen again.

Not everyone is cut out for making life or death decisions under moments of high stress - you can't train everyone to be able to do it - it is not really a learnable skill.
Can you not apply most of these points to various incidents of US Soldiers shooting at cars driven by various people who turned out to be friendlies?

The difference, or so it seems to me, is simply that some people always give a soldier the benefit of the doubt and reject the notion that he/she could have done anything wrong, while in this case, the offender being a policeman, they actually make quite clear and reasonable arguments.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/01/national/main1271574.shtml

Oh, look. A story on how video doesn't always show what it seems to.

And if you do.. Do not bring it to the Media..
If you are feeling like a hero ... Use the Net.. keep your privacy.

Why? The Police is not going to like it and may find ways to retribute.. and do expect the "Justice system" to be on their side.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-highspeed8feb08,0,2781320.story?coll=la-headlines-california

what got my attention?
I just saw a bit of the Video.. and Mariela Carrion weeping on CNN live.

So my post is actually about the Carrions..

Bah, people bitch when police do their jobs. They bitch when the police don't do their jobs.

Blah, blah, blah.

Non-sequiter means that the link had nothing to do with the previous statement. #1) I never said the Link itself was proof of anything... It cannot be as this story is just unfolding.. in this kind of Police incident there is usually a lot of "smoke"...

#2) I cannot say they have nothing to do.. they are indeed related..

#3) You are right about one thing.. I do not feel I have to Prove anything to You..

#1) I never said the Link itself was proof of anything... It cannot be as this story is just unfolding.. in this kind of Police incident there is usually a lot of "smoke"...

#2) I cannot say they have nothing to do.. they are indeed related..

#3) You are right about one thing.. I do not feel I have to Prove anything to You..


So essentially.... you don't know what happened (any more than the rest of us), you made an assumption about why the videographer was arrested that seems unlikely given information you ignored in the link you gave, you made a statement which indicates that you feel there is corruption involved although you have no proof, and that when this lack of proof is pointed out to you and a request made for you to back up your position with evidence, you backpedal, say you never said any of the things in your first post, and refuse to give proof for your statements.

Actually, there is a phenomena that is almost unavoidable. For this reason in many states, policemen are not permitted to approach a car until backup arrives that was not involved in the chase. This forces the police officers to calm down.

Some effects of being that amped is a loss or limitation of hearing (in gunfights cops often claim to not have heard any fire at all, the appearance of things occuring in slow motion, acting out of habit rather than making decisions, tunnel vision, and other dangerous side-effects.

Example: An officer was shot in a bank robbery when he suddenly left from behind the protection of the vehicle. In his hand they found the brass from his firearm. Out of habit, he went to collect his brass when he finished firing.

People who are amped are generally dangerous unless they've been in such situations several times. It's not a flaw. It's the nature of the beast. The best solution is to keep these amped individuals from approaching suspects until situation has calmed somewhat unless absolutely necessary.

thats a great point!

i was hospitalised after a "chase" with a nj local police department.

it wasnt really a chase though...i had no were to pull over,and when i came up to a side street,i signalled,pulled to the side,turned off my car,put my hands on the wheel....
i was then instucted.."GET THE F### OUT OF THE CAR....DON'T F###### MOVE....so i sat there clueless.

i was dragged from the car..thrown on the ground...punched a few times in the back of my head..then cuffed.

i suppose i had the audacity to ask the enraged maniac...why the f##k are you punching me, and what the hell did i do?

his reply was to stomp on my chest a few times,then kicked me in the face for emphasis i guess!(all while,hands cuffed behind my back,and prone in the street)

then another patrol car pulled up,the normal cop asks the other one..wtf is going on here..nutso says i was fighting with him,and he was about to mace me,but luckily he wrestled me down and cuffed me...lol

of coarse i got a stack of charges...agg. assault on a cop,felony eluding,resisting arrest with violence,and a boat load of dmv stuff.

after i was printed and charged,before they took my busted ass to county,the one cop had the decency to take me to the hospital.

i had a fractured cheekbone and 3 broken ribs(which was scary in jail..being white,amongst a sea of blacks and hispanics)
no one bothered me actually...the inmates actually were real cool with me..got my food and shit...cause i was the guy that fought with the cops..lol..they even had me in the nasty wing because of the charges.

anywho...everyone says i should have sued...i could have,but you only have 30 days to file a tort claim of brutality,and it took about 3 months for me to be indicted.
so my lawyer advised me..that if i filed suit..they would go full court press on me to avoid liability,it was my word against the cops..and the charges carried penalties..up to 10 fricken years in the state prison!

then after a year of limbo and fear...we went to court,i was read the charges,informed of the penalties if convicted.

we had repeatedly filed for discovery...finally before my 2nd appearance,we get it...the 911 tapes were missing,as was the dash camera's!
we get a continuance...they cant find the tapes..the d.a admits so in court,but i am still on the hook for the cops testimony,and of coarse the other cops statement(who wasn't there)

they offer me a deal..a 100.00 fine and 1 year unsupervised probation to make it go away.for a misdeamener charge...of eluding

i took it, the deal,after 12,000.00 in legal fees.

moral of the story:
you cant beat the blue wall...resign yourself to it

all patrol cars should have dash cameras that are calibrated like their precious dui meter

pray that a citizen is nearby with a video camera..eyewitnesses can and will be intimidated.

be prepared to go to jail for a very long time if you sue...whether you are guilty or not.

and in hindsight from a family member/lawyer(who iwas embarressed to tell about the incident,and i thought i would have a legal suit,and was innocent)..if you are beaten up by cops...
demand a steroid test immediately!!!!

that tidbit would have saved me 12,000.00 in fees,and i would be writing this from the caribean.

and the crazy fuck loose cannon cop would at the least..be off the street..but better yet..in jail.


oh...and be prepared too spend alot of money to prove your innocent..you know...all the justice you can afford!

what a great system..i feel really bad for innocent poor people that get screwed...probably exsplains why i was so popular in jail for supposedly fighting with the law...and why so many poor people are disgusted with cops and the legal system.

So essentially.... you don't know what happened (any more than the rest of us), you made an assumption about why the videographer was arrested that seems unlikely given information you ignored in the link you gave, you made a statement which indicates that you feel there is corruption involved although you have no proof, and that when this lack of proof is pointed out to you and a request made for you to back up your position with evidence, you backpedal, say you never said any of the things in your first post, and refuse to give proof for your statements.

Thank you for saving me the time of typing that. Now he'll pretend like he doesn't know what we're talking about and that he never indicated any such thing. Like I said he either doesn't know how to compose a post or he is being intentionally dishonest.

.. you backpedal, say you never said any of the things in your first post, and refuse to give proof for your statements.If that is true...It would be easy for you to use the QUOTE FUNCTION and show us I ever backpedaled/negated any statement from the OP.

but I say you cannot use the QUOTE FUNCTION to prove I backpedaled or negated my statements.. Because I did not.

here let me help you a bit.. this is my OP
And if you do.. Do not bring it to the Media..
If you are feeling like a hero ... Use the Net.. keep your privacy.

Why? The Police is not going to like it and may find ways to retribute.. and do expect the "Justice system" to be on their side.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-highspeed8feb08,0,2781320.story?coll=la-headlines-california

what got my attention?
I just saw a bit of the Video.. and Mariela Carrion weeping on CNN live.

So my post is actually about the Carrions..

here are all and everyone of my statements:
_________________________________________________________
#1 Do not bring it to the Media.. (general advice)

#2 If you are feeling like a hero ... Use the Net.. keep your privacy. (general advice)

#3 Why? The Police is not going to like it and may find ways to retribute.. (I stand 100% by this.
Backpedaled Kat? in your dreams)

#4 and do expect the "Justice system" to be on their side. (same)

#5 link

#6 I just saw a bit of the Video.. and Mariela Carrion weeping on CNN live. (same)

#7 So my post is actually about the Carrions.. (Post Script)
___________________________________________________

Thank you for saving me the time of typing that. Now he'll pretend like he doesn't know what we're talking about and that he never indicated any such thing. Like I said he either doesn't know how to compose a post or he is being intentionally dishonest.Jocabia saying "Tanks" (for your helping hands) to a Mod..

I've seen that so many times.. specially in Moderation... It makes me sick..

Fact: eating the same soup -over and over again- will make you sick..

WOOOHOOO I am a Pimp all over again...

http://lp.typepad.com/lopsided/images/fireworks.jpg

For the third time.. :D :D :fluffle: :D

I am going AFK.. need some beer and other stuff to celebrate ..
I shall not be back :D

WOOOHOOO I am a Pimp all over again...

http://lp.typepad.com/lopsided/images/fireworks.jpg

For the third time.. :D :D :fluffle: :D

I am going AFK.. need some beer and other stuff to celebrate ..
I shall not be back :D

We can only hope....

So who wants to the start the "Ban OceanDrive3" thread?

WOOOHOOO I am a Pimp all over again...

http://lp.typepad.com/lopsided/images/fireworks.jpg

For the third time.. :D :D :fluffle: :D

I am going AFK.. need some beer and other stuff to celebrate ..
I shall not be back :D

I always love this. Pop in. Make a bunch of assertions. Get called on them. Pretend you didn't say it. Offer no support for, well, anything. Declare victory. Rinse. Repeat. Um, isn't that called trolling? If it's not it's at least bad form and just make you even more dismissable.

Jocabia saying "Tanks" (for your helping hands) to a Mod..

I've seen that so many times.. specially in Moderation... It makes me sick..

Fact: eating the same soup -over and over again- will make you sick..

How sad. Why don't you try, you know, debating, avoiding logical fallacies, supporting your assertions, avoiding name-calling and generally being offensive? Then you'll have no reason for me to "make you sick".

If that is true...It would be easy for you to use the QUOTE FUNCTION and show us I ever backpedaled/negated any statement from the OP.

but I say you cannot use the QUOTE FUNCTION to prove I backpedaled or negated my statements.. Because I did not.

here let me help you a bit.. this is my OP

Too late I quoted you already. I showed you back pedalling. I'll adjust this post to make it more honest.


here are all and everyone of my statements:
_________________________________________________________
#1 Do not bring it to the Media.. (unsupported assertion)

#2 If you are feeling like a hero ... Use the Net.. keep your privacy. (unsupported assertion)

#3 Why? The Police is not going to like it and may find ways to retribute.. (unsupported assertion)

#4 and do expect the "Justice system" to be on their side. (unsupported assertion)

#5 link (that not only doesn't support those assertions but defies them)

#6 I just saw a bit of the Video.. and Mariela Carrion weeping on CNN live. (pointless)

#7 So my post is actually about the Carrions.. (plain ridiculous. The entire post is about the videographer unless one simply ignores, oh, I don't know, the content)
___________________________________________________
Calling them advice does not change that they are assertions. The english language isn't that limited. Now, you've admitted you cannot support such assertions and that you didn't know what you were talking about. Accepted.

yes they are.

But, it is the first time a Viedeo-taper eventually runs into Plice trouble..
..or more trouble than warranted in this case?

Let's add some more evidence that you were trying to make the same claim that you never supported. For someone who never claimed the police were retaliating against the videographer, you sure seem to imply that they're doing just that several times. You couldn't be being dishonest, could you?

Prove what?
I have nothing to prove.

"National conspiracy" are your words.. NOT mine.

And the backpedalling begins. It only took till the third page.

I showed you back pedalling. In Your dreams you showed me backpedalling.I'll adjust this post to make it more honest.

here are all and everyone of my statements:
_________________________________________________________
#1 Do not bring it to the Media.. (unsupported assertion)

#2 If you are feeling like a hero ... Use the Net.. keep your privacy. (unsupported assertion)

#3 Why? The Police is not going to like it and may find ways to retribute.. (unsupported assertion)

#4 and do expect the "Justice system" to be on their side. (unsupported assertion)

#5 link (that not only doesn't support those assertions but defies them)

#6 I just saw a bit of the Video.. and Mariela Carrion weeping on CNN live. (pointless)

#7 So my post is actually about the Carrions.. (plain ridiculous. The entire post is about the videographer unless one simply ignores, oh, I don't know, the content)
___________________________________________________
WTF?? .. In your weak efforts to prove me wrong.. You Fucking took the liberty to change MY Post... (or in your pathetic words "adjusted")

this is my original post
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10388167&postcount=113
This is you changing my post
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10388455&postcount=119

I am sure that is against the Forum rules.. But unlike you I do not run crying to the Mods every time

In Your dreams you showed me backpedalling.WTF?? .. In your weak efforts to prove me wrong.. You Fucking took the liberty to change MY Post... (or in your pathetic words "adjusted")

I am sure that is against the Forum rules.. But unlike you I do not run crying to the Mods every time

OceanDrive, OceanDrive......conflict seems to follow you everywhere you go. I think it is time to end the conflict.

OMG He discovered what I really meant!! I better swear and yell to cover my tracks!!
Now I will suggest that someone report his post to the mods, because I'm too big of a pussy to do it myself

The truth hurts, eh.

OceanDrive, OceanDrive......conflict seems to follow you everywhere you go. I think it is time to end the conflict.I was gone already.. remember.

But We are not going to start posting Fake Quotes.. The forum would become a rolling shitstorm.

<snip>

If a cop did that to me, I'd expect my passenger to replace his grey matter with lead. If a cop did that to me, I would 'resist arrest'. Immediately afterwards, I'd turn myself in at the nearest PD station. At court, I would plead that it was self-defense (which is was) and point out to the DA that he's damn lucky that I'm not suing the county/city's ass off.

OMG He discovered what I really meant!! I better swear and yell to cover my tracks!! .
Now I will suggest that someone report his post to the mods, because I'm too big of a pussy to do it myself
The truth hurts, eh.... have it your way.

... have it your way.

Prove that wasn't your quote.

In Your dreams you showed me backpedalling.WTF?? .. In your weak efforts to prove me wrong.. You Fucking took the liberty to change MY Post... (or in your pathetic words "adjusted")

this is my original post
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10388167&postcount=113
This is you changing my post
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10388455&postcount=119

I am sure that is against the Forum rules.. But unlike you I do not run crying to the Mods every time

Show me the rule I broke. I said I was going to change it before I changed it. Unlike other people I was completely honest. And now, you're back. I thought you were charging out here in victory. More deception. I'm perfectly shocked. Meanwhile, you've managed to reenter the thread with nothing but flamebaiting and STILL no evidence. Again, I'm perfectly shocked.

I was gone already.. remember.

But We are not going to start posting Fake Quotes.. The forum would become a rolling shitstorm.

Fake quotes? I said I edited your post before I did it and then did exactly what you asked me to do FOR THE SECOND TIME. I showed where your assertions were. Then I proved you were making those assertions. You know, the assertions you claimed you never made. Now, you're pissed because you've been backed into a corner again. Now cool it with your flamebaiting. How many incarnations do you need to go through? Certainly, you're not claiming I'm at fault that you're on your third nation? I'm not the only one who reports you and by no coincidence you're the commonality on all those reports. Stop breaking the rules and you won't have to keep complaining that I've reported you.

Show me the rule I broke. I said I was going to change it before I changed it. In your pathetic quest to prove me wrong.. You posted a FAKE QUOTE..
saying you will break a rule -before breaking it- Does not give immunity.
even a 10 years old knows that..

and now you are not the only one doing it.. Novoga is doing his retarded version of Jocaiba..and Posting FAKE QUOTES too (#124 is a FAKE of #122).. Your stupidity is making babies..

If I allow this to continue.. we could have idiots posting FAKE QUOTES all over the Forum...

You know I hate going to moderation.. but this time I have to make an exception..

In your pathetic quest to prove me wrong.. You posted a FAKE QUOTE..
saying you will break a rule -before breaking it- Does not give immunity.
even a 10 years old knows that..

and now you are not the only one doing it.. Novoga is doing his retarded version of Jocaiba..and Posting FAKE QUOTES too (#124 is a FAKE of #122).. Your stupidity is making babies..

If I allow this to continue.. we could have idiots posting FAKE QUOTES all over the Forum...

You know I hate going to moderation.. but this time I have to make an exception..

But can't we consider all of your posts/threads the work of an idiot? That was my reasoning for reporting you 10-15 minutes ago to the mods.

In your pathetic quest to prove me wrong.. You posted a FAKE QUOTE..
saying you will break a rule -before breaking it- Does not give immunity.
even a 10 years old knows that..

and now you are not the only one doing it.. Novoga is doing his retarded version of Jocaiba..and Posting FAKE QUOTES too (#124 is a FAKE of #122).. Your stupidity is making babies..

If I allow this to continue.. we could have idiots posting FAKE QUOTES all over the Forum...

You know I hate going to moderation.. but this time I have to make an exception..

I didn't pretend I was quoting you. I didn't break a rule. I mentioned where I was going to change the wording and then did. It's not rulebreaking.

To do what, report yourself?

Fake quotes? I said I edited your post before I did it and then...inexcusable.

I must work harder at being an ass... Ah, this red helps with that
red is purty.

Novoga is an amazing god ..and should rule over all of us.. I am but a feeble serf compared to him..

I like this version of the truth, you are improving.

I didn't break a rule. I mentioned where I was going to change the wording and then did. It's not rulebreaking. look i am tired..

I need to eat supper..

I will not request an action against you.. at most I may ask advice on this so the rules are clear.. tomorrow.. one day...

well take it from from there.. ok?

inexcusable.

You're being ridiculous. Meanwhile, you're flaming and flamebaiting as is Novoga. If you'd like to report that, I'd certainly support you.

You're being ridiculous. Meanwhile, you're flaming and flamebaiting as is Novoga. If you'd like to report that, I'd certainly support you.

I only have flame and flamebait in response to OceanDrive3, that is all he knows. It is very much like the War on Terrorism, except it is the War on OceanDrive3...

You're being ridiculous. Meanwhile, you're flaming and flamebaiting as is Novoga. If you'd like to report that, I'd certainly support you.You and Novoga are posting Fake-Quotes... and you are calling me ridiculous ??

think before you post.

I only have flame and flamebait in response to OceanDrive3, that is all he knows. It is very much like the War on Terrorism, except it is the War on OceanDrive3...Whatever..

I really have to go..
You guys figure this one together.

think before you post.

Right back at you.

Now go get drunk and lose whatever brain cells you have left.

I only have flame and flamebait in response to OceanDrive3, that is all he knows. It is very much like the War on Terrorism, except it is the War on OceanDrive3...

Well, cut it out. It's against forum rules and it's ridiculous.

You and Novoga are posting Fake-Quotes... and you are calling me ridiculous ??

think before you post.

It's not a fake quote. Quit being deceptive. Everyone reading it sees that I said I was editing it to show my points. A point you asked about twenty times for myself, DK and Kat to make. Shall I go back and quote all of the times you asked for someone to show your assertions in the OP. I simply did so. It wasn't baiting or an attack. It was making a direct point to the purpose of the thread and THERE IS NO rule against posting to the point of the thread while being completely honest in the post. The only one's being dishonest here are you and Novoga.

I'm curious to see what Kat will have to say when she gets back to the thread.

I'm curious to see what Kat will have to say when she gets back to the thread.
I gave up a while back. Being rational with Ocean only results in odd taunting.

I do not know if the Warrants were issued after or before..

But I do think he stands suffer trouble now.. I think he would have less trouble without his videotaping.
Emphasis added. Unsupported assertion. More proof that you are claiming that the videographer is suffering retribution.

And if you do.. Do not bring it to the Media..
If you are feeling like a hero ... Use the Net.. keep your privacy.

Why? The Police is not going to like it and may find ways to retribute.. and do expect the "Justice system" to be on their side. (SAME ASSERTION)

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-highspeed8feb08,0,2781320.story?coll=la-headlines-california

what got my attention?
I just saw a bit of the Video.. and Mariela Carrion weeping on CNN live.

So my post is actually about the Carrions..

Again, I added comments to that quote to show where the assertion is. Otherwise you claim the post is edited if I just cut the post to show which part I am referring to.

Like I said.. I just saw it on CNN..

Basically You see the Man on the ground..yelling at the Cop "I am on your side..plz.. I am on your side"..

I wonder why.. Maybe he was Arab looking or something :confused:

Implied racism. Also unsupported.

yes they are.

But, it is the first time a Viedeo-taper eventually runs into Plice trouble..
..or more trouble than warranted in this case?

Oh, hey, more implications that the trouble this videographer is getting into is a result of the video. The same unsupported assertion.

Prove what?
I have nothing to prove.

"National conspiracy" are your words.. NOT mine.

Yeah, except you indicate the problems in FL are related to a case that he videotaped in CA. Hmmmm... I guess I must be making it up when I say that FL + CA = national.

Yes I said that. and I stand by that my unedited postNot my words.. Read it again.. S-L-O-W-L-Y

More claims that your posts don't say it. And the first suggesting that cutting part of the post for emphasis makes it mean something different.

You're being ridiculous. Fine, you didn't say retaliate, you said they may seek retribution. And indicated that this story is evidence of such a thing. Show how this story is evidence of retribution. Support your assertion. Seriously, unfounded assertions are trolling.

Here I ask you for proof of your assertions and you continue to avoid the point. Hmmm... not difficult to wonder why. There is no proof of your assertions.

#1) Police do not like you videotaping them.

#2) Cats like Milk

#3) 2+2=4

Do you also want proof for my second and third statements ????

Here you offer up the logical fallacy that nothing you say requires proof because it's as basic as 2+2. More desperate attempts to make people ignore your lack of evidence.

If I did imply that.. you would have no problem Quoting ... Would you?

if so.. just use the Quote Function.

And here we have you asking me to use the quote function again. Now my bolding the first time was insufficient so I took a different direction the second time. I quoted you again and again you acted like you needn't support the assertion and act is if the assertion is totally innocuous.

So essentially.... you don't know what happened (any more than the rest of us), you made an assumption about why the videographer was arrested that seems unlikely given information you ignored in the link you gave, you made a statement which indicates that you feel there is corruption involved although you have no proof, and that when this lack of proof is pointed out to you and a request made for you to back up your position with evidence, you backpedal, say you never said any of the things in your first post, and refuse to give proof for your statements.

So Kat calls you on the same thing and again you pretend to have never said it. So this time I quote you again only I put comments in the post to show the point. A tactic you yourself did for ease of communicating the issue.

Your entire thread is about you not being able evidence your claims and then spinning in circles to avoid admitting it. You've spent the thread backpedalling, threatening, trolling, flamebaiting, flaming and basically making repeatedly unsupported statements.

Prove me wrong. And use to the quote function to do so.

EDIT: Try doing so without Auditur et altera pars, cum hoc ergo proctor hoc, post hoc ergo proctor hoc, red herring, non causa pro causa, no sequitur, Ignoratio elenchi, argumentum ad nauseum, etc. You used every one of these fallacies in this thread. Please avoid doing so, so that we can have a relevant discussion of the issu.

And if you do.. Do not bring it to the Media..
If you are feeling like a hero ... Use the Net.. keep your privacy.

Why? The Police is not going to like it and may find ways to retribute.. and do expect the "Justice system" to be on their side.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-highspeed8feb08,0,2781320.story?coll=la-headlines-california

what got my attention?
I just saw a bit of the Video.. and Mariela Carrion weeping on CNN live.

So my post is actually about the Carrions..

There. I know how to quote. I am a moderator after all.

Let's take this one step at a time.

#while in the US, if you see a policeman shooting a civvie, do NOT video-tape it.. And if you do.. Do not bring it to the Media..
If you are feeling like a hero ... Use the Net.. keep your privacy.

Why? The Police is not going to like it and may find ways to retribute.. and do expect the "Justice system" to be on their side.

Those ARE your words, correct? and in those words, you are suggesting that if you film a police officer breaking the law, you are risking all of them taking revenge. That DOES mean corruption, correct? because corrupt police are the ones who seek "retribute", correct?

and do expect the "Justice system" to be on their side.

There. I quoted again. And what this implies is that not only are the police corrupt, the whole justice system is corrupt. Because naturally, they will take the side of an officer, caught on tape doing something illegal.

And after all, NO POLICE OFFICERS every have gone to jail for committing a crime (Justin Volpe, the Abner Louima case, ring a bell here?) or ever been brought to trial for same (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/11/police.slayings/).

Then you speculate about why it happened in post 7 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10384222&postcount=7)

I wonder why.. Maybe he was Arab looking or something?
But of course, there is no proof of that either.... and the only reason to bring that up is to reinforce your unsubstantiated premise than the cops are automatically corrupt.

Then you state in http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10384260&postcount=11 that But, it is the first time a Viedeo-taper eventually runs into Plice trouble..
..or more trouble than warranted in this case?

This was after JuNii provided this Valdes had two outstanding warrants for aggravated assault in Florida, and was taken into custody Friday while visiting a federal immigration office in Pomona to renew his immigrant registration card. Valdes' arraignment on charges of being a fugitive from justice was postponed until Thursday. in http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10384149&postcount=3

Then you admit that you can't tell what he looks like in http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10384304&postcount=16, No the Video angle does not show, which pretty much shows your intent to grasp at any reason it might have happened -- even inventing reasons -- since you admit you actually had no reason to believe the victim looked at all "Arab-looking".

(I stand 100% by this.
Backpedaled Kat? in your dreams)

Then in http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10384613&postcount=52, you start backpedaling, acting as if retribute retribute

\Re*trib"ute\, v. t. [L. retributus, p. p. ofretribuere to retribute; pref re- + tribuere to bestow, assign, pay. See Tribute.] To pay back; to give in return, as payment, reward, or punishment; to requite; as, to retribute one for his kindness; to retribute just punishment to a criminal. [Obs. or R.] --Locke.

and retaliate re·tal·i·ate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-tl-t)
v. re·tal·i·at·ed, re·tal·i·at·ing, re·tal·i·ates
v. intr.
To return like for like, especially evil for evil.

v. tr.
To pay back (an injury) in kind.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Late Latin retlire, retlit- : Latin re-, re- + Latin tli, punishment in kind; see tel- in Indo-European Roots.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re·tali·ation n.
re·tali·ative or re·tali·a·tory (--tôr, -tr) adj.
re·tali·ator n.

[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


Main Entry: re·tal·i·ate
Pronunciation: ri-'ta-lE-"At
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Forms: -at·ed; -at·ing
: to act in revenge —re·tal·i·a·tion /-"ta-lE-'A-sh&n/ noun —re·tal·i·a·tive /-'ta-lE-"A-tiv/ adjective —re·tal·ia·to·ry /-'tal-y&-"tOr-E/ adjective


Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


retaliate

v 1: take revenge for a perceived wrong; "He wants to avenge the murder of his brother" [syn: revenge, avenge] 2: make a counterattack and return like for like, especially evil for evil; "The Empire strikes back"; "The Giants struck back and won the opener"; "The Israeli army retaliated for the Hamas bombing" [syn: strike back]


Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

mean ANYTHING substantially different, when they are, in fact, synonymous. Additionally, you start to be condescending and obnoxious:

Not my words.. Read it again.. S-L-O-W-L-Y
and here http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10384661&postcount=57 Read my post again.. S-L-O-W-L-Y
and now read what he says:

Then you make this post http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10384676&postcount=59 in which you affirm three "facts" and say that because the last two are generally held, then the first one is also true.

Not all cats like milk. And 2+2 does not always equal four (depending on the sysyem of numbering you're using), although that's being nitpicky. There are plenty of times that police ARE glad they've been caught on tape -- after all, the cameras in their cruisers are to protect them against allegations of wrongdoing as much to catch them if they ARE doing wrong.

Then again you assert in http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10384722&postcount=67, I do not know if the Warrants were issued after or before..

But I do think he stands suffer trouble now.. I think he would have less trouble without his videotaping.

If you don't know whether he was in trouble before (and other posters have pointed out that he was AND that he admitted one was a legitimate arrest) then why are you implying that his problems stem from taping?

You also suggest police corruption here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10384751&postcount=71 In the other hand he made sure the incriminating evidence against a Police officer was not "lost" by Police. (accidents happen;))

Then you continued to make remarks about the police getting his "kill" next time -- surely this is an implication of corruption, because an honest policeman would not try to kill an innocent civilian.... http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10384920&postcount=84, to forestall any nonsense about me not paraphrasing you accurately.

Kat, can you please address whether I violate forum rules when I put comments inside of the quote. It seems to be a big concern for OD3.

[QUOTE=Katganistan]There. I know how to quote. I am a moderator after all.

Let's take this one step at a time.

[quote=OceanDrive3]#while in the US, if you see a policeman shooting a civvie, do NOT video-tape it.. And if you do.. Do not bring it to the Media..
If you are feeling like a hero ... Use the Net.. keep your privacy.

Why? The Police is not going to like it and may find ways to retribute.. and do expect the "Justice system" to be on their side.

Kat, can you please address whether I violate forum rules when I put comments inside of the quote. It seems to be a big concern for OD3.

Adding emphasis if it does not change the meaning is not illegal. Adding a quick comment that is obviously NOT part of the original quoted matter and does not change it is not illegal (for instance, in paretheses, and obviously meant as a clarification of your point). Paraphrasing (that is, crediting the original poster and writing the sense of what they said without changing the meaning, as when Deep Kimchi replaced retribute with the synonymous retaliate, is not illegal.

I don't see any illegal posting EXCEPT where Novoga says http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10388541&postcount=124 and http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10388663&postcount=135. To which I say KNOCK IT OFF NOW.

I think it's very clear what's happening here -- implication and innuendo has been used to make a point, and whether or not we point this out using logic and quotation, it's not going to make any difference at all. OceanDrive3 will continue to use implication and innuendo, and disingenuously insist "that's NOT what I said."

It's like if I walk into a room, look at someone, roll my eyes, and say, "Oh, THAT'S a nice haircut. I'll be SURE to go get one just like it -- RIGHT AWAY," then huff and turn my back, walking away. Then, when they get upset, look all hurt and say, "What? I said it was a nice haircut and I'll be sure to go get one just like it right away. Why would anyone get mad at that?"

Adding emphasis if it does not change the meaning is not illegal. Adding a quick comment that is obviously NOT part of the original quoted matter and does not change it is not illegal (for instance, in paretheses, and obviously meant as a clarification of your point). Paraphrasing (that is, crediting the original poster and writing the sense of what they said without changing the meaning, as when Deep Kimchi replaced retribute with the synonymous retaliate, is not illegal.

I don't see any illegal posting EXCEPT where Novoga says http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10388541&postcount=124 and http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10388663&postcount=135. To which I say KNOCK IT OFF NOW.

I think it's very clear what's happening here -- implication and innuendo has been used to make a point, and whether or not we point this out using logic and quotation, it's not going to make any difference at all. OceanDrive3 will continue to use implication and innuendo, and disingenuously insist "that's NOT what I said."

It's like if I walk into a room, look at someone, roll my eyes, and say, "Oh, THAT'S a nice haircut. I'll be SURE to go get one just like it -- RIGHT AWAY," then huff and turn my back, walking away. Then, when they get upset, look all hurt and say, "What? I said it was a nice haircut and I'll be sure to go get one just like it right away. Why would anyone get mad at that?"

I was aware of all of that and I'm sorry that you're input was required in order to clear it up. I told OD3 that provided I wasn't being disingenuous that it wasn't illegal, but he insisted that a mod needed to tell him that, so thank you for your assistance.

I think Novoga did more than simply misquote OD3, but we'll just have to agree to disagree there (and, well, since my opinion doesn't have any weight anyway, who cares).

As far as OD3's argument, I suspect OD3 is well aware of the quality of his argument and is simply amusing himself. I know of no one that has posted in this thread that could not see through the thin veil over his comments. It's clear that he intended to indicate corruption on the part of both the police and the justice system and that said corruption extends all the way to the other coast.

The sad thing is that many people in the world would have just listened to him and never discovered that the evidence is contrary to his assertions. One of things I love about NS is that very rarely will be let assertions that defy the evidence stand.

[QUOTE=Jocabia][QUOTE=Katganistan]There. I know how to quote.(actually I dont... see the tags are not closed..) I am a moderator after all. (You cant tuch me.. I am a MOD... I rule... You dont)

Let's take this one step at a time.

Adding emphasis if it does not change the meaning is not illegal.(bolds? no problem with that) Adding a quick comment that is obviously(but the original Poster should be the judge of that.. because otherwise shit will happen) NOT part of the original quoted matter and does not change(in the opinion of the latest poser.. original poster be damned) it is not illegal (for instance, in paretheses, and obviously meant as a clarification of your point). Paraphrasing (that is, crediting the original poster and writing the sense of what they said without changing the meaning, as when Deep Kimchi replaced retribute with the synonymous retaliate, is not illegal. (Damn I forgot to close my pharentesis)

I don't see(I have my sunglasses on) any illegal posting EXCEPT where Novoga(lets sacrifize NOVOGA too shut OD3's mouth) says http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10388541&postcount=124 and http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10388663&postcount=135. To which I say KNOCK IT OFF NOW.

I think it's very clear(OD3 is passing me off) what's happening here -- implication and innuendo(I like these words) has been used to make a point(did OD3 wanted to amke a point???), and whether or not we point this out using logic(OD3 logis is flawed anyways) and quotation, it's not going to make any difference at all(I am a MOD). OceanDrive3 will continue to use implication and innuendo(Damn OD3), and disingenuously insist "that's NOT what I said."(he uses that so often.. he has probably copy pasted it)

It's like if I walk into a room(I did this last nite), look at someone, roll my eyes(sexy), and say, "Oh, THAT'S a nice haircut.(hmm nice) I'll be SURE to go get one (i need one) just like it -- RIGHT AWAY," then huff and turn my back, walking away.(he was not my kind anyways) Then, when they get upset,(thay always do anu=yways) look all hurt and say(look at me baby), "What?(wazup) I said it was a nice haircut(sexy) and I'll be sure to go get one(i need one) just like it right away(again). Why would anyone get mad at that?"(why indeed.. that OD3 gets mad at nothing)

.

One, she didn't break the quote tags, I did (or rather Jolt did). They remained broken in each reply, just as they did in yours.

Two, baiting a mod is quite simply a stupid thing to do.

Three, there is a difference between making comments in parentheses that do not change the meaning of the post and are obviously meant to be addressed and adding comments that are meant to change the meaning of the post like Novoga did and like you're doing now. Your comments are comments that you pretend are in her words and that she didn't say and cannot be extracted from her post. You're putting words in her mouth which as she said is right out.

Four, let me guess, there is a big mod conspiracy against you, right?

Seriously, man, your behavior is ridiculous. You have yet to address the points of the thread. You do everything you can to drag the thread off-topic so that you don't have to answer for your assertions.

I dare you, triple-dog dare you, to address the points related to the topic and leave this childish crap about quoting, terrorists, and he said-she said alone. Yeah, that's right, if we're going to be silly, I'll try out daring you.

Jocabia, it's probably easier to just put Ocean on ignore.

Jocabia, it's probably easier to just put Ocean on ignore.

Nope. I'm not annoyed by the process and I'm not willing to allow him to make unsupported assertions unchallenged. When we don't challenge intentional misinformation we allow people to spread it. Maybe I can't prevent misinformation in the real world, but I can fight it here on NS, no matter how much that makes OD3 get annoyed and start baiting.

OD3 is dangerous because he knows that what he is saying is not true but if it supports his agenda he'll say it. Ignoring him simply allows him the opportunity for a platform without people who might not know better seeing through the crap.

In this thread:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10371534&postcount=43

He suggests that the embargo on Cuba is Bush's embargo and then when challenged he says it's the NeoCons that are keeping it alive. The embargo that has been supported by every president and congress since JFK created it. And was JFK a NeoCon? Of course not. Does OD3 know the difference? Of course. It's meant as a deception.

In this thread, OD3 knows he meant what we responded to, but when he got painted into a corner he simply pretends like he never said it all. He forgot that plausible deniability requires one to meet the requirement of plausibility.

Look at other threads and you will see all kinds of conspiracy nonsense that makes all people who are conservative, militaristic or part of the justice or police department part of some ridiculous group jockeying for a new world order. Does he know that's actually not happening? Yes, of course he does. But he is trying to misinform, to mislead, to be disingenuous and all the while he baits anyone and everyone who disagrees with him or appears to. He is the very definition of a troll.

Ah. I see you've run into OD3, just like I have, Jocabia. I've had run-ins with No3, No2 and possibly even the original incarnation. He cannot be reasoned with or argued. He'll often edit his posts to change statements, and either ignore or deliberately misinterpret posts made against him in arguments.

I'm not flaming or arguing, just stating. Really, I admire your persistance in trying to change him/defeat him, but don't bother. I spent a long period trying to in a fair few threads, but he can't be beaten.

Ah. I see you've run into OD3, just like I have, Jocabia. I've had run-ins with No3, No2 and possibly even the original incarnation. He cannot be reasoned with or argued. He'll often edit his posts to change statements, and either ignore or deliberately misinterpret posts made against him in arguments.

I'm not flaming or arguing, just stating. Really, I admire your persistance in trying to change him/defeat him, but don't bother. I spent a long period trying to in a fair few threads, but he can't be beaten.

I've had arguments with him where he will make virulent anti-Jewish statements, then when I quote him, he goes back and edits the original post, and then claims that I edited the quote.

Not really worth getting steamed about.

Jocabia, it's probably easier to just put Ocean on ignore.


might save you a couple of headaches too

I admire your persistance in trying to change him/defeat him, but don't bother. I spent a long period trying to in a fair few threads, but he can't be beaten.I have retracted a few times..

I bet I have retracted more often than Sierra.. and the other members of the OceanDrive bashing club..

I have retracted a few times..

I bet I have retracted more often than Sierra.. and the other members of the OceanDrive bashing club..

I've never seen you retract anything. In fact, your retractions usually take the form of editing previous posts, and then denying you ever said anything, followed by the demand what we use the Quote function to prove you said it.

Very childish.

I have retracted a few times..

I bet I have retracted more often than Sierra.. and the other members of the OceanDrive bashing club..

Unless you always retract when your behavior is out of line or your posts are inaccurate, it doesn't excuse your behavior. Wouldn't you prefer for people to look forward to your input into the threads because you're a knowledgeable and rational poster. I mean you have this wealth of information at your fingertips and a passion for many of these subjects and it all goes to waste because even when you put it out there in a reasonable way people are liable to skip over your posts because of your history.

How much better would it be if you were MORE likely to be heard? More likely to be understood? Wouldn't it be a benefit if people could hear the very accurate information you have about Bush's trangressions without having to filter it through the ridiculous conspiracy theories and unadulterated hatred? Seriously, OD3, don't you care that most of what you post here has NO EFFECT at all because of the way you post it?

I've never seen you retract anything. In fact, your retractions usually take the form of editing previous posts, and then denying you ever said anything, followed by the demand what we use the Quote function to prove you said it.

Very childish.


More sad than childish

But don't you know, it doesn't excuse your behavior. Wouldn't you prefer for people to look forward to your input into the threads because you're a knowledgeable and rational poster. I mean you have this wealth of information at your fingertips and a passion for many of these subjects and it all goes to waste because even when you put it out there in a reasonable way people are liable to skip over your posts because of your history.

How much better would it be if you were MORE likely to be heard? More likely to be understood? Wouldn't it be a benefit if people could hear the very accurate information you have about Bush's trangressions without having to filter it through the ridiculous conspiracy theories and unadulterated hatred? Seriously, OD3, don't you care that most of what you post here has NO EFFECT at all because of the way you post it?

He has a point, OD. If you didn't wrap all your posts in Neocon conspiracy theories, virulent anti-Bush speech and anti-semitic biases, I might actually not ignore your threads. And if you didn't edit posts, but instead reposted youre additions/comments, that would be a hell of a lot easier and much less annoying.

Well, plus, when you're being straight up, you're actually fairly entertaining. I enjoy reading your posts at times and I know other posters are missing it because they don't want to have to filter through.

Nevermind. Based on the thread you added to moderation, I can surmise that you don't think you have anything of value to add so you'd rather simply create a problem. I'm glad to offer you guidance if you care to take but if your only interest is to cause trouble, dealing with it does not fall under my area of responsibility. Have fun.

I've never seen you retract anything. I am not lying (if that is what you are suggesting.)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=472559

BTW.. how many times have you retracted?

I am not lying (if that is what you are suggesting.)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=472559

BTW.. how many times have you retracted?
Maybe you should ask Cat-Tribe.

If a cop did that to me, I'd expect my passenger to replace his grey matter with lead. If a cop did that to me, I would 'resist arrest'. Immediately afterwards, I'd turn myself in at the nearest PD station. At court, I would plead that it was self-defense (which is was) and point out to the DA that he's damn lucky that I'm not suing the county/city's ass off.

if i had fought with this nut,i can almost bet i would have been shot.

kinda hard to fight when you allready complied and are handcuffed on the ground.

you cant hit a cop...period..which i agree with,but if you do,whether he attacked you first wont matter in court.

you will be charged and will be convicted!not trying to insinuate a conspiracy..given the tone of these posts..lol..j/k..but simply stating that the courts believe cops..everytime(they are given more weight for their statements)rightly or wrongly..they just are.
unless there is overwhelming evidence that contadicts them.

so by filing charges,i would have had to prove an unprovable thing(seeing how the car recorded tape was erased,and the 911(the probable cause for the stop)went missing!

so then the cops would circle wagons,because they are not going to believe my story over there partners,and i go to jail.

by the way,they claimed i was being stopped because of a description of a veh. for another crime i was NOT even remotely involved/knew about.

just mistaken identity..gone horribly wrong..and one very amped out cop over reacting(probably cause he thought i was involved in the other crime..of which i have no idea if was a violent type)but that would explain his outrageous behaviour.

i would have been happy to have let it drop,if someone from the pd had just apologised to me,and said our bad.

instead..they realised what they did..that they were civilly and legally exsposed..so they dumped a load of charges on me..threatened me with a loong jail term..and let me plea it out(at great exspense to me..if i was poor,i am convinced i would be sitting in jail as i type)

i just chalk it up to being at the wrong place at the wrong time..i took a beating and a half,lost a boatload of cash,and spent a year in total anxiety waiting for court.

needless to say..i am terrified of cops...and i now hate them..not all,just what they represent to me now..the ugly side of state sanctioned control over my life/liberty and safety.

i unfortunatly now look at cops as thugs and bullies with the support of the state behind them,and i am helpless against them,if they screwup and trample on me.

i dont hate individual cops..let me make that clear..i was in the philadelphia police acadamy years ago..and i have friends that are cops..but if one goes by me or i see one i dont know..i get a knot in my stomach you wouldn't believe.

unrelated to the topic,but thats why i am so solidly against gun control,i dont trust the police,let alone trust them with my well being and safety.

i know that it is irrational to feel like this..like being bit by a dog and being forever afraid of all dogs..it's just how i feel now..maybe i will change?

but for the time being..to the point of the op..i have a deep mistrust for the system and for the cops,and usually side with the attitude of them oppressing and covering up..because they can and do.

a national conspiracy...nah...but a pattern of behaviour and an overall attiude of us vs. them leads me to think of it as a bunch of mini conspiracies of sorts..like we have gangs all over..but all the gangs in a big conspiracy..hardly.
a mindset with cops and a justice system that leads to abuse of power and the ability to cover up mistakes..absolutely.

I am not lying (if that is what you are suggesting.)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=472559

BTW.. how many times have you retracted?

Um, I found one time you retracted ever and it was to remove one name from a list of about twenty people and you stil pretended as if you never wrong to have put there but more that you were just tired of arguing. Lame.

you will be charged and will be convicted!not trying to insinuate a conspiracy..given the tone of these posts..lol..j/k..but simply stating that the courts believe cops..every time(they are given more weight for their statements)rightly or wrongly..they just are..Do no worry..
We are in the middle of the OceanDrive-Hunting-season.. (it is that time of the year.. frustrated dudes get together to bash the OceanDrive.. or put word in his mouth -parenthesis or not- to annoy the hell out of him)

You are not an OceanDrive.. So You will not be asked to Prove things You have not said..
and be accused of spreading National Conspiracy Theories..

...
So feel free to post your thoughts..
BTW nice post.. (keep up the good work.)

Um, I found one time you retracted ever and it was to remove one name from a list of about twenty people and you stil pretended as if you never wrong to have put there but more that you were just tired of arguing. Lame.I hope you are not suggested I only retracted one time.

BTW
Sierra has retracted one time to Cat-tribe.
sinse we are talking about this.. How about you?

I hope you are not suggested I only retracted one time.

BTW
Sierra has retracted one time to Cat-tribe.
sinse we are talking about this.. How about you?

Heck, I don't know. If someone catches me out, I tell them they caught me, but I have no idea how many times.

Meanwhile, you continue to avoid actually discussing the point of the thread or supporting your assertions. How about you do something unique and jump back on topic and offer some support for your implications?

Do no worry..
We are in the middle of the OceanDrive-Hunting-season.. Feel free to bash me.. or put word in my mouth -parenthesis or not-

You are not an OceanDrive.. So You will not be asked to Prove things You have not said..
and be accused of spreading National Conspiracy Theories..

...
So feel free to post your thoughts..
BTW nice post.. keep up the good work.

Um, actually, I ignored his posts because the grammar made them too hard to read.

As for you, keep claiming you never said those assertions in the face of a mountain of evidence. Perhaps someone will believe it. Not any of us. But maybe someone won't read your posts and realize that you simply can't support your assertions.

Actually, you're so fond of the quote function. Show one time where you were asked to prove something you didn't either directly say or imply. Show just once.

Heck, I don't know. If someone catches me out, I tell them they caught me, but I have no idea how many times.probably zero.

If Id had to bet on it...

probably zero.

Uh-huh. More attempts to prevent people from focusing on your refusal to address our points. Yay. Does this ever work?

Uh-huh. More attempts to prevent people from focusing on your refusal to address our points.I have adressed all your questions..yesterday
You do not like the answers?

Your problem not mine.

I have adressed all your questions..yesterday
You do not like the answers?

Your problem not mine.

No, you didn't. You have still not offered any support that the videographers criminal problems will be worsened by having made the video. You still not offered an support that the justice system will be on the side of cops that break the law. You still have not offered an support whatsoever for any of your assertions. Why don't you show me what questions you answered? Quotes please.

You posted a full 43 times in this topic. 4% of your total posts on this nation and you managed to actually offer up anything related to the topic 10 times, if I'm liberal enough to call your attempts to show he has brown skin as related to the topic (though you've never shown any relationship). The other 75% of the time you were claiming you didn't say something you can be quoted as saying, baiting, talking about terrorists, talking about retractions, talking about how I can't edit a post to add comments, talking about this or that or the other so that you don't have to support your posts.

Try this. Support your claims about this topic. I know that's a magic trick in and of itself, but give it a shot. How about that?

Show how the color of his skin has anything to do with the events. Show how the fact that this individual made a video has effected his warrants. Show that the officer that shot this man is being unfairly supported by the justice system. Show that there was any form of retribution whatsoever. Show that you've EVER offered any evidence for any of these claims. Address the topic in some way. Surprise me and actually engage in the debate.

No, you didn't. Yes I did several times:

Here, this shows all the times you have:
Put words in my mouth.. along with Sierra and the Kat-the-Mod..
Said "National conspiracy"..
FAKE-QUOTED me..along with Vogoda (or whatever his name was)
and kept repeting the same childish questions over and over..
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=472620

and this shows all the times I have tried to adress your broken-record childish questions..
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=472613&pp=15

Yes I did several times:

Here, this shows all the times you have:
Put words in my mouth.. along with Sierra and the Kat-the-Mod..
Said "National conspiracy"..
FAKE-QUTED me..along with Vogoda (or whatever his name was)
and kept repeting the same childish questions over and over..
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=472620

and this shows all the times I have tried to adress your broken-record childish questions..
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=472613&pp=15

Sorry. No matches. Please try some different terms.

Sorry. No matches. Please try some different terms.thx..

I dont know what is wrong.. It works for me.

I guess you can always read yesterday posts... it is all there.

Yes I did several times:

Here, this shows all the times you have:
Put words in my mouth.. along with Sierra and the Kat-the-Mod..
Said "National conspiracy"..
FAKE-QUTED me..along with Vogoda (or whatever his name was)
and kept repeting the same childish questions over and over..
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=472620

and this shows all the times I have tried to adress your broken-record childish questions..
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=472613&pp=15

Actually, can you show one time when I, me, Jocabia, put any words in your mouth? Use that quote function you're so fond of.

And no, those links show nothing. Kind of like you're original link.

I've shown several times where you've said that the videographers criminal problems would be worse because he made this video. I've shown several times where you said the "justice" system would make things worse. I've shown several times where you've implied the cops might seek retribution in the even that one were to videotape them just as they did in this case. And you're response has been to simply blatantly lie.

Let's make this simple. Yes or no answers.

Do you believe the cops or some other area of the justice or law enforcement system made things worse for THIS videographer?

Do you believe that cops simply decided to kill this suspect after the police chase?

Do you believe that the justice system generally help corrupt officers?

Do you believe that officers are generally corrupt?

EDIT: By the way, you're not up to 45 posts and have still offered no evidence for your assertions.

thx..

I dont know what is wrong.. It works for me.

I guess you can always read yesterday posts... it is all there.

So in other words you don't know how to use the quote function. Interesting turn of events after you've accused everyone else in the thread of it.

So in other words you don't know how to use the quote function. Interesting turn of events after you've accused everyone else in the thread of it.I have used the Quote function to adress your repeating whinnes.. I have used it at least 20 times..

Let's make this simple. Yes or no answers.

Do you believe the cops or some other area of the justice or law enforcement system made things worse for THIS videographer?

Do you believe that cops simply decided to kill this suspect after the police chase?

Do you believe that the justice system generally help corrupt officers?

Do you believe that officers are generally corrupt?

EDIT: By the way, you're not up to 45 posts and have still offered no evidence for your assertions.I been adressing your "questions" far too many times already..

I would say it is your turn.
Will you adress my questions?

Yes or no questions like you proposed.. no big Deal..

and I wont keep repeting them long after you have adressed them.. Like you do. ;)

going AFK i wil be back..

Let me know if you are willing to take it..

I been adressing your "questions" far too many times already..

I would say it is your turn.
Will you adress my questions?

Sure. I'm happy to answer. What questions?

And thank you for proving to everyone here that you are completely unwilling to make clear statements. Point proven.

I have used the Quote function to adress your repeating whinnes.. I have used it at least 20 times..

Ah. I see. You COULD prove that I'm lying, but you won't. Uh-huh. You're ridiculous.

This is STILL going? wow.

Interestingly, nothing since this thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=467937

Interestingly, nothing since this thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=467937
agreed... since I studied the tapes and was going to post my observations, but noticed that the conversations kinda went off track.

:shrugs:

agreed... since I studied the tapes and was going to post my observations, but noticed that the conversations kinda went off track.

:shrugs:

Ju, come on, I would absolutely be interested in your observations. I've been begging some other members to come back on track. If you ignore all the trolling, baiting, and intentional hijacking that went on to keep us off-topic, you can find some gems in there about this incident.

*shocked* OD3 didn't come back and list these questions that I supposedly never answered. Would someone please pick my jaw up off the floor? Let's see what I can gather - OD3 doesn't have to answer my questions, because he apparently already did, while none of us ever saw it and he can't quote himself doing so. I apparently didn't answer his questions even though I've offered to answer them if he just shows me where they are and *gasp* no reply. We quoted him saying things he claims he didn't say and on the next page he claims he never said it AGAIN. Yep, very productive.

I think there is a very good argument for why Ju should post his review of the clips so we can move on to an actual discussion instead of this nonsense.

Ju, come on, I would absolutely be interested in your observations. I've been begging some other members to come back on track. If you ignore all the trolling, baiting, and intentional hijacking that went on to keep us off-topic, you can find some gems in there about this incident.
well, after listening to the audio... which was crappy to begin with and not improved by the 'beeping'

the man on the ground did identify himself as Military. "I'm military, ok?
the officer aknowledged that with the "Ok"
this was repeated two or three times.
then the man said something to the effect of "I'm going to get up"
the officer replies repeatedly, "Don't get Up."
the man says again, "I'm going to get up"
the man then stands up, while the officer is souting "Don't get up."

It was clear to me, from only watching the video, that carrion was in the wrong. he probably though he was in control of the situation, but in reality, he should've let the officer handle it. but he tried to take control and not thinking, nor listening to the officer, he got himself shot. His standing against the officer's order not to, constituted a threat to the officer.

since he did Identify himself as Military, there was no question in the mind of the officer, that Carrion may be better than him in unarmed combat. Thus the wisest thing Carrion could've done was remain on the ground.

well, after listening to the audio... which was crappy to begin with and not improved by the 'beeping'

the man on the ground did identify himself as Military. "I'm military, ok?
the officer aknowledged that with the "Ok"
this was repeated two or three times.
then the man said something to the effect of "I'm going to get up"
the officer replies repeatedly, "Don't get Up."
the man says again, "I'm going to get up"
the man then stands up, while the officer is souting "Don't get up."

It was clear to me, from only watching the video, that carrion was in the wrong. he probably though he was in control of the situation, but in reality, he should've let the officer handle it. but he tried to take control and not thinking, nor listening to the officer, he got himself shot. His standing against the officer's order not to, constituted a threat to the officer.

since he did Identify himself as Military, there was no question in the mind of the officer, that Carrion may be better than him in unarmed combat. Thus the wisest thing Carrion could've done was remain on the ground.

Well, you can also here the shouts of don't touch me. It's difficult to tell who was saying it, but the fact it was being said, says someone was either putting their hands on an officer, assualt, if the officer was saying it or resisting arrest if one of the guys on the ground was saying it. Either way, the situation was very out of control and while I can't be sure what happened, the actions of the two men being arrested were not innocuous.

Well, you can also here the shouts of don't touch me. It's difficult to tell who was saying it, but the fact it was being said, says someone was either putting their hands on an officer, assualt, if the officer was saying it or resisting arrest if one of the guys on the ground was saying it. Either way, the situation was very out of control and while I can't be sure what happened, the actions of the two men being arrested were not innocuous.
The Don't touch me is spoken by someone else. possibly the driver who was also saying "we wern't doing anything wrong" and something about rights. if you notice, Carrion did tell someone on the other side of the car to "shut up"

The Don't touch me is spoken by someone else. possibly the driver who was also saying "we wern't doing anything wrong" and something about rights. if you notice, Carrion did tell someone on the other side of the car to "shut up"

The point is that if one of the people is resisting arrest, the other gentleman standing up is pretty stupid.

The point is that if one of the people is resisting arrest, the other gentleman standing up is pretty stupid.
Yep that's a fact.

That's what kills me. No one realizes you have two drunk men that just endangered their lives, the officers' lives and everyone else's lives on the road. One is resisting arrest and while you are trying to get one of them under control the other tries to get up against your commands. This is one of those times when non-lethal weapons would have been very nice to have. Given the choice I think this officer would have been very happy to have had a taser gun.

*shocked* OD3 didn't come back...I was busy.. I have places to go, people to see, things to do.. other than babysit you (the World does NOT turn around you.. get over it)Would someone please pick my jaw up off the floor? don't be childish..

That's what kills me. No one realizes you have two drunk men that just endangered their lives, the officers' lives and everyone else's lives on the road. One is resisting arrest and while you are trying to get one of them under control the other tries to get up against your commands. This is one of those times when non-lethal weapons would have been very nice to have. Given the choice I think this officer would have been very happy to have had a taser gun.too much equiptment for the officer to carry. but I understand the point.

Actually, can you show one time when I, me, Jocabia, put any words in your mouth? Use that quote function you're so fond of.
Sure.
____________________________________________
here is the time you did it in page 4
I take you're admitting then that you just made this crap about the warrants being payback for the video. Good. I guess there is nothing to debate in this thread. You agree that peopel who commit assault with a firearm deserve to be arrested and you give up three cheers for the law at catching a criminal. Everyone is happy. Yay.

it came not long after Sierras'

I'm still waiting to hear Ocean's evidence for a nationwide police conspiracy...

You guys do like the Words "National conspiracy".. don't you? (BTW in this post you guys did not put words in my mouth..but interesting post anyways- page 2-)
Maybe Ocean thinks the police were ordered to kill by the Jews.

Judging from the video I've seen (which is grainy, but informative enough), the officer is too keyed up to exercise proper judgment, and shoots the victim - definitely an unjustified shooting.

But, that's probably not enough for Ocean - it has to be part of some grand tinfoil hat conspiracy to have the "ring of truth".

again..at page 4
Prove that the police aren't going to like it (your words).
Prove that they will retaliate (your words).

And prove that somehow, the Feds, the police in California, and the police in Florida somehow are all working to do both of those things together (that's what a conspiracy is).

Otherwise, we have nothing to fear by doing a video - because the police will not be angry and they will not retaliate.


here you are.. with the "Pedophile" word.. after the first time I asked to stop putting words in My mouth..
I didn't say anything about you being a child molestor.

What I said:

Don't go into a room alone with you, particularly if you're a child.
People in rooms alone with you are going to get fondled.


Seeeeee... I didn't say anything about child molesting. So quite putting words in my mouth. /sarcasm


This post is really something.. in the first part you acknowledge that you and the others are Misquoting me, deforming my posts by changing my words..BUT ON LY to immediately do it again on the same post
Fine, you didn't say retaliate, you said they may seek retribution. And indicated that this story is evidence of such a thing.

I never ever said anything like that.. I never "indicated that this story is evidence".

____________________________________________

I am only at page 4..

We have not yet seen the all your BS from the other pages..
But I will be back..(going AFK) ..and shall post them -If I feel it is necessary.. and if I find the time-

Hey Jocabia, i find it funny that OD3 isn't arguing the subject of his post but more about the Alledged Rule breaking of altering posts. :D

almost as if OD3 is admitting that his original premise was wrong.

Sure.

here is the time you did it in page 4

Ok, so I guess I should help you out here.

Sarcasm -
1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain <tired of continual sarcasms>
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm <this is no time to indulge in sarcasm>

Perhaps that will help. I guess you couldn't tell so I'll say it here. I was being sarcastic. Generally, the YAY gives it away, but I guess not.

here you are.. with the "Pedophile" word after the first time I asked to stop putting words in My mouth..

I pointed out that summarizing a post or paraphrasing it accurately is doing no such thing. If your post indicates something without actually specifically stating it, it doesn't make it alright for you to claim you never said it. Implied assertions are still assertions.

This post is really something.. in the first part you acknowledge that you and the others are Misquoting me, deforming my posts by changing my words..BUT ON LY to immediately do it again on the same post

I don't acknowledge anything. I wasn't misquoting you. I was pointing out that simply because you didn't USE a word doesn't mean you didn't IMPLY a word. You weren't accused by me of using a word you didn't use. You were accused of implying it. You don't seem to know the difference between the specific words and the meaning those words carry in context, as evidenced by,,,

I never ever said anything like that.. I never "indicated that this story is evidence".

Um, yes, you did. You made a bunch of implied assertions and then posted the story. If it wasn't evidence for your assertions then it was a ridiculous thing to post since it certainly implied that it was evidence.
__________

I am only at page 4..

We are still to see your BS from the other pages..
But I will be back..(going AFK) and will post them...

Ok, so far, no evidence that I ever misquoted you. Nice to know. You showed me sarcastically say something that clearly implied you never said it. As always you get caught up between the actual words and the meaning of said words. With sarcasm, the words don't mean what they say. With your words, you try to pretend that if you implied something we can't react to the implication, because you didn't say it. Both scenarios are ridiculous and acts of desperation.

Meanwhile, the only way you can claim I put words in your mouth is to pretend like I wasn't being sarcastic. The only other quote you made refers to the implication not the actual words.

Hey Jocabia, i find it funny that OD3 isn't arguing the subject of his post but more about the Alledged Rule breaking of altering posts. :D

almost as if OD3 is admitting that his original premise was wrong.

Yes, every time, I post clear questions, he claims he doesn't have to answer them. Basically, he refuses to say anything clearly ever and then if you say he said something other than the exact words he used, he will claim you're putting words in his mouth. Also, you're supposed to take his words in context, but treat each one differently. You know, kind of like how Moby Dick is a whale in the first chapter and a monkey in the second chapter. Cuz that's how context works, you know.

Actually, can you show one time when I, me, Jocabia, put any words in your mouth? Use that quote function you're so fond of.

And no, those links show nothing. Kind of like you're original link.

I've shown several times where you've said that the videographers criminal problems would be worse because he made this video. I've shown several times where you said the "justice" system would make things worse. I've shown several times where you've implied the cops might seek retribution in the even that one were to videotape them just as they did in this case. And you're response has been to simply blatantly lie.

Let's make this simple. Yes or no answers.

Do you believe the cops or some other area of the justice or law enforcement system made things worse for THIS videographer?

Do you believe that cops simply decided to kill this suspect after the police chase?

Do you believe that the justice system generally help corrupt officers?

Do you believe that officers are generally corrupt?

EDIT: By the way, you're not up to 45 posts and have still offered no evidence for your assertions.

Here you go, OD3. Simple, easy questions. Answer them and then what you are intending to say will be perfectly clear.

Who wants to bet he refuses to answer them AGAIN? That would be discussing the topic and actually clearly stating a position. What kind of ridiculous nonsense is that?

Ok, so I guess I should help (actually I need to help me) you out here.

I don't acknowledge anything. I wasn't misquoting you (actually I was.. but I cant repeat it here.. as you all know I have never retracted before.. I am perfect). (blah-blah-blah ) simply because you didn't USE a word doesn't mean you didn't IMPLY a word. You weren't accused by me of using a word you didn't use. You were accused of implying it.
...
Um, yes, you did. You made a bunch of implied assertions... (blah-blah-blah) it certainly implied that it was evidence.

Ok, so far, no evidence that I ever misquoted you. (phew..I still a virgin) Nice to know. (blah-blah-blah- blah-blah-blah-)clearly implied you never said it. As always you get caught up between the actual words and the meaning of said words. (blah-blah-blah- blah-blah-blah) that if you implied something we can't react to the implication, because you didn't say it. (blah-blah-blah)
(Blah-Blah-Blah) refers to the implication not the actual words.

.
(TRANSLATION

:( Jocaiba: You Said the Word "Shit"
Ocean: huh?
:( Jocaiba: Yes you did, You said "Shit"
Ocean: WTF are you talking about?
:( Jocaiba: You said "Shit".. do not deny it...
Ocean: No I didn't.
:( Jocaiba: But You implied it.
Ocean: I did not say "shit".. DID NOT SAY IT.
:( Jocaiba: But You implied it.
:mad: Ocean: WTF is wrong with you, I did not say it.
:( Jocaiba: But You implied it.
:mad: Ocean: Listen.. I know what I am saying.. and I did not mean to say "shit"
:( Jocaiba: But You implied it.
etc
etc
etc)Hey Jocaiba, How do you like my Parenthesis.. Because you realize they are mine.. don't you :D

BTW I know best the meaning of MY WORDS.. I am inside my brain..
unless you claim to have some mind-reading superpower.

Here you go, OD3. Simple, easy questions. Answer them and then what you are intending to say will be perfectly clear.Oh I will.. once you answer mine.. (don't be impatient.. the World is not ending tonite..)

I shall post my questions tomorrow... As soon as I finish some homework..
Like I said.. I am busy.

see ya tomorrow.

Uh huh.
Right.

Forget it, people. It's obvious that our friend here has no intention of ever backing anything he said up, and is in fact never going to say anything in defense of his position, because he can't.

He's just trolling.

Actual debaters, you know.... debate. They don't pull this, "I'll tell you tomorrow," nonsense.

Oh I will.. once you answer mine.. (don't be impatient.. the World is not ending tonite..)

I shall post my questions tomorrow... As soon as I finish some homework..
Like I said.. I am busy.

see ya tomorrow.

Ridiculous.

Hey Jocaiba, How do you like my Parenthesis.. Because you realize they are mine.. don't you :D

BTW I know best the meaning of MY WORDS.. I am inside my brain..
unless you claim to have some mind-reading superpower.
Ok, so in other words, you're IMPLYING that you're just a poor communicator. Accepted. Because everyone here read the same thing in your posts. Don't you think that's interesting, since you claim it wasn't what you meant.

By the way, do you notice in flaw in your scenario. You cannot quote me ever saying you said something in specific words.

A more appropriate scenario would be.

You: My that girl sure would break a scale.
Me: Please don't call people fat.
You: (looks innocent) but I didn't.
Me: But you implied it.
and so on...
Now, if you didn't intend to imply what we drew from your posts then perhaps you should take a course in effective communication. Except, we all know you're actually not very good at being deceptive. You didn't just impy it once. Several times. Now, you're just plain lying. You know it. I know it. DK knows it. Kat knows it. And it's just sad. And now you're up to about fifty posts with hardly any of them being on topic.

Ok, so in other words, you're IMPLYING that you're just a poor communicator. No I am not "implying" anything.. I am saying you are putting words in my mouth.. You are deforming my words..

I like to speak in a Direct simple Language.. I do not like all your "Implying" talk

BTW.. I am still posting the questions tomorrow.. I hope you find time to log in during the weekend.

No I am not "implying" anything.. I am saying you are putting words in my mouth.. You are deforming my words..

I like to speak in a Direct simple Language.. I do not like all your "Implying" talk

BTW.. I am still posting the questions tomorrow.. I hope you find time to log in during the weekend.

I see. You have time to post off-topic about this nonsense, but no time to post your questions. Questions you claim you already asked. Ridiculous.

And if your language is so direct and simple why did everyone get the wrong impression about what you meant? I agree that you speak in direct and simple language and rather than simply admit that you cannot support what you asserted, you lied and pretended you didn't assert it. Your clear and direct language very much implied exactly what we surmised. So keep being ridiculous if you like, but we see through it. Meanwhile you keep posting without addressing the topic. No surprise there.

"I have this thing that quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck and looks like a duck that defeathered and ate last night."
"Did you like your duck?"
"I didn't say I ate duck so quit trying to put words in my mouth."

You're right here of course, Jocabia. OD3 did imply a hell of a lot of things...unfortunately, and believe me when I say this, you'll never get him to admit his faults. He'll continue to use bluffing, ignorance and plain bullhockey until you eventually give up - at which time he'll claim victory.

Do no worry..
We are in the middle of the OceanDrive-Hunting-season.. (it is that time of the year.. frustrated dudes get together to bash the OceanDrive.. or put word in his mouth -parenthesis or not- to annoy the hell out of him)

You are not an OceanDrive.. So You will not be asked to Prove things You have not said..
and be accused of spreading National Conspiracy Theories..

...
So feel free to post your thoughts..
BTW nice post.. (keep up the good work.)

thanks od...

i still dont get the whole national conspiracy argument here?

i mean is someone saying there is a national conspiracy?

and some are saying there isn't?

if that is the argument..i would have to say no national conspiracy...but as per my post..a mindset that gives the appearance of one for sure.

Um, actually, I ignored his posts because the grammar made them too hard to read.

As for you, keep claiming you never said those assertions in the face of a mountain of evidence. Perhaps someone will believe it. Not any of us. But maybe someone won't read your posts and realize that you simply can't support your assertions.

Actually, you're so fond of the quote function. Show one time where you were asked to prove something you didn't either directly say or imply. Show just once.

sorry about my grammer?

and silly me thought punctuation was my weak spot!!

i thought my grammer was adequate to get a point across,apparently not,and for that i apologise.

i do realise it is frustrating trying to read some things..i do have a broken wrist that has not quite healed,so maybe i am being a bit lax with my typing...sorry

Well, you can also here the shouts of don't touch me. It's difficult to tell who was saying it, but the fact it was being said, says someone was either putting their hands on an officer, assualt, if the officer was saying it or resisting arrest if one of the guys on the ground was saying it. Either way, the situation was very out of control and while I can't be sure what happened, the actions of the two men being arrested were not innocuous.

2 very valid points.

So... other than OD3, is there anyone else who believes that the police are at fault?

Not asking about any conspiracy, just if the police were wrong in the shooting?

sorry about my grammer?

and silly me thought punctuation was my weak spot!!

i thought my grammer was adequate to get a point across,apparently not,and for that i apologise.

i do realise it is frustrating trying to read some things..i do have a broken wrist that has not quite healed,so maybe i am being a bit lax with my typing...sorry

I actually wasn't attacking you. The point was is they he was acting like we were persecuting him, and I was pointing out that was because he was the only posting unsupported assertions that I read. He was claiming you made unsupported assertions and I can't answer whether you did or not.

fron this thread...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10404046#post10404046
Oh, and are you going to respond to Jocabia's many reasoned arguments in the other thread? Or are you ignoring them as well?
_________________________________________

*shocked* OD3 didn't come back and list these questions that I supposedly never answered. Would someone please pick my jaw up off the floor?

so here are my (True or False / YES or NO) questions.. as Promised.

___________________________________________________________
Bases on the Video, Do you believe the deputty should be charged criminally?

Did the Airman comply with everything he was asked?

Should the Airman be charged with anything?

Had the videographer not personally given this tape.. would he be in Jail today?

Do you believe there is corrupt officers in California?

True or False?, Sierra and other posters have said "National Conspiracy" bbut not OceanDrive.

True or False?, Posters here have posted blattant OceanDrive FAKE-QUOTES.
__________________________________________________________________

so you have 3 options YES/NO (True/False) .. or you can also choose not to answer them. (yes.. free speech includes that too)

Let's make this simple. Yes or no answers.

Do you believe the cops or some other area of the justice or law enforcement system made things worse for THIS videographer?

Do you believe that cops simply decided to kill this suspect after the police chase?

Do you believe that the justice system generally help corrupt officers?

Do you believe that officers are generally corrupt?

-Yes
-No
-Yes ( my definition of "help")
-No

-Yes

Yet, when we suggested you believed this you claimed we were just making it up. Isn't it odd that we just happened to be correct? Now remember that the incident happened in California and the warrants were issued in FL. That would make it a national conspiracy.

Also, you'll notice that I said that you implied exactly that and you said you never said such a thing. Now, I suppose I must be a mindreader since you never said such a thing, yet I managed to extract what you meant.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10384764&postcount=72

-No

Good. Your statements are consistent with this, but, hey, who needs consistency, right?

so, The the Police Officer should be happy.. Can we still give him a Medal-of-Congress ?

I mean he did put his career in danger.. trying to terminally rid us of this dangerous criminal.

Hmmm... looks like you must have changed your opinion in the past couple of days. I'm curious as to what evidence changed your opinion.

- (will not answer.. because IMO it is a "Yes and No" situation)

Hmmm... let's see if that is consistent with your statements.

And if you do.. Do not bring it to the Media..
If you are feeling like a hero ... Use the Net.. keep your privacy.

Why? The Police is not going to like it and may find ways to retribute.. and do expect the "Justice system" to be on their side.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-highspeed8feb08,0,2781320.story?coll=la-headlines-california

what got my attention?
I just saw a bit of the Video.. and Mariela Carrion weeping on CNN live.

So my post is actually about the Carrions..

Emphasis mine.

-No

Good, then finding ways to 'retribute' isn't very likely despite your statements good to know. Strange that these not generally corrupt officers 'retributed' from FL for an incident in California. Also, strange that you believe officers are not generally corrupt but you believe they sought retribution with no evidence. Not really intereested in consistency, are you?

In retrospect, I can see why you didn't want to answer my questions. It's hard to continue the silliness once you've stated things so clearly, isn't it?

fron this thread...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10404046#post10404046

_________________________________________



so here are my (True or False / YES or NO) questions.. as Promised.

___________________________________________________________
Bases on the Video, Do you believe the deputty should be charged criminally?

Hard to say. I can't see in the video any justification for shooting the suspect four times. FOUR TIMES. At the very least, he should lose his job. I can't see what happened on the video well-enough, but unless the victim was actually attacking him I can't see how you justify four shots. I don't see that they have enough evidence to charge the officer, but I do think it is likely that this officer overreacted to the situation as a result of the high-speed chase. I pointed out earlier in the thread why it is a bad idea for officers in a high-speed chase to arrest the suspects.

Did the Airman comply with everything he was asked?

It does not appear so, but it is difficult to tell form the tape. I can't be sure but it appears he was told to not get up. Also, we can't see what happened immediately before the shooting.

Should the Airman be charged with anything?

I don't have the answer for that. The tape is difficult to decipher. I saw a better version of the tape, but it was still difficult to tell. Now, I believe the cop was telling him not to get up. That's more consistent with what was going on.

The driver evades the police and then as the police are arresting them, he resists arrest. The passenger who is also drunk tries to calm his friend and yells to the officer that he is on his side. The officer tells the passenger to stay on the ground. The passanger says he is getting up (and probably genuinely thinking he is helping). The passenger begins to get up. The officer now has two people who after a high-speed chase are not following commands and one of them stands and, however unintentionally, becomes a threat. The officer who is still amped from car chase and overreacts and shoots the passenger four times.

So, I'd have to say that the victim was likely committing a crime (resisting arrest and failure to comply) but I would say that is far overshadowed by the actions of the officer that appear to be a gross overreaction. I would say that without a doubt both men in the car were drunk and behaving stupidly.

Had the videographer not personally given this tape.. would he be in Jail today?

Yes. The videographer admitted to committing at least one of the crimes of a warrant (drunken driving for which he failed to appear). He was not caught by the police. He was caught by immigration during a routine check. The warrants were issued by FL, a seperate police force.

Do you believe there is corrupt officers in California?

Probably, but not necessarily in the precinct that this event happened in. I have no reason to believe there was any corruption involved in this case.

True or False?, Sierra and other posters have said "National Conspiracy" bbut not OceanDrive.

True. OceanDrive3 only made statements that indicate a national conspiracy. However, seeing as people are supposed to use context, it would be ridiculous to suggest that one cannot suggest a national conspiracy without using those exact words. Saying that federal agents arrested a man for warrants in FL because of videotaping officers in a shooting in CA is suggesting a national conspiracy despite your ridiculous claims otherwise.

True or False?, Posters here have posted blattant OceanDrive FAKE-QUOTES.

True, but I am not one of them.
__________________________________________________________________

so you have 3 options YES/NO (True/False) .. or you can also choose not to answer them. (yes.. free speech includes that too)

See, how I not only answer, but offer evidence or explanations for my answers. You should try it. It makes you look like you're interesting in more than trolling.

Hard to say. I can't ( Blah-blah blah.. Blah-blah blah..)he should ( Blah-blah blah.. Blah-blah blah..)but unless ( Blah-blah blah.. Blah-blah blah..) see how you justify ( Blah-blah blah.. Blah-blah blah..)but I do think it is likely that ( Blah-blah blah.. Blah-blah blah..) it is a bad idea ( Blah-blah blah.. Blah-blah blah..)



It does not appear so, but ( Blah-blah blah.. Blah-blah blah..)



I don't have the answer for that. (fair enough)
( Blah-blah blah.. Blah-blah blah.. anyways )
.


Yes. (finally I can aswer one)


Probably, but not necessarily ( Blah-blah blah.. again)


True. (better)


True (WOW 2 in a roll)


What part of the "YES or NO" you did not understand?
I am tired of all your Blah-blah blah..

Just give it to me straight..

What part of the "YES or NO" you did not understand?
I am tired of all your Blah-blah blah..

Just give it to me straight..
Seriously, you're such a troll. You're tired of explanations for answers then you're in the wrong place. You asked yes or no questions that I couldn't possibly answer because I don't have enough information. It's funny how to you not answering exactly yes or no or true or false is intolerable but when you answered you did the same thing. They're complicated questions. This is supposed to be a discussion. Did you notice my questions asked what you believed and your questions asked for definitive answers I couldn't possibly know?

You're trolling. You came here to make ridiculous declarations about the police with what you thought was evidence and you're annoyed because you were asked to explan yourself.

You got caught plain out, no question lying. Now would be a great time for one of those retractions you claim you have no problem giving.

I notice you didn't both with my reply to your answers or addressing by answers to your questions. All you did was try to attack the format of my answers and take the discussion away from the point. Troll.

Now let me guess, out you'll come with another post about how I did this or I did that without saying anything actually useful or germaine to the conversation. More ridiculous trolling.

What the hell? Blah blah blah? Jocabia gives you some brilliantly reasoned arguments - which must have taken some time - and now you just insult him and show everyone that you're a troll by repeating that one word, as if it clears you of any responibilities. Good god, you are a Troll, and not a brilliant one by any stretch of the imagination.

I mean - do you not like actually reading evidence that might contradict you, or are you just rude?

It's funny how to you not answering exactly yes or no or true or false is intolerable but when you answered you did the same thing. They're complicated questions. It was your idea.. Your rules of engagement..

What now ??..You cant follow your own rules?? You are pathetic.


Let's make this simple. Yes or no answers.

and I do like your rules.. there has been already too much Blah-Blah-blah (But You inplied it..:( But you implied it... :( But you implied it...etc) on this one.

fron this thread...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10404046#post10404046

_________________________________________



so here are my (True or False / YES or NO) questions.. as Promised.

___________________________________________________________
Bases on the Video, Do you believe the deputty should be charged criminally?no.

Did the Airman comply with everything he was asked?no, the airman got up when the officer was telling him not to.

Should the Airman be charged with anything?yes He should be charged with resisting arrest.


Had the videographer not personally given this tape.. would he be in Jail today?yes. the Outstanding warrents were issued before the tape was turned in. he still would've been caught.

Do you believe there is corrupt officers in California?yes, there are corrupt officers but not all officers are corrupt.

True or False?, Sierra and other posters have said "National Conspiracy" bbut not OceanDrive. False: you implied that the video taper was arrested because he filmed the cop shooting someone. not that he had a warrent for his arrest. you never made any attempt to correct that.
your first post... untouched.
And if you do.. Do not bring it to the Media..
If you are feeling like a hero ... Use the Net.. keep your privacy.

Why? The Police is not going to like it and may find ways to retribute.. and do expect the "Justice system" to be on their side.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-highspeed8feb08,0,2781320.story?coll=la-headlines-california

what got my attention?
I just saw a bit of the Video.. and Mariela Carrion weeping on CNN live.

So my post is actually about the Carrions..
now your first post where I will now emphasise where you imply that there is a conspiracy.
And if you do.. Do not bring it to the Media..
If you are feeling like a hero ... Use the Net.. keep your privacy.

Why? The Police is not going to like it and may find ways to retribute.. and do expect the "Justice system" to be on their side.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-highspeed8feb08,0,2781320.story?coll=la-headlines-california

what got my attention?
I just saw a bit of the Video.. and Mariela Carrion weeping on CNN live.

So my post is actually about the Carrions..the bolded and underline parts are the only changes I made. here you called the cops arresting the camera man a retaliation to his videotaping an officer shooting someone.

and the fact that the warrents are for Florida, a state on the other coast from California, implies a national conspiracy to retaliate. Thus you are implying a National Conspiracy.



True or False?, Posters here have posted blattant OceanDrive FAKE-QUOTES.False. they altered your quotes, yes, but they also stated they were altering your quotes for empasis.

so you have 3 options YES/NO (True/False) .. or you can also choose not to answer them. (yes.. free speech includes that too)

It was your idea.. Your rules of engagement..

What now ??..You cant follow your own rules?? You are pathetic.




and I do like your rules.. there has been already too much Blah-Blah-blah (But You inplied it..:( But you implied it... :( But you implied it...etc) on this one.

I didn't say or imply that you couldn't explain your answers. Only that you had to answer the question. I answered the questions much better than you did.

Let me give you a question like yours. Yes or no, am I wearing red pants? You asked questions no one knows the answer to. And you proved our point. You like to make assertions without having any way of knowing if they're true. Then you get called out and you LIE.

It's okay. We all know you're a troll.

Let's see what the consensus is...

Good god, you are a Troll, and not a brilliant one by any stretch of the imagination.

Seriously, you're such a troll.

He's just trolling.

Ah. I see you've run into OD3, just like I have, Jocabia. I've had run-ins with No3, No2 and possibly even the original incarnation. He cannot be reasoned with or argued. He'll often edit his posts to change statements, and either ignore or deliberately misinterpret posts made against him in arguments.
I gave up a while back. Being rational with Ocean only results in odd taunting.

So continue to lie and to bait and to troll. Avoid debate at all costs. You come to the battlefield unarmed and you complain when you get slaughtered. You admit that you didn't come here to discuss and that discussing things annoys you. Classic trolling. The immaturity that you've displayed in this thread is appalling and you should be embarassed. You think can simply outlast your opponents but being difficult, lying, and simply acting ridiculous. It didn't work. I nailed you on the points and proved you were lying throughout the thread. You have yet to even try to support your assertions.

I am on a YES/NO Only mode with Jocaiba(to much Blah-Blah-Blah..)..
But your efforts to cover for him (unlike him..You actually answered all the questions) is notable.

Let me take your answers one by one


no.Fair enough.. It is your opinion it belongs to you.


no, the airman got up when the officer was telling him not to.
Hmm.. Did you actually hear the Deputy say "Do not Get up".. FYI there is a video tape.

You mean the 'Blah-Blah' in which he actually refutes your evidence and shows that you're actually implying that there is a national conspiracy? The 'Blah-Blah' that you're now going to ignore because it actually proves a point against you?

And don't forget the 'Blah-Blah' of this very post, which most likely you'll ignore...

I am on a YES/NO Only mode with Jocaiba(to much Blah-Blah-Blah..)..
But your efforts to cover for him (unlike him..You actually answered all the questions) is notable.

Let me take your answers one by one

Fair enough.. It is your opinion it belongs to you.

Hmm.. Did you actually hear the Deputy say "Do not Get up".. FYI there is a video tape.

I'll also point out that that's only two answers out of at least five. You ignore the answers in which he proves you imply a national conspiracy in the US police force.

I am on a YES/NO Only mode with Jocaiba(to much Blah-Blah-Blah..)..
But your efforts to cover for him (unlike him..You actually answered all the questions) is notable.

Let me take your answers one by one

Fair enough.. It is your opinion it belongs to you.

Hmm.. Did you actually hear the Deputy say "Do not Get up".. FYI there is a video tape.
Hilarious. Do you think anyone doesn't see through you attempt to avoid addressing the posts that show that you're being ridiculous. You can ignore me if you like but every will still see my proof, evidence and explanations and your lack of all three. I take you don't want people to actually take your opinions seriously.

The diffence between Ju and I is that I have not seen a tape that has the evidence required to solidly answer some of those questions and Ju believes he has.

Amusingly, when he answered you asked him for more information, information I gave you in my answer and you ignored. More ridiculousness.

You can ignore me if you like... I am not ignoring you.. You have proposed YES or NO Questions... and I have answered all your YES or NO questions.. But when it was your turn to answer.. you provided little YES or NO answer.. and a lot of your Blah-Blah-Blah-...

..but every will still see my proof, evidence...:rolleyes: What proof? what evidence? All you have is : see my (...) explanations
("But you said National Conspiracy"
"Ok you did not say that .. but you implied it..."
"You Did.. you implied it"
"I can read your mind You implied it"
"I swear You implied it"... :( )

what page are we on your "You implied it" song ?? page#16?

I am not ignoring you.. You have proposed YES or NO Questions... and I have answered all your YES or NO questions.. But when it was your turn to answer.. you provided little YES or NO answer.. and a lot of your Blah-Blah-Blah-...

:rolleyes: What proof? what evidence? All you have is :

what page are we on your "You implied it" song ?? page#16?

Oh...my dear sweet loving god. You're not even reading the last page of this thread. Read Junii's post you blasted troll. It states exactly what you said, and how you implied it. Or you can continue to ignore it and continue to be posted against until you actually read it.

no.no, the airman got up when the officer was telling him not to.yes He should be charged with resisting arrest. yes. the Outstanding warrents were issued before the tape was turned in. he still would've been caught.yes, there are corrupt officers but not all officers are corrupt.False: you implied that the video taper was arrested because he filmed the cop shooting someone. not that he had a warrent for his arrest. you never made any attempt to correct that.
your first post... untouched.

now your first post where I will now emphasise where you imply that there is a conspiracy.
the bolded and underline parts are the only changes I made. here you called the cops arresting the camera man a retaliation to his videotaping an officer shooting someone.

and the fact that the warrents are for Florida, a state on the other coast from California, implies a national conspiracy to retaliate. Thus you are implying a National Conspiracy.

False. they altered your quotes, yes, but they also stated they were altering your quotes for empasis.

Look, look, goddamn it, I'm even quoting the goddamn post itself. If you would actually scroll *up* the page a small ways, you'll find the original post, untouched, and with your posts quoted to show how you implied there was a national conspiracy.

Hell, I'll even link it to you. Here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10410913&postcount=228

Oh...my dear sweet loving god. You're not even reading the last page of this thread. Read Junii's post...So now you have mind reading powers... like Jocaiba?

Just what on earth makes you think I did not read his post?

Look, look, goddamn it, I'm even quoting the goddamn post itself. If you would actually scroll *up* the page a small ways, you'll find the original post, untouched, and with your posts quoted to show how you implied there was a national conspiracy.

Hell, I'll even link it to you. Here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10410913&postcount=228

and why don't you scroll up a bit more.. to see that not only did I read his post.. but I also answered it.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10411048&postcount=230.

You are looking an idiot now...aren't you?

and why don't you scroll up a bit more.. to see that not only did I read his post.. but I also answered it.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10411048&postcount=230.

You are looking an idiot now...aren't you?

If you scrolled down a bit more, you'd see I quoted your post and analysed it, showing you answered two questions only, and those were not the ones that called you on your implications of a national conspiracy:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10411298&postcount=232

You are looking like an idiot now...aren't you?

I am not ignoring you.. You have proposed YES or NO Questions... and I have answered all your YES or NO questions.. But when it was your turn to answer.. you provided little YES or NO answer.. and a lot of your Blah-Blah-Blah-...

:rolleyes: What proof? what evidence? All you have is :

what page are we on your "You implied it" song ?? page#16?

Ha. You're ridiculous. I'm talking about the TOPIC. Not your trolling. You know the 'blah, blah, blah' stuff you're complaining about. That's the on-topic posts that you avoid like the plague. You'll talk all day about what you did and didn't say just so you don't have to talk about the topic.

I offered up my explanation of the event and offered how I reached that view. You ignored it You'd rather talk about anything but.

I asked you how you reached your answers, much like you asked of Ju, and *gasp* you ignored it.

Ready to enter the debate? How about offering up some evidence for corruption, for retribution from the cops, for any of your ridiculous and unsupported assertions. How about you at least make an attempt at touching the topic?

If you scrolled down a bit more, you'd see I quoted your post and analysed it, showing you answered two questions only, and those were not the ones that called you on your implications of a national conspiracy:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10411298&postcount=232

You are looking like an idiot now...aren't you?
He's not fooling anyone with his grade school tactics. Everyone knows he's trying to avoid addressing anything that even remotely makes him look like a conspircy theorists even though HIS OWN POSTS easily prove he is one.

He's not fooling anyone with his grade school tactics. Everyone knows he's trying to avoid addressing anything that even remotely makes him look like a conspircy theorists even though HIS OWN POSTS easily prove he is one.

Yep. Apparently your 'Blah-Blah' might actually show him up, so...he ignores it. Gotta love that tactic. Hell, I might just start ignoring crucial pieces of evidence that are set against me. I'll call it the OceanDrive Tactic in his honour.

showing you answered two questions only..
#1- There is 200+ post in this thread.. most are a blatant kidnapping about what my words really mean.. I have already addressed the "You implied this" or "You implied that.." multiple times.. It would be a good idea if you read the whole thread (and not just the last page) otherwise you are simble going to be redundant and look stupid.(like you just did twice ona roll)

#2- As It says (in simple English).. I will take one issue at a time. on the YES or NO list. (you don't like it? Sue me.)

#3- You are invited to answer the YES/NO questions form both me and Jocaiba list

#4- You are invited to make your own list of YES or NOT questions.(I shall answer them.. tomorrow)

Does anyone notice that he's too busy to post on topic but has plenty of time to post ridiculous trollish comments avoiding the topic. He can't address the topic for lack of time, but about 10% of his posts are on topic. If he kept his posts on topic he'd have already posted ten times as much information.

Yep. Apparently (Jocaiba's) 'Blah-Blah' might actually show him up, so...he ignores it. Gotta love that tactic. Hell, I might just start ignoring crucial pieces of evidence that are set against me. I'll call it the OceanDrive Tactic in his honour.

(OD's() )Jocaiba's 'Blah-Blah' is actually showing me that he cant answer most straight YES-or-NO questions.. it is a tactic that politicians use all the time.

Jocaiba's 'Blah-Blah' is actually showing me that he cant answer most straight YES-or-NO questions.. it is a tactic that politicians use all the time.

Not answering questions posed to them that might actually criticise them and show them as being wrong, and ignoring or selectively answering posts that criticise him is a tactic used by trolls all the time...

Jocaiba's 'Blah-Blah' is actually showing me that he cant answer most straight YES-or-NO questions.. it is a tactic that politicians use all the time.

Answer what color pants I'm wearing. You asked questions I can't answer accurately and you know it. The only one willing to make unsupported assertions here is you. Oh, willing to make them, but not willing to admit you made them. I offered explanations and evidence on which I based my opinions. You should try it. It will make people stop laughing at you.

#1- There is 200+ post in this thread.. most are a blatant kidnapping about what my words really mean.. I have already addressed the "You implied this" or "You implied that.." multiple times.. It would be a good idea if you read the whole thread (and not just the last page) otherwise you are simble going to be redundant and look stupid.(like you just did twice ona roll)

#2- As It says (in simple English).. I will take one issue at a time. on the YES or NO list. (you don't like it? Sue me.)

#3- You are invited to answer the YES/NO questions form both me and Jocaiba list

#4- You are invited to make your own list of YES or NOT questions.(I shall answer them.. tomorrow)

Kidnapping? Like this post. That gives you another excuse not to actually address what Ju or I had to say. Troll.

Not answering questions posed to them that might actually criticise them and show them as being wrong, and ignoring or selectively answering posts that criticise him is a tactic used by trolls all the time...LOL..Now you are starting your own 'Blah-Blah'

Blah-Blah will only go in circles.. going no where.. Hick jacking the thread further.

Anytime now.. you can post your YES-or-NO questions.. or answer mine..
Whenever you are ready.. I am ready.

I hate it when mommy and daddy fight....